Object 1

Object 2

↓ Skip to Main Content

itatonline.org Only the latest & most important updates on taxation

• Home Object 6
3
4
5

• Articles
• Asson News
• Blog
• Cause List
• Digest
• Feedback
• Forum
• Gallery
• Info
• Judgements
Object 7

•
• Legends
• Q&A

• All Recent Judgements

• Supreme Court Judgements
• High Court Judgements
• Tribunal Judgements
• AAR Rulings

Object 8

Click Here For Best Books On Taxation & Law. Upto 60% Off On Select Titles. Free Shipping
& Pay On Delivery!

Subscribe To Our Free Newsletter: Type Email Here

Home › All Judgements › ITO vs. VCI Hospitality Ltd (CMM)

ITO vs. VCI Hospitality Ltd (CMM)

Posted on by editor — No Comments ↓
COURT: Chief Metropoliton Magistrate
CORAM: Pawan Singh Rajawat (ACMM)
SECTION(S): 276B, 278E, 279(1)
GENRE: Domestic Tax
CATCH WORDS: prosecution, TDS default
COUNSEL: -
DATE: August 28, 2018 (Date of pronouncement)
DATE: August 29, 2018 (Date of publication)
AY: 2008-09
FILE: Click here to download the file in pdf format
CITATION:
S. 276B, 279(1), 278E Prosecution for non-deposit of TDS: In the case of default, Mens rea
has to be presumed to exist. It is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond
reasonable doubt. The plea that default in payment of TDS occurred due to delay by
department in refunding excess TDS due to the assessee is not acceptable because amount
deducted by way of TDS has to be deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any
counter claim of the assessee
IN THE COURT OF SH. PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT:
ADDL. CHIEF METROPOLITAN MAGISTRATE (Spl. Acts):
CENTRAL: TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI.
ITO vs M/s VCI Hospitality Ltd. & Anr.
U/s 276B & 279(1) r/w Sec. 278-E of the Act
AY 2009-2010
CC No.536182/16
JUDGMENT
(a)Date of commission of offence: 09.06.2009
(b)Name of complainant : Usha Rawat, Income Tax Officer
(c)Name, parentage, residence : 1) M/s VCI Hospitality Ltd of accused BF-77, (LGF), Janak Puri,
New Delhi.
Also at : A-7, Ist Floor, GK. Enclave-II, New Delhi
2) Sh. Vijay Kumar Singh, Managing Director, R/o BF-77, (LGF), Janak Puri, New Delhi.
Also at : A-7, Ist Floor, GK. Enclave-II, New Delhi
(d)Offence complained of/ proved: U/s 276B & 279(1) r/w Sec. 278E of the Act the AY 2009-10
(e)Plea of accused : Pleaded not guilty
(f)Final order : Convicted for the offence U/s 276B r/w Section 278B & 278E of Income Tax Act,
1961.
(g)Date of such order: 28.08.2018
Date of Institution of complaint : 11.07.2014
Arguments heard/order reserved : 21.07.2018
Date of Judgment : 28.08.2018
Brief statement of the reasons for the decision:-
1. The complainant through Ms. Usha Rawat, the then IT Officer, Ward 51(6), New Delhi filed the
present complaint against accused no. 1 company M/s. VCI Hospitality Ltd. and against Sh. Vijay
Kumar Singh being its Managing Director and responsible for day-to-day affairs of accused no. 1
alleging offences punishable under Section 276B & 279(1) read with Section 278E of the Income
Tax Act for the assessment year 2009-2010.
2. Succinctly, the facts of the case are that accused no. 1 is a private limited company registered
with the Registrar of Companies. It is alleged that the accused no. 1 company has deducted TDS
amount of Rs. 19,87,782/- during financial year 2009-2010. However, it has not deposited the same
with the Government within the stipulated /prescribed period. Notice under Section 2(35) dated
24.05.2012 of the Income Tax Act was served upon the assessee thereby calling upon Accused no. 2
to explain as to why he should not be held as a Principal Officer of accused no. 1. A reply dated
05.06.2012 of the notice was received. After considering the reply, an order under Section 2(35) of
the Act was passed on 27.09.2012 holding accused no. 2 responsible for the affairs of the company
as principal officer for the relevant period.
It is further stated that it was the mandatory duty of the company accused to deposit the TDS
amount in the Government Account within the prescribed time but the accused company failed to
do so, hence they committed an offence punishable under Section 276B & 279(1) read with Section
278E of the Income Tax Act as accused No. 2 is Principal Officers of the accused company and
thus, were liable for non deposit of TDS amount within stipulated period. Hence, the present
complaint.
3. The accused were summoned who appeared before the court and copy of complaint and of
documents were supplied and the matter was fixed for pre-charge evidence.
4. In the pre-charge evidence, complainant examined PW-1 Ms. Usha Rawat and PW-2, Sh. S.N.
Gaba. Thereafter, arguments on charge heard and charge under Section 276B read with Section
278B & 278E of the Act were framed against the accused no. 1 & 2.
5. Complainant PW-1 Ms. Usha Rawat, ITO deposed the facts as alleged in the complaint. This
witness has proved the documents in addition to her oral testimony. The documents are the certified
copy of the notice under Section 2(35) of the IT Act dated 24.05.2012 as PW-1/A, certified copy of
the reply dated 05.06.2012 as Mark B, order under Section 2(35) of the IT Act dated 27.09.2012 as
Ex. PW-1/B, sanction order for prosecution as Ex. PW-1/C and complaint as Ex. PW-1/D.
6. CW-2 Sh. S.N. Gaba deposed that he has issued the show cause notice already Ex. PW-1/A. He
further deposed that the ITD generated report detailing the deduction of TDS amount and its non-
deposit as Mark A in respective complaint cases for relevant years.
7. After pre-charge evidence, charge was framed against the accused persons on 16.04.2015 in
terms of order dated 24.03.2015 and the matter was fixed for post-charge evidence.
8. After completion of post-charge evidence, statement of accused was recorded on 10.03.2017
wherein accused chose to lead defence evidence but no evidence was led by accused and
accordingly, defence evidence was closed on 05.04.2017.
9. In post-charge evidence, CW-1 Ms. Usha Rawat in her cross-examination admitted that Ex. PW-
1/C does not bear any official stamp and seal at Point A and there is no authorization letter in her
favour to file the present complaint and voluntarily deposed that this fact is mentioned in the
sanction letter from Point X to X1. She further admitted that she knows the business detail of any
assessee company at the time of framing assessment. CW-1 further admitted that the respondent
company deposited the entire TDS amount of year 2009-2010 with interest before filing the
complaint but she does not remember the exact date. CW-1 further voluntarily stated that no fact of
financial crisis of the accused company was brought to her knowledge in response to the
questionnaire sent to the assessee company. After seeing the reply marked B and after going through
the same she stated that from Point A1 to A2, the accused company has mentioned about the reason
of financial crisis. She further admitted that the accused company has filed the true copy of the audit
report, balance sheet and profit and loss account statement for the Financial Year ending 31.03.2009
which shows that the company has suffered a loss of Rs. 82,48,599/- against a profit of Rs.
4,78,67,010/- during the previous financial year i.e. during 2007-2008 and the same is Ex. CW-
1/DA (colly). CW-1 denied the suggestion that due to not getting the refund of TDS amount within
time, respondent company was facing financial crisis and losses. She admitted that respondent
company has claimed the TDS refund claim of Rs. 1,22,90,650/- on 30.09.2009 by virtue of
documents marked as D1 but she was not unaware of any such document. CW- 1 further admitted
that there is a single sanction letter for both the financial years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010.
10. CW-2 Sh. S.N. Gaba in his post-charge cross examination admitted that TDS was deposited but
same was deposited late.
He stated that charging of interest does not absolve the offence of late deposit. He stated that till he
was incharge, there was no refund due to the accused for the relevant year. He specifically stated
that the issue of refund by assessing authority has no bearing on deposit of TDS amount.
11. No defence evidence was led, hence final arguments were heard. However, while the matter is
fixed for judgment an application was moved on behalf of accused for bringing on record the
demand/traces report for financial years 2008- 09 & 2009-10. A reply was filed on behalf of the
complainant.
12. Ld. SPP for the complainant argued that offences are proved against the accused persons as by
not depositing the TDS on time, the accused persons have committed offence under Section 276B &
279(1) read with Section 278E of the Income Tax Act. It is further argued that the application for
bringing on record the latest demand have no bearing on the merits of the case. He prays for
conviction of the accused persons.
13. On the other hand, Ld. Counsel for the accused persons argued the matter at length. He argued
that accused suffered from severe financial crisis due to global economic recession in 2008 and
followed by terror attack in Mumbai in November, 2008 and many debtors of the company turned
into bad debt which resulted in a great burden on the company to run its operations to survive and
support their employee team and that the overall situation resulted in worsening the financial
position of the company. He also pointed out that as per the balance sheet for the year the accused
company has suffered losses of Rs. 60.85 lakhs and this was the reason why there was a delay and it
is covered U/s 278AA of the Income Tax Act. He prays for acquittal of the accused persons.
14. For ready reference, the provision u/s 278-E of I.T. Act is reproduced as under:-
“278E. Presumption as to culpable mental state.- (1) In any prosecution for any offence under this
Act which requires a culpable mental state on the part of the accused, the court shall presume the
existence of such mental state but it shall be a defence for the accused to prove the fact that he had
no such mental state with respect to the act charged as an offence in that prosecution.
15. In Sasi Enterprises Vs. Asstt. CIT, (2014) 361 ITR 163 (SC), it was held as under –
“Section 278E deals with the presumptions as to culpable mental state, which was inserted by the
Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986.
The question is on whom the burden lies, either on the prosecution or the assessee, under Section
278E to prove whether the assessee has or has not committed willful default in filing the returns.
Court in a prosecution of offence, like Section 276CC has to presume the existence of mensrea and
it is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt. Resultantly, the
appellants have to prove the circumstances which prevented them from filing the returns as per
Section 139(1) or in response to notices under Sections 142 and 148 of the Act.”
16. Whether accused no. 2 was in-charge and responsible for conduct of affairs of accused no. 1
being principal officer:
17. Section 2(35) of the Act deals with expression ‘principal officer’. Relevant para of section 2(35)
of the Act is reproduced below:-
“(35) ‘principal officer’, used with reference to a local authority or a company or any other public
body or any association of persons or any body of individuals, means-
the secretary, treasurer, manager or agent of the authority, company or association, or body, or any
person connected with the management or administration of the local authority, company,
association or body upon whom the [Assessing Officer] has served a notice of his intention of
treating him as the principal officer thereof’. Section 200(1):
Any person deducting any sum in accordance with (the foregoing porvisions of this Chapter) shall
pay within the prescribed time, the sum so deducted to the credit of the Central Government or as
the Board directs.
(2) Any person being an employer, referred to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 shall pay, within
the prescribed time, the tax to the credit of the Central Government or as the Board directs.
(3) Any person deducting any sum on or after the 1st day of April, 2005 in accordance with the
foregoing provisions of this Chapter or, as the case may be, any person being an employer referred
to in sub-section (1A) of Section 192 shall, after paying the tax deducted to the credit of the Central
Government within the prescribed time, (prepare such statements for such period as may be
prescribed) and deliver or cause to be delivered to the prescribed income-tax form and verified in
such manner and setting forth such particulars and within such time as may be prescribed.
Relevant para of section 204 is reproduced as under:-
“Section 204: Meaning of “persons responsible for paying”
iii) In the case of credit, or, as the case may be, payment of any other sum chargeable under the
provisions of this Act, the payer himself, or, if the payer is a company, the company itself including
the principal officer thereof”.
18. CW-1 has stated that show cause notice Ex. PW-1/A was issued to accused no. 2 which was
replied i.e. Mark B through their chartered accountant stating that Vijay Kumar Singh was the
Managing Director of accused no. 1. CW-1 also proved order under Section 2(35) of the Income
Tax Act which is Ex. PW-1/B wherein, accused Vijay Kumar Singh held to be principal officer of
accused no. 1 being connected with the management and administration of accused no. 1 for the
present prosecution. No suggestion was put to CW-1 that accused no. 2 was not the principal officer
of accused no. 1. Hence, the complainant is able to prove that accused no. 2 is the principal officer
of accused no. 1 being responsible for deposit of TDS in time.
19. Whether accused has been able to rebut the culpable mental state as provided under Section
278E of the Act:
The accused has at no point of time claimed that the TDS was deposited in time. It is the stand of
accused that the delay occurred due to factors beyond their control. It was argued that accused
suffered from severe financial crisis due to global economic recession in 2008 and followed by
terror attack in Mumbai in November, 2008 and many debtors of the company turned into bad debt
which resulted in a great burden on the company to run its operations to survive and support their
employee team and that the overall situation resulted in worsening the financial position of the
company. However, no evidence has been led to show the alleged economic recession despite
opportunity. As per balance sheet for the period ending on 31.03.2009, the income from operations
was Rs. 123,380,418/- as per compared to income of Rs. 147,335,445/- for the year ending on
31.03.2008 which shows that there was no substantial loss from the income from operations i.e. the
core business of marketing five star and seven star hotels. Even the cash and bank balance have not
gone down substantially. On the other hand, the net current assets have increased to Rs. 5,06,53,455
from Rs. 4,31,29,880/- between 31.03.2008 and 31.03.2009. Even the current liabilities have gone
down by about Rs. Eleven Lacs and the net current assets have shown a jump of about 18%. The
only downward end is noted in income from club membership and hotel marketing which has gone
down by about Rs. 10 lacs and Rs. 13 lacs.
20. In one breath, accused is claiming that there were business losses which resulted in default in
deposit of TDS. However, the salaries paid to Directors in financial year 2008-2009 have increased
to Rs. 48,46,852/- from Rs. 21,07,259/- in the financial year 2007-2008. Even the accused has
shown a threefold jump in the provision of depreciation from about Rs. 18 lacs to Rs. 42 lacs. No
justification has been given for such high provision for depreciation. The accused has failed to
explain why the staff cost has increased by about Rs. 1 crore despite the alleged slowdown. In view
of the above figures, the plea of slowdown in business of accused no. 1 is not the reasonable cause
for non-deposit of TDS as claimed by the accused. The accused have not disputed the genuineness
of document Mark-A which is the details of tax deducted and deposited by the accused.
21. While the matter was at the stage of judgment, an application was moved on behalf of the
accused praying for bringing on record the demand/TRACES report for the financial year 2008-
2009 and 2009-2010. In the reply it is mentioned that TDS liability has been reduced without
payment by the accused company as the accused has filed correction statement on various dates
which resulted in the demand being reduced to NIL in respect of FY 2009-10 and in the same
fashion the demand has reduced to Rs. 40/- in respect of FY 2008-09. It is further mentioned that
there is still unconsumed challan amount of Rs. 1,65,494/- and of Rs. 3,73,703/- in respect of FY
2008-09 and FY 2009-10 respectively.
It further mentioned that the correction/ unconsumed challan have been adjusted against the demand
and the said payments were not made within stipulated time which also include interest payment of
belated deposits as is clear from the data below which has been procured from the ITD system.
22. As per complaint, accused has defaulted in timely deposit of TDS amount. However, the due
amount for the year 2008- 09 has been reduced to Rs. 40/- only but after filing of various correction
statements which are admittedly filed after filing of present prosecution. The Ld. Counsel for
accused has failed to explain the unconsumed challan amount of Rs. 1,65,494/- and of Rs.
3,73,703/- in respect of FY 2008-09 and FY 2009-10 respectively. The latest figures nowhere shows
that there was no default at all in deposit of TDS amount. It only shows that the demand had been
reduced due to filing of correction statements. Ld. Counsel for accused has failed to explain the
reason for filing the correction statements that too at belated stage of a trial. The traces printout dt.
16.07.18 filed with the application only shows the latest figures. The reply of complainant to the
application of accused sufficiently explains the reason for reduction in the demand. I am satisfied
that the application is of no help to the accused and the same stands dismissed.
23. The plea of accused that since the complainant department has delayed the refund of TDS,
therefore, the default occurred is not maintainable as the amount deducted by way of TDS is to be
deposited within prescribed time irrespective of any counter claim of the assessee. CW-1 has stated
that the refund takes about six months for processing and accused cannot take benefit of delay in
release of the refund amount. Another plea of recession in the hospitality section is also not
maintainable as discussed above.
24. In view of above discussion, the accused has not been able to rebut the presumption U/s 278E of
the Income Tax Act or bring their case U/s 278 AA of the Act which provides for reasonable cause
for default or failure of the assessee in compliance of provision of the Income Tax Act.
25. In view of the aforesaid discussions and facts and circumstances of the case, it is held that the
prosecution has proved its case against accused beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, accused
no.1 M/s VCI Hospitality and accused no. 2 Vijay Kumar Singh are held guilty for the offence u/s
276B r/w Sec. 278B & 278E of the Act for the financial year 2009-10.
26. Copy of the judgment be given free of cost.
27. Copy of the judgment be also uploaded with digital signature.
Digitally signed by
PAWAN PAWAN SNGH
SNGH RAJAWAT
Announced in open RAJAWAT
Date: 2018.08.28
16:23:45 +0530
Court on 28th of August, 2018.
(PAWAN SINGH RAJAWAT)
ACMM(Special Acts):CENTRAL
TIS HAZARI

Share this:
• Click to share on Twitter (Opens in new window)
• Click to share on Facebook (Opens in new window)
•

Related Posts:
• Skylight Hospitality LLP vs. ACIT (Supreme Court) Object and purpose behind Section
292-B is to ensure that technical pleas on the ground of mistake, defect or omission should
not invalidate the assessment proceedings, when no confusion or prejudice is caused due to
nonobservance of technical formalities. The object and purpose of this Section is to ensure
that…
• Ambience Hospitality Pvt. Ltd vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court) It is a manifest procedure that
before filing of the Income Tax return for the assessment year 2007-2008 by the petitioner,
 the same is scrutinized, firstly, by the auditors of the company. Secondly, by the directors of
the company before endorsing their signatures on the final Balance Sheet. Therefore, it…
• Indus Best Hospitality & Realtors Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (ITAT Mumbai) Ld. DR also submitted
that in light of the introduction of the Explanation 2 to s.263 by the Finance Act, 2015, the
Ld. CIT had power to conduct further enquiry even in a case where inadequate enquiries
have been conducted by the Assessing Officer. (a) Crompton Greaves Ltd v. CIT…
• DCIT vs. Studio Aethletic Health & Hospitality Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai) From the above, it
is apparent that the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)’s reliance upon the so called
retraction of the admission during search is not cogent. Similarly, the ld. Commissioner of
Income Tax (Appeals) reliance upon the CBDT Circular of not obtaining confession is also
out of place.…

Related Judgements
1. Indo Arya Central Transport Limited vs. CIT (Delhi High Court)
It is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that the valid sanction has been granted by the
sanctioning authority after being satisfied that a case for sanction has been made out. The
sanction order may expressly show that the sanctioning authority has perused the material
placed before it and,…
2. Pr. CIT vs. ITAT, Jindal Steel & Power (P&H High Court)
once it is accepted that proceedings for prosecution are independent of assessment and
penalty, and the Tribunal is neither the appellate nor the revisional authority in a case where
prosecution is launched, the mere fact that the decision in the appeal may have an impact on
the prosecution, in…
3. Babita Lila vs. UOI (Supreme Court)
The Parliament has unmistakably designated the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) to be the
appellate forum from the orders as enumerated under Section 246(1) of the Act. This
however, in our view, as observed hereinabove does not detract from the recognition of this
authority to be the appellate forum before whom…
4. V. A. Haseeb and Co. (Firm) vs. CCIT (Madras High Court)
The power of compounding is exercisable when proceedings are pending. In the case on
hand, the sentence imposed on the petitioner has been suspended by the Appellate Court and
the appeal is still pending. Therefore, it has to be seen as to whether that conviction by the
Criminal Court…
5. Vikram Singh vs. UOI (Delhi High Court)
The petitioner having voluntarily agreed and undertaken to the department to pay the
compounding charges and to withdraw his appeal, ought to be directed to be bound down by
the same. It is a settlement process voluntarily invoked by the petitioner in order to escape
criminal prosecution under the…
‹ Prabhat Agarwal vs. DCIT (Delhi High Court)
Devinder Singh Gill vs. DCIT (ITAT Chandigarh) ›
Leave a Reply
Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Reset

Object 9

Object 10

Newsletter
Type Email Here
Recent Posts
• Bently Nevada LLC vs. ITO (Delhi High Court)
• Niharika Jain vs. UOI (Rajasthan High Court)
• DCIT vs. Comet Investment Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Mumbai)
• Pankil Garg vs. PCIT (ITAT Chandigarh)
• PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (Supreme Court)

Recent Comments
• RAJENDRA. EX MEMBER ITAT MUMBAI on Royal Rich Developers Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT
(Bombay High Court)
• dr g balakrishnan on The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT
(Supreme Court)
• vswami on The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
• vswami on The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)
• vswami on The Peerless General Finance And Investment Co Ltd vs. CIT (Supreme Court)

Archives
• August 2019 (4)
• July 2019 (15)
• June 2019 (18)
• May 2019 (9)
• April 2019 (31)
• March 2019 (21)
• February 2019 (20)
• January 2019 (12)
• December 2018 (24)
• November 2018 (25)
• October 2018 (27)
• September 2018 (28)
• August 2018 (36)
• July 2018 (29)
• June 2018 (27)
• May 2018 (25)
• April 2018 (27)
• March 2018 (28)
• February 2018 (12)
• January 2018 (22)
• December 2017 (24)
• November 2017 (18)
• October 2017 (16)
• September 2017 (30)
• August 2017 (18)
• July 2017 (22)
• June 2017 (18)
• May 2017 (29)
• April 2017 (21)
• March 2017 (20)
• February 2017 (16)
• January 2017 (32)
• December 2016 (24)
• November 2016 (15)
• October 2016 (15)
• September 2016 (21)
• August 2016 (25)
• July 2016 (15)
• June 2016 (13)
• May 2016 (37)
• April 2016 (45)
• March 2016 (36)
• February 2016 (30)
• January 2016 (20)
• December 2015 (11)
• November 2015 (37)
• October 2015 (31)
• September 2015 (27)
• August 2015 (35)
• July 2015 (43)
• June 2015 (29)
• May 2015 (28)
• April 2015 (29)
• March 2015 (43)
• February 2015 (30)
• January 2015 (38)
• December 2014 (43)
• November 2014 (58)
• October 2014 (93)
• September 2014 (14)
• August 2014 (22)
• July 2014 (24)
• June 2014 (24)
• May 2014 (19)
• April 2014 (20)
• March 2014 (12)
• February 2014 (40)
• January 2014 (17)
• December 2013 (20)
• November 2013 (15)
• October 2013 (12)
• September 2013 (13)
• August 2013 (13)
• July 2013 (10)
• June 2013 (12)
• May 2013 (24)
• April 2013 (27)
• March 2013 (13)
• February 2013 (15)
• January 2013 (16)
• December 2012 (17)
• November 2012 (13)
• October 2012 (14)
• September 2012 (27)
• August 2012 (33)
• July 2012 (21)
• June 2012 (17)
• May 2012 (29)
• April 2012 (35)
• March 2012 (31)
• February 2012 (24)
• January 2012 (22)
• December 2011 (19)
• November 2011 (25)
• October 2011 (13)
• September 2011 (17)
• August 2011 (13)
• July 2011 (21)
• June 2011 (22)
• May 2011 (19)
• April 2011 (23)
• March 2011 (28)
• February 2011 (23)
• January 2011 (21)
• December 2010 (23)
• November 2010 (12)
• October 2010 (17)
 • September 2010 (10)
• August 2010 (11)
• July 2010 (14)
• June 2010 (10)
• May 2010 (16)
• April 2010 (8)
• March 2010 (11)
• February 2010 (11)
• January 2010 (12)
• December 2009 (14)
• November 2009 (12)
• October 2009 (9)
• September 2009 (11)
• August 2009 (14)
• July 2009 (13)
• June 2009 (2)
• May 2009 (7)
• April 2009 (10)
• March 2009 (14)
• February 2009 (11)
• January 2009 (17)
• December 2008 (12)
• November 2008 (11)
• October 2008 (13)
• September 2008 (22)
• August 2008 (19)
• July 2008 (9)
• June 2008 (4)
• May 2008 (9)
• April 2008 (12)
• March 2008 (9)
• February 2008 (19)
• January 2008 (13)

© 2019 itatonline.org
Top

Scroll to Top