|
Advanced Search Options
Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 90 Records
-
1973 (2) TMI 50
Issues:
1. Determination of undisclosed income based on cash credits in the books of account.
2. Burden of proof on the assessee to explain the source of cash credits.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Determination of undisclosed income based on cash credits
The case involved cash credits in the books of account of an assessee firm for the financial year 1966-67. The Income-tax Officer noticed two cash credits and sought an explanation for their source. The Income-tax Officer included the sum of Rs. 10,600 in the income of the applicant-firm as income from undisclosed sources. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner upheld this decision, stating that there was no evidence supporting the cash credits. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal partially accepted the appeal, allowing a benefit of savings in one case but confirming the addition in the other. The High Court concluded that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's decision as it was based on factual findings.
Issue 2: Burden of proof on the assessee
The second issue revolved around the burden of proof regarding the source of cash credits. The Supreme Court precedent established that the burden of proving the source of cash credits lies with the assessee. The petitioner cited a Division Bench judgment from the Assam High Court to argue against this burden, but the High Court distinguished the facts of that case from the present situation. The High Court highlighted Section 68 of the Income-tax Act, which places the onus on the assessee to explain any sum found credited in their books. In this case, the Income-tax Officer called upon the assessee-firm to prove the source of the cash credits, and since the explanation was unsatisfactory, the credits were treated as income of the firm. Therefore, the High Court found no merit in the petition and dismissed it, emphasizing that no question of law arose from the Tribunal's order.
In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the petition, maintaining that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and the burden of proof regarding the source of cash credits rested with the assessee as per the Income-tax Act.
-
1973 (2) TMI 49
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of notices issued under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Alleged omission or failure by the assessee to disclose all material facts.
3. Justification for reopening assessments based on alleged misrepresentation of expenses.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Notices Issued Under Section 148 Read with Section 147:
The petitioner, The Hong-Kong and Shanghai Banking Corporation, challenged several notices issued under section 148 read with section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for assessment years 1950-51 to 1960-61. The notices were impugned on the grounds that there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts relevant for its assessment during the respective assessment years, rendering the notices without jurisdiction and void.
2. Alleged Omission or Failure by the Assessee to Disclose All Material Facts:
The petitioner-bank, a worldwide organization, claimed deductions for expenses incurred by its head office, London office, and U.S.A. offices referable to Indian offices. The Income-tax Officer had detailed discussions with the petitioner's representatives, and the petitioner provided various details supporting its claim. The assessment order for 1950-51 accepted the petitioner's computation method. This method was consistently followed in subsequent years without further discussion, indicating acceptance by the Income-tax Officers.
3. Justification for Reopening Assessments Based on Alleged Misrepresentation of Expenses:
The revenue authorities alleged that the petitioner suppressed the fact that the expenses claimed in India were also claimed in the respective foreign countries. The recorded reasons for reopening assessments stated that the assessee misrepresented facts by claiming the same expenses in both India and foreign countries. However, the court found that the primary facts were within the knowledge of the Income-tax Officers during the original assessments. The court noted that if the Income-tax Officers had considered the claim for deduction in foreign countries relevant, they could have made the necessary enquiries. The court emphasized that the duty of disclosing primary facts lies on the assessee, and the assessing authority must make intelligent enquiries based on those facts.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the assessee disclosed all primary facts during the original assessment proceedings, and the Income-tax Officers failed to make further enquiries. The court held that the reopening of assessments based on the alleged misrepresentation was not justified. The application succeeded, and the rule was made absolute, directing the respondents to recall and cancel the impugned notices and to forbear from giving effect thereto. There was no order as to costs, and the operation of the order was stayed for eight weeks. The interim order granted continued for the same period.
-
1973 (2) TMI 48
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of rectification notices issued under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Applicability of section 34(3), second proviso, to rectification proceedings under section 35.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to issue rectification notices beyond the four-year limitation period.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Validity of Rectification Notices Issued Under Section 35:
The petitioner challenged the notices dated October 24, 1969, issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, for rectifying mistakes in the assessment orders for the years 1955-56, 1956-57, and 1957-58. The petitioner argued that the rectifications were barred by time and thus, the notices were without jurisdiction and illegal. The court examined the facts, noting that the assessments of the firm were completed in 1960, and the Income-tax Officer had initially rectified the petitioner's assessments under section 155 of the new Act without issuing a show-cause notice, which was later annulled by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. Subsequent rectifications were also annulled as they were made under the new Act instead of the old Act. The court concluded that the notices issued under section 35 after more than nine years from the completion of the firm's assessments were time-barred and without jurisdiction.
2. Applicability of Section 34(3), Second Proviso, to Rectification Proceedings Under Section 35:
The court considered whether section 34(3), second proviso, which allows reassessment beyond the limitation period in certain cases, applies to rectification proceedings under section 35. The petitioner argued that section 34 deals with assessments and reassessments, while section 35 pertains to rectification of mistakes, and there is no similar provision in section 35 extending the limitation period. The court agreed, stating that section 34(3), second proviso, does not apply to rectification proceedings under section 35. The court emphasized that section 35(5) specifically deals with rectification of a partner's share in a firm's income and mandates that such rectifications must be completed within four years from the date of the firm's final assessment order.
3. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Issue Rectification Notices Beyond the Four-Year Limitation Period:
The court examined whether the Income-tax Officer had jurisdiction to issue rectification notices beyond the four-year limitation period. The petitioner contended that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's order did not extend the limitation period for rectification. The court noted that the Appellate Assistant Commissioner had annulled the rectifications made under the new Act but did not give any direction to redo the rectifications under the old Act. The court held that the Income-tax Officer's power to rectify mistakes was exhausted once he complied with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner's direction. Therefore, the subsequent notices issued under section 35 were beyond the limitation period and without jurisdiction.
Conclusion:
The court concluded that the rectification notices issued by the Income-tax Officer were beyond the four-year limitation period and thus, without jurisdiction and illegal. The writ petitions were allowed, and the Income-tax Officer was directed not to take further action in pursuance of those notices. The court also held that section 34(3), second proviso, does not apply to rectification proceedings under section 35, and the rectification proceedings must be completed within the specified four-year period. The appeals were dismissed, and the parties were directed to bear their respective costs.
-
1973 (2) TMI 47
Issues:
1. Whether the best judgment assessment made without providing the assessee an opportunity to explain should be quashed.
2. Interpretation of sections 142(3), 143(2) and (3), 144, and 145(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961.
3. Whether failure to comply with the principle of natural justice warrants interference under article 226 of the Constitution.
Analysis:
1. The case involved the Additional Income-tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income-tax (the revenue) against Ponkunnam Traders, an assessee firm. The assessee's accounts were rejected, leading to a best judgment assessment without giving an opportunity to explain the basis of assessment. The single judge allowed the writ petition filed by the assessee, quashing the assessment. The main contention was whether the assessment without providing an opportunity to explain should be upheld.
2. The interpretation of sections 142(3), 143(2) and (3), 144, and 145(2) of the Income-tax Act of 1961 was crucial. Section 142(3) mandates giving the assessee an opportunity to be heard regarding any material gathered in an enquiry under sub-section (2) for assessment. Section 143(2) and (3) outline the procedure for assessment based on evidence produced by the assessee and gathered by the Income-tax Officer. Section 144 deals with best judgment assessment in specific circumstances, while section 145(2) provides for assessment in case of rejected accounts.
3. The issue of failure to comply with the principle of natural justice under article 226 of the Constitution was raised. The single judge considered various legal precedents and concluded that the discretion under article 226 should favor the assessee due to the failure to exhaust remedies before appellate and revisional authorities. The High Court upheld the single judge's decision, emphasizing the distinction between departmental authorities and courts of law in terms of compliance with natural justice principles.
In conclusion, the High Court confirmed the single judge's decision to quash the best judgment assessment and dismissed the appeal. The court also rejected the contention regarding the failure to comply with the principle of natural justice, citing legal precedents and the exercise of discretion by the single judge. No costs were awarded in the judgment.
-
1973 (2) TMI 46
Issues:
1. Applicability of section 34(1)(a) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Legality of assessment against a Hindu undivided family after its dissolution.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Applicability of section 34(1)(a) of the Act
The case involved two cash credits in the account books of a Hindu undivided family which were treated as income from undisclosed sources by the Income-tax Officer. The primary question was whether the income had escaped assessment due to the failure of the assessee to disclose all material facts. The Tribunal held that the Income-tax Officer had erred in assessing the amounts in the wrong year, leading to the reopening of the assessment for the correct year. The key contention was that the assessee had not failed to disclose the nature of the cash credits as the Income-tax Officer was aware of the facts before the assessment for the relevant year was finalized. The court emphasized that once the assessing authority had all the primary facts, it was their duty to draw proper inferences and apply the law correctly. The department failed to show that the Income-tax Officer had any doubts about the explanation provided by the assessee, thereby failing to meet the burden of proof under section 34(1)(a).
Issue 2: Legality of assessment against a dissolved Hindu undivided family
The alternative contention raised was whether the assessment against a Hindu undivided family after its dissolution was legally valid. However, the court noted that if the first question regarding the applicability of section 34(1)(a) was answered in favor of the assessee, the second question need not be addressed. Therefore, the court did not delve into the issue of the legality of the assessment against a dissolved Hindu undivided family.
Ultimately, the court ruled in favor of the assessee, holding that the Income-tax Officer had failed to demonstrate that the income had escaped assessment due to any omission or failure on the part of the assessee. The court cited various precedents to support its decision and awarded costs to the assessee.
-
1973 (2) TMI 45
Issues:
- Interpretation of director's remuneration received by a Hindu undivided family member.
- Determining whether the remuneration is individual income or belongs to the family.
- Application of legal principles from previous Supreme Court judgments.
Analysis:
The High Court judgment dealt with Income-tax References concerning the assessment years 1961-62 and 1962-63. The main issue was whether the director's remuneration received by a member of a Hindu undivided family should be considered as the family's income or the individual's income. The Income-tax Officer initially included the remuneration in the family's income, relying on a Supreme Court decision. However, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner allowed the appeal, stating that the remuneration was the individual's salary for services rendered to the company, not linked to family funds. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal also dismissed the department's appeal, noting that the remuneration did not necessarily belong to the family just because they held shares in the company.
The judgment referred to previous Supreme Court cases to determine the nature of such income. The court highlighted the importance of whether the income was a return on family investments or compensation for individual services. It emphasized that if the income was earned due to family investments, it belonged to the family; otherwise, it was the individual's income. The court cited a case where the managing director's remuneration was not assessable as family income because there was no real connection between family funds and the appointment. The court also mentioned another case where the managing director's remuneration was considered individual income due to personal services rendered, not family investments.
Applying these legal principles, the High Court found that the director's remuneration received by the family member was his individual income, not the family's income. The court noted that the tests from previous Supreme Court judgments were not satisfied in this case to classify the remuneration as family income. Consequently, the court ruled in favor of the assessee and against the revenue, answering the question in the negative. No costs were awarded in this matter.
-
1973 (2) TMI 44
Issues:
1. Rejection of applications for waiver of penal interest under section 18A(6) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922.
2. Time-barred revision applications under section 33A(2) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59.
Analysis:
1. The petitioner was assessed for income tax for multiple assessment years, and penal interest under section 18A(6) was charged due to failure to pay the proper amount of advance tax. The petitioner applied for waiver of interest under section 35 read with rule 48 of the Indian Income-tax Rules, 1922. The Commissioner rejected the applications on the grounds of being time-barred and that the question of penal interest was already under appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, making the revision applications not maintainable. The court found that the applications for waiver were independent of the assessment order, and the petitioner was entitled to seek revision. The court held that the Commissioner's decision was erroneous, allowing the petition and directing the Commissioner to reconsider the revision petitions on their merits.
2. The second issue pertained to the time-barred revision applications under section 33A(2) for the assessment years 1956-57 and 1958-59. The Commissioner had rejected these applications citing that the matter had been appealed before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. However, the court clarified that orders under section 18A(6) are not appealable orders, and therefore, the appeals made by the petitioner did not make the question of interest appealable before the Tribunal. The court referred to precedents and held that the Commissioner was mistaken in rejecting the applications on this ground. Consequently, the court allowed the petition, quashed the Commissioner's order, and instructed the Commissioner to reconsider the revision petitions based on their merits, granting costs to the petitioner.
-
1973 (2) TMI 43
Assessee derived income from property as also from other sources. Besides, he was one of the two partners in a firm - That firm carried on money-lending business and also derived income from its house properties - Whether the carried forward business loss of a partner can be set-off against share income from a firm - Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee's share income from property in the registered firm of 'S.Rm.M. Ct.M.' was income from property or profits and gains of business - In any view of the matter, we are not inclined to hold that the share income derived by the assessee in this case is not a business income. The result is that the assessee's share income has to be assessed under the head " profits and gains of business " and the question is answered accordingly.
-
1973 (2) TMI 42
Issues Involved:
1. Addition of Rs. 52,070 to the assessee's income for the assessment year 1961-62.
2. Levy of penalty of Rs. 40,000 under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:
1. Addition of Rs. 52,070 to the Assessee's Income:
The assessee, a registered firm involved in the manufacture and sale of handloom goods, reported an income of Rs. 73,519 for the assessment year 1961-62. The Income-tax Officer (ITO) noted discrepancies in the assessee's accounts, particularly regarding the purchase of 3,700 pieces of handloom goods valued at Rs. 52,070 from 31 weavers. These purchases were unsupported by independent vouchers and the weavers could not be traced. The ITO added Rs. 52,070 to the assessee's income, rejecting the assessee's offer to spread this amount over four years.
The Appellate Assistant Commissioner (AAC) upheld the addition, citing two grounds: a shortage of 40,000 yards of cloth in production and the improbability of credit purchases from the weavers. The AAC highlighted four suspicious circumstances: (1) inability to produce weavers for examination, (2) suspicious ledger entries, (3) improbability of weavers waiting two years for payment, and (4) absence of receipts for payments.
The Appellate Tribunal confirmed the AAC's decision, noting the assessee's failure to reconcile its sales and closing stock and the improbability of the credit purchases. The Tribunal inferred that the 3,700 pieces were likely produced by the assessee itself, based on the yardage per lb. of yarn used. The Tribunal rejected the argument that a higher gross profit rate disproved the addition.
The High Court found no merit in the assessee's contention that the addition was unsupported by material. The court noted several defects in the assessee's accounts, including the lack of quantitative tally, unsupported issue of yarn, abnormal credit purchases, and suspicious ledger entries. The court concluded that the purchases from the 31 weavers were fictitious and represented undisclosed income. The court upheld the Tribunal's inference that the assessee had produced the 3,700 pieces and shown them as purchases to disguise profits. The court answered the question in T.C. No. 114 of 1967 in the affirmative, supporting the addition of Rs. 52,070 to the assessee's income.
2. Levy of Penalty of Rs. 40,000 under Section 271(1)(c):
Following the addition of Rs. 52,070, the ITO initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and levied a penalty of Rs. 40,000 for deliberate concealment of income. The assessee's appeal against the penalty was dismissed by the Tribunal.
The High Court considered the assessee's argument that the penalty could not be sustained solely based on the findings in the assessment proceedings. The court referred to several precedents, including Commissioner of Income-tax v. Gokuldas Harivallabhdas, Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Khoday Eswarsa and Sons, which emphasized that penalty proceedings are penal in nature and require cogent evidence of deliberate concealment.
The court found that the Tribunal's conclusion of deliberate concealment was based on positive and definite material from the assessee's own accounts, not merely on the falsity of the assessee's explanation. The court noted that the materials from the assessment stage constituted relevant evidence and could be considered in the penalty proceedings. The court observed that the assessee's conduct, including its agreement to the inclusion of the amount and its avoidance of an enquiry, indicated suppression of income.
The court concluded that the Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty was justified based on concrete and positive materials. The court answered the question in T.C. No. 115 of 1967 in the affirmative, supporting the levy of the penalty of Rs. 40,000.
Conclusion:
The High Court upheld both the addition of Rs. 52,070 to the assessee's income and the levy of a penalty of Rs. 40,000 for deliberate concealment of income. The court found that the decisions of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal were supported by consistent and tenable reasons based on positive and definite material. The revenue was entitled to its costs from the assessee in both cases.
-
1973 (2) TMI 41
Shares are transferred at less than fair market value to persons connected with the assessee - (1) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction was properly subjected to gift-tax under section 4(1)(a) of the Gift-tax Act ? (2) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction was liable to be taxed under section 52(1) of the Income-tax Act ? (3) Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the transaction was liable to simultaneous taxation to gift-tax as well as to tax on capital gains? "
-
1973 (2) TMI 40
These writ petitions challenge the validity of attachment orders made by the Tax Recovery Officers with respect to the attachment of the properties which stand registered in the names of the petitioners for the recovery of income-tax arrears due from the respective husbands of the petitioners in Writ Petitions Nos. 484 of 1969 and 1144 of 1970, and the father of the petitioner in Writ Petition No. 801 of 1970 - Whether property held benami by third party for the defaulter could be proceeded against for recovery of tax - writ petitions are dismissed
-
1973 (2) TMI 39
Tribunal arrived at a finding ignoring the material evidence - whether the Findings Of Fact is vitiated in law giving rise to a question of law - this mandamus application is allowed - Tribunal is directed to draw up the case and refer the questions to this court for decision along with the questions referred
-
1973 (2) TMI 38
Rejection of account books vis-a-vis rejection of method of accounting - right of the officer to reject account books - method of accounting can be rejected under s. 13 but the account books can be rejected under section 23(3). This is because the power to reject the accounts is inherent in the power to call for evidence in support of the return and investigate the same
-
1973 (2) TMI 37
Penalty - whether the findings given by the authorities in the assessment proceedings are conclusive in the matter of levy of penalty - Tribunal is right in holding that on the facts and in the circumstances of this case where the assessee is found to have paid for the cotton purchased at the inflated rates, it is not possible to say that the assessee has deliberately concealed its income - findings in assessment proceedings were not sufficient to levy penalty
-
1973 (2) TMI 36
Tribunal holding that the date given in the partnership deed was an error and that the firm was genuine - It cannot be said that the Tribunal's finding were without any material or they were perverse - It is not possible to say that the Tribunal relied upon irrelevant considerations - so, this finding of fact could not be challenged in a reference – no reference lies to High Court against such a decision
-
1973 (2) TMI 35
Debts due by the firm to various creditors was barred by limitation were credited to the partners' account - " 1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Appellate Tribunal is right in law in holding that the amounts of ₹ 16,513 is not assessable under section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? 2. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, there is any material for the Tribunal to hold that there was no remission or cessation of liability in respect of the sum of ₹ 6,725 ? " - we answer both the questions referred to us in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the department
-
1973 (2) TMI 34
Assessee then claimed that a sum of Rs. 33,747.09 was payable towards interest on a loan of Rs. 4 lakhs taken by them from M/s. Associated Planters Ltd. - Whether this sum of Rs. 33,747.09 credited towards interest in the relevant previous year could be assessed in the year 1964-65 - Whether the interest given up by the creditor which was already allowed as deduction can be treated as assessee's income and whether it depends on the method of accounting followed by the assessee - Whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the amount of Rs. 33,747.09 is not agricultural income for the assessment year 1964-65
-
1973 (2) TMI 33
Proceedings under section 34(1)(a) of the Act were initiated with a view to levying tax on the income of the assessees derived by way of their share in the firm, Jagdish Prasad Satya Prakash. That income had already been assessed under section 23B(2). From the assessment order it is clear that the assessees had no other source of income nor is it the case of the department that the income provisionally assessed is less than the income actually earned by the assessees. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that any part of the assessees' income had escaped assessment. The mere fact the assessees had not filed their returns did not bring into play section 34(1)(a) of the Act. It must be shown that some income of the assessee had escaped assessment. That clearly is not the case of the department - reassessment proceedings cannot be initiated against a person who has been assessed provisionally under s. 23B(2) even though he did not file his returns provided he has no other source of income
-
1973 (2) TMI 32
Issues Involved
1. Legality of reopening the assessment under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to act under section 147(a).
3. Non-disclosure of income by the assessee.
4. Compliance with procedural requirements under section 148(2) and section 151.
Detailed Analysis
1. Legality of Reopening the Assessment under Section 147(a)
The primary issue revolves around whether the reopening of the assessment for the year 1955-56 under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was legal, valid, and within jurisdiction. The Tribunal held that the reopening was invalid due to the absence of a reasonable belief by the Income-tax Officer that the income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's failure to disclose material facts. The Tribunal also noted that the proceedings were initiated solely based on the direction of the Commissioner of Income-tax.
2. Jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer to Act under Section 147(a)
The Tribunal concluded that the Income-tax Officer lacked jurisdiction to reopen the assessment for 1955-56 under section 147(a). The Tribunal based its conclusion on the fact that the reasons recorded by the Income-tax Officer did not satisfy the requirements of section 147(a). Specifically, the Tribunal found that the Income-tax Officer did not have a reasonable belief that the income had escaped assessment due to the assessee's non-disclosure of material facts. The Tribunal emphasized that the only reason recorded was the direction of the Commissioner, which does not suffice to meet the statutory requirements.
3. Non-Disclosure of Income by the Assessee
The Tribunal's reasoning was scrutinized by the court, which found that the Tribunal had erred in holding that there was no non-disclosure of income by the assessee for the assessment year 1955-56. The court pointed out that the assessee had not included the sum of Rs. 36,000 in her return for 1955-56, despite the adjustment being made on August 31, 1954. The court noted that the original assessment for 1952-53 did not include this amount, and thus, the assessee was guilty of non-disclosure, leading to the escapement of income for 1955-56.
4. Compliance with Procedural Requirements under Section 148(2) and Section 151
The court found that the Income-tax Officer did not comply with the mandatory procedural requirements under section 148(2) and section 151. The Income-tax Officer failed to record his reasons for initiating proceedings under section 147(a) independently, instead relying solely on the direction of the Commissioner. The court emphasized that the recording of reasons is a condition precedent for the issuance of a notice under section 148, and failure to do so invalidates the proceedings. The court rejected the revenue's argument that the procedural defect did not affect the jurisdiction of the Income-tax Officer, stating that the statutory conditions must be satisfied to confer jurisdiction.
Conclusion
The court held that the reassessment proceedings under section 147(a) were invalid due to non-compliance with procedural requirements and lack of jurisdictional basis. The question referred to the court was answered in the affirmative, confirming that the reopening of the assessment for 1955-56 was illegal, invalid, and without jurisdiction. The revenue was ordered to pay the costs of the assessee, with counsel's fee set at Rs. 250.
-
1973 (2) TMI 31
Estimated Income - Rejection Of Accounts - discrepancy between the books' stock and the statement given to bank - assessee explained that the inflated figures shown to the bank was for obtaining higher loan facilities - Whether estimation would be justified, if the books were not adversely commented upon
|
9911796707
