Crest Point Consultants Pvt Ltd., CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 1140/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0856 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S DASGUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: V SWAMINATHAN
• Keywords: Retrospective amendment; Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ % , & ' BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO. 1140/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) M/S. CREST POINT CONSULTANTS PVT.LTD., NEW NO.7, OLD NO.4, DHANDAYUTHAPANI NAGAR I STREET KOTTURPURAM, CHENNAI-85. VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, COMPANY CIRCLE-I(3) CHENNAI. PAN: AABCP2474R ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. V.SWAMINATHAN, C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR. S. DAS GUPTA, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 10 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE O RDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CENTRAL -II, CHENNAI DATED 03.01.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS O F APPEAL, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE AUTHORIZED REPR ESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CONFINED HIMSELF TO GROUNDS OF APP EAL NO. 2.2 TO 2.5 WHICH ARE AS UNDER:- 2 . 2 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF 2 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 ALLAHABAD COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS . M/S . VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES(P)LTD WHERE IN THE COURT HAS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHED THE MEANING OF THE WORDS PAID AND PAYABLE AND HELD THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE INVOKED IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE ACTUALLY PAID . 2 . 3 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO FOLLOW THE DECISION OF ITA T - CHENNA I BENCH I N THE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD-II(4),MADURAI VS . THEEKATHIR PRESS WHERE IN THE TRIBUNAL HAS HELD THAT THE RULE OF JUD I CIAL PRECEDENCE DEMANDS THAT THE VIEW FAVORABLE TO THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN CIT V . VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD . 88ITR 192 . 2 . 4 AS PER N OTIFICATION NO.21/2012 (F.NO . 142/10/2012 - S 0(TPL)S.01323(E)DATED 12.06.2012 NO DEDUCTION OF TAX SHALL BE MADE ON SPECIFIED PAYMENT U/S194 J OF THE ACT WHERE SOFTWARE IS ACQUIRED I N A SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER WHEN TAX HAS BEEN DEDUCTED . THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT TH I S BENEVOLENT NOTIFICAT I ON IS CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY . 2.5 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX FAILED TO APPRECIATE IN THE CASE OF BHARATI AUTO PRODUCTS V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX - II, RAJKOT, [2013] 37 TAXMANN.COM 37 (RAJKOT - TRIB.) (S8), THE SPEC I AL BENCH HAVE HELD THAT THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUBSECT I ON (6A) OF SECTION 206C BEING A PROVISO BENEFICIAL IN NATURE WOULD APPLY RETROSPECTIVELY EVEN THOUGH THE PROV I SO WAS I NTRODUCED BY FINANCE ACT , 2012 W . E . F 01 . 07 . 2012 . 3 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 THEREFORE, THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 3. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETIN G THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED ` 79,30,632/- UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT FOR NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RE SPECT OF PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. COUNTER POINT MANAGEMENT PLUS TREATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS ROYALTY . THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE CONFINE S HIMSELF TO THE ISSUE OF PAID/PAYABLE AND THE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE A CT. HE SUBMITS THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY HOLDING THAT WHEN THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAVE NO APPLICATION AND NO DISALLOWANCE IS WARRANTED. HE PLACES RELIANCE ON TH E DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE O F ITO VS. THEEKATHIR PRESS IN ITA NO. ITA NO.2076/MDS/2012 DATED 18.9.2013. 4. COMING TO GROUND NOS.2.4 TO 2.5, THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO S ECTION 40(A)(IA) WHICH WAS INTRODUCED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 WITH 4 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 EFFECT FROM 01.04.2013 IS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITS THE NEWLY INSERTED SECOND PR OVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT MANDATES THAT IF THE RECIPIENT HAS ACCOUNTED THE SAID AMOUNT IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS OFFERED THE SAID AMOUNTS TO TAX THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. FO R THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIB UNAL IN THE FOLLOWING CASES:- I) MR.RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ADDL.CIT IN ITA NO.337/AGRA/2013 II) SHRI G.SHANKAR VS. ACIT IN ITA NO.1832/BANG/2013. 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISIONS RELIED ON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT DISALLOWED ` 79,30,632/- FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT MA DE BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. COUNTER POINT MANAGEMENT PLUS TRE ATING THE SAID AMOUNT AS ROYALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER D ISALLOWED 5 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 THE ENTIRE AMOUNT INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN HOLDING THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE IN T HE NATURE OF ROYALTY. THIS TRIBUNAL IS CONSISTENTLY HO LDING THAT WHEN THE PAYMENTS MADE WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAVE NO APPLICATIO N FOR NON- DEDUCTION OF TDS ON SUCH PAYMENTS. THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. THEEKATHIR PRESS (SUPRA) HELD AS UNDER:- 2. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF CERTAIN EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) ON THE GROUND THAT TAX HAS NOT BEEN DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND PAID TO THE CREDIT OF GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. BUT, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE STATING THAT THE AMOUNT PAYABLE ALONE WOULD ATTRACT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDE R SECTION 40(A)(IA) AND THE AMOUNT ALREADY PAID WOULD NOT ATTRACT THE ABOVE PROVISION. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEV ED AND, THEREFORE, THIS SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 3. THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPAT NAM- SPECIAL BENCH, HAD HELD IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIP PING AND TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT, 16 ITR (TRIB) 1, THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) DO APPLY ONLY TO TH OSE AMOUNTS REMAINED PAYABLE BY THE END OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND THE SAID PROVISIONS DO NOT APPLY TO THE AMOUNTS ALREADY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CLOSE OF THE RELEVA NT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN THAT WAY, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CONDUCIVE TO T HE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH. THE VERY SAME VIEW HAS BEEN U PHELD BY THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M/S. VECTORSHIPPING SERVICES(P) LTD. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, THROUGH THEIR JUDGMENT DATED 9-7- 2013 IN ITA NO.122 OF 2013, HAS HELD THAT THE DECIS ION OF THE 6 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILY N SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS VS. ADDL. CIT IS GOOD LAW. IN THAT WAY, THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIA BLE TO BE DISMISSED. 4. BUT, AT THE SAME TIME, THE LEARNED JOINT C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS RELIED ON THREE OTHER JUDGMENTS RENDERED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HI GH COURT AND GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN WHICH THEIR LORDSH IPS HAVE HELD THAT THE LAW STATED BY THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRANSPOR TS VS. ADDL.CIT WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE HONBLE CALCUTTA H IGH COURT, THROUGH THEIR JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 3 RD APRIL, 2013 IN ITA NO.20 OF 2013 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CRESCENT E XPORT SYNDICATES, HAS HELD THAT THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING & TRAN SPORTS VS. ADDL.CIT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE SAME VIEW HAS A GAIN BEEN REPEATED BY THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MD. JAKIR HOSSAIN MONDAL, THROUGH T HEIR JUDGMENT DELIVERED ON 4 TH APRIL, 2013 IN ITA NO.31 OF 2013. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S. SIKANDARKHAN N.TUNVAR, 33 TAXMAN.COM.133, HAS ALSO HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) DOES NOT DISTINGUISH BETWEEN AMOUNTS PAID AND PAYABLE. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS OF TWO HIGH COURTS, THE LEAR NED OFFICER CONTENDED THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE NE EDS TO BE ALLOWED. 5. WE FIND THAT THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLA HABAD HIGH COURT IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. AT THE SAM E TIME, WE FIND THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT AND THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT ARE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN SUC H CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RULE OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE DEMA NDS THAT THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO THE ASSESSEE MUST BE ADOPTED , AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS LTD., 88 ITR 192. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE FUNDAMENTAL RULE DECLARED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT, WE HAVE TO FOLLOW THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE ALLAH ABAD HIGH COURT, WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACC ORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(I A) APPLIES ONLY TO THOSE AMOUNTS PAYABLE AND NOT TO THOSE AMOUNTS PAID. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN THE PRESENT CASE. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DIS MISSED. 7 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 7. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE HOL D THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAVE NO APPLICATION IN CASE THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR. FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF VERIFICATION, WE REMIT THIS ISSU E TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR AND IN CASE, TH E PAYMENT WAS MADE WITHIN THE ACCOUNTING YEAR DISALLO WANCE UNDER SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS NOT WARRANTED. 8. AS FAR AS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT SE COND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS RETROSPECTIVE, THI S ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AGRA BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL VS. ADDL. CIT IN ITA NO.337/AGRA/2013 DATED 29 TH MAY, 2013 AND BANGALORE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI G.SHANKA R IN ITA NO.1832/BANG/2013 DATED10.10.2014. THE AGRA BENCH O F THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJEEV KUMAR AGARWAL (SUPRA) HELD THAT INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40 (A) (IA) IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE IN NATURE AND IT HAS RETR OSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 ST APRIL, 2005 BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB- CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY THE FI NANCE 8 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 (NO.2) ACT, 2004. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE TRIBUNAL OB SERVED AS UNDER:- 9. ON A CONCEPTUAL NOTE, PRIMARY JUSTIFICATION FOR SUCH A DISALLOWANCE IS THAT SUCH A DENIAL OF DEDUCTION IS TO COMPENSATE FOR THE LOSS OF REVENUE BY CORRESPONDING INCOME NOT BEING TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENTS OF TH E PAYMENTS. SUCH A POLICY MOTIVATED DEDUCTION RESTRIC TIONS SHOULD, THEREFORE, NOT COME INTO PLAY WHEN AN ASSES SEE IS ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE IS NO ACTUAL LOSS O F REVENUE. THIS DISALLOWANCE DOES DEINCENTIVIZE NOT DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE, WHEN SUCH TAX DEDUCTIONS ARE DUE, BUT, SO F AR AS THE LEGAL FRAMEWORK IS CONCERNED, THIS PROVISION IS NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALIZING FOR THE TAX DEDUCTION AT SOURCE LAPSES. THERE ARE SEPARATE PENAL PROVISIONS TO THAT EFFECT. DEINCENTIVIZING A LAPSE AND PUNISHING A LAP SE ARE TWO DIFFERENT THINGS AND HAVE DISTINCTLY DIFFERENT, AND SOMETIMES MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE, CONNOTATIONS. WHEN WE APPRECIATE THE OBJECT OF SCHEME OF SECTION 40(A)(IA ), AS ON THE STATUTE, AND TO EXAMINE WHETHER OR NOT, ON A 'FAIR, JUST AND EQUITABLE' INTERPRETATION OF LAW- AS IS TH E GUIDANCE FROM HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT ON INTERPRET ATION OF THIS LEGAL PROVISION, IN OUR HUMBLE UNDERSTANDIN G, IT COULD NOT BE AN 'INTENDED CONSEQUENCE' TO DISALLOW THE EXPENDITURE, DUE TO NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE, EVEN IN A SITUATION IN WHICH CORRESPONDING INCOME IS BRO UGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE RECIPIENT. THE SCHEME OF SE CTION 40(A)(IA), AS WE SEE IT, IS AIMED AT ENSURING THAT AN EXPENDITURE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION IN T HE HANDS OF AN ASSESSEE IN A SITUATION IN WHICH INCOME EMBEDDED IN SUCH EXPENDITURE HAS REMAINED UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSES BY THE ASSESSEE. IT I S NOT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, A PENALTY FOR TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE BUT IT IS A SORT OF COMPENSATORY DEDUCTION RESTRICT ION FOR AN INCOME GOING UNTAXED DUE TO TAX WITHHOLDING LAPS E. THE PENALTY FOR TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSE PER SE IS SEPARATELY PROVIDED FOR IN SECTION 271 C, AND, SECTION 40(A)(I A) DOES NOT ADD TO THE SAME. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A )(IA), AS THEY EXISTED PRIOR TO INSERTION OF SECOND PROVIS O THERETO, WENT MUCH BEYOND THE OBVIOUS INTENTIONS OF THE LAWMAKERS AND CREATED UNDUE HARDSHIPS EVEN IN CASES IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S TAX WITHHOLDING LAPSES DID NOT RESULT IN ANY LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER. NOW THAT THE LEGISLAT URE HAS BEEN COMPASSIONATE ENOUGH TO CURE THESE SHORTCOMING S OF PROVISION, AND THUS OBVIATE THE UNINTENDED HARDS HIPS, SUCH AN AMENDMENT IN LAW, IN VIEW OF THE WELL SETTL ED LEGAL POSITION TO THE EFFECT THAT A CURATIVE AMENDM ENT TO 9 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 AVOID UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES IS TO BE TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE EVEN THOUGH IT MAY NOT STAT E SO SPECIFICALLY, THE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO MUST BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM THE POINT OF TIME WHEN TH E RELATED LEGAL PROVISION WAS INTRODUCED. IN VIEW OF THESE DISCUSSIONS, AS ALSO FOR THE DETAILED REASONS SET O UT EARLIER, WE CANNOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE VIEW THAT IT CO ULD HAVE BEEN AN 'INTENDED CONSEQUENCE' TO PUNISH THE ASSESSEES FOR NON DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE BY DEC LINING THE DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF RELATED PAYMENTS, EVEN WHEN THE CORRESPONDING INCOME IS DULY BROUGHT TO TAX. TH AT WILL BE GOING MUCH BEYOND THE OBVIOUS INTENTION OF THE SECTION. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD THAT THE INSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) IS DECLARATORY AND CUR ATIVE IN NATURE AND IT HAS RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 1 5T APRIL, 2005, BEING THE DATE FROM WHICH SUB CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTIO N 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2004. 9. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION, WE HOL D THAT SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) HAS RETROSPECTI VE EFFECT WITH EFFECT FROM 01.04.2005. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ) ( ( *+ ) ( A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) ( CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD ) - / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER * - / JUDICIAL MEMBER * /CHENNAI, / /DATED 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 SOMU 10 ITA NO.1140/MDS/2014 12 32 / COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 4 () /CIT(A) 4. 4 /CIT 5. 2 7 /DR 6. /GF .