Smt. Sushama Kapila, Kangra V. DCIT, Palampur

ITA 510/CHANDI/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2372 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANITA SINHA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITYA KUMAR CAS
• Keywords: Capital asset; Assessment record; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 133A; 148; 263

Judgement Text

, . , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH B CHANDIGARH !', # $ %!, %! & ' ( ) * , +, $ BEFORE: SMT. DIVA SINGH, JM & SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM ./ ITA NO. 510/CHD/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2011-12 SMT. SUSHMA KAPILA, C/O M/S KAPILA NURSING HOME, PALAMPUR, DISTT. KANGRA (HP). VS THE DCIT, CIRCLE, PALAMPUR (HP). ./ PAN NO: ADXPK8794R / APPELLANT / RESPONDENT ! ' / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR & SHRI ADITYA KUMA R, CAS # ! ' / REVENUE BY : SMT. ANITA SINHA, CIT-DR $ % ! &/ DATE OF HEARING : 04.09.2018 '()* ! &/ D ATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.10.2018 +-/ ORDER PER DIVA SINGH THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ASS AILING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER DATED 28.03.2016 OF CIT, SHIMLA P ERTAINING TO 2011-12 ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THAT ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61 BY THE LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, SHIMLA IS AGAINST LAW A ND FACTS ON THE FILE IN AS MUCH AS HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT ASSESSMEN T ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 PASSED, BY THE LD. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TA X, PALAMPUR IS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 2. THAT HE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO HOLD THAT THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER DID NOT MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY/INVESTIGATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SA LE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND ALSO DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK BY THE APPELLANT. 2. THE LD. AR INVITING ATTENTION TO THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, AO ON T HE VERY SAME REASONS HAD CARRIED OUT RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND CALLING FORTH FOR THE R EPLIES ETC. HAD CHOSEN NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THE DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HDFC BANK BY THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE FACTS IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HER HUSBAND OWNED THE SPECIFIC PROPER TY WHEREIN ASSESSEE HAD HALF SHARE AND HALF SHARE WAS HELD BY HER H USBAND DR. ITA 510/CHD/2016 A.Y.2011-123 PAGE 2 OF 5 S.C.KAPILA. THE PROPERTY WAS SOLD IN ONE CHUNK TO THE SAME PERSON AND THE DEPARTMENT ON THE VERY SAME FACTS HAS NOT DRAWN ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE OR TAKEN ANY ADVERSE VIEW IN THE CASE OF THE H USBAND AND ONLY IN THE CASE OF THE WIFE WHO HAD HALF SHARE IN THE SAID PROPE RTY HAVE PROCEEDED TO GIVE A DIFFERENT TREATMENT. THUS, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT APART FROM THE FACTS THAT IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNER, T HE FACTS ARE NOT DISPUTED AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, ADVERSE INFERENCE WAS D RAWN ALSO IGNORING THE FACT THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, TH E ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEEN LOOKED INTO BY THE AO IN 147 PROCEEDINGS. ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO ORDER DATED 27.03.2014 PASSED BY THE AO U/S 147/143(3) OF THE ACT. 2.1 INVITING ATTENTION TO THE REASONS RECORDED ON THE B ASIS OF WHICH RE- OPENING WAS DONE, COPY OF WHICH WAS MADE AVAILABLE. THE LD . AR CARRYING US THROUGH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 FOR FORMING THE V IEW THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE, INVITED ATTENTION TO THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BEFORE THE CIT READ ALONGWITH THE EXPLANATION MADE BEFORE THE AO IN THE 147 P ROCEEDINGS SUBMITTED THAT IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS AND THE FACTS ON RECORD, THE CIT SHIMLA HAS PROCEEDED TO EXERCISE THE POWER WITHOUT BRING ING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT THE CONCLUSIONS DRAWN. THE ORDER HAVING BEEN PASSED PURELY ON SUSPICIONS, IT WAS SUBMITTED, DESERVES T O BE DROPPED. RELIANCE WAS PLACED UPON RADHEY SHYAM AGARWAL, HUF V CIT , GWALIOR (2012) 35SOT 356 (AGRA). 3. ADDRESSING NEW ISSUE ON MERITS, ATTENTION WAS INVITED TO THE FACTS NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN P ARA 3 WHEREIN SPECIFIC MENTION IS MADE TO THE SPECIFIC DEPOSITS IN THE HDFC BANK LTD. REFERRING TO THE OTHER EVIDENCE AND THE EXPLANATIONS GIVE N IN PARA 2(C) AND (G) IT WAS SUBMITTED, WOULD SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AC CEPTED THE MAKING OF THE ADDITION AND IT WAS NOTICED THAT THERE WAS DUPLICATION ETC. IN THE TWO DIFFERENT AIRS WHICH HAD BEEN NOTICED BY THE A O. AS A RESULT OF THIS, THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS. 8,39,570/- WAS ASSESSED A T RS. 1,05,00,770/-. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT THE O RDER PASSED BY THE CIT SHIMLA TO THE SAID EXTENT CANNOT BE UPHELD. 4. IT WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT ON THE THIRD ISSUE I.E. THE BANK INTEREST NOT ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME, THE ASSESSEE HAD HIMSELF MA DE A PRAYER THAT THIS HAS BEEN OMITTED AND NECESSARY DIRECTIONS MAY BE ISSUED TO THE AO. 5. THE LD. CIT-DR RELIED UPON THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ITA 510/CHD/2016 A.Y.2011-123 PAGE 3 OF 5 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE M ATERIAL ON RECORD. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED IT S INCOME ON 30.07.2011 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 8,39,470/-. THE SAID RE TURN WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1). THE AO AFTER RECORDING THE REASON S AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 REOPENED THE CASE U/S 147 ON 07.11.2012 . ON A READING OF THE COPY OF THE REASONS RECORDED WHICH HAS BEEN MADE AVAILABLE BY THE LD. AR, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED THE FOLLOWING REAS ONS FOR RE- OPENING : REASONS: FOR REOPENING THE CASE OF DR. SUSHMA KGPIL A C/O KAPILA NURSING HOME, PALAMPUR, DISTT. KANGRA (H.P).-A.Y, 2 011-12 (PAN: ADXPK8794R) IN THIS CASE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 30,7.201 1 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 8,39,470/-. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1 ) ON 7.10.2011 AT THE INCOME RETURNED. A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE I.T. ACT, 19 61 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SACHIN VERMA PROP. M/S BALDEV RAJ VERMA & SONS AUTO DIVISION. ON GOING THROUGH THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT SH, SACHIN VERMA PURCHASED A LAND AT BINDRAFAAN, PALAMPUR FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS. 60,00,000/- FROM DR. S.C. KAPILA AND HIS WIFE SMT. SUSHMA KAPILA C/O KAPILA NURSING HOME HAV ING EQUAL SHARES ON 08.02.2011. DURING POST SURVEY INQUIRY THE ASSESSEE SMT. SUSHMA KAPILA IN HER WRITTEN SUBMISSION HAS STATED THAT THERE IS NO CAPITAL GAIN CHARGEABLE BEING THE LAND IN QUESTION WAS AGRICULTURE LAND. HOWEVER, THE COPY OF SALE DEED DO NOT SUPPORT THE CONTENTION MADE. THEREFORE, I HAVE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCO ME CHARGEABLE TO TAX AMOUNTING TO THE CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF LAND AT R S,30,00,000/- HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, AND IT IS FIT CASE FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148. THEREFORE, IN ORDER TO ASSESS THIS INCOME AND ANY OTHER INCOME WHICH MAY COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A NOTICE U/S 148 FOR THE A.Y. 2011-12 IS BEING ISSUED. SD/- (R. NISHA ORAON ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-PALAMPUR (H.P). 6.1 IT IS SEEN THAT CONSIDERING THE SAME, AS PER LETTER DATED 20.03.2014 NOTICED BY THE AO IN THE ORDER DATED 27.03.2014, THE AS SESSEE WAS FOUND TO HAVE MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS : THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED HIS SUBMISSIONS VIDE LE TTER DATED 20.03.2014 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1. SALE OF LAND RS. 60,00,000/- TO SHRI SACHIN VERMA : IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURE LAND FOR RS. 60,00,000/- WHICH WAS IN JOINT SHARE WITH HER HUSBAND DR. S.C.KAPILA. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS LAND COMES TO RS. 30,00,000/-. THIS WAS AGRICULTURE LAND SITUA TED IN MOHALI BINDRABAN. NECESSARY LAND RECORD REFLECTING THIS LAND AS AGRIC ULTURE LAND IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND RECORDS. KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS ST ATE ABOVE NO CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS APPLICABLE ON THE SALE OF THIS LAND. THIS SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 30,00,000/- WAS RECE IVED THROUGH DIFFERENT CHEQUES FROM SACHIN VERMA IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE SALE CONSIDERATION WAS CREDITED IN THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT IN STATE BANK OF INDIA 11034516286. 6.2 IT IS SEEN THAT THE SAID EXPLANATION WAS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS MADE. IT IS FURTHER SEEN THAT THE CIT SHIMLA TAKING NOTE OF ISSUED NOTICE U/S 263 FOR PROPOSING A CTION UNDER THE SAID SECTION ON THE FOLLOWING GROUND : ITA 510/CHD/2016 A.Y.2011-123 PAGE 4 OF 5 IT HAS BEEN NOTICED FROM THE PERUSAL ; OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORD THAT DURING THE COURSE-OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, YOU HAVE FILED COPY OF SALE DEED OF LAND DATE 08-02-2011 ALONGWITH A COPY OF JAMA BANDI PROPERTY FOR THE YEAR 201)8-09 . HOWEVER, THE PLAIN READING OF THE SALE DEED SHOWS THAT A HOUSE WAS SITUATED ON THE LAND AN D A MAP OF THE HOUSE WAS ENCLOSED WITH THE SALE DEED AND THE LAND WAS SOLD ALONGWITH A HOU SE. NO ENQUIRY WAS MADE (LEAVE APART ANY INDEPENDENT INQUIRY) FROM THE REVENUE DEP ARTMENT WHETHER THE LAND IS AN AGRICULTURAL LAND OR NOT AND WHETHER THE LAND SITUA TED WITHIN MUNICIPAL LIMITS OR OTHERWISE AND HOW MUCH DISTANCE IT HAD FROM THE MUN ICIPAL LIMITS. IT WAS NECESSARY TO INVESTIGATE THE FACT STATED IN THE REASONS RECOR DED. 6.3 IT IS SEEN FROM THE REPLY EXTRACTED BEFORE THE CIT THAT FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE : A) SALE OF LAND FOR RS. 30,00,000/- TO SACHIN VER MA 'THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD AGRICULTURE LAND FOR RS. 60, 00,000/- WHICH WAS IN JOINT SHARE WITH HER HUSBAND DR. S.C. KAPILA. THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE SOLD IN THIS LAND COMES TO RS. 30,00,000/-. THIS AGRICULTURE LAND IS SITUATED IN MOHAL BINDRAVAN TEH SIL PALAMPUR AS PER JAMABANDI ISSUED BY THE LOCAL REVENUE AUTHORITIES. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS NECESSARY INVESTIGATION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ASCERTAIN THE STATUS OF LAND IN THE REVENUE RECORD, COPIES OF REVENUE RECORDS WERE ALSO CALLED FOR, PLACED ON THE FILE AN D THE ASSESSMENT WAS NEVER FRAMED IN THE HASTE. AFTER CONSIDERING ALL FACTS AND DOCUMENTS TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REACHED ON THE LOGICAL END THAT THIS LAND IS AN AGRICULTURE LAND 'A NON CAPITA L ASSETS' IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE POPULATION OF MUNICIPAL COUNCIL PALAMPUR IS LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND, NECESSARY EVIDENCE, A CERTIFICATE FROM EX ECUTIVE OFFICER, MUNICIPAL COUNSEL PALAMPUR IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH FOR YOUR KIND SATISFA CTION, THEREFORE THIS LAND FALLS IN THE DEFINITION OF NON A CAPITAL ASSETS AS THE POPULATIO N OF PALAMPUR MUNICIPAL COUNCIL IS LESS THAN TEN THOUSAND AND NO CAPITAL GAIN TAX IS ATTRACTED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY TREATED THE SAID LAND AS NON CAPITAL ASSETS AS AGRICULTURE LAND AND NO CAPITAL GAIN TAX WAS LEVIED. AS YOUR GOOD SELF HAS RAISED ANOTHER ISSUE THAT THERE IS A HOUSE IN THE LAND THEREFORE IT BE CONSIDERED AS AGRICULTURE LAND I WOULD LIKE CLARIFY THAT THE HOUSE SITUATED ON THE SAID LAND WAS A COW SHED AND IT WAS NOT A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. HOWE VER, LEGALLY IT MAKES NO DIFFERENCE THERE CAN BE A RESIDENTIAL HOUSE IN AGRICULTURE LAND ALSO. 6.4 SIMILARLY QUA THE DEPOSITS IN THE HDFC ACCOUNT, THE AS SESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITIONS AND SOME DISCREPANCIES WERE POINT ED OUT TO THE AO IN THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT CONCLUDED TH AT QUA THE DEPOSITS OF RS. 31,31,700/- THE DEPOSITS WERE NOT EXPLAINE D. THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION THAT THERE WAS SOME DUPLICATION A ND THE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED TWICE, WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE CIT. THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS EXTRACTED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE EXTRACTED HERE UNDER : CASH DEPOSITED IN THE HDFC BANK ID-34784869 ACCOUNT NUMBER 17361930000349. IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT DURING ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A CASH DEPOSIT IN HER HDFC BANK ACCOUNT NU MBER 17361930000349 PALAMPUR AMOUNTING TO RS. 58,56,700/- ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ONE BANK ACCOUNT IN THE HDFC AS MENTIONED ABOVE (A/ C 1 7361930000349) 1 WOULD LIKE TO BRING IN YOUR KIND NOTICE THAT THE HDFC BANK HAS FILED TWO AIRS IN TWO PARTS BEFORE THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT DURIN G THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E 2011-12 AGAINST THE PAN OF THE ASSESSE UNDER CO NSIDERATION PART-I CASH DEPOSIT RS. 33,47,200/- CONSOLID ATED 31.03.2011 PART-II CASH DEPOSIT RS. 25,49,500/- CONSOLI DATED 31.03.2011 WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER MADE AN ADDITIONS OF RS. 84,62,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS MADE IN THE HDFC BANK ACCOUNT WHEREAS THE ACTUAL CAHSDPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ONLY RS . 58,56,700/- AS PER BANK STATEMENT WITH EFFECT FROM FIRST APRIL, 2010 TO MAR CH 31, 2011. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 9,00,000/-(09.02.2011), RS. 9,50,000/-(08.02.2011), RS. 5,00,000/-(17.01.2011) AND RS. 2,15,5007-06.10.2010 ) FIGURE AGAIN TAKEN FROM THE BANK STATEMENT OF HDFC BANK SAME ACCOUNT NUMBER 17361930 00349 WHICH HAD ALREADY ITA 510/CHD/2016 A.Y.2011-123 PAGE 5 OF 5 FORMED PART OF AIRS PART-I RS. 2,15,000/- AND BAL ANCE FIGURES REFLECTED IN PART-II OF THE AIRS. THUS AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,65,500/- WAS M ADE TWICE. 6.5 WE FIND ON GOING THROUGH THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT AS FAR AS THE FACTUM OF SALE OF SPECIFIC PROPERTY IS CONCERNED, NOT ONLY T HE FACT THAT IN THE CASE OF THE CO-OWNER, IT HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED BUT EVEN OTHERWISE, WE FIND THAT THERE ARE ONLY INFERENCES, PRESUMPTIONS AND SUS PICIONS AND THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD ON THE BASIS OF WHICH IT CAN B E SAID THAT THE MATTER WAS NOT ENQUIRED INTO BY THE AO AND THAT THE S PECIFIC HOUSE REFERRED TO WAS NOT A COW-SHED, AS HAS BEEN CONSISTENT LY ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, 263 PROCEEDINGS ON THIS GROUND CANNOT SURVIVE . 6.6. WE FIND THAT ADDRESSING THE CLAIM OF DUPLICATION OF THE AMOUNTS IN PARA-I AND PARA-II OF THE AIRS, WE DO NOT FIND ON CONS IDERING PAGES 24 AND 25 OF THE PAPER BOOK HOW THE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 31,31,70 0/- CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN ADDRESSED. WE FURTHER FIND THAT ON THE ISS UE OF BANK INTEREST WHICH ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE RE-ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADMITTEDLY HAS NOT BEEN ADDED TO THE TOTA L INCOME AS IS BORNE OUT FROM THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF BEFORE THE CIT, SHIMLA. ACCORDINGLY, TO THE SAID EXTENT, TH E ACTION OF THE CIT, SHIMLA DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. FOR READY REFERENC E, RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THE ASSESSEE'S SUBMISSION IS REPRODUCED HEREUND ER : BANK INTEREST NOT ADDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME: THE INTEREST EARNED ON THE BANK DEPOSITS IN HDFC, O BC AND OBC FDRS RS. 3,91,370/- HAS BEEN OMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE NECESSAR Y DIRECTIONS BE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD TO ADD BACK THE SAME INTO TH E INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.10. 2018. SD/- SD/- ( & ' ( ) * ) ( !' ) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (DIVA S INGH) +, $/ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER # $/ JUDICIAL MEMBER ' & (+ ! ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT - 2. / THE RESPONDENT - 3. $ / / CIT 4. $ / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , & 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7% / GUARD FILE (+ $ / BY ORDER, 8 # / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR