M/s. Banyan Consultancy Services P Ltd., CHENNAI v. ITO, CHENNAI

ITA 87/CHNY/2011 | 2006-2007
Pronouncement Date: 22-11-2011 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 8721714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AACCB8630N
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 87/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 10 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant M/s. Banyan Consultancy Services P Ltd., CHENNAI
Respondent ITO, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-11-2011
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted C
Tribunal Order Date 22-11-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 13-10-2011
Next Hearing Date 13-10-2011
Assessment Year 2006-2007
Appeal Filed On 19-01-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI C BENCH CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 87/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 M/S. BANYAN CONSULTANCY SERVICES P. LTD. AGASTYAR MANOR NO.20 (OLD NO. 13) RAJA STREET T. NAGAR CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN: AACCB8630N] VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER COMPANY CIRCLE I(2) CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : DR. I. VIJAYAKUMAR CIT - DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 22.11.2011 ORDER PER HARI OM MARATHA J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2006-07 IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT CHENNAI I CHEN NAI DATED 10.01.2011 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT [HEREINAFTE R REFERRED TO AS THE ACT]. 2. THE FACTS LEADING TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE IS A COMPANY WHICH DERIVES INCOME FROM SHARES/SECURITIES FROM PROPERT IES AND MONEY LENDING ETC. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE COMPANY F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 14.11.2006 RETURNING A LOSS OF ` .14 313/-. FINALLY THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 19.11.2008 IN WH ICH RETURNED LOSS WAS ACCEPTED. 3. SUBSEQUENTLY THE LD. CIT CHENNAI-I SHOW-CAUSE D THE ASSESSEE UNDER I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 2 SECTION 263 REGARDING THE FOLLOWING TWO ASPECTS OF INCOME: (I) REGARDING RECEIPT OF SERVICE CHARGES THE ASSES SEE HAD DEBITED SERVICE CHARGES PAID AND ALSO CLAIMED BAD DEBTS WRI TTEN OFF. THE BAD DEBTS CLAIMED REPRESENT THE MONEY LENT TO M/S. SHAH & SHAH FINANCE & WAREHOUSING CORPORATION AMOUNTING TO ` .50 00 000/-. THIS AMOUNT HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF AT ` .10 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AT ` .20 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND ` .20 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT THIS IS A CAPITAL LOSS WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT CORRECTLY EXAMINED; (II) REGARDING SHARE APPLICATION MONEY RECEIVED FRO M M/S. ROOPCHAND TO WHOM THE SHARES HAD NOT BEEN ALLOTTED. IT WAS NOTIC ED THAT IN THE CASE OF M/S. GEETH FINANCE & INVESTMENTS (FIRM) THA T IT HAD LENT LOAN TO M/S. ROOPCHAND CHABILDASS & SONS AND SUBSEQUENTL Y THIS LOAN WAS ASSIGNED TO M/S. G.F. SECURITIES (FIRM) AND THE SAID LOAN WAS WRITTEN OFF AS BAD DEBT BOTH IN THE BOOKS OF M/S. G EETH FINANCE & INVESTMENTS AS WELL AS M/S. G.F. SECURITIES. AS PER THE LD. CIT THIS AMOUNT HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY UNDER SECTION 28(1)(IV) OF THE ACT SINCE THE PARTNE RS IN THESE TWO FIRMS AS WELL AS DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY ARE COMMON. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE CONTROVERTED THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS THROUGH DETAILED REPLY VIDE LETTERS DATED 19.02.2010 AND 31.08.2010. BUT THE L D. CIT WAS NOT SATISFIED AND THEREFORE HE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND DI RECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE ABOVE ISSUES. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED T O A COPY OF THE RESOLUTION DATED I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 3 01.03.2010 PASSED IN THE MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DI RECTORS OF THE COMPANY ACCORDING TO WHICH 50 847 PREFERENTIAL SHARES WERE ALLOTTED TO ROOPCHAND CHABILDAS & SONS REPRESENTED BY THE MANAGING PARTNE R MR. RAJAN M. SHAH AT A FACE VALUE OF ` .10/- EACH WITH A PREMIUM OF ` .137.50 FOR EACH SHARE. WITH THIS ALLOTMENT THE SHARE APPLICATION MONEY OF ` .75 00 000/- RECEIVED ON AN EARLIER DATE FROM ROOPCHAND CHABILDAS & SONS HAS BEEN ADJUSTED T OWARDS THE VALUE OF SHARES ALLOTTED TO THEM. SO THERE WAS NO SHARE APPLICATIO N MONEY RECEIVED FROM ROOPCHAND CHABILDAS & SONS PENDING ADJUSTMENT TOWAR DS ALLOTMENT OF SHARES. ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT THIS INFORMATION COULD NO T BE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF MAKING ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE HE HAS DIRECTED THAT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ABOVE POSITION HE HAS T O RE-EXAMINE THE WHOLE ISSUE. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS RAISED THE F OLLOWING GROUNDS AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX C HENNAI-I CHENNAI 600 034 DATED 10.1.2011 IN C. NO.218(6)/CIT-1/263/1 0-11 FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT ERRED IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S 263 OF T HE ACT IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED ON 19.11.2008 FOR PASSI NG FRESH ORDER DENOVO WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 3. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ORDER OF REVISION UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED OUT OF TIME INVALID PASS ED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 4. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INITIAL A SSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.11.2008 WAS PASSED ON SCRUTINY OF THE RETURN FIL ED AS WELL AS ON THE CONSIDERATION OF THE DETAILS AND EVIDENCE FILED IN SUPPORT THEREOF AND HENCE ACTION TO SET ASIDE THE SAID ORDER IN THE ASSUMPTIO N OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 4 THE ACT WAS WRONG INCORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ERRONEOU S AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 5. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE TWIN COND ITIONS FOR ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT WERE ABSENT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INASMUCH AS THE TWIN COND ITIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMMITTING ERROR IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT CAU SING PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE HAVING BEEN NOT SATISFIED C ONCURRENTLY THE REVISION/IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED WAS ERRONEOUS AND IN VALID. 6. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE FINDINGS RECORDED IN THIS REGARD IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHILE SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.11.2008 FOR DENOVO CONSIDERATION FOR PASSING FRESH ORDER WERE WRONG INCORRECT UNJUSTIFIED ERRONEOUS AND NOT SU STAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 7. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SUBMISSIO NS FILED ON 19.2.2010 AND 31.8.2010 WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE. 8. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HAVING APPLIE D HIS MIND IN ISSUING A QUESTIONNAIRE DATED 27.6.2008 AND HAVING APPRECIATE D THE REPLY DATED 5.7.2008 AS WELL AS THE REPLY DATED 6.8.2008 THE A SSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CLAIM OF BAD DEBTS AS WELL AS SERVICE CHARGES PAID IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOME FORMING PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 19.11.2008 AND HENCE REVISITING THE SAID ISSU ES IN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND PASSING THE REV ISION ORDER IN DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER THE SAID ISSUES AGAIN WAS ERRONEOUS AND INVALID. 9. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE POWER OF REVIEW COULD NOT BE ASSUMED IN THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION RELATING TO THE POWER OF REVISION U/S 263 OF THE ACT AND NON CONSIDERATION OF THE SCO PE OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WOULD VITIATE THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10. THE CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ANY ORD ER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS NULLITY IN LAW. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO FILE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS/ARGUMENTS AT THE TIME OF HEARING. I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 5 4. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFU LLY GONE THROUGH THE RECORDS. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. AR SHRI S. SRIDHA R ADVOCATE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IN FACT EXAMINED THESE ASPECTS. HE HA S INVITED OUR ATTENTION TOWARDS A LETTER DATED 06.08.2010 WHICH IS A REPLY TO SHOW-C AUSE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT. THE CASE OF THE LD. AR IS THAT ALL THE ISSUES WERE PUT FORTH BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS LETTER RUNNING INTO 15 PAGES AND EACH AND EVERY DETAILS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND HE HAS CONSIDERED THE SAME AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIE WS AND PASSED ON THE SAME. HE HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURNED LOSS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE OF NON- APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER RATHE R THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXAMINED ALL THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS RETURN OF INCOME. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. CIT -DR RELIED ON TH E ORDER APPEALED AGAINST. 6. THE SUBJECT OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 HAS BEEN VASTLY EXAMINED AND ANALYZED BY VARIOUS COURTS INCLUDING THAT OF HONBL E APEX COURT. THE REVISIONAL POWER CONFERRED ON THE CIT VIDE SECTION 263 IS OF V IDE AMPLITUDE. IT ENABLES THE CIT TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF ANY PROC EEDING UNDER THE ACT. IT EMPOWERS THE CIT TO MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE SUCH A N ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY IN ORDER TO FIND OUT IF ANY ORDER PASSED BY ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT ERESTS OF THE REVENUE. THE ONLY LIMITATION ON HIS POWERS IS THAT HE MUST HAVE SOME MATERIAL(S) WHICH WOULD ENABLE HIM TO FORM A PRIMA FACIE OPINION THAT THE ORDER PA SSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE. ONCE HE I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 6 COMES TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE THE CIT IS EMPOWERED TO PASS AN ORDER AS THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE MAY WARRANT. HE MAY PASS AN ORDER ENHANCING THE ASSESSM ENT OR HE MAY MODIFY THE ASSESSMENT. HE IS ALSO EMPOWERED TO CANCEL THE ASSE SSMENT AND DIRECT TO FRAME A FRESH ASSESSMENT. HE IS EMPOWERED TO TAKE RECOURSE TO ANY OF THE THREE COURSES INDICATED IN SECTION 263. SO IT IS CLEAR THAT THE CIT DOES NOT HAVE UNFETTERED AND UNCHEQURED DISCRETION TO REVISE AN ORDER. THE CIT I S REQUIRED TO EXERCISE REVISIONAL POWER WITHIN THE BOUNDS OF THE LAW AND HAS TO SATIS FY THE NEED OF FAIRNESS IN ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION AND FAIR PLAY WITH DUE RESPEC T TO THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM AS ENVISAGED IN THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AS WELL AS IN SECTION 263. AN ORDER CAN BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS IF IT WAS PASSE D IN UTTER IGNORANCE OR IN VIOLATION OF ANY LAW; OR PASSED WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS OR BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION IRRELEVANT FA CTS. THE PREJUDICE THAT IS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SECTION 263 IS THE PREJUDICE TO THE INCOME TAX ADMINISTRATION AS A WHOLE. THE REVISION HAS TO BE DONE FOR THE PUR POSE OF SETTING RIGHT DISTORTIONS AND PREJUDICES CAUSED TO THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE C ONTEXT. THE FUNDAMENTAL PRINCIPLES WHICH EMERGE FROM THE SEVERAL CASES REGA RDING THE POWERS OF THE CIT UNDER SECTION 263 MAY BE SUMMARIZED BELOW: (I) THE CIT MUST RECORD SATISFACTION THAT THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE. BOTH THE CONDITIONS MUST BE FULFILLED. I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 7 (II) SECTION 263 CANNOT BE INVOKED TO CORRECT EAC H AND EVERY TYPE OF MISTAKE OR ERROR COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT IS ONLY WHEN AN ORDER IS ERRONEOUS THAT THE SECTION WILL B E ATTRACTED. (III) AN INCORRECT ASSUMPTION OF FACTS OR AN INCORR ECT APPLICATION OF LAW WILL SUFFICE FOR THE REQUIREMENT OR ORDER BEING ERR ONEOUS. (IV) IF THE ORDER IS PASSED WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND SUCH ORDER WILL FALL UNDER THE CATEGORY OF ERRONEOUS ORDER. (V) EVERY LOSS OF REVENUE CANNOT BE TREATED AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND IF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS ADOPTED ONE OF THE COURSES PERMISSIBLE UNDER LAW OR WHERE T WO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TAKEN ONE VI EW UNDER WITH WHICH THE CIT DOES NOT AGREE IT CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ERRONEOUS ORDER UNLESS THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS UNSUSTAINABLE UNDER THE LAW. (VI) IF WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER EXAMINES THE ACCOUNTS MAKES ENQUIRIES APPLIES HIS MIND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND DETERMINES THE INCOME THE CIT WHILE EXERCISING HIS POWER UNDER SECTION 263 IS NO T PERMITTED TO SUBSTITUTE HIS ESTIMATE OF INCOME IN PLACE OF THE I NCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (VII) THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXERCISE QUASI-JUDICI AL POWER VESTED IN HIM AND IF HE EXERCISES SUCH POWER IN ACCORDANCE WITH L AW AND ARRIVES AS A CONCLUSION SUCH CONCLUSION CANNOT BE TERMED T O BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE THE CIT DOES NOT FEEL SATI SFIED WITH THE CONCLUSION. (VIII) THE CIT BEFORE EXERCISING HIS JURISDICTIO N UNDER SECTION 263 MUST HAVE MATERIAL ON RECORD TO ARRIVE AT A SATISFACTION . I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 8 (IX) IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ENQUIRIES DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE RELEVANT ISSUES AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN DETAILED EXPLANATION BE A LETTER IN WRITI NG AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED THE CLAIM ON BEING SATISF IED WITH THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THE DECISION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER CANNOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS SIMPLY BECAUSE IN HI S ORDER HE DOES NOT MAKE AN ELABORATE DISCUSSION IN THAT REGAR D. 7. REVERTING BACK TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE WE HA VE NOTICED THAT NOWHERE IN THE ORDER THE LD. CIT MENTION ABOUT THE COEXISTENT OF T WIN CONDITIONS IS FOUND. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NEITHER FOUND TO BE ERRONEOUS I N SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT HAS SIMPLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECONSIDER THE MATTER BECAUSE ACCORDING TO HIM A DIFFERENT VIEW CAN BE TAKEN ON THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPA NY. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE IN DETAIL ROVING OR FISHING ENQUIRES CANNOT BE MADE UN DER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT CAN EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER OR FOR THAT MATTER ANY ORDER AND IF HE FINDS THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL OF THE REVENUE TO THAT EXTENT HE CAN REVISE IT UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT OTHERWISE NOT. IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE WRITTE N IN SO MANY WORDS. WHAT IS REQUIRED IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD APPLY HIS MIND TO ALL THE FACTS AND FIGURES REGARDING THE ASSESSEES CLAIM MADE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPLI ED HIS MIND IN THIS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED REPLIES FOR BOTH THE ISSUES INVO LVED IN THIS APPEAL AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME SHE HAS TAKEN ONE OF THE POSS IBLE VIEWS. THEREFORE NO CASE I II I.T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO. .T.A. NO.87 8787 87/MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/ /MDS/11 1111 11 9 OF REVISION UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN M ADE OUT BY THE LD. CIT. ACCORDINGLY WE SET ASIDE THE APPELLATE ORDER AND R ESTORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 8. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.11.2011. SD/- SD/- (DR.O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE PRESIDENT (HARI OM MARATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI DATED THE 22.11.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.