M/s. MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., Bhopal V. THE JCIT 1(1), Bhopal

ITA 646/IND/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4378 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 03-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 20-10-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Depreciation; Non-deduction of tax

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT. LTD., BHOPAL PAN: AADCM6502B VS. JCIT, RANGE-2, BHOPAL APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL KHABYA, C. A. RESPONDENT BY SHRI MOHD.JAVED, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING 03.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 03 .08.2016 O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] DATED 19.08 .2014 AND PERTAINS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 AS AGAINST APPE AL DECIDED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 26.03.2013 OF JC IT, RANGE-2, BHOPAL [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE AO] . I.T.A. NO.646/IND/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 2 OF 13 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN MAINTAINING DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 34,17,420/- BY INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PART DISALLOWANCE OF THE FOLLOWING EXPENDITURES ON AD HOC BASIS :- S.NO. PARTICULARS AMOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE (I) OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION 36,107/- (II) OUT OF OFFICE EXPENSES 23,185/- (III) OUT OF PETROL & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 12,881/- (IV) OUT OF STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES 2,524/- (V) OUT OF TELEPHONE EXPENSES 24,631/- (VI) OUT OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES 34,137/- (VII) OUT OF DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLE 22,825/- (VIII) OUT OF INTEREST ON VEHICLE 1,035/- 3. GROUND NO.1 IS REGARDING DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A) (IA ) OF THE ACT. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 11, 91, 31,06 2/- BECAUSE OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLICATION EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. ON VERIFICATION, IT WAS FO UND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DEDUCTED TDS ON AN AMOUNT OF R S. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 3 OF 13 RS. 34,17,420/- PAID/PAYABLE TO VARIOUS PARTIES. TH EREFORE, THESE EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE DISALLOWANCE, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES OF RS. 34,17,420/- ONLY A SUM OF RS. 78,955/- REMAINED PAY ABLE AT THE YEAR END AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 33,38,465/- H AS ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEA R. THEREFORE, DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT CA N BE MADE ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT REMAINED PAYABLE AT T HE YEAR END AS PER THE DECISION HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LI MITED, 357 ITR 642 (ALLD). IT WAS, THUS, CONTENDED THAT SUM OF RS. 33,38,465/- WHICH HAD ALREADY BEEN PAID DURING THE YEAR COULD NOT BE DISALLOWED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELI ED IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS V. ADDL. CI T, (2012) 16 ITR (TRIB) 1 (VISAKHAPATNAM). HOWEVER, THE LD. CI T(A) NOTED THAT THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH HAS BEEN S TAYED BY HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 4 OF 13 SIKANDARKHAN TUNVAR, (2013) 357 ITR 312 (GUJ), WHER EIN THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH WAS OVERRULED HEL D THAT SECTION 40(A)(IA) COVERS NOT ONLY AMOUNTS WHICH ARE PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH ON A PARTICULAR YEAR BUT ALSO WHICH ARE PAYABLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR, OF COURSE, AS LONG AS THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS EXIST. SIM ILARLY, HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CRESCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE, (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 25 0 (CAL) HELD WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLICABLE NOT ONLY TO AMOUNT WHICH IS SHOWN AS PAYABLE ON THE DATE OF BALANCE SHEET, BUT THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO SUCH EXPENDITURE, WHICH BECOMES PAYABLE AT ANY TIME DURI NG THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS ACTUALLY PAID WITHIN THE PREVIOUS YEAR WITHOUT MAKING TDS. SO FAR AS THE DEC ISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED, 357 ITR 642, REL IED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT OBSERVATI ON OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT IN THIS ISSUE WAS OBITER DICTA A ND NOT RATIO DECIDENDI OF THIS ISSUE. THE HON'BLE I.T.A.T. , BOMBAY BENCH, HAD CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN DETAILS IN THE C ASE OF RISHTI STOCK AND SHARES PVT.LTD. VS. ACIT, IN I.T.A .NO. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 5 OF 13 112/MUM/2012 & C. O. NO. 63/MUM/2012 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 ORDER DATED 2 ND AUGUST, 2013, AND HELD THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AS WELL AS DECISION OF HON'BLE GUJARAT H IGH COURT AND HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT, THE DISALLOW ANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT RESTRICTED NOT ONLY IN RES PECT OF OUTSTANDING AMOUNT BUT ALSO IN RESPECT OF THE PAYME NTS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN MADE DURING THE YEAR WITHOU T MAKING TDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRM ED THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 34,17,420/- PAID/PAYABLE TO VAR IOUS PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT PUBLICATION EXP ENSES WITHOUT MAKING TDS AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40( A)(IA) OF THE ACT. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS REPEATED THE SAME ARGUMENTS AS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED ONLY ON THE AMOUNT WHICH IS PAYABLE O N THE DATE OF BALANCE SHEET AND IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESS EE ONLY SUM OF RS. 78,955/- WAS PAYABLE ON 31.03.2010 AND T HAT AMOUNT ALONE COULD HAVE BEEN DISALLOWED U/S 40(A)(I A) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE A SSESSEE ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 6 OF 13 HAS ALSO DRAWN OUR ATTENTION TO THE AMENDMENT MADE TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINANCE (NO.2), 2014, WH EREBY IT IS NOW PROVIDED THAT ONLY 30 % OF ANY SUM PAYABLE TO A RESIDENT ON WHICH TDS IS NOT DEDUCTED WOULD BE ADDE D TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANC E ACT, 2014, AS ABOVE TO THE PROVISO ARE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION AND ARE APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. THE VARIOUS TRIBUNAL HAS CONSISTENTLY HELD IT AND HIGH COURTS THAT THE AMENDMENT MADE IN SECTION 40(A) (IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2010, AND FINANCE ACT, 2012, ARE CURATIVE AND RETRO SPECTIVE IN OPERATION. THE AMENDMENT MADE BY THE FINANCE AC T ( NO.2 ) OF 2014, ARE ALSO, THEREFORE, RETROSPECTIVE IN NATURE AND ONLY 30 % OF THE AMOUNT ON WHICH TDS IS NOT DED UCTED CAN ALONE BE ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME. THE LD . AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLAC ED RELIANCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT IN THE C ASE OF CIT VS. VATIKA TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED (S.C.), CIT VS. NARESH KUMAR, 362 ITR 256 (DEL) AND CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MAR KET TOWNSHIP PRIVATE LIMITED, 377 ITR 635 (DEL). 7. THE LD. SR. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 7 OF 13 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 34,17,420/- WAS PAID TO THE VARIOUS PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF ADVERTISEMENT CHARGES WITHOUT MAKING TDS THEREON AND AS PER THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, THE SAME WAS NOT DEDUCTIBLE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE MAY DRAW GUIDANCE FROM THE DECISI ON OF THE HON'BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIKANDARKHAN TUNVAR, (2013) 357 ITR 312 (GUJ), WHER EIN THE HON`BLE HIGH COURT HAS OVERRULED THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF MERILYN SHIPPING AND TRANSPORTS V. ADDL. CIT, (2012) 16 ITR (TRIB)1(VISAKHAPATNAM) AND OBSERVED THAT SECTION 40( A)(IA) COVERS NOT ONLY AMOUNTS WHICH ARE PAYABLE AS ON 31 ST MARCH ON A PARTICULAR YEAR, BUT ALSO, WHICH ARE PAY ABLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE YEAR, OF COURSE, AS LONG AS THE OTHER REQUIREMENTS OF THE PROVISIONS EXIST. SIMILARLY, TH E HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CRE SCENT EXPORT SYNDICATE, (2013) 33 TAXMANN.COM 250 (CAL) A LSO HELD WHETHER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40(A)(IA) APPLIC ABLE NOT ONLY TO AMOUNT WHICH IS SHOWN AS PAYABLE ON THE DAT E OF ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 8 OF 13 BALANCE SHEET, THEY ARE APPLICABLE TO SUCH EXPENDIT URE, WHICH BECOMES PAYABLE AT ANY TIME DURING THE RELEVA NT PREVIOUS YEAR AND IS ACTUALLY PAID WITHIN THE PREVI OUS YEAR WITHOUT MAKING TDS. HOWEVER, THE DECISION OF HON'BL E ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VECTOR SHIPPING SERVICE (P) LIMITED, (2013) 38 TAXMANN.COM 77 (ALL) IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT , THE AMOUNT SHOULD BE PAYABLE AND NOT WHICH HAS BEEN PAI D DURING THE YEAR. THERE ARE DIVERGENT OPINION FROM V ARIOUS HIGH COURTS. THERE IS NO DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THE ISSUE, BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE. FUR THER, THE SECOND PROVISO APPENDED TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012, W.E.F. 01.04.2013, PROVIDES THAT WHERE A N ASSESSEE FAILS TO DEDUCT THE WHOLE OR ANY PART OF T HE TAX IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XVIIB, ON ANY SUCH SUM, BUT IS NOT DEEMED TO BE AN ASSESSEE IN DE FAULT UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTI ON 201, THEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF THIS SUB SECTION (1) SHALL BE DEEMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEDUCTED AND PAID THE TAX ON SUCH SUM ON THE DATE OF FURNISHING OF RETURN OF INCOME B Y THE ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 9 OF 13 RESIDENT PAYEE REFERRED TO IN THE SAID PROVISO. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED THAT WHERE THE PAYEE COMPANIES HAVE SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED AN D PAID DUE TAXES THEREON, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT, NO DISALLOWANCE WA S EXIGIBLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHERE THE RECIPIENT HAS PAID TAXES THEREON AND INCLUDED AS INCOME IN THEIR RETUR NS U/S 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANSAL LAND MARKET TOWN SHIP PRIVATE LIMITED, (377 ITR 635)(DEL) HAS HELD THAT I NSERTION OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT BY F INANCE ACT, 2012, IS DECLARATORY AND CURATIVE AND HAS RETROSPEC TIVE EFFECT FROM APRIL 1, 2005, BEING THE DATE FROM WHIC H SUB- CLAUSE (IA) OF SECTION 40(A) WAS INSERTED BY FINANC E (NO.2) ACT, 2004. WE ALSO FIND THAT GUIDANCE FROM THE JUDG MENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. EL I LILLY & CO. (INDIA)(P) LIMITED, (2009) 312 ITR 225 ( S.C.), WHEREIN, IT HAD BEEN HELD THAT PERIOD OF DEFAULT STARTS FROM TH E DATE OF DEDUCTIBILITY OF TAX TILL THE DATE OF ITS ACTUAL PA YMENTS BY THE CONCERNED EMPLOYEE. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT HON'BLE AP EX COURT ALSO IN THE CASE OF HINDUSTAN COCA COLA BEVER AGE PVT. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 10 OF 13 LIMITED VS. CIT, (2007) 293 ITR 226 (S.C.), HELD TH AT WHEN THE TAX HAS BEEN PAID BY THE DEDUCTEE-ASSESSEE, TH E TAX COULD NOT BE RECOVERED ONCE AGAIN FROM THE ASSESSEE . ALL THESE FACTS ARE NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE ASSESSMENT O RDER OR FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A). THEREFORE, IN TH E INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THIS ISSUE IS RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WITH THE DIRECTION THAT THE AO SHALL VERIFY WHET HER THE PAYMENTS SHOWN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS LIABLE FO R TDS OR NOT. SECONDLY, IF THERE IS ANY SHORT DEDUCTION O F TAX OR NOT AND NON-DEDUCTION OF TAX, THEN THE RECIPIENT OR THE PAYEE HAS PAID THE TAX OR NOT AND THEY HAVE SHOWN THE REC EIPT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, HAS TO BE VERIFIED FROM THE C ONCERNED ASSESSES. THEREFORE, ALL THESE FACTS REQUIRE VERIF ICATION AT THE END OF AO. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO COO PERATE WITH THE AO AND MUST PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDE NCES BEFORE THE AO. THE AO IS FURTHER DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFRESH KEEPING IN MIND THE DE CISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT CITED SUPRA AND SECOND PRO VISO TO SECTION 40(A)(IA) OF THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2012. GROUND NO.1 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 11 OF 13 9. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OUT OF BUSINESS PROMOTION, OFFICE EXPENSES, PETROL AND CON VEYANCE EXPENSES, STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES, TELEPHONE EXPENSE S, TRAVELLING EXPENSES, DEPRECIATION OF VEHICLE AND IN TEREST ON VEHICLE AS UNDER :- S.NO. PARTICULARS TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED (RS.) DISALLOWANCE (RS.) (I) BUSINESS PROMOTION 3,61,077/- 36,107/- (II) OFFICE EXPENSES 2,31,852/- 23,185/- (III) PETROL & CONVEYANCE EXPENSES 1,28,810/- 12,881/- (IV) STAFF WELFARE EXPENSES 25,244/- 2,524/- (V) TELEPHONE EXPENSES 2,46,318/- 24,631/- (VI) TRAVELLING EXPENSES 3,41,372/- 34,137/- (VII) D EPRECIATION OF VEHICLE 2,28,256/ - 22,825/ - (VIII) INTEREST ON VEHICLE 10,358/- 1,035/- 10. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED CO MPANY AND HENCE IT IS NOT PRACTICAL TO OBTAIN PACCA BILLS AND, THEREFORE, THE SAME WAS SUPPORTED BY SELF-MADE VOUC HERS. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASI S THAT SOME OF THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE IN CASH. IT WAS FURT HER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED CO MPANY, AND, THEREFORE, NO DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ON ACCO UNT OF ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 12 OF 13 PERSONAL AND NON-BUSINESS USE OF VEHICLES AND TELEP HONES BY DIRECTORS AND EMPLOYEES. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE IN THE CASE OF NAI DUNIA NEWS & NETWORKS PVT.LTD., (2011) 17 ITJ 289 (INDORE TRIBUNAL ). THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MAY PL EASE BE DELETED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE DISALLOWANCE @ 10%, WHICH APPEARS TO BE ON HIGHER S IDE, WE, THEREFORE, DEEM FIT THAT IT WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, IF THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 5%. T HE AO IS DIRECTED TO CALCULATE THE DISALLOWANCE ACCORDINGLY. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THE 03.08.2 016 SD/- (D.T.GARASIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER SD/- (O.P.MEENA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 3 RD AUGUST, 2016. ITA NO.646/IND/2014 M/S.MADHYA ADVERTISING PVT.LTD .A.Y.:10-11 PAGE 13 OF 13 CPU*