Asan Memorial Association, CHENNAI V. ACIT Centralized Processing Cell TDS, Ghaziabad

ITA 2345/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6860 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S D ROHINI
• Assessee Lawyers: V S JAYAKUMAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Retrospective amendment
• Section: 201(1)

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH: CHENNAI , , ' BEFORE SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO(S). NAME OF THE APPELLANT NAME OF THE RESPONDENT ASST. YEAR QUARTER FORM 2344/CHNY/2018 M/S.ASAN MEMORIAL ASSOCIATION, NO.12, DR.T.V.ROAD, CHETPET, CHENNAI- 600 031 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL TDS, GHAZIABAD. 2013-14 QR.3 26Q ( PAN NO. AAATA 0265 B) 2 3 45/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2014 - 15 QR.1 26Q 23 46/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2014 - 15 QR. 2 26Q 23 47/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2014 - 15 QR.3 26Q 23 48/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2014 - 15 QR.4 26Q 23 49/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 QR.1 24Q 23 50/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 QR.2 26Q 23 51/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 QR.2 24Q 23 52/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 Q R.3 24Q 23 53/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 QR.3 26Q 23 54/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 QR.4 26Q 23 55/CHNY/2018 - DO - - DO - 2015 - 16 QR.4 24Q ( ) / APPELLANT BY : MR. V.S.JAYAKUMAR, ADV. +,( ) /RESPONDENT BY : MR S . D.ROHINI, ADDL .CIT ) /DATE OF HEARING : 31.12.2018 ) /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02.01.2019 / O R D E R PER BENCH : THESE ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-TRUST DIRE CTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX ( APPEALS)-17, CHENNAI, DATED 28.05.2018 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF FE ES U/S.234E OF INCOME ITA NOS.2344-2355/CHNY/2018 :- 2 -: TAX ACT, 1961 FOR LATE FILING OF THE QUARTERLY TDS RETURNS FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2013-14 TO 2 015-16. 2. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUE INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEA LS, WE DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 3. THE APPELLANT RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL: 1. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE INTIMATION PAS SED U/S. 200A BY THE DCIT, CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL TDS, VISHALL, GHAZIABAD. 2. THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE INTI MATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BAD AND E RRONEOUS IN LAW AND AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE LEVY OF FEE U/S.234E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN AS MUCH AS THERE IS NO SUCH POWER VESTED IN HIM TO DO SO. 4. SECTION 200A OF THE ACT PROVIDES FOR PROCESSING OF THE STATEMENT OF TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY MAKING ADJUSTMENT AS PROVIDED IN THAT SEC TION. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY OTHER ADJUSTMENT. 5. THERE IS NO ENABLING PROVISIONS IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENT IN RESPECT OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE BY LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT THAN THE ONE PRESCRIBED ABOVE IN SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. 6. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT AND MAKE ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED IN TIMATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 7. THE APPELLANT RELIES ON THE DECISION OF THE CHEN NAI TRIBUNAL IN G. INDHIRANI VS DCIT ITA NOS. 1019 TO 1021 & 1089 TO 1092/MDS/2015 A BENCH D ATED 10.07.2015, [2015] 172 TTJ 239 (CHENNAI), WHEREIN THE HOBLE TRIBUNAL HAS CAN CELLED THE LEVY OF FEE VIDE INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 8. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADDUCE ADDITION GR OUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THE APPELLANT IS A REGISTERED TRUST. IT FILED THE TDS STATEMENT FOR THE QUARTERS RELEVANT TO THE AYS 2013-14 TO 2015-16 BELATEDLY. THE AO ITA NOS.2344-2355/CHNY/2018 :- 3 -: HAVING NOTICED THE DELAY HAD LEVIED FEES U/S.234E O F THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 09.06.2017 PASSED U/S.200A OF THE ACT. 5. BEING AGGRIEVED, APPEALS WERE FILED BEFORE THE L D.CIT(A) WHO VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER HELD THAT THOUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E ARE INTRODUCED W.E.F 01.06.2015 IN THE STATUTE, THE SAM E CAN BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI (2017) 83 TAXMA NN.COM 137 (GUJ.). BEING AGGRIEVED, THE APPELLANT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US IN THE PRESENT APPEALS. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PER USED THE MATERIALS PLACED ON RECORD. 7. THE ONLY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT APPEALS I S WHETHER THE FEES U/S.234E CAN BE LEVIED EVEN PRIOR TO INTRODUCTION O F THE SAID PROVISION IN THE STATUTE. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E CA N BE APPLIED RETROSPECTIVELY EVEN PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT.G.INDHIRANI IN ITA NOS. 1019, 1020 & 1021/MDS./2015 DATED 10.07.2015 FOR THE AY 2013-14, HAD DISTINGUISHED THE SAID DECISION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 11. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE A.O HAS EXCEEDED HIS JURISDICTION IN LEVYING FEE UNDER SECTION 234E WHILE PROCESSING THE STATEMENT AND MAKE ADJUSTMENT UNDER SECTION 200A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ITA NOS.2344-2355/CHNY/2018 :- 4 -: INTIMATION OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES LEVYING FEE UND ER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. HOWEVER, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT IT IS OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS A SEPARATE ORDER UNDER SECTION 234E OF THE ACT LEVYIN G FEE PROVIDED THE LIMITATION FOR SUCH A LEVY HAS NOT EXPIRED. ACCORDINGLY, THE INTIMATION U NDER SECTION 200A AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) IN SOFAR AS LEVY OF FEE UNDER SECTION 2 34E IS SET ASIDE AND FEE LEVIED IS DELETED. HOWEVER, THE OTHER ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED INTIMATION SHALL STAND AS SUCH. HERE, WE HAVE TO M ENTION THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI HA S NOT BEEN CONSIDERED AS IT WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THAT POINT OF TIME. THE CO-ORDINATE BE NCH OF AGRA BENCH IN THE CASE OF STATE BANK OF INDIA IN ITA NO.03,06, AND 07/AG./2018 FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 DATED 31.05.2018 BY CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI HAS HELD IN PARAS 8 TO 11 AS FOLLOWS :- 8. HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL RELEVANT. WE FIND THAT WHILE D ECIDING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ASSESSEE THE ID. CIT(A) HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON RAJE SH KAURANI VS. UNION OF INDIA, 83 TAXMANNCOM 137 (GUJ.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT SECTI ON 200A OF THE ACT IS A MACHINERY PROVISION PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR PROCESSING A TDS STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FURTHER HELD THAT THIS DECISION WAS DELIVERED AFTER CONSIDERING NUMEROUS ITAT AND HIGH COURT DECISIONS AND THEREFORE THIS DECISION IN RAJESH KAURANI (SUPRA), HOLDS THE FIE LDS. 9. IT IS SEEN THAT PRIOR 01.06.2015, THERE WAS NO ENABLING PROVISION IN THE ACT U/S 200A FOR RAISING DEMAND IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT. THE PROVISION OF SECTION 23 4E OF THE ACT IS CHARGING PROVISION I.E. SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION WHICH COULD NOT BE APPLIED RE TROSPECTIVELY, UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED IN THE ACT, TO LEVY THE LATE FEE FOR ANY D ELAY IN FILING THE TDS STATEMENT FOR THE PERIOD PRIOR TO 01.06.2015. THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE HAS RIGHTLY CONTENDED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ENABLING PROVISIONS U/S 200A OF THE ACT, SUCH LEVY OF LATE FEE IS NOT VALID RELYING ON THE DECISIONS IN THE CASES OF CIT VS. VATIKA TO WNSHIP PVT. LTD. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC), SUDARSHAN GOYAL VS DCIT (TDS) ITA NO.442/AG R/2017 AND FATEHRAJ SINGHVI VS. UOI (2016) 289 CTR 0602 (KARN) (HC). THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. DR ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS, AS THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THOSE CASES PERTAINS TO INTEREST U/S 201(1) AND 201(1A) ON THE AMOUNT OF TDS WHEREAS IN THE PRES ENT CASES THE ISSUE WERE PERTAINS TO LIABILITY OF LATE FEE U/S 234E OF THE ACT FOR DELAY IN FILING TDS STATEMENT WHICH WAS INSERTED FROM 01.06.2015. 10. ON SIMILAR FACTS, WE HAVE DECID ED THE SAME ISSUE IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE SUDERSHAN GOYAL VS. DCIT (TDS), IN ITA NO . 442/AGRA/2017 DTD. 09.04.2018 AUTHORED BY ONE OF US (THE LD. J.MJ. THE RELEVANT P ART OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED AS FOLLOWS: 3. HEARD. THE ID. CIT(A), WHILE DECIDING THE MATTER AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON RAJESH KAURANI VS. UOI, 83 TAXM ANN.COM 137 (GUJ), WHEREIN, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT SECTION 200A OF THE ACT IS A MACHINE IY PROVISION PROVIDING THE MECHANISM FOR PROCESSING A STATEMENT OF DEDUCTION OF TAX AT S OURCE AND FOR MAKING ADJUSTMENTS. THE ID. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THIS DECISION WAS DELIVERED AFTER CONSIDERING NUMEROUS ITAT/HIGH COURT DECISIONS AND SO, THIS DECISION IN RAJESH KA URANI (SUPRA) HOLDS THE FIELD. 4. WE DO NOT FIND THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ID. CIT(A) TO BE CORR ECT IN LAW. AS AGAINST RAJESH KAURANI (SUPRA), SHRI FATEHRAJ SINGHVI AND OTHERS VS. UOI, 73 TAXMANN.COM 252 (KER), AS ALSO ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF DECIDES THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ONLY OBJECTION OF THE ID. CIT(A) IS THAT THIS DECISION A ND OTHERS TO THE SAME EFFECT HAVE BEEN TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE HON BLE GUJARAL HI GH COURT WHILE PASSING RAJESH KAURANI (SUPRA). HOWEVER, WHILE OBSERVING SO, THE ID. IT(A) HAS FAILED TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SETTLED LAW THAT WHERE THERE IS A CLEAVAGE OF O PINION BETWEEN DIFFERENT HIGH COURTS ON AN ISSUE, THE ONE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE NEEDS T O BE FOLLOWED. IT HAS SO BEEN HELD BY THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUC TS LTD., 88 ITR 192 (SC). IT IS ALSO NOT A CASE WHERE THE DECISION AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN SHRI FAREHRAJ S IN GHVI AND OTHERS (SUPRA) IT HAS BEEN HELD, INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS: 22. IT IS HARDLY REQ UIRED TO BE STATED THAT, AS PER THE WELL ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLES OF INTERPRETATION OF STATUTE , UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY PROVIDED OR IMPLIEDLY DEMONSTRATED, ANY PROVISION OF STATUTE IS TO BE READ AS HAVING PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND NOT RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, WE FIND THAT SUBSTITUTION MADE BY CLAUSE (C) TO (F) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 200A C AN BE READ AS HAVING PROSPECTIVE EFFECT AND NOT HAVING RETROACTIVE CHARACTER OR EFFECT. RES ULTANTLY, THE DEMAND UNDER SECTION 200A FOR COMPUTATION AND INTIMATION FOR THE PAYMENT OFFE E UNDER SECTION 234E COULD NOT BE MADE IN PURPORTED EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 2 00A BY THE RESPONDENT FOR THE PERIOD OF THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR PRIOR TO 1 .6.201 5. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT, IF ANY DEDUCTOR HAS ALREADY PAID THE FEE AFTER INTIMAT ION RECEIVED UNDER SECTION 200A, THE AFORESAID VIEW WILL NOT PERMIT THE DEDUCTOR TO REOP EN THE SAID QUESTION UNLESS HE HAS MADE PAYMENT UNDER PROTEST. 6. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING SHRI FATEHRAJ ITA NOS.2344-2355/CHNY/2018 :- 5 -: SINGHVI AND OTHERS (SUPRA), SIBIA HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. VS. DCIT (TDS), ORDER DATED 09.06.2015 PASSED IN JTA NO.90/ASR/20]5, FOR A.Y.20]3- 14, BY THE AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, AND SHRI KAUR CHAND JAM VS. DGJT, CPC ( TDS.) GHAZIABAD, ORDER DATED 15.09.2016, IN ITA NO.378/ASR/2015, FOR A.Y. 2012-13 , THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTED AS JUSTIFIED. THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL IS RE VERSED. THE LEVY OF THE FEE IS CANCELLED. 11. IN THE ABOVE VIEW, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING SHRI FATEHRAJ SINGHVI AND ORS(289 CTR 602), SIBIA HEALTHCARE PVT LTD., VS.DCIT(ITA NO.90/ASR/201 5), SHRI KAUR CHAND JAIN VS.DCIT(ITA NO.378/ASR/2015) AND OUR OWN FINDING IN THE CASE OF S UDERSHAN GOYAL (ITA NO.442/AGRA/2017 DT.9.4.2018), WE ACCEPT THE GRIEVAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE AS GENUINE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE REVERSED A ND THE FEE SO LEVIED U/S.234E OF THE ACT IS CANCELLED. IN OUR VIEW, THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IS MORE REASONED ONE SINCE IT FOLLOWED THE SALUTARY PR INCIPLE OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SRINIVASA SETTY (B.C.) (1981) 128 ITR 294 THAT NO TAX CAN BE LEVIED IN TH E ABSENCE OF ANY COMPUTATION PROVISIONS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF TH E JUDGMENT IS AS UNDER: ..THIS INFERENCE FLOWS FROM THE GENERAL ARRANG EMENT OF THE PROVISIONS IN THE INCOME-TAX ACT, WHERE UNDER EACH HEAD OF INCOME THE CHARGING PROVISION IS ACCOMPANIED BY A SET OF PROVISIONS FOR COMPUTING THE INCOME SUB JECT TO THAT CHARGE. THE CHARACTER OF THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS IN EACH CASE BEARS A RELATIO NSHIP TO THE NATURE OF THE CHARGE. THUS, THE CHARGING SECTION AND THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS TOGETHER CONSTITUTE AN INTEGRATED CODE. WHEN THERE IS A CASE TO WHICH THE COMPUTATION PROVISIONS CANNOT APPLY AT ALL, IT IS EVIDENT THAT SUCH A CASE WAS NOT INTENDED TO FALL W ITHIN THE CHARGING SECTION. OTHERWISE ONE WOULD BE DRIVEN TO CONCLUDE THAT WHILE A CERTAIN IN COME SEEMS TO FALL WITHIN THE CHARGING SECTION, THERE IS NO SCHEME OF COMPUTATION FOR QUAN TIFYING IT. THE LEGISLATIVE PATTERN DISCERNIBLE IN THE ACT IS AGAINST SUCH A CONCLUSION . IT MUST BE BORNE IN MIND THAT THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT IS PRESUMED TO RUN UNIFORMLY THR OUGH THE ENTIRE CONSPECTUS OF PROVISIONS PERTAINING TO EACH HEAD OF INCOME. NO DOUBT THERE I S A QUALITATIVE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE CHARGING PROVISION AND A COMPUTATION PROVISION. AND ORDINARILY THE OPERATION OF THE CHARGING PROVISION CANNOT BE AFFECTED BY THE CONSTR UCTION OF A PARTICULAR COMPUTATION PROVISION. BUT THE QUESTION HERE IS WHETHER IT IS P OSSIBLE TO APPLY THE COMPUTATION PROVISION AT ALL IF A CERTAIN INTERPRETATION IS PRESSED ON TH E CHARGING PROVISION. THAT PERTAINS TO THE FUNDAMENTAL INTEGRITY OF THE STATUTORY SCHEME PROVI DED FOR EACH HEAD. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.234E WERE INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.06.2015 AND THE PROVISIONS ARE IN THE NAT URE OF BOTH COMPUTATION AS WELL AS CHARGING. IN THE ABSENCE OF THESE PROVISIONS DURING THE PERIOD UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.C.SRINIV ASA SETTY (SUPRA), NO FEES CAN BE LEVIED U/S.234E RETROSPECTIVELY. THE DE CISION OF THE COORDINATE ITA NOS.2344-2355/CHNY/2018 :- 6 -: BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF G.INDHIRANI A S CITED SUPRA IS IN CONFORMITY TO THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF B.C.SRINIVASA SETTY. HENCE, WE PREFER TO F OLLOW THE DECISION OF COORDINATE BENCH TO THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF RAJESH KOURANI (SUPRA). THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE ALLOW THE APPEALS FILED BY THE TRUST. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE APPELLA NT ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 2 ND DAY OF JANUARY, 2019 IN CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ) (GEORGE MATHAN) /JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) ( INTURI RAMA RAO ) /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /CHENNAI, 3 /DATED: 2 ND JANUARY, 2019. TLN ) +45 65 /COPY TO: 1. ( /APPELLANT 4. 7 /CIT 2. +,( /RESPONDENT 5. 5 + /DR 3. 7 ( ) /CIT(A) 6. /GF