{"id":8594,"date":"2020-09-30T10:05:40","date_gmt":"2020-09-30T04:35:40","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/?p=8594"},"modified":"2020-09-30T18:54:48","modified_gmt":"2020-09-30T13:24:48","slug":"summary-of-key-findings-and-recommendations-in-the-cags-performance-audit-report-on-income-tax-search-and-seizure-assessments-report-no-14-of-2020","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/summary-of-key-findings-and-recommendations-in-the-cags-performance-audit-report-on-income-tax-search-and-seizure-assessments-report-no-14-of-2020\/","title":{"rendered":"Summary Of Key Findings And Recommendations In The CAG\u2019s Performance Audit Report On Income Tax Search And Seizure Assessments (Report No.14 Of 2020)"},"content":{"rendered":"<p><img loading=\"lazy\" decoding=\"async\" src=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-content\/uploads\/CA-Mohit-Gupta.png\" alt=\"CA Mohit Gupta\" width=\"82\" height=\"100\" class=\"alignleft size-full wp-image-7603\" \/><strong>The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) conducted a performance audit on search and seizure assessments of the Income Tax Department. The report has several interesting insights and makes valuable recommendations. CA Mohit Gupta has summarized the key points of the report in a succinct and clear manner<\/strong><\/p>\n<div>\n<p>Performance Audit Report No.14 of 2020 on Search  and Seizure Assessments in Income Tax Department, Union Government, Department  of Revenue &#8211; Direct Taxes by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Date on which Report Tabled:&nbsp;<\/span>&nbsp;23 September 2020 <\/li>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Date of sending the report to Government:&nbsp;<\/span>&nbsp;Thursday, 6 August, 2020 <\/li>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Government Type:&nbsp;<\/span>&nbsp;Union <\/li>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Union Department Type:&nbsp;<\/span>&nbsp;Direct Tax<\/li>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Sector:&nbsp;<\/span>&nbsp;Taxes and Duties<\/li>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Report Type:&nbsp;<\/span>&nbsp;Performance<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/div>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Overview:-<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\n  Search and  Seizure is a very powerful tool available with the &nbsp;Income Tax Department to unearth any concealed  income or valuables and to check the tendencies of tax evasion thereby  mitigating the generation of black money. Authority and power to conduct search  and seizure operations is strident and caustic power authorized by law to be  taken recourse to when the conditions mentioned under different clauses of  Section 132 (1) of the Act are satisfied. The jurisdictional facts that have to  be established before a search under Section 132 (1) of the Act can be  authorised are that (i) the authority issuing the authorisation is in possession  of some credible information, other than surmises and conjectures (ii) that the  authority has reason to believe that the conditions stipulated in clauses (a),  (b) and (c) of Section 132 (1) qua the person searched exist; and (iii) the  said information has nexus to such belief. Section 153A  provides for the procedure for completion of assessment in case of a person  where a search is initiated under Section 132 or books of account or other  documents or any assets are requisitioned under Section 132A after 31st May, 2003. <\/p>\n<p><!--more--><\/p>\n<p><strong><u>Performance  Audit conducted by the Comptroller and Auditor General of <\/u><\/strong><strong><u>India<\/u><\/strong><strong><u> :-<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<p>The CAG of India conducted  the performance audit on search and seizure assessments in Income Tax  Department with the objective to examine (i) the extent of compliance with the  existing provisions of the Act\/Rules \/Circular\/Instructions in making such  assessments and also to point out systemic deficiency, if any, in these  assessments; and (ii) the efforts made by the department in coordinating with  other Government agencies\/different wings of the department to disseminate  information during the course of assessment, regarding undisclosed income  detected during search and seizure operations (iii) Sustainability of additions  made in assessments in search and seizure cases at the appellate stage (iv)  Implementation of the recommendations made in the CAG Report No.7 of  2006.The Performance Audit (PA) covered the search assessments completed during  the financial years 2014-15 to 2017-18. Total 1417 number of Groups were assessed  during the period 2014-15 to 2017-18 by different field offices under the CAG&rsquo;s  audit jurisdiction. Out of this audit universe sample of 185 Groups was drawn.  The audit team checked 24,869 assessment records with assessed income of  1,71,503.78 crore during the performance audit wherein they issued 1659  observations related to absence of provisions in the Act, non-compliance to the  Income Tax provisions, non-centralisation of search assessees, nonuniformity in  making additions, non-implementation of the recommendations given in the  Appraisal Report during search assessments and non-levy of penalty etc. having  tax effect of 4150.02 crore. Besides, the audit team also analysed the  sustainability of additions made during search assessments.<br \/>\n    <strong><u>Key observations of the Performance Audit  report on Income Tax Search and Seizure Assessments:-<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<ol>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">The Income Tax  Department did not centralise all cases in respect of certain groups for  assessments due to which issues relating to the assessees pointed out in  Appraisal Report could not be addressed.<\/span><\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><strong>76.5&nbsp;<em>per cent<\/em>&nbsp;of additions made in  search assessments did not stand the test of judicial scrutiny in appeals at  the level of CIT (A)\/ITAT. There were cases where sustainability of additions  made in the assessment orders was nil at appellate stage.<\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Assessing  Officers did not take uniform stand in making additions on account of bogus  purchases, accommodation entries and in adoption of figures of assessed  income\/revised income.&nbsp; The additions were made arbitrarily either on lump  sum amount basis or different percentage ranging from five&nbsp;<em>per&nbsp;cent<\/em>&nbsp;to  50&nbsp;<em>per cent<\/em>&nbsp;under similar circumstances without proper  justification.&nbsp; There were cases of non-compliance of CBDT&rsquo;s  instructions\/orders.&nbsp; Provisions related to levy of penalty, allowances of  deductions\/expenses\/set off and carry forward of losses\/ MAT etc. were not  followed correctly.&nbsp;<strong><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">There was a  delay ranging from one month to 14 months in handing over of Appraisal Report  along with seized material to the AO.<strong><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Verification  of source\/genuineness of the transaction pointed out in Appraisal Report was  not done and undisclosed income recommended in the Appraisal Report was not  added. &nbsp;Coordination with other wings of ITD to resolve the issues pointed  out in Appraisal report was not there.&nbsp; Useful information was not shared  by ITD with other government agencies\/authorities or vice versa either directly  or through REIC.<strong><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Action Notes  based on comprehensive and methodical examination of seized material, were not  prepared by the AO. <strong><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<p><\/p>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Separate  Narrative Reports were not prepared and sent to the Member (Investigations).<strong><\/strong><\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p><strong><u>Para-wise  findings as detailed in <\/u><\/strong><strong><u>CAG<\/u><\/strong><strong><u>&rsquo;s performance  report no.14 of 2020 are summarized herein under :-<\/u><\/strong><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where there were  loopholes\/deficiency in the provisions of the Act in respect of search  assessments. These deficiencies mainly relate to absence of specific provisions  in the Act\/Rules.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.4)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed that the department did not  centralise all cases in respect of certain groups for assessments due to which  issues relating to the assessees pointed out in Appraisal Report could not be  addressed.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">&nbsp;&nbsp; &nbsp;(Paragraph 2.5)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit observed in respect of certain Groups that  76.5&nbsp;<em>per cent&nbsp;<\/em>of additions made in assessments did not stand  the test of judicial scrutiny in appeals at the level of CIT (A)\/ITAT. We also  observed cases where sustainability of additions made in the assessment orders  was nil at appellate stage.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.6)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where AOs, while finalizing the  assessments, did not take uniform stand in making additions on account of bogus  purchases, accommodation entries and in adoption of figures of assessed  income\/revised income. The additions were made arbitrarily either on lump sum  amount basis or different percentage ranging from five&nbsp;<em>per cent&nbsp;<\/em>to  50&nbsp;<em>per cent&nbsp;<\/em>under similar circumstances without proper  justification.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.7)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases of non-compliance of CBDT&rsquo;s  instructions\/orders such as allowing appeal without collecting the requisite  demand and non-filing of appeal in the High Court despite the directions of <\/span>DGIT (Investigation). Audit  also noticed cases where AO dropped penalty proceedings under sections  271(1)(c)\/271AAB of the Act without approval of higher authority.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.8)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit observed cases where, AO did not assess the  income of the relevant assessment year covered under search.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.9)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where AO, while finalizing the  search assessments, did not levy penalty though the same was leviable.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.11)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where AO while finalizing the  search assessments, did not assess unexplained credit, levied tax on normal  provisions instead of leviable under special provisions of section 115JB of the  Act, computed short demand, charged tax at a rate less than the prescribed  rate, short levied interest, surcharge and did not disallow expenditure related  to exempt income, allowed incorrect <\/span>MAT credit etc.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.12)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where AO did not comply with  the provisions such as non-referring of cases to Transfer Pricing Officer  (TPO), Action on offence committed by Chartered Accountant in IT Act, Delay in  action on Entry provider, Assessment without filing of IT Return, Prior  approval of Joint Commissioner not taken before passing assessment order, etc.  during search assessments.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 2.13)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit observed delay ranging from one month to 14  months in handing over of Appraisal Report along with seized material to the  AO. This inordinate delay in handing over seized materials may result in less time  for assessment which has attendant risk of human error for hasty completion of  assessment thus affecting the quality of assessments.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.1.1)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where AO did not verify the  source\/genuineness of the transaction pointed out in Appraisal Report and did  not add undisclosed income recommended in the Appraisal Report, unsecured  loan\/advance received from entry provider, entire undisclosed income pointed  out in Appraisal Report was not assessed, expenditure was not added back to the  income of the assessee for want of evidence of TDS, action was not initiated by  the department despite receipt of search folders and materials. Though the  department was required to coordinate with other wings of ITD viz Investigation  wing, TDS circle etc. in these cases and resolve the issues before finalization  of the assessments but the same was not done.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.1.2)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where AO had not made addition  of undisclosed income admitted by the assessee or disallowed the expenditure  based on the statement made on oath during the course of search and also had  not resolved the matter with the Investigation Wing.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.1.3)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases where other government agencies  i.e. REIC and CBEC did not share information with ITD. As a result, AO could  not address the issues like removal of stocks without payment of excise duty,  purchases in cash without invoices\/bills and genuineness of sources of  investment etc. either in search assessments or finalized assessment without  examining the requisite information which may be prejudicial to the interest of  revenue.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.2.1)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit observed that the information relating to  advancing of loans to the paper companies, wrong claim of PSI subsidy\/sales tax  subsidy was not shared by ITD with other government agencies\/authorities either  directly or through REIC.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.2.2)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit observed in certain Groups where Action Notes  based on comprehensive and methodical examination of seized material, were not  prepared by the AO. Audit also observed that Separate Narrative Reports were  not prepared and sent to the Member (Investigations).<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.3)<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">Audit noticed cases that though the information  relating to sellers of land\/flat\/commodities had been pointed out in the  respective Appraisal Report, who could be potential assessees. Yet Department  did not initiate any action in this regard. The department also did not confirm  whether these sellers were in the tax net of the department and regularly  filing the return.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\">(Paragraph 3.4)<\/p>\n<p><strong><u>CAG<\/u><\/strong><strong><u>&rsquo;s recommendations  as detailed in <\/u><\/strong><strong><u>CAG<\/u><\/strong><strong><u>&rsquo;s performance report no.14 of 2020 are summarized herein under :-<\/u><\/strong><br \/>\n    <em>Audit recommended that:<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>The CBDT may introduce suitable provision for not  allowing set off of losses of previous years\/earlier years assessed in regular  assessments against the undisclosed income detected during search and seizure.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 2.4.1)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">The CBDT  stated (June 2020) that the observation of C&amp;AG is already incorporated in  law due to which no further action is required.The <\/span>CBDT may examine the adequacy  of the current provisions with respect to bogus purchase, inflated invoices  etc. as undisclosed income from these do not get covered under the existing  provisions.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>Audit reiterates that the CBDT may introduce a time  limit for issuing&nbsp;notices under amended section 153A\/153C.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 2.4.2)<\/em> <br \/>\n  &#8211; The CBDT stated (June 2020)  that the issue shall be examined by TPL Division.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>the CBDT may examine whether these are errors of  omission or commission and take necessary action as per law in that regard.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 2.4.3)<\/em><\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>ITD may strengthen the mechanism for monitoring of  compliance of existing instructions of CBDT regarding centralisation of all the  search cases in central circles, so that all the issues pointed out in  Appraisal Report could be addressed and assessment made more effective.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 2.5)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\">The CBDT  stated (June 2020) that the purpose of centralisation is to ensure that all  cases directly connected with the Group searched are assessed at one place to  prevent any loss of revenue and to facilitate a proper assessment. But this  does not necessarily mean that the related parties are also to be centralized.<\/span><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/ul>\n<p>However, the audit is of the view that all the  assessees related to issues pointed out in Appraisal Report may be centralized  and their assessments should be completed in a nameless\/faceless manner, where  the assessees as well as AOs are not aware of each other&rsquo;s identities, to  ensure transparency in the assessments.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>the Department  may like to ensure that the search warrants are issued after proper examination  of the information available, research and due diligence in a manner which is  above suspicion as search and seizure involves lot of harassment to the  assessees and their families. The possibility of role of judicial body may also  be explored. The CBDT may also analyse the reasons for low sustainability and  fix the responsibility of the concerned officers.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 2.6)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>the CBDT may  examine the reasons for wide variations in the applicability of the same law  under similar conditions and find a solution to ensure consistency in making  assessments. The CBDT may also investigate whether these are errors of omission  or commission and take necessary action as per law in that regard.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 2.7, 2.8 to 2.12)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>CBDT may put  in place a mechanism so as to ensure that Appraisal Report along with&nbsp;<\/em><\/span>seized material&nbsp;<em>be handed over to assessment wing within stipulated time so that AO  could have sufficient time to examine all the issues pointed out in Appraisal  Report.<\/em><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 3.1.1)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>the CBDT may  put in place a mechanism so as to ensure that the issues pointed out in  Appraisal Report are duly addressed during assessment.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 3.1.2)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>ITD may  strengthen its assessment procedure to make effective use of&nbsp;provision  132(4) of the Act.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 3.1.3)<\/em> <br \/>\n  &#8211; The CBDT agreed (June 2020)  to examine the audit recommendation.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>ITD may  strengthen the mechanism of sharing of information amongst different wings of  the Department as well as with other Government agencies and ensure its  timeliness for effective assessments and prevent undue benefit to the  assessees.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 3.2)<\/em> <br \/>\n  &#8211; The CBDT stated (June 2020) that the existing  practices\/mechanisms already provide for effective sharing of information  within the Department as well as with other Government agencies and the Board  has issued various instructions from time to time directing the field  formations concerned to adhere strictly to the timeline. However, the CBDT  agreed that the mechanism in place needs to be strengthened.<\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>the CBDT may  fix responsibility where Action Note\/Separate Narrative Report is not prepared  and further appropriate action be taken so that objective of search and seizure  operations is not defeated.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 3.3)<\/em> <\/p>\n<ul>\n<li><span dir=\"ltr\"><em>ITD may devise  a system to track the new assessees added in the tax net consequent upon search  operations\/assessments and also to watch that these assessees are tax  compliant.<\/em><\/span> <\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<p align=\"right\"><em>(Paragraph 3.4)<\/em> <br \/>\n  &#8211; The CBDT  stated (June 2020) that after obtaining the report from Pr. CIT, they will find  out the lapses and ensure that the same do not occur in future.<\/p>\n<p>&nbsp;<\/p>\n<div class=\"journal3\"><a href=\"https:\/\/cag.gov.in\/sites\/default\/files\/audit_report_files\/AR%20No.%2014%20of%202020_%28E%29.pdf\">Download  Audit Report File:&nbsp; Report No.14 of 2020  &#8211; Performance Audit on Search and Seizure Assessments in Income Tax Department,  Union Government- By CAG of INDIA <\/a> <\/div>\n<div class=\"journal2\"> <a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/cag-report-summary\/#blurbdl\">Click here to download the article in pdf format<\/a> <\/div>\n<p>CA.Mohit Gupta  can be reached at <a href=\"mailto:ca.mohitgupta@icai.org\">ca.mohitgupta@icai.org<\/a>,  91-9999008009. <\/p>\n<table width=\"103%\" border=\"1\" cellpadding=\"5\" cellspacing=\"0\" bgcolor=\"#FFFFCC\">\n<tr>\n<td><strong>Disclaimer: <\/strong>The  contents of this document are solely for informational purpose. It does not  constitute professional advice or a formal recommendation. While due care has  been taken in preparing this document, the existence of mistakes and omissions  herein is not ruled out. Neither the author nor itatonline.org and its  affiliates accepts any liabilities for any loss or damage of any kind arising  out of any inaccurate or incomplete information in this document nor for any  actions taken in reliance thereon. No part of this document should be  distributed or copied (except for personal, non-commercial use) without  express written permission of itatonline.org<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/table>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>The Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) conducted a performance audit on search and seizure assessments of the Income Tax Department. The report has several interesting insights and makes valuable recommendations. CA Mohit Gupta has summarized the key points of the report in a succinct and clear manner<\/p>\n<div class=\"read-more\"><a href=\"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/summary-of-key-findings-and-recommendations-in-the-cags-performance-audit-report-on-income-tax-search-and-seizure-assessments-report-no-14-of-2020\/\">Read more &#8250;<\/a><\/div>\n<p><!-- end of .read-more --><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2}},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-8594","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-articles"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8594","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=8594"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/8594\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=8594"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=8594"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/itatonline.org\/articles_new\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=8594"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}