TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 1018X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cements Ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal is allowed while ground No. 2 of the Department s appeal is dismissed. Disallowance of contribution to environment relief fund u/s 43B - HELD THAT:- The assessee is covered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision by the Coordinate Bench Pune in assessee s own case, the lead year being A.Y. 2006-07 [ 2019 (1) TMI 1332 - ITAT PUNE ] The said appeal was filed by the assessee in the second round of proceedings before the Tribunal, wherein in earlier round the matter was set aside to the file of the A.O. In the second round of assessment proceedings, the ld. A.O continued with disallowance u/s 43B of the Act. The CIT(A) upheld the order of the A.O. However, the Tribunal decided this issue in favour of the assessee vide its order dated 21-1-2019 [ 2019 (1) TMI 1332 - ITAT PUNE ] Disallowance of Risk Inspection Charges - Sr. Counsel submitted that on a conjoint reading of the orders of the Tribunal for A.Y. 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12 there were no evidences of payments to Mr. S.K. Gupta and Mr. Sandeep Sitani and thus no disallowance was made and that further no disallowance can be made on an adhoc basis by t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to have always included any surcharge or cess, by whatever name called, on such tax. This amendment shall take effect retrospectively from 1st April 2005 and will, accordingly apply in relation to the assessment years 2005- 06 and subsequent assessment years. In view thereof, we hold education cess is not allowed as deduction and it has to be charged to income-tax. The additional ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. - ITA No. 1645/PUN/2015 And C.O. No. 112/PUN/2017 Arising out of ITA No. 1645/PUN/2015 And ITA No. 1655/PUN/2015 - - - Dated:- 19-4-2022 - Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, JM And Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, AM For the Assessee : Shri Percy J. Pardiwalla And Ms. Vasanti Patel For the Department : Ms. Divya Bajpai, CIT ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : These cross appeals preferred by the Revenue and the assessee and the Cross Objection by the assessee emanates from the common order of the ld. CIT(A)-1, Pune dated 3-9-2015 for A.Y. 2007-08 as per the following Grounds of appeals. I.T.A. No. 1645/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2007-08 : The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal. 1. The order of the Ld. Commi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 Erred in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer ('AO') in treating profits on sale/redemption of investments of ₹ 1,93,96,515 as taxable. 1.2 Erred in not following the binding decision of the Hon'ble Pune Tribunal in appellant's own case for AY 2002-03 to AY 2006-07. Ground No 2: Disallowance of Contribution to Environmental Relief Fund 2.1 Erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing the provision of contribution towards Environmental Relief Fund of ₹ 94,07,003 under provisions of section 43B of the Act. Ground No 3: Disallowance of Risk Inspection Charges 3.1 Erred in upholding the action of the AO in disallowing Risk Inspection Charges of ₹ 3,35,80,OOO. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, vary; omit, substitute, amend or delete one or more of the above grounds of appeal on or before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, so as to enable the Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal to dispose off the appeal according to law. 3. In Cross Objection No. 112/PUN/2017 arising out of Revenue s appeal No. 1645/PUN/2015 for A.Y. 2007-08 the assessee has raised on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .Y. 2007-08, the assessee has earned profits on sale/redemption of investments of ₹ 11,87,92,059/- and incurred loss of ₹ 9,93,95,544/- on amortization of securities held as investment. The assessee has been consistently claiming profits on sale/redemption of investments (including amortization of profit/loss) as non-taxable in view of deletion of clause (b) to Rule 5 of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act ) (with effect from 1989-90) with a specific legislative intent of not treating such profits as taxable as clarified by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (CBDT) vide its Circular No. 528 dated 16-12- 1988. Accordingly, while computing the taxable income for A.Y. 2007-08, net profits of ₹ 1,93,96,515/- (profits on sale/redemption of investments of ₹ 11,87,92,059/- - loss on amortization of securities of ₹ 93,93,95,544/-) was claimed as non-taxable. 7. The ld. A.O did not accept the aforesaid claim of the assessee and held the profits on sale/redemption of investments ₹ 11,10,98,149/- as taxable. Further, the ld. A.O did not allow the loss on amortization of securities of ₹ 9,93,95,544/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1 and 1072/PUN /2015 assessee s appeal, ITA No. 1269 and 1270/PUN/2015 Revenue s appeal) and C.O No. 31 and 32/PUN/2017 arising out of ITA No. 1269 and 1270/PUN/2015, decided on 29-9-2017. 11. The ld. Sr. Counsel further submitted that this issue also stands squarely covered in favour of the assessee in the light of the Hon ble Calcutta High Court decision for A.Y. 2005-06 in the case of National Insurance Co. Ltd. (2017) 393 ITR 52 (Cal) wherein it has been held that in view of the deletion of Rule 5(b) and having regard to the legislative intent specified in the CBDT circular No. 528/1988 (being binding on the Tax Department), the profits on sale of investments should not be taxed. The Pune Bench of the Tribunal has taken cognizance of the said decision while passing order for A.Y. 2009-10 and 2010-11. 12. We find that for the lead year i.e. 2003-04 in ITA No. 1447/PN/2007, the Tribunal has very exhaustively observed and dealt with this issue and has given a categorical finding. The relevant part of the decision is extracted as follows: 5. On this issue we have heard both the sides at length, As is evident from the above discussion that there was no dispu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the whole Act, to consider the defect which was sought to be remedied and the reasons given for such redressal. 5.2 In the light of the above legal background we have gone through the explanatory notes as described by CSDT in circular no. 528 dated 161h December 1988. Applying the principle as enunciated by the Hon'ble Courts we can draw conclusion that the said amendment was sought to remedify the taxation of gain ,on sale of certain investments. Up to this extent revenue should also not have any. objection that the intent of the legislature was' not to tax the gain on sale of investments and primarily because of this reason sub rule (b) from Rule 5 was omitted. The grievance of the revenue and the strong Objection of the A.O was that ~cause of the omission of sub rule it cannot be presumed automatically that the taxation laws have granted exemption to profit on sale of investment. Now the question is that, it the amendment has not taxed a particular income then whether a logical conclusion can be drawn that it was exempted from taxation or even after the amendment still could be taxed in the hands of the Insurance Company, while computing the taxable income based ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... normal business activity of the assessee hence liable for taxation. The contention was that though it was one of the activity to learn profit on sale on investment but the respected Parliament in his wisdom ha~ decided not to tax the same. In support it was cited that the Insurance Company are governed by Rule 5 of a schedule. Reliance was placed on the decision of [Supreme Court in the case of General Company of India 240 ITR 139 and Pandyne [insurance Company 551TR 716. c) The allegation of the A.O was that any part of the profits and gains not attributable to the Insurance Business could qualify for exemption and liable to be taxed. The contention of the assessee was that firstly the financial statements of an Insurance Company has to be finalized in accordance with the insurance regulatory and development authority. As per the said regulation profits earned by a General Insurance Company on sale of redemption 4f investment has to be credited to the profit and loss account and not to be shifted to the balance sheet directly, It was wrong on the part .of the A.O through a suggestion that had the assessee ever intended to claim the exemption then he could have reflected th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... described therein is out of the purview of computation of Insurance Business from the First Schedule therefore consequently cannot be taxed u/s 44 of I.T. Act. After expressing this view we hereby dismiss the cross objection of the revenue 13. That similarly for A.Y. 2008-09 in ITA No. 2560/PN/2012 dated 3-2-2016, the Tribunal has held as follows: 17. We have heard the rival contentions and perused the record. The first issue raised vide ground of appeal No.1 before us is in relation to the taxability of profits arising on sale and redemption of investments claimed as exempt by the assessee totalling ₹ 50,00,81,160/- and amortization of securities charges totalling ₹ 3,10,26,441/-. The assessee before us is a joint venture between Bajaj Auto Ltd., and Allianz SE, Germany. The assessee was granted approval to carry on general insurance business as per IRDA authority. The assessee was engaged in the business of general insurance for the year under consideration. In addition to its income from insurance, the assessee had shown profit on sale / redemption of securities at ₹ 50,00,81,160/- and also amortization of securities of ₹ 3,10,26,441/-. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Part (B). Rule 5 is within Part (B) and earlier it has prescribed the method of taxation of profit on sale of investments which was later on scrapped. Even by applying a reverse logic we must arrive at the same conclusion that had the impugned income was earlier taxable under one specific clause but even on its deletion no clause was introduced or replaced to prescribe the method of taxation of such income; therefore the Revenue Department has no right to tax such an income in the absence of any enabling provision. Naturally, such a deletion cannot be treated a superfluous action but this change had to give a definite judicial meaning. We have to ascribe a logical conclusion to the said deletion of sub rule (b) from Rule 5 and the natural meaning is that after the deletion the income described therein is out of the purview of computation of Insurance Business from the First Schedule therefore consequently cannot be taxed u/s 44 of I.T. Act. After expressing this view we hereby dismiss the cross objection of the revenue. 18. Following the same parity of reasoning, we hold that while computing the income from insurance business under section 44 and First Schedule of the Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ale of investments was not taxable in the case of a general insurance company. Thirdly, he has argued that the consistent stand of the income tax authorities between the assessment years 1991-92 and 2004-05 as also 2007-08 till 2010-11 reflects that the mandate of the circular was accepted by the tax authorities and followed. There was consistent practice of not making adjustment by way of adding back in similar fashion and this practice ought not to be deviated for the relevant assessment year. He has also pointed out that such adjustment is permissible from the assessment years 2011-12 onwards by reason of reinsertion of clause (b) in Rule 5 to the said schedule. 15. Main stand of the assessee is on binding nature of the circular, so far as income tax authorities are concerned. Even if a circular appears to go against statutory provisions, Mr. Poddar has submitted, referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Paper Products Ltd. v. Commissioner of Central Excise (supra), the circular would prevail. In this judgment it has been held that:- The question for our consideration in these appeals is : What is the true nature and effect of the circulars is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... udgment. Having regard to the provisions of Section 44 of the Act read with First Schedule thereto, in our opinion the Assessing Officer for the applicable assessment year did not have power to add back the profit of ₹ 245.09 crores arising out of sale of investments to the total income of the assessee. 16. Before us, the ld. D.R also fairly accepted that this issue has been consistently held in favour of the assessee by its own order and that the view stipulated in the judgment of the Hon ble Calcutta High court is also in support of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforesaid judicial pronouncements Ground No. 1 of the assessee s appeal is allowed while ground No. 2 of the Department s appeal is dismissed. 17. Ground No. 2 of assessee s appeal is with regard to the disallowance of contribution to environment relief fund. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A) in upholding the action of the ld. A.O in disallowing the provisions of contribution towards Environmental Relief Fund of ₹ 94,07,003/- u/s 43B of the Act. The relevant facts are that the assessee is mandated by the Public Liability Fund Act, 1999 to collect contributio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 94,07,003/- being liability towards Environmental Relief Fund. The amount was disallowed u/s 438 of the I T.Act, 1961 by the appellant itself in the original Return of income. However, in the revised Return of income, the amount was claimed on the ground that there was no mechanism to pay the amount. The main plank of the argument of the appellant is that the above amount was collected under Public Liability Insurance Act 1991. As per see. 23 of the PLI Act, Central Govt. was required to formulate Rules for the manner in which and the period within which the amount received was required to be remitted by the insurer u/s 4(2D) of the PLI Act. The manner in which the contribution so collected is required to be remitted was prescribed in December, 2008 and the appellant made the payment of accumulated balance on 2/01/2009. Till then the amount in question was shown as current liability. Considering the above provision it can well be seen that there was impossibility of paying the amount as no mechanism for the same was put in place. However, there is no provision in the Act to exclude such cases from ambit of the provisions see. 438 of the I TAct, 1961. The appellant can clai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the funds so collected till December, 2008. Accordingly, the entire liability towards the contribution received towards Environment Fund Liability remained unpaid as on 31st March, 2006. The issue which arises before us is that the contribution so collected by the assessee which had to be remitted to the fund created under Public Liability Fund Act, in the absence of any such fund being created till the due date of filing of the return of income and, hence, not being contributed, whether can be added as income of the assessee under section 43B of the Act? 11. The relevant provisions of the Public Liability Fund Act, 1991 are as under:- 4(1) Every owner shall take out, before he starts handling any hazardous substance, one or more insurance policies providing for contracts of insurance thereby he is insured against liability to give relief under subsection (1) of section 3; xxxxxx 4(2C) Every owner shall also, together with the amount of premium, pay to the insurer, for being credited to the Relief Fund established under section 7A, such further amount, not exceeding the amount of premium, as may be prescribed.; 12. The case of the assessee befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said fund and the said amount cannot be regarded as income of the assessee. In case the amount is not the receipt of the assessee, not routed through Profit and Loss Account, then there is no question of applicability of provisions of section 43B of the Act. 13. Another aspect which needs to be kept in mind is the absence of a mechanism of making contribution to ERF; though under the Act, the assessee has collected the amount from the owner (insured), but in the absence of the fund being created, the assessee was handicapped in transferring the amount so collected to the fund. The manner of remittance was prescribed in December 2008 and the assessee has paid the accumulated balance on 2.9.2009. In the absence of the creation of fund, the assessee had no means of depositing the said amount and the assessee in such circumstances cannot be held responsible for non-depositing the contribution to ERF. In any case, we have already held in the above paras that the assessee was only the collector of funds of the amount which was to be deposited on behalf of the owner (insured), when the mechanism was provided for such deposit. 14. Before parting, we may also point out that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... guishing feature in the facts of the present case and in the case of assessee s own case in A.Y. 2006-07. We therefore, relying on the decision of the Tribunal in assessee s own case in A.Y. 2006-07 (supra) and for similar reasons hold that the disallowance made by the AO of ₹ 74,03,321/- u/s 43B of the Act is uncalled for and therefore direct its deletion. Thus, the ground of the assessee is allowed. 22. The ld. D.R before us accepted the issue being covered in favour of the assessee. Respectfully following the aforestated decisions on the same facts and circumstances and on the same parity of reasoning, ground No. 2 of assessee s appeal is allowed. 23. Ground No. 3 of the assessee s appeal and Ground No. 6 of the Department s appeal is with regard to the issue of disallowance of Risk Inspection Charges. So far as ground No. 3 in the assessee s appeal is concerned, the assessee is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) has upheld the action of the ld. A.O in disallowing Risk Inspection Charges of ₹ 3,35,80,000. In Ground No. 6 of the Departmental appeal, the Revenue is aggrieved that the ld. CIT(A) had restricted the disallowance at ₹ 1,63,70,017/- in plac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ions following details have been submitted before the DDIT. i) description of the services provided by the risk inspection surveyors and its usefulness for the business of the assessee. ii) risk inspection reports provided by the surveyors; iii) modus operandi of transactions entered with risk inspection surveyors; iv) name, address, PAN ad details of payments made to the surveyors along-with copies of invoices. v) chart enumerating amount of premium earned from the customers/insured which were inspected by the surveyors; vi) confirmation from the specified parties regarding receipt of the payment without any remittance back to the assessee; and vii) details regarding appropriate taxes being withheld for payments made to surveyors. 25. The assessee further submitted that even on filing the aforesaid details, which were sufficient to prove the genuineness of the payments made to specified surveyors, the DDIT insisted to produce the surveyors for the purpose of cross-examination. The assessee took efforts to produce these surveyors but because of discontinuance of business with these parties, the whereabouts of the surveyors could not be traced ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n parties; vi) Copies of insurance policies issued to customers inspected by risk inspection parties. vii) Copies of sample invoices and list of parties to whom the payment is made for more than INR 1,00,000/- viii) Additional invoice copies of 46 risk inspection surveyors out of the 71 parties wherein payment towards risk inspection was more than ₹ 1,00,000/- ix) Details of Address, PAN, TDS etc. in connection with two parties i.e. Bharavi Undhad and Mohanlal Totla as specifically required by the A.O. 26. That on appeal before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee rebutted all the observations of the ld. A.O on facts and on law and sought complete relief from the ld. CIT(A). Copy of submissions made before the CIT(A) have been placed at pages 202 to 222 of the paper book. However, the ld. CIT(A) upheld the disallowance in relation to the specified parties but restricted the overall disallowance to 10% of the total risk inspection charges. Thus, against the total disallowance of ₹ 6,72,09,983/- the assessee got relief of ₹ 3,36,29,983/- at the first appellate level. The ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue at paras 23 to 25 of his order. Now, the as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008-09 The Hon ble ITAT has upheld the disallowance to the extent of 25% risk inspection charges in cases where there are no purchase orders submitted by the assessee. iii) In the years i.e. A.Y. 2009-10 to A.Y 2011-12 the Hon ble Tribunal has deleted the addition/disallowance in its entirety after reconsidering the decision of A.Y 2008-09 and basis the ample evidences being submitted substantiating the genuineness of the transactions, no such disallowances have been made while passing the order. In these years there was no payment to the specified parties. Against the order passed by the Tribunal for A.Y 2008-09, both the department and assessee (by way of cross objections) preferred appeals before the Hon ble High Court. The Hon ble High Court while adjudicating the appeals at the admission stage dismissed both the appeals as being factual in nature and no question of law arose from the same. Subsequently, the department and assessee (by way of cross objection) preferred Special Leave Petitions (SLP) before the Hon ble Supreme Court and the same are pending at admission stage. The assessee s decision of accepting the disallowance which pertains to specified p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ,36,29,983/- (₹ 5,00,00,000/- - ₹ 1,63,70,017/-). That there are direct evidences in respect of addition of ₹ 1,72,09,983/- which pertains to specified parties. That at page 7.8 of the assessment order, the fact is that Mr. Sandeep Sitani controlled these companies which were providing bogus accommodation entries to the assessee and no surveys were conducted by them as companies were merely shell companies for providing entries. It was also admitted by Mr. Sandeep Sitani that no bills were issued by the bogus companies. In this regard, expenditure claimed of ₹ 1,08,31,171/- on account of risk inspection surveys was disallowed. Similarly, at para 7.93 of the A.O s order, the assessee had claimed risk inspection survey expenses on account of payment of ₹ 63,78,812/- made to one M/s. Accord Insurance Services which is a bogus concern and a mere link in the chain of fictitious transactions orchestrated by one Mr. S.K. Gupta. Therefore, the risk inspection survey expenses of ₹ 63,78,812/- was disallowed. Therefore, total of ₹ 1,08,31,171/- + ₹ 63,78,812/- = ₹ 1.72,09,983/- was disallowed by the A.O. having direct evidences of transac ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... non-taxable profits on sale/redemption of investments and exempt dividend income. In Ground No.2 of the Cross Objection raised by the assessee, without prejudice to cross objection Ground No. 1, the assessee is also challenging the computation of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act . In the grounds of appeal by the Revenue on this issue they have agitated that the ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law in deleting the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act amounting to ₹ 4,45,697/-. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in holding that section 14A of the Act contemplates an exception for deductions allowable under the Act as contained u/s 28 to 43B of the Act and that sec. 44 of the Act creates special application of these provisions in the cases of insurance companies which prohibits the ld. A.O to travel beyond sec. 44 of the Act and First Schedule of the Act and that the ld. CIT(A) erred on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law in not considering that sec. 44 of the Act nowhere restricts the applicability of sec. 14A of the Act. Similarly, the assessee vide ground No. 1 in its Cross Object ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nces. i) Without prejudice to the finding that the profits on sale/redemption of the investments are taxable, disallowance ₹ 4,26,97,532/- made u/s 14A of the Act against the profits on sale/redemption of investments treated as non-taxable by the assessee on a protective basis. ii) Disallowance of ₹ 18,97,165/- made u/s 14A of the Act against exempt dividend income. The ld. A.O has discussed this issue from para 5.2.5 to 5.2.7 of his order. 34. The ld. CIT(A) accepted the submission of the assessee and allowed relief on the disallowance made u/s 14A of the Act by placing reliance on the decision of the Tribunal passed in assessee s own case for A.Y. 2003-04 in respect of income from sale/redemption of investments and in A.Y. 2006-07 in respect of dividend income. The ld. CIT(A) has discussed this issue in para 13 to 14 of his order. 35. At the time of hearing, the ld. Sr. Counsel submitted before us that the ground raised by the Department and the cross objection raised by the assessee are covered in favour of the assessee in view of the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in assessee s own case for the following assessment years: i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld as follows: 7. The submission of Mr. Ajit Sharma, learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Appellant is that the applicability of Section 14A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 does not stand excluded upon reading of Section 44 read with the first schedule of the Act. He submits that the object of Section 14A is to prevent a double benefit being claimed by the assessee, by claiming deduction of expenditure incurred in deriving income which does not constitute part of the total income i.e. the taxable income. 8. He further submits that in any event, if in view of the tribunal, Section 14A was not attracted, the Tribunal should have at least remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer to ensure that the computation of income had been done in terms of the first schedule of the Act in relation to the Respondent-assessee, who is carrying on a business of insurance other than life insurance. 9. We have heard learned counsels and are of the view that no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The Tribunal has interpreted Section 44 read with the first schedule and concluded that applicability of Section 14A is excluded in relation to computation of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oned therein including sec. 14A of the Act. Therefore, the ld. A.O could not have travelled beyond sec. 44A of the Act in the First Schedule of the Act. Respectfully following the principles laid down by the Hon ble Delhi High Court (supra), Ground No. 3 to 5 of the Department s appeal are dismissed. Therefore, the corresponding cross objection filed by the assessee and the issues raised therein are also dismissed as infructuous. 37. The assessee has also raised an additional ground regarding the deduction in respect of Education Cess. In this regard, ld. Sr. Counsel submitted that this ground may be restored to the ld. A.O to decide it as per the amendment proposed in the Finance Bill 2022. The ld. D.R conceded to this proposition. 38. We find that the Finance Bill 2022 was presented in Lok Sabha on 01- 02-2022 and passed on 25-03-2022 with 39 amendments thereto proposed by the Hon ble Finance Minister subsequently. After obtaining assent on 30-03- 2022 from the Hon ble President of India, the Finance Bill 2022 has now turned as the Finance Act, 2022. As per Finance Act 2022, Education Cess is included as a tax component and is chargeable to income-tax. Health and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
