K.S.Thirumalaivaasan, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 582/CHNY/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90719 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-07-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-03-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R VENKATESH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Condonation of delay
• Section: 43B; 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . . , ! # $ , % ' BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO . 582 & 583/MDS/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) MR. K.S.THIRUMALAIVASAN L/R.T.GOKULA KRISHNA, B-5, THIRU VI KA INDL.ESTATE GUINDY, CHENNAI-600 032. VS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, BUSINESS CIRCLE-V, CHENNAI. PAN:AAEPT1716C ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : MR. R.VENKATESH, C.A. /RESPONDENT BY : DR. B.NISCHAL, JCIT /DATE OF HEARING : 25 TH MAY, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29 TH JULY, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAIN ST THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-V, CHENNAI DATED 26.12.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 009-10 ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SE CTION 143(3) AND PENALTY ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WIT H THE DELAY OF 392 DAYS . THE ASSESSEES SON MR. GOKULA K RISHNA FILED A PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ON BEHALF OF HIS FATHER 2 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 ALONG WITH AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT ASSESSEE IS MENTA LLY INCAPACITATED ON ACCOUNT OF HEAD INJURY IN AN ACCID ENT ON 30.11.2014 AND THEREFORE, DUE TO SUCH REASON APPEAL S WERE FILED BELATEDLY AN THEREFORE PRAYS FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF THE APPEALS. THE AVERMENTS IN THE AFFIDAV IT FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY ARE AS UNDER:- 1. MY FATHER MR. K.S.THIRUMALAIVASSAN IS AN INDIVID UAL AND IN FY 2008-09 WAS ENGAGED IN BUSINESS OF ELECTRICAL CONTR ACTS IN HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN MARUTHI ELECTRICAL ENGINEERS, W HO IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESS MENT YEAR AGAINST ADDITION CONFIRMED IN ORDER DATED 26.12.201 3 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 2. THE PETITIONER/ APPELLANT IS MENTALLY INCAPACITATED ON ACCOUNT OF HEAD INJURY IN AN ACCIDENT ON 30/11/2014 AND THAT A S HIS ONLY SON, I AM SIGNING THIS AFFIDAVIT, APPEAL AND THE PE TITION FOR THE CONDONATION OF DELAY IN THE CAPACITY AS A REPRESENT ATIVE ASSESSEE. 3. THERE IS A DELAY OF 392 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL, RECKONED FROM THE DATE OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE C IT (A) - V ON 26/12/2013 IN RESPECT OF ASST. YEAR 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF MY FAT HER, K S THIRUMALAIVASAN. FURTHER THAT HE HAD NOT FILED AN A PPEAL AGAINST THE PENALTY CONFIRMED IN THE EX-PARTE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) V 4. THERE ARE 153A PROCEEDINGS NOW PENDING IN RESPECT O F ASST. YEAR 2007-08 TO 2013-14 BEFORE THE LD. AO. DCIT - C ENTRAL I (3) IN WHOSE JURISDICTION THE APPELLANT'S FILE WAS TRAN SFERRED AFTER THE SEARCH U/S 132 ON 10/10/2012. 5. ALL THE AFFAIRS OF THE APPELLANT INCLUDING THE TAX MATTERS HAD FALLEN ON MY SHOULDERS SINCE 30/11/2014. WITH VIEW TO SETT LE THE COMPLEXITY OF INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS AND DESIST FRO M LONG DRAWN ENGAGEMENTS IN TAX PROCEEDINGS. I AM ADVISED TO FILE AN APPLICATION UNDER CHAPTER XIX-A OF THE INCOME TAX A CT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION, CHENNAI IN RESPECT OF ASST YEARS 2007-08 TO 2013-14 WHOSE 3 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A ARE GETTING TIME BARRED ON 31/ 03/2015. FOR THIS PURPOSE ON 21/03/2015, WHILE ENQUIRING INT O THE TAX AFFAIRS RELATING TO AY 2009-10, IT WAS FOUND THAT A PPEAL HAD NOT BEEN FILED AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CI