Smt. Sushma Rani, Bhawanigarh V. ITO, Sangrur

ITA 476/CHANDI/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 80918 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-09-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: J S NAGAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Proportionate interest

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES B CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 476/CHD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 SMT SUSHMA RANI, VS. THE I.T.O PROP. M/S HARI OM GARMENTS, WARD-1 BHAWANIGARH SANGRUR, PAN NO. AEKPR6927D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL RESPONDENT BY : SHRI J.S. NAGAR DATE OF HEARING : 18/09/2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29/09/2014 ORDER PER T.R.SOOD, A.M. THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A), PATIALA DATED 26.02.2013. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS. 59,873/- (RS. 1, 44,000/- ESTIMATED BY THE CIT (A) MINUS RS. 84,127/- SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE) OUT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,31,973/- (RS. 4, 16,100/- ESTIMATED BY THE MINUS RS 84,127/- SHOWN BY THE ASS ESSEE) MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVE INCURRED THE EXPENDITURE OF HOUSEHOLD HIGHER THAN THE CLAIME D BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 3. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE A DDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- (ONE LAC FIFTY THOUSAND ONLY) IN RESPECT OF UNSECURED LOAN RAISED FROM SH. RAKESH KUMAR BY NOT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT ALL THE THREE ESSENTIAL I NGREDIENTS VIZ. IDENTITY, CREDIT WORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION WERE FILED. 4. THAT THE WORTHY CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING DISAL LOWANCE OF PROPORTIONATE INTEREST OUT OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS . 27,643/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WORKS ON THE A MOUNT MADE AS GIFT OF RS. 3,50,000/- (THREE LACS FIFTY TH OUSAND) BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI. KARAN BANSAL AND RUCHITA BANS AL NEPHEW AND NIECE OF THE ASSESSEE BY TREATING THE AM OUNT PAID FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSE. 3. GROUND NO.1: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ENQUIRIES WERE MADE IN CONNECTION WITH THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE CONSISTED OF THREE MEMB ERS INCLUDING ONE CHILD WHO WAS SCHOOL GOING. THE EXPENDITURE ON THE CHILD WAS ESTIMATED AS UNDER:- NATURE OF EXPENSE (ANNUAL) RS. X NO. OF PERSONS X 1 2 MONTHS OF THE F.Y. TOTAL EXPENSES (IN RS.) CONVEYANCE EXPENSES PER CHILD 450 X 1 X 12 5400 EXPENSES ON CLOTHS, REFRESHMENT (MISC. EXPENSES) 2500 X 1 X 12 30000 FEE FOR ONE CHILD 500 X 12 X 1 6000 TOTAL EXPENSES 41400 THE EXPENDITURE ON KITCHEN WAS ESTIMATED AS UNDER:- FOOD ITEM PER HEAD (IN RS. ) X NO. OF FAMILY MEMBERS X 365 DAYS OF YEAR TOTAL YEARLY EXPENSES (IN RS.) BREAK FAST 25 X 3 X 365 27375 LUNCH 30 X 3 X 365 32850 DINNER 30 X 3 X 365 32850 TEA / MILK * 15 X 3 X 365 16425 TOTAL 109500 * FOR THE DAY OR AFTER DINNER 3 NATURE OF EXPENSE RS. X MONTHS TOTAL EXPENSE KITCHEN SERVANT 500 X 12 6,000 SANITATION 300 X 12 3600 TOTAL 9600 OTHER DOMESTIC EXPENSE WERE ESTIMATED AS UNDER;- NATURE OF EXPENSE RS. X MONTHS TOTAL EXPENSE ELECTRICITY EXPENSES 2500 X 12 30000 TELEPHONE EXPENSES 500 X 12 6000 MOBILE EXPENSES (2 USERS) 1,000 X 12 12,000 TOTAL 48,000 MISC. EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF SOCIAL ACTIVITIES LIKE SUGAN ON MARRIAGES AND OTHER FUNCTIONS, DAILY REFRESHMENTS, ATTENDING OF RELATIV ES AND FRIENDS AT HOME @ RS. 3500/- PER MONTH. EXPENSES ON CONVEYANCE WERE ESTIMATED AS UNDER:- NATURE OF EXPENSE RS. X MONTHS TOTAL EXPENSE PETROL / DIESEL EXPENSES 3000 X 12 36,000 DRIVER SALARY 4000 X 12 48,000 TOTAL 84,000 EXPENSES ON PERSONAL EFFECTS WERE ESTIMATED AS UNDE R:- NATURE OF EXPENSE RS. X PER HEAD X MONTHS TOTAL EXP ENSE EXPENSES FOR PERSONAL EFFECTS 1500 X 3 X 12 54,000 REPAIR & MAINTENANCE (INCLUDING WHITE WASH) 2000 X 12 24,000 WATER & SEWERAGE 300 X 12 3,600 TOTAL 81600 THE TOTAL OF ALL EXPENSES CAME TO RS. 4,16,100/- AN D SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS. 84,127/-, THE BALAN CE AMOUNT OF RS. 3,31,973/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4 4. ON APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS STATED AS UNDER: - 4. LD. A.O HAS ISSUED ONE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE APPELLATE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR HOUSE H OLD EXPENSES. IN THAT NOTICE (COPY WAS ALREADY ATTACHED WITH PREVIOUS REPLY AT PAGE NO. 7-9) STATES ON HIS OWN E STIMATES AND IMAGINATIONS REGARDING HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ON DIF FERENT HEADS SUCH AS KITCHEN, ELECTRICITY, PETROL, SOCIAL LIABILITIES, EDUCATION, TELEPHONE, DRIVER & PERSONAL EFFECTS. AL L THESE EXPENSES WERE WORK OUT PURELY ON PRESUMPTION, SURMI SES AND CONJECTURES. NO MATERIAL ON RECORD HAS BEEN BROUGHT ABOUT TO ESTIMATE THE SAME. ONLY A SHOW CAUSE LETTER WAS ISS UED BY HIS OWN ESTIMATE BY IGNORING THE FACTS THAT LIFE STYLE OF EVERY FAMILY IS DIFFER FROM EACH OTHER. EVEN PLACE TO PLA CE. IN THIS CASE REPLY OF SHOW CAUSE WAS ALSO FILED DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS (COPY OF THE SAME WAS FILED WITH PREVIO US REPLY AT PAGE NO. 10-12) IN WHICH THE FACTS ON EACH AT EVERY POINT WAS NARRATED. BUT THE LD. A.O. BURST A SIDE THE REPLY A ND KEEP HIS MIND TO HAVE MADE THE ADDITION ON HOUSE HOLD WITHDR AWALS DESPITE THE FACTS THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT MAINTAINED ANY CAR, CAR DRIVER, SERVANT AT HOME, NO REPAIR OR WHITE WAS H AT HOME AND OTHER EXPENSES WERE TAKEN ON VERY HIGHER SIDE O N ESTIMATION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE PART RELIEF AND DECIDED THE ISSUE VIDE PARA 4.2, WHICH IS AS UNDER:- 4.2 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION MADE. IT IS SEE THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE PURELY ON PRESUMPTION WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING ON RECORD ESTABLISHING THAT SUCH EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS ME NTIONED THAT THE APPELLANT REMAINED SILENT ON IN ANY ISSUE ON TH IS ACCOUNT WHEN CONFRONTED THROUGH THE QUESTIONNAIRE SERVED ON HIM. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FAILED TO GIVE CERTAIN DETAILS ASKED OR BY THE A.O. THE FAMILY OF THE APPELLANT CO NSISTS OF ONLY 3 MEMBERS INCLUDING ONE SCHOOL GOING CHILD. THE FINAN CIAL YEAR PERTAINS TO 2007-08. IN MY OPINION, SINCE NO SPECIF IC INSTANCES HAS BEEN BROUGHT OUT BY THE A.O. RS. 12,000/- PER MONTH I.E. RS. 1,44,000/- FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR IS A FAIR ESTIMATE F OR HOUSEHOLD 5 EXPENSES OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. IS, THEREFORE, DIRECTED TO TAKE ACTION ACCORDINGLY. 6. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT ALL THE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN ASSESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTI MATED BASIS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD. HE PARTICULARLY SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING ANY CAR THEN HOW COULD ASSESSING OFFICER PRESUME TH AT THERE WOULD BE PETROL EXPENSES PLUS DRIVER EXPENSES. IN ANY CASE THE EST IMATE IS ON HIGHER SIDE AND IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT CIT(A) HAS ESTIMATED THE EXPENSES ON VERY REASONABLE BASIS AND, THEREFORE, N O INTERFERENCE IS CALLED FOR IN HIS ORDER. 8. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES SEEMS TO HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED ON A VERY HIG HER SIDE. THERE WAS NO MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASSUME THA T ASSESSEE WAS MAINTAINING A CAR STILL EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PETROL AND DRIVING HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE OVER ALL CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, WE ESTIMATE THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE AT RS. 10,000/- PER MONTH WHICH M EANS ASSESSEE WOULD GET FURTHER BENEFIT OF RS. 24,000/-. THUS, THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. GROUND NO.3: AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIE S WE FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS NOTICED THAT OUT OF T HE TOTAL UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 12,93,661/-, ONE LOAN OF RS. 1,50,000/- WAS TAK EN FROM ONE SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AND WHO WAS ALSO PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER AND HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR ADMITTED THAT HE HAS GIVEN THIS LOAN OUT OF HIS SAVINGS. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR BUT NOTHING WAS FURNISHED, THEREFORE, THE SUM OF RS. 1,50,000/- WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 10. ON APPEAL, THE COPY OF THE ACCOUNT ALONGWITH CO NFIRMATION LETTER, PAN COPY, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF THE RETURN FILED WERE FURN ISHED BEFORE CIT(A) AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SAME PROVES IDENTITY CREDITWORTH INESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE SAME WERE SENT FOR VERIFICATION B Y THE LD. CIT(A) TO ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IN HIS REPORT SUBMITTED THAT BANK STATE MENT WAS NOT FURNISHED BEFORE HIM. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SINCE BANK STATEM ENT WAS NOT FURNISHED TO PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. 11. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT SHRI RAKESH KUMAR HAD FILED INCOME TAX RETURN ALSO AND HE WAS PRODUCE D BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE HE CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT HE HAS GIVEN THE LOAN. HE CONTENDED THAT BANK STATEMENT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE CIT(A) COPY O F WHICH IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK. FROM THE ABOVE DOCUMENTS IT B ECOME ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ALL THE INGREDIENTS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN 211 ITR PA GE 11 (STATUTE) WHEREIN SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION IN THE CASE OF CIT V CHUNNI LAL :SLP (CIVIL) NO.21334 OF 1994 WAS DISMISSED. IN THAT CASE CASH CREDIT IN TH E NAMES OF THE ASSESSEES WIFE, SON AND DAUGHTER IN LAW WAS ADDED BACK BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNSECURED CASH CREDITS. THE TRIBUNAL ALLOWED THE PA YMENTS BY HOLDING THAT CASH CREDIT CAME FROM THE BANK ACCOUNTS HELD BY SON, WIF E AND DAUGHTER-IN-LAW. THE OFFICER COULD NOT ADD BACK THESE AMOUNT UNLESS HE W OULD PROVE THAT THESE PERSONS WERE BENAMI OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT EVEN THOUGH CASH WAS DEPOSITED THAT CANNOT BE IGNORED BY THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & H ARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF 306 ITR 267 CIT VS. RAMNEET SINGH (P&H). 12. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT PERUSAL OF THE BANK STATE MENT AT PAGE 4 WOULD CLEARLY SHOWS THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED JUST A DAY BEFORE THE LOAN WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. 7 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS C AREFULLY AND DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE . THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER FOR DISMISSING THE SLP IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHUN NI LAL (SUPRA) CLEARLY SHOWS THAT NOWHERE IT IS STATED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED I MMEDIATELY BEFORE GIVING THE LOAN BY THE SON OR DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF CIT V RAMANEET SINGH (SUPRA), THE QUESTION THAT DEA L WITH THE CASH CREDIT WAS DECIDED BY THE HON'BLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT AT PAGAE 3 WHICH IS AS UNDER:- REGARDING GROUND NO. 1, THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL HAS AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS) WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE CREDITORS WERE PRODUCED AND THEIR STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND IN THEIR ST ATEMENTS, THE CREDITORS HAVE CONFIRMED HAVING ADVANCED LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THIS MATERIAL , THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDIT ION OF RS. 1,53,500 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. THE ABOVE PORTION OF THE JUDGMENT CLEARLY SHOWS THA T NOWHERE IT IS STATED THAT CASH WAS DEPOSITED IMMEDIATELY BEFORE GIVING THE LO AN. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR WAS STATED TO BE A SMALL PERSON ENGAGED IN COLLECTING P IGMY DEPOSITS FROM PUBLIC FOR BANK SCHEMES. IF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR WAS HAVING SUFFI CIENT INCOME THEN WHY HE WOULD HAVE KEPT THE CASH AT HOME AND WHY HE WOULD D EPOSIT THE SAME ONLY ONE DAY BEFORE THE GIVING OF LOAN. NO DOUBT SHRI RAKES H KUMAR HAS FILED RETURN BUT PERUSAL OF THE COPY OF THE RETURN FILED BEFORE US S HOWS THAT HE HAS GROSS TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,95,095/- OUT OF WHICH DEDUCTIONS HA VE BEEN CLAIMED AT RS. 74,639/- WHICH MEANS THIS AMOUNT HAS GONE TOWARDS S OME SAVINGS AND THE SAME IS NOT AVAILABLE IN LIQUID CASH. SHRI RAKESH KUMAR HIMSELF HAVE BEEN LEFT WITH ONLY RS. 1,20,456/- WHICH IS JUST SUFFICIENT TO MET HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. THESE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW CREDITWORTHINESS OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR HAS NOT BEEN PROVED. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P . MOHANKALA 291 ITR 278 (SC) CLEARLY HELD THAT IN CASE WHERE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT 8 THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUMS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT SATISFACTORY THEN SAME WOULD CONSTITUTE PRIMA-FACIE EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILI TY LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF SUMIT DAYAL VS. CIT 214 ITR 801 (SC) WAS HELD TO B E APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF CASH CREDITS. THEREFORE, IN THE CASE BEFORE US CLEA RLY THE EXPLANATION IS NOT SATISFACTORY. IT SIMPLY SEEMS TO BE A CASE WHERE CA SH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAKESH KUMAR AND LOAN WAS SHOWN IN HIS NAME, THEREFORE, WE FIND NOTHING WRONG WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT AND WE CONFIRM THE SAME. 14. GROUND NO.4 : AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES W E FIND THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CERTAIN ADVANCES TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE W AS ASKED WHY INTEREST WAS NOT CHARGED ON THE SAME. ULTIMATELY, 12% INTEREST W AS CALCULATED ON SUCH LOANS AND A SUM OF RS. 27,643/- WAS DISALLOWED. 15. ON APPEAL, IT WAS MAINLY STATED THAT ALL THE FA CTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN FILED, THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED. 16. BEFORE US, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN FACT NO LOA NS WERE GIVEN TO SHRI KARAN BANSAL AND, RICHITA BANSAL AND THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY A GIFT AND BY MISTAKE IT WAS SHOWN AS LOAN AND ADVANCE. THE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN THIS REGARD HE REFERRED TO PAGES 25 TO 27, WHICH IS COPY OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED TO ASSESSING OFFICER WHERE IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT GIFT DEED WERE BEING FILED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF GIFT TO KARAN BANSAL AND RICHA BANSAL. 17. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED TH E ORDER OF CIT(A). 18. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND THAT IF GIFT DEED WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN ASSESSING O FFICER SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED 9 WHETHER REALLY GIFTS HAVE BEEN MADE THEN PROBABLY N O INTEREST WAS REQUIRED TO BE CHARGED. HOWEVER, THERE ARE NO FINDINGS IN THE ORD ER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN THIS RESPECT AND REMAND THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF A SSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION OF THIS ISSUE BECAUSE COPY OF THE GIFT DEED IS NOT AVAILABLE BEFORE US. 19. IN THE RESULT APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STA TISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29.09. 2014 SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (T.R. SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 29TH SEPTEMBER, 2014 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR