M/s S.S.Trading Corporation, Indore V. The ITO 2(3), Indore

ITA 403/IND/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 40322714 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-12-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 1989-1990
• Appeal Filed On: 18-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R A VERMA
• Keywords: Gross profit estimation; Depreciation; Reasonable cause
• Section: 273B; 68; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, J.M. AND SHRI B.C.MEENA, A.M. I.T.A.NO.403/IND/2012 A.Y. : 1989-90 M/S.S.S.TRADING CORPORATION, INDORE VS. ITO, 2(3), INDORE APPELLANT RESPONDENT PAN NO. AAFFS7620B APPELLANT BY : SHRI HITESH CHIMNANI, C. A. RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.A.VERMA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 0 1 . 0 6 .201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 . 0 7 .201 5 -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER GARASIA, J.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, INDORE, DATED 01.03.2012 FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 1989-90. 2. THE SHORT FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. DURING THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COPY O F ACCOUNTS AND CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF NEW UNSECURED LOAN. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CAPACITY AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN RAISED DURING THE YEAR OF R S. 2,73,760/-. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE C OPY OF ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION LETTER IN RESPECT OF THE S AID LOAN. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND PENALTY HAS BEEN INITIATED ON THIS GROUND. 3. SECONDLY THE AO HAS ALSO LEVIED THE PENALTY ON THE GROUND. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO LEVIED PENALTY ON THE GROUND -: 3: - 3 THAT VEHICLE EXPENSES ARE WRONGLY CLAIMED AND HE AL SO, LEVIED PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT. 4. THE MATTER CARRIED TO LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HA S CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS I N APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS FILED THE WRI TTEN SUBMISSION, WHICH READS AS UNDER :- SYNOPSIS IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.07.1990 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 ISSUED ON EVEN DATE. THE RETURNED INCOME WAS RS 2,79,944/- THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST ORDER DATED 01.03.2012 OF LD. CIT (A)LL - INDORE, WHEREIN HE HAS CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY ID. AO VIDE HIS PENALTY ORDER DATED 31.07.2006 ON 3 OUT OF 6 COUNTS. THE BRIEF FACTS MATERIAL FOR DISPOSAL OF THE PRESEN T -: 4: - 4 APPEAL ARE NARRATED IN A TABULAR FORMAT FOR EASE OF REFERENCE: S. NO. ISSUES AMOUNT CIT(A) EX-PARTE DT. 27.2.96 ITAT DT.11.01.2 002 CIT(A) DT. 6/12/04 ITAT PENALTY ORDER CIT(A) 1. ADDITION U/S 68 2,73,760 UPHELD SET ASIDE TO A.O. UPHELD DIS MIS SED PART RELIEF OF RS 73,760( BEING OPENING BALANCE 4. VEHICLE EXP. + DEP ON CAR 36,320 /PART RELIEF. UPHELD 18,160 SET ASIDE TO A.O. UPHELD DIS MIS SED CONFIRME D 5 LOW G.P. 30.000 UPHELD SET ASIDE TO A.O. UPHELD DIS MIS SE CONFIRME D THUS ON A PERUSAL OF THE SAID CHART YOUR HONORS WOULD FIND THAT THE ID CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY ONLY ON 3 OUT OF 6 COUNTS BEING SI. NO. 1,4 AND 5. IN THIS RESPECT, MOST RESPECTFULLY, WE BEG TO SUBMI T AS UNDER: -: 5: - 5 IT IS AN UNFORTUNATE BUT ACCEPTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRESENT ITS CASE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ON MANY OCCASIONS AND THUS THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PRESUMED TO BE NON-CO-OPERATIVE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY BEEN SADDLED WITH HEAVY TAX LIABILITY AND INTEREST OWING TO ITS NON- COMPLIANCE AND THE FACT THAT HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE HIS CASE TO THE HILT IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. HE HAS ALREADY SUFFERED ENOUGH. NONETHELESS, THE ISSUES ON WHICH PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AND EVENTUALLY CONFIRMED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SUCH THAT THEY WARRANT A LEVY OF PENALTY. SI. NO. 4 AND 5 OF THE CHART (SUPRA) ARE ESTIMATED AND AD-HOC DISALLOWANCES OF VEHICLE RUNNING, CAR DEPRECIATION AND G.P ADDITION. INCIDENTALLY, IN THE CASE OF CAR RUNNING AND DEPRECIATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN PART RELIEF IN THE EX-PARTE ORDER PASSED BY ID. CIT (A) AS -: 6: - 6 CAN BE SEEN FROM PAGE 31 PARA 6 OF CIT(A) ORDER DATE27.02.1996. THUS WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ITSELF, AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ORDERS PASSED BY VARIOUS AUTHORITIES (SUPRA), IT IS NOT A FIT CASE FOR PENALTY. CASH-CREDITS OF RS 2, 00,000/-(RELATING TO THREE PARTIES) HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. PENALTY HAS ALSO BEEN CONFIRMED ON THE SAME. THE DETAILS ARE AVAILABLE ON PG. 17, 41-46 AND 50- 62 BEING VARIOUS QUERIES AND SUBMISSIONS ALONGWITH AVAILABLE EVIDENCES AS COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE VARIOUS AUTHORITIES. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID MATERIAL/EVIDENCES YOUR HONOR WOULD FIND THAT THE MATTER BEING TOO OLD (RELATING TO F.Y. 1988- 89) THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF LENDERS FOR THE RELEVANT PERIOD COULD NOT BE FURNISHED, HOWEVER, COPIES OF ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE , CONFIRMATIONS AND AFFIDAVITS WERE -: 7: - 7 PRODUCED . IN THIS RESPECT, THE CASH CREDITS COULD NOT BE POSITIVELY PROVED, HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT DISPROVED ALSO. THE SECTION 271(L)(C) IS REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) :- 271.(1) IF THE [ASSESSING] OFFICER OR THE [***] [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] [OR THE COMMISSIONER] IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PERSON (A) [* * *] (B) [* * *], OR (C) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR [* * *] FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, OR (D) HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF THE FRINGE BENEFITS OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUC H FRINGE BENEFITS, HE MAY DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY OF -: 8: - 8 PENALTY, (I) [* * *] [(II) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE ( B ), [(HI) IN THE CASES REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (C) [OR CLAUSE (III], [IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE] BY HIM, A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED [THREE TIMES], THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME [OR FRINGE BENEFITS] O R THE FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME [OR FRINGE BENEFITS]. 2|* **) [EXPLANATION 1 .WHERE IN RESPECT OF ANY FACTS MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF ANY PERSON UNDER THIS ACT, (A) SUCH PERSON FAILS TO OFFER AN EXPLANATION OR OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH IS FOUND BY THE - [ASSESSING] OFFICER OR THE -[***] [COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)] -[OR THE COMMISSIONER] TO BE FALSE, OR -: 9: - 9 (B) SUCH PERSON OFFERS AN EXPLANATION WHICH HE IS NOT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE -[AND FAILS TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPLANATION IS BONA FIDE AND THAT ALL THE FACTS RELATING TO THE SAME AND MATERIAL TO THE COMPUTATION OF HIS TOTAL INCOME HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED BY HIM], THEN, THE AMOUNT ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH PERSON AS A RESULT THEREOF SHALL, FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE (C) OF THIS SUB- SECTION, BE DEEMED TO REPRESENT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED. 9(-* * EXPLANATION 2 . [EXPLANATION 3 . EXPLANATION 4 .FOR THE PURPOSES OF CLAUSE ( III ) OF THIS SUB-SECTION, THE EXPRESSION THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED, [(A) IN ANY CASE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF INCOME IN -: 10: - 10 RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED HAS THE EFFECT OF REDUCING THE LOSS DECLARED IN THE RET URN OR CONVERTING THAT LOSS INTO INCOME, MEANS THE TAX THAT WOULD HAVE BEEN CHARGEABLE ON THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN CONCEALED OR INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED HAD SUCH INCOME BEEN THE TOTAL INCOME;] (B) (C) EXPLANATION 5. [EXPLANATION 5A. [EXPLANATION 6. [EXPLANATION 7. [(1A) WHERE ANY PENALTY IS IMPOSABLE BY VIRTUE OF EXPLANATION 2 TO SUB- SECTION (1), PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPOSITION OF SUCH PENALTY MAY BE INITIATED NOTWITHSTANDING THAT ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT IN THE COURSE OF WHICH SUCH PENALTY PROCEEDINGS COULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) HAVE BEEN COMPLETED .] -: 11: - 11 [(IB) WHERE ANY AMOUNT IS ADDED OR DISALLOWED IN COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF AN ASSESSEE I N ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT AND THE SAID OR DER CONTAINS A DIRECTION FOR INITIATION OF PENALTY PROC EEDINGS UNDER CLAUSE (C) OF SUB-SECTION (1), SUCH AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE DEEMED TO CONST ITUTE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR INITIATIO N OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE SAID CLAUSE (C).] A. THUS FROM A BARE PERUSAL OF THE SECTION WHEN KEPT I N JUXTAPOSITION WITH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS NARRATED ABOVE, THE FOLLOWING POINTS BECOME EVIDENT- ADDITIONS /DISALLOWANCES, WHICH ARE CONFIRMED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, DO NOT 'AUTOMATICALLY' LEAD TO LEVY OF PENALTY. QUANTUM AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE SEPARA TE AND DISTINCT. WHEN THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS 'BONA FIDE' , PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT WOULD BE UNJU ST. MORE SO, IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APPELLANT WHICH HAS AMPLY PROVEN ITS BONA FIDES BY SUBMITTING ALL DETAI LS TRULY AND FAITHFULLY ABOVE THE BOARD -: 12: - 12 MAKING AN INCORRECT CLAIM IN LAW, CANNOT TANTAMOUNT TO 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS' AS HELD B Y THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS 322 ITR 158 (SC) SECTION 273B OF THE ACT SPECIFICALLY BARS THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN CASE THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE . THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS DISCRETIONARY AND NOT AUTOMATIC. B. THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(L)(C) IS LEVIABLE EITHER WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS 'FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS' OR HAS 'CONCEALED ' ITS INCOME. THERE IS NO POSSIBILITY THAT BOTH THE DEFAULTS CO-EXIST. UNLESS THE NOTICE SPECIFIES, WHICH OF THE DEFAULT HAS BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, PENALTY U/S 271(L)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED. T HIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MITSU INDUSTRIES V/S DCIT [NEW SORATHIA ENGG CO. 282 ITR 642(GUJ) AND MANU ENGINEE RING WORKS 122 ITR 306(GUJ) FOLLOWED )] -: 13: - 13 C. THE FACTUAL INFORMATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS NO T FOUND TO BE INCORRECT OR MALA FIDE. THUS SO LONG AS THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE FALSE OR MALAFIDE, PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED. MERE ADDITION DOES NOT AUTOMATICALLY LEAD TO PENALTY. FOR LEVY OF PENALTY, SOMETHING MORE HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED BY THE REVENUE -THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS 'DELIBERATELY' SUPPRESSED ITS INCOME OR HAS WITH MA LICIOUS INTENT, FURNISHED INACCURATE DETAILS REGARDING INCO ME. THIS IS CLEARLY NOT THE CASE WITH THE ASSESSEE. NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ON ESTIMATED ADDITIONS. AS HELD IN THE DECISION OF HON'BLE MP HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF J K.JAJOO [47TAXMANN 11 (MP)]. THUS IN THE PRESENT CASE, SINCE THE DISALLOWANCE ITSELF HAS BEEN MADE ON AD-H OC /ESTIMATE BASIS, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 12. THUS CONSIDERING THE OVERALL FACTUAL MATRIX AND THE LEGAL AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT, IT IS PRAYED THAT THE PENALTY SO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) - II. ON SI. # 1, 4, AND 5 OF THE TABLE (SUPRA) MAY VERY KINDLY BE DELET ED IN -: 14: - 14 FULL. FOR THIS ACT OF KINDNESS, YOUR APPELLANT ASSE SSEE SHALL FOREVER REMAIN OBLIGED. 6. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE OF CASH CREDIT, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION I N CASE OF SHRI B.M.UPADHYA AT RS. 50,000/-. THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE CREDITOR WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANYTHING. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF VIJAY KUMAR, NOTHING WAS SUBMITTED. IN RESPECT OF BRIJESH KUMAR CHATURVEDI ADDITION OF RS. 1 LAC W AS MADE AND AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED. HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX IN J-WARD (GIR NO. 368). IN CASE OF KISHORE TRIPATHI, THE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- WAS MADE AND CONFIRMATION WAS FILED AND HE WAS ASSESSED TO TAX. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE CREDITOR ALONGWITH BANK PASS BOOKS. THEREFORE, THIS IS A CASE OF ADDITION, BUT N O PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED. 7. MOREOVER, IN THE CASE OF VEHICLE EXPENSES, THE DEPRECIATION WAS DISALLOWED ON ESTIMATED BASIS, THE REFORE, NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED AND IN THE CASE OF GROSS PROF IT ADDITION, -: 15: - 15 THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF AD HOC ADDITI ON, THEREFORE, THE PENALTY SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. SENIOR D.R. RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF AO. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES. LOOKING TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM IS A PARTNERSHIP FIR M AND THE PENALTY IS LEVIABLE ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION U/S 68 O F THE ACT AND WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED IN THE CASE OF THREE PARTNERS AND PENALTY HAS BEEN CONFIRMED ON THE SAME. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE SHRI B.M.UPADHYA AND SHRI BRIJESH CHATURVEDI AND KISHORE TRIPATHI, THE ASSESSEE HAS P RODUCED THE EVIDENCE AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALL TH E DETAILS RELATING TO THEM WREN FILED, BUT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN THE LOAN, BUT THEY COULD NOT P ROVE BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION WAS MADE. PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED MERELY ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT PROVE HIS CLAIM IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THER E MAY BE MANY REASONS NOT ABLE TO PROVE CREDITWORTHINESS AND CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS. IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE PENALT Y IS -: 16: - 16 AUTOMATIC. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN TH E CASE OF SHRI B.M.UPADHYA (RS.50,000/-ADDITION ), SHRI BRIJE SH CHATURVEDI ( RS. 1 LAC ADDITION ) AND KISHORE TRIPA THI ( RS. 50,000/- ADDITION ), THE PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSED. THEREFORE, WE DELETE THE PENALTY FOR THE SAME. 10. IN RESPECT OF DINES TEXTILES, THE ADDITION WAS MADE AT RS. 37,660/- AND SHRI VIJAY KUMAR, THE ADDITION AT RS. 36,700/- WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE A NY EVIDENCE BEFORE US ALSO AND WHETHER THESE CREDITORS ARE GENUINE OR NOT, COULD NOT BE PROVED. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE PENALTY ON THIS GROUND IS JUSTIFIED. 11. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS IMPOSED PENALTY ON VEHICLE EXPENSES AND ON ACCOUNT OF LOW GROSS PROFIT. WE FIN D THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF VEH ICLE RUNNING AND CAR DEPRECIATION. IN CASE OF CAR RUNNIN G AND DEPRECIATION, THE ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN PART RELIEF IN EX-PARTE ORDER. WE FIND THAT SIMILARLY IN GROSS PROFIT ADDIT ION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ESTIMATED BASI S. WE FIND THAT AS PER THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIV NARAYAN JAMNALAL & COMPANY , 232 -: 17: - 17 ITR 311, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHEN THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE NO FRAUDULENT ATTEMPT TO EVADE THE TAX AND WHA TEVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MAINTAINED THEY HAVE MAINTAINE D PROPERLY, BUT THEY HAVE NOT WITHHELD OR CONCEALED A NY MATERIAL OR NOT MADE ANY DELIBERATE ATTEMPT TO DEFRAUD THE A UTHORITY. THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION, PENALTY CANNOT BE IMPOSE D. THEREFORE, WE CANCEL THE PENALTY. THE AO IS DIRECTE D TO RECALCULATE THE PENALTY ON ADDITION OF RS. 37,660/- AND ADDITION OF RS. 36,700/- TOTALING TO RS. 74,360/-. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO LEVY THE PENALTY ON THIS ADDITION @ 100 %. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS PARTLY ALL OWED THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COU RT ON 30 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- (B. C. MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 30 TH JULY, 2015. CPU* 9.29