Subramanyam Baskaran, CHENNAI V. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 264/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8686 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2016
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 10-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P RADHAKRISHNAN IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S KRISHNAN
• Keywords: Capital asset; Opportunity of being heard; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 54F; 54

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! ' , #'$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO.264/MDS/2016 # % &% / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013. SUBRAMANYAM BASKARAN, C/O. S.R. CHANDRASEKARAN, SAHANA NO.9, II MAIN ROAD, RAJA ANNAMALAIPURAM, CHENNAI 600 028. VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1) CHENNAI 600 034. [PAN AIEPB 3789M] ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) '( ) * / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. KRISHNAN, FCA +,'( ) * /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. P. RADHAKRISHNAN, IRS, JCIT. ! ) - / DATE OF HEARING : 07-06-2016 ./& ) - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-07-2016 / O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AG AINST ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-16, CHE NNAI IN ITA NO.81/A-16/2012-2013, DT 30.11.2015 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2012- ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 2 -: 2013 PASSED U/S.143(3) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 (HEREIN AFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL:- 01. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE AND, IN LAW THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER DATED 4 TH FEBRUARY, 2015 OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER INTERNATIONAL TAXATION I(1) CHEN NAI WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT AS PER PROVISION S OF SEC. 54 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THE BALANCE OF CAPITAL GAI NS AMOUNTING TO >35,93,157/- WAS ALSO INVESTED IN ACQU IRING NEW CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF A RESIDENTIAL PROP ERTY BEFORE FILLING OF THE RETURN THUS DULY COMPLYING WI TH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT. 02. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF >35,9 3,157/- MADE IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENTS NEW CAPITAL ASSET IN THE FORM OF A RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BE DELETED . 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NON RESIDENT AND FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 25.07.2012 W ITH TOTAL INCOME OF >4,14,010/- AND THE TOTAL INCOME INCLUDES INCOME F ROM HOUSE PROPERTY, CAPITAL GAINS AND OTHER SOURCES. THE RE TURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED U/S.143(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY UNDER CASS AND NOTICE U/S.143(2) OF TH E ACT WAS ISSUED. IN COMPLIANCE TO NOTICE, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE APPEARED AND FILED DETAILS CALLED FOR VIDE LETTER DATED 02.0 5.2014. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER CALLED FOR DETAILS OF RE NTAL AGREEMENT, COPIES OF SALE DEEDS OF THE PROPERTY SOLD AND PROOF OF C LAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S.54F OF THE ACT. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VERI FIED THE DOCUMENTS ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 3 -: AND FOUND DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR THE ASSESSEE SOL D RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY FOR >1,80,00,000/- AND AFTER ADJUSTING IND EXED COST OF ACQUISITION THE LONG TERMS CAPITAL GAINS ARE WORKE D OUT TO >1,21,35,203/- AND WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPTED ON INVES TMENT IN ANOTHER RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT PORUR. THE LD. ASS ESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO CONSTRUCTION AGR EEMENT IN RESPECT OF PORUR RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WITH M/S. ALLIANCE RE TREAT PVT. LTD VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 12.10.2007 ON CERTAIN TERMS AND CON DITIONS IN RESPECT OF SCHEDULE OF PROPERTY, COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON, PAYMENT SCHEDULE, COMPLETION OF DELIVERY POSSESSION. THE L D. ASSESSING OFFICER PERUSED THE TERMS AND REFERRED AT PAGE 3 TO 5 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE AGREEMENT THE DEVELOP ER HAS TO COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY WITHIN 24 MON THS BEFORE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010 AND IF THERE IS ANY DELAY IN PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO RECEIVE COMPENSATION AS PER THE TERMS AGREED. CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE A GREEMENT WAS ENTERED ON ABOVE SAID DATE AND THE POSSESSION TO BE DELIVERED BY BUILDER BY CONSTRUCTING HOUSE PROPERTY IN THE FINA NCIAL YEAR 2009- 2010. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIM U/SEC. 54F OF THE ACT ON ACQUIRING A NEW RES IDENTIAL PROPERTY HAS TO BE PARTIALLY ALLOWED AND COMPARED WITH THE B UILDER AGREEMENT WITH INVESTMENT AMOUNT WERE THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID S UBSTANTIAL ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 4 -: AMOUNTS VERY MUCH PRIOR TO THE SALE OF THE PROPE RTY IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-2012, AND HIGHLIGHTED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 5 4 OF THE ACT AND ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE PURCHASED HO USE PROPERTY ONE YEAR BEFORE THE SALE OF PROPERTY OR WITHIN TWO YEARS AFTER THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY OR CONSTRUCT RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WITH IN THREE YEARS OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND TO OBTAIN THE BENEFIT OF CONSTRUCTI ON OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE DEPOSITED THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOM E U/S.139(1) OF THE ACT IN CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNTS SCHEME. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT COMPLIED THE PREREQUISITES OF CAPITAL GAINS ACCOUNT SCHEME AND ASSESSEE IS NOT ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF T HE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FILED EXPLANATION THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINALLY BOOKED THE NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY IN THE YEAR 2007 AND PAID ADVANCE AMOUNTS BUT DUE TO ADVERSE REAL ESTA TE MARKET CONDITIONS AND THE FINANCIAL HARDSHIP OF THE PROMOT ER AND THE PROJECT COULD NOT TAKE OFF TILL MID 2011 AND REGISTRATION O F UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND (UDS) WAS MADE IN FEB 2012 AND BUILDER HAS COM PLETED THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROPERTY AND HANDED OVER OCCUP ANCY IN DECEMBER, 2013 AND ALSO ISSUED COMPLETION CERTIFICA TE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THE SOURCES FOR INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY BEING SALE PROCEEDS OF PR OPERTY SOLD IN SEPTEMBER, 2011 AND LOAN FROM HDFC BANK LIMITED AND COMPLIED THE ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 5 -: STIPULATED CONDITIONS UNDER PROVISIONS OF U/S.54 O F THE ACT AND CLAIMED EXEMPTION. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER VERIFIED THE INFORMATION WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AND CALCULATED THE INVESTMENT IN PORUR PROPERTY >85,42,006/- BEING ONE YEAR BEFORE THE SA LE OF PROPERTY WERE THE AGREEMENT WAS ENTERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-2008 AND THE ASSESSEE DEEMED TO HAVE BECOME T HE OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DURING SAID PERIOD WERE SUBSTANTIAL AM OUNT TOWARDS COST OF PROPERTY WAS PAID. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER CO NCLUDES BY CONSIDERING THE PAYMENTS MADE ONE YEAR PRIOR TO DA TE OF SALE OF ORIGINAL PROPERTY AND RESTRICTED EXEMPTION TO >85 ,42,006/- AND RE- DETERMINED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS AT >35,93,197/- AND ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND REITERATED THE FACTS AND THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER . THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS TO >.85,42,006/- INVESTED BEFORE ONE YEAR AS AGAINST T HE ACTUAL SUM OF >1,21,35,203/- CLAIMED EXEMPTION U/S.54 OF THE ACT ON INVESTMENT IN NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ARGUMENTS WITH EVIDENCE AND PRODUCED A COPY OF COMPLETION CERTIFICATE, SALE DEED COPY, PROOF OF RE-INVESTMENT IN NEW PROPERTY, ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 6 -: PURCHASE DOCUMENTS AND RELIED ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS OF KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SUBRAMANYA BHAT (1987) 165 ITR 571 AND ITAT DECISION OF ACIT VS. SUBHASH SEVARAM BHAVNANI (2012) 23 TAXMANN. 94(AHD) AND HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CAS E OF CIT VS. ASHOK KUMAR RALHAN (2014) 46 TAXMANN.COM 41 6 AND THE ACTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSES SEE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT INVESTED BEFORE ONE YEAR OF SALE OF PROPERTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 OF THE ACT IS NOT CORRECT AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS AND FINDINGS O F THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. THE LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) RELIED ON THE PROVISIONS U/S.54 OF THE AC T AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT WITH BUILD ER IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-2008 AND FOR CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY MUC H EARLIER THAN SALE OF PROPERTY IN SEPTEMBER, 2011 AND CONCURRED WITH T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER AND DISTINGUISHED THE DECISIO N RELIED BY LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE IS ENTITLED FOR EXEMPTION U/S. 54 OF THE ACT ONLY FOR PAYMENT MADE DURING ONE YEAR PRIOR TO DATE OF SALE AND CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF TH E LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS) ORDER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL . ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 7 -: 5. BEFORE US, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE REITER ATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS AND ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES. THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ORIGINAL BOOKED THE PROPERTY IN TH E YEAR 2007 AND DUE TO UNFAVOURABLE FINANCIAL CONDITION OF THE PRO MOTER, THE PROJECT COULD TAKE OFF IN MID 2011 AND UDS SHARE OF LAND WA S REGISTERED IN FEBRUARY, 2012 AFTER THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN SEPTEM BER, 2011 AND NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY WAS HANDOVER TO THE ASSESSEE I N DECEMBER, 2013 AS PER COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED DATED 12.12.20 13. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED LOAN FROM HDFC BANK LIMITED F OR THE PURPOSE OF NEW RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY. THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER RELYING ON JUDICIAL DECISIONS CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AND THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO DEALT ON THE PROVIS IONS OF SEC. 2(47) OF THE ACT AND PROVISIONS OF SEC. 53A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ACT AND SUPPORTED THE CASE WITH JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PAYM ENT DETAILS. FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. R.L. SOOD (2000) 245 ITR 72 AND PRAYED FOR ALLOWING THE APPEAL. 6. CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIE D ON THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED THE GROUNDS. ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 8 -: 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIA L ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE CRUX OF T HE ISSUE EMPHASIZED BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE FINDIN GS OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IN GRANTING PARTIAL EXEMPTION U/ S.54 OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 ARE BENEFICIAL AND STIPULAT ED CONDITIONS SHALL NE MANDATORILY BE COMPLIED. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 54 AS UNDER:- 54. [(1)] [SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION ( 2), WHERE, IN THE CASE OF AN ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDU AL OR A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY], THE CAPITAL GAIN ARISES FR OM THE TRANSFER OF A LONG-TERM CAPITAL ASSET [***], BEING BUILDINGS OR LANDS APPURTENANT THERETO, AND BEING A RESIDENTI AL HOUSE, THE INCOME OF WHICH IS CHARGEABLE UNDER THE HEAD 'INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY' (HEREAFTER IN THIS SEC TION REFERRED TO AS THE ORIGINAL ASSET), AND THE ASSESSE E HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF [ONE YEAR BEFORE OR TWO YEARS AF TER THE DATE ON WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE PURCHASED], O R HAS WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS AFTER THAT DATE [ CONSTRUCTED, A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE ] , THEN], INSTEAD OF THE CAPITAL GAIN BEING CHARGED TO INCOME-TAX AS INCOME OF THE PREVIO US YEAR IN WHICH THE TRANSFER TOOK PLACE, IT SHALL BE DEALT WITH IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS OF THIS SECTION, THAT IS TO SAY, (I) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN [IS GREATER T HAN THE COST OF [THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE] SO PURCHASED OR CONSTRU CTED (HEREAFTER IN THIS SECTION REFERRED TO AS THE NEW A SSET)], THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN A ND THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET SHALL BE CHARGED UNDER SECTIO N 45 AS THE INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR; AND FOR THE PU RPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITA L GAIN ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OST SHALL BE NIL; OR (II) IF THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN IS EQUAL TO OR LESS THAN THE COST OF THE NEW ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAIN SHALL N OT BE CHARGED UNDER SECTION 45 ; AND FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTING IN RESPECT OF THE NEW ASSET ANY CAPITAL G AIN ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 9 -: ARISING FROM ITS TRANSFER WITHIN A PERIOD OF THREE YEARS OF ITS PURCHASE OR CONSTRUCTION, AS THE CASE MAY BE, THE C OST SHALL BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF THE CAPITAL GAIN . THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT TH E ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE FOR EXEMPTION ONLY IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE BEF ORE ONE YEAR OF DATE OF SALE AND RESTRICTED THE CLAIM TO >.85,42,00 6/- ARE DEALT AS UNDER:- DATE OF ENTERING INTO CONSTRUCTION AGREEMENT 12.10 .2007 SALE OF PROPERTY SEPT 2011 DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/SEC. 139(1) OF THE A CT. 31.07.2012 DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/SEC. 139(4) 31.03.20 14 UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND REGISTERED BY BUILDER FEB 2012 COMPLETION CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE BUILDER 12.12. 2013 THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OBTAINED LOAN FROM HDFC BANK FOR CONSTRUCT ION AND DEMONSTRATED THAT THE UNDIVIDED SHARE OF LAND OF NE W PROPERTY WAS REGISTERED IN FEB. 2012 AFTER SALE OF PROPERTY IN S EPTEMBER, 2011 AND THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE POSSESSION OF HOUSE PROPERT Y IN DECEMBER, 2013, AND RELIED ON JUDICIAL ORDERS. THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 149 REFERRING TO THE VIL LA COMPLETION CERTIFICATE DATED 5.12.2013 AND LEDGER ACCOUNT CO PY OF THE BUILDER AT PAGE NO.150 & 151 WERE PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE FOR THE PERIOD 1 ST APRIL 2007 TO 11 TH MARCH, 2015, ARE DISCLOSED. ON VERIFICATION OF THE LEDGER ACCOUNT FOR PAYMENTS MADE ONE YEAR BE FORE THE SALE OF PROPERTY IN SEPTEMBER, 2011, WE FIND ON COMPARING T HE PAYMENTS FOR ITA NO. 264/MDS/2016. :- 10 -: SAID PERIOD WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. ASSESSIN G OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD PAID ONLY >85,42,006/- AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THERE EXIST DIFFERENCE IN AMOUNTS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, AND REQUIRE RECONCILI ATION. CONSIDERING THE APPARENT FACTS, MATERIALS, INFORMATION, JUDICI AL DECISIONS AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE LEDG ER ACCOUNTS SHALL BE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND WE REMI T THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND RECONCILIATION OF PAYMENTS AND THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS AND THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 29TH DAY OF J ULY, 2016, AT CHENNAI . SD/- SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . ! ' ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI 1 / DATED: 29.07.2016 KV 2 ) +#-34 54&- / COPY TO: 1. '( / APPELLANT 3. ! 6- () / CIT(A) 5. 4 9: +#-# / DR 2. +,'( / RESPONDENT 4. ! 6- / CIT 6. :;% < / GF