M/s. R.R. Kapoor,, Ahmednagar v. DCIT, Ahmednagar Circle,, Ahmednagar

ITA 141/PUN/2009 | 2005-2006
Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2011 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 14124514 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAEFR9509B
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 141/PUN/2009
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 10 month(s)
Appellant M/s. R.R. Kapoor,, Ahmednagar
Respondent DCIT, Ahmednagar Circle,, Ahmednagar
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 29-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted A
Tribunal Order Date 29-11-2011
Assessment Year 2005-2006
Appeal Filed On 29-01-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO 141/PN/09 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2005-06) M/S R R KAPOOR .. APPELLANT 37 RISHIKESH GOVINDPURA AHMEDNAGAR PAN AAEFR 9509B VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX .. RESPONDENT ANAGAR CIR. AHMEDNAGAR APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANJEEV MUTHA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI S K. AMBASTHA DATE OF HEARING : 15.11.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.11.2011 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU AM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I PUNE DATED 06.1 1.2008 WHICH IN TURN HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATED 2 5.10.2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (IN SH ORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO THE D ISALLOWANCE OF RS 40 000/- OUT OF EXPENSES SUCH AS TELEPHONE TRAVELLING CONVEYANCE AND VEHICLE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS CIVIL CONSTRUCTION CONTRACTS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS MADE AVAILABLE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE CLOSING STOCK/WIP HAS BEEN VALUED ON ESTIMATE BASIS AS REPOR TED BY THE TAX AUDITOR AND THE SAME WAS BASED AS PER THE INFORMATION G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ELEMENT OF PERSONAL USE I N SOME OF THE EXPENDITURE DEBITED ON ACCOUNT OF TELEPHONE TRAVELL ING CONVEYANCE VEHICLE EXPENSES WAS ALSO NOT DENIED. IN VIEW OF THESE ADMITTED DEFECTS THE BOOK RESULTS WERE NOT ACCEPTED AND HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE SAME BY INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICE R ACCORDINGLY MADE AN ADDITION OF RS 40 000/- AS AN EXPENDITURE OF PERSONAL IN NATURE AND NOT PERTAINING TO THE BUSINESS. IN APPEAL THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT NO LOG BOOK/REGISTERS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE AND PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUT OF ANY OTHER E XPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AS BOOK RESULTS WER E REJECTED UNDER SECTION 145 THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 40 000/- MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED. HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE SAID DISALLOWANCE AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH TH E PARTIES. BEFORE US ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO POINT OUT THAT NO PERSONAL ELEMENT IS INVOLVED IN THE IMPUGNED EXPENDITURE. ACCORDING TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER IN FACT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DENIED SUCH PERSONAL USE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE CIRCUMSTANCES WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WIT H THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE DISALLOWAN CE. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUND. 4. THE NEXT ISSUE RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 00 000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CONTRACT AMOUNT RECEIVED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE TRA DING ACCOUNT THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE CREDITED AT RS 5 35 04 883/- WHER EAS AS PER BIFURCATION FILED TOTAL RECEIPTS WERE SHOWN AT RS 5 39 04 883/-. I N ORDER TO VERIFY THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 4 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED FRO M THE CONTRACTEE REFERENCE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WAS MADE TO DEOLALI PRAVARA NAGAR 3 PARISHAD THE CONTRACTEE WHICH IN TURN INFORMED VIDE LETTER DATED 23.10.2007 THAT THE WORK IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WAS EXECUTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2004-05 I.E. RELEVANT TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL 2005-06. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING THE MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAV E OFFERED THE CONTRACT RECEIPT IN THE YEAR IN WHICH IT WAS ACTUALLY EXE CUTED. ACCORDINGLY THE DIFFERENCE OF RS 4 LAKHS WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE T O HAVE BEEN ALREADY OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE IMPUGNED ADDITION O F RS 4 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE FIN DINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS AS FOLLOWS: 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AND PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THOUGH THE APPELLA NT IS CLAIMED TO HAVE SHOWN AMOUNT OF RS 4 LAKH AS ADVANCE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF CONTRAC T EXECUTED BY IT NO SUCH AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED FROM THE CONTRACTEE DURING THE YE AR IN WHICH IT WAS ACTUALLY SHOWN. FURTHER THE SUBSEQUENT INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE AP PELLANT WITH THE CONTRACTEE CLEARLY REVEALS THAT THE SAID WORK WAS EXECUTED BY THE APPE LLANT ONLY IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL ONLY A ND THE PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF SUCH WORK WAS ALSO MADE BY THE PARTY DURING THIS YEAR. I T IS TRITE LAW THAT EACH AND EVERY ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE UNIT OF ASSESSMENT AN D ASSESSEE HAS TO OFFER THE INCOME RECEIVED/ACCRUED DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR TO WHICH IT ACTUALLY PERTAINS AS PER THE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY EMPLOYED BY IT. AS MENTIONE D ABOVE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE WORK IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SUBJECT PAYMENT IS SHOWN IS EXECUTED DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THIS IS ALSO CORROBORATED BY THE FACT THAT THE TDS PERTAINING TO THE ENTIRE PAYMENT IS MADE BY THE DEDUCTOR IN THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF SAID WORK SHOULD ALSO HAVE B EEN SHOWN IN THE SAME YEAR IN WHICH IT IS EXECUTED AND NOT BEFORE THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNT. ASSESSEE CANNOT PREPONE OR POSTPONE ACCOUN TING OF SUCH RECEIPTS IN ITS BOOKS AS PER ITS CONVENIENCE. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION I AM OF THE C ONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO IS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE ENTIRE CONTRACT AMOUN T DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL BECAUSE THE WORK IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE SAI D PAYMENT IS RECEIVED WAS EXECUTED DURING THIS YEAR ONLY. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION MADE B Y THE AO OF RS 4 00 000/- IS UPHELD. 5. BEFORE US THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS VEHEMENTLY ASSAILED THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS) BY POINTING OUT THAT THE SUBMISSIONS PUT-FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BE EN TOTALLY DIS- REGARDED. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT BOTH THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES HAVE PROCEEDED ON A FOOTING THAT IT IS THE PRACTICE OF THE ASSESSEE TO ACCOUNT FOR INCOME IN THE YEAR OF COMPLETION OF THE PROJECT WHEREAS THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM OF THE ASSESSEE HAS 4 BEEN CONSISTENTLY TO ACCOUNT FOR INCOME ON THE BASIS OF PH ASE-WISE COMPLETION OF THE CONTRACTS. IN THIS REGARD OUR ATTENTION HAS BEE N INVITED TO THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S) DATED 2.9.2008 WHICH HAVE BEEN PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK AT PAGES 19 TO 24. IT IS SOUGHT TO BE EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN RS 4 LAKHS IN QUESTION AS GROSS RECEIPTS FROM DEOLALI PRAVARA NAGAR PARISHAD DURING TH E PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR INCOME IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE REASON THAT SUBSTANTIAL WORK INCLUDING THE PROCUREMENT OF MATER IAL ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE SAID WORK OF CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASS ESSEE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05 ITSELF AND THERE WAS NO UNCERTAINTY OR POSSIBILITY OF ANY DISP UTE IN RESPECT OF THE WORK DONE OR PROCUREMENT OF MATERIAL ETC. ON THIS COUNT. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS ON 31.3 .2004 WAS REDUCED TO THAT EXTENT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS R ECEIVABLE FROM DEOLALI PRAVARA NAGAR PARISHAD I.E. SUNDRY DEBTORS ACCOU NT AND INCOME WAS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED THAT IN DIS- REGARD TO THE FACTUAL ASSERTIONS HAVING BEEN MADE BEFO RE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND THE AMOUN T HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THIS YEAR MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTR ACT WAS COMPLETED IN THIS YEAR. IN FACT IT IS SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT THA T THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE WAS OF RS 12 07 965/- AND IT IS ONLY THE PARTIAL WORK COMPLETE D SUBJECT TO RS 4 LAKHS WHICH WAS RECOGNISED AS INCOME DURING THE PRECEDING ASSESSMEN T YEAR. THEREFORE IT IS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED THE AMOUNT OF RS 4 LAKHS IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR IN TERMS OF REGULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. IT IS ALSO POINTED OUT THAT HAVIN G REGARD TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. REALEST BUILDERS & SERVICES LTD. 170 TAXMAN 218 (SC) THE IMPU GNED ADDITION IS IN ANY CASE UNTENABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. APART THEREFROM IT IS SOUGHT TO 5 BE POINTED OUT THAT ADMITTEDLY THE INCOME IN QUESTION IS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE A SSESSMENT OF SUCH INCOME DURING THE YEAR WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATI ON WHICH IS UNTENABLE. IT IS ALSO SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPT OF RS 4 LAKHS IN ANY CASE CANNOT BE ASSESSED AS INCOME AS IT IS ONLY INCOME REMAINING AFTER THE EXPENSES WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED. ON ALL THESE COUNTS IT IS SOUGHT TO BE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE A UTHORITIES BELOW AND IN PARTICULAR PARA 3.3 OF THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN SUPPORT OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE. AS PER THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WITH THE CONTRACTEE ALSO SHOWED THAT THE CONTRACT IN QUESTION WAS CO MPLETED DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE THE SAID RECEIPT WAS LIABLE FOR TAX ATION IN THE PRESENT YEAR. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. I N THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF EXECUTION OF CIVIL CON TRACTS. THE DISPUTE IN QUESTION RELATES TO ACCOUNTING OF INCOME IN RELATIO N TO A CONTRACT EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR CONSTRUCTION OF A ROAD FOR DEOLALI PRAVAR A NAGAR PARISHAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND IN THE COURSE OF HIS VERIFICATION EX ERCISE THAT THE WORK RELATING TO THE CONSTRUCTION OF ROAD WAS EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE TOTAL CONTRACT VALUE IS STAT ED TO BE RS 12 07 965/- AND CONTRACT RECEIPTS CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT DURING THE YEAR ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH CONTRACTS DID NOT INCLUDE A SUM OF RS 4 LAKH S. ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 4 LAKHS FORMED PART OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS CREDITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT RE LEVANT TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR OF 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAID SUM IN THIS YEAR ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWI NG MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING AND THEREFORE THE SAID CONTRACT RECEIPTS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CREDITED 6 TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION AS THE CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED DURING THE YEAR. THE FACTUAL POSITION MADE OU T BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IT HAS BEEN CONSISTENTLY ACCOUNTING FOR INCOME NOT IN THE Y EAR OF COMPLETION OF PROJECT BUT ON THE BASIS OF THE PHASE-WISE COMPLETION OF THE CONTACTS. THIS CATEGORICAL ASSERTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS EVEN APPEARING IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS) AND WE FIND THAT IN NEITHER OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BEL OW THERE IS ANY NEGATION TO THE AFORESAID. MOREOVER IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID IT H AS BEEN EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS 4 LAKHS WAS CREDITED AS CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN TH E PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR THE REASON THAT SUBSTANTIAL WORK INCLUDING PROCUREMENT OF MATERIAL ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PROJECT WAS COMPLETED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THAT YEAR ITSELF A ND THEREFORE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ACCOUNTED FOR AS INCOME IN THE PROFIT & LO SS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ASSERTED WITHOUT CONTROVERSION FROM THE REVENU E THAT THE CLOSING WORK-IN-PROGRESS AS ON 31.3.2004 IN RELATION TO THE SAID CONTRACT WAS ALSO REDUCED BY SUCH AMOUNT AND THE AMOUNT WAS SHOWN AS RECEIV ABLE FROM DEOLALI PRAVARA NAGAR PARISHAD I.E. SUNDRY DEBTORS ACCOUNT. THE AFORESAID ASSERTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE REMAINED UNREBUTTED AND THEREFORE WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION TO DIS-REGARD THE ACCOUNTING SYSTEM HITHERT O BEING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE THERE IS NO MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECO RD BY THE REVENUE TO SHOW THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESS EE HAS RESULTED IN ANY UNDER-ESTIMATION OF PROFITS. QUITE CLEARLY IT IS A CASE WHERE THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO TAX THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND OF LIABILITY HAVING ARISEN IN A PARTICULAR YEAR SO HOWEVER THERE IS NO CASE MADE OUT THAT THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE RESULTED IN ANY UNDER-ESTIMATION OF PROFI TS AND THEREFORE WE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION FOR THE REVENUE TO CONTEND THAT THE IMPUGNED CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE LIABLE TO BE CREDITED TO THE PROFIT & L OSS ACCOUNT OF THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NOT OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND IN ANY CASE THE ENTIRE EXERCISE IS REVENUE NEUTRAL. THE MANNER IN WHICH THE 7 IMPUGNED ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IS QUITE CONTRARY TO THE PARITY OF REASONING LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF REAL EST BUILDERS & SERVICES LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER THE SAME IS UNTENABLE. 8. THEREFORE HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTUAL MATRIX WHI CH HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND WHICH H AS REMAINED UNCONTROVERTED WE THEREFORE FIND NO JUSTIFICATION TO SUBJECT TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS 4 LAKHS IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS AGAINST THE A CTION OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING CREDITED SUCH AMOUNT IN ITS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT O F THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THE RESULT ON THIS GROUND THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IS SET-ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 9. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOW ED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 29 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2011. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (G. S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE DATED: 29 TH NOVEMBER 2011 B COPY TO:- 1) APPELLANT 2) RESPONDENT 3) THE CIT (A)-I PUNE 4) CIT-I PUNE 5) DR A BENCH ITAT PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER SR. PS I.T.A.T. PUNE 8