Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Alappuzha v. M/s Karinose Weave Pvt. Ltd., Alappuzha

ITA 95/COCH/2009 | 2003-2004
Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2011

Appeal Details

RSA Number 9521914 RSA 2009
Assessee PAN AAATK3082G
Bench Cochin
Appeal Number ITA 95/COCH/2009
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Alappuzha
Respondent M/s Karinose Weave Pvt. Ltd., Alappuzha
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 18-01-2011
Appeal Filed By Department
Bench Allotted DB
Tribunal Order Date 18-01-2011
Date Of Final Hearing 13-01-2011
Next Hearing Date 13-01-2011
Assessment Year 2003-2004
Appeal Filed On 19-02-2009
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLAT E TRIBUNAL COCHIN BEN CH COCHIN BEFORE S/SHRI N.VIJAYAKUMARAN JM AND SANJAY AR ORA AM I.T.A. NO. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 M/S. KARINOS WEAVE P. LTD. P.B. NO. 4642 SOUTH WADAILKANAL ROAD ALAPPUZHA. [PAN: AAATK 3082G] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CIRCLE-1 ALLEPPEY. (ASSESSEE -APPELLANT) (REVENUE- RESPONDENT) ( AND VICE-VERSA) ASSESSEE BY SHRI J.KRISHNAN CA-AR REVENUE BY SHRI T.J.VINCENT DR O R D E R PER SANJAY ARORA AM: THESE ARE CROSS-APPEALS I.E. BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARISING OUT OF THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I V KOCHI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 20.11.2008 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) IS 2003-04. THE APPEALS RAISE COMMON ISSUES SO THAT THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BE ING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2.1 THE BRIEF FACTS ATTENDING THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY A MANUFACTURER AND EXPORTER OF COIR PRODUCTS IS A SUBSIDIARY OF M /S. WILLIAM GOODACRE & SONS PVT. LTD. ALAPPUZHA. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS A STOCK TRANSFER FOR ` 82.47 LAKHS FROM THE ASSESSEE- COMPANY WHOSE ACCOUNTS HOWEVER SHOWED AN OPENING STOCK BALANCE (AS ON 1.4.2002) AT NIL EVEN AS THE CLOSING STOCK AS ON 31.3.2002 S TOOD AT ` 6098509/-. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ASSESSEES ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR WAS REOPENED BY THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) ON 05. 1.2007. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THUS INITIATED THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT IT WAS SHARING ITS BUSINESS ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 2 PREMISES WITH ITS HOLDING COMPANY (WHICH OWNED THE SAME) AND WHICH (SHARING) WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE INSPECTORATE OF FACTORIES & BOI LERS BEING NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH CERTAIN BASIC & MANDATORY GUIDELINES IN THE MATTER. IT WAS THEREFORE DECIDED BY ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS TO DISCONTINUE THE PRODUCTION AN D LEASE OUT ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY (AT A MONTHLY RENTAL OF ` 1 LAKH) TO THE HOLDING COMPANY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4 .2002. CONSEQUENTLY THE ENTIRE STOCK THE BREAK-UP OF WHI CH IS AS UNDER STOOD TRANSFERRED AT BOOK VALUE I.E. AT COST TO THE HOLDING COMPANY WHICH STOOD ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES THROUGH JOURNAL ENTRIES PASSE D ON THE STRENGTH OF DEBIT VOUCHERS (DATED 1.4.2002) RAISED BY IT:- (IN `) RAW MATERIALS 18 63 079/- STORES AND SPACE 2 8 5 238/- FINISHED GOODS 60 9 8 509/- TOTAL: 82 46 826/- THE CLOSING STOCK OF ` 6098509/- IN ITS P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31 .3.2002 PERTAINS ONLY TO THE FINISHED GOODS. THE AO HOWEVE R WAS NOT CONVINCED AS THE ASSESSEES PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT FOR THE IMMEDIATEL Y PRECEDING YEAR SHOWED A CLOSING STOCK OF ` 60.99 LAKHS SO THAT THE STOCK TRANSFER FOR THE VAL UE (AT COST) OF ` 82.47 LAKHS IMPLIED NON-ACCOUNTING FOR THE STOCK COSTING ` 21.48 LAKHS. THERE HAD BEEN THUS A SUPPRESSION OF INCOME INASMUCH AS THE STOCK FOR THE VALUE OF THE DIFFERENCE ` 21.48 LAKHS WAS NOT ACCOUNTED STOCK. FURTHER THE ENTIRE ADMITT ED STOCK TRANSFER OF ` 82.47 LAKHS WAS EFFECTED AT BOOK VALUE WHILE THE SAME OUGHT TO HAV E BEEN AT THE MARKET RATE. THE ASSESSEES GROSS (TRADING) PROFIT FOR THE IMMEDIATE LY PRECEDING YEAR AND THE CURRENT YEAR AS PER ITS AUDITED ACCOUNTS IS AT THE RATE OF 28% & 20% RESPECTIVELY. HE ACCORDINGLY APPLIED A RATE OF 20% ON THE VALUE OF THE STOCK TRA NSFER ESTIMATING THE SUPPRESSED TRADING PROFIT AT ` 16 49 364/- AND ASSESSED THE ASSESSEES INCOME AT ` 44 82 540/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF ` 684860/- VIDE ORDER DATED 27/9/2007. 2.2 IN APPEAL THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO EXPLAIN WI TH REFERENCE TO ITS ACCOUNTS THAT THE STOCK OF RAW MATERIALS AND STORES AGGREGATING TO ` 21 48 317/- STOOD RECORDED IN ITS ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 3 ACCOUNTS FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.2002 DULY SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT ASSETS IN ITS BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2002. NOT ROUTING THE SAM E THROUGH THE P&L ACCOUNT WOULD NOT IMPLY THAT THE SAID STOCK WAS UNACCOUNTED. ACCORDI NGLY THE ADDITION FOR THE ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED STOCK WHICH WAS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF S UBSEQUENT TRANSFER CAME TO BE DELETED. HOWEVER AS REGARDS THE VALUE OF THE STOC K TRANSFER THE ASSESSEE PLEADING COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR THE SAME AND THE DISCONTI NUANCE OF ITS OPERATIONS IT WAS IN VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) NOT ABLE TO SHOW COMMERCIAL EXPEDIENCY FOR THE STOCK TRANSFER AT COST . IN FACT IT HAD EARNED A GROSS PROFIT OF 20% ON SALES FOR ` 16.65 LAKHS MADE DURING THE YEAR. AS SUCH IT HAD WHILE CHARGING THE MARK ET RATE TO THE THIRD PARTIES TRANSFERRED ITS STOCK TO THE SISTER CONCERN AT COST. IF THE MA RKET RATE COULD BE AND ONLY UNDERSTANDABLY SO CHARGED TO THE THIRD PARTIES WH Y COULD IT NOT BE FROM ITS SISTER CONCERN SO THAT THE AO WAS RIGHT IN INFERRING PROF ITS TO THE EXTENT WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF ARMS LENGTH VALUE AND FOR WHICH HE HAD APPLIED THE OBTAINING GROSS PROFIT RATE OF 20%. AGGRIEVED BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL AGA INST THE PART-ALLOWANCE OF THE FIRST APPEAL. 3. BEFORE US IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THE A SSESSEES COUNSEL THAT THERE WERE VALID BUSINESS REASONS FOR THE DISCONTINUANCE OF TH E OPERATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002 RESULTING IN LEASING OF I TS MACHINERY AND TRANSFER OF ITS ENTIRE STOCK TO THE HOLDING COMPANY. THE COMPANY FOUND THA T IT WAS NOT PRACTICAL FOR IT TO CARVE OUT A SEPARATE OPERATING SPACE WITHIN THE EXISTING PREMISES NOR VIABLE TO LOCATE THE PRODUCTION FACILITY AT ANOTHER PLACE AND THEREFORE DEEMED IT FIT THAT THE SAID OPERATIONS BE HENCEFORTH (WITH EFFECT FROM 1.4.2002) UNDERTAKE N BY ITS HOLDING COMPANY. AS SUCH THERE WAS NO BASIS FOR INFERRING EARNING OF PROFIT ON THE STOCK TRANSFERRED. ON AN ENQUIRY BY THE BENCH IT WAS AVERRED BY HIM THAT THE HOLDIN G COMPANY HAS 66% SHAREHOLDING IN THE ASSESSEES SUBSIDIARY WITH THE BALANCE BEING W ITH THE FOREIGN PARTICIPANTS. AS REGARDS THE NON-ACCOUNTING OF RAW MATERIALS AND STORES TRAN SFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARD WHICH THE ADDITION FOR ` 21.48 LAKHS STANDS MADE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RENDERE D DEFINITE FINDING WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS SO THAT THERE IS NO REASON FOR DISTURBING THE SAME. THE HOLDING COMPANY HAD TRANSFERRED THE SAID STOCK ALSO UTILISING THE RAW MATERIALS AND STORES AT MARKET VALUE AND STOOD TA XED ON THAT BASIS. THERE IS NO ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 4 ALLEGATION BY THE REVENUE OF ANY TAX AVOIDANCE. THE LD. DR WOULD SUBMIT THAT THE OBJECTION BY THE ADMINISTRATION WAS QUA THE LOCATION OF THE ASSESSEES PRODUCTION FACILITY WHICH COULD AT BEST JUSTIFY DISCONTINUANCE THEREOF AND NOT OF THE TRADING ACTIVITY FOR WHICH NO OBJECTION HAD BEEN RAISED. IN FACT THE AS SESSEE HAD ITSELF UNDERTAKEN TRADING ACTIVITY REPORTING A TRADING PROFIT AT ` 3.33 LAKHS WHICH STOOD ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) VIDE PARA 13 OF HIS ORDER. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATER IAL ON RECORD. 4.1 AT THE VERY OUTSET WE OBSERVE THAT THE ADD ITION FOR ` 82.47 LAKHS (AS WELL AS FOR ` 16.49 LAKHS) HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO ON PROTECTIVE BASIS; HE HAVING BROUGHT THE ENTIRE VALUE OF THE STOCK TRANSFERRED TO TAX IN THE ASSESS MENT OF THE HOLDING COMPANY FOR THE CURRENT YEAR - THE YEAR OF TRANSFER. THE SAME STOO D DELETED IN APPEAL BY THE TRIBUNAL ON FINDING THAT THE ENTIRE STOCK STOOD DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF THE TRANSFEREE- COMPANY. NO FINDING QUA THE ASSESSEE THE TRANSFEROR-COMPANY HOWEVER STO OD RENDERED THE CASE IN RESPECT OF WHICH WAS TO BE DECIDED ON I TS OWN MERITS (PARA 3.8 OF THE ORDER COPY ON RECORD IN ITA NO. 319 & CO 20/COCH/2007 DA TED 21/11/2008). 4.2 EXAMINING THE ISSUE ON MERITS THE FIRST TH ING THAT WE OBSERVE IN THE MATTER IS THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE WITH REGARD TO THE STOCK TRANSF ER WHICH IS FOR A TOTAL VALUE OF ` 82 46 826/- INCLUDING RAW MATERIALS AND STORES AT ` 21 48 317/-. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WITH REFERENCE TO THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS FOUND TH E SAME TO BE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS. NON-REFLECTION OF THE SAME IN THE P&L ACCOU NT WOULD NOT IMPLY IT BEING UNACCOUNTED AS THE SAID ACCOUNT IS ESSENTIALLY TO BE DEBITED ONLY FOR THE COST OF THE GOODS SOLD SO THAT THE STOCK NOT FORMING PART OF THE SAI D COST COULD BE DIRECTLY TAKEN TO THE BALANCE-SHEET AS HAS BEEN THE CASE. IN FACT HAD I T BEEN NOT SO AND THE STOCK ACTUALLY UNACCOUNTED THE TRANSFER AT A HIGHER VALUE (FOR WH ICH THE LD. AR ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPIES OF THE ACCOUNTS BEARING THE RELEVANT ENT RIES) WOULD LEAD TO A SURPLUS (CREDIT) OF ` 21.48 LAKHS IN THE ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS WHICH IS NO T THE CASE. THE REVENUES CASE IN THE MATTER IS THEREFORE WHOLLY WITHOUT MERIT. ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 5 4.3 THE NEXT QUESTION THAT WE NEED TO ADDRESS QUA THE TRADING PROFIT THAT HAS BEEN INFERRED BY THE REVENUE ON THE STOCK TRANSFER. IN THIS REGARD AS ALSO OBSERVED BY THE BENCH DURING THE HEARING THE RAW MATERIALS AND STO RES ARE BOUGHT-OUT ITEMS SO THAT THESE WOULD HAVE BEEN PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY FR OM THE OPEN MARKET AT THE EXISTING MARKET RATES. AS SUCH THERE IS NO QUESTION AT LE AST WITHOUT BASIS TO CONTEND OF THEIR MARKET VALUE AS HAVING UNDERGONE A FURTHER INCREASE NOT TO SPEAK OF BY 20% I.E. BETWEEN THE DATE OF ACQUISITION AND THE TRANSFER DA TE (1.4.2002). AS REGARDS THE FINISHED GOODS THE REVENUE HAS NOT IN ANY MANNER DISPUTED T HE GENUINENESS OF THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR THE DISCONTINUANCE OF ITS OPERATION S. THE TRANSFER OF THE STOCK IS ACCOMPANIED BY THE LEASING OF MACHINERY WHICH ESTA BLISHES THE DISCONTINUANCE OF THE OPERATIONS AND WHICH HAS BEEN DULY AUTHORIZED BY T HE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF BOTH THE COMPANIES. THE LD. AR DURING THE HEARING IN A REJ OINDER TO THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE LD. DR EXPLAINED THAT THE TRADING TRANSACTION/ S UNDERTAKEN WAS ONLY IN RESPECT OF OUTSTANDING EXPORT ORDER/S WHICH BEING IN ITS NAME HAD THEREFORE TO BE EXECUTED BY IT AND DOES NOT IN ANY MANNER REPRESENT A CONTINUANCE OF THE OPERATIONS. THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE CONTINUED THE TRADING OPERATIONS AT LE AST IN RESPECT OF THE STOCK IN HAND WHICH IS WHAT THE ARGUMENT BY THE LD. DR AMOUNTS TO WE FIND AS NOT VALID BOTH IN LAW AND ON FACTS. THE ASSESSEE IS A MANUFACTURER AND N OT A TRADER AND THE MANUFACTURING FACILITIES STAND LICENSED OUT AS THESE COULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT BY IT AT ITS EXISTING PREMISES. DOES THE REVENUE IMPLY THAT THE GOODS BEING NOW PRO DUCED BY THE HOLDING COMPANY SHOULD BE SOLD TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IN TURN WOULD SUPPLY THE SAME TO THE OVERSEAS BUYERS? THE REVENUES CASE COULD ONLY BE FOR SUPPRESSION OF PROFIT/INCOME AND TOWARD WHICH WE FIND THAT NO CASE IS MADE OUT. THE DISCON TINUANCE IS ESSENTIALLY A MATTER OF BUSINESS DECISION OVER WHICH THE REVENUE CANNOT SIT OR JUDGE I.E. WHERE BONA FIDE AS IN THE INSTANT CASE. LIKEWISE THE REVENUE CANNOT DIC TATE THE PRICE FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE OUGHT TO HAVE SOLD OR TRANSFERRED ITS GOODS WHICH IS RATHER A PART OF THE SAME DECISION. THE GOODS HAVE NO READY MARKET IN INDIA AS CONFIRM ED BY THE LD. AR ON AN ENQUIRY BY THE BENCH. WHAT IF THE HOLDING COMPANY/SISTER CONCERN HAD NOT COME TO THE RESCUE AND REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE GOODS OR UNDERTAKE THE PRODUC TION OPERATIONS? IT IS NOT THE CASE THAT THE HOLDING COMPANY HAS NOT SHOWN DUE PROFIT TO THE REVENUE ON THE STOCK TRANSFERRED TO IT. THE ASSESSEE IS IN EXPORT BUSINESS AND WHICH R EQUIRES SHIPMENT OF GOODS AND ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 6 UNDERTAKING OF COLLATERAL ACTIVITIES WHICH WAS NOT POSSIBLE ONCE IT DECIDES TO CLOSE ITS OPERATIONS. SALE OF GOODS IS NOT AUTOMATIC ON THE PRODUCTION OF GOODS AND THE REVENUE GENERATION REQUIRES DEFINITE BUSINESS PROCESSES TO BE UNDERTAKEN. SALE OF GOODS ALSO CARRIES A CONCOMITANT BUSINESS RISK. WHAT NEEDS TO BE APPRECIATED IS THAT THERE HAS BEEN A REORGANIZATION OF BUSINESS IMPELLED BY THE CIRCUMS TANCES AND WHICH WE FIND AS EFFECTED ON COMMERCIAL LINES; THE ASSESSEE CHARGING FAIR MAR KET RENTAL FOR ITS PLANT AND MACHINERY. NO DOUBT THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. ALA FIRM 189 ITR 285 (SC) HAS HELD THAT WHEN THE BUSINESSMEN ARE SETTLING THEIR ACCOUNTS T HERE IS NO REASON THAT THEY WOULD NOT DO SO BY PLACING REALIZABLE VALUES ON THE ASSETS BE ING DIVIDED AND PROPORTIONED. HOWEVER THIS IS NOT ACTUALLY A CASE OF SEPARATION BUT ONLY OF AS AFORE-STATED REORGANIZATION WHICH STANDS CARRIED OUT BONA FIDE . THE FINDING OF SUPPRESSION OF INCOME CAN ONLY BE VALIDATED ON THE BASIS OF STRONG CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE/S. THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY TAX AVOIDANCE AS (SAY) ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENTIAL RATE OF TAX OR THERE BEING LOSSES IN O NE FIRM WHICH COULD BE ADJUSTED THROUGH THE TRANSFER OF PROFITS OR THE TRANSFEREE CONCERN BEING EXIGIBLE TO A LOWER RATE OF TAX ETC. IN FACT THERE IS NO CHARGE OF TAX AVOIDANCE IN ANY MANNER. THE CHARGE OF TAX CAN ONLY BE ON THE REAL AND NOT NOTIONAL INCOME I.E. WHAT I T MIGHT OR OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN. THE LAW IN THE MATTER I.E. OF ONLY THE REAL INCOME/ACTUAL IN COME BEING LIABLE TO TAX IS WELL SETTLED AND FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CITED A HOST OF CASE LAW (SEE NOTE 1 ). THE ACTUAL ACCRUING/EARNING OF INCOME BEING A MATTER OF FACT WHICH WOULD INCLUDE INFERENTIAL FINDINGS BASED ON THE SURROUNDING FACTS AND CIRCUMS TANCES AS WELL IT IS THE GENUINENESS OF THE STOCK TRANSFER WHICH IS BEING ESSENTIALLY QU ESTIONED BY THE REVENUE. HOWEVER IT DISPUTES THE BUSINESS DECISION OF RE-ORGANIZATION O F THE OPERATIONS WITHIN THE GROUP COMPANIES OF WHICH THE STOCK TRANSFER IS AN INTEGR AL PART ON THE BASIS OF PECULIAR UNDISPUTED CIRCUMSTANCES WITHOUT ANY VALID/COGENT BASIS. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES ITS INSISTENCE ON OR INFERENCE OF TRANSFER AT AN ASSUME D PROFIT NOT TENABLE (ALSO REFER: VARGHESE (K.P.) VS. I.T.O. (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC)). THERE IS NO BASIS TO SU PPORT A FINDING OF ACCRUAL/EARNING OF PROFIT AND CONSEQUEN TLY NO CASE FOR SUPPRESSION OF INCOME OBTAINS SO THAT WE HAVE NO HESITATION IN REVERSING THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE MATTER. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 7 5. IN THE RESULT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED AND THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. SD/- SD/- (N.VIJAYAKUMARAN) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: ERNAKULAM DATED: 18 TH JANUARY 2011 GJ COPY TO: 1. M/S. KARINOS WEAVE P.LTD. P.B. NO. 4642 SOUTH WADAILKANAL ROAD ALAPPUZHA. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 ALLEPPEY. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV KOC HI. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX KOTTAYAM. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. COCHIN BENCH COCHIN. 6. GUARD FILE. NOTE 1: - CIT VS. A RAMAN & CO . 67 ITR 11 (SC) - CIT VS. CALCUTTA DISCOUNT CO . (1973) 91 ITR 8 (SC) - CIT VS. SIVAKAMI CO. (P) LTD . 159 ITR 71.(MAD.) - CIT VS. CAGIT VS. CHERIAN 117 ITR 371 (KER.) - CIT VS. INDIA FINANCE & CONSTRUCTION CO. P. LTD. VS . V.N.PANDE 200 ITR 710 (BOM.) - CIT VS. SMT. NANDINI NOPANI (1998) 230 ITR 679 (CAL.) BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) ITA NOS. 39 & 95/COCH/2009 8