T (A)- V, CHENNAI. I AM ADVISED THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIVE MER IT IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AS REGARDS THE ERRONEOUS LEVY OF PENA LTY CONFIRMED EX-PARTE BY THE LD. CIT (A), WHICH HOWEVER WAS NOT APPEALED. IN THE PRESENT PHYSICAL SITUATION OF MY FATHER, THE RE ASONS FOR NOT FILING THE APPEAL CANNOT BE GATHERED. I WAS ALSO AD VISED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE CONFIRMED IN ASSESSMENT AND THE CONSEQ UENT PENALTY U/S 271 (1 )(C) WILL HAVE A MATERIAL AND AD VERSE BEARING IN THE PROPOSED SETTLEMENT OF TAX MATTERS AND AS WE LL AS ME AND MY FAMILY'S FINANCIAL POSITION. 6. I HAVE THEREFORE TAKEN IMMEDIATE STEPS IN FILING TH E APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A)- VIII, CHENNAI FOR ASST YEAR 2009-1 0. I AFFIRM THAT I HAVE TAKEN IMMEDIATE STEPS WITHOUT ANY DELAY TO F ILE THE APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND HAVE SOUGHT FOR CON DONATION OF DELAY OF 392 DAYS IN FILING THE APPEAL. ALONG WITH THE SAID AFFIDAVIT, A CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY SENIOR CONSULTANT IN NEURO SURGEON WAS ALSO FILED, WHEREIN THE SURGEON CERTIFIED THAT ASSESSEE WAS ADMITTED TO HOS PITAL FOR TRAUMATIC BRAIN INJURY AND HE IS NOT FULLY CONSCIO US AND NEEDS TREATMENT IN HOSPITAL. 3. ON GOING THROUGH THE AFFIDAVIT AND CERTIFICATE, WE FIND THERE IS A REASONABLE CAUSE IN NOT FILING OF APPEAL S IN TIME. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 392 DAYS IN FILING OF BOTH THESE APPEA LS AND ADMIT THE APPEALS FOR HEARING. 4 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 4. THE ASSESSEE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- 1. THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE 2 A DDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT PROPER AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUN ITY AS THE APPLICANT FOR REASONS WAS UNABLE TO APPEAR ON THE D ATE OF HEARING. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 3,99,19,742/- IN RESPECT OF CLOSING BALANCES IN 2 TRADE CREDITORS ACCOUNT CANNOT AND OUGHT NOT TO HAV E BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS BALANCES ACCRUED OU T OF TRANSACTIONS WITH THE SAID TRADE CREDITORS IN THE Y EAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 2008-09. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE CONSIDERED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT AFF ORDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT IN MAKING ADDITION AND THA T UNDER PRESSURE DUE TO TIME BARRING OF ASSESSMENT, APPELLANT CONCED ED TO AN ERRONEOUS ADDITION NOT PROVIDED IN LAW AND CONTRARY TO APPARENT FACTS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTING ER RONEOUS CONCLUSION REACHED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF TWO TRADE CREDITORS NEGLECTING THE SUBSTANTIVE FACT THAT THER E CAN BE AND THERE IS NO INCOME ACCRUED TO APPELLANT FROM BALANCES IN THE SAID TWO TRADE CREDITORS ACCOUNTS. 3. I. THE LD. CIT (A) GROSSLY ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 11,46,457/- U/S 43B IN RESPECT OF SALES TAX PAY ABLE II. THE LD. CIT (A) FURTHER ERRED TO NOTE THAT THE APPELLANT IS AN ELECTRICAL CONTRACTOR AND THE PAYMENTS TOWARDS SALE S TAX, VAT AND SERVICE TAX ETC., ARE NOT A CHARGE TO HIS PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT CLAIMED THEM AS EXPENDIT URE FROM THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN. III.THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THE F ACT THAT THE DISALLOWANCE U/S 43 B WAS MADE WITHOUT PROPER ENQUI RY OR ESTABLISHMENT OF FACTS. 5 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 5. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITS T HAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY OF 115 DAYS IN FILING O F THE APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT ON MERITS ALSO HE CONFIRMED T HE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GIVEN ANY PROPER OPPORTUNITY BEFO RE DISMISSING THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY A ND GOING INTO MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED BEFORE HIM. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THOUGH PAPERS WERE SENT TO AU THORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR FILING OF APPEAL, HE DID NOT FIL E THE APPEAL IN TIME. THEREFORE, ASSESSEE CHANGED THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND TOOK STEPS FOR FILING OF APPEAL. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT DELAY WAS DUE TO THE REAS ON THAT APPEAL PAPERS WERE HELD UP AT THE CONSULTANT/AUTHOR IZED REPRESENTATIVE OFFICE TO WHOM THE PAPERS WERE GIVEN FOR FILING OF APPEAL. WHEN THE DEPARTMENT STARTED TAKING OF CO ERCIVE STEPS FOR RECOVERY OF DEMAND, THE ASSESSEE CAME TO KNOW THAT APPEAL WAS NOT FILED AND HE IMMEDIATELY ENGAGE D ANOTHER TAX CONSULTANT TO PURSUE THE MATTER BY FILI NG THE 6 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 APPEAL WHICH HAS OCCURRED DELAY OF 115 DAYS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN PROFESSIONA LLY ADVISED THAT THERE IS SUBSTANTIAL MERIT IN THE GROU NDS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE. THERE IS NO UNDUE ADVANTAGE TO T HE ASSESSEE IN NOT FILING THE APPEAL IN TIME AS THE DE LAY WAS DUE TO THE CIRCUMSTANCES BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE ASSE SSEE HAVING RELIED UPON THE PROFESSIONAL ADVICE. THEREFO RE, ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). HO WEVER, COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) DISMISSED THE CONDONATION PETITION WITHOUT EVEN GIV ING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD STATING THAT THERE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL. THE ADDIT IONS WERE SUSTAINED AND CONFIRMED FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE HIM TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GRO UNDS WITH EVIDENCE. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT AS SESSEE HAS ALREADY MOVED A PETITION BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMM ISSION ON THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI TS IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THEM ON THE ASSESSMENTS MADE UND ER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT 7 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 SINCE NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESS EE BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), HE PRAYS FOR RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 6. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE NOTICE THAT THOUGH IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT APPEARS THAT A SSESSEE HAS SIMPLY ACCEPTED FOR THE ADDITION, SUBSEQUENTLY FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS) AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BEING CREDITORS BALANCES APPEARING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS NOT GI VEN ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HE DISMISS ED THE APPEAL WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY HOLDING THAT THE RE IS NO REASONABLE CAUSE. 8. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN 8 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 THE CASE OF N.BALAKRISHNAN VS M KRISHNAMURTHY REPORTED IN (1998) 7 SCC 123 THAT; ' IN EVERY CASE OF DELAY, THERE CAN BE SOME LAPSE ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT CONCERNED. THAT ALONE IS NOT ENOUGH TO TURN DOWN HIS PLEA AND TO SHUT THE DOOR AGAINST HIM. IF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT SMACK OF MALA FIDES OR IT IS NOT PUT FORTH AS PART OF A DILATORY STRATEGY, THE COURT MUST SHOW UTMOST CONSIDERATION TO THE SUITOR. BUT WHEN THERE IS REASONABLE GROUND TO THINK THAT THE DELAY WAS OCCASIONED BY THE PARTY DELIBERATELY TO GAIN TIME THEN THE COURT SHOULD LEAN AGAINST ACCEPTANCE OF THE EXPLANATION. A COURT KNOWS THAT REFUSAL TO CONDONE DELAY WOULD RESULT IN FORECLOSING A SUITOR FROM PUTTING FORTH HIS CAUSE. THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAYS IN APPROACHING THE COURT IS ALWAYS DELIBERATE. THE WORDS 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' UNDER SEE. 5 OF THE LIMITATION ACT SHOULD RECEIVE A LIBERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE. ' 9. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAM NAT H SAO & OTHERS VS GOBARDHAN SAO AND OTHERS REPORTED IN AIR 2002 SC 1201 HAS AS UNDER: 'THE EXPRESSION 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' WITHIN THE MEANING OF SEE. 5 OF THE ACT OR 0.22 R.9 OF THE CODE OR ANY OTHER SIMILAR PROVISION SHOULD RECEIVE A LIB ERAL CONSTRUCTION SO AS TO ADVANCE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE WHEN NO NEGLIGENCE OR INACTION OR WANT OF BONA FIDE IS IMPUTABLE TO PARTY. IN A PARTICULAR CASE WHETHER EXPLANATION FURNISHED WOULD CONSTITUTE 'SUFFICIENT CAUSE' OR NOT WILL BE DEPENDENT UPON FACTS OF EACH 9 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 CASE. ' 10. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CONC ORD OF INDIA INSURANCE CO LTD VS SMT NIRMALA DEVI & OTHERS REPORTED IN LL8 ITR 507 (SC) HAS HELD AS UNDER: 'T HE LAW IS SETTLED THAT MISTAKE OF COUNSEL MAY IN CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN CONDONING THE DELAY ALTHOUGH THERE IS NO GENERAL PROPOSITION THAT MISTAKE OF COUNSEL BY ITSELF IS ALWAYS A SUFFICIENT GROUND. IT IS ALWAYS A QUESTION WHETHER THE MISTAKE WAS BONAFIDE OR WAS MERELY A DEVICE TO COVER AN ULTERIOR PURPOSE SUCH AS LACHES ON THE PART OF THE LITIGANT OR AN ATTEMPT TO SAVE LIMITATION IN AN UNDERHAND WAY. THE COURT MUST SEE WHETHER, IN SUCH CASES THERE IS ANY TAINT OF MALA FIDES OR ELEMENT OF RECKLESSNESS OR RUSE. IF NEITHE R IS PRESENT, LEGAL ADVICE HONESTLY SOUGHT AND ACTUALLY GIVEN MUST BE TREATED AS SUFFICIENT CAUSE WHEN AN APPLICATION U/S 5 OF THE ACT IS BEING CONSIDERED'. 11. SIMILARLY, THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CAS E OF COLLECTOR, LAND ACQUISITION VS MST KATIJI & ANORS REPORTED IN 167 ITR 471(SC) HAS HELD THAT COURTS SHOULD HAVE A PRAGMATIC AND LIBERAL APPROACH IN CONDONING THE DEL AY. 12. IN THE INSTANT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR DELAY IN FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE 10 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND SINCE NOTH ING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT DEL AY IN FILING OF APPEAL WAS MALAFIDE OR DELIBERATE, WE HOLD THAT DELAY SHOULD BE CONDONED AND MATTER SHOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS. THUS, WE CONDONE THE DELAY OF 115 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). FU RTHER, ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE ISSUES IN APPEALS HAVE TO BE EXAMINED AFRE SH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH REFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT ADDITION S MADE TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT DOES NOT BELONG TO THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEY BELONG TO EARLIER ASSESSME NT YEARS. THESE ASPECTS HAVE NOT BEEN EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE MAKING ADDITIONS. THUS, WE RESTORE THE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER PROVIDING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY T O THE ASSESSEE. AS WE ARE REMITTING THE APPEALS AGAINST A DDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, PENALTY ORDERS WILL NOT SURVIVE AND THEREFORE, PENALTY ORDERS ARE ALSO REST ORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO SHALL FRAME THE ASSESSMENT/PENALTY AFRESH IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 11 ITA NOS. 582 & 583/MDS/2015 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 9 TH JULY, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( . $ ) ( & () ) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) (CHALLA NAGENDR A PRASAD ) + / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( + / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, - /DATED 29 TH JULY, 2015 SOMU /0 10 /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 2 () /CIT(A) 4. 2 /CIT 5. 0 6 /DR 6. /GF .