L/H. of Dr. B. Sivanthi Adityan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2545/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4858 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 19-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-08-2016
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PARASHIVAIAH
• Assessee Lawyers: K R ADIVARAHAN
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Capital asset; Salary income; Fair market value; Competent authority; Revised return
• Section: 50C

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : CHENNAI , ! ' . #$ % &' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.2545/MDS./2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 LEGAL HEIR OF DR.B.SIVANTHI ADITYAN, 6, E.V.K.SAMPATH ROAD, VEPERY, CHENNAI 600 007. VS. THE DCIT, CORPORATE CIRCLE 6(2), CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN AAMPA 7576 R ] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.K.R.ADIVARAHAN, C.A /RESPONDENT BY : MR.PARASHIVAIAH, CIT, D.R / DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 03 - 201 7 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 19 - 04 - 2017 , / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-15, CHENNA I DATED 27.06.2016 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS FOR OUR CONSIDERATION. 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPE ALS 15 IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 15 HAD ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143 (3) READ WITH SEC147 W HEN THE NOTICE WAS SERVED TO THE ASSESSEE BEYOND THE STATUT ORY DATE OF 31ST MARCH,2014. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 15 HAD ER RED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(47)(V) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT AND PROVISIONS OF SEC 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WHILE COMPUTING THE VALUE OF LAND. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 15 HAD ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE VALUE OF RS3,639 PER SQ FT ON HER OW N INSTEAD OF REFERRING THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION OFFICER WHO I S THE COMPETENT AUTHORITY TO VALUE THE PROPERTY AS PER PROVISIONS O F SECTION 50C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 5. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 15 HAD ER RED IN CONFIRMING THE VALUE OF RS 3,639 PER SQ.FT WHICH AL SO INCLUDED THE VALUE OF BUILDING. IN THE APPELLANTS CASE HE HAD S OLD ONLY VACANT LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 60% OF HIS PROPERTY. 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 15 HAD AL SO ERRED IN NOT RECORDING THE FACT THAT IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTIES TO THE SAME TRANSACTION, THEY WERE ALL ASSESSED TO CAPITAL GAIN S TAX FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-2008 AND THEIR TAX ASSESSMENTS HAVE REACHED FINALITY. 7. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEALS 15 HAD ER RED IN OBSERVING IN HER ORDER THAT THE VALUE OF RS 3,639 P ER SQFT FORMS PART OF THE AGREEMENT WHICH IS NOT TRUE. 8. FOR THESE AND OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE RAISED A T THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEAL MAY BE ALLOWED AND JUSTICE DONE. ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 3 -: 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THE APPEALS, THE GROUND NO.1 BEING TOO GENERAL AND GROUND NO.2 ARE NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. A.R. ACCORDINGLY THESE TWO GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 4. GROUND NOS. 3 TO 4 IS WITH REGARD TO ADOPTION O F VALUE MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED IN TERMS OF SEC.50C OF T HE ACT. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, WHO HAD INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PROPERTY, BUSINES S, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD.A. R IS THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION 2(47)(V) AND SEC.50C OF THE ACT. IN THE AREA IDENTI FICATION AGREEMENT DATED 30 TH MAY, 2007, THE SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA WAS IDENTIFI ED BYTHE PARTIES ARE INDICATED BELOW: CAMPUS SALEABLE BUILT UP AREA (IN SQ.FT.) OWNERS SHARE DEVELOPERS SHARE CAMPUS 2 363585 -- CAMPUS 3A -- 248070 CAMPUS 3B -- 253180 CAMPUS 4A -- 273095 CAMPUS 4B -- 208295 CAMPUS 5 324715 -- CONCOURSE - 46695 TOTAL 688300 1029335 HOWEVER, AGAINST THE ENTITLEMENT OF 1030581 SQ. FT. OF THE BUILT UP AREA (60%), THE DEVELOPER WAS ALLOTTED ONLY AN ARE A OF 1029335 SQ. FT. OF AREA RESULTING IN A SHORT FALL OF 1246 SQ. F T. OF BUILT UP AREA WHICH ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 4 -: WORKED OUT TO 0.07% OF THE TOTAL BUILT UP AREA. FOR THE SHORTFALL IN THE BUILT UP AREA, THE OWNERS AGREED TO COMPENSATE THE DEVELOPER AT THE PREVAILING MARKET RATE/SQ. FT. RATE OF SALEABLE BUI LT UP AREA AND CORRESPONDING UNDIVIDED INTEREST HOWEVER NOT BELOW RS.3500 PER SQ. FT SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA. FROM THE ABOVE AGREEMENT, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED OR ACCRUING ON THIS TRANSFER OF 60% OF LAND BY THE OWNERS IN LIEU OF 40% OF SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA WOR KED OUT TO RS. 3639 PER SQ.FT AS INDICATED IN THE ANNEXURE AS AGAINST THE R ATE OF RS. 335 PER SQ FT ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS, IN THE RETURN O F INCOME FOR THE AY 2007-08. THE FAIR MARKET VALUE OF THE LAND WORKS OU T TO RS.3639 PER SQ.FT. THIS APPROACH TO FIND THE FAIR MARKET VALUE AS A FU LL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION U/S.48 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, HOLDS GOOD FOR ASST. YEAR 2007-08 ALSO. IT IS IMPORTANT T O NOTE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPROACHED THE VALUATION BASED ON AREA IDENTIFICATION AGREEMENT DATED 30.05.2007 THAT PERTAINS TO ASST. YEAR 2008-0 9. BUT FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING CAPITAL GAIN WHICH IS AS PER EARLIER DISC USSION, WHICH WAS SUGGESTED BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HIMSELF , IS BASED ON GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY I.E. ON 12.05.2006. SO, WHEN THE CAPITAL GAIN DATE IS TAKEN FROM GPA I.E. ASST. YEAR 2007-08, BUT FOR THE RIGHT CAPITAL GAIN, AREA IDENTIFICATION AGREEMENT DATED 30.05.2007, I.E.2008 -09, IS TAKEN UP AS AN EVIDENCE. FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAW, TIMING OF AN EVEN T IS IMPORTANT FOR THE EVALUATION, IMPACT OF EVENT CAN BE BASED ON EVIDENC ES WHICH ARE ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 5 -: SUBSEQUENT TO THE EVENTS ALSO. IN THE CONTEXT OF AB OVE DISCUSSION, CAPITAL GAINS OF THE PROPERTY ABOVE IS COMPUTED AS FOLLOWS: 5.1 CAPITAL GAIN CALCULATION BY THE VIRTUE OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT ENTERED INTO ON 25TH DECEMBER, 2004, THE APPELLANT, SHRI B S ADITYAN ALO NG WITH M/S. GAY TRAVELS LTD., M/S.V.M.D. ENTERPRISES, MR. BALASUBRAMANIA AD ITYAN AND MRS. JAYANTHI NATARAJAN GRANTED GENERAL POWER OF ATTORNEY IN FAVO R OF MIS. RMZ INFOTEC PVT LTD. ON 12.05.2006 TO DEVELOP THE PROPERTY AT P ERUNGUDI VILLAGE, TAMABARAM TALUK, KANCHIPURAM, CHENNAI, ADMEASURING AN EXTENT OF 15.17 ACRES I.E., 660805 SQ.FT. UNDER THE DEVELOPMENT AGR EEMENT, M/S RMZ INFOTECH PVT. LTD. HAD UNDERTAKEN TO CONSTRUCT AND DELIVER JOINTLY TO THE SAID FIVE ENTITIES 40% OF SALEABLE BUILT UP AREA IN EXCL USIVE BLOCKS OF BUILDING IN CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID FIVE ENTITIES UNDERTAKING TO CONVEY TO RMZ INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 60% UNDIVIDED INTEREST IN THE SCHEDULED P ROPERTY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SAID FIVE ENTITIES AND RMZ INFOTECH WERE ENTITL ED IN TERMS OF THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT TO THE SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA COMPRISED IN THE PROJECT TOGETHER WITH PROPORTIONATE UNDIVIDED INTER EST IN THE SCHEDULED PROPERTY, AVAILABLE CAR PARKING SPACES, PERMITTED T ERRACE GARDEN AREAS AND OTHER OPEN SPACES IN THE RATIO OF 40%:6O% RESPECTIV ELY. NO CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OR RECEIVED UNDER THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. A N AREA SHARING AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 3 1ST DAY OF JANUARY 2008. THE TOTAL ENTITLEMENT OF THE OWNERS OF THE LA ND WAS 40% UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND EQUIVALENT TO 264711 SQ.FT. FROM A TO TAL LAND EXTENT ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 6 -: ADMEASURING A TOTAL EXTENT OF 15.17 ACRES TOGETHER WITH SALEABLE BUILT UP AREA MEASURING EXTENT OF 365585 SQ. FT. IN CAMPUS 2 AND A SALEABLE BUILT UP AREA OF 324715 SQ. FT. IN CAMPUS 5 IN ALL TOTALLING AN EXTENT OF 688300 SQ. FT. IN THE BUILDING RMZ MILLENIA BUSINESS PARL ALONG WITH 67 OPEN CAR PARK AND 976 COVERED CAR PARKS. THE DEVELOPERS 60% SHARE O F LAND WAS ACTUALLY CONVEYED BY WAY OF REGISTERED SALE DEEDS ONLY ON 4 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 AND 26 TH OCTOBER, 2009. THE ASSESSEE AND THE OWNERS OF THE LAND CONSIDERED THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO THE DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT, PO A AS THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY AND DISCLOSED THE CAPIT AL GAINS ACCRUING ON THIS TRANSFER BASED ON THE GUIDELINE VALUE OF RS.35 PER SQ. FT. AS OBTAINED FROM THE RECORDS OF REGISTRATION DEPARTMENT OF GOVT. OF TAMILNADU. 5.2 IN THE REVISED RETURN FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08, THE ASSESSEE HAD COMPUTED HIS SHARTE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS AS FOLLOWS:- 60% OF AREA = 90779 SQ.FT. (151292 SQ. FT.) GUIDELINE VALUE OF 60% SHARE (90779 SQ. FT. X RS.33 5) = 3,03,10,965 LESS: PURCHASE VALUE OF 60% SHARE(14270853 @ 60%) = 85,62,512 PROFIT ON SALE OF 60% SHARE OF LAND = ` 2,18,48,453/- 5.3 IN THIS CASE, AS THE PROPERTY WAS NOT ASSESSED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY EITHER ON THE DATE OF ENTERING INTO THE D EVELOPMENT AGREEMENT OR ON THE DATE OF POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 50C ARE NOT APPLICABLE. FURTHER, 50C IS APPLICABLE, IF ONLY, TH E ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED LESSER ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 7 -: VALUE OF CONSIDERATION WHEN COMPARED WITH RATE ADOP TED BY THE STAMP VALUATION AUTHORITY. SINCE, THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAYABLE BY WAY OF EXCHANGE OF 40% OF THE BUILT-UP AREA, THE GUIDELINE VALUE CANNOT BE DEEMED AS THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE AMOUNT OF CAPITAL GAIN PURSUANT TO TR ANSFER OF CAPITAL ASSET, FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE AVAILABLE. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF CIT V. GEORGE HENDERS ON & CO.LTD.66 ITR 622 AND CIT V. GILLANDERS ARBUTHNOT & CO. 87 ITR 40 7 THAT FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN USED IN THE LAW FOR THE REAS ONS THAT LAW DOES NOT DEAL ONLY WITH CASE OF SALE IN WHICH CASE CONSIDERA TION IN MONEY WOULD BE AVAILABLE. IN THE AREA IDENTIFICATION AGREEMENT DAT ED 30TH MAY 2007, THE SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA WAS IDENTIFIED BY THE PARTIE S AS INDICATED BELOW:- CAMPUS SALEABLE BUILT UP AREA (IN SQ.FT.) OWNERS SHARE DEVELOPERS SHARE CAMPUS 2 363585 -- CAMPUS 3A -- 248070 CAMPUS 3B -- 253180 CAMPUS 4A -- 273095 CAMPUS 4B -- 208295 CAMPUS 5 324715 -- CONCOURSE - 46695 TOTAL 688300 1029335 HOWEVER, AGAINST THE ENTITLEMENT OF 1030581 SQ.FT. OF THE BUILT UP AREA(60%), DEVELOPER WAS ALLOTTED ONLY AN AREA OF 1 029335 SQ.FT OF AREA RESULTING IN A SHORT FALL OF 1246 SQ. FT. OF BUILT- UP AREA WHICH WORKED OUT TO 0.07% OF THE TOTAL BUILT-UP AREA. FOR THE SHORTFALL IN THE BUILT UP AREA, THE ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 8 -: OWNERS AGREED TO COMPENSATE THE DEVELOPER AT THE PR EVAILING MARKET RATE/SQ FEET RATE OF SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA AND CORRESPONDI NG UNDIVIDED INTEREST HOWEVER NOT BELOW RS. 3500 PER SQ.FT. OF SALEABLE B UILT UP AREA. FROM THE ABOVE AGREEMENT, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION RE CEIVED OR ACCRUING ON THIS TRANSFER OF 60% OF LAND BY THE OWNERS IN LIEU OF 40 % OF SALEABLE BUILT-UP AREA WORKED OUT TO RS. 3639 PER SQ.FT. AS INDICATED IN THE ANNEXURE AS AGAINST THE RATE OF RS. 335 PER SQ FT ADOPTED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND OTHERS, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007- 08. 5.4 HENCE CONSIDERATION OF THE RATE OF RS. 3639 PE R SQ.FT., IN RESPECT OF THE 60% OF THE LAND TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE WIL L RESULT IN AN ADDITIONAL CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.29,99,33,816/- AS SHOWN BELOW: NAME OF THE OWNER TOTAL AREA OF THE LAND IN SQ. FT. 60% OF THE AREA OF LAND TRANSFERRED FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ACCRUED AT RS. 3639 PER SQ. FT. CONSIDERATION OFFERED BY THE OWNERS TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CAPITAL GAIN ESCAPING ASSESSMENT DR.B.S.ADITYAN 151292 90779 330344781 30410965 299933816 IN OTHER WORDS, BASED ON THE COST OF THE BUILT-UP A REA OF UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND) RECEIVED BY THE SSESSEES (THE OWNERS ESCAPIN G ASSESSMENT WOULD BE AS UNDER: NAME OF THE OWNER 60% OF THE AREA OF LAND TRANSFERRED 40% OF THE BUILT UP AREA RECEIVED IN EXCHANGE FU LL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION ACCRUED AT RS. 2100 PER SQ. FT.(COST OF CONSTRUCTION) CONSIDERATION OFFERED BY THE OWNERS TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME CAPITAL GAIN ESCAPING ASSESSMENT DR.B.S.ADITYAN 90779 157345 330424500 30410965 300013535 ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 9 -: SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF LAND SALE CONSIDERATION 33,04,24,500 LESS: PURCHASE VALUE 60% OF RS.1,42,70,853/- 85,6 2,512 SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN 32,18,61,988 LESS : STCG ALREADY OFFERED IN THE REVISED RETURN OF INC OME 2,18,48,453 ADDITION IN STCG RS.30,00, 13,535 6. NOW, THE CONTENTION OF THE LD.A.R IS THAT SEC.5 0C(2) OF THE ACT IS A BENEFICIAL PROVISION AND WHENEVER THE ASSESSEE IS OBJECTED THE GUIDE LINE VALUE (GLV) MENTIONED IN THE SALE DEED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADOPTING THE SALE CONSIDERATION, IT IS REQUIRED TO REFER THE MATTER TO THE DVO TO ASCERTAIN THE FAIR MARKET VALUE (FMV) AS ON THE DATE OF TRANSFER, WHICH WAS NOT CONSIDERED BY THE AO AND RE QUESTED THAT THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH A DIRECTION TO REFER THE MATTER TO DVO AND THE LD.A.R HAS NOT PRESSED AN Y OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R RELIED ON THE ORDER O F LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 10 - : 8. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN OUR OPINION, GLV CANNOT BE CONSIDERED A S FMV OF THE CAPITAL ASSETS SAID TO BE TRANSFERRED AND IT IS ONL Y A VALUE FIXED BY THE STATE AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF REGISTRATION. FU RTHER, WE ALSO MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE DVO/AO HAS TO BRING ON RECORD CO MPARABLE CASES OF SALES TAKEN PLACE IN THE SAME LOCATION DURING THE R ELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND COMPARED THE SAME WITH THE ASSESSEES CASE, THE N HE HAS TO FIX THE POSSIBLE SALES CONSIDERATION AND THE SEC.50C(2 ) IS THE BENEFICIAL PROVISION SHOULD BE MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY REQUESTED FOR THE SAME. 8.1 TO THIS EFFECT, WE PLACE RELIANCE IN THE JUDG EMENT OF JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF APPADURAI VIJAYARAGHAVAN REPORTED IN [2014] 369 ITR 486 (MAD) WHEREIN HELD T HAT ANY OBJECTION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO AO IS WITH REGARD TO ADOPTI ON OF GLV OF PROPERTY U/S.50C(1) OF THE ACT, THE AO OUGHT TO HAV E REFERRED THE VALUATION OF CAPITAL ASSET TO VALUATION CELL AND ME RE ASSERTION BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS RESPECT WILL SUFFICE. IN VIEW OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT JUDGMENT CITED SUPRA, WE ARE INCLINED TO REMI T THE MATTER IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR RE-FIXATION OF THE SA LES CONSIDERATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY TO BE TRANSFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO2545./MDS./16 :- 11 - : 8.2 FURTHER, NO EVIDENCE REGARDING SUBSTANTIVE ASS ESSMENTS IN THE CASE OF OTHER PARTIES WERE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY EITHER PARTY, WE ARE NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPRESS ANY OPINION REGARD ING GROUND NO.6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. MORE SO, WE CANNOT DEAL WIT H THE ASSESSEES, WHO ARE NOT BEFORE US. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS P ARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 19 TH APRIL, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ! ' # . $ %& ' ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ) % / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER () / CHENNAI *+ / DATED: 19 TH APRIL, 2017. K S SUNDARAM +,-- ./-0/ / COPY TO: - 1 . / APPELLANT 3. - 1-!' / CIT(A) 5. /23- 4 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. - 1 / CIT 6. 3&-5 / GF