|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 374 Records
-
1987 (7) TMI 135
Issues:
1. Applicability of section 44B of the IT Act for assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82.
2. Interpretation of Circular No. 7(C) No. 27(17)-IT dated 10-2-1942 in light of section 44B.
3. Binding nature of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes.
4. Effect of non-payment of advance tax and imposition of penalty under section 221.
Analysis:
1. The first issue in this case pertains to the applicability of section 44B of the IT Act for the assessment years 1980-81 and 1981-82. The Tribunal considered the contention of the assessee, a non-resident shipping company, that the Circular of 1942 should still be followed for assessment despite the introduction of section 44B. The Tribunal held that the provisions of section 44B, which deem a flat rate of 7 1/2% of receipts as profits, supersede the Circular of 1942. The Tribunal emphasized that a Circular can be withdrawn by implication when new statutory provisions are introduced, as in this case. The Tribunal rejected the assessee's argument that the Circular should still apply and upheld the applicability of section 44B for the assessment of the assessee.
2. The second issue involves the interpretation of Circular No. 7(C) No. 27(17)-IT dated 10-2-1942 in light of section 44B. The Tribunal held that the Circular of 1942, which allowed British and foreign shipping companies to elect assessment based on a ratio certificate, was no longer applicable after the insertion of section 44B in the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal reasoned that the provisions of section 44B, which apply to non-resident shipping companies, override the directions in the Circular of 1942. The Tribunal also noted that subsequent circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes provided detailed instructions for assessment under section 44B, further indicating the withdrawal of the Circular of 1942.
3. The third issue addresses the binding nature of Circulars issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes. The Tribunal considered the arguments presented by the assessee regarding the binding effect of Circulars based on legal precedents. The Tribunal referred to Supreme Court and High Court decisions emphasizing the binding nature of Circulars issued by the Board. However, the Tribunal ultimately held that the Circular of 1942 was deemed withdrawn by the introduction of section 44B, and the subsequent circulars provided updated guidelines for assessment, thereby rejecting the assessee's reliance on the old Circular.
4. The fourth issue involves the effect of non-payment of advance tax and imposition of penalty under section 221. The Tribunal discussed a case where penalty was imposed for non-payment of advance tax, which was later paid before the penalty was levied. The Tribunal referred to a declaratory Explanation added to the Taxation Law Amendment Act, 1975, clarifying the liability for penalties despite subsequent tax payments. The Tribunal considered various legal precedents, including Supreme Court decisions, to determine the applicability of Circulars and statutory provisions in penalty cases. Ultimately, the Tribunal upheld the penalty imposition based on the retrospective effect of the declaratory Explanation and relevant legal precedents.
Overall, the Tribunal's judgment emphasized the primacy of statutory provisions over Circulars, the withdrawal of outdated Circulars by new statutory provisions, and the binding nature of legal precedents in interpreting tax laws and penalties.
-
1987 (7) TMI 134
Issues Involved:
1. Determination of the nature of the amount Rs. 30,12,520 received by the assessee.
2. Whether Rs. 30,12,520 should be considered as additional price for the property or as a deposit.
3. Whether the amount Rs. 30,12,520 represents revenue receipt or capital receipt.
4. Validity of the addition of Rs. 28,00,000 to the returned income by the Income-tax Officer.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Determination of the nature of the amount Rs. 30,12,520 received by the assessee
The primary issue was to ascertain the nature of Rs. 30,12,520 received by the assessee from Canara Bank. The Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) considered this amount as an additional price for the property. However, the Tribunal examined the documents and concluded that the amount was a deposit meant for adjustment against yearly rent. The Tribunal noted that the relevant document described the amount as a deposit to be adjusted by yearly rent, and the yearly rent of Rs. 30,740 for 98 years amounted to Rs. 30,12,520. This indicated that the amount was not a price received for any property but a deposit primarily meant for adjustment of yearly rent.
2. Whether Rs. 30,12,520 should be considered as additional price for the property or as a deposit
The Tribunal emphasized that the deed of conveyance mentioned the sale of the building for Rs. 12,16,000 and not the land. The land was not sold but sublet, and the amount of Rs. 30,12,520 was treated as an advance rent deposit. The Tribunal observed that the subsequent conduct of the parties, including the treatment of the amount in the books of Canara Bank and the assessee, supported the view that the amount was a deposit. Canara Bank had shown Rs. 30,12,520 as "sundry asset/sundry debtor's A/c" and adjusted the yearly rent against this amount.
3. Whether the amount Rs. 30,12,520 represents revenue receipt or capital receipt
The Tribunal held that the amount of Rs. 30,12,520 could not be treated as a revenue receipt because it did not represent the price or consideration for the sale of stock-in-trade. The demised land was not sold but sublet, and the amount received was an advance to be adjusted in yearly rent. The Tribunal noted that if the sub-lease came to an end, there was an obligation to return the amount, indicating that it was a deposit and not an outright payment for the transfer of ownership of any property.
4. Validity of the addition of Rs. 28,00,000 to the returned income by the Income-tax Officer
The Tribunal found that the addition of Rs. 28,00,000 by the Income-tax Officer was not justified. The Tribunal noted that the Income-tax Officer had added Rs. 28,00,000 on the basis that it represented additional cost received by the assessee in the garb of interest-free advance. However, the Tribunal concluded that the amount was a deposit to be adjusted against yearly rent and not an additional price for the property. The Tribunal also noted that the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had confirmed the addition without enhancement, considering Rs. 30,12,520 as additional price received.
Conclusion
The Tribunal allowed the appeal, holding that the amount of Rs. 30,12,520 was a deposit meant for adjustment against yearly rent and not an additional price for the property. The addition of Rs. 28,00,000 to the returned income was deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that the substance of the transaction, as reflected in the documents and subsequent conduct of the parties, indicated that the amount was a deposit and not a revenue receipt.
-
1987 (7) TMI 133
Issues:
Validity of reassessment under section 147(b) based on change of opinion.
Analysis:
The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Allahabad involved the Department challenging the cancellation of reassessment by the AAC based on the jurisdiction assumed by the ITO under section 147(b). The case pertained to the assessment year 1975-76 of a registered firm engaged in the manufacture and sale of garments, including exports. The original assessment allowed a weighted deduction under section 35B, which was later considered excessive by the audit. Consequently, the ITO initiated reassessment under section 147(b) to rectify the excessive deduction. The assessee contended before the AAC that the reassessment was invalid as the conditions for jurisdiction under section 147(b) were not met, arguing that all material facts were disclosed during the original assessment. The AAC agreed with the assessee and canceled the reassessment, leading to the Department's appeal.
Upon careful consideration, the Tribunal noted that for action under section 147(b) to be valid, the ITO must have received new information post the original assessment, leading to a belief of escaped income. Referring to the Supreme Court decision in India & Eastern Newspaper Society vs. CIT, it was established that a mere change of opinion by the ITO, without new information, does not warrant reassessment. The Tribunal found that the ITO's reassessment in this case was not based on valid grounds as the assessee had disclosed all relevant facts during the original assessment, and the audit's opinion did not constitute new information for reassessment purposes.
Furthermore, a similar issue arose in another assessment year for the same assessee, where the Tribunal had previously canceled the reassessment. Citing this precedent, the Tribunal dismissed the Department's appeal, upholding the cancellation of reassessment by the AAC. Additionally, the assessee's cross objection, supporting the cancellation of reassessment, was deemed infructuous in light of the Tribunal's decision and was consequently dismissed.
In conclusion, the Tribunal affirmed that the reassessment under section 147(b) was invalid due to the absence of new information warranting such action, emphasizing that a change of opinion without fresh facts does not empower the ITO to reassess income. The decision underscored the importance of adhering to legal requirements for initiating reassessment proceedings, ensuring fairness and transparency in tax assessments.
-
1987 (7) TMI 132
Issues Involved:
1. Justification of omissions in the original return as inadvertent.
2. Legal arguments regarding the necessity of positive assessed income for concealment.
3. Legal arguments on the liability to pay penalty when no tax is payable on assessment.
Summary:
1. Justification of Omissions in the Original Return as Inadvertent:
The CIT (A) concluded that the omissions in the original return by the assessee were inadvertent and did not justify a charge of concealment. The items in question were:
- Disallowance of interest u/s 40A(8) for Rs. 2,38,415.
- Disallowance of entertainment expenditure for Rs. 51,372.
- Disallowance of travelling expenses for Rs. 7,160.
- Disallowance of extra claim of depreciation for Rs. 2,14,364.
The CIT (A) found that the assessee had provided a note in the original return explaining the non-addition of Rs. 2,46,547 due to a proposed challenge to the vires of section 40A(8). This was deemed reasonable and not an act of concealment. Similarly, the CIT (A) accepted the assessee's explanation regarding entertainment and travelling expenses as bona fide mistakes and not concealment. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the CIT (A) regarding the extra claim of depreciation, concluding that the wrong claim could not be attributed to inadvertence and thus constituted concealment of income.
2. Legal Arguments Regarding the Necessity of Positive Assessed Income for Concealment:
The assessee argued that since the assessed total income was nil, no penalty for concealment could be levied. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that concealment of particulars of income and total income assessed are distinct. The Tribunal cited the Kerala High Court's decision in CIT v. India Sea Foods, which held that the amount of concealed income could exceed the total income assessed. The Tribunal emphasized that the word "income" in clause (c) of section 271(1) has a broader connotation than "total income assessed," and thus, concealment can occur regardless of whether the final assessed income is positive or nil.
3. Legal Arguments on the Liability to Pay Penalty When No Tax is Payable on Assessment:
The assessee contended that no penalty could be levied if no tax was payable on assessment, referencing the Madras High Court's decision in Addl. CIT v. Murugan Timber Depot. The Tribunal noted that the legal position had changed with the introduction of Explanation 4 to section 271(1) by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, effective from 1-4-1976. This Explanation clarified that the amount of tax sought to be evaded includes the tax that would have been chargeable on the concealed income, even if the total income assessed is nil. Therefore, the Tribunal concluded that penalty could still be levied even if no tax was payable on assessment.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT (A)'s findings that the disallowances of interest, entertainment expenditure, and travelling expenses did not constitute concealment. However, it reversed the CIT (A)'s decision regarding the extra claim of depreciation, holding that it constituted concealment of income. The Tribunal directed that a minimum penalty be imposed for the concealment of Rs. 2,14,364 on account of the wrong claim of depreciation. The appeal of the department was partly allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 131
Issues:
1. Reduction of addition to income by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.
2. Charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 217.
3. Direction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding penalty under section 273.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Reduction of addition to income by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner
The initial dispute arose when the Income Tax Officer (ITO) added Rs. 44,580 to the income of the assessee due to discrepancies in maintaining stock records. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) reduced this addition to Rs. 4,000, citing that the ITO did not provide sufficient evidence to justify the higher addition. The AAC emphasized that the absence of a stock register did not automatically warrant the application of the proviso to section 145(1). The Appellate Tribunal, after considering the arguments of both parties, concluded that while the AAC's reduction was on the lower side, the ITO's addition was on the higher side. Therefore, the Tribunal restricted the addition to Rs. 10,000, modifying the orders of the authorities below.
Issue 2: Charging of interest under sections 139(8) and 217
The Revenue contended that interest under sections 139(8) and 217 should be levied, but the AAC disagreed, citing a decision of the Allahabad High Court in a similar case. The Tribunal observed that the assessment made under section 147(a) read with section 143(3) was not a "regular assessment," as per judicial interpretations. Consequently, the Tribunal concurred that interest under sections 139(8) and 217 should not be charged, aligning with the decisions of the High Courts.
Issue 3: Direction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner regarding penalty under section 273
The Revenue challenged the AAC's direction not to levy penalty under section 273. The Tribunal agreed with the Revenue, stating that the AAC exceeded his jurisdiction by issuing such a direction when no penalty order had been passed. The Tribunal emphasized that the levy or non-levy of the penalty was not the subject matter of the appeal. The Tribunal directed the Income Tax Officer to proceed with the penalty proceedings under section 273 without the AAC's interference.
In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the Revenue's appeal, modifying the AAC's orders on the issues discussed above.
-
1987 (7) TMI 130
Issues Involved:
1. Valuation of immovable properties "L.N. Talkies" and "Laxmi Talkies."
2. Whether the rent capitalisation method is appropriate for valuing the properties.
3. Whether the rent received by the assessee is low or the transaction of lease is not genuine.
4. Determination of the agricultural nature of land at Bage-Firdosh.
5. Exemption under sections 5(1)(iv) and 5(1)(xxxii).
Detailed Analysis:
1. Valuation of Immovable Properties "L.N. Talkies" and "Laxmi Talkies":
The primary issue pertains to the valuation of two immovable properties belonging to the assessee. The values returned by the assessee and those adopted by the WTO based on the valuation report of the D.V.O. were significantly different. The properties were leased out to two registered firms in 1958, with agreements renewed in 1975. The monthly rent at the time of valuation by the D.V.O. was Rs. 2,200 for L.N. Talkies and Rs. 3,400 for Laxmi Talkies. The D.V.O. rejected the rent figures disclosed by the assessee, deeming them "collusive," and adopted a different method of valuation based on the income of the firms, applying a multiplier of 9.09. The CWT(A) found no sufficient evidence to hold that the lease rent was low or the transaction was not genuine, thus accepting the lease rent as genuine.
2. Rent Capitalisation Method:
The CWT(A) and the Tribunal examined whether the rent capitalisation method was appropriate for valuing the properties. The Tribunal referred to previous cases, including the Ahmedabad Tribunal's decision in the case of Bai Nani D/o. Dayaram, which supported the use of the rent capitalisation method. The Tribunal held that the rent agreed upon by the parties should be the basis for valuation and that the D.V.O.'s method of capitalising the firms' income was incorrect. The Tribunal directed that a multiplier of 12.5 times the net rental income should be applied to value both properties.
3. Genuine Rent and Lease Transactions:
The Tribunal found that the genuineness of the lease agreements and the rent disclosed by the assessee were not in doubt. The D.V.O.'s claim of "collusive rent" was rejected as there was no evidence of comparable cases showing higher lease rent in the area. The Tribunal noted that the rental income as per the lease deeds had been accepted by the ITO in the income tax assessments of the assessee. Therefore, the D.V.O. was not justified in substituting his own figures for the rent.
4. Agricultural Nature of Land at Bage-Firdosh:
For the assessment years 1978-79 and 1979-80, the issue of whether the land at Bage-Firdosh was agricultural was raised. The WTO had considered the land as non-agricultural and denied exemption under section 5(1A). The CWT(A) set aside this portion of the assessment order, directing the WTO to re-examine the question of the land's agricultural nature, referring to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT vs. Sarifabibi Mohmed Ibrahim. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the CWT(A)'s order and declined to interfere.
5. Exemption under Sections 5(1)(iv) and 5(1)(xxxii):
The Tribunal addressed the issue of whether exemptions under sections 5(1)(iv) and 5(1)(xxxii) were independent of each other. The WTO had denied exemption under section 5(1A) as the assessee had already availed of the maximum limit of Rs. 50,000 in respect of other assets. The CWT(A) directed the WTO to re-examine the question of exemption under various provisions of section 5. The Tribunal upheld the CWT(A)'s direction, allowing the exemption to be considered separately.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal partly allowed the Revenue's appeals for all three years, rejecting the D.V.O.'s valuation method and upholding the rent capitalisation method based on the lease agreements. The Tribunal also upheld the CWT(A)'s direction to re-examine the agricultural nature of the land at Bage-Firdosh and the exemptions under sections 5(1)(iv) and 5(1)(xxxii). The assessee's C.O. for the assessment year 1978-79 was dismissed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 129
Issues:
1. Assessment of a firm for the assessment year 1978-79 with a change in partnership constitution due to the death of a partner.
2. Validity of two separate assessments made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) for different periods.
3. Proceedings initiated under section 263 of the Income Tax Act by the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT).
4. Direction by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) to frame two separate assessments for the two periods involved.
5. Granting renewal of registration under section 184(7) of the Act.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The assessment of a firm for the assessment year 1978-79 was in question due to a change in partnership constitution following the death of a partner. The firm, Gujarat Printing Press, faced issues regarding the continuation of registration and the impact of the partner's death on the assessment process.
Issue 2:
The ITO had initially made two separate assessments for different periods, which was challenged by the CIT under section 263 of the Act. The CIT contended that there should have been one assessment for the entire year following the change in the firm's constitution, as per section 187(2) of the Act.
Issue 3:
The CIT initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act, setting aside the ITO's orders and directing a re-assessment in accordance with law. The CIT's order highlighted the need for a single assessment for the entire year after the change in the firm's constitution.
Issue 4:
The AAC directed the ITO to frame two separate assessments for the two periods involved, emphasizing the dissolution of the firm following the partner's death and the need for separate assessments for the predecessor and successor firms.
Issue 5:
Regarding the order passed under section 184(7) of the Act for granting renewal of registration, the AAC directed the ITO to grant renewal in respect of profits before the partner's death to the predecessor firm, emphasizing the legal implications of the partnership deed and the firm's status.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the revenue's appeal in the quantum proceedings, setting aside the AAC's order and restoring that of the ITO. The Tribunal also dismissed the appeal in the matter of registration as infructuous, emphasizing the need for proper assessment following the change in the firm's constitution. The decision highlighted the legal complexities surrounding partnership changes and the importance of accurate assessments in such scenarios.
-
1987 (7) TMI 128
Issues Involved:
1. Deduction of Rs. 4,65,121 as bad debt or business loss.
2. Charging of interest under section 217 of the Income Tax Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Deduction of Rs. 4,65,121 as Bad Debt or Business Loss:
The primary issue in this appeal is whether the assessee's claim for deduction of Rs. 4,65,121 should be allowed as bad debt or business loss. The assessee, a firm running an oil mill and ginning and pressing factory, sold goods to M/s. Radhakishan & Co., and two cheques amounting to Rs. 4,65,121 were dishonored. The assessee claimed this amount as a bad debt or alternatively as a business loss. The Income Tax Officer (ITO) disallowed the claim, arguing that the assessee had not written off the amount in the debtor's account and was still hopeful of recovery, as evidenced by ongoing recovery efforts and a pending suit in Civil Court.
The Commissioner (Appeals), however, accepted the assessee's claim, citing the Gujarat High Court's decision in Sarangpur Cotton Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. CIT, which stated that writing off an amount by a businessman is prima facie evidence of its irrecoverability. The Commissioner (Appeals) also referenced the ITAT Ahmedabad Bench ruling in Ramnarayan Hariprasad v. IAC, where dishonored cheques were written off as unrecoverable, and the Full Bench held that the assessee was justified in writing off the amount due to no possibility of recovery.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, noting that the loss arose from business dealings and should be allowed under section 28(i) of the Act, even if not under section 36(1)(vii) read with section 36(2). The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee had acted bona fide and had not recovered any amount from M/s. Radhakishan & Co. The Tribunal also highlighted that any future recovery could be taxed under section 41(1) of the Act, ensuring no loss to the revenue.
2. Charging of Interest under Section 217 of the Income Tax Act:
The second issue involved the charging of interest under section 217 of the Act. The ITO had charged interest due to the disallowance of the bad debt claim and a sales tax liability. The Commissioner (Appeals) directed the ITO not to charge interest, relying on the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT v. Abdul Razak & Co., which held that the assessee could not anticipate the ITO's disallowance of claims.
The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that since the bad debt claim was allowed, no interest could be charged under section 217. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order on this issue.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the revenue's appeal, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision to allow the deduction of Rs. 4,65,121 as either bad debt or business loss and to not charge interest under section 217 of the Act.
-
1987 (7) TMI 127
Issues:
1. Whether the Income Tax Officer (ITO) was justified in passing an order under section 154 of the Act regarding the assessment of a trust's income distribution among beneficiaries.
2. Whether the ITO correctly assessed the trustees of the trust and beneficiaries mentioned in Schedule II under section 161 of the Act.
3. Whether the CIT (A) was justified in overturning the ITO's order and reducing the tax liability of the trust.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The appeal was against the CIT (A)'s decision that the ITO was not justified in passing an order under section 154 of the Act. The ITO had initially assessed the trust's income distribution among beneficiaries, with 50% taxed in the hands of 25 beneficiaries in Schedule I and the remaining 50% assessed in the hands of the trustees for beneficiaries in Schedule II. The ITO later believed there was a mistake in not assessing the trustees at the rate applicable to each beneficiary in Schedule II. The assessee resisted, arguing no mistake justified section 154 proceedings. The ITO disagreed, stating the correct tax rate was not applied to the beneficiaries, leading to a mistake rectifiable under section 154.
Issue 2:
The ITO's contention was that the income for beneficiaries in Schedule II was known and determinate, making it taxable either in the trustees' hands or directly in the beneficiaries' hands at the same tax rate. The ITO argued that the tax payable by the trustee should match that of each beneficiary if assessed directly. The ITO rectified the assessment under section 154, taxing the beneficiaries' interest at a higher rate. The CIT (A) accepted the assessee's contention, stating there was no mistake apparent from the record, and restored the original tax liability. The revenue appealed, arguing that the ITO correctly applied section 161 of the Act and that the CIT (A) erred in overturning the ITO's order.
Issue 3:
The Tribunal found in favor of the revenue, stating that the ITO's application of section 154 was justified as there was a mistake in calculating the tax rate for beneficiaries in Schedule II. The Tribunal held that the CIT (A) was not justified in reducing the tax liability and reinstated the ITO's order. The Tribunal emphasized the clarity of section 161 of the Act, stating that if a mistake was made due to misreading or miscalculation, it fell under section 154 for rectification. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ITO's order was upheld.
-
1987 (7) TMI 126
Issues Involved:
1. Legitimacy of the deduction claimed by the assessee for payments made to outgoing partners.
2. Applicability of Section 40A(2) and Section 40A(8) of the IT Act, 1961.
3. Business expediency and commercial rationale behind the payment arrangement.
4. Tax evasion and the genuineness of the transaction.
5. The proper exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263 of the IT Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Legitimacy of the Deduction Claimed by the Assessee:
The core issue revolves around the deduction of Rs. 7,93,187 paid to the outgoing partners. The CIT argued that the payment was not justified and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. The CIT believed that the payment was essentially a sharing of profits and not a deductible business expense. The assessee, on the other hand, contended that the payment was made as per the dissolution deed and was a legitimate business expense.
2. Applicability of Section 40A(2) and Section 40A(8):
The CIT considered the payment excessive and unreasonable under Section 40A(2), given the close relationship between the payer (the company) and the payees (the outgoing partners who were also directors). Additionally, the CIT argued that Section 40A(8) was applicable, treating the retained amount as a "deposit". The Tribunal, however, found that Section 40A(8) was not applicable since the payment was based on a percentage of profits rather than interest on deposits.
3. Business Expediency and Commercial Rationale:
The CIT questioned the commercial rationale behind retaining Rs. 6 lakhs at a high cost. The CIT noted that the company had sufficient funds and could have raised money through other means, such as bank loans or issuing shares. The assessee countered by highlighting its financial constraints and the necessity to retain funds for business operations. The Tribunal acknowledged the financial constraints but found the terms of the arrangement unreasonable and irrational, ultimately allowing only 50% of the claimed deduction.
4. Tax Evasion and Genuineness of the Transaction:
The CIT implied that the arrangement might be a device to evade tax. However, the Tribunal found no evidence of tax evasion, noting that the outgoing partners were already in a high tax bracket. The Tribunal ruled that the transaction was genuine and not a colorable device to avoid tax.
5. Proper Exercise of Jurisdiction by the CIT under Section 263:
The Tribunal agreed that the CIT had rightly invoked his powers under Section 263, as the ITO had not exercised due diligence in examining the high-value deduction claim. The Tribunal, however, criticized the CIT for not pinpointing the exact provision under which the disallowance was made, ultimately deciding the issue on merits to cut short the litigation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the CIT's jurisdiction under Section 263 but modified the disallowance. It allowed 50% of the claimed deduction, disallowing the remaining 50% as excessive under Section 40A(2). The Tribunal found that Section 40A(8) was not applicable and directed the ITO to verify the correct figure while giving effect to the order. The assessee's appeal was partly allowed.
-
1987 (7) TMI 125
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the status of the assessee is "AOP" as held by the ITO or "HUF" as claimed by the assessee and accepted by the AAC.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Status of the Assessee: "AOP" vs. "HUF"
Facts and Background:
The assessment years involved are 1980-81 and 1981-82. The co-sharers of the assessee are members of the HUF of Shri Thakershi Chunilal Parikh, referred to as the larger HUF. The larger HUF underwent a partial partition during the previous year S.Y. 2034, relevant to the A.Y. 1979-80, involving Rs. 1,20,000, which was distributed among various co-sharers. The ITO accepted this partial partition in an order dated 18-3-1981. Each new HUF formed post-partition filed their returns, showing specific co-sharers and their respective shares.
ITO's View:
The ITO, in his letter dated 16-3-1983, questioned the status of the assessee as "HUF" and suggested it should be "AOP". He viewed the partial partition as a sham, arguing that the arrangements made were in the hands of individuals, and legally, there cannot be separate joint family statuses for separate HUFs.
Assessee's Argument:
The assessee argued that once the partial partition was accepted by the revenue, it was binding. They cited the Gujarat High Court decision in CIT v. Shantikumar Jagabhai and the Supreme Court decision in Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai v. CIT, urging that the assessments should be framed in the status of "HUF".
ITO's Rejection:
The ITO rejected these submissions, framing the assessment in the status of "AOP". He distinguished the cases cited by the assessee, arguing that under Hindu Law, a coparcener's interest crystallizes only upon partition. He contended that the arrangement of releasing amounts and forming separate HUFs was a sham, and the income should be taxed in the hands of individuals.
AAC's Decision:
The AAC accepted the assessee's submissions, noting that the partial partitions were recognized by orders under section 171 of the Act. The AAC held that the correct status of the appellant should be HUF, consisting of Thakershi Chunilal, his wife, and two sons, and directed the ITO to grant the status of HUF instead of AOP.
Tribunal's Analysis:
The Tribunal observed that the revenue should not have appealed without properly appreciating the issue. They noted that the ITO had already recognized the partial partition under section 171 of the Act. Referencing the Supreme Court's observations, the Tribunal stated that once an order recognizing partition is passed, the family cannot be assessed as HUF unless the order is set aside by a competent authority.
The Tribunal reviewed various decisions, including the case of Joint Family of Udayan Chinubhai, where the Supreme Court held that once an order recognizing partition is passed, the ITO cannot change the status of the disrupted members. The Tribunal also considered the legislative background and the introduction of sub-section (9) in section 171, which derecognized partial partitions after 31-12-1978, but noted that the partial partition in this case occurred before this date.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal upheld the AAC's order, supporting the assessee's status as "HUF" based on the recognized partial partition and relevant judicial precedents. The appeals were dismissed, affirming the AAC's decision that the correct status of the assessee is "HUF".
-
1987 (7) TMI 124
Issues Involved:
1. Rejection of assessee's claim for partial partition under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act.
2. Validity of the partition deed and the physical division of property.
3. Tax implications of the alleged partition and sale of property.
4. Assessment of the chronological events leading to the partition and sale.
5. Arguments for and against the recognition of the partial partition.
Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Rejection of Assessee's Claim for Partial Partition Under Section 171 of the Income Tax Act:
The Income Tax Officer (ITO) rejected the assessee's application for partial partition of the property under Section 171 of the Act. The ITO concluded that the property was agreed to be sold by the karta of the HUF before the alleged partition and that the sale proceeds were received much earlier. The ITO argued that the payments to individual members were appropriations of sale proceeds rather than a partition of the property. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld this decision, suggesting that the partition was an afterthought to evade capital gains tax.
2. Validity of the Partition Deed and the Physical Division of Property:
The assessee argued that the property was genuinely partitioned among the members of the HUF, and the sale proceeds were received by individual members. However, the ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) found that the property was not in a state to admit partition at the time of the alleged partition. The Commissioner (Appeals) noted that there was no physical division of the property as required for a valid partition under the Explanation to Section 171.
3. Tax Implications of the Alleged Partition and Sale of Property:
The ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) suggested that the partition was a strategy to avoid capital gains tax. The ITO emphasized that the property was sold by the HUF and not partitioned among its members. The Commissioner (Appeals) supported this view, stating that the partition deed was not genuine and that the sale proceeds were received by the HUF rather than individual members.
4. Assessment of the Chronological Events Leading to the Partition and Sale:
The chronological events leading to the partition and sale of the property were scrutinized. The ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) found inconsistencies in the timeline, suggesting that the partition was an afterthought. The key events included the initial agreement to sell the property in 1971, the approval of the layout plans in 1972, the declaration of non-agricultural use in 1974, and the registered deed of partition in 1975.
5. Arguments for and Against the Recognition of the Partial Partition:
The assessee argued that the property was physically divided among the members of the HUF and that the sale proceeds were received individually. The assessee relied on various legal precedents, including decisions from the Gujarat High Court and Madras High Court, to support their claim. The department, on the other hand, argued that the partition was a tax avoidance scheme and relied on the Supreme Court's decision in McDowell & Co. Ltd. v. CTO, which emphasized that tax planning should be within the framework of the law.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the assessee. It concluded that the ITO and Commissioner (Appeals) had not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Govindlal Mathurbhai Oza, which had similar facts and circumstances. The Tribunal directed the ITO to record and recognize the partial partition of the land as claimed by the assessee by passing a fresh order under Section 171 of the Act. The appeal was allowed in favor of the assessee.
-
1987 (7) TMI 123
Issues:
Whether sawing rough marble blocks into rough marble slabs on job basis constitutes a manufacturing process under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises & Salt Act, 1944.
Analysis:
The petitioner-firm, engaged in sawing rough marble blocks into rough marble slabs, contended that this process does not amount to manufacturing under the Act. The firm applied for exemption under notification No. 105/80, stating the machinery cost was within Rs. 20 lakhs. However, authorities found the machinery value exceeded the limit, leading to a dispute. The petitioner argued that the process of sawing marble blocks into slabs does not qualify as manufacturing under Section 2(f) of the Act.
The respondents disagreed with the petitioner's interpretation, asserting that the process of converting marble blocks into slabs using a diamond gang saw machine costing over Rs. 20 lakhs is excisable. They threatened seizure of goods and factory closure, prompting the petitioner to file a writ petition. The Court admitted the petition, issuing a stay on further proceedings.
A crucial precedent was cited where the Customs, Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal held that sawing marble blocks into slabs, even with expensive machinery, does not amount to a manufacturing process. This decision was upheld by the Supreme Court. Subsequently, another case supported this view, emphasizing that no significant transformation occurs during the process.
Relying on these precedents, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, declaring that cutting marble blocks into slabs does not involve a manufacturing process under the Act. The impugned notices threatening seizure and closure were quashed, and no costs were awarded. This judgment aligns with previous decisions and establishes that excise duty is not applicable to the petitioner's operations.
-
1987 (7) TMI 122
Issues:
1. Validity of demand, imposition, levy, and collection of basic excise duty and automobile cess.
2. Interpretation of tariff headings and exemption notifications.
3. Jurisdiction of authorities in imposing duties and cess.
4. Refund of excise duty and cess.
Analysis:
Issue 1:
The petitioner company challenged the demand, imposition, and collection of basic excise duty and automobile cess by the Revenue authorities as discriminatory, arbitrary, and illegal. The petitioner argued that the actions were without legal authority and sought a writ of mandamus to declare them as such. The respondents denied the allegations, stating that the duties were collected in accordance with the Central Excise Rules and the current tariff structure. The respondents contended that the petitioner voluntarily paid the duties following the self-removal procedure and that the exemptions under relevant notifications were not applicable to the petitioner's products falling under specific tariff headings.
Issue 2:
The petitioner contended that the bodies built on chassis should be classified under a separate tariff heading exempt from excise duty based on Notification No. 175-C.E., dated 1-3-1986. The Revenue argued that the classification was done based on the petitioner's submissions and that the bodies fell under tariff headings subject to duty. The Court analyzed the tariff entries and the notification, concluding that the petitioner's body building activity fell under a specific tariff item exempt from excise duty, and the petitioner was entitled to a refund of wrongly paid duties.
Issue 3:
The Court examined whether the authorities had jurisdiction to impose duties on the petitioner's manufacturing activities. It was established that the petitioner's manufacturing fell within a tariff item exempt from duty as per the notification. The Court held that the petitioner's activity did not fall under the tariff headings subject to duty, and therefore, the recovery of taxes from the petitioner was without jurisdiction.
Issue 4:
Regarding the refund of excise duty and cess, the Court ruled in favor of the petitioner. The petitioner was held entitled to the refund of excise duty paid erroneously and not recovered from customers. The respondents agreed to refund the cess already collected due to superior authorities' instructions. The Court allowed the petition, declaring the petitioner exempt from basic excise duty and entitled to refunds, with no order as to costs.
This judgment clarifies the classification of goods under specific tariff headings, the applicability of exemption notifications, and the jurisdiction of authorities in imposing and collecting duties and cess. The Court's decision ensures the protection of the petitioner's rights and compliance with relevant legal provisions.
-
1987 (7) TMI 121
Issues:
1. Whether accused, released on bail, should be required to furnish fresh bail at different stages of prosecution.
2. Validity of the practice of requiring accused to attend court periodically after being released on bail.
3. Interpretation of bail bond execution and security furnishing by the accused.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners argued that the practice of calling upon accused to furnish fresh bail at various stages of prosecution, even after being released on bail initially, was unwarranted by law and caused harassment. They contended that bail granted should endure till the final conclusion of the trial. Reference was made to the Supreme Court case emphasizing that accused need not appear before the court until the charge-sheet is filed. The court agreed, stating that bail bonds should ensure accused's attendance till the trial's end, eliminating the need for executing fresh bonds.
2. The petitioners further challenged the requirement for accused to attend court periodically after being released on bail, claiming it caused inconvenience without advancing criminal justice administration. The court concurred, highlighting the need to eliminate the inconvenience and harassment caused by this prevalent practice. It suggested bail bonds should be remodeled to ensure accused's appearance before any court till the trial's conclusion, avoiding the necessity of executing fresh bonds at different stages.
3. The court noted that the bail bond's proforma was outdated and not in line with the current Criminal Procedure Code. It emphasized that bail bonds should be amended to secure accused's attendance throughout the trial, not just before the magistrate granting bail. The respondent argued for periodic attendance to prevent absconding and varying bail amounts based on investigation progress. However, the court dismissed these arguments, stating that accused's appearance could be ensured through existing legal provisions without the need for periodic attendance.
Therefore, the court allowed the petition, directing the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate not to take the petitioners into custody or ask for fresh bail bonds. The petitioners were permitted to remain on bail throughout the proceedings before the magistrate and during the trial before the Court of Sessions if the case is committed there.
-
1987 (7) TMI 120
1. ISSUES PRESENTED and CONSIDERED The judgment addressed the following core legal questions: - Whether the excise duty assessment based on the sample taken on a specific date can be applied to the entire period until the next sample is taken.
- Whether the differing results from samples taken on different dates affect the validity of the excise duty assessment.
2. ISSUE-WISE DETAILED ANALYSIS Issue 1: Applicability of Sample-Based Assessment Over a Period - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, governs the excise duty on cotton yarn. The precedent set by the Division Bench in Ramalinga C. Mills v. Govt. of India was considered, where it was held that sample results could apply to the production period until the next sample is taken.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court reasoned that it is impractical for the department to take samples daily or for every bale. Therefore, the test result of a sample taken at regular intervals is applied to the production until the next sample is drawn.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The samples taken on 30-12-1974 indicated a count above N.F. 51, leading to the assessment for the period from 28-12-1974 to 21-4-1975.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court applied the precedent from Ramalinga C. Mills to affirm that the sample result governs until the next sample is taken, unless the manufacturer shows evidence of changes in production.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants argued that the assessment should only apply to the stock available on the sample date. The court rejected this, citing the impracticality of constant sampling.
- Conclusions: The court concluded that the assessment over the period was valid, as the appellants did not demonstrate any production changes that would affect the yarn count.
Issue 2: Impact of Differing Sample Results on Assessment Validity - Relevant Legal Framework and Precedents: The court referenced an unreported judgment in Coimbatore Pioneer Mills Ltd. v. The Assistant Collector of Central Excise, which dealt with conflicting sample results.
- Court's Interpretation and Reasoning: The court distinguished the current case from the precedent, noting that the earlier case involved conflicting results from samples taken on the same day, whereas the current case involved samples from different dates.
- Key Evidence and Findings: The samples from 30-12-1974 showed counts above N.F. 51, while the sample from 22-4-1975 showed counts below N.F. 51.
- Application of Law to Facts: The court held that differing results on different dates do not invalidate the earlier sample's findings, as they reflect the production period until the next sample.
- Treatment of Competing Arguments: The appellants contended that differing sample results should negate the earlier assessment. The court rejected this, emphasizing the need for consistent sampling intervals.
- Conclusions: The court upheld the validity of the assessment based on the initial sample, as the appellants did not provide evidence of production changes.
3. SIGNIFICANT HOLDINGS - Preserve verbatim quotes of crucial legal reasoning: "It must be remembered that the department cannot be expected to take samples every day and for every bale. It is seen that a sample is taken periodically at regular intervals and the test result of such a sample is taken to govern production of yarn made by the petitioner till the next drawal of the sample."
- Core Principles Established: The principle that sample results apply to the production period until the next sample is taken, unless evidence of production changes is provided, was reinforced.
- Final Determinations on Each Issue: The court dismissed both appeals, affirming the excise duty assessments for the periods in question, and found no grounds to interfere with the assessments based on the evidence and legal principles.
-
1987 (7) TMI 119
Issues:
1. Validity of Customs Notification No. 40/87 rescinding earlier exemption.
2. Effective date of Customs Notification and its application to imported pulses.
3. Interpretation of notification issuance for exemption benefits.
4. Cancellation of Bank guarantees due to successful petition.
Analysis:
1. The petitioners imported pulses benefiting from total exemption under Customs Notification No. 129/76, which was replaced by Customs Notification No. 40/87 imposing a 25% customs duty on pulses. The key contention was the effective date of the new notification and its application to the imported pulses.
2. The communication from the Government of India Press clarified that Customs Notification No. 40/87 was printed on 16-2-1987 and made available to the public on 18-2-1987. As the petitioners filed bills of entry before 18-2-1987, the court analyzed the issue of when a notification becomes effective. Referring to a previous case, it was emphasized that a notification must be made available to the public for it to be enforceable, not merely printed in the Official Gazette.
3. Applying the legal principle from the Asta Tobacco case, the court determined that the date of public notification is crucial for the effectiveness of a notification. Since the petitioners filed bills of entry before the public availability of Customs Notification No. 40/87, they were not bound by the new duty and were entitled to the exemption under the earlier Customs Notification No. 129/76, which was in force at the time of import.
4. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petitions, ruling in favor of the petitioners. The judgment also addressed the issue of bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners during the proceedings, stating that they would stand cancelled due to the success of the petition. The court did not delve into other grounds raised by the petitioners as they had already succeeded on the main issue of notification effectiveness.
-
1987 (7) TMI 118
Issues:
1. Assessment of customs duty under Tariff Item 72(b) instead of 72(15) for imported machinery.
2. Interpretation of whether machinery exclusively for making boots and shoes falls under Tariff Item 72(15).
3. Reconsideration of the judgment by the Government of India under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Application of rules for interpretation of the Schedule in Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Assessment of customs duty under Tariff Item 72(b) instead of 72(15)
The appellants imported machinery for making footwear and claimed it should be assessed under Tariff Item 72(15) at a lower duty rate. The Government initially exempted such machinery from excess duty under Notification No. 2 of 1971. However, the Assistant Collector assessed it under Item 72(b) as the machinery could make various types of footwear. The Appellate Collector disagreed, stating that the machinery was primarily for making boots and shoes, thus eligible for Item 72(15) duty rate. The High Court observed that the machinery's general use for different footwear types did not exclude it from being classified under Item 72(15) if primarily intended for boots and shoes.
Issue 2: Interpretation of machinery exclusively for making boots and shoes
The Government later reversed its decision, stating that machinery must be exclusively for boots and shoes to qualify under Item 72(15). The High Court disagreed, emphasizing that the machinery's capability to make other footwear types did not disqualify it from being classified under Item 72(15). The Court noted that the machinery's intended use for boots and shoes, even if it could also make chappals, justified its classification under the specific item rather than the general one.
Issue 3: Reconsideration by the Government under Section 131(3) of the Customs Act
The Government initiated a review under Section 131(3) and concluded that the machinery's ability to make chappals excluded it from Item 72(15). However, the Court found this reasoning flawed, emphasizing that the machinery's primary use for boots and shoes warranted its classification under Item 72(15). The Court highlighted the importance of the machinery's predominant or ordinary purpose in determining its classification.
Issue 4: Application of rules for interpretation of the Schedule
The Court applied the rules for interpreting the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, emphasizing that specific descriptions take precedence over general ones. It noted that the machinery's intended use for boots and shoes, coupled with the lack of evidence supporting its exclusive use for chappals, justified its classification under Item 72(15). The Court also considered the bona fide nature of the import, as the machinery was genuinely intended for making boots and shoes, not for deceptive purposes.
In conclusion, the High Court ruled in favor of the appellants, setting aside the Government's order and allowing the writ appeal. The Court emphasized the machinery's primary purpose for making boots and shoes, leading to its classification under Tariff Item 72(15) for duty assessment.
-
1987 (7) TMI 117
Issues:
1. Quashing of process under Customs Act and Control of Imports and Exports Act.
2. Allegations of fraud and conspiracy in import and sale of cassette tapes.
3. Justification of issuing process against the accused.
4. Analysis of evidence and confessional statements.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The judgment concerns a petition seeking the quashing of the process issued under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act and Section 5 of the Control of Imports and Exports Act. The complaint alleged that the accused were involved in a scheme to evade customs duty by importing cassette tapes under false pretenses.
2. The prosecution's case revolved around the accused engaging in fraudulent activities related to the import and sale of cassette tapes. The accused No. 1, in collusion with others, imported cassette tapes under a duty exemption scheme but instead of re-exporting them after recording, they were sold in the local market. The accused were accused of misrepresenting the export of tapes and engaging in clandestine sales, leading to the evasion of customs duty.
3. The judgment evaluated the justification of issuing the process against the accused. The defense argued that there was insufficient evidence to establish the accused's involvement in the alleged offenses. The court noted that while there might be some suspicion regarding the accused's complicity, it fell short of justifying the issuance of the process. The court emphasized the need for concrete evidence to proceed with the prosecution.
4. The analysis delved into the evidence presented against the accused, particularly focusing on the role of the petitioner, accused No. 3. The court examined the petitioner's actions, such as accompanying the main accused to clear customs and seeking legal advice after the seizure of cassette tapes. The court dismissed the arguments linking the petitioner to the crimes, highlighting that mere association or certain actions did not establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court also rejected the contention that confessional statements implicated the petitioner, emphasizing that they did not amount to admissions of guilt.
In conclusion, the court found that the evidence and arguments presented were insufficient to sustain the process issued by the trial court, leading to the quashing of the process against the petitioner.
-
1987 (7) TMI 116
Issues:
Grant of bail in a prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act without recording reasons, challenge to the order of bail, maintainability of Revision Application, legal position of bail orders under Sections 437(1) and 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code, significance of reasons for granting or refusing bail, role of Customs Officers in seeking custody, importance of preventing absconding and tampering with evidence in economic offences, balancing individual liberty with societal interests in economic offences investigations.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Grant of Bail without Recording Reasons:
The judgment concerns a Revision Application filed by the Assistant Collector of Customs and Central Excise challenging the Order of grant of bail in a prosecution under Section 135 of the Customs Act. The Court noted that the bail order lacked reasons, which is a statutory obligation under Section 437(4) of the Criminal Procedure Code. The lack of reasons rendered the bail order unsustainable, as it did not assist in understanding the factors considered in granting bail.
2. Challenge to the Order of Bail:
The Court emphasized that an order of bail, once passed under Section 437(1), cannot be reviewed or revised by the same authority. However, the power to cancel bail under Section 437(5) should be sparingly used in extraordinary circumstances. In this case, the Court found the bail order unjustified due to the nature of the offense and the value of the seized goods, amounting to over Rs. 23 lakhs. The lack of reasons and non-application of mind by the trial Magistrate led to the order of bail being set aside.
3. Maintainability of Revision Application:
The Respondents contended that the Revision Application was seeking cancellation of bail, which was not justified. However, the Court rejected this argument, stating that challenging an unjustified bail order in a superior Court is essential for upholding justice. Citing precedent, the Court held that an order granting bail in such circumstances is not merely interlocutory and can be challenged through a Revision Application.
4. Legal Position of Bail Orders under Criminal Procedure Code:
The judgment clarified that orders granting bail under Sections 437(1) and 439(1) of the Criminal Procedure Code are final orders. Such orders can be challenged in the Sessions Court or High Court through revisional powers. The Court highlighted that there is no bar in entertaining a revision application under Section 397(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code for challenging bail orders.
5. Role of Customs Officers and Importance of Custody in Investigations:
The judgment underscored the role of Customs Officers in investigations involving economic offenses like smuggling. It noted that Customs Officers do not have their lock-ups and rely on judicial custody for suspects. Custody may be necessary to prevent absconding and tampering with evidence, especially in cases of large-scale conspiracies and high-value contraband. Balancing individual liberty with the need for custody to facilitate investigations was deemed crucial.
6. Balancing Societal Interests in Economic Offenses Investigations:
The Court highlighted the detrimental impact of economic offenses on the economy and foreign exchange. It stressed the importance of facilitating investigations into economic offenses and ensuring that remand courts consider societal interests while deciding on the liberty of suspects. The judgment emphasized the need to balance the common good of society with individual liberty in such cases.
7. Directions for Custody and Bail Amounts:
The Court directed different measures for the Respondents based on their roles in the offense. While the Respondent No.1 was to be taken into judicial custody for a specific period, Respondents Nos. 2 to 6 were ordered to report to the Petitioner daily for a month. Additionally, the bail amounts for the Respondents were substantially enhanced considering the nature of the offense, with specific amounts set for each Respondent along with sureties.
In conclusion, the judgment addressed the issues of granting bail without reasons, the challenge to bail orders, the legal position of bail under the Criminal Procedure Code, the role of Customs Officers in seeking custody, the significance of preventing absconding in economic offenses investigations, and the need to balance individual liberty with societal interests in such cases. The Court's detailed analysis and directions provided clarity on the appropriate handling of bail in cases involving economic offenses like smuggling.
............
|
9911796707
