TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 30X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... For employee's contribution for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va) following the jurisdictional high court the ld. AO has allowed the deduction of the payment made before the due date of filling return for PF and ESI which is also a one of the views based on the submission made by the assessee company. So, on both the issue the ld. AO has given his attention and sufficient enquiry was conducted by the ld. AO. On the contrary PCIT has not specified what enquiry should have been done by the ld. AO. In the absence such clear finding how the order is prejudicial and erroneous. The ld. PCIT cannot gauge that what the specific level up to which the ld. AO has ask the details so as to reach the level of enquiry which that the PCIT deem it fit. AO has not violated any direction or instruction of the board. The order also not violates any binding judicial decision. He further submitted that the issue raised by the PCIT has already been raised and the relevant aspect of the facts on the same very issue is seen by the AO. The ld. AR demonstrate before us that the AO has raised which the PCIT is contending in the proceeding under section 263 of the Act. He has also demonstrated befo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mer passed under Section 143(3) of the Income tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') dated 14.12.2019. 2. Aggrieved form the order of the ld. PCIT the assessee has marched this appeal on the following grounds; 1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. PCIT, Udaipur failed to appreciate that the Assessment Order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue and thus order passed u/s 263 of the Act is perverse, arbitrary, non-speaking, bad in law and without jurisdiction. 2. Under the fact and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Udaipur has erred in passing the impugned Order without providing an adequate opportunity of being heard. 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT, Udaipur has grossly erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has failed to make proper enquiry without appreciating that specific query was raised in the assessment proceeding on the issues of: Computation of disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act and Deduction of employee's contribution for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act 4. Under the facts and the cir ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the provisions of Rule 8D of the income Tax Rules, which was not made by the assessee. As per Rule 8D, the amount of disallowance comes to Rs 7,07,227/-. The Assessing Officer failed to make any verification of the amount disallowed by the assessee u/s 14A of the IT Act. She on perusal of the 3CD report further observed that contribution of the employees made towards the PF ESI were deposited by the assessee in the relevant fund beyond the prescribed due dates under the relevant Acts and thus were disallowable u/s 36(1)(va) r.w.s. 2(24)(x) of the Income Tax Act. Particular Amount Collected from employees (in Rs.) Due date of depositing Actual date of deposit PF 87,093 15.07.2016 19.07.2016 PF 1,01,548 15.01.2017 20.01.2017 ESI 11,261 21.09.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 11,742 21.10.2016 18.11.2016 ESI 20,037 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ries and verification on the issues alleged to be revised in the impugned notice, which are as follows: 1. Alleged non deposit of Employee contribution of PF and ESI within the prescribed time limit of the relevant statue of PF and ESI. 2. Expenditure of Finance Cost alleged to be having direct bearing on exempt income earned by the Assessee out of the interest free funds. Limited Scope of Section 263 of the Act: 3. In this regard it is submitted that proposed action by your goodself is against the settled jurisprudence of provision of Section 263 of the Act. In this context, the relevant extract of the provision of Section 263 of the Act is reproduced herein below for your kind perusal: Section 263: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue (1) The 67[Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under this Act, and if he considers that any order passed therein by the Assessing Officer is erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, he may, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard and after making or causing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the due date of filing return of income. 6. In response to the said notice issued on 07.11.2019 u/s 142(1) of the Act, the Assessee has submitted its befitting reply dated 10.12.2019 wherein with respect to issue pertaining to Section 36(1)(va) of the Act, the Assessee has strenuously submitted and justified that no disallowance u/s 36(1)(va) is required for having deposited the employee s contribution to relevant fund before the due date of filing of return of income and even before the end of the relevant previous year. 7. Further with respect to the issue pertaining to suo-moto disallowance of expenditure on exempt income u/s 14A of the Act, the Assessee has submitted the detailed working note and other relevant documents in support of the calculation of disallowance made of Rs. 1,20,000/- u/s 14A of the Act, giving proper justification for apportionment of expenditure attributable to earning exempt income. 8. Accordingly, based upon the detailed justification along with the supporting documents given by the Assessee with respect to both the issues for which independent inquiry was conducted and after making adequate examination of the same by the Ld. AO, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scrutiny assessment and are further supported from various judicial precedents. 12. The above fact is supported from the captioned notice itself wherein no basis/finding are provided in the captioned notice as to why the earlier finding of the Assessing Officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue, which itself justify the fact that the sole basis for initiating the revision proceeding u/s 263 of the Act is for making a fishing and roving inquiries against the fact which was duly examined by the Ld. AO. 13. It is trite law that no proceeding under the garb of provision of Section 263 of the Act could be initiated for making a fishing and roving inquiries. In this context, the reliance is invited to judicial precedents: Commissioner to Income-tax v. Gabriel India Ltd [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bombay) From a reading of sub-section 1 of section 263, it is clear that the power of suo motu revision can be exercised by the Commissioner only if, on examination of the records of any proceedings under this Act, he considers that any order passed therein by the ITO is 'erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue'. It ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the decisions reached by the Tribunal or the High Court are binding upon the Assessing Officer and discipline demands that he should follow the decision of the Tribunal or the High Court, as the case may be. It is not open for him to ignore the same on the ground that the Tribunal's or the High Court's ruling on the question is the subject-matter of revision or appeal before the higher forum. If he is permitted to take such a view, it would introduce nothing but judicial indiscipline, which is not called for. It would lead to a chaotic situation. The grievance of the revenue may be real and substantial in certain cases but such situation cannot be provided for by judicial interpretation by courts but only by an appropriate agency. Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Paul Brothers (16.10.1992 - BOMHC), Income-tax Reference No. 358 of 1987, MANU/MH/0244/1992 MANU/MH/0244/1992 5. The Calcutta High Court in the case of Russell Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. A. Chowdhury, Addl. CIT MANU/WB/0144/1976 : [1977]109ITR229(Cal) and the Allahabad High Court in K. N. Agrawal v. CIT [1991] 189 ITR 769 have held that where the Income Tax Officer's order is passed on the basis of a bi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... could not be assumed to be erroneous for invoking provision of Section 263 of the Act. 21. As far as issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act is concerned, it is humbly submitted that all the investment are made by the Assessee for earning exempt dividend income are from surplus own funds/interest free funds only. 22. Further, it is humbly submitted that, the Finance cost being interest expenditure have no nexus/relation in whatsoever manner with the exempt dividend income of the Assessee earned in equities and Mutual Funds. In this context the reliance is invited to the audited financial statements of the Assessee Company wherein in the profit and loss account wherein out of the amount of Finance Cost of Rs. 13,99,651/-, the amount of Rs. 7,20,412/- is paid as interest for cash credit limits from various banks and amount of Rs. 6,73,928/- is towards bank charges. 23. Further, it is imperative to bring to your kind attention that as far as bank charges of Rs. 6,73,928/- is concerned, the same being common expense has been considered by the Assessee for disallowance u/s 14A of the Act at Rs.5,347/- calculated as per its detailed working submitted during assessmen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d. [2016] 76 taxmann.com 107 (Bombay) 7. On the examination of the Remand Report of the Assessing Officer and the submission of the Assessee, the Tribunal in the impugned order rendered a finding of fact that the Respondent-Assessee had its own sufficient funds available to make advances it had made to its sister concern. This on the basis that the assertions of Respondent-Assessee to the above effect were not controverted before the Tribunal at the time of hearing nor in the remand report of the Assessing Officer. The Tribunal in its impugned order also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in CIT v. Reliance Utilities Power Ltd. [2009] 313 ITR 340/178 Taxman 135 (Bom.) to hold that where interestfreefunds available with an Assessee are sufficient to meet its investment then it shall be presumed that the investments have been made from interest-freefunds available and not out of borrowed funds. Thus, holding that disallowance of partial interest paid on loan taken by the Respondent-Assessee, was not justified. 25. The view taken by the Ld. AO, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and having regard to judicial precedents discussed above, is not e ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ficer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. (3) The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act : Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule 8D is further supported from the fact that no expenditure in the nature of interest expenditure was incurred for earning exempt income as interest free funds were available with the Assessee, which was duly explained and submitted during assessment proceedings. 29. With ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ejudice to above, it is submitted that for the month of January 2017, the PF amount was deposited within the extended due date under the relevant statue. 34. From the above, it is evident that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order with respect to both the issues after taking into consideration the jurisprudence of the respective section as interpreted by various Hon ble Courts, which are binding upon the lower authorities. The said plausible and reasonable view of the Ld. AO does not render his assessment order erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue for exercise of power u/s 263 of the Act. 35. In view of the above, it is evident that the order passed dated 14.12.2019 is not erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue, as the order passed by the Ld. AO is in light of the binding decision of Hon ble Courts and on verification/examination of facts. Therefore, proposed revision proceeding is prayed to be dropped by your goodself. In any case, opportunity of being heard may kindly be provided to the Assessee before taking any adverse action against the Assessee. 6. From the reply of the assessee in the proceeding before her, she ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d with direction to the Assessing Officer to verify and examine and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing law; quantify the correct income of the assessee liable to tax for AY 2017-18 after according reasonable opportunity to the assessee. 8. The assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated: 14.12.2019 was passed by the Assessing Officer in this case, without making proper enquiries or without doing any verification of the issue as discussed in preceding paras The order of the AO is, therefore, liable to revision under the explanation (2) clause (b) and clause (a) of section 263 of the income tax act. Thus, both issues have remained unverified and required examination. Hence, assessment order u/s 143(3) of the I.T. Act for the A.Y. 2017-18 dated 14.12.2019 is erroneous and prejudicial to interest of revenue. The same is therefore set-aside to the file of AQ, with the direction to pass fresh assessment order after conducting proper verification and enquiries on the above issues as directed in earlier paragraphs of this order and based on outcome of such enquiries and verification, he is directed to take appropriate action as per la ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the query regarding employee contribution received for PF Fund and ESI fund, the Appellant strenuously submitted in its reply dated 10.12.2019 that the Appellant has deposited the employee s contribution to the relevant fund within extended due date of the respective Act as evident from PF notification no. 26308 dated 12.01.2017 (PB No. 35). Beside this the employee s contribution was also deposited before due date of filing return of income in some cases. The Appellant also placed on records relevant judicial precedents including the binding judicial precedent of Jurisdictional High Court on the relevant issues under consideration. 5. Further with respect to the query raised against the disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Appellant submitted detailed working note duly justifying the disallowance of Rs. 1,20,000/- made by the Appellant u/s 14A of the Act in respect of common and other administrative expenditures incurred also in relation to earning exempt income. The said working note was duly verified by the Ld. AO during the assessment proceedings and having regard to proper allocation of expenses attributable to earning exempt income and appreciation of the fact that no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... proceeding. 10.2 Assessment order passed is not erroneous as the order is passed in consonance with the binding decision of the Hon ble Court and in accordance with applicable law. 10.3 Taking of different view against settled jurisprudence of provision of Section 14A and 36(1) va of the Act cannot be considered as erroneous. 10.4 Ld. AO took plausible view while allowing expenditure or deduction to Assessee, which view was in accordance with law 10.5 Show cause notice failed to establish as to how the order dated 14.12.2019 is erroneous for invoking provision of Section 263 of the Act. The said reply forms part of the paper book and is available at page no. 49-63 of said paper book. 11 Thereafter, the Ld. PCIT without appreciating the documentary evidences placed on record and without appreciating that Ld. AO conducted due inquiry and verification, passed the Order u/s 263 of the Act on 26.03.2022( Impugned Order for short) by allegedly concluding that the order passed by the Ld. AO is erroneous in so far as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as per provision contained under Section 263 of the Act and directed the Ld. AO to make a fres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uiry as he deems necessary, pass such order thereon as the circumstances of the case justify, including an order enhancing or modifying the assessment, or cancelling the assessment and directing a fresh assessment. 16. After having going through the above provision, it is evident that before invoking the provision of this section following two conditions must be satisfy simultaneously: a. Order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and b. Prejudicial to the interest of the revenue. 17. The expression erroneous has not been defined in the Act. However, Black's Law Dictionary defines the word erroneous to mean involving error, deviating from the law. Erroneous assessment refers to an assessment that deviates from the law and is, hence, invalid. The erroneous assessment pertains to a defect, which is jurisdictional in nature. 18. Further, an order cannot be termed erroneous unless it can be shown to be an order, which is not in accordance with law. If the Ld. AO, acting in accordance with law, makes certain assessment, the same cannot be termed as erroneous by the Ld. PCIT merely because revenue wants assessment to be in different manner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f the Act was issued on 27.09.2018 whereas assessment was completed on 14.12.2019 which itself establishes that that ample time was taken by the Ld. AO to analyze, check and verify the assessment documents/ details in all aspects. Thus, it is only after examination of documents and settled judicial precedents, the Ld. AO took plausible view of allowing the expenditures to Assessee. 23. It is claimed in the Impugned Order that Ld. PCIT has exercised its power u/s 263 of the Act by invoking Explanation 2 clause(a) and clause(b) of the Section 263 of the Act. At the outset, it is humbly submitted that Ld. PCIT has directly invoked the clause (a) and (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263, (though the same are not applicable) in its Impugned Order, the same was not part of the show cause notice issued during the proceedings. 24. In this context, relevant extract of Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act is reproduced herein below for ready reference: Section 263: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue. (1) The [Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner] or Commissioner may call for and examine the record of any proceeding under thi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lways to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal. Explanation 2.-For the purposes of this section, it is hereby declared that an order passed by the Assessing Officer 24[or the Transfer Pricing Officer, as the case may be] shall be deemed to be erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, if, in the opinion se the Principal [Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner Principal] Commissioner or Commissioner, - (a) the order is passed without making inquiries or verification which should have been made; (b) the order is passed allowing any relief without inquiring into the claim; c) the order has not been made in accordance with any order, direction or instruction issued by the Board under section 119; or d) the order has not been passed in accordance with any decision which is prejudicial to the assessee, rendered by the jurisdictional High Court or Supreme Court in the case of the assessee or any other person. 25. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid section, it is evident that for exercising power u/s 263 of the Act by taking resort to clause (a) and (b) of Explanatio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. In support of the contentions raised herein above, reliance is placed on following judicial pronouncements: Commissioner of Income tax, Central III vs. Nirav Modi [2017] 291 CTR 245 (Bombay) Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad [2018] 97 taxmann.com 671 (Ahmedabad-Trib.) 30. In view of the above, the Ld. PCIT was not justified in arbitrarily holding that her action are supported by clause (a) of the Explanation 2 to Section 263 of the Act. Non Applicability of Clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263 31. As far as invoking clause (b) of Explanation 2 to Section 263 is concerned, in this regard it is submitted that said clause is also not applicable to the assessment order passed by Ld. AO as the same have very limited applicability to the extent if the Assessment Order passed by the Assessing Officer is without inquiring into the claim of the Appellant. 32. As stated above the claim of the Appellant with respect to the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act and deduction u/s 36(1)(va) of the Act was duly enquired by the Ld. AO vide query notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 07.11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ght of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ga in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Trt.) [PB 153-1561 wherein held that explanation cannot laid to have over ridden the law as interpreted/the various High Courts where the High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue .. 