TMI Blog2011 (12) TMI 677X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le Jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs. Bajrang Textiles 205 CTR 287 (Raj.). 2. That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) further erred in not annulling order of the learned AO which was framed by him beyond time provided in section 153(2) of the IT Act 1961 which was extended by learned AO by appointing Special Auditors u/s 142(2A) and extending their time again and again thus taking benefit of proviso to sec.153(4). 2.2 A survey u 133A of the Act was carried out on 01-10-2008 at the business premises of the assessee. On the basis of the loose papers and incriminating documents found during the course of survey, a notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 2nd March, 2009 with prior approval of the Addl. CIT, range 2, Kota. The notice was duly served on the assessee on 4-3-2009. In response to this notice, the assessee vide letter dated 8th April, 2009 submitted that original return which was filed on 3rd Dec. 2003 may be treated as return in response to notice u/s 148 of the Act. The AO in his assessment order has observed that the assessee was totally non-cooperative not only during the course of survey but also during the assessment proceedings. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... are available at para 4.2 of ld. CIT(A) s order which are reproduced as under:- 4.2 Appellant in his written submissions argued that copies of impounded documents were not given to him before filing of return. It was also argued that copies of impounded documents were not given even before referring the case for special audit u/s 142(2A). It was further argued that there was no complexity in the accounts, which required special audit. In support of his argument, appellant relied on following judicial decisions: (a) Peerless General Finance Investment Co.Ltd. ANR vs. Dy.CIT ORS (1991) 156 CTR (Cal) 512. (b) Muthoottu Mini Juries vs. Dy.CIT ANR (2001) 166 CTR (Ker) 180. (c) State Forest Corporation vs. Joint CIT (2001) 170 CTR (HP) 133. (d) Allidhara Texpro Engineering (P) Ltd. vs. Dy.CIT (2009) 223 CTR (Guj) 481. (e) West Bengal State Co-operative Bank Ltd.vs. Jt. CIT ORS (2004) 190 CTR (Cal) 245. (f) Rajesh Kumar ORS vs. Dy.CIT ORS (2006) 206 CTR (SC) 175. (g) Hind Samachar Ltd. vs. CIT ANR (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 303. (h) Sahara India (Firm) vs. CIT ANR (2008) 216 CTR (SC) 303. (i) CIT vs. Bajrang Textiles 205 CTR (Raj) 287. 2.6 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in compliance to notice u/s 148 and to verify if there are complexities in accounts which justifies appointment of Special Auditors in consonance to provisions of Sec.142(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 etc.etc. (iv) During 01.10.2008 to 07.09.2009 the learned AO did not called me for any explanation on impounded papers. (v) Vide his letter no.2236 dated 07.09.2009 the learned AO asked me to explain on or before 17.09.2009 why considering nature and complexity of the accounts seen in my impounded records and in the interest of revenue my accounts/ impounded records for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2007-08 be not got audited u/s 142(2A) of the IT Act, 1961. It was also mentioned in the last para of this letter that this is last opportunity to me and that if I did not complied this letter there shall be no option but to assume by him that I do not have any objection (PB 21). I may add here before this letter I never received any communication from learned AO or any other authorities either in relation to impounded papers or on my return of income filed. On 17.09.2009 I went to office of the learned AO to explain him that there was no complexity in my accounts which may suggest for app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee for any good and sufficient reasons. (ix) In this regard I reproduce sec.142(2C) which reads:- (2C) Every report under sub-section (2A) shall be furnished by the assesse to the [Assessing] Officer within such period as may be specified by the [Assessing] Officer: Provided that the [Assessing] Officer may, [suo motu, or] on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally fixed and the period or periods so extended shall not, in any case, exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the direction under sub-section (2A) is received by the assessee. In this case time was extended by the learned ITO from 31.12.2009 to 28.02.2010, from 28.02.2010 to 28.03.2010 and from 28.03.2010 to 30.04.2010 (PB 31, 33 35) on request of Special Auditors which is beyond provisions of section 142(2C). From these request letters of Special Auditor no where it transpires that extension was sought by them for good and sufficient reasons (PB 30, 32 34). Besides request by Special Auditors for exte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt, bills, vouchers, loose papers, documents, bank statements etc. and to prepare cash inflow/ outflow statements, cash book, ledger, trial balance, final accounts i.e. trading and profit and loss account, balance sheet etc. for different years as mentioned above with the aim to enable the department to arrive at the true state of financial affairs of the various concerns in which the assesses is associated either as a proprietor or partner (both in individual or HUF capacity) or a Director of Company. (b) To list all the transactions of loans / deposits taken /accepted by the assessee during the aforesaid assessment year above ₹ 20000/- each otherwise than through account payee cheque, giving such particulars as name and address of the borrower, date of loan, period of loan,, interest rate, amount of interest, details and security, amount received back, mode of repayment etc. (c) To list all the transactions of loans given by the assessee during the aforesaid assessment year above ₹ 20000/- each other wise than through account payees cheque, giving such particulars as name and address of the borrower, date of loan, period of loan, interest rate, amount of interes ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ial audit under s. 142(2A) - Conditions precedent Assessee-co operative banks accounts already audited not only under s.44AB but also by the Directorate of Cooperative Audit appointed by the State Government Neither books of assessee examined by AO so as to form an opinion as regards complexity of accounts nor opportunity of hearing given which was necessary in view of civil consequences of order under s.142(2A) CIT granting approval in a mechanical way Order of AO under s. 142(2A) and approval of CIT invalid, hence quashed. Before he comes to the conclusion, as to the nature and complexity of the accounts, he shall make a genuine and honest attempt to understand the accounts of the assessee and appreciate the entries therein and in case of doubt, he should seek explanation from the assessee or his representative. A cursory look at the books of account is not sufficient for formation of opinion by the AO for exercise of power under s. 142(2A) of the said Act. His opinion must be based upon objective considerations and not on the basis of subjective satisfaction. Naturally the AO must have occasion and opportunity to examine the accounts of the assessee to form his opi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nly which shall be thought appropriate by the learned AO, period for submission of report by auditors shall be extended again and again and that after completion of audit only for eyewash copies of impounded records shall be given to me. It appears it was collusion wherein unfortunately Auditors also supported Deptt. Supported because Hon ble Special Auditors were well aware of audit ethic and when it was not possible for him to conduct audit in presence of auditee, he could have refused for the same. Normally after verification of papers/ documents Auditors place their identification mark thereon togetherwith their seal to enable him to justify that who had verified a particular paper, however from the zerox copies of the impounded papers it appears that he has not done so in this case which supports that no verification of records and even important papers was made by him. Simply some papers appears to be shown to auditors by learned AO or it may be that Special Auditors might be briefed by learned AO as to some important papers. 2.7 I submit as per terms and reference assigned job of Auditors narrated in para 2.2(a) above includes preparation of cash inflow/ outflow statement ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d that it was abuse of process by the AO. The findings given by the Tribunal are findings of fact based upon the relevant material. 2.10 Report of Special Auditors for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 is at PB 37 to 56 of which reports for Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2005-06 are reproduced below:- COMMENTS OBSERVATIONS OF THE AUDITORS APPOINTED U/S 142(2A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 2004-05 We have been appointed auditors u/s 142(2A) by the worthy CIT, Kota vide his office letter no. CIT/KOTA/ITO(T)/2009-10/2540 dated 13.11.2009. After examining the impounded books and documents lying with the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Kota our comments and observation are as follows:- 1. Letters of requirement of documents, information and explanation were sent on 13.01.2010, 16.03.2010, 08.04.2010 12.04.2010. The assessee replied vide his letter dated 21.01.2010, 25.01.2010, 22.03.2010, 10.04.2010 16.04.2010 submitted that regular books of accounts for the period have been impounded during the survey and lying in the Income Tax Department. Regular books of account are not available for audit. Under such circumstances, we are unable to prepare and submit Special Audit Rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a Construction Co.Bundi 01.11.04 to 15.11.04 109839 1216 76 Janta Construction Co.Bundi 01.01.05 to 15.01.05 6050 77 Janta Construction Co.Bundi 01.02.05 to 15.02.05 83940 78 79 Janta Construction Co.Bundi 16.02.05 to 28.02.05 126554 39076 80 81 Janta Construction Co.Bundi 01.03.05 to 15.03.05 169997 97 98 01.02.05 to 15.02.05 115700 Total: 895603 375919 3. No explanation/verification is available, about the Closing Stock of ₹ 228200/- appearing in Loose paper no.45 annexure no. 23 of impounded books, which is of ₹ 244200/- in Balance Sheet. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (P.Khandelwal) CHARTERED ACCOU ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed on questionnaire dated 12.04.2010 from Special Auditors (PB 227 to 231) which strengths our submission that auditors were appointed to shift responsibility of learned AO to him. (x) Though the learned AO has quoted 3 instances of non cooperation in body of his assessment order of which in first instance I did not replied in writing but telephonically my counsel had submitted to learned AO that Return has been filed in his ward on 31.03.2009 manually. Second instance was due to illness of Shri Babu Lal Somani and third I had visited office of the learned AO but learned AO did not allowed me to enter in his chamber. 2.13 From above it is clear that purpose of appointment of Special Auditors u/s 142(2A) was two fold - (i) that he should assist learned AO in computing concealed income; and (ii) time available u/s 153(2) is got extended. 2.14 In view of aforesaid submissions and also in light of decision of Hon ble Jodhpur ITAT Bench in Bajrang Textiles Vs. Dy CIT which is affirmed by, Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in Bajrang Textile (supra) and also decision of Hon ble Apex Court Sahara India (supra) I request orders from Ass.Year 2003-04 to 2008-09 deserves annulment and th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... equest was made to get the Photostat copy of ledger and cash book of M/s. Swastik Stone Crusher for the financial year 2006-07. In this letter, Shri Babu Lal Somani also made a request for getting the copies of crusher diary, ledger of Deepak Stone, cash book of 2003-04 and ledger from 21-04-02 to 5-1-09. All these documents have been mentioned relating to M/s. Somani Company. The Photostat copy of letter signed by Shri Babu Lal Somani on the letter head of M/s. Somani Co. dated 25-03-09 is available at page 18 of the paper book. In this letter, the request has been made to give Photostat copy of the documents mentioned at serial no. 1 to 9. The assessee Shri Ritesh Somani vide letter dated 21-04-09 requested the AO to provide the Photostat copy of the books of accounts seized and to give copies of the statement recorded. Again a request was made vide letter dated 26-08-2009. The AO vide letter dated 17th Sept. 2009 gave an opportunity to the assessee to show cause as to why matter be not referred to special audit. Page 22 of the paper book contains the letter dated 17-09-2009 of the assessee in which the assessee submitted that Photostat copies of the documents be given and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sued the directions to get the assessee's accounts audited on 29th Dec. 1999 when only one day was left for completion of the block assessment. The AO also directed the special auditor to prepare the books of accounts in the form of cash book, ledger on the basis of the documents/ papers seized during the course of search as per his directions. The auditor was also required to prepare the trading and profit and loss account which were recorded in the regular books of account and further to determine the undisclosed income of the block period. The Hon'ble High Court observed that apparently the order was for preparing fresh books rather than to conduct the special audit. Hon'ble High Court observed that no authority has been given to the assessee to direct the preparation of fresh books by referring the matter to the auditor under special audit. The audit is for the purpose of satisfying one about the authenticity and credibility of the accounts prepared by the assessee but not for preparing the new account books as per direction of the AO. In the instant case the AO asked the special auditor to do the special audit in view of the provisions of Rule 14A. Rule 14A says th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be had by the AO merely to shift his responsibility of scrutinizing the accounts of an assessee and pass the buck to the special auditor. Similarly the requirement of previous approval of Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, being an inbuilt protection against any arbitrary or unjust exercise by of power by the AO casts a very heavy duty on the said high ranking authority to see that the requirement of previous approval is not turned into an empty ritual. Before granting approval, the Chief Commissioner or the Commissioner, as the case may be, must have before him material on the basis whereof an opinion in this behalf has been formed by the AO. The approval must reflect the applications of mind to the facts of the case. Rules of natural justice are not embodied rules. The expression natural justice is also not capable of a precise definition. The underlying principle by natural justice, evolved under the common law, is to check arbitrary exercise of power by the State or its functionaries. Therefore, the principle implies a duty to act fairly i.e., fair play in action. The aim of rules of natural justice is to secure justice or to put it negatively, to prevent miscarria ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 66 CTR 180 (Ker) In this case, the proposal for special audit was forwarded to the ld CIT because the assessment for the last three preceding years completed u/s 144 of the Act as the assessee was not cooperating in completion of the assessment for the assessment year for which special audit was ordered. The hearings were fixed on two dates and on these two dates, the assessee has not appeared. The Hon'ble High Court referred that the audit was referred for the contingencies not referred u/s 142(2A). The audit was not referred on the ground that there was complexity of accounts and the order of reference of special audit was cancelled. Thus this case is also of no help to the assessee because the AO has taken into consideration the factors mentioned in Section 142(2A) before making the proposal of referring the matter for special audit. 3. Allidhara Texpro Engineering (P) Ltd. Vs. DCIT , 223 CTR 481 (Guj. In this case, the Hon'ble High Court noticed that the show cause issued by the AO does not contain any whisper in respect of the complexity of accounts either from FFPL or GTPL. Hence, in respect of these two companies, the Hon'ble High Court cancelled the ord ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... above paras, we hold that the AO was justified in referring the matter for special audit u/s 142(2A) of the Act. 3.1 The next issue before us is to see as to whether the AO has suo moto power to extend the period for completing the special audit. 3.2 It will be useful to reproduced Section 142(2C) of the Act 142(2C) Every report under sub-section (2A) shall be furnished by the assessee to the Assessing Officer within such period as may be specified by the Assessing Officer: Provided that the Assessing Officer may, suo motu, or on an application made in this behalf by the assessee and for any good and sufficient reason, extend the said period by such further period or periods as he thinks fit ; so, however, that the aggregate of the period originally fixed and the period or periods so extended shall not, in any case, exceed one hundred and eighty days from the date on which the direction under sub-section (2A) is received by the assessee. 3.3 The word suo motu in the proviso has been inserted by the Finance Act 2008 w.e.f. 01-04-2008. In the instant case, the audit was proposed vide letter dated 17th Sept 2009 and at that relevant time, the AO as per provision t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome from unrecorded business from ₹ 3694908/- to ₹ 407515/-. 4.2 During the course of survey, a firm namely M/s. Deepak Stone Company was found in the name of the assessee but at the time the assessee said nothing about this firm in the statement. The assessee was asked about the gross income of ₹ 1,00,843/- of M/s. Deepak Stone Co. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was shown respective Annexures i.e. page 23 and 48 of impounded material and as reported in Special Audit u/s 142(2A) by the auditors. After perusing the said Annexures, the assessee himself surrendered undisclosed income of ₹ 2,78,381/- which is 7.8% of total turnover of ₹ 36,94,608/- from that firm. The AO has not accepted such surrender and according to him, the unrecorded sales are to be added to the income of the assessee. Thus the AO made an addition of ₹ 36,94,609/- as against ₹ 2,78,381/- disclosed by the assessee. During appeal proceedings, the assessee requested to the ld CIT(A) that it is lime stone sale to Shriram Cement Works wherein there is very little margin. The assessee however admitted that he did not have books of accounts for th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ter that M/s. Deepak Stone Co. was supplying the lime stone. The firm M/s. Swastik Stone Crusher in which assessee is Proprietor was making sales of Gitti. Thus the sales relating to lime cement cannot be considered to be included in the accounts filed with the original return. When there are unrecorded sales, the assessee has already surrendered profit. It is not the case of the revenue that such sales represents the excess cash of the sale price as shown in the books of accounts so that the same can be considered as profit. If an amount is received over and above the bill then such amount can be added as income. As per provisions of Section 292C, the document found during the course of survey is to be considered as correct and therefore, the gross profit reflected in that paper is to be presumed as correct profit. Moreover, the sales in M/s. Swastik Stone Crusher were only to the extent of ₹ 20.71 lacs and therefore, the entire amount during the course of survey cannot be added as income. 4.6 M/s. Shree Ram Cement Works has stated in their letter that they have received supplies from M/s. Deepk Stone Company in the financial year 2001-02 to 2003-04. The profit earned in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o ₹ 3,85,986/- after observing as under:- 7.3 The request of the appellant to apply NP rate of 6.31% is not acceptable. During the course of survey Annexure A- 18 was found in which appellant has drawn Trading profit Loss Account showing GP of 62.47% and NP of 32.12%. It will be therefore reasonable to estimate profit @ 35% on unrecorded sales of ₹ 1102817/-, which gives figure of ₹ 385986/-. AO is therefore directed to restrict addition to ₹ 385986/- under this head. Ground No.4(iii) is thus partly allowed. 5.5 Before us, the ld. AR has filed the submissions as under:- (i) That I am subject to sales tax and as such registered dealer under the provisions of Sales Tax Act. Sales Tax Authorities have not disputed my disclosed sales. Undisclosed turnover basis whereof is letter dated 12.04.2010 of Hon ble Special Auditors (PB 227) as well as letter dated 26.05.2010 of learned AO (PB 78) only are without any supporting. It is therefore submitted that the same be brushed aside and addition sustained on basis of same by Hon ble CIT(A) be deleted; (ii) In alternate I submit that even if my aforesaid submission is not accepted and undisclosed s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee was asked to produce the books of accounts, bills and vouchers but such books of accounts and details were not filed. The AO therefore, applied the gross profit rate of 35% and made the addition of ₹ 5,48,805/-. 6.3 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has made the following submissions. The learned AO on the strength of seized papers Annexure-18 page 56 57 worked out NP rate of 35% on sales ₹ 2017758/- and made addition of ₹ 548805/-. I submit these Annexures relates to Ass.Year 2007-08 2008-09 and have no relevancy with Ass.Year 2003- 04. In this regard only guide may be either past history or a comparable case. As there is no past history in my case best guidelines may only be drawn from comparable case. I have come to know that in case of Maheshwari Crushers the learned ACIT, Circle-1, Kota has accepted NP rate of 7.45%. Copy of assessment order is enclosed. I therefore submit that in my case reasonable NP rate of 7.45% be applied which shall bring addition to ₹ 81211/- and rests additions of ₹ 467594/- be deleted. 6.4 The ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the addition after observing as under:- 8.3 From the perusal of assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y the Govt authorities. The royalty is ₹ 50 per ton. On the perusal of the papers as mentioned by your honor , it is found that the royalty has been mentioned at ₹ 250022/- which if divided by ₹ 50/- then the weight conies to 5000 trolleys and like wise the sales tax is ₹ 40 per trolley and if the amount of ₹ 410190/- is divided by ₹ 40/- then the number of trolleys come to 10255 meaning there by that the assesses has 5255 trolleys in the opening stock which has not been mentioned on those lose rough papers. The weight in those 5255 trolleys would be 26275 tons the value of which at cost price at ₹ 545/- per trolley which includes all levies which would come to Rs. S45/- X 5255 = 2863975/- meaning there by that the assesses had that much opening stock, in hand on which royalty has been paid as the Same has been produced from mines but sales tax was not paid as the same was not transported to crusher site, although the same was lying in the stock at mines. . As stated above the normal weight in a trolley in DABORA is 5 tons and if the total number of trolleys in stock and in purchase is multiplied by this factor then total weight would be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NET PROFIT 246843 So based on above paper the net profit subject to depreciation and bank interest comes to ₹ 446843/- only which yields a NP rate at 4.7! % against which the assessee has declared a NP rate of 5.87% meaning there by that the results declared by the assessee are better as compared to those shown on the alleged paper. It is re iterated that the said paper is neither in the hand writing of the assessee nor in the hand writing of his father. It is also pertinent to mention that there are more papers in the possession of the department which were seized at the time of survey and which yield lesser amount of profit or are in consonance with the results declared by the assessee. The assessee will be pleased to submit any further explanation if needed be. 5.03 From above letter you will please find that we had requested learned AO that in order to have sales of ₹ 9487962/- considering sales rate per cft. it is necessary that there should be opening stock of Gitti / Dabora or extra purchase of Gitti/ Dabora ₹ 2601225/-. Besides ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arranged it in symmetry to make it in match with each other. As disclosed GP of Ass.Year 2008-09 was based on audit u/s 44AB while preparing consolidated statements in symmetry I was guided by trading account and profit and loss account attached with ROI for Ass.Year 2008-09. As my GP for Ass.year 2003-04 with this presentation was giving GP rate of 44.06% I requested Hon ble CIT(A) for deletion of addition of ₹ 548805/-. 6.6 Before us, the ld. AR has submitted as under:- 5.07 As submitted before Hon ble CIT(A) also during period related to Ass.Year 2008-09 I was in process of expansion of my business for which there were 2 options (i) to go for big size Jaw Machine and also one more dumper for the same; or (ii) to go for small size Jaw Machine (PB 219 to 221). To go for first option was to be supported by Bank Finance and for it my accountant was making exercise of obtaining maximum bank loan. These papers may relate to said exercise which has no relevancy with my business. During appeal hearing I also submitted that these papers relate to Ass.Year 2007-08 and /or Ass.Year 2008-09 and not to earlier years. Even Hon ble Special Auditors have taken it in their rep ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g considered . Moreover, these papers did not relate to the assessment year under consideration Hence on these basis of papers, the AO could not have concluded that gross profit was 35%. Survey has been conducted and incriminating documents were impounded. The special auditor also gave the report. There is nothing on record to suggest as to how the gross profit rate of 35% can be applied for the assessment year under consideration. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the addition of ₹ 5,28,805/- 7.0 Now we take up remaining ground of appeal of revenue in ITA No.592/ JP/2011. 7.1 The Ground No. 2 of the revenue is as under:- The learned CIT(A) erred in deleting addition on account of unrecorded investment ₹ 348100/-. 