ITO Ward 2(1), Salem V. S-1140 Sarkar Kollapatty PACCS Ltd., Salem

ITA 2366/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5614 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 26-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B SAGADEVAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER ] ./I.T.A. NO. 2366/MDS/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(1) SALEM VS. M/S. S-1140 SARKAR KOLLAPATTY PACCS LTD, SARKAR KOLLAPATTY P.O. SALEM 636 030. [PAN AADTS 5683A] ( '# / APPELLANT) ( $%'# /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. B. SAGADEVAN, IRS, JCIT. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 12-12-2017 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19-12-2017 & / O R D E R IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH IS DIR ECTED AGAINST AN ORDER DATED 31.07.2017 OF LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), SALEM, IT IS AGGRIEVED THAT THE LD. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLA IMING DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 2 -: 2. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSE SSEE WAS RECEIVING INTEREST FROM VARIOUS CLASSES OF MEMB ERS, WHICH INCLUDED RESIDENT MEMBERS AND NOMINAL MEMBERS. AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, TERM MEMBER INCLUD ED ONLY A SHARE HOLDING MEMBER AS PER THE TAMIL NADU CO-OPERATIVE S OCIETIES ACT, 1983. SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTA TIVE WAS THAT AUDITOR OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY DISCLOSED ONLY SUCH SHARE HOLDING MEMBERS AS MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. AS PE R THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ASSOCIATE MEMBER COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS A MEMBER. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, ASSOCIATE MEMBERS WERE NOT ENTITLED TO RECEIVE DIVIDEND NOR ENTITLED TO PARTICIPATE IN THE GENERAL ADMINISTRATION OF THE SOCIETY. FURTHER, AS PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SUCH MEMBERS WERE NOT HAVING ANY VOTING RIGHT AND THEY W ERE ADMITTED ONLY FOR AVAILING LOAN FACILITY FROM THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, INTEREST EARNED ON LOANS GIVEN B Y THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I ) OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE JUDGMENT OF APEX COURT IN THE C ASE OF THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD VS. ACIT, (CIVIL APPEAL N O.10245 OF 2017, DATED 8.8.2017 ). 3. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 3 -: LTD (SUPRA) WAS CONSIDERING THE APPLICABILITY OF SEC. 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT ON A SOCIETY WHICH HAD CARVED ON A CATEGO RY OF MEMBERS KNOWN AS A NOMINAL MEMBERS. AS PER THE LD. AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, MEMBERS W HO PAID INTEREST TO THE ASSESSEE WERE ASSOCIATE MEMBERS AND NOT NOMINAL MEMBERS. FURTHER, ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE CASE BEFORE HON BLE APEX COURT, NOMINAL MEMBERS WERE PLACING DEPOSITS WITH THE SOCI ETY. HERE THE MEMBERS WERE GIVEN LOANS BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. LD. COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD HELD ASSESSEE TO BE ELIGIBLE FOR DEDU CTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT RELYING ON THE DECISIO N OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF M/S. SL(SPL) 151, KARKUDALPATTY PRIMARY AGRICULTURAL CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY LTD VS. IT O (ITA NO.292/MDS/2014, DATED 17.03.2014 ). HOWEVER, THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF THE CITIZEN CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (SUPRA), WHERE THE SOCIETY WAS ONE REGISTERED U/S.5 OF ANDH RA PRADESH MUTUALLY AIDED CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES ACT, 1995, H AD ADJUDICATED ON THE ISSUE WHETHER CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, HAVING TRANSACTIONS WITH NOMINAL MEMBERS, WOULD BE ELIGIBLE FOR CLAIMING DED UCTION UNDER ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 4 -: SECTION 80P(2)(A) (I) OF THE ACT. THEIR LORDSHIP HA D HELD AS UNDER AT PARAS 17 TO 27 OF THE JUDGMENT. 17) WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNS EL FOR THE PARTIES WITH REFERENCE TO THE RECORD OF THI S CASE. 18) WE MAY MENTION AT THE OUTSET THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY DISPUTE TO THE PROPOSITION THAT SECTION 80P OF THE ACT IS A BENEVOLENT PROVISION WHICH IS ENACTED BY THE PARLIA MENT IN ORDER TO ENCOURAGE AND PROMOTE GROWTH OF CO-OPERATI VE SECTOR IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY. IT WAS DONE PURSUANT TO DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THER EFORE, SUCH A PROVISION HAS TO BE READ LIBERALLY, REASONAB LY AND IN FAVOR OF THE ASSESSEE (SEE BAJAJ TEMPO LIMITED, BOMBAY V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY CITY-I II, BOMBAY3). IT IS ALSO TRITE THAT SUCH A PROVISION HA S TO BE CONSTRUED AS TO EFFECTUATE THE OBJECT OF THE LEGISL ATURE AND NOT TO DEFEAT IT (SEE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BOMBAY & ORS. V. MAHINDRA AND MAHINDRA LIMITED & ORS.4). THEREFORE, IT HARDLY NEEDS TO BE EMPHASIZED THAT ALL THOSE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES WHICH FALL WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT ARE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF ANY INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (2) THEREO F. CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2) GIVES EXEMPTION OF WHOLE OF THE AMOUNT OF PROFITS AND GAINS OF BUSINESS ATTRIBUTABL E TO ANYONE OR MORE OF SUCH ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE MENTION ED IN SUB-SECTION (2). 19) SINCE WE ARE CONCERNED HERE WITH SUB-SECTION (I ) OF CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (2), IT RECOGNIZES TWO KI NDS OF CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NAMELY: (I) THOSE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND; (II) THOSE PROVIDING CREDI T FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. 20) IN THE CASE OF KERALA STATE COOPERATIVE MARKET ING FEDERATION LIMITED & ORS. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX5, THIS COURT, WHILE DEALING WITH CLASSES OF SOC IETIES COVERED BY SECTION 80P OF THE ACT, HELD AS FOLLOWS: 6. THE CLASSES OF SOCIETIES COVERED BY SECTION 80- P OF THE ACT ARE AS FOLLOWS: (A) ENGAGED IN BUSINES S OF BANKING AND PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS; XX XX XX ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 5 -: 7. WE MAY NOTICE THAT THE PROVISION IS INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING GROWTH OF COOPERATIVE SECTOR IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY AND IN PURSUANCE OF THE DECLARED POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE CORRECT WAY OF READING THE DIFFERENT HEADS OF EXEMPTION ENUMERATED IN THE SECTION WOULD BE TO TREAT EACH AS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT HEAD OF EXEMPTION. WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF AN INCOME OF A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT FROM TAX WHAT HAS TO BE SEEN IS WHETHER INCOME FELL WITHIN ANY OF THE SEVERAL HEADS OF EXEMPTION. IF IT FELL WITHIN ANY ONE HEAD OF EXEMPTION, IT WOULD BE FREE FROM TAX NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE CONDITIONS OF ANOTHER HEAD OF EXEMPTION ARE NOT SATISFIED AND SUCH INCOME IS NOT FREE FROM TAX UNDER THAT HEAD OF EXEMPTION... 21) IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. PU NJAB STATE CO-OPERATIVE BANK LTD.6, WHILE DEALING WITH A N IDENTICAL ISSUE, THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYA NA HELD AS FOLLOWS: 8. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P WERE INTRODUCED WITH A VIEW TO ENCOURAGING AND PROMOTING THE GROWTH OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SECTOR IN THE ECONOMIC LIFE OF THE COUNTRY AND IN PURSUANCE OF THE DECLARE D POLICY OF THE GOVERNMENT. THE DIFFERENT HEADS OF EXEMPTION ENUMERATED IN THE SECTION ARE SEPARATE AND DISTINCT HEADS OF EXEMPTION AND ARE TO BE TREATED AS SUCH. WHENEVER A QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHETHER ANY PARTICULAR CATEGORY OF AN INCOME OF A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY IS EXEMPT FROM TAX, THEN IT HA S TO BE SEEN WHETHER SUCH INCOME FELL WITHIN ANY OF THE SEVERAL HEADS OF EXEMPTION. IF IT FELL WITHIN A NY ONE HEAD OF EXEMPTION,.... IT MEANS THAT A CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY ENGAGED IN CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING AND A CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS WILL BE ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION UNDER THIS SUB-CLAUSE. THE CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF BANKING BY A COOPERATIVE SOCIETY OR PROVIDING CREDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS ARE TWO DIFFERENT TYPES OF ACTIVITIES WHICH ARE COVERED UNDER THIS SUB-CLAUSE. ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 6 -: XX XX XX 13. SO, IN OUR VIEW, IF THE INCOME OF A SOCIETY IS FALLING WITHIN ANY ONE HEAD OF EXEMPTION, IT HAS TO BE EXEMPTED FROM TAX NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE CONDITION OF OTHER HEADS OF EXEMPTION ARE NOT SATISFIED. A READING OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 8 0P OF THE ACT WOULD INDICATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE EXEMPTION UNDER THE SAID PROVISIONS IS SOUGHT TO BE EXTENDED. WHENEVER THE LEGISLATURE WANTED TO RESTRICT THE EXEMPTION TO A PRIMARY CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY, IT WAS SO MADE CLEAR AS IS EVIDENT FROM CLAUSE (F) WITH REFERENCE TO A MILK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY THAT A PRIMARY SOCIETY ENGAGED IN SUPPLYING MILK IS ENTITLED TO SUCH EXEMPTION WHILE DENYING TH E SAME TO A FEDERAL MILK CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. 22) THE AFORESAID JUDGMENT OF THE HIGH COURT CORREC TLY ANALYSES THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT A ND IT IS IN TUNE WITH THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN KERALA S TATE COOPERATIVE MARKETING FEDERATION LIMITED (SUPRA). 23) WITH THE INSERTION OF SUB-SECTION (4) BY THE F INANCE ACT, 2006, WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A PROVISO TO T HE AFORESAID PROVISION, IT IS MADE CLEAR THAT SUCH A D EDUCTION SHALL NOT BE ADMISSIBLE TO A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. HOW EVER, IF IT IS A PRIMARY AGRICULTURE CREDIT SOCIETY OR A PRI MARY CO- OPERATIVE AGRICULTURE AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, T HE DEDUCTION WOULD STILL BE PROVIDED. THUS, CO-OPERATI VE BANKS ARE NOW SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED FROM THE AMBIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT. 24) UNDOUBTEDLY, IF ONE HAS TO GO BY THE AFORESAID DEFINITION OF CO-OPERATIVE BANK, THE APPELLANT DO ES NOT GET COVERED THEREBY. IT IS ALSO A MATTER OF COMMON KNOW LEDGE THAT IN ORDER TO DO THE BUSINESS OF A CO-OPERATIVE BANK, IT IS IMPERATIVE TO HAVE A LICENSE FROM THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA, WHICH THE APPELLANT DOES NOT POSSESS. NOT ON LY THIS, AS NOTICED ABOVE, THE RESERVE BANK OF INDIA HAS ITS ELF CLARIFIED THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT DOES N OT AMOUNT TO THAT OF A CO-OPERATIVE BANK. THE APPELLANT, THER EFORE, ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 7 -: WOULD NOT COME WITHIN THE MISCHIEF OF SUB-SECTION ( 4) OF SECTION 80P. 25) SO FAR SO GOOD. HOWEVER, IT IS SIGNIFICANT TO P OINT OUT THAT THE MAIN REASON FOR DIS ENTITLING THE APPELLAN T FROM GETTING THE DEDUCTION PROVIDED UNDER SECTION 80P OF THE ACT IS NOT SUB-SECTION (4) THEREOF. WHAT HAS BEEN N OTICED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AFTER DISCUSSING IN DETAI L THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT, IS THAT THE ACTIVITIES OF THE APPELLANT ARE IN VIOLATIONS OF THE PROVISIONS OF TH E MACSA UNDER WHICH IT IS FORMED. IT IS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CATERING TO TWO DISTIN CT CATEGORIES OF PEOPLE. THE FIRST CATEGORY IS THAT OF RESIDENT MEMBERS OR ORDINARY MEMBERS. THERE MAY NOT BE ANY DIFFICULTY AS FAR AS THIS CATEGORY IS CONCERNED. HO WEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD CARVED OUT ANOTHER CATEGORY OF NOMINA L MEMBERS. THESE ARE THOSE MEMBERS WHO ARE MAKING DEPOSITS WITH THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF OBTAI NING LOANS, ETC. AND, IN FACT, THEY ARE NOT MEMBERS IN R EAL SENSE. MOST OF THE BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT WAS WI TH THIS SECOND CATEGORY OF PERSONS WHO HAVE BEEN GIVING DEPOSITS WHICH ARE KEPT IN FIXED DEPOSITS WITH A MO TIVE TO EARN MAXIMUM RETURNS. A PORTION OF THESE DEPOSITS I S UTILIZED TO ADVANCE GOLD LOANS, ETC. TO THE MEMBERS OF THE FIRST CATEGORY. IT IS FOUND, AS A MATTER OF FACT, T HAT HE DEPOSITORS AND BORROWERS ARE QUIET DISTINCT. IN REA LITY, SUCH ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT OF FINANCE BUSINE SS AND CANNOT BE TERMED AS CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY. IT IS ALS O FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE ACTIVITY OF GR ANTING LOANS TO GENERAL PUBLIC AS WELL. ALL THIS IS DONE W ITHOUT ANY APPROVAL FROM THE REGISTRAR OF THE SOCIETIES. WITH INDULGENCE IN SUCH KIND OF ACTIVITY BY THE APPELLAN T, IT IS REMARKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ACTIVITY OF THE APPELLANT IS IN VIOLATION OF THE CO-OPERATIVE SOCIE TIES ACT. MOREOVER, IT IS A CO-OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY WHICH IS NOT ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT. 26) IT IS IN THIS BACKGROUND, A SPECIFIC FINDING I S ALSO RENDERED THAT THE PRINCIPLE OF MUTUALITY IS MISSING IN THE INSTANT CASE. THOUGH THERE IS A DETAILED DISCUSSION IN THIS BEHALF IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, OUR P URPOSE WOULD BE SERVED BY TAKING NOTE OF THE FOLLOWING POR TION OF THE DISCUSSION: ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 8 -: AS VARIOUS COURTS HAVE OBSERVED THAT THE FOLLOWING THREE CONDITIONS MUST EXIST BEFORE AN ACTIVITY COUL D BE BROUGHT UNDER THE CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY; THAT NO PERSON CAN EARN FROM HIM; THAT THERE A PROFIT MOTIVATION; AND THAT THERE IS NO SHARING OF PROFIT. IT IS NOTICED THAT THE FUND INVESTED WITH BANK WHIC H ARE NOT MEMBER OF ASSOCIATION WELFARE FUND, AND THE INTEREST HAS BEEN EARNED ON SUCH INVESTMENT FOR EXAMPLE, ING MUTUAL FUND [AS SAID BY THE MD VIDE HIS STATEMENT DATED 20.12.2010]. [THOUGH THE BANK FORMED THE THIRD PARTY VIS-A-VIS THE ASSESSEE ENTITLED BETWEEN CONTRIBUTOR AND RECIPIENT IS LOST IN SUCH CASE. THE OTHER INGREDIENTS OF MUTUALITY ARE ALSO FOUND TO BE MISSING AS DISCUSSED IN FURTHER PARAGRAPHS]. IN THE PRESENT CASE BOTH THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION ARE THE CONTRIBUTORS TOWARDS SURPLUS, HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO PARTICIPATORS IN THE SURPLUSES. THERE IS NO COMMON CONSENT OF WHATSOEVER FOR PARTICIPATORS AS THEIR IDENTITY IS N OT ESTABLISHED. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILS TO SATISFY T HE TEST OF MUTUALITY AT THE TIME OF MAKING THE PAYMENT S THE NUMBER IN REFERRED AS MEMBERS MAY NOT BE THE MEMBER OF THE SOCIETY AS SUCH THE AOP BODY BY THE SOCIETY IS NOT COVERED BY CONCEPT OF MUTUALITY AT ALL. 27) THESE ARE THE FINDINGS OF FACT WHICH HAVE REMAI NED UNSHAKEN TILL THE STAGE OF THE HIGH COURT. ONCE WE KEEP THE AFORESAID ASPECTS IN MIND, THE CONCLUSION IS OB VIOUS, NAMELY, THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS A CO-OPE RATIVE SOCIETY MEANT ONLY FOR ITS MEMBERS AND PROVIDING CR EDIT FACILITIES TO ITS MEMBERS. WE ARE AFRAID SUCH A SOC IETY CANNOT CLAIM THE BENEFIT OF SECTION 80P OF THE ACT . BOTH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), WHILE DECIDING THE QUESTION OF GRANTING DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 80P(2)(A) (I) OF THE ACT DI D NOT HAVE THE BENEFIT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE APEX COURT MEN TIONED SUPRA AND ITA NO. 2366/MDS/2017 :- 9 -: HOW FAR THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT WAS A PPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE ISSUE WHETHER ASSESSEE W AS ELIGIBLE FOR DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT REQUIRES A FR ESH LOOK BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. I SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LO WER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE QUESTION WHETHER ASSESSEE WAS ELIGIBLE FO R DEDUCTION U/S.80P(2)(A)(I) OF THE ACT BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON TUESDAY, THE 19TH DAY OF DEC EMBER, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED: 19TH DECEMBER, 2017 KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF