ITO, Coimbatore V. Shri P.R. Krishnakumar, Coimbatore

ITA 73/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 96048 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR B NISCHAL
• Assessee Lawyers: R MADHAVAN
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Audit objection; Tangible material; Difference of opinion; Reason to believe; Change of opinion; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 147; 148

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , B B ENCH, CHENNAI . , ' $ , % ' BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A.NO.73/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, SALARY WARD-I(4) 63, RACE COURSE ROAD, COIMBATORE-18. VS MR. P.R.KRISHNAKUMAR, 984, RAJAMANDIRAM,, TRICHY ROAD, COIMBATORE-641 045. PAN:AAZPK 2536 L ( /APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : DR.B.NISCHAL, JCIT /RESPONDENT BY : MR. R.MADHAVAN, C.A. /DATE OF HEARING : 17 TH AUGUST, 2015 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 / O R D E R PER CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD, JM: THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, COIMBA TORE DATED 31.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AR ISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 3(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE REVENUE RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL:- THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF ` 20,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RIGHTLY TREATED THE RECEIPTS OF ` 20 LAKHS AS 2 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CULTIVATED THE LAND WITH HERBAL PLANTS THOUGH HE HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FOR PROVIDING TECHNICAL EXPERTISE FOR THE SAME BUT HAD INVESTED IT IN MUTUAL FUNDS INSTEAD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE RETURNED THE MONEY TO AGRICULTURISTS IF THE WEATHER WAS NOT CONDUCIVE FOR CULTIVATION OR IT SHOULD HAVE BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION FOR PRESENT FINANCIAL YEAR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT IN SEVERAL CASES REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS SUBSEQUENT TO AUDIT OBJECTION HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY VARIOUS COURTS. 3. BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF M/S. ARYA VAIDHYA PHARMACY, COIMBATORE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF ` 4,49,385/- ON 29.6.2007. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED ON 30.12.2009 UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AT ` 7,49,390/-. LATER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.3.2012 WAS ISSUED AND IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID N OTICE THE ASSESSEE FILED LETTER STATING THAT RETURN FILED ON 29.6.2007 WILL BE TREATED AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UN DER SECTION 148. ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT DETERMINING THE TAXABL E INCOME AT 3 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 ` 27,49,390/- . WHILE COMPLETING THE REASSESSMENT AS SESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF ` 20,00,000/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED IN REASSESSME NT THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 5,00,000/- EACH FROM FOUR AGRICULTURISTS NAMELY MR.A.SUNDARARAJAN AND MR. N.R.SUDHAKARAN, COIMBATORE, MR. MOORTHY, ERODE AND MR. HARI NARAYANAN, PALAKKAD. THE SAID AGRICULTURISTS H AVE GIVEN ` 5,00,000/- EACH TO ASSESSEE FOR CULTIVATION OF HE RBAL PLANTS IN THEIR LANDS FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS TO GIVE T ECHNICAL KNOWHOW. ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT SINCE NO ACTIVITY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT DUE TO CHANGE IN CLIMATIC COND ITION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH ACTIVITY AND THE MONEY N OT BEING RETURNED BACK, THE SAME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS TECHNICAL/PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT. IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE CONTE NDED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT STATEMENTS OF AGR ICULTURISTS WERE RECORDED AND THE ISSUE HAS BEEN EXAMINED BY TH E THEN ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONCLUDED THAT NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ADD ITION NOW MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ONLY DUE TO ME RE CHANGE OF OPINION. HOWEVER THE CONTENTIONS WERE REJ ECTED BY 4 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAID A MOUNT AS ASSESSEES INCOME. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS) HELD THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 148 IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY NEW MATERIAL TO ISSUE NOT ICE UNDER SECTION148 AGAINST THE FINDINGS OF THE FIRST ASSESS ING OFFICER AND IT IS CLEARLY A CHANGE OF OPINION TO ASSESS THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 20,00,000/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS ALREADY EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE REFORE, COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE AD DITION MADE AGAINST WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN REOPENING OF ASSE SSMENT IN BRINGING TO TAX THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSE E FROM FOUR AGRICULTURISTS. 5. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTS THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND P LEADS FOR DELETING THE ADDITION SUBMITTING THAT REASSESS MENT IS NOT 5 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 VALID AND IS MERE CHANGE OF OPINION BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. HE SUBMITS THAT AGREEMENTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSE SSEE WITH THE AGRICULTURISTS FOR JOINT VENTURE WERE EXAM INED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASS ESSMENT AND STATEMENTS WERE ALSO RECORDED FROM THE AGRICULT URISTS AND FOUND NO FAULT WITH THE TRANSACTIONS. NOW IN TH E REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAME AMOUNT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION HOLDING T HAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS TO BE ASSESSED AS INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. 6. HEARD BOTH SIDES. PERUSED ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHOR ITIES AND THE DECISION RELIED ON. IN THIS CASE ORIGINAL A SSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 30 .12.2009 AND WHILE COMPLETING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT, ASSES SING OFFICER EXAMINED THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS IN MUTU AL FUNDS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OF ` 20,00,000/-. IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ` 5,00,000/- EACH FROM FOUR AGRICULTURISTS FOR JOINT VENTURE FOR CULTIVATI ON OF HERBAL PLANTS IN THEIR LANDS. HE ALSO EXAMINED THE AGREEME NTS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE FOUR AGRICULT URISTS. THE 6 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO CALLED ALL THE FOUR AGRICULT URISTS AND SWORN STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED FROM THEM AND THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE PAID EACH ` 5,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING JOINT VENTURE WITH THE ASSESSEE . THEY HAVE ALSO STATED THAT IN THE SWORN STATEMENTS THAT DUE TO SOME UNEXPECTED CLIMATIC CONDITION CULTIVATION COUL D NOT BE MATERIALIZED AND THEY HAVE ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE TO USE AND KEEP THE MONEY WITH HIM AND THE ASSESSEE ALSO PROMI SED TO RETURN THE AMOUNT TO THEM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U NDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPE NED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 147 AND ASSE SSING OFFICER BROUGHT TO TAX THE SAID AMOUNT STATING THAT IT IS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF TECHNICAL/PRO FESSIONAL RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE HONBE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KELVINATOR OF INDIA LTD. (320 ITR 561) HELD AS UNDE R:- THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION ' ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT DOES NOT STAND OBLITERATED AFTER THE SUBSTITUTION O F SECTION 147 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, BY THE DIRECT TAX LAWS (AMENDMENT) ACTS, 1987 AND 1989. AFTER THE AMENDMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS 7 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, BUT THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. THE CONCEPT OF 'CHANGE OF OPINION' MUST BE TREATED AS AN IN-BUILT TEST TO CHECK THE ABUSE OF POWER. HENCE AFTER APRIL 1, 1989, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT, PROVIDED THERE IS 'TANGIBLE MATERIAL' TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM ASSESSMENT. REASON MUST HAVE A LINK WITH THE FORMATION OF THE BELIEF AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT BUT THIS DOES NOT IMPLY THAT ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN TH E ASSESSMENT ON MERE CHANGE OF OPINION. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT ASSES SING OFFICER HAS POWER TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT PROVIDED THERE IS TA NGIBLE MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME FROM THE ASSESSMENT. IN THIS CASE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY TA NGIBLE MATERIAL TO SUGGEST THAT THERE IS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME OF THE A SSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT. 8. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT REASSESSMENT IS NOT BASED ON ANY NEW MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT IT IS THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ONLY A MERE CHANGE OF OPINION OF TH E 8 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 ASSESSING OFFICER IN BRINGING TO TAX THE SAID AMOU NT BY REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. WHILE HOLDING SO, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONSIDERED THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE S SUBMISSIONS IN DETAIL AS UNDER:- 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESEE. THE CONTENTION OF THE DEPARTMENT IS THAT RS. 20 LAKHS ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE BY FOUR FARMERS FOR AYURVEDIC PLANT CULTIVATION AND RESEARCH IS TREATED AS REVENUE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION IS THAT THESE ARE ADVANCES MADE BY THE FARMERS FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE AND SINC E THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO FULFIL THE CONDITIONS THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT ON BEHALF OF THE AGRICULTURISTS. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S 148 BASED ON AUDIT OBJECTION IS INVALID IN LAW AS THE GROUNDS FOR ADDITION WAS EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER U/S 143 (3) DATED 30/12/2009. A PERUSAL OF THE FIRST ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 PASSED ON 30/12/2009 WOULD INDICATE THE FOLLOWING:- 'A SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/- EACH RECEIVED FROM 4 LEADING AGRICULTURISTS ON VARIOUS DATES IN CASH FOR HAVING JOINT VENTURE FOR THE CULTIVATION OF HERBAL PLANTS IN THEIR LANDS (SEPARATE NOTORISED COPY OF AGREEMENT FROM EACH RECEIVED & FILED)' I HAVE CAREFULLY EXAMINED THE AGREEMENT COPIES RELATING TO THE JOINT VENTURE FOR CULTIVATING HERBA L PLANTS IN THEIR LANDS. I HAVE CALLED ALL THE SAID AGRICULTURISTS AND SWORN STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED FROM THEM. FROM THEIR STATEMENTS, THEY HAVE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE PAID HIM RS. 5 LAKHS EACH, ON VARIOUS DATES BY WAY OF CASH ONLY FOR MAKING A JOINT VENTURE WITH HIM. BUT ACCORDING TO THEM, DUE TO SOME UNEXPECTED CLIMATIC CHANGES, THESE PROJECT 9 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 VENTURE COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE UTILIZING THEIR AMOUNTS FOR HIS OWN PURPOS E. AND FURTHER SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROMISED TO RETURN THEIR AMOUNT VERY SOON. ON FINDING THE ASSESSEE'S AGREEMENT WITH THE OTHERS FOR A JOINT VENTURE AND ALSO THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE AGRICULTURISTS, I CONCLUDE NO REASONS TO FIND MISTA KES ON THE ASSESSE AND ACCEPT THE SUM OF RS. 20 LEKNS AS PART OF SOURCE OF INCOME FOR THE INVESTMENT IN MUTUAL FUNDS. 6.2 A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET ENTRY FOR REOPENING ASSESSMENT DATED 29/3/2012 WOULD INDICATE THE FOLLOWING: 'THE ASSESSEE, AN EXPERT IN AYURVEDIC MEDINICES/TREATMENT AND ALSO TECHNICAL EXPERT IN CULTIVATION OF HERBAL PLANT ENTERED INTO AN AGREEME NT WITH 4 AGRICULTURALIST SEPARATELY. EACH OF THEM HAD GIVEN A SUM OF RS. 5 TEKNS TO THE ASSESSEE FOR CULTIVATING HERBAL PLANTS IN THEIR OWN LANDS FOR WH ICH THE ASSESSEE HAD TO GIVE HIS TECHNICAL KNOWHOW. SINCE THE SAID ACTIVITY HAD NOT BEEN CARRIED OUT DU E TO CLIMATE CHANGE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF MONEY NOT RETURNED BACK, THE TOTAL SUM RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 20,00,000/ IS REVENUE IN NATURE AND IS TO BE TREATED AS TECHNICAL /PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT. HENCE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. AS I HAVE REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143 (3) HAS TO BE REOPENED' 6.3 FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONED ABOVE AND THE REASONS CITED FOR REOPENING ULS 148 IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THESE FACTS IN DETAIL AND CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THESE ARE GENUINE TRANSACTIONS AND ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE ARE LIABILITIES TO THE AGRICULTURISTS VIDE HIS ORDER U/ S 143 (3) DATED 30/12/2009. 6.4 THE NOW ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND ANY NEW MATERIAL TO ISSUE A FRESH 148 NOTICE AGAINST TH E FINDINGS OF THE FIRST ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APEX C OURT 10 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 IN VARIOUS JUDGEMENTS HAS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT ME RE CHANGE OF OPINION CANNOT RESULT IN ISSUE OF REASSESSMENT NOTICE U/S 148. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 148 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF IS INVALID ON THE GROUND THAT THE GROUNDS OF ADDITIONS WERE EXAMINED BY THE EARLIER ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAD AGREED TO THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE ULS 148 IS BASED ON CHANGE OF OPINION AND THEREFORE CANNOT STAND THE TEST OF LAW. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION IS DELETED ON THE GROUNDS OF LAW. 6.5 FURTHER ON THE QUESTION OF FACTS IT IS SEEN T HAT THE ASESSEE HAD PRODUCED ALL THE AGREEMENTS WITH THE AGRICULTURISTS AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THEM FOR ADVANCING RS. 5 LAKH EACH. THE FIRST ASSESSING OFFICER HAD EXAMINED THE AQRICULTURIST ON OATH WHEREIN THEY HAVE CONFIRMED THE SOURCE FOR THE ADVANCE AS WELL AS THE REASONS FOR ADVANCING THE SAID MONEY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PRODUCED THE DETAILS OF HIS ILLNESS AND HE UNDERWENT TREATMENT F OR KIDNEY FAILURE WHICH DELAYED THE PROJECT. THEREFORE THE EVEN ON MERITS ALSO THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE NEW ASSESSING OFFICER TO FIND THAT THESE AR E REVENUE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE THE ACTIVITY WAS NOT CARRIED OUT AND THE MONEY WAS NOT RETURNED IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE MONEY RECEIVED WAS REVENUE IN NATURE. THEREFORE IN THIS GROUND ALSO THE ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION OF RS. 20,00,0001- IS DELETED. 9. ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REASO N TO INTERFERE WITH HIS ORDER HOLDING THAT REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT IS ON ACCOUNT OF MERE CHANGE OF OPINION AND NOT BAS ED ON ANY NEW MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT INCOME H AS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. T HE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) HAVE 11 ITA NO.73/MDS/2014 NOT BEEN REBUTTED BY THE REVENUE WITH EVIDENCES. TH US, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( # ) ( & (# ) ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( CHALLA NAG ENDRA PRASAD ) * / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( * / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( /CHENNAI, , /DATED 16 TH SEPTEMBER, 2015 SOMU ./ 0/ /COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. 1 () /CIT(A) 4. 1 /CIT 5. / 5 /DR 6. /GF .