7.2 During the course of survey, a ledger annexured as 24 showed that the assessee has made advance of ₹ 2.95 lacs. This has been reported by the Auditors also. The assessee was asked to explain the source of such advance before the AO. The assessee stated that this Annexure does not relate to the assessee and relate to his father and mother. However, no supporting materials were furnished by the asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 100/- in the case of appellant is not justified and the same is directed to be deleted. Ground No.4(ii) is thus allowed. 7.5 Before us, the ld. DR submitted that the annexure shows that the advance was given by the assessee. The assessee has not been able to show the source from which advance was given. The AO therefore, was justified in making the addition. 7.6 Before us, the ld. AR has filed the following submissions. (i) That base of Annexure-24 starts from Ass.Year 2002-03 and notice u/s 148 for Ass.Year 2002-03 was given to Smt.Meena Somani only which means that the then AO was satisfied that this Annexure contains her financial activities only. (ii) In response to notice u/s 148 Smt.Meena Somani had filed her ROI for Ass.Year 2002-03 to 2005-06 in April/May 2009 wherein all entries relating to Annexure-24 is verifiable. Copies of impounded papers were given to her on 01.05.2010 i.e. after more than one year of ROI filed. (iii) No notice u/s 148 was given to Smt.Meena Somani for Ass.Year 2006-07 2007-08. (iv) Assessment of Smt.Meena Somani for Ass.Year 2008-09 was made u/s 143(3) and no addition on this issue were made like Ass.Year 2002-03 to 2005-06. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt year 2003-04. Following our order for the assessment year 2003-04, we hold that the gross profit rate could not have been enhanced on the basis of the papers which related to assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09 and when the assessee has filed the explanation in respect of such papers and the addition confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. 10.1 Ground No. 3 (ii) of the assessee is in respect of disallowance of ₹ 6700/- from general expenses which has not been pressed by the ld. AR during hearing before the Bench. Hence, this ground of appeal of the assessee is dismissed being not pressed. ITA No. 593/ JP/2011 Revenue A.Y. 2004-05 11.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in restricting the addition of unrecorded sales from ₹ 16,86,335/- to ₹ 1,26,981/-. 11.2 We have heard both the parties. The documents found during the course of search showed that the assessee has supplied the line stone to M/s. Shree Ram Cement Works. As per the documents, the gross profit was Rs., 1,00,843/-. The ld. CIT(A) has upheld the profit to ₹ 1,26,981/- after applying the gross profit rate of 7.53%. This issue has been co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s mentioned by your good self it is found that neither the opening stock of DABORA is mentioned nor there is any mention of depreciation etc. Before going into the further details it is important to point out that the sales tax is ₹ 40/- per trolley and a trolley contains 5 tons material as normally considered by the Govt authorities. The royalty is ₹ 50 per ton. On the perusal of the papers as mentioned by your honor , it is found that the royalty has been mentioned at ₹ 250022/- which if divided by ₹ 50/- then the weight conies to 5000 trolleys and like wise the sales tax is ₹ 40 per trolley and if the amount of ₹ 410190/- is divided by ₹ 40/- then the number of trolleys come to 10255 meaning there by that the assesses has 5255 trolleys in the opening stock which has not been mentioned on those lose rough papers. The weight in those 5255 trolleys would be 26275 tons the value of which at cost price at ₹ 545/- per trolley which includes all levies which would come to Rs. S45/- X 5255 = 2863975/- meaning there by that the assesses had that much opening stock, in hand on which royalty has been paid as the Same has been produced from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SES AS SHOWN IN GROSS PROFIT THE, SAID PAPER 2879211 AS ABOVE 3326054 BANK INTEREST 100000 DEPRECIATIQN 100000 NET PROFIT 246843 So based on above paper the net profit subject to depreciation and bank interest comes to ₹ 446843/- only which yields a NP rate at 4.7! % against which the assessee has declared a NP rate of 5.87% meaning there by that the results declared by the assessee are better as compared to those shown on the alleged paper. It is re iterated that the said paper is neither in the hand writing of the assessee nor in the hand writing of his father. It is also pertinent to mention that there are more papers in the possession of the department which were seized at the time of survey and which yield lesser amount of profit or are in consonance with the results declared by the assessee. The assessee will be pleased to submit any further explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 44/- in Ass.Year 2006-07, ₹ 194184/- (it should be ₹ 1231262/-) in Ass.Year 2007-08; ₹ 2434466/- in Ass.Year 2008-09 which is because these accounts for different years are prepared by different accountants who have taken expenses in Trading A/c or P L A/c as per their understanding. I therefore in PB 58 arranged it in symmetry to make it in match with each other. As disclosed GP of Ass.Year 2008-09 was based on audit u/s 44AB while preparing consolidated statements in symmetry I was guided by trading account and profit and loss account attached with ROI for Ass.Year 2008-09. As my GP for Ass.year 2005-06 with this presentation was giving GP rate of 39.31% I requested Hon ble CIT(A) for deletion of addition of ₹ 904582/-. 14.4 The ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 14.5 Before us the ld. AR has filed the following submissions. 12.7 As submitted before Hon ble CIT(A) also during period related to Ass.Year 2008-09 I was in process of expansion of my business for which there were 2 options (i) to go for big size Jaw Machine and also one more dumper for the same. Or (ii) to go for small size Jaw Machine (PB 219 to 221). To go for first option was t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chart available at page 58 of the paper book. If the accounts are prepared on the same basis for different assessment years then net profit for different assessment years varies from 3.87% to 9.96%. The gross profit rate varies from 35.39% to 44.06%. After considering this chart and taking into account, the alternative request of the assessee, we feel that it will be fair and reasonable to apply net profit rate of 7.45% before depreciation. Accordingly, the ground of appeal of assessee is partly allowed. 15.1 The following ground of appeal 2(i) of the assessee and the ground of appeal no. 2 of the revenue are in respect of the same issue. Therefore, these grounds are being disposed off together. GOA no.3(i) of assessee - That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating profit rate of 35% on undisclosed sales of ₹ 895903/- as against disclosed NP rate of 3.87% as per Trading A/c attached with ROI GOA no.2 of Deptt.- The learned CIT(A) erred in restricting addition on account of unrecorded grit sales from ₹ 895603/- to ₹ 313461/-. 15.2 The Special Auditor intimated the AO that there are grit sales to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... have not disputed my disclosed sales. Undisclosed turnover basis whereof is letter dated 12.04.2010 of Hon ble Special Auditors (PB 227) as well as letter dated 26.05.2010 of learned AO (PB 87) which are without any supporting. It is therefore submitted that the same be brushed aside and addition sustained on basis of same by Hon ble CIT(A) be deleted. (ii) In alternate I submit that even if my aforesaid submission is not accepted and undisclosed sales as worked by learned AO is retained NP rate of 3.87% (subject to depreciation) as per my books of accounts be applied (PB 58). (Reliance is made on CIT Vs. Balchand Ajit Kumar 186 CTR (MP) 419; Manmohan Sadani Vs.CIT 304 ITR 52 (MP) CIT Vs. President Industries 158 CTR 372)(Guj)) or NP rate of 5% which is at par to sec.44AF or NP rate of 7.45% as accepted in comparable case of M/s Maheshwari Crusher, Kota Ass.Year 2007-08 (PB 225-226) be applied. 15.4 On the other hand, the ld. DR stated that expenses stands already included. Therefore, the unrecorded sales should be considered as income. 15.5 We have heard both the parties. This issue has been considered by us in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2003- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of ₹ 1,15,700/- is directed to be deleted. Ground No. 5(ii) is thus partly allowed. 18.4 We have heard both the parties. The special auditor after considering the impounded documents mentioned that sales to the extent of ₹ 8,95,603/- are to be verified. The report of the auditor is available at page 38 of the paper book. In this report, the auditor has referred to loose papers no. 97 and 98 in respect of sale of ₹ 1,15,700/- to M/s. Goodluck Crushers. This is included in the total of ₹ 8,95,603/-. Thus this sales stands included in ₹ 8,95,603/- and hence no separate addition was required to be made. Thus Ground No. 3 of the revenue is dismissed ITA No. 621/ JP/2011 Assessee A.Y. 2006-07 19.1 The first ground of appeal of the assessee is the same as raised in assessment year 2003-04 and our finding is also the same. Therefore, the ground of appeal no. 1 of the assessee is dismissed. 20.1 The ground of appeal no.2(i) of assessee and GOA no. 2 of the Deptt reads as under:- GOA no.2(i) of assessee - That under the facts and circumstances of the case the learned CIT(A) erred in estimating profit rate of 35% on undisclosed s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ______ has accepted my sales at ₹ 3529561/- which is in match with sales disclosed in Trading A/c attached with ROI. Copy of order is enclosed vide Annexure-J to this letter. Without prejudice to my request for annulment of order I submit unrecorded sales, even if taken by AO ignoring that it is not supported by any evidence, includes, sales of ₹ 913897/- which is appearing in accounts and for which working was given vide letter dated 03.06.2010 during assessment proceedings copy whereof is enclosed vide Annexure- K to this letter. This will reduce unrecorded sales to ₹ 1858687/- I submit that reasonable rate of 5% (at par to sec. 44AF) be applied thereon which shall bring addition to ₹ 92934/-. In alternate GP rate of 9.26%, as disclosed as per trading account, be applied and suitable deduction be provided for P L expenses. I pray for relief accordingly. During appeal proceedings, I submitted that even if undisclosed sales are there it is ₹ 1858687/- whereon my disclosed NP rate of 4.87% (subject to depreciation) or NP rate at 5% which is at par to sec. 44AF be applied. In alternate I submitted that in case of M/s Maheshwari Crushers, Kota Ass.Y ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1/- on the basis of impugned papers found during the course of survey. 24.2 This issue has been decided in favour of the assessee in earlier years. Therefore, we hold that the gross profit rate of 35% cannot be applied on the basis of impugned papers relating to assessment year 2007-08 and 2008-09. 25.1 Ground No. 2(iv) was not pressed by the assessee during the course of hearing. Therefore, the same is dismissed being not pressed. ITA No. 595/ JP/2011 revenue A.Y. 2006-07 26.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded investment of ₹ 20.06 lacs. 26.2 This addition is based on Annexure A-24. We had already held that Annexure A- 24 belongs to Smt. Meena Somani and hence addition cannot be made in the hands of the assessee. ITA No. 622/ JP/2011 assessee A.Y. 2007-08 27.1 The first ground of appeal filed by the assessee is the same as raised in the appeal of assessment year 2003-04. Following our findings in respect of this ground of appeal for earlier assessment years, we hold that the AO was justified in referring the matter for special audit u/s 142(2A) of the A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... under:- 7.3 Argument of the appellant is not acceptable. No evidence has been filed regarding claim of appellant that the credits are from Daborawalas towards Dabora purchase, either before AO or the undersigned. Appellant claimed that due to mistake of accountant, the same has been termed as JCB receipts. No proof hi support of this claim was furnished at any stage and therefore this claim is not acceptable that due to mistake of accountant it is termed as JCB receipts, hi any case these receipts are not accounted for hi regular books of accounts of appellant 29.5 Before us, the ld. AR has submitted as under:- I request your honour that these credits relates to payment due to Daborawalas which I was failed to substantiate at assessment stage. I therefore request your honour to remit this issue back to the learned AO to reexamine the issue afresh. In alternate I request your honour to please provide me telescopy benefit. 29.6 On the other hand, the ld. DR drew our attention that the assessee himself offered a sum of ₹ 1,24,142/- as income on account of such credit entries appearing in the balance sheet. The income which was surrendered in the immediately ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s I submit additions of ₹ 200000/- be deleted. I further submit that if this addition is sustained its set off be provided in next year. 30.4 The ld. CIT(A) after considering the submissions recorded his finding as under:- Argument of the appellant that it was only a rough exercise is not acceptable. In the absence of satisfactory explanation regarding difference of ₹ 200000/- either before AO or the undersigned, the addition is justified and the same is confirmed. Alternative argument of the appellant is that if this addition is confirmed, credit for the same may be provided in subsequent year. This argument of the appellant is acceptable. Since the addition of ₹ 200000/- is confirmed on account of suppression in the value of closing stock for this year, credit for the same shall be allowed by AO in the subsequent year. For A.Y. 2008-09 the opening stock shall be increased by ₹ 200000/-. Ground No. 5(iv) is thus partly allowed. 30.5 Before us, the ld. AR ha submitted that not only the closing stock but other three items were also overwritten. As per this paper, the net profit was at ₹ 1,43,056/- whereas as per profit and loss account at ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ioned by your good self it is found that neither the opening stock of DABORA is mentioned nor there is any mention of depreciation etc. Before going into the further details it is important to point out that the sales tax is ₹ 40/- per trolley and a trolley contains 5 tons material as normally considered by the Govt authorities. The royalty is ₹ 50 per ton. On the perusal of the papers as mentioned by your honor , it is found that the royalty has been mentioned at ₹ 250022/- which if divided by ₹ 50/- then the weight conies to 5000 trolleys and like wise the sales tax is ₹ 40 per trolley and if the amount of ₹ 410190/- is divided by ₹ 40/- then the number of trolleys come to 10255 meaning there by that the assesses has 5255 trolleys in the opening stock which has not been mentioned on those lose rough papers. The weight in those 5255 trolleys would be 26275 tons the value of which at cost price at ₹ 545/- per trolley which includes all levies which would come to Rs. S45/- X 5255 = 2863975/- meaning there by that the assesses had that much opening stock, in hand on which royalty has been paid as the Same has been produced from mines ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHOWN IN GROSS PROFIT THE, SAID PAPER 2879211 AS ABOVE 3326054 BANK INTEREST 100000 DEPRECIATION 100000 NET PROFIT 246843 So based on above paper the net profit subject to depreciation and bank interest comes to ₹ 446843/- only which yields a NP rate at 4.7! % against which the assessee has declared a NP rate of 5.87% meaning there by that the results declared by the assessee are better as compared to those shown on the alleged paper. It is re iterated that the said paper is neither in the hand writing of the assessee nor in the hand writing of his father. It is also pertinent to mention that there are more papers in the possession of the department which were seized at the time of survey and which yield lesser amount of profit or are in consonance with the results declared by the assessee. 32.3 However, the submissions made by the assessee were not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to match sale of ₹ 9487962/-. We submit it may be partly out of stock because closing stock as per papers attached to ROI for Ass.Year 2007-08 is ₹ 1021400/- whereas as on 31.03.2008 as per papers attached to ROI it is ₹ 38033/- and partly it may be out of unaccounted purchases. In view of these facts we submit that Trading, P L A/c available at page 56-57 of Annexure-18 are simply working based on filmsy sales to obtain higher bank loan and therefore should be discarded. In alternate I submit in the said Trading, P L A/c, if at all it is to made reliable following working should be made. (i) Incorporation of figures of stock considering stock as on 31.03.2007 and 31.03.2008. (ii) Figures of further Dabora (stone) purchases to match sales and purchases qua production per CFT of Dabora (stone) purchase and sale price per CFT. (iii) To consider Bank Intt, Fuel Depreciation. These three expenses during period related to Ass.Year 2008-09 as per papers attached to ROI were ₹ 110572/-, 125171/- 187648/- total ₹ 423391/- respectively qua period covered (8 Months) total expenses shall be ₹ 282260/-. For item no.(ii) the best guid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... annexures as copies of such Annexures are available in the paper book. Once the assessee is maintaining the books of accounts and the incriminating papers have been scrutinized then the addition can be made on the basis of incriminating documents. This Annexure did not contain the details of the expenses. Moreover, the comparable cases show the net profit rate of 7.45% before depreciation. We therefore, feel that net profit rate of 7.45% before depreciation should be applied. 32.7 Since we have directed to apply net profit rate of 7.45%, therefore, disallowance of expenses of ₹ 11,307/- will be considered to be included in such addition. Hence, disallowance of ₹ 11,307/- confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) is deleted. Thus Ground No. 2(i) of the assessee is allowed. ITA No. 596/ JP/2011 revenue A.Y. 2007-08 33.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded investment of ₹ 14,39,600/-. 33.2 We have heard both the parties. The addition has been made on the basis of Annexure A-24. We had already held in the case of the assessee for the earlier assessment years that Annexure A-24 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee has not been able to show that such payments are covered by the rule 6DD 34.6 Before us, the ld. AR has submitted as under:- We submit sir that in our case books of accounts are rejected by learned AO. Books of accounts are treated as rejected by implication also. (Reliance is made on Choudhary Brothers vs. ITO 45 TW Page 99 (JP)). Once books are rejected disallowance u/s 40A(3) should not be made. Reliance is made on CIT vs. G.K.Contractor (2009) 19 DTR 305 (Raj) followed in ITO vs. Sadhwani Bros. 58 DTR 368 (JP) also Rajendra Kumar Kedia 22 TW 506 Kiran Udhyog 34 TW 80. 34.7 We have heard both the parties. Dabora which is a material for manufacturing gitti is being purchased from the persons who procured such material from the mines. Such persons are not having their bank account. It is not the case of the revenue that such persons are having their bank account or are selling the goods to other parties and receiving the payment through cheque. Moreover, books of accounts have been rejected. The Jaipur Bench is holding that in case the books of accounts are rejected then no disallowance u/s 40A(3) be made. It will be useful to reproduce our findings o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ofit rate is to be applied and therefore, no addition in respect of expenses is to be made. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition on account of other expenses of ₹ 1,74,100/-. 36.1 The fifth ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in wrongly allowing telescopic benefit of ₹ 10,15,500/-. 36.2 Since the issue of addition of ₹ 10,15,500/- is restored back on the file of the AO, therefore, this issue is again to be considered by the AO after providing opportunity to the assessee without being influenced by the findings of the ld. CIT(A). ITA No. 623/ JP/2011 Assessee 2008-09 37.1 The first ground of appeal of the assessee is the same as raised in earlier assessment years. Following our findings for the earlier assessment years, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in referring the matter for special audit. 38.1 Ground No. 2(i) of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the profit rate of 35% on undisclosed sales of ₹ 18,39,789/- against disclosed net profit rate of 9.96^ as per trading account attached with the return of income. 38.2 Ground No. 4 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore submit these two sales of ₹ 21900000/- + ₹ 2020052/- totaling to ₹ 4210052/- should be excluded from ₹ 6049841/- and rests sales of ₹ 1839789/- Rs. (6049841 4210052) be taken as undisclosed sales whereon a reasonable NP rate may be applied. We therefore pray to your honours to direct to the learned AO to do so. During appeal proceedings, I submitted that even if undisclosed sales are there it is ₹ 1839789/- whereon my disclosed NP rate (subject to depreciation) be applied. In alternate I submitted that in case of Maheshwari Crushers, Kota Ass.Year 2007-08 disclosed NP rate of 7.45% was accepted by Hon ble ACIT Circle-1 Kota and same should be applied. The Hon ble CIT(A) accepted my submissions partly and applied rate of 35% on undisclosed sale of ₹ 1839787/- thus giving relief of ₹ 5405915/- (6049841-643926). 38.6 Before us, the ld. AR has submited as under:- (i) That I am subject to sales tax and as such registered dealer under the provisions of Sales Tax Act. Sales Tax Authorities have not disputed my disclosed sales (PB-75). Undisclosed turnover basis whereof is report of Hon ble Special Auditors as well as l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... receding year. It is true that the books of accounts are to be rejected because they do not contain all the necessary details. Since the net profit rate is better as compared to preceding year, therefore, there is no case of making trading addition on disclosed sales. ITA No. 597/ JP/2011 revenue A.Y. 2008-09 40.1 The first ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unrecorded investment of ₹ 2,95,000/-. 40.2 We have heard both the parties. This addition is based on Annexure A-24 and following our findings for the earlier assessment years, we hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 2.95 lacs. 41.1 The second ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of excess expenses of ₹ 1,15,921/-. 41.2 The AO noticed that the assessee has made building expenses of ₹ 1,15,921/- and such expenses have been capitalized in plant and machinery a/c and depreciation @ 15% has been claimed. The assessee in response to query raised from the AO submitted that he has only claimed depreciation in the addition in building a/c w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by transferring it to machinery account. In view of these facts addition has very fairly been deleted by Hon ble CIT(A). Thus Ground of Appeal of Deptt. thus needs dismissal. 41.7 We have heard both the parties. The assessee has not claimed entire expenses in the computation of income. The assessee has only claimed depreciation. Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has given an explanation and such explanation has not been found as false or incorrect. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 1,15,921/-. 42.1 The third ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of excess cash of ₹ 21.90 lacs. 42.2 The AO noticed from the cash book that the assessee has increased the cash of ₹ 21.90 lacs by pencil in cash book without giving any credit in other account. The assessee was asked to explain the same. The assessee stated that the amount as shown is the amount of sale which has been shown as cash sales in the audited account. The assessee was asked to justify his claim but he failed to do so. Accordingly, the AO made the addition of ₹ 21.90 lacs. 42.3 Bef ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mitted before us that on different dates entries in relation to sales were made in pencil by their accountant and these are shown as sales in the audited books of accounts. Moreover, the revenue has conducted the survey and during the course of survey no excess cash was found and the assessee has given explanation and the explanation has not been held as incorrect or false. Thus there was no case of making addition without corroborative evidence. We therefore, hold that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 21.90 lacs . 43.1 The fifth ground of appeal of the revenue is that the ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition on account of unexplained purchase of machine of ₹ 3,38,000/-. 43.2 The AO noticed from the loose papers no. 53 of Annexure 18 that the assessee made an order from M/s. Labh Engineering Works for purchase of Crusher machine for ₹ 7.50 lacs. As per Annexure 14, it was noticed that the assessee has paid a sum of ₹ 4.12 lacs. The AO therefore, hold that a sum of ₹ 3.38 was paid outside the books of accounts. 43.3 Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted as under:- In para 7 of his order, the learne ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payment to the party at ₹ 412000/- was found. As a note to this effect was appearing at page 5 of Audit report the learned AO taxed ₹ 338000/- (750000-412000) without further enquiries. The learned AO did not thought it appropriate to substitute machine addition of ₹ 412000/- to ₹ 750000/- and provide depreciation accordingly (PB 224). During the appeal proceedings I also filed a clearificatory letter dated 06.09.2010 from said party (PB 222) wherein said party has mentioned that there is material difference in 2 machines referred in order form dated 04.05.2007 and bill dated 27.10.2007 and that I am being supplied machine mentioned in bill no. 18 dated 27.10.2007 only. During appeal proceedings vide para G of letter dated 13.01.2011 we explained it in detail and also filed copies of these all papers to him. A copy of letter and annexures were given to the learned AO also but he did not made any comments in this regard in his remand report. In view of these facts departmental appeal on this ground is not maintainable and their this ground of appeal be dismissed. 43.7 We have heard both the parties. The ld. AR has submitted that a copy of letter and Ann ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
