How many judgments cite CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.?

222 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (397 ITR 136), spanning 2018 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 68, Section 133(6), Section 143(3), Section 147, Section 131, Section 148.

CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

397 ITR 136High Court2017#402 most cited

What is CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. authority for?

Mere non-compliance with summons issued under Section 131 does not automatically disprove a transaction, and the Assessing Officer cannot disregard other documentary evidence furnished by the assessee when making additions under Section 68.

222

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2018 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. · Orchid Industries · Section 68 · Section 131 · share application money · cash credit · onus of proof · burden of proof · summon non-compliance · documentary evidence · genuineness of transaction · existence of creditor

Also reported as

88 Taxmann.com 502

Sections most often in play

Section 68 Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147 Section 131 Section 148 Section 69C Section 153A

Issues it is cited on

source of source creditworthiness of the creditor summons under section 131 onus of proof section 131(1)share application money share capital and share premium permanent account number section 158bb shell company addition u/s 68 genuineness of the transaction

Judgments citing CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd.

Academy for Global Education Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed

ITA 3860/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Sept 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaraassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, SR. D.R

Section 133(6)Section 250

…oceed against such shareholders in accordance with law but the amount received from the shareholders cannot be regarded as undisclosed income of the Assessee. 6.3 The Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (2017) 397 ITR 136 (Bom.) has also dealt with the addition made on the share application money and the Hon’ble High Court while considering the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Lovely Exports Pvt. Ltd. (supra), ultimately has held as under: 4. We have considered the submissions. 5. The Assessing Officer added Rs. 95 lakhs as income under Section 68…

Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt Ltd, Ajmer vs. ACIT Circle - 1, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 702/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 Sept 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh (Addl. CIT)

Section 143Section 147

…eld, yes. 5. 205 ITR 98 (Delhi ) CIT Vs. Sophia Finance Ltd. If the shares holders are identified and it established that they have invested money in the purchases of shares, then the amount received by the company would be regarded as a capital receipt. 6. 397 ITR 136 CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Bom) – [DOD:05.07.2017] 23 Padmavati Agrico (India) Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT Cash Credits – Company – Share application money – Issuance of shares – Genuineness and creditworthiness of persons allotted shares proved by assessee – Non-appearance of such parties before Assessing Officer irrelevant – Deletion of addi…

Magestic Vyapaar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 902/KOL/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar&Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

…8 (SC) ii) Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (SC) 5 I.T.A. No.902/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15 MagesticVyapaar Pvt. Ltd. iii) ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) iv) CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) 6. The Ld. D.R on the other hand submitted that though the money was received from the group companies of the assessee and also that the fact has been mentioned by the AO in the assessment order and also not controverted by the First Appellate authority but the fact remains that mere filing of evidences and recording statement of the direc…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-12(1), Kolkata.

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 637/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No. 637/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [Pan:Aahca9115E] -Vs.- Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax,…Respondent Pcit, Kolkata-2, Office Of The Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

…ITA No. 637/KOL/2024 (A.Y. 2013-2014) & Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-President (KZ) & Dr. Manish Borad, Accountant Member I.T.A. No. 637/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, Kolkata-700029 [PAN:AAHCA9115E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,………………………….……Respondent Ward-12(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069 & I.T.A. No. 1067/KOL/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Anchita Properties Pvt. Limited,………………Appellant 29, Collotola Street, K…

Anchita Properties Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. P.C.I.T., Kolkata - 2, Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1067/KOL/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Aug 2024AY 2013-2014

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 263Section 68

Multiventure Estates Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2)(4), Mumbai

ITA 510/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 68

…e to establish the existence of the subscriber companies, the burden would shift on the revenue to establish their case. We also draw our force from the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom) wherein it was held that mere non-compliance of summon under section 131 would not disprove the transaction and other documents filed on record cannot be brushed aside by the Ld. Assessing Officer. The relevant extract from the said decision is reproduced as under: "The Assessing Officer added Rs.95 lakhs as income under Section 68 of the I…

Rapti Premises Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 11(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 303/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Vishnu Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Smt Mahita Nair, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…s Private Limited (4) Amendment to section 56(vii)(b) of the Act was introduced w.e.f. 01.04.2013. 2.5 The Assessee also relied the decisions in the case of Gagandeep Infrastructure P. Ltd. 394 ITR 680, Apeak Infotech 397 ITR 148 and Orchid Industries P. Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bombay High Court). 2.6 The AO though considered the aforesaid submissions of the Assessee but found not acceptable for the following reasons: “Though the provisions of section 56(vii)(b) of the Act are not applicable to the case, however opined that the present issue revolves around unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Mere fac…

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Airindia Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai vs. Fateh Granite Limited, Andheri, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3484/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri Prakash JhunjhunwalaFor Respondent: Ms. Rajeshwari Menon, Sr.DR

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…phasis on partial compliance of notice u/s.131 without establishing any undisclosed funds introduced by the appellant in garb of share capital/premium. The Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Bombay in the case of CIT v. Orchid Industries Pvt Ltd reported in 397 ITR 136 and in case of CIT v. Creative World Telefilms Ltd reported in 333 ITR 100 and in case of CIT vs. Nikunj Eximp Pvt Ltd reported in 35 Taxmann.com 384had decided that that mere non service and non-compliance of notice u/s 131 would not disprove the transactions, particularly when the transactions are entered through banking channel. The AO had acc…

Bright Commodeal Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 96/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…ment Year: 2012-13 Bright Commodeal Pvt. Ltd. reasons given above we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.” 6.3. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (397 ITR 136 (Bom) by holding that provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN ,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 6.4. Considering the facts and circumstan…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1426/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

…rporation Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 17. The Ld. D.R while controverting the arguments of the Ld. A.R submitted that the lenders did not comply with the summons issued u/s 131 of the Act and also that these companies were non-existent. The…

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1425/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., DCIT, Cir. 8(1) vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1424/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

Gem Forgings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir. 8(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeals in ITA No

ITA 1423/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am& Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250Section 68

M/S Ncs, Impex Holding Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -8(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1394/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 68

…f co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prompt Barter Private Limited vs ITO, Ward- 8(3), Haldia in ITA No. 806/Kol/2023 dated 11.10.2023 also the decision of CIT vs Orissa Corporation Pvt. Ltd. (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC), CIT vs Orchid Industries Ltd. 397 ITR 136 (Bom), Crystal Networks Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT 353 ITR 171 (Kol), ITO vs M/s. Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) and Joy Consolidated Pvt. Ltd. vs ITO (ITA No. 547/Kol/2020. All these decision are discussed as under: The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Orissa Corporation Ltd. (supra) has held as under: “That in this case the…

Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-20(3)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 3831/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranassessment Year 2010-11 Sanjay Vimalchand Borana, 3, Nanji Rawji Bldg, A.D.Marg , Sewree, Mumbai 400 015. Pan:Aeypb-2999-F - Appellant

For Appellant: Mr. Margav Shukla &For Respondent: Shri Suni Mathews, Sr.DR

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 68

…rove the documents furnished by the assessee. Hence the AO could not have made the impugned addition of Rs.25.00 lakhs. 5.In this regard, I take support from the decision rendered by Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries (P) Ltd (397 ITR 136)(Bom), wherein it was held that the addition u/s 68 could not be made once the assessee had produced the documents to prove the cash credits. 4 Assessment Year 2010-11 6. In view of the foregoing discussions, I am of the view that the assessee has discharged initial burden placed upon him u/s 68 of the Act in respect of loan of Rs.25.00 lakhs t…

Golden Goenka Commerce Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -3(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 84/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…oration Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3.Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom) Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 6. The Ld. D.R while controverting the arguments of the Ld. A.R submitted that the assessee company is a shell company and issued shares at a very high premium without any justification for the same as…

Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 921/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Bleassessment Year: 2012-13 Nice Vintrade Pvt. Ltd. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata 1St Floor, 134/1, M.G. Road, Vs Burrabazar, Kolkata-700007. Pan: Aaccn 8291 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar Revenue By : Shri Arun Kumar Meena, Jcit Date Of Hearing : 08.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.05.2024 O R D E R Per Sonjoy Sarma, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Cit(A)”] Dated 19.07.2023 For The Ay 2012-13. 2. Issue Raised In Ground No. 2 To 5 Is Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Confirming The Order Of Ao Wherein The Ao Has Made Addition Of Rs. 1,20,00,000/- On Account Of Share Capital / Share Premium As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S 68 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Meena, JCIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…poration Ltd. in [1986] 159 ITR 78 (SC) 2. DCIT vs. Rohini Builders [2002] 256 ITR 360(Guj) 3. Crystal Networks (P)Ltd vs CIT reported in 353 ITR 171 (C 4. ITO Vs M/s Cygnus Developers India Pvt. Ltd. (ITA No. 282/Kol/2012) 5. CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd 397 ITR 136 (Bom)” Finally the ld AR prayed before the bench that the order of ld CIT(A) may be set aside and the AO may be directed to delete the addition. 6. The Ld. D.R while controverting the arguments of the Ld. A.R submitted that the assessee company is a shell company and issued shares at a very high premium without any justification for the same as…

Wellman Logistice Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-4(1), Kolkata.

ITA 694/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Sonjoy Sarma

Section 143(2)Section 250Section 6Section 68

…ly on the ground that Directors of the share subscribers did not appear before the AO for verification. Gainful reference in this regard may be made to following observations made the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Orchid Industries Limited (397 ITR 136). “6. The Tribunal has considered that the Assessee has produced on record the documents to establish the genuineness of the party such as PAN of all the creditors along with the confirmation, their bank statements showing payment of share application money. It was also observed by the Tribunal that the Assessee has also produced the entire recor…

Sahal Food Products Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2621/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-& Shri Rajesh Kumar]

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 68

…ted company has not been established. For the reasons given above we uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal of the revenue.” 6.3. Similar ratio has been laid down by the Hon’ble Mumbai High Court in the case of CIT Vs Orchid Industries (P) Ltd [397 ITR 136 (Bom)] by holding that provisions of section 68 of the Act cannot be invoked for the reasons that the person has not appeared before the AO where the assessee had produced on records documents to establish genuineness of the party such as PAN,financial and bank statements showing share application money . 7. In the instant case before us also, t…

M/S Prudential Management Advisors Pvt.Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-3(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 719/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 719/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Prudential Management Assistant Commissioner Of Advisors Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax, Circle-3(1), Kolkata Suite No. 10, 5Th Floor Shantiniketan Building 8, Camac Street Kolkata - 700017 [Pan : Aaecp2505Q] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/R Revenue By : Shri Abhijit Kundu, Cit, D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 21/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt. 24/05/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) To Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.6,34,50,000/- On Account Of Loss On Sale Of Investments Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal. 2) That On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case The Action Of The Cit(A) Confirm The Addition Made By The Ao Of Rs.25,33,00,386/- On Account Of Sundry Creditors U/S 41(1) Of The Act Is Contrary To The Material Evidences Of Record & The Addition Is Arbitrary, Excessive & Illegal.

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kataruka, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 254Section 41(1)

…he summons issue to some of the creditors could not be served or they failed to attend, cannot be a ground to treat the loans as non-genuine. Similar, is the view taken by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. Orchid Industries Pvt. Ltd. [2017] 397 ITR 136. We, therefore, set aside the finding of the ld. CIT(A) and delete the impugned addition made u/s 41(1) of the Act. Thus, Ground No. 2 is allowed. 12. Ground Nos. 3 & 4 are general in nature. 14. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 21st March, 2024 at Kolkata. (SANJAY GARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER K…