9911796707
TMI Blog2008 (7) TMI 452X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ub-section (1) the words two-third per cent , were substituted by the words one-half per cent with effect from 8-9-2003. It can be seen from the language of section 234D that there is no ambiguity in the language. It is clear that in a case where a refund has been issued to the assessee on the basis of processing of return u/s 143(1) and such refund is not found to be due to the assessee on framing of the regular assessment and the amount refunded in pursuance of processing of return u/s 143(1) exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment, then, the recipient of such refund has been made liable to pay interest on such refund or excess refund, as the case may be. A provision has also been made that if subsequently the said refund is held to be correctly allowed under the various provisions which have been enumerated in the section, either in whole or in part, then, the interest chargeable will be reduced accordingly. Thus, there cannot be said to be any ambiguity so far as it concerns to the circumstances under which such interest is to be levied and also regarding the period for which such interest is to be levied. According to the contention of revenue, the prov ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 'mischief' or 'defect' . The interest whether is to be charged on certain refunds or not is within the discretion of the Legislature. In other words, absence of provision of charging interest on such refunds by itself cannot be described as 'mischief' or 'defect' which is a necessary element for the application of mischief rule. Apart from that it has already been mentioned that even application of Heydon's Rule in itself does not mean that provision shall have retrospective effect. Contention of Ld. DR that the provisions of section 234D being under the Chapter 'Collection and recovery' should be construed as procedural and not charging provision - The decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of J.K. Synthetics Ltd.[ 1994 (5) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT] held that the provisions regarding levy and collection of interest even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions are substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of amount. Thus, their lordships have held that even if the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ments for these years are framed after 1-6-2003 or the refund was granted for those years after the said date. In all these three appeals the only question involved is regarding the charge ability of interest in respect of assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. It has been held in the above part of this decision that interest u/s 234D could not be charged in respect of assessment years falling prior to assessment year 2004-05 therefore it is held that ld. CIT(A) has rightly deleted the interest levied on assessee u/s 234D in respect of all the appeals under consideration. In the result departmental appeals stand dismissed. - P. N. Parashar , I. P. Bansal Judicial Members And K. D. Ranjan Accountant Member For the Appellant : Gunjan Prasad and Amit M. Govil For the Respondent : K. R. Manjani For the Interveners : Ajay Vohra and L. V. Srinivasan ORDER I. P. BANSAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) 1. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue and these are directed against the consolidated order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated May 18, 2006, for the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. The only issue raised by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cial Bench. 6. In the present case, assessments are framed under section 144 read with section 147 of the Act vide order dated October 18, 2005. There is no discussion in the body of assessment orders regarding chargeability or otherwise of interest under section 234D. However, regarding charging of interest, the Assessing Officer at the end of the order has observed as under : Interest is hereby charged as applicable as per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961 . 7. The interest under section 234D was charged while calculating the demand in the demand notice. The assessee filed application for rectification dated March 14, 2006, contending therein that there is a mistake in calculating the interest as no interest was chargeable under section 234D. The Assessing Officer rejected the rectification application of the assessee on the ground that there is no mistake in charging interest under section 234D. According to the Assessing Officer, the interest under section 234D is chargeable in a case, where no refund is due on regular assessment or the amount refunded under section 143(1) exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment. The assessee relied on the decis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 20-11-2000 4. Refund issued Nil*(271204) 286606 338470 5. Date of issue of notice under section 148 18-02-2005 21-02-2005 21-02-2005 6. Date of order under section 147 18-10-2005 18-10-2005 18-10-2005 7. Amount charged under section 234D 105937 114814 128821 9. He submitted that section 234D was introduced in Chapter XVII in the Act by the Finance Act, 2003. To advance his arguments, he referred to the scheme of the Act as laid down in the various Chapters containing the relevant provisions as follows : Chapter II Basis of charge Chapter III Incomes which do not form part of total income Chapter IV Computation of total income Chapter V Income of other persons, included in assessee\qs total income Chapter VI Aggregation of income and set-off or carry forward of loss Chapter VI-A Deductions to be made in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Legislature itself. In support of this contention, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative) placed reliance on the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundra Rao (Decd.) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147. Referring to the language of section 234D, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative) pleaded that the intention of the Legislature is to compensate the Government for any grant of refund not due to the assessee, at the stage of intimation under section 143(1) of the Act. He referred to the explanatory notes on the amendments in the Act which are found in Circular No. 7 dated September 5, 2003 ([2003] 263 ITR (St.) 62 ) wherein the provisions of section 234D are explained in the following manner (page 115 of ITR (St.)) : 77. Charging of interest on excess refund granted at time of sum mary assessment : 77.1 Under the provisions of section 143(4) where a regular assessment under section 143(3) or section 144 is made, any tax or interest paid under section 143(1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment and if no refund is due on regular assessment or the amoun ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndment will take effect from June 1, 2003 [section 91]. 13. Emphasising the words highlighted and reading from the memorandum explaining the provisions, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative) pleaded that it suggests that the section is procedural in nature. He contended that it has been specified that the amendment will take effect from June 1, 2003, and it is not mentioned that the introduction would be applicable from a specific assessment year which would have meant that the provisions of section 234D are substantive in nature and, therefore prospective. Referring to page 9 of the memorandum, he contended that the reading given is clarificatory amendments regarding definitions of certain items relevant to income from profits and gains for business or profession and the said amendments being substantive provisions, the same have been specifically mentioned that the proposed amendment will take effect from the 1st day of April, 2004 and will accordingly apply in relation to the assessment year 2004-05 and subsequent years. 14. Thus, the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Departmental representative) pleaded that it is clear from the scheme ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... al Excise v. Parle Exports P. Ltd. [1990] 183 ITR 624 (SC) ; State of U. P. v. Radhey Shyam Nigam [1989] 1 SCC 591 ; AIR 1989 SC 682. 16. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative further submitted that since different Benches of the Tribunal have held contrary views, it is an admitted fact that there are two or more interpretations of the provisions of section 234D. Reference was made to proposition of law laid down by Heydon' s Rule. It was submitted that when the material words are capable of bearing two or more constructions, the most formally established rule for construction of such words is the rule laid down in Heydon' s case [1584] 3 Co Rep 7a which has now attained status of a classic . It was pointed out that the decision in Heydon' s case has been followed in many of the Supreme Court decisions such as K. P. Varghese v. ITO [1981] 131 ITR 597 and Goodyear India Ltd. v. State of Haryana [1991] 188 ITR 402. It was pleaded that while interpreting the Act/ sections of the Act four things are to be considered, namely, (i) What was the law before the making of the Act ; (ii) What was the mischief or defect for which law did n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rned Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative contended that the interpretation that provisions of section 234D are prospective in nature would create absurd results Scenario-1. In such a situation the return of a company under section 139(1) would be filed by the 31st October, 2004. Notice under section 143(2) would be issued and served, say by the 31st October, 2005. Assessment order under section 143(3) (read with section 153) would be passed by December 31, 2006. Therefore, it is clear that the Legislature could not have envisaged or intended to have a provision which would make the provision of section 234D absurd. Scenario-2. The provisions of section 234D are applicable from June 1, 2003. What happens to the period from April 1, 2003 to May 30, 2003. Will interest not charged for that period? If the intention of the Legislature was to make it a substantive provision, then the provisions would have been applicable from April 1, 2003. 20. Advancing his arguments, it was further pleaded by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax, Departmental representative that nature of interest under section 234D is that the same is levied in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1999-2000 31-3-2000 26-2-2000 18-2-2005 18-10-2005 2000-2001 22-8-2000 20-11-2000 18-2-2005 18-10-2005 23. He referred to the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of S. L. Srinivasa Jute Twine Mills P. Ltd. v. Union of India [2006] 2 SCC 740 to contend that it is a cardinal principle of construction that every statute is prima facie prospective unless it is expressly or by necessary implication made to have retrospective operation. He contended that while laying down such proposition of law their Lordships of the hon ble Supreme Court have referred to the decision of the hon ble apex court in the case of Keshavan Madhava Menon v. State of Bombay, AIR 1951 SC 128. It was also observed in that decision that rule in general is applicable where the object of the statute is to affect vested rights or to impose new burdens or to impair existing obligations. Unless there are words in the statute sufficient to show the intention of the Legislature to affect the existing rights, it is deemed to be prospective only. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the said case the assessee wanted to have the benefit of higher depreciation which was increased vide Notification S. O. 562(E) dated July 24, 1980 ([1980] 126 ITR (St.) 1 ) by the Central Board of Direct Taxes and claimed the said benefit for the assessment year 1980-81. On behalf of the assessee it was argued that in case of doubt in a provision, the benefit should be extended to the assessee. Their Lordships of the Bombay High Court rejected such contention of the assessee and it was held that provisions of higher depreciation were not applicable as on the 1st day of April, 1980 and had come into force with effect from July 24, 1980, therefore, the provisions could not be retrospectively applied in view of the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. v. State of Kerala [1966] 60 ITR 262. Referring to this decision it was pleaded by the learned authorised representative that if any provision has been brought on the statute in the middle of the year then the same will not be applicable from the preceding assessment year and the benefit as sought for by the Revenue to apply the same retrospectively should not be accepted in view of the clear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fter the first day of April of an assessment year would not apply to that assessment year even if the assessment is actually made after the amendments come into force, the learned authorised representative relied on the following decisions : (i) Om Sindhoori Capital Investments Ltd. v. Joint CIT [2005] 274 ITR 427 (Mad) ; (ii) Govinddas v. ITO [1976] 103 ITR 123 (SC) ; (iii) CIT v. S. A. Wahab [1990] 182 ITR 464 (Ker). 30. The learned authorised representative pleaded that the argument of the learned Departmental representative that the provisions of section 234D being not under Chapter II which regulates the basis of charge cannot be said to be a charging section and, therefore, the same cannot be considered to be a substantive provision, is contrary to law. He contended that if the said contention of the learned Departmental representative is accepted, then it would mean that any law which is not described under Chapter II will not be a substantial law. He contended that to determine that whether a provision is substantial or procedural in nature, the tests are different. Any law which affects the vested rights or impose new burdens or impairs existing obligations wil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch proposition the reliance was placed on the two decisions of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 and Karimtharuvi Tea Estate Ltd. [1966] 60 ITR 262. The learned authorised representative contended that keeping in view these decisions, the provisions of section 234D should be held applicable for and from the assessment year 2004-05. 34. The learned authorised representative further referred to article 265 of the Constitution to contend that any amount cannot be collected unless prescribed by the statute. Referring to the article it was pleaded by the learned authorised representative that there being no liability of the assessee to pay interest on the refund prior to the assessment year 2004-05, therefore, the Departmental appeal deserves to be dismissed. 35. The learned authorised representative further contended that if the contention of the Department has to be accepted that there are two possible views, then also the construction which is in favour of the assessee has to be adopted and, therefore, the decisions of the Tribunal vide which it has been held that the levy of interest under section 234D is retrospective in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... learned authorised representative pleaded that loophole in the legislation cannot be covered by the court and if there is a gap the same cannot be filled up by the court. 37. The learned authorised representative referred to the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CWT v. Sharvan Kumar Swarup and Sons [1994] 210 ITR 886, wherein it was observed that the division of law into two broad categories of substantive law and procedural law is well known. Broadly stated, whereas a substantive law defines and provides for rights, duties, liabilities, it is the function of the procedural law to deal with the application of substantive law to particular cases and it goes without saying that the law of evidence is a part of the law of procedure. It is further observed that before ascertaining the effect of the enactments passed by the Central Legislature on pending suits, or appeals it would be appropriate to bear in mind two well established principles. The first is that while provisions of a statute dealing merely with matters of procedure may properly, unless that construction be textually inadmissible, have retrospective effect attributed to them, provisions which touch ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ging provision. He contended that the argument of the learned Departmental representative that as section 234D does not come under Chapter II, therefore, it should not be considered as a charging provision, has no legal force as there are various examples to show that there are many provisions in the Act which are charging provisions but do not come under Chapter II of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 40. He further referred to the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of J. K. Synthetics Ltd. v. CTO 94 STC 422, wherein it has been observed by the hon ble Supreme Court that the provisions by which the authorities empowered to levy and collect interest, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. He contended that if it is a substantive law, then it can operate only prospectively. 41. He further referred to the decision of the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 wherein it was held that the fourth pr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 94 STC 422 (SC) cannot be applied to the Income-tax Act as the said decision relates to sales-tax which is leviable on the sale of goods. As against that the liability of interest is a liability in respect of sum which has been taken by the assessee despite there being a liability of the same. He contended that the provision of section 234D is like the provisions of sections 234B and 234C and is a mode of collection and recovery, only, thus, cannot be considered to be a provision in substantial nature. He pleaded that mischief rule is applicable as such mischief has been clearly brought out in paragraph 77.2 of the memorandum explaining the insertion of the provision of section 234D. Thus, the learned Departmental representative pleaded that the provisions of section 234D should be construed to have retrospective application. 47. We have carefully considered the submissions of both the parties and the authorised representatives appearing on behalf of interveners. Before proceeding further, it will be relevant to reproduce section 234D and the scope thereof. Section 234D reads as under : 234D Interest on excess refund. (1) Subject to the other provi sions of this Act, wher ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er sub-section (4) of section 245D of the Income-tax Act, the amount of refund granted under sub-section (1) of section 143 is held to be correctly allowed, either in whole or in part, as the case may be, then, the interest chargeable, if any, under sub-section (1) shall be reduced accordingly. 51. According to the Explanation, an assessment made for the first time under section 147 or section 153A shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purpose of this section. 52. So, it can be seen from the language of section 234D that there is no ambiguity in the language. It is clear that in a case where a refund has been issued to the assessee on the basis of processing of return under section 143(1) and such refund is not found to be due to the assessee on framing of the regular assessment and the amount refunded in pursuance of processing of return under section 143(1) exceeds the amount refundable on regular assessment, then the recipient of such refund has been made liable to pay interest on such refund or excess refund, as the case may be. A provision has also been made that if subsequently the said refund is held to be correctly allowed under the various provisions whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n a statute is a determinative of the legislative intent and according to the first and primary rule of construction the intention of the legislation must be found in the words used by the legislature itself and the function of the court is only to interpret the law and court cannot legislate, if a provision of law is misused and subjected to the abuse of the process of law, it is for the Legislature to amend, modify or repeal it, if deemed necessary. Legislative casus omissus cannot be supplied by the judicial interpretative course. 54. The provisions of section 234D have already been reproduced and it is observed that the language used therein is plain and unambiguous. So, according to the well-settled law as laid down by the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Padmasundra Rao (Decd.) v. State of Tamil Nadu [2002] 255 ITR 147, nothing can be read in the statutory provision which is found to be plain and unambiguous. Thus, on the basis of argument that the Legislature has brought this provision just to fill the lacuna in the law and, therefore, these provisions should be construed retrospective cannot be accepted more particularly when these provisions have been inserted on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... spective of the fact that for application of that rule it is a condition precedent to find out that there existed a mischief. Mere fact that earlier there was no provision to charge interest on the refund issued on processing of return cannot by itself be described as mischief or defect . The interest whether is to be charged on certain refunds or not is within the discretion of the Legislature. In other words, absence of provision of charging interest on such refunds by itself cannot be described as mischief or defect which is a necessary element for the application of mischief rule. Apart from that it has already been mentioned that even application of Heydon' s Rule in itself does not mean that provision shall have retrospective effect. 61. Whether a provision has retrospective effect has to be determined according to the set principles of law described in various decisions. In the fiscal legislation if a provision is brought for imposing any liability, the normal presumption will be that it has no retrospective operation and it is a cardinal principle of tax law that law to be applied is the law which is in force in the assessment year unless otherwise provid ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the object and purpose of the statute and not defeat the same (See Whitney v. IRC [1926] AC 37 (HL), CIT v. Mahaliram Ramjidas [1940] 8 ITR 442 (PC), India United Mills Ltd. v. CEPT [1955] 27 ITR 20 (SC) and Gursahai Saigal v. CIT [1963] 48 ITR 1 (SC)). But it must also be realized that pro vision by which the authority is empowered to levy and collect inter est, even if construed as forming part of the machinery provisions, is substantive law for the simple reason that in the absence of contract or usage interest can be levied under law and it cannot be recovered by way of damages for wrongful detention of the amount. [See Bengal Nagpur Railway Co. Ltd. v. Ruttanji Ramji, AIR 1938 PC 67 and Union of India v. A. L. Rallia Ram [1964] 3 SCR 164 at 185-190]. Our attention was, however, drawn by Mr. Sen to two cases. Even in those cases, CIT v. M. Chandra Sekhar [1985] 151 ITR 433; [1985] 44 CTR (SC) 110 and Central Provinces Manganese Ore Co. Ltd. v. CIT [1986] 160 ITR 961 (SC), all that the court pointed out was that pro vision for charging interest was, it seems, introduced in order to com pensate for the loss occasioned to the Revenue due to delay. But then interest was charged o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2003, its assessments must be considered to be governed by the Income-tax Act as it was amended up to that date. 67. To examine such contention, one must bear in mind two basic facts about the Income-tax Act. The first is that the Income-tax Act objects to tax not the income of the assessment in the year of assessment, but in the previous year and the other basic facts is that the liability to tax arises not by reason of the provisions of the Income-tax Act, but by reason of the fact that the Finance Act fixes the rate at which the assessee is liable to pay tax and it is by the reason of the Finance Act that the income of the previous year of the assessee becomes liable to tax. Thus, for an assessment to be made for the assessment year 2003-04 which ended on March 31, 2003, for that the Finance Act of 2002 will impose a liability on the assessee to pay tax on its income at the rate mentioned in that Act. If the aforementioned contention of the learned Departmental representative were to be accepted then a very startling result would follow. The different provisions of income-tax would apply according to when the assessment was made. Although the assessment would be for the inco ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 221. In that case the assessee had executed four trust deeds settling certain immovable properties on each of his daughters. Under the provisions of these deeds the assessee reserved to impose a power to revoke the settlement. The Income-tax Act was amended by the Act of 1939 and the provisions of section 16(1)(c) were incorporated in the Act, and by the provisions of that section the assessee was liable to be taxed in respect of the income received by his daughters from the properties settled under these trust deeds. The income received by the daughters was in the year of account 1938-39. The assessee objected to such income being assessed to tax on the ground that the Income-tax Officer was giving retrospective effect to section 16(1)(c). According to the contention of the assessee section 16(1)(c) was not in force in the year in which income was received and such contention of the assessee was rejected by the Madras High Court and the issue was decided by the Privy Council as under (page 223 of ITR) : In the second place, it should be remembered that the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, as amended from time to time forms a code, which has no operative effe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that ship, depreciation of the said ship was allowed from time to time and its written down value in the assessment year was Rs. 15,68,484. The Assessing Officer included the difference between those two amounts viz., Rs. 9,26,532 in the total income of the company for the assessment year 1946-47. The addition was made according to the provisions of the fourth proviso to section 10(2)(vii). If the said proviso is not applied, then the income could not be assessed. Thus, the question arose that the proviso which came into force on May 4, 1946, whether could be applied by making assessment for the assessment year 1946-47. It was held by the hon ble Bombay High Court ([1954] 26 ITR 686) that applying to the ratio of decision of the hon ble Privy Council in the case of Maharajah of Pithapuram v. CIT [1945] 13 ITR 221 that no addition could be made to the income of the assessee on this account in respect of the assessment year 1946-47 as the provisions of the proviso were not on the statute as on the first day of April, 1946 and this position of law was upheld by the hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 (a decision rendered by f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir Lordships referred to the earlier decision of the apex court in the case of CIT v. Scindia Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. [1961] 42 ITR 589 in which similar proposition of law was laid down while interpreting section 10(2)(vii) and proviso (iv) and section 66(1), (2) and (5) and in the said case it was held that the proviso though came into force on May 5, 1946, could not be made operative from April 1, 1946 and, therefore, no retrospective effect could be given to that provision by accepting the contention of the Revenue. In that case the Revenue has sought to apply the proviso for the assessment year 1946-47 despite the fact that the proviso had come into force from May 5, 1946 and it was held that the proviso is not retrospective and it was held that the court cannot import into its construction matters which are ad extra legis and thereby, alter its true effect. It will be relevant to reproduce the observation of their Lordships from the said decision (page 264 of 60 ITR) : It is well settled that the Income-tax Act, as it stands amended on the first day of April of any financial year must apply to the assessments of that year. Any amendments in the Act which come into f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he decision of Sigma Aldrich Foreign Holdings Co. v. Assistant CIT [2008] 296 ITR (AT) 165 (Bang), a decision relied upon by the learned Departmental representative. All the aspects of the issue discussed in the said decision have been considered in detail in the above part of this order. For the reasons discussed in this order, we are unable to agree with the view taken by the Division Bench in that decision. 76. In view of the above discussion our answer to question referred to us is that interest under section 234D is chargeable from the assessment year 2004-05 and it could not be charged for earlier years even though regular assessments for these years are framed after June 1, 2003, or the refund was granted for those years after the said date. 77. In all these three appeals the only question involved is regarding the chargeability of interest in respect of the assessment years 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2000-01. It has been held in the above part of this decision that interest under section 234D could not be charged in respect of the assessment years falling prior to the assessment year 2004-05, therefore it is held that the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
