9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (7) TMI 174X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... able to point out any infirmity in the order of the learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition. Considering the issue in its entirety in the light of the order of the Tribunal in the case of River Valley Meadows Township Pvt.Ltd. [ 2019 (4) TMI 198 - ITAT DELHI] we find that the issue is covered by the order of the Tribunal in this case. In the absence of any infirmity pointed out in the order of the learned CIT(A), we dismiss the department s appeal on this ground. Addition on account of pre-operative expenses - expenses claimed as deduction u/s 35D - HELD THAT:- Assessee has incurred this expenditure before commencement of business which was in the nature of travelling, telephone and printing expenses etc. These were revenue in nature. Therefore, learned CIT(A) rightly amortized these expenses under Section 35D. Further, no document was seized during the course of search with reference to this addition. Since assessment in this year was originally completed u/s 143(3), therefore, no addition can be made as per law laid down by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla [ 2015 (9) TMI 80 - DELHI HIGH COURT] . This ground is accordingly dismissed. Additi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ned order. CIT(A) noted that since the assessee has been held to be non-resident, therefore, even if the same represents unaccounted income of the assessee from undisclosed sources, it cannot be brought to tax as income in his hands unless it is proved that the income accrued to him in India. - ITA Nos.5852/Del/2014, 5853/Del/2014 & 5854/Del/2014, ITA Nos.5857/Del/2014, 5858/Del/2014 & 5859/Del/2014 - - - Dated:- 1-7-2019 - Shri G.D. Agrawal, Vice President And Shri Bhavnesh Saini, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT-DR. For the Respondents : Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Advocate. ORDER PER BENCH : These appeals by Department against different assessees are directed against the order of learned CIT(A)-I, New Delhi dated 11th August, 2014. 2. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by a consolidated order. 3. In the three appeals of the Department in the case of M/s C 1 India Private Limited, both the parties stated that the issues are common and mainly argued for ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was conducted by the Delhi Police on 22nd February, 2007 at the residence of one Dr. M.V. Rao at F-58, First Floor, Green Park, New Delhi, wherein certain documents including cash amounting to ₹ 2 crores were found and seized. The Delhi Police informed the Income Tax Department, which also conducted a search under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on the same day and seized the said cash along with documents. Based on information contained in the seized documents and statements recorded, search and seizure under Section 132 was also carried out in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda and his associate concerns on 28th February, 2007. During search, several documents were seized which have been analyzed in the assessments framed. Based on seized documents, the Revenue reached the conclusion that Dr. Rao and his associates Shri Suresh Nanda and others had received commission on contracts for the sale of radio wireless sets to Indian defense establishment and assessed it as his income for different assessment years as is mentioned in paragraph 3.2 of the appellate order. 7. Same additions were also made in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda. Other ad ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oodself will appreciate that our matter has been set aside and all further action will have to be taken subject to the directions of the Hon'ble Tribunal which are reproduced here under:- Since we have set aside the main issues back to the file of AO, interest of justice will be served if the remaining issues in these appeals are set aside back to the file of AO to decide all these issues after considering the explanation given by the assessee and the ITAT order. In the result, all the appeals filed the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes . In our considered view C1 India Pt. Ltd. has been held as a separate entity held by department by way of assessments. It has not been held to be a Benami concern of the assessee. The addition have been made on account of share application moneys and loan in both the cases i.e. assessee and C1 India without examining the relevant aspects like identity, creditworthiness, issues about genuineness of transaction and the issue of separate status of the entities in view of Hon'ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of Vodafone (supra). Lower authorities also seem to be ambiva ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a. They also held that the confirmation of remitter and remittance certificate is sufficient to establish the veracity of the share capital received. Copy of the judgment is enclosed herewith at Pg 6 - 38/PB. b) Similar decision view following the case of RTC (supra) has been taken by the Id. CIT (A) in the case of Claridges Hotels Pvt. Ltd for AYs 2004-05 to 2009-10 wherein it was held In the present case, addition has been made by the Id. AO alleging the appellant company to be a beneficiary of unaccounted funds despite the fact that genuineness, creditworthiness and identity of the source was established. The Id. CIT (A) deleted the said addition after considering the supporting documents and evidences and following the Hon ble ITAT in the case of Russian Technology Centre Pvt. Ltd. (Order of the CIT (A) for AY 2007-08 attached at Pg 39 - 70/PB). The following is the ratio decidendi in case of RTC - (i) CBDT Circular no 5 (F. no 73A/2(69)-IT (A-l 1)) dt 20.02.1969- money brought by Non residents for investments for other purposes is not liable to Indian Income tax. If money has been brought into India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r S. 69 stood discharged, and therefore, it was not taxable in India under s. 5(2)(b) of the Act. The CBDT circular (supra) squarely supports the case of the assessee. The fact that the transactions and events narrated in the Annexure look curious and suspicious makes no difference to the conclusions that we have drawn in this case, as per law, in the above paras. Apropos applicability of CBDT Circular No/5, dt. 20th Feb., 1969 the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi in the case of Saraswati Holding Corpn. Inc. [2007] 16 SOT 535 (DELHI) (para 11.3 at Pg no. 116/PB 1), while examining issue in question in light of CBDT Circular No. 5, dt. 20th Feb., 1969 and the decision of Finlay Corporation Ltd. (supra) held as under: In the light of the above decision of the Tribunal, and circular No. 5 of CBDT, we are of the view that the action of the Revenue authorities is bringing to tax the sum of ₹ 3, 83, 1 1,550 cannot be sustained. We have already held that the Assessee is a tax resident of Mauritius. There is no basis for coming to a conclusion that any income of the assessee accrued, arose or was received in India. In these circumstances, we direct th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... interested), and the sum so credited consists of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, any explanation offered by such assessee-company shall be deemed to be not satisfactory, unless- (a) the person, being a resident in whose name such credit is recorded in the books of such company also offers an explanation about the nature and source of such sum so credited; and (b) such explanation in the opinion of the Assessing Officer aforesaid has been found to be satisfactory: The section now provides that in case of a closely held company if the amount credited is by way of share application money, share capital, share premium or any such amount by whatever name called, the explanation offered for the credit will not be considered to be satisfactory unless the company which received the sum offers explanation about the source of money in the hands of such shareholder (being a resident) or persons making payment towards issue of shares. 11. Learned CIT(A), after considering the evidences and material on record and following the order of the Tribunal in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re invested out of income accruing or arising in India. 12. Learned DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer and he submitted that paper work is perfect in this case but no genuine transaction was carried out by the assessee. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of PCIT Vs. NDR Promoters Pvt.Ltd. [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Delhi), CIT Vs. Nova Promoters and Finlease (P) Ltd. [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Delhi), CIT Vs. MAF Academy P.Ltd. [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. N.R. Portfolio (P) Ltd. [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Delhi). 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before the authorities below. He has submitted that the assessee submitted all the documents on record which prove that the ingredients of Section 68 of the Act which have not been doubted by the Revenue authorities. He has submitted that identical issues have been decided in the case of Russian Technology Centre Pvt.Ltd., Claridges Hotel Pvt.Ltd. and Shri Suresh Nanda. He has submitted that recently, the ITAT decided group cases of River Valley Meadows Township Pvt.Ltd. for assessment year 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t year 2008-09 and 2009-10 vide order dated 27th March, 2019, the Tribunal had dismissed the departmental appeals. The entire order is reproduced below :- Both the appeals by Revenue are directed against the different orders of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, New Delhi dated 5th August 2013, for the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010, challenging the deletion of addition of ₹ 7,92,19,406/- and ₹ 2,34,96,795/- respectively, made by the assessing officer on account of unexplained share application money received from the Holding Company M/s. Palm Technologies (P) Ltd., Mauritius. 2. We have heard the Learned Representatives of both the parties and perused the material available on record. 3. Learned Representatives of both the parties mainly argued in assessment year 2008-2009 and have submitted that the issue is same in assessment year 2009-2010. Therefore, order in assessment year 2008-2009 may be followed in another appeal. For the sake of disposal of both the appeals, we proceed to decide ITA.No.5629/ Del./2013 for the assessment year 2008-2009 as under. ITA.No.5629/Del./2013 A.Y. 2008-2009 : ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hartered Accountant. vi. Valuation certificated dated 05.08.2008 issued by the Chartered Accountant along with Annexure-A. vii. Copies of the Annexure-II Ill forming part of Form No. FCGPR. 4.1. The assessing officer on perusal of the balance sheet of M/s. Palm Technologies (P) Ltd., Mauritius noted that it had reflected investments of US $ 5745000 in subsidiary companies as on 31st March 2008. He has further noted that the said company has shown profit of US $ 7833 during the period. Assessing officer after analysing the balance sheet as on 31st March 2008 further noted as under : a. Non Current Assets Year ending on 31.03.2008 Year ending on 31.03.2007 Investment in subsidiary companies US $ 5,745,000 US $ 4,083,929/- b. Non Current Liabilities Year ending on 31.03.2008 Year e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... reholders loans. c) Please note that there is no exchange control in Mauritius. There is no requirement to submit documentation for bringing funds in Mauritius. d) A Request has been made to the above companies to submit bank statements and other particulars requested in your aforesaid letter. The information will be forwarded to von as soon as they are received. 4.4. The assessing officer, thereafter, noted the table in para 2.7 of the assessment order, which gives snapshot of the financial position of the Investor, which shows its current liabilities from UBS Trading FZC and Y2KSIL. During the course of assessment proceedings, the balance sheet of M/s. Palm Technologies (P) Ltd., Mauritius for the year ending 31st March 2008 was submitted. The following tables depicts the balance sheet as under : Assets USD Non current assets Investment in subsidiaries 57,45,000/- ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ₹ 34,60,000/- 2005-06 ₹ 34,60,000/- 2006-07 ₹ 34,60,000/- ₹ 3,25,00,000/- 2007-08 ₹ 17,32,98,000/- ₹ 1,90,00,000/- 2008-09 ₹ 17,32,98,000/- ₹ 9,57,19,406/- 4.6. The assessing officer also noted that investment in the share capital of the assessee-company has been made through the borrowings from two entities controlled by Shri Suresh Nanda that are as under : UBS Trading FZC US $ 3,000,000 Y2K SIL US $ 431, 197 4.7. Thereafter, the assessing officer tried to make a point that as to how there was a close link of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on his behalf. The profit for 2004 is shown as AED 34,115,538 and profit for 2005 has been declared as AED 24,924,085. The company has also paid a dividend of AED 15,000,000 calendar year, 2005 and AED 19,000,000 in the year ending December, 2004. Page 55-69 Annexure No. A-15, seized from the residence of Mr. Suresh Nanda-4, Prithvi Raj Road New Delhi. These contain major operational highlights of UBS Trading FZC since its inception and it has been shown to have earned a profit of USD 1.411 Million - March 2002-30th June, 2003 USD 8.311 Million -1 July 2003-31st December, 2004 USD 4.4311 Million - 1.1.2005 -31.12.2005 USD. 2.884 Million - 1.1.2006 Nov 2006 These pages also include personal profile of Mr. Suresh Nanda. 4.8. The assessing officer further noted from the above mentioned documents that it is evident that Mr.Suresh Nanda is the owner of M/s. UBS Trading FZC, Dubai. He has been making investments in Mauritius based company to hide the true source of money, till it is finally invested in India. The fact that investment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arred. The Ld. D.R. submitted that seized documents found from the premises of Mr.Suresh Nanda may be considered. It was money of Mr Suresh Nanda who is controller of the Companies of the Group. The Ld. D.R. in support of her contention has relied upon the following decisions : 1. Pr. CIT, New Delhi vs. NDR Promoters (P.) Ltd., [2019] 410 ITR 379 (Del.) 2. CIT vs. Nova Promoters Finlease (P) Ltd., [2012] 342 ITR 169 (Del.) 3. CIT-II vs. MAF Academy (P.) Ltd., [2014] 361 ITR 258 (Del.) 4. CIT vs. N.R. Portfolio (P.) Ltd., [2014] 42 taxmann.com 339 (Del.) 5. CIT, West vs. Durga Prasad More [1971] 82 ITR 540 (SC) 6. Sumati Dayal vs. CIT 1995 AIR (SC) 2109 7. On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the Assessee reiterated the submissions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Certified issued by Registrar of Companies effective 15 th March, 2002 with respect to change of name of Palm Technologies Ltd., iii) Tax Residency Certificate issued by Income Tax Department Republic of Mauritius. iv) The company was maintaining a bank account with Barclays Bank Certificate dated 24th June 2008. v) Certified true copy of Balance Sheet of M/s. Palm Technologies Ltd., for the year ending 31st March, 2008. 3. Documents filed evidencing receipt of ₹ 7,92,19,406/- in due compliance with the rules and regulation laid down by the Reserve Bank of India. i) Details of amount received and equity shares allotted to Palm Technologies Ltd., during the year ended 31.03.2008. ii) Letter dated 26.08.2008 addressed to the Manager, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant thereafter there is no justification in keeping a protective addition in this behalf. We also find that similar addition on substantive basis was made in assessment year 2004-05 and Tribunal on revenue appeal in I.T.A.No.2605/Del/2013 has dealt with this issue at page 60 onwards vide order dated 21.2.2014 and vide para 7.5. at page 68 has dismissed the appeal of revenue on this issue. During these years the Ld CIT(A) has however made the addition on protective basis without justification. In view of the above and following the IT AT order for 2004-05 in assesses own case we delete the alternate retention of addition on protective basis. Therefore, ground No. 4 in both the years is allowed. 7.2. He has referred to PB-2, pages-56-67 which is Judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs., Mr.Suresh Nanda dated 27th May, 2015, in which the above Judgment of the Tribunal have been confirmed, by dismissing the departmental appeals. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court considered the investment made by M/s. Palm Technologies Limited, Mauritius in several years and it ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... acity from the banks) to ascertain the truth of the assessee's claims. Having not done so. he was not justified in disregarding the assessee s contentions that the infusion of monies into its accounts was legitimate. Conseouentiv, the AO was not justified in making additions of the various sums under Section 68 of the Act. 13. In view of the above, this Court is of the view that the conclusion of the Tribunal in deleting the additions made cannot be faulted. Accordingly, the Questions of law are answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. The order of the Tribunal is, therefore, affirmed. 14. Resultantly, the appeals are dismissed. 7.3. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee also referred to PB- 2, Page-71 which is order of ITAT, Delhi B-Bench in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-13, New Delhi vs. Claridges Hotels Pvt., Ltd., New Delhi in ITA.No.2737/ Del./2012, ITA.No.4607/Del./2013 and C.O.No.10/Del./ 2014 in ITA.No.4707/Del./2013 dated 30.09.2014, in which on identical facts, the Departmental Appeal has been dismissed. Para-30 of the order is reproduced as under : 30. We thus find that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 008 (Delhi). 7.5. Learned Counsel for the Assessee also contended that since addition has been deleted in the hands of Mr. Suresh Nanda on substantive basis, which is confirmed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court, then the findings of the assessing officer which are solely based on the presumption that it was the unaccounted money of Mr. Suresh Nanda routed through the intermediary companies to the assessee company, has no basis to justify the addition. He has further pointed-out that similar addition was made in earlier years, which have been deleted and the assessing officer has admitted that even in earlier years similar investments have been made in assessee-company, which have already been deleted. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A), on proper appreciation of facts and material on record, correctly deleted the addition. 8. We have considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. The assessing officer considered the issue of unexplained share application money received by assessee-company from the Investor M/s. Palm Technologies (P) Ltd., Mauritius in assessment year under appeal as well as in earlier years. The assessing officer had made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pany Secretary and details issued by IDBI Bank. These documents supports the explanation of assessee-company that assessee-company received genuine share application money. The assessing officer instead of examining the documentary evidences and record in depth, has made an attempt to link Mr. Suresh Nanda, who was having interest in the Companies namely M/s. UBS Trading FCZ and Y2KSIL, who were the different entities, who have provided loans and funds to Investor Companies. Even if certain documents were found during the course of search in the case of Mr. Suresh Nanda, but, nothing has been brought on record, if any, material was found that he has received any unaccounted money. No material was found during the course of search to prove Mr. Suresh Nanda was dealing with unaccounted money rather the Department had made similar addition in the hands of Mr. Suresh Nanda, which have been deleted by the ITAT and the Order of the ITAT have been confirmed by the Hon ble Delhi High Court. The issue is also covered by Judgment of the Delhi High Court in the case of M/s. Russian Technology Centre (P) Ltd., (supra), in which, similar addition have been deleted on the same ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the Assessing Officer in respect of the non-resident Indian company, which admittedly has contributed share capital, even on the assumption that the assessee has failed to discharge the financial capacity of the non-resident Indian company ? 8.2. The Hon ble Madhya Pradesh High Court held as under : Held dismissing the appeals, that if the assessee had received subscriptions to the public or rights issue through banking channels and furnished complete details of the shareholders, no addition could be made under section 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in the absence of any positive material or evidence to indicate that the shareholders were benamidars or fictitious persons or that any part of the share capital represented the company's own income from undisclosed sources. It was nobody's case that the nonresident Indian company was a bogus or non-existent company or that the amount subscribed by the company by way of share subscription was in fact the money of the assessee. The assessee had established the identity of the investor who had provided the share subscription and that the transaction was genuine. Though the assessee' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 3/- on account of pre-operative expenses. The assessee has challenged the disallowance of certain expenses claimed as deduction under Section 35D as pre-operative expenses amortized. The assessee explained before the learned CIT(A) that it was explained before the Assessing Officer that pre-operative expenses were incurred by the assessee before commencement of the business. These expenses were in the nature of feasibility reports, project reports, travelling transportation, legal charges, printing of memorandum and articles of association and such other expenses relating to the issue of share capital as well. Hence, these expenses have been incurred prior to the commencement of business fall under Section 35D of the Act which permits amortization of such preliminary expenses for a period of five years. Hence, the claim of 20% in the assessment year in question is allowable under Section 35D of the Act. It was submitted that in the assessment order under Section 143(3) dated 28th June, 2006, similar additions have been made. Therefore, doubt addition cannot be made. 18. Learned CIT(A) found that the amount of ₹ 4,26,863/- representing 20% of various expenses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... bove, same is also considered as unexplained credit u/s 68 of I.T Act in the hand of the assessee company. No details were asked to be filed in respect of the loan received and the addition u/s 68 has been made without any opportunity being afforded to the assessee company. b) However, the assessee has placed the following documents and evidences on record in respect of the said loan: Confirmation of account from 01.04.2000 to 31.03.2012 Form 16A for TDS of ₹ 46,972/- deducted from interest of ₹ 1,42,338/- Form 16A for TDS of ₹ 229,907/- deducted from interest of ₹ 684,247/- Bank statement of the assessee company showing repayment of ₹ 75,00,000/- to Sh. Suresh Nanda. The assessee has discharged its onus of proving the genuineness of the transaction by submitting the following documents. c) It is also submitted that Sh. Suresh Nanda was a non-resident for the AY 2001-02 as held by the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 25.02.2013 (Pg 86 - 94) and the amount of loan received cannot be added in his hands by vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s also clear that during the course of search, no incriminating material was found so as to make this addition. In this case, originally, assessment was completed under Section 143(3) and no seized material has been referred to so as to make this addition against the assessee. In this case, protective addition was made in the hands of Shri Suresh Nanda of the same amount. Since in the case of Shri Suresh Nanda, he was held to be non-resident , therefore, no addition can be made in his hands. On the basis of documentary evidences on record and considering various litigation in the case of group in which similar additions have been deleted, therefore, learned CIT(A), on proper appreciating of facts and material on record, correctly deleted the addition. This ground is accordingly dismissed. 26. No other point is argued. 27. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.5858/Del/2014 A.Y. 2002-03 :- 28. In this appeal by the Revenue, following effective grounds have been raised :- 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e hands of the assessee without any reasons. The issue is covered by the order of the ITAT in assessee s own case for assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07 dated 21st February, 2014. Similar addition has been made by the Assessing Officer in other holding company in which also additions have been deleted. Learned CIT(A) also deleted similar addition in assessment year 2005-06 and 2006-07. No evidence has been brought on record that share capital brought into C-1 India Pvt.Ltd. belongs to the assessee. The share capital has been invested by three companies namely, Infotech Services Ltd., Y2K Ltd. (Palm Technologies) and Mideast Consortium SA. The assessee is merely a shareholder in Infotech Services Ltd. which would not establish the fact that investment in C-1 India was made by the assessee. Bank statement of Y2K SIL received by the Department directly from the Government of Mauritius also supports the explanation of the assessee. The confirmation from the creditor, tax residence certificate of the creditor issued by the Mauritius Revenue Authority, copy of balance sheet and copy of bank statements were filed to establish that assessee has no connection with the aforesaid addition. Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... venue s appeal. The same is dismissed. 35. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. ITA No.5853/Del/2014 A.Y. 2002-03 :- 36. Ground No.1 in this appeal by the Revenue is general and needs no adjudication. 37. In ground No.2, Revenue has challenged the order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the addition of ₹ 65,85,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained investment in C 1 India Pvt.Ltd. 38. Both the parties stated that this issue is similar as has been considered in the Revenue s appeal in assessment year 2001-02 (supra). Following our decision in assessment year 2001-02, this ground is dismissed. 39. In ground No.3, Revenue has challenged the order of learned CIT(A) in deleting the disallowance of ₹ 2,17,57,724/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of commission earned on the defense deal related to documents found from M.V. Rao. 40. The assessee submitted before the learned CIT(A) that this issue is covered by the order of the ITAT in the case of the assessee for assessment year 2004-05 to 2006-07 vide order d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
