M/s Vertex Homes Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad V. Dy. CIT, Circle -3(3), Hyderabad

MA 51/HYD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2295 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: I RAMA RAO
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Question of law
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER MISC. APPLN. NO.51/HYD/2014 (IN MA NO.214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO.979/HYD/12) : ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 M/S. VERTEX HOMES PVT. LTD., HYDERABAD ( PAN - AAABCV 2364 G ) V/S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE 3(3), HYDERABAD (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : S HRI I.RAMA RAO RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SOLGY JOSE T.KOTTARAM DR DATE OF HEARING 04 .0 7 .2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28.0 8 .2014 O R D E R PER SMT. ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: BY THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, ASSESSEE SEEKS RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 27.1.2014 IN M.A.NO.214/HYD/2013 ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL DATED 22.3.2013 IN ITA NO.917/HYD/2012, ON THE GROUND THAT CERTAIN MISTAKES APPARENT FROM RECORD HAVE CREPT INTO THE SAME. 2. REITERATIN G THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PR E SENT APPLICATION, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EARLIER MA, VIZ. MA NO.214/HYD/2013, WAS FILED AS RECTIFICATION WAS SOUGHT ON THE GROUND THAT NO R EMAND OF THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS REQUIRED, SIN C E THE MATERIAL ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A DEVELOPER AND NOT A WORKS CON T RACTOR, AND IT IS TRITE LAW THAT IGNORANCE OF M A TE R IAL ON RECORD CONSTITUTES A M ISTAKE APPARENT FROM T H E RECORD, CAPABLE OF BEING RECTIFIED U/S. 254(2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, AS HELD BY THE FOLLOWING HIGH COU R TS - MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 2 (I) H.H. M AHARAJA MARTANT SINGH JU DEO V/S. CIT(171 ITR 586) - MP (II) CIT V/ S MIGTHALAL ASHOK KUMAR (158 ITR L755) - MP (III) CHAMPA LAL CHOPRA V/S. STATE OF RAJASTHAN (131 TAXMAN 417) - RAJ. (IV) CIT V/S. INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (172 ITR 158) - MP (V) CIT V/S. MOOL CHAND SHYAM LAL (273 ITR 160) HOWEVER, HE CONTENDED, THE T RIBUNAL DISMISSED THE MA HOLDING THAT IT WAS A CA S E O F REVIEW, AND THEREFORE, MISCELLANEOUS PETITION WAS NO T MAINTAINABLE U/S. 254(2) OF THE ACT, AND FOR COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION , LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. PE A RL WOOLLEN MILLS (330 ITR 164) AND OF THE DELHI HIGH COU R T IN TH E CA S E OF CIT V/S. HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVERAGES (P) LTD. (207 C T R (DEL ) 119; (2007) 293 ITR 163(DEL). 3. DISPUTING THE DISMISSAL OF THE EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS APPLI C A T ION OF THE ASSESSE E, VIDE ORDER DATED 27.1.2014, DULY DISTING UIS HING THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THAT ORDER NOTED ABOVE, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS MAINTAINABLE, SINCE AN OR D ER PASSED PU R S U ANT TO APPLICATION UNDER S.254 (2) OF TH E ACT GETS MERGED I N TO THE ORDER U/S. 254(1) OF THE ACT, 1961, WHICH IS CLEARLY AMENABLE FOR RECTIFICATION US/. 254(2) OF TH E INCOM E - T AX ACT. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION IS NO T AN APPLICATION FOR REVIEW OF THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED IN ITA NO.979/HYD/2012 OR THE ORDER PASSED IN MA 214/HYD/2013. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED HAT IT IS TRITE LAW THAT WHERE ANY PREJU D I C E IS CAUSED TO ANY P A RT BY AN ACT OF COURT, IT IS THE BOUN D EN DUTY OF TH E COURT TO UND O THE WRONG DON E TO THE PARTY. RELIANCE IN THIS BEHALF IS PLACED ON THE DECISION S OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CA S E OF AMARJEET SINGH AND ORS. V/S. DEVI RATAN AND ORS; (2010) 1 SCC 417(SC)AND IN KALABHARATI ADVERTI SI NG MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 3 V/S. HEMANT VIMALJATH NARICHANIA AND ORS.(2010) 9 SCC 437. IT IS ALSO SUBMI T TED PL A CIN G RELI A N C E ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX C OU R T IN TH E C AS E OF S.NAGARAJ V/S. STATE OF KARNATAKA(1993) SUPPL. (4) SCC 595 THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS AN INHERENT POWER TO CURE ANY MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE. RELIANCE IS ALSO PL A CED ON THE DECISION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF M.S. AHLAWAT V.S STATE OF HARYANA (2000) 1 SCC 278, WHEREIN SETTING ASIDE THE O R DERS PASSED BY IT EARLIER OBSERVING THAT TO PERPETUATE AN ERROR IS NO VIRTUE BUT TO CORRECT IS A COMPULSION OF JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE. DETAILE D WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, REITERATING THESE SUBMISSIONS, PLACING RELIANCE ON VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS, DULY EXTRACTING RELEVANT PORTIONS THEREOF. 4. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON T HE CONTRARY, STRONGLY OPPOSED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL EITHER DATED 22.3.2013 IN ITA NO.979/HYD./2012 OR DATED 27.1.2014 IN MA NO.214/HYD/2013, AND THE P RESENT APPLICATION IS MERELY SEEKING A REVIEW OF THESE TWO ORDERS, BEING DEVOID OF MERIT, IS LIABLE TO BE REJECTED. 5. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES AND PERUSED THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS REFERRED TO AND RELIED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSEE. AT THE OUTSET, WE FIND THAT THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISIONS OF S .254(2) OF THE ACT. IT HAS BEEN CONSI STENTLY HELD BY VARIOUS BENCHES OF THIS TRIBUNAL THAT A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2) AGAINST AN ORDER REJECTING THE EARLIER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2) ON THE VERY SAME POINT, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW MISTAKE IN THE ORDER PASSED U NDER S.254(1) IN THE LATER MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION, IS NOT MAINTAINABLE, FIRSTLY BECAUSE SUB - SECTION (2) OF S.254 CONTEMPLATES A RECTIFICATION MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 4 PETITION IN RESPECT OF AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT, AND SECONDLY, BECAUSE WHEN AN EARLIER MA IS R EJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT NO MISTAKE AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT WAS REJECTED, FILING OF ANOTHER MA RAISING THE VERY SAME POINTS CONTAINED IN THE EARLIER ONE TANTAMOUNT TO SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE ORDER PASSED ON THE EARLIER MA. IT IS PERTINENT TO REFER TO T HE PROVISIONS OF S.254 OF THE ACT, WHICH TO THE EXTENT RELEVANT FOR OUR PURPOSE, READ AS FOLLOWS - ORDERS OF APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 254. (1) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AFTER GIVING BOTH T HE PARTIES TO THE APPEAL AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD, PASS SUCH ORDERS THEREON AS IT THINKS FIT. (2) THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ANY TIME WITHIN FOUR YEARS FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER, WITH A VIEW TO RECTIFYING ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM THE RECORD, AME ND ANY ORDER PASSED BY IT UNDER SUB - SECTION (1) , AND SHALL MAKE SUCH AMENDMENT IF THE MISTAKE IS BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER (UNDERLINING OURS) THUS, WHAT IS AMENABLE TO RECTIFICATION IN TERMS OF SUB - SECTION (2) OF S.254 OF THE ACT IS ONLY AN ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL UNDER S.254(1) . BY THE PRESENT APPLICATION, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY NEW MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1), ASSESSEE IS CLEARLY SEEKING A REVIE W OF THE ORDER PASSED IN EARLIER MA, WHEREBY ASSESSEES PLEA FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1) DATED 22.3.2013 WAS REJECTED, ON THE GROUND THAT WHAT WAS BEING SOUGHT WAS A MERE REVIEW AND NOT RECTIFICATION OF ANY OBVIOUS AND PATENT MISTA KE APPARENT FROM RECORD. 6. EVEN THOUGH THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A PLEA THAT AN ORDER DATED 27.1.2014 PASSED ON A MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FILED UNDER S.254(2), MERGES WITH THE ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 22.3.2013 MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 5 PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT, WE DO NOT FIND MERIT IN SUCH A PLEA. IT IS ONLY AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT WHICH RECTIFIES THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1), WHICH MERGES WITH THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1) AND NOT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL REJECTING THE APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ANALOGOUS PROVISIONS OF S.256(1) WHICH CONTEMPLATES REFERENCE OF A QUESTION OF LAW ARISING OUT FO THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT, HONBLE A.P. HIGH COURT, BESIDES EXAMINING THE SCOPE OF RECTIFICATION CONTEMPLATED UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, ALSO EXAMINED/REJECTED THE MAINTAINABILITY OF AN APPLICATION OF A REFERENCE UNDER S.256 OF THE ACT AGAINST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S.25 4 (2) OF THE ACT, AND DECIDED THE MATTER IN THE FOLLOWING MANNER - A REFERENCE LIES FROM ORDERS UNDER SE C TION 254(1) OR FINAL O R DERS MADE UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT 1961. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE ORDER WHICH MAY BE SUBJECT TO A REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 256(1) WILL BE ONLY BE AN O R DER PASSED BY THE T RIBUNAL AMENDING ITS EARLIER OR D ER RECTIFYING THE MISTAKE BROUGHT TO ITS NOTICE BY TH E ASSESSEE O R THE ASSESSING OFFICER. FINALITY I S ATTACHED ONLY TO ORDERS DISPOSING OF TH E APPEAL UNDER S.254(1) OR ORDERS AMENDING SUCH APPELLATE ORDERS IN EXERCISE OF THE POWER OF RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2). AN ORDER PASSED ON A MISCELLANEOUS APPLI C ATION, THOUGH PASSED UNDER SECTION 254(2) DECIDING TO RECALL ITS PREVIOUS ORDER AND TO POST THE MATER AFRESH FOR HEARING, IS NOT AN ORDER FROM WHICH A REFERENCE CAN BE MADE UNDER SECTION 254. THUS, IT IS ONLY THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OR ORDERS PASSED UNDER S.254(2) RECTIFYING THE EARLIER ORDERS PASSED UNDER S.254(1), WHICH ATTAIN FINALITY AND THEREBY MERGE W ITH THE EARLIER ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(2)OF THE ACT, REJECTING THE APPLICATIONS FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER S.254(2), CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO AN ORDER UNDER S.254(1) AND CANNOT GIVE RISE TO ANY REFERENCE OR FURTHER APPLICATION UNDER S.254 (2)OF THE ACT. IN ANY EVENT, AS STATED ABOVE, WHEN THE EARLIER APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER S.254(2) IS REJECTED BY THIS TRIBUNAL, BY PREFERRING A MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 6 SECOND APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2) ITSELF, BUT W ITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY OTHER MISTAKE, WHAT IS SOUGHT IS MERE SEEKING A REVIEW OF THE ORDER PASSED ON THE EARLIER APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2). SINCE SUCH A REVIEW IS NO T PERMISSIBLE, EVEN ON THAT COUNT ALSO, AN APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2) CANNOT LIE AGAIN ST AN ORDER PASSED UNDER S.254(2) REJECTING THE EARLIER APPLICATION FOR RECTIFICATION OF THE O R DER PASSED UNDER S.254(1) OF THE ACT. FOR THESE REASONS, PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR RECTIFICATION OF EITHER THE ORDER DATED 22.3.2013 IN THE APPEA L OR THE ORDER DATED 27.1.2014 IN MA, IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 7. EVEN ON MERITS, THE POINT IN DISPUTE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IS WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS DEVELOPER OR A WORKS CONTRACTOR. AFTER ELABORATE CON S I D ERATION OF THE MATTER, THE TRIBUNAL WIT H CERTAIN DIRECTIONS SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DETERMINATION OF THE MATTER AFRESH AFTER DUE VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT BEHALF. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SI NCE ALL THE MATERIAL IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE T RIBUNAL ITSELF SHOULD HAVE DECIDED THE MATTER, INSTEAD OF RESTORING THE MATTER FOR FRESH DETERMINATION OF THAT ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS THE PREROGATIVE OF THE TRIBUNAL WHETHER TO DETERMINE THE ISSUE BY ITSELF TILL ITS LOGICAL END, OR TO SET ASIDE SET THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH CERTAIN DIRECTION FOR APPROPRIATE DECISION AFTER DUE VERIFICATION. THE TRIBUNAL MAY EXERCISE ITS DISCRETION IN THAT BEHALF, DEPE NDING UPON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF EACH CASE AND THE NATURE OF MATERIAL ON RECORD BEFORE IT AND VERIFICATION THEREOF, IF ANY, WARRANTED AT THE LEVEL OF ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSEE, BY THIS APPLICATION, IS MERELY DISPUTING THE COURSE ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 27.1.2014 HAS REJECTED THE EARLIER MA OF THE ASSESSEE, BEING MA NO.214/HYD/2013. BY THE PRESENT MISCELLANE OUS MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 7 APPLICATION , ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A REVIEW IN THE GUISE OF RECTIFICATION, BY CRITICISING THE ACTION OF THE TRIBUNAL, FIRSTLY IN REJECTING ITS MA AND SECONDLY IN SETTING ASIDE THE ISSUE RELATING TO DETERMINATION OF THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHETHER AS A DEVELOPER OR AS A WORKS CONTRACTOR, INSTEAD OF DECIDING THE SAME BY ITSELF. THE TRIBUNAL HAS TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR REDECIDIN G THE ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ITS DIRECTIONS , AND THAT COURSE ADOPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL CANNOT CONSTITUTE A MISTAKE SUSCEPTIBLE TO RECTIFICATION UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, WHEN THE TRIBUNAL REJECTED THE EARLIER APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, IT AGAIN WENT INTO SEVERA L ASPECTS OF THE MATTER RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE IT, AND ULTIMATELY REJECTED THE SAME, HOLDING THAT WHAT THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING IS A MERE REVIEW AND NOT RECTIFICATION OF ANY MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD. ASSESSEE IS SEEKING A MERE REVIEW OF THIS OR DER OF THE TRIBUNAL ON ITS EARLIER APPLICATION UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT. SINCE SUCH A REVIEW , WHETHER IN THE CONTEXT OF ORIGINAL ORDER DATED 22.3.2013 OR ORDER IN MA DATED 27.1.2014 IS NOT P ERMISSIBLE IN THESE PROCEEDINGS FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER S.254(2) OF THE ACT, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 8. THOUGH A NUMBER OF DECISIONS OF APEX COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPL ICATION AND IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, ON VARIOUS ASPECTS, INCLUDING ALLEGED MISTAKE IN THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, MAINTAINABILITY OF THE PRESENT APPLICATION AGAINST THE ORDER REJECTING THE EARLIER APPLICATION, AND SO ON, THE SAME HAS NO APPLICATION TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS MERELY DISPUTING THE CONSCIOUS VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL, AND FOR OTHER REASONS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE. WE ACCORDINGLY REJECT THE PRESENT APPLICATION OF TH E ASSESSEE. MA NO.51 /HYD/2014 (IN MA 214/HYD/2013 IN ITA NO . 979 /HYD/201 2 ) M/S. VERTEX HOMES P. LIMITED, HYDERABAD 8 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPLICATION IS REJECTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2014 SD/ - SD/ - ( B.RAMAKOTAIAH ) (ASHA VIJAYARAGHAVAN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT/ - 28 TH AUGUST, 2014 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. VERTEX HOMES PVT. LTD., PLOT NO.8/B, NIZAMPET RAOD, KUKATPALLY, HYDERABAD 2 . DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CIRCLE 3 ( 3 ), HYDERABAD 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX(APPEALS) IV HYDERABAD 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX II I , HYDERABAD 5 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ITAT, HYDERABAD. B.V.S