|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 202 Records
-
1994 (5) TMI 65
Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported goods (Polypropylene Dyed Chips and Sarma Polypropylene Chips).
2. Allegations of misdeclaration and suppression of facts by the importers.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act.
4. Jurisdiction to review final assessments under Section 47 of the Customs Act.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification of Imported Goods:
The primary issue revolves around the correct classification of Polypropylene Dyed Chips. The importers argued that these goods should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading 3902.10, which pertains to "Polymers of Propylene or of other Olefins in primary forms". They stressed that Polypropylene Chips, being a polymer of polypropylene in the form of chips, should fall under this heading. They further argued that the goods were permissible for import under the OGL in terms of the Import Policy Book and were earlier assessed under Heading 39.02 without objections.
However, the Revenue contended that the goods were actually pigment preparations (master batches) and should be classified under Chapter 32, specifically under sub-headings 3204.17 or 3206.49, depending on whether the pigments were organic or inorganic. The Collector of Customs supported this view, stating that the goods were essentially concentrated dispersions of colouring matter in plastic, thus falling under Chapter 32 based on the manufacturers' literature from M/s. Hoechst, Italy, and M/s. Sandoz, Switzerland.
The Tribunal upheld the Collector's findings, noting that the goods were indeed pigment preparations and not merely polypropylene chips. This conclusion was supported by the manufacturers' descriptions and the exclusion clauses under Chapter 39 of the HSN, which exclude concentrated dispersions of colouring matter in plastics from Chapter 39.
2. Allegations of Misdeclaration and Suppression of Facts:
The Revenue alleged that the importers misdeclared the goods as Polypropylene Dyed Chips to benefit from a lower duty rate. The Collector found evidence of suppression of facts, including incriminating documents and inter-office correspondence where the goods were referred to as "Master Batches". The importers had also instructed foreign suppliers to avoid correct descriptions in proforma invoices.
The Tribunal agreed with the Collector's findings, noting that the importers had deliberately misdeclared the goods and suppressed relevant information. This justified the invocation of the extended period for demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act.
3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act:
The Revenue appealed against the Collector's decision not to impose any penalty on the importers. The Tribunal found that the importers' actions warranted a penalty, given the deliberate misdeclaration and suppression of facts. Consequently, a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed on the importers under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.
4. Jurisdiction to Review Final Assessments under Section 47 of the Customs Act:
The importers argued that the Collector had no jurisdiction to review final assessments made under Section 47 of the Customs Act, except through the procedure under Section 129D(2). The Tribunal, however, held that in cases of fraud or deliberate suppression, the finality of an order under Section 47 could be disturbed. The evidence of misdeclaration and suppression justified the issuance of the show cause notice and subsequent review of the assessments.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the importers' appeal, confirming the classification of the goods under Chapter 32 and upholding the demand for differential duty. The Tribunal also allowed the Revenue's appeal, imposing a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the importers for their deliberate misdeclaration and suppression of facts. Both appeals were disposed of accordingly.
-
1994 (5) TMI 64
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under sub-heading 6902.20 CTA as refractory bricks or under sub-heading 7016.90 as glass constructional goods.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Classification Dispute: The appellants imported goods described as refractory components for a glass furnace, claiming classification under sub-heading 6902.20 CTA as refractory bricks. However, the Department assessed the goods under sub-heading 7016.90, which covers glass constructional goods. The dispute arose as the goods had a composition of 98.9% silica oxide, leading to conflicting classifications.
2. Appellant's Argument: The appellants contended that the lower authorities erred in interpreting sub-heading 6902.20, arguing that it should cover refractory bricks with more than 50% silica. They referenced HSN Explanatory Notes and ISI Glossary to support their claim that silica refractories fall under this sub-heading. They emphasized the high-temperature resistance of silica refractories, distinguishing them from glass materials.
3. Department's Position: The Department argued that sub-heading 6902.20 specifically covers refractory bricks with more than 50% alumina, not silica. They cited Chapter Note 4 to Chapter 70 CTA to support their classification of the goods under sub-heading 7016.90, considering silica as the essential character of the goods.
4. Legal Analysis: The Tribunal analyzed the competing sub-headings, highlighting the definitions and scope of sub-heading 6902.20 and 7016.90 in the Customs Tariff Act. They referred to HSN Explanatory Notes, emphasizing the international expertise in tariff classification. The Explanatory Notes clarified that refractory goods must resist high temperatures and be designed for high-temperature work, listing various types of refractory materials.
5. Decision: After careful consideration, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the appellants. They concluded that the imported goods, with high-temperature resistance up to 1700oC and used in a glass furnace, should be classified under sub-heading 6902.20 as silica refractory bricks. The Tribunal rejected the classification under Chapter 70 CTA, as there was no evidence of the goods being glass articles obtained by pressing or molding. The appellants provided sufficient evidence to establish the goods as special type refractories, leading to the allowance of the appeal and classification under Heading 6902.20 CTA, 1975.
-
1994 (5) TMI 63
Issues:
- Disallowance of depreciation on buildings claimed by the assessee
- Interpretation of ownership of lands and buildings in question
- Applicability of the Transfer of Property Act in government transfers
Analysis:
The appeal involved the disallowance of depreciation on buildings claimed by the assessee, a State Government undertaking operating road transport services. The Assessing Officer disallowed depreciation, believing that the lands and buildings in question were not registered in the name of the assessee, despite the title deeds being passed to the corporation as per Government's order. The CIT (Appeals) directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation based on previous Tribunal decisions and changes in revenue records confirming ownership.
The revenue contended that the decision of the CIT (Appeals) was contrary to law and relied on a Madras High Court judgment regarding ownership transfer. The assessee, however, cited a later Madras High Court judgment and Tribunal decisions to support their claim of ownership and entitlement to depreciation. The assessee distinguished their case from a previous case involving transfer between corporations, emphasizing the applicability of the Government Grants Act in their situation.
The Tribunal examined the transfer of properties to the assessee under Government orders and the interpretation of the Transfer of Property Act. Citing relevant case laws, including decisions by the Madras and Rajasthan High Courts, and a Supreme Court ruling, it concluded that the Transfer of Property Act did not apply to government grants under the Government Grants Act, 1895. Therefore, the assessee was deemed eligible for depreciation despite the absence of a registered sale deed for the transferred property.
Based on the facts and legal interpretations presented, the Tribunal upheld the decision of the CIT (Appeals) and dismissed the revenue's grounds. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the allowance of depreciation on the buildings in question.
-
1994 (5) TMI 61
Issues Involved:
1. Disallowance of interest capitalized as part of the actual cost of plant and machinery.
2. Deductibility of customs duty paid while valuing the closing stock.
3. Exclusion of driver's salary from the computation of disallowance under section 37(3A).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Disallowance of Interest Capitalized as Part of the Actual Cost of Plant and Machinery:
The first issue concerns the disallowance of interest capitalized as part of the actual cost of plant and machinery, invoking Explanation (8) to section 43(1) of the I.T. Act 1961. The assessee, a company not substantially interested by the public, capitalized the interest payable under the Deferred Payment Guarantee Scheme of the Industrial Development Bank of India (IDBI) and claimed depreciation on this amount. The Assessing Officer disallowed this claim, citing that the interest should not be included in the cost of the asset. The CIT(A) allowed the claim, following the Tribunal's decision in India Pistons Repco Ltd. v. IAC, which held that the interest paid under the Deferred Payment Scheme should be included in the actual cost of the asset under section 43(1), and depreciation should be allowed on the entire cost, including interest. However, the Tribunal preferred the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT v. Rajaram Bandekar, which held that Explanation 8 to section 43(1) clarifies that interest payable after the asset is first put to use should not be included in the actual cost. Consequently, the Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision and restored the Assessing Officer's order, disallowing depreciation on the interest amount accrued after the plant and machinery were put to use.
2. Deductibility of Customs Duty Paid While Valuing the Closing Stock:
The second issue pertains to whether customs duty paid should be deducted while valuing the closing stock. The assessee paid customs duty on goods held as closing stock, amounting to Rs. 68,484. The Assessing Officer disallowed this under section 43B, considering it a provision rather than an actual payment. The CIT(A) allowed the assessee's claim, following the Gujarat High Court's decision in Lakhanpal National Ltd. v. ITO, which held that customs duty paid on imported raw materials and goods manufactured in the same year is deductible under section 43B. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A), stating that it is inconceivable to import goods without paying customs duty, and thus, the duty paid is deductible under section 43B. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, confirming that the customs duty paid is allowable as a deduction.
3. Exclusion of Driver's Salary from the Computation of Disallowance under Section 37(3A):
The third issue involves whether the driver's salary should be excluded from the computation of disallowance under section 37(3A). The assessee claimed that lease charges, conveyance allowance, repairs, car insurance, and driver's salary should be excluded while computing disallowance under section 37(3A). The Assessing Officer denied this claim. On appeal, the CIT(A) held that the driver's salary should be excluded, as it is not incurred for the running and maintenance of the car. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, referencing its earlier decision in R.K. Swamy Advertising Associates (P.) Ltd. v. IAC, which classified the driver's salary under 'wages' and not as an expenditure for running and maintenance of a car. The Tribunal confirmed that the driver's salary is a fixed expenditure and not subject to disallowance under section 37(3A).
Conclusion:
The Tribunal's decision resulted in a partial allowance of the Revenue's appeal. The Tribunal reversed the CIT(A)'s decision on the first issue, upholding the disallowance of depreciation on interest capitalized after the machinery was put to use. On the second issue, the Tribunal confirmed the CIT(A)'s decision allowing the deduction of customs duty paid. On the third issue, the Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to exclude the driver's salary from the computation of disallowance under section 37(3A).
-
1994 (5) TMI 59
Issues: Revenue's appeal on disallowance of hiring charges and polishing charges under s. 40A(2)(b); Assessee's appeal on bonus and sales-tax liability; Disallowance of Diwali gifts; Disallowance of travelling expenses for non-partners/employees; Disallowance of car and jeep expenses and depreciation.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jaipur involved the appeals of the parties concerning the assessment year 1989-90, addressing the disallowance of hiring charges and polishing charges under section 40A(2)(b) of the IT Act. The Revenue's appeal focused on challenging the deletion of disallowance of Rs. 1,17,039 for hiring charges and Rs. 61,600 for polishing charges by the CIT(A). The Assessing Officer disallowed the amounts based on the perceived excessive payments made by the assessee to its sister concern for truck/dumper hire and polishing services. The CIT(A), however, found the charges reasonable and in line with fair market value, leading to the deletion of the disallowances.
Regarding hiring charges, the CIT(A) observed that the assessee paid and received charges at the same rate for vehicle hire, indicating reasonableness. The Tribunal agreed that the charges were not excessive, especially since the fair market value of the services was not assessed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the disallowance of hiring charges was rightly deleted. Similarly, for polishing charges, the CIT(A noted that the total production of stone did not necessarily correlate with polishing charges, as not all produced stone required polishing. The Tribunal upheld the deletion of the disallowance for polishing charges as well, emphasizing the lack of justification by the Assessing Officer.
In the assessee's appeal, certain grounds were not pressed during the hearing, leading to their dismissal. The issues of bonus and sales-tax liability were addressed, with the Tribunal directing the Assessing Officer to consider allowing the payment of bonus made beyond the statutory period in the relevant assessment year. The outstanding sales-tax liability was to be verified for timely payment and allowed if within the specified period. Additionally, the Tribunal reduced the disallowance of Diwali gifts and confirmed the disallowance of certain travelling expenses and car/jeep expenses and depreciation, based on the nature of usage and previous disallowances.
Overall, the Tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal while partially allowing the assessee's appeal, providing detailed reasoning for each issue raised and addressing the specific grounds of contention in the assessment. The judgment focused on the application of relevant provisions of the IT Act and fair assessment of expenses and liabilities incurred by the assessee during the assessment year.
-
1994 (5) TMI 57
Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 153(1)(b) for limitation purposes.
2. Validity of notice under Section 147/148.
3. Assessment being barred by limitation under Section 153(1)(a)(iii).
4. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c).
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Applicability of Section 153(1)(b) for limitation purposes:
The assessee challenged the CIT(A)'s decision confirming the ITO's order that the provisions of Section 153(1)(b) were applicable for the purpose of limitation. The assessee argued that the voluntary return filed on 29-8-1975 should be considered under Section 153(1)(a)(iii), making the assessment time-barred by 31-3-1978. The CIT(A) upheld the ITO's view, noting an increase in the assessee's wealth from Rs. 1,43,410 to Rs. 2,25,781 without sufficient explanation, thus justifying the extended time limit under Section 153(1)(b). The Tribunal, however, found that the conditions for invoking Section 153(1)(b) were not met within the normal period of limitation, rendering the extended time limit inapplicable.
2. Validity of notice under Section 147/148:
The assessee contended that the notice issued under Section 147/148 was illegal, bad in law, and without jurisdiction, as there was no failure to file a return or disclose material facts. The Tribunal admitted this additional ground, noting that it was purely legal and did not require fresh investigation of facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the conditions precedent for issuing a notice under Section 148, such as the omission or failure to file a return or disclose material facts, were not satisfied. The assessee had filed a return on 29-8-1975, which was pending for assessment, making the reassessment proceedings initiated by the notice under Section 148 void ab initio.
3. Assessment being barred by limitation under Section 153(1)(a)(iii):
The assessee argued that the assessment was barred by limitation under Section 153(1)(a)(iii), as the return filed on 29-8-1975 should have been assessed by 31-3-1978. The ITO, however, completed the assessment on 20-3-1984, invoking Section 153(1)(b) due to alleged concealment of income. The Tribunal found that the ITO did not inform the assessee about the alleged concealment within the normal period of limitation, making the extended time limit inapplicable. Consequently, the assessment was deemed time-barred and invalid.
4. Deletion of penalty under Section 271(1)(c):
The revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of the penalty of Rs. 1,10,000 imposed under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the penalty was based on the reassessment order dated 20-3-1984, which had been quashed. The Tribunal emphasized that without a valid assessment order, the penalty could not stand. The Tribunal also noted that the ITO did not properly evaluate the assessee's explanation during the penalty proceedings, further justifying the cancellation of the penalty.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal quashed the reassessment order dated 20-3-1984, finding it invalid due to the improper issuance of notice under Section 148 and the assessment being time-barred. Consequently, the penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) was also cancelled. The assessee's appeal was allowed, and the revenue's appeal was dismissed.
-
1994 (5) TMI 56
Issues Involved:
1. Time-barred assessment.
2. Jurisdiction to include Rs. 27.88 lakhs in the fresh assessment.
3. Nature of the receipt of Rs. 27.88 lakhs.
4. Claim for weighted deduction under section 35B.
5. Payment of sales tax for the assessment year 1985-86.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Time-barred Assessment:
The main issue was whether the assessment for the year 1982-83 was time-barred. The assessee filed the original return on 30th June 1982, and a revised return on 7th February 1986. The department claimed an intermediary revised return was filed on 12th February 1985, extending the assessment period to 31st March 1986. The Tribunal found that the intermediary revised return was indeed filed based on the order sheet dated 15-3-1985 and other corroborative evidence. Thus, the assessment completed on 10th February 1986 was within the extended time limit.
2. Jurisdiction to Include Rs. 27.88 Lakhs in Fresh Assessment:
The assessee argued that the addition of Rs. 27.88 lakhs in the fresh assessment was beyond the scope of the CIT(A)'s directions for de novo assessment. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that the entire assessment was set aside to be completed afresh, and the Assessing Officer was obligated to consider all material, including the audit report. The Tribunal held that the inclusion of Rs. 27.88 lakhs was within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
3. Nature of the Receipt of Rs. 27.88 Lakhs:
The assessee contended that the receipt of Rs. 27.88 lakhs was a capital receipt, compensating for losses suffered in running the transferred units. The Tribunal found no evidence to support this claim. Instead, it determined that the amount represented interest on the delayed payment of Rs. 72.71 lakhs for the transferred units. The Tribunal concluded that the receipt was a revenue receipt and taxable under section 28(ii)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
4. Claim for Weighted Deduction Under Section 35B:
The assessee's claim for weighted deduction under section 35B was partly allowed based on a previous Tribunal decision for the assessment year 1981-82. The Tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to ascertain the figures and allow the claim accordingly.
5. Payment of Sales Tax for the Assessment Year 1985-86:
The assessee claimed deductions for sales tax payments made during the assessment year 1985-86, which related to earlier years. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to verify the sales tax orders and allow the claim if the liability was incurred during the current accounting period. The Tribunal expanded these directions, stating that if provisions for sales tax in past years were disallowed, the actual payments made during 1985-86 should be allowed.
Conclusion:
- The assessment for the year 1982-83 was not time-barred.
- The inclusion of Rs. 27.88 lakhs in the fresh assessment was within the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer.
- The receipt of Rs. 27.88 lakhs was a revenue receipt and taxable.
- The claim for weighted deduction under section 35B was partly allowed.
- The payment of sales tax for the assessment year 1985-86 should be allowed if the liability was incurred during the current period.
-
1994 (5) TMI 55
Issues Involved:
1. Chargeability of interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
2. Applicability of the notification extending the IT Act, 1961 to the Continental Shelf of India and the Exclusive Economic Zone of India.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in passing the impugned order.
4. Bona fides of the assessee in making the payment of Rs. 1,19,10,729.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Chargeability of Interest under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961
The main issue in these appeals revolves around the chargeability of interest under Section 201(1A) of the IT Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer held the assessee as a defaulter for not paying a sum of Rs. 1,10,41,678 under the provisions of Section 192 read with Section 200 of the IT Act and charged interest of Rs. 11,86,926. The Assessing Officer rejected the contention of the assessee that the CIT had condoned the delay, noting that there is no provision in Rule 30 for condoning the delay, as Rule 30 governed only deduction of tax quarterly.
The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's contention that the notification was applicable from the assessment year 1984-85 and not for the assessment year 1983-84. The CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to charge interest only for the intervening period in default, stating, "the adjustment of payable taxes by way of deduction at source to the extent of Rs. 1,19,10,729 be construed as paid on 24th Jan., 1984."
The Tribunal concluded that the assessee could not be held as a defaulter and charged interest under Section 201(1A), as the provisions of Section 192 were not attracted when the responsibility for payment of tax was that of the employer. The Tribunal stated, "Interest charged is cancelled and the assessee's ground of appeal is allowed."
2. Applicability of the Notification Extending the IT Act, 1961
The relevant facts indicate that the Government of India issued a notification on 31st March, 1983, extending the IT Act, 1961 to the Continental Shelf of India and the Exclusive Economic Zone of India with effect from 1st April, 1983. The assessee initially paid Rs. 1,19,10,729 under Section 140A in July 1983, under the impression that the notification was applicable for the assessment year 1983-84. However, it was later realized that the notification was applicable from the assessment year 1984-85.
The CIT(A) upheld the assessee's view, stating, "the income of the accounting year ending 31st March, 1983 is not to be assessed in the asst. yr. 1983-84 because the IT laws did not extend to the Continental Shelf and Exclusive Economic Zone during the relevant accounting period."
The Tribunal agreed with this interpretation, noting that the assessee could legitimately claim that the payment made for the assessment year 1983-84 should be treated as paid towards its liability for the assessment year 1984-85.
3. Jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer
The assessee's authorized representative attacked the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer in passing the impugned order, suggesting that the jurisdiction vested with the IAC (Asst.) when the same was passed by the ITO. However, the representative pointed out that this issue had already been decided against the assessee by the Tribunal in a previous case, and thus, it was not pressed further. The Tribunal dismissed this issue as such.
4. Bona Fides of the Assessee
The assessee's authorized representative argued that the entire conduct of the assessee was bona fide. The assessee had paid the amount of Rs. 1,19,10,729 under a bona fide belief that the notification was applicable for the assessment year 1983-84. The Tribunal acknowledged the bona fides of the assessee, stating, "There can be no dispute in any manner whatsoever about the bona fides of the assessee when it made payment of Rs. 1,19,10,729 for asst. yr. 1983-84 in view of the Notification."
The Tribunal further noted that the assessee could not be expected to make a further payment of Rs. 1,19,10,729 and wait for the assessment to be completed for the assessment year 1983-84 to become entitled to a refund. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee was within its legitimate rights to claim adjustment of the payment made for the assessment year 1983-84 against its liability for the assessment year 1984-85.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the assessee, canceling the interest charged under Section 201(1A) and allowing the assessee's appeal. The Departmental appeal was dismissed, and the assessee's appeal was partly allowed as indicated above.
-
1994 (5) TMI 54
Issues involved:
1. Depreciation on trucks purchased from DCM Toyota Ltd.
2. Depreciation on gas cylinders leased to National Air Products Ltd.
3. Depreciation on photocomposing and typesetting machines leased to Designers Pvt. Ltd.
4. Disallowance of user charges of trucks paid to Goyal Gases Pvt. Ltd.
5. Shortage in liquid oxygen leading to an addition of Rs. 85,655.
6. Direction for allowing unabsorbed depreciation and recalculating interest leviable.
Depreciation on trucks:
The assessee purchased 15 trucks from DCM Toyota Ltd. and claimed depreciation, which was initially disallowed due to a lease agreement effective before truck delivery. However, the trucks were registered in the assessee's name before the accounting period ended, and the lease agreement indicated ownership and usage for business purposes. The tribunal directed the allowance of depreciation on the trucks.
Depreciation on gas cylinders:
The assessee purchased 3,000 gas cylinders from National Air Products Ltd. and leased them to NAPL. The managing director of NAPL confirmed the sale and lease transactions, supporting the assessee's ownership and usage for business. Constructive delivery of the cylinders was established, entitling the assessee to depreciation as ruled by the tribunal.
Depreciation on photocomposing and typesetting machines:
The assessee purchased machines from Abinav Publishing Industries Pvt. Ltd. and leased them to Designers Pvt. Ltd. The machines were delivered, leased, and lease charges received, demonstrating ownership and business usage. The tribunal directed the Assessing Officer to allow depreciation on these machines.
Disallowance of user charges of trucks:
Similar to the above issues, the disallowance of user charges of trucks paid to Goyal Gases Pvt. Ltd. was deemed unwarranted by the tribunal, based on detailed reasons provided in the assessment year's appeal orders.
Shortage in liquid oxygen:
An addition of Rs. 85,655 was made due to a shortage in liquid oxygen, with the authorities citing a lack of satisfactory explanation from the assessee. The tribunal upheld the disallowance due to insufficient evidence provided by the assessee.
Unabsorbed depreciation and interest recalculations:
The tribunal did not find any interference necessary regarding the direction for allowing unabsorbed depreciation and recalculating interest leviable, resulting in a partial allowance of the appeal.
-
1994 (5) TMI 53
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
2. Adequacy of the explanation provided by the assessee regarding discrepancies in balance-sheets.
3. Applicability of the legal principle from Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa to the present case.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Penalty Levied Under Section 271(1)(c) for Concealment of Income:
The assessee, a partnership firm, filed returns for the assessment years 1986-87 and 1987-88, which were initially accepted under Section 143(1). Subsequently, discrepancies in the balance-sheets were noted by the Assessing Officer (AO), leading to enhanced assessments. The AO levied penalties for both years, alleging that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars of income. The CIT(A) upheld the penalties but provided partial relief for the year 1987-88. The Tribunal, however, found that the assessee's conduct did not demonstrate any fraudulent or contumacious behavior. The Tribunal noted that the discrepancies were due to the accountant's carelessness, and the partners had relied on the accountant's work in good faith. The Tribunal concluded that the penalties were not justified, emphasizing that the Revenue had not established any mens rea or gross negligence on the part of the assessee.
2. Adequacy of the Explanation Provided by the Assessee Regarding Discrepancies in Balance-Sheets:
The assessee explained that the discrepancies in the balance-sheets were due to the accountant's errors. The Tribunal found this explanation credible, noting that the assessee had consistently cooperated with the Revenue authorities and had voluntarily surrendered the discrepancies for assessment. The Tribunal observed that the assessee's conduct was transparent and that there was no evidence of intentional concealment or fraud. The Tribunal highlighted that the mistakes were technical in nature and did not affect the profit & loss account or the trading account. The Tribunal accepted the explanation that the partners were not well-versed in accounting and had relied on the accountant, who had since left their employment.
3. Applicability of the Legal Principle from Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa to the Present Case:
The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, which established that penalties should not be imposed unless there is deliberate defiance of law, contumacious conduct, or conscious disregard of obligations. The Tribunal found this principle applicable, stating that the deletion of the word "deliberately" from Section 271(1)(c) did not eliminate the need to prove mens rea. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to prove that the assessee's explanation was false or that there was any fraudulent intent. The Tribunal concluded that the assessee's explanation was bona fide and covered by Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c), which protects against penalties if the explanation is bona fide and substantiated.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal found that the penalties levied under Section 271(1)(c) were not justified. The assessee's explanation for the discrepancies in the balance-sheets was accepted as bona fide, and there was no evidence of intentional concealment or fraud. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of the principle from Hindustan Steel Ltd. vs. State of Orissa, noting that penalties should not be imposed in the absence of deliberate defiance of law or contumacious conduct. Consequently, the Tribunal canceled the penalties and allowed the assessee's appeals.
-
1994 (5) TMI 52
Issues:
1. Reopening of assessment under section 143(2)(b) of the IT Act.
2. Dispute regarding the estimation of sales and gross profit rate.
3. Addition of income from the sale of waste material.
4. Addition on account of cash credit and interest paid.
5. Deletion of additions on account of unexplained cash credits.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The appeal involved a challenge to the reopening of assessment under section 143(2)(b) of the IT Act. The assessment was originally completed under section 143(1) but later reopened with the approval of the IAC. The assessee contested the reopening, but no substantial arguments were presented during the hearing. The CIT(A) upheld the reopening, and the Tribunal concurred with this decision, rejecting the assessee's ground on this issue.
2. The dispute in the assessee's appeal centered around the estimation of sales and the gross profit rate applied. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the assessee's record-keeping, leading to the rejection of the book results under section 145(1). The CIT(A) confirmed the application of section 145(1) and increased the sales amount while reducing the gross profit rate. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, considering the defects admitted by the assessee and the historical performance for comparison.
3. Another issue in the assessee's appeal was the addition of income from the sale of waste material. The Assessing Officer estimated income from waste material sales based on previous years' figures since the assessee failed to maintain proper records. The CIT(A) affirmed this addition, noting the lack of documentation for waste material sales. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s decision, citing the absence of records and upheld the addition.
4. The appeal also addressed the addition on account of a cash credit and interest paid, involving a sum introduced as a cash credit in an account and subsequent disallowance of interest. The Assessing Officer raised concerns about the genuineness of the transaction, leading to the addition of the cash credit as income from undisclosed sources. The CIT(A) upheld this addition after detailing the contradictions in the statements provided. The Tribunal supported the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no reason to overturn it.
5. The Revenue's appeal challenged the deletion of additions related to unexplained cash credits. The CIT(A) reviewed the facts and discrepancies, ultimately deleting the additions based on the explanations provided. The Tribunal agreed with the CIT(A)'s findings, emphasizing the factual inaccuracies highlighted and rejecting the Revenue's appeal.
In conclusion, both the assessee's and Revenue's appeals were dismissed by the Tribunal, with decisions made on various issues related to assessment, income estimation, and cash credit additions.
-
1994 (5) TMI 51
Issues:
1. Penalty imposed under section 271B of the IT Act on a non-resident company for not maintaining formal income and expenditure accounts.
2. Interpretation of section 44AB applicability to a foreign company receiving royalty income.
3. Consideration of Double Taxation Agreement provisions in determining tax liability.
4. Assessment of whether penalty under section 271B is justified based on the company's business activities and compliance with audit requirements.
Detailed Analysis:
1. The Revenue appealed against the cancellation of a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 imposed on a non-resident company by the CIT(A) under section 271B of the IT Act. The company received royalty income but did not maintain formal income and expenditure accounts, leading to penalty proceedings initiated by the Assessing Officer.
2. The Assessing Officer contended that the company's receipt of royalty income constituted business activities, necessitating compliance with section 44AB for audit requirements. The company argued that as a foreign entity, it was not carrying on business in India and cited the Double Taxation Agreement provisions between India and Germany to support its position that royalty income was separate from business income.
3. The CIT(A) analyzed the relevant provisions of the IT Act, CBDT Circular, and the Double Taxation Agreement to conclude that section 44AB was not applicable to the company as its income from royalty and technical fees did not fall under the category of business income. The CIT(A) emphasized that the company did not maintain accounts in India, and all receipts were subject to tax, leading to the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B.
4. Upon further review, the tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the company lacked a permanent establishment in India and received income solely from royalty and technical fees. The tribunal agreed that section 44AB did not apply to the company's non-business income and acknowledged the company's reasonable belief in not being subject to audit requirements due to its historical receipt of similar income. Consequently, the tribunal dismissed the Revenue's appeal, affirming the cancellation of the penalty under section 271B.
-
1994 (5) TMI 50
Issues Involved:
1. Taxability of salary paid during the 28 days off period when the appellants were off the rigs and outside India.
2. Consistency in judicial decisions and adherence to precedent.
3. Distinction between the present case and other cases with different terms of employment contracts.
4. Evidence required to show how the period outside India was spent by the appellants.
5. Timeliness of the appeals.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Taxability of Salary Paid During the 28 Days Off Period:
The primary issue was whether the salary paid to foreign technicians during their 28 days off period, when they were physically outside India, was taxable in India. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) and the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) had included this salary in the assessments, arguing that the off period was directly related to the duties performed on the rigs in Indian waters and was thus taxable in India. The Tribunal, however, disagreed with this view. It noted that the technicians continued to be employees of their foreign employer and were available for work outside India during the off period. The Tribunal followed earlier decisions where it was held that such salary was not taxable in India, as the services were placed at the disposal of the parent company outside India.
2. Consistency in Judicial Decisions and Adherence to Precedent:
The Tribunal emphasized the importance of judicial discipline and consistency in decisions. It referenced the Hon'ble Supreme Court's observation in the case of Hari Singh v. State of Haryana, which stressed that Courts of co-ordinate jurisdiction should have consistent opinions to avoid judicial anarchy. Similarly, the Hon'ble Madras High Court in CIT v. L.G. Ramamurthi held that no Tribunal has the right to come to a conclusion entirely contrary to an earlier decision on the same facts. The Tribunal noted that earlier Benches had consistently held that the salary for the off period was not taxable in India, and there was no reason to deviate from this established precedent.
3. Distinction Between the Present Case and Other Cases:
The Tribunal distinguished the present case from other cases cited by the Revenue, such as the technicians of Scan Drilling Co. and Halliburton Offshore Services Inc. It noted that the terms of the contracts in those cases were different. The Tribunal had previously observed that the facts in the case of Scan Drilling Co. were not identical to those of the employees of Atwood Oceanics International. Therefore, the decisions in those cases could not be applied to the present appeals.
4. Evidence Required to Show How the Period Outside India Was Spent:
The Tribunal addressed the argument regarding the need for evidence to show how the technicians spent their off period outside India. It concluded that this issue was not relevant to the decision. The crucial point was that the services of the employees were placed at the disposal of the parent company for various jobs stipulated in the terms of employment, and they were on "call" for official purposes outside India. This was sufficient to conclude that the salary for the off period was not taxable in India.
5. Timeliness of the Appeals:
The Tribunal also addressed the issue of whether the appeals were filed within the prescribed time limit. The appellants had received letters of defect indicating that the appeals were barred by limitation by 16 days. However, the appellants clarified that there was a typing mistake in the date of receipt of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The correct date was 29th June 1989, not 10th June 1989. After considering this explanation, the Tribunal held that the appeals were filed within the time limit and there was no delay.
Conclusion:
In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed all the appeals, holding that the salary for the 28 days off period was not taxable in India. It emphasized the importance of judicial consistency and adherence to precedent, distinguishing the present case from others with different contractual terms. The Tribunal also found that the appeals were timely filed.
-
1994 (5) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
2. Cancellation of penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Cancellation of penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
Detailed Analysis:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeals:
The appeals were time-barred by three days, and the Revenue filed a petition for condonation of delay. The Tribunal was satisfied with the reasons provided for the delay and thus condoned the delay, allowing the appeals to be entertained.
2. Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
The assessee's residence was searched on 8th August 1985, leading to the discovery of promissory notes, bank passbooks, and other documents. Subsequently, the assessee filed returns for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1985-86, which were accepted with minor variations. The Assessing Officer levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c) for concealment of income.
The assessee contended that:
- He believed that as the business was conducted by a partnership firm, he was not required to file returns in his individual capacity.
- The returns were filed at the instance of the Assessing Officer.
- The assessments were completed on an agreed basis, and thus, penalties should not be levied.
The CIT(A) found that the income belonged to the firm and not the individual, relying on judicial precedents and evidence such as the partnership deed and bank accounts. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that:
- There was no deliberate concealment of income.
- The penalties were not justified as the returns were filed within the period specified under Section 153(1)(a)(iii) for the assessment years 1983-84 to 1985-86.
- The Assessing Officer did not mention Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c) in the assessment order or the notice issued under Section 274.
- The penalty could not be sustained in law, referencing the Bombay High Court's decision in CIT vs. P.M. Shah.
3. Cancellation of Penalty under Section 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961:
Penalties were also levied under Section 271(1)(a) for the assessment years 1981-82, 1982-83, and 1984-85 due to the late filing of returns. The CIT(A) accepted the assessee's contention that:
- The business belonged to the unregistered firm, and the assessee believed he was not liable to file returns in his individual capacity.
- The returns were filed on the oral advice of the Assessing Officer.
- The assessee had reasonable cause for the delay, supported by the Rajasthan High Court's decision in CIT vs. R.K. Golecha.
The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that:
- There was sufficient evidence to show that the income belonged to the firm.
- The Department did not provide any material to disprove this finding.
- The assessee's belief constituted a reasonable cause for the delay.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the Departmental appeals, upholding the cancellation of penalties under Sections 271(1)(c) and 271(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1978-79 to 1985-86. The Tribunal emphasized the lack of deliberate concealment, the reasonable cause for the delay, and the procedural lapses in invoking Explanation 3 to Section 271(1)(c).
-
1994 (5) TMI 48
Issues:
- Levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 1978-79.
- Concealment of income from toddy business and cashew business.
- Imposition of penalty by the Assessing Officer and confirmation by the first appellate authority.
- Barred by limitation under section 275(a) of the IT Act.
- Reduction in loss due to appellate orders affecting penalty imposition.
Analysis:
The case involved an appeal by the assessee against the penalty imposed under section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act for the assessment year 1978-79. The assessee, a cashew dealer operating a toddy shop, had discrepancies in income declarations. The Assessing Officer found discrepancies in the income from the toddy shop and the cashew business. The assessee was penalized for not disclosing income from the toddy shop and for not accounting for consignment sales in the cashew business. The penalty was confirmed by the first appellate authority.
The main contention was whether there was concealment of income. The tribunal held that the assessee's actions amounted to concealment as the income was not disclosed in the return. The tribunal rejected the argument that the income was based on estimates and found that the concealment was present in the conduct of the assessee.
Regarding the penalty imposition, the tribunal discussed the limitation under section 275(a) of the IT Act. It was argued that the penalty order was barred by limitation as it was passed beyond the six-month period after the receipt of the first appellate authority's order. The tribunal agreed that the penalty imposition was indeed barred by limitation due to the timing of the penalty order.
Another crucial point raised was the reduction in loss due to appellate orders affecting the penalty imposition. Citing precedent, the tribunal held that no penalty is leviable when the final assessment results in a reduced loss, as in this case. The tribunal referred to a previous decision to support the stance that penalty is not applicable when no tax is payable by the assessee.
Ultimately, the tribunal allowed the appeal, canceling the penalty based on the findings related to limitation and the reduction in loss due to appellate orders.
-
1994 (5) TMI 47
Issues Involved:
1. Adequacy of consideration received by retiring partners for transfer of special rights.
2. Adequacy of consideration received by continuing partners for giving up special rights.
3. Determination of deemed gift under Section 4(1) of the Gift Tax (GT) Act.
4. Methodology used by the Gift Tax Officer (GTO) to ascertain the value of assets and goodwill.
5. Year of assessment for the deemed gift.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Adequacy of Consideration Received by Retiring Partners for Transfer of Special Rights:
The GTO held that the consideration received by the four retiring partners from Kwality Biscuits Pvt. Ltd. was inadequate for the transfer of their special rights in goodwill and capital appreciation of the assets. The Tribunal found that at the time of retirement, there could be no transfer as held by several judicial decisions, including CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1973) 91 ITR 393 (Guj) and its approval by the Supreme Court in Addl. CIT vs. Mohanbhai Pamabhai (1987) 165 ITR 166 (SC). The Tribunal concluded that the transaction was an adjustment of rights among partners, not a transfer, thus no gift or deemed gift occurred.
2. Adequacy of Consideration Received by Continuing Partners for Giving Up Special Rights:
The GTO also deemed the consideration received by Shri Viswanath Gupta and Shri Umesh Gupta, two continuing partners, for giving up their special rights in the goodwill and capital appreciation of the assets of the firm as inadequate. The Tribunal noted that the partnership was subsisting among the partners, and the value of any partner's share could not be ascertained with certainty unless an account of all assets and liabilities was taken. Therefore, the Tribunal held that there was no gift or deemed gift in the case of continuing partners as well.
3. Determination of Deemed Gift under Section 4(1) of the GT Act:
The GTO evaluated the deemed gift based on the difference between the consideration received and the value of the rights in goodwill and capital appreciation of the firm. The Tribunal found that the GTO's method was erroneous, as it did not consider the value of assets as on the date of the transaction (16th Feb., 1979) and instead used values from the dissolution of the firm on 17th March, 1981. The Tribunal held that the inadequacy of consideration must be worked out with reference to the value of assets as on the transaction date.
4. Methodology Used by the GTO to Ascertain the Value of Assets and Goodwill:
The Tribunal criticized the GTO's methodology for valuing the assets and goodwill. The GTO had taken the revaluation done as on 17th March, 1981, and worked backward to estimate the value as on 16th Feb., 1979, which the Tribunal found unscientific and ad hoc. The Tribunal also noted that the GTO did not deduct the book value of the assets and had independently evaluated the goodwill in a manner not aligned with recognized principles. The Tribunal referenced "Advanced Accounts" by Mr. M.C. Shukla & T.S. Grewal to emphasize the correct approach for valuing goodwill.
5. Year of Assessment for the Deemed Gift:
The assessee contended that the deemed gift should be considered in the assessment year 1979-80, as they had chosen 31st March, 1979, as their previous year. The CIT(A) rejected this, stating that the GTO did not accept the change of the previous year from June to March. The Tribunal did not find merit in this contention and upheld the assessment year as 1980-81.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal concluded that the GTO's method for evaluating the assets and goodwill was flawed and that there was no gift or deemed gift involved in the transactions of both retiring and continuing partners. The Tribunal canceled the levy of gift-tax in each case and allowed the appeals.
-
1994 (5) TMI 46
Issues involved:
The judgment deals with the issue of whether income from technical services should be taxed on accrual basis or receipt basis, and the applicability of provisions of section 145 in determining the total income of the assessee.
Summary:
Issue 1 - Taxation of income on accrual vs. receipt basis:
The dispute in the case revolved around whether fees for technical services should be taxed on accrual basis or receipt basis. The Assessing Officer (AO) had initially held that the income was liable to be taxed on accrual basis, citing a Madras High Court decision. However, the CIT(A) directed that the income should be taxed on receipt basis, based on the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and Germany. The Appellate Tribunal, after hearing the parties, upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing that the agreement between the two countries prevails over domestic laws. The Tribunal clarified that income in the form of fees for technical services could only be taxed in India on a receipt basis, as per the specific provisions of the agreement.
Issue 2 - Applicability of section 145 in determining total income:
The appellant also contended that the provisions of section 145 were not applicable for determining the total income. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments, found that the order passed by the CIT(A) was legally sound. It noted that the conflict between the domestic laws and the double taxation avoidance agreement necessitated taxing the income on a receipt basis. The Tribunal highlighted that the liability to tax arises only when a non-resident receives payment, as outlined in the agreement, and not on an accrual basis as per section 5 of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the decision of the CIT(A) regarding the taxation of income from technical services on a receipt basis.
In conclusion, the Appellate Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to tax the income from technical services on a receipt basis, in accordance with the agreement for avoidance of double taxation between India and Germany, and dismissed the appeal.
-
1994 (5) TMI 45
Issues:
Taxability and quantification of capital gains.
Analysis:
The case involved the Department appealing the deletion of the addition of capital gains on the sale of shares by the CIT (Appeals). The Department argued that the conversion of shares into stock-in-trade was to avoid capital gains tax, citing the Supreme Court decision in McDowell's case. The Assessing Officer calculated the capital gains based on the sale price and cost price, resulting in an additional tax liability of Rs. 23,370. The CIT (Appeals) disagreed and held that only the profit amount of Rs. 42,730 should be taxable.
Upon review, the Tribunal noted the changes in the law effective from 1-4-1985, specifically section 45(2) regarding the computation of capital gains on converted shares. The Tribunal found that the Assessing Officer's calculation was incorrect as it did not consider the conversion price and cost price difference for taxation. The Tribunal determined that the correct tax liability should be higher than the Rs. 23,370 added by the Assessing Officer, as 45% of the profit amount of Rs. 42,730 should also be included.
The Tribunal highlighted an error in the CIT (Appeals) order where the deletion of the Rs. 23,370 addition was based on an incorrect interpretation of the law. The Tribunal clarified that the entire difference between sale price and cost price should not be treated as capital gains, but only the difference between conversion price and cost price. The Tribunal also distinguished this case from a previous decision, emphasizing the applicability of section 45(2) for the assessment year in question.
Ultimately, the Tribunal allowed the Departmental appeal, reversing the CIT (Appeals) decision and restoring the addition of Rs. 23,370 to the total income. The Tribunal concluded that the capital gains should be computed based on the conversion price and cost price difference, in accordance with the relevant legal provisions.
-
1994 (5) TMI 44
Issues:
- Refusal of Departmental authorities to rectify an adjustment made under section 143(1)(a).
- Dispute regarding the sequence of deductions under sections 53, 54, and 48(2).
- Interpretation of the Explanation below section 53 inserted by the Finance Act, 1987.
- Applicability of adjustments under section 143(1)(a) in the case of debatable issues.
Analysis:
1. The appeal was against the Departmental authorities' refusal to rectify an adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) concerning the quantification of long-term capital gains. The Assessing Officer adjusted the figures related to deductions under sections 53, 54, and 48(2) in the computation of capital gains from the sale of a property.
2. The crux of the dispute revolved around the sequence of deductions to be allowed. The assessee argued that deduction under section 48(2) should be quantified and allowed first before deductions under sections 53 and 54. However, the Department contended that deductions under sections 53 and 54 should precede the deduction under section 48(2. The insertion of the Explanation below section 53 by the Finance Act, 1987 was crucial in determining the correct sequence of deductions.
3. The Explanation clarified that references to capital gains in sections 53, 54, and others should be construed as references to the amount of capital gains as computed under section 48(1)(a). This meant that deductions under sections 53 and 54 should be made from the figure of capital gains before the deduction specified in section 48(1)(b). The Assessing Officer's adjustment aligned with this interpretation, correcting the mistake in the initial computation.
4. The Assessing Officer's actions were deemed appropriate as they were in accordance with the specific provision of the law and the insertion of the Explanation below section 53. The adjustment made under section 143(1)(a) was not debatable as it rectified a mistake of law apparent on the face of the return. The Assessing Officer's duty was to bring the sequence of deductions in line with the statutory requirements, and no other figures were altered.
5. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the Assessing Officer's adjustment under section 143(1)(a) as being in compliance with the correct interpretation of the law and the specific provisions regarding the sequence of deductions under sections 53, 54, and 48(2. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory requirements in computing capital gains and deductions, as clarified by the Explanation below section 53.
-
1994 (5) TMI 43
Issues:
Jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 and merits of the revisional order challenged by the assessee.
Analysis:
The appeal was against the revisional order of the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263. The Commissioner concluded that the assessment order was erroneous and prejudicial to the Revenue's interests due to inadequate inquiry into specific expenditures. The Commissioner set aside the assessment order for fresh consideration. The appeal was decided ex parte as the assessee did not appear. The learned D.R. supported the revisional order on jurisdiction and merits.
The Tribunal held that for the Commissioner to exercise power under section 263, the order must be both erroneous and prejudicial to Revenue. The order cannot be termed erroneous simply because the Commissioner disagrees with it. Objective facts must exist for revision. The Tribunal cited a case where the Commissioner's revision was not upheld due to lack of objective findings. In this case, the Tribunal found the Commissioner unjustified in invoking jurisdiction under section 263.
Regarding the merits, the Tribunal analyzed specific expenditures. It found that engaging public taxis did not fall under disallowance provisions, as clarified in the Finance Act. Payment of commission and brokerage was considered selling expenses, not sales promotion expenses, based on precedents. The bonus payment at 20% was customary and not found to lack allocable surplus. The Tribunal concluded that the Commissioner's order setting aside the assessment was not justified on both jurisdiction and merit grounds. The appeal was allowed, and the assessment order was restored.
In summary, the Tribunal found that the Commissioner lacked justification to invoke jurisdiction under section 263 and set aside the assessment order. The Tribunal also analyzed specific expenditures, concluding that they were not erroneous in law. The Commissioner's order was overturned, and the assessment order was restored.
....
|
9911796707
