Narender Kumar Singh, Mirzapur V. ACIT, Mirzapur

ITA 367/ALLD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 36720714 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 13-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 17-12-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T P SHUKLA
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAVEEN GODBOLE

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ALLAHABAD BENCH, ALLAHABAD BEFORE : SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 367/ALLD./2013 ASSTT. YEAR : 2010-11 NARENDRA KUMAR SINGH, VS. A.C.I.T., RANGE-III, PANDEYPUR, SHUKLAHA, MIRZAPUR. MIRZAPUR. (PAN: ABJPS 3919 A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAVEEN GODBOLE, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T.P. SHUKLA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.08.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.08.2014 ORDER PER BHAVNESH SAINI, J.M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ALLAHABAD DATED 29.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND PERUSED THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CONSIDERED THE MA TERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. ON GROUND NO. 2, 3 & 4, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION OF RS.34,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. BRIEFLY, ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 2 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT AS PER INFORMATION R ECEIVED, THE ASSESSEE MADE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.34,50,000/- IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 727520729 ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. ACCORDING TO THE AO THIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT WAS NO T DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED BEFORE HIM THAT HIS WIFE SOLD A LAND FOR WHICH RS.15 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN ADVANCE AND APART FROM T HAT HE HAS ALSO MADE WITHDRAWALS FROM HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH WAS THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT IN HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESS EE WANTED TO START NEW BUSINESS, BUT COULD NOT SUCCEED. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT SO WIT HDRAWN FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE AO D ID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE STARTING OF NEW BUSINESS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO NEED TO MAKE WITHDRAWALS OR TO KEEP IT IN A SEPARAT E ACCOUNT. THE AO ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT THE AVAILABILITY OF CASH WITH THE WIFE OF TH E ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.34,50,000/- WAS MADE U/S. 69A OF THE IT ACT. 4. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND A WRITTEN SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED IN THE APPELLATE ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE BRIEFLY EXPLAINED THAT IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHICH ARE AUDITED AND WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THERE IS A LEDGE R ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE BEING ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 3 PROPRIETOR OF HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT, WHICH SHOWS WIT HDRAWALS HAVING BEEN MADE REGULARLY OUT OF THE EXISTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE THE WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH FROM HIS C APITAL ACCOUNT. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN ON VARIOUS DATE S AS PER REQUIREMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE KEPT AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ULTIMATELY THE ACCUMULATED AMOUNT KEPT AT THE RESIDENCE WAS DEPOSITED IN THE A FORESAID BANK ACCOUNT ON THE DATES MENTIONED ABOVE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT T HE BANK ACCOUNT IN QUESTION IS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT BECAUSE IT WAS NOT CONSIDERED F OR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT FOR LIMITED PURPOSE. ACTUALLY, THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO HELP HIS SON TO START A NEW BUSI NESS AND THE MATTER WAS IN THE PLANNING STAGE, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNTS SO WITHDRAWN FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WERE KEPT SEPARATELY IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT AND WHEN THE NEGOTIATIONS FAILED, THE AMOUNTS WERE RE-DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. IT W AS THEREFORE, EXPLAINED THAT THERE IS NOTHING UNEXPLAINED DEPOSIT IN THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A), HOWEVER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF TH E ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND REFERRED TO PAGE 6 OF THE PAP ER BOOK, WHICH IS A CHART SHOWING WITHDRAWALS POSITION BEFORE DEPOSIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER : ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 4 DATE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT NO.727520729 AMOUNT DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT AMOUNT WITHDRAWAL FROM PERSONAL ACCOUNT/BANK PERIOD OF WITHDRAWAL CASH BALANCE POSITION AS PER BOOK ON THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IN BANK 27/08/2009 400,000.00 895,959.00 01/04/2009 TO 26/08/2009 1,200,693.00 21/10/2009 250,000.00 260,075.00 27/08/2009 TO 20/10/2009 459,620.00 04/12/2009 450,000.00 320,000.00 21/10/2009 TO 03/12/2009 383,832.00 25/03/2010 350,000.00 728,300.00 04/12/2009 TO 24/03/2010 102,930.00 25/03/2010 1,000,000.00 1,100,000.00 28/03/2010 1,000,000.00 84,430.00 3,450,000.00 3,304,334.00 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AT PAGES 8 TO 13 IN SUPPORT OF ABOVE WITHDRAWALS AND S UBMITTED THAT CASH WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE FIRM IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A PROPRIETOR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF THE SAME. HE HAS S UBMITTED THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT THE AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN WAS UTILIZED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT BEFORE T HE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN WAS DEPOSITED IN THE SAVING BANK A CCOUNT. PB-15 IS COPY OF KHASRA KHATONI OF AGRICULTURAL LAND OF ASSESSEE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ANOOP SINGH VS. ITO IN ITA NO. 458/ALLD./2012 DATED 06.06.2014. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR MERELY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ANOOP SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA) DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN PARA 6 TO 6.2 AS UND ER : ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 5 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD. 6.1. THE ASSESSEE MADE DEPOSITS OF RS.2,15,000/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNT ON 07.06.2004. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AFORESA ID AMOUNT WAS RE-DEPOSITED IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT OUT OF WITHDRAWALS OF RS.2,30,000/ - MADE ON 19.06.2003 FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT WITH BANK OF BARODA. COPY OF THE BANK ACCOUNT IS FILED AT PAGE 10 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RELEVANT PAGE IS P B-23, WHICH SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE WITHDRAWALS OF RS.2,30,000/- ON 19.06 .2003. THERE IS NO MAJOR TRANSACTION THEREAFTER IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT AND AFT ER TWO ENTRIES, THERE IS DEPOSIT OF RS.2,15,000/- ON 07.06.2004. IT IS, THEREFORE, EXPL AINED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RE-DEPOSITED FROM THE WITHDRAWAL MADE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT THE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.2,30,000/- SOMEWHERE ELSE. THEREFO RE, IT IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT FIND ANY RELATION BETWEEN THE TWO AND OBSERVED THAT IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE MONEY WOULD HAVE B EEN INVESTED / INCURRED IN CREATING SOME ASSETS OR MEETING SOME EXPENDITURE. N O OTHER FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO CONFIRM THE ADDITION. HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHIV CHARN DASS VS. CIT, 126 ITR 263 HELD AS UNDER : A PARTIAL PARTITION TOOK PLACE ON MARCH 31, 1951, OF AN HUF OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS THE KARTA. IN OCTOBER, 1951, THE HUF DECLARED A SUM OF RS.20,000 UNDER THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE S CHEME, WHICH WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THEREAFTER, THE MON EY WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE WAS KEPT WITH THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM 1951 UP TO HER DEATH IN MAY, 1956 . AFTER HER DEATH THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED ON OCTOBER 29, 1956, IN A BANK IN THE NAMES OF THE TWO UNMARRIED DAUGHTERS OF THE ASSESSE E (WHO HAD BY THEN ATTAINED MAJORITY), IN EQUAL SHARES. THE ASSES SEE EXPLAINED THAT THE TWO DEPOSITS WERE OUT OF THE SUM OF RS.20,000 D ECLARED UNDER THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE SCHEME IN OCTOBER, 1951, BUT T HE ITO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION AND ADDED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM U NDISCLOSED SOURCES. ON APPEAL, THE AAC HELD THAT THE SUM COULD BE RELATED TO THE AMOUNT VOLUNTARILY DISCLOSED EARLIER. ON FURTHER AP PEAL, THE TRIBUNAL REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE AAC AND RESTORED THAT OF THE ITO. ON A REFERENCE: HELD, THAT SINCE BOTH THE DAUGHTERS HAD ATTAINED M AJORITY AT THE TIME WHEN THE MONEY WAS DEPOSITED IN THEIR NAMES, T HE AMOUNT OF ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 6 RS.20,000 WAS NOT FOUND MENTIONED IN THE BOOKS OF T HE ASSESSEE NOR THE SAME WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE AC COUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE OR THAT OF THE HUF AND THERE WAS NOTHING O N THE RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE O R THE HUF IN ANY OTHER MANNER THAN THE ONE WHICH WAS REPRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ONUS LAY ON THE DEPARTMENT TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANA TION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT BE ACCEPTED. FURTHER, IF THE AS SESSEES EXPLANATION THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTED THE SAME AM OUNT AS DISCLOSED UNDER THE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE SCHEME WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE, THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE AMOUNT WAS FROM UNDISCLOSE D SOURCES COULD BE RAISED ONLY AGAINST THE MAJOR DAUGHTERS OF THE A SSESSEE AND NOT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. THEREFORE, IT COULD N OT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT WAS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 6.2. IN THIS CASE, THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT WITH THE WIF E OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ABOUT FIVE YEARS AND THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE HUF IN ANY MANNER THAN ONE WHICH WA S REPRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ONUS UPON THE REVENUE WAS NOT FOUND T O BE DISCHARGED. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE THE DIFFERENCE OF WITHDRAWAL A ND RE-DEPOSIT IS OF ABOUT ONE YEAR ONLY. CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE JUDGMENT, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE WITHDRAWAL OF RS.2 ,30,000/- IN EARLIER YEAR ON 19.06.2003 AND WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAK E RE-DEPOSIT OF RS.2,15,000/- OUT OF THE SAME ON 07.06.2004. THERE WAS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UTILIZED THE SAID AMOUNT OF WITHDRAWAL SOMEWHERE ELSE. THE LD. CIT(A) INSTEAD OF GIVING ANY FINDING OF FACT AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY POSED A QUESTION TO HIMSELF AS TO WHERE IS THE RELATION B ETWEEN THE TWO AND IS IT NOT POSSIBLE THAT THE AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED O R INCURRED IN CREATING SOME ASSET OR MEETING SOME EXPENSES. HOWEVER NOTHING IS BROUGHT ON RECORD IF THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN SOME ASSET OR MET OUT C ERTAIN EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DI SBELIEVED BY THE REVENUE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE LIGHT OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT OF RS.2,15,000/- OUT OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,30,000/- WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAME BANK ACCOUN T ON 19.06.2003. WE ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.2,15,000/-. ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 7 6.1. IN THIS CASE, THE TRIBUNAL RELIED UPON THE DEC ISION OF HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE IN THE CASE OF SHIV CHARAN DAS VS. CIT, 126 ITR 263. IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESSEE, THE ASSES SEE PRODUCED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE AUDITED AND WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CASH AMOUNT FROM HIS PERSONAL ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO. THUS, THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT OUT OF HIS PROPRI ETARY BUSINESS WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE IN A SUM OF RS.27,14,206/-. THUS, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE WITHDRAWALS MADE FR OM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER OTHER THAN WHICH WAS REPRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE. ONUS UPON THE REVENUE WAS NOT FOUND TO BE DISCHARGED. THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW INSTEAD OF GIVING ANY FINDING OF FACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAVE MEREL Y DISBELIEVED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ANY JUST REASONS. NOTHING IS A LSO BROUGHT ON RECORD IF THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN SOME OTHER ASSETS OR MA DE OUT CERTAIN EXPENDITURE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DI SBELIEVED BY THE REVENUE. THE ISSUE IS, THEREFORE, SQUARELY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF ITAT, ALLAHABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF ANOOP SINGH VS. ITO (SUPRA) IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. SOME BENEFIT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME COULD BE GIVEN TO ASSESSEE. THE ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 8 EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE FOR SUM OF RS.30 LACS IS TH US ACCEPTED. REST AMOUNT OF RS.4,50,000/- HAS TO BE CONSIDERED UNEXPLAINED. WE, ACCORDINGLY, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND DELETE THE ADDI TION OF RS.30,00,000/- AND RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO RS.4,50,000/-. THESE GROUN DS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED PARTLY. 8. ON GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADD ITION OF RS.6,39,970/-. THE AO MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED CREDIT OF TD S OF RS.1,83,165/- ON THE RECEIPT OF INTEREST INCOME OF RS.18,31,055/-. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE DECLARED INTEREST INCOME OF RS.11,91,085/- ONLY IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT RS.6,39,970/- WAS THE INTEREST CHARGED ON THE LOAN TAKEN FROM CITY CORPORATION (FINANCE) INDIA LTD. AN D THIS AMOUNT WAS DEDUCTED FROM THE GROSS RECEIPT OF INTEREST. BUT THE AO OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY DEBITED RS.2,51,504/- ON BANK INTEREST AND RS.79,880/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON LOANS. THE AO ALSO VERIFIED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF CITY CORPORATION (FINANCE) INDIA LTD. AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PA ID INTEREST OF RS.79,088/- ONLY. THE AO ACCORDINGLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,39,970/-. THE LD. CIT(A) ON THE SAME REASONING ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. ITA NO.367/ALLD./2013 9 9. ON CONSIDERATION OF RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. NO EVIDENCE OR MA TERIAL IS PRODUCED BEFORE US IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION SO RAISED BEFORE THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW. WHATEVER CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELO W, HAVE ALREADY BEEN TURNED DOWN. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATE RIAL ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 5 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 10. CHARGING OF INTEREST IS COMPENSATORY AND MANDAT ORY AND THEREFORE, GROUND NO. 6 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (B.C. MEENA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT BY ORDER 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A), CONCERNED ASSTT. REGISTRAR 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, ALLAHABAD 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY