DCIT, Coimbatore v. Shri E.M.Subbiah, Mettupalayam

ITSSA 61/CHNY/2001 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2010 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 6121716 RSA 2001
Assessee PAN MARCH1998B
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITSSA 61/CHNY/2001
Duration Of Justice 9 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
Appellant DCIT, Coimbatore
Respondent Shri E.M.Subbiah, Mettupalayam
Appeal Type Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date 22-10-2010
Appeal Filed By Department
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 22-10-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 06-10-2010
Next Hearing Date 06-10-2010
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 18-06-2001
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI BENCH D : CHENNAI [BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] I.T.(SS)A.NO.60/MDS/2001 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 THE DY. CIT SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE II COIMBATORE VS SHRI S. SIVANANDAM L/H LATE S. KANNAMMAL 212/A1 KARMADAI ROAD METTUPALAYAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.56/MDS/2001 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 SHRI S. SIVANANDAM L/H LATE S. KANNAMMAL 212/A1 KARMADAI ROAD METTUPALAYAM VS THE DY. CIT SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE II COIMBATORE CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS)A.NO.61/MDS/2001 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 THE DY. CIT SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE II COIMBATORE VS SHRI E.M SUBBIAH 212/A1 KARMADAI ROAD METTUPALAYAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 2 -: C.O.NO.57/MDS/2001 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 SHRI E.M SUBBIAH 212/A1 KARMADAI ROAD METTUPALAYAM VS THE DY. CIT SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE II COIMBATORE CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) I.T.(SS)A.NO.62/ MDS/2001 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 THE DY. CIT SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE II COIMBATORE VS SHRI S. SIVANANDAM 212/A1 KARMADAI ROAD METTUPALAYAM (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.58/MDS/2001 BLOCK PERIOD 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 SHRI S. SIVANANDAM 212/A1 KARMADAI ROAD METTUPALAYAM VS THE DY. CIT SPECIAL INVESTIGATION CIRCLE II COIMBATORE CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.E.B. RENGARAJAN ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR O R D E R PER BENCH: THIS IS A BUNCH OF THREE APPEALS BY TH E REVENUE AND CORRESPONDING CROSS OBJECTIONS BY THE ASSESSEES FI LED AGAINST THE IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 3 -: COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) CHENNAI DATED 30.3 .2001 PERTAINING TO BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998. ALL THE THREE ASSESSEES ARE THE MEMBERS OF THE SAME FAMILY AND CLOSELY RELATED TO EACH OTHER. SHRI E.M SUBBAIAH IS THE FATHER OF SHRI S. SIVANAND AM AND SMT S. KANNAMMAL IS MOTHER OF SHRI S. SIVANANDAM. ALL THE SE MATTERS ARISE OUT OF COMMON SET OF FACTS AND IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE EXACTLY IDENTICAL ISSUES ARE INVOLVED THEREFORE T HESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES DO NOT RAISE ANY SPECIFIC ISSUE BUT ARE S IMPLY IN SUPPORT OF THE APPELLATE FINDINGS. THEREFORE THE CROSS OBJEC TIONS STAND DISMISSED. 2. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE LEADING TO A LL THESE MATTERS ARE THAT THESE ASSESSEES WERE ENGAGED IN ADVANCING LOANS INCLUDING LOANS ON HIRE PURCHASE BASIS. ON 9.9.1998 A SUR VEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'T HE ACT' FOR SHORT) WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THESE ASS ESSEES. DURING THIS SURVEY MANY LENDING IN LARGE SCALE OUTSIDE TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NOTICED FROM A NOTE BOOK NAMED AS CORPORATION DAY BOOK. SUBSEQUENTLY THIS SURVEY WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEAR CH OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT. DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FDS AMO UNTING TO ` 13 72 000/- WERE FOUND AND SEIZED APART FROM THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNT. IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 4 -: CONSEQUENT UPON THE SEARCH NOTICES U/S 158BC WERE ISSUED TO ALL THESE ASSESSEES SEPARATELY. RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD FROM 1.4.1988 TO 9.9.1998 WERE FILED BY ALL THE ASS ESSEES WHEREIN THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 50 59 200/- WAS DISCLOSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED A COMMON BLOCK ASSESSM ENT ORDER IN WHICH TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF ALL T HE THREE ASSESSEES HAS BEEN COMPUTED AT ` 1 10 37 430/-. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE RATIO OF 40:40:20 I.E 40% EACH IN THE CASE OF FATHER AND SON AND 20% IN THE CASE OF MOTHER. AGA INST THIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.9.2000 PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 158BC APPEAL WAS PREFERRED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE EXPENSES DENIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R IN RESPECT OF SALARY AND BONUS FOR UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS HAS ACC EPTED OPENING CAPITAL FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND HAS ACCEPTED THE C OST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER THE SEIZED BOOKS TO BE THE CORRECT ONE. BUT HE HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE AMOUNT BETWEEN THE VALUE IN SEIZED BOOKS AND THAT ADOPTED BY THE DVO. NOW THE REVENU E IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS RAISED THREE COMMON GROUNDS IN THESE THREE APPEALS. 3. THE FIRST ISSUE RELATES TO ALLOWANCE OF SALARY AND BONUS FOR EARNING UNACCOUNTED INCOME. DURING THE BLOCK ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEES CLAIMED A SUM OF ` 5 98 299/- IN TOTAL IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 5 -: TOWARDS EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF EARNING OF UNDIS CLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS OFFERED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT . THIS E XPENDITURE RELATED TO BROKERAGE COMMISSION SALARY AND BONUS SETTLEM ENT EXPENSES TRAVELING EXPENSES ETC. OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITU RE SO CLAIMED THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW SALARY AND BONUS EX PENSES ON THE REASONING THAT THE ASSESSEES HAD NOT ENGAGED SEPARA TE STAFF FOR UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS AND THE BOOKS FOR BOTH ACCOUNT ED AND UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS WERE WRITTEN BY THE SAME STAFF . MOREOVER ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEES H AD NO PROOF FOR PAYMENT OF SALARY AND BONUS. THEREFORE HE DISALL OWED CLAIM OF SALARY AND BONUS TOTALING TO ` 1 89 500/- AND A FURTHER SUM OF ` 54 212/- REPRESENTING PETROL EXPENSES TRAVELING EX PENSES ETC. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS PLEADED THAT WHEN THE ASSESS EES HAVE DISCLOSED THE ENTIRE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOUND DURING SEARCH THE CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE SHOULD BE ALLOWED BECAUSE EVEN UNACCOUN TED BUSINESS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT WITHOUT INCURRING E XPENDITURE. WITH REGARD TO PROOF OF PAYMENT IT WAS STATED THAT FOR UNACCOUNTED BUSINESS HOW THERE COULD BE A PROOF IN THE MANNER I T IS BEING DEMANDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS ARGUED T HAT WITHOUT INCURRING EXPENDITURE NO BUSINESS CAN BE RUN. THE ACCOUNTED BUSINESS IS ALSO BEING RUN AFTER INCURRING SIMILAR EXPENDITU RE. IT WAS ARGUED IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 6 -: THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HIMSELF ALLOWED OTHE R EXPENSES WHICH WERE NOT FOUND DURING SEARCH BUT CLAIMED BY THE ASS ESSEES EXCEPT THE SALARY AND BONUS EXPENSES. THE LD. CIT(A) FIND MER IT IN THIS CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE AND FOUND THAT THE RUNNING OF BUSINESS WHICH WAS NOT ACCOUNTED TO THE DEPARTMENT. THE PRACTICE OF THE A SSESSEES WAS TO DEBIT SUCH EXPENSES TO THE ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES. IT WAS OPINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAIRLY ALLOWED THE EXPENS ES WHICH WERE CLAIMED BUT HE OBJECTED WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF S ALARY AND BONUS IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT PROOF. HE AGREED WITH THE AS SESSEES THAT EXPENDITURE MUST HAVE BEEN INCURRED AND THERE COULD NOT BE DIRECT PROOF THEREOF. HE ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ` 1 89 000/- PAID TOWARDS SALARY AND BONUS WITHIN 2 YEARS. 4. BEFORE US THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE PLEA THAT WI THOUT ANY PROOF HOW CAN THE EXPENDITURE BE ALLOWED. THE LD. AR HAS REPEATED THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . THERE CANNOT BE DIFFERENT OPINION ABOUT THE FACT THAT WHETHER TH E BUSINESS IS ACCOUNTED FOR OR UNACCOUNTED FOR TO RUN THE SAME A ND EARN INCOME THEREFROM THE ASSESSEE HAS TO INCUR EXPENSES AND H AS TO GET THE SERVICES OF THE STAFF FOR CARRYING ON THE SAME AND FOR THAT EMPLOYEES ARE REQUIRED AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS PAYING SALAR Y FOR THE ACCOUNTED BUSINESS AND ALSO BONUS THE SAME WOULD HAPPEN TO B E UNACCOUNTED IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 7 -: BUSINESS. NO BUSINESS CAN BE DONE WITHOUT INCURRIN G CORRESPONDING EXPENDITURE. WHEN THE ASSESSEES HAD FAIRLY DISCLOS ED THE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH IT IS J UST AND FAIR TO ALLOW A REASONABLE CLAIM OF EXPENSES EVEN IF THE BUSINESS IS UNACCOUNTED FOR. CONSEQUENTLY WE DO NOT FIND ANY FLAW IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 5. THE SECOND ISSUE WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE CASES I S REGARDING CLAIM OF CAPITAL ON THE OPENING DAY OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AS THE ASSESSEES WERE DOING MONEY LENDING BUSINESS EVEN BEFORE THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE FACTS APROPOS THIS ISSUE ARE THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEES CLAIME D DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF OPENING CAPITAL BEYOND THE PERIOD AS ON 1.4.1988 WHICH WAS WORKED OUT ON THE BASIS OF OPENING CAPITAL FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1992- 93 BECAUSE DUPLICATE DAY-TO-DAY BOOK FOR THAT YEA R WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. THE CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 31.3.1992 W AS ` 36 47 122/- AS PER THE SEIZED BOOK. THE ASSESSEES HAD MADE A CLAI M OF OPENING CAPITAL AS ON 31 ST MARCH 1998 BY ADOPTING THE APPRECIATION ON CAPITAL AT 15% PER ANNUM AND WORKED OUT THE SAME AS UNDER: CAPITAL AS ON 31.3.1992 ` 36 47 122(AS PER SEIZED BOOK FOR 1992-93) CAPITAL AS ON 31.3.1991 .. 3647122X100/115 ` 31 71 410 CAPITAL AS ON 31.3.1990 .. 3171410X100/115 ` 27 57 748 CAPITAL AS ON 31.3.1989 .. 2757748X100/115 ` 23 98 041 CAPITAL AS ON 31.3.1988 .. 2398041X100/115 ` 20 85 253 6. IT WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DUPLI CATE SETS OF DAY BOOK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 WAS SE IZED BUT NO IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 8 -: BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF EARLIER YEARS WERE FOUND OR SEI ZED. IN THE ALTERNATIVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THIS CLAIM TO BE ON HIGHER SIDE AND THEREFORE HE WORKED OUT IT TO ` 15 42 636/- ADOPTING 24% INCOME ACCRETION AT PAGE 10 OF HIS ORDER. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEES WERE CARRYING ON BUS INESS IN THIS LINE FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS BESIDES HAVING INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND OF 30 ACRES OWNED BY THEM. ACCORDING TO THE ASSESS EES THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH WAS TO THE TUNE OF ` 10 LAKHS PER YEAR WAS ALSO UTILIZED IN THE FINANCE BUSINESS. REGARDING C ORPORATION BOOKS WERE NOT AVAILABLE FOR ALL THE YEARS OF THE BLOCK P ERIOD IT WAS STATED THAT THE CASH BOOK AND LEDGER FOR THE PERIOD ENDING MARCH 1993 MARCH 1996 AND SUBSEQUENT PERIODS WERE AVAILABLE AN D BASED ON THE SAME CAPITAL AS ON 31.3.1998 HAS BEEN CALCULATED BY THEM. THE ESTIMATION @ 24% ACCRETION WAS ALSO DISPUTED BUT FU RTHER PLEADED THAT STILL THAT OPENING CAPITAL WHICH WAS ARRIVED A T ` 15 42 636/- WAS NOT GIVEN CREDIT OF BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING CARRIED ON MORE THAN 20 YEARS PRIOR TO TH E DATE OF SURVEY AND EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH REGARDING CAPI TAL BALANCE OF ` 36 47 122/- AS ON 31.3.1992/1.4.1992. HE FIND THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEES AT 15% ACCRETION ON CAPITAL ON THE HIGHE R SIDE AND THE IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 9 -: COMPUTATION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 24% AC CRETION WAS TREATED AS MORE REASONABLE AND ON THAT BASIS HE D IRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE AMOUNT OF ` 15 42 636/-. 7. BEFORE US SIMILAR ARGUMENTS WERE TAKEN. WE DO NOT FIND ANY CONTROVERSY REGARDING CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS BY T HE ASSESSEES ATLEAST FOR MORE THAN 20 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF SUR VEY. NO CONTRARY EVIDENCE/FINDINGS IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE SEI ZED MATERIAL REVEALED CAPITAL BALANCE AS 31.3.1992/1.4.1992 AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS FACT ALSO. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY REGARDING THE PERCE NTAGE OF ACCRETION WHICH HAS BEEN ADOPTED AT 15% BY THE ASSESSEES AGAI NST WHICH 24% HAS BEEN COMPUTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED ACCRETION TO THE EXTENT COMPUTED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER AND DIRECTED TO EXCLUDE THE SAME FROM THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEES AS FALLING EARLIER TO THE BLOCK PERIOD WHICH THE ASSES SEES DESERVE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THIS FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND CONFIRM THE SAME. 8. THE LAST ISSUE WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THE CASES R ELATES TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING LET OUT TO STATE B ANK OF INDIA. THE FACTS OF THIS ISSUE ARE THAT SHRI E.M SUBBIAH HAD C ONSTRUCTED STATE BANK OF INDIA BUILDING DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.3. 1995 AND THE COST IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 10 - : OF CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN SHOWN AT ` 16 02 238/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS REFERRED TO VALUATION CELL WHO VALUED THE COST AT ` 18 20 200/-. THE DIFFERENCE BEING LESS THAN ` 2LAKHS AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL SUPERVISION NO ADDITION WAS PROPOSED I N THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. BUT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A DOCUMENT IDENTIFIED AS SNS 31 WAS FOUND WHICH SHOWED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEES TOTALED TO ` 19 63 678/-. HENCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF ` 2 56 245/-. IT WAS PLEADED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES THAT THIS DIFFERENCE HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96. IT W AS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IN ANY CASE THE COST RETURNED IN RESPECT OF TH IS BUILDING UPTO 31.3.1995 WAS ` 16 02 248/- AND FURTHER COST OF ` 65 000/- WAS INCURRED DURING THE YEAR ENDING 31.3.1996. HENCE THE COST OF BUILDING ACCORDING TO ASSESSEES WAS ` 16 67 238/- AS AGAINST THE VALUERS ESTIMATION AT ` 18 20 200/-. SINCE THE DIFFERENCE BEING SMALL NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. ANYTH ING FOUND DURING SEARCH WHICH WAS ALLEGEDLY INFLATED FOR OBTAINING B ANK LOAN CANNOT BE A GUIDING FACTOR IN THIS REGARD. THE LD. CIT(A) HA S ACCEPTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RETAINED ONLY THE DI FFERENCE BETWEEN IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 11 - : THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOUND DURING SEARCH AND TH AT DETERMINED DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT . NOW THE REVENUE IS A GGRIEVED. 9. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WE FIND TH AT THIS IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT DURING ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT CARR IED OUT IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD VALUED THE COST AT ` 18 20 000/- BUT NO ADDITION WAS PROPOSED EVEN AFTE R DISALLOWING SELF-SUPERVISION EXPENSES. AS PER THE SEIZED MATER IAL COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS FOUND AT ` 19 63 678/-. THE SEIZED MATERIAL HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AND IF IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE CORRECT T HE COST OF CONSTRUCTION COMPUTED ORIGINALLY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS T O BE TESTED WITH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOUND DURING SEARCH. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION BEING MERE BY ` 1 46 678/- AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL THE LD. CIT (A) HAS CORRECTLY SUSTAINED THIS ADDITION. HENCE NO F URTHER INTERFERENCE IS WARRANTED. CONSEQUENTLY ALL THE THREE ISSUES IN A LL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 10. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE R EVENUE STAND DISMISSED. IT(SS)A 60 TO 62/01 C O 56 TO 58/01 :- 12 - : 11. IN THE RESULT ALL THE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ALL THE THREE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEES S TAND DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.10.2010. SD/- SD/- (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( HARI OM MARATHA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 22 ND OCTOBER 10 RD COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR