ITO, CHENNAI V. M/s. OPG Renewable Energy Pvt. Ltd., CHENNAI

ITA 2058/CHNY/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 205821714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: V RA VICHANDRAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . ! , ' # $ [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2058/MDS/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANY WARD V(1) CHENNAI VS. M/S OPG RENEWABLE ENERGY PVT. LTD NO.6, SARDAR PATEL ROAD GUINDY, CHENNAI 600 032 [PAN AAACO 9714 A] ( %& / APPELLANT) ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. RAVICHANDRAN, CA / DATE OF HEARING : 11-05-2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-05-2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS-V), CHENNAI , DATED 28.8.2013 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 . 2. THE ONLY ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS DEDUCTIO N CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. ITA NO.2058/13 :- 2 -: 3. SHRI A.V.SREEKANTH, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY CLAIMED DEDUCTI ON U/S 80IA TO THE EXTENT OF ` 1,74,88,012/-. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, THE ASSE SSEE HAS NO AGREEMENT WITH TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD FOR SALE OF ELECTRICITY. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED A COP Y OF THE LICENCE AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN ONE M/S KANISHK STEEL IN DUSTRIES LTD. AND THE ASSESSEE. AS PER THIS LICENCE AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS AUTHORIZED TO OPERATE THE POWER GENERATING UNIT OWN ED BY M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. THEREFORE, IT IS CLE AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SET UP THE POWER GENERATING UNIT NOR OW NS THE SAME. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT, THE LD. DR POINTED OUT THAT TWO CONDITIONS ARE TO BE SATISFIED FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION UN 80IA. THE FIRST CONDITION IS THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL SET UP THE POWER GENERATING UNIT. IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE THE OWNER OF THE UNIT. THE SECOND CONDITION IS T HAT SUCH UNDERTAKING MUST BE NEW AND IT SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN SPLIT-UP OR RECONSTRUCTED FROM AN EXISTING UNDERTAKING. IN THIS CASE, ACCORD ING TO THE LD. DR, THE POWER GENERATING UNIT WAS SET-UP BY M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE ENTER ED INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. FO R OPERATING THE POWER PLANT. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. THE L D. DR PLACED HIS ITA NO.2058/13 :- 3 -: RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF A.G.S TIBER AND CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD VS CIT , [1998]233 ITR 207, AND SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS U/S 80J OF THE ACT, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FOUND THAT SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAD NOT INVESTED ITS CAPITAL FOR RUNNING THE INDUSTRIAL UNDERTAKING, IT WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80J OF THE ACT. ACCORDING T O THE LD. DR, EVEN THOUGH THIS JUDGMENT WAS RENDERED UNDER THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 80J, IT IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE FOR SECTION 80IA OF THE AC T. 4. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI V. RAVICHANDRAN, LD. REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE AS SESSEE-COMPANY IS GENERATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY FROM RENEWABLE AND NON-CONVENTIONAL SOURCES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA ON THE PROFIT FROM GENE RATION OF POWER AFTER GETTING LICENCE FROM ANOTHER PARTY, THE ASSE SSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE L D. REPRESENTATIVE, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ON LEASE A NEW 10MW WHR PLANT FROM M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTR IES LTD AND THE PLANT WAS COMMISSIONED ON 23.9.2008. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 26.4.2008 AND SUPPLEMENTARY AGREEMENT ON 20.2.2009. ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, COPIES OF BOTH THE AGREEMENTS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE PAPER BOOK. AS PER THIS AGREEMENT , ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE LICENSOR, M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD OWNS ITA NO.2058/13 :- 4 -: AND OPERATES THE STEEL MILL. IT IS NOT THE BUSINES S OF M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD TO GENERATE ELECTRICAL ENERGY. THE ASSESSEES MAIN BUSINESS IS GENERATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. WITH THE PROPOSA L TO INSTALL A WASTE HEAT RECOVERY PLANT IN THE PREMISES OWNED BY M/S KA NISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. WITH THE INTENTION TO UTILIZE THE W ASTE HEAT TO GENERATE ELECTRICAL ENERGY. M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LT D. EXPRESSED ITS WILLINGNESS TO PROVIDE WASTE HEAT FOR THE PURPOSE O F GENERATION OF ELECTRICAL ENERGY AND THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING ELECTRICAL ENERGY FROM THE WA STE HEAT GENERATED BY M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. AS PER THE AG REEMENT, THE ASSESSEE HAS TO DEPOSIT AN INTEREST FREE DEPOSIT TO M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. OF THE AMOUNT EQUAL TO 10% OF THE T OTAL VALUE OF THE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT. AS PER THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT , THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO OPERATE THE PLANT AND GENERA TE POWER FOR 15 YEARS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO GIVEN AN OPTION TO R ENEW THE LICENCE FOR ANOTHER PERIOD OF 15 YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. R EPRESENTATIVE, THE LIFE OF THE PLANT IS ONLY 30 YEARS. THE ENTIRE 30 YEARS PERIOD WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH INITIALLY FOR 15 YEARS WITH THE OPTION TO RENEW THE LICENCE FOR ANOTHER 15 YEARS. ACCORDING T O THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUS INESS OF GENERATING ELECTRICAL ENERGY, HENCE, IT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCT ION U/S 80IA OF THE ITA NO.2058/13 :- 5 -: ACT. REFERRING TO THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER SET UP POWER GENERATING UNIT NOR OWNS THE S AME, THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT NECESSARY T O OWN THE POWER PLANT. REFERRING TO SECTION 80IA, MORE PARTICULARL Y, 80IA(4), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SECTION 80IA APPLIES TO AN ENTERPRISE CARRIES ON THE BUSINESS OF OPERATING AND MAINTAININ G POWER GENERATING UNIT. REFERRING TO SECTION 80IA(4)(IV), THE LD. RE PRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AN UNDERTAKING WHICH WAS SET UP IN INDIA FOR G ENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER FROM 1 ST APRIL, 1993 IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO SUB-CLAUSE(V) OF SEC TION 80IA(4), THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SUB-CLAUSE(V) REQUIRE S THAT AN UNDERTAKING SHALL OWN THE POWER PLANT FOR THE PURP OSE OF CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. HOWEVER, THERE IS NO SUCH REQ UIREMENT FOR CLAIMING DEDUCTION U/S 80IA(4)(IV) OF THE ACT. 5. REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN K.A. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. VS DIRECTOR (ITA-I)CBDT AN D ANOTHER, WRIT PETITION NO.11871 OF 2011, DATED 28.10.2011, THE LD . REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ON IDENTICAL CIRCUMSTANCES, THE MADR AS HIGH COURT EXAMINED THE SCOPE OF SECTION 80IA AND SECTION 10(2 3G)OF THE ACT AND FOUND THAT AS FAR AS DEDUCTION UN 80IA WITH REGARD TO AN UNDERTAKING FOR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IS CONCERN ED, THE QUALIFICATION IS GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POW ER. FURTHER ITA NO.2058/13 :- 6 -: CONDITION IS THAT THE UNDERTAKING IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE O R FORMED BY THE TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY USED FOR ANY PURPOS E TO A NEW BUSINESS. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT THE PROHIBITION PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB-SECTION(3) SAYS NOTHING ABOUT LEASE OF THE UNDERTAKING. THE QUALIFICATION FOR DEDUCTION IS AV AILABLE TO AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OF THE DISQUALIFICATI ON AS GIVEN UNDER SUB SECTION(3) OF SECTION 80IA, THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE DENIED DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. THOUGH THIS JUDGMENT WAS REND ERED IN A WRIT PROCEEDING, ACCORDING TO THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE, TH E FINDINGS OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IS EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE ASS ESSEES CASE. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. TH E ASSESSEE-COMPANY IS ADMITTEDLY ENGAGED IN GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTIO N OF POWER. THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AN AGREEMENT ON 26.4.2008 WIT H M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. TO INSTALL A WASTE HEAT RECOV ERY PLANT IN THE PREMISES OWNED BY M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD. OWN THE ENTIRE PLANT AND EQU IPMENT AS PER THE SPECIFICATION AND THE PLANT WAS IN FACT INSTALLED A T PERIYAOBULAPURAM, OPG NAGAR, GUMMIDIPOONDI, THIRUVALLUR DISTRICT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ITA NO.2058/13 :- 7 -: GRANTED A LICENCE AND PERMIT TO USE PLANT AND EQUIP MENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF GENERATING ELECTRICITY. IT IS NOT IN DI SPUTE THAT THOUGH THE PLANT WAS OWNED BY M/S KANISHK STEEL INDUSTRIES LTD , THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN THE RIGHT TO OPERATE AND GENERATE ELECTRI CITY. THE QUESTION ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IS WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS N OT OWNER OF THE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT AND WITH LICENCE FROM M/S KANISHK STE EL INDUSTRIES LTD. IT GENERATES POWER, WHETHER THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITL ED FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT OR NOT. THIS ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN M/S K.A. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.(SUPRA). THE MADRAS HIGH COURT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 10(23G) AND 80IA, FOUND THAT BENEFIT OF SECTION 80IA IS AVAILABLE TO UNDERTAKINGS COVERED UNDER CLAUSE(IV) OF SUB-SECTION(4) OF SECTION 80IA AND IT IS NOT AVAILABLE TO A COMPANY WHICH IS FORMED BY SPLITTING UP OR RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT SECTION 80IA(4)(IV) IS A S PECIFIC PROVISION ON ENTERPRISE ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. THE MADRAS HIGH COURT FURTHER FOUND THAT SU B SECTION(3) OF SECTION 80IA SAYS NOTHING ABOUT LEASE OF THE UNDERT AKING. THE DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE TO AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY OF THE DISQUALIFICATION GIVEN UNDER SUB SECTION (3) OF SEC TION 80IA, THE MADRAS ITA NO.2058/13 :- 8 -: HIGH COURT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIE D DEDUCTION U/S 80IA. IN FACT, THE MADRAS HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS: 19. A READING OF THE ABOVE-SAID CLAUSES THUS MAKES IT CLEAR THAT AS FAR AS DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80IA WITH REFERENC E TO UNDERTAKINGS WHICH ARE THERE FOR GENERATION AND GEN ERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER IS CONCERNED, THE QUALIFICATI ON IS GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER. READ WITH SUB SECTION (3), THE UNDERTAKING IS NOT FORMED BY SPLITTING UP O R THE RECONSTRUCTION OF A BUSINESS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE OR FORMED BY THE TRANSFER OF PLANT AND MACHINERY USED FOR ANY PU RPOSE TO A NEW BUSINESS. THUS AN ENTERPRISE WHICH IS ENGA GED IN THE GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER, QUALIFIES FOR A DEDUCTION, SUBJECT TO SATISFYING SUB-CLAUSES IN THE SECTION. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE DEDUCTION IS WITH REF ERENCE TO THE UNDERTAKING GENERATING OR GENERATING AND DISTRIBUTI NG POWER, THE DEDUCTION WOULD BE AVAILABLE AT THE HANDS OF THE LE SSEE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS ENGAGED IN THE GENERATION OR GEN ERATION AND DISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND THERE IS NO RESTRICTIVE C LAUSE THEREIN THAT THE BENEFIT ATTACHED TO THE UNDERTAKING WOULD BE DEPRIVED ON A LEASE GIVEN, IN CONTRADISTINCTION TO A CASE OF NEW INDUSTRY WHICH CANNOT CLAIM THE RELIEF IF IT WERE TO USE THE PLANT AND MACHINERY PREVIOUSLY USED FOR ANY PURPOSE. THUS THE PROHIBITION PRESCRIBED UNDER SUB SECTION (3) SAYS NOTHING ABOUT LEASE OF THE UNDERTAKING. AS ALREADY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER, THE SECTION ITSELF BE ING VERY CLEAR THAT THE QUALIFICATION FOR DEDUCTION IS AVAILABLE T O AN UNDERTAKING ENGAGED IN THE GENERATION OR GENERATION AND DISTRIB UTION OF POWER, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY-OF THE DISQUALIFICATIO N AS GIVEN UNDER SUB SECTION (3) PRESENT HERE, THE PETITIONER CANNOT BE DENIED OF THE RELIEF. 20. I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE PETITIONER THAT IN CONTRADISTINCT ION TO SUB- CLAUSE (V) TO SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 80IA, THERE I S NO QUALIFICATION TO BE READ INTO THE TERM 'UNDERTAKING ' SO AS TO BE RESTRICTIVE OF AN ASSESSEE TO BE A OWNER ALONE TO C LAIM THE BENEFIT UNDER SECTION 80IA. CONTRARY TO THE ASSER TION OF THE ITA NO.2058/13 :- 9 -: LEARNED STANDING COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE, I DO NOT FIND ANYTHING IN SUB-SECTION (3) OF SECTION 80IA, WHICH WO ULD GO AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HEREIN; THAT THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A LESSEE, PER SE, DOES NOT RESULT I N ANY DISQUALIFICATION TO REJECT THE DEDUCTION CLAIM FALL ING UNDER SECTION 80IA. THE FACTS HEREIN ARE THAT THE WINDMILL WAS ALRE ADY IN USE BY THE LESSOR, WHICH WAS NOW SOUGHT TO BE GIVEN ON LEA SE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IF THE CLAIM IS TO FALL UNDER CLAUS E (A) TO SUB- CLAUSE (IV) TO SUB-SECTION (4), SO LONG AS THE WINDM ILL IS ONE ALREADY SET UP FROM THE QUALIFYING DATE 1ST APRIL, 1993, AND IT HAS BEEN IN GENERATION OF POWER AND DISTRIBUTION OF ENE RGY THEREON, I DO NOT FIND ANY GROUND TO REJECT THE PLEA OF THE AS SESSEE FOR GRANT OF APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 1O(23G) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 7. WE HAVE ALSO CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80IA OF THE ACT. SECTION 80IA CLEARLY SAYS THAT WHERE THE GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE INCLUDES ANY PROFITS A ND GAINS DERIVED BY AN UNDERTAKING OR AN ENTERPRISE FROM ANY BUSINESS R EFERRED TO IN SUB- SECTION(4) SHALL BE ALLOWED DEDUCTION IN COMPUTING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUB-SECTION(4) OF SECTION 80IA SAYS THAT AN UNDERTAKING WHICH WAS SET UP FOR GENERATION OR GENERATION AND D ISTRIBUTION OF POWER AND BEGINS TO GENERATE POWER AT ANY TIME DURI NG THE PERIOD BEGINNING ON THE 1 ST DAY OF APRIL, 1993 AND ENDING ON 31 ST MARCH 2014, IS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S 80IA OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY COMMENCED GENERATION OF POWER BEFORE MARCH, 2014 AND AFTER 1 ST APRIL 1993. SECTION 80IA(4)(IV) DOES NOT REQUIRE AN ASSESSEE TO OWN THE PLANT AND EQUIPMENT. SINCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES PROFITS AND GAINS DERIVED FROM GE NERATION OF POWER, ITA NO.2058/13 :- 10 -: AS HELD BY THE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN M/S K.A. INFRAS TRUCTURE PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION U /S 80IA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE MADRAS HIGH COURT DIRE CTLY ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80IA, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSID ERED OPINION THAT THE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF A.G.S TIBER & CHEMICALS INDUST RIES P. LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH WAS ON THE ISSUE OF DEDUCTION U/S 80J, IS NO T APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF TH E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S K.A. INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.(SU PRA) AND FOR THE REASONS STATED THEREIN, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 29 TH OF MAY, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 29 TH MAY, 2015 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF