Shri Sanjay Jain, Surat V. The ACIT.,Circle-2, Surat

ITA 1533/AHD/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1756 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2009
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2008
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV AGARWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: RASHESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AT AHMEDABAD AHMEDABAD A BENCH (BEFORE DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 [ASSTT.YEAR:2004-2005] SHRI SANJAY JAIN 523, ANMOL MARKET B/H. 451, KAMELA DARWAJA RING ROAD, SURAT. VS. DCIT, SPL.RANGE-7 AHMEDABAD. ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RASHESH SHAH REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV AGARWAL DATE OF ORDER RESERVED : 08-12-2009 O R D E R PER DR.O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT ASSESSM ENT YEAR IS 2004- 2005. THE APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-II AT SURAT PASSED ON 18-2-2008. THE APPEAL ARISES OUT O F ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 144 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF EXPORT OF TEXTILES IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S.DIWAN BROT HERS. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO SOUGHT TO VERIFY THE EXPORT INVOICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE BANK REALIZATION CERTIFICATES OBTAINED BY HIM TO SEE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE EXPORT SALES ACCOUNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ON VERIFICATION OF THE INVOICES AND PAGE - 2 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -2- BANK CERTIFICATES, THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS PAID COMMISSION TO THE IMPORTERS IN THE RESPECTIVE INVOI CE ITSELF AND SUCH COMMISSION COMES TO RS.1,42,31,458/- IN TOTAL. AS THE ISSUE NEEDS MORE ELABORATION, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(4) WAS I SSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS WERE CALLED FOR. TO THE QUERI ES RAISED BY THE AO, THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE COMMISSI ON WAS PAID TO THE BUYERS/IMPORTERS HIMSELF, AS DEDUCTION DIRECTLY FROM THE EXPORT SALES INVOICE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS C USTOMARY IN THIS LINE OF EXPORT TRADE TO ALLOW COMMISSION UPTO 12.5% TO T HE BUYER/IMPORTER HIMSELF DIRECTLY FROM THE SALE INVOI CE. HE STATED THAT THE RATE OF DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION USED TO BE DECIDED AT THE TIME OF ENTERING INTO SALES CONTRACT ITSELF. T HE LETTERS OF CREDIT ISSUED BY THE BANK WERE OBTAINED FOR THE SALE PROCE EDS NET OF COMMISSION AS COMMISSION TO THE BUYER/IMPORTER IS D EDUCTED DIRECTLY FROM THE INVOICE PRICE. THE ASSESSEE EXPL AINED THAT THIS ADJUSTMENT WAS NEVER TREATED AS PAYMENT OF COMMISSI ON IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS DEDUCTION AS ALLOWED TO THE BUYER HIMSELF AND NOT TO A THIRD PERSON. THE FOREIGN BUYER MAKES THE PAYMENT OF THE NET AMOUNT ONLY AND THE SALES ARE RECORDED IN T HE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE NET AMOUNT. 3. THE AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE VARIOUS ARGUMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE COMMISSIO N PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BUYERS/IMPORTERS FORMED PART OF HIS SALES AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,42,31,458/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME PAGE - 3 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -3- OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE GROUND. IN ORDER TO RE-STRENGTHEN THE ABOVE ADDITION, THE AO HAS RELIED ON LAW STATED IN SECTION 93 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AS A DETERRENT FOR AVOIDANCE O F INCOME TAX BY TRANSACTION RESULTING IN TRANSFER OF INCOME TO NON- RESIDENT. 4. IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE I SSUE EXTENSIVELY. HE FOUND THAT THE BANKS HAVE INFORME D THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT REMITTED ANY AMOUNT OF COMMISSION FROM INDIA DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THE COMMISSION HAD BEEN DIRECTLY DEDUCTE D FROM THE EXPORT INVOICES. THE BANKS HAVE FURTHER RECONCILED AND CERTIFIED THAT THE COMMISSIONS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE EX PORT INVOICES WERE ON THE BASIS OF GUARANTEED RECEIPT (GR) AND SD F FORMS SCRUTINIZED BY THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA. THE CIT( A) AGREED WITH THE AO THAT THE PAYMENTS OF COMMISSION TO BUYERS IN UAE ARE BOUND BY THEIR REGULATIONS AND ACCORDINGLY DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE PAYMENT O F COMMISSION TO FOREIGN BUYERS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ARGUED BEFOR E THE AUTHORITIES THAT EVEN THOUGH THE NOMENCLATURE GIVEN TO THE PAYM ENTS WAS COMMISSION, IT WAS ACTUALLY IN THE NATURE OF DISC OUNT GIVEN THROUGH THE EXPORT INVOICES ITSELF. IN ADDITION TO HOLDING OF UAE REGULATIONS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) HAS AL SO AGREED WITH THE AO THAT SECTION 93 APPLIES TO THE CASE AS THE A SSESSEE HAD ACCRUED INCOME OUT OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO WITH NON-RESIDENT BUYERS. VARIOUS CASE LAWS WERE CONSIDERED BY THE C IT(A) INCLUDING THAT OF AHMEDABAD STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION VS. UNI ON OF INDIA, PAGE - 4 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -4- 257 ITR 202, KERALA STATE STAMP VENDORS ASSOCIATION VS. OFFICE OF THE ACCOUNTANT GENERAL AND ORS., 282 ITR 7, CIT VS. SHIV PRAKASH JANAKRAJ & CO. P. LTD., 222 ITR 583, STATE BANK OF TRAVANCORE VS. CIT, 158 ITR 102, CIT VS. MADRAS RACE CLUB, 255 ITR 98, CIT VS. SITALDAS TIRATHDAS, 41 ITR 367, CIT VS. TOLLYGUNGE CLUB LTD., 107 ITR 776 AND CIT VS. BIJLEE COTTON MILLS P.LTD., 116 ITR 60. 5. WHILE CONSIDERING THE ABOVE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEME NTS, THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER AGREED WITH THE AO IN ROPING DOW N THE PROVISIONS OF LAW CONTAINED IN SECTION 194H TO AMPL IFY THE CONCEPT OF SERVICES RENDERED AGAINST THE PAYMENT OF COMMISS ION. THE CIT(A) ALSO AGREED WITH THE AO IN RELYING ON THE LA W CONTAINED IN SECTION 5 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT TO HOLD THAT THE CO MMISSIONS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE EXPORT INVOICE ARE IN T HE NATURE OF INCOME ACCRUES OR ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE I NDIA. ULTIMATELY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSES SING AUTHORITY. THE ABOVE ISSUE IS THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IN THE P RESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HEARD SHRI RASHESH SHAH, LEARNED CHARTERED AC COUNTANT APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SHRI RAJIV AGARWAL, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX APPEARING FOR THE REVENU E. THE MAIN PLANK OF THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED CHART ERED ACCOUNTANT IS THAT THE COMMISSION PAID BY THE ASSES SEE WAS IN THE NATURE OF TRADITIONAL DISCOUNT EXTENDED TO FOREIGN BUYERS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ONLY THE NET PROCEEDS AND THE REFORE THERE PAGE - 5 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -5- COULD NOT BE ANY CONCEPT OF INCOME AGAINST THE AMOU NT WHICH WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ACCRUED TO THE AS SESSEE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE MAIN THRUST MADE BY THE LEARNED COM MISSIONER IS THAT EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED THE ONLY NET RECEIPTS AS ITS EXPORT SALES, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE BENEFITS OF IMPORT ENTITLEMENT LIKE DEPB ON THE AMOUNT OF GROSS VALUE OF INVOICE WHICH SHOWS THAT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNE D, THE EXPORT SALE PROCEEDS IS REPRESENTED BY THE GROSS INVOICE VALUE AND NOT BY THE NET VALUE AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS NECESSARY FOR US TO STAT E THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCOUNTED THE EXPORT SALES TURNOVER AT THE NET FIGURE AND CLAIMED DEPB BENEFITS ON THE GROSS AMOUNTS IN ACCORDANCE WI TH THE GUIDELINES ISSUED BY THE RBI IN THE LIGHT OF THE EX PORT IMPORT POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DEDUCTION OF DISCOUNT TO THE FOREIGN BUYER BY WAY OF COMMISSION BEING REDUCED DIRECTLY IN THE SALES INVOICE IN THE LIGHT OF THE R EGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES OF THE RBI. THIS METHOD OF INVOICE AND GIVING DISCOUNT/COMMISSION AND RECEIVING THE FOREIGN EXCHA NGE NET OF INVOICE ARE PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW RELATING TO T HE EXPORT AND FOREIGN EXCHANGE MATTERS. THE EXPORT IMPORT POLICY AND THE RBI REGULATIONS APPROVED THIS METHOD. THE EXPORT IMPOR T POLICY AND THE RBI REGULATIONS FURTHER ALLOW AN ASSESSEE TO CLAIM BENEFITS OF IMPORT ENTITLEMENT LIKE DEPB ON THE GROSS AMOUNT OF INVOICE VALUE INSTEAD OF THE NET AMOUNT OF INVOICE VALUE. THEREF ORE, THE BENEFIT ACCRUES TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF DEPB ON THE D IFFERENTIAL INVOICE PAGE - 6 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -6- AMOUNT WHICH WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA IN CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE AS AN EXPORT PRIVILEGE ENJOYED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE RELEVANT RULES AND REGULATIONS. THEREFORE, THIS DIFFERENCE REFLECTED IN THE NET INVOICE VALUE AND T HE GROSS INVOICE VALUE FOR THE PURPOSE OF ACCOUNTING OF EXPORT SALE TURNOVER AND CLAIMING DEPB BENEFITS CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A GROUND TO REJECT THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ISSUE HAS TO BE EXAMINED DEVOID OF THE ABOVE TECHNICALITY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX. 8. THERE IS NO DISPUTE REGARDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN COMMISSION/DISCOUNT IN THE EXPORT INVOICES IT SELF IN FAVOUR OF THE FOREIGN BUYER. THE FOREIGN BUYER HAS STATED TH AT THIS DISCOUNT/COMMISSION WOULD BE DISTRIBUTED BY HIM TO THE INTENDING AGENTS ABROAD. THEY HAVE STATED THAT THE COMMISSIO NS ARE TO BE PAID BY THEM DIRECTLY TO THE AGENTS IN THE COUNTRIES OF IMPORT. IT IS ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE N ET AMOUNT ONLY AS EXPORT PROCEEDS BY WAY OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHA NGE. ALL THESE MATTERS HAVE BEEN CERTIFIED BY THE BANKERS OF THE A SSESSEE. ALL THE MATTERS ARE WELL WITHIN THE LAW REGULATED BY THE RB I FOR THE PURPOSE OF EXPORT OF GOODS OUTSIDE INDIA. IN SUCH CIRCUMST ANCES, THE SIMPLE FACT THAT EMERGES OUT OF THE MAZE OF ARGUMENTS IS T HAT AS FAR AS THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, HIS EXPORT SALES TURNOVER IS THE NET AMOUNT OF THE EXPORT INVOICE ISSUED BY HIM. IT IS NOT PROPER TO TREAT THE GROSS INVOICE AMOUNT AS THE EXPORT SALES TURNOVER OF THE ASSESSEE. PAGE - 7 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -7- 9. IN FACT, IN THE SITUATION OF THE CASE, AS STATED IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE EXPORT SALE PR OCEEDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NET AMOUNT ALONE AND NOT THE GROSS AMOUNT. IT IS ALSO TO BE SEEN THAT THE FOREIGN BUYER IS NOT BOUND TO PAY TO THE ASSESSEE THE AMOUNT COVERED BY THE COMMISSION OR DI SCOUNT AT ANY FUTURE DATE. THEREFORE, THE RIGHT/CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPORT SALES WAS TO RECEIVE ONLY THE NET INVOIC E AMOUNT AND NOTHING MORE. THEREFORE, THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OVE R BY WAY OF BALANCE TO BE TREATED AS INCOME ACCRUING OR ARISING TO THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE INDIA BY VIRTUE OF THE IMPUGNED EXPORT SALE S. THE ENTIRE INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE EXPORT SALES WERE ALREAD Y RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN INDIA IN THE FORM OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIG N EXCHANGE. THIS POSITION IS PROVED BY THE CERTIFICATES ISSUED BY TH E BANKERS AS WELL AS LETTERS OF CREDIT OPENED BY THE FOREIGN BUYERS. W HEN THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ONLY THE NET PROCEEDS AS PER THE INVOI CE, THERE IS NOTHING FURTHER LEFT OVER TO BE TREATED AS INCOME R ECEIVED OR TO BE RECEIVED OR ACCRUED OR DEEMED TO BE ACCRUED OR ARIS ING IN INDIA OR OUTSIDE INDIA. THEREFORE, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY T HE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON THE SECTION 5 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS RATHER MI SLEADING. 10. AS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID TO THE FOREIGN BUY ERS ANY AMOUNT BY WAY OF COMMISSION, BUT IT WAS ONLY ADJUSTMENT TH ROUGH THE EXPORT INVOICES BY WAY OF COMMISSION/DISCOUNT, SECT ION 94H ALSO HAD NO ROLE TO PLAY. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT ALL T HE DISCUSSIONS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO MAKE ADDITIONS OF THE C OMMISSION AMOUNT WERE BASED ON HYPOTHESIS AND NOT ON ANY FACT S PROVED. PAGE - 8 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -8- WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NO ADDITIONAL AMOUNT TO BE RE CEIVED FROM THE FOREIGN BUYERS, NO QUESTION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME AR ISES. THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS FULLY EMBEDDED IN THE NET SALE P ROCEEDS RECEIVED AND ACCOUNTED BY HIM. WHEN THE INCOME ITSELF IS NO T GENERATED, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF SUCH INCOME BECOMING ACCRUE D OR DUE. WHEN THERE IS NOTHING LEFT OVER TO BE FURTHER RECEIVED B Y THE ASSESSEE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY INCOME ARISING IN THE HANDS O F THE ASSESSEE, ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE QUANTUM OF COMMISSION RECORDED IN THE INVOICE. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE DISCUSSIONS, BUT WELL MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, HAVE BEEN MADE UNFORTUNATELY IN A WRONG DIRECTION. 11. WHEN THE FACTUM OF ACTUAL RECEIPT OF SALE PROCEEDS TO THE EXTENT OF NET INVOICE AMOUNT IS ESTABLISHED BEYOND ANY DOUBT, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION IN OVERLOOKING UPON THOSE SPEAK ING FACTS ON THE TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THE DEPB BENEFIT ON THE GROSS AMOUNT OF THE INVOICE. THE DEPB CLAIM WA S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF PERMISSION GRANTED BY THE RBI AND THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ACTUAL AMOUNT OF EXPORT SALE S PROCEEDS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF CONVERTIBLE FOREIGN EXCHANGE. 12. THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS WITHOUT MUCH DIS CUSSION AND DELIBERATION THAT THE REVENUE HAS NO CASE TO HOLD T HE ASSESSEE RESPONSIBLE FOR AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,42,31, 458. THE SAID ADDITION IS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. PAGE - 9 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -9- 13. THE SECOND GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ADDITION OF RS.11,21,753/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING AU THORITY UNDER SECTION 68 TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CREDITORS. IN FACT IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE CREDITORS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OF THE ASSESSEE NOT FOR PROVIDING ANY CASH CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CREDITORS ARE IN FACT SUNDRY CREDITORS FOR GOODS SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE AND SERVICES RENDERED TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT A CAS E OF CASH CREDIT AT ALL. ALL THOSE CREDITORS ARE REGULARLY SUPPLYING GOODS A ND SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE AND MAINTAINING RUNNING ACCOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE BALANCE OUTSTANDING IN THOS E PERSONAL ACCOUNTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRED ITS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 68. IN A DDITION TO THE ABOVE BASIC FEATURE OF THE PERSONAL ACCOUNTS OF THE SUNDRY CREDITORS, IT IS TO BE SEEN THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY ON AD HOC BASIS. HE HAS MADE THE ADDITION AT ONE PERCENT OF THE TOTAL SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT INDIVIDUALLY VERIFYING WHICH CREDIT IS EXPLAINED/ UNEXPLAINED. THIS ESTIMATED A DDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER SECTION 68. THEREFORE, THE SAID AD DITION OF RS.11,21,753/- IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. IT IS DEL ETED. 14. THE THIRD GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE CI T(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LUMPSUM AMOUNT OF RS.2,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. PAGE - 10 ITA NO.1533/AHD/2008 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-2005) -10- 15. ON GOING THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE ABOVE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). THE SAID GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. 16. IN RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THIS 16 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2009. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (DR.O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE-PRESIDENT PLACE : AHMEDABAD DATE : 16-12-2009 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1) : ASSESSEE 2) : RESPONDENT 3) : CIT(A) 4) : CIT CONCERNED 5) : DR, ITAT. BY ORDER DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD