DCIT, CC-VIII, KOLKATA, Kolkata V. M/s Braggart Vyapaar Pvt Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 818/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1758 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Accommodation entries
• Section: 131

Judgement Text

, C , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH C KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 814 / KOL / 2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M.BYE- PASS, KOLKATA-107 V/S . M/S ASCENT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., 33/1 N.S. ROAD, KOLAKTA-001 [ PAN NO.AAAFCA 3896 G ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT ITA NO.816/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M.BYE- PASS, KOLKATA-107 V/S . M/S PANCHMUKHI PROPERTIES PVT. LTD., 71 PARK STREET, KOLAKTA-16 [ PAN NO.AADCP 0770 C ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT ITA NO. 818/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M.BYE- PASS, KOLKATA-107 V/S . M/S BRAGGART VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., 33/1 N.S. ROAD, KOLAKTA-001 [ PAN NO.AACCB 7030 Q ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT ITA NO.822/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ITA NO.814, 816, 818,822, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/201 4 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 2 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M.BYE- PASS, KOLKATA-107 V/S . M/S BPO FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD., 2, CLIVE GHAT STREET, KOLAKTA- 001 [ PAN NO.AACCB 5328 F ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT ITA NO.826 - 828 /KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE- VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M.BYE- PASS, KOLKATA-107 DCIT, CC-VIII, ROOM NO.403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M. BYE-PASS, KOLKATA-107 DCIT, CC-VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M. BYE-PASS, KOLKATA-107 V/S . V/S . V/S . M/S RAJRISHABH FINANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD., 2, CLIVE GHAT STREET, KOLAKTA-001 [ PAN NO.AACCR 8106 P ] M/S PIYUSH MERCANTILE PVT. LTD.,8, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AABCP 7050 P ] M/S BRILLIANT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD., 33/1, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AACCB 7034 L ] /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT ITANO.831 - 832/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 DCIT, CC-VIII, ROOM NO.403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI PALLY, E.M. BYE-PASS, KOLKATA-107 DCIT, CC-VIII, ROOM NO. 403, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORVA, 110, SHANTI V/S . V/S . M/S TAPASYA FINVEST PVT. LTD., 33/1, N.S. ROAD, KOLAKTA-001 [ PAN NO.AAACT 0945 Q ] M/S ELAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD.33/1, N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-001 [ PAN NO.AAACE 2651 A ] ITA NO.814, 816, 818,822, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/201 4 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 3 PALLY, E.M. BYE-PASS, KOLKATA-107 /APPELLANT .. / RESPONDENT /BY ASSESSEE NONE /BY REVENUE SHRI AMITAVA BHATACHARYY, ADDL. CIT-SR-DR /DATE OF HEARING 08-01-2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11-01-2018 / O R D E R PER BENCH:- THESE NINE APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE PERTAINING TO SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORD ERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, KOLKATA VIDE ORDERS DATED 1 9.02.14 & 21.02.2014 RESPECTIVELY. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES / RESPONDENTS WHEN THE BUNCH OF APPEALS WERE CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, N OR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION STANDS RECEIVED THOUGH NOTICES WERE SEN T TO ASSESSEE THROUGH RPAD WHICH WERE NOT RETURNED UNSERVED. SO WE DECIDE TO HEAR THE PRESENT APPEALS WHERE WE FIND THAT THE HEARING IS POSSIBLE WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF ASSESSEE OR BY LD. AR. 3. THE ISSUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR / ID ENTICAL EXCEPT THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED, THEREFORE, ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE DISPOSE D OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. HENCE, WE TREAT ITA NO.814/KOL/2014 (M/S. ASCENT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD.) AS THE LEAD CASE AND THE RESULT OF THE ADJUDICATION WILL BE FOLLOWED IN THE OTHER EIGHT CASES. GROUNDS OF APPEA L ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS ASSOCIATES HAS GIVEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF RS.194.99 CRORE TO T HE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY M/S BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD. ITA NO.814, 816, 818,822, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/201 4 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 4 2. THAT ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS AN ENTITY TO PROVIDE ENTRIES TO M/S BHUSHAN POWER & STEEL LTD AND THAT T HESE COMPANY IS ONLY A CONDUIT, IGNORING EVIDENCE AS MENTIONED IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER. 3. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE IN WHICH CORORTE VEIL CAN BE LIFTED TO FIND OUT THE REAL AFFAIR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY . 4. THAT ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN GIVING PRECEDENCE TO FORM OVER THE SUB STANCE, IGNORING THE EVIDENCE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 5. THAT IN HIS LETTER DATE 27/02/2014, ADDRESSED TO DDIT(INV.), UNIT-II(3), KOLKATA, SHRI GOPAL MAITY HAS STATED THAT HE IS A D IRECTOR IN THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY AND THAT THIS COMPANY IS OWNED AND CONTROLL ED BY SHRI JIVNDRA MISHRA AND IS USED FOR PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES AND FURTHER THAT IN THE STATEMENT DATED 31/01/2014 RECORDED U/S. 131 OF SHR I JIVENDRA MISHRA, HAS STATED THAT THE COMPANIES OWNED & CONTROLLED BY HIM GIVE ONLY ENTRIES TO THE BENEFICIARIES AND FOR THIS PURPOSE HE RECEIVES COMM ISSION. 6. THAT DEPARTMENT CRAVES TO ADD, MODIFY OR ALTER T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF THE CASE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR AND PERUSED THE RECORD S. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED RETURN OF INCOME ELECTRONICALLY ON 25.10.2010 FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE AO DID NOT RE COGNIZE THE ASSESSEE AS AN ASSESSEE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT ) ACT. ACCORDING TO THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS A BOGUS ENTIT Y AND THEREFORE HE DID NOT ACCEPT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. RESULT ANTLY, HE DID NOT RAISE ANY DEMAND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFO RE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO WAS PLEASED TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND DIRECTED THE AO TO ACCEPT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE DECISION OF THE LD. CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN THE IDENT ICAL ISSUE THE JURISDICTION TRIBUNAL RESTORED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSIN G OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S JAHAGIRABAD FINANCE CO. PVT. LTD. IN ITA 815/KOL/2014 VIDE ORDER DATED 06- 12-2017. THE RELEVANT OPERATING PORTION OF THE ORDE R IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- ITA NO.814, 816, 818,822, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/201 4 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 5 3. WE NOTE THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NBFC, WHICH MEANS THAT HALF YEARLY FINANCIAL NEED T O BE DULY FILED WITH THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS UP TO A.Y.2016-17 HAS BEEN ACCEPT ED BY THE AO AND EVEN REFUNDS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER T O BUTTRESS THIS FACT THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 2 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHER EIN A CHART IS GIVEN WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- ASST.YEAR ASST.YEAR ASST.YEAR ASST.YEAR ASST.YEAR ASST. YEAR PARTICULARS 2011-12 RS. 2012-13 RS. 2013-14 RS. 2014-15 RS. 2015-16 RS. 2016-17 RS. REVENUE FROM OPERATION PROFIT FROM SALE OF SHARES INTEREST ON LOAN OTHER INCOME EXPENSES PROFIT BEFORE TAX TAX LIABILITIES REFUND TDS RECEIVED TDS DEDCTED BY PARTY TDDS DEDUCTED BY US .. 63085.00 69000.00 55165.00 13835.00 9220.00 1228495.00 840986.00 387509.00 114410.00 6440.00 (NOT RECEIVED) 120849.00 12980245.00 12579041.00 401204.00 176482.00 1022110.00 1101476.00 21538221.00 21301404.00 2368177.00 84196.00 2473970.00 (NOT RECEIVED) 2558167.00 87525359.00 97120.00 86908641.00 813838.00 253908.00 7592120.00 7519098.00 95000.00 4. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE CHART IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE A.Y.2011-12 TO A.Y.2016-17; AND THAT ASSESSEE EVEN RECEIVED REFUND OF RS.10,22,110/- FOR A.Y.2014-15 AND RS.75,92,120/- FOR A.Y.2016-17. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFORESAID FACTS EMERGING FROM THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. AR WANTED THE DEPARTMENT TO TAKE A CONSISTENT VIEW AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COUR T IN THE CASE OF RADHASOMY SATSANG VS CIT 193 ITR 321 (SC) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT WHEN THE FACTS AND THE LAW PERMEATING IN THE EARLIER YEARS ARE THE SAME, T HEN A DIVERGENT VIEW SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN AND CONSISTENCY MUST BE FOLLOWED. WE FIND FOR CE IN THE SAID ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR, WHEN THE FACT REMAINS SAME, UNLESS THE FACT S AND LAW APPLICABLE IN THIS RELEVANT A.Y. IS DIFFERENT, THE AOS ACTION FOR EAR LIER YEARS AND SUBSEQUENT YEARS MUST BE THE SAME IN LINE WITH THE DOCTRINE OF CONSISTENC Y. 5.THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHOSAMY S ATSANG VS CIT(SUPRA) HELD THAT THOUGH THE PRINCIPLES OF RES JUDICATA DO NOT APPLY TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, PARTICULARLY WHEN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS AN INDEPE NDENT UNIT, WHEN A FUNDAMENTAL ASPECT PERMEATING THROUGH THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS BEEN FOUND AS A FACT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER AND PARTIES HAVE ALLOWED THAT POSITION TO BE SUSTAINED BY NOT CHALLENGING THE ORDER, IT WOULD NOT BE AT ALL APPRO PRIATE TO ALLOW THE POSITION TO BE CHANGED IN A SUBSEQUENT YEAR. ITA NO.814, 816, 818,822, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/201 4 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 6 6.THE PRINCIPLE TO FOLLOW THE CONSISTENCY WAS EXPLA INED BY THE FULL BENCH IN THE CASE OF HOYSTEAD VS COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION [1926] AC 1 55 (PC). SPEAKING FOR THE JUDICIAL COMMITTEE, LORD SHIPS HAD STATED AT PAGE 1 65 AS UNDER :- 'PARTIES ARE NOT PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATIO NS BECAUSE OF NEW VIEWS THEY MAY ENTERTAIN OF THE LAW OF THE CASE, OR NEW V ERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE A PROPER APPREHENSION BY THE COURT OF THE LEGAL RESULT EITHER OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE DOCU MENTS OR THE WEIGHT OF CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES. IF THIS WERE PERMITTED LITIG ATION WOULD HAVE NO END, EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED. IT IS A P RINCIPLE OF LAW THAT THIS CANNOT BE PERMITTED, AND THERE IS ABUNDANT AUTHORIT Y REITERATING THAT PRINCIPLE. THIRDLY, THE SAME PRINCIPLE-NAMELY, THAT OF A SETTING TO REST RIGHTS OF LITIGANTS, APPLIES TO THE CASE WHERE A PO INT, FUNDAMENTAL TO THE DECISION, TAKEN OR ASSUMED BY THE PLAINTIFF AND TRA VERSABLE BY THE DEFENDANT, HAS NOT BEEN TRAVERSED. IN THAT CASE ALS O A DEFENDANT IS BOUND BY THE JUDGMENT, ALTHOUGH IT MAY BE TRUE ENOU GH THAT SUBSEQUENT LIGHT OR INGENUITY MIGHT SUGGEST SOME TRAVERSE WHIC H HAD NOT BEEN TAKEN.' THESE OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE IN A CASE WHERE TAXATI ON WAS IN ISSUE. THIS COURT IN PARASHURAM POTTERY WORKS CO.LTD. V. I TO [1077] 106 ITR 1 AT P.10 STATED : AT THE SAME TIME, WE HAVE TO BEAR IN MIND THAT THE POLICY OF LAW IS THAT THERE MUST BE A POINT OF FINALITY IN ALL LEGAL PROC EEDINGS, THAT, STALE ISSUES SHOULD NOT BE REACTIVATE BEYOND PARTICULAR STAGE A ND THAT LAPSE OF TIME MUST BE REACTIVATED BEYOND A PARTICULAR STAGE AND T HAT LAPSE OF TIME MUST INDUCE REPOSE IN AND SET AT REST JUDICIAL AND QUASI -JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES AS IT MUST INDUCE REPOSE IN AND SET AT REST JUDICIA L AND QUASI-JUDICIAL CONTROVERSIES AS IT MUST IN OTHER SPHERES OF HUMAN ACTIVITY. 7. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER HAS NOT BEEN DWELT INTO BY THE AO AND THIS ASPECT NEED TO BE EXAMINED AS TO WHY THE A O TREATED THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DIFFERENTLY ONLY IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR NE ED TO BE EXAMINED. SINCE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEAR THE ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND EVEN REFUNDS HAVE BEEN ALLOWED, TREATING THE ASSESSEE AN NBFC COMPANY AS BOGUS NEED TO BE SUPPOR TED BY MATERIAL/EVIDENCE WHICH THE AO HAS NOT SPELT OUT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FAKE AND BOGUS. IN THE LIGHT OF SUCH A FINDING OF LD. CIT(A) , AND THE SUBSEQUENT ACTION OF THE AO ACCEPTING THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UP TO A.Y.2016-17 AND IN THE LIGHT OF RULE OF CONSISTENCY AS EXPOUNDED BY VARIOU S CASE LAWS (SUPRA) WE THEREFORE ARE INCLINED TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) A ND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DENOVO ADJUDICATION. FROM THE ABOVE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUES RAISED I N THE APPEALS BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. THEREF ORE RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE FEEL IT PROPER TO REMIT BACK THIS CASE ALSO TO THE FILE OF AO FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE CASE AS RELI ED ABOVE. CONSEQUENTLY, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . 7. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO.814, 816, 818,822, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/201 4 A.Y. 2010-11 PAGE 7 COMING TO REMAINING APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.8 16/KOL/2014, 818/KOL/2014, 822/KOL/2014, 826-828 & 831-832/KOL/2 014. 8. SINCE COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE A PPEALS, LD. DR AGREED WHATEVER VIEW TAKEN IN THE ABOVE APPEAL (ITA NO.814/KOL/2014) MAY BE TAKEN IN THESE APPEALS ALSO, WE HOLD ACCORDINGLY . 9. IN THE RESULT, FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, ALL THE NIN E APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT 11 /01/2018 SD/- SD/- (' ) ( ) (N.V.VASUDEVAN) (WASEEM AHMED) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) KOLKATA, *DKP, SR.P.S )- 11 / 01 /201 8 / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / /ASSESSEE-M/S ASCENT VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. 33/1 N.S. RO AD, KOLKATA-01 M/S PANCHMUKHI PR OERTIES PVT.LTD. 71 PARK STREETE, KOLKATA-16 M/S M/S BRGGART V YAPAAR PVT. LTD. 33/1 N.S. ROAD,KOLKATA-01 M/S BPO FINANCE & INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. 2, CLIVE GHAT ST, KOLKATA-01 M/S RAJRISHABH FI NANCE & INVESTMENTS PVT.LTD. 2, CLIVE GHAT ST, KOL- 01 M/S PIYUSH MERCAN TILE PVT. LTD., 8, CANNING STREET, KOLKATA-01 M/S BRILLIANT VYA PAAR PVT.LTD., 33/1, N.S. RODA,KOLKATA-01 M/S TAPASYA FINVE ST PVT. 33/1 N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-01 M/S ELAR SECURITIE S PVT.LTD. 33/1 N.S. ROAD, KOLKATA-01 2. /REVENUE-DCIT, C.C, VIII, ROOM NO.403, 4 TH FL, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, POORV, 110 SHANTI PALLY, E.M. BYE-PASS, KOLKATA-107 3. 4 5 / CONCERNED CIT KOLKATA 4. 5- / CIT (A) KOLKATA 5. 8 ''4, 4, / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. = / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , /TRUE COPY/ SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/DDO 4,