37. Without prejudice to the above, it is submitted that as per the mandate under the law, the Ld. PCIT before invoking provision of Section 263 of the Act, needs to conduct adequate inquiry so as to justify that the case of the Assessee is fit case for exercising revisionary power u/ s 263 of the Act. In the present case without conducing any inquiry and verification of records, the Ld. PCIT directly came to conclusion and passed the Impugned Order. 38. There was no independent inquiry conducted by the Ld. PCIT on both the issues against which the Ld. PCIT has exercised its revisionary power u/ s 263 of the Act. With respect to the di ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rinivasa Hatcheries (P.) Ltd. [2015] 60 taxmann.com 207 (Andhra Pradesh and Telangana) 42. Furthermore, the second limb to invoke Section 263 of the Act is that the order passed by the Assessing Officer should be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue . Therefore, the said limb ought to be understood so as to understand what can be classified as 'prejudicial to the interests of revenue'. As the said phrase hasn't been defined under the law, legal precedents may be perused regarding the same. Some relevant extracts have been reproduced hereunder for ready reference: The judgement of Delhi High Court in the case of P.C. Puri v. CIT [1984] 18 Taxman 158 (Delhi) [23.02.1984] Though not defined, the term 'prejudicial to the interests of the means that the lawful revenue due to the State has not been realised. [Para 6] 43. Thus, in view of the above all the submissions made, it is evident that detailed inquires and requisites notices as prescribed by law have been issued to the Appellant by Ld. AO, in response to which necessary documents have been furnished by the Appellant during the assessment proceedings which have been examined and veri ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... revenue. If due to an erroneous order of the ITO, the revenue is losing tax lawfully payable by a person, it will certainly be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. 47. The view taken by the Ld. AO that employee's contribution u/ s 36(1)(va) of the Act deposited within the extended due date of the respective Act, and before due date of filing return of income is allowable deduction, considering the binding decision of jurisdictional High Court. Merely because amendment are brought upon by the Finance Act, 2021 u/ s 36(1)(va) of the Act, which are unforeseen, and is also not applicable for the year under consideration, the plausible view taken by the Ld. AO cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Besides this the plausible view taken by the Ld. AO with respect to the disallowance made by the Appellant u/ s 14A of the Act, because correctness of suo-moto disallowance was not disputed having regard to nature of accounts of the assessee, rule 8D is not automatically applicable. Accordingly, the Assessment Order cannot be said to be prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 48. It is further submitted that the case of the Appellant is squarely c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... GROUND NO. 3 Under the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. PCIT, Udaipur has grossly erred in holding that the Assessing Officer has failed to make proper enquiry without appreciating that specific query was raised in the assessment proceeding on the issues of: Computation of disallowance of expenditure u/s 14A of the Act Deduction of employee's contribution for the purpose of Section 36(1)(va) of the Act. FACTS: The relevant facts of the ground under consideration has been stated in Brief Facts in initial paras of this submission and the same are not repeated for the sake of brevity. Findings or Allegations of Ld. PCIT: 1. I hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143 (3) of the IT Act, 1961 dated 14.12.2019 for AY 2017-18, is erroneous in so far it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 2. as the said order has been passed by the Assessing Officer in a routine and perfunctory manner 3. without verifying the amount of disallowance u/s 14A of the IT Act and not verifying the quantum of the allowance to be made u/s 36(1)(va). SUBMISSIONS 54. At the very outset, it is humbl ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... raised specific query with respect to the two relevant issues being deduction u/s 36(1)(a) of the Act and disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. The relevant extract of the notice issued u/s 142(1) of the Act is reproduced herein below for ready reference: Notice dated 07.11.2019 2. Provide why the employee contributions received for PF fund and ESI fund but deposited to the respective fund after due date should not be treated as your income for AY 2017-18 as per the provisions of section 36(1)(va). 3. Provide if any disallowance has been made in the ITR for expenditure incurred for eaming exempt income. If yes, provide a working note on the same and if not, justify why disallowance should not be made as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act and Rule 8D. 58. In response to the query raised, the Assessee submitted its reply dated 10.12.2019 (copy of which is available at page no. 29-34 of PB) wherein Assessee submitted detailed justification with respect to both the query raised by the Ld. AO which is also duly supported from the verifiable documentary evidence submitted as well as binding judicial precedent as far as the claim of allowability of the same i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... necessarily deal only with the claims being disallowed and not with the claims being allowed and thus. where in case, a thorough inquiry has been conducted on the deductions claimed by the assessee and the same has not been negated in the final order, it simply implies that the Assessing Officer concurs with the claim made by the assessee and thus, no disallowance has been made in this regard. The said contention of Appellant is substantiated by following judicial precedents: Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Nirma Chemicals Works P. Ltd. (2009) 222 CTR 593 (Guj) [04.02.2008], Rayon Silk Mills Versus Commissioner of Income-Tax. (1996) State Bank of India vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income tax and Ors. [2019] 411 ITR 664 (Bom) [15.06.2018] 63. In view of the above, Ld. PCIT was not justified in exercising jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act against the Appellant on factually and legally inconsistent findings and allegations. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, COUNTER SUBMISSION ON THE FINDINGS AND ALLEGATION OF THE LD. PCIT ARE MADE AS FOLLOWS: 64. The Ld. PCIT alleged that I hold that the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143 (3) of the IT Act, 1961 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n the Impugned Order that the Appellant has not disputed the issue of disallowance to be made u/s 14A of the Act. It appears that the reply filed dated 16.03.2022 in response to show cause notice 26.02.2022 has skipped the Ld. PCIT attention. In the reply, the Appellant has abundantly explained as to how Section 14A read with rule 8D is not applicable in the present case, as the Ld. AO while framing the Assessment was duly satisfied with the claim of disallowance made by the Appellant and accordingly, no further disallowance u/s 14A r.w. Rule 8D is warranted. In this regard reference is invited to Para NO. 25 to Para No. 29 of reply dated 16.03.2022 is reproduced herein below for your ready reference. 25. The view taken by the Ld. AO, in view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and having regard to judicial precedents discussed above, is not erroneous as well as prejudicial to interest of revenue as the Ld. AO has taken legally justifiable view on the issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act. In other words, having satisfied with the method adopted by the Assessee in determining the expenditure incurred on the exempt dividend income, as well as correctness of the claim o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001. 28. The correctness of the claim of the Assessee for the purpose of Section 14A read with Rule 8D is further supported from the fact that no expenditure in the nature of interest expenditure was incurred for eaming exempt income as interest free funds were available with the Assessee, which was duly explained and submitted during assessment proceedings. 29. Without prejudice to the above, it is humbly submitted that beside the fact that the Assessing Officer has conducted the detailed inquiry with respect to the specific issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, the Assessee has submitted various documentary evidences (Kindly make reference to the Paper Book) such as breakup of Finance Cost, Investment sheet, on ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uring the proceedings. 72. While making disallowance u/s 14A of the Act, proportionate common expenditure including Bank Charges as attributable for earning exempt dividend income were suo-moto disallowed by the Appellant as per working submitted during assessment proceedings which is available in Paper book at page no. 36 of paper book. 73. The said working is reproduced herein for ready reference: Castamet Works Private Limited Financial Expenses 2016-17 Disallowance of Expenses U/S 14 A 74. Along with the aforesaid working (PB No. 36), the Appellant also submitted the detailed working of source of each investment made by Appellant (PB No. 37), which along with bank statement submitted during assessment as well as revisionary proceedings (PB No. 39, 40), which duly establishes that Ld. AO has taken correct view for being satisfied with the Appellant's contention that interest charges is not attributable to any business income. For ready references, the relevant pages are reproduced herein for ready reference: 75. From the bare perusal of the aforesaid documentary evidences, it evident that investments were made ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e as duly contended in ground no 1 and 2 above. 78. The submissions in this ground of appeal are divided in following paras Issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act Issue of deduction u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act View taken by Ld. AO is based on binding judicial precedents and plausible view in accordance with law Issue of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act 79. It is humbly submitted that all the investment are made by the Assessee for earning exempt dividend income were from surplus own funds/interest free funds only, which is evident from bare perusal of bank statement and detailed chart explaining the utilization of funds(PB No. 39-44 and. 80. It is submitted that the Finance Cost being interest expenditure of Rs. 7,20,412/- have no nexus/relation in whatsoever manner with the exempt dividend income of the Appellant earned from investment in equities and Mutual Therefore, as per working submitted by Appellant during assessment proceedings, these were not considered for the purpose of disallowance u/s 14A of the Act as these expenditure are incurred purely for business purpose and not for making investments. 81. Accordingly, being satis ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o further disallowance was required as against the suo-moto disallowance made by the Appellant, which Ld. AO has accepted in view of forgoing judicial precedents and basis facts on record, which clear establishes that no borrowed funds were utilized for making investment in mutual fund/securities. Issue of deduction u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act 86. It is humbly submitted that view taken by the Ld. AO that depositing the employee contribution before due date of filing return of income is allowable deduction u/s. 36(1)(va) of the Act, is well supported by decision rendered by the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT VS Rajasthan State Beverage Corpn. Ltd. [2017] 84 taxmann.com 185(SC). 87. In view of the above, claim of deduction u/s 36(1)(v) of the Act is duly allowed to Appellant by the Ld. AO while passing assessment order. 88. Thus, it is evident that the Ld. AO has passed the assessment order with respect to both the issues after taking into consideration the jurisprudence of the respective section as interpreted by various Hon'ble Courts, which are binding upon the lower authorities. The said plausible and reasonable view of the Ld. AO does not r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s reproduced herein below for your kind perusal: Section 14A: Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income. (2) The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed, if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act. 94. From bare perusal of the said section it is evident that the Section 14A(2) of the Act is applicable only if the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the correctness of claim of the Assessee. In the present case the Ld. AO was duly satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the Assessee which is evident from the Assessment Order dated 14.12.2019 passed u/s 143(3) of the Act, wherein no negative inference has been drew by the Ld. AO. The said action of the Ld. AO is duly supported by judicial precedents as discussed herein above. Thus, the case of the Appellant is ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellant, the Assessment of the Appellant was completed by order dated 14.12.2019. Accordingly, rule 8D is not applicable in the case of the Appellant, which view has been taken by Ld. AO plausible on plain reading of the provision of Section 14A of the Act. The said interpretation is also justified in view of following judgments: Maxopp Investment Ltd. v.Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi [2018] 91 taxmann.com 154 (SC) Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd [2020] 113 303 (Bombay) Shringar Marketing (P.) Ltd. v. Principal Commissioner of Income-tax-4, Kolkata [2021] 128 taxmann.com 199 (Kolkata Trib.) (Supra) Direction to the Assessing Officer to verify and examine and finalize the assessment in accordance with the prevailing law;. 97. The Appellant vehemently objects to the direction being given by the Ld. PCIT to the Assessing Officer for framing de-novo assessment in the case of the Appellant because of the reason that the Assessment of the Appellant was completed as per the law applicable during the year under consideration which is also supported from binding decision of jurisdictional High Court. Accordingly distu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Jurisdictional High Courts. 100.2. Arvee international v/s Addl. CITItat, Mum) 101 ITD 495, and Seshasayee Paper Boards Ltd[2000] 242 ITR 490(Mad.). 100.3. CIT vs. Raison Industries Ltd. 288 ITR 322(SC). In the present case the Ld. PCIT failed to establish as to how the carlier order of Ld.AO was prejudicial to the revenue, as the order dated 14.12.2019 was passed having regard to the settled law as well as binding decision of the Hon'ble Court. Merely a second thought of the Ld. PCIT to deal with the issue differently does not give him the right to exercise power u/s 263 of the Act and cannot termed the order prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Thus, reliance placed by Ld. PCIT on this judgment is totally misconceived. 101. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that the observations of the Ld. PCIT is factually and legally incorrect and the order of the Ld. AO is neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, it is requested to set aside the Impugned Order passed by Ld. PCIT and allow consequential relief to the Appellant. GROUND NO. 6 The appellant Company craves leave to add, amend and modify ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mind as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. [Para 9] 1-6 Erroneous 2. Nabha Investments (P.) Ltd. V. Union of India [2000] 112 Taxman 465 (Delhi) [24.07.2000] It is not necessary that every order passed by the Assessing Officer, which may result in loss of revenue, is to be treated as an erroneous order in as much as it is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. An order is erroneous if the view taken by the Assessing Officer is not in accordance with law. If an order is in accordance with law, the decision of the ITO cannot be regarded as erroneous merely because in the opinion of the Commissioner it should have been made or written in a different manner. [Para 16] 7-14 3. Commissioner to Incometax v. Gabriel India Ltd. [1993] 71 Taxman 585 (Bom.)[15.04.1993] We may now examine the facts of the present case in the light of the powers of the Commissioner set out above. The ITO in this case had made enquiries in regard to the nature of the expenditure incurred by the assessee. The as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ch a reasonable and prudent officer would have carried out or not. It does not authorise or give unfettered powers to the Ld Pr. CIT to revise each and every order, if in his opinion, the same has been passed without making enquiries or verification which should have been made. In our view, it is the responsibility of the Ld Pr. CIT to show that the enquiries or verification conducted by the AO was not in accordance with the enquries or verification that would have been carried out by a prudent officer. Hence, in our view, the question as to whether the amendment brought in by way of Explanation 2(a) shall have retrospective or prospective application shall not be relevant.[Para No. 20] 37-48 7. Torrent Pharmaceuticals Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle-4(1)(2), Ahmedabad [2018] 97 taxmann.com 671. (Ahmedabad - Trib.) However, in the same vain where the preponderance of evidence indicates absence of culpability, an onerous burden cannot obviously be fastened upon the AO while making assessment in the name of inadequacy in inquiries or verification as perceived in the opinion of the Revisional Author ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ncome-tax is of the view that the Assessing Officer did not undertake any inquiry, it becomes incumbent on the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to conduct such inquiry. All that the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax has done in the impugned order is to refer to the circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes and conclude that in the case of the assesseecompany, the Assessing Officer was dutybound to calculate and allow depreciation on the BOT in conformity of the Central Board of Direct Taxes Circular No. 9 of 2014 but the Assessing Officer failed to do so. Therefore, the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue . 11. In the considered view of the court, this can hardly constitute the reasons required to be given by the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to justify the exercise of jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act. In the context of the present case if, as urged by the Revenue, the assessee has wrongly claimed depreciation on assets like land and building, it was incumbent upon the Principal Commissioner of Income-tax to undertake an inquiry as regards which of the assets were purchased and instal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sessment order, the Assessing Officer has recorded that from the details submitted by the assessee and the explanation given by him, it was observed that assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment had been made and also there was business income to the assessee from the same. Therefore, interest expense debited by the assessee has not been considered for the calculation of disallowance under section 14A because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT therefore agrees that the Assessing Officer has recorded from the details submitted by respondent and the explanation given by respondent that the assessee had regular business connection with the company in which investment has been made and also there was a business income to the assessee from the same. He notes that the Assessing Officer, therefore did not consider the calculation of disallowance under section 14A the interest expense debited by the assessee because the same has been incurred for the purpose of business. The PCIT though was unhappy with the view of the Assessing Officer, the PCIT himself does not say why it should have been considered for the calcu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ording of satisfaction and has accepted the disallowance made u/s 14A by the assessee. In such circumstances it is not open for the ld. CIT to come to a conclusion that the AO should have invoked Rule 8D, without himself recording the satisfaction that the calculation given by the assessee in its disallowance made suo moto u/s 14A is not correct. Coming to the other expenses claimed, the ld. CIT has simply collected information after raising queries and has not given any finding whatsoever that there is an error made by the AO or that the circumstances was such that would require and warrant further inquiry or investigation. No error in the assessment order has been pointed out and it is not stated as to how prejudice was caused to the revenue. The finding that the AO had failed to properly scrutinise the above aspects does not give powers to the ld. CIT to revise the assessment u/s 263 of the Act. Making rowing enquiries is not a finding of an error. Assessments cannot be set aside for fresh enquiries unless a specific error is pointed out at not making proper enquiry cannot be equated with no enquiry. In view of the above we quash the order passed u/s 263 of the Act and allow the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Commissioner of Income-tax* [2000] 109 Taxman 145 (SC) if the exempted income and the taxable income are earned from one and indivisible business, then the apportionment of the expenditure cannot be sustained . 177- 180 19. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-2 v. Bombay Stock Exchange Ltd [2020] 113 taxmann.com 303 (Bombay) Non-satisfaction with the disallowance offered by the assessee has to be arrived at on the basis of the accounts submitted by the assessee. In this case, the Assessing Office had not carried out the aforesaid exercise but rejected the disallowance claimed by the assessee only on the ground that it was not in accordance with rule8D. The application of rule8D would only arise once the Assessing Officer is not satisfied on an objective criteria in the context of its accounts, that suo motu disallowance claimed by the assessee is not proper. [Para 11] 181-184 20. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalandhar-1, Jalandhar v. Max India Ltd. [2017] 80 taxmann.com 98 (Punjab Haryana) 9. This presumption is unfounded. Mer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .com 540/[2015] 228 Taxman 214 (Mag.) (Raj.) and accordingly both the questions are covered by the aforesaid judgment and against the revenue. privilege fees being a revenue expenditure, is required to be allowed as a revenue expenditure. This court in the aforesaid case has also allowed the claim of the assessee, in so far aspayment of PF ESI etc. is concerned, on the finding of fact that the amounts in question were deposited on or before the due date of furnishing of the return of income and taking in consideration judgment of this Court in CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411/225 Taxman 6 (Mag.) (Raj.) and CIT v. Jaipur Vidhut Vitaran 193-198 Plausible View taken by the Ld. AO 23. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income-tax [1996] 221 ITR 861 (Gujarat) The order of the assessing authority could not be said to be erroneous as he had rendered the decision following the decision of a higher authority or a court on the same point. It was required to be noted that the decisions reached by the Tribunal or the High Court are binding upon the Asses ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ted 07.11.2019 where in the issue raised by the PCIT has already been seen and relevant details were called by the assessing officer in the proceeding before her. For that the ld. AR of the assessee drawn our attention to the said notice (assessee paper book page 20 21) and the relevant questions raised by the AO is reiterated here in below: 2. Provide why the employee contributions received for PF fund and ESI fund but deposited to the respective fund after due date should not be treated as your income for A. Y. 2017-18 as per the provision of section 36(1)(va). 3. Provide if any disallowance has been made in the ITR for expenditure incurred for earning exempt income. If yes, provide a working note on the same and if not justify why disallowance should not be made as per the provisions of section 14A of the Act and Rule 8D. 10. We have also gone through the reply submitted by the assessee company in the assessment proceedings. The same is reiterated herein below for the sake of brevity of the facts: Justification on eligibility of allowance u/s 36(1)(va) on employee s contribution 1.0 Facts 1.1 The assessee company has received contribution from ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ents rendered by this Court in the case of CIT v. State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur Jaipur Vidyut Vitran Nigam Ltd. [2014] 363 ITR 70/43 taxmann.com 411 of even date wherein it has been held that if the amount has been deposited on or before the due date of filing the return under 1. 139 and admittedly it was deposited on or before the due date then the amount cannot be disallowed under s. 438 of the IT Act or under s 36(1)(va) of the Act. 2.2 Rajasthan High Court has given similar decisions in following cases: 2.2.1 CIT vs Udaipur Dugdh Utpadak Sahakari Sangh Limited (12014) 366 (TR 163) 2.2.2 CIT vs State Bank of Bikaner Jaipur (2014) 363 ITR 70) 2.2.3 CIT vs Rajasthan State Beverages Corpn. Ltd. 2.3 Further, Karnataka High Court in case of Essae Teraoka (P) Ltd. (2014 (43) taxmann.com 33) held that in order to claim deduction u/s 36(1)(va), payment of employees' contribution to Employees' Provident Fund, Labour Welfare Fund and Employees' State Insurance can be made before the due date of filing of return of income u/s 139(1), Relevant extract is reproduced for ease of reference: 20. Paragraph-38 of the PF Scheme provides for Mode ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... at clause 8 - 'Expenses debited to profit and loss account which relate to exempt income of Schedule BP. 3.0 The working of the disallowance made u/s 14A is enclosed as Exhibit-1. 4.0 In view of above, assessee company has already made compliance of Section 14A of Income Tax Act, 1961 by suo-moto offering expenditure of Rs. 1,20,000/-. 11. Based on the above clarification the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that both the issues already raised by the assessing officer in the assessment proceedings and the ld. AO has already analyzed the issues, sought explanation from the assessee and taken a plausible view. There cannot be a gauge that the enquiry conducted is sufficient or not when the specific issue has already been considered in the assessment proceedings before her. As regards the disallowance u/s. 14A the specific detailed working and explanation along with the evidence that the sufficient fund was available with the assessee company to make the investment even though the disallowance under section 14A r.w.r 8D was made by the assessee company. For this ld. AR submitted that all the relevant information was also placed on record to decide the issu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e order is passed after making proper and sufficient enquiry in the proceeding. The AO has not violated any direction or instruction of the board. The order also not violates any binding judicial decision. He further submitted that the issue raised by the PCIT has already been raised and the relevant aspect of the facts on the same very issue is seen by the AO. The ld. AR demonstrate before us that the AO has raised which the PCIT is contending in the proceeding under section 263 of the Act. He has also demonstrated before us that the AO has made necessary enquiry on the issue based on the submission made by the assessee. The ld. AO has taken the plausible view on both the issue as per the submission placed on record. This action of the AO is not proved to be prejudicial or erroneous on any of the angel by the PCIT while issuing the show cause notice to the assessee company. In that circumstance the provision of section 263 and its explanation 2 will not apply. 13. Per contra, the ld. DR has vehemently supported the order of the PCIT and submitted that in the working of disallowance the assessee has calculated the disallowance in accordance with rule 8D. The ld. DR further submi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on-2 of section 263 was not invoked by the PCIT and it was referred in the order u/s.263 of the Act. Therefore, in the light of decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of Mumbai ga in the case of Narayan Tatu Rane - 70 taxmann.com 227 (Mum. Trt.) [PB 153-1561 wherein held that explanation cannot laid to have over ridden the law as interpreted/the various High Courts where the High Courts have held that before reaching the conclusion that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. The CIT himself has to undertake some enquiry to establish that the assessment order is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. [Para No. 15] 15. We have heard the rival contentions, carefully considered the finding recorded in the impugned order passed under S. 263, the rival contentions raised by both the parties and the material placed on record as well as gone through the judicial pronouncements relied upon by both the parties to drive home to their contentions. From the fact, we noticed that the assessee is a private limited company and filed return for the year under consideration which was taken up for complete scrutiny. For this year the ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC) wherein it was held that: The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue' in s. 263 of the IT Act, 1961, has to be read in conjunction with the expression 'erroneous' order passed by the AO. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the AO cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue. For example, when the AO adopts one of two courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue, or where two views are possible and the AO has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the Revenue, unless the view taken by the AO is unsustainable in law. 16. Thus, based on this decision it is also noteworthy to mention that one of the pre-requisites before invoking S. 263 and the allegation of the Ld. Pr. CIT is that there has been incorrect assumption of fact and law by the Assessing Officer. However, despite our deep and careful consideration of the material on record including the finding recorded in the subjected Assessment order dated 30.12.2019 and in the findings recorded in the order under challenge, we do not find any incor ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . AO is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. 18. The AO has raised the issue with in the legal frame work and based on the circumstances and facts presented he has accepted the facts and considered the plausible view which is not proved to be illegal. He only mentioned that the detailed investigation was required to be conducted in order to verify the disallowance. There is no further defect found from the record from that the submission and contentions raised and placed on record by the AO, why and how against the provision of law. Since, in this case ld. AO has clearly conducted the enquiry and revenue did not pin point the error on the part of the assessing officer the order passed after due application of mind cannot be subjected to proceeding u/s. 263 of the Act. At this stage it is required to be noted that the ITAT Mumbai bench in the Mrs. Khatiza S. Oomerbhoy addressed the issue of 263 proceeding elaborately after referring to number of cases on revisionary powers vested in the Commissioner of Income-tax under section 263 of the Act and summed up the fundamental principles emerging from several cases as under- (i) Th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s on the relevant issues and the assessee has given detailed explanation by a letter in writing and the Assessing Officer allows the claim on being satisfied with the explanation of the assessee, the decision of the Assessing Officer cannot be held to be erroneous simply because in his order he does not make an elaborate discussion in that regard. 19. Be that as it may, in our considered view, as the A.O while framing the assessment had taken a possible view, and revenue did not demonstrate the error remain on the part of the ld. AO the order is not prejudicial and erroneous. In fact, when the ld. AO has conducted the required enquiry and not violated any of the conditions mentioned for revision of order as required by Explanation 2 of Section 263 of the Act, the order passed by the Assessing Officer cannot be termed as erroneous so as to be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In the present case none of the condition laid down is fulfilled in the show cause notice for revision issued and also not specifically dealt with in the order so as to invoke the provision of section 263 of the Act. Therefore, the Pr. CIT was in error in exercising his revisional ju ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with law, the invocation of jurisdiction by the CIT was unsustainable. As the exercise of jurisdiction by the CIT is founded on no material, it was liable to be set aside. Jurisdiction under section 263 cannot be invoked for making short enquiries or to go into the process of assessment again and again merely on the basis that more enquiry ought to have been conducted to find something. 12. The finding of the Tribunal that the ITO had passed assessment order after relevant enquiries and considering the aspects of the matter required by the CIT to be considered by him is a finding of fact and on the basis of which, the jurisdiction assumed by the CIT being nonexistent must be held to be not sustainable. 21. Being consistent from the decision of the jurisdictional High Court and various other decisions cited by the ld. AR of the assessee and after giving our careful consideration of the facts, detailed deliberated arguments advanced by both the parties as discussed here in above and in the entirety of facts and circumstances of the case, the bench note that there is no basis to hold that the order passed by the Assessing officer is erroneous so far as prejudicial to the i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
