Jacobi Carbons India Private Limited, CHENNAI V. ACIT, Coimbatore

ITA 386/CHNY/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4026 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-07-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 07-06-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-02-2017
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PATHLAVATH PEERYA
• Assessee Lawyers: SAMPATH RAGHUNATHAN
• Keywords: Transfer pricing; International transaction; Additional evidence; Initiation of penalty proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 92D; 234B; 133(6); 10B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI , !' #$ , BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI GEORGE MATHAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.386/MDS./2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 M/S.JACOBI CARBONS INDIA PVT LTD ., 122, BHARATHI COLONY, FIRST FLOOR, PEELAMEDU, COIMBATORE 641 004 . VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBTORE-2. [PAN AACCJ 0987 E ] ( $% / APPELLANT) ( &'$% /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR.SAMPATH RAGHUNATHAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : MR.PATHLAVATH PEERYA, CIT DR ! ' #$% / DATE OF HEARING : 05 - 07 - 201 7 &' #$% / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12 - 07 - 201 7 ( / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER, COIMBATORE, DATED 14. 12.2016 PASSED U/S.143(3) READ WITH SEC.144C(5) OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO THE ORDER OF THE T.P.O, CHENNAI, DATED 29.01.2016 A ND THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE D.R.P, BANGALORE, DATED 11 .11.2016. ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 2 -: 2. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. 1. ASSESSMENT AND REFERENCE TO TRANSFER PRICING OFF ICER ARE BAD IN LAW 1.1 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CORPORAT E CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE (AO) ERRED IN MAKING A REFERENCE TO TH E JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX / DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (TRANSFER PRICING) (TPO), WITHOUT RECORDING AN OP INION THAT ANY OF THE CONDITIONS IN SECTION 92C(3) OF THE ACT, WERE SATIS FIED IN THE INSTANT CASE. 1.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE TPO ERRED IN NOT DEMONSTRATING THAT THE MOTIVE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS TO SHIFT PROFITS OUTSIDE OF INDIA BY MANIPULATING THE PRICES CHARGED IN ITS INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTIONS, WHICH IS A PRE-REQUISIT E CONDITION TO MAKE ANY ADJUSTMENT UNDER THE PROVISION OF CHAPTER X OF THE ACT. 1.3 THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICT ION, INTER ALIA, INSOFAR AS IT PURPORTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN INVALID ORDER O F THE TPO. 1.4 THE DIRECTIONS ISSUED BY THE LD. DRP AND THE OR DER PASSED BY THE LD. AO IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, INTER ALIA, IN SO FAR A S IT PURPORTS TO GIVE EFFECT TO AN INVALID ORDER OF THE LD. TPO. 2 DETERMINATION OF ARMS LENGTH PRICE BY THE LD. TP O/AO AND THE LD. DRP FOR THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF AC TIVATED CARBONS TO ITS ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES (AES) 2.1 THE LD. AOL TPO ERRED IN REJECTING THE CONTEMPO RANEOUS TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT A ND IN REJECTING COMPARABLE UNCONTROLLED PRICE (CUP) AS THE MOST A PPROPRIATE ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 3 -: METHOD (MAM). THE HONBLE DRP HAS ERRED IN UPHOLD ING THE ACTION OF LD. TPO/AO. 2.2 THE LD. TPO/AO ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD UNDERTAKEN A SCIENTIFIC SEARCH ON A BONAFIDE INTENT ION AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION OF TP DOCUMENTATION AND THIS WAS IN LIN E WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 92D READ WITH RULE IOD OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 1962 (THE RULES). THE LD. DRP ERRED IN UPH OLDING THE ACTIONS OF THE TPO/AO. 2.3 THE LCLAO/TPO ERRED IN NOT UNDERTAKING A SCIENT IFIC STUDY AS PRESCRIBED UNDER RULE 1OD AND MERELY SELECTED TWO P EER COMPANIES OF THE APPELLANT AFTER REQUESTING THE APPELLANT TO SUGGEST THE NAME OF THE PEER COMPANIES. THE LD. DRP ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTIONS OF THE TPOIAO. 2.4 LD. TPO/AO, USING THE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SE CTION 133(6) HAD OBTAINED THE FINANCIALS OF THE TWO PEER COMPANIES W HICH WERE NOT ACCESSIBLE TO THE APPELLANT WHILE PREPARING ITS TP STUDY WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAD UNDERTAKEN A SCIENTIFIC SEARCH IN ITS TP STUDY. THE LD. DRP ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTIONS OF THE TPO/AO. 2.5 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, THE LD. DRP ERR ED IN NOT PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ON CORROBORAT IVE ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT USING TRANSACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD (TNMM) AS THE MAM. THE HONBLE BENCH MAY PLEASE N OTE, IN THE TP ORDER FOR AY 2013-14, THE TPO HAS ACCEPTED THE CORR OBORATIVE TNMM ANALYSIS UNDERTAKEN BY THE APPELLANT. 2.6 THE LD. AOITPO ERRED IN COMPUTING THE MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT WHILE DETERMINING THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE. THE LD. DRP ERR ED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE TPO/AO. ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 4 -: 2.7 THE LD. AOL TPO ERRED IN APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT, THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NOT DUE TO PRICING OF TRANSACT IONS WITH ASSOCIATED ENTERPRISES BUT THE SPECIFIC BUSINESS RE ASONS AS THE COMPANY IS PROFITABLE DURING THE SUBSEQUENT FINANCI AL YEARS (I.E. FOR FY 2012-13 AND FY 2013- 14).THE LD. DRP ERRED IN UP HOLDING THE ACTIONS OF TPO/AO. 2.8 THE LD. AOL TPO ERRED IN COMPARING ESTABLISHED COMPANIES TO THE APPELLANT WITHOUT PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENT TO THE MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT IGNORING THE FACT THAT AY 2012-13 IS THE FIRST FULL YEAR OF COMMERCIAL OPERATION AND THE APPELLANT STARTED MAKI NG PROFITS IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEARS. THE SAME IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT, WITH RESPECT TO AY 2013-14, ON SIMILAR FACT PATTERN THE LD. TPO HAS CONSIDERED THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF THE APPELLANT AT ARMS LENGTH. THE LD. DRP ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTIONS OF TPO/AO. 3 LD. TPO/AO AND LD. DRP ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING APP ROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS 3.1 THE LD. AO/ TPO AND LD. DRP ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT ALLOWING APPROPRIATE ADJUSTMENTS UNDER RULE 10B TO ACCOUNT FOR, INTER ALIA, DIFFERENCES IN (A) ACCOUNTING PRACTICES AND ( B) CAPACITY ADJUSTMENTS BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND COMPARABLE CO MPANIES. 3.2 THE LD. AO/ TPO ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING APPROPRI ATE ADJUSTMENTS TO THE MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT, ARISING OUT OF THE BUSINES S REASON SUCH AS HIGH RAW MATERIAL PROCUREMENT PRICE, HIGH PACKING MATERI AL PRICE AND LOW YIELD WHICH HAVE PREDOMINANTLY CONTRIBUTED TOWARDS THE LOSS INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE AY 2012-13. 3.3 THE LD. DRP, EVEN AFTER PERMITTING TO FILE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCE AND SUBMISSION FAILED TO PASS A SPEAKING ORDER AND THER EBY UPHELD THE ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 5 -: CONTENTIONS OF THE AO/TPO BY MERELY STATING THAT TH E APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF PACKING MATERIALS OF COMPA RABLE COMPANIES. 3.4 THE LD. AO / TPO FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE APPELLANT COULD NOT ACHIEVE THE OPTIMUM UTILISATION OF INSTALLED CAPACI TY IN AY 2012-13 AND HENCE AN ADJUSTMENT TO BE PROVIDED TO THE MARGIN OF THE APPELLANT TO THE EFFECT OF UNDER-UTILISATION OF THE CAPACITY. TH E LD. DRP IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE TPO HAS OBTAINED THE FINANCIALS OF TH E COMPANY USING POWERS CONFERRED UNDER SECTION 133(6) AND THE APPEL LANT DID NOT HAVE ACCESS TO THOSE DATA WHICH WERE NOT AVAILABLE IN TH E PUBLIC DOMAIN AT THE TIME OF PREPARATION TP STUDY HELD THAT NO COMPA RATIVE INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT I.E. THE RELEVAN T DATA PERTAINING TO THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 3.5 THE LD. DRP ERRED IN NOT LOOKING INTO THE BUSIN ESS REASONS PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT AND HELD THAT THE NECESSITY FOR SE PARATE ADJUSTMENT ON THE ABOVE COUNTS ARE NOT FELT WHEN TNMM WHICH IS BA SED ON OPERATING PROFIT MARGINS HAS BEEN ADOPTED AS THE MOST ACCURAT E METHOD FOR COMPARABILITY PURPOSE. 3.6 THE LD. DRP WITHOUT VALIDATING THE ADJUSTMENTS DUE TO THE BUSINESS REASONS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) TAKES CARE OF THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN THE APPELLANT AND THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES AND THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT ON ADJUSTMENT CANT BE ACCEPTED. 3.7 THE LD. DRP DID NOT VALIDATE THE ANALYSIS IN CO NNECTION WITH SPECIFIC BUSINESS REASON FOR LOSS AND IMPACT OF UNUTILIZED C APACITY. 3.8 ON THE ABOVE, LD. DRP ERRONEOUSLY REJECTED THE ARGUMENT ON THE BASIS THAT THE CORRESPONDING INFORMATION REGARDING THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 6 -: 3.9 THE LD. DRP ERRONEOUSLY HELD THAT THE ADJUSTMEN T CAN BE GIVEN ONLY TO THE MARGINS OF THE COMPARABLE COMPANIES. 4. VARIATION OF 5% FROM THE ARITHMETIC MEAN 4.1 THE ED. AO/ LD. TPO ERRED IN LAW IN NOT GRANTIN G THE BENEFITS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 92C(2) OF THE ACT AVAILABLE TO THE APPEL LANT. THE LD. DRP HAS UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE TPO. 5. INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234B OF THE ACT OF INR 32,74,790. 6. INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS 6.1 THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT, BASED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR THE LD. AO TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 274 READ WITH SECTION 271 OF THE ACT. 7. RELIEF 7.1 THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT DIRECTIONS BE GIVEN TO GRANT ALL SUCH RELIEF ARISING FROM THE ABOVE GROUNDS AND ALSO ALL RELIEF CONSEQUE NTIAL THERETO. 7.2 THE APPELLANT DESIRES LEAVE TO ADD TO OR ALTER, BY DELETION, SUBSTITUTION OR OTHERWISE, ANY OR ALL OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF OBJEC TIONS, AT ANY TIME BEFORE OR DURING THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 7.3 FURTHER, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ADJUSTMEN T IN RELATION TO TRANSFER PRICING MATTERS MADE BY THE LEARNED AO/ TPO AND UPH ELD BY THE LD. PANEL IS BAD IN LAW AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 7 -: 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD.A.R PRIMARILY PL EADED WITH REGARD TO GROUND NOS.2.2 & 2.3 AS ABOVE ON THE REA SON THAT THE AO/T.P.O HAD NOT FOLLOWED THE DUE PROCEDURE PRESCRI BED UNDER RULE-10D SO AS TO SELECT THE COMPARABLES AND HE HA S TAKEN A LETTER DATED 07.09.2015 FROM THE ASSESSEE WITH REGA RD TO COMPANIES ENGAGED IN THE SIMILAR LINES OF BUSINESS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE DETAILS OF ITS COMPETITORS, NAMELY M/S.CORE CARBONS PVT. LTD AND M/S.GENUNE SHELL CARB PVT LTD., AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION OBTAINED U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT, THE AO HAD WORKED OUT THE PLI OF THESE COMPANIES AN D PROPOSED TO ADOPT TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE ASSE SSEE CHALLENGED THIS VIDE GROUND NO.2.4 BEFORE THE DRP THAT THE TPO HAD NOT UNDERTAKEN ANY SCIENTIFIC METHOD TO IDENTIF Y THE COMPARABLE PRICE AND HAS MERELY SELECTED THE PEER C OMPANIES OF THE JCB INDIA AS COMPARABLE TO DETERMINE THE ARMS LENGTH PRICE (ALP) ON THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF ACTIVATED CARBONS TO ITS AES. 3.1 FURTHER, LD.A.R SUBMITTED THAT THE DRP NOT AT ALL GIVEN FINDINGS ON THIS ISSUE. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE DRP HAS GIVEN FINDINGS THAT THE TPO IS JUSTIFIED IN COLLECTING TH E INFORMATION ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 8 -: U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT AND ALSO THERE IS NO INFIRMI TY IN USING THE SAME INFORMATION FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING ALP . 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD.D.R SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE MIGHT NOT HAVE PRESSED THE ABOVE GROUND BEFORE THE DRP, HENCE IT HAS NOT GIVEN THE FINDINGS WITH REGARD TO APPLIC ABILITY OF RULE 10D OF INCOME TAX RULES, 1962. HE RELIED ON THE OR DER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DRP GIV EN A LETTER DATED 17.10.2016 BEFORE THE DRP AS FOLLOWS:- JACOBI CARBONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMTED . ISO 9001 2008 CERTIFIED COMPANY REGISTERED & FACTORY ADDRESS AF NO.580 & 581| METTUBAVI VILLAGE | VADASITHUR POS T |KINNATHUKADAVU TALUK. THE SECRETARY, DISPUTE RESOLUTION PANEL, 7 FLOOR. INCOME TAX OFFICE, BMTC BUILIDING, 80 FEET ROAD, KO RAMANGALA. BANGALORE 17 OCTOBER 2016 SIR MADAM. NAME OF ASSESSEE : JACOBI CARBONS INDIA PRIVATE LI MITED ( JCB INDIA OR THE ASSESSEE OR THE COMPANY ) PAN: AACCJ0987E ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2012-13 ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 9 -: SUBJECT: PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133 READ WITH S ECTION 143C (2)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) & DRAFT ASSESSMENT ORDER I SSUES UNDER SECTION I 44C( I) R.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. REFERENCE: HEARING HELD ON 26 TH SEPTEMBER 2016 AND FILING OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE DURING THE HEARING HELD ON 26 SEPTEMBER 2016, THE A SSESSEE HAD PLEADED ( IN REFERENCE TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 2 ) THAT THE TRANSFER PRICING OFFICER (TPO) SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED A METHODICAL APPROACH TO ARRIV E AT COMPARABLES TO THE ASSESSEE BUT NOT A CHERRY PICKING, IN CONNECTION WITH THE IN TERNATIONAL TRANSACTION OF SALE OF ACTIVATED CARBON DURING F.Y 2011-12 (AY 2012-13). I N RESPONSE TO THE ASSESSEES REQUEST, THE HONBLE PANEL HAD GRANTED AN OPPORTUN ITY TO FILE AN ADDTIONAL EVIDENEE IN THE NATURE OF COMPARABLE ANALYSIS SELECTING TRAN SACTIONAL NET MARGIN METHOD TIMM AS THE MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD. THE ASSESSEE S UBMITS HEREBY THE DETAILS AS AUNEXURE- I TO THIS LETTER. WE WOULD REQUEST YOU TO TAKE THE ABOVE MENTIONED SU BMISSIONS ON RECORD AND PROVIDE THE COMPANY WITH (A) AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEIN G HEARD, AND (B) AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE ADDITIONAL SUBMISSIONS, IF REQUIRED. YOURS FAITHFULLY, FOR JACOBI CARBONS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED SD/- AUTHORISED SIGNATORY ENCL: AS ABOVE 8.1 HOWEVER, THE DRP HAD NOT GIVEN ANY FINDINGS WI TH REGARD TO SELECTION OF COMPARABLE UNDER RULE -10D. ON THE CONTRARY IN PARA NO.4.3 TO 4.4.2, IT HAS GIVEN FIND INGS THAT TPO HAS HIS JURISDICTION TO COLLECT INFORMATION U/S.13 3(6) OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE ALP. HOWEVER, THE CR UX OF THE ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R IS THAT THE TPO SHALL FOLLOW TH E DUE PROCEDURE ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 10 - : UNDER RULE-10D. AS PER SECTION 92D OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 10D, THERE SHOULD BE A SCIENTIFIC SEARCH OF COMPARA BLES FOR THE PURPOSE OF TRANSFER PRICING DOCUMENTATION AND THERE CANNOT BE ANY CHERRY PICKING OF DATA IN FAVOUR OF REVENUE, BY DISREGARDING OTHER COMPARABLES, WHICH ARE IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE TPO HAS TO PROVIDE METHODOLOGY OF SELECTION OF COMP ARABLES AND THE PROCESSING THROUGH WHICH HE SELECTED THE COMPAR ABLES. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THAT EXERCISE HAS NOT BEEN DONE. IN OUR OPINION, IF TPO WANTS TO EXCLUDE ANY COMPARABLE S SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE OR IF HE WANTS TO INCLUDE ANY COMPA RABLES SELECTED BY HIM DUE PROCEDURE TO BE FOLLOWED AND OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING TO BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE IN THIS CASE THE TPO ADOPTED TNMM AS MOST APPROPRIATE METHOD REJECTING T HE CUP METHOD SELECTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE TRANSFER PRI CING DOCUMENTATION BY SELECTING TWO COMPANIES I.E. M/S.C ORE CARBONS PVT. LTD AND M/S.GENUNE SHELL CARB PVT LTD., AS COM PARABLES AND TPO HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY SEARCH STRATEGY OR SEARCH PROCESS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TWO COMPANIES HAVE ARRIVED AT CO MPARABLES TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE TO THE FILE OF AO TO CARRY OUT THE NECESSARY EXERCISE FOR SELECTIO N OF ITA NO.386/MDS./2017 :- 11 - : COMPARABLES, THEREAFTER DECIDE THE TP ADJUSTMENTS F OR DENOVO. SINCE WE HAVE REMITTED THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO, AT THIS STAGE WE REFRAIN FROM GOING INTO OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 12 TH JULY, 2017, AT CHENNAI. SD/ - SD/ - ( !' #$ ) (GEORGE MATHAN) ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( ' / CHENNAI ) / DATED: 12 TH JULY, 2017. K S SUNDARAM * #+, - ,# / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. ! .# () / CIT(A) 5. ,12 #3 / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. ! .# / CIT 6. 24 5' / GF