DCIT, CHENNAI V. Dodsol Engineering & Construction (India) P Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 1794/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9388 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 09-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-08-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: R VIJAYARAGHAVAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition; Valuation report; Revenue expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 32; 90

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015 # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEARS :2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-2011. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 1(1) CHENNAI VS. M/S. DODSOL ENGINEERING & CONSTRUCTIONS (INDIA) P. LTD OLD NO.32, NEW NO.53, GREAMS ROAD, CHENNAI 600 006. [PAN AABCI 3226N ] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. P. RADHA KRISHNAN, IRS, JCIT. +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. R. VIJAYARAGHAVAN, ADVOCATE ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 09-05-2016 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20-05-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 6 &1, CHENNAI FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS PASSED U/S. 143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). SINCE THE ISSUE IN THESE THREE APPEALS IS COMMON IN NATURE, HENCE ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 2 -: THESE APPEALS ARE COMBINED, HEARD TOGETHER, AND DIS POSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE A S UNDER:- 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT EXCE SS CONSIDERATION PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE NETWORTH OF THE UNDERTAKING WOULD CONSTITUTE GOODWILL WITHOUT GOING INTO THE FACT WHETHER ANY GOODWILL AT ALL WAS TRANSFERRED? 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE HAS BEEN A TRANSFER OF INTANGIBLE ASSET I.E. DESIGN AND DRAWINGS AMOUNTING TO RS.7.15 CRORES WITHOUT EXAMINING THE VALUATION REPORT AS TO HOW THE VALUE HAS BEEN ATTRIBUTED TO DESIGN AND DRAWINGS, ALL THE MORE SINCE THE TRANSFERER HAS NOT SHOWN IN ITS ASSE TS SCHEDULE. 3. SINCE THE ISSUE IS COMMON IN THESE THREE APPEALS, W E CONSIDER THE FACTS AS NARRATED IN ITA NO.1794/MDS/ 2015 OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 FOR ADJUDICATION. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS EN GAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DESIGN ENGINEERING AND ENGINEERING CONSULTANCY FOR POWER, OIL AND CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY AND FILED E-RE TURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ON 27.11.2006 WITH TOTA L INCOME OF A92,78,549/- AND THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESS ED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT ON 07.02.2008. AS PER SCRUTINY NORMS, THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED U/S.143(2) OF THE ACT AND LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE OF ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TIME FURNISHED INFORMATION. THE LD. ASSESSING ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 3 -: OFFICER ON VERIFICATION OF DETAILS FOUND THAT ASSE SSEE HAS CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS A1,78,75,000/ -. THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 PAID A13,76,69,181/- FOR ACQUISITION OF BUSINESS OF M/S. INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT ENGINE ERING ASSOCIATES LIMITED (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS IDEA) AS GOI NG CONCERN AND WERAS THE NET WORTH OF THE IDEA WAS VALUED AT A1,18,27,43 6/-. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS BIFURCATED ACQUISITION COST IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS AS TANGIBLE ASSETS A1,79,83,621/- AND INTANGIBLE ASSET S A11,96,85,560/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS FURTHER SPLIT THE INTANGIBLE ASS ETS AS UNDER:- (A) GOODWILL : A4,81,85,560/- (B) DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS : A7,15,00,000/- ------------------- A11,96,85,560/- -------------------- THE ASSESSEE BIFURCATED THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX RULES. THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED DE SIGNS AND DRAWINGS AT A7,15,00,000/- AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION @25%. THE BUSINESS UNDERTAKING WAS PURCHASED IN SLUMP SALE W ERE ASSESSEE PAID MORE THAN THE NET WORTH VALUE OF THE IDEA COMPANY AND THE EXCESS AMOUNT PAID OVER AND ABOVE NET WORTH OF THE UNDERT AKING IS TREATED AS INTANGIBLE ASSET DIVIDEND INTO GOODWILL AND DESI GNS AND DRAWINGS. THE DISPUTED ISSUE BEING THE ASSESSEE HAS VALUED DE SIGNS AND DRAWINGS AT A7,15,00,000/- ON PURCHASE AS GOING C ONCERN. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT DESIGNS AN D DRAWINGS ARE ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 4 -: CUSTOM MADE AND USED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSE AS PER TH E REQUISITION OF THE CUSTOMERS. DUE TO CHANGE OF OWNERSHIP THERE CAN NOT BE ANY VALUE AND DOES NOT FIT IN SLOT OF CAPITAL ASSETS. THE TRANSFEREE IDEA USED DESIGNS AND DRAWING FOR ITS ACTIVITIES AND CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE IN PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD. AS SESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT TRANSFEREE UNDERTAKING IDEA N EVER CAPITALIZED THE DESIGNS AND DRAWING IN THEIR FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS, TH E EXCESS CONSIDERATION OVER THE NETWORTH IS IN THE NATURE OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CANNOT VALUE THE DESIGNS AND D RAWINGS AND CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR CLAIM OF DE PRECIATION AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF ACT, WERE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS DOES N OT HAVE SLOT IN INCLUSIVE DEFINITION OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS FOR THE C LAIM OF DEPRECIATION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BASED ON THE PURCHASE TRA NSACTION AND CAPITALIZATION, HAS DISALLOWED DEPRECIATION AND AS SESSED TOTAL INCOME U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 26.12.2008. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BRIEFED HISTORY OF ACQUISIT ION OF TRANSFEE IDEA COMPANY BY THE ASSESSEE AND FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSI ONS EXPLAINING ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 5 -: DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE PART OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS WITHIN EXPLANATION 3(B) TO SEC. 32(1) OF THE ACT AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEPR ECIATION. THE LD.CIT(A) REFERRED THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIO N AT PAGE NOS. 4 & 5 OF HIS ORDER AND JUDICIAL DECISION. THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DEALT ON THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE REASONS FOR APPORTIONMENT OF ACQU ISITION COST FORMING PART OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS BEING DESIGNS AND DRAWING S AND RELIED ON THE APEX COURT DECISION OF CIT VS. SMIFS SECURITIES LTD (2012) 348 ITR 302 WERE IT WAS HELD THAT DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT PAID AND THE NET WORTH OF THE BUSINESS ACQUIRED IN AMALGAMATION WILL BE TH E PAYMENT FOR GOODWILL AND SUCH GOODWILL IS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET A ND ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DEALT ON THE DECI SIONS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE APEX COURT AND APPLIED THE PRINCIP LES TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND OBSERVED AT PARA 4.1.4 TO 4.1.6 OF ORDE R AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE APPEAL AS UNDER:- 4.1.4 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE ASSESSEE ACQUIRED THE ENTIRE BUSINESS OF IDEA AS A GOING CONCERN FOR THE SLUMP .SALE' CONSIDERATION OF RS.13,76,69,181/-. HENCE THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CONSIDERATION PAID (RS.13,76,69,181) AND THE NET WORTH OF THE BUSINESS OF IDEA AT THE TIME OF TRANSFER (RS.L,18,27,436), AMOUNTING TO 12,58,41,745/- WILL AMOUNT TO THE COST FOR ACQUISITION OF GOODWILL'. FURTHER, AS HELD B Y THE SUPREME COURT IN THE ABOVE CASE, THIS ENTIRE AMOUNT OF 'GOODWILL- IS AN INTANGIBLE ASSET, FALLING UNDE R AMBIT OF EXPLANATION-3(B) TO SECTION 32(1) AND ELIGIBLE F OR DEPRECLATION@25%. HOWEVER, OUT OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.12,58,41,745/-, WHICH CAN BE REGARDED AS 'GOODWILL-, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAS APPORTIONED ON LY 7,15,00,000/- TOWARDS 'DESIGNS & DRAWINGS' AND ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 6 -: CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. 4.1.5 DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS ARE PART OF INTANGIBLE ASSETS FALLING UNDER THE AMBIT OF EXPLANATION 3(B)TO SECTION ON32(1) AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION@ 25%, AS HELD BY SEVERAL JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES LIKE CIT VS. METALLURGIAL ENGG. CONSULTANTS (INDIA) LTD (1996) 221 ITR 90 (PAT ) SECTION 32, READ WITH SECTION 43(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961- DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 1973-74 TO 1976-77- WHETHER KNOW HOW COMPRISING TECHNICAL A ND MANUFACTURING INFORMATION, DATA, DETAILED DESIGN, P LANS, DRAWINGS, BLUE PRINTS ETC. FALL WITHIN MEANING OF PLANT UNDER SECTION 43(3) AND THUS, ACQUISITION OF SUCH TECHNIC AL KNOWHOW IS ENTITLED TO DEPRECIATION - HELD, YES. NIPPON ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. VS. CIT (116 ITR 231) K AR. SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961- DEPRECIATIO N -WHETHER DEPRECIATION WAS ALLOWABLE ON THE COST OF DESIGNS, BLUE-PRINTS AND TECHNICAL KNOWHOW IN COMPUTING TAXABLE PROFITS HELD, YES. IAC VS. CHEMAUX LTD (1986) 16 ITD 89 (BOM) SECTION 43(3) READ WITH SECTION 32 OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961- PLANT WHETHER DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS FOR IMPRO VING QUALITY OF EXISTING PRODUCTS WHICH WERE MANUFACTURE D BY ASSESSEE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PLANT FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DEPRECIATION ALLOWANCE HELD, YES. 4.16 THEREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THA T THE DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS AS INTANGIBLE ASSETS FALLING UNDER AMB IT OF EXPLANATION -3(B) TO SECTION 32(1) AND ELIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION @25%. I AM ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEES APPORTIONMENT OF A PART OF THE CONSIDERATION FOR D ESIGNS AND DRAWINGS AND CLAIMING DEPRECIATION ON SUCH DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS IS ALSO JUSITIFIED. IN FACT, IN VIEW OF TH E ABOVE DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMIFS SECU RITIES LTD (2012) 348 ITR 302 (SC), THE ENTIRE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN THE AMOUNT PAID AND THE NET WORTH OF THE BUSINESS ACQUI RED FROM IDEA WILL BE THE GOODWILL AND THE ASSESSEE IS E LIGIBLE FOR DEPRECIATION ON THE ENTIRE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE A SSESSEE, HAS ONLY CONSIDERED A PART OF THE SAID AMOUNT FOR THE P URPOSE OF ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 7 -: CLAIMING DEPRECIATION . THUS, EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE S APPOINTEMTN OF THE CONSIDERATION BETWEEN DESIGNS & DRAWINGS AND GOODWILL ETC, IS NOT SCIENTIFIC, IT IS STILL BENEFICIAL TO T HE REVENUE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF DISALL OWANCE OF DEPRECIATION ON DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS IS NOT JUSTIF IED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE ASSESSEE S CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ON DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS. THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS IN ITS APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) ORDER, THE REVENUE HAS ASSAILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. 6. BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE REI TERATED AND ARGUED THE GROUNDS THAT THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONSIDERING THE EXCESS AMOUN T PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE NETWORTH TREATED AS GOODWILL AND THERE IS NO INFORMATION OF TRANSFER OF GOODWILL OR ACKNOWLEDGEMENT BY THE TRAN SFEREE COMPANY. FURTHER LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ER RED ON APPORTIONMENT OF INTANGIBLE ASSET TOWARDS DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS A7,15,00,000/- WITHOUT ANY EXAMINATION OR BASIS OF ANY VALUATION REPORT AND REASONS ATTRIBUTABLE TO APPORTIONMENT TOWARDS DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS AND LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) HAS NOT DONE DILIGENT ASSESSMENT ON THE APPORTIONMENT AND P RAYED FOR SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPE ALS). 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIV E RELIED ON THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS) AND ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 8 -: DEALT EXHAUSTIVELY ON FACTS AND ALSO DECISION OF APEX COURT WERE THE EXCESS PRICE PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE NETWORTH HAS T O BE TREATED AS GOODWILL AND TAKES THE CHARACTERISTIC OF INTANGIB LE ASSETS AND FURTHER SUPPORTED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH AUDITED ACCOUNTS STATE MENTS, VALUATION STATEMENTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS ON THE CONCEPT OF GOODWILL AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE REVENUE APPEAL. 8. WE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED AND DOCUMENTS FILED BY TH E LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF SUBMISSIONS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE CONTESTED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO AL LOW DEPRECIATION ON DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS AS INTANGIBLE ASSET AND THER E IS NO SCIENTIFIC METHODOLOGY OF APPORTIONMENT OF COST. THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ACQUIRED THE NET WORTH OF THE IDEA COMPANY AND PAID AMOUNT MOR E THAN NET WORTH OF THE COMPANY AND DIFFERENCE TAKES THE CHAR ACTERISTIC OF GOODWILL BEING INTANGIBLE ASSET. THE ASSESSEE HAS BIFURCATED THE EXCESS AMOUNT INTO GOODWILL OF A4,18,85,560/- AND D ESIGNS AND DRAWINGS OF A7,15,00,000/-. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPR ESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND DISC LOSURES IN THE SCHEDULE AND DEPRECIATION DULY SUPPORTED BY THE VAL UATION REPORT. WE ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 9 -: ON PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ORDER, NO WHERE THE RATIO AND THE METHODO LOGY OF BIFURCATING THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS BETWEEN GOODWILL AND DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS WAS DISCUSSED. THE BIFURCATION SHALL BE SUPPORTED BY A METHODOLOGY OF APPORTIONMENT WHICH IS ACCEPTED GLOBALLY. THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS MADE AN EXHAUSTIVE OBSERVA TIONS ON THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND THE APEX COURT DECISION ON THE INTANGIBLE ASSETS BUT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUPPORT WITH CALCULATION IN VALUATION OF DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HA S DEMONSTRATED THE VALUE OF DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS SUPPORTED BY VA LUATION REPORT ISSUED BY A CHARTERED ENGINEER WITH VALUATION CERTI FICATE ON ENGINEERING DESIGNS AND DRAWINGS CONTAINING THE VAR IOUS SPECIFICATION OF PROJECT WORK, AND THE BASIS OF ALLOCATION OF C OST. THE ASSESSEE HAS REFLECTED INTANGIBLE ASSETS IN SEPARATE SCHEDULE FO RMING PART OF ACCOUNTS AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION. THE FACTS THAT IDEA UNDERTAKING TRANSFEE COMPANY NEVER DISCLOSED THE COST OF DESIG NS AND DRAWINGS AS CAPITAL ASSET BUT CLAIMED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE AS PER FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, VALUATION CERTIFICATE, FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT VERIFIED THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE RELIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF THE VALUE OF A7,15,00,000/- BEING T HE BASIS FOR THE ITA NO.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2015. :- 10 -: ASSESSEE TO CLAIM THE DEPRECIATION . THEREFORE, WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR LIMITED PURPOSE TO VERIFY AND EXAMINE THE VALUATION CERTIFICATE AND THE VALUE ADO PTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE BOOKS FOR CLAIM OF DEPRECIA TION AND PASS THE ORDER AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 9. SIMILARLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NOS.17 95 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND ITA NO.2174/MDS/2015 F OR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA N OS.1794, 1795 & 2174/MDS/2014 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 20TH DAY OF MA Y, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 1 / DATED:20.05.2016 KV 2 ) +#-34 54&- / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 6- () / CIT(A) 5. 4 9: +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 6- / CIT 6. :;% < / GF