DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, Jaipur V. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., Jaipur

ITA 975/JPR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2054 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 11-12-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P C PARWAL CA DHK
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 43B

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH HKKXPAN] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI BHAGCHAND, A M VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 975 & 1012/JP/2017 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 & 2005-06 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. CUKE VS. M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., VIDYUT BHAWAN, JAIPUR. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AABCR 7436 B VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SMT. RICHA KHODA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 27/02/2018 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[K @ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27/02/2018 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: BENCH BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE EMANAT ES FROM THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), BIKANER BOTH DATED 29/08/2017 AND 29/09/2017 FOR THE A.YS. 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESP ECTIVELY. IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUN DS OF APPEAL: GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 975/JP/2017 (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 3,60,26,390/- MADE BY THE AO FOR DEPOSITING THE EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF 8 S ESI BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN RESPECTIVE ACTS. ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 2 (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT EMPLOY EES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTION 43B A ND NOT BY SECTION 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE I.T. ACT. (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 6,44,143/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES WITHOUT AP PRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PRODUCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,44,143/- OUT OF RS. 31,20,68,106 /- AND THAT DISPUTE IS NOT WITH REGARD TO YEAR OF ADMISSIBILITY BUT NON VERIFIABLE NATURE OF EXPENSES. GROUNDS OF ITA NO. 1012/JP/2017 (I) WHETHER ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 3,72,95,533/- MADE BY THE AO FOR DEPOSITING THE EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED IN RESPECTIVE ACTS. (II) WHETHER ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT EMPLOY EES CONTRIBUTION TO PF & ESI ARE GOVERNED BY THE PROVISION OF SECTIO N 43B AND NOT BY SECTION 36(1)(VA) R.W.S. 2(24)(X) OF THE I.T. ACT. (III) WHETHER ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE ID. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE DISALL OWANCE OF RS. 1,31,473/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT LATE DEPOS ITION OF TDS AND OBSERVING THAT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) M ADE BY THE FINANCE ACT 2010 WAS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. 2. GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE ON THE SAME ISSUE WHEREIN THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DEPOSITING THE EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION T O PF & ESI BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT PROVIDED UNDER THE RESPEC TIVE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED THE RELIEF BY HOLDING AS UNDER: ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 3 2.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND TH E SUBMISSIONS MADE. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED THE CONTRIBUTI ON TOWARDS CPF, GPF, EPF AND ESI BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF T HE INCOME TAX RETURN. THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT RELIED BY THE LD. AR SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHEREIN IT IS HE LD THAT IF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF, IF PAID AFTER THE DUE DATE UNDER THE RESPECTIVE ACTS BUT BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCO ME U/S 139(1), CANNOT BE DISALLOWED U/S 43B OR U/S 36(1 )(VA) OF T HE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT SUBM ITTED THAT ESI & PF WERE DEPOSITED WITH IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR AND HE NCE DEDUCTION COULD NOT BE DENIED IN VIEW OF DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS, RATIO OF WHICH HAVE HELD THAT PAYMENT OF ESI AND PF BEFORE T HE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME IS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTIO N. ON OVERALL APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS, I TEND TO AGREE WITH THE APPELLANTS CLAIM. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM E XTRUSIONS LTD. REPORTED IN 319 ITR 306 HELD THAT OMISSION OF SECON D PROVISO TO SEC 43B AND THE AMENDMENT OF FIRST PROVISO BY FINANCE A CT, 2003, BRINGING ABOUT UNIFORMITY IN PAYMENT OF TAX, DUTY, CESS AND FEE ON ONE HAND AND CONTRIBUTION TO EMPLOYEES WELFARE FUNDS O N THE OTHER, ARE CURATIVE IN NATURE, AND THUS, EFFECTIVE RETROSPECTI VELY W.E.F. 1-4-88 I.E. THE DATE OF INSERTION OF FIRST PROVISO. IT WAS FURT HER HELD THAT WHERE PROVIDENT FUND AND EMPLOYEES STATE INSURANCE CONTRI BUTION WERE PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE FILING OF THE RETURN AND PRO OF OF PAYMENT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AMOUNTS WERE DEDUCTIBLE AS DEDUCTION. THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. AI MIL LTD & ORS. REPORTED IN 321 ITR 508 HELD AS UNDER: AS SOON AS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF OR E SI IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DEDUCTION OR OTHERWISE FROM THE SALARY/ WAGES OF THE EMPLOYEES, IT WILL BE TREATED AS INCOME AT THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 4 CLEARLY FOLLOWS THERE FROM THAT IF THE ASSESSEE DOE S NOT DEPOSIT THIS CONTRIBUTION WITH PF/ESI AUTHORITIES, IT WILL BE TA X AS INCOME AT THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON MAKING DEPOSIT WITH TH E CONCERNED AUTHORITIES, THE ASSESSEE BECOMES ENTITLED TO DEDUC TION UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 36(1)(VA). SEC. 43B(B), HOWEVER, S TIPULATES THAT SUCH DEDUCTION WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE ONLY ON ACTUAL PAYME NTS. THIS IS THE SCHEME OF THE ACT FOR MAKING AN ASSESSEE ENTITLED T O GET DEDUCTION FROM INCOME INSOFAR AS EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION IS CONCER NED. DELETION OF THE SECOND PROVISO HAS BEEN TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND WOULD NOT APPLY AT ALL. THE CASE IS TO BE GOVERNED WITH T HE APPLICATION OF THE FIRST PROVISO. IF THE EMPLOYEES' CONTRIBUTION IS NO T DEPOSITED BY THE DUE DATE PRESCRIBED UNDER THE RELEVANT ACTS AND IS DEPO SITED LATE, THE EMPLOYER NOT ONLY PAYS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT BUT CAN INCUR PENALTIES ALSO, FOR WHICH SPECIFIC PROVISION ARE MA DE IN THE PROVIDENT FUND ACT AS WELL AS THE ESI ACT. THEREFORE, THE ACT S PERMIT THE EMPLOYER TO MAKE THE DEPOSIT WITH SOME DELAYS, SUBJECT TO TH E AFORESAID CONSEQUENCES. INSOFAR AS THE I T ACT IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE CAN GET THE BENEFIT IF THE ACTUAL PAYMENT IS MADE BEFORE TH E RETURN IS FILED. - CIT VS. VINAY CEMENT LTD. (2007) 213 CTR (SC) 268, CIT VS. DHARMENDRA SHARMA (2007) 213 CTR (DEL) 609 : (2008) 297 ITR 32 0 (DEL) AND CIT VS. P. M. ELECTRONICS LTD. (2008) 220 CTR (DEL) 635: (2008 ) 15 DTR (DEL) 258 FOLLOWED.' APART FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, THE FOLLOWING DECIS IONS ARE ALSO APPLICABLE ON THE ISSUE AT HAND:- I. DY CIT VS. ORBIT RESORTS (P) LTD (48 SOT 23 (UR O) II. ACIT VS. RANABAXY LABORATORIES LTD. (2011) 7 I TR (TRIB) 161 (DLH) III. ACIT VS. M/S. ANIL SPECIAL STEEL INDUSTRIES LT D. (DECISION OF JAIPUR BENCH IN ITA NO. 1100/JP/2011) FROM THE ABOVE DECISIONS, IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENT OR CONTRIBUTION MADE TO THE PROVIDENT FUND AUTHORITY ANY TIME BEFOR E FILING OF THE RETURN FOR THE YEAR IN WHICH THE LIABILITY TO PAY A CCRUED IS AN ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE. LIKEWISE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EMP LOYEES CONTRIBUTION WAS DEPOSITED BY THE APPELLANT BEFORE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE DECI SION OF THE HON'BLE ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 5 SUPREME. COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIO NS LTD (SUPRA) AND DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. AIMIL LTD & ORS (SUPRA), THE PAYMENTS MADE BEFORE DUE DATE FO R FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME ARE ALLOWABLE. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERI FY THE DATES OF PAYMENT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TOWARDS PF AND E SI AND DELETE THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IF THE PAYMENTS H AVE BEEN MADE BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME B Y THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCU SSED ABOVE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AND ALLOW AS PER LAW. THIS GR OUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 3. THE BENCH HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE . SINCE THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS IS COVERED BY THE D ECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE SAME FOR GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE , WE SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DISMISS THE GROU NDS NO. 1 AND 2 OF BOTH THESE APPEALS. 4. IN THE GROUND NO. 3 OF ITA NO. 975/JP/2017, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,44,143/- MADE ON ACC OUNT OF PRIOR PERIOD EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT DR HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE THAT SOME OF THE EXP ENSES REMAINED UNADJUSTED FOR WANT OF NECESSARY APPROVAL BUT NO SUC H EVIDENCE IS FILED BEFORE THE A.O.. IF ANY EVIDENCE FILED BEFORE THE L D. CIT(A) THEN THE A.O. HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED ANY OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ON THE ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 6 QUERY FROM BENCH TO LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDIN G WHAT ARE THE EVIDENCES ON THE BASIS OF WHICH SUCH FINDING HAVE BE EN RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A), HE WAS ALSO NOT ABLE TO PRODUCE OR STATE ABOUT ANY SUCH RECORD DURING HEARING OF APPEAL. HOWEVER, HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE DETAILS OF SUCH NECESSARY APPROVALS DUE TO WHICH SUCH AMOUNTS REMAINED UNADJUSTED. 5. AFTER CONSIDERING THE PLEADINGS OF BOTH THE SIDE S AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY, WE FIND IT APPROPRIA TE TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE DECIDED DE NOVO. THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE ALL NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/EVID ENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE. 6. IN THE GROUND NO. 3 OF ITA NO. 1012/JP/2017, THE ISSUE INVOLVED IS DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,31,473/- MADE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) FOR LATE DEP OSITION OF TDS BY OBSERVING THAT AMENDMENT TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) MADE BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010 WAS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 5.3 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE HON'BLE ITAT AHEMADAD B IN CASE OF KANUBHANI RAMJ IBHAI VS. ITO, REPORTED IN 49 DTR (AHD) (TRIB) 70 HAS HELD THAT AM ENDMENTS BROUGHT OUT IN SEC. 40(A)(IA) FROM TIME TO TIME WER E CLARIFICATORY AND ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 7 WHEN AN AMENDMENT IS DECLARATORY AND CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE, THE PRESUMPTION AGAINST ITS BEING RETROSPECTIVE IS NOT APPLICABLE. IT IS NO DOUBT TRUE THAT ORDINARILY A STATUTE, AND PARTICULA RLY WHEN THE SAME HAS BEEN MADE APPLICABLE WITH EFFECT FROM A PARTICU LAR DATE SHOULD BE CONSTITUTED PROSPECTIVELY AND NOT RETROSPECTIVEL Y. BUT THIS PRINCIPLE WILL NOT BE APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE TH E PROVISION CONSTRUED IS MERELY EXPLANATORY, CLARIFICATORY OR D ECLARATORY. IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT THE OBJECT OF EXPLANATION I S TO EXPLAIN THE MEANING AND INTENDMENT OF THE ACT ITSELF. THE PROVI SIONS OF SEC. 40(A)(IA) HAVE BEEN AMENDED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 201 0 W.E.F 1-4- 2010 WHICH ARE REMEDIAL IN NATURE, DESIGNED TO ELIM INATE UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES WHICH MAY CAUSE UNDUE HARDS HIP TO THE TAXPAYERS AND WHICH MADE THE PROVISION UNWORKABLE O R UNJUST IN A SPECIFIC SITUATION, AND IS OF A CLARIFICATORY NATUR E AND THEREFORE, HAS TO BE TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE W.E.F. 1-4-2005, THE DATE ON WHICH SEC. 40(A)(IA) HAS BEEN INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 200 4. IN VIEW OF DECISION DATED 3-12-2010 OF THE HON'BLE ITAT AHEMDA BAD B BENCH. SIMILAR FINDING IS GIVEN BY THE HON'BLE ITAT BENCHE S G, MUMBAI IN GOLDEN STABLES LIFESTYLE CENTRE PVT. LTD. VS. CIT I N ITA NO. 5145/MUM/2009 FOR AY 2005-06 ORDER DATED 30-9-2010, REPORTED IN 2010-TIOL-596-ITAT - MUM, BY TAKING NOTE OF RATIO O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ALOM EXTRUSIONS LT D., REPORTED IN 319 ITR 306. IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT AMENDMENT BROUGHT ABOUT TO FIRST PROVISO BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, EXTENDS THE TIME LIMIT FOR ALL TDS PAYABLE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR AND IT IS A CURATIV E MAJOR WHICH WOULD APPLY TO EARLIER YEARS ALSO. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION DATED 3-12-2010 OF THE HON 'BLE ITAT AHEMDABAD B BENCH, AS CITED SUPRA AND IN VIEW OF TH E FOREGOING ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 8 DISCUSSION, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) IS THEREF ORE, REQUIRED TO BE MADE. THE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES ON THIS ISSUE WE OBS ERVE THAT THIS ISSUE IS ALSO COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE DECIS ION OF ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF GOLDEN STABLES LIFESTYLE CENTRE PVT. LT D. VS CIT (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE O F CIT VS ALOM EXTRUSIONS LTD. (SUPRA), THEREFORE, WE SUSTAIN THE O RDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO. 975/JP/2017 IS PARTLY ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ONLY AND ITA NO. 1012/JP/2017 IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/02/2018. SD/- SD/- FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO FOT; IKY JKO HKKXPAN HKKXPAN HKKXPAN HKKXPAN (VIJAY PAL RAO) (BHAGCHAND) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 27 TH FEBRUARY, 2018 *RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR @ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ @ THE APPELLANT- THE DCIT, CIRCLE-6, JAIPUR. 2. IZR;FKHZ @ THE RESPONDENT- M/S RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD., JAIPUR. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR @ CIT ITA 975 & 1012/JP/2017_ DCIT VS. RAJASTHAN RAJYA VIDYUT UTPADAN NIGAM LTD. 9 4. VK;DJ VK;QDRVIHY @ THE CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ @ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY @ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 975 & 1012/JP/2017) VKNS'KKUQLKJ @ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ @ ASST. REGISTRAR