TMI Blog2017 (3) TMI 1570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been shown as income and has been accepted by the ITAT. Therefore, all these transactions are bogus and also the Long Term Capital Gain shown in the return is bogus. Accordingly, the addition made by the AO is upheld and grounds of appeal No. 1, 3 & 4 are dismissed. Addition made under section 68 of the Act as well as the consequential addition representing commission paid to the parties who facilitated the transactions, is upheld. - Decided against assessee. - ITA NO.6398/Mum/2012 - - - Dated:- 22-3-2017 - Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri N.K. Pradhan, Accountant Member Assessee by Shri M. Subramanian Revenue by Shri Purushottam Kumar-DR O R D E R Per Joginder Singh (Judicial Member) The assessee is aggrieved by the impugned order dated 23/07/2012 of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, Mumbai. The assessee through ground no. 1 2 has challenged initiation/reopening of assessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the Act). 2. During hearing, the ld. counsel for the assessee, Shri M. Subramanian, though challenged the reopening, but fairly agreed that all the figures were not tallying. It was contende ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onted on the issue of cross examination, the ld. counsel for the assessee fairly agreed that Mr. Mukesh Chokshi were cross examined by the assessee. 2.2. In reply, the ld. counsel for the assessee, placed reliance upon the decision in (2015) 373 ITR 661 (SC) and 322 ITR 622 (Del.). On merit, the ld. counsel for the assessee claimed that the transactions are genuine, sales bills were produced before the Assessing Officer, therefore, there was nothing to indicate that the transactions were bogus. In reply, the ld. DR strongly contended that all the transactions are bogus and the transactions were done through stock exchange i.e. off-market transaction. 2.3. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. So far as, challenging reopening u/s 147/148 of the Act is concerned, the facts, in brief, are that the assessee declared income of ₹ 4,60,890/- in her return filed on 16/09/2003, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act. The case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act for which reasons were recorded for such reopening and the Assessing Officer duly received the approval from the competent authority/Addl. Commissioner of In ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... perandi. The crux of the argument by the ld. DR is that back dated purchase bills are issued to the clients and cashes taken for the alleged purchases and no actual delivery of shares takes place, thus, the it was a illegal and fraudulent transactions by the companies as these companies legally cannot transact and had no right to issue the bills. 2.4. Statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi was recorded u/s 131 of the Act on 11/12/2009, where he tendered that he was engaged in providing accommodation entries through various companies and bogus long term gains were issued to various parties. The crux of the statement is that the sale and purchases of bills issued by him are bogus as cash is received for issuing accommodation entries/bills and there is no real transaction. It was established that the assessee also entered into such bogus transaction with Shri Mukesh Chokshi/companies of Shri Mukesh Chokshi. Information was also called u/s 133(6) of the Act from SEBI by the Assessing Officer vide letter dated 06/10/2010 and also to confirm whether the contract notes, enclosed with the above letter have passed through SEBI. The ld. Assessing Officer vide letter dated 15/10/2010 was informe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... relevant assessment year) : Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, for that assessment year: Provided further that nothing contained in the first proviso shall apply in a case where any income in relation to any asset (including financial interest in any entity) located outside India, chargeable to tax, has escaped assessment for any assessment year: Provided also that the Assessing Officer may assess or reassess such income, other than the income involving matters which are the subject matters of any appeal, reference or revision, which is chargeable to tax and has escaped assessment. Explanation 1.-Production before the As ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of 2009 with effect from 01/04/1989 section 147 has an effect that Assessing officer has to assess or reassess income (such income) which has escaped assessment and which was basis of formation of belief and, if he does so, he can also assess or reassess any other income which has escaped assessment and which came to the notice during the course of proceedings. Identical ratio was laid down by Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in CIT vs Jet Airways India Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 195 taxman 117 (Mum.) and the full Bench decision from Hon ble Kerala High Court in CIT vs Best Wood Industries and Saw Mills (2011) 11 taxman.com 278 (Kerala)(FB). A plain reading of explanation-3 to section 147 clearly depicts that the Assessing Officer has power to make addition, where he arrived to a conclusion that income has escaped assessment which came to his notice during the course of proceedings of reassessment u/s 148. Our view is fortified by the decision in Majinder Singh Kang vs CIT (2012) 25 taxman.com 124/344 ITR 358 (P H) and Jay Bharat Maruti Ltd. Vs CIT (2010) Tax LR 476 (Del.) and V. Lakshmi Reddy vs ITO (2011) 196 taxman 78 (Mad.). The provision of the Act is very much clear as with effect f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rect in original assessment for the relevant assessment year, it does not preclude the Income Tax Officer to reopen the assessment of an earlier year on the basis of finding of his fact that fresh material came to his knowledge. 2.8. Under section 147, as substituted with effect from 01/04/1989, the scope of reassessment has been widened. After such substitution, the only restriction, put in that section is that reason to believe . That reason has to be a reason of a prudent person which should be fair and not necessarily due to failure of the assessee to disclose fully and partially some material facts relevant for assessment (Dr. Amin s Pathology Laboratory vs JCIT (2001) 252 ITR 673, 682 (Bom.) Identical ratio was laid down by Hon ble Delhi High court in United Electrical Company Pvt. Ltd. vs CIT (2002) 258 ITR 317, 322 (Del.) and Prafull Chunnilal Patel vs ACIT 236 ITR 832, 838 (Guj.). The essential requirement for initiating reassessment proceeding u/s 147 r.w.s 148 of the Act is that the ld. Assessing Officer must have reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year. The Hon ble Gujarat High Court in Prafull Chunnilal Pat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessing Officer had reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for assessment year 1994- 95. Identically in the case of Srichand Lalchand Talreja v. Asst. CIT, (1998) 98 Taxman 14, 19 (Bom), where the information regarding acquisition of the asset was not available with the Assessing Officer during the relevant assessment year 1992-93 and such information was disclosed in the return for the assessment year 1995-96, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court held that the Assessing Officer can form a bona fide belief that there was escapement of income in relation to assessment year 1992-93. 2.11. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Ltd. v. Addl. CIT, (2013) 350 ITR 651 (Bom), where there had been no application of mind to the relevant facts during the course of the assessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer, the reopening of the assessment was held to be valid. 2.12. The Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in Girilal Co. v. S.L. Meena, ITO, (2008) 300 ITR 432 (Bom), held that in order to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of the court the petitioner must also make out a case that no part of the relevant mater ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... CIT, (2002) 256 ITR 481, 483, 486, where the reassessment notice has been issued on the basis of definite information from CBI regarding investments by the assessee which had not been disclosed during the original assessment proceedings, such initiation has been upheld. 2.15. In the case of Pal Jain v. ITO, (2004) 267 ITR 540, 544-45, 548, 549 (P H), applying Phool Chand Bajrang Lal v. ITO, (1993) 203 ITR 456 (SC), although the transaction of sale of shares was disclosed and accepted in the original assessment, but the subsequent discovery by the DDI (Investigation) revealed that the transaction was not genuine, a reassessment notice after four years has been held to be valid because there was no true disclosure of the material facts. In this regard, the petitioner-assessee cannot draw any support from the statement for challenging the validity of the notice for reassessment. It goes without saying that for the purpose of making the assessment, the Assessing Officer shall have to confront the petitioner with the entire material in his possession on the basis of which he proposes to make the additions. In Punjab Leasing Pvt. Ltd. v. Asst. CIT, (2004) 267 ITR 779, 781-82 (P H ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... T, (2009) 319 ITR 385 (P H), wherein, facts coming to light in a subsequent assessment year could validly form the basis for initiating reassessment proceedings, in view of Explanation 2 to section 147. The action of the income tax authorities in reopening the assessment of the assessee and restricting the deduction under section 80-IB was held to be valid. 2.18. In the case of Smt. Usha Rani v. CIT, (2008) 301 ITR 121 (P H), there was nothing on record to show the relationship between the donor and the donee, capacity of the donor to make gifts and the occasion therefore. The assessee had failed to discharge the onus to prove the gifts. The reassessment proceedings were held to be valid. In the case of Usha Beltron Ltd. v. Joint CIT, (1999) 240 ITR 728, 736-37, 739 (Pat), where the investigation report indicated that the Officer had reason to believe that on account of failure on the part of the petitioner-assessee to disclose true and full facts, income had been grossly under assessed, reassessment proceedings were held validly initiated. 2.19. In the case of Kapoor Brothers v. Union of India, (2001) 247 ITR 324, 331, 332-33 (Pat), where the material evidence for the pu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2.21. In the case of Desh Raj Udyog : Chaman Udyog v. ITO, (2009) 318 ITR 6 (All), in the assessment years in question, the matter was still to be decided finally by the assessing authority whether the income should be treated under the head 'Business income' or 'property income'. The assessee would get opportunity to show sufficient cause to the assessing authority during the course of assessment. Thus, it could not be said that there was no relevant material to initiate proceedings under section 147. In the case of Kartikeya International v. CIT, (2010) 329 ITR 539 (All), in view of the matter, the petitioner was not entitled for the deduction on the duty drawback amount under section 80-IB and since it had been allowed in the assessment order passed under section 143(1), it had escaped assessment. On these facts the initiation of the proceedings under section 147 read with section 148 for assessment years 2005-06 and 2006-07 was legal and in accordance with law. 2.22. Likewise, in the case of Sunil Kumar lain: Suresh Chandra lain v. ITO, (2006) 284 ITR 626 (All), notwithstanding the fact that the amount had been assessed to tax in the hands of P, he had taken ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... , the reopening of the assessment was held to be justified. 2.24. In the case of CIT v. Kerala State Cashew Development Corporation Ltd., (2006) 286 ITR 553 (Ker), wherein, the assessee was following the mercantile system of accounting should not have claimed deduction of penal interest which had accrued not in the previous year relevant to the assessment year but in earlier years. This the assessee had not disclosed. The reassessment was held to be valid. Likewise, in Kusum Industries P. Ltd. v. CIT, (2008) 296 ITR 242 (All), as the award had become final it would be taken that the directors of the assessee had accepted the factum of earning of secret profit not reflected in the books of account, which was also binding on the company. The non-appearance of one of the arbitrators and one of the directors in respect of the summon issued under section 131 would not make the reassessment invalid. The Hon ble Kerala High Court in CIT v. Indo Marine Agencies (Kerala) P. Ltd., (2005) 279 ITR 372 (Ker), held that the entry would amount to an order under section 144. The mere fact that it was not communicated to the assessee would not make such an assessment recorded in the order sheet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted. Likewise, in CIT v. Abdul Khader Ahamed, (2006) 285 ITR 57 (Ker), it was clear from the reasons recorded by the Deputy CIT that he prima facie had reason to believe that the assessee had omitted to disclose fully and truly the material facts and that as a consequence income had escaped assessment. The reassessment was held to be valid. In the case of U.P. State Brassware Corporation Ltd. v. CIT, (2005) 277 ITR 40 (All), the principles laid down by the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. New Central Jute Mills Co. Ltd. : (1979) 118 ITR 1005 (Cal) did constitute information on a point of law which should be taken into consideration by the ITO in forming his belief that the income to that extent had escaped assessment to tax and, the reassessment was held to be valid. In Sunder Carpet Industries v. ITO, (2010) 324 ITR 417 (All), held that the Departmental Valuer's Report constituted material for entertaining a belief of escaped income in the years under consideration. The reassessment proceeding was held to be valid. 2.27. In Aurobindo Sanitary Stores v. CIT, (2005) 276 ITR 549 (Ori), there being a substantial difference between the figures of liabilities towards sundry creditor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ima facie material in the possession of the Assessing Officer to form a tentative belief that section 9(1)(i) held attracted, said reason by itself constituted a relevant ground to reopen the assessment of the assessee. Reference may also be made to i. Ajai Verma v. CIT [(2008) 304 ITR 30 (All)]; ii. Ashok Arora v. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 171 (Del)]; iii. CIT v. Chandrasekhar BaLagopaL [(2010) 328 ITR 619 (Ker)]; iv. Jayaram Paper Mills Ltd. v. CIT [(2010) 321 ITR 56 (Mad)]; v. Kerala Financial Corporation v. Joint CIT [(2009) 308 ITR 434 (Ker)]; vi. Mavis Satcom Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2010) 325 ITR 428 (Mad)]; vii. CIT v. Madhya Bharat Energy Corporation Ltd. [(2011) 337 ITR 389 (Del)]; viii. Kone Elevator India P. Ltd. v. ITO [(2012) 340 ITR 454 (Mad)]; ix. Vijay Kumar Saboo v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 340 ITR 382 (Karn)]; x. Siemens Information Systems Ltd. v. Asst. CIT [(2012) 343 ITR 188 (Bom)]; xi. I.P. Patel Co. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 207 (Guj)]; xii. Dishman Pharmaceuticals Chemicals Ltd. v. Deputy CIT [(2012) 346 ITR 228 (Guj)]; xiii. Video Electronics Ltd. v. Joint CIT [(2013) 353 ITR 73 (Del)]; xiv. A G Group Corporation v. Harsh P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at there was reasonable belief with the Assessing Officer that income has escaped assessment, therefore, so far as, reopening is concerned, we find no infirmity in the conclusion of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), thus, this ground is decided against the assessee. 3. So far as, the merits of case is concerned, we note that as per the Ld. Assessing Officer, the assessee showed profit of ₹ 7,66,783/- in the share transaction from broker i.e. Shri Mukesh Chokshi and his associate companies. The statement of Shri Mukesh Chokshi was recorded on oath on 11/12/2009. The relevant portion of the same has been reproduced in para 3.5 onwards of the impugned order. The statement tender by Shri Mukesh Chokshi and cross examination of the assessee along with the relevant finding of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) is reproduced hereunder:- 3.5 Shri Mukesh Chokshi was examined on oath under section 131 of the Act on 11.12.2009 by DDIT(Inv.), Unit 1(4), Mumbai and statement was recorded. The relevant part of the statement is as under:- Q.2 Kindly state your education qualification and the nature of business being carried out by you at Block No. H, Shree S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eir demat account out of their own funds. d) They sell them in the open market. e) We simply provides purchase bill in STG LTG 4. Share application adjustment entry: a) The party/ agent provide us the name of the company which desire such entries. b) We sign the appl icat ion f orms and provide the necessary documents. Then party complete the bank transaction out of their own funds. Q.4 I am showing you the various registers/ diaries/ 'notebooks which were seized from the office in the Garage at ground floor, Modern Villa Opp. HDFC Bank, 7th Road, Santacruz (E), from where printing of bogus contract notes issued by your various companies was found to be taking place. Kindly confirm that these diaries which are number Annexure A-1 to A-147 are the same.as seized from your premises during the course of action u/s.132 on 25.11.2009. Ans. Yes. I confirm that these are the same diaries/ notebooks. Q.5 Kindly confirm that these diaries/ notebooks contains the details of various bogus contract notes issued by you to various parties over the years. Ans. Yes. I confirm the same. Q.6 I am showing you by way of example, notebook No.A-60 which contain writte ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 92 of Notebook titled Annexure A-60. Ans. These represent transactions which did not go through i.e. after placing an order for (bogus) sale/purchase of shares the client/ beneficiary did not claim the bogus contract note. However, I had generated the same which was entered in my notebook. Hence the same has been scored out. Q.9. Where are the physical copies of such bills (which are not claimed)? Ans. They are destroyed. Q.10 Has the cash component/component of commission been received in respect of these transactions? Ans. No, we receive our commission only when the deal goes through. Q.11 Can one say that in cases wherein there is a gap of more than 12 months between the date of the actual transaction and the date of the bill issued for such transaction, this has been done to ensure Long Term Capital Gain for the client? For e.g. Page 2 of Annexure A-60 wherein 8600 shares of Media Matrix have been actually purchased on 14.04.2005 but the bill is dated 11.01.2004? Ans. Yes. In this case the beneficiary of such long term capital gain is Shri Shashi K. Lahoti. Q.12 It is seen that the companies Mahasagar Securities Pvt. Ltd., M/s Alliance Intermediatories ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ou the files contained in the folder called One Time located in Investment 1 folder which in turn is located in located in 'Mukesh 1' which is in 'Sagar' folder in the external hard disk seized from your office during action u/s.132 on 25.11.2009 (working copy). Are these the same files and folders you are referring to? Ans. Yes. 3.6. During cross examination, the statement is recorded on 20.04.2012 as under:- Q.1 AO to Deponent No.1 Please identify yourself and confirm that oath is administered to you and also confirm that the consequences of false statement given on oath is explained to you. Ans. I am Shri Mukesh Maneklal Choksi, aged 57 years residing at f lat No.600, Shanti Kutir building, 10th Road, Santacruz (E), Mumbai-400055. I confirm that oath has been administered to me and also I conf irm that the consequences of false statement given on oath is explained to me. AO to Deponent No.2 Please identify yourself and confirm that oath is administered to you and also conf irm that the consequences of false statement given on oath is explained to you. Ans. I am Shri Jiyo Ghansh yam Lalwani, aged 47 years residing at flat No.J-301, Var ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tions have been carried out off the market. (e) Whether the above scrips are listed with the Stock Exchange? Ans. Yes, the above scrips are listed on the recognized Stock Exchange. (f) Whether they are registered with the R.O.C.? Ans. Yes, they are also registered with R.O.C. (g) If you confirm that you have sold the shares on our behalf then who has purchased the shares. Ans. Since the shares are sold off market, they have been purchased by .. (h) The Department has assessed on the different figure of ₹ 7,66,653/- instead of ₹ 5,58,937/- actual figure of sale proceeds and cheque received. Ans. Since all my data has been seized by the Department and certain data was corrupted, there might be some error. We have already issued copy of ledger account which shows the correct figure. Q.5 Deponent No.2 to AO As per the bills available with us and the total amount of consideration received by way of cheque from Mukesh Choksi in connection with the above transaction, the total receipt comes to ₹ 5,58,937/- only whereas you have made an addition of ₹ 7,66,653/- under this head that too without making any mention or break up with respect t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... okshi in lieu of such cash provided by the appellant. 3.9 Reference is also made to the various orders of the ITAT in cases of Shri Mukesh Chokshi and his associates as under. (a) Order dated 28.03.2008 in ITA No.s.4625/Mum/2005 and 5000/Mum/2005 for the A.Y. 2002-03 in the case of M/s Gold Star Finvest P. Ltd. (b) Order dated 29.08.2008 in the cases of (i) Richmond Securities P. Ltd. (Subsequently known as Mahasagar Securities P. Ltd. and now known as Alag Securities) in ITA No.4624/MUM/2005 for the A.Y.2002-03, and M/s. Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No.4999/Mum/2005 for the A.Y.2002-03. (c) Decision in ITA No.4912/Mum/2005 dated 30.05.2008, in the case of M/s. Mihir Agencies Pvt. Ltd. Based upon these ITAT orders, all the concerns including M/s. Alliance Intermediaries and Network P. Ltd., M/s. Gold Star Finvest P. Ltd. and M/s. Alpha Chemie Trade Agencies Pvt. Ltd. have also filed their returns declaring it to be in the business of an entry provider and estimating its income @0.15% of total receipts from entry seekers. The same has been accepted in the assessment order dated 12.11.2008 for the A.Y.2007-08 u/s.143(3) by ACIT (OSD-1), Central Range-7, Mu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sociate concerns correctly as per records and tax only such amount u/s.68 of the Act after giving an opportunity of being heard and before giving effect to this order. Any discrepancy should be verified thoroughly in consultation with DDIT(Inv.) who is in custody of seized records and only the correct amount received as sale proceeds by the appellant should be taxed. 3.1. In the light of the aforesaid statement and the facts if analyzed, the factual matrix oozing out is that it is an admitted position that Shri Mukesh Chokshi was engaged in providing bogus accommodation entries such as long term capital gains, wherein, the assessee is one of the beneficiaries. It is evidently clear that off-market transactions were carried out by the assessee in collusion with Shri Mukesh Chokshi. The transactions were given the colour of genuine transaction but fact remains that only paper work was done in lieu of cash and there was no actual gain/transaction. It is also noted that identically in the case of Mukesh Chokshi/associates/firms of Mukesh Chokshi, there are various orders like M/s Goldstar Finvest Pvt. Ltd. ITA No.4625/Mum/2005 and 5000/Mum/2005 order dated 28/03/2008, Richmond Secu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... confirmed. The Assessing Officer did not accept the affidavits. On appeal, the CIT(A) issued a direction to the Assessing Officer to examine the deponents of the affidavits. The Assessing Officer issued summons on 24-4-2009 but nobody appeared. He therefore reported to the CIT(A) that examination of the deponents on their affidavits was not possible. The CIT(A) held that the affidavits remain uncontroverted and therefore ought to have been accepted. The aforesaid conclusion is fallacious. The Tribunal, however, endorsed the finding of the CIT(A). The attempt of the assessee is there to see. It had been blocking any enquiry by the Assessing Officer at every stage on some plea or the other, including a frivolous plea even before the CIT(Appeals) that no cross-examination of Mukesh Gupta and Rajan Jassal was allowed, overlooking that once they filed the affidavits retracting from their earlier statements the plea loses force. There is no explanation as to why the deponents could not be produced and did not appear. (Para 28) The findings of the Tribunal cannot be upheld as they are based on irrelevant material or have been entered by ignoring relevant material. The finding that the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the transactions cannot be said to have been established for the same reason. The genuineness of the transaction critically hinges on the true and veracity of the claim made by the assessee. Material was gathered by the investigation wing and made available to the Assessing Officer, who in turn had made it available to the assessee. Nothing has been said by the Tribunal about the said material. Thus the Tribunal, with respect, seems to have ignored relevant material. (Para 30) The Tribunal also erred in law in holding that the Assessing Officer ought to have proved that the monies emanated from the coffers of the assessee-company and came back as share capital. Section 68 permits the Assessing Officer to add the credit appearing in the books of account of the assessee if the latter offers no explanation regarding the nature and source of the credit or the explanation offered is not satisfactory. It places no duty upon him to point to the source from which the money was received by the assessee. The view taken by the Tribunal on the duty cast on the Assessing Officer by section 68 is contrary to the law laid down by the Supreme Court. Even if one were to hold, albeit erroneously ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
