9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 640X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and placed on record the ex parte assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) on February 3, 2014, for the assessment year 2010-11. Taking note of the ex parte reassessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer, the petitioners made endeavour to implore annulment of these orders by way of additional affidavit. In relation to the other writ petitions, i.e., S. B. Civil Writ Petition No. 1250 of 2014, 1248 of 2014 and 1496 of 2014, respectively, which were laid subsequently, the ex parte reassessment orders were also questioned besides notice under section 147/148 of the Act and rejection of the preliminary objections in the original petition. 2. The undisputed facts, necessary and germane to the matter, are that a search under section 132 of the Act and survey under section 133A of the Act was simultaneously conducted by the investigation wing of the Income-tax Department at the business/residential premises of Sirohi based Modi alias Adarsh Group. The petitioners Mukesh Modi, Daksha Kumari Jain and Bharat Das Vaishnav were eventually covered under the search action and vis-a-vis other assessees, viz., Prakash Beverages, Nakoda Land Developers and Sambhav Energy, a sur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion. 3. Joining the issue with the Department, the petitioners, Mukesh Modi, Daksha Kumari Jain and Bharat Das Vaishnav, submitted reply to the impugned notice dated March 22, 2013, with the request to the first respondent to treat the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act, as return filed in response to the aforesaid notice. With the same breath, Prakash Beverages, Nakoda Land Developers and Sambhav Energy also submitted reply with the request to treat the original returns filed under section 139(1) of the Act as returns filed in response to the notice under section 148 of the Act. 4. On May 31, 2013, the petitioners submitted detailed preliminary objections to resist the proceedings under section 147 of the Act and put stiff resistance against the issuance of the impugned notice. The main edifice of the preliminary objections remained the basis of the reasons recorded for issuance of such a notice by categorizing it to be de hors the procedure mandated by the hon'ble apex court. The assessing authority, after considering the preliminary objections, rejected the same by passing order dated October 15, 2013. 5. The petitioners have very specifically ple ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the assessees to sent them by speed post on the same day, i.e., February 3, 2014. The adjournment applications were also sent through e-mail, fax, etc. The petitioners have very specifically pleaded in the writ petitions that the first respondent knowing it fully well that the petitioners are approaching this court for assailing the impugned order dated January 17, 2014, with intent to brow beat the assessees hurriedly passed the ex parte assessment orders. The petitioners have set out a specific case in the additional affidavit that the reassessment orders have been passed to frustrate the cause of the petitioners, which is a subject-matter of these petitions. On passing the reassessment orders, notices were also issued to the petitioners calling upon them as to why penalty should not be levied from them. Referring specifically to the cases of Mukesh Modi, Bharat Das Vaishnav, Sambhav Energy and Krishna Dairy, which were scheduled to be heard on February 4, 2014, the petitioners have pleaded that the reassessment orders were passed on a day anterior to the scheduled date, i.e., February 3, 2014, despite availability of statutory time for passing these orders up to March 31, 2014 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... due verification of books of account. Defending the reasons recorded in the assessment orders, the respondents have also submitted in the reply that the amount in question has escaped assessment for the assessment year in question. The respondents have very specifically pleaded in the return that the assessees have not availed of the chance before the Assessing Officer to explain the case on the merits, which clearly establishes escapement of income on their part. While referring to the words "reason to believe" the respondents have submitted in the return that the expression "reason to believe" cannot be equated with final ascertainment of the fact by legal evidence or conclusion. For substantiating this proposition, the respondent-Revenue has also placed reliance in the pleadings on a verdict of the hon'ble apex court in Asst. CIT v. Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Ltd. [2007] 291 ITR 500 (SC). 7. Joining the issue with the petitioners for their objections, the respondent-Revenue has submitted in the reply that, while invoking the provisions of section 147/148 of the Act, the Assessing Officer was abreast with the definite and specific information and the same cannot be cate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ithout verification/proper examination of the relevant materials and even leading to a situation that other assessees may suffer for delay in their assessment cases. 9. On the merits, the respondent-Revenue has defended its action with full emphasis at its command and submitted that the entire exercise undertaken by the Revenue is in strict adherence of the Act and, as such, the cause of grievance of the petitioners is wholly unfounded and cannot be sustained. Reiterating the preliminary objections and also countering the grounds urged on the merits of the case, the respondent-Revenue has specifically pleaded for rejection of the writ petitions. 10. Mr. Prakul Khurana has strenuously urged that the very foundation/ basis for issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act to initiate reassessment proceedings is de hors the law falling short of the requirements envisaged by the Legislature. Elaborating his submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners would contend that for issuing the notice the first respondent has not recorded reasons to fulfil and satisfy statutory precondition of "reason to believe" mandated under section 147 of the Act. Mr. Khurana has submit ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ority has assumed the jurisdiction for reinitiating the assessment proceedings on its mere ipse dixit and suspicion instead of the requisites, i.e., the reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. Learned counsel for the petitioners has urged that the legal position is no more res integra that for issuance of a valid notice under section 148 of the Act the concerned Assessing Officer is under an obligation to keep himself abreast with definite information/ material in possession on the basis of which he forms opinion of reason to believe that some income has escaped assessment in the year in question and in want of the same initiation of the impugned re-assessment proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction. Mr. Khurana, while elaborating on this issue would urge that if the reasons recorded per se reflect that the matter requires detail investigation and further verification was at the most can be categorized that the Assessing Officer has reasons to suspect and not "reason to believe" that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment rendering the reinitiation proceedings all the more vulnerable. With these submissions, Mr. Khurana has urged tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 148 of the Income-tax Act.' This in effect and substance is the only satis faction recorded by the Assessing Officer as regards income having escaped assessment. A bare reading of Explanation 2 to section 147 of the Act shows that the same merely lays down the categories of cases which shall be deemed to be cases where income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The said Explanation nowhere speaks of verification of transactions or of deemed income. 20. Reading the reasons recorded in their entirety, there is nothing whatsoever to indicate as to which is the income that has not been disclosed by the petitioner or that any income chargeable to tax has in fact escaped assessment. The entire tenor of the reasons recorded indicates that on the basis of some unsubstantiated and vague infor mation, the Assessing Officer has reopened the assessment for the purpose of making a roving and fishing inquiry to verify as to whether any income has in fact escaped assessment which fact is borne out from the reasons recorded, wherein the Assessing Officer has cate gorically recorded thus : 'In view of the abov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erial on record. In the facts of the present case, there is no such material. In the circumstances, in the absence of basic require ments of section 147 of the Act being satisfied, the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer is invalid and as such, the impugned notice under section 148 of the Act cannot be sustained. 12. In J. V. Agrawal's case (supra), Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has reiterated the same principles. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Khurana, has impeached the impugned reassessment proceedings on the ground that the very edifice of the said action of the Assessing Officer is mere change of opinion and such proceedings merely on the strength of so-called changed opinion is forbidden by law. For authenticating these submissions, Mr. Khurana, has submitted that during the proceedings under section 153A of the Act, the Assessing Officer analyzed and considered the seized material and thereupon issued a consolidated questionnaire to all concerned, vide notice dated October 21, 2011, which was duly replied by the petitioner, Mukesh Modi, and after receiving a reply, the Assessing Officer formed an opinion and, thereafter, passed the o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the expression 'perusal of the case record reveals' clearly showing that it is on the basis of the same assessment record as was filed by the assessee, during the relevant assessment years and also scrutinized by the Assessing Officer before passing the orders under section 143(3) is the basis for seeking reopening of the assessment. Further, the new logic, rationale and opinion which has been formed by the Assessing Officer for seeking reopening of the assessment is nothing but a change of opinion and a new approach to the existing facts and material which the Assessing Officer could well have done during the regular assessment proceedings of the relevant assessment years. Not only this, the rationale/logic/reasons given that sale price of stocks during the entire assessment year would remain constant is something which indeed confounds us. It cannot stand to reason that the price of sale of paddy/rice/pulses remained constant throughout the year so that on the basis of an average price of the closing stock the sale price for the entire year comprising 12 months, 48 weeks and 365 days can be ascertained in that the same would have remained fixed throughout this period. E ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e third proviso to section 147 of the Act, Mr. Khurana would contend that by virtue of the said proviso initiation of reassessment proceedings is barred by law and cannot be sustained. In support of this argument, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgment : * National Dairy Development Board v. Deputy CIT [2013] 353 ITR 538 (Guj) 18. In this verdict, Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court, while examining the true purport of the third proviso to section 147 of the Act, which at the relevant point of time was the second proviso to section 147 of the Act, held as under (page 543 of 353 ITR) : "Moreover, in so far as the second ground for reopening of assess ment is concerned, it may be noted that the second proviso to section 147 of the Act expressly provides that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving mat ters which are subject-matter of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. Thus, by vir tue of the second proviso to section 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer had reason to believe that income of the assessees chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. 21. Learned counsel, Mr. Bissa, would contend that where prima facie lie hidden or embedded in the record including books of account, which are filed along with the return, it may require deep exercise and deep study to uncover the same and this kind of disclosure cannot be said to be a true and full disclosure of primary facts. In exercise of the power under section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer can very well invoke such powers for reopening the assessment to unearth escapement of income chargeable to tax at the behest of the assessee. For this proposition, the learned counsel, Mr. Bissa, has placed reliance on the Division Bench judgment of this court in the case of Asst. CIT v. Banswara Syntex Ltd. [2005] 272 ITR 642 (Raj). The Division Bench in this case has held that sufficiency of reasons for forming the belief for reopening the assessment is not for the court to judge and, in the facts and in the circumstances of that case, the court has upheld the action of the Assessing Officer. The Division Bench finally held as under (page 648 of 272 ITR) : &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ressed explanation and as many as 58 pages of supporting evidence which includes summary of lease payment for the relevant year and the summary to each lease agree ment in terms of monetary and periodicity of payment aspects. You have also enclosed copy of all the relevant lease agreement.' A reading of the letters dated December 5, 2003, and January 12, 2004, reflect that the escapement of income according to the assess ing authority is attributable to wrong claim preferred by the assessee and its failure to disclose the material facts truly and fully. Thus, the reason recorded by the assessing authority has nexus with the for mation of belief by the assessing authority for taking action under section 147 of the Income-tax Act. Therefore, section 149(1)(b), read with section 147 has been invoked by the assessing authority for reopening the assessment. It is well settled that the sufficiency of rea sons for forming the belief is not for the court to judge. The final order which may be passed by the assessing authority under section 147, if it goes against the respondent, is appealable under section 246 of the Income-tax Act. The respondent cannot be allowed to short- circuit t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his stage. We are of the view that the court cannot strike down the reopening of the case in the facts of this case. It will be open to the assessee to prove that the assumption of facts made in the notice was erroneous. The assessee may also prove that no new facts came to the knowledge of the Income-tax Officer after completion of the assessment proceeding. We are not expressing any opinion on the merits of the case. The questions of fact and law are left open to be investigated and decided by the assessing authority. The appellant will be entitled to take all the points before the assessing authority. The appeals are dismissed. There will be no order as to costs." 24. In Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the hon'ble apex court has thoroughly examined the powers of the Assessing Officer under section 147 and finally held as under (page 511 of 291 ITR): "Section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess income chargeable to tax if he has reason to believe that income for any assessment year has escaped assessment. The word 'reason' in the phrase 'reason t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r section 148 read with section 147(a). But under the substituted section 147 existence of only the first condition suffices. In other words if the Assessing Officer for whatever reason has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment it confers jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. It is how ever to be noted that both the conditions must be fulfilled if the case falls within the ambit of the proviso to section 147. The case at hand is covered by the main provision and not the proviso. So long as the ingredients of section 147 are fulfilled, the Assessing Officer is free to initiate proceeding under section 147 and failure to take steps under section 143(3) will not render the Assessing Officer powerless to initiate reassessment proceedings even when intimation under section 143(1) had been issued." 25. Learned counsel for the Revenue would urge that the Legislature has enacted the provisions under section 147 of the Act with laudable objects authorizing the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment when income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and, therefore, for exercising such powers to enrich the Revenue no motive can be attributed to the Assessing Officer. R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under article 226 . . . The Constitution Benches of this court in K. S. Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 ; [1954] 25 ITR 167 (SC) ; Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 ; Union of India v. T. R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 ; State of U. P. v. Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K. S. Venkataraman and Co. (P.) Ltd. v. State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 ; [1966] 60 ITR 112 (SC) have held that though article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character. If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction. The court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of the principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted." 28. Again, while examining the exceptions deviate from the general perception o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... juris diction in the facts of the instant case." 29. Learned counsel has further tried to authenticate his submissions in this behalf by placing reliance on the procedure to be adopted by the noticee on receipt of notice under section 148 of the Act and for that proposition laid stress on para 15 of the verdict of Division Bench in Banswara Syntex (supra), which reads as under (page 650 of 272 ITR) : "It seems to us that when a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued to a noticee, he is to adopt the following path paved and recognised by the Legislature and the judicial decisions : (1) File return in response to the notice. (2) He can ask the assessing authority to furnish reasons for issuance of the notice, which the assessing authority is bound to communicate to him within a reasonable time. (3) On receiving the reasons he may file objections thereto, which the assessing authority is bound to decide by a speaking order before proceeding with reassessment of income chargeable to tax with regard to the relevant assessment year. (4) After the passing of the order of reassessm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ble. However, the dismissal of the writ appeal will not stand in the way of the appellant's raising of legal contention by way of reply to the notice under section 147 of the Act along with the return if the return has not already been filed. On receipt of reply to the show-cause notice issued under section 147, the Income-tax Officer shall decide the objections filed legally and factually and then pass final orders in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing either to the appellants or to their authorised representative within three months from the date of filing objections regarding reassessment proceedings." 31. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. 32. The pivotal issue, which falls for consideration in all these petitions relates to a taxing statute and, therefore, for thrashing out the same pragmatic approach is desirable. The Legislature in its wisdom has conferred powers on the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment proceedings for ensuring proper vigil and check on unscrupulous assessees who are involved in evasion of tax. The intent of the Legislature is to vouchsafe the authority of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r who issued the notices had not before him any non-disclosure of a material fact and so he could have no material before him for believing that there had been any material non-disclosure by reason of which an under assessment had taken place. We are, therefore, bound to hold that the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under section 34 of the Income-tax Act did not exist and the Income-tax Officer had therefore no jurisdiction to issue the impugned notices under section 34 in respect of the years 1942-43, 1943-44 and 1944-45 after the expiry of four years. Mr. Sastri argued that the question whether the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that underassessment had occurred "by reason of non-disclosure of material facts" should not be investigated by the courts in an application under article 226. Learned counsel seems to suggest that as soon as the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that there has been underassessment in any year he has jurisdiction to start proceedings under section 34 by issuing a notice provided 8 years have not elapsed from the end of the year in question, but whether the notices should have been issued within a period of 4 years o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment made be also issued." 33. The connotation of the words "reason to believe" appearing in section 34((1)(a) of the Act of 1922 for reopening of the assessment once again came up before the hon'ble apex court in case of Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax [1971] 82 ITR 147 (SC), and the court held as under (page 152) : "It is abundantly clear that the two reasons which have been given for the belief which was formed by the Income-tax Officer hopelessly fail to satisfy the requirements of the statute. In a recent case- Chhugamal Rajpal v. S. P. Chaliha [1971] 79 ITR 603 (SC) which came up before this court, a similar situation had arisen and under the directions of the court, the Department produced the records to show that the Income-tax Officer had complied with the conditions laid down in the statute for issuing a notice relating to escapement of income. There also, the report submitted by the Officer to the Com missioner and the latter's orders thereon were produced. In his report, the Income-tax Officer referred to some communications received by him from the Commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l's case, has reiterated the same principles. 35. The Division Bench of this court in Biggabas Maheshwari Sewa Samiti's case (supra), while upholding the judgment of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, has reiterated the same principle and held as under in paragraphs 11 and 12. "11.Coming to question No. 1, a look at the judgment of the Tri bunal shows that the learned Tribunal has proceeded on two judgments of the hon'ble the Supreme Court, being in ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das [1976] 103 ITR 437 (SC) and Ganga Saran and Sons P. Ltd. v. ITO [1981] 130 ITR 1 (SC). In Lakhmani Mewaldas's case (supra), it has been held, that the reasons, which led to the formation of the belief, contemplated by section 147(a), must have a material belief on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment and does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the Income-tax Officer. Where live link between the material before the Income-tax Officer, and the belief he was to form regarding escapement of income, is missing, such material was stated to be not sufficient for f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n's case (supra) wherein the hon'ble apex court has held that while examining the notice under section 148 for reopening of assessment, the sufficiency or correctness of the material is not a thing to be considered at this stage. 38. In Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra) on which the learned counsel for the Revenue has placed heavy reliance, the hon'ble apex court has very specifically dealt with the scope and effect of section 147 as also sections 148 to 152 (amended with effect from April 1, 1989) and has postulated two conditions for conferment of jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment under section 147 of the Act. Paragraph 17 of the verdict quoted supra elaborately deals with this aspect of the matter. 39. Upon a close scrutiny of the legal position, which has emerged out for construing the term "reason to believe", the decks are clear for its interpretation. The expression "reason to believe" means the existence of rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that on such reasons no one properly instructed on facts and the law could reasonably entertain the belief. 40. Now, I propose to have a glance ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... My view is fully fortified from the judgment of the hon'ble apex court in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. and Shivnath Singh's case (supra) besides the legal precedents on which learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance. The decision of the hon'ble apex court in Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra), on which the learned counsel for the Revenue has placed reliance, has also reiterated the same principles that for conferring jurisdiction under section 147(a) of the Act twin conditions are required to be satisfied ; firstly, the Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax had escaped assessment, and, secondly, he must also have reason to believe that such escapement had occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of assessee to file a return under section 139 for any assessment year with the Assessing Officer, or (ii) to disclose fully or truly all material facts necessary for his assessment of that year. Both these conditions were conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Assessing Officer could have jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148 read with section 147 of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Capoor's case (supra), the impugned order rejecting objections of the assessees is based on mere ipse dixit of the Assessing Officer. This sort of situation has really furnished a cause of grievance to the petitioner-assessees, thereby seeking shelter of great humanizing principles, i.e., the principles of natural justice. It is trite that any quasi-judicial or administrative authority is required to pass a reasoned order when it visits the recipient with civil consequences and it is one of the facets of the principles of audi alteram partem. 45. The issue relating to the embargo for reopening of the assessment as envisaged under the third proviso to section 147 of the Act vociferously canvassed by the petitioners has not been examined for the simple reason that the court felt persuaded on other counts to annul the reassessment proceedings. Therefore, this question is left open. 46. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the Assessing Officer has acted with undue haste in a biased and mala fide manner appears to be quite alluring but in want of cogent and convincing material for its substantiation the same is not tenable. True it is that the Assessing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scribed under the statute and the reasons for reopening of assessment is for "verifying" or "verification" of the existing material. The action of the Assessing Officer is, therefore, per se founded on mere change of opinion and the same cannot satisfy the legislative intent that it has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. The hon'ble apex court, in Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. (supra), per majority, has overruled the objection of availability of alternative remedy and while quashing the impugned notice has also quashed the assessment order. In the case of Mariamma Roy v. Indian Bank [2009] 16 SCC 187, the hon'ble apex court while entertaining a writ petition against an order has overruled the objection of availability of alternative remedy on the ground that the order has been passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. In Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks [1998] 8 SCC 1, while examining the issue relating to the existence of alternative statutory remedies for maintainability of a writ petition, the hon'ble apex court held as under : &nb ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... led the objection of maintainability of a writ petition against show-cause notice as well as the availability of alternative remedy under certain circumstances. Speaking for the Bench, Justice B .S. Chauhan has held as under : "Therefore, it is evident that where the notice itself makes it abun dantly clear that the authority has already made up his mind and is likely to pass an order in a particular manner, submission of reply or hearing would be an empty formality. Thus, party be not asked to avail of alternative remedy." 53. Thus, in totality, in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, the objection of the respondent-Revenue against maintainability of a writ petition on the anvil of availability of alternative statutory remedy cannot be sustained and the same is hereby overruled. 54. While examining the matter in its entirety and on the basis of findings and conclusions recorded supra, in my considered opinion, notices issued to the assessees by the Assessing Officer under section 147/148 of the Act are not satisfying the pre-requisites for the same. There is no whisper in the notice, or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
