M/s. P.Gautam And Co., Ahmedabad V. The Jt.CIT.,Range-11, Ahmedabad

ITA 1912/AHD/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 191220514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2011
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 03-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: JYOTISH M SHAH
• Keywords: Business income; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH D AHMEDABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI D.K. TYAGI, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K.GARODIA, HONBLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .., , .. , ! , ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08 DATE OF HEARING:19.8.11 DRAFTED:23.8.11 M/S. P GAUTAM AND CO. VINOD & NARENDRA, C.A, 101/102, SHAILY, 9, NEHRU PARK SOCIETY, NR. OLD GUJARAT HIGH COURT, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 009 PAN NO.AACFP2004M V/S. JT. CIT RANGE-11, AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :- SHRI JYOTISH M SHAH, AR RESPONDENT BY:- SHRI MAHESH KUMAR, DR DATE OF HEARING 19-08-2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26-08-2011 O R D E R PER A.K.GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- THIS IS AN ASSESSEES APPEAL DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD DATED 06-05-2010 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER:- (I) INVALID AND BAD ORDER: ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 2 (A) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)XVI-AHM EDABAD ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION THAT THE ORDER IS I NVALID AND BAD IN LAW, AS NOTICE U/S.143(2) DTD. 29-09-2008 WAS SERVE D ON 3-10-2008 I.E. AFTER 30-09-2008,IS BARRED BY TIME. (B) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIO N THAT ORDER DTD. 29- 12-2009, WHICH IS PASSED WITHOUT CONSIDERING SUBMIS SION FILED ON 29-12-2009, IS INVALID AND BAD, AS IT IS VIOLATING PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND VOID AUTHORITIES BELOW INTIO ON FACTS O F THE CASE. (II) ON MERITS : DISALLOWANCE OF SALARY TO PARTNER RS.13,38,200/- (A) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING, DISALLOWANCE OF REMUNERATION PAID TO PARTNER VIKRAM N. GANDHI IN HIS REPRESENTATIVE CAPA CITY OF VIKRAM N GANDHI HUF. (B) THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIO N THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE HONBLE ITAT HAS ALLOWED THE CONTENTION ON SAME POINT, DISMISSING DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL. THE ACTION OF CIT(A) NOT ACCEPT ITAT DECISION, INTE RPRETING DIFFERENTLY, IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH JUDICIAL PROCEDURE, AND UNJU STIFIED AND BAD IN LAW. 3. GROUND NO.1 WAS NOT PRESSED BY LD. AR OF THE ASS ESSEE, AND HENCE, THE SAME IS REJECTED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. REGARDING GROUND NO.(II) I.E. DISALLOWANCE OF SA LARY TO PARTNER OF RS.13,38,200/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE A SSESSEE THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE BY TWO TRIBUNALS DEC ISION I.E. IN THE CASE OF M/S AJIT ADS. V. ACIT IN ITA NO.2064/AHD/2005 DATED 20-01-2006 AND IN THE CASE OF HEMTEJ IMPRINT V. DCIT IN ITA NO.1520/AHD/2010 DATED 30-07-2010. REGARDING JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT RE NDERED IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL WIRE MANUFACTURING CO. V. CIT (2002) 253 ITR 496 (GUJ), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IS FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT OF SECTION 40(B), THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THIS CASE, COVERS THE PRESENT ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE EARLIER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B), THE ASSESSEE-FIRM WAS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF SALARY PAID TO A ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 3 PARTNER. IT IS SUBMITTED IN THAT CASE DECIDED BY HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, THESE FACTS WERE NOTED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT THAT S ALARY WAS PAID TO A PARTNER, WHO WAS KARTA OF HUF, PARTNER AND IT WAS T HE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE THAT SALARY WAS PAID TO INDIVIDUAL IN THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY AND NOT IN THE REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY AND HENCE, NO DISALLOWA NCE CAN BE MADE U/S.40(B). IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T IN THAT CASE THAT TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT THE REMUNERATI ON IN THE FORM OF SALARY PAID TO INDIVIDUAL WAS TO BE DISALLOWED. THIS DECISION I S ON THIS BASIS THAT EVEN IF A PERSON JOINS THE PARTNERSHIP IN REPRESENTATIVE CAPA CITY, WITHIN THE FIRM, THE POSITION OF SUCH PARTNER IS THAT OF AN INDIVIDUAL O NLY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US THAT AT THAT POINT OF TIME, SALARY TO PARTNER WAS NOT A ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION AND THE SAME WAS TO BE DI SALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B) AND HENCE, UNDER SIMILA R FACTS, IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THAT PAYMENT OF SALARY T O THE KARTA HUF PARTNERS WAS HIT BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(B). IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NOW THE PROVISIONS ARE AMENDED AND AS PER THE AMENDED PROVI SIONS, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF SALARY TO PARTNERS IS ALLOWAB LE SUBJECT TO CERTAIN CONDITIONS AND HENCE, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THIS JUD GMENT OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IS IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS A LSO PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RASIKLAL AND CO. V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458 (SC). 5. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES AND HE PLACED RELIANCE ON A SUBSEQUENT JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT V. KANJI SHIVJI AND CO. (2000) 242 ITR 124 (SC) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE APEX COURT H AS CONSIDERED ITS EARLIER DECISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RASIKLAL AND CO. (SUPRA) AND IT WAS HELD THAT APPLICATION OF U/S.40(B) AND THE SAID EXPLANATION W AS NOT REALLY AN ISSUE IN THE CASE OF RASIKLAL AND CO. V. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 458 (SC) AND HENCE, THE OBSERVATION IN THAT CASE, RELATING TO SAID EXPLANAT ION MUST, THEREFORE, BE TREATED AS OBITER DICTA AND IT WAS HELD THAT CONCLU SION IN THE REMAINING TWO ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 4 CASES I.E. BRIJ MOHAN DAS LAXMAN DAS V. CIT (1997) 223 ITR 825 (SC) AND SUWALAL ANANDILAL JAIN V. CIT (1997) 224 ITR 753 (SC) STILL REPRESENTS THE CORRECT EXPOSITION OF THE LAW. IT WAS SUBMITTED THA T THIS DECISION OF HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF KANJI SHIVJI AND CO. (SUPRA) IS RENDERED BY A BENCH OF THREE JUDGES, WHEREAS THE EARLIER DECISION OF HO NBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RASHIK LAL (SUPRA) IS RENDERED BY A DIVISION BENCH OF HONBLE APEX COURT CONSISTING OF TWO JUDGES AND HENCE, THIS LATE R JUDGMENT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KANJI SHIVJI AND CO. (SUPRA) SHOULD BE FOLLOWED. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT AS PER EXPLNATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B), WORKING PARTNER MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN CONDUCTING TH E AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE FIRM OF WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, SALARY PAID TO THE PARTNER IS IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT HE IS NOT PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT AS KARTA OF HUF AND HENCE, AS PER THIS EXPLANATION-4, HE CANNOT BE CONS IDERED A WORKING PARTNER FOR THE PURPOSE OF ALLOWING DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF SALARY TO HIM. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSE D THE RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND JUDGMENT S CITED BY BOTH THE SIDES. 7. REGARDING THE HEAVY RELIANCE PLACED BY THE REVEN UE ON THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF KANJI SHIVJI AND CO. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT THIS JUDGMENT IS ON THIS ASPECT THAT EXPL ANATION-2 TO SECTION 40(B) INTRODUCED WITH EFFECT FROM 1-4-1985 IS DECLARATORY . THE DISPUTE BEFORE US IS NOT THIS THAT ANY EXPLANATION IS DECLARATORY OR NOT BECAUSE EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B) WAS VERY MUCH THERE ON STATUTE BOOK D URING THE RELEVANT PERIOD I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. REGARDING OTHER TWO J UDGMENTS OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF BRIJ MOHAN DAS LAXMAN DAS (SUPRA) AND IN THE CASE OF KANJI SHIVJI AND CO. (SUPRA), THE ISSUE INVOLVED WAS REGARDING ALLOWABILITY OF DEDUCTION CLAIMED BY ASSESSEE IN RE SPECT OF INTEREST PAID BY FIRM TO PARTNERS IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY FOR THE PER IOD PRIOR TO 1-4-1985. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ISSUE IS NOT REGARDING PAYMENT OF INTEREST BUT DISPUTE IN ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 5 PRESENT CASE IS REGARDING PAYMENT OF SALARY TO THE PARTNER. IN THE CASE OF RASIK LAL AND CO. (SUPRA) ALSO, THE DISPUTE WAS REGARDING PAYMENT OF COMMISSION BY THE FIRM TO A PARTNER. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT PAYMENT TO VIKRAM N GANDHI DOES NOT AMOUNT TO PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO THE HUF, WHICH WAS A REAL PARTNER. HENCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR AND IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE APEX COURT IN THAT CASE THAT A PARTNER DOES NOT ACT IN A REPRESENTATIV E CAPACITY IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND HIS FUNCTIONS ARE IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY LIKE ANY OTHER PARTNER. ON PAGE NO.469 OF 229 ITR , IT IS OBSERVED BY HONBLE APEX COURT THAT IT IS T HE INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING THE FIRM WHO ARE ITS PARTN ERS. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT PARTNER MAY BE UNDER OBLIGATION TO HAND OVER THE MO NEY RECEIVED BY HIM TO SOMEBODY ELSE BY VIRTUE OF A SUB-CONTRACT OR ANY OT HER ARRANGEMENT. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENT BY THE FIRM TO ITS PARTNER OR THE STATUS OF THE PARTNER IN THE FIRM. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THIS JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- THIS JUDGMENT GIVEN BY A BENCH OF THREE JUDGES OF THIS COURT IS A COMPLETE ANSWER TO THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. A PARTNER DOES NOT ACT IN A REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY IN THE PARTNERSHIP. HE FUNCTIONS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY LIKE ANY OTHE R PARTNER. THE PROVISIONS OF THE PARTNERSHIP ACT AND THE INCOME-TA X ACT RELATING TO PARTNERS AND PARTNERSHIP FIRMS WILL APPLY IN FULL F ORCE IN RESPECT OF SUCH A PARTNER. IF ANY REMUNERATION IS PAID OR A COMMISSIO N IS GIVEN TO A PARTNER BY A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, SECTION 40(B) WILL A PPLY EVEN IF THE PARTNER HAS JOINED THE FIRM AS A NOMINEE OF A HINDU UNDIVID ED FAMILY. THE HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY OR ITS REPRESENTATIVE DOES NOT HAV E ANY SPECIAL STATUS INS THE PARTNERSHIP ACT. ALTHOUGH THE PARTNERSHIP F IRM IS NOT A LEGAL ENTITY, IT HAS BEEN TREATED AS AN INDEPENDENT UNIT OF ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT. THE ASSESSMENT OF A FIRM, WILL HAVE TO BE MADE STRICTLY IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE I NCOME-TAX ACT. THE LAW HAS TO BE TAKEN AS SIT IS. SECTION 40(B) APPLIES TO CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY A FIRM TO ITS PARTNERS. NEITHER THE FIRM NO R ITS PARTNERS CAN EVADE THE TAX LAW ON THE PRETEXT THAT ALTHOUGH IN L AW HE IS A PARTNER IN REALITY HE IS NOT SO. HE MAY HAVE TO HAND OVER THE MONEY TO SOMEBODY ELSE. THAT MAY BE HIS POSITION QUA A THIRD PARTY. B UT THE FIRM HAS NOTING TO DO WITH IT. IT HAS PAID THE COMMISSION TO ONE OF ITS PARTNERS. IT CANNOT GET ANY DEDUCTION IN ITS ASSESSMENT FOR THAT PAYMEN T BECAUSE SECTION 40(B) OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROHIBITS SUCH DEDUCTION . ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 6 THE BASIC PRINCIPLE THAT A FIRM IS A COMPENDIOUS MO DE OF DESCRIBING THE PERSONS CONSTITUTING THE FIRM MUST NOT BE OVERLOOKE D. IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTING THE FIRM WHO ARE ITS PARTNERS. THE PAR TNER MAY BE UNDER AN OBLIGATION TO HAND OVER THE MONIES RECEIVED BY HIM TO SOMEBODY ELSE BY VIRTUE OF A SUB-CONTRACT OR ANY OTHER ARRANGEMEN T. THAT WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE PAYMENT BY THE FIRM TO ITS PARTNER OR THE STATUS OF THE PARTNER IN THE FIRM. THE FIRM IS NOT ENTITLED TO GET ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT OF COMMISSION TO A PARTNER MERELY BECAUSE THE PARTNER HAS AN OBLIGATION TO SHARE THE MONEY WITH SOMEBODY ELSE. SO FAR AS THE FIRM WAS CONCERNED, TH E COMMISSION WAS PAID TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACIT Y. THE PROVISIONS RELATING TO ASSESSMENT OF FIRMS SHOU LD NOT BE CONSTRUED IN WAY TO DEFEAT ITS OBJECT. SECTION 40(B) FORBIDS DEDUCTION OF ANY AMOUNT PAID BY WAY OF COMMISSION TO A PARTNER. IN T HE INSTANT CASE, RASHIKLAL IS A PARTNER OF THE FIRM, RASHIKLAL AND C OMPANY. THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY HIM FROM THE PARTNERSHIP FIR M CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION FROM THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ONLY CONTENTION BEING R AISED IS REGARDING EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B), WE THEREFORE REPROD UCE THE SAME HEREINBELOW:- EXPLANATION 4 FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS CLAUSE, WORKING PARTNER MEANS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN COND UCTING THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OR PROFESSION OF THE FIRM OF WHICH HE IS A PARTNER; 9. FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B), I T IS SEEN THAT A WORKING PARTNER CAN BE AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS ACTIVELY ENGAGE D IN CONDUCTING THE AFFAIRS OF BUSINESS OF THE FIRM OF WHICH HE IS A PARTNER. I T IS NOT THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR OF LD. DR OF THE REVENUE THAT SALARY WAS NOT PAID BY THE FIRM TO AN INDIVIDUAL. IT IS ALSO NOT AN OBJECTION THAT THE CONCERNED INDIVIDUAL IS NOT ACTIVELY ENGAGED IN CONDUCTING THE AFFAIRS OF T HE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE- FIRM. THE OBJECTION IS THIS THAT SUCH INDIVIDUAL IS NOT A PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE- FIRM IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY BUT HE IS A PARTNER IN THE CAPACITY OF REPRESENTATIVE OF HUF OF WHICH HE IS A KARTA AND FO R THIS REASON, THE REVENUE HAS REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF RASIK LAL AND CO. (SUPRA), IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS THE INDIVIDUALS CONSTITUTE THE FIRM WHO ARE ITS PAR TNERS. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT A ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 7 PARTNER DOES NOT ACT IN THE REPRESENTATIVE CAPACITY IN THE PARTNERSHIP AND HE FUNCTIONS IN HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY LIKE ANY OTHER P ARTNER. THIS GOES TO SHOW THAT A PARTNER OF A FIRM IS INDIVIDUAL ONLY EVEN IF HE IS PARTNER AS A REPRESENTATIVE OF HUF. IF THAT BE SO, THE REQUIREME NTS OF EXPLANATION-4 TO SECTION 40(B) ARE COMPLIED WITH IN RESPECT OF PAYME NT OF REMUNERATION TO SUCH A PARTNER ALSO WHO IS A PARTNER IN HIS REPRESENTATI VE CAPACITY BEING KARTA OF THE HUF PARTNER. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IN THE LIGH T OF THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT, THE REQUIREMENT OF EXPLANATION-4 TO SEC TION 40(B) STAND COMPLIED WITH IN THE PRESENT CASE AND HENCE, THERE IS NO VAL ID REASON FOR MAKING THIS DISALLOWANCE BECAUSE IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE CONCERNED PARTNER, SHRI VIKRAM N GANDHI WAS NOT ACT IVELY ENGAGED IN CONDUCTING THE AFFAIRS OF THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSES SEE-FIRM. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICE R AND CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME IS DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/08/2011 ' # $ %& '() / / 2011 !+ , $ - . SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.K. GARODIA) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ( ) ( ! ) AHMEDABAD, DATED : 26/08/2011 *DKP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO :- 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS)-XVI, AHMEDABAD 4. THE CIT CONCERNS. 5. THE DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. GUARD FILE. ITA NO.1912/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007- 08 M/S P GAUTAM AND CO. V. JCIT RNG-11, ABD PAGE 8 BY ORDER, /TRUE COPY/ DEPUTY / ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT, AHMEDABAD # # # # $ $$ $ /01 /01 /01 /01 21&0) 21&0) 21&0) 21&0)- -- - 1. 56 . 2. /56 . 3. (( 0 +9 . 4. +9-() 5. 1>? /0' , , . 6. A B' . # , C / (D , .