DCIT, CHENNAI V. ETA Properties & Investments Private Limited, CHENNAI

ITA 3440/CHNY/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2297 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-09-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, C BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.3440/CHNY/2016. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-2013 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE 2(1) CHENNAI 600 034. VS. M/S. ETA PROPERTIES & INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD, NO.10 &11, DR. RADHAKRISHNAN SALAI, CHENNAI CITI CENTRE, 4 TH FLOOR, MYLAPORE, CHENNAI 600 004. [PAN AAACE 3240P] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. CLEMENT RAMESH KUMAR, ADDL. CIT. /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI.G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE /DATE OF HEARING : 28-08-2018 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 03-09-2018 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, IT IS AGGR IEVED THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-6, CHENNAI, THRO UGH HIS ORDER DATED 24.10.2016 DELETED @1,25,00,000/- OUT OF A TO TAL DISALLOWANCE OF @1,33,41,882/- MADE BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHAT HAS BEEN TERMED AS PROVISION FOR CONTRACT LOSS. ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 2 -: 2. FACTS APROPOS ARE THAT ASSESSEE A COMPANY ENGAGED I N REAL ESTATE AND PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT HAD FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR DISCLOSING INCOME OF @8,54 ,06,673/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ASSESSEE HAD CREATED A PROVI SION OF @1,35,05,446/- AGAINST CONTRACT LOSS. LD. AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH A LETTER DATED 13.3.2015 FILED WITH THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT SUCH PROVISION WAS CREATED CONSIDERING ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS FILED BY ONE M/S. GARABANDA L CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD AGAINST IT. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HOWEVER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT PROVISION CREATED WAS ONLY CONTINGENT IN NATURE. A CCORDING TO HIM, SUCH PROVISION WAS WRITTEN BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT Y EARS. A SUM OF @1,33,41,882/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PROVISION OF @1,35 ,05,446/- WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE MOVED IN APPEAL BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE PROVISION WAS CREATED THROUGH A JOURNA L ENTRY NO.1052, DATED 31.12.2011 AND THE CORRESPONDING LEDGER PAGE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 3 -: PROVISION FOR PROJECT COMPLETION EXPENSES- SITARI A LEDGER ACCOUNT (1.12.2011 TO 31.03.2016). DATE PARTICULARS VCH TYPE VCH NO / EXCISE INV. NO. DEBIT CREDIT 31.12.2011 DR. (AS PER DETAILS) PROJECT COMPLETION EXPENSES SITARA RENTAL C OMPENSATION - SISTARA BEING PROVISION FOR COMPLETION OF PROJECT GARABANDAL @70 LAKHS, ELMACH @2 LAKHS,ETA STAR ELEVATORS @3 LAKHS, CONTIGENCIES @10 LAKHS AND RENTA COMPENSATION 55 LAKHS JOURNAL 85,00,000 DR 55,00,000 DR 1052 1,40,00,000 31.03.2012 DR. PROJECT COMPLETION EXPENSES SITARA BEING COMPLETION OF PROJECT GARABANDAL REVISED COST AS PER FINAL ESTIMATES GIVEN BY THE CONTRACTOR BY OUR CONTRACTS DEPT. 1058 20,61,000 CR. RENTAL COMPENSATION SITARA BEING EXCESS PROVISION REVERSED, REVISED RENTAL COMPENSATION ESTIMATE BY WAHEEDA WORKS OUT TO @26,60,000/- ( AS PER PAYMENT SCHEDULE AND ACTUAL PAYMENTS MADE- WORKED OUT) 1514 28,40,000 CR. CLOSING BALANCE 28,40,000 1,32,21,000 1,60,61,000 1,60,61,000 ----- 1,60,61,000 ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 4 -: AS PER THE ASSESSEE, M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. HAD FILED A PETITION U/S.11(6) OF THE ARBITRATION AND CONCILI ATION ACT, 1996 BEFORE THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT ON 19.03.2013. CONTEN TION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SOLE ARBITRATOR THROUGH HIS ORDER DATED 25.01.2016 APPROVED A JOINT SETTLEMENT MEMO, BETWEE N ASSESSEE AND M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, WHEREBY ASS ESSEE AGREED TO PAY A SUM OF @75,00,000/- IN FINAL SETTLEMENT. FUR THER, AS PER THE ASSESSEE A SUM OF @55,00,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL PR OVISION WAS RENTAL COMPENSATION PAYABLE TO THE CUSTOMERS ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED DELIVERY OF FLATS. 4. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AFTER VERI FICATION OF THE DETAILS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARRIVED AT TH E BREAKUP OF PROVISION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDER:- SL.NO PARTY AMOUNT (@) 1 CONTRACTOR BUILDER 70,00,000/- 2 ELMACH 2,00,000/- 3 ETA STAR ELEVATIONS 3,00,000/- 4 CONTIGUOU 10,00,000/- 5 RENTAL COMPENSATION 55,00,000/- TOTAL 1,40,00,000/- ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 5 -: ACCORDING TO LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) ONLY PROVISIONS WHICH COULD BE CONSIDERED FOR ALLOWANCE WAS THE SUM OF @70,00,000/- DUE TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS P VT. LTD., AND THE SUM OF @55,00,000/- DUE AS RENTAL COMPENSATION. A CCORDING TO HIM, PROVISION MADE AGAINST THE DUES TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. WAS ESTIMATED ON A SOUND BASIS SINCE AS SESSEE HAD AN OBLIGATION TO THE SAID CONTRACTOR. FURTHER, ACCORD ING TO HIM, THE RENTAL COMPENSATION OF @55,00,000/- WAS REQUIRED TO BE PAI D TO THE CUSTOMERS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF DELAY IN HA NDING OVER THE FLAT AND THIS WAS ALSO A CRYSTALLIZED LIABILITY. THUS, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ALLOWED THE CLAIM TO THE EXTEN T OF @1,25,00,000/- WHILE SUSTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF @8,41,882/-. 5. NOW BEFORE US, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT, BEFORE THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THE PROVISION TO BE ARISING OUT OF ARB ITRATION PROCEEDINGS FILED BY M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. A S PER THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BEFORE THE LD. COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASSESSEE GAVE A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT BREAK-UP OF THE PROVISION. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD ACCEPTED T HE FRESH CLAIM WITHOUT VERIFYING THE FACTS. CONTENTION OF THE LD . DEPARTMENTAL ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 6 -: REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FILE D BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO PROVISION FOR RENTAL COMPENSATION OF @55,00,000/-. AS FOR THE LIABILITY OF @70,00,000/- SHOWN AS PAYABLE TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD, CONTENTION OF THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO CRYSTALLIZATI ON OF ANY SUCH DUES BUT IT WAS ONLY A WISHFUL ESTIMATE. IN ANY CASE, A S PER LD. DR, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD CONSIDERED RECORDS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. 6. PER CONTRA, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) SUBMITTED THAT EXISTENCE OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS , WHICH WERE INITIATED BY M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD COULD NEVER BE DISPUTED. RELYING ON THE APPLICATION FOR APPOINTIN G AN ARBITRATOR FILED BY M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD BEFORE HO NBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGES 28 TO 36, LD . AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FINAL BILLS SUBMITTE D BY M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD ON 07.12.2011, WHICH FELL DU RING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, WAS FOR A VALUE OF @7,44,54,318/-. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE CONTRACT VALUE WAS ONLY @6,20,00,000/-. THUS, A S PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUC TIONS PVT. LTD HAD A CLAIM AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR A SUM OF @1,24,54, 318/- WHICH WAS IN ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 7 -: EXCESS OF CONTRACTED AMOUNT. AS PER THE LD. AUTHOR ISED REPRESENTATIVE, PARA 9 OF THE SAID APPLICATION CLEA RLY INDICATED A SUM OF @1,40,92,288/- AS DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE RE WAS AN EXISTING LIABILITY AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND PROVISIONING WAS CORRECTLY DONE BY THE ASSESSEE. LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE ALSO POINTED OUT THE SETTLEMENT FINALLY ENTERED BY THE A SSESSEE WITH M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD PLACED AT PAPER B OOK PAGES 38 TO 42 WHICH PUT THE FINAL AMOUNT PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS @75,00,000/-. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD RIGHTLY CONSIDERED THE SUM OF @70,00,000/- AS ASCER TAINED LIABILITY PAYABLE TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD ON 31.03.2012. IN SO FAR AS RENTAL COMPENSATION WAS CONCERNED, LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS OBLIGED TO PAY SUCH COMPENSATION DUE TO DELAY IN HANDING OVER THE FL ATS TO ITS CUSTOMERS. THIS ALSO AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REP RESENTATIVE WAS A CRYSTALLIZED LIABILITY. THUS, ACCORDING TO HIM, LD . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WAS JUSTIFIED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM TO THE EXTENT OF @1,25,00,000/- 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SUM OF @1,25,00,0 00/- ALLOWED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), OUT OF TH E TOTAL CLAIM OF ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 8 -: @1,35,05,446/- COMPRISED OF TWO ITEMS. FIRST IS AM OUNT OF @70,00,000/- CLAIMED AS DUE TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONS TRUCTIONS AND SECOND IS RENTAL COMPENSATION OF @55,00,000/- CLAIM ED AS PAYABLE TO ITS CUSTOMERS. IT IS INTERESTING TO NOTE THE VERSI ON OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICER ON WHAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE HIM WITH REGARD TO THE PROVISION OF @1,35,05,446/-. THIS IS REPRODUCED HER EUNDER:- THE ASSESSEE HAS CREATED A SUM OF @1,35,05,446/- AS PROVISION FOR CONTRACT LOSS. ON BEING QUERIED ON T HIS POINT, THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN HER LETTER DATED 13.03.2015 STATED THAT THIS PROVISION WAS CREATED O N ACCOUNT OF ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS FILED AGAINST TH E ASSESSEE COMPANY IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS. SHE ALSO STAR TED THAT THE SAID SUM WAS WRITTEN BACK IN THE SUBSEQUENT YE ARS. HENCE SHE STATED THAT THE SAID PROVISION IS ALLOWAB LE . BEFORE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ASS ESSEE HOWEVER SUBMITTED A DIFFERENT BREAKUP FOR THE PROVISION. SA ID BREAK-UP HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY US AT PARA 4 ABOVE. THE LEDGER P AGE CALLED PROVISION FOR PROJECT COMPLETION EXPENSES, IS REPRODUCED BY US AT PARA 3 ABOVE. THIS LEDGER PAGE INDICATE THAT A SU M OF @85,00,000/- WAS PROVISION IN RELATION TO THE PROJECT OF SITARA AND THE SUM OF @55,00,000/- WAS PROVISION FOR RENTAL COMPENSATION ON THE VERY SAME PROJECT. THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS WHETHER THESE AM OUNTS WERE CRYSTALLIZED LIABILITY AS ON 31.03.2012. APPLICA TION FOR APPOINTMENT OF ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 9 -: ARBITRATOR WAS FILED BY M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIO NS PVT. LTD ON 1 ST DAY OF JULY, 2013. NO DOUBT IN THE SAID APPLICATIO N, IT IS STATED THAT M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD HAD SUBMITTE D ITS FINAL BILLS VALUED AT @7,44,54,318/- AS ON 07.12.2011 AGAINST WHICH THEY CLAIMED RECEIPT OF @6,38,26,100/- ONLY. RELEVANT PARAS OF T HE APPLICATION IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 9. THE PETITION SUBMITS THAT THE FINAL BILLS WERE SUBMITTED FOR THE VALUE OF THE 7,44,54,318.60/- ON 07.12.2011 AND THE FINAL BILL FOR THE EXTERNAL WORK FOR THE VALUE OF RS.34,36,003.42/- SUBMITTED ON 4TH JUN E 2012. THUS THE TOTAL BILL VALUE IS RS. 7,78,90,322. 02/- WHEREAS THE PETITIONER HAVE RECEIVED SO FAR ONLY 6,38,26,100/-. THUS THE BALANCE TO BE PAYABLE TO TH E RESPONDENT IS 1,40,92,288.02/-. IN THE MEETING HELD ON 21 A T: DECEMBER 2012 AND 21 A T: JANUARY 2013. THE RESPONDENT REQUESTED TIME FOR TH E PAYMENT OF THE FINAL BILL 10. HOWEVER THE RESPONDENT HAVE ISSUED A NOTICE ON 18.03.2013 CLAIMING LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FOR THE DELA Y IN CONSTRUCTION WORK OF RS.31,00,000/- FOR WHICH .T HE REPLY WAS IN ON 28.03.2013. SINCE THERE WAS A DISPU TE AND DIFFERENCE THE' PETITIONER MADE A . REQUEST TO THE RESPONDENT TO REFER THE MATTER TO AN ARBITRATOR AS PER CLASS 61 OF THE AGREEMENT. 11. HOWEVER THE RESPONDENT HAS FAILED TO ACT AS REQUIRED UNDER THE PROCEDURE AGREED BETWEEN, THE PARTIES FOR APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATORS. IN SUCH A SITUATION,. THE PETITIONER HAS NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE REMEDY EXCEPT TO APPROACH THIS HON'BLE COURT PRAYIN G FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF AN ARBITRATOR TO RESOLVE THE DISPUTES BETWEEN THE PARTIES. 12.. I STATE THAT THE CAUSE OF ACTION FOR THE PRESE NT PETITION AROSE BETWEEN THE PARTIES WHEN THE NOMINAT ION APPOINTING THE PETITIONER AS A CIVIL CONTRACTOR, WA S ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 06.06.2009 AND THE CONTRACT WAS ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON 31.07.2009 AND THE BUILDING WAS COMPLETED ON 31.09.2011 AND WHEN THE BUILDING HANDED OVER' TO TH E RESPONDENT ON 31.07.2011 AND THE FINAL BILL WERE SUBMITTED TO THE RESPONDENT ON 07.12.2011 AND 4TH JUNE 2012 AND THE DEMAND NOTICE WAS ISSUED BY THE RESPONDENT ON 19.03.2013 AND THE REPLY WAS SENT BY ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 10 -: THE PETITIONER REQUESTING FOR THE APPOINTMENT OF ARBITRATOR ,ON21.03.2013 AND THE RESPONDENT ON 30.04.2013 SENT A REJOINDER STATING THAT HE IS READY TO FACE THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS . THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT M/S. GARABA NDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD HAD PREFERRED ANY SUCH CLAIM ON THE ASSE SSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR OR TO SHOW THA T ASSESSEE HAD AGREED TO SUCH CLAIM. ON THE OTHER HAND ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED LIQUIDATED DAMAGES FROM M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIO NS PVT. LTD. NO DOUBT, ON 19.01.2016, THERE IS A SETTLEMENT ENTERE D BY THE ASSESSEE WITH M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD WHEREBY IT AGREED TO PAY A SUM OF @75,00,000/- TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONSTRUCT IONS PVT. LTD. HOWEVER, NONE OF THESE, IN OUR OPINION WOULD SHOW THAT THERE WAS ANY CRYSTALLIZED LIABILITY TO M/S. GARABANDAL CONS TRUCTIONS PVT. LTD AS ON 31.03.2012. JUST BECAUSE A CLAIM WAS FILED BY T HE CONTRACTOR OF THE ASSESSEE, WOULD NOT MEAN THAT ASSESSEE WAS LEGALLY BOUND TO PAY SUCH AMOUNT. THE MAXIM DEBITUM IN PRAESENTI SOLVE NDUM IN FUTURO RELIED ON BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, CAN APPLY ONLY IF THERE IS AN ASCERTAINED LIABILITY FOR WHICH AMOUNT IS TO BE CRYSTALLIZED AND PAID LATER, AND NOT TO A SITUATION WHERE THERE IS O NLY A CLAIM, WITH NO ACKNOWLEDGED LIABILITY. IN OUR OPINION, LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FELL IN ERROR IN TAKING COGNIZANCE OF THE ARBITRATION PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WELL AFTER THE END OF THE RE LEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, AND COMING TO A CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS A CRYSTA LLIZED LIABILITY OF ITA NO.3440 /2016 :- 11 -: @70,00,000/- DUE FROM THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. GARABAND AL CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD AS AT THE END OF THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEA R. AS FOR THE RENTAL COMPENSATION OF @55,00,000/- NOTHING IS AVAILABLE O N RECORD TO SHOW HOW IT WAS COMPUTED OR THE BASIS ON WHICH ASSESSEE CLAIMED ITSELF TO BE LIABLE TO PAY SUCH COMPENSATION. IN THESE CIRCU MSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (AP PEALS) FELL IN ERROR IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF @1,25,00,000/-. ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL S) IS SET ASIDE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE STANDS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 3RD DAY OF SEPTEMB ER, 2018, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:3RD SEPTEMBER, 2018. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF