diff --git "a/rr/IT_train.jsonl" "b/rr/IT_train.jsonl"
new file mode 100644--- /dev/null
+++ "b/rr/IT_train.jsonl"
@@ -0,0 +1,40 @@
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_1981_215", "text": ["Sujata Manohar, J. The assessees in Income-tax Reference Number 98 of 1971 and Income-tax Reference Number 194 of 1975 are partners in the firm of M section K, C. Shah and Company.", "Apart from these two asses-sees the partnership firm of M section K. C. Shah and Company also has a third partner.", "For the assessment year 1962-63 the assessees in both these references could not file their income-tax returns under Section 139(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, since the accounts of the partnership firm of M section K. C. Shah and Company were not finalised.", "The partnership firm of M section K. C. Shah and Company also could not file its income-tax return for this assessment year since the firm was engaged in some urgent military contracts at the border.", "The ITO thereupon served on the firm as well as on the assessees notices under Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "Pursuant to these notices the firm as well as the assessees filed their returns.", "The firm showed an income of Rs. 60,000, while the assessees in both the references showed their income at Rs. 25,079 each.", "Thereafter, notices under Section 142 were issued against the firm and the assessees failed to comply with these notices, whereupon the ITO completed the assessment against them under Section 144 on or about 30th December, 1963.", "On the basis of his assessment of the firms income for the relevant assessment year, the ITO apportioned to the assessees their share of profit in the firm under Section 158 of the I.T, Act.", "The share of each of the partners so assessed by the ITO was Rs. 70,000.", "The firm of M s, K. C. Shah and Company filed an appeal against the ex parte assessment made against it before the AAC.", "By his order dated 9th November, 1964, the AAC set aside the assessment of the firm made under Section 144 of the I.T. Act and directed the ITO to make a fresh assessment.", "It seems that thereafter the revenue preferred an appeal before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, but the same was dismissed on I7th May, 1966, The assessees did not prefer any appeals against the ex parte assessments made against them on the basis of their share in the profits of the firm as determined by the assessment made against the firm and its partners.", "However, after the order of the AAC dated 9th November, 1964, setting aside the assessment against the firm, the assessees made an application dated 20th November, 1964, to the ITO for a rectification of the assessment order made against them.", "In this application the assessees requested the ITO to substitute their income on the basis of the returns filed by them instead of on the basis of their share in the profits of the firm as per the ex parte assessment made against the firm, since the order of ex parte assessment made against the firm had been set aside by the AAC.", "By his order dated 24th December, 3964, the ITO rejected the application of the assessees for rectification.", "The assessees went in appeal to the AAC from this order.", "By his order dated 18th October, 1966,-the AAC allowed the appeals of the assessees and directed the ITO to modify the assessments of the assessees under the provisions of sections 154 and 155 of the I.T, Act.", "The revenue went in appeal from the order of the AAC on the ground, apparently, that the directions which were given by the AAC to modify the assessments of the assessees were not specific.", "In view of this grievance made by the revenue, the Tribunal clarified that the ITO should accept the figure of income as shown by the assessees in their returns, subject to it being modified at a later date, after the completion of the assessment of the firm.", "This order was passed by the Tribunal on 13th March, 1967.", "Thereafter on 17th July, 1967, the ITO rectified the assessments of the assessees and made an order for refund of the excess amounts.", "The ITO, however, did not award any interest to the assessees, on the amounts ordered to be refunded, under the provisions of Section 240 of the I.T. Act.", "The assessees thereupon preferred appeals to the AAC in respect of not awarding to them interest on the amounts refunded.", "By his order dated 29th July, 1968, the AAC rejected the appeals of the assessees and held that their claim for interest was not tenable, since the refund was given within six months of the Tribunals order dated 13th March, 1967.", "The assessees went on appeal from this order to the Tribunal.", "The Tribunal by its order dated 26th May, 1970, allowed the appeals of the assessees and held that the assessees were entitled to interest on the amounts refunded.", "According to the Tribunal, the assessees became entitled to a refund immediately on the order of the AAC dated 9th November, 1964, setting aside the ex parte assessment of the firm.", "The Tribunal held that the ITO ought to have immediately rectified the assessments of the assessees and given them refunds within a period of six months from the date of the order setting aside the ex parte assessment against the firm.", "The Tribunal thereupon awarded interest to the assessees for the period of delay after the expiry of six months from 10th November, 1964.", "Before the Tribunal the revenue had urged that no appeal lay to the AAC from the order of the ITO refusing interest.", "The revenue also urged that no appeal lay to the Tribunal from the order of the AAC refusing to award interest.", "Both these contentions were negatived by the Tribunal.", "Thereafter, under the provisions of Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, a reference has been made to us.", "In Income-tax Reference Number 98 of 1971, the following three questions have been referred to us for determination : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, it was open to the revenue to contend before the Tribunal for the first time that the assessees appeal before it was not tenable, as the assessee had no right of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner ? If question Number 1 is answered in the affirmative, whether the assessee had a right of appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner against not granting of interest for the period of delay in granting refund ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessee was entitled to interest under Section 244 of the Income-tax Act.", "1961, on the amount of refund due to him for the period of delay after the expiry of six months from 10th November, 1964 ? In I.T. Ref. Number 194 of 1975 the following two questions have been referred to us for determination : Whether the order dt.", "July 17, 1967, could be appealed against to the AAC under Section 246 of the Act ? Whether the assessee was entitled to any interest under Section 244 on the amount of refund due to him for the period of delay after the expiry of six months from November 10, 1964 ? The main question that arises for determination is question Number 3 in Income-tax Reference Number 98 of 1971 and question Number 2 in Income-tax Reference Number 194 of 1975, namely, whether the assessees were entitled to claim any interest under Section 244 of the I.T. Act on the amount of refund due to them for the period of delay after the expiry of six months from 10th November, 1964.", "Under Section 244 of the I.T. Act, as it then was, it was provided that where a refund was due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in Section 240 and the ITO did not grant the refund within a period of six months from the date of such order, the Central Govt.", "shall pay to the assessee simple interest at the rate of 6 per cent per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of six months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted.", "Thus, the refund has to be made to the assessee within a period of six months from the date of the order pursuant to which a refund becomes due to the assessee.", "If such payment is not made within a period of six months, interest is required to be paid to the assessee.", "Mr. Joshi, learned counsel for the revenue, submitted that the relevant order for the purpose of Section 244 of the I.T. Act is the order of the Tribunal dated 13th March, 1967.", "According to Mr. Joshi, it was pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 13th March, 1967, that the ITO rectified the assessments in question and made a refund order.", "In the alternative, Mr. Joshi submitted that the relevant date would be the date of the order of the AAC dated 18th October, 1966, which allowed the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ITO refusing to rectify the assessments in question.", "Both these submissions of Mr. Joshi cannot be accepted.", "What requires consideration is the date when the assessee became entitled to a refund.", "In the present case, the assessments, which were originally made on the assessees, were based upon the ex parte assessment which was made against the firm of which they were partners.", "The only income of the assessees is the profit which they derived from the business of the firm apart from a small sum of Rs. 200, which was by way of interest on securities, which is also shown in the firms return.", "Their share in the profits of the firm was apportioned to them by the ITO under the provisions of Section 158 of the I.T. Act on the basis of the ex parte assessment which he made against the firm itself.", "If this ex parte assessment against the firm was set aside by the AAC by his order dated 9th November, 1964, and a fresh assessment was directed to be made against the firm, it is clear that the assessment against the partners of the firm which was based entirely on the ex parte assessment against the firm also could not be sustained.", "In fact, it was incumbent upon the ITO under the provisions of as.", "154 and 155 of the I.T. Act to immediately rectify the assessments of the partners also without waiting for any application in that behalf from the assessees.", "The right, therefore, of the assessees to obtain a refund arose as a result of the order dated 9th November, 1964, setting aside the ex parte assessment against the firm.", "The assessments against the partners of the firm on the basis of the ex parte assessment against the firm could not stand when the assessment against the firm itself was set aside.", "The assessees, therefore, became entitled to a refund pursuant to the order of the AAC dated 9th November, 1964.", "There is no dispute that the actual refund was granted to them long after the expiry of six months after the order dated 9th November, 1964.", "The assessees application for rectification dated 20th November, 1964, was made by the assessees because they wanted the refund due to them to be adjusted towards the pending demand for other assessment years.", "Even without such an application the ITO was bound in law to rectify the assessments already made.", "The subsequent proceedings, therefore, which arose out of the ITOs rejection of the assessees application for rectification could not affect the right, which the assessees acquired, to obtain a refund, pursuant to the order dated 9th November, 1964.", "Under the order dated 9th November, 1964, the assessment made under Section 144 of the I.T. Act was set aside and the ITO was directed to pass a fresh assessment order according to law.", "Impliedly, the assessments against the partners of the firm which were based upon the assessment order under Section 144 were also set aside and the ITO was required to make a fresh assessment against the partners also.", "The right, therefore, of the partners to receive a refund arose under the order dated 9th November, 1964.", "The order of the AAC dated 18th October, 1966, did not give rise to any fresh right to obtain a refund.", "Hence, the only relevant order for the calculation of interest on refund under Section 244 is the order dated 9th November, 1964.", "The contention of Mr. Joshi that the assessees became entitled to a refund pursuant to the order of the Tribunal dated 13th March, 1967, also cannot be accepted for the above reasons.", "In fact, the order dated 13th March, 1967, in terms merely clarified the order of the AAC dated 18th October, 1960, and gave to the ITO a specific direction to complete the assessments of the partners on the basis of the returned income, which assessments he may modify later after the completion of the assessement of the firm.", "The Tribunal, therefore, rightly came to the conclusion that the assessees were entitled to interest on the amounts refunded after the expiry of the period of six months from the order dated 9th November, 1964.", "In this connection, a reference may be made to the case of Purshottam Dayal Varshney v. CIT .", "The Allahabad High Court in this case has observed that as soon as the assessment order is set aside, the tax paid by the assessse under the assessment order becomes refundable to him.", "No doubt, the ITO is entitled to withhold the refund with the previous approval of the Commissioner during the pendency of remand proceedings under the provisions of Section 241 of the I.T. Act.", "But even in such a case, under the provisions of Section 244, Sub-section (2), interest becomes payable on the amount of refund ultimately determined to be due for the period commencing after the expiry of six months from the end of the month in which the order referred to in Section 241 is passed, to the date the refund is granted.", "There is no dispute that the refund has not been withheld in the present case by the ITO under the provisions of Section 241.", "The next question that arises for determination is whether the assessees had a right of appeal before the AAC against the order of the ITO not granting interest for the period of delay in granting refund.", "Under the provisions of Section 246(1)(f) of the I.T. Act, an order under Section 154 or Section 155 having the effect of enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund or an order refusing to allow the claim made by the assessee under the said sections is an appealable order.", "In the present case by his order dated 1 7th July, 1967, the ITO rectified the assessment of the partner under the provisions of Section 154 read with Section 155 of the I.T. Act.", "By his order although he granted a refund, he did not grant any interest on the refund amount.", "His order, therefore, had the effect of reducing the amount repayable to the assessees.", "His order can, therefore, be construed as an order tinder Section 154 read with Section 155 of the I.T. Act, reducing the amount of refund payable to the partners.", "In any case his order can also be construed as an order which refused to allow the assessees claim for interest on the refund amount to which they would have been entitled on the rectification made under these two sections.", "Such an order of the ITO clearly falls within Section 246(1)(f) and is appealable.", "Mrs. Jagtiani, who appears for the assessees in both the references, also urged that the order of the ITO dated 17th July, 1967, is appealable because it can also be construed as an order which can fall under Section 246, Sub-section ()(c) or Section 246, Sub-section (1)(n).", "Since we have held that the order in question is covered by Section 246(1)(f), it is not necessary to examine these two additional contentions.", "The last point that requires determination is whether it was open to the revenue to contend before the Tribunal for the first time that the assessees appeals before it were not tenable as the assessees had no right of appeal before the AAC.", "Since we have held that the assessees had a right of appeal before the AAC from the order of the ITO dated 17th July, 1967, it is not strictly necessary to go into this question at all.", "Our attention was, however, drawn to the observations of the Madras High Court in the case of Addl.", "CIT v. Dalmia Magnesite Corporation 1979 117 ITR 930.", "In that case the Madras High Court observed as follows (p. 937): It is a well-established principle that if an intermediary appellate authority purported to deal with a matter in appeal as if that intermediary authority had jurisdiction to deal with that appeal though in fact that authority had no jurisdiction to deal with the appeal, the order of that appellate authority would become appealable to a higher appellate authority.", "It should, however, be pointed out that there is a distinction between cases where the court or tribunal inherently lacks jurisdiction and casts where the jurisdiction is exercised irregularly by courts or tribunals In Mullas Code of Civil Procedure, 13th edn.", ", vol.", "I, at p. 157 it is observed as follows: It is a fundamental rule that a judgment of a court without jurisdiction is a nullity.", "Where by reason of any limitation imposed by statute, charter, or commission, a court is without jurisdiction to entertain any particular action or matter, neither the acquiescence nor the express consent of the parties can confer jurisdiction upon the court nor can consent give a court jurisdiction if a condition which goes to the jurisdiction has not been performed or fulfilled The right of appeal is a statutory right, and if the statute does not give a right of appeal in a given category of cases, then any judgment given in appeal ia such matters would be a nullity, and it would be possible for a party to point this out in a further appeal.", "However, as we have held that an appeal to the AAC in the present case was competent, answering the question at issue would be academic.", "It is, therefore, unnecessary to answer the question.", "Under the circumstances, the questions which have been raised in these references are answered as under : Income-tax Reference Number 98 of 1971 : It is unnecessary to answer question Number 1, for the reasons which are set out in the judgment.", "The assessee had a right of appeal to the AAC against the order of the ITO not granting interest to the assessee on the amount of refund for the period of delay in granting refund.", "The assessee is entitled to interest on the amount of refund due to him for the period of delay after the expiry of six months from 9th November, 1964.", "Income-tax Reference Number 194 of 1975 : Both the questions are answered in the affirmative, that is, in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.", "The applicant in both these references to pay to each of the respondents herein the costs of these references."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_1984_443", "text": ["Mohta, J. Though the notices under sections 139(2) and 148 of the Income-tax Act and so also certain assessment orders passed by the income-tax authorities are challenged in this batch of petitions, the real controversy centres round a point whether the Market Committee as defined under section 2(j) of the Maharashtra Agricultural Produce Marketing (Regulation) Act, 1963 (APMC Act), is a local authority as contemplated under section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act (I.T. Act).", "Section 10 which falls in Chapter III of the Income-tax Act gives a long list of incomes not included in total income.", "One such category is to be found in section 10(20) which reads thus : the income of a local authority which is chargeable under the head Interest on securities, Income from house property, Capital gains or Income from other sources or from a trade or business carried on by it which accrues or arises from the supply of a commodity or service (not being water or electricity) within its own jurisdictional area or from the supply of water or electricity within or outside its own jurisdictional area.", "The term local authority is not defined under the Income-tax Act, with the inevitable result of the necessity of looking to the General Clauses Act, 1897 (GC Act), which gives the following definition of the term, vide section 3(31).", "local authority shall mean a municipal committee, district board, body of port commissioners or other authority legally entitled to, or entrusted by the Government with, the control or management of a municipal or local fund.", "Very clearly, Market Committee is neither a municipal committee nor district board nor a body of port commissioners.", "Is it (i) other authority and if yes, (ii) either entitled to or in fact entrusted by the Government with the control or management of a local fund, are the two issues.", "The first unavoidable exercise would be to examine the scheme of the APMC Act which is the source of its life and existence.", "Before the APMC Act was brought on the statute book, there operated in the field in various regions which now form the State of Maharashtra (a) Bombay Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939, (b) The Central Provinces and Berar Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1935, and (c) The Hyderabad Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1939.", "As a result of the States reorganisation, this consolidated legislation on the subject was brought about.", "It repealed the enactments mentioned earlier, subject, of course, to the usual provisions in the repeal and saving clause contained in section 64.", "Its preamble reads thus : Whereas it is expedient to regulate the marketing of agricultural and certain other produce in market areas and markets to be established therefor in the State to confer powers upon Market Committees to be constituted in connection with or acting for purposes connected with such markets to establish Market Fund for purposes of the Market Committees and to provide for purposes connected with the matters aforesaid It is hereby enacted in the Fourteenth Year of the Republic of India as follows.", "Section 2 (g) defines local authority as including Panchayat Samiti.", "Under section 4, the State Government is authorised to declare that the marketing of the agricultural produce specified in the notification shall be regulated under the APMC Act, in the specified area.", "On issuance of such notification, local authorities, notwithstanding anything contained in any other law for the time being in force, are prohibited from establishing authorising, continuing or allowing to be established or continue any place in the market area for the marketing of that agricultural produce.", "Section 5 provides for establishment of the principal market and subsidiary market in the area section 6 for regulation of marketing of agricultural produce section 7 for grant of licences section 8 for cancelling or suspending licences section 9 for filing an appeal in the matter section 10 for settling disputes between buyers, sellers or their agents including any disputes regarding the quality or weight of, or payment for any agricultural produce, or any matter connected with the regulation of marketing by a Board.", "Section 11 deals with establishment of market committee.", "Section 12 mentions that the market committee shall have perpetual succession and a common seal and may in its corporate name sue and be sued.", "Section 13 gives the constitution of market committee and section 14 provides for election and terms of office of members.", "Section 14A deals with the constitution of an election fund.", "Section 29 enumerates the powers and duties of market committee.", "Market committee is obliged to provide such facility for marketing of agricultural produce in the market as the director may from time to time direct and for that purpose may exercise such powers and perform such duties as are provided under the APMC Act.", "Sub-section (2) of section 29 gives a list which by no means can be said to be exhaustive.", "They include (i) regulation of entry of persons and vehicular traffic, (ii) settlement of disputes, (iii) prosecution for violation of the provisions of the Act and rules, (iv) maintenance of the market, (v) acquiring, holding or disposing of properties, (vi) collecting or maintaining information in respect of production, sale, storage, processing, prices and movement of agricultural produce, (vii) taking all possible steps to prevent adulteration and to promote grading and standardisation to enforce provisions of the APMC Act, Rules, bye-laws and conditions of licence, and (viii) to perform such other duties as may be prescribed from time to time.", "Section 31 contains the power to levy fees and section 32 to take loans subject to certain conditions.", "Section 34 deals with the settlement of the disputes regarding construction of rules, weights and measures notwithstanding anything contained in the Bombay Weights and Measures (Enforcement) Act, 1958.", "Chapter VI deals with the market fund.", "Section 36 provides that all money received by the market committee (barring the fees credited to the election fund under section 14A), all sums realised by way of penalty (excepting fine in a criminal case), all loans raised by the committee, all grants, loans or contributions made by the State Government to the Committee, etc., shall form part of a fund to be called the market fund, the amount to the credit of which can be kept or invested in such manner as may be prescribed.", "Section 37 enumerates the purposes for which the said fund can be expended.", "They include acquisition of sites for the market, maintenance of market, maintenance of standard weights and measures, salaries of servants, payment of interest on loan, collection and dissemination of information regarding matters relating to crop statistics, propaganda in favour of agricultural improvement and orderly marketing and payment of allowances to the members.", "grant of donation to body conducting any educational or welfare activities for the benefit of the agriculturists on certain conditions and also for any other purpose but with the previous approval of the Government.", "Section 38 makes the audit of the accounts, preparation of budget estimate, etc., mandatory.", "Chapter VII deals with total prohibition against making or recovering any trade allowance in any market area in any transaction in respect of agricultural produce.", "Section 45 provides for supersession of market committees in a given set of circumstances.", "Section 45 (2) (b) mentions that in that event all property vested in the market committee shall vest in the State Government.", "Section 54 mentions that the Chairman, the Vice-Chairman, the Members, the Secretary and other officers and servants of the Market Committee shall be deemed to be public servants within the meaning of section 21 of the Indian Penal Code.", "The director or any officer authorised by him or any person authorised by the market committee alone can institute certain prosecutions in view of section 56.", "Section 57 makes certain dues recoverable as an arrear of land revenue.", "Section 60 is a rule-making power and section 61 deals with the making of bye-laws by the market committee.", "Inter alia, the bye-law may provide that any contravention thereof may be punishable with a fine up to Rs. 100.", "The case of Union of India v. R. C. Jain, , lays down the various tests for determining whether section 3(31) of the General Clauses Act is attracted or not (p. 952) : The authorities must have separate legal existence as corporate bodies.", "They must not be mere governmental agencies but must be legally independent entities.", "Next, they must function in a defined area and must ordinarily, wholly or partly, directly or indirectly, be elected by the inhabitants of the area.", "Next, they must enjoy a certain degree of autonomy, with freedom to decide for themselves questions of policy affecting the area administered by them.", "The autonomy may not be complete and the degree of dependence may vary considerably, but an appreciable measure of autonomy there must be.", "Next, they must be entrusted by statute with such governmental functions and duties as are usually entrusted to municipal bodies, such as those connected with providing amenities to the inhabitants of the locality, like health and education services, water and sewerage, town planning and development, roads, markets, transportation, social welfare services, etc.", "Broadly we may say that they may be entrusted with the performance of civic duties and functions which would otherwise be governmental duties and functions.", "Finally, they must have the power to raise funds for the furtherance of their activities and the fulfilment of their projects by levying taxes, rates, charges or fees.", "This may be in addition to moneys provided by Government or obtained by borrowing or otherwise.", "What is essential is that control or management of the fund must vest in the authority.", "The Market Committee clearly satisfies all these tests.", "It is a body corporate having separate legal existence and autonomous status.", "It is independent of the Government and operates in a defined area.", "Its office-bearers are elected and are free to take their own policy decisions.", "It performs governmental functions such as running market, providing civic amenities and doing civic duties.", "It also performs judicial, legislative, executive and fiscal functions.", "It can raise funds for its objects by levying fees, can raise loans and control and management of this fund vests in the Committee.", "Clearly this is a local fund as envisaged by section 3(31) of the GC Act.", "In this connection, useful reference may also be made to certain other relevant provisions.", "The Bombay Local Fund Audit Act, 1930, defines local authority as well as local fund.", "Local authority means local authority as defined under clause (26) of section 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904 (BGC Act), and includes several institutions.", "Local fund means any fund to the control or management of which the local authority is legally entitled and includes the proceeds of any cess, rate, duty or tax which such authority is legally entitled to impose and any property vested in such authority.", "At this stage, it may be noticed that the definitions of the term local authority under the BGC Act and the GC Act are in pari materia.", "The Maharashtra Treasury Rules, 1968, in clause 523, explains the term local fund thus : The expression local fund denotes (i) revenue administered by bodies which by the law or rule having the force of law come under the control of the Government, whether in regard to the proceedings generally or to specific matters such as the sanctioning of their budgets, sanction to the creation or filling up of particular appointments, the enactment of leave, pension or similar rules the revenue of any body which may be specially notified by the Government as such.", "The Bombay Financial Rules, 1959, in clause 183, explains the term local fund thus : revenues administered by bodies which by law or rule having the force of law come under the control of the Government, whether in regard to the proceedings generally or to specific matters such as sanctioning of their budgets, sanction to the creation or filling up of particular appointments, the enactment of leave, pension or similar rules (2) the revenue of any body which may be specially notified by the Government as such.", "The conclusion is thus inescapable that the petitioners have all the attributes of local authority as contemplated by section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act.", "The authorities on the point are in abundance.", "We quote a few.", "In Patel Premji, Jiva v. State of Gujrat , the Supreme Court has held that the Market Committee constituted under the Gujarat Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1963, is a local authority as defined under the GC Act.", "The Andhra Pradesh High Court in the case of Budha Veerinaidu v. State of Andhra Pradesh , has held that the Market Committee under the Andhra Pradesh Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1966, is a local authority.", "This decision was followed in the case of CIT v. Agricultural Market Committee .", "There is yet one more aspect which deserves notice.", "The Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, also had a pari materia provision and the market committees are functioning in various parts of the State since long before even the APMC Act was brought into force.", "Despite this, till 1982, the Income-tax Department never questioned the market committees status as local authority.", "It is not as if the matter had escaped its attention inadvertently.", "As far back as on December 18, 1956, the Ministry of Revenue and Civil Expenditure, Government of India, had issued a D.O. letter bearing Number 5130 MRCE-56 reading as under : Will you please refer to letter regarding income of Agricultural Produce Committee in Bombay.", "We have been advised that these committees are local authorities for the purposes of section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act.", "Instructions have been issued to the income-tax authorities accordingly to examine the income in such committees and to consider in favour of the assessees, the appeals filed by them against assessments already made.", "This communication was brought to the notice of the Income-tax Officer, Yeotmal, the respondent in Writ Petition Number 1520 of 1983.", "It was not and is not being disputed before us that this is the last and final communication on the subject, from the Ministry of Revenue.", "No doubt, this Circular is issued under the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, but that makes no difference.", "There are no inconsistent provisions in the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, and the current Income-tax Act on the subject and as a result, the instructions will be deemed to have been issued under the present Act in terms of section 297 dealing with repeals and savings.", "Section 119 of the Income-tax Act makes these instructions binding on the Department.", "Useful reference may be made in this connection to the case of Addl.", "CIT v. Sarvaraya Textiles Limited .", "Shri Chandurkar, the learned counsel for the Department, in the first place contended that in view of the availability of an alternate remedy under the Income-tax Act, the petition should not be entertained at this premature stage.", "Several authorities, in support of this submission, were also brought to our notice.", "We do not think that this preliminary point can succeed.", "The respondents have taken a positive stand in the matter and driving the petitioners to remedies under the Income-tax Act would be an exercise in futility.", "A pure question of law having an impact on several public bodies is involved and the petitions are already admitted more than twelve months before.", "Moreover, the existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to entertain a writ petition.", "It is next contended that several decisions relied upon by the petitioners are not under the Income-tax Act and the ratio therein, therefore, cannot apply.", "The submission has no merit for what fell for consideration there and what falls for consideration here is the same definition, namely, section 3(31) of the GC Act.", "Equally devoid of merit is a submission that the scheme of the Gujarat Act is basically different from the APMC Act.", "No doubt, the definitions of the term local authority in the two enactments are not exact.", "Both are inclusive definitions and include Panchayat Samities.", "The Gujarat definition additionally includes Corporations as well as Municipalities.", "The other distinguishing feature is that in the Gujarat Act, there exists since inception a deeming provision in section 10(2) reading that A market committee shall be deemed to be a local authority within the meaning of clause (26) of section 3 of the Bombay General Clauses Act, 1904, (Bom I of 1904) and that in the APMC Act such a pro vision has been introduced only recently by the Maharashtra Act Number 10 of 1984, but these distinguishing features do not make any impact on the ratio laid down in several decisions referred to above as the basic scheme of the two enactments is very similar if not exact.", "Our first impression about the Act Number 10 of 1984 is that it is merely explanatory in nature but the debate on the point for the reasons already mentioned is unnecessary.", "The respondents contend that the fund which is built up only on the basis of the fees and not taxes cannot be termed as a local fund.", "Difference between a tax and a fee is well known.", "Quid pro quo which is the basis of valid fees is absent in taxes.", "Compulsion is not the sole or even material criterion for distinguishing fee from taxs is held in Municipal Corporation of Delhi v. Mohd. Yasin 1983 142 ITR 737 (SC)), on which reliance was placed by the respondents but we fail to see how that aspect has any bearing on the point at issue.", "What is material is that there is authority and there is power to raise money by permissible mode of exaction.", "Reliance was placed on certain observations in R. C. Jains case, .", "We are clear that the word taxation is used in the sense of imposition and not taxes as such.", "Equally untenable is the submission that the market committee does not perform any governmental functions.", "Reasons need not be repeated.", "Our attention was invited to the case of Calcutta State Transport Corporation v. CIT , which Road Transport Corporation under the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950, as amended by the Road Transport Corporations (West Bengal Amendment) Act, 1959, was held not to be a local authority within the meaning of section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act.", "In that case, the scheme of the Transport Corporations Act had been considered and it was held that the Corporation neither per-forms any governmental function nor has a local fund.", "Hence, that case renders no support to the stand of the respondents.", "To conclude, the petitions are allowed and the rules are made absolute to the extent that the petitioners are local authorities in terms of section 10(20) of the Income-tax Act.", "There are no total exemptions to local authority.", "Certain incomes are taxable.", "Needless to mention that the respondents are free to issue notices or assess the income on the basis of they being a local authority.", "There shall, under the circumstances, be no order as to costs.", "Needless to mention that securities or guarantees, if furnished by the petitioners, stand discharged."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2003_1254", "text": ["P. Devadhar, J. Heard learned counsel on both sides.", "Rule made returnable forthwith.", "By consent of the parties, the petition is taken up for final hearing.", "In this petition, the petitioner has challenged two notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 relating to the asst.", "1996-97 and 1997-98.", "The petitioner is engaged in the business of manufacture of various abrasives.", "In the returns of the income filed for the respective assessment years, the petitioner had claimed relief under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the IT Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the said Act).", "During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO issued notices under Section 143(2) of the said Act calling upon the petitioner to give further particulars regarding the claim filed under Sections 80-I and 80-IA of the said Act.", "The assessee from time to time furnished the particulars and in the note relating to bond plant (p. 65 of the petition), it was submitted that the assessee had started the bond plant in the year 1991-92 for the manufacture of various bonds which are used in the manufacture of grinding wheels.", "It was stated that the bonds are major raw material for the manufacture of grinding wheels, because it is these bonds that hold the abrasive grains together in a grinding wheel.", "It was also stated that before the assessee started its own bond plant, it used to import these bonds from Norton Company, USA.", "It was stated that Section 80-IA of the said Act postulates that where products manufactured by the manufacturing unit are used for internal consumption, the profit for the purpose of 80-IA has to be calculated based on the market value of the products manufactured by the unit.", "It was stated that the market value of the various bonds has been calculated by the assessee as follows : In respect of bonds which are developed by Grindwell Norton Limited, we have been successful to export the same to Dubai Singapore and in respect of these bonds, we have considered the export price as the market value of the bonds.", "We enclose copies of export invoices giving the export prices of these bonds.", "Other bonds are not sold to any outsider in India as a matter of strategy, and because of stringent secrecy requirements.", "The company, therefore, has considered the Norton Company price as the market value of these bonds.", "We have obtained price list of Norton Company, a copy of which is enclosed.", "If the bonds were to be imported into India by any person, including your assessee, this is the price which the said product would cost.", "Accordingly, the assessee submitted before the AO that it has rightly considered the import export price as the market value of the bonds manufactured in the bond plant.", "The AO being satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee, passed the assessment order granting relief under Section 80-IA of the said Act as claimed by the assessee.", "After lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the impugned notices dt.", "25th March, 2003, were issued under Section 148 of the said Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the asst.", "1996-97 and 1997-98.", "Challenging the said notices, the present petition is filed.", "During the course of hearing, counsel for the Revenue furnished reasons for reopening the assessment.", "Mr. Pardiwala, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that in the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment, nowhere it is stated that there is failure on the part of the assessee in disclosing any material.", "It was submitted that where there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the assessment sought to be reopened after lapse of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, cannot be sustained.", "He relied upon the decisions of this Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories Ltd v. Gajanand Meena, Dy.", "CIT and Ors.", "(2001) 251 ITR 416 (Bom) and in the case of Bhor Industries Limited v. Asstt.", "CIT and Ors.", "Accordingly, it was submitted that the impugned notices issued by the AO are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed and set aside, Mr. Desai, the learned senior advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition in the light of the judgment of the apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited v. ITO and Ors.", "(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).", "According to the learned advocate, on receipt of the notices issued under Section 148 of the said Act and on furnishing the reasons for reopening the assessment, it was obligatory on the part of the assessee to file objections to the issuance of notice before the AO and make submissions regarding the issuance of show-cause notice, and only after the AO passes a speaking order regarding the objection raised by the assessee.", "Writ petition could be filed if at all the assessee is aggrieved by the order of the AO.", "Mr. Desai further submitted that from the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it is clear that in the relevant assessment years, the assessee had failed to disclose material facts as a result, income liable to tax has escaped assessment and accordingly, the AO was justified in reopening the assessment.", "Thus, it was submitted that no interference is called for in a writ jurisdiction under article 226 of the Constitution of India.", "We have heard learned counsel on both sides.", "As regards the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents, this Bench in the case of Ajanta Pharma Limited v. Asstt.", "CIT, bearing Writ Petition Number 1705 of 2003/decided on 29th Nov., 2003 has held that the decision of the apex Court in GKNs case (supra) does not lay down any proposition of law that in no circumstances the writ petition against the issuance of notices under Section 148 of the said Act can be entertained.", "Accordingly, there is no merit in the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents.", "Now turning to the facts of the present case, from the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment, it is clear that the sole reason for reopening of the assessment is the net profit at 17 per cent of the total costs adopted by the AO for the asst.", "yr, 2000-01.", "Nowhere in the reasons recorded by the AO, it is stated that there is a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose material facts in the return filed by the assessee.", "It is not in dispute that in the present case, reopening of the assessment is beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year.", "This Court in the case of IPCA Laboratories (supra) and Bhor Industries Limited (supra), has held that if one reads Expln.", "2 to Section 147 including the proviso thereto, then it is clear that the cases where the Department reopens assessment within a period of four years, it can do so on the ground of income having escaped assessment even if there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "However, in the cases of reopening after four years, the AO must have reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "It is held that the Expln.", "2 cannot be read without reading the proviso to Section 147 of the said Act.", "Applying the ratio laid down in the aforesaid cases, it is clear that in the present case, in the absence of any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years cannot be sustained.", "Accordingly, the petition succeeds.", "Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).", "However, there will be no order as to costs."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2005_1112", "text": ["Rule, returnable forthwith.", "Heard finally by consent of parties.", "In this petition, the petitioner is challenging the notice dt.", "31st March, 2005, issued by respondent Number 1 for reopening assessment for the asst.", "1998-99, under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961 (Act for short).", "Facts : The petitioner is a co-operative society registered under the Maharashtra Cooperative Societies Act, 1960.", "It carries on business of dairy and allied products at Warnanagar, taluka-Panhala, district-Kolhapur.", "The petitioner had filed its return of income for the asst.", "1998-99.", "On 22nd Sept., 2000, the respondent Number 1 issued notice under Section 143(2) read with Section 142(1) of the Act calling upon the petitioner to furnish necessary details.", "The petitioner, accordingly, supplied all details asked for and complied with the said notice dt.", "22nd Sept., 2000.", "The respondent Number 1 vide assessment order dt.", "2nd Jan., 2001 concluded the assessment after taking into consideration all the relevant material sought by him and disclosed by the petitioner.", "The respondent Number 1, on 31st March, 2005, issued notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the concluded assessment of the petitioner for the asst.", "1998-99.", "The petitioner vide its letter dt.", "16th May, 2005 called upon the respondents to disclose the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment before issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "The respondents failed to furnish said reasons.", "Consequently, left with no other alternative, the petitioner invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.", "On being noticed, the respondents appeared and filed their counter-affidavits wherein they disclosed the reasons recorded prior to issuing notice dt.", "31st March, 2005.", "The said reasons read as under : Assessee is a co-operative society and engaged in procurement of milk and sale of milk and milk products.", "The assessee-society purchases milk from primary co-operative societies and are paying regularly for the purchase of the milk from the supplier on the basis of fat content of the milk.", "The assessee in its annual report for the financial year 1997-98 relevant to asst.", "1998-99 has mentioned that it has made provision of Rs. 7,69,40,091 for final bill of the purchase of milk.", "But it has not mentioned how it has arrived at the said provision of Rs. 7,69,40,091.", "It appears that provision of final bill was out of profit and not as business consideration.", "Whether the payment was made on account of quality or quantity of milk or comparable market price of milk or whether there was sufficient cause to make higher payment to milk producers than actual market price is not clear.", "This fact was neither examined by the then AO nor any details were filed by the assessee while assessment proceeding was going on.", "I have, therefore, reason to believe that amount of provision supposed to be paid to the producers is a mere division of profit rather than allowable business expenditure and hence the income chargeable to tax to the extent of Rs. 7,69,40,091 has escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the IT Act, 1961.", "Rival contentions : The learned Counsel for the petitioner contends that notice issued under Section 148 of the Act is barred by limitation in view of proviso to Section 147.", "He further submits that nowhere in the reasons recorded it is stated that the petitioner -assessee had failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the assessment year in question, as such, the AO did not have jurisdiction to reopen the concluded assessment that too after expiry of four years from the last day of the relevant assessment year, i.e., 1998-99.", "He, thus, submits that the notice under Section 148 cannot be held to be within limitation and is liable to be set aside.", "On merits learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that all the relevant evidence with material facts necessary for assessment for the assessment year in question were fully and truly disclosed to the AO.", "He further submits that along with return, documents or information as sought were furnished so as to enable the AO to complete the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.", "Learned Counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission relied upon various judgments of this Court like Hindustan Lever Limited v. V.K. Pandey, Jt.", "CIT and Caprihans India Limited v. Prakash Chandra .", "Per contra, Mr. Rao appearing for the Revenue tried to contend that alternate remedy is open to the petitioner wherein the petitioner can raise objections before the AO and the AO can be directed to decide those objections raised by the petitioner before proceeding with the assessment.", "He further submits that so far as merits of the case are concerned, the same can be dealt with by the AO.", "As such the petitioner be directed to appear before the AO with liberty to raise objections as canvassed hereinabove.", "Mr. Rao sought to place reliance on the judgment of the apex Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited v. ITO and Ors.", "(2003) 259 ITR 19 (SC).", "In rejoinder, learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Ador Technopack Limited v. Dr. Zakir Hussein, Dy.", "CIT to contend that the petitioner should not be relegated to the alternate remedy considering the admitted fact that the notice under Section 148 is (admittedly) beyond the period of limitation.", "He, thus, submits that no useful purpose would be served by relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy.", "Consideration : Having heard rival parties, we are of the opinion that this petition can be disposed of on the first contention raised by the petitioner.", "The petitioner has contended that from the reasons recorded it is evident that there was no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material.", "facts and, therefore, the reopening of the assessment beyond the period of four years is bad in law.", "If there is no failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, then, under proviso to Section 147 of the Act, the assessment cannot be reopened beyond the period of four years.", "The petitioner has rightly relied upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited v. R.B. Wadkar 2004 (3) Mh.", "L.J. 517 wherein this Court has held as under : It is for the AO to reach to the conclusion as to whether there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for the concerned assessment year.", "It is for the AO to form his opinion.", "It is for him to put his opinion on record in black and white.", "The reasons recorded should be clear and unambiguous and should not suffer from any vagueness.", "The reasons recorded must disclose his mind.", "Reasons are the manifestation of mind of the AO.", "The reasons recorded should be self-explanatory and should not keep the assessee guessing for the reasons.", "Reasons provide link between conclusion and evidence.", "The reasons recorded must be based on evidence.", "The AO, in the event of challenge to the reasons, must be able to justify the same based on material available on record.", "He must disclose in the reasons as to which fact or material was not disclosed by the assessee fully and truly necessary for assessment of that assessment year, so as to establish vital link between the reasons and evidence.", "That vital link is the safeguard against arbitrary reopening of the concluded assessment.", "The reasons recorded by the AO cannot be supplemented by filing affidavit or making oral submission, otherwise, the reasons which were lacking in the material particulars would get supplemented, by the time the matter reaches to the Court, on the strength of affidavit or oral submissions advanced.", "Impugned notice quashed.", "(Emphasis, italicised in print, supplied) The aforesaid observations of this Court while interpreting the proviso to Section 147 of the Act are fully applicable to the case at hand.", "The impugned notice is admittedly beyond the period of limitation prescribed under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act and in the absence of any material to show that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials, such notice must be held to be barred by limitation.", "The same is, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside.", "On this ground alone the petition succeeds.", "Since the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground alone, the other contentions raised by the petitioner need no consideration.", "In the result, the impugned notice dt.", "31st March, 2005 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside.", "Petition is allowed.", "Rule made absolute in terms of prayer Clause (a) with no order as to costs."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2006_1110", "text": ["P. Devadhar, J. Heard.", "Rule made returnable forthwith.", "By consent of parties, all these writ petitions are taken up for final hearing.", "In all these group of writ petitions, notices issued under Section 148 of the IT Act, 1961.", "(the Act for short) are challenged.", "By the said notices all dt.", "30th March, 2006, the Revenue seeks to reopen the assessments for asst.", "1989-90 to asst.", "1999-2000.", "According to the Revenue the impugned notices have been issued as per the directions given by CIT(A) by his order dt.", "24th Dec, 2004 to disallow bank interest in the respective assessment years aggregating to Rs. 2,39,65,498 and also to disallow depreciation in the respective assessment years aggregating to Rs. 10,66,429 by initiating proceedings under Section 148 r w Section 150(1) and Expln.", "2 to Section 153 of the Act.", "The question, therefore, to be considered in all these petitions is, whether the CIT(A) has in fact issued such directions and if so, whether such directions are valid.", "To appreciate the dispute, we may note few facts.", "The petitioner (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) is an investment company.", "The return of income for asst.", "1989-90 (Writ Petn.", "Number 2465 of 2006) was filed by the assessee on 31st Dec, 1991 declaring income of Rs. 19,56,261.", "In the return of income, the assessee had claimed depreciation on depreciable assets under Section 32 of the Act.", "On 30th March, 1995 an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the AO for asst.", "1989-90 determining total income at Rs. 21,71,830.", "By the said assessment order, depreciation as claimed by the assessee was allowed.", "The appeal filed by the assessee against the said assessment order was disposed of by the CIT(A) on 29th Aug., 1996.", "Similarly, in all other group petitions the depreciation claimed by the assessee has been allowed in the respective assessment orders passed under Section 143(3) of the Act.", "For asst.", "1995-96 (Writ Petn.", "Number 2471 of 2006), the return of income was filed on 31st (sic) Nov., 1995 declaring loss of Rs. 51,51,518.", "During the year relevant to asst.", "1995-96, the assessee had obtained short-term loan of Rs. 5 crores from the Vysya Bank Limited It is the case of the assessee that the loan sanction letter and other terms and conditions relating to the grant of Rs. 5 crores loan as well as the full particulars relating to the interest paid to the bank during the years under consideration were furnished during the assessment proceedings.", "On 11th March, 1998 assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed by the AO for asst.", "1995-96 determining total loss at Rs. 8,20,310 after allowing the bank interest as claimed by the assessee as business expenditure except to the extent of Rs. 37,65,773 and disallowing the depreciation on computer printer.", "The appeal filed by the assessee against the said assessment order was disposed of by the CIT(A) on 21st Oct., 2002.", "Similar assessment orders under Section 143(3) of the Act have been passed for asst.", "1996-97 to asst.", "1999-2000 by allowing interest paid by the assessee to the banks as allowable business expenditure.", "On 17th Sept., 1998, the premises of the petitioner were searched by the officers of the IT Department and on 1st March, 1999 a notice under Section 158BC of the Act was served thereby calling upon the assessee to file block return for the block period from 1st April, 1988 to 30th Sept., 1998.", "Accordingly, the assessee filed a block return for the block period in question by declaring nil undisclosed income.", "By a block assessment order dt.", "29th Sept., 2000 passed under Section 158BC of the Act, the AO computed the undisclosed income for the block period at Rs. 2,50,31,927.", "In the block assessment order, it was held that the loan of Rs. 5 crores obtained by the assessee in September, 1994 from Vysya Bank Limited has been used for non-business purposes to the extent of Rs. 4.55 crores and, therefore, interest of Rs. 2,39,65,498 paid to the bank during the block period on the said loan of Rs. 5 crores was not allowable as deduction.", "It was further held that during the course of search and post-search enquiries, certain assets which are reflected in the books were not found at the premises of the assessee and, therefore, the depreciation allowed thereon amounting to Rs. 10,66,429 was not allowable.", "Accordingly, by disallowing the bank interest and depreciation, the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period was computed at Rs. 2,50,31,927.", "On an appeal filed by the assessee, the CIT(A) by his order dt.", "24th Dec, 2004 set aside the block assessment order by holding that the undisclosed income computed by the AO cannot be sustained inter alia on the ground that there was no evidence or any material found during the search proceedings on the basis of which the undisclosed income could be assessed under Section 158BC of the Act.", "The CIT(A) further held that even the statements of Mr. Stany Saldanha, director of the assessee-company do not contain any admission regarding the undisclosed income.", "Accordingly, the CIT(A) held that the undisclosed income computed in the block assessment order by making disallowances of bank interest and depreciation cannot be sustained.", "The CIT(A) however observed that the AO is free to look into and consider the said disallowances under Section 148 of the IT Act in the relevant assessment years in terms of Section 150(1) r w Expln.", "2 of Section 153 of the Act.", "Challenging the aforesaid order of CIT(A), the Revenue has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending.", "In the meantime based upon the aforesaid observations made by the CIT(A), the Asstt.", "CIT, Central Circle-13, Mumbai issued the impugned notices all dt.", "30th March, 2006 under Section 148 of the Act so as to reopen the assessments for asst.", "1989-90 to asst.", "1999-2000.", "The reasons recorded for reopening all these assessments are identical and they read thus: Reasons for reopening assessments under Section 148 of the IT Act in the case of M s Lotus Investments Limited The assessee-company M s Lotus Investments Limited, is an investment company on which a search and seizure action was carried out on 17th Sept., 1998.", "Subsequently, the block assessment under Section 158BC of the IT Act, 1961 for the block period 1st April, 1988 to 30th Sept., 1998 was completed on 29th Sept., 2000 disallowing the interest amounting to Rs. 2,39,65,498 as non-business expenditure and disallowing depreciation of Rs. 10,66,429 for the block period thereby determining the undisclosed income at Rs. 2,50,31,927.", "Being aggrieved by the block assessment order under Section 158BC passed by the AO the assessee-company filed an appeal before the CIT(A) (C)-VII, Mumbai on 31st Oct., 2000.", "The CIT(A) (C)-VII, Mumbai vide its order Number CIT(A)-VII DCCC-13/ROT-118/01/02/258 dt.", "24th Dec, 2004 deleted the disallowances made by the AO on account of interest of Rs. 2,39,65,498 and depreciation of Rs. 10,66,429.", "The assessment under Section 158BC dt.", "29th Sept., 2000 has been finalised on the basis of statements recorded of Mr. Stany Saldanha, director of the assessee-company on 22nd Oct., 1998.", "No evidence in respect of disallowances was found during the search on 17th Sept., 1998, thus, it cannot be said that any material was found on 22nd Oct., 1998 relating to any evidence found on 17th Sept., 1998.", "Even the statements recorded on 22nd Oct., 1998 in form of preliminary or final statements do not show any admission by Mr. Stany Saldanha which can be used as a material relatable to any evidence found on 17th Sept., 1998 as none was found on that date i.e., the day of search (17th Sept., 1998) or the appellant.", "Thus, assessment under Section 158BC r w Section 158BB in determining undisclosed income does not have any leg to stand.", "The CIT(A) further in the order, quoted that the AO is free to look into and consider these disallowances under Section 148 of the IT Act, in relevant assessment years in terms of Section 150(1) r w Expln.", "2 of Section 153 in respect of deletion of both amounts made in this order.", "In the light of the above and reckoning the interest of the Revenue and following the guidance directions issued by the CIT(A) in his order, the assessments for the relevant assessment years involved in the block period are reopened under Section 148 of the Act in terms of Section 150(1) r w Expln.", "2 of Section 153 of the Act.", "Issue notices under Section 148 of the Act.", "The assessee objected to the reopening of the assessments by addressing a letter dt.", "15th June, 2006, through their chartered accountants.", "By an order dt.", "21st Aug., 2006, the said objections have been rejected.", "Hence, these petitions have been filed to challenge the validity of the notices all dt.", "30th March, 2006 issued under Section 148 of the Act and also the order dt.", "21st Aug., 2006 passed by the Asstt.", "CIT rejecting the objections raised by the petitioner for reopening the assessments.", "Mr. Mistry, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that the impugned notices are liable to be quashed and set aside, because firstly, the impugned notices have been issued beyond the period of limitation of six years prescribed under Section 149 of the Act and, hence, time-barred.", "Secondly, under the proviso to Section 147 of the Act, an assessment completed under Section 143(3) of the Act can be reopened after the expiry of four years upto six years from the end of the relevant assessment years if it is shown that the assessee had either failed to furnish the return or has not made full and true disclosure of all material facts.", "In the present case, the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment do not suggest any such failure and hence, the impugned notices are time-barred.", "Thirdly, Section 150(1) of the Act which permits reopening of the assessments beyond six years in order to give effect to any finding or direction of the appellate authority is not applicable in the present case because there is no finding or direction given by any appellate or revisional authority and even the order passed by CIT(A) on 24th Dec, 2004 does not record any such finding and no directions have been given to that effect.", "Fourthly, under the proviso to Section 151(1) of the Act, in cases where the assessment order under Section 143(3) or Section 147 of the Act has been made for the relevant year, no notice can be issued after the expiry of four years from the end of relevant assessment year, unless the Chief CIT or the CIT is satisfied on the reasons recorded by the AO that it is a fit case for issue of such notice.", "In the present case, the AO has not obtained any sanction from the Chief CIT or the CIT and, therefore, the impugned notices are without jurisdiction.", "Fifthly, the disallowances sought to be made by reassessment proceedings have already been done by the block assessment order dt.", "29th Sept., 2000.", "Though, the CIT(A) has set aside the block assessment order, the Revenue has not accepted the same and has filed an appeal before the Tribunal and the same is pending.", "Therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to contend on the one hand that the block assessment order has been correctly passed and at the same time contend that the alleged income which has already been assessed in the block assessment has escaped assessment.", "The submission is that it is not permissible for the same income to be assessed twice, i.e. once in the block assessment and again in the regular assessment.", "Relying upon a decision of the apex Court in the case of ITO v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das , Mr. Mistry submitted that the expression finding used in Section 150(1) of the Act would mean a finding which is necessary for the disposal of an appeal and giving relief in respect of the assessment of the year in question.", "Similarly, the expression direction means a direction which the appellate or the revisional authority is empowered to give under the section mentioned therein.", "In the present case, the CIT(A) has neither given any finding that the income has escaped assessment nor given any direction to the effect that the interest and depreciation have to be disallowed by initiating reassessment proceedings.", "Mr. Mistry submitted that the observations made by CIT(A) to the effect that the ITO is free to look into and consider the disallowances under Section 148 of the Act cannot be considered as a direction within the meaning of Section 150(1) of the Act.", "Relying upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of Rajinder Nath v. CIT , Mr. Mistry submitted that the discretion given to the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings if permissible in law cannot be construed as a direction to initiate reassessment proceedings as contemplated under Section 150 of the Act.", "Even if there was any direction as contemplated under Section 150(1) of the Act, Mr. Mistry submitted that in view of the bar contained in Section 150(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) could not have issued such directions because, on the date on which block assessment order was passed, the reassessment could not be made in respect of the assessment years in question and, therefore, direction if any given to initiate reassessment proceedings in respect of those assessment years would be time-barred.", "In the present case, the block assessment order was passed on 29th Sept., 2000 and on that date the time-limit for making reassessment provided under Section 149 of the Act (which was six years from the end of the assessment year) had already lapsed in respect of the assessment years in question.", "Accordingly, Mr. Mistry submitted that the extended period of limitation contained in Section 150(1) of the Act is not applicable in the present case and, therefore, the impugned notices are liable to be declared as time-barred.", "Mr. Chatterjee, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue submitted that the assessee had not fully and truly disclosed all material facts at the time of original assessment and it is only during the course of search and seizure action carried out on 17th Sept., 1998 the facts suppressed by the assessee came to light.", "Since the bank interest and depreciation were erroneously allowed on account of the failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts and such disallowances could not be made in the block assessment order, the CIT(A) has directed for initiation of reassessment proceedings.", "Mr. Chatterjee submitted that interest on borrowed funds can be allowed as business expenditure only if the borrowed funds are utilized for the business of the assessee.", "From the block assessment order it is seen that the bank loan of Rs. 5 crores obtained by the assessee from Vysya Bank has been used for non-business purposes.", "The loan amounts were kept as share application money in the front companies of GMR Vasavi Group in violation of the terms of loan agreement.", "Since the interest paid to Vysya Bank did not relate to the business of the assessee, the said interest paid to the bank could not be allowed as business expenditure.", "Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that during the course of search it was seen that the assets on which depreciation has been allowed were not found in the premises.", "Some of the assets like refrigerator, air-conditioner, etc.", "which were purchased by the assessee were not used for business purposes but the same were used by the directors of the company.", "If the assets were not in existence or were not used for business purposes, then depreciation could not be allowed on those assets.", "Since these facts were suppressed and were noticed during the course of search, the CIT(A) by his order dt.", "24th Dec, 2004 has directed the ITO to initiate proceedings under Section 148 of the Act.", "Relying upon the decision of the apex Court in the case of McDowell Company Limited v. CTO , Mr. Chatterjee submitted that it is neither fair nor desirable to expect the legislature to intervene and take care of every device and scheme to avoid taxation and it is upto the Court to take stock to determine the nature of the new and sophisticated legal devices to avoid tax and, therefore, in the present case, in view of the findings recorded in the block assessment order and the order passed by CIT(A), no relief be granted in favour of the petitioner.", "Mr. Chatterjee submitted that Section 150(2) of the Act is not applicable to the facts of the present case in view of the specific directions given by CIT(A).", "He submitted that the initiation of reassessment proceedings being valid, the assessee must be directed to co-operate in the reassessment proceedings, so that if satisfied the AO would drop the reassessment proceedings and if the reassessment order is against the assessee, there is further remedy provided under the statute itself.", "Mr. Chatterjee further submitted that the impugned notices have been issued with bona fide intentions and if such actions taken by the AO are stalled at this stage, then the Department will not be in a position to bring the escaped income to tax by way of reassessment.", "He submitted that the Revenue is seeking to recover tax on the escaped income either under Section 148 proceedings or in the block assessment proceedings which are pending before the Tribunal and, therefore, no prejudice will be caused to the assessee if the reassessment proceedings are permitted to be proceeded with during the pendency of the appeal before Tribunal.", "Relying upon the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashwani Dhingra v. Chief CIT , Mr. Chatterjee submitted that where Section 148 notices are issued in consequence of an order passed by the appellate authority or a Court the period of limitation would not be applicable.", "Accordingly, he submitted that all these petitions are liable to be dismissed.", "We have carefully considered the rival submissions as also the decisions cited before us.", "The power conferred upon the AO to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act for reopening the assessments in cases where income has escaped assessment, is subject to the time-limit prescribed under Section 149 of the Act.", "Section 149 of the Act (as substituted by Finance Act, 2001) provides that no notice under Section 148 shall be issued after the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years in cases where the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to Rs. 1 lakh or more.", "In the present case, the assessments for asst.", "1989-90 to asst.", "1999-2000 are sought to be reopened by issuing notices on 30th March, 2006 which is beyond six years (except for asst.", "1999-2000) from the end of the relevant assessment years.", "Thus, the notices issued for all the assessment years (except for asst.", "1999-2000) are beyond the period of limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act and hence they are time-barred.", "To get over this difficulty, it is contended by the Revenue that in the present case the limitation prescribed under Section 149 of the Act has no application because, the impugned notices have been issued to give effect to the findings and directions given by the CIT(A) on 24th Dec, 2004 and, therefore, the impugned notices are saved from limitation in view of Section 150 r w Expln.", "2 to Section 153.", "Section 150 of the Act provides that notwithstanding the limitation prescribed under Section 149, notice under Section 148 may be issued at any time for the purpose of making an assessment or reassessment or recomputation in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order passed by any authority in any proceedings under the Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law.", "The question, therefore, to be considered in all these petitions is, whether, the Revenue is justified in contending that the impugned notices have been issued in furtherance of any finding or direction given in the order passed by the CIT(A) on 24th Dec, 2004 and if so, whether such direction are valid in law ? The CIT(A) by his order dt.", "24th Dec, 2004 has set aside the block assessment order dt.", "29th Sept., 2000.", "In the block assessment order, the AO had computed the undisclosed income of the assessee for the block period (1st April, 1988 to 30th Sept., 1998) at Rs. 2,50,31,927.", "While setting aside the block assessment order, the CIT(A) has observed thus: After going through the statements it is seen that no evidence or any material relating to such evidence was found during search proceedings on the basis of which undisclosed income can be computed under Section 158BC so as to complete and determine undisclosed income to be assessed under Section 158BC of the IT Act.", "No statement was made on 17th Sept., 1998 where Mr. Stany Saldanha conceded that both the claims are not correctly made.", "Statements recorded of Mr. Stany Saldanha by Asstt.", "DIT, Hyderabad on 22nd Oct., 1998 (after about a month) during survey proceedings as a follow up action in GMR group of companies as a witness produced that group and physical verification of the premises belonging to the appellant company on 22nd Oct., 1998 cannot be regarded as any evidence found during search dt.", "17th Sept., 1998 which had concluded on 17th Oct., 1998 itself nor any materials can be said to be found relating to such evidence having no evidence found against the appellant as on 17th Sept., 1998.", "Thus assessment done under Section 158BC in determining undisclosed income at Rs. 2,50,31,927 is without any support of statutory provisions of Act and cannot also be done in view of the decisions by jurisdictional High Courts decision relied upon by the appellant in the case of CIT v. Vikram A. Doshi and in CIT v. Vinod Danchand Ghodawat .", "Disallowance of interest in respect of which regular entries are made in books of account and no evidence is found thereagainst during search on 17th Sept., 1998 and entries in respect of depreciation being part of regular entry to compute total income in its regular return of income and no material having been found during search dt.", "17th Sept., 1998 to deny such a claim, no undisclosed income can be determined under Section 158BC of the IT Act.", "The assessment under Section 158BC dt.", "29th Sept., 2000 has been finalized on the basis of statements recorded of Mr. Stany Saldanha on 22nd Oct., 1998.", "No evidence in respect of disallowance was found during the search on 17th Sept., 1998.", "Thus, it cannot be said that any material was found on 22nd Oct., 1998 relating to any evidence found on 17th Sept., 1998.", "Even the statements recorded on 22nd Oct., 1998 in form of preliminary or final statements do not show any admission by Mr. Stany Saldanha which can be used as a material relatable to any evidence found on 17th Sept., 1998 as none was found on that date, i.e. the day of search (17th Sept., 1998) on the appellant.", "Thus, assessment under Section 158BC r w Section 158BB in determining undisclosed income does not have any leg to stand.", "Thus, undisclosed income determined at Rs. 2,50,31,927 thus does not survive.", "The order under Section 158BC passed by AO to charge undisclosed income of Rs. 2,50,31,927 to tax under Chapter XIV-B of IT Act cannot be said to be a correct order as there is no basis to pass such order for the reasons assigned above.", "The additional grounds of appeal are admitted as they are necessary to decide the appeal and these go to the very root of the matter in respect of assessability of the amounts of Rs. 2,39,65,498 and Rs. 10,66,431 as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-A of IT Act that their admission is considered necessary to correctly decide the tax liability of the appellant in accordance with law.", "I am also within my powers as per ratio of decision of Bombay High Court in case of Inventors Industrial Corporation Limited v. CIT to permit the appellant to raise above two additional grounds of discussion made above.", "The AO is free to look into and consider these disallowances under Section 148 of the IT Act in relevant assessment years in terms of Section 150(1) r w Expln.", "2 of Section 153 in respect of deletion of both amounts made in this order.", "The question is, whether the above observations made by the CIT(A) constitute any finding or direction to the ITO for initiating reassessment proceedings by issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "Under Section 150 of the Act, irrespective of the limitation prescribed under Section 149, reassessment proceedings can be initiated at any time if the initiation of reassessment is in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in any order passed by any authority under the Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law.", "While construing similar provisions contained in the 1922 Act, the apex Court in the case of Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (supra) held that the word finding can be only that which is necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of an assessment of a particular year.", "The apex Court further held that the appellate authority may incidentally find that the income belongs to another year, but that is not a finding necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of the assessment year in question.", "Similarly, the expression direction has been construed by the apex Court to mean a direction which the appellate or revisional authority as the case may be, is empowered to give under the sections mentioned therein.", "In the present case, the CIT(A) has neither given a finding to the effect that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment nor given any direction to the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings for the block period by issuing notices under Section 148 of the Act.", "The clear finding recorded by the CIT(A) is that there is no evidence or any material found during the search proceedings on the basis of which undisclosed income can be computed under Section 158BC of the Act.", "The CIT(A) has recorded a finding (see p. 141 of the petition) that even the statements recorded in the form of preliminary or final statements do not show any admission by Mr. Stany Saldanha (director of the assessee) which can be used as a material relatable to any evidence found on 17th Sept., 1998 as none was found on that date.", "It is further held (see p. 142 of the petition) that there is nothing in the statement expressing any doubt for non-genuineness of the loan transaction as also disallowance of depreciation on fixed assets.", "In these petitions, we are not called upon to decide the correctness of the above findings recorded by the CIT(A).", "The above observations of CIT(A) may be erroneous and may be set aside by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal filed by the Revenue.", "That is a different matter.", "But as the findings recorded by the CIT(A) stand today, there is no evidence or material on record to hold that the income has escaped assessment and there is no direction to the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings.", "Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) has given a finding and a direction to reopen the assessments cannot be accepted.", "The fact that the CIT(A) in his order dt.", "24th Dec, 2004 has observed that the AO is free to look into and consider the disallowances under Section 148 of the Act in the relevant assessment years in terms of Section 150(1) r w Expln.", "2 to Section 153 cannot be construed to be a direction to reopen the assessments so as to issue reassessment notices even after the expiry of six years from the end of the relevant assessment years, as contemplated under Section 150 of the Act.", "The above observations made by the CIT(A) can at best be said to be a suggestion made to the AO to consider as to whether such disallowances could be made by initiating reassessment proceedings.", "If the findings given by the CIT(A) were that, there is evidence or material on record to suggest that income has escaped assessment but the same cannot be brought to tax in the block assessment and accordingly if any directions were given for reopening of the assessments then it would be a totally different matter.", "However, in the present case, the CIT(A) has given a clear finding that there is no evidence or material on record to sustain the additions and, hence, the CIT(A) could not have given directions to the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings.", "Therefore, the contention of the Revenue that the CIT(A) has directed the AO to initiate reassessment proceedings cannot be accepted.", "As held by the apex Court in the case of Rajinder Nath (supra), the observations of CIT(A) that the ITO is free to look into and consider the disallowances, would simply mean, giving an option and discretion to the ITO to take or not to take action as he deems fit and such an observation cannot be said to be a direction given by the CIT(A) as contemplated under Section 150 of the Act.", "The decisions of this Court in the cases of CIT v. Vikram A. Doshi , CIT v. Ghodawat Pan Masala Products (P) Limited were relied upon by the counsel for the Revenue in support of his contention that the disallowances in question were liable to be made in regular assessment and not in the block assessment.", "In both these cases neither the scope of reassessment proceedings nor the powers of CIT(A) to direct the ITO to initiate reassessment proceedings was an issue.", "In any event, once it is held that the CIT(A) has not given any finding or direction for reopening the assessments, the extended period of limitation contained in Section 150 of the Act is not available to the Revenue.", "Therefore, these two decisions do not support the case of the Revenue.", "As stated earlier, the findings recorded by the CIT(A) may be erroneous, but till it is reversed, it is not open to the Revenue to contend that the CIT(A) has given a finding that the income has escaped assessment and has directed initiation of reassessment proceedings.", "Reliance placed by the Revenue on the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Ashwani Dhingra (supra) is also misplaced because in that case, the High Court had granted interest on the compensation awarded under the Land Acquisition Act.", "Since the interest on compensation was in the nature of income it was held that the reopening of the assessment was valid.", "In the present case, the facts are altogether different.", "In the present case, the CIT(A) has held that there is no evidence or material on record to make additions and consequently there is no question of CIT(A) directing initiation of reassessment proceedings.", "Apart from the above, Section 150(1) of the Act provides that the power to issue notice under Section 148 of the Act in consequence of or giving effect to any finding or direction of the appellate revisional authority or the Court is subject to the provision contained in Section 150(1) of the Act.", "Section 150(2) provides that directions under Section 150(1) of the Act cannot be given by the appellate revisional authority or the Court if on the date on which the order impugned in the appeal was passed, the reassessment proceedings had become time-barred.", "In other words, as per Section 150(2) of the Act, the CIT(A) could give directions for reassessment only in respect of those assessments years in respect of which reassessment proceedings could be initiated on the date of passing of the block assessment order on 29th Sept., 2000.", "In the present case, on the date of passing of the block assessment order on 29th Sept., 2000, the assessments for most of the assessment years had become time-barred and, therefore, even if the CIT(A) were to give any directions, the same would be hit by Section 150(2) of the Act.", "In any event, in the present case, the CIT(A) has not given any finding or direction for reopening of the assessments and, therefore, the provisions of Section 150 of the Act are not applicable, consequently, the impugned notices which are time-barred under Section 149 of the Act are without jurisdiction and are liable to be quashed and set aside.", "Once, it is held that the CIT(A) has not given any finding or direction for reopening the assessment, the benefit of Expln.", "2 to Section 153 of the Act would not be available to the Revenue.", "It was contended on behalf of the Revenue that if the reassessment proceedings are allowed to be continued during the pendency of the appeal filed by the Revenue before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A), no prejudice would be caused to the assessee.", "This argument is wholly misconceived.", "Validity of the impugned notices cannot be decided on the basis of the prejudice that may or may not be caused to the assessee.", "Whether any prejudice is caused or not, if the notices are without jurisdiction, they are liable to be quashed and set aside.", "As stated earlier, validity of the order passed by CIT(A) is not questioned in these petitions and, therefore, we are not expressing any opinion on merits regarding the allowability or disallowability of bank interest and depreciation.", "In these writ petitions, we are only concerned with the issue as to whether the impugned notices have been issued pursuant to the directions of the CIT(A).", "Once we hold that no directions have been given by the CIT(A) for reopening the assessments, the benefit of Section 150 is not available to the Revenue and the impugned notices which are time-barred under Section 149 of the Act are liable to be quashed.", "Though the notice issued under Section 148 of the Act for asst.", "1999-2000 falls within six years from the end of the assessment year, in view of the fact that the AO has not obtained approval of Chief CIT CIT before issuing the notice as contemplated under Section 151 of the Act, notice for asst.", "1999-2000 is also time-barred.", "For all the aforesaid reasons, the reopening of the assessments for asst.", "1989-90 to asst.", "1999-2000 is quashed and set aside.", "We, however, make it clear that the observations made herein shall not affect the case of either of the parties in the appeal pending before the Tribunal against the order of CIT(A) dt.", "24th Dec, 2004.", "In the result, rule is made absolute in the above terms in all the writ petitions with no order as to costs.", "After the judgment and order was pronounced, Mr. Chatterjee appearing for the respondents makes a request for stay.", "All that we have done is to quash the reopening of the assessment.", "There is no question of any stay.", "The request is rejected."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2006_517", "text": ["P. Devadhar, J. Page 2309 This petition is filed to challenge the validity of the notice dated 26th March, 1992 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "The said notice was issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle - 31, Page 2310 Mumbai with a view to reopen the assessment for A.Y. 1981-82 in the case of M s.", "Devidayal Rolling Mills -the petitioner Number1 herein.", "This petition was admitted on 12th August, 1992 and further proceedings pursuant to the impugned notice dated 26th March, 1992 were stayed.", "The facts relevant for the present petition are that : M section Devidayal Rolling Mills -first petitioner herein (hereinafter referred to as the assessee) was engaged in the business of converting copper wire bars into copper rods or coils.", "The process of converting copper wire bars into copper rods or coils is known as hot rolling process and involves heating of bars in a furnace to a very high temperature and thereafter feeding the red hot bars through various rolling and stretching processes, whereby the width and diameter of the bars gets reduced to the required dimensions.", "It is an admitted fact that the process of converting copper wire bars into copper rods or coils, involves loss of copper metal in the form of copper oxide etc.", "which are all collected as waste residue.", "Though the metal can be recovered from such waste residue, the assessee instead of resorting to such process, has been selling the waste residue from time-to-time and the amount so realised have been accounted for in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee.", "During the assessment year 1981-82, the assessee had sold waste residue for Rs. 4,52,874/- and the same was duly recorded in the books maintained by the assessee.", "On 27th August, 1981, the assessee filed its return of income for the assessment year 1981-82.", "In the profit and loss account, the assessee had disclosed miscellaneous income of Rs. 6,21,240/-which included waste residue sold at Rs. 4,52,874/-.", "During the course of assessment, the Assessing Officer by his letters dated 31st October, 1983 and 30th January, 1984 called for further particulars relating to the collection of waste residue as also the particulars relating to sundry sales of waste residue.", "The assessee furnished the requisite particulars and on being satisfied the Assessing Officer accepted the receipts on sale of waste residue and passed an assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act on 24th March, 1984.", "It may be noted that the assessee had filed an appeal against the assessment order on certain other issues and even the C.I.T. had initiated action under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for assessment year 1981-82 on certain other issues, however, those proceedings are not relevant for the purposes of the present petition.", "By the impugned notice dated 28th March, 1992, the Assessing Officer sought to reopen the assessment for assessment year 1981-82 by recording the reasons for reopening the assessment.", "The said reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer for re-opening the assessment for A.Y. 1981-82 read thus : M section Devidayal Rolling Mills.", "A.Y. 1981-82 Column 11 : Reasons : For.", "A.Y. 81-82 (previous year 1.5.79 to 30.4.80) the assessee has shown sale proceeds of waste residue (copper oxides amounting to Rs. 4,23,790/- only.", "The total quantity of copper bars rolled or processed by the assessee in this period was 12115.591 M.T. The total processing charges received by the assessee are Rs. 56,04,055/-.", "During the course of enquiries under Section 131 in the case of M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited it has been observed that these assessees are claiming 1 burning loss from the total processed material.", "It Page 2311 has been stated on oath by the Director of M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited that about 90 of the burning loss (i.e. 0.9 of the processed material) is recoverable in the form of copper oxide (waste residue) which is saleable in the market.", "The rate of this copper oxide is dependent on the market rate of copper bars and the demand in the market.", "M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited has sold copper oxide in the accounting period 1989-90 and 90-91 at the rates varying from Rs. 60/- to Rs. 72/- per kg.", "dependent upon the market price of pure copper.", "The rate of copper oxide is in general, 25 less than the rate of copper.", "The average rate of copper for the accounting period relevant for A.Y.81-82 was Rs. 33.38 per kg.", "(M.M.T.C. rates).", "Our assessee had claimed total burning loss of 121.15 M.T. for A.Y. 81-82.", "Since 90 of this burning loss is recoverable the assessee had prima facie, recovered 109.035 M.T. (90 of 121.15 M.T.) of copper oxide.", "Since the average rate of copper was Rs. 33.38 per kg.", "at that time, the rate of copper oxide (which is normally 25 less than the market price of copper) works out to be Rs. 25.03 per kg.", "(75 of Rs. 33.38).", "The total prima facie sale proceeds of copper oxide for A.Y. 81-82 (on the sale of 109.035 M.T. of copper oxide) work out to be Rs. 27,29,690/-.", "The assessee has shown such sales to the tune of Rs. 4,23,690/- only.", "Thus, there is a prima facie concealment of net income on account of unaccounted sales of copper oxide to the tune of Rs. 23,05,900/-.", "On the basis of these facts, I have reason to believe that this income to the tune of Rs. 23,05,900/-has escaped assessment for A.Y. 1981-82.", "Hence, it is necessary to re-open the assessment for A.Y. 81-82 under Section.", "147 of I.T. Act by issuing notice under Section 148.", "As per the provisions of section 151, the prior sanction of CIT is required for issuing such notice for A.Y.81-82.", "Hence, the note is put up to the CIT, Central II, Bombay for granting approval for the issue of notice under Section 148 in this case for A.Y.81-82.", "Mr. Jhaveri, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners submitted that the proceedings under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 can be initiated only if the conditions set out therein are fulfilled.", "He submitted that reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year is permissible only if it is established that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for the assessment.", "He submitted that in the present case, the Assessing Officer before passing the assessment order had called for particulars regarding the collection as well as sales of waste residue and accordingly the assessee had furnished all the particulars and only thereafter the assessment order was passed.", "Therefore, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "Moreover, in the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer, it is neither alleged that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for the assessment nor there is any material to suggest that infact the assessee on sale of waste residue had received amounts more than what was disclosed by the assessee.", "In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose all material facts.", "Page 2312 Mr. Jhaveri further submitted that the fact that in the A.Y. 1991-92 M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited had recovered of higher percentage of waste residue cannot be a ground to reopen the assessment of the assessee for A.Y.1981-82, because, firstly the business carried on by M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited is not comparable with the business of the assessee and secondly the price of waste residue sold in the A.Y. 1991-92 can be applied for the sales effected in the A.Y.1981-82.", "He submitted that in the case of the assessee, the Income Tax Authorities year after year had investigated into the recovery of waste residue and sale thereof and on verification had accepted the sale receipts accounted by the assessee from time-to-time.", "He submitted that in a subsequent assessment year, the Assessing Officer infact had made additions on the basis of the sale price recorded by M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited but the same was not approved by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "Accordingly, Mr. Jhaveri submitted that the reopening of the assessment for A.Y.1981-82 based on the sale price of waste residue recorded by M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited in the assessment year 1991-92 is wholly unjustified.", "Relying upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited v. ACIT 268 ITR 339 (Bom), Caprihans India Limited v. DCIT 266 ITR 566 (Bom), Grindwell Norton Limited v. ACIT 267 ITR 673 (Bom), German Remedies Limited v. DCIT (2006) 150 Taxman 398 (Bom), IPCA Laboratories Limited v. Gajanand Meen Dy.", "CIT 251 ITR 416 (Bom) and also the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Indian Oil Corporation v. ITO 159 ITR 956 (SC), Mr. Jhaveri submitted that as the the revenue has failed to establish that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts, the reopening of the assessment beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year cannot be sustained.", "Accordingly, Mr. Jhaveri submitted that the impugned notice dated 26th March, 1992 is liable to be quashed and set aside.", "Mr. Kotangale, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, on the other hand, submitted that the business carried on by the assessee was similar to the business carried on by M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited and once it is found that in view of the high content of copper the sale value of waste residue should be much more than what is declared by the assessee, then it becomes evident that the assessee has failed to disclose all material facts.", "Relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Phool Chand Bajrang Lal and Anr.", "v. Income-tax Officer and Anr.", "203 ITR 456 (SC), Mr. Kotangale submitted that the fact that the false statement made by the assessee has been accepted by the Assessing Officer would not preclude the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment especially when it is found that statement made by the assessee is prima facie found to be false.", "Accordingly, Mr. Kotangale submitted that there is no infirmity in the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.", "We have carefully considered the submissions made by the counsel on both sides.", "It is well established by various decisions of this Court as well as the Apex Court that where an assessment order passed under Section 143(3) is sought to be reopened beyond four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, the revenue must establish that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relevant for Page 2313 the purposes of the assessment.", "In the present case during the assessment proceedings for A.Y. 1981-82, the Assessing Officer did call for full particulars relating to recovery of waste residue as well as the sales thereof.", "It is only after being fully satisfied, the Assessing Officer accepted the sale price recorded by the assessee in its books of account and passed assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.", "In the reasons recorded for reopening the assessment it is neither alleged that the sale receipts recorded by the assessee in its books of account were incorrect or false, nor any material is adduced to show that the amounts actually received by the assessee on sale of waste residue was higher than what was recorded in the books maintained by the assessee.", "It is pertinent to note that even during the assessment proceedings for A.Y.1977-78 and A.Y.1978-79 the Assessing authority had called for full particulars relating to the recovery of waste residue and sales thereof and after detailed discussion, the burning loss waste residue as well as the sales thereof declared by the assessee were accepted.", "In these circumstances, when the Income-tax authorities year after year have investigated into the sales of waste residue effected by the assessee and have accepted the sale price recorded by the assessee, in the absence of any material on record to the contrary, it could not inferred that the assessee has failed to disclose fully truly all material facts.", "In the present case, the only reason recorded for reopening the assessment is that M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited have shown higher sale value of similar waste residue sold by them during A.Y.1991-92.", "There can be no dispute that the sale price depends upon the demand for the goods at the relevant time.", "Therefore, the market price of waste residue prevailing in A.Y.1991-92 cannot be taken to be the market price prevailing in A.Y.1981-82.", "Even if the market price of waste residue in 1981-82 could be higher than the sale price received by the assessee, unless there is any material on record to show that the assessee had actually received on sale of waste residue more amount than what was declared by the assessee, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "In the present case, there is not an iota of evidence to show that the assessee had received higher sale price than what was declared by the assessee.", "The fact that the assessee could have sold the goods at a higher price would not constitute failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "In these circumstances, the reopening of the assessment on the ground that the income has escaped assessment due to failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts cannot be sustained.", "It may be noted that in the regular assessment for A.Y.1988-89, the Assessing Officer sought to reject the sale price declared by the assessee and make additions based on the sale price of M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited However, such additions have not been sustained by the ITAT.", "It is not known as to whether the revenue has accepted the above decision of the Tribunal or not.", "In any event in the absence of any material on record to show that the amount received by the assessee on sale of waste residue in A.Y.1981-82 was more than the amount offered by the assessee, the concluded assessment Page 2314 for A.Y.1981-82 could not be reopened in the year 1992 on the ground that the market price of waste residue in A.Y.1981-82 was higher than the price at which the assessee had sold the goods.", "The decision of the Apex Court in the case of Phool Chand (supra) has no application to the facts of the present case.", "In that case there was a confessional statement made by the Managing Director of the assessee subsequent to the assessment.", "In the present case, there is no material on record to suggest that the price declared to have been received by the assessee was incorrect, incomplete or false.", "The entire case of the revenue is based on the presumption that in view of the higher sale price of waste residue shown by M section Omega Rolling Mills Limited, in the A.Y.1991-92, the sale price in A.Y.1981-82 must have been higher than the price claimed to have been sold by the assessee and, therefore, there is failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "Unless there is direct or circumstantial evidence to show that the income received on sale of waste residue was more than what has been declared, it cannot be said that the assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "In the present case, the reopening of the assessment is based on the presumption that the assessee might have recovered higher amount than what was declared by the assessee and there is no material on record to suggest that the assessee had received higher amount which has escaped assessment.", "In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was any failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all materials.", "Consequently, the reopening of the assessment by the impugned notice dated 26th March, 1992 cannot be sustained.", "In the result, the petition succeeds.", "The impugned notice dated 26th March, 1992 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is quashed and set aside.", "Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2008_221", "text": ["I. Rebello, J. Page 1108 Admit on the question of law reproduced below.", "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Honble Tribunal was right in cancelling the assessment Under Section 16(3) r.w.", "Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, by holding that the notice under Section 16(2), being out of time ignoring the sections crucial feature of its applicability to the returns filed under Section 14, 15 or Under Section 16(4)(i) only and not to the one filed Under Section 17, as in the instant case? The appeal is in respect of the assessment year 1989-90.", "It is the contention of the Revenue that the reassessment proceedings under Section 17 are entirely different from the regular assessment proceedings.", "The notice under Section 16(2) is necessarily and compulsorily to be issued only in a regular assessment.", "In the instant case, it is submitted that on notice dated 19.8.1997 being issued under Section 17, the assessee had filed return of wealth on 14.10.1997.", "The assessment had to be completed within two years from the end of financial year in which notice was issued which in the instant case would be 31.3.2000.", "The Assessing Officer issued notice under Section 16 (2) on 24.9.1999 which is after the expiry of one year from filing of the return.", "The assessment notice under Section 16(3) read with Section 17 was issued on 29.3.2000.", "It is therefore, submitted that considering the terminology of Section 17, there is no requirement that notice under Section 16(2) has to be served to proceed with the assessment as the assessment under Section 17 is independent.", "It is therefore, submitted that the impugned order of the tribunal be set aside.", "On the other hand, on behalf of the appellant, the learned Counsel submitted that a perusal of Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act makes it clear, that other provisions of the Act shall so far as may be apply, as if the return was filed under Section 14.", "It is therefore, submitted that the return filed pursuant to proceedings under Section 17 of the W.T. Act has to be treated as return under Section 14 and as the section falls in Chapter IV, of Assessment, the other provisions to the extent applicable would be attracted including Section 16(2) and as such the view taken by the tribunal is the correct view.", "It is further submitted that there was similar omission in procedure for reassessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act.", "Noting the lacunae, Parliament amended Section 148 of the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1.10.1991.", "Consequently it is submitted that the question as framed would not arise.", "The learned tribunal by a common order disposed of the appeal from which the present appeal arises along with other appeals by its order dated 4.3.2003 for the assessment years 1987-88 to 1992-93.", "The arguments advanced before the tribunal on behalf of the revenue are similar to what were advanced by the learned Counsel before this Court.", "The appeal Page 1109 before the tribunal was against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) which has taken a view that the provision of Section 17(1) of the Wealth Tax Act are similar to Section 14 of the said Act and as the notices were issued beyond the time prescribed, the assessments are not correct in law and therefore, cancelled.", "The Tribunal noted that the Assessing Officer himself was of the view that in proceedings for reassessment under Section 17, the procedure under Section 16 was to be followed.", "The Tribunal placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Dalmias v. CIT 236 ITR 480.", "The tribunal noted from the facts of that case, that under the I.T. Act, at the material time under Section 144(B) of the Income Tax Act if assessment had to be made under Section 143 (3) of the Act (which corresponds to Section 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act), if the ITO proposed to make variation to the returned income, the procedure laid down therein had to be followed.", "Before the Supreme Court the question was whether in a case of reassessment to be made under Section 147, the I.T.O. can invoke Section 144(B) and thereby extend time limit for completion thereof.", "The assessee had contended that Section 144(B) did not apply to assessment made under Section 147 and applies only to assessments made under Section 143.", "The contention of Revenue on the other hand was that Section 147 by itself did not permit assessment and determination of tax due and therefore, recourse to Section 143 was necessary.", "It was argued that the assessment or reassessment was not under Section 147 but under Sections 143/147.", "The argument of the assessee was rejected.", "The Supreme Court noted that the submission of Assessee cannot be accepted because the language of Section 148 cannot be ignored.", "Section 144(B) the court held is a procedural provision.", "It fits into the procedural scheme and, therefore, it cannot be excluded by reason of the use of the words so far as may be Nor was there any other good reason to exclude it from the procedure to be followed subsequent to notice Under Section 148.", "The court then observed as under: As to the argument based upon Sections 144A, 246 and 263 we do not doubt that 5 assessments under Section 143 and assessments and reassessments under Section 147 are different, but in making assessments and re-assessments under Section 147 the procedure laid down in section subsequent to Section 139 including that laid down by Section 144B, has to be followed.", "Considering this judgment, the tribunal held that Section 16 is applicable to reassessment under Section 17 which goes without saying that the requirement of giving notice under the proviso to Section 16(2) is a mandatory requirement and consequently notice has to be issued before the time prescribed by the proviso to the Section 16(2) expires.", "The question that we are called upon to answer is whether the view taken by the tribunal flows from the provisions of Section 17 read with Sections 14 to 16 of the Wealth Tax Act.", "The relevant provisions as they then stood read as under: 7(1).", "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the net wealth Page 1110 chargeable to tax in respect of which any person is assessable under this Act has escaped assessment for any assessment year (whether by reason of under-assessment or assessment at too low a rate or otherwise), he may, subject to the other provisions of this section and Section 17A, serve on such 6 person a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner setting forth the net wealth in respect of which such person is assessable as on the valuation date mentioned in the notice, along with such other particulars as may be required by the notice, and may proceed to assess or reassess such net wealth and also any other net wealth chargeable to tax in respect of which such person is assessable, which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section referred to as the relevant assessment year) and the provisions of this Act shall so far as may be apply as if the return were a return required to be furnished under Section 14.", "Provided that where an assessment under Sub-section (3) of Section 16 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any net wealth chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the 7 failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 16 or this section or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year.", "The crucial words are and the provision of this Act shall so far as may be apply as if the return were a return required to be furnished under Section 14.", "Would these words as far as may be mean thereby that Section 17 is the assessing section and for that purpose the provisions of Section 14 to 16 to the extent they are applicable only would apply.", "In other words does Section 17 confer power on the Assessing Officer in case where Section 17 is invoked to independently make an order of assessment in a case where a return is filed under Section 14 after notice and after the period of twelve months have expired from the date of filing the return.", "Section 16(2) reads as under: Where a return has been made under Section 14 or Section 15, or in response to a notice under Clause (i) of Sub-section (4) of this section the Assessing Officer shall, if he considers it necessary or expedient to ensure that the assessee has not understated the net wealth or has not underpaid the tax 8 in any manner, serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein, either to attend at the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced there, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return.", "Provided that no notice under this sub section shall be served on the assessee after the expiry of twelve months from the end of the month in which the return is furnished.", "Page 1111 Section 16, therefore, requires that if a return has been made under Section 14 or 15, if the assessing officer considers it necessary or expedient, to ensure that the assessee has not understated the net wealth or has not underpaid the tax in any manner, to serve on the assessee a notice requiring him, on a date to be specified therein either to attend the office of the Assessing Officer or to produce, or cause to be produced there, any evidence on which the assessee may rely in support of the return.", "The proviso lays down a timeframe for serving the notice under Section 16(2).", "In other words, if the period of twelve months have expired from the date of filing the return, the A.O. is precluded from serving notice under Section 16(2) and the return filed will have to be accepted.", "We may now gainfully reproduce Section 16(5) for the purpose of our discussion and it reads as under: If any person,- (a) fails to make the return required under Sub-section (1) of Section 14 and has not made a return or a revised return under Section 15, or (b) fails to comply with all the terms of a notice issued under Sub-section (2) or Sub-section (4), the Assessing Officer, after taking into account, all relevant material which he has gathered, shall, after giving such person an opportunity of being heard, estimate the net wealth to the best of his judgment and determine the sum payable by the person on the basis of such assessment Provided that such opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the person to show cause, on a date and time to be specified in the notice, why the assessment should not be completed to the best of his judgment.", "This sub section therefore, will confer a power on the Assessing officer in case of failure to file 10 return under Section 14 or revised return under Section 15 or to comply with the terms of a notice under Section 16(2) to make a best judgment assessment.", "Section 17A provides a time limit for making an order of assessment both under Section 16 and Section 17.", "The normal period for assessment under Section 16 is two years from the end of the assessment year in which the net wealth was first assessable and for an assessment under Section 17 within two years from the end of the financial year in which the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 17 was served.", "Section 17 can be invoked when the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that the net wealth chargeable to tax in respect of an assessee has escaped assessment for any assessment year for the reasons set out therein.", "The A.O. may serve on such person a notice.", "If on the notice being served the assessee fails to file a return, there is no independent provision in Section 17 to make a best judgment assessment like in Section 16(5).", "The language used in fact is that the A.O. may proceed to assess or reassess such net wealth.", "If the argument of the Revenue has to be accepted, it must mean that once Section 17 has been invoked and the notice served on the assessee and the assessee either does not furnish the return in the prescribed form, then the A.O. is empowered to proceed to 11 assess or reassess such net wealth and also any other net wealth chargeable to tax in respect of which such person is assessable irrespective of the requirement of Section 16(2), under Section 17 itself.", "This submission if accepted must Page 1112 lead to the conclusion that Section 17 is a self contained code for assessment of wealth tax which has escaped assessment.", "In that event, will not the expression the provisions of the Act shall, so far as may be, apply as if the return were a return required to be furnished under Section 14, be defeated.", "The Assessing Officer may be satisfied with the return deemed to be filed under Section 14 and choose not to proceed further.", "In such a case we shall have to read Section 16(5) into a case of re-assessment under Section 17.", "What would happen in the case where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the return and wants to proceed to reassess.", "Firstly is there a power outside Section 16 to pass an order of assessment and or re-assessment.", "Secondly in such cases, is there a limitation for issuing notice of assessment or reassessment if the A.O. is not satisfied with the return filed or is there no such limitation as set out in the proviso to Section 16(2) and it would wholly lie within the discretion of the Assessing Officer to proceed to reassess in a case where the A.O. is of the belief that the income has accepted assessment except as to the time limit as set out in Section 17A. Section 17A applies to both assessment and reassessment under Section 16 and 17.", "In our opinion, this would defeat the scheme of the chapter.", "Section 17 only use the expression assess or re-assess, however, the expression as contained in Section 16(3) namely order in writing is missing.", "Even if we assume considering the first proviso to Section 17 that the assessment is under Section 17, in issuing notice if dissatisfied with the return filed, the proviso to Section 16(2) would be applicable.", "The effect of accepting the argument of Revenue would be that in so far as the assessment under Section 16, if the A.O. in order that the assessee has not understated the net wealth or has underpaid tax in issuing notice, there is time limit, in so far as Section 17, there is no such limitation once jurisdiction is invoked under Section 17.", "Further the expression as far as may be in the context of the returns being treated as a return under Section 17 would be rendered meaningless.", "In our opinion, it will not be possible to construe the provisions as are sought to be contended on behalf of the revenue.", "All the provisions of Chapter IV will have to be read in tandem so as to bring about an uniformity and certainty to an order of assessment.", "Proviso to Section 16(2) is in the nature of an embargo on the Assessing Officer, if the period has expired not to issue notice after that period.", "In other words, the Assessing Officer is bound to accept the return as filed.", "Though the notice under Section 16(2) may be procedural, the proviso is not merely procedural but is in the nature of a limitation on the power of the Assessing Officer not to proceed further in a case where return has been filed under Section 14 or under Section 15.", "That will have to read as applicable to a case of re-assessment under Section 17.", "Let us now examine Sections 143 and 148 of the provisions of the Income Tax Act, where similar language had been employed.", "Under Section 143(2)(ii) there is a limitation on the A.O. not to issue notice if the period of twelve months had expired.", "Section 148 of the I.T. Act had come up for consideration before several High Courts.", "A learned Bench of the Madras High Court in Page 1113 Commissioner of Income Tax v. M. Chellappan and Anr.", "had occasion to consider the provision.", "The Assessing Officer proceeded to reassess under Section 147 of the I.T. Act and completed the assessment without issuing notice under Section 143(2) within the time stipulated.", "The order was confirmed in appeal.", "The Tribunal had set aside the order on the ground that notice under Section 143(2) was not served on the assessee within the stipulated period.", "The learned Bench of the Madras High Court held that as the notice under Section 143(2) was not served within the stipulated period, the procedure under Section 143 came to an end and the matter attained finality.", "Similarly is the judgment of Gauhati High Court in Smt.", "Bandana Gogoi v. Commissioner of Income Tax and Anr.", "which also dealt with an issue of reassessment under Section 147.", "That was a case of Block assessment.", "It was found that notice under Section 143(2) was not issued.", "The learned Bench came to the conclusion that requirement of Section 143(2) cannot be dispensed with as it is mandatory.", "Parliament subsequently by Finance Act 2006, with effect from 1.10.1991 introduced the second proviso to Section 148 saving proceedings where return had been filed pursuant to proceedings under Section 147 and no notice had been served under Section 143(2) within the period prescribed by the proviso to Section 143(2).", "The language used in Section 143(2) is similar to the language used in Section 16(2).", "Parliament in the case of I.T. Act under Section 148 noting, the omission in the section which was likely to affect assessments done, pursuant to powers conferred under Section 147, inserted the proviso to Section 148 to protect the assessments already done.", "It is true that merely because Parliament has as a matter of abundant caution intervened and amended the provisions of Section 148 cannot be read to mean that there is a lacunae.", "Two High Courts, Madras and Gauhati, have taken a view that notice under Section 143(2) is mandatory even in a case of re-opening of assessment under Section 148 of the I.T. Act.", "In our opinion, the view taken by the two High Courts reflects the language of Section 147.", "Therefore, even in a case of re-opening of assessment under Section 147, the A.O. is bound to comply with the requirement of Section 143(2) of the I.T. Act.", "Even independently, we have examined the scope and effect of Sections 14 to 16 on the one hand and Section 17 on the other.", "In our opinion, there is no escape from arriving at the conclusion that when the Assessing Officer invokes Section 17, the provision of Section 14 and 16 to the extent applicable, for the purpose of making an order of reassessment will have to be followed which will include the time limit for notice under Section 16(2).", "Once the language of Section 17 itself requires that other provisions to the extent applicable would apply considering the return as filed under Section 14, it contemplates that both procedural and substantive provisions will apply.", "In our opinion, therefore, while invoking powers under Section 17, the Assessing Officer is bound by the mandate of the proviso to Section 16(2) and on failure the order of reassessment will be without Page 1114 jurisdiction and consequently the order of reassessment will have to be set aside.", "Having said so, we are clearly of the opinion that no error of law can be found with the view taken by the tribunal.", "Consequently the appeal is dismissed."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2011_1871", "text": ["Learned Counsel for the Respondents waives ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:20 ::: Dmt 2 wpl2560-11 service.", "By consent taken up for final hearing on the request of learned Counsel for the parties.", "By a notice of the First Respondent dated 17 March 2011 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 an assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07 has been sought to be reopened.", "The Petitioner is engaged in the business of general insurance.", "For Assessment Year 2006-07 the Petitioner filed a return of income on 30 November 2006 declaring a loss of Rs. 504.68 crores after excluding exempt incomes under clauses (15), (23G), (33) and (38) of Section 10.", "On 12 October 2007, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 142 (1) seeking details of income exempted and of expenditure under Section 14A. The Petitioner, during the course of the assessment proceedings, made a submission before the Assessing Officer in a letter dated 25 October 2007 inter alia in regard to the claim of exemption under Section 10 (38).", "Reliance was placed on a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:20 ::: Dmt 3 wpl2560-11 communication dated 21 February 2006 of the Central Board of Direct Taxes to the Chairman of the Insurance Regulatory Development Authority (IRDA) to the effect that exemptions available to any other assessee under any clause of Section 10 are also available to a person carrying on non-life insurance business subject to fulfillment of the conditions under the particular clause under which an exemption is sought.", "By a further communication dated 22 November 2007 the assessee once again relied upon the aforesaid circular.", "In the computation of income for the assessment year, the assessee had claimed inter alia an exemption under Section 10 (15) of the interest on tax free bonds under Section 10 (23G) on interest on investment with infrastructure companies and under Section 10 (33) on dividend income.", "In the notes forming part of the computation of income, the assessee also stated that it was reserving its right to claim an exemption under Section 10 (38).", "The Assessing Officer while passing an order of assessment on 31 March 2008 denied to the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:20 ::: Dmt 4 wpl2560-11 assessee the benefit of an exemption under Section 10 (38) on the ground that during the assessment year, the assessee had carried on a regular business of trading in equity shares the intention of the assessee being to earn profit and not to act as an investor.", "The exemptions claimed under Section 10(15), 10(23G) and 10(33) were however, allowed.", "The Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 on 17 March 2011 purporting to reopen the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07.", "The reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee for reopening the assessment are as follows : The assessee company is involved in general insurance business, hence the income is to be assessed as per special provisions for assessment given in section 44.", "Section 44 provides that the total income of the assessee company has to be assessed as per the First Schedule of the Act.", "The ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 5 wpl2560-11 insurance company in the business other than life insurance are to be assessed as per Rule 5 of the First Schedule and the company involved in life insurance business as per Rule 1 to 4 of the first Schedule.", "On combined reading of section 44 and First Schedule it can be ascertained that no other sections of the Act applies to these companies except for the provisions provided in the First Schedule Rule 5.", "In view of this, the claim of the assessee for exemption of dividend income u section 10(34), interest on tax-free bonds u section 10(15) is not according to law and deserves to be disallowed.", "However, for this assessment year, in the assessment u section 143(3) of the Act, the above claims have been wrongly allowed.", "The assessee submitted objections to the reopening of the assessment on 25 April 2011 which have been disposed of by an order dated 14 November 2011.", "::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 6 wpl2560-11 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that : During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee had claimed an exemption under four clauses of Section 10 and had specifically placed reliance on a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes dated 21 February 2006.", "The Assessing Officer brought his mind to bear on whether the assessee has fulfilled the conditions for the grant of exemption under Section 10 and specifically disallowed the claim for an exemption under Section 10 (38).", "The exemptions under the other three clauses were allowed The Assessing Officer had no new material and certainly no tangible material on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened even ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 7 wpl2560-11 within the period of four years.", "As a matter of fact, the reasons which have been disclosed to the assessee state that in the assessment under Section 143 (3) exemptions have been wrongly allowed and this is reiterated in the order disposing of the objections which states that the Assessing Officer failed to correctly apply the statutory provisions.", "There is in the present case, it is urged, only a change of opinion and the Assessing Officer has purported to review his earlier decision, which is not permissible in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court.", "On the other hand, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged that : No case has been made out for exercise of the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution since it would be open to the assessee ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 8 wpl2560-11 following the reopening of the assessment to urge all appropriate contentions before the Assessing Officer in regard to the entitlement of the assessee to claim an exemption under Section 10 The exercise of the writ jurisdiction is not warranted having regard to the factual issues which arise and Since the reopening has taken place within a period of four years, there was no bar on the Assessing Officer reopening the assessment, once he comes to the conclusion that income had escaped assessment.", "The record before the Court discloses the fact that during the course of the assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer had brought his mind to bear on the issue as to whether the assessee which carries on the business of general ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 9 wpl2560-11 insurance is entitled to an exemption under Section 10.", "Both in the letter dated 25 October 2007 and in the subsequent communication dated 22 November 2011 the assessee had relied upon a communication issued by the CBDT, in response to a query, to the Chairperson of the Insurance Regulatory and Development Authority (IRDA).", "The communication is to the following effect : The undersigned is directed to refer to the write-up on the captioned subject submitted by you during the month to the Honble Finance Minister and Secretary (Revenue).", "It is clarified that the exemption available to any other assessee under any clause of section 10 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (including clause (38) of section 10 regarding long-term capital gains) is also available to a person carrying on non-life insurance business subject to fulfillment of the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 10 wpl2560-11 conditions, if any, under a particular clause of section 10 under which exemption is sought.", "General Insurance Companies are therefore, on par with other assesses who are entitled to or are eligible for exemption under section 10 of the Income-tax Act of long-term capital gains.", "The Assessing Officer declined to grant the benefit of an exemption under Section 10(38) to the assessee on the ground that during the assessment year the assessee had carried on a regular business activity of trading in shares and was not an investor.", "The exemptions under clauses (15), (23G) and (33) of Section 10 were however allowed.", "The Assessing Officer, in the reasons which have been declared to the assessee for reopening assessment has now taken the view that on a combined reading of Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the First Schedule the position that emerges is that no other Section of the Act applies to a company which carries on general insurance business except the provisions contained ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 11 wpl2560-11 in Rule 5 of the First Schedule.", "On this basis, it has been contended that the claims have been wrongly allowed.", "We find merit in the contention of the Petitioner that the reasons which have been set out by the Assessing Officer constitute a mere change of opinion and there was no tangible material on the basis of which the assessment could be reopened.", "Our reasons for this are now set out.", "Under Section 147 the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen an assessment where he has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year.", "Under clause (3) of Explanation 2 the Legislature has set out cases where income chargeable to tax is deemed to have escaped assessment.", "Such cases include a case where an assessment is made but (i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 12 wpl2560-11 other allowance under the Act has been computed.", "The power of the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment even within a period of four years is structured.", "Following the amendment of Section 147 by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 1 April 1989 Parliament has provided for only one condition for exercise of the power to reopen an assessment within four years which is that the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment.", "While recognizing that after 1 April 1989 the power to reopen assessment is wider than before, the Supreme Court has held in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kelvinator of India Ltd, 1 that a schematic interpretation should be given to the words reason to believe failing which Section 147 would confer arbitrary power upon the Assessing Officer to reopen an assessment on the basis of a mere change of opinion.", "In that context, Honble Mr. Justice S.H. Kapadia (as the learned Chief Justice of India then was) speaking for the Supreme Court held as follows : 1 2010 320 ITR 561 (SC) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 13 wpl2560-11 Therefore, post- 1st April, 1989, power to reopen is much wider.", "However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reason to believe failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to reopen.", "We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess.", "The Assessing Officer has no power to review he has the power to reassess.", "But reassessment has to be based on fulfilment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would take place.", "One must treat the concept of change of opinion as an in-built test to check abuse of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 14 wpl2560-11 power by the Assessing Officer.", "Hence, after 1st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment.", "Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.", "Our view gets support from the changes made to section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove.", "Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,1987, Parliament not only deleted the words reason to believe but also inserted the word opinion in section 147 of the Act.", "However, on receipt of representations from the companies against omission of the words reason to believe, Parliament reintroduced the said expression and deleted the word opinion on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer.", "In the present case, it is apparent that the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 15 wpl2560-11 Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the claim of the assessee to exemption under clauses (15), (23G), (33) and (38) of Section 10.", "The exemption under clause (38) was specifically denied.", "The reasons for reopening the assessment merely postulate that the exemption under Section 10 was wrongly allowed.", "This is clearly a situation where there is a change in opinion by the Assessing Officer.", "There is no tangible material for the Assessing Officer to reopen the assessment.", "Section 44 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 stipulates as follows : Notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in the provisions of this Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head Interest on securities, Income from house property, Capital gains or Income from other sources, or in section 199 or in sections 28 to 43B, the profits and gains of any business of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 16 wpl2560-11 insurance, including any such business carried on by a mutual insurance company or by a co- operative society, shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the First Schedule.", "Section 44 provides that the profits and gains of any business of insurance of a mutual insurance company shall be computed in accordance with the rules in the First Schedule.", "Part A of the First Schedule containing Rules 1 to 4 deals with profits of life insurance business while Part B consisting of Rule 5 deals with computation of profits and gains of other insurance business.", "Rule 5 provides as follows : 5.", "The profits and gains of any business of insurance other than life insurance shall be taken to be the balance of the profits disclosed by the annual accounts, copies of which are required under the Insurance Act, 1938 (4 of 1938), to be furnished to the Controller of Insurance, subject to ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 17 wpl2560-11 the following adjustments :- (a) subject to the other provisions of this rule, any expenditure or allowance including any amount debited to the profit and loss account either by way of a provision for any tax, dividend, reserve or any other provision as may be prescribed which is not admissible under the provisions of sections 30 to 43B in computing the profits and gains of a business shall be added back (b) (c) such amount carried over to a reserve for unexpired risks as may be prescribed in this behalf shall be allowed as a deduction.", "The Assessing Officer has in the reasons for reopening the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 18 wpl2560-11 assessment proceeded on the premise that in computing the profits and gains of business for an assessee who carries on general insurance business no other section of the Act would apply and that the computation could be carried out only in accordance with Section 44 read with Rule 5 of the First Schedule.", "In Life Insurance Corporation of India, Bombay v. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Bombay City-III 2 a Division Bench of this Court construed the provisions of Section 44 and of the First Schedule.", "The assessee in that case which carried on life insurance business had made a claim to exemption under Section 10 (15) and Section 10 (1).", "In a reference before the Court the questions referred included whether in computing the profits and gains of the business of insurance under Section 44 read with the First Schedule certain items which were ordinarily not includible in the total income were rightly included in the taxable surplus.", "The Division Bench of this Court held as follows : 2 115 ITR 45 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 19 wpl2560-11 The question which essentially falls to be determined in this reference is whether, in view of the provisions in section 44 or rule 2 of the First schedule, the Life Insurance Corporation will not be entitled to claim the deductions which are otherwise admissible in the case of an assessee, computation of whose income is governed by the other provisions of the Act.", "The argument of Mr. Kolah for the Life Insurance Corporation is that unless there are express provisions which disable the Corporation from claiming the deductions referred to above, the Corporation cannot be deprived of the benefit of the provisions referred to in the questions Numbers 1 to 6.", "Section 44, which deals with computation of profits and gains of business of insurance, begins with a non-obstante clause, the effect of which is that the provisions of the Act relating to the computation of income chargeable under the head Interest on securities, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 20 wpl2560-11 Income from house property, Capital gains or Income from other sources do not apply in the case of computation of income from insurance business.", "The effect of the non-obstante clause so far as the earlier part of section 44 is concerned, therefore, is that the provisions of section 44 will prevail notwithstanding the fact that there are contrary provisions in the Act relating to computation of income chargeable under the four heads mentioned in section 44.", "The only other overriding effect of section 44 is that its provisions operate notwithstanding the provisions of section 191 and of sections 28 to 43A. Thus, the only effect of section 44 is that the operation of the provisions referred to therein is excluded in the case of an assessee who carries on insurance business and in whose case the provisions of rule 2 of the First Schedule are attracted.", "If the deductions which are claimed by the assessee do not fall within the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 21 wpl2560-11 provisions which are referred to in section 44, it will have to be held that the applicability of those provisions in the case of an assessee whose assessment is governed by section 44 read with rule 2 in the First Schedule is not excluded.", "This judgment is sought to be distinguished by the Assessing Officer while disposing of the objections on the ground that the decision was rendered in the context of an assessee which carried on life insurance business to whom Rules 1 to 4 of the First Schedule applied whereas in the case of the assessee in this case which carries on general insurance business Rule 5 could apply.", "According to the Assessing Officer, Rule 5 would not permit any adjustment to the balance of profit as per annual accounts prepared under the Insurance Act, and hence the judgment would not be applicable.", "The Assessing Officer has clearly not noticed that the decision in Life Insurance Corporation (supra) though rendered in the context of an assessee which carries on life insurance business, followed an ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 22 wpl2560-11 earlier decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. New India Assurance Company Limited,. 3 That was a case of an assessee which carried on non life insurance business.", "In New India Assurance Company Limited, the Division Bench dealt inter alia with the provisions of Section 10(7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922.", "The questions referred to this Court included whether the assessee was entitled to claim an exemption from tax under Section 15B and 15C (4) and in respect of interest on a government loan under a notification issued under Section 60.", "Section 10 (7) of the Income Tax Act, 1922 provided that notwithstanding anything to the contrary contained in Section 8, 9, 10, 12 or 18, the profits and gains of any business of insurance and the tax payable thereon shall be computed in accordance with the rules contained in the Schedule to the Act.", "The Division Bench held that upon the language of sub-section (7) of section 10 read along with rule 6 it was impossible to hold that the provisions relating to exemptions stood excluded from operation.", "In that context the 3 1969 71 ITR 761 (Bom) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 23 wpl2560-11 Division Bench held as follows : It is only after the profits and gains of a business are computed that any question of granting exemptions arises and if the latter stage were intended to be excluded by the law we should have thought that a clearer provision than is made in sub-section (7) of section 10 and in rule 6 would have been made.", "In the subsequent judgment of the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation (Supra) the Division Bench noted that there was a difference in the language of section 10(7) of the Act of 1922 when compared with Section 44 of the Act of 1961 since Section 44 does not refer to the computation of tax but merely to the computation of profits and gains in the business of insurance.", "The Division Bench held that this would however not make any difference to the principle laid down by the Court in the earlier decision in the case of New India ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 24 wpl2560-11 Assurance Company Limited Accordingly, the decision in Life Insurance Corporation (Supra) could not have been ignored by the Assessing Officer on the supposition that the decision was rendered in the context of an assessee who carried on life insurance business and was, therefore, not available to an assessee which carries on general insurance business.", "In General Insurance Corporation of India v. Commissioner of Income-Tax 4 the Supreme Court considered in an appeal arising out of a judgment of the High Court the issue as to whether a sum of Rs. 3 crores, being a provision for redemption of preference shares, was not liable to be added back in the total income of the assessee for Assessment Year 1977-78?.", "The Supreme Court held that a plain reading of rule 5(a) of the First Schedule made it clear that in order to attract the applicability of the provision the amount should firstly be an expenditure or allowance and secondly it should be one not admissible under the provisions of section 30 to 43A. The 4 1999 240 ITR 139 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 25 wpl2560-11 Supreme Court held that the sum of Rs. 3 crores in that case which was set apart as a provision for redemption of preference shares could not have been treated as an expenditure and hence could not have been added back under rule 5 (a).", "In that context, the Supreme Court held as follows : There is another approach to the same issue.", "Section 44 of the Income-tax Act read with the rules contained in the First Schedule to the Act lays down an artificial mode of computing the profits and gains of insurance business.", "For the purpose of income-tax, the figures in the accounts of the assessee drawn up in accordance with the provisions of the First Schedule to the Income-tax Act and satisfying the requirements of the Insurance Act are binding on the Assessing Officer under the Income-tax Act and he has no general power to correct the errors in the accounts of an insurance business and undo the entries made ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 26 wpl2560-11 therein.", "The question whether an assessee who carries on general insurance business would be entitled to avail of an exemption under Section 10 did not arise.", "The issue as to whether the assessee which carries on the business of general insurance would be entitled to the benefit of an exemption under clauses (15), (23G) and (33) of Section 10 is directly governed by the decision rendered by the Division Bench in Life Insurance Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-tax (supra) following the earlier decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs New India Assurance Company Limited (supra).", "The Assessing Officer could not have ignored the binding precedent contained in the two Division Bench decisions of this Court.", "Moreover, the Assessing Officer in allowing the benefit of the exemption in the order of assessment under Section 143(3) specifically relied upon the view taken by the CBDT in its communication dated 21 February 2006 to the Chairman of IRDA.", "The communication clarifies that the exemption available to any other assessee ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 27 wpl2560-11 under any clauses of Section 10 is also available to a person carrying on non-life insurance business subject to the fulfilment of the conditions, if any, under a particular clause of Section 10 under which exemption is sought.", "It needs to be emphasised that it is not the case of the Assessing Officer that the assessee had failed to fulfil the condition which attached to the provisions of the relevant clauses of Section 10 in respect of which the exemption was allowed.", "This of course is apart from clause (38) of Section 10 where the Assessing Officer had rejected the claim for exemption in the original order of assessment under Section 143 (3).", "The Assessing Officer above all was bound by the communication of the CBDT.", "Having followed that in the order under Section 143 (3) he could not have taken a different view while purporting to reopen the assessment.", "Having applied his mind specifically to the issue and having taken a view on the basis of the communication noted earlier, the act of reopening the assessment would have to be regarded as a mere change of opinion which has also not been based on any tangible ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 ::: Dmt 28 wpl2560-11 material.", "Consequently, we hold that the reopening of the assessment is contrary to law.", "The Petition would have, therefore, to be allowed.", "Rule is, therefore, made absolute by quashing and setting aside the notice dated 17 March 2011 reopening the assessment under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "In the circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.", "(Dr. D.Y. Chandrachud, J.) A. Sayed, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 17:58:21 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2012_1224", "text": ["By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the challenge is to the assumption of jurisdiction by the Deputy Director of Income Tax (International Taxation) (hereinafter referred to as Assessing Officer) under Section 147 to 151 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the the Act).", "The Assessing officer has assumed jurisdiction by issuing a notice dated 28/3/2011 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reassess the petitioners income for assessment year 2004-05 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned notice) and dismissed the petitioners objection to his above assumption of jurisdiction by an order dated 20/10/2011 (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order).", "The petitioner is a joint stock company incorporated under the laws of Russain Federation.", "An agreement dated 20/11/1988 and a supplementary agreement dated 20/6/1998 were entered into between the then Union of Soviet Socialistic Republic and the Republic of India for co-operation in the construction of a nuclear ASN 2/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: power station at Kudankulam, Tamil Nadu.", "Consequent to above, the Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NCPL) and the petitioner entered into an agreement dated 20/7/1998 for setting up the power station.", "In the course of executing the contract NPCL and the petitioner entered into three Offshore Service Contracts dated 17/12/2001, 28/3/2002 and 02/11/2002 and four Offshore Supply Contracts dated 12/2/2002, 23/8/2002, 23/8/2002 and 7/10/2003.", "4) On 31/3/2006, the petitioner filed its return of income for assessment year 2004-05 declaring a total income of Rs.14.6 crores.", "In its return the petitioner offered for tax the amount received on account of the offshore service contracts by applying Section 44BBB of the Act.", "In so far as the offshore supply contracts were concerned, the petitioner did not offer the same to tax because according to them the transfer of title to the equipment under the offshore supply contracts had taken place outside India and the consideration for the same had also been received outside India.", "Therefore, according to the petitioner the amounts received on account of the offshore supply contracts were not chargeable to tax in India.", "ASN 3/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: On 7/1/2008, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 148 of the Act seeking to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 on the ground that the Assessing Officer had reason to believe that the petitioners income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.", "The petitioner subjected itself to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer for reassessment.", "During the course of reassessment proceedings the Assessing officer raised ig specific queries with regard to service contracts and the offshore supply contracts.", "By a letter dated 10/12/2008 the petitioner inter alia pointed out that under all the offshore supply contracts the sale and supply of equipment were outside India as the same were sold by the Petitioner on FOB basis outside India to NPCL.", "Further, the payments and consideration for the sale of equipment were also received by the petitioner outside India.", "The petitioner.", "contended therefore that no income accrued or arose in India in respect of offshore supply contracts to make it taxable in India.", "Thereafter, the Assessing officer passed an order on 31/12/2008 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act ASN 4/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: reassessing the petitioner to tax for the assessment year 2004-05.", "It is important to note that the assessment order expressly records the aforesaid facts furnished by the petitioner as well as the petitioners submission that no income would accrue or arises in India in respect of the Offshore supply contracts inter alia in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited v. Director of Income Tax reported in 288 ITR Page 408.", "In respect of the Offshore Service Contract the Assessing officer held that the same would be taxable as fees for technical services and royalty and consequently the benefit of Section 44BBB of the Act as claimed by the petitioner would not be available.", "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by an order dated 30/11/2009 held that the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of Section-44BBB of the Act in respect of the offshore service contracts.", "However, he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer to the extent that it held that the service part of the offshore supply contract would be taxable in India.", "Against the order dated 30/11/2009 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), the Assessing officer as well as the petitioner ASN 5/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: have filed appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which are pending.", "On 29/3/2011, the Assessing Officer issued the impugned notice seeking once again to reopen the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 on the ground that he had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the assessment year 2004-05.", "Along with the impugned notice the reasons for reopening the assessment were furnished to the petitioner.", "The reasons for reopening the assessment as provided to the petitioner read as under:- The return of income disclosing a total income of Rs.14,06,95,494 was furnished on 31st march,2006.The return was processed on 28/3/2007.The case was not selected for scrutiny assessment and no notice u s 143(20 was issued.", "Subsequently, a notice u s.148 dated 7/1/2008 was issued to the assessee.", "The order u section 143(3) read with section 147 was passed on 31/12/2008 and the total income was determined at Rs.160,30,71,820/-.", "In the reassessment order dated 31/12/2008, the income from so called offshore services contract amounting to Rs.1217687860/- was treated as royalty.", "Another Rs.53853520/- received on account of services for deputation of specialists was treated as fee for technical services.", "Similarly, an amount of Rs.135413560/- received on account Training of Indian Personnel was treated as FTS.", "The amount of Rs.19,61,16,880/- received on account of services for ASN 6/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: contract Number26000 was held as FTS income.", "In the assessment, the receipts on account of four offshore supply contracts were treated as exempt.", "The CIT(A) in its appellate order has held that all the receipts treated as Royalty by the AO is to be taxed as business income under Section 44BBB of the I. T. Act.", "The assessee was given a contract by Nuclear Power Corporation of India Limited (NPCIL) for construction of a Nuclear Power Station.", "It was a Turnkey project.", "For executing this contract, the assessee entered into various contracts -Offshore Supply contract and Offshore Service Contracts.", "There were 4 Offshore Supply contracts and 3 offshore Service Contracts.", "Although the power plant is to be erected in India, the assessee has termed the contract as Offshore Supply and Offshore Services Contract.", "The work of constructing the project is in India.", "In the return of income, the assessee had claimed that the receipts on account of 4 Offshore Supply contracts as exempt from taxation in India, In respect of 3 Offshore Service Service Contracts, the assessee has filed its return of income.", "In respect of 3 offshore Service Contracts,the assessee has paid taxes under Section 44BBB of the I.T.Act.", "In respect of offshore Supply Contracts, the assessee has not disclosed any income in its return of income.", "The Dispute Resolution Panel (DRP) in its directions for the A.Y. 2006-07 and 2007-08 has held that : Receipts from offshore Services contracts are covered by provisions of section 44BBB of the Income Tax Act.", "Receipts from Offshore Supply contracts are also covered by provisions of section 44BBB of the Income Tax Act.", "ASN 7/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: The DRP has further held that Section 44BBB refers to computation of profits in case of foreign company engaged in the business of civil construction etc.", "In Turnkey Power Projects which are approved by the Central Government.", "The fact that this contract has been awarded on a turnkey basis to the assessee is evident from the contract dated 20/11/1998.", "It is seen that the provisions of section 44BBB clearly indicates that sum payable for erection and construction of power plant is to be included in the amount for applying 10 of profit margin.", "In the case of power plaint being constructed on turnkey basis as envisaged in section 44BBB includes construction, erection and commissioning and these as such include equipment plant and machinery which are installed for setting up the power plant so as to make it a turnkey project .Accordingly, the sum payable for offshore supply should also be included for purposes of computing the profit 10.", "Accordingly, in order to compute the income u s.44BBB, the revenue from all the contracts entered into by the assessee with Government of India or Indian Entity like Nuclear Power Corporation are to be included and, therefore, the profit rate of 10 as envisaged in section 44BBB is to be applied.", "The details of payment received by the assessee in respect of all the 7 contracts are as under: Contract Contract Name Amount in Amount in No. USD INR 20500 Delivery of 5199544 286731962 equipments with long manufacturing cycle ASN 8/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: 22600 Delivery of 68090615 2006081931 Equipments and materials 22700 Supply of 18690000 841391400 equipments raw material from third countries 26000 Supplies from CIS 754130 33650359 countries functions to be performed by the contractor for offshore Supplies Total 92734289 3167855652 No. Contract Contract Name Amount in INR 16200 Elaboration of Wording 1217687860 Documentation 22800 Contract for deputation of 53853520 specialist 24700 Offshore Training Contract 135413560 Total 1406954940 The assessee has disclosed income under section 44BBB on the receipts amounting to Rs.14,06,95,494 (10 of Rs.140,69,54,940) only.", "Such income is disclosed in respect of only three contracts.", "The assessee had a total receipts amounting to Rs.457,48,10,591/- from the turnkey project being carried out in India.", "Thus, the income that the assessee is supposed to disclose in its return of income should have been Rs.45,74,81,059/- - (10 of Rs.4,57,48,10,591/-).", "Thus receipts of Rs.3167855651/- have not been disclosed in the return of income.", "ASN 9/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: As a result, income to the extent of Rs.31.67.85,565/- has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income tax Act, 1961.Such income thus been subjected to relief to which the assessee is not entitled.", "As the assessee has not disclosed proper income in its return of income therefore, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section Therefore, notice under section 148 is being issued.", "On 26/4/2011, the petitioner objected to the reopening of the assessment.", "The petitioner pointed out that in this case the condition precedent for issuing the impugned notice (as issued after more than 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year) is that not only must there be a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment but there must also be a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.", "In this case the petitioner contended that both the conditions precedent had not been satisfied.", "In fact there is no allegation in the grounds that the petitioner has failed to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment.", "Further, during the reassessment proceedings consequent to the notice dated 7/1/2008 under Section 148 of the Act, the Assessing officer had examined the issue with regard to taxability of the payments received ASN 10/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: under the four offshore supply contracts in detail and did not bring the same to tax as he was satisfied that in respect thereof no income arose in India.", "Consequently, action regarding reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 is merely based on a change of opinion and therefore, is completely without jurisdiction.", "On 20/10/2011, the Assessing officer by the impugned order rejected the petitioners objection to the reopening of assessment for the assessment year 2004-05.", "The relevant portion of the order is as under: By this order, I propose to dispose the objections raised by the assessee in terms of the principles laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs ITO (2003) 259 ITR 19.", "The objections filed by the assessee against the reasons recorded have been gone through properly.", "The contentions of the assessee cannot be accepted for the following reasons: The Re-assessment was made under section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 by the AO and later on DRP while deciding the assessees case for A.Y.2006-07 and 2007-08 has held that the work undertaken by the assessee for setting up of nuclear Power Station is of a Turnkey contract which is taxable u s 44BBB of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "Hence, all the receipts by the assessee in connection with the work should be combined and taxed accordingly.", "3.1 While there can be no dispute with the general propositions, this office is unable to accept that there was failure to comply with requirements of Section The relevant portion of Section 147 of the Act ASN 11/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: reads as follows: if the AO has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any Y., he may, subject to the provisions of Section 148 to 153, assess or re-assess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this Section or re-compute the loss of the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, the assessment year concerned/ In the above Section, the main term is reason to believe and the same has been interpreted by numerous judicial authorities.", "3.1.2.", "The principles behind all the judgments (related to this phrase and referred by the assessee in its objections) is that the AO should not use genral and irrational material to come at the conclusion that income has escaped assessment and that is all that was taken into consideration by the AO while recording reasons for re-opening the case in hand.", "In the present case, reasons recorded for re-opening are sufficient to prove that there are material facts a reasonable grounds on which one can have reason to believe for reopening the case, as income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "3.1.3.", "In the case of Bawa Abhai Singh V section DCIT (2001) 1 17 Taxman 12, Delhi High Court elaborated on this issue.", "Relevant portion of this order reads as below: The only condition for action is that AO should have reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, which belief can be reached in any manner and is not qualified by a precondition of faith and true disclosure of material fact by an assessee as contemplated in the pre-amended Section 147(a) and the AO can under the amended provision legitimately reopen the assessment in respect of an income was has escaped assessment viewed in that angle power to reopen assessment is much wider under the amended provision and can be exercised even after assessee has disclosed fully and truly all ASN 12/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: the material facts.", "There must be relevant material before the AO on the basis of which he may form a belief.", "It may be said that information must be something more that a rumour or gossip or hunch.", "There must be some material which can be regarded as information, on the basis of which the AO can have reason to believe that action under section 147 is called for.", "Information means the communication or reception of knowledge or intelligence.", "It includes knowledge obtained from investigation, study or insurrection.", "Reasons which may weigh with the AO may be the result of his own investigation and may come from any source that he considers reliable.", "Formation of his belief is not a judicial decision but is an administrative decision.", "The principle that emerges from the above judgment is that if the AO has some information based upon which he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment for any assessment year under the provisions of the Act, he she can reopen the case u s 147 of the Act.", "In the case under reference, it is apparent from the record that the AO has acted fairly judiciously and had enough reasons to believe for reopening the case.", "The necessary prerequisite for issuance of notice u section 148 is the formation of belief that income chargeable to tax within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act has escaped assessment on the basis of information and material available with the AO.", "The reassessment proceedings initiated after issuance of the notice would necessarily require enquiries to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee.", "Accordingly, the objection of the assessee stands disposed off.", "The assessee is directed to co- operate in the assessment proceedings and submit the details information as called for vide notices issued during the assessment proceedings under the T. Act, 1961.", "ASN 13/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: 13 Mr. S.E. Dastur, Senior Counsel in support of the petition submits as under: The impugned notice is without jurisdiction as the conditions precedent for issuing the same have not been satisfied.", "Though the assessment is sought to be reopened is more than 4-years from the end of the relevant assessment year.", "It is not alleged in the impugned notice that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts relevant for assessment.", "There was no reasonable belief on the part of the respondent to conclude that income has escaped assessment.", "This is so, as all facts with regard to the offshore supply contracts were examined by him during the reassessment proceedings and the same were not brought to tax.", "Therefore, the impugned notice issued now is mainly on account of a change of opinion and not on any tangible material.", "On merits, no part of the petitioners income arising out of offshore supply contract had escaped assessment as equipments were not only sold and supplied ASN 14/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: outside India but the consideration for the same was also received by the petitioner outside India.", "Consequently, no part of the income arising on account of the offshore supply contracts had arisen in India.", "The reasons for reopening the reassessment itself record that in the assessment proceedings the receipts on account of the four offshore supply contracts were treated as exempt.", "The impugned order dated 20/12/2011 rejecting the petitioners objection to initiation of reassessment proceedings by the impugned notice is a non speaking order.", "The impugned order does not deal with the various objections raised by the petitioner.", "As against the above Mr. Tejveer Singh Counsel appearing for the respondent submits as under: The objections raised by the petitioner to the reopening of the assessment by the impugned notice are not tenable and the same had had been appropriately disposed of by impugned order.", "Therefore, he submits that the impugned notice is not without jurisdiction and ASN 15/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: The Court should not issue a writ in the present proceeding to stop the respondents from reassessing the petitioner for the assessment year 2004-05.During the course of reassessment proceeding the petitioner can submit on merits that no tax is at all payable under the offshore supply contracts and the same would be considered and disposed of on merits.", "In view of the above, it is his submission that the present writ petition should not be entertained.", "In cases such as this, where the assessment is sought to be opened after the expiry of 4 years from the end of the relevant assessment year the respondent revenue must not only have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment but such escapement of income must be due to the petitioners failure to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.", "In the present case, the reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment by the notice dated 28/3/2011 itself records that the receipts on account of the four offshore supply contracts was treated as exempt in the assessment proceedings.", "Further, though the reasons ASN 16/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: record that the petitioner had not disclosed proper income in his return of income, it does not allege that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for the assessment.", "This is particularly so as the four offshore supply contracts were the subject matter of consideration and were duly considered while passing the order dated 31/12/2008 under Section 143 read with Section 147 of the Act.", "In fact, the petitioners objection on the aforesaid ground has not been dealt with in the impugned order dated 20/10/2011.", "16) Besides the above, our Court in the matter of Hindustan Lever Limited v. R.B. Wadkar reported in 268 ITR Page 332 has set aside a notice u s.148 of the Act seeking to reopen an assessment inter alia on the ground that the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer nowhere states that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment of that assessment year.", "On the aforesaid ground itself the assumption of jurisdiction by the Assessing officer is illegal.", "On merits also the impugned notice is without jurisdiction for the reason that the same has been issued merely on account of a ASN 17/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: change of opinion as all facts with regard to petitioners offshore supply contracts were considered and dealt with in the reassessment proceeding leading to the order dated 31/12/2008.", "In fact the petitioners submission that amounts received under the four offshore supply contracts were not taxable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in Ishikawajima Harima Heavy Industries Limited Vs.", "Director of Income tax (supra) as no income arose or accrued in India were also recorded in the order dated 31/12/2008.", "Therefore, the impugned notice under Section 148 of the Act is merely on account of change of opinion as no fresh tangible material was available with the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice.", "The Apex Court in the matter of CIT v. Kelvinator India Limited reported in 320 ITR 561 has observed as under:- However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reasons to believe failing which, we are afraid, section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing officer to reopen assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to reopen.", "We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to reassess.", "The Assessing officer has no power to review he has the power to reassess.", "But reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-conditions and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of reopening the assessment, review would ASN 18/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: take place.", "One must treat the concept ofchange of opinion as an in built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer.", "Hence, after 1 st April, 1989, the Assessing Officer has power to reopen, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment.", "Reasons must have a life link with the formation of the belief.", "Therefore, reassessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre conditions and in the garb of reopening an assessment revenue is not permitted to review its earlier order.", "The reopening of assessment has to be based on some tangible material which leads to a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment.", "In the present case, all the material which is the basis of seeking to reopen the assessment was examined in the earlier reassessment proceeding leading to the order dated 31/12/2008 under Section 143(3)read with Section 147 of the Act.", "Consequently there was no tangible material to lead to a reasonable belief that the income has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2004-05.", "The reason for reopening the assessment for the assessment year 2004-05 also places reliance upon the dispute resolution panel directions for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 wherein direction dated 13/8/2008 states that receipts from offshore supply contracts are also to be considered while applying Section 44BBB of the Act in respect of ASN 19/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: suppli contracts.", "However, this direction by the Dispute Resolution Panel is its view opinion on the facts considered during the reassessment proceeding leading to the order of the Assessing officer dated 31/12/2008.", "Further, the opinion of the Dispute Resolution Panel dated 13/8/2008 was available to the Assessing officer when he passed the order dated 31/12/2008 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act on reassessment proceedings.", "Therefore, there is no tangible material for the Assessing Officer to form a reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment.", "All facts were considered while passing the order dated 31/12/2008 under Section 143(3) read with Section 147 of the Act as is evident from the fact that in the order dated 31/12/2008 subjects the service portion of the four offshore supply contracts to tax.", "As held by this Court in the matter of Bhavesh Developers v. Assessing officer reported in 329 ITR 249 that a power to reopen an assessment after a lapse of four years is an exceptional power conferred upon the revenue.", "The conditions as laid down for exercise of such an exceptional power must be strictly fulfilled and in its absence, exercise of such a power is not sustainable.", "The impugned notice has been issued merely on account of change of ASN 20/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: opinion.", "There has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for assessment.", "(assessment includes reassessment in view of Section 2(8) of the Act).", "Consequently, the condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction is not satisfied.", "Therefore, the impugned notice is bad in law.", "The impugned order rejecting the petitioners objection to initiation of reassessment proceedings does not deal with the objections of the petitioner.", "In any event as we have held, the impugned notice is without jurisdiction and therefore, the impugned order is also bad.", "In view of the above, the impugned notice and the impugned order dated 28/3/2011 and 31/12/2011 respectively are quashed and set aside.", "The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with no order as to costs.", "( M.S. SANKLECHA, J. ) ( section J. VAZIFDAR, J.) ASN 21/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 ::: ASN 22/22 WP-377.sxw ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 18:55:48 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2013_1012", "text": ["At the request of learned counsel for both the sides, the writ petition was taken up for final disposal.", "By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges:- (a) the order dated 28 January 2013 of the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) passed in terms of Section 92CA of the Income Tax Act,1961 ( the Act) and (b) the Draft Assessment Order dated 22 March 2013 passed by Assessing Officer(AO) in terms of Section 143(3) read with Section 144-C (1) of the Act in consequence of order dated 28 January 2013 of the TPO.", "Learned counsel for the petitioner has raised the following questions for consideration by this Court: Whether the existence of a potentially taxable income or an expenditure (capital or revenue) that impacts computation of taxable income is a sine qua non for the invocation of jurisdiction under Chapter X ? R.JOSHI 2 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:30:59 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Whether Chapter X confers the jurisdiction to a) treat a transaction on the capital account as a revenue transaction, b) treat a single transaction of issue of shares as two transactions - viz. as that of issue of shares and of grant of a financial accommodation (equal to the difference in value of the arms length price as determined and the issue price of shares), and to bring to tax a notional amount as interest foregone on this notional amount of financial accommodation? Whether the provisions of Chapter X confer the power and jurisdiction upon the department to treat the arms length price determined in an earlier year as a sum actually received (or receivable) in the later year, and determine the arms length price of transactions in the later year on that basis? The petition relates to Assessment Year 2009-10.", "Brief facts leading to this petition are as under:- The petitioner is a wholly owned subsidiary of a Mauritian Entity namely Vodafone Tele-Services (India) Holdings Ltd (the Holding Company.) R.JOSHI 3 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:30:59 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw On 21 August 2008, the petitioner issued 2,89,224 equity shares of a face value of Rs.10/- each at the premium of Rs.8591/- per share aggregating to a total consideration of Rs.246.38 Crores to its holding company.", "The petitioner received an amount of Rs.86.93Crores on 21 August 2008 and the balance amount of Rs.159.46 Crores on 5 November 2008 from its holding company As the issue of the equity shares by the petitioner was to a non- resident entity, the same was done in compliance with the provisions of Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999.", "The Fair Market Value of the said equity shares was determined in accordance with the methodology prescribed under the Capital Issues (Control) Act 1947 On 30 September 2009, the petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2009-10 with the respondent-revenue.", "Along with its return of income, the petitioner also filed Form 3 CEB dated 28 September 2009 by an accountant in accordance with Section 92-E. In the said Form, the transaction of issuance of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company (undisputedly an Associated Enterprise) was declared as an International Transaction and also the Arms Length Price (ALP) of the shares so issued, was also determined.", "However, a note was appended by the accountant to its Form 3 CEB report making it clear that the transaction of issue of equity shares did not affect the income of the petitioner and was being reported only as a matter of abundant caution.", "The note read as under:- R.JOSHI 4 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:30:59 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Note 1:- The company has issued 289224 equity shares of Rs.10/- each fully paid at a premium of Rs.8500 per share aggregating to total consideration of Rs.2,46,38,99,016.", "As per Section 92(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 any income arising shall be computed having regard to the arms length price.", "This transaction of issue of equity shares does not affect income of the Company.", "However, out of abundant caution, the same is reported here.", "On 30 August 2010, the Assessing Officer issued a notice under Section 143(2) to the petitioner for the purposes of carrying out scrutiny assessment (f) On 11 July 2011, the Assessing Officer after obtaining the previous approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax referred all the transactions reported in Form 3 CEB dated 28 September 2009 by the petitioner to the TPO in accordance with Section 92CA(1) .", "This reference to the TPO was for determining the ALP of the reported International Transactions On 14 December 2012, the TPO issued a show cause notice to the petitioner.", "In the above notice, in so far as relevant to these proceedings , the petitioner was, inter alia, called upon to show cause why: the issue price (including the premium) of the equity shares to its holding company as declared by the petitioner should be accepted for the purposes of computing ALP under the Act R.JOSHI 5 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:30:59 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw the ALP of the shares issued by the petitioner to its holding company be not determined on the basis of its Net Asset Value (in short NAV), after taking into account the transfer pricing adjustment for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 which would result in the NAV being enhanced from Rs.12,341.80 millions to Rs.75,564.28 millions.", "This would result in the ALP per share being enhanced leading to a price adjustment of Rs.2034.95 crores to arrive at the ALP of the equity shares the above short fall of Rs.2034.15 crores should not be treated as amount due from the holding company to the petitioner and the above shortfall of Rs.2034.95 crores from the holding company should not be considered as deemed loan by the petitioner and the interest at the rate of 13.50 should not be charged thereon.", "The petitioner filed its replies on 24 December 2012, 7 January 2013 and 22 January 2013 to the show cause notice issued by the TPO.", "The petitioner in all its replies contended that Chapter X i.e. Transfer Pricing provisions do not apply to the issue of equity shares.", "Therefore, it was contended that the notice was completely without jurisdiction and its replies should not be construed as submitting to jurisdiction under Chapter X .", "Without prejudice, the petitioner contested the show cause notice on merits pointing out that Transfer Pricing provisions do not apply to the issuance of the equity shares.", "Besides reliance was placed upon the concept of real income and no jurisdiction to tax hypothetical income by re-charactering the same as deemed loan R.JOSHI 6 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw On 28 January 2013, the TPO passed the impugned order holding that the transaction of issuance of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company is an international transaction covered under Chapter X .", "In particular, it records the following findings: The issue of equity shares is an International Transaction governed by Chapter X as is evident from Form 3 CEB dated 28 September 2009 filed by the petitioner.", "The valuation of equity shares was arrived at by application of Comparable Uncontrolled Price method by the petitioners.", "(ii) The issue whether any Income has arisen and or affected by the International Transaction for purposes of Chapter X would be determined by the Assessing Officer.", "The jurisdiction exercised by him is only to determine the ALP of International Transactions and not compute the income arising out of such International Transactions The transaction was an International Transaction as is evident from the Explanation (i)(c) and (e) to Section 92-B , which provides that capital financing and re-structuring of business would be included within the meaning of International Transactions The issue of shares by the petitioner to its holding company at lower premium then what is due, results in the petitioner subsidizing the price payable by the holding company.", "This deficit would be a loan extended by the petitioner to its holding company and such loan would have bearing on the profit of the assessee in terms of interest R.JOSHI 7 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The ALP of the issue of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company as determined by the Accountant under Section 92E was rejected on the ground that methodology of valuation adopted is not suitable to derive the ALP The Transfer Pricing adjustment for the Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 have to be taken into account to determine the fair value of the Petitioners business Finally, the TPO determined the ALP of equity shares issued by the petitioner to its holding company as under:- 7.5 Determination of Arms Length Price: Thus, based on the above discussion, the ALP of equity shares of the company as on 31-03-2008 is computed as below:- Description Amount Number Remarks (Rs. Amount Million) (Rs.) Net-worth of the assessee 12341.8 As per the company based on audited audited balance sheet as balance sheet on 31-03-2008 of the assessee as on 31-03- 2008 R.JOSHI 8 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Description Amount Number Remarks (Rs. Amount Million) (Rs.) Add: Off-Balance sheet items (for TP adjustment made in the earlier years, ALP valuation of sale of call centre business and ALP of assignment of call options) i Shortfall (net of taxes) As per in charging for provision informa-tion of IT enabled services for 331.53 available in FY 2006-07 the order of ig the TPO for the FY 2007- ii.", "Shortfall in charging 13443.92 As per the for sale of call centre order of the business during FY 2007- TPO for the FY 08 2008-09, as modified by the directions given by DRP- I, Mumbai.", "Shortfall in charging 61788.83 As per the for assignment of call order of the options during FY 2007- TPO for the AY 08.", "2008-09 Less: Provision for tax on 3046.39 As discussed shortfall in charging for above sale of call centre during FY 2007-08 22.66 Less: Provision for tax on 21002.02 As discussed assignment of call option above during FY 2007-08 33.99 R.JOSHI 9 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Description Amount Number Remarks (Rs. Amount Million) (Rs.) Total Net Asset Present 51515.87 Value No. of Equity Shares as on 9,57,992 31-03-2008 ALP Value of each equity 53,77,500 Share as on 31-03-2008 Computation of ALP Description Number Amount (Rs.) ALP Value of each equity shares as on 31-03- 53,775 2008(a) Value of equity shares as per the assessee (b) 8,519 Deficit amount per share (c) (a)-(b) 45,256 No. of equity shares issued (d) 2,89,224 Price charged by the assessee (e) 246,38,99,016 Arms Length Price (f) (a) x (d) 1555,30,20,600 Total shortfall from ALP (g) (f)-(e) 1308,91,21,344 As can be seen from above, the price charged by the assessee in these international transactions falls beyond the -5 range.", "Thus, the above shortfall of Rs.1308,91,21,344/- is treated as transfer pricing adjustment for the price charged by the assessee in these international transactions in the nature of issue of equity shares.", "R.JOSHI 10 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The short fall in the value of shares issued by the petitioner to its holding company was treated as a deemed loan by the petitioner to its holding company.", "This deemed loan was sought to be charged with interest at 13.5 per annum.", "Consequently, the TPO arrived at the following transfer pricing adjustment as under:- 9.2.4 Computation of Arms Length Price: Amount of Deemed Loan Rs.1308,91,21,344/- Period 6 months Arms Length Interest Rate 13.50 p.a.", "Arms Length Price 13.97 p.a.", "Rs.88,35,15,691/- 9.2.5 Price Received vis-A-vis the Arms Length Price: The price charged by the assessee at Rs. Nil in the form of interest chargeable on the debts delayed from its Associated Enterprise is compared to the Arms Length Price or interest as under: Arms Length Interest Rs.88,35,15,691/- Interest received Rs. Nil Shortfall being adjustment Rs.88,35,15,691/- u s 92CA The above amount of Rs.88,35,15,691/- is treated as an adjustment u s 92CA for the price chargeable as interest on the deemed loan to its AE for the F. Y. 2008-09.", "R.JOSHI 11 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw 10 Summary of TP adjustments The transfer pricing adjustments made in this order is summarized as below:- Sr.", "Nature of International transactions Adjustment No. Amount (Rs.) 1 Shortfall in price of shares issued to 1308,91,21,344 AE 2 Interest on deemed loan 88,35,15,691 TOTAL 1397,26,37,035 Thus the above total amount of Rs.1397,26,37,035/- is treated as transfer pricing adjustment for the FY 2008-09, relevant for the AY 2009-10.", "Consequent to the order dated 28 January 2013 of the TPO, the Assessing Officer on 4 February 2013 issued notice to the petitioner.", "The above notice under Section 142 (1) interalia called upon the petitioner to show cause as to why adjustment aggregating to Rs.1397.26 Crores as proposed by TPO should not be made to the total income of the petitioner On 12 February 2013 and 19 March 2013, the petitioner responded to the show cause notice dated 4 February 2013.", "The petitioner submitted that the order of the TPO is without jurisdiction as the transfer pricing provisions do not apply to a transaction of issuing equity shares to its holding company.", "Besides, the transaction of issuing shares cannot be governed by Chapter X as no income arises and or affected by it.", "Further, there is no occasion to re-characterize a bonafide transaction of issue of shares as deemed loan under the Act.", "Thus, it was submitted that the proceeding seeking to apply Chapter X to issue of shares to its holding company is bad in law R.JOSHI 12 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw On 22 March 2013, the Assessing Officer passed the impugned Draft Assessment Order under Section 143 read with Section 144-C(1) .", "The Assessing Officer did not deal with the petitioners principal contention that Chapter X would not be applicable as the issuance of equity shares to its holding company does not give rise to any income.", "This was not dealt with by the Assessing Officer on the ground that in terms of Section 92-CA(4) , the Assessing Officer has to compute the total income in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO.", "In view of the above, the Assessing Officer added the entire amount of Rs.1397.26 Crores determined by the TPO to the petitioners income On 24 April 2013, the present petition was filed.", "On 26 April 2013, the petitioner filed objections to the draft Assessment Order dated 22 March 2013 before the Dispute Resolution Panel ( DRP) under Section 144-C .", "However, the petitioner raised objections before the DRP only with regard to the valuation quantification issue and not with regard to issue of jurisdiction viz: the issue of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company does not affect income and is thus outside the ambit of Chapter X .", "This was for the reason that the issue of jurisdiction was the subject matter of challenge in this petition before the Court.", "R.JOSHI 13 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Affidavit in reply dated 23 September 2013 came to be filed by respondent Number3-Dy.", "Commissioner of Income Tax, (Assessing Officer) for and on behalf of respondents, wherein , inter alia, the deponent has raised the preliminary objection that the writ petition is not maintainable as it is at the stage of draft assessment order and the petitioner has an effective alternate remedy before the DRP, which remedy the petitioner has already resorted to.", "Affidavit also deals with the petitioners contentions on merits, which will be referred to hereinafter.", "The petitioner has filed affidavit-in-rejoinder dated 10 October 2013 dealing with the preliminary objection on maintainability and on merits.", "The Assessing Officer has filed sur-rejoinder dated 15 October 2013.", "Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that - On correct interpretation of the provisions of Chapter X of the Act including section 92, the following two conditions precedent must be satisfied before invocation or application of Chapter X:- There must be an international transaction, and (ii) (a) income must arise from such international transaction, or (b) there must exist any expense or interest arising from such international transaction, which can impact computation of total income.", "R.JOSHI 14 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Upon fulfillment of such conditions precedent and upon application of Chapter X , the only consequence that follows is that the computation of income (expense or interest) shall be computed having regard to ALP.", "Chapter X relating to avoidance of tax does not purport to create any new or additional head of income over and above those provided in section 14 .", "If a receipt does not fall under any of the heads of income specified in section 14, the revenue cannot by invoking Chapter X create an additional head of income for the purposes of charging of income tax and computation of total income.", "The legislative intent that for invocation of Chapter X , income must arise from the international transaction in question (or the expense or interest capable of impacting computation of taxable income must arise) is supported by intrinsic evidence in the provisions of Chapter X as under:- Title of the chapter is special provisions relating to avoidance of tax meaning thereby avoidance of tax on taxable income Marginal note to section 92 is computation of income from international transaction having regard to arms length price.", "That means section 92 is only a machinery provision and not a charging section.", "R.JOSHI 15 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw All that sub-section (1) of section 92 provides is that income arising from an international transaction shall be computed having regard to ALP and, therefore, the explanation clarifies that the allowance for any expenditure or interest arising from such transaction shall also be determined as having regard to arms length price.", "Expense or interest can possibly impact computation of taxable income and, therefore, it is taken within the sweep of Chapter X .", "Sub-section (3) of section 92 again provides that the provisions of section 92 shall not apply in a case where computation of income under section 92 has the effect of reducing the income chargeable to tax computed on the basis of entries made in the books of account.", "The emphasis again is on computation of income for the purposes of tax.", "Sub--section (3) of section 92C confers power on the Assessing Officer to compute ALP.", "It also provides that this can be done during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income.", "R.JOSHI 16 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Even where the Assessing Officer himself does not determine the ALP but makes a reference to the Transfer Pricing Officer (TPO) under section 92CA and the TPO passes an order determining the arms length price, sub- section (4) provides that the Assessing Officer is to apply the said order to compute the income of the assessee in conformity with the arms length price so determined by TPO.", "Income is defined by section 2(24) as including - profits and gains, any capital gains chargeable under section 45 and w.e.f.", "(xvi) any consideration received for issue of shares as exceeds the 1-11-2013 fair market value of the shares referred to in clause (viib) of sub-section (2) of section 56.", "Section 56(2) (viib) reads as under:- Income from other sources.", "56 (1) Income of every kind which is not to be excluded from the total income under this Act shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources, if it is not chargeable to income-tax under any of the heads specified in section 14, items A to E. In particular and without prejudice to the generality of the provisions of sub-section (1), the following incomes, shall be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from other sources namely:- (viib) Where a company, not being a company in which the public are substantially interested, receives, in any previous year, from any person being a resident, any consideration for issue of shares that exceeds the face value of such shares, the aggregate consideration received for such shares as exceeds the fair market value of the shares.", "(emphasis supplied) R.JOSHI 17 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Nowhere in the Act any shortfall in share premium is treated as income.", "If a case does not fall under section 56(2)(viib) , even share premium in excess of fair market value of shares is not treated as income.", "It is therefore vehemently submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the question of determining the arms length price by invoking the provisions of Chapter X can arise only for the purpose of assessing the income as defined by the Act.", "While section 2(24) gives an inclusive definition of income, section 7 provides which income shall be deemed to be received in the previous year in question and section 9 provides which income shall be deemed to accrue or arise in India.", "None of those provisions provide for any fiction of treating the receipt of share premium as deemed or notional income.", "Similarly, no provision even in Chapter X provides that a receipt, even if otherwise not covered by the definition of income computed having regard to ALP, will be treated as notional income or deemed income.", "Section 92(1) only provides for computation of income arising from an international transaction having regard to the ALP and does not provide that the amount computed as having been received in terms of the ALP shall be treated as deemed income or notional income.", "R.JOSHI 18 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The suggestion made by the Department in the Counter affidavit, that the definition of International Transaction by itself creates a legal fiction by which the ALP of an International Transaction is deemed to be income runs counter to the legislative material placed before this Court by them.", "It is submitted that the assessments in the present case are a mockery of the legislative intent.", "The Notes on Clauses refers to Section 92 as a new section to provide that any income arising from an International Transaction shall be computed having regard to arms length price, and the meanings of associated enterprise and International Transaction with reference to which the income is to be computed under the new section.", "The Memorandum Explaining the Finance Bill 2001 refers to MEASURES TO CURB TAX AVOIDANCE and New Legislation to curb tax avoidance by abuse of transfer pricing.", "It points out that the profits derived by such enterprises carrying on business in India can be controlled by the multinational group, by manipulating the prices leading to erosion of tax revenue The provisions were inserted With a view to provide a statutory framework which can lead in computation of reasonable fair and equitable profits and tax in India in the case of such multinational enterprises R.JOSHI 19 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The circular issued by the CBDT also echoes the same sentiment- it states with a view to provide a detailed statutory frame work which can lead to the computation of reasonable, fair and equitable profits and tax in India As per settled legal position Income tax is a tax on real income.", "Income tax cannot be levied on hypothetical income.", "If income does not result at all, there can not be a tax.", "It is submitted that the share premium, which is not taxable, cannot be taxed on the ground that the assessee ought to have received higher share premium and, therefore, the difference should be treated as notional income.", "The assessee required from its holding company funds to the tune of about Rs.246 crores for its operations in India.", "On the basis of the fair market value of equity shares calculated in accordance with the formula under the Capital Shares (Control) Act, 1947, the assessee issued 2,89,224 equity shares of Rs.10/- each at a premium of Rs.8,519/- per share aggregating to total consideration of Rs.246.38 crores to its Holding company which is undisputedly an Associated Enterprise.", "The petitioner received the said amounts in August November 2008.", "At the relevant time sub clause (xvi) was not yet inserted in Sec.2(24) - which, in certain cases, treats share premium in excess of fair market value of shares as income w.e.f. 1 April 2013.", "Hence the petitioner could have as well received Rs.246.38 crores from its holding company by simply issuing only share or 100 shares.", "R.JOSHI 20 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The AO and the TPO have determined the ALP of each share at Rs.53,775/- and on that basis they have treated the differential amount of Rs.45,256/- (Rs.53,775 - Rs.8,519) as the shortfall in the share premium.", "Since the number of equity shares issued by the petitioner was 2,89,224, the transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1308.91 crores has been made.", "This alleged shortfall has been treated as loan from the petitioner to the Associated Enterprise or a receivable from the Associated Enterprise or financial facility extended by the petitioner to the Associated Enterprise or a call in arrears that should have been paid by the Associated Enterprise on the date of issue of shares.", "The AO and the TPO both have still gone further and an interest at the rate of 13.5 for 6 months has been computed on the deemed loan interest quantified at Rs.88.35 crores and thus the total transfer pricing adjustment of Rs.1397.26 crores is made.", "The transfer pricing provisions have thus been used by the TPO and the AO to treat the alleged shortfall in the amount of share premium as income.", "It is vehemently submitted by Mr.", "Harish Salve that the TPO and the AO have turned the entire tax jurisprudence on its head by passing the impugned orders.", "R.JOSHI 21 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The issue of equity shares at a premium by the petitioner to its holding company is itself a process of creation of shares and thus would not be covered as a transfer as held by the Apex Court in Khoday Distilleries Limited v section CIT, 2009(1) SCC 256.", "In the above case, the Supreme Court held as under:- There is a vital difference between creation and transfer of sharesThere is a difference between issue of a share to a subscriber and the purchase of a share from an existing shareholder.", "The first case is that of creation, whereas the second case is that of transfer of chose-in-action.", "Consequently, the issue of shares at a premium being sue generis would not attract the provisions of Section 2(47) and 45 dealing with transfer of capital assets and capital gains.", "Section 4 is the charging section and Section 5 which defines the scope of total income to include income received and deemed to be received or accrued.", "It is submitted that in this case, no income has accrued or has been received or deemed to be received by the petitioner on the issue of equity shares to its holding company and therefore, cannot be subjected to tax.", "In support of the above submission, reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court in Cadell Weaving Mills Company Limited vs CIT 116 Taxman 77.", "In the above case the issue was whether an amount received in consideration for surrendering statutory tenancy could be considered as an amount liable to tax under Section 56 i.e. income from other sources.", "This Court inter alia held as follows:- R.JOSHI 22 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw It is true that Section 2(24) defines would income.", "That the definition is an inclusive definition.", "However, it is well settled that capital receipts do not come within the ambit except to the extent of any capital receipt being expressly sought to be covered by the act of the Parliament as in the case of Section 2(24) (vi) .", "The Court held that where capital gain is not chargeable for any reason under Section 45 then any amount income gain cannot be brought to tax by applying the general understanding of income in the inclusive definition provided under Section 2(24) .", "In the present case also it was submitted that the issue of shares was on capital account and the same is not taxable under the head Capital Gains, therefore, cannot be brought to tax as income under any other head unless it is specifically defined in the Act.", "The aforesaid decision of the Bombay High Court was upheld by the Apex Court in 273 ITR page 1.", "One more issue which arises in this case and which cannot be contended before the authorities is: if the revenues contention is accepted (the amount received as share premium on issuance of equity shares was received in terms of the ALP determined by the department, then no amount received by the petitioner would be subjected to tax.", "However, if there is any short fall difference on the amount determined as ALP and amount received by the petitioner then the petitioner would have to pay tax on the differential amount), such construction would lead to imposition of penalty and would not only be arbitrary and violative of Article 14 but also violative of Article 19(1) (g) of the Constitution.", "In support of the aforesaid proposal reliance was placed upon the decision of the Apex Court in the matter of K.P.Varghese vs ITO 1981 (4) SCC , 173.", "R.JOSHI 23 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw In view of the above, it is submitted by Mr.", "Salve that this Court should exercise its extra ordinary writ jurisdiction and entertain the petition as the alternative remedy is not an efficacious remedy.", "The TPO while determining the ALP of the issue of equity shares by the petitioner to its holding company has treated the ALP determined in respect of transactions in earlier Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09 as the sums actually received receivable.", "This is not permissible as the ALP transaction for the earlier period only results in a tax being paid on proper value of the international transaction on the basis of ALP so determined for that transaction in that year.", "It does not have any carry forward effect.", "Salve has also assailed the impugned order on the ground of breach of principles of natural justice: The impugned orders of the TPO and the draft assessment order of the Assessing Officer are in breach of principles of natural justice in as much as the fundamental issue going to the root of the matter raised by the petitioner viz: the international transaction in question does not give rise to and or affect any income has not been considered and or dealt with either by the TPO or by the Assessing Officer and yet Chapter X has been applied.", "The TPO does not consider the issue of income on the ground that in terms of Section 92CA his mandate is only to determine the ALP of the transaction whereas the Assessing Officer has not dealt with the issue in the Draft Assessment Order on the ground that in terms of Section 92CA (4) , he is bound by the ALP as determined by the TPO R.JOSHI 24 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Before the Assessing Officer refers a transaction to the TPO for determination of the ALP under Section 92CA , it is incumbent upon the Assessing Officer to hear the petitioner before coming to the conclusion that it is necessary and expedient to refer the transaction to the TPO for computation of ALP.", "This not having been done, the entire reference to TPO is bad.", "Further while referring the matter to the TPO, the Assessing Officer is also required to consider whether there is any income arising from international transactions so as to make provisions of Chapter X applicable as otherwise, at no point of time, the question whether or not, any income arises from international transactions is subject to any examination by the authorities.", "The constitution of the DRP is such that one of its members is Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing).", "In terms of Instruction Number 3/2003 dated 20 May 2003 a person of equal rank to the Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) who is equal to a member of the DRP is required to approve the order of the TPO.", "In view of the above, it is submitted that the Writ Petition be entertained and be disposed of on merits.", "Mr. Salve further submitted that the petition should be entertained and the petitioner should not be relegated to avail of alternate remedy as the challenge in the petition was to the very jurisdiction of the respondent-authority to tax issue of shares at premium by the petitioner to its holding company.", "In support of the above, the following submissions were made:- R.JOSHI 25 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw From the very beginning, the petitioner has protested and challenged the jurisdiction of the authorities in applying Chapter X in respect of the issue of shares, inter alia, on the ground that it does not give any rise to any income.", "This is evident from Form 3 CEB dated 28 September 2009 filed by the petitioner along with its return of income and the replies filed by the petitioner to the show cause notice dated 14 December 2012 issued by the TPO The decision of this Court in W. P. Number 488 of 2012 rendered on 6 September 2013 (for convenience Vodafone II case), wherein this court refused to entertain a writ petition challenging proceeding under Chapter X for the Assessment Year 2008-09, is inapplicable to the present facts.", "This is for the reason that unlike in the above case, the petitioner had in these proceedings challenged the jurisdiction of the TPO and the Assessing Officer right from the beginning of the proceeding.", "Besides in this case, there are no disputed questions of fact as found in Vodafone II case Though after the filing of this petition on 24 April 2013, the petitioner has on 26 April 2013 filed objections against draft assessment order before the DRP, these objections were filed only with regard to quantification valuation issue and not with regard to the jurisdiction of the authorities to apply Chapter X to the issue of shares to its holding company.", "Thus petitioners are not availing of two remedies at the same time R.JOSHI 26 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw In any event, the objections filed by the petitioner to the draft Assessment Order before the DRP is not an efficacious alternative remedy.", "This is for the reason that in terms of Section 144C (5) read with Section 144 C (8) , the DRP has no jurisdiction to set aside any proposed variation in the draft assessment order, even if is satisfied that the same is without jurisdiction.", "The impugned orders are in the nature of penalty in violation of petitioners fundamental rights as submitted in ground (N) on merits.", "Hence, the petitioner should not be relegated to a departmental authority like DRP.", "It was also submitted that in the affidavit in reply, the respondent-revenue have set out the reasons why according to them income arises on the international transaction being the issue of shares at a premium is covered by Chapter X .", "In these circumstances, the contentions of the parties be considered on merits and the matter be decided by this Court finally without relegating the petitioner to either the Assessing Officer or the DRP.", "On the other hand, Mr. Mohan Parasran, learned Solicitor General, in support of the impugned orders passed by the TPO and the Assessing Officer, submitted that this petition be dismissed at the threshold as an efficacious alternative remedy is provided under the Act, the issues raised herein can more appropriately be dealt with by the authorities under the Act.", "In support, the following submissions were made:- R.JOSHI 27 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The Act provides a complete and self contained machinery for obtaining relief against improper action by the authorities.", "In this case, the petitioner has already resorted to the alternative remedy by preferring its objections before the DRP.", "In the above circumstances, the petitioners be directed to proceed with their objections before the DRP and not be allowed to avail of parallel remedies This Court in almost similar circumstances in Vodafone II case by its order rendered on 6 September 2013 relating to Assessment Year 2008-09 in respect of the same petitioner refused to exercise its writ jurisdiction.", "In the aforesaid decision, it has been held that the draft assessment order based on the order of the TPO could be challenged before the DRP on all grounds in its entirety including the issue of jurisdiction.", "Therefore, whether or not any income arises consequent to the international transaction of issue of shares at a premium to its holding company attracting the provisions of Chapter X is also amenable to challenge before the DRP The petition itself involves mixed questions of facts and law.", "The issue of transfer pricing involves valuation which is the result of facts based analysis which could be best done by the authorities under the Act.", "It was submitted that for this very reason, the respondents are not arguing on the merits, save and except to point out that once an International Transaction exists then the ALP has to be determined by the TPO and R.JOSHI 28 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The learned Solicitor General further submitted that the Assessing Officer is under no obligation to give any hearing to an assessee before it makes a reference to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) .", "All that the Assessing Officer has to do is to reach a prima facie satisfaction that there is an international transaction and that the ALP of the same is to be determined by the TPO after obtaining the previous approval of the Commissioner.", "There is no need for a hearing as it is only a prima facie opinion of the Assessing Officer.", "Further, in any view of the matter, the TPO in terms of Section 92CA(2) serves a notice on the assessee and entertains the objections of the assessee while determining the ALP of the international transaction.", "Therefore, the principles of natural justice are satisfied and the assessee has an opportunity to present its case before the TPO to whom the case is referred to by the Assessing Officer.", "In these circumstances, there is no justification for the assessee to have one hearing before the transaction is referred to the TPO and another hearing on the same issue after it is referred to the TPO.", "On merits of the issue, the learned Solicitor General in his reply after canvassing the submissions on the questions of alternate remedy and obligation, if any, of the AO or TPO to give any hearing to assessee simply declined to make any submission on merits of the aspect on the ground that since merits would be considered by the DRP, he would not make any submission on merits of the controversy at the hearing of this writ petition.", "R.JOSHI 29 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Subsequently, one week after conclusion of the arguments including rejoinder, learned counsel for the respondents submitted written submissions on behalf of the revenue dealing with merits of the controversy and attempting to rebut the petitioners contentions on merits.", "As indicated earlier, in the affidavit-in-reply dated 23 September 2013 also the revenue had dealt with merits of the controversy.", "When the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted in rejoinder that the learned counsel for the revenue had shied away from the merits of the case because the revenue has no case on merits, in the subsequent written submission submitted on behalf of the revenue reliance is placed upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Tin Plate Company of India Limited v section State of Bihar and ors, (1998) 8 SCC 272.", "The Supreme Court observed in that case that when the High Court dismisses a writ petition on the ground that the petitioner has an alternate remedy available to him, the High Court should not make observations touching upon the merits of the case.", "True it is, that while disposing of a writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, the Court should not express any opinion on merits of the controversy between parties.", "That, however, does not absolve the respondent-authority from its duty to Court to indicate a prima facie, probable or atleast a plausible defence when the Court calls upon the respondent-authority to disclose its defence in a nutshell, after the petitioner makes out a strong prima facie case for invoking the jurisdiction of the High Court on the ground that the respondent-authority has ex-facie acted without jurisdiction.", "Otherwise, even in case of grossly arbitrary action or proceeding initiated without any jurisdiction R.JOSHI 30 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw whatsoever, the authority raising plea of alternate remedy, may remain silent on merits of the matter and expect the High Court to dismiss the writ petition on the ground of alternate remedy, requiring the petitioner to go through the labyrinth of appeals and revisions, hoping to tire the petitioner out in terms of time, energy and costs before he can approach the writ court again for adjudication of merits of the dispute.", "Authorities shall keep this caution in mind for future.", "Now we will make a brief reference to the reply on merits in the affidavit-in-reply, wherein the respondents had taken the following stand: I state that the Revenue contends that the nature of receipt, whether capital or revenue, has no bearing on the issue of accrual of income for the purposes of Chapter X. The transaction of issue of shares by the petitioner to its AE does have a bearing on the assets of the petitioner company and hence is as per the mandate of law, within the jurisdiction of the TPO for determining the arms length price the computation part of transfer pricing regulation does not put a pre condition of tax implication before examining ALP of an international transaction (para 15) The Act nowhere states that only revenue items would be taken as income the determination or variation in the ALP of an International Transaction as determined by the AO TPO under Chapter X, would be part of notional income including the total income of an assessee.", "(para 20).", "R.JOSHI 31 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw For the purposes of Chapter X, the difference in ALP of an international transaction has to be treated as income, for which no express statutory fiction is required, as contended by the petitioner.", "(para 40.2(J)) On merits of the issue the revenue made the following submissions :- The issue of equity shares at a premium by the petitioner to its holding company is an international transaction in terms of Section 92-B .", "This was recognized even by the petitioner who along with its return filed the requisite statutory Form 3 CEB, declaring the issue of shares to its holding company as an international transaction.", "In terms of Section 92-B of the Act, all transactions between Associated Enterprises which have bearing on profit, income or loss or assets would be considered to be an international transaction.", "Therefore, the issue of equity shares would be regarded as international transaction as it would have bearing on the assets of the petitioner.", "Moreover, Section 92-B includes within the meaning of international transactions also capital financing and business re-structuring as provided in the Explanation (1) (c) and (1) (e) to Section 92-B .", "It was submitted that whether or not, the issue of shares has a bearing on the assets and income of the petitioner and the extent of the assets and income would be decided by the authorities, assessing the petitioner to tax.", "In view of the above circumstances, no submission on merits of the transactions were being made by the revenue at the bar R.JOSHI 32 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Issue of share capital by a subsidiary to its holding company is normally liable to capital gains.", "This is evident from the fact that Section 47 provides for transactions not to be regarded as transfers for the purpose of capital gain.", "Attention was particularly drawn to Section 47 (vi) (d) which clearly provides that issue of shares in certain situation is regarded as transfer and may give rise to capital gains under Section 45 .", "Therefore, though this is not a case of de- merger, the same is being relied upon so as to emphasize that conceptually an issue of share capital could be regarded as transfer giving rise to capital gains.", "Therefore, the difference between the ALP and the declared value would give rise to income.", "The petitioner as well as the respondents have relied upon various decisions in support of their above submissions.", "We shall deal with the relevant case law cited by the counsel, where necessary, while considering their submissions.", "The first issue which arises for our consideration is whether this petition as contended by the petitioner should be entertained in exercise of our writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or dismissed at the very threshold on the ground of alternative remedy as submitted by revenue.", "R.JOSHI 33 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The respondent-revenue has placed strong reliance upon the decision of this Court rendered in Vodafone II case filed by this petitioner relating to the Assessment years 2008-09.", "In the above case, the petitioner had challenged the jurisdiction of the TPO in taking suo-moto notice of International Transactions and determining its ALP.", "It is the contention of the revenue that on a similar fact situation, this Court directed the petitioner to avail of the alternate remedy available under the Act.", "The Court held that the DRP and the ITAT are entitled to set right any defect in the order of the TPO as reflected in the draft Assessment Order including the question of lack of jurisdiction of the TPO.", "In view of the above, it was submitted by the revenue that this Court should not exercise its extra ordinary jurisdiction and follow its decision rendered in Vodafone II case.", "It is not possible to accept the contention of the revenue that the situation in Vodafone-II case was similar to the present case (which may ,for the sake of convenience, be referred to as Vodafone-III case).", "In Vodafone-II, TPO had suo motu exercised his jurisdiction to determine the arms length price in respect of two unreported international transactions, being the transaction relating to sale of call centre business by the petitioner to Associated Enterprise, and the assignment of call options under the new framework agreement dated 5 July 2007.", "R.JOSHI 34 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The petitioner had contended before the TPO that the transactions did not constitute international transactions.", "The Division Bench held that there were several issues of fact and law on material aspects which were required to be considered by the authorities under the Act and, therefore, it was not a fit case to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India (para 195/page 195).", "In para 145, the Division Bench dealt with the contentions thus: The petitioners case is this.", "The petitioner and HWP (India) are Indian companies.", "The call centre business was therefore, transferred by the petitioner, an Indian company, to HWP (India), another Indian company.", "Section 92-B requires at least one of the parties to be a non-resident.", "As both the parties to the transaction were Indian companies, section 92-B did not apply.", "There was no agreement between HWP (India) and the associated enterprise of the petitioner viz. VIH BV.", "The findings to the contrary are perverse and without jurisdiction.", "The Division Bench held that the relevant question was whether call centre business was sold before or after the sale of the CGP share.", "Determination of that question was necessary to decide whether the transaction of sale of call centre business was an international transaction because after the sale of CGP share the authorities would be entitled to consider the petitioner as being in the Vodafone group.", "(para 187/page 189).", "The Division Bench also noted that the completion date under the Share Purchase Agreement admittedly was 8 May 2007.", "The BTA was also dated 8 May 2007.", "The answer to the question whether the sale and purchase of the share preceded the sale of the call centre business or vice R.JOSHI 35 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw versa or whether they were simultaneous requires a consideration of facts, circumstances and factors, including the conduct of parties.", "(para 170/ page 178-179) Another question, which was agitated before the Division Bench, was whether MOU purported to have been signed on 25 April 2007 was ante-dated or not.", "The Division Bench held that this was a question of fact which must be decided by the authorities Tribunal under the Act.", "(para 172-173/page180-181) The Division Bench further held that even assuming that MOU was not ante-dated and was executed prior to the Share Purchase Agreement, the petitioner did not have an open and shut case.", "The terms and conditions of the MOU require serious consideration - whether the MOU constituted an agreement at all or whether it was only an agreement to enter into an agreement which is not enforceable in law.", "(para 174/page 181) The Division Bench held that the following were questions of fact: 151.", "The question would be whether the parties, including HWP (India) intended that HWP (India) would be bound by the terms of the SPA relating to the sale of the call centre business.", "The next question is in relation to Mr. Salves third contention - whether the relevant transaction i.e. the BTA sale of the call centre business was in relation to the SPA and or the terms thereof were determined by the SPA.", "The fourth question is whether the SPA was prior in point of time to the BTA the sale of the call centre business.", "R.JOSHI 36 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The Division Bench thereafter referred to the contention of the respondents and then held that the contention was not wholly inarguable or improbable.", "(para 146/page 164-165) The Division Bench gave a specific finding that TPO had jurisdiction to determine the arms length price of the two unreported and unreferred transactions.", "(para 131/ page 140) The Division Bench held that in the case before it, there was no warrant for exercise of writ jurisdiction because the petitioner had not only an equally but a more efficacious remedy by filing the objections before DRP and that DRP would be entitled to go into all aspects of the matter, factual and legal, whereas in a writ petition a Court may decline interference where there are disputed questions of fact.", "(Para 107/page 119) It must be pointed out that while relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy in Vodafone II case, this Court had also entered a caveat that the existence of alternate remedy by itself will not bar the Court from exercising its extra ordinary jurisdiction if the facts of the case so warrant.", "Moreover, we find that the Court while refusing to entertain the petition had on facts found that the petitioner had not challenged objected to the jurisdiction of the TPO at any time prior to filing the petition and on the contrary, the petitioner had actively participated in the proceedings before the TPO without raising any objections as to its jurisdiction.", "R.JOSHI 37 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw As against the above, in the present proceedings, the petitioner has from the very out set, been objecting to the jurisdiction of the authorities to apply Chapter X on issue of shares at a premium by it to its holding company.", "This is evident from the Form 3 CEB dated 28 September 2013 filed by the petitioner, wherein it was specifically stated by its accountant that the International Transaction of issuing shares at a premium to its holding company is not covered by Chapter X as the issue of shares does not give rise to or affect any income.", "Further, even while replying to the show cause notice dated 14 December 2012 issued by the TPO, the petitioner had in its replies dated 24 December 2012, 7 January 2013 and 22 January 2013 protested to the jurisdiction of the TPO to apply Chapter X to issue of equity shares, inter alia, on the ground that it does not give rise to any income.", "Thus, the fact situation in the present case is fundamentally different from the fact situation in Vodafone II case where the petitioner had submitted to the jurisdiction of the revenue-authorities and had not challenged and or protested to the same till such time the TPO had passed an order.", "Further, the revenue has also placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Hindalco Industries Limited v section Addl.", "CIT 2012 Taxman page 315 wherein also this Court refused to entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution on the ground of alternative remedy.", "However, this was for the reason that in the above case also the petitioner had willingly participated in the proceedings before the TPO and only after the TPO had rendered a finding on 31 October 2011 with regard to the ALP, that the petitioner moved the R.JOSHI 38 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw petition.", "It its petition, Hindalco had also challenged the validity of the reference made by the Assessing Officer to the TPO on 9 October 2009 as well as approval of the Commissioner of Income Tax on 30 September 2009 for making the reference to TPO.", "However the above challenge in Court was made after delay of two years.", "It was in the above circumstances that the Court refused to entertain the petition holding that a comprehensive remedy was available to the petitioner under the Act to challenge the order of the TPO.", "In view of the above, none of the two decisions being relied upon by the revenue are applicable to the present facts so as to warrant dismissal of the petition at the very out set.", "Therefore, we would have to independently examine the issue on the facts arising herein whether the petition should be entertained or the petitioner be directed to pursue its remedies under the Act.", "The contention of the petitioner is that filing of objections with the DRP from the draft assessment order is not an efficacious alternative remedy for the reason that in view of Section 144C(8) , the DRP while passing order under Section 144C(5) cannot set aside any variations in the draft assessment order or remand the matter to Assessing Officer for further enquiry.", "Section 144C(8) reads as under:- The Dispute Resolution Panel may confirm, reduce or enhance the variations proposed in the draft order so, however, that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub- section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order.", "(emphasis supplied) Learned counsel for the petitioner further referred to powers of the Commissioner (Appeals) conferred by Section 251(1)(a) in the following terms:- R.JOSHI 39 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw 251(1) In disposing of an appeal the Commissioner (Appeals) shall have the following powers- (a) in an appeal against an order of assessment, he may confirm, reduce, enhance or annul the assessment.", "Thus the contention of the petitioner is that primary issue raised by it (viz: Chapter X is not applicable in view of the fact that no income arises and or is affected) could never result in the draft assessment order being set aside by the DRP even if it is convinced of the petitioners case.", "According to the petitioner the only jurisdiction the DRP has is with regard to quantification valuation and therefore, this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction.", "On the above issue, the revenue has submitted in their written submissions as under:- The petitioner is not correct in contending that the powers conferred in sub-section (5) of Section 144C to the DRP are curtailed by its sub-section (8), particularly when fetters are put on the DRP that it shall not set aside any proposed variation or issue any direction under sub-section (5) for further enquiry and passing of the assessment order.", "In this context, it is submitted that a purposive construction should be given to this sub-section by harmoniously reading the entire scheme of section 144C, including sub-sections (6), (7), (12) and sub-section (13).", "It is further submitted that fetter to set aside and issue of directions is limited to further enquiry by the AO which can be read with sub-section (13) so that the completion of assessment is expedited within available limited time of nine (9) months.", "R.JOSHI 40 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw This very submission was made by the Petitioner before another Division Bench of this Court in Vodafone II case and was negatived by decision dated 6 September 2013 (supra) wherein it recorded the submission and observed, inter alia, as under:- Mr. Salve submitted that the DRP is entitled under Section 144C only to confirm, reduce or enhance the variation proposed in the draft order.", "These words according to him, relate and are germane only to quantification of the arms length price.", "The DRP is therefore not entitled to consider whether or not the transaction are international transactions.", "We are unable to agree.", "83 to 86 87.", "Nor does it limit the consideration by the DRP to the nature of the report relating to draft assessment order.", "Sub-section(6) and especially clauses (a) and (b) thereof illustrate the DRP would also be entitled to consider whether or not the TPO was entitled to exercise jurisdiction.", "This view is not repugnant to the words confirm reduce or enhance in section 144C(8).", "The suggestion that these three words refer only to the valuation or quantification of the arms length price is unfounded.", "A reduction or an enhancement indeed relate to the valuation or quantification.", "The word confirm, however, is much wider.", "The DRPs power to confirm would include the power not to confirm.", "It would include the power to annul the variations or any of them.", "The doubt if any, is set to rest by the use of the words may confirm.", "Once the entire draft order is before the DRP for confirmation, it is axiomatic that it would have the power to consider the entire draft assessment order, including the question R.JOSHI 41 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw as to whether the unreported transactions are international transactions or not or even whether what the TPO considered was a transaction at all.", "The Division Bench of the Gujarat High Court in Veer Gems (supra) also held that the issue whether there was an international transaction or not can also be examined by the DRP.", "89 to 93 In the result, the petitioner has, in fact, more than one alternate remedy although not to the extent contended by the Advocate General.", "In view of our findings, the petitioners remedy against the order of the TPO is not before the AO.", "The AO must make the assessment in conformity with the TPOs order.", "The AO is not entitled to either question the TPOs order in any respect or to make the assessment contrary thereto.", "However, the assessee is entitled to challenge not merely the determination of the arms length price, but also the TPOs conclusion that a particular transaction is an international transaction before the DRP.", "Alternatively, the assessee can wait till the final assessment order is passed without raising any objections upon the receipt of the report from the TPO and challenge the same before the CIT(Appeals).", "The petitioner, therefore, has an alternate remedy of challenging all aspects of such a matter either before the DRP or before the CIT(Appeals).", "The alternate remedy is, therefore, clearly there.", "In fact, from the order of the DRP or the CIT, the petitioner is entitled to file a further appeal before the ITAT.", "These appellate authorities are entitled to go into all questions of law and of fact.", "It is not suggested that either the CIT or the ITAT cannot consider the question as to whether a transaction is an international transaction or not.", "R.JOSHI 42 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw Thus the contention of the petitioner that the filing of objections to the DRP from the draft assessment order is not an efficacious remedy on the ground that issues other then quantification valuation could not be raised stands negatived by the judgment dated 6 September 2013 of this Court in Vodafone II case.", "We are informed at the Bar that the said decision has been accepted by the petitioner as it has not been challenged before the Apex Court.", "The learned Solicitor General also submitted that the DRP has jurisdiction to consider all issues including the question whether a transfer is an international transaction and the question whether income has arisen or has been affected by the international transaction.", "Thus it would be open to DRP to consider all issues, including the jurisdictional issue of no income arising and or affected by the International Transaction.", "This the DRP can do by issuing final directions under section 144C(5) to the Assessing officer or before issuing final directions, by issuing directions under section 144C(7) to the assessing officer to make a further enquiry and report.", "Therefore, we have now to consider the issue whether in the face of availability of an efficacious alternative remedy, this Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction.", "It was contended by the revenue that the petition should not be entertained as the petitioner has already availed of the alternative remedy by filing its objections with the DRP on 26 April 2013.", "Normally, a writ petition would not be entertained if the petitioner has availed of an alternative remedy on the ground that it is not permissible for a party to pursue two parallel proceedings at the same R.JOSHI 43 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw time.", "This would be particularly so when the alternative remedy provided under the Act provides for the petitioner obtaining the relief sought in the petition.", "However, in this case, we find that the petitioner has only filed its objections with regard to valuation quantification of the ALP and not with regard to jurisdiction.", "In its objections to the DRP, the petitioner has specifically noted as under:- Accordingly, since the issues involved in the present case relate to jurisdiction of the AO TPO and the applicability of transfer pricing provisions, the remedy before the DRP is not efficacious.", "The Assessee has, therefore, filed a Writ Petition before the Bombay High Court assailing the jurisdictional issues arising out of the TP Order and the Draft Assessment Order.", "The Assessee, by way of the present objections, is only assailing valuation quantification issues involved in the present transaction before the DRP.", "The petitioner has reserved its rights to file objections with regard to jurisdiction in case the Court does not interfere with the petition.", "Therefore, the petitioner could now file objections with regard to jurisdiction before the DRP.", "However, as of date, the petitioner has not challenged the issue of jurisdiction before the DRP.", "It is well settled that where an alternative remedy is available, normally a writ will not be issued, but this is a self imposed restriction i.e. restraint and not a case of the Court not having jurisdiction to entertain a petition.", "Declining to exercise writ jurisdiction due to availability of an alternative remedy is a rule of discretion and in an appropriate case, the Court would exercise its writ jurisdiction notwithstanding availability of an alternative remedy or mould the reliefs appropriately even while relegating the petitioner to the alternate remedy.", "R.JOSHI 44 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw In this case, the petitioner seeks the exercise of writ jurisdiction by us on the following three grounds:- The entire proceedings to tax issue of shares under Chapter X is without jurisdiction as the sine qua non to exercise jurisdiction is: Income arising and or being affected from or potentially arising and or being affected from an International Transaction.", "This issue has not been examined either by the Assessing Officer or by the TPO at any time Section 92(1) reads as under:- Computation of income from international transaction having regard to arms length price.", "92(1) Any income arising from the international transaction shall be computed having regard to the arms length price.", "Explanation:- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby clarified that the allowance for any expense or interest arising from an international transaction shall also be determined having regard to the arms length price.", "(emphasis supplied) The proceedings are in breach of natural justice in as much as no hearing was given to the petitioners by the Assessing Officer before making a reference to the TPO under Section 92CA(1) , which reads as under:- Reference to Transfer Pricing Officer.", "92CA (1) Where any person, being the assessee, has entered into an international transaction (or specified domestic transaction) in any previous year, and the Assessing Officer considers it necessary or expedient so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Commissioner, refer the computation of the arms length price in relation to the said international transaction ( or specified domestic transaction) under section 92C to the Transfer Pricing Officer.", "(emphasis supplied) R.JOSHI 45 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The Constitution of the DRP as constituted consists of one Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing).", "In terms of Instruction Number3/2003 dated 20 May 2003, a person of equal rank i.e. Directorate of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) has to approve the speaking order passed by TPO.", "Therefore, the appeal provided from the draft assessment order is illusory being an appeal from Ceaser to Ceasers wife.", "We shall now examine each of the above contentions.", "It is clear that in view of Section 92(1) , there must be income arising and or affected or potentially arising and or affected by an International Transaction for the purpose of application of Chapter X .", "This would appear to be in the nature of jurisdictional requirement and the Assessing officer must be satisfied that there is an income or a potential of an income arising and or being affected on determination of an ALP before he proceeds further in determining the ALP or referring the issue to the TPO to determine the ALP.", "In this case, we find that the petitioner has from the very beginning been challenging the jurisdiction to apply Chapter X on the ground that no income arises and or is affected or potentially arises and or is affected on account of issue of its shares to its holding company.", "The Assessing officer does not deal with this objection issue before referring the matter to the TPO.", "The TPO does not deal with the above objection on the ground that in terms of Section 92CA, his mandate is only to compute the ALP in relation to the International Transaction.", "The TPO in the impugned order dated 28 January 2012 meets the petitioners objection by stating that the same would be dealt with by the Assessing Officer.", "However, when the same R.JOSHI 46 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw objection was raised before the Assessing Officer post the order of the TPO, the Assessing Officer does not consider the same in the impugned draft assessment order dated 22 March 2013 on the ground that in view of Section 92 CA (4) , the Assessing Officer is obliged to pass an order in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO.", "This jurisdictional issue has to be dealt with either by the TPO or the Assessing Officer when specifically raised by the petitioner assessee.", "Normally when an accountant reports an international transaction under Section 92E there may be no dispute that there is an income arising and or being affected or a potential of an income arising and or being affected by an international transaction on determination of ALP.", "However when an assessee challenges the above premise, then the issue must be decided.", "Such an issue must be dealt with at the very threshold that is before determination of ALP.", "This is so because in case it is held that in the International Transaction there is no income or potential of any income arising and or being affected on determination of an ALP, the entire exercise of determining the ALP would become academic.", "In terms of Section 92CA(4) , the Assessing Officer is bound to pass an order in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO as held by another Division Bench of this Court in the judgment dated 6 September 2013 in Vodafone II case.", "However where the Assessing officer is himself determining the ALP in terms of Section 94C(3) then in accordance with Section 94C(4) he would compute the income, having regard to the ALP.", "In such cases where the Assessing officer decides the ALP himself, it is open to him to consider the issue of income arising and or being affected or not before commencing the proceedings under Chapter X or at the stage of passing an assessment order.", "R.JOSHI 47 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw However, in cases of transaction referred to the TPO, it would be for the Assessing Officer to first determine the issue of any income arising and or being affected or potentially arising on determination of ALP before referring the transaction to the TPO, when specifically contended by the petitioner Assessee.", "This is also indicated in Section 92CA(1) which requires an Assessing officer to refer an International Transaction for determination to the TPO only if he considers it necessary or expedient to refer the mater to the TPO.", "The exercise of finding out whether any income arises and or is affected or potentially arises and or is affected by the International Transaction would certainly be a factor to determine whether or not it is necessary or expedient to refer the matter to the TPO.", "In case no objection is raised by the assessee to the applicability of Chapter X then the prima facie view of the Assessing officer would be sufficient before referring the transaction to the TPO for determining the ALP.", "However where an objection is raised about the applicability of Chapter X by an assessee then the requirement for taking a decision after taking on board the objection becomes necessary.", "In the absence of it being considered at this stage, the same could only be considered by the DRP and as pointed out above, if considered at the very threshold by the Assessing Officer it could save an elaborate exercise of determining the ALP which may turn out to be entirely academic.", "It is for the above reason that grant of personal hearing before referring the matter to the TPO has to be read into Section 92CA(1) in cases where the very jurisdiction to tax under Chapter X is challenged by the assessee.", "Admittedly the aforesaid exercise of considering the objection of no income arising or potentially arising from the transaction has not been done in this case and finds no mention even in the draft assessment order.", "R.JOSHI 48 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The revenue has relief upon various decisions to contend that no personal hearing is necessary before referring the matter to the TPO.", "The relevant cases are as under: Sony India (P ) Limited vs CBDT 2007(288) ITR 512 Aztee Software Technology Services Limited vs ACIT 2007 (294)(AT) 32 and (c ) Veer Gems vs ACIT 2013(351) ITR 35.", "So far as the decisions at (a) and (b) are concerned they were rendered in the context of Section 92CA(4) as existing prior to 2007.", "The pre-amended Section 92CA(4) provided that the Assessing officer will determine the income having regard to the ALP arrived at by the TPO.", "The earlier (unamended) Section 92CA(4) reads as under:- 92CA (4) On receipt of the order under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee under sub-section (4) of section 92C having regard to the arms length price determined under sub-section (3) by the Transfer Pricing Officer.", "(emphasis supplied) This was similar to the power which the Assessing officer still enjoys when he determines the ALP himself in terms of Section 92C(4) as pointed out above.", "Thus at that time the Assessing officer was not bound to complete the assessment in compliance with the ALP determination of the TPO and it was open to the Assessing officer to consider the question of jurisdiction at the time of passing the draft assessment order.", "However with effect from 2007, Section 92CA(4) has undergone a change and the Assessing officer is bound to pass an order in conformity with the ALP determined by the TPO.", "Amended Section 92CA(4) reads as under:- R.JOSHI 49 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw 92CA(4) On receipt of the order under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer shall proceed to compute the total income of the assessee under sub-section (4) of section 92C in conformity with the arms length price as so determined by the Transfer Pricing Officer.", "(emphasis supplied) Therefore in the context of the pre-amendment law as then existing hearing on jurisdictional issues could take place after the order of the TPO which is not possible post amendment of 2007.", "In any case, the fact situation existing in this case of viz. a question of jurisdiction was not in issue in the above cases and therefore these two cases can have no application to the present case.", "So far as the decision of the Gujarat High Court in Veer Gems case is concerned, it deals with the post amended Section 92CA(4) and holds that no hearing need be given by the Assessing Officer before making a reference to the TPO even in respect of jurisdictional issue.", "This was based on the reasoning that the jurisdictional issue can be decided by the Assessing Officer while framing the assessment Order at which time a hearing would be given.", "The Gujarat High Court held that under Section 92CA(4) the Assessing officer is bound by the order of the TPO only to the extent of determination of the ALP and on all other issues arising under Chapter X , the Assessing Officer can independently decide all other questions while framing the assessment at which time a hearing would be afforded to the petitioner.", "However, the Division Bench of this Court in Vodafone II case (para 69) has disagreed with above view of the Gujarat High Court in Veer Gems (supra).The Division Bench of this Court has held that the Assessing Officer cannot deviate from the order of the TPO on any issue including jurisdictional issue that the transaction is or is not an International Transaction.", "Further we note that in case the R.JOSHI 50 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw draft assessment order is objected to before the DRP then in that event in terms of Section 144C(13) the Assessing Officer is obliged to complete the assessment without granting a hearing to the assessee in accordance with the directions of the DRP.", "Thus to our mind the hearing has to be given by the Assessing officer before making a reference to the TPO.", "Thus on this aspect of the matter in view of the decision of a co-ordinate Bench of this Court, we do not accept the view of Gujarat High Court in Veer Gems(supra).", "The petitioner seeks to read the requirement of personal hearing in all cases where the Assessing officer seeks to refer an international transaction to the TPO for determination of ALP.", "It is submitted that even if the hearing is not provided at the stage of reference to TPO under Section 92CA(1) , atleast hearing on the jurisdictional issue is required to be given by TPO when he issues notice to assessee under Section 92CA(2).", "It was contended by learned counsel for the petitioner that in Veer Gems (supra) after referring to the assessees reply to notice under Section 92CA (2) and after recording prima facie satisfaction that the provisions of Section 92A were attracted, in his notice dated 16 August 2011 the TPO directed the assessee to show cause why its transaction with the associated enterprise should not be subject to transfer price proceeding and profits of the assessee not appropriately modified.", "The TPO had ,thus, appreciated that application of transfer pricing provisions was going to cause serious civil consequences for the assessee in that case and ,therefore, principles of natural justice were required to be followed.", "The same should be done by the TPO in all cases.", "R.JOSHI 51 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw In our view, once the AO gives hearing to the assessee before making a reference to TPO, the TPO would be bound by formation of opinion of AO that there was international transaction in the relevant year and that income arises or is affected by the international transaction and the TPO is bound to determine the ALP of the international transaction under consideration, since ultimately it is the duty and responsibility of AO to assess chargeable income of the assessee on the basis of the provisions .", "Hence, there would be sufficient compliance with the principles of natural justice, if AO gives an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.", "Normally when the assessee files his return along with a copy of the Accountants report under Section 92E the applicability of Chapter X may be an admitted position.", "However we may add a caveat and that is: where the assessee objects to the jurisdiction under Chapter X being exercised then hearing is required to be given by the Assessing officer to the assessee to consider whether it is necessary and expedient to refer the matter to the TPO as otherwise this objection would never be considered, as pointed out above and as in fact has happened in this case.", "In such cases where the applicability of Chapter X to the facts of the assessees case is objected to, a hearing should be given to consider the assessees objection but not otherwise.", "Thus, in the above circumstances, there is no bar in the Assessing officer deciding the jurisdictional issues about applicability of Chapter X when objected to by the assessee, after giving a personal hearing before referring the matter to the TPO.", "R.JOSHI 52 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:00 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The revenue also places reliance upon the decision of the Authority for Advance Ruling (AAR) in the matter of Castleton Investments Limited (2012) 348 ITR 537 to contend that ALP has to be first determined and the chargeability to tax would arise only at later stage.", "Hence it is submitted that there is no requirement to decide the issue whether income arises or not at the threshold.", "We find that the facts of the above case are completely different and a decision rendered in the context of facts therein can have no application to the present case.", "In the above case, the issue was whether income arising from an international transaction was chargeable to tax or not in view of the Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and Mauritius.", "It was contended by the applicant therein that even if income does arise out of the international transaction, the same would not be chargeable to tax in view of the DTAA.", "Thus it was contended that the exercise of determining the ALP need not be gone into.", "The AAR held that whether or nor there is liability to pay tax would not affect the operation of Chapter X .", "In the present case, the issue which arises is whether income arises or potentially arises from the international transaction.", "The liability to pay tax is an issue which arises after determining the income arising from the transaction.", "In the case of Castleton (supra), there was no dispute that income does arise from the international transaction.", "Thus Chapter X became applicable and the entire exercise as provided therein has to be carried out and thereafter the issue of chargeability to tax would arise.", "In fact in the case before us the petitioners contention is that no income arises from the International transaction and Chapter X is not applicable.", "Therefore the above case of Castleton (supra) does not support the revenue.", "R.JOSHI 53 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The learned Solicitor General submitted that the action of AO in referring the international transaction to TPO is a mere administrative act, because as per CBDT Instruction Number3 dated 20 May 2003, AO is to exercise powers under Section 92C where the value of the transaction is upto Rs.5 crores (now revised to Rs.15 crores) and AO is required to refer the transaction to TPO where even the value of the international transaction exceeds Rs. 5 crores (now exceed Rs.15 crores).", "It is, therefore, submitted that in view of the above Circular, AO has no discretion in the matter and , therefore, AO hearing the assessee before making reference to TPO would be an empty formality and a futile exercise.", "We are unable to accept the above submission of the revenue.", "CBDT Circular regarding distribution of files depending on value of transaction cannot detract from the obligation of AO to follow the principles of natural justice, which we have read into Section 92(A)(1), because once AO refers the transaction to TPO, AO will be bound to act in conformity with the order of TPO, as mandated by Sec.92 CA(4), in all respects including jurisdictional issue as held by this Court in Vodafone II case.", "In view of the above discussion, We find no merit in the contentions of the revenue that no hearing is required to be given to the assessee in respect of jurisdictional issues.", "There has to be consideration of the petitioners objection to the applicability of Chapter X .", "The same should atleast have found a place in the impugned draft assessment order.", "The failure on the part of the AO in not having examined the issue of income arising or not from an international transaction is an illegality.", "R.JOSHI 54 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw However as no final assessment order has yet been passed by the Assessing officer and the issues are still at large before the DRP the same could be urged before the DRP.", "In the facts of the present case we are not inclined to set aside the draft assessment order of the AO or the order of the TPO and remand the matter to AO, because the AO has already filed an affidavit contesting the petition on merits and justifying the stand that the alleged shortfall in premium upon issue of shares is chargeable to income tax under Chapter X .", "Hence, instead of remanding the matter to the AO to examine this question, we are of the view that the merits of this question must be considered by DRP under Section 144C(5) read with Section 144C (8) .", "In a given case if the DRP requires any further material, DRP may exercise its powers either under Section 144C(7) or (5) i.e. by directing the Assessing officer to make enquiry into this aspect of the matter and report or alternatively decide it itself and give final directions to the assessing officer.", "The process before the DRP is a continuation of the assessment proceedings as only thereafter would a final appealable assessment order be passed.", "Till date there is no appealable assessment order.", "The proceeding before the DRP is not an appeal proceeding but a correcting mechanism in the nature of a second look at the proposed assessment order by high functionaries of the revenue keeping in mind the interest of the assesee.", "It is a continuation of the Assessment proceedings till such time a final order of assessment which is appealable is passed by the Assessing Officer.", "This also finds support from Section 144C(6) which enables the DRP to collect evidence or cause any enquiry to be made before giving directions to the Assessing Officer under Section 144C(5) .", "The DRP procedure can only be initiated by an assessee objecting to the draft assessment order.", "This would enable R.JOSHI 55 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw correction in the proposed order(draft assessment order) before a final assessment order is passed.", "Therefore, we are of the view that in the present facts this issue could be agitated before and rectified by the DRP.", "We now take up for consideration the ground based on the constitution of the DRP: one of the members is the Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing).", "In terms of CBDT Instruction Number3/2003 a Director of Income Tax(Transfer Pricing) is required to approve the order passed by the TPO on the ALP.", "Hence it is submitted that the hearing before the DRP would not be fair hearing as a person of equal rank has already approved the order of TPO.", "This submission completely overlooks the fact that the proceedings before the DRP are not appeal proceeding but a proceeding to finalize the assessment on the basis of the draft assessment order.", "Besides, the DRP consists of three members and does not have the Director of Income Tax (Transfer Pricing) in particular who had approved the order of the TPO as a member.", "In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in this objection.", "We have mentioned herein above that it is necessary for the Assessing Officer to decide the issue of objection to applicability of chapter X , if raised by the assessee, before referring the transaction to the TPO as it is a basic issue and would prevent loss of man hours on both sides in computing the ALP if it is finally concluded that Chapter X is not applicable.", "We are of the view that this exercise could also be done by the Assessing officer before he determines the ALP in exercise of his powers under Section 92C(3) .", "It was Mr. Nani Palkhiwala who in the concluding paragraph of his Preface to the eighth edition of his monumental work R.JOSHI 56 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw The Law and Practice of Income Tax observed:- Every Government has a right to levy taxes.", "But no Government has the right, in the process of extracting tax, to cause misery and harassment to the taxpayer and the gnawing feeling that he is made the victim of palpable injustice The revenue would do well to keep the above stage advice in mind while dealing with the assessee.", "We are constrained to observe that in this case it would be natural for the petitioner to feel harassed as the Assessing Officer did not give any opportunity of hearing before making a reference to the TPO and none of the two authorities viz. the TPO and the Assessing Officer dealt with its preliminary objection.", "The TPO does not deal with the petitioners objection about applicability of Chapter X , on the ground that it would be dealt with by the Assessing officer.", "Thereafter when the petitioner raises the same issue before the Assessing Officer he does not deal with the same on the ground that he is bound to complete the assessment in terms of the ALP determined by the TPO.", "We hope the revenue will be more sensitive to the just demands of the assessee and not treat the assessee as an adversary who has to be taxed, no matter what.", "Harish Salve, learned senior counsel for the petitioner has made a serious grievance that when the assessee is bringing in the country Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) by way of issue of share capital by an Indian subsidiary company to its foreign holding company, such capital receipts are sought to be taxed, even when the Income-tax Act does not contain any provision for such chargeability.", "Even with effect from 1 April 2013, it is only when the share issuing company falling under Section 56 receives share premium in excess of fair market value of such shares, that R.JOSHI 57 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw such excess premium would be chargeable to income-tax.", "The revenues case in the present matter is that the share premium was less than the fair market value of the shares issued by the petitioner.", "Secondly, the petitioner has heavily relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Khoday Distilleries Limited vs CIT (2009) 1 SCC 256 (261) laying down that issue of shares to a subscriber is creation of shares, whereas purchase of shares from an existing shareholder is transfer of share.", "Hence, there is no question of taxing the difference between alleged fair market price of the shares issued by the petitioner to its holding company and the issue price as capital gains as contended by the revenue in its reply-affidavit.", "The assessee is entitled to have its preliminary objection (against chargeability of the alleged short fall in share premium) dealt with.", "Not a single authority has so far dealt with this issue and even the learned counsel for the revenue did not address us even briefly on merits of this controversy to show a plausible prima facie defence ( though the revenue sought to justify its stand in the affidavit-in-reply and in the written submissions after conclusion of the oral argument) Though the petitioner submitted that we decide the issue on merits, we have not done so for the present for all the reasons pointed out above.", "Therefore the submissions made on merits are not being considered by us and left open to be urged before the DRP for consideration by the DRP, but even proceeding on the basis that transaction in question is an international transaction since the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner raises a question of law and does not involve disputed questions of fact and having regard to how the petitioners preliminary objection has so far not been dealt with by the Revenue, this appears to be a fit case to direct the R.JOSHI 58 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw DRP to decide the petitioners objection regarding chargeability of alleged shortfall in share premium as a preliminary issue and further to observe that in case the decision of the DRP on the preliminary issue is adverse to the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner-assessee to challenge the decision of the DRP on the preliminary issue in a writ petition, in case the petitioner makes out a case at that stage that the decision of the DRP on the preliminary issue is patently illegal, notwithstanding the availability of alternate remedy before the ITAT.", "In the above circumstances, we dispose of the present petition with the following directions:- The petitioner shall within two weeks from today submit before the DRP its preliminary objections to Draft Assessment Order and the TPOs order by raising jurisdictional issues.", "The DRP shall decide the issue of jurisdiction before considering issue of valuation quantification raised by the petitioner in its objections filed before the DRP, this of course subject to the additional grounds on jurisdiction being filed by the Petitioner within two weeks from today.", "The DRP shall decide the issue of jurisdiction as a preliminary issue within two months from the date on which the petitioner files its objections on the question of jurisdiction.", "R.JOSHI 59 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw We make it clear that since the question of jurisdiction for applicability of Chapter X for the Assessment Year 2009-10 is raised independently of the challenge to the orders of the TPO and the AO for the Assessment Year 2008-09, the DRP shall decide the preliminary issue about applicability of Chapter X to the assessment for the Assessment Year 2009-10, without awaiting for decision on the dispute relating to the Assessment Year 2008-09.", "We further make it clear that in case the decision of the DRP on the above preliminary issue is adverse to the petitioner, it would be open to the petitioner to challenge the order of the DRP on the preliminary issue in a writ petition if a case is made out at that stage that the decision of the DRP is patently illegal, notwithstanding the availability of alternative remedy of filing an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "The petition was filed on 24 April 2013.", "The objections with regard to computation in the draft assessment order were lodged before DRP on 26 April 2013.", "In view of the matter pending before this Court, the respondent-revenue had made a statement before us to maintain status-quo and not to proceed with the hearing before the DRP.", "This statement was made on 24 August 2013.", "Thereafter, on 29 October 2013 we have granted stay of the proceedings before the DRP.", "In view of the fact that this petition was filed, the DRP was not able to conduct proceedings in respect of the objections filed by the petitioner.", "The DRP in terms of Section 144C(12) has to give its directions within nine months from the end of the month in which the Draft Assessment Order is R.JOSHI 60 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 ::: WP1877-2013-.sxw received by the Assessee.", "The Draft assessment order was passed on 22 March 2013.", "The period of nine months would thus commence from 1 April 2013 and expire on 31 December 2013.", "In view of the above, the period for the DRP to give its directions under Section 144C(5) shall exclude the period from 24 August 2013 ( when the respondent-revenue made a statement to the Court that they would maintain status-quo) till the DRP decides the preliminary issue.", "All the issues and contentions are left open, to be urged agitated before the DRP.", "Writ Petition is disposed of with the above directions, with no order as to costs.", "CHIEF JUSTICE section SANKLECHA,J.) R.JOSHI 61 of 61 ::: Downloaded on - 23/12/2013 20:31:01 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2015_565", "text": ["Rule, made returnable forthwith.", "By consent of the parties taken up for final hearing .", "By this order, we dispose of both the writ petitions which are on a similar set of facts.", "Writ Petition (L) Number735 of 2015 pertains to assessment year 2008-09 whereas Writ Petition (L) No.736 of 2015 pertains to assessment year 2009-10.", "The challenge in the petition is to two notices dated 24th March, 2015 and 29th March, 2014 respectively issued by the Income Tax Officer ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 2 wp735-151 6(1)-2, Mumbai under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).", "We will briefly advert to the facts in Writ Petition (L) No.735 of 2015.", "The Petitioner is a company engaged in the business of property development and constructing residential complexes inter alia at Pune.", "Respondent Number1 is the Assessing Officer in-charge of the Petitioners assessment.", "Respondent Number2 is the earlier Assessing Officer who handled the Petitioners assessment before transfer of the jurisdiction to Respondent Number1.", "Respondent Number2 has completed the assessment in respect of the Petitioner.", "Respondent Number2 has issued notice on 29th March, 2014 under section 148 of the Act in respect of the assessment year 2008-09 for reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 2008-09.", "Respondent Number3 the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax had granted approval under Section 151 of the Act for reopening of the assessment.", "The Petitioner was originally registered as a company in the financial year 2006-07 with a nominal share capital of Rs.1 lac divided into 10,000 equity shares of face value of Rs.10/- each.", "Subsequently, a Share Subscription Agreement dated 16 th November, 2007 was entered into between the Petitioner and ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 3 wp735-151 various entities who were to subscribe to the shares of the Petitioner under the Share Subscription Agreement dated 16 th November, 2007 (SSA).", "Pursuant to the SSA during the financial year 2007-08 (relevant to the assessment year 2008-09), shares of the Petitioner were allotted to subscribers as detailed below:- Sr.", "Name of the Company Allotted Total Date No. shares consideratio Rs. P K2A Hospitality Limited 1,39,860 9,99,99,900 14-03-2008 Edelweiss Services Pvt.", "Limited Trustee 60,000 4,30,00,000 24-03-2008 Sharyans Resources Limited 1,20,000 4,60,00,000 04-09-2008 Atlas Hospitality Company Pvt.", "10,90,000 11,99,00,000 04-09-2008 Ltd. Fulda River Limited 2,91,200 45,13,60,000 22-12-2008 K2A Hospitality Limited 2,60,140 18,60,00,100 22-12-2008 For the assessment year 2008-09, the Petitioner filed a return of income on 28th September, 2008 declaring Nil income.", "The return of income was accepted under Section 143(1) of the Act.", "For the assessment year 2009-10, the Petitioner filed return of income on 29th September, 2009 declaring the total loss of Rs.4,39,504/- under the provisions of the Act.", "The matter was taken up for scrutiny.", "In the course of the scrutiny, the Petitioner vide letter ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 4 wp735-151 dated 11th October, 2010 filed a copy of the return of income,annual report along with audited profit and loss account, balance sheet and all its annexures and also a copy of audited report in Form Number3CD.", "A further show cause notice dated 14th June, 2011 came to be issued asking the Petitioner to submit certain details.", "On 29th August, 2011 the Petitioner supplied, inter alia, details of secured and unsecured loans taken by the Petitioner, details of share application amount received by the Petitioner, details of capital introduced during the financial year 2008-09 and the name and complete addresses of all the Directors and shareholders of the companies along with their PAN and shareholding.", "During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2009-10, Respondent Number2 issued notices under section 133(6) of the Act to Phoenix Hospitality Company Pvt.", "Limited and Sharyans Resources Limited asking them to furnish details of the return of income for assessment year 2009-10, permanent account number along with details of the assessing officer, copy of the bank statement and copy of final accounts.", "Phoenix Hospitality Company Pvt.", "Ltd. vide letter dated 17th August, 2011 filed a reply to the said notice.", "Sharyans Resources Limited also filed reply dated letter dated 17th August, 2011.", "::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 5 wp735-151 After considering the submissions of the Petitioner and the details submitted by Phoenix Hospitality Limited and Sharyans Resources Limited, Respondent Number2 completed the assessment for the assessment year 2009-10 under Section 143(3) of the Act on 29 th December, 2011 without making any adjustment on account of share premium received by the Petitioner.", "During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2011-12, Respondent Number2 enquired about share premium and asked the Petitioner to explain and furnish the working of the share premium received by the Petitioner in the relevant year.", "The Petitioner vide letters dated 13th January, 2014, 20th January, 2013, 3rd March, 2014 and 13th March, 2014, provided the information.", "Respondent Number3 passed an order on 22 nd March, 2014 under Section 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12.", "He accepted the submissions of the Petitioner and did not make any addition with respect to the share premium received by the Petitioner.", "Thereafter, Respondent Number2 issued notice under section 148 of the Act dated 29th March, 2014 stating that the Petitioners income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2008-09 had escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Act.", "Vide letter dated 25th April, 2014, the Petitioner submitted that the return of income filed on 28th September, 2008 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 6 wp735-151 should be treated as its response in compliance of the impugned notice and further requested for a copy of the reasons recorded by Respondent Number2 for reopening the assessment.", "Vide letter dated 16th July, 2014, Respondent Number2 provided an extract of the reasons as recorded by him.", "For ready reference, the extract of the reasons is reproduced below :- From the records, it is seen that the assessee is in receipt of huge share premium amounting to Rs.14,10,01,300/- during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to A.Y. 2008-09.", "As scrutiny assessment u section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 has not been done in this case for this year, huge share premium having been received by the assessee has not been examined.", "The assessee is an unlisted company and the nature of share application money received (the intrinsic value of the share in comparison to the excess premium received) is not substantiated by any cogent evidence as could be noticed from records 3. 4.", "In view of the above stated facts and the judicial decisions I have reason to believe that the true and correct income of assessee has escaped assessment in terms of provisions of section 147 of the I.T. Act.", "Thus, it is a fit case for re-opening of the assessment u s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "Notice u s.148 is therefore, required to be issued in this case.", "::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 7 wp735-151 On or about 21st August, 2014, the Petitioner filed objections challenging the validity of the reassessment proceedings for the assessment year 2008-09 and inter alia submitted that :- The reasons did not quantify the income which escaped assessment and, therefore, the notice was invalid in view of section 149 of the Act The impugned notice amounted to change of opinion The impugned notice amounted to review which is not permissible There was no tangible material which came into the possession of Respondent Number2 on the basis of which reopening can be supported The reopening was invalid as no reasons were disclosed Subsequently, the impugned order dated 10th February, 2015 was passed rejecting the objections of the Petitioner challenging the validity of reassessment inter alia observing that under Section 147 of the Act, the Assessing Officer can invoke the provisions of the section for bringing to tax escaped income by reopening the assessment within a period of four years and the proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not applicable.", "According to the O., the quantum of escaped income was equivalent to quantum of share premium amounting to Rs.14,10,01,300/- which is more than ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 8 wp735-151 the ceiling of Rs.1 lac prescribed under the Act and prior sanction of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax was obtained on 28 th March, 2014, prior to issuance of notice.", "The Petitioner, being aggrieved by the proposed reopening, filed the above two writ petitions.", "Having perused the aforesaid correspondence and documents, we have heard Mr.", "Mistri, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioner and Mr.", "Malhotra, learned counsel appearing on behalf for the Respondents.", "At the outset, Mr.", "Mistri submitted that the share premium does not and cannot form the part of income of the Company.", "He made a quick reference to the pronouncement of the this Court in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt.", "Limited V section Union of India Ors.", "reported in 2014 368 ITR 1 (Bom) in this behalf.", "He submitted that the revenue had in fact accepted this judgment and the Central Board of Direct Taxes issued a circular No500/15/2014/APA-1 dated 29th January, 2015.", "The circular is crisply worded and records as follows:- Subject Acceptance of the order of the Honble High Court of Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt.", "Limited - reg.", "In reference to the above cited subject, I am directed to draw your attention to the decision of the High Court of ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 9 wp735-151 Bombay in the case of Vodafone India Services Pvt.", "Limited for AY 2009-10 (WP Number871/2014), wherein the Court has held, inter-alia, that the premium on share issue was on account of capital account transaction and does not give rise to income and, hence, not liable to transfer pricing adjustment.", "It is hereby informed that the Board has accepted the decision of the High Court of Bombay in the above mentioned Writ Petition.", "In view of the acceptance of the above judgment, it is directed that the ratio decidendi of the judgment must be adhered to by the field officers in all cases where this DRPs and CsIT (Appeals).", "This issues with the approval of Chairperson CBDT.", "Mistri then submitted that in any event, the amount of share premium amount cannot be added to the income of the company.", "He referred to the balance-sheet of the Petitioner for the period 2009-10 forming part of the Auditors Report of the company.", "A perusal of the balance-sheet reveals that the source and the details of the shareholders had been provided.", "Mistri submitted that the share capital stood at 28,98,600/-.", "He then referred to the balance sheet of 31st March, 2009 which shows share capital of 1,97,97,000.", "Thus, Mr.Mistri pointed out that the surplus had increased.", "He then drew our attention to Schedule B under which the securities premium had increased from Rs.14,10,01,200/- to Rs.78,56,48,000/-.", "Thus, according to him, the money having been raised by issue of shares at a premium, this should not in any way ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 10 wp735-151 included in the income and taxed.", "He referred to a notice issued by the assessing officer on 14th June, 2011 in respect of the assessment year 2009-10 whereby the assessing officer required the assessee to remain present for the assessment on 21 st June, 2011 along with the details and records.", "He submitted that all the records demanded were produced before the assessing officer.", "Vide letter dated 29th August, 2011 the Chartered Accountants of the assessee provided to the assessing officer the following:- Party-wise details of CWIP Details of loans and Advances To explain as to why interest received be not brought to tax under the head income from other sources Balance-sheet of K2A Hospitality Ltd Confirmation of accounts of K2A Hospitality Limited Balance sheet of M s.", "Fulda River Limited After the receipt of the same, on 22nd March, 2014, the Assessing Officer accepted the assessment under section 143(3) of the Act, the total sum of Rs.1,46,206/- to the total income under the head of Income Tax from other sources and continued investigation under the penalty proceedings under section 271(1(c) of the Act for having furnished inaccurate particulars of income.", "::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 11 wp735-151 Surprisingly, he issued notice under section 148 of the Act stating that he has reasons to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2008-09 and he proposed to reassess the income.", "Mistri pointed out that Respondent Number2 merely relied upon the huge share premium amounting to Rs.14,10,01,300/- during the financial year 2007-08 relevant to assessment year 2008-09 and that in fact the scrutiny assessment had not been done.", "Apropos, Respondent Number2s contention that he had the authority to reassess the income chargeable to tax which he believed had escaped assessment, Mr.", "Mistri submits that in fact such communication is entirely bereft of any real reasons.", "Vide letter dated 21st August, 2014 the assessee clarified that the reasons cited were in fact no reasons at all and objected to the reopening of the assessment.", "Mistri pointed out the decision of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax V section Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers P. Limited reported in 2007 291 ITR 500 (SC) relied upon by the Assessing Officer was not applicable to the present case, while highlighting the fact that in Rajesh Jhaveri (supra), the reopening was within four years of the relevant assessment year, whereas in the present case, it is proposed to be done after four years.", "Mistri, therefore, submitted that there was no factual ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 12 wp735-151 basis in the claim that the assessing officer had reasons to believe that income had escaped assessment.", "According to Mr. Mistri, there was no real reason that could be cited for reopening of the assessment.", "Mistri then relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Hindustan Lever Limited V section R.K. Wadkar, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Ors.", "reported in 2004 268 T.R. 332 and submitted that a notice under Section 148 of the Act after four years should clearly specify the materials that were not disclosed earlier, the notice itself must specify reason, that it is not possible that the reasons be supplied later on.", "In that case, the Division Bench of this Court held that the notice was clearly beyond the period of four years and the reasons recorded by the assessing officer did not state that there was a failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all particulars necessary for assessment for that assessment year.", "This Court found that the assessing officer had no jurisdiction to reopen the assessment proceedings and the notice was held to be invalid and was quashed.", "Mistri relied upon the ratio of the judgment and submitted that in the present case, also notice is issued beyond the period of four years and did not disclose any material which the ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 13 wp735-151 assessee had failed to disclose.", "The Assessing Officer had no reason to believe that income had escaped assessment for the relevant year.", "He then relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Aroni Commercials Limited V section Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax Anr.", "reported in 2014 367 ITR 405 (Bom) in which it is held that if the notice notice under Section 148 of the Act provides identical reasons for reopening of the assessment for a second consecutive assessment year and the earlier year notice had been held to be invalid, the notice for re-assessment for the subsequent year should also be held to be invalid.", "Mistri submitted that in Writ Petition (L) Number736 of 2015 also an identical notice had been issued bereft of any reasons or material justifying the issuance of notice in respect of assessment year 2009-10.", "He submitted relying upon these decisions that the impugned orders as well as the notices in both the above petitions are liable to be set aside.", "Referring to the decision of this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.2885 of 2014 M section Rockstar Real Estate Pvt.", "Limited V section Income Tax Officer 10(1)(4), Mr.", "Mistri submitted that this Court found that reasons furnished to the Petitioner-assesee were identical as in the present case.", "The Court was prima facie of the view that from the share premium and share application money, no income arises as ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 14 wp735-151 the receipt is on capital account.", "However, we find that the said order was at an ad-interim stage and it need not continue to engage our attention.", "Malhotra, learned counsel for the Respondents has vehemently supported the issuance of the notices.", "He contended that such large premium being paid is suspect, especially if the company has no track record and its earning per share were negligible, in fact it was a loss making company.", "Referring to the balance-sheet and profit and loss account, he submitted that they were not a hugely profiteering company so as to command such high share premium.", "According to him, the matter needs to be investigated further, notwithstanding the fact that some public companies are stated to have invested in the assessee company and have subscribed to the share premium.", "He submitted that there is total absence of business acumen if such high premium had been paid.", "This itself raises serious doubts about bonafides of the assessee company and justifies the reopening of the assessment in the interest of the revenue.", "He supported the impugned notices and the orders and refuted the contentions of Mr.", "Mistri.", "We have given our anxious consideration to the factual background and we are of the view that Mr.", "Mistris contentions ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:49 ::: 15 wp735-151 deserve to be accepted in the facts of the present case.", "The transaction seems to be entirely an Arms-length transaction.", "The subscribers are limited companies who are reportedly stated to be public limited companies.", "The Petitioner is a company in the hospitality sector and we do not see how the amount of premium that has been charged from the subscribers can be questioned without the revenue provided valid reasons.", "We have not entered into the merits of the controversy.", "Suffice it to say that apart from being public limited companies, the subscribers include other infrastructure hospitality companies.", "Having come to this conclusion, we are constrained to hold that there is no justification in issuing of notice under section 148 of the Act in the given facts of the case.", "There is no lack of disclosure or suppression of any material facts.", "All queries of Respondent Number2 have been answered by the assessee or the subscribers in question especially when all questionnaires addressed to subscribers were duly answered by the subscribers.", "The Assessing Officer thereafter proceeded to complete the assessment order and issued an assessment order but did issued a volte face the and a fresh notice under section 148 of the Act just one week after the issuance of the assessment order.", "This does not augur well for the revenue and particularly in view of the fact that the notice under Section 148 of the Act (Exhibit-Q to the ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:50 ::: 16 wp735-151 petition) dated 29th March, 2014.", "It does not contain any tangible reasons for reopening of the assessment.", "In fact, as rightly appointed by Mr.", "Mistri, during his submissions, Respondent Number2 has completed the assessment and issued an assessment order on 22nd March, 2014, yet the very same Assessing Officer has proceeded to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act, seven days of the assessment order.", "We may add a word of caution here.", "Although the Petitioner has relied upon the decision of this Court in the case of Vodafone and the department has accepted the said decision and decided against challenging it by issuing a circular, we would not equate all cases of share premium as being covered by the said judgment and circular.", "In a given case and the given fact situation, assessees may be required to be probed for valid reasons.", "In the case at hand, however, we find that there is no justification for reopening of the assessment and accordingly, we are of the view that both the Petitions must succeed.", "We accordingly pass the following order.", "In Writ Petition (L) Number735 of 2015, the impugned notice Exhibit-Q dated 29th March, 2014 issued by the Income Tax Officer 6(1)-2, Mumbai under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:50 ::: 17 wp735-151 the impugned order Exhibit-U dated 10th February, 2015 by the Income Tax Officer 6(1)-1, Mumbai in respect of assessment year 2008-09 are hereby set aside.", "In Writ Petition (L) Number736 of 2015, the impugned notice Exhibit-Q dated 24th March, 2014 issued by the Income Tax Officer 6(1)-2, Mumbai under section 148 of the Income Tax Act and the impugned order Exhibit-U dated 10th February, 2015 in respect of assessment year 2009-10 by the Income Tax Officer 6(1)-1, Mumbai are hereby set aside.", "There will be no order as to costs.", "K. MENON, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:10:50 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2015_731", "text": ["These appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment.", "It is conceded before us by both sides that the questions of law and the issues arising therefrom are common and, therefore, they advanced similar contentions.", "It is in these circumstances that we dispose of these appeals by this common judgment.", "We will refer to the facts in two representative appeals.", "Income Tax Appeal Number523 of 2013 filed by the Revenue challenges the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Bench at Mumbai, dated 31st August, 2012, in Income Tax Appeal Number7055/Mum/2011.", "The assessment year is 2008-09.", "There, the assessee filed a return of income declaring total SRP 2/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc income at Rs. Nil.", "That was filed on 8 th October, 2008.", "The gross total income is declared at Rs.21,07,13,675/- Upon claiming deduction under section 80 IA(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the IT Act) in the said sum, total income is declared at Rs. Nil.", "During the assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer noted that the assessee company is engaged in the operation of a Container Freight Station (CFS) and claimed that the activities therein qualify as a port.", "That is one of the infrastructure facilities for the purpose of section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act.", "The assessee produced a certificate dated 13th July, 2006, from the Jawaharlal Nehru Port Trust (JNPT) Nhava Sheva declaring that the assessee is considered as an extended arm of port related services.", "However, on enquiry under section 133(6) of the IT Act, it was revealed that this certificate was withdrawn by JNPT on 5th October, 2007.", "That is how the deduction claimed came to be disallowed.", "Being aggrieved by this order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority, namely, Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), SRP 3/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Thane.", "He dismissed the assessees appeal on 29th July, 2010, and confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer.", "Being aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer and the First Appellate Authority, the assessee approached the Tribunal and by the impugned order, the Tribunal allowed its appeal.", "The appeal by the Revenue raises the following substantial question of law : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, and in law the Honble ITAT is right in holding that the assessee is entitled to deduction under Section 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961 even though activities undertaken by the assessee do not fall within Clause (d) of the Explanation to 80- IA(4) defining the term infrastructure facilities? The other appeal to which our attention was invited is Income Tax Appeal Number1969 of 2013.", "There, the assessee is a company engaged in the business of providing logistic support.", "A search was SRP 4/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc carried out on its premises on 10 th July, 2009 whereupon a notice under section 153A of the IT Act was issued to the company to file a return of income.", "On 30th October, 2009, the company filed its return of income declaring total income of Rs.5,54,63,220/- while claiming deduction under section 80 IA(4) of Rs.1,25,77,637/-.", "The Assessing Officer relied upon an order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals Bench at Delhi in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited vs Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2012) 346 ITR 140 and held that the company was not entitled to deduction under section 80-IA.", "Accordingly, the amount claimed was added back to the income.", "Aggrieved with this order of the Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and he upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.", "The Commissioners order is dated 26th April, 2010.", "A special Bench of the Tribunal was constituted to hear the assessees appeal and the same was proposed for purposes of deciding two questions, namely, what is the scope of assessment under section SRP 5/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc 153A of the IT Act.", "Whether that encompasses additions not based on any incriminating material found during the search and whether the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) was justified in upholding the disallowance of deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act, 1961.", "After reviewing the entire case law, the special Bench held that by the clear language of section 153A together with its provisos, pending assessments abate.", "The other question was answered by upholding that the Assessing Officer is required to make one assessment for each of the six years on the basis of the search and any other material existing or brought on record by the Assessing Officer.", "In other cases assessments will be made on the basis of the books of account and other documents found during the search and not produced during assessment and also on any other undisclosed income or property found during the search.", "On the issue of deduction under section 80-IA(4) it was concluded that the CFS is a inland port and its income is entitled to deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act.", "The special Bench decision to the extent relevant reads as under : SRP 6/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Thus, question Number1 before us is answered as under : In assessments that are abated, the AO retains the original jurisdiction as well as jurisdiction conferred on him u s 153A for which assessments shall be made for each of the six assessment years separately In other cases, in addition to the income that has already been assessed, the assessment u s 153A will be made on the basis of incriminating material, which in the context of relevant provisions means - (i) books of account, other documents found in the course of search but not produced in the course of original assessment, and (ii) undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search.", "We find that the solitary decision in this case by any High Court is in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited In this case it has been held that an ICD is not a port but it is an inland port.", "The case of CFS is similar situated in the sense that both carry out similar functions, i.e. ware housing, customs clearance, and transport of goods from its location to the seaports and vice-versa by railway or by trucks in containers.", "Thus, the issue is no longer res-integra.", "Respectfully following this decision, it is held that a CFS is an inland port whose income is entitled to deduction u s 80IA(4).", "Question Number2 is answered accordingly.", "In the light of the Special Bench decision dated 6th July,2012, the Tribunal allowed the assessees appeal in this case for assessment year 2004-05 to assessment years 2009-10.", "SRP 7/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Aggrieved by this Tribunal order, the Revenue has filed this appeal and it proposes the following substantial questions of law : Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble ITAT is correct in narrowing down the scope of assessment u s 153A in respect of completed assessments by holding that only undisclosed income and undisclosed assets detected during search could be brought to tax ? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble ITAT is correct in law in holding that the scope of Section 153A is limited to assessing only search related income, thereby denying Revenue the opportunity of taxing other escaped income, that comes to the notice of the AO ? SRP 8/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble ITAT was right in limiting the scope of Section 153A only to undisclosed income when as per the section the AO has to assess the total income of the six assessment years ? Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Honble Tribunal erred in holding that the assessee was entitled to deduction u s 80 IA(4) which was contrary to the Circular of the CBDT Number 10/2005 as also contrary to the fact that JNPT Port had withdrawn its certification of the company ? In the light of the fact that there are questions and of law which have been considered by the authorities under the IT Act and we are required to interpret not only the legal provisions but consider the correctness of the view taken in the special Bench decision, we proceed to admit these appeals on the above questions.", "By consent of SRP 9/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc the parties we have taken up the appeals for hearing and final disposal.", "Mr. Pinto, learned counsel appearing in support of these appeals submitted that the Tribunal has completely misread and misinterpreted section 153A of the IT Act.", "He would submit that the language of section 153A is clear.", "While the triggering point may be the search, but the notice that is contemplated by section 153A and which is mandatory requires the Assessing Officer to assess the income of six years.", "That is independent of the search.", "The mandate is to issue the notice for six assessment years.", "The assessment or reassessment is of the total income of the assessee disclosed or undisclosed and pertaining to these six years.", "Therefore, the Tribunals view that the search will throw light on the interpretation of the legal provisions, namely, section 153A restricts its ambit and scope.", "That view is perverse and contrary to the plain language of the section.", "The assessment then is not restricted to the incriminating material and found during the search.", "The Tribunal has read into the provisions something which is expressly not there.", "There is nothing in the language of the provisions which would indicate that the assessment is SRP 10/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc restricted to incriminating material or the basis of the assessment would be that which is discovered during the search or during the process contemplated by section 132A of the IT Act.", "In the circumstances, it is not proper to hold that the Special Bench decision would govern the case.", "The argument of the assessee, if accepted would result in restricting the powers conferred on the Assessing Officer.", "Therefore, Mr. Pinto would submit that the Tribunals view cannot be sustained.", "On the applicability of section 80-IA(4) Mr. Pinto would submit that the Tribunal once again reads something into section 80-IA(4) which is not there.", "There is no question of any concession by the Revenue.", "The Special Bench decision may be on the point, but it does not bind this Court.", "Equally, the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India (supra) cannot be said to be concluding the issue.", "The finding that the issue is no longer res integra and a CFS is an inland port whose income is entitled to deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act cannot be sustained.", "Mr. Pinto, therefore, submits that on this aspect of the matter as well, SRP 11/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc this Court must set aside the impugned order.", "On the other hand, while canvassing the lead arguments, Mr. Dastur, learned senior counsel appearing for the assessee - All Cargo Global Logistics Limited would submit that the power under section 153A of the IT Act and its ambit and scope has rightly been interpreted in the impugned judgment.", "Mr. Dastur submits that the title of the section itself is indicative of the object and namely assessment in case of search or requisition.", "This section contains a non-obstante clause so as to not to restrict the powers which are conferred by virtue of section 153A in the Assessing Officer.", "However, the exercise of power under that provision is where search is initiated under section 132 or books of account or other documents or assets are requisitioned under section 132A of the Act after 31 st May, 2003.", "Then the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b) of sub-section (1) of section 153A and clause (b) postulates assessment or reassessment of the total SRP 12/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc income of six years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made.", "The first proviso mandates that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years.", "The second proviso, according to Mr. Dastur, is important because the assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate.", "Equally, sub-section (2) of section 153A deals with a situation where any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment is made under sub-section (1) but that has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner.", "Further, proviso to this sub-section says that such SRP 13/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc revival shall cease to have effect if the order of annulment is set aside.", "Mr. Dastur would submit that the Revenue is protected completely in this case.", "The power is of drastic nature and has to be exercised within constitutional parameters.", "However, though the second proviso to sub-section (1) of section 153A would not apply in the first three years of this case, yet, as far as the second three year period is concerned, the assessments were pending.", "The proceedings in relation thereto abate.", "Now the entire assessment in relation to the second phase of three years can be made but the foundation for all this and the action under section 153A is a search under section 132 or requisition of books of account and other assets under section 132A. In the present case, the notice under section 153A is founded on search.", "If there is no incriminating material found during the search, then, the Special Bench was right in holding that the power under section 153A being not expected to be exercised routinely, should be exercised if the search reveals any incriminating material.", "If that is not found, then, in relation to the second phase of three years, there is no warrant for making an order within the meaning of this provision.", "SRP 14/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc In any event, the issue stands concluded by a Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur vs M section Murli Agro Products Limited in Income Tax Appeal Number36 of 2009 decided on 29th October, 2010.", "It is, therefore, apparent that the law laid down by this Court is binding on the Revenue.", "If that is binding then the questions of law and with regard to applicability of section 153A need to be answered against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.", "Insofar as the next issue is concerned, namely, applicability of section 80-IA(4), Mr. Dastur would submit that in the appeals in which he is appearing, the assessees have an infrastructural facility of Inland Container Depot (ICD) which qualifies for deduction under section 80-IA(4) of the IT Act, but even the CFS clearly falls within the provisions.", "It is held to be an inland port.", "In that regard, he relies upon a circular of the Central Board of Direct Taxes (Circular Number10 of 2005 dated 16th December, 2005).", "He also relies upon the judgment of the Honble Delhi High Court in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited vs Asstt.", "Commissioner of Income Tax and our SRP 15/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc attention is also invited to a judgment of the High Court of Judicature at Madras by Mr. Gandhi who adopts the arguments of Mr. Dastur.", "This judgment is in Income Tax Appeal Number1031 of 2014 dated 23 rd December, 2014.", "It is in these circumstances that it is submitted by Mr. Dastur, learned senior counsel and Mr. Gandhi that the Revenue appeals on both counts deserve to be dismissed.", "Mr. Pinto in rejoinder has submitted that the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court would not bind us simply because that was rendered in the case of exercise of powers under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, by the Commissioner.", "The essential controversy revolved around the exercise of that power and the validity thereof.", "The question as to whether section 153A can be interpreted in the manner suggested by Mr. Dastur was decided in passing and the observations, therefore, would not bind us.", "Similarly, where section 80-IA(4) deduction is claimed, it is apparent that the certificates having been withdrawn that deduction could not be claimed.", "Mr. Suresh Kumar, while adopting the arguments of Mr. Pinto and noted above, submitted that the amendments and which SRP 16/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc have been brought into section 80-IA(4) are not noted either by the special Bench or by the Delhi High Court.", "Similarly, the arguments presuppose that all conditions which enable claiming the deduction are fulfilled.", "However, in this case, the essential condition of operation of the facility in pursuance of an agreement with the Central Government has not been fulfilled.", "There is no agreement brought on record.", "Any communication emanating from any Ministry cannot partake the character of an agreement.", "Any approval and may be in writing also would not suffice.", "For all these reasons, he would submit and while supporting Mr. Pinto, that these appeals be allowed.", "For properly appreciating the rival contentions, a reference will have to be made to section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "That reads as under : 153A. (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 139, section 147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, in the case of a person where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after the 31 st day of May, 2003, the Assessing Officer shall- (a) issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, the return of income in respect of each SRP 17/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc assessment year falling within six assessment years referred to in clause (b), in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139 (b) assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years Provided further that assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to any assessment year falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in this sub- section pending on the date of initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, shall abate : Provided also that the Central Government may by rules made by it and published in the Official Gazette (except in cases where any assessment or reassessment has abated under the second proviso), specify the class or classes of cases in which the Assessing Officer shall not be required to issue notice for assessing or reassessing the total income for six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is made.", "If any proceeding initiated or any order of assessment or reassessment made under sub-section (1) has been annulled in appeal or any other legal proceeding, then, notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1) or section 153, the assessment or reassessment relating to any assessment year which has SRP 18/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc abated under the second proviso to sub-section (1), shall stand revived with effect from the date of receipt of the order of such annulment by the Commissioner.", "Provided that such revival shall cease to have effect, if such order of annulment is set aside. Explanation.- For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that,- save as otherwise provided in this section, section 153B and section 153C, all other provisions of this Act shall apply to the assessment made under this section.", "in an assessment or reassessment made in respect of an assessment year under this section, the tax shall be chargeable at the rate or rates as applicable to such assessment year.", "A bare perusal thereof would indicate as to how a non obstante clause has been inserted and with a defined intent.", "One would find that in section 139 of the IT Act, the return of income is contemplated.", "These provisions fall in Chapter XIV entitled Procedure For Assessment.", "Section 139 deals with return of income whereas section 140 states that such return has to be verified.", "Section 147 which also falls within this Chapter deals with income escaping assessment and section 148 provides for issuance of notice where income has escaped assessment.", "Section 149 sets out a time limit for SRP 19/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc notice.", "Then, appear sections 149, 151 and 153 which, inter-alia, deal with time limit, sanction for issue and time limit for completion of assessments and reassessments.", "All these are brought in section 153A and specifically mentioned with an intent to bring them within the non obstante clause.", "Notwithstanding anything contained in these provisions where search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after 31st day of May, 2003, that the Assessing Officer is in a position to and mandated to issue notice within the meaning of sub- section (1) of section 153A. That is because the preceding Chapter, namely, Chapter XIII within which the powers of search and seizure and powers to requisition books of account are spelt out enable the Revenue to take care of cases where it effects a search and seizure.", "That search and seizure is effected and after the same is effected books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing is found as a result thereof that notwithstanding anything and within the meaning of the above provisions having been concluded, it is open for the Revenue to make an assessment.", "It is also open to the Revenue to make a reassessment SRP 20/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc in cases where it exercises the powers to requisition books of account etc.", "This is because it is of the view that the books of account are required to be summoned or taken into custody.", "It, therefore, issues a summons in that regard.", "It may also requisition the books of account or other documents for that might be useful and or any assets representing withholding or part income or property which has not been or would not have been disclosed for the purpose of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922 or the Income Tax Act of 1961 by any person from whose possession or control they have been taken into custody.", "This is when the authorities have reason to believe that such powers need to be exercised.", "Therefore, the fetters and which are to be found in other provisions are removed and a notice of assessment in such cases is then issued.", "That is mandated by sub-section (1) of section 153A. It is not only the issuance of the notice but assessment or reassessment of total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition has to be made.", "We are of the view that there is much substance in the SRP 21/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc contentions of Mr. Dastur that the provisions such as section 153A enabling assessment in case of search or requisition making specific reference to the provisions which enable carrying out of search or exercise of power of requisition that the assessment in furtherance thereof is contemplated.", "His reliance upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in that context is, therefore, well placed.", "In the Division Bench judgment what had been decided is the justifiability of the Tribunal interfering with the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act.", "That may be the sole question referred in paragraph 2 of the Division Bench order but the facts disclose that an assessment order for assessment year 1998-99 was passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act determining certain loss in the case of that assessee.", "Thereafter, on 3rd December, 2003, there was a search action at the business office premises of the assessee wherein incriminating documents articles were seized.", "On issuance of notice under section SRP 22/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc 153A of the Act dated 13th September, 2004, a return of income was filed.", "That was pursuant to a notice issued under clause (a) of sub- section (1) of section 153A of the Act.", "That return of income declared a loss.", "The Assessing Officer, therefore, passed an order under section 153A read with section 143(3) of the IT Act on 30 th March, 2006 determining concealed income at Rs.89,19,47/-.", "On appeal by the assessee, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) by his order dated 30th November, 2006, deleted the concealed income computed by the Assessing Officer.", "He, therefore, gave effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and restored the loss as originally assessed.", "The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) as above attained finality.", "However, power under section 263 of the IT Act came to be invoked in the circumstances noted by the Division Bench and that was in relation to the assessment order dated 30 th March, 2006, as modified and after giving effect to the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).", "It is that order which was challenged before the Tribunal and the Tribunal set aside the same on SRP 23/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc the ground that there was no scope to take a different view on merits of the said order.", "The view taken by the Assessing Officer could not be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.", "However, the Revenues argument was that once proceedings under section 153A of the Act are initiated, then, the original assessment reassessment order already passed in the assessment years covered under section 153A stand abated and the Assessing Officer is obliged to pass fresh assessment reassessment orders and determine the total income afresh for those assessment years.", "Thus, earlier assessment orders abate as the proceedings in which they are passed have no legal consequence was the argument.", "Once the notice under section 153A was issued and an assessment order passed pursuant thereto, it is that order which was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.", "In dealing with those arguments, the Division Bench outlined the ambit and scope of the powers conferred by section 153A and observed thus : SRP 24/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc We find it difficult to accept the above contention raised on behalf of the revenue.", "The object of inserting Sections 153A, 153B and 153C by Finance Act, 2003 by discarding the existing provisions relating to search cases contained in Chapter XIV B of the Income-tax Act, as stated in the Memorandum explaining the provisions in the Finance Bill 2003 (see 260 ITR (St) 191 at 219) was that under the existing provisions relating to search cases, often disputes were raised on the question, as to whether a particular income could be treated as undisclosed income or whether a particular income could be said to be relatable to the material found during the course of search, etc.", "which led to prolonged litigation.", "To overcome that difficulty, the legislature by Finance Act 2003, decided to discard Chapter XIV B provisions and introduce Sections 153A, 153B and 153C in the IT Act.", "What Section 153A contemplates is that, notwithstanding the regular provisions for assessment reassessment contained in the IT Act, where search is conducted under Section 132 or requisition is made under Section 132A on or after 31/5/2003 in the case of any person, the Assessing Officer shall issue notice to such person requiring him to furnish return of income within the time stipulated therein, in respect of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made and thereafter assess or reassess the total income for those assessment years.", "The second proviso to Section 153A provides for abatement of assessment reassessment proceedings which are pending on the date of search requisition.", "Section 153A (2) provides that when the assessment made under Section 153(A)(1)is annulled, the assessment or reassessment that stood abated shall stand revived.", "Thus on a plain reading of Section 153A of the Income-tax Act, it becomes clear that on initiation of the proceedings under Section 153A, it is only the SRP 25/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc assessment reassessment proceedings that are pending on the date of conducting search under Section 132 or making requisition under Section 132A of the Act stand abated and not the assessments reassessments already finalised for those assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Act.", "By a circular Number 8 of 2003 dated 18-9-2003 (See 263 ITR (St) 61 at 107) the CBDT has clarified that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the proceedings pending in appeal, revision or rectification proceedings against finalised assessment reassessment shall not abate.", "It is only because, the finalised assessments reassessments do not abate, the appeal revision or rectification pending against finalised assessment reassessments would not abate.", "Therefore, the argument of the revenue, that on initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the assessments reassessments finalised for the assessment years covered under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act stand abated cannot be accepted.", "Similarly on annulment of assessment made under Section 153A (1) what stands revived is the pending assessment / reassessment proceedings which stood abated as per section 153A(1).", "In the present case, as contended by Shri Mani, learned counsel for the assessee, the assessment for assessment year 1998-99 was finalised on the 29-12- 2000 and search was conducted thereafter on 3-12- 2003.", "Therefore, in the facts of the present case, initiation of proceedings under Section 153A would not affect the assessment finalised on 29-12-2000.", "Once it is held that the assessment finalised on 29.12.2000 has attained finality, then the deduction allowed under section 80 HHC of the Income-tax Act as well as the loss computed under the assessment dated 29-12-2000 would attain finality.", "In such a case, the O. while passing the independent assessment order under Section 153A read with Section 143 (3) of the I.T. Act could not have disturbed the assessment / SRP 26/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc reassessment order which has attained finality, unless the materials gathered in the course of the proceedings under Section 153A of the Income-tax Act establish that the reliefs granted under the finalised assessment/ reassessment were contrary to the facts unearthed during the course of 153 A proceedings.", "In the present case, there is nothing on record to suggest that any material was unearthed during the search or during the 153A proceedings which would show that the relief under Section 80 HHC was erroneous.", "In such a case, the A.O. while passing order under Section 153A read with Section 143(3) could not have disturbed the assessment order finalised on 29.12.2000 relating to Section 80 HHC deduction and consequently the C.I.T. could not have invoked jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.", "We are not in agreement with Mr. Pinto that these observations are made in passing or that they are not binding on us because the essential controversy before the Bench was somewhat different.", "He urges that was only in relation to the legality and validity of the order of the Commissioner under section 263 of the IT Act.", "Had that been the case, the Division Bench was not required to trace out the history of section 153A of the IT Act and the power that is conferred thereunder.", "When the Revenue argued before the Division Bench that the power under section 153A can be invoked and exercised even in cases where the second proviso to sub-section (1) is not applicable SRP 27/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc that the Division Bench was required to express a specific opinion.", "The provision deals with those cases where assessment or reassessment, if any, relating to the assessment years falling within the period of six assessment years referred to in sub-section (1) of section 153A were pending.", "If they were pending on the date of the initiation of the search under section 132 or making of requisition under section 132A, as the case may be, they abate.", "It is only pending proceedings that would abate and not where there are orders made of assessment or reassessment and which are in force on the date of initiation of the search or making of the requisition.", "As that specific argument was canvassed and dealt with by the Division Bench and that is how it was called upon to interpret section 153A of the IT Act, then, each of the above conclusions rendered by the Division Bench would bind us.", "Even otherwise, we agree with the Division Bench when it observes as above with regard to the ambit and scope of the powers conferred under section 153A of the Act.", "Since we are not required to trace out the history and we can do nothing better than to reproduce the observations and conclusions as above that we are not repeating SRP 28/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc the same.", "Even if the exercise of power under section 153A is permissible still the provision cannot be read in the manner suggested by Mr. Pinto.", "Not only the finalised assessment cannot be touched by resorting to those provisions, but even while exercising the power can be exercised where a search is initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets are requisitioned under section 132A after 31st March, 2003.", "There is a mandate to issue notices under section 153(1)(a) and assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which such search is conducted or requisition is made.", "Thus, the crucial words search and requisition appear in the substantive provision and the provisos.", "That would throw light on the issue of applicability of the provision.", "It being enacted to a search or requisition that its construction would have to be accordingly.", "That is the conclusion reached by the Division Bench in Murli Agro (supra) with which we respectfully agree.", "These are the conclusions which can be reached and upon reading of the legal provisions in question.", "We, therefore, hold that the Special Benchs understanding of SRP 29/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc the legal provision is not perverse nor does it suffer from any error of law apparent on the face of the record.", "The Special Bench in that regard held as under : The provision under section 153A is applicable where a search or requisition is initiated after 31.5.2003.", "In such a case the AO is obliged to issue notice u s 153A in respect of 6 preceding years, preceding the year in which search etc.", "has been initiated.", "Thereafter he has to assess or reassess the total income of these six years.", "It is obligatory on the part of the AO to assess or reassess total income of the six years as provided in section 153A(1)(b) and reiterated in the 1st proviso to this section.", "The second proviso states that the assessment or reassessment pending on the date of initiation of the search or requisition shall abate.", "We find that there is no divergence of views in so far as the provision contained in section 153A till the 1st proviso.", "The divergence starts from the second proviso which states that pending assessment or reassessment on the date of initiation of search shall abate.", "This means that an assessment or reassessment pending on the date of initiation of search shall cease to exist and no further action shall be taken thereon.", "The assessment shall now be made u s 153A. The case of Ld.", "Counsel for the assessee is that necessary corollary to this provision is that completed assessment shall not abate.", "These assessments become final except in so far and to the extent as undisclosed income is found in the course of search.", "On the other hand, it has been argued by the Ld.", "Standing Counsel that abatement of pending assessment is only for the purpose of avoiding two assessments for the same year, one being regular assessment and the other being assessment u s 153A. In other words these two assessments coalesce into one assessment.", "The second proviso does not contain any word or words to the effect that no reassessment shall be made in respect of a SRP 30/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc completed assessment.", "The language is clear in this behalf and therefore literal interpretation should be followed.", "Such interpretation does not produce manifestly absurd or unjust results as section 153A (i)(b) and the first proviso clearly provide for assessment or reassessment of all six years.", "It may cause hardship to some assesses where one or more of such assessments has or have been completed before the date of initiation of search.", "This is hardly of any relevance in view of clear and unambiguous words used by the legislature.", "This interpretation does not cause any absurd etc.", "results.", "There is no casus omissus and supplying any would be against the legislative intent and against the very rule in this behalf that it should be supplied for the purpose of achieving legislative intent.", "The submissions of the Ld.", "Counsels are manifold, the foremost being that the provision u s 153A should be read in conjunction with the provision contained in section 132(1), the reason being that the latter deals with search and seizure and the former deals with assessment in case of search etc, thus, the two are inextricably linked with each other.", "Before proceeding further, we may now examine the provision contained in sub-section (2) of section 153, which has been dealt with by Ld. Counsel.", "It provides that if any assessment made under sub- section (1) is annulled in appeal etc.", ", then the abated assessment revives.", "However, if such annulment is further nullified, the assessment again abates.", "The case of the Ld.", "Counsel is that this provision further shows that completed assessments stand on a different footing from the pending assessments because appeals etc.", "proceedings continue to remain in force in case of completed assessments and their fate depends upon subsequent orders in appeal.", "On consideration of the provision and the submissions, we find that this provision also makes it clear that the abatement of pending proceedings is not of such permanent nature that they cease to exist for all times to come.", "The interpretation of the Ld.", "Counsel, though not specifically SRP 31/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc stated, would be that on annulment of the assessment made u s 153(1), the AO gets the jurisdiction to assess the total income which was vested in him earlier independent of the search and which came to an end due to initiation of the search.", "The provision contained in section 132 (1) empowers the officer to issue a warrant of search of the premises of a person where any one or more of conditions mentioned therein is or are satisfied, i.e. - a) summons or notice has been issued to produce books of account or other documents but such books of account or documents have not been produced, b) summons or notice has been or might be issued, he will not produce the books of account or other documents mentioned therein, or c) he is in possession of any money or bullion etc.", "which represents wholly or partly the income or property which has not been and which would not be disclosed for the purpose of assessment, called as undisclosed income or property.", "We find that the provision in section 132 (1) does not use the word incriminating document.", "Clauses (a) and (b) of section 132(1) employ the words books of account or other documents.", "For harmonious interpretation of this provision with provision contained in section 153A, all the three conditions on satisfaction of which a warrant of search can be issued will have to be taken into account.", "Having held so, an assessment or reassessment u s 153A arises only when a search has been initiated and conducted.", "Therefore, such an assessment has a vital link with the initiation and conduct of the search.", "We have mentioned that a search can be authorised on satisfaction of one of the three conditions enumerated earlier.", "Therefore, while interpreting the provision contained in section 153A, all these conditions will have to be taken into account.", "With this, we proceed to literally interpret to provision in 153A as it exists and SRP 32/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc read it alongside the provision contained in section 132(1).", "The provision comes into operation if a search or requisition is initiated after 31.5.2003.", "On satisfaction of this condition, the AO is under obligation to issue notice to the person requiring him to furnish the return of income of six years immediately preceding the year of search.", "The word used is shall and, thus, there is no option but to issue such a notice.", "Thereafter he has to assess or reassess total income of these six years.", "In this respect also, the word used is shall and, therefore, the AO has no option but to assess or reassess the total income of these six years.", "The pending proceedings shall abate.", "This means that out of six years, if any assessment or reassessment is pending on the date of initiation of the search, it shall abate.", "In other words pending proceedings will not be proceeded with thereafter.", "The assessment has now to be made u s 153A (1)(b) and the first proviso.", "It also means that only one assessment will be made under the aforesaid provisions as the two proceedings i.e. assessment or reassessment proceedings and proceedings under this provision merge into one.", "If assessment made under sub-section (1) is annulled in appeal or other legal proceedings, then the abated assessment or reassessment shall revive.", "This means that the assessment or reassessment, which had abated, shall be made, for which extension of time has been provided under section 153B. The question now is - what is the scope of assessment or reassessment of total income u s 153A (1) (b) and the first proviso ? We are of the view that for answering this question, guidance will have to be sought from section 132(1).", "If any books of account or other documents relevant to the assessment had not been produced in the course of original assessment and found in the course of search in our humble opinion such books of account or other documents have to be taken into account while making assessment or reassessment of total income under the aforesaid provision.", "Similar SRP 33/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc position will obtain in a case where undisclosed income or undisclosed property has been found as a consequence of search.", "In other words, harmonious interpretation will produce the following results :- In so far as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make original assessment and assessment u s 153A merge into one and only one assessment for each assessment year shall be made separately on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO, (b) in respect of non-abated assessments, the assessment will be made on the basis of books of account or other documents not produced in the course of original assessment but found in the course of search, and undisclosed income or undisclosed property discovered in the course of search.", "It may be mentioned here that Ld.", "Counsel for All Cargo Global Logistics Limited was questioned about the scope of pending assessments as it was his contention that all six assessments are to be made, if necessary, on the basis of undisclosed income discovered in the course of search.", "He was specifically questioned about the jurisdiction of the AO to make original assessment along with assessment u s 153A, merging into one.", "However he took an evasive view submitting that this question need not be decided in his case although the question of jurisdiction u s 153A was vehemently pressed on account of which ground Number1 in the appeal for assessment year 2004-05 was admitted as additional ground.", "He also wanted the additional ground to be retained in case of any future contingency.", "We would be failing in our duty if we do not note the reliance SRP 34/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc placed by Mr. Pinto on the judgments rendered by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi and the High Court of Karnataka.", "Mr. Pinto would submit that the above observations and conclusions of the Special Bench and reproduced by us are specifically disapproved in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anil Kumar Bhatia by the Delhi High Court.", "We do not find this argument to be accurate.", "In Anil Kumar Bhatia as well the assessment involved the years 2000-01, 2002-03 and 2005-06.", "One of the questions and which was termed as substantial question of law was the correctness of the Tribunals order holding that the Assessing Officer wrongly invoked section 153A of the IT Act.", "The facts as noted were that in the case of an individual assessee and who was carrying on business in the name and style of M section A.K. Traders, there was a search of his residence and business premises on 13th December, 2005 under section 132 of the Act.", "Pursuant to the search, the Assessing Officer issued notice under section 153A of the IT Act and called upon the assessee to file the return of income for the six years as envisaged in that section.", "Notices under section 142(1) and 143(2) alongwith a detailed questionnaire were issued in response to which the assessee submitted an SRP 35/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc explanation.", "After consideration thereof, the Assessing Officer made additions to the income returned in respect of the assessment years under consideration which included an amount of Rs.1,50,000/- given by the assessee as a loan to Smt.", "Mohini Sharma on 10 th December, 2003.", "This information was made available but the loan was not reflected in the return of income filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04.", "The Assessing Officer, therefore, concluded that this loan was given out of unaccounted income of the assessee.", "Accordingly, the same was added in the income of the assessee for the assessment year 2003-04 and an order was made to that effect.", "Against this addition, the appeal was preferred before the Commissioner of Income Tax contending, inter alia, that the seized paper on the basis of which the addition was made did not contain the signature of the assessee that no loan was given to Mohini Sharma.", "There was no admission of the statement of Mohini Sharma to that effect and there was only a proposal.", "The Commissioner of Income Tax confirmed this addition in the Assessing Officers order.", "In respect of assessment years 2004-05 and 2005-06 there were appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) questioning the SRP 36/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc additions made in the assessment orders for those years.", "While disposing of these appeals, the Commissioner of Income Tax directed the Assessing Officer to assess the notional interest on the loan given to Mohini Sharma which addition he confirmed in his appellate order.", "These two orders of the Commissioner were carried in appeal to the Tribunal and thereafter the Delhi High Court noted the Tribunals conclusions.", "It noted the arguments before the Tribunal and thereupon the Tribunal having deleted these additions and the notional interest, the matter was taken in appeal to the High Court of Delhi under section 260A of the IT Act by the Revenue.", "The arguments, therefore, have been noted and from paragraphs 16, section 153A was analysed.", "Mr. Pinto heavily relied on paragraphs 18, 19 and 20 of the judgment of the Honble High Court of Delhi.", "He also relied on paragraph 21 to contend that the Special Bench decision has not been approved by the High Court of Delhi.", "SRP 37/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc The Delhi High Courts judgment must be seen in the context of the essential controversy before it.", "Pertinently, that controversy arose because of a search being conducted at the residence and business premises of the assessee.", "Foundation of the action under section 153A being the search that the High Court of Delhi was required to consider the ambit and scope of the powers.", "Further, pertinently the Delhi High Court did not ignore any of the provisions.", "Those are correctly understood by the Delhi High Court.", "We do not see how and where the Delhi High Court disapproves the view taken by the Tribunal that its observations can be read torn from the context.", "Once these observations and noted by us from the paragraphs cited by Mr. Pinto are read as a whole and in entirety, it is not possible to agree with Mr. Pinto that the High Court of Delhi reached a conclusion different than the view taken by our Division Bench.", "Similar is the case with the Division Bench judgment of the High Court of Karnataka at Bangalore.", "There as well a real estate firm was the assessee.", "A return of income was filed and when an order under section 143(3) of the Act came to be passed on 31 st SRP 38/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc December, 2010, for assessment year 2008-09 that a search took place in the premises of the assessee on 12th April, 2011.", "In the course of search, incriminating material leading to undisclosed income was seized.", "Therefore, the proceedings under section 153A of the Act calling upon the assessee to file return of income under section 153A(1)(a) came to be initiated by a notice dated 13 th January, 2012.", "Return of income was filed pursuant to receipt of such notice and for six years as required by the provision.", "When this return was under consideration on 14th March, 2013, the Commissioner of Income Tax initiated proceedings under section 263 of the Act on the ground that the order dated 31st December, 2010 in relation to the return of income for assessment year 2008-09 and holding that the same is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue came to be passed.", "The assessee filed his objection but the Commissioner maintained his action under section 263.", "That is how the aggrieved assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal and before the Tribunal it was contended that once section 263 of the Act has been invoked during the pendency of proceedings under section 153A of the Act, then, that was impermissible.", "That was impermissible for the assessments SRP 39/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc including for the assessment year 2008-09 stand reopened.", "Once they are reopened, then, there is no order of assessment in force and in regard to which any action under section 263 of the IT Act can be initiated.", "It is in dealing with this argument and which was negatived by the Tribunal that all the observations of the High Court of Karnataka have been made.", "In paragraphs 5 and 6, the arguments have been noted and thereafter the provision has been reproduced.", "In paragraph 9, extensive reference has been made to the judgment in Anil Kumar Bhatia of the High Court of Delhi (supra) and then the following observations in paragraphs 10 and 11 are made : Section 153A of the Acts start with a non obstante clause.", "The fetters imposed upon the Assessing Officer by the strict procedure to assume jurisdiction to reopen the assessment under Sections 147 and 148, have been removed by the non obstante clause with which sub section (1) of Section 153A opens.", "The time-limit within which the notice under Section 148 can be issued, as provided in Section 149 has also been made inapplicable by the non obstante clause.", "Section 151 which requires sanction to be obtained by the Assessing Officer by issue of notice to reopen the assessment under Section 148 has also been excluded in a case covered by Section 153A. The time-limit prescribed for completion of an assessment or reassessment by Section 153 has also been done away with in a case covered by Section 153A. With all the stops having been pulled out, the Assessing Officer under Section 153A has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making SRP 40/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc reassessments without any fetters, if need be.", "Therefore, it is clear even if an assessment order is passed under Section 143(1) or 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search.", "After such reopening of the assessment, the Assessing Officer is empowered to assess or reassess the total income of the aforesaid years.", "The condition precedent for application of Section 153A is there should be a search under Section 132.", "Initiation of proceedings under Section 153A is not dependent on any undisclosed income being unearthed during such search.", "The proviso to the aforesaid section makes it clear the assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income in respect of each assessment year falling within such six assessment years.", "If any assessment proceedings are pending within the period of six assessment years referred to in the aforesaid sub-section on the date of initiation of the search under Section 132, the said proceeding shall abate.", "If such proceedings are already concluded by the assessing officer by initiation of proceedings under Section 153A, the legal effect is the assessment gets reopened.", "The block assessment roped in only the undisclosed income and the regular assessment proceedings were preserved, resulting in multiple assessments.", "Under Section 153A, however, the Assessing Officer has been given the power to assess or reassess the total income of the six assessment years in question in separate assessment orders.", "The Assessing Officer is empowered to reopen those proceedings and reassess the total income, taking note of the undisclosed income, if any, unearthed during the search.", "He has been entrusted with the duty of bringing to tax the total income of an assessee whose case is covered by Section 153A, by even making reassessments without any fetters.", "This means that there can be only one assessment order in respect of each of the six assessment years, in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax.", "When once the proceedings are initiated under Section 153A of the SRP 41/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Act, the legal effect is even in case where the assessment order is passed it stands reopened.", "In the eye of law there is no order of assessment.", "Re-opened means to deal with or begin with again.", "It means the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years.", "Once the assessment is reopened, the assessing authority can take note of the income disclosed in the earlier return, any undisclosed income found during search or and also any other income which is not disclosed in the earlier return or which is not unearthed during the search, in order to find out what is the total income of each year and then pass the assessment order.", "Therefore, the Commissioner by virtue of the power conferred under Section 263 of the Act gets no jurisdiction to initiate proceedings under the said provision because the condition precedent for initiating proceedings under Section 263 is any order passed under the Act by the Assessing Officer is erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.", "Once the order passed by the Assessing Officer gets reopened, there is no order which can be said to be erroneous insofar as it is prejudicial to the interest of the revenue which confers jurisdiction on the Commissioner to exercise the power of the jurisdiction.", "The Tribunal has proceeded on the assumption by virtue of the judgment of the special bench of the Mumbai, the scope of enquiry under Section 153A is to be confined only to the undisclosed income unearthed during search and if there is any other income which is not the subject matter of search, the same cannot be taken into consideration.", "Therefore, the revisional authority can exercise the power under Section 263.", "In the entire scheme of 153A of the Act, there is no prohibition for the assessing authority to take note of such income.", "On the contrary, it is expressly provided under Section 153A of the Act the Assessing Officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six assessment years which means the said total income includes income which was returned in the earlier return, the income which was unearthed during search and income SRP 42/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc which is not the subject matter of aforesaid two income.", "If the commissioner has come across any income that the assessing authority has not taken note of while passing the earlier order, the said material can be furnished to the assessing authority and the assessing authority shall take note of the said income also in determining the total income of the assessee when the earlier proceedings are reopened and that income also shall become the subject matter of said proceedings.", "In that view of the matter the reasoning given by the Tribunal is not justified.", "The Commissioner did not have jurisdiction to initiate any proceedings under Section 263 of the Act.", "We do not see as to how while allowing the appeal of the assessee and setting aside the order of the Commissioner under section 263 could the judgment be said to be laying down a proposition and as canvassed by Mr. Pinto.", "True it is that the assessment which has to be made in pursuance of the notice is in relation to the six years.", "An order will have to be made in that regard.", "While making the order the income or the return of income filed for all these assessment years is to be taken into account.", "A reference will have to be made to the income disclosed therein.", "However, the scope of enquiry, though not confined as held by the High Court of Karnataka, it essentially revolves around the search or the requisition under section 132A as the case may be.", "We do not find anything in these observations and reproduced above which would enable us to conclude that the SRP 43/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Division Bench judgment of this Court in the case of Murli Agro requires reconsideration or does not lay down a correct principle of law.", "We cannot, therefore, accede to the submissions of Mr. Pinto and revisit any of the conclusions rendered by the Division Bench of this Court.", "Now what remains is the deduction under section 80 IA(4).", "The provision reads thus : 80-IA (1) ig This section applies to - any enterprise carrying on the business of (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfills all the following conditions, namely :- (a) it is owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies or by an authority or a board or a corporation or any other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act (b) it has entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for (i) developing or (ii) operating and maintaining or (iii) developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility It has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after the 1st day of April, 1995.", "Provided that where an infrastructure facility is transferred SRP 44/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 by an enterprise which developed such infrastructure facility (hereafter referred to in this section as the transferor enterprise) to another enterprise (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee enterprise) for the purpose of operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on its behalf in accordance with the agreement with the Central Government, State Government, local authority or statutory body, the provisions of this section shall apply to the transferee enterprise as if it were the enterprise to which this clause applies and the deduction from profits and gains would be available to such transferee enterprise for the unexpired period during which the transferor enterprise would have been entitled to the deduction, if the transfer had not taken place.", "Explanation.- For the purposes of this clause, infrastructure facility means- (a) a road including toll road, a bridge or a rail system (b) a highway project including housing or other activities being an integral part of the highway project (c) a water supply project, water treatment system, irrigation project, sanitation and sewerage system or solid waste management system (d) a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea any undertaking which has started or starts providing telecommunication services, whether basic or cellular, including radio paging, domestic satellite service, network of trunking, broadband network and internet services on or after the 1st day of April, 1995, but on or before the 31st day of March, 2005.", "Explanation - For the purposes of this clause, domestic satellite means a satellite owned and operated by an Indian company for providing telecommunication service any undertaking which develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial part or special economic zone notified by the Central Government SRP 45/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc in accordance with the scheme framed and notified by that Government for the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 1997 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2006.", "Provided that in a case where an undertaking develops an industrial park on or after the 1st day of April, 1999 or a special economic zone on or after 1st day of April, 2001 and transfers the operation and maintenance of such industrial park or such special economic zone, as the case may be, to another undertaking (hereafter in this section referred to as the transferee undertaking), the deduction under sub-section (1) shall be allowed to such transferee undertaking for the remaining period in the ten consecutive assessment years as if the operation and maintenance were not so transferred to the transferee undertaking : Provided further that in the case of any undertaking which develops, develops and operates or maintains and operates an industrial park, the provisions of this clause shall have effect as if for the figures, letters and words 31st day of March, 2006, the figures, letters and words 31st day of March, 2011 had been substituted an undertaking which,- (a) is set up in any part of India for the generation or generation and distribution of power it begins to generate power at any time during the period beginning on the 1 st day of April, 1993 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2013 (b) starts transmission or distribution by laying a network of new transmission or distribution lines at any time during the period beginning on 1 st day of April, 1999 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2013.", "Provided that the deduction under this section to an undertaking under sub-clause (b) shall be allowed only in relation to the profits derived from laying of such network of new lines for transmission or distribution (c) undertakes substantial renovation and modernisation of the existing network of transmission or distribution lines SRP 46/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc at any time during the period beginning on the 1st day of April, 2004 and ending on the 31st day of March, 2013.", "Explanation.- For the purposes of this sub-clause, substantial renovation and modernisation means an increase in the plant and machinery in the network of transmission or distribution lines by at least fifty per cent of the book value of such plant and machinery as on the 1 st day of April, 2004 an undertaking owned by an Indian company and set up for reconstruction or revival of a power generating plant, if- (a) such Indian company is formed before the 30 th day of November, 2005 with majority equity participation by public sector companies for the purposes of enforcing the security interest of the lenders to the company owning the power generating plant and such Indian company is notified before the 31st day of December, 2005 by the Central Government for the purposes of this clause (b) such undertaking begins to generate or transmit or distribute power before the 31st day of March, 2011.", "A perusal thereof would indicate as to how the Legislature had in mind deduction in respect of profits and gains from industrial undertakings or enterprises engaged in the infrastructure development etc.", "We are concerned with sub-section (4) and as it read at the relevant time.", "It says that this section applies to any enterprise carrying on the business of developing or operating and maintaining any infrastructure facility which fulfills all the conditions, namely, it is SRP 47/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:36 ::: ITXA523.13.doc owned by a company registered in India or by a consortium of such companies or by an authority or a board or a corporation or any other body established or constituted under any Central or State Act, it has entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a local authority or any other statutory body for developing or operating and maintaining or developing, operating and maintaining a new infrastructure facility and it has started or starts operating and maintaining the infrastructure facility on or after 1st day of April, 1995.", "The explanation defines the infrastructure facility to mean, inter alia, a port, airport, inland waterway, inland port or navigational channel in the sea.", "The word inland port was always there in clause (d).", "What was there prior to its substitution by Finance Act of 2007 with effect from 1st April, 2008, were the words or inland port.", "Now the word or is deleted, but the words are inland port or navigational channel in the sea.", "Thus, an inland port was always within the contemplation of the Legislature and it is treated specifically as a infrastructural facility.", "Therefore, to that extent Mr. Dastur is right in his submission.", "SRP 48/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Mr. Suresh Kumar would urge that when there is an agreement contemplated with the Central Government, then, a specific writing to this effect is necessary which means a document and a mere consent or approval in writing would not suffice.", "In the present case, what the Tribunal and in Special Bench decision has held is that there may be a reference made to a Board clarification dated 6th January, 2011, and prior circulars dated 16 th December, 2005 and 23rd June, 2006 were considered and which clarify that inland container depots and container freight stations are not ports located on any inland water way river or canal and, therefore, they cannot be classified as inland ports for the purpose of section 80-IA(4).", "Equally, the certificate issued by the JNPT having been been withdrawn, the deduction will not be permissible.", "However, after considering these contentions, what the Special Bench observes is that the Delhi High Courts view in the case of Container Corporation of India Limited would enable it to conclude that ICD may not be a port but it is an inland port.", "The case of Container SRP 49/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Freight Station (CFS) is similarly situated in the sense that both carry out similar functions viz. warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from its location to the sea-ports and vice versa by rail or by trucks in containers.", "The issue is no longer res integra.", "The Tribunal also in the judgment under appeal followed this view of the Special Bench and that of the Container Corporation of India (supra).", "The findings to which our attention has been invited by Mr. Suresh Kumar in Appeal Number523 of 2013 arising out of the Tribunals order dated 31st August, 2012, pertaining to assessment year 2008-09 in the case of Continental Warehousing Corporation indicate that the said assessee had informed the Assessing Officer that JNPT had issued a certificate dated 13th July, 2006, to it in accordance with Point Number3 of CBDT circular Number10 dated 16th December, 2005, However, this letter certificate was withdrawn by the JNPT on 5 th October, 2007.", "Secondly, the assessee company has not entered into an agreement with the Central Government or a State Government or a local authority or any other statutory body.", "Therefore, the condition was SRP 50/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc not fulfilled.", "The Commissioner in the appellate order had before him the ground and while dealing with the same, he found that the approval granted by the Ministry of Commerce, Government of India would not constitute an agreement with the Central Government.", "Further, the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, issued a Notification dated 1st January, 2006, notifying the assessee as custodian of imported and exported goods received at the container freight station.", "The various contentions raised in this regard have been referred to by the Commissioner, including that the Ministry of Commerce and Industries granted approval for setting up CFS facility for handling import and export cargo and that the acceptance of the terms and conditions constitute an agreement with the Central Government and all documents in relation thereto have been referred.", "The Commissioner in dealing with these conditions held that CFS facility of the assessee is not an infrastructure facility within the meaning of section 80-IA(4) as there is no agreement entered into with the Government and assessee.", "Therefore, this deduction cannot be claimed.", "The Tribunal noted these contentions and the findings, but relied upon the Special Bench decision in the case of All Cargo Global SRP 51/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Logistics Limited The conclusion is that CFS is an inland port as it carries out functions of warehousing, customs clearance and transport of goods from its location to sea-port and vice versa by rail or by trucks in containers and, therefore, its income is eligible to deduction under section 80-IA(4).", "We have before us a communication from the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry dated 28 th December, 2011, which is addressed to the President of the CFS Association of India.", "It takes note of their grievance and states that the matter was examined in the light of the guidelines and its norms for setting up of inland container depot container freight station in India.", "As per the present norms, operators of these depots and stations who were issued a letter of intent for setting up the same do not require to execute an agreement with the Central Government.", "Even with regard to this issue we find that the circular dated 16th December, 2005, firstly clarifies that there are certain conditions, including the agreement but pertinently on and from the assessment year 2002-03 structures at the ports for storage, loading and unloading etc.", "will be included in the definition of port for purposes of section SRP 52/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc 10(23G) and 80-IA of the Income Tax Act, 1961, if the condition that the concerned port authority has issued a certificate that these structures form part of the port is fulfilled.", "However, when the Delhi High Court was considering this question it referred not only to the factual position but the specific substantial question of law and the activity of the assessee before it carried out mainly on its ICDs (Inland Container Deports), Central Freight Stations and Port Terminals.", "The assessee had 45 container depots spread over the country.", "It is in the business of transporting containerised cargo.", "It may be concerned with the public sector undertaking and functioning directly under the administrative control of the Ministry of Railways, but the activity of the assessee is carried out mainly on the Inland Container Depot, Central Freight Stations and Port Container Terminals spread all over the country.", "The assessee has a total 45 Inland Container Depots.", "The Division Bench of the Delhi High Court then concluded as under : Thus it was for the first time from the assessment year 1999-2000 that inland ports started enjoying the deduction under Section 80IA as an infrastructure facility.", "The object of the Government was to strengthen and improve the countrys infrastructure in general and the transport infrastructure in particular.", "SRP 53/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Inland ports facilitate the transport infrastructure by taking care of the transport of the customs-cleared goods meant for export from the ICD to the sea-port and the imported goods directly from the sea-port to the ICD where they can be customs-cleared.", "When the entire Section was recast by the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1.4.2000 and even after several amendments were thereafter made to the Section, inland ports continued to enjoy the deduction as infrastructure facility.", "The question before us is whether the income from ICDs qualify for the deduction under Section 80IA(4)(i) of the Act read with the Explanation (d).", "We may first notice that out of the total of 45 ICDs operated by the assessee, except two ICDs, all others were notified by the CBDT vide notification Number S.O.744(E) issued on 1st September, 1998 for the purpose of Section 80IA(12)(ca).", "It may be recalled that under this provision, the Board had the power to notify an infrastructure facility for the purpose of the Section.", "The notification is reported in (1999) 233 ITR 126 and is reproduced below:- Notification Number S.O.744(E), September Ist, 1998 - Income-tax Act, 1961: Notification under section 80 - IA(12) (ca) : Inland Container Depot and Central Freight Station notified as infrastructure facility.", "In exercise of the powers conferred by clause (ca) of sub-section (12) of section 80IA of the Income- tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby notifies Inland Container Depot (ICD) and Central Freight Station (CFS) as infrastructure facility : Provided that such places are notified as Inland Container Depot and Central Freight Station under section 7(aa) of the Customs Act, 1962.", "SRP 54/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc The power to notify infrastructure facilities for the purpose of the Section was taken away from the CBDT with effect from 1.4.2002.", "The first argument of the learned counsel for the assessee is that once the ICDs have been notified validly by the CBDT by virtue of the powers conferred upon them, the fact that at a later point of time the power was taken away does not put an end to the validity or effect of the notification and as per the relevant Section as it stood at the time when the notification was issued, the assessee was eligible for the deduction for a period of 10 successive assessment years which covers the assessment years 2003-04 to 2005-06 which are the years under appeal.", "We have examined the contention.", "Prior to the amendment made with effect from 1.4.2002 by the Finance Act, 2001, as noticed earlier, the Board was empowered to notify any public facility of a similar nature, other than what was mentioned as infrastructure facility.", "But an amendment was made and the power to notify was dropped.", "There was no provision made in the Act saying that the notification issued earlier would cease to have effect from 1.4.2002.", "Since the notification continued to have effect even beyond 1.4.2002, there is merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee.", "Circular No. 7/2002, dated 26th August, 2002, reported in (2002) 257 ITR 28 clarified as under: Such projects, for which agreements have been entered into on or after April 1, 1995, but on or before March 31, 2001, and which have been notified by the Board on or before March 31, 2001, would continue to be exempt, subject to the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed in section 80-IA(4)(i)(b), as it existed prior to its substitution by the Finance Act, 2001.", "This circular fortifies the assessees claim.", "The next question that arises is whether the SRP 55/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc ICDs can be considered to be inland ports.", "There is no definition of an inland port in the Act.", "However, a port, which also qualifies for the deduction is defined in Section 3(4) of the Indian Ports Act, 1908 (Act 15 of 1908) to include also any part of a river or channel in which the said Act is for the time being in force.", "The word port is defined in T. Ramanatha Aiyars Law Lexicon, 4th Edition (2010) in a number of ways.", "The most general meaning which is given is that it denotes a harbour or shelter to the vessels from a storm or as a place with a harbour where ships load or unload.", "It has also been defined in the commercial sense as an enclosed place where vessels load and unload goods for export or import.", "Commercially considered, a port is a place where vessels are in the habit of loading and unloading goods.", "The law lexicon also refers to a judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of Amarship Management Pvt.", "Limited v. UOI, (1996) 86 ELT 15 (Bom).", "Port is a place for loading and unloading of cargoes of vessels.", "The word port must be construed in its usual and limited popular or commercial sense as a place where ships are in the habit of coming for the purpose of loading or unloading, embarking or disembarking.", "It does not mean the physical port.", "On this basis, it has been held that an oil rig stationed outside territorial waters is a port where ships call for loading or unloading the goods.", "Amarship Management Pvt.", "Limited v. UOI, (1996) 86 ELT 15 (Bom).", "It is interesting to note that the word port approaches is defined as those ports of the navigable channels leading to the port in which the Indian Ports Act is in force.", "There are several other definitions such as port call, port charges, port mark, port of arrival, port of entry, port of departure, port of call and so on and so forth.", "The whole emphasis however is that whenever the word port is used, it carries with it a maritime connection or connotation.", "That is perhaps why the Section refers separately to airport.", "An airport does not have a maritime SRP 56/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc connection.", "But an airport is also a place where customs clearance are made both for import and export.", "It would be difficult to put the assessees case as falling within the word port having regard to the fact that the word carries with it a maritime connotation.", "The ICDs are land-locked and it is nobodys case that they are located in such a place where ships or vessels have direct access to them.", "The goods which are either removed from or brought into the ICDs are brought or taken away either by railway wagons or by container trucks, as the case may be.", "But it is common ground that customs clearances take place in the ICDs.", "It is, therefore, for consideration as to whether the ICDs can be said to be inland ports for the purposes of the Explanation (d) below sub-section (4) of Section 80IA.", "We were not able to find a definition of the words inland port in any of the dictionaries.", "But the words inland container depot were introduced in Section 2(12) of the Customs Act, 1962, which defines customs port.", "This was by way of an amendment made by the Finance Act, 1983 with effect from 13th May, 1983.", "Simultaneously clause (aa) was inserted in Section 7(1) of the said Act under which the CBEC was empowered to issue notification appointing the places which alone shall be considered as inland container depots for the unloading of imported goods and the loading of exported goods.", "On 24th April, 2007 the following clarification was issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs apparently in response to a query raised by the assessee.", "No. 450/24/2007-Cus.", "IV Government of India Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue Central Board of Excise Customs New Delhi, April 24th, 2007 SRP 57/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc To, Ms P. Alli Rani, Executive Director (Finance), Container Corporation of India Limited, CONCOR Bhawan, C-3, Mathura Road, Opp.", "Appolo Hospital, New Delhi-110076.", "Subject : Clarification regarding Inland Port - regarding Kindly refer to your letter CON FA/128/Vol-2/80IA/2003- 04 dated 18.04.2007 seeking clarification regarding Inland Port.", "It is stated that as per Customs Act, 1962 section 2(12) defines Customs port as any port appointed under clause (a) of section 7 to be a customs port and includes Inland Container Depot (ICD) appointed under clause (aa) of section 7.", "Container Freight Stations (CFSs) are Customs area attached to a port.", "The work related to Customs is performed at these ICDs CFSs.", "Accordingly, ICDs and CFSs (i.e. Customs area of port) are Inland Ports.", "M. Parthiