CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

153 ITR 596High Court1985#559 most cited

What is CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. authority for?

Where a reasonable cause for delay in filing an appeal exists, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor for condonation. The court has condoned even substantial delays, such as nearly 21 years, based on the presence of a reasonable cause.

171

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. · section 253(5) · section 253 · condonation of delay · delay in filing appeal · reasonable cause · period of delay · condoning 21 years delay · section 250

Sections most often in play

Section 253(5)Section 250Section 143(3)Section 144Section 154Section 143(1)Section 147Section 246A

Issues it is cited on

section 253(5)section 51section 80ibreasonable causesection 17section 139(4)delay in filing appealcondonation of delaysection 253section 274section 154prescribed

Judgments citing CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors.

VENKATESH SANJEEVAIAH ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(1), BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for Statistical purposes

ITA 2498/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)Section 271F

…Bengaluru Page 12 of 13 not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 92 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

SHRI BHARAT NAVINCHANDRA GALA ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 41(3)(1), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 506/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

Section 154

…therefore deserves to be considered, when there exist a reasonable cause, and therefore the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In support, we rely on the decision of Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon’ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to…

KOWLANAHALLI NINGEGOWDA SOMASHEKAR,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1045/BANG/2025[2021-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Feb 2026AY 2021-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Ms. Pooja Maru, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 400 days cannot be considered to be Kowlanahalli N…

BIJU PAPPACHAN,KERALA vs. AO, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2153/BANG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: Ms. Akshatha Prasad, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, D.R
Section 250

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 298 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

JAMBALLI SHIVAPPA ,SHIVAMOGGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, SHIMOGA

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2140/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri V. Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R Ghale, A.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 29 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

PRATIK MAYUR DOSHI,PALGHAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JURISDICTION WARD 1, PALGHAR, PALGHAR

In the result, appeal filed by the assesse stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7516/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai ()

…njustice being done because of non-deliberate delay". 3.2. It is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 10 I.T.A. No. 7516/Mum/2025 3.3. Reference is made to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal…

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY MORORJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 11/SRT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 57

…the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 held as under: "Since in this case the assessee had been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the revenue was not right in submitting that the appeal filed under section 17…

SHREE BILIMORA VIBHAG ANAVIL MANDAL NUTAN PARK, SHANTI NIKETAN SOCIETY, MORARJI DESAI MARG BILIMORA NA vs. ARI,NAVSARIVS.CIT(EXEMPTION), SURAT

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 10/SRT/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Sujesh C. Suratwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 143(1)Section 57

…the delay and not the length of the delay. Accordingly in our considered view when there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be a relevant factor. The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors reported in 153 ITR 596 held as under: "Since in this case the assessee had been prosecuting other remedies, the time taken by those proceedings should naturally be taken while determining the question whether the assessee had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal in time. Therefore, the revenue was not right in submitting that the appeal filed under section 17…

SHILA ASHOK SHAH FOUNDATION,MUMBAI vs. CIT EXEMPTIOM, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6764/MUM/2025[2025-26]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Jan 2026AY 2025-26

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 11Section 11(1)(c)Section 12ASection 2

…of non-deliberate delay". 3.3. It is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras 6 I.T.A. No. 6764/Mum/2025 High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 3.4. We also refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan L…

SANTOSH KUMAR RAMLAXMAN YADAV,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(3), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5123/MUM/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Jagadish ()

Section 144Section 148Section 151ASection 69

…of non-deliberate delay". 8 I.T.A. No. 5123/Mum/2025 4.3. It is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 4.4. We also refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan…

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEMPTION)-WARD-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6558/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…f non-deliberate delay". 5.6. At this juncture, it is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. Reported in 153 ITR 596 considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 11 I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 5.7. We also refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in th…

JM FINANCIAL FOUNDATION ,MUMBAI vs. ITO (EXEM) WARD 1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee stands at for statistical purposes

ITA 6557/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

…f non-deliberate delay". 5.6. At this juncture, it is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. Reported in 153 ITR 596 considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 11 I.T.A. No. 6557/Mum/2025 5.7. We also refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in th…

SWAPNGANDHA SANJAY PARAB ,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 42(3)(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4614/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar ()

Section 271A

…njustice being done because of non-deliberate delay". 3.3. It is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 3.4. We also refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan…

SYED NAZEER SYED FAYAZ,ERODE vs. ITO, WARD-2(1), ERODE

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2189/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. Padmavathy.Sआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2189/Chny/2025 िनधा%रण वष% /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. S. Bhupendran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Babitha, JCIT
Section 14Section 143(3)Section 250

…ther there is a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal on time by the assessee and in our view when there is a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. The Madras High Court in the case of CIT v. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) held that no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their Syed Nazeer Syed Fayaz :- 7 -: discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression “sufficient cause” the principle of advancing substantial…

SATBIR KUMAR SARLIA,THANE vs. WARD 3(2) THANE, THANE

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5824/MUM/2025[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Dec 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Ms. Padmathy S. ()

Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 253Section 269Section 271DSection 27I

…njustice being done because of non-deliberate delay". 4.3. It is also necessary to ascertain whether there was excessive or inordinate delay in the present facts of the case. Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered a situation of condonation of delay and held that where there exists a reasonable cause, period of delay may not be a relevant factor. Hon’ble Madras High Court relying on this principle had condoned the delay of nearly 21 years. 4.4. We also refer to the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan…

D AJEETHRAJ CHORDIA & SONS,CHENNAI vs. ITO, NON CORPORATE WARD -4(5), CHENNAI

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2143/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2143/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/S. D Ajeethraj Chordia & The Income Tax Officer, Sons, Non Corporate Ward – 4(5), 23, General Muthia Mudali Vs. Chennai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. Pan: Aaahd 2647C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Pryati Sharma, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30.10.2025 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 11.11.2025

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Pryati Sharma, JCIT
Section 154Section 226Section 234BSection 246A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी मनु कुमार "ग"र,"या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जगद"श, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.: 2143/CHNY/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2012-13 M/s. D Ajeethraj Chordia & The Income Tax Officer, Sons, Non Corporate Ward – 4(5), 23, General Muthia Mudali Vs. Chennai Street, Sowcarpet, Chennai – 600 079. PAN: AAAHD 2647C (""यथ"/Respondent) (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant by : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent by :…

M/S. RUKMANI FINANCE PVT LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(1)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 919/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18 M/S. Rukmani Finance Pvt. Ltd. No.84, 5Th Floor, Manish Tower Ito J.C. Road Vs. Ward 5(1)(4) Bengaluru 560 002 Bengaluru Pan No : Aaacr9552P Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri T. Srinivasa, A.R. Respondent By : Sri Subramanian, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025 O R D E R Per Keshav Dubey: This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Dated 31.05.2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053354784(1) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S. Rukmani Finance Pvt. Ltd., Bengaluru Page 2 Of 11

For Appellant: Sri T. Srinivasa, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Subramanian, D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 630 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

K N GOPALA HEGGADE HUF,CHIKKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 699/BANG/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Gowrish Bhargav K.V., A.RFor Respondent: Sri Balusamy N., D.R
Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 209 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or…

BASAVANNEPPA GULEDAKERI,HAVERI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HAVERI

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 605/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year :2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Chalapathy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing
Section 115BSection 250Section 251Section 253(5)Section 69A

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 49 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or e…

SETTIKERE SHANKARAPPA MURUGESHAIH ,TUMKUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, TUMAKURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 521/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Tarun Kumar M.K., A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing
Section 250Section 253(5)

…s a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal. We have to see the cause for the delay. When there was a reasonable cause, the period of delay may not be relevant factor. In fact, the Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs. K.S.P. Shanmugavel Nadai and Ors. (153 ITR 596) considered the condonation of delay and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the Madras High Court condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. When compared to 21 years, 193 days cannot be considered to be Sri SettikereS…

Showing 1–20 of 171 · Page 1 of 9

...