TMI Blog2012 (1) TMI 250X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l amount advanced was at ₹ 2,20,00,000/- and not ₹ 3,00,00,000/-. It was provided in the said MOU that the possession of the premises would be given to the assessee company on or before 31st October 2001; and if the delivery cannot be given by the aforesaid date M/S TCI Industries Ltd; the owner would be entitled to reasonable extension of time. The purpose of advance of the for the purpose of business and that is for the purpose of acquiring a business premise in course of business activity and being so, even the interest paid on borrowed funds is allowable and there cannot be any disallowance on notional basis. We confirm the order of CIT(A) on this issue. Grounds of the Revenue on this issue are rejected. Treatment of loss arising on sale of shares, alleged to be speculative loss, under Explanation to S.73 of the Act - Held that:- Loss has to be treated as capital loss and accordingly we confirm the order of CIT(A) and same is confirmed. Grounds of the Revenue on this issue are rejected. Disallowance of bad debt - Held that:- There is no dispute regarding writing off the debts in the books of accounts of the assessee. After the amendment of the section 36(1)(vi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceedings before him under section 250 of the Act. The assessing officer could exercise the power of reopening of assessment on any issue if it is not subject matter of appeal before CIT (A) and it is before the CIT(A) for his consideration or if he has considered the same issue, in that circumstances, the AO is precluded from considering same for reopening of assessment in guise of bringing into tax the escaped income. The only remedy available to assessing officer is to prefer appeal before higher forum and not to reopen the same assessment. In view of this, without going into merit of the issue, we cancel the order of the lower authorities and the ground taken by the assessee on reopening is allowed. Addition by way of long term capital gains by applying the provisions of S.50C - Held that:- In the present case, the assessee not discharged the burden cast on it. The assessee having not availed of the opportunity provided under sub-sections (2) and (3) of s 50C to object to the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities, in our opinion, the AO justified in treating the value adopted by the said authorities as the deemed sale consideration received/ accruing as a resul ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal and unavoidable delays and damages suffered to the cargo in the course of loading, unloading and transportation form one place to another. 4. While for the assessment years 2001-02 and 2002-03, the assessing officer disallowed 15% of the amounts of commission claimed of ₹ 5,15,28,011 and ₹ 5,21,16,149, which worked out to ₹ 77,29,201 and ₹ 78,17,422 respectively, on a total turnover of ₹ 451,50,78,301 and ₹ 468,09,42,289 respectively, for the assessment years 2000-01, 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06, the assessing officer disallowed the entire amounts of commission claimed of ₹ 4,71,59,038; ₹ 4,59,79,292 and ₹ 2,97,24,988 respectively, on total turnover of ₹ 4,69,98,808, ₹ 470,04,77,024, ₹ 554,06,68,903 and ₹ 615,30,35,812 respectively. 5. The factors which weighed with the assessing officer to make the impugned disallowances out of commission payments are summarized below- a. The addresses of the payees are not available in the self made vouchers and other documents produced on behalf of the Assessee Company. Some of the vouchers do not contain the signatures of the payees. If the payments are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, as well as prove the genuineness of payments, since the payment vouchers did not contain the addresses of the payees. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court has also reached finality with the dismissal of SLP. h. The fact that during the last several years, the department has accepted the claim of the assessee, is held irrelevant. There is no res judicata in assessment proceedings. i. The fact that the assessee company is unable to furnish the addresses of the recipients or produce such persons before the assessing officer proves the fact that the entire commission payment was in the nature of secret commission and therefore, not admissible. Further, the effect of insertion of Explanation to S.37(1) of the Act with retrospective effect from assessment year 1962-63 is also to be considered in the context of assessee company's claim as to the allowability of secret commission. The decisions of the Madras High Court in G.A.Vasant V/s. CIT (265 ITR 481) and of the Orissa High Court in Tarini Tarpuline Productions V/s. CIT (254 ITR 495) are in favour of the department, since in those cases disallowance of entire secret commission was upheld. j. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the address of the payee. It has been explained that if the full identity of the agents/employees of the customers to whom such commission payments are made, is disclosed it would greatly jeopardize the business interests of the assessee company. Moreover, since the payments are made in very small amounts to large number of persons, the details as to the addresses of the payees are not maintained. The assessee company maintained vouchers in every case commission payment with the signature of the payee, and the assessing officer has not pointed out any specific case, where he did not find the signature of the payee. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessing officer has merely proceeded on suspicion when he stated that the employees of the assessee company who prepared the vouchers, may have signed as payees as well. Such an allegation is wholly baseless and arbitrary. The further allegation of the assessing officer that the signatures in most cases are mere scribbling is also not correct. The signatures on the vouchers are only those of the payees and it is not correct for the assessee to dictate the customers or for any one else to expect the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... data furnished were in respect of two financial years corresponding to assessment years 2000-01 and 2001-02 and the data for the other years could have been obtained by the assessing officer himself with reference to the ast records of that company. The data furnished by the assessee for the two years clearly prove that the said company also used to pay commission and the range of payment of commission by that company was 1.23% in assessment year 2000-01 and 1.57% in assessment year 2001-02. As against this, taking us through the statement filed giving information for the last 25 years, it was submitted, the percentage of commission payments in the case of the assessee company is far lower than that of ABC India Ltd. It is further submitted that the assessing officer was not correct and justified in alleging that the assessee company itself has conceded that the case of Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. is not comparable, since assessee's case has always been that the case of the said company was comparable. What was however stated before the lower authorities was that since Sri Ramdas Transport Ltd. also deals in sale of new vehicles as well as manufacture and sale of motor car ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ama Co. (supra) are clearly distinguishable. Elaborating this point ad dealing with the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kodandarama Co (supra) learned counsel submitted that in that case before the High Court, the assessee has made contributions to the Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund, as he was told that he would not get the export permits unless he made the contributions. The Tribunal thereupon found that contribution to the Welfare Fund was a pre-condition for grant of export permits and as such, the same was held by the Court to be in contravention of the public policy. The Hon'ble High Court on that basis reversed the order of the Tribunal. Since in the present case, the assessee did not pay any commission either to any Government Department/Agency or to any Government servant, the said decision of the Hon'ble High Court in the case of Kodanda Rama Co. (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. As for the decision of the jurisdictional High Court in assessee's own case (256 ITR 701), for earlier assessment years, viz. 1981-82 to 1984-85, learned counsel for the assessee sought to distinguish the same, by bringing o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... working at Varanasi, had filed an affidavit before the IAC in the course of the proceedings under S.144B of the Act to the effect that Shri Upadhyay was mainly looking after the operation of vehicles at Varanasi Branch, and was therefore, not concerned and/or aware with commercial matter, regarding payment of a commission which was made thorough Shri L.B.Roy, a senior employee of the Varanasi branch under his (Shri Pandey's) supervision and directions. The statement made by the Regional Manager of the Varanasi Branch in his aforesaid affidavit was believed by the IAC, who directed the ITO in his order passed under S.144B of the Act, not to make any disallowance based upon the statement of Srhi V.N.Upadhyay. These facts are clearly recorded in para 7.53 of the assessment order dated 7.7.1984 passed in the case of the assessee company for the assessment year 1981-82 and a copy of the relevant portion appears at pages 280 to 281 of the paper/book, Vol.II filed by the assessee company in relation to ITA No.430/Hyd/2007 in respect of assessment year 2000-01. It appears that the attention of Their Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was perhaps not invited to th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd emphasized by the Courts in several cases. He vehemently disputed this stand of the lower authorities in brushing aside the evidentiary value of the affidavits by taking us through the provisions of S.3(3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 and Rule 1 of Order 19 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 and placed strong reliance on the following decisions- (a) Mehta Parikh Co. V/s. CIT (30 ITR 180)-SC (b) Union of India Anr. V/s. Delhi High Corut Bar Association Ors.(2002) 4 SCC 275(SC) (c) Salem Advocates Bar Association V/s. Union of India(2003) 1 SCC49(SC) 16. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that in the case of assessee company payment of commission has all along been accepted and allowed by the department as business expenditure, but for small disallowances in some of the years, including for the four years for which matter reached the jurisdictional High Court, which decided the issue in favour of the Revenue. As such, it is pleaded that considering the stand taken by the Revenue for most of the years in the past, and the decision of the jurisdictional High Court was rendered against the assessee considering the peculiar facts and circums ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... or the assessment year 2001-02 under S.143(3), learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the observations of the assessing officer that from the vouchers of commission payments produced by the assessee company and examined by him, it was found that in certain cases commission was paid in the range of 11% to 32.84% of the freight amounts noted in the accompanying consignment notes; that instances of single payment of commission in respect of several consignments booked from different clienteles were noted; and that apparently payees could not be employees of so many different customers, are arbitrary, incorrect, baseless and false. Even though assessee requested vide its letter dated 21st April, 2004 addressed to the assessing officer, soon after the receipt of the assessment order dated 3st March, 2004, requested the assessing officer to give it copy of the statement allegedly prepared by the assessing officer and kept on the assessment records, giving details of payment of commission in the range of 11% to 32.84% of the freight amounts, the assessing officer did not give any reply to the said letter. It is submitted in this context that the assessee paid minimum level commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dencing commission payments in respect of each of the relevant years and that the vouchers maintained by the assessee in respect of commission payment are self-made and contain several suspicious features and do not infuse confidence as to the genuineness of these commission payments in question, which are all along made in cash. In this behalf, he submitted that addresses of the payees are not available in the self made vouchers and other documents produced on behalf of the Assessee Company. Some of the vouchers do not contain the signatures of the payees. If the payments are genuine, the assessee should have furnished confirmation letters from the payees giving their full address. The signatures of the payees are in most cases mere scribbling and it is quite possible that the employees of the assessee company, who prepared the vouchers, themselves signed the vouchers as payees. He further submitted that affidavits of the Regional Managers filed by the assessee company are stereo typed in nature. Judicially it has been held that the affidavits cannot be treated as proper evidence unless the contents are based on proved facts. The self serving affidavits have no evidentiary value. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the payees, as well as prove the genuineness of payments, since the payment vouchers did not contain the addresses of the payees. The decision of the Hon'ble High Court has also reached finality with the dismissal of SLP. In this connection, he did not find merit in the points of distinction brought out by the learned counsel for the assessee for the years under consideration as against the facts and circumstances of the case considered by the Hon'ble High Court in the reported decision, and submitted that those distinguishing features are not material enough to deviate from the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court to accept the commission payments claimed by the assessee in the years under appeal. 21. The Learned Departmental Representative further submitted that the fact that during the last several years, the department has accepted the claim of the assessee with regard to commission payments is irrelevant as there is no res judicata in assessment proceedings and also since, for the years under appeal, the assessee company could to furnish the addresses of the recipients or produce such persons before the assessing officer, which proved the fact that the entire c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... payments, the learned Departmental Representative also placed reliance on the decision s of Gujarat High Court in CIT V/s. Navsari Cotton and Silk Mills Ltd. (135 ITR 546) and of the Bombay high court in CIT Vs. Taraporvala Sons Co. Pvt. Ltd. (239 ITR 319). 23. The learned counsel for the assessee, in his reply, disputed the contention of the Learned Departmental Representative that the assessee did not produce all the vouchers. He submitted that the allegation made on behalf of the Revenue is wholly incorrect and stated that there are more than fifty lakh vouchers evidencing commission payments in the relevant years under appeal before the Tribunal and in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had taken before the assessing officer all its books of accounts alognwith the relevant vouchers and documents through truck loads, but the assessing officer examined some of the vouchers by way of sample, at his own option by way of pick and choose method. Similarly, all the vouchers were again produced before the learned CIT(A) who also examined the vouchers by way of sample, at his option, by pick and choose method. 24. The learned counsel for the assessee also disputed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal in that case, considering peculiar facts and circumstances of that case which did not inspire confidence in the affidavit filed in that case and therefore the decision went against the assessee therein, the decision of the said case has no application to the facts of the present case. He also distinguished the other case law relied upon by the Learned Departmental Representative noted above. 26. The learned counsel for the assessee, on the issue of applicability of a precedent, invited our specific attention to the following observations of the Hon'ble Apex Court tin Commissioner of Central Excise, Bangalore V/s. Srikumar Agencies (2009) 1 SCC 469(SC)- 4. Courts should not pace reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of Courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases an ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eep the path to justice clear of obstructions which could impede it. 6. Since the factual position has not been analyzed in detail, disposal of appeals by mere reference to decisions, was not the proper way to deal with the appeals. The GEGAT also does not appeal to have dealt with the relevance and applicability of ITC's case (supra), on which strong reliance has been placed by learned Solicitor General. It is submitted that the aforesaid observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court had been reiterated in The State of Orissa V/s. Sudhansu Sekhar Misra Ors.(AIR 1968 SC 647); Padmasundara Rao(Decd) V/s. State of Tamil Nadu (255 ITR 147)(SC); Bharat Petroleum Corporation Ltd. V/s. N.R.Vairamani (2004) 8 SCC 579(SC) and in Bihar School Examination Board V/s. Suresh Prasad Sinha (2009) 8 SCC 483(SC). 27. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities. We have also gone through the voluminous paper-books filed before us and elaborate written submissions filed by both the parties before us. In these cases, the assessee has paid commission to various persons and claimed as deduction. The claim was not allowed by the Assessin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d to claim deduction under sub section (1) of 37, though there is no compelling necessity to incur such expenditure. It is also observed that payment itself not established and, secondly it is not the case of the assessee before the assessing authority that the particulars of the persons to whom the amounts of secret commission were made could be supplied without detriment to the business of the assessee having regard to the nature of the business of transport of cargo carried on by the assessee company. According to judgment the finding recorded by the Tribunal, is based on no evidence , but is based irrelevant considerations. However, the high court not decided the issue whether the payment of commission is opposed to public policy or not. Further, it was observed that the mere fact that for the assessment year 1981-82 the ITO has allowed the similar claim of the assessee cannot be a ground to allow claim commission without examining whether necessary conditions existed to allow allowance under section 37 in terms of statute or not and whether the assessee had discharged the burden cast on it with regard to the subsequent assessment year. Allowance or disallowance of a claim und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n in respect of expenditure on specified business. Section 35B deals with export market development allowance. Section 35C deals with agricultural development allowance. Section 35CC deals with rural development allowance. Section 35CCA deals with expenditure by way of payment to association and institutions for carrying out rural development programmes. Section 35CCB deals with expenditure by way of payment to associations and institutions for carrying out programmes of conservation of natural resources. Section 35D deals with amortization of certain preliminary expenses and 35DD deals with amortization of expenditure in case of amalgamation or de- merger. Section 35DDA deals with amortization of expenditure incurred under voluntary retirement scheme. Section 35E deals with deduction for expenditure on prospecting etc. for certain minerals. Section 36 deals with other deduction in respect of premium paid, interest, etc. 30. The claim of payment of commission by the present assessee is not qualified for deduction under any of above sections. Now, coming to next question as to whether the expenditure is capital expenditure or not, we are of the opinion the expenditure is not a ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... es, who book the consignments. We have gone through the relevant portion of the assessment order for the assessment year 1981-82 which was placed on record at page no. 280-281 of the assessee Paper Book, volume-II filed in relation to ITA No. 430/Hyd/07 for the assessment year 2000-01. For the assessment year 1981-82 in a proceedings u/s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income tax (IAC) rejected the statement of the Jaipur Branch manager on the basis of the affidavit filed by Sri Dukhi Pande Regional Manager of Varanasi Branch, under whom Mr. V.N. Upadhyay, the new manager of Jaipur Branch, had all along been working at Varanasi to the effect that Sri Upadhyaya was mainly looking after the operation of vehicles at Varanasi Branch and was therefore, not concerned and/or aware with commercial matters regarding payment of commission, which was made through Sri L.B. Roy, a senior employee of Varanasi Brach under Mr. Pandey's supervision and directions. The statement made by the Regional Manager of the Varanasi Brach in his affidavit was believed by the IAC, who directed the Assessing Officer in his order passed under section 144B of the sai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... see. On the above stated facts, our judgment in the case of CIT v. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. [1991] 188 ITR 1 (Income-tax Reference No. 606 of 1976) dated August 21, 1990, squarely applies. Accordingly, we agree with the Tribunal that its conclusion is based on a finding of fact arrived at on the basis of good and cogent material 35. In the instant case of the assessee-company too, the facts are identical with those considered by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sigma Paints (188 ITR 6). The payment vouchers giving the relevant details, including the names of the payees, and also bearing the signatures of the payees as recipients of commission, had been produced by the assessee-company before the Assessing Officer in each of the 5 years now under appeal. The payment vouchers contained full details of the nature of transaction viz. the Consignment No., the names of the consignor and consignee, the nature of goods carried, the freight amount, the amount of commission, the date of payment as well as the name of the payee etc. In other words, the details of all transactions in respect of which the commission had been paid by the assessee-company are duly re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g them, with reference to the statements made by them in their respective affidavits, it was not open to the Revenue to challenge the correctness of the cash book entries or the statements made by those deponents in their affidavits. 38. Further, S. 3(3) of the General Clauses Act, 1897 defines an Affidavit to include an affirmation and declaration in the case of persons by law allowed to affirm or declare instead of swearing. The essential ingredients of an affidavit are that the statement or declaration is made by the deponent relevant to the subject matter, and in order to add sanctity to it, he swears or affirms the truth of the statement made in the presence of a person, who in law is authorised either to administer oath or accept the affirmation. 39. In Union of India Anr. v. Delhi High Court Bar Association Ors. (2002) 4 SCC 275 (SC) their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraph 23 of their judgement inter alia held and observed as under: ..... when the High Courts and the Supreme Court in exercise of their jurisdiction under Article 226 and Article 32 can decide questions of fact as well as law merely on the basis of documents and affidavits filed befor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 996) 56 TTJ 207 (Trib-Jaipur) in support of his submissions that the affidavits, in all cases, the same cannot be accepted as good evidence for income tax proceedings. In that case, the evidence of the assessee, who was subjected to search and seizure proceedings under section 132 of the said Act had been recorded under section 132(4). In his statement under section 132(4), the assessee had accepted his ownership of the cash found and seized from his possession at the time of search. However, later in the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee filed an affidavit contradicting his earlier statement recorded u/s 132(4) at the time of search. In the background of these facts, the Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal held that although as a general rule if the deposition made in the affidavits is not tested through cross examination, the same should be accepted, but, before accepting any deposition contained in an affidavit, it was always necessary that the deposition should inspire confidence and that the same should appeal to the reasons of a prudent man. The Jaipur Bench of the Tribunal noted that in that case huge amount of cash was seized from the possession of the assessee, and w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... est that the statements on Affidavit should not be accepted as true. In that case, the assessee after 15 years, had asserted on Affidavit for the first time that notices of demand were not served on him. The court noted that the plea of alleged non service of notices of demand was never taken by the assessee earlier; and that he made this assertion after a long delay of 15 years, when he became sure that the income tax records proving the service of notices were no longer available with the tax department. Such an assertion by the assessee, after a long period of 15 years, was held by the Hon'ble Court to be nothing but false and an afterthought. 43. In the circumstances, the cases relied upon the by the Revenue are distinguishable on facts and in the light of well settled position of law that the statements on Affidavit cannot be rejected, without subjecting the deponent to cross examination, the tax authorities below were not justified in arbitrarily ignoring the Affidavits of Senior Officers of the assessee company to the effect that the commission in question was M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Sec'bad actually and genuinely paid by the assessee company, ye ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ages 282-286 of the Paper Book, Volume - II filed in relation to ITA No. 430/Hyd/07 in respect of the assessment year 2000-01. 46. It however appears that the attention of their Lordships of the Hon'ble High Court of Andhra Pradesh was inadvertently not drawn to the aforesaid contentions of the Assessee Company, as recorded by the assessing officer himself in the respective impugned assessment orders; and the High Court distinguished the case of the assessee Company with that of the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT vs. Sigma Paints Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 6 (Bom) only on the ground, as recorded at page 713 of the reports(256 ITR), that it was not the case of the assessee before the assessing authority that the particulars of the persons to whom secret commission was paid could not be supplied without detriment to the business of the assessee having regard to the nature of the business of transport of cargo carried on by the Assessee Company. 47. Even in the years under appeal, it was all along stated before the tax authorities on behalf of the Assessee Company that having regard to the small amount of commission being paid by it, the details of addresses o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e in respect of the Assessment Years 1981-82 to 1984-85 (supra), is clearly distinguishable on facts, and cannot support the stand of the revenue that the entire payment of commission claimed by the assessee company as a deductible business expenditure should be disallowed in each of the 5 years now under appeal. 51. We are also supported in this behalf by the following decisions, relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee, wherein identical facts and circumstances as in the case of the assessee herein, for each of the five years under appeal, have been considered:- a. CIT vs. Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 1 (Bom); b. CIT v. Sigma Paints Ltd. (1991) 188 ITR 6 (Bom); c. Dr. G.G. Joshi vs. CIT (1994) 209 ITR 324 (Guj); d. CIT vs. ASK Rathinasamy Nadar (1995) 212 ITR 527 (Mad); e. CIT vs. Mills Stores Trading Co. India Pvt. Ltd. (1984) 18 Taxman 85 (Bom); f. CIT vs. Hoechst Dyes Chemicals Ltd. (1984) 17 Taxman 389 (Born); g. APL India Pvt. Ltd. vs. DCIT (2005) 96 ITD 227 (Mum); h. Saga Departmental Stores Ltd. v. CIT (2010) 325 ITR 324 (Del) i. CIT v. Printers House Pvt. Ltd. (2010) 188 Taxman 70 (Del). ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n, were very relevant. On the basis of these and other evidence, the Tribunal concluded that the fact of payment of commission was established even though the names and addresses of the recipient were not given and that the payments were made for the purpose of business. As observed by our High Court in the assessee's own case for the earlier year, it was perfectly open to the Tribunal to accept or not to accept the assessee's claim for payment. It was for the Tribunal to decide as a final judge of facts as to whether the case of the assessee that the amounts claimed to have been paid were actually paid should or should not be accepted in the absence of the names and addresses of the persons to whom the amounts were paid. Having then regard to the material referred to and relied upon by the Tribunal for coming to the conclusion in favour of the allowability of the claim for deduction, we decline to interfere, as the conclusion of the tribunal is a finding of fact and is based on cogent material. 53. In the case of the assessee company too, the facts, as were found in Goodlass Nerolac Paints case (supra), are identical, as already set out herein above. Here too, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ips of the Hon'ble Madras High Court held and observed at pages 529, 531 532 of the Reports inter alia as under: It is seen from the orders of the Income-tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal and the statement of the case submitted to this court that the Income-tax Officer examined the vouchers given in support of the payment of brokerage in connection with the transaction with Ashok Leyland Limited and to others. He, however, disallowed the commission on the ground that there were no addresses available in the vouchers. The assessee, however, submitted a letter stating that all the payments made by them were genuine, that the payments were made to several persons like carpenters and that they were not in a position to produce any of the recipients for the examination in respect of Ashok Leyland Limited, though they would produce them in all other cases. The Income-tax Officer, however, observed that Ashok Leyland Limited was an established concern and that if the payments had been made to effect purchases then the person concerned must be a person of status and there should be no difficulty for the assessee to produce the recipient for cros ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case of Goodlass Nerolac Paints Ltd. v. CIT [1982) 137 ITR 58, which has taken notice of the trade practice of secret commission paid to the customers and others and found no error in granting deduction of such expenditure under section 37 of the Act. To conclude, we hold that the Tribunal had full materials to support its conclusion and it has committed no error of law. The reference is answered accordingly ..... 56. In CIT v. Mills Stores Trading Co. India Pvt. Ltd. (1984) 18 Taxman 85 (Born), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court held and observed at page 86 of the Reports inter alia as under: 2. The facts giving rise to this application are that the assessee carries on the business of the supplying mill stores to various mills. The assessee claimed an amount of ₹ 26,112 by way of secret commission paid to the employees of various mills who had purchased goods from the assessee. The ITO disallowed the sum of ₹ 26,112 on the ground that the fact of payment and its nexus with the business of the assessee has not been established. An appeal preferred by the assessee was, however, allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal u ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... amounts as secret commission and we declined to interfere with that finding for the reasons stated above. In the present case, the Tribunal has believed that case of the assessee that the payments were made as well as that there was nexus between the said payment and the business of the assessee and we do not see how these findings of fact can be interfered with in a reference. 57. The same view was reiterated by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in CIT v. Hoechst Dyes Chemicals Ltd. (1984) 17 Taxman 389 (Bom). 58. In Saga Departmental Stores Ltd. v. CIT(A) (2010) 325 ITR 324 (Del), their Lordships of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court were considering the claim for deductibility of expenditure incurred by the assessee for payment of commission to taxi drivers, guides and other commission agents to the tune of ₹ 11,45,47,937 which was around 18- 20% of the total turnover of the assessee. It was noticed that the assessee had declared a gross profit rate of 54.15% of turnover as against the net profit rate of 1.93% only. The tax authorities held that the expenses by way of payment of commission to taxi drivers, guides and other commission agents was unreasonable infla ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... y conducted to prove the non-genuineness of the transactions the departmental authorities were not justified in disallowing the claim of the assessee which was fully supported by the documentary evidence on record. 61. Further, in paragraph 7 of his impugned assessment order dated 31st March, 2004 passed by the Assessing Officer, in the instant case of the assessee company, for the assessment year 2001-02 under section 143(3) of the said Act, the Assessing Officer had observed hat from the vouchers of commission payments produced by the assessee company and examined by him, it was found that in certain cases commission was paid in the range of 11 % to 32.84% of the freight amounts noted in the accompanying consignment notes and that instances of single payment of commission in respect of several consignments booked from different clients were noticed; and that apparently payees could not be employees of so many different customers. These allegations made by the Assessing Officer, as contended by the assessee company, appear to be incorrect. The assessee company vide its letter dated 21st April, 2004, addressed to the Assessing Officer soon after the receipt of the impugned ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s own option, by pick and choose method. All the vouchers were again produced before the learned CIT(A), who also examined the vouchers by way of sample, at his own option, by pick and choose method. 64. In the circumstances mentioned hereinabove, while the assessee company filed all affidavits in relation to the entirety of commission payments made by it in each of the relevant years under appeal, in the Paper Books filed before this Tribunal, the assessee M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Sec'bad company gave photocopies of some of the receipted vouchers, by way of sample in each of the relevant years. The photocopies of such receipted vouchers given way of sample are as under: Assessment Year Page No. of the Paper Books 2000-01 237-256 of Volume- I 2001-02 236-305 of Volume- I 2002-03 173-207 of Volume- I 2003-04 257-289 of Volume- I The tax authorities have not found any defect whatsoever in any of the vouchers evidencing payment of commis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not examined the issue whether the case of that assessee was covered by the new Explanation inserted under section 37(1) of the said Act with retrospective effect 01.04.1962. In that view of the matter, the Hon'ble High Court had remanded the matter to the Tribunal with a direction to examine the issue in the light of the said Explanation. 69. In the case of the assessee company herein, that aspect had already been examined by the tax authorities below. The case of the assessee company herein has, all along, been that the payment of commission, in the instant case, to the employees / representatives and agents of the private sector enterprises, on whose behalf the cargo was carried by the assessee company to different destinations, does not fall within the category of extortions, haftas, bribes and/or protection monies , which are in the nature of payments for a purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law; and which alone fall within the purview of the new Explanation inserted under section 37(1) of the said Act. In that view of the matter, the said decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Taraporvala's case(supra) has no application to the facts ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lier, judgement of jurisdictional High court in the case of CIT Vs Kodandarama Co ( 144 ITR 395) has no application to the facts of present case. In that case, assessee, a dealer in paddy, rice etc; claimed the payment made to Andhra Pradesh Welfare Fund as business expenditure u/s 37(1) of the act. Assessee claimed that unless the said payment to the welfare fund was made, no permit for export of rice to the State of Kerala would be issued by District collector. However, the assessing officer disallowed the payment on the ground that the said expenditure was not incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. The High court found that for the purpose of granting permission to export of rice to Kerala the collector imposed the conditions that the assessee has to deposit particular amour to the welfare fund. That the grant of the permit is governed by Southern States Regulation of Export of rice Order 1964. Under the above said regulation, the grant of permit has to be made by the collector on a reasonable and fair basis having regard to the facts and circumstances of the district and state, as case may be. It is not open to the district collector or any other authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oducing audited books of accounts, payment vouchers and other documents giving full details as to the nature of transactions which necessitated the payment of such commission, including the affidavits sworn by the Regional/ Zonal/Divisional/ Area/ Controlling managers, operational heads viz. Vice presidents and Senior Executives etc., declaring, inter alia, on oath that the commission payments were actually and factually made by the assessee by way of incentives to the employees/ agents/ representatives of customers who brought in cargo to the assessee company for booking; and that this was an accepted norm and established trade practice in the transport business; and that without such payment, it was not possible to survive in this line of business, as well as the prevalent trade practice in the line of business carried on by the assessee company all along. 76. It may also found that in earlier years which were considered by jurisdictional High Court, the total commission payment was never disallowed. The amount of commission disallowed in those years ranged from 9.45% to 11.98% of the aggregate freight received by the assessee company in each of the relevant years. Being so, t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssessee filed a statement showing the factual background in regard to the freight receipt, the commission paid by the assessee company, percentage paid with reference to the freight receipts, the amount disallowed by the lower authorities and the amount of disallowance sustained by the Tribunal in the respective years: A.Y. Freight income (Rs.) Commission paid (Rs.) % of commission on freight Disallowed by AO (Rs.) Sustained by CIT(A) (Rs.) Sustained by ITAT (Rs.) 1976-77 123835249 123835249 0.87 15000 8000 7000 1977-78 130256082 1457766 1.12 25000 12000 10000 1978-79 144952475 2116115 1.46 35000 18000 10000 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Nil Nil Nil 1993-94 1729626762 21001371 1.21 Nil Nil Nil 1994-95 2115997389 24977221 1.18 Nil Nil Nil 1995-96 2631508627 29329341 1.11 Nil Nil Nil 1996-97 2895854178 30554341 1.06 Nil Nil Nil 1997-98 2699820800 35210513 1.30 Nil Nil Nil 1998-99 3121427641 42315219 1.36 Nil Nil Nil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1982-83,1983-84 and 1984-85 at the rate of 10.84%, 11.98%, 10.76% and 9.45% of freight receipts respectively for these years. 82. Now, out of the five years now under appeal before us, the assessing officer had disallowed 15% of the aggregate commission paid by the assessee company in the assessment year 2001-02. The learned CIT(A) has sustained disallowance to the extent of 5% of the aggregate commission paid in that year. Both the Department as also the assessee are in appeal on this issue before us. For this assessment year 2001-02, there is reassessment proceedings through which there is allowance of 100% commission payment against which the assessee in appeal before us on reopening and also challenging the 100% disallowance of commission payment. 83. For the assessment years 2000-01 and 2003-04, the Assessing Officer had disallowed 100% of the commission payment. The CIT(A) had sustained the disallowance of commission at 20%. Both the assessee as well as Department is in appeal before us. 84. For the assessment year 2002-03, the Assessing Officer had disallowed 15% of aggregate commission paid by assessee company. The CIT(A), enhanced such disallowance to 100%. The a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2000-01 10675.52 160.30 1.50 167.54 1.57 D. Sri Ramdas Motor Transport Ltd. 2002-03 3143.71 See Note (iii) 232.08 7.38 2003-04 3201.32 237.30 7.41 2004-05 3554.71 255.96 7.20 E Transport Corporation of India Ltd. the assessee company herein 1999-00 40360.49 745.96 1.85 469.99 1.16 2000-01 45150.78 830.26 1.84 512.28 1.13 2001-02 46809.42 764.26 1.63 521.16 1.11 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... aid a sum of ₹ 3,00,00,000 by way of advance to M/s. TCI Industries Ltd. (earlier known as Transport Corporation of India) in terms of Memorandum of Understanding dated 15th March, 1999. The said company owned a manufacturing unit at Colaba Mumbai, more popularly known as Mukesh Textile Mills, which was closed in 1982. The said company was desirous of developing the landed property forming part of the said Textile Mills by constructing a multi-storeyed building thereon. The assessee-company was admittedly trying to buy 25,000 sq. ft. in the said building complex, and for booking the said space, it advanced the aggregate sum of ₹ 2,20,00,000 and not ₹ 3,00,00,000, as incorrectly alleged by the assessing officer, to M/s. TCI Industries Ltd. It was provided in the said MOU that possession of the premises would be given to the assessee company on or before 31st October, 2001 and if the delivery cannot be given by the aforesaid date, M/s. TCI Industries, the owner would be entitled to reasonable extension of time. The assessing officer further stated that said MOU was cancelled and the entire amount was refunded to the assessee company in the subsequent years. The asse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that the advances made by the assessee company for the proposed acquisition of office premises was in any way related to tee borrowed funds. There is no direct nexus between the amount borrowed by the assessee company and the amounts advanced by it to the group concern in question. In this view of the mater, it is submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of S.A. Builders V/s. CIT(288 ITR 1)(SC) clearly supports the case of the assessee and the disallowance made by the assessing officer, which is not justified, was correctly deleted by the CIT(A). He also placed reliance in this behalf, on the following decisions- (a) Munjal Sales Corporation V/s. CIT(298 ITR 298)-SC (b) CIT V/s. Tin Box Co.(260 ITR 7637)-Del (c) Smt. Chanchal Katyal V/s. CIT (298 ITR 182)-All (d) CIT V/s. Sambandham Spinning Mills Ltd. (298 ITR 306)-Mad. It is further contended that the assessee company intended to acquire the proposed newly constructed office premises wholly and exclusively for its commercial land business purpose, and it is by now well settled that interest on monies borrowed for purchase of capital assets, in an existing continuing business ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uary, 2000, which is within the financial year 1999-2000 corresponding to assessment year 2000-01. Taking into consideration the indexed cost of acquisition in terms of the second proviso to S.48 of the Act, the assessee company returned a long term capital loss, assessable to tax under S.45 of the Act in the aggregate sum of ₹ 40,88,440, arising to it on sale of the aforesaid shares of each of the said two companies. 96. Similarly, the assessee company had purchased 57,200 units issued by the Unit Trust of India under the 1964 Scheme, in the financial year 1997- 98 and 2,70,00 shares of Chanderpal Investments Ltd. in August, 1999, i.e. during the financial year 1999-2000. The said units were sold by the assessee company in May and August, 1999 and the said shares were sold by it in March, 2001, resulting in an aggregate assessable long term capital loss of ₹ 3,06,814, after taking into consideration the indexed cost of acquisition thereof. The assessee company was treating the aforesaid purchases as its investments at all material times. The said loss of ₹ 3,06,814 was claimed by the assessee company as assessable to tax under S.45 of the Act. 97. Further, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch as it is applicable only when any part of the business of a company, other than the excluded categories consist in the purchase and sale of shares of other companies. In other words, according to him, Explanation to S.73 applies only when the business of a company is that of dealing in shares. The assessee company, he submitted does not deal in shares and the shares purchased by it were all along held by it as investments and this fact is also proved from its printed Balance Sheets wherein the investments in shares, etc. were all along reflected under the head 'investments' and not under the head 'stock in trade'. He drew our specific attention to Schedule 6 of the Balance Sheets drawn as on 31.3.2000; 31.3.2001; 31.3.2003, copies of which are filed in the relevant Vol.II of the paper books for the relevant years filed before us. He further submitted that the losses arising on sale of shares and units cannot be treated as speculative loss within the meaning of Explanation appearing under S.73 of the Act, since the said Explanation has no application in the instant case. Moreover, it is submitted the units of UTI not being shares, the said Explanation even otherwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t held as current assets by treating as stock in trade. In our opinion, the shares and units of UTI held by the assessee as an investment portfolio and the mere provisions in the object clause of Memorandum and Articles of Association cannot be conclusive to hold that the assessee is carrying on the business in shares and to classify the same as stock in trade. As the assessee is not carrying on business in shares, it is not possible to us hold that Explanation to section 73 is applicable to assessee case. Accordingly, we are opinion that the Explanation to section 73 cannot be applied to the case of assessee. The judgement relied by ld. DR in the case of CIT Vs Lokmat News Paper Ltd. 322 ITR 43 (Bom) cannot be applied to facts of assessee case. The issue before Bombay High Court was setting off of the speculation loss with other income. It was held that speculation loss cannot be set off against other income of the assessee either wholly or partly. Further it was observed that loss from speculation business which has not been set off either entirely or in part can be carried forward to the subsequent assessment year and can be set off against the profits and gains, if any, from sp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cedure before writing off the debt as bad, and invited our attention to pages 423 to 445 of the said paper-book, which contain the correspondence made for seeking legal advice in relation to the bad debts in question. He also drew our attention to page 487 of the said paper-book, which is Schedule 18 of audited Profit and Loss Account, to demonstrate that the debts in question were in fact written off in the books of account. M/s. Transport Corporation of India Ltd., Sec'bad 107 The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee with the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in TRF Ltd. Vs. CIT(323 ITR 397) and Vijaya Bank V/s. CIT(323 ITR 166), and also submitted that after the amendment carried out in S.36(1)(vii) read with S.36(2) of the Act by the Direct Tax Laws(Amendment)Act, 1987 with effect from 1.4.1989, a write off by an assessee in the books is sufficient to claim the deduction for bad debts, and it is no longer necessary to prove that any debt has actually become bad during the relevant year in question. Learned counsel therefore, strongly supported the order of the CIT(A) on this issue, and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ubmitted that cost of acquisition in the hands of the assessee-company in respect of each of the said immovable properties was taken at the respective figures appearing in the audited books of account of the transferor company, in terms of the Scheme sanctioned by the Hon'ble High Court. However, it is submitted that the assessing officer by the impugned assessment order dated 31.3.2004 passed for the assessment year 2001-02, took the cost of acquisition of these properties at NIL, on the ground that the assessee company did not pay any consideration for acquisition of the said properties, which vested in it in accordance with the Scheme of Hive off of the Division and Reduction of Share Capital of the parent company, as was approved by the Hon'ble High Court. It is submitted that the assessing officer in that manner has arbitrarily taken the long term capital gains in the sum of ₹ 3,43,58,163l, as against the assessable loss of ₹ 18,21,092 computed by the assessee after taking into account the indexed cost of acquisition in terms of Second proviso to S.48 of the Act as per the details furnished at page 516 of Paper Book Vol.III filed for the assessment year 200 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 31.3.2004 was subject matter of appeal before the CIT(A), who vide his order dated 14.10.,2004, reduced the disallowance made by the assessing officer to 5% of the aggregate commission payments. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee as well as Revenue have filed appeals before the Tribunal, being ITA No.1214/Hyd/2004 of the assessee and ITA No.21/Hyd/2005 of the Department. During the pendency of the said two appeals before the Tribunal, the assessing officer issued notice dated 25.2.2008 under S.148/147 of the Act purporting to reopen the completed assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 2001-02. The reasons recorded by the assessing officer under S.148(2) of the Act before initiating the re-assessment proceedings, as set out in his letter dated 10th December, 2008, read as under- For the assessment year 2001-02, the assessment was originally finalized under section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, on 31.03.2004. The total income was computed at ₹ 8,42,30,230 after making a disallowance of 15% of the commission claimed by the company. On an appeal filed by the company, the CIT(A) reduced the same to 5% in his order dated 14.10.2004. T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessing officer for teh assessment year 2001-02, by issuance of notice dated 25th February, 2008 under S.148/147 of the Act, was after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year 2001-02. Our specific attention at this juncture is invited to proviso to S.147 of the Act, which lays down that where an assessment under S.143(3) has been made in the case of any assessee for any assessment year, no action shall be taken under S.147 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under section 142(1) or section 148 of the said Act, or on the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully land truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year. Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is settled position of law that the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material necessary for his assessment for that assessment year, envisaged in the aforesaid proviso should be primar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (k) CIT V/s. Goetze India Ltd. (321 ITR 431)-Del. (l) CIT V/s. K.K. Palanisamy (321 ITR 474)-Mad. (m) Inductor Ispat Aloys Ltd. V/s. AIT( 320 ITR 458)-Guj (n) CIT V/s. Empire Industries Ltd. (210 ITR 267)-Bom. (o) Manoo Lal Kedarnath V/s. Union of India (114 ITR 884)-All. 119. It may be noted at this juncture, that the learned counsel for the assessee has discussed the ratio laid down in the above decisions in the written submissions filed by him, and also furnished copies of the same in the relevant paper-book for the assessment year 2001-02. 120. The learned departmental representative, on the other hand, strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the reopening of assessment was not prompted by mere change of opinion as alleged by the assessee. He submitted that the assessing officer should have taken one of the lawfully permissible views to enable an inference of change of opinion in the context of S.147. However, in the present case, the assessing officer has failed to follow the law laid down by the jurisdictional High Court of the assessment years 1981-82 to 1984-85, on facts identical in those years, as noticed b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order of CIT(A). Once the order of the assessing officer is merged with order of CIT(A), the assessing officer cannot exercise his power u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act to reopen the issue was decided by higher forum in the guise of income assessable to tax has escaped from assessment. There is no further question of any escapement of income from assessment when the CIT(A) considered the very same issue of payment of commission in the course of appellate proceedings before him under section 250 of the Act. The assessing officer could exercise the power of reopening of assessment on any issue if it is not subject matter of appeal before CIT (A) and it is before the CIT(A) for his consideration or if he has considered the same issue, in that circumstances, the AO is precluded from considering same for reopening of assessment in guise of bringing into tax the escaped income. The only remedy available to assessing officer is to prefer appeal before higher forum and not to reopen the same assessment. In view of this, without going into merit of the issue, we cancel the order of the lower authorities and the ground taken by the assessee on reopening is allowed. 122. The next issue ar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e assessee 126. We considered the rival submissions and perused the orders of the lower authorities and other material on record. The ld. AR contended that it has actually received only consideration of ₹ 5,53,323/- as against the registration value of ₹ 30,57,000/- and relied on the judgement of Punjab of Haryana High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Chandni Boucher ( 323 ITR 510) wherein held that in the absence of any evidence, valuation done by stamp duty authorities could not be taken as actual sales consideration and the value shown in the sale deed had to be accepted. 127. We have gone through the above judgment. In that case before Punjab Haryana High Court the assessee categorically proved that the consideration passed is the consideration shown in the Sale Deed. However, in the present case, the assessee not discharged the burden cast on it. The assessee having not availed of the opportunity provided under sub-sections (2) and (3) of s 50C to object to the value adopted by the stamp valuation authorities, in our opinion, the AO justified in treating the value adopted by the said authorities as the deemed sale consideration received/ accruing as a result of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sub-section (1) of section 139. 133. This section was deleted by Finance Act, 2003 w.e.f. 01-04- 2004. In this case, since the dividend received by the assessee does not exceed the amount of dividend distributed on or before due date, the said dividend received shall be allowed as deduction u/s 80M of the Act. The assessee has received only ₹ 4,500 and it has distributed ₹ 1,89,00,000 by way of dividend. Hence, we do not find any justification for disallowing the claim of the assessee. As such, the orders of lower authorities are set aside and the claim of the assessee is allowed. 134. In ITA No.21/Hyd/2005, the Revenue raised additional ground contesting that the CIT(A) has erred in admitting additional evidence in violation of Rule 46A. According to the Revenue, the CIT(A) ought to have followed the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of H.Lal.Mohd. B. Works V/s. CIT in reference No.96 of 1987(2005) RD -AH- 219(date 20.1.2005), wherein High Court held that the tribunal has rightly set aside the assessment and dismissed the order of the CIT(A) for accepting the additional evidence under Rule 46A of Income-tax Rules. More so, the grievance of the Re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
