TMI Blog2002 (5) TMI 29X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... iginal trust were elaborated. On or about March 1, 1979, a supplementary deed was also executed to conform to the provisions of section 13(5) of the Act whereafter, the Commissioner granted exemption in terms of section 80G of the. Act by an order dated January 1, 1980. It is stated that such exemption had been continued and the claims made by the trust under section 11 of the Act had been accepted. For the assessment year 1997-98, the assessment proceedings were completed by the Assessing Officer, Ward No. 1, Panipat. Returns for the assess ment years 1998-99 and 1999-2000 were also filed before the said authority. A survey is purported to have been conducted, inter alia, in the premises of the hospital run by the trust, where Dr. Nalini Mahajan is employed. According to the petitioners, Dr. Nalini Mahajan does not have any other source of income except interest, dividend and salary. The assessment proceedings up to 2000-2001 had been completed by the Assessing Officer. During the course of survey operations, at the instance of the officers conducting the survey, search warrants were issued by the Additional Director (Inv.), Delhi. Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said pur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of account in the case of the Mahajan group of cases up to June 30, 2001. On or about March 5, 2001, the petitioner requested respondent No. 2 for copies of the reasons recorded for retention of the books of account and documents and a copy of the approval granted by respondent No. 1. However, no reply to the above letter dated March 5, 2001, was received till May 15, 2001. The request, however, was complied with only on May 15, 2001, when this court in the course of hearing of Civil Writ Petition No. 2999 of 2001 of Dr. Nalini Mahajan asked the respondents as to why reasons recorded by the statutory authority had not been supplied. Respondent No. 2 vide letter dated May 18, 2001, supplied to the petitioner the reasons recorded, inter alia, stating that approval for extension of retention of the books of account and documents has been asked for as block assessments were to be initiated. On May 18, 2001, respondent No. 4 issued a notice under section 158BC of the Act for framing block assessment for the past 10 years in the case of the petitioner. C.W.P. No. 4222 of 2001: The petitioner-company was incorporated as a public limited company in the year 1967 having its regi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said rehabilitation scheme, there was substantial improvement in the performance of the petitioner-company and its net worth turned from negative to positive and after considering the matter and report of the monitoring agency, the BIFR discharged the company from the purview of the SICA. On or about February 14, 2001, respondent No. 1, i.e., the Commissioner of income-tax, Rohtak, transferred the case of the petitioner-company from Rohtak to Central Circle-20, New Delhi, with effect from February 22, 2001. Thereafter, assessments for the assessment years 1995-96 to 1999-2000 were completed accordingly. On August 28, 2000, respondent No. 1 issued an authorisation warrant under section 132(1) of the Act for carrying out search and seizure operations against the petitioner-company's factory and office at G.T. Road, Panipat. Respondents Nos. 1 and 2 also issued authorisation for search and seizure operations at the company's office at E-1 and 2, NDSE-Part-II, New Delhi, and at 27, K.G. Marg, New Delhi. On August 28, 2000, to August 30, 2000, the petitioner-company's office and factory at G.T. Road, Panipat, were searched and a large number of books of account and documents belon ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1. On June 1, 2001, the petitioner-company's representative appeared before respondent No. 5 and requested for photocopies and they were asked to come on June 7, 2001, on which date the process of grant of photocopies started. The petitioner was asked to file a return for the block period starting April 1, 1990, to November 9, 2000, by respondent No. 5 vide notice under section 158BC of the Act. C.W.P. No. 3336 of 2001: The first petitioner is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act. It is engaged in the business of investment and export of various commodities by sub-letting the properties, dealing in real estate, etc. Its assessment up to 1999-2000 was completed. On August 28, 2000, the Director of Income-tax (Investigation) (in short, "the Director") issued a warrant of authorisation under section 132 of the Act directing search and seizure operations in the matter of the petitioner-company whereupon searches took place at E-1 and 2, NDSE-II, New Delhi, on August 29, 2000. A large number of books of account and documents were seized. The books and document seized by the Department included those which were relevant for the assessment year 2000-01 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hich was cogently supported by information and material. It has been contended that 25 per cent. of the rights of property No. 27, Kasturba Gandhi Marg, New Delhi, has been sold to Verka Investment Pvt. Ltd. for Rs.31 crores and they continued to share 35 per cent. share in the building even after receiving the payment. It was contended that a notification has been issued by the Central Board Of Direct Taxes (in short, "the Board") on September 6, 1989, in terms whereof the Director has been authorised to perform the functions in respect of the whole of India. It has been contended that Pan Foods Ltd. and Mahajan Industries Ltd. have a common office in New Delhi. According to the respondents, the assessees were offered to obtain photocopies of the documents on February 26, 2001, and March 7, 2001, by letters dated February 22, 2001, and March 5, 2001, but they did not attend the office of the Director on those days. It has been alleged that vide letter dated March 13, 2001, photocopies of voluminous records had been sent to the petitioner, but no reply and response thereto had been received. So far as the allegation as regards retention of seized books of account under ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t jurisdiction. In support of the said contentions, strong reliance has been placed by learned counsel on Balwant Singh v. R.D. Shah, Director of Inspection, Income tax [1969] 71 ITR 550 (Delhi); janak Raj Sharma v. Director of Inspection (Investigation) [1995] 215 ITR 234 (P H); Harmel Singh v. Union of India [1993] 204 ITR 334 (P H); S.C. Sibal v. CIT [1977] 106 ITR 102 (P H); Dr. C. Bala krishnan Nair v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 70 (Ker) and CIT v. K.V. Krishnaswamy Naidu and Co. [2001] 249 ITR 794 (SC). Submissions of the Revenue: Mr. Sanjiv Khanna, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, argued that the issue of authorisation under section 132 of the Act being purely an administrative act in terms whereof no right of the parties is determined the same should not be equated with quasi-judicial function. Reference in this connection has been made to State o Himachal Pradesh v. Raja Mahendra Pal, AIR 1999 SC 1786; [1999] 4 SCC 43 and ITO v. Seth Brothers [1969] 74 ITR 836 (SC). Mr. Khanna further contended that the authorisation in terms of section 132(1) of the Act can be issued, if any of the factors enumerated therein is satisfied. As reg ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s, which arise for consideration, in view of the rival contentions of the parties as noticed hereinbefore, would be: (a) Whether the Additional Director (Inv.) has the requisite jurisdiction to authorise any officer to effect search and seizure in purported exercise of power conferred upon him under section 132 of the Act? and (b) Whether there had been sufficient materials before the appropriate authority to satisfy himself that the authorisation for search could be issued? (c) Whether the notification dated September 6, 1989, is valid in law? (d) Whether reasons for retention of books of account can be recorded after a period of 15 days? (e) Whether the provisions of section 132(9A) are directory in nature? Statutory provision: Before dealing with the aforesaid questions, some of the relevant provisions of the Act, may be noticed: "Section 2(21): 'Director-General or Director' means a person appointed to be a Director-General of Income-tax or, as the case may be, a Director of Income-tax, under sub-section (1) of section 117, and includes a person appointed under that sub-section to be an Additional Director of Income-tax or a Joint Director of Income-tax or an As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion (1) of section 37 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under sub-section (1) of section 131 of this Act, or a notice under sub-section (4) of section 22 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, or under sub-section (1) of section 142 of this Act was issued to produce, or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents has omitted or failed to produce, or cause to be produced, such books of account, or other documents as required by such summons or notice, or (b) any person to whom a summons or notice as aforesaid has been or might be issued will not, or would not, produce or cause to be produced, any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or under this Act, or (c) any person is in possession of any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and such money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing represents either wholly or partly income or property which has not been, or would not be, disclosed for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act (hereinafter in this section referred to as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... enue: Provided further that where it is not possible or practicable to take physical possession of any valuable article or thing and remove it to a safe place due to its volume, weight or other physical characteristics or due to its being of a dangerous nature, the authorised officer may serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it, except with the previous permission of such authorised officer and such action of the authorised officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii)..." "Section 132(8) and (8A): (8) The books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A) shall not be retained by the authorised officer for a period exceeding one hundred and eighty days from the date of the seizure unless the reasons for retaining the same are recorded by him in writing and the approval of the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director-General or Director for such retention is obtained: Provided that the Chief Commissioner, Commissioner, Director-General or Director shall not authorise the retention of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ises jurisdiction in respect of any person occupying such place, at which a business or profession is carried on, whether such place be the principal place or not of such business or profession, and require any proprietor, employee or any other person who may at that time and place be attending in any manner to, or helping in, the carrying on of such business or profession-- (i) to afford him the necessary facility to inspect such books of account or other documents as he may require and which may be available at such place, (ii) to afford him the necessary facility to check or verify the cash, stock or other valuable article or thing which may be found therein, and (iii) to furnish such information as he may require as to any matter which may be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under this Act. Explanation.--For the purposes of this sub-section, a place where a business or profession is carried on shall also include any other place, whether any business or profession is carried on therein or not, in which the person carrying on the business or profession states that any of his books of account or other documents or any part of his cash or stock or other valuable ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 132A shall be retained to the extent necessary and the provisions of section 132B shall apply subject to such modifications as may be necessary and the references to 'regular assessment' or 'reassessment' in section 132B shall be construed as references to 'block assessment'." "Section 158BD: Mere the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any undisclosed income belongs to any person, other than the person with respect to whom search was made under section 132 or whose books of account or other documents or any assets were requisitioned under section 132A, then, the books of account, other documents or assets seized or requisitioned shall be handed over to the Assessing Officer having jurisdiction over such other person and that Assessing Officer shall proceed against such other person and the provisions of this Chapter shall apply accordingly." Findings: Reg. questions Nos. (a) and (c): The question as to whether the said notification dated September 6, 1989, is valid or not must be judged having regard to the statutory provisions contained in section 132 of the Act. In terms of sub-section (1) of section 132 of the Act, the Board is entitled to empower any Director-General ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds Ltd. and Mahajan Industries Pvt. Ltd. have been filed after a long delay, i.e., on August 8, 2001, July 13, 2001, and May 22, 2001, respectively. These writ petitions have been filed after the reasons for passing of an order under section 132(9A) of the Act had been communicated. So far as the correctness or otherwise of the said orders are concerned, appeals will be maintainable under section 132(10) of the Act and in that view of the matter apart from the question of jurisdiction, we need not to go into the merits of the matter. In Arti Gases v. Director of Income-tax (Investigation) [2001] 248 ITR 55 (Guj), in the fact situation obtaining therein, it was held: "The learned advocate for the petitioners has also tried to show certain anomalies in the calculations made by the officers of the respondents. We do not desire to go into those anomalies because the petitioners can very well represent their cases before the Assessing Officer or the concerned officer as and when the assessment is to be made. We are sure that the Assessing Officer will give an opportunity to the petitioners to place the relevant facts on record and plead their case before the respondent authorities ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Mr. Khanna is accepted, then even an authority, who is lower in rank, may also issue authorisation in favour of an officer of higher rank, which situation cannot, in our opinion, be countenanced. Furthermore advisedly, Parliament has used the article "the" before the authority specified for exercising this statutory power. Words which are used in declaring the meaning of other words may also need interpretation and the Legislature may use a word in the same statute in several different senses. In that view of the matter, it would not be correct to contend that the expression as defined in the interpretation clause would necessarily carry the same meaning throughout the statute. The question came up for consideration recently before the apex court in State of Maharashtra v. Indian Medical Association [2002] 1 SCC 589; AIR 2002 SC 302; [2001] 10 AD 74, wherein the apex court was concerned with the term "management" occurring in the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences Act, 1998. Therein a question arose as to whether the State Government is required to obtain the approval of the Medical Council of India for establish ment of a new medical college. "Management" as conta ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be given by the State Government and permission to establish a new medical college is to be given by the State Government under section 64 of the Act. If we give the defined meaning to the expression 'management' occurring in section 64 of the Act, it would mean the State Government is required to apply to itself for grant of permission to set up a Government medical college through the university. Similarly it would also mean the State Government applying to itself for grant of essentiality certificate under para. 3 of the regulation. We are afraid the defined meaning of the expression 'management' cannot be assigned to the expression 'management' occurring in section 64 of the Act. In the present case, the context does not permit or require to apply the defined meaning to the word 'management' occurring in section 64 of the Act. However, after the Government run medical college is established, necessarily there has to be management or body of persons to run the affairs of the medical college and for such a situation the expression 'management' as defined in section 2(21), is contemplated under section 65 of the Act. In the context of the provisions of section 65 of the Act, the m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ar statutory authority. The scope and purport of the said definition, thus, cannot be extended to other authorities in whose favour the power has not been delegated. It is not in dispute that the Additional Director is also lower in rank than the Director. It is now well-settled that when a power is given to do a certain thing in a certain manner, the same must be done in that manner or not at all. All other proceedings are necessarily forbidden (see Nazir Ahmad v. The King-Emperor, AIR 1936 PC 253; [1936] 63 IA 372; Viteralli v. Saton 3 Law Ed. 1012 and Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of India [1979] 3 SCC 489; AIR 1979 SC 1628). A delegation of power is essentially a legislative function. Such a power of delegation must be provided for by the statute. The director himself for certain matters is the delegating authority. He, unless the statute expressly states, cannot sub-delegate his power to any other authority. In A.K. Roy v. State of Punjab, AIR 1986 SC 2160, the law is stated in the following terms: "A careful analysis of the language of section 20(1) of the Act clearly shows that it inhibits institution of prosecutions for an offence under th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nce, cannot be said to have any application in the instant case. Therein, having regard to an innocuous omission to delete the word "Deputy", it was held that the said defect did not vitiate the entire search or seizure. It is well-known that a decision is an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. (see Union of India v. Dhanwanti Devi [1996] 6 SCC 44). In CIT v. K. Ramakrishnan [1993] 202 ITR 997 (Ker), it has been stated: "The words used by judges in their judgments are not to be read as if they are words in an Act of Parliament (see the judgment of Lord Reid in the appeal from the above decision--Goodrich v. Paisner 1957 AC 65 (HL), at page 88). We have to remember that the words in a judgment are not used after weighing the pros and cons of all conceivable situations that may arise. They constitute just the reasoning of the judges in the particular case, tailored to a given set of facts and circumstances. What is made relevant and binding is only the ratio decidendi and no more. The careful drafting--perhaps with reference to analogous statutes--the multiple reading in the Legislature and the discussion which go behind the making of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... edition, page 143, it is stated- 'Pronouncements of law, which are not part of the ratio decidendi are classed as obiter dicta and are not authoritative. Rationale and dicta tend to shade into each other. The former have law-quality and are binding on lower courts; dicta, too, have law quality but are not binding at all. Vis-a-vis a higher court even the ratio decidendi of a lower court decision has only persuasive force like that of a dictum. It has been pointed out that some dicta are so authoritative that the distinction between ratio and dictum is reduced to vanishing point. Dicta, which have no force, are propositions stated by way of illustration or on hypothetical facts. Greater difficulties attend rulings of law which are subsequently relegated to the status of dicta by interpretation. The distinction in such cases between ratio and dictum is but a device employed by subsequent courts for the adoption or rejection of doctrine expressed in previous cases according to the inclination of the judges. An example would be the treatment of Lord Atkin's neighbour proposition in subsequent cases.' In Salmond on Jurisprudence, 12th edition, page 29, it is stated-- 'One of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaya Sen v. Sujit Kumar Sarkar [2000] 1 ILR A and N 145 'It is now well-known that a decision is only an authority for what it decides and not what can logically be deduced therefrom. It is also wellknown that even a slight distinction in fact or an additional fact may make a lot of difference in decision making process.' In A-One Granites v. State of U.P., AIR 2001 SC 1203; [2001] AIR SCW 848, it is observed: 'The first question which falls for consideration of this court is as to whether the question regarding applicability of rule 72 of the Rules in relation to the present lease is concluded by the earlier decision of this court rendered in Prem Nath Sharma v. State of U.P., AIR 1997 2252; [1997] 4 SCC 552; AIR 1997 SCW 2121; [19971 All LJ 1201. From a bare perusal of the said judgment of this court it would be clear that the question as to whether rule 72 was applicable or not was never canvassed before this court and the only question which was considered was whether there was violation of the said rule. This question was considered by the Court of Appeal in Lancaster Motor Co. (London) Ltd. v. Bremith, Ltd. [1941] 1 KB 675, and it was laid down that when no considera ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ----------------------- From To ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Assistant Commissioner Assistant Commissioner or Deputy Commissioner Assistant Director Assistant Director or Deputy Director Deputy Commissioner Joint Commissioner Deputy Director Joint Director". ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It would, therefore, be evident that by reason of the said circular letter also, it has been categorically stated that it would be necessary to amend the various sections of the Income-tax Act. Thus, unless and until an amendment is carried out, by reason of the redesignation itself, read with the provisions of the General Clauses Act, the Additional Director does not get any statutory power to issue authorisation to issue warrant. We, therefore, are of the opinion that the Additional Director (Investigation) cannot be said to have any power to issue any authorisation or warrant to the joint Director, New Delhi. Consequently, notification dated September 6, 1989, is not valid in law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -59, Defence Colony, is necessary. Shri Gulshan Raj has also reported a locker in the name of Dr. Nalini Mahajan in New Delhi Vaults, Defence Colony and it is possible that the locker may contain incriminating documents and undeclared assets. Therefore, action under section 132(1) in respect of this locker is also necessary. Two warrants signed." From a perusal of the minutes dated August 29, 2000, it appears that the authorised officer has further been informed about a locker in New Delhi belonging to Dr. Nalini Mahajan and it was believed that the locker contained some incriminating documents and undisclosed assets. The Additional Director merely agreed with the recommendations. Even the requisitioning officer did not disclose any material whereupon his "reason to believe" was based. Not only was no material disclosed, the Additional Director did not ask for any. There has been no independent application of mind. No reason has been assigned as to why the survey operation would not serve the purpose and the same was required to be converted into a seizure. No reason to believe has been recorded that if the assessee is called upon to produce any document relevant to the proceed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he section does not confer any arbitrary authority upon the revenue officers. The Commissioner or the Director of Inspection must have, in conse quence of information, reason to believe that the statutory conditions for the exercise of the power to order search exist. He must record reasons for the belief and he must issue an authorisation in favour of a designated officer to search the premises and exercise the powers set out therein. The condition for entry into and making search of any building or place is the reason to believe that any books of account or other documents which will be useful for, or relevant to, any proceeding under the Act may be found. If the officer has reason to believe that any books of account or other documents would be useful for, or relevant to, any proceedings under the Act, he is authorised by law to seize those books of account or other documents, and to place marks of identification therein, to make extracts or copies therefrom and also to make a note or an inventory of any articles or other things found in the course of the search. Since by the exercise of the power a serious invasion is made upon the rights, privacy and freedom of the taxpayer, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Commissioner in either of the two provisions and the proceedings consequent thereto. While the sufficiency or otherwise of the information cannot be examined by the court, the existence of information and its relevance to the formation of the belief can undoubtedly be gone into. Also, whether on the material available with the Commissioner, any reasonable person could have arrived at the conclusion that a search, seizure or requisition should be authorised is a field open to judicial review" The said decision was affirmed by the apex court in CIT v. Vindhya Metal Corporation [1997] 224 ITR 614, 618 in the following words: "In Vinod Kumar Jaiswal, according to the information in the possession of the Commissioner, was not borne on the General Index Register of income tax assessees of the Income-tax Officer at Mirzapur, to which place he belonged. Obviously, therefore, there was no occasion for him to have disclosed the amount as his income in any assessment proceedings under the Act. Without anything more than what was actually there before the Commissioner, how could it have been assumed that he would not have disclosed it for purposes of any proceedings under the Act. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t the said provision is for the benefit of the Revenue to enable an Assessing Officer to pass order under section 132(5) within the statutory period but as the said provision is not applicable for searches after July 1, 1995, the object of the said provision has to be examined in the light of the new provisions, in terms whereof, the provisions for block assessments have been made. The submission of learned counsel cannot be accepted for more than one reason. The seized documents are required to be handed over to the Incometax Officer for a certain purpose. The statute provides that the received documents should be returned to the assessee within the time specified therefor. The assessee would require the seized documents for different purposes. They may be liable to produce such documents before other statutory authorities. The books of account may be required for carrying on day-to-day business. By reason of the said provision, a duty has been cast upon the authorities concerned. The said provisions involve public interest. The court, in the absence of any express provision, cannot read any words in the statute to the effect that the same was enacted only for the benefit of the R ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... erned Income-tax Officer seeking the Commissioner's approval, and (b) obtaining of the Commissioner's approval for such extended retention and if either of these conditions is not fulfilled such extended retention will become unlawful and the concerned person (i.e., the person from whose custody such books or documents have been seized or the person to whom those belong) acquires a right to the return of the same forthwith. It is true that sub-section (8) does not in terms provide that the Commissioner's approval or the recorded reasons on which it might be based should be communicated to the concerned person but in our view since the person concerned is bound to be materially prejudiced in the enforcement of his right to have such books and documents returned to him by being kept ignorant about the factum of fulfilment of either of the conditions, it is obligatory upon the Revenue to communicate the Commissioner's approval as also the recorded reasons to the person concerned. In the absence of such communication the Commissioner's decision according his approval will not become effective. Moreover, sub-section (10) confers upon the person legally entitled to the return of the se ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er section 132 of the Act becomes permissible in law. One of the conditions precedent mentioned in the aforesaid decision is that the reasons in writing recorded by the authorised officer or the Income-tax Officer concerned seeking the Commissioner's approval must be communicated to the assessee from whom the books or documents have been seized. Admittedly, the reasons were not communicated and the petitioner had to go in appeal. In view of the aforesaid decision, the further retention of the seized documents and the books of account thus becomes illegal and unauthorized." Yet again in Survir Enterprises v. CIT [1986] 157 ITR 206 (Delhi) it has been held: "It is indeed unfortunate that we have to reach this conclusion in a case in which these books have been retained by the department for taking some action which was stated to be pending before various authorities. Learned counsel for the respondent stated that even if we order the return of the books, we should give directions to the petitioner to keep them intact and direct that they may be produced before the department as and when required. We find ourselves unable to give such a direction. Once the bar set out in section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
