Shri Prashant Agrawal, v. The ACIT 1 (2),

CO 127/IND/2008 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 07-12-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 12722723 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AATPA4605N
Bench Indore
Appeal Number CO 127/IND/2008
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 1 month(s)
Appellant Shri Prashant Agrawal,
Respondent The ACIT 1 (2),
Appeal Type Cross Objection
Pronouncement Date 07-12-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 07-12-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 20-09-2010
Next Hearing Date 20-09-2010
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 07-11-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH : INDORE BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.C.SHARMA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PAN NO. : AATPA4605N I.T(SS).A.NO.194/IND/2008 A.Y.: 2003-04 A.C.I.T. MR.PRASHANT AGRAWAL 1(2) VS E-1/168 ARERA COLONY BHOPAL BHOPAL. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.127/IND/2008 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.(SS)A.NO.194/IND/2008) A.Y.: 2003-04 MR.PRASHANT AGRAWAL A.C.I.T. E-1/168 ARERA COLONY VS 1(2) BHOPAL. BHOPAL (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K. SINGH SR. DR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI H.P.VERMA ADV. AND SHRI ASHISH GOYAL C. A. -: 2: - 2 O R D E R PER R. C. SHARMA A.M. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT( A) DATED 21/12/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IN THE M ATTER OF ORDER PASSED U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 2.1 RIVAL CONTENTIONS HAVE BEEN HERD AND RECORDS PERUSED. 2.2 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AT AGRAW AL GROUP MECH & FAB AND GTV GROUP U/S 132 ON 16.9.200 5. VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 153A. IN THE APPEAL FILED BE FORE THE CIT(A) VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE DELETED AND SOME OF THE ADDITIONS WERE CONFIRMED. BOTH REVENUE AND ASSESSEE ARE IN APPEALS/CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE US. THE BASIC GRIEV ANCE OF THE LD. CIT DR IN ALL THESE CASES PERTAINS TO ASSESSEE S FAILURE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN TIME THEREFORE THE A O DID NOT FIND SUFFICIENT TIME TO ENQUIRE INTO THE MATTER. HE FURT HER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN THE QUESTIONNAIRE ISSUED WAS NO T PROPERLY -: 3: - 3 REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT VERIFYING THE TH INGS. AS PER THE LD. CIT DR THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DISPOSED THE MATTER AND ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IN A SUMMARY MANNER A ND WITHOUT GIVING RELEVANT FINDINGS THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) SHOULD BE SET-ASIDE AN D THE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECID ING AFRESH. 2.3 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATI VE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RESPECTIVE DATES OF ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S 153A U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) AND ALSO DATE OF IS SUE OF THE QUESTIONNAIRE AND THE RESPECTIVE REPLIES FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. AS PER LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALL THE FINAL ACCOUNTS AND RECORDS WERE BEFORE THE AO AND HE HAS MADE THE ASSESSMENT AS PROVIDED U/S 143(3) AND NOT U/S 144. BY HIGHLIGHTING THE RELEVANT DATES THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EMPHASIZED THAT THE DELAY WAS ATTRIB UTABLE TO THE LD. AO FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE TO SUFFER UNREASONABLY AND HIGH PITCHED ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE . BY REFERRING TO THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDE D THAT -: 4: - 4 GLANCE OF THE ADDITION ITSELF WOULD REVEAL THAT THE RE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS. THE ADDITION S WERE MADE AND THE LD. AO PREFERRED NOT TO GIVE ANY NOTIC E TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE DOING SO. IN REPLY TO THE LD. CIT D RS REQUEST FOR RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO BY SETTING ASIDE ORDER OF CIT(A) THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE CONTENDED THAT AN APPEAL WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDE R OF AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN DUPLICATE AND IN TURN A CO PY OF IT WITH I.T.N.S. 51 WAS SENT BY HIM TO THE LD. AO. ONE OF T HE COLUMNS OF THE I.T.N.S. 51 IS WHETHER LD. AO WANTS TO APPEA R BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). AGAIN WHEN CASES WERE FIXED BEFORE HEAR ING ONE COPY OF SUCH NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE LD. AO. LD. AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHEREIN HE HAS REQUISITIONED THE CASE RECOR DS FROM THE LD. AO. RECORDS WERE DULY SUPPLIED BY HIM. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT PREFER TO APPEAR BEFORE THE AO WHEN THE HEA RING WAS GOING ON. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASSESSEE C ANNOT BE PENALIZED BY RESTORING THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO IN SO FAR AS AFTER GIVING DETAILED FINDING THE LD. CI T(A) HAS DELETED -: 5: - 5 THE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER WITHOUT GIVING COGENT REASONS. 2.4 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE AND LD. SENIOR D.R. AND F IND FROM THE RECORD THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH AT AGRAWAL GROUP MECH & FAB AND GTV GROUPS U/S 132 ON 16.9.2005. NOTICE WA S ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT AFTER MORE THAN 6 MONTHS O F THE SEARCH U/S 153A. WE FOUND THAT IN ALL THE YEARS EXC EPT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON ALL THE ASSESSEES ON 22.3.2006 WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 25.3.2006. THEREAFTER FORMAL NOTICE U/S 145(2) WAS ISSUED ON 13.6.2006 FIXING THE CASE FOR 20 TH JUNE 2006. NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) WAS ISSUED ON 31.8.2007 AND WAS S ERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 12.9.2007. WE FOUND THAT THIS IS AF TER MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS AFTER FILING THE RETU RN. SUCH NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO ALL THE ASSESSEES FALLING IN T HE SAME GROUP ON WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. DETAILS WERE FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE ON 18.12.2007. HOWEVER THE AO DID NOT RAI SE ANY QUERY AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). HAD THE AO ANY GRIEVANCE WITH RESPECT TO NON-COOPERATION OF TH E ASSESSEE -: 6: - 6 AND NON-FURNISHING OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS/INFORMAT ION CALLED FOR HE SHOULD HAVE COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S 14 4 RATHER U/S 143(3). NOTICES U/S 143(2) & 142(1) WERE ISSUED AFTER MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND FOUR MONTHS AFTER FILING THE RETU RN. THE DELAY IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO THE AO FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HAS BEEN MADE TO SUFFER. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF TH E LD. CIT(A) WE FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONS WERE DELETED AFTER RECO RDING DETAILED FINDINGS. IN NONE OF THE APPEALS THE REVE NUE HAS RAISED ANY GROUND WITH REGARD TO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) RELIED ON DOCUMENTS WHILE DELETING THE ADDITION WHICH WAS NO T MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO OR WHICH WERE IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A. THEREFORE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CANNOT BE SET-ASIDE AND MATTER CANNOT BE RESTORED TO THE AO FOR DECIDIN G AFRESH. 3. WITH REGARD TO MERITS OF ADDITION WE FOUND THAT TH ERE WAS A SEARCH AT ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 16.9.2005. N OTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED ON 22.3.2006. THE AO OBSERVED THAT A NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 13.6.2006 AND THERE WAS AN OTHER NOTICE ALONGWITH QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED ON 31.8.2 007. DETAILED REPLY WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANNEX URE TO ALL -: 7: - 7 THE QUESTIONNAIRES ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER THE AO HAS MENTIONED ABOUT FILING OF DELAYED RETURN BY SOME OTHER PERSON OF THE GROUP BUT HE HAS NO CONCERN WI TH THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED A LOAN OF RS. 20 LAKHS FROM M ECHMEN MOTORS WHEREIN HE WAS DIRECTOR. BY INVOKING PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OUT OF THE LOAN AMOUNT OF RS. 20 LAKHS THE AO ADDED RS. 10 14 576/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IN ASSE SSEES HANDS BY TAKING THE BALANCE SHEET FIGURE OF ACCUMUL ATED PROFIT. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELET ED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WAS NO ACCUMULATED PROFITS IN THE HANDS OF M/S. MECHMEN MOTORS AFTER ALLOWING CL AIM OF DEPRECIATION AS PER INCOME TAX RULES THEREFORE TH ERE IS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. FURTHER AGGRIEVED THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. SIMILA R ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANOT HER PERSON OF THE SAME GROUP VIZ. SHRI DINESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL IN I.T.(SS).A.NO. 195/IND/2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. -: 8: - 8 ADDITION IN THE CASE OF DINESH CHANDRA AGRAWAL WAS ALSO MADE WITH REFERENCE TO THE SAME SEARCH CARRIED ON A T HIS RESIDENCE ON THE VERY SAME DATE. THE TRIBUNAL IN T HIS CASE HAS CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY H IGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND THEREAFTER ARRIVED AT A CONCLUSION THAT DEEMED DIVIDEND LIABLE TO BE INCLUD ED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE B ASIS OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT ARRIVED AT AFTER ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ETC. AS PER THE INCOME TAX RULES AND I T IS NOT THE PROFIT SHOWN IN THE COMPANYS BALANCE SHEET. FOLLOW ING WAS THE PRECISE OBSERVATION OF THE TRIBUNAL :- 22. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND THAT ACCUMULATED PROFIT FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT DEEMED DIVIDEND HAS BEEN JUDICIALLY DEALT WITH BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE JAMUNA DAS KHIMJEE KOTHARI (SUPRA) WHEREIN A DISTINCTION HAD BEEN DRAWN BETWEEN THE PROFITS AS DISCLOSED IN THE COMPANYS BALANCE SHEET VIS--VIS PROFIT AS ARRIVED AT AFTER MAKING ADJUSTMENT ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION ELIGIBLE TO THE ASSESSEE AT THE RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT/RULES. IT HAS BEEN CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED BY THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT THAT PHRASE ACCUMULATED PROFIT DOES NOT MEAN PROFIT AS DISCLOSED IN THE COMPANYS BALANCE SHEET BUT THE PROFIT DISCLOSED SHOULD BE SUBJECT TO ADJUSTMENT FOR DEPRECIATION AS GRANTED IN -: 9: - 9 ACCORDANCE WITH THE RATES PRESCRIBED BY THE INCOME TAX ACT AND SUCH DEPRECIATION WOULD HAVE TO BE DEDUCTED FOR ASCERTAINING THE ACCUMULATED PROFIT. FURTHERMORE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF P.K. BAIDIANI (SUPRA) HAS ALSO DEALT WITH THE MEANING OF EXPRESSION ACCUMULATED PROFIT AND OBSERVED THAT ACCUMULATED PROFIT MEANS PROFIT IN THE COMMERCIAL SENSE AND NOT ASSESSABLE OR TAXABLE PROFITS LIABLE TO TAX AS INCOME UNDER THE 1922 ACT. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT THAT MERE TRANSFERRING OF AMOUNT FROM PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TO THE DEVELOPMENT RESERVE ACCOUNT DOES NOT AMOUNT TO CAPITALIZATION OF PROFIT. ACCORDINGLY HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF P. K. BAIDIANI. THIS DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ITSELF IN THE CASE OF URMILA RAMESH 230 ITR 422. 23. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION WE ARE INCLINED TO AGREE WITH THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT AMOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND LIABLE TO BE INCLUDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS TO BE WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF ACCUMULATED PROFIT ARRIVED AT AFTER ALLOWING CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION ETC. AS PER THE INCOME TAX RULES. IN THE INSTANT CASE BEFORE US THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER ALLOWING THE ADJUSTMENT IN ACCUMULATED PROFIT IT TERMS OF ABOVE DECISIONS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO ACCUMULATED PROFIT WITH M/S. MECHMAN MOTORS ACCORDINGLY THE LOAN SO RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BROUGHT TO TAX NET AS DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR -: 10: - 10 FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND BOMBAY HIGH COURT WHILE ARRIVING AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THERE WAS NO ACCUMULATED PROFIT THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY DEEMED DIVIDEND BEING INCLUDED IN ASSESSEES INCOME U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961. 24. A CATEGORICAL FINDING TO THE EFFECT THAT M/S. MECHMEN MOTORS WAS NOT HAVING ANY ACCUMULATED PROFIT WAS RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY BRINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD. HOWEVER BY CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED PERQUISITE IN THE FORM OF TAKING INTEREST FREE LOAN AN ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 10 % WAS RETAINED BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 40 440/-. 25. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) WHEREAS AT THE SAME TIME ADDITION RETAINED TO THE EXTENT OF 10 % OF SUCH LOAN ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONFIRMED. 5. AS THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DURING THE YEAR UND ER CONSIDERATION ARE IN PARI MATERIA RESPECTFULLY FOL LOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE OF THE SAME GROUP WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUN T OF DEEMED DIVIDEND. -: 11: - 11 6. NEXT GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE RELATES TO DELETING OF ADDITION OF RS. 83 542 OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 98 542/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF BENEFIT /PERQUISITE UNDER SECTION 2(24)(IV) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 . 7. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECE IVED ADVANCE OF RS. 20 LAKHS FROM M/S.MECHMEN MOTORS ON WHICH NO INTEREST WAS PAID. AS THE AO HAS ALREADY TREATED RS. 10 14 576/- AS DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) HE TH EREFORE APPLIED INTEREST RATE OF 10 % ON THE BALANCE FIGURE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS. 98 542/- ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 82 542/- BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED THE LOAN OF RS. 9 85 424/- FR OM 15 TH FEBRUARY TILL 30 TH MARCH 2003 AND AS SUCH ON PRO RATA BASIS THE INTEREST IS CHARGEABLE ON THE BALANCE OUTSTANDI NG WHICH WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 15 000/-. ACCORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) RETAINED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15 000/- AND DELETED -: 12: - 12 THE BALANCE OF RS. 83 542/- AGAINST WHICH THE REVEN UE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FOUND FROM THE RECORD THAT THE PERQUISITE WAS CALCU LATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY COMPUTING INTEREST FOR THE ENTIRE YEAR ON THE AMOUNT OF LOAN. HOWEVER THE LD. CIT(A) FOUN D THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN ONLY ON 15 TH FEBRUARY WHICH REMAINED WITH THE ASSESSEE TILL 31 ST MARCH 2003. ACCORDINGLY HE COMPUTED THE INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD DURING WHICH ASSESSEE W AS ENJOYING THE FUNDS INTEREST FREE AND RESTRICTED THE DISALLOW ANCE TO THE EXTENT OF THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENJ OYING INTEREST FREE LOAN. THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF LOAN TAKEN AND THE INTERES T FREE LOAN ENJOYED WAS NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT BY B RINGING ANY POSITIVE MATERIAL ON RECORD WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR RESTRICTING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERQUISITE TO THE EXTENT OF ACTUAL USE OF FUNDS BY THE ASSESSEE FREE OF INTEREST. 10. IN THE CROSS OBJECTION THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A G ROUND THAT NOTHING ADVERSE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH U/S 13 2 IN -: 13: - 13 RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER OR OTHERWISE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT IS BAD IN LAW AND UNJUSTIFIED. 11. AS WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON MERITS MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WE ARE NOT GOING IN THE TECHNICAL ISSUE R AISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS THEREFORE DISMISSED IN LIMI NE. 12. IN THE RESULT BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER HAS BEEN PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 7 TH DECEMBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) ( R.C.SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 7 TH DECEMBER 2010. CPU* 612