TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 672X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... other factors like proximity distance from Airport, Railway line etc. In this regard, he also derived support from the valuation report of another approved valuer submitted by the assessee wherein the rates of ₹ 350/- per sq. yard, ₹ 400/- per sq. yard and ₹ 210/- per sq. yard were quoted as comparable instances. In our opinion, the similar issue thus has already been decided on merit by the learned PCIT in the case of Shri Yogeshbhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, one of the co-owners of the property in question, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and we do not find any justifiable reason to take a different view in the matter. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the rate of ₹ 250/- per sq. yard as the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 being the fair market value of the property in question while computing the Long Term Capital Gain and allow Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal. Area of land to be taken into consideration for determining cost of acquisition to be deducted while computing Long Term Capital Gain - HELD THAT:- We are of the view that what is to be considered for the purpose of computing the cost of acqu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... i P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Assessee : Shri Sakar Sharma, AR For the Revenue : Shri S.S. Shukla, Sr. DR ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, VICE-PRESIDENT : These two appeals filed by two assessees against two separate orders passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad dated 28.09.2016 and by Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-10, Ahmedabad dated 10.02.2017 for Assessment Year 2012-13 involve some common issues relating to the computation of Long Term Capital Gain arising from the sale of capital asset being immovable property jointly owned by two assessees and the same, therefore, have been heard together and are being disposed of by a single consolidated order for the sake of convenience. 2. First we shall take up the appeal filed by Shri Rajendra Laxmanbhai Makwana being ITA No. 3270/Ahd/2016 which is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad dated 28.09.2016. 3. The relevant facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are that the assessee, who is an individual, filed his return of income for the year under consideration on 2 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the property schedule, it was clearly mentioned that non-agricultural open land was transferred. In the computation of capital gain, the cost of acquisition being the fair market value of the entire property as on 01.04.1981 was claimed by the assessee by taking into consideration area of land of 8470 sq. yards @ ₹ 250/- per sq. yard and the cost of construction separately at ₹ 24,92,400/- on the basis of valuation report of the Registered Valuer. As noted by the Assessing Officer, the fair market value of the land taken by the Registered Valuer in his report at ₹ 250/- per Sq. Yard was based on two sale instances of the immovable property in the same locality. On verification of the relevant documents in respect of the said two sale instances, the Assessing Officer found that there were certain mistakes in the valuation report made by the Registered Valuer and the actual rate of the said sale instances was ₹ 80/- per sq. yard. Keeping in view these glaring mistakes in the computation of Long Term Capital Gain made by the Assessing Officer, a letter was issued by him on 13.03.2015 requiring the assessee to show-cause as to why the transaction should not be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng. On the other hand page no. 7 of the Banakhat Agreement at condition No. 6 it was mentioned that in respect of final plot No.44 out of 5954 sq. yard Krishna Colony was situated in the land area of 627 sq. yard and after deducting the same in the remaining 5327 sq. yard land, there was construction on the road side of the plot, Krishna Pottery works premises and residential building of the sellers were available. Out of the all constructions it was mentioned that only the road side construction demolition was on the hands of the buyer and the expenses on the same would be borne by the buyer. Thus from the condition mentioned it is clear that you have not handed over your residential premises and Krishna Pottery premises to the buyer but only the road side constructions have been handed over to the buyer. This was also evidenced from the property details (Parishist in Gujarati) specified in the sale deed dated 09/09/2011. This shows that the residential building and Krishna Pottery work premises were disposed by you by your own way and the same were not transferred to the buyer. In this connection, you file evidence in support of your claim that you have sold residential building ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 460300 2032100 2492400 You have shown the construction of commercial valu e of the property as ₹ 20,32,100/- and construction of residential value of the property as ₹ 4,60,300/- totaling ₹ 24,92,400/-. In this connection, you are also requested to furnish the details of commercial activities carried out in the said property since when the commercial activities were carried out and by whom were the activities undertaken. You are also required to state till when the commercial activities were corned out in the said property and submit copy of return of income. Profit Loss A/c and Balance Sheet filed by the said concern if, you and your family members were proprietor, partners or director in the said concern at the time of closure of commercial activities. Further, you are required to specify the land area on which such construction was made alongwith details of area of construction of the property. In Sale Deed agreement executed, no where it was mentioned that the consideration amount has been separately paid for the construction stated by you. In the Banakhat also as per condition No. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Registration No.2036 doted 05/12/1981 from the Sub Registrar Office, City Zone. Ahmedabad vide letter dated 05/03/2015. The Sub Registrar vide fetter dated 12/03/2015 submitted the copy of the above documents which is enclosed herewith. On verification of Copy of Document 8792 dated 15/07/1981 it is noticed that the said document was executed between Okhabhai Jorabhai Rabari (Seller) with Mrs. Mohinibai (purchaser) for a consideration of ₹ 20,000/-. In the sold Deed in the Property Schedule it was mentioned that the sale deed were executed in respect of Plot No.21 (Paiki) admeasuring 1000 sq. yards (Paiki) 250 sq. yards out of S.No.16(Paiki) of Sahijpur Bogha Jaluka City Ahmedabad. On the basis of this rate the valuation of land comes to ₹ 80/- Per Sq. yard. Whereas your valuer in his valuation calculated the same of ₹ 200/- per sq. yard specifying the area of property under sale as 100 sq. yard instead of 250 Sq. yard specified in the Registered Sale Deed. In view of the same, you are required to show cause as to why the rate of the land should not be taken at the rate of ₹ 80/- sq. yard instead of ₹ 250/- claimed in the valuation report. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... our transaction will be treated as in respect of Open Land and the valuation of ₹ 80/- sq. yard as per the sale instances document No.8792 doted 15/07/1981 will be taken into the calculation of value of land as on 1/4/1981 and the cost of construction on the land claimed by you will be rejected. 5. In reply to the show-cause notice issued by the Assessing Officer, the following explanation, in detail, was offered by the assessee vide letter dated 19.03.2015:- In reply to the above mentioned show cause notice, kindly find our clarification regarding the doubts raised on Long Term Capital Gain of ₹ 1,70,304/- after claiming exemption u/s 45B/54D/54G etc. of ₹ 40,84,868 on sale of FP 44 of TP Scheme No. 47, Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad admeasuring 5854 Sq. Yard Non-Agriculture Land with Buildings Constructions for a consideration of ₹ 5,04,43,000/- which is correct in all Terms Means. We were holding total 8470 Sq Yard of land with construction bearing Revenue Survey No.7 of Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad. Town Planning Department acquired total 2516 Sq. Yard of open Land under TP Scheme 47 of Saijpur Bogha, Ahmedabad and allotted total 5954 Sq. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on of Krishna Colony, construction of shops, construction of Krishna Pottery Works which was used for commercial purpose and the construction of Bungalow which was used for residential purpose by us. 4. The construction is an immovable property and cannot be moved away from one land to another land. Sir, it is not possible to sale the land without passing the possession of construction on the land to the Buyer. The Seller has to either demolish the total construction on the land to make the land Open to Sky and then sell the land Open to Sky to the Buyer OR pass the possession of the construction (Pratyahsh or Paroksh Kabja) to the Buyer along with the possession of the land. Sir, in the registered Banakhat or registered Sales Deed we as a Seller of said property have never declared that we have sold a Open to Sky Land nor the Buyer has declared that they have purchased a Open to Sky Land from us. Sir, the Banakhai and the Sales Deed are itself the evidence that we have sold the land with construction on it. 5. Sir, we have never demolish any construction on the subject land and has passed the possession of construction along with the possession of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the sale value of other land 10. Sir, the value of land at all location in a particular ward (say, entire Saijpur Bogha Ward) is never the same as lots of factors are affects the value of land. Few factors as per my knowledge and information are listed below: i. Total plot area of land to be sold or purchased ii. Type of land. A Commercial Land is more costly than a Residential Land and a Residential Land is more costly than an Agriculture Land. iii. Locality where the subject land is situated. Whether the land is located in an undeveloped area, developing area or a developed area. Whether the land is located in a slum area, middle class area, upper middle class area or upper class area. iv. Type of existing constructions nearby the subject land. v. Approach Road to the subject land. vi. Level of subject land compared to the level oj she Approach Road. vii. Availability of Parking Space or any other Open to Sky land nearby the land. viii. Availability of Garden, Parks, etc nearby the subject land. ix. Facility of Street Light, Drainage and Pure Water available nearby to the subject land. x. Electric Po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Original Lease Deed Samuben purchased Lease Rights from Kuberdas Hargovandas Modi which was later sold to our Parents on 27/10/1975 and further we have recently sold this lease rights on 09/09/2011 vide registered Sales Deed. Sir, as per the original Lease Deed executed on 03/05/1947, the value for 8470 Sq. Yard Land was decided to be ₹ 42,350/= as agreed on 03/05/1947. If the amount of ₹ 42,350/= was kept in a Saving Bank Account on 03/05/1947 then what would be the accumulated value with interest (considering Rate of Interest @ 4%, as applied for Saving Bank Account, which is exempted from Income Tax) for the period from 03/05/1947 up to 01/04/1981 (for 137 Quarters)..?. If same is calculated by the formula A=P (I+R/100)^n,, then the Amount comes to ₹ 91,28,951/= and Rate per Sq. Yard of ₹ 1078/= as on 01/04/1981. Sir, the rate considered by the Government Approved Valuer Mr. Kanu Gajjar of Amee Engineers is very low compared to above calculation still we have considered the same as it was worked out by a Government Approved Valuer and in no circumstances same can be further reduced. 13. Sir, Kindly refer to the Sales Deed registere ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sidential purpose but in no circumstance a multistory building for commercial purpose or residential purpose can be constructed in such a small residential plot located in a slum area of Rabari Vas with such narrow entrance. As per Government Norms for the construction of any multistory building the plot area should have good approach road with sufficient Open to Sky land (for the reason of fire safety purpose and Transportation of Goods Public Services). The rate of such a mall residential plot in slum area can't be considered for the valuation of our plo5 bid is good indication that if a small residential plot in a slum area with very narrow entrance and without any facility is sold at the rate of 80.00 per Sq. Yard then the value of our commercial cum residential plot is a justified value. Sir, the rate of a commercial cum residential plot is always much higher compared to the residential plot and the value of our plot is correct in all terms and means. 15. Sir, it is clear that the valuation report done and prepared by Shri Kanu P. Gajjar at Amee Engineers, which is based on the detailed of sale instances quoted and interpreted for determining the valua ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on the basis of comparable instances of sales. Since the said mistakes were glaring and accepted even by the Registered Valuer in his statement recorded on oath, the Assessing Officer adopted the fair market value of the land of the assessee as on 01.04.1981 at ₹ 80/- per sq. yard rejecting the contention of the assessee that the rate of ₹ 250/- per sq. yard was determined by the Registered Valuer on the basis of other factors also. The Assessing Officer thus held that what was sold by the assessee was only the non-agricultural open land of 5954 sq. yards without there being any residential bungalow or commercial property as claimed by the assessee. He accordingly adopted the cost of acquisition of the land so sold by the assessee being the fair market value of the land as on 01.04.1981 calculated by applying rate of ₹ 80/- per sq. yard on the area of 5954 sq. yards and allowed deduction for the same applying the indexation. He rejected the claim of the assessee for deduction on account of cost of construction of bungalow and commercial area by holding that the same was not subject matter of transfer. He also disallowed the claim of the assessee for exemption unde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re was no construction on land while computing the capital gains and accordingly, your appellant humbly prays to your honour for allowing the cost of construction and indexation thereon from the period 01/04/1981 since, it was constructed before 01/04/1981 considering the valuation made by the registered valuer for computing the long term capital gain accordingly. Kindly refer to Para-6 of my factual submissions on page no.4 wherein, your appellant has pin-pointed that the learned assessing officer has ignored major contents of the valuation report of M/s. Amee Engineers. He has not considered the contents on page no.8 to 11 of the valuation report wherein, the values of other assets as noted hereunder are mentioned: NO. DESCRIPTION VALUE AS ON 01/04/1981 A. Residential Bungalow 4,27,000 B. Shops, Hall and Worker Room 7,60,500 C. Worker Room 3,39,200 D. Ceramic Factor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt to Sell and your appellant and the family members had permitted to remove the structures gradually on request by the purchaser on payment of substantial amount of sale value and it was also very clearly mentioned in the Sale Deed that, the purchasers had removed, some of the structures at their own cost only. In view of the abovenoted submissions, we humbly submit that the values assigned to the structures existing as on date of Agreement to Sell must be considered with indexation for computing the long term capital gain. 2. Ground No.3 The learned assessing officer has grossly and grievously erred in law and on facts by calculating the cost of the land by taking area of land of 5954 square yards only instead of actual area of land of 8,470 square yards, your appellant humbly prays for your honour to consider the total area of land and cost of construction for 8,470 square yards as claimed by your appellant as final and long term capital gain be computed accordingly. Kindly refer to para-4 of your appellant's factual submission on page no.2 wherein, it was very clearly informed to the learned assessing officer that the total area of land was 847 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as grossly and grievously erred in law and on facts by treating investment in residential house for the purpose of deduction from capital gain u/s 54 instead of deduction of investment under section 54F, your appellant humbly prays your honour to consider the amount of investment u/s 54 as claimed by your appellant as final and long term capital gain be computed accordingly. Kindly refer to Para 6, 7 and 8 on page no.4,5 and 6 of my factual submission wherein, it is very clearly mentioned that, the captioned property had structures like residential bungalow for self and family, Krishna Colony for residence of employees of Krishna Pottery Works, Aacharya Ni Chali (tenanted residential properly) kachchishops and factory of Krishna Pottery Works, Accordingly, it would be very much evident from the list of properties mentioned above that major portion of the property contained only residential premises (self and rented), To evidence this statement, we have enclosed the copies of municipal bills wherein, the names of tenants are mentioned in the bills alongwith the nature of property are very clearly mentioned. Further, a copy of letter for allotment of PAN and PAN Card of your ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 09.2016 as under:- In continuation with our submission did.30/7/2016, your appellant would like to further submit the submissions alongwith other records as noted herein below: 1. a) A copy of Agreement to Sale without possession dtd. 15th October,2010 - duly translated in English (Original being in Gujarati] in respect of sale of leasehold rights of the non-agricultural land situated in the outskirts of Moje. Village Saijpur Boga in the Registration Dist. Ahmedabad, Sub-Dist Of City Taluka Ahmedabad - 6 (Naroda). Submitted in paper book atSr.No.2 -page no. 5 to 25. b) A copy of sale deed did. 08/09/2011- duly translated in English (Original being in Gujarati) in respect of sale of leasehold rights of the nonagricultural land situated in the outskirts of Moje. Village Saijpur Boga in the Registration Dist. Ahmedabad, Sub-Dist. Of City Taluka Ahmedabad - 6 (Naroda), -submitted in paper book at Sr.No.3 - page no.26 to 55. c) A copy of affidavit dtd.28/07/2016 of Makwana Rajendrabhai Laxmanbhai - duly translated in English (Original being in Gujarati).Submitted in paper book atSr.No.10 - page no.99 to 103. d) A copy of Sale Deed dtd. 13/10/1975 in re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... llow the rate of valuation of our property as valued by your appellant and oblige. In view of the earlier submission dtd.30/07/2016 alongwith the paper book containing 132 pages and the abovenoted submission, your appellant prays to your honour to kindly allow the appeal and oblige. Your appellant would be pleased to submit further submission and/or explanations, if any, asked for in this connection on hearing from your honour. 10. The learned CIT(A) did not find merit in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee and proceeded to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of Long Term Capital Gain for the following reasons given in paragraph Nos. 4.2 to 4.2.3 of his impugned order:- 4.2 I have considered the assessment order and the submissions made by the appellant. The AO made the impugned the addition holding that the subject matter of transfer was open land and not land with construction. He also did not accept the valuation report furnished by the appellant during the assessment proceedings because the said contained factual errors in respect of the area of the land and the comparison with other sale instances. The appellant on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... consideration was paid was only for the land of 5954 sq, yards. (iii) A perusal of the conditions in the banakhat also shows that except the Krishna Colony construction, no other construction of residential or commercial premises has been mentioned. (iv) On page No. 10 of the banakhat, it is clearly stated that the final plot No. 44 is approximately 5954 sq. yards of non agricultural land. (v) Further, the sale deed of the said property which was concluded on 09.09.2011 states on page No.5 that the final plot No. 44 allotted to the assessee was of 5954 sq. yards non agricultural land leasehold open land called majkur jamin. (vi) Further, the appellant does not have any evidences regarding the value of the commercial properties claimed by him and also does not have any evidences regarding the construction of the said shops/commercial properties, etc. (vii) A perusal of the valuation of the report calculated by the. Registered Valuer is also seen as being incorrect since the area measured is wrong. Further, the valuer has also made a mistake by taking the sale instances as land with construction whereas the transfer was only in respect of land. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant. 3. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding action of Assessing Officer that land area for the purpose of computing long term capital gain need to be taken at 5954 Sq Yards against 8470 Sq Yards considered by the appellant. 4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding action of Assessing Officer in non granting deduction for indexed cost of construction on the grounds that there was no construction on the land inspite of furnishing of all relevant information and documents. Alternatively, Ld. CIT(A) ought to have allowed indexed capital loss for the construction standing on the land 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating ground in relation to restricting deduction u/s 54/54F. 6. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating ground in relation to non invoking of provisions of section 55A of the Act by the Assessing Officer while substituting value of property as on 01 /04/ 1981 of his own against value determined and certified Registered Valuer for the purpose of computing long term capital gain by appellant. 12. We have heard arguments of both the sides and also perused ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... yard as of 01.04.1981 thus has been accepted by the PCIT in the case of Shri Yogeshbhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, one of the co-owners of the property. Learned DR, on the other hand, has contended that the PCIT in the case of Shri Yogeshbhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, one of the co-owners of the property, having dropped the proceedings under Section 263 of the Act, it cannot be said that there is a decision on merit rendered by him accepting the rate of ₹ 250/- per sq. yard of the property as on 01.04.1981. After going through the order of learned PCIT dated 24.10.2016 passed under Section 263 of the Act in the case of Shri Yogeshbhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, a copy of which is placed on record by the learned Counsel for the assessee, we are unable to accept the contention of the learned DR. It is observed that the proceedings under Section 263 initiated in the case of Shri Yogeshbhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, one of the co-owners of the property in question, on the similar issue, were dropped by the concerned learned PCIT after recording his findings/observations as under:- Facts of the case have been considered alongwith submissions made by the AR. It is observed that the value adopted by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d, he also derived support from the valuation report of another approved valuer submitted by the assessee wherein the rates of ₹ 350/- per sq. yard, ₹ 400/- per sq. yard and ₹ 210/- per sq. yard were quoted as comparable instances. In our opinion, the similar issue thus has already been decided on merit by the learned PCIT in the case of Shri Yogeshbhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, one of the co-owners of the property in question, after taking into consideration all the relevant aspects and we do not find any justifiable reason to take a different view in the matter. We accordingly direct the Assessing Officer to adopt the rate of ₹ 250/- per sq. yard as the cost of acquisition as on 01.04.1981 being the fair market value of the property in question while computing the Long Term Capital Gain and allow Ground No.2 of the assessee s appeal. 15. The issue involved in Ground No.3 relates to the area of land to be taken into consideration for determining cost of acquisition to be deducted while computing Long Term Capital Gain. 16. As per Banakhat as well as sale deed, 5954 sq. yards of land was sold/transferred by the assessee and other co-owners to the purchas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urpose of computing the cost of acquisition which is deductible while computing the Long Term Capital Gain is the area of 5954 sq. yard of land which is actually transferred by the assessee and other co-owners to the purchaser and not the total area of land of 8470 sq. yards as originally acquired by them. In that view of the matter, we uphold the impugned order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and dismiss Ground No.3 of the assessee s appeal. 17. As regards the issue involved in Ground No.4 as to whether the property sold by the assessee was comprising of any residential or commercial construction as claimed by the assessee, it is observed that even though there was a mention of a residential bungalow and commercial structure in the valuation report of the Registered Valuer which was taken into consideration in estimating the cost of the property as on 01.04.1981, the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A) have taken a view on the basis of various adverse findings/observations recorded by them that what was sold/transferred by the assessee was only the non-agricultural open land without there being any construction of residential and commercial nature. In this regard, the le ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dences especially the banakhat and final sale deed are sufficient to show that what was transferred by the assessee was only the non-agricultural open land and there was no transfer of any residential or commercial construction. The deduction on account of cost of acquisition is to be allowed with reference to the property sold or transferred by the assessee and since there is nothing on record to conclusively prove that the residential and commercial construction was also transferred by the assessee, we find ourselves in agreement with the authorities below that what was transferred or sold by the assessee was only the non-agricultural open land and the assessee, therefore, was not entitled for deduction on account of cost of acquisition of residential and commercial construction. Ground No.4 of the assessee s appeal is accordingly dismissed. 18. As regards the issue involved in Ground No.5 relating to the assessee s claim for deduction under Section 54 on account of investment made in residential house, it is observed that deduction of ₹ 40,84,868/- under Section 54 was claimed by the assessee while computing the Long Term Capital Gain arising from the transfer of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and in law in not adjudicating ground in relation to restricting deduction u/s 54/54F. 5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating ground in relation to non invoking of provisions of section 55A of the Act by the Assessing Officer while substituting value of property as on 01/04/ 1981 of his own against value determined and certified Registered Valuer for the purpose of computing long term capital gain by appellant. 20. Ground No.1 raised by the assessee in this appeal is general in nature while Ground No.5 raised by the assessee is not pressed and argued by the learned Counsel for the assessee at the time of hearing. 21. As regards the issue raised in Ground No.2 relating to the cost of acquisition of the immovable property sold as claimed by the assessee at ₹ 250/- per sq. yard being the fair market value as on 01.04.1981, it is observed that the same is similar to the one involved in Ground No.2 of the appeal of the assessee Shri Rajendrabhai Laxmanbhai Makwana, one of the co-owners of the same property, in ITA No.3270/Ahd/2016, which has already been decided by us in the foregoing portion of this order. Since the material facts relati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
