TMI Blog2004 (2) TMI 698X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is, the ld. A/R of assessee has contended that no incriminating document was found as a result of search suggesting any household expenditure over and above that disclosed by the assessee. He has contended that the Assessing Officer made this addition on estimate made of his own, and without any basis. He has contended that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition. He has relied on the decision of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Shri Ram Raj Soni [ITSSA No. 6(JAI) of 1997 dated 31-8-1992], Lalchand Agarwal v. Asstt. CIT 21 TW 213 and Abdulgafar A. Nadiadwala v. Dy. CIT (2000) 75 ITD 394(Bom.). 4. We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, and in particular the fact that no incriminating evidence/material, suggestive of house-hold expenses higher than those declared by assessee, was found as a result of search, together with the legal position emanating from the above referred decisions, we find the addition made by Assessing Officer on estimate basis to be uncalled for and not justified and so the deletion thereof by the ld. CIT(A) to be quite proper. We, therefore ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... for ₹ 15,000. He has contended that the Assessing Officer made the addition of ₹ 15,000 on the basis of a xerox copy of sale deed dated 17-12-1988 executed by Smt. Leela Devi w/o Shri Gopal Das Machar for some portion of land in favour of Narayan and 7 other persons (pages 57 to 60 of PB). He has contended that so far as the assessee is concerned, the assessee purchased the land measuring 3,500 sq. yards, admittedly from one Shri Hukmichand @ ₹ 250 per sq. yard, in total for ₹ 8,75,000 out of which an advance of ₹ 3,10,000 were paid by assessee to Shri Hukmichand on execution of agreement for sale (page 50 of PB) by Shri Hukmichand in favour of assessee on 29-4-1995. He has contended that the assessee purchased only a portion of land being 3,500 sq. yards only out of the land being 11 bighas, 17 biswas sold by Shri Narendra Singh for ₹ 69,000 to Smt. Leela Devi, Smt. Gulabi Devi and others being 18 purchasers in all, through sale deed dated 18-9-1986 [pgs. 52-56 PB]. He has contended that if Assessing Officer s stand was to be accepted and accordingly if the assessee had purchased the land measuring 11 bighas, 17 biswas from Narendra Singh on 18 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n of the land. 12. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. Undisputedly, the documents on the basis of which these three additions were made by Assessing Officer, were only xerox copies of three sale deeds found during search at assessee s premises. No original sale deeds of the same were found in the possession of the assessee during search. The xerox copies also suggest sales in favour of other persons and not assessee. The Assessing Officer has not brought any convincing/cogent material/evidence on record to substantiate his finding regarding the investments through the said Xerox copies of sale deeds to have been made by assessee. In that view of the matter, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the deletion of these additions by ld. CIT(A) to be quite proper and justified. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 13. Ground No. (v) disputes the deletion of addition of ₹ 68,000 made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in money lending on the basis of Annexure A-21/10 [pg. 67 of PB] dated 16-2-1994. The ld. D/R of revenue has contended that the assessee could not ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made by Assessing Officer on the basis of documents found during search. He has contended that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition wrongly as the documents, being the basis of addition, were found in the possession of assessee. He has relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee has contended that no document, i.e., no original sale deed was found in the possession of assessee but only Xerox copies of the sale deeds were found which were there for the reason of having been given by owners of the properties [Shri Shiv Prakash Soni, sale deed of himself and his wife] to assessee for sale of the related properties by assessee, as the assessee also deals in real estate business. He has contended that the Assessing Officer added the amounts of these copies together with the amounts of chain documents though the same were not assessee s purchases but were of customers. He has contended that no original document was found during search pertaining to the said document. He has also contended that the Assessing Officer has also admitted, in the assessment order, that during the course of search, the department found photocopy of the sale deeds. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that the investments in purchase of the two plots in the names of two persons, namely, Shri Shiv Prakash Soni and Smt. Uma w/o Shri Shiv Prakash, were made by assessee and mere availability of photocopy of two sale deeds registered in the name of different persons being other than the assessee, at the assessee s premises during search, can hardly be basis for attributing the investment to assessee and much more so when the assessee is a dealer in real estate business and the said photocopies are stated to have been given to assessee by Shri Shiv Prakash Soni for finding out customers for the said properties being in the name of Shri Shiv Prakash Soni and his wife. We, therefore, find the action of the ld. CIT(A) in deleting this addition to be quite justified and so we decline to interfere with the same. 17. Ground No. (vii) disputes the allowing of relief of ₹ 1 lakh out of addition of ₹ 3 lakhs made on account of unexplained expenses on marriage. Ground No. 3 of assessee in assessee s appeal No. 08/JDPR/2000 is also related with this issue as the same disputes the sustenance of addition of ₹ 57,872 on account of marriages of assessee s two daughters due ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of assessee s second/younger daughter [Deepika], the assessee gave electric goods like BPL Washing Machine, Symphony Air Cooler and Audio Music System to his first/elder daughter [Suman] also, and the total cost of such electric goods, given to each daughter works out to ₹ 31,064, and the relevant bills and vouchers [Ex. A-11/57 to 65] were also found and seized at the time of search. It has been contended that the expenditure on reception, etc. were incurred only in respect of the second daughter for which the assessee declared an expenditure of ₹ 1,30,000 which was in addition to the expenditure of ₹ 62,128 incurred on items like TV, Refrigerator, Audio System, etc. purchased for both the daughters and thus the total expenditure aggregated to ₹ 1,92,128. It has been contended that as per seized material the evidence is only of an expenditure of ₹ 62,128. It has been contended that the estimate of expenditure at ₹ 3 lakhs by Assessing Officer and at ₹ 2.5 lakhs by the ld. CIT(A) is erroneous when, in fact, the expenditure on marriage was ₹ 1,92,128 which is duly declared/disclosed by the assessee and the source of such expenditure i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 8/JDPR/2000) disputes the non-allowing of set off/credit of ₹ 1,50,000 out of receipt of sale proceeds of agricultural land from Shri Bhabhoota Ram. 25. The assessee had agreed to purchase agricultural land and paid a sum of ₹ 50,000 to Shri Abdul Khan during assessment year 1995-96. The assessee sold this entire land in parts to Shri Gajaram, Shri Poonaram and Shri Bhabhoota Ram from whom he alleged to have received ₹ 1 lakh, ₹ 3 lakhs and ₹ 4 lakhs (2 instalments of ₹ 2 lakhs each) respectively, and this sale money is stated to have been received by assessee prior to the payment of ₹ 4.5 lakhs by him to Shri Abdul Khan. The Assessing Officer accepted ₹ 4 lakhs by way of proceeds by Shri Gajaram and Shri Poonaram and so allowed credit to the extent of ₹ 4 lakhs and thereby made the addition of balance payment of ₹ 50,000 (out of ₹ 4.5 lakhs). The ld. CIT(A) considered the sale deed to have been registered in favour of shri Bhabhoota Ram accepted the assessee s plea regarding receipt of sale proceeds from Shri Bhabhoota Ram as well, and in our considered opinion, rightly so. Considering all the facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring rough draft of sale agreement of which the final sale agreement Annex. A-16/page 10. It has been contended that thus no addition need appropriately be made in respect of any rough noting on a rough paper, the blank side of which is being used for preparing rough draft due to the practice of the advocate using used (with one side blank) papers for the purpose. It has been contended that even otherwise, the back side of Annex. A-16/page 20 (back side of page 495 of PB) is page 2 of a photocopy of sale deed executed by Shri Hari Singh Rajput in favour of Shri Ghewar Ram Jat and neither in favour of assessee nor in favour of any member of assessee. As such, from the perusal of record we find that no material/evidence to support the Assessing Officer s conclusion regarding there having been any investment of ₹ 3,21,000, the sale price or of ₹ 21,000 being the advance in respect of the plot, the subject matter of sale deed contained in page 2 of the photocopy, being the back side of Annex. A-16/page 20. We, therefore, find the addition to be uncalled for and in turn, the deletion thereof by ld. CIT(A) to be justified. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f 31 persons, agreed to sell 31 Bighas of land of Khasra No. 6 in village Desuria to M.H. @ ₹ 35,000 per bigha as per Exh. A-20/page 6, placed on page 442 of P.B. He has contended that M.H., who was also P/A holder of other persons in respect of agricultural land of Khasra No. 6 in village Desuria, agreed to sell 100 Bighas of land of same Khasra @ ₹ 45,000 per bigha to assessee, who paid a sum of ₹ 1 lakh as advance on 16-5-1995 to M.H. vide Exh. A 10/page 30 (page 443 P.B.). He has contended that sale agreement in respect of the above was entered into between M.H. and assessee (R.S.) on 19-5-1995 (pages 444 to 447 PB). He has contended that the assessee claimed to have paid ₹ 22,96,000 to M.H. for 51 Bighas @ ₹ 45,000 per bigha although seized documents (Exh. A-10 pages 22 to 25, 26 to 29) (pages 443 to 447, 448 to 451 of P.B.) showed payment of only ₹ 19,10,000 as detailed at serial No. 6 on page 513 of P.B. He has contended that the Assessing Officer has already considered the payment of ₹ 22,96,000 and made addition in respect of the same as discussed on pages 17 to 22 of assessment order. He has contended that Shri M.H., to escape his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 3.15 lakhs (P.B. Page 394). 33. He has thus contended that on entire payment of ₹ 22,96,000 Sh. M.H. brought two agreements of sale in respect of 10 bighas from same 10 persons, (i) one in favour of assessee (i.e. assessee and his wife Smt. Anand Kaur) (pages 452 to 455) and (ii) another in favour of person without mentioning the name of purchaser to enable assessee to resell (pages 464 to 467 P.B.), for registration purposes, in respect of 10 bighas of land, out of 51 Bighas, for ₹ 75,000, each, from the owners of land on whose behalf he was acting as a P/A holder. 34. He has contended that similarly Shri M.H., the P/A holder got the receipts, agreement to sell and P/A from respective actual owners in respect of their shares in the land, in favour of assessee, that is for 18 Bighas from 17 persons and for 23 Bighas from 23 persons. 35. The ld. AR of assessee has accordingly contended that since the Assessing Officer has already considered the entire transaction of 51 Bighas separately and made an addition of ₹ 22,96,000 (pages 17 to 22 of assessment order), no further/separate addition in respect of the same transaction was justified and so the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... per and justified and suffering from no infirmity. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the same. 37. Revenue s ground No. XI disputes the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,50,000 out of ₹ 8,51,000 made by Assessing Officer on account of payments made by assessee to Smt. Poosi Bai, towards agreement for purchase of 23 Bighas, 5 biswas land for ₹ 13,20,812. The ld. DR of revenue has referred to page 17 of Assessing Officer s order and contended that the document was found during search, Annexure A-10/Pages 20, 21. He has relied on his same arguments as raised by him on ground No. IX. 38. As against the above the ld. AR of assessee has contended that the assessee had agreed to purchase agricultural land belonging to Smt. Poosi Bai and her son on behalf of Malla Ram, and made a total payment of ₹ 7,01,000 (pages 185 to 191 PB). It has been contended that Smt. Poosi Bai belongs to Scheduled Caste, and her land was not transferable to non-Scheduled Caste persons, and so the agreement was cancelled on 8-6-1998 (pages 117 to 119 PB). It has been contended that the total payment made was of ₹ 7,01,000 and not of ₹ 8,51,000 till 18-12-1995. It has bee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfactorily explain. He has contended that the Assessing Officer had rightly made the addition on the basis of seized material whereas the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition to the extent of ₹ 25,25,000 without properly appreciating the facts of the case. He has relied on the Assessing Officer s order. As against this, the ld. AR of assessee has contended that the Assessing Officer had made the following additions in respect of agreement for purchase of agricultural land and plot : - Name Amount Assessing Officer Order on Page Shri Hukmi Chand: ₹ 3,10,000 17 Shri Maqbul Hussain: ₹ 22,96,000 17 to 22 Shri Abdul Khan: ₹ 6,95,000 18 smt Pooshi Bai: ₹ 8,51,000 27 to 29 Smt. Draupadi: ₹ 22,000 29 to 30 Total: ₹ 41,74,000 He has contended that the assessee was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ona Ram: 3,50,000 vii. Shri Gaja Ram: 1,00,000 Total: 29,25,000 Less : Already Accepted by AO: 4,00,000 Further accepted by ld. CIT(A): 25,25,000 42. As regards the assessee s claim of having received ₹ 10 lakhs from Sh. Ugmaraj Soni and others, it has been contended that out of 51 Bighas of agricultural land which the assessee had agreed to purchase from M.H., the assessee agreed to sell 20 Bighas of land to Sh. Ugamram and others for ₹ 12 lakhs @ ₹ 60,000 per Bigha and received a sum of ₹ 7,75,000 in cash and ₹ 2,25,000 by account payee cheque. It has been contended that in fact after the above agreement of resale the prices of agricultural land declined sharply, and so Shri Ugamram Soni was not interested in making the balance payment of ₹ 2 lakhs and getting the documents registered and rather insisted for return of ₹ 10 lakhs advanced by him and on assessee s failure. Sh. Ugamraj lodged on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee s claim to the extent of ₹ 4 lakhs, being ₹ 1 lakh from Sh. Gajaram and ₹ 3 lakhs from Shri Poonaram (page 28 of assessment order) whereas the ld. CIT(A) has accepted the claim to the extent of ₹ 6,50,000 as received as against the claim of ₹ 8 lakhs, and as such the assessee is further claiming credit for ₹ 1,50,000 in assessee s appeal. 46. It has been contended that the assessee has produced all necessary evidences with respect to the amount received on resale of land by assessee which include the following : i. Receipt and payment account and balance sheet (PB Page 228). ii. Copy of Registered Sale Deed (P.B. Pages 87 to 104). iii. Statement of Purchaser (P.B. Pages 314 to 328). iv. Copy of FIR (P.B. Pages 105 to 112). v. Letter to Assessing Officer (P.B. Pages 113 to 116). It has been contended that the ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition of ₹ 25,25,000. The ld. AR has thus supported the orders of ld. CIT(A) in respect of the above deletion. 47. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record we find that the factum of receipt o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... essment year 1997-98 under section 690A of the Income-tax Act. He has contended that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the same without properly appreciating the facts. He has thus relied on the orders of the Assessing Officer. 50. As against the above the ld. AR of assessee has contended that the authorized officer found cash of ₹ 82,250 at shop run by assessee under the name of M/s. Anand Mangal Abhushan . It has been contended that the books of account of M/s. Anand Mangal Abhushan were found and seized during search vide Exh. B-1 and B-2, and the cash balance as per seized books works out to ₹ 82,250 as on 3-10-1997 (page 234 PB). The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) was satisfied with the explanation of assessee after going through the seized books of M/s. Anand Mangal Abhushan and treated the cash found at search as explained with reference to the seized record. He has contended that the ld. CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition. 51. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. From the perusal of record we find that the ld. CIT(A) has, after considering the facts of the case together with the contentions raised b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d the same is in confirmity with the decision of this Bench in the case of Shri Suraj Prakash Soni rendered on 27-5-2002 in ITA No. 506/JDPR/99 vide its para 17 on pages 6 and 7 of the order (pages 568, 569 of PB). 54. We have considered rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the receipt of 218 grams of gold by assessee from customers stands corroborated by entries in the seized books (customer s register) and also respectfully following the above-mentioned decision of this Bench in the case of Suraj Prakash Soni, we find the action of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the above addition to be quite proper and justified, and we find no fault therewith. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same. 55. Ground No. XV of revenue disputes the deletion of addition of ₹ 6,50,000 made in assessment year 1997-98 on the basis of slips containing valuation of ornaments. The ld. DR of revenue has contended that the Assessing Officer made this addition on the basis of Annexure A-11/page 75 to 78. He has referred to page 25 of Assessing Officer s assessment order and contended that the abo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... material on record as also the referred case. From the perusal of record we find that complete details of customer i.e., his name and designation, posted at Jodhpur, being already available on record but the Assessing Officer made no efforts to verify the assessee s contentions by examining the said customer. In the situation, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, together with the elaborate/explanatory contentions of the ld. AR of assessee, as also the lucid discussion made by the ld. CIT(A) in his appellate order, and respectfully following the above-mentioned decision of this Tribunal, we find no justification for the above addition in assessee s hands, and in turn, we find no fault with the impugned order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the same. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the ld. CIT(A) s impugned order. 58. Ground No. XVI disputes the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,40,720 made on account of estimated profit @ 30% on sale of gold ornaments of ₹ 4,69,068 and job charges in assessment year 1997-98. The ld. DR of revenue has contended that this addition has been made on the basis of seized documents Annexure B-1/pages 1 to 5, 8, 15 to 16, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of this Tribunal, we agree with the conclusion drawn by ld. CIT(A) in holding this addition made by Assessing Officer to be uncalled for and in turn deleting the same. As such, we find no fault with the impugned order of the ld. CIT(A) on this count and so we decline to interfere with the same. 61. Ground No. XVII of revenue disputes the deletion of addition of ₹ 20,000 made by Assessing Officer in assessment year 1997-98 on account of gold ornaments on the basis of slip found during search. Similarly ground No. XVIII of revenue disputes the deletion of addition of ₹ 1,19,920 made by Assessing Officer in assessment year 1997-98 on account of Chandra Haar on the basis of slip found during search. As these two grounds are inter-related and involved common points so we are taking them up together for our discussion. The ld. DR of revenue has contended that these additions were rightly made by Assessing Officer on the basis of seized material found during search. He has relied on the orders of Assessing Officer. As against this the ld. AR of assessee has contended that the Assessing Officer made these additions on the basis of slip found during search relating to manufa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... op and made initial capital investment in the same. But the assessee could not explain the source of initial investment of capital in the shop i.e., in the stock of this proprietary business. He has contended that the Assessing Officer rightly made the addition. He has relied on the orders of Assessing Officer. 64. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the assessee disclosed in the financial statement prepared on the basis of seized material an initial capital investment of ₹ 1,61,000 in the shop named M/s. Anand Mangal Abhushan and that the Assessing Officer made this addition on the basis of the said disclosure. He has contended that when the Assessing Officer has made the addition in respect of each item found at the shop M/s. Anand Mangal Abhushan and so the addition having already been made on the basis of assets, no further addition can be made on the basis of liability side of balance sheet separately. It has been contended that no addition can be made on the basis of assets as well as balance sheet of the same period as the assets side of balance sheet stands explained from liability side on balance sheet. It has been contended that since the Assessing Officer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and made the further addition of ₹ 5,11,950 to make the total of investment in money lending at ₹ 10 lakhs for the reason that the assessee had surrendered ₹ 10 lakhs in his statement recorded at the time of search. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the ld. CIT(A) deleted the addition for the reason that in spite of search there is no evidence to substantiate the investment of ₹ 10 lakhs in money lending by assessee; and the total investment by assessee in money lending as on the date of search, was of ₹ 1,11,000 only out of which ₹ 90,000 were advanced in the year under appeal; whereas the addition on account of debtors in the preceding year was confirmed by ld. CIT(A) to the extent of ₹ 4,88,050. It has been contended that there having already been made an addition of ₹ 4,88,050 in money lending debtors, whereas no such debtor were found at the time of search and so the investment of ₹ 90,000 made in the year is covered by the amount recovered from past additions on account of money lending. He has contended that the learned CIT(A) deleted the entire addition of ₹ 5,11,950 as no addition can be made without mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d during the year of assessment in question it must be taken that it had resiled from the position which it had wrongly taken while filing the return. In Alapati Venkata Ramiah s case (supra), the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that : That the assessee cannot be tied down to an inadvisably made wrong statement. It was further held by their Lordships that the function of the ITO being a quasi judicial authority is to estimate the income on the basis of material and not on the basis of alleged allegation or wrong admission. The legal position emanating from the above citations is that the surrender made by an assessee in a statement recorded during search under section 132(4) may not justifiably be conclusively decisive as to the making of addition as an income of assessee, and the assessee being not finally tied down therewith inasmuch as the assessee can explain the correct factual position suggestive of the incorrectness of the surrender, or the fact of the same having been made mistakenly, and in turn, calling for no addition as an income of assessee for there being no corresponding assets/expenditure to justify the same. As such, considering all the facts and circ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ., Jodhpur through its secretary Shri Tara Chand on 19-7-1996, as placed on pages 192 to 194 of P.B. clearly reveals that the second party therein comprises of three partners being (i) Shri Rameshwar Lal Soni (ii) Shri Inderchand Jajoo, and (iii) Shri Kailash Chand Jajoo and that a sum of ₹ 3,21,000 was paid as advance by the above second party to the first party (seller) towards purchase of land. The assessee s letter to DCIT, Jodhpur dated 6-9-1999 (page 409 PB) asking him to verify the factum of assessee s investment being of only of ₹ 1,07,000 in this transaction and the balance having been made by Shri Kailash Chand Jajoo and Shri Inder Chand Jajoo, who purchased the land in partnership with the assessee, together with explanatory letter of Shri Kailash Chand Jajoo to DCIT, Jodhpur dated 3-9-99 (page 410 PB) corroborate the assessee s plea. In the letter of Sh. Kailash Chand Jajoo (page 410 PB) it has been specifically mentioned that he (Kailash Chand Jajoo) and his brother, Shri Inder Chand Jajoo and Shri Rameshwar Lal Soni together purchased this land and that each one of the aforesaid three persons gave/contributed a sum of ₹ 1,07,000 out of the total paym ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pect of the sale agreement by P/A holder. He has contended that in addition to the above the Assessing Officer further obtained the additional surrender of ₹ 10 lakhs as their investment in land transaction despite there being not an iota of evidence supportive of any transaction having been done by assessee over and above those contained in papers found as a result of search. It has also been contended that the surrender was obtained when the assessee was not mentally fit and was under the influence of injection which was a pain killer; and surrender was not supported by any document/evidence; and so the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition and the order of CIT(A) suffers from no infirmity particularly when the Assessing Officer had not only made addition in respect of real transactions but also in respect of duplicate copies, chain of documents etc. It has been contended that the learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition for the reason that the surrender is factually incorrect and not supported by any material/evidence found as a result of search, and that the deletion is supported by the cited decisions. The learned AR of assessee has relied on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eceived from Bhabhoot Singh 1,50,000 Total 23,26,131 78. Ground No. 2(i) pertains to an amount of ₹ 3,11,081 stated to have been withdrawn by assessee from the books of HUF lying seized with the department, and utilized in acquisition of various assets and making investments. The learned AR of assessee has contended that the assessee is a Karta of HUF M/s. Mangilal Rameshwarlal Soni, which is doing the business of money lending and manufacturing of gold ornaments. He has contended that the books of account maintained by HUF were found and seized at the residence of assessee as also of his brother Shri Suraj Prakash Soni. He has contended that the assessee, in the capacity of Karta of HUF, withdrew an amount of ₹ 3,11,081 from HUF from the Assessment Year 1993-94 to the date of search as detailed below: Assessment Year Amount 1993-94 10,200 1994-95 74,776 1995-96 74,950 1996-97 49,245 1-4-96 to 3-1-97 1,01,900 Total ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... allowed by ITAT, Jodhpur in the case of assessee s brother Shri Suraj Prakash Soni in ITA No. 492/JU/99 decided on 27-5-2002 vide para 51 of internal page 26 of Tribunal s order [pg. 62 of PB]. As against this, the learned D/R of revenue has contended that the assessee has not been able to prove the withdrawals from HUF and so the assessee s claim has rightly been disallowed and the addition rightly made. He has relied on the orders of authorities below. 81. We have considered the rival contentions, the relevant material on record as also the cited decision. Before we proceed to discuss and consider the factual merits of assessee s claim for allowing the benefit of telescopy/set off/credit for various amounts/funds whether having been received by assessee, or having resulted from other additions (intangible), against sustained additions on account of unexplained expenditures/investments/assets, we may consider the very basic concept involved in assessee s aforesaid claim, for the sake of convenience/clarity and to avoid any fussy confounding or misconception. When, in the case of a block assessment, or for that matter, an assessment of the block period comprising of a number of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ome, earned by assessee. Such a resultant income (undisclosed income), being available with assessee, for incurring expenditure or making investment or for acquiring an asset, thus legally constitutes a source available with assessee. Accordingly, when some addition is sought to be made on account of some unexplained expenditure/investment/asset, that is when a tangible addition is sought to be made, the assessee can successfully plead and avoid separate/independent addition in respect thereof by showing the availability of income with him resulting from intangible addition. This is what is implied by telescoping tangible addition into intangible addition or allowing the benefit/credit of income resulting from intangible addition against tangible addition, i.e. the addition on account of tangible expenditure/investment/asset, which, though, is sought to be made, but is avoided and is not made separately/independently due to the benefit of telescopy or set off or credit being available on account of the income resulting from intangible addition being available with assessee. For the above view, we may find support from the judicial decision in Anantharam Veerasinghaiah Co. v. CIT ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... come with the unexplained expenditure/investment/asset need hardly justifiably be insisted upon, and suffice it to show that the same has an indirect nexus or to express it, with more accuracy and better exactness, that the same may have a probable nexus, and that the said intangible addition precedes the unexplained expenditure/investment/asset, for which separate/independent tangible addition is being sought to be made by the Department and which the assessee seeks to avoid on the basis of the benefit of telescopy/set off/credit of income, being available with assessee, having resulted from intangible addition. 84. From the perusal of record of the case in hand it is revealed that specific withdrawals on specific dates from HUF is available on pages 307 to 311 of Paper Book No. 1 and the same is based on seized books of HUF. These withdrawals are of the following amounts : Amount Balance Sheet Page of PB Receipt and Payment Account Page of PB ₹ 49,245 229 230 ₹ 1,01,900 231 233 &# ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The withdrawal of ₹ 1,01,900 (serial No. 12) between 6-5-1996 to 23-12-1996 in Assessment Year 1997-98 (page 127 PB No. 6) was available for utilization towards various items of investment/expenditure mentioned against serial No. 13 as on 3-1-1997 in Assessment Year 1997-98. 85. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the legal position emanating from the judgments of the Hon ble Supreme Court and of the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court, as discussed above, together with the ratio decidendi of the above-cited decision of this Bench, we are of the opinion that in view of the source, for acquisition of assets to the extent of ₹ 3,11,081, being the withdrawal from HUF, having been established, the assessee is entitled to get the benefit of set off/credit of the said amount against sustained additions. 86. Ground No. 2(ii) of assessee disputes the non-allowing of credit/set-off of ₹ 3,10,000, ₹ 7,01,000 and ₹ 51,000, being the amounts received by assessee back from his sellers with whom the assessee had entered into purchase agreements but subsequently the said transactions having been cancelled, the assessee had receive ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s [para iv on pg. 360 and para ii on pg. 363 of PB No.1]. It has been contended that in spite of search, no document was found suggestive of sale of land by Shri Hukmi Chand to assessee or any of his family members. It has been contended that the assessee has raised his claim specifically in ground No. (ii)(b) [pg. 393 of PB No. 1]. It has been contended that as the assessee utilized the amount received back from Shri Hukmi Chand for making other investments, and so the assessee is entitled to the credit of the same. It has been contended that the assessee s claim is supported by the decision of this Bench in the case of Suraj Prakash Soni [Pg. 62 of PB] and the decision of ITAT, Jaipur in the case of Rameshchand Modi [pgs. 64 and 82 of PB]. 88. Regarding ground No. 2(ii)(b) pertaining to assessee s claim for allowing credit/set off in respect of refund of ₹ 7,01,000 from Smt. Poosi Bai to the assessee, the learned A/R of assessee has contended that the assessee had agreed to purchase land from Smt. Poosi Bai and her sons on behalf of Shri Malla Ram and paid a sum of ₹ 7,01,000 received by assessee from Malla Ram on 9-4-1995 as is evident from Balance Sheet on page 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... issue involved in ground No. 2(ii)(c) pertaining to Sh. Ram Dayal/Smt. Rajkumari, the learned AR of assessee has contended that the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase a house belonging to Sh. Ram Dayal for ₹ 9 lakhs on 25-7-1996 through his P/A holder Smt. Rajkumari. It has been contended that the assessee having not been able to manage the balance amount, the agreement was cancelled and the amount was refunded to the assessee and the same was utilized by him for making other investments. It has been contended that this position was explained to Assessing Officer vide para 11 on page 355 of PB. It has been contended that during the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer conducted enquiry from Smt. Rajkumari wherein she confirmed the assessee s version as is evident from page 39 of the assessment order. 91. The learned AR of assessee has contended that this claim was raised before CIT(A) vide ground No. 12(f)(vi) and detailed submissions were made vide para (vi) on page 389 of PB as also vide page 393 of PB, but the learned CIT(A) gave no finding on this issue and as such, it amounts to rejection of the same by the learned CIT(A). It has been contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e by him to the assessee but the Assessing Officer made no efforts and took no steps for the purpose. In the above situation, the agreement having not been fulfilled, the amount obviously was received back by assessee (page 230 PB). In that view of the matter, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and taking a circumspect view of the entire fact situation, we find the above receipt of ₹ 3,10,000 by assessee from Sh. Hukmi Chand to have been established. 94. As regards assessee s claim for credit/set off of ₹ 7,01,000 being the advance received back by assessee from Smt. Poosi Bai the assessee s plea regarding the said transaction having been effected by assessee on behalf of Sh. Malla Ram has not been accepted by Assessing Officer, nor by learned CIT(A). As a result, this transaction is treated to have been entered into by assessee on his own behalf with Smt. Poosi Bai. However, as regards the factum of receipt back of the said amount by assessee from Smt. Poosi Bai, though the same may have been established by the cancellation deed (pages 117 to 119 of PB), but the said amount of ₹ 7,01,000 having been received back by assessee from Smt. Poos ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... his regard we find support from this Tribunal s decision rendered in the case of Suraj Prakash Soni (page 62 of PB) and the decision of ITAT, Jaipur in Ramesh Chand Modi s case (supra). We, therefore, direct the Assessing Officer to accord the aforesaid benefit of set off/telescopy of the amounts of ₹ 3,10,000 and ₹ 51,000, against sustained additions. However, the assessee s plea for set off/telescopy in respect of 7 lakhs received back by assessee from Smt. Poosi Bai is not acceptable as has already been found by us above. 97. Ground No. 2(iii) of assessee disputes the non-allowing of credit/set off of ₹ 2,25,000 received by assessee from Sh. Ugam Ram Soni by account payee cheque. The plea of the assessee has been that the assessee sold 20 bighas of land, out of 51 bighas, which he had purchased from Maqbool Hussain, to Ugam Ram Soni and received ₹ 10 lakhs in all from him, out of which ₹ 7.75 lakhs were received in cash and ₹ 2.25 lakhs were received by account payee cheque. The learned AR of assessee has contended that the learned CIT(A) accepted the assessee s plea regarding ₹ 7.75 lakhs and gave credit/benefit of the same but did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dition of ₹ 4,88,050 sustained by learned CIT(A) on the basis of advances, against additions made for acquisition of assets. The learned AR of assessee has contended that at the time of search money lending debtors were found to the extent of ₹ 1,11,000 as is evident from Annexure J-1 of Panchnama (page 4 of PB) whereas the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition, on account of advances to money lending debtors at ₹ 4,88,050, on the basis of advances in the preceding years. It has been contended that since actual money lending on the date of search was to the extent of ₹ 1,11,000 only, the same shows that the assessee had recovered a sum of ₹ 3,77,050 (Rs. 4,88,050 minus ₹ 1,11,000) from the debtors, which was available with assessee, and constituted a source, and the assessee utilized the same for further investment in other assets found date of search, for which separate additions have been made on investment/asset basis and so the assessee is entitled to the benefit of set off/credit/telescopy of the same against additions. He has relied on the decision of this Bench in the case of Suraj Prakash Soni (supra) in the case of Ramesh Chand Modi (sup ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the benefit of set off to the extent of ₹ 50,000 has already been given by learned CIT(A) in the marriage expenses of assessee s daughter but similar benefit in respect of balance ₹ 50,000 which the assessee received from Sh. Mahendra Singh as promised in the slip has not been given, which should be given. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we find the plea of learned AR of assessee to be not tenable inasmuch as we do not find any material/evidence on record to substantiate the same; and it has not been established that the assessee did receive back the balance amount of ₹ 50,000 from Sh. Mahendra Singh as promised in the slip (page 86 of PB). In that view of the matter we find no fault with the impugned order of learned CIT(A) in not according relief in respect of the balance amount of ₹ 50,000 on the basis of this slip (page 86 of PB) which was promised to be paid subsequently by Sh. Mahendra Singh in the slip. We, therefore, decline to interfere with the impugned order of learned CIT(A) on this count. 101. Ground No. 2(vi) disputes the non-allowing of benefit of set off/credit/telescopy of ₹ 1,50,000 alleged to have been recei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Assessing Officer accordingly. 103. Ground No. 3 disputes the addition of ₹ 57,872 (wrongly mentioned as ₹ 97,872 in the memo of appeal) has already been discussed/decided by us above against the assessee, while deciding revenue s ground No. (vii). 104. Ground No. 4 disputes the addition of ₹ 1 lakh on account of loan by assessee to Sh. Mahendra Singh. The learned AR of assessee has contended that the assessee has not made any advance to Sh. Mahendra Singh and that Sh. Mahendra Singh, an erstwhile Jagirdar, intended to get the ornaments manufactured for marriage of his daughter and for that purpose he paid a sum of ₹ 50,000 and promised to further pay a sum of ₹ 50,000. As against this the learned DR of revenue has relied on the orders of authorities below. 105. In our considered opinion the related slip (page 86 of PB) does not make any mention of the facts pertaining to manufacturing of the ornaments for marriage of daughter of Sh. Mahendra Singh. As such, there is no material on record to substantiate the assessee s plea. Accordingly, we find no fault with the impugned order of authorities below in making/sustaining this addition. 106. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ished the relevant balance sheet on page 234 of PB, which is stated to have been prepared on the basis of seized books of the shop (M/s. Anand Mangal Abhushan). In the said balance sheet a sum of ₹ 1,25,262 has been shown as advances received from customers for manufacturing of ornaments, as per Annexure B-1. In the said Annexure B-1 (page 391 of PB) the amount received from various customers, as advance from customers for making ornaments is shown at ₹ 1,01,947 instead of ₹ 1,25,262 (page 234 of PB) and the balance amount of about ₹ 24,000 is not understandable from the said Account/Balance Sheet. From perusal of assessee s Receipt, Payment and Investment Account (RHS, as placed on page 233 of PB), we find the amount of ₹ 1,61,000 received by assessee from his individual balance sheet and invested in the shop M/s. Anand Mangal, and this investment has been shown as receipt in the shop in balance sheet (page 234 of PB) and so the same is found to be correct. Two amounts of ₹ 1 lakh and ₹ 65,000 stated to be loans taken by assessee from Shri Pema Ram and Smt. Anand Kaur by cheque and are reflected in balance sheet (LHS) on page 234 is suppor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lete this addition. 114. Ground Nos. 8 and 9 have not been pressed by the learned AR of assessee, so the same are dismissed accordingly. 115. In the result, this appeal of assessee being ITA No. 8/JDPR/2000 is allowed in part as indicated above. Per Khatri - I have carefully perused the order of the learned Judicial Member in ITA No. 8(JDPR)2000 for the block period 1987-88 to 1997-98, but I have not been able to persuade myself to agree with the conclusions contained in the draft order of the learned Judicial Member. 2. In ground No. 2 the appellant disputes that the learned CIT(A) erred in not allowing credit of set off of the following amounts: (i) Amount withdrawn from the books of HUF lying seized utilized for various investment ₹ 3,11,081. (ii) Amount received back on cancellation of agreement and recycled in the business: (a) From Shri Hukmi Chand 3,10,000 (b) Smt. Poosi Bai 7,01,000 (c) Shri Ram Day ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a) are different. In that case the appellant had filed specific chart showing specific withdrawals from the cash book on specific dates and with specific utilization i.e. for investment in the house property. This issue had been restored to the Assessing Officer with a direction to check the availability of cash withdrawn from the account of HUF for investment in the house property and the Assessing Officer was directed not to allow any benefit, if any mistake found regarding specific withdrawal and specific utilization in the house property. In the present case, as in the case of Suraj Prakash Soni (supra) cash book of HUF had not been produced before us which is lying seized with the department. The facts of this case and that of Shri Suraj Prakash Soni are identical to the extent that the amount of ₹ 3,11,081 had been withdrawn from the cash book of the HUF which is to be verified by the Assessing Officer from the cash book lying in his custody. In that case there was specific utilization for investment in the house property. The learned AR has failed to establish live-link between withdrawal and the investment. Besides, the Assessing Officer has not verified this fact fro ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sition of assets. The learned AR of the assessee has contended that at the time of search money lending debtors were found to the extent of ₹ 1,11,000 whereas the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition on account of advances to money lending debtors at ₹ 4,88,050 on the basis of advances in the preceding year. It was contended that since actual money lending on the date of search was to the extent of ₹ 1,11,000 only, the same shows that the assessee had recovered a sum of ₹ 3,77,050 (Rs. 4,88,050 minus ₹ 1,11,000) from the debtors which was available with the assessee and constituted a source and the assessee utilized the same for further investment in other assets. I am of the opinion that no benefit of availability of cash of ₹ 3,77,050 can be given as the appellant had not given any proof of recovery from the debtors and neither it can be proved on the basis of seized documents that any recovery was made from the debtors. For allowing benefit of availability of cash, specific source with date of receipt, specific date of withdrawal and specific date of investment are required. This may be a case of bad debts or the case where no proof regarding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... AM thereon are summarized as under: Ground No. with amount claimed for set-off/credit J.M. decision with para A.M. decision with para Ramarks 2(i) ₹ 3,11,081 Allowed, para 84 Restored to A.O, para 3 2(ii) (a) ₹ 3,10,000 Allowed, para 92 Not allowed, para 4 (b) ₹ 7,10,000 Not allowed, para 93 -do- (c) ₹ 51,000 Allowed, para 95 -do- 2(iii) ₹ 2,25,000 Allowed, para 96 Not allowed, para 5 2(iv) ₹ 3,78,050 Allowed, para 98 Not allowed, para 6 2(v) ₹ 50,000 Not allowed, para 99 Commented ';rightly rejected';, para 7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... se of Goodyear India Ltd. v. ITO (2000) 73 ITD 189(Delhi) (TM). In this case the Ld. Third Member has held that interest of justice and fair play demands that when the fact had come to notice before conclusion of a case, it must be duly considered and appropriately decided. This observation was not made in the context of section 255(4). If the Members of a Bench differ in opinion on any point, the point shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority, if there is a majority. If the Members are equally divided they shall state the point or points on which they differ, and the case shall be referred by the President of the Tribunal for hearing on such point or points by one or more of the other Members of the Tribunal, and such point or points shall be decided according to the opinion of the majority of the Members of the Appellate Tribunal who have heard the case, including those who first heard it. The mandate of the section prescribes that only point of difference would be referred to a Third Member and the issue on which there is difference will be adjudicated according to the decision of the majority. As such it is beyond the ken of section 255(4) to elongate the scope ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rasad Soni, it revealed that assessee withdrew ₹ 3,11,081 from the account of HUF. It was submitted by the Ld. Counsel that the money withdrawn from the books of HUF was utilized for making various investments. The total withdrawal from the HUF beginning from 1993-94 till the date of search amounted to ₹ 3,11,081. Search was conducted on 3rd January, 1997. This amount was said to be invested in the assets. Money was rotated in the business. Assessee prepared balance sheet of entire investment. Revenue authorities declined to give credit of this amount, in explaining the investments, as because assessee did not establish nexus between the amount withdrawn from HUF and the investments made. Addition was made on final investment as on the date of search in respect of the entire block period and also in respect of the expenditure incurred in the block period. 10. It was contended that while computing the undisclosed income as per seized records, income has to be estimated on the basis of assets acquired and expenses incurred; and the total of expenditure has to be reduced from the source available to the assessee. Revenue authorities made separate additions in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook profits could be. 13. Reference was also made to the decision of the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court rendered in the case of Dhandia Jewellers v. CIT (1995) 214 ITR 712, 715 (Raj.). In this case it was held that secret profits or undisclosed income of an assessee earned in earlier assessment year can constitute a fund, though concealed, from which the assessee made withdrawal subsequently. The Hon ble High Court followed its earlier decision rendered in the case of Tyaryamal Balchand (supra). 14. In the case of Ramesh Chand Modi v. Asstt. CIT [IT (SS) A No. 11 (JP.) of 1997] Tribunal held that while making addition for unrecorded sales, adjustment for rotation, recycling, reinvestment, telescoping, credit purchases, peak credit etc. should be given. 15. The Ld. Judicial Member has held that benefit of telescoping should be given to the assessee in respect of the amount withdrawn from HUF. He examined this issue with reference to the block assessment. In block assessment, when additions are made in respect of unexplained investment, expenditure etc. detected on the date of search, all the unexplained outgoing and incoming should be considered. If the assessee explains ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... esaid amounts were received. Sale could not be executed. Assessee got back the amount from Hukami Chand and Smt. Ram Dayal/Smt. Raj Kumari. Assessee made this claim in the financial statement prepared on the basis of seized record. Agreement with Hukami Chand was entered into on 30-4-1995. Assessee paid ₹ 85,000 to Hukami Chand on that date and made a further payment of ₹ 2,25,000 on 4-1-1995. The payment of ₹ 3,10,000 to Hukami Chand was accepted by the Assessing Officer. The period of compliance of agreement was six months. Hukami Chand was not the real owner. He was holding power of attorney in respect of the property. At the instance of the owner Hukami Chand revoked the agreement on 30-9-1995 and returned money to the assessee in the Financial Year 1995-96. Shri Jain submitted that the amount so recovered from Hukami Chand was utilized in other investments. There is absolutely nothing on record to indicate that assessee had purchased that property for which the advance was made. Assessing Officer made addition in respect of each and every asset on the basis of date of advance. Credit in respect of amount received back was not given back to the assessee. As su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 7,70,000 and credit for the same was duly given but the fact that assessee did receive ₹ 2,25,000 by cheques and utilized the same for making payment for purchase of land was not accepted by the CIT(A). CIT(A) held that assessee did not establish debit entry in the bank account to prove that the money was utilized towards purchase of agricultural land. Ld. JM held that the specific utilization of the amount was not necessary for allowing the benefit of set off against additions inasmuch as the said amount was undeniably received by the assessee by cheques and it was deposited in the bank account. With drawal of ₹ 20,000 on 28-9-1995 and ₹ 1,85,000 on 11-10-1995 also appeared in the bank records. As such it is evident that recycling was possible. Assessee did establish the source protanto. On this factual finding Ld. JM extended the benefit of telescopy in regard to that amount. This was considered as source available with the assessee for reinvestment in block period for which the Assessing Officer made separate addition. As such he directed the Assessing Officer to allow telescopy in respect of ₹ 2,25,000. Ld. AM has not given any reasoning for diff ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... btor was also found at the time of search which clearly indicates that the actual debtors were to the tune of ₹ 1,11,000. This fact is also supported by the Panchnama. CIT(A) sustained the addition on account of advance to money lending debtors at ₹ 4,88,050. The actual money lending on the date of search was to the extent of ₹ 1,11,000 only. It is, therefore, abundantly clear that assessee did recover ₹ 3,77,050 from his debtors. The amount so recovered was available with the assessee. It constituted a source. It was utilized for investment in other assets found on the date of search for which Assessing Officer made separate addition. On this factual finding, Learned Judicial Member allowed to the assessee, the benefit of telescopy of ₹ 3,77,050 against the sustained addition. 29. Ld. Accountant Member opined that for allowing benefit of telescopy, it is sine qua non, to point out specific source with date of receipt, specific date of withdrawal and specific date of investment. This may be a case of bad debts or the case where no proof regarding recovery of proof is on record. 30. There is absolutely no material on record to indicate that the am ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... found at the shop Anand Mangal . This proprietary firm of the assessee was started on 20-10-1996. Balance sheet was prepared till the date of search i.e. upto 3-1-1997. Assessee did explain the stock of silver ornaments and gold ornaments with reference to the said balance sheet. Ld. Judicial Member examined the items stated in the balance sheet. It was found that receipt in the balance sheet was less by ₹ 24,000 from assets. In these circumstances an addition of ₹ 24,000 was found to be sustainable in respect of gold and silver. Remaining assets were explained with reference to the liability, as such addition was deleted. After perusing the conflicting orders passed by the Ld. Members, I am of the opinion that the Learned Judicial Member took a correct view on this count. As such I concur with his decision on this issue. 35. Last issue relates to the addition of ₹ 74,554 made by Assessing Officer on account of investment in the purchase of shop in the name of assessee s wife Smt. Anand Kaur. 36. I have heard the rival submissions. I have noted that Smt. Anand Kaur is regularly assessed to Income-tax. Her identity as taxpayer is not disputed. Computation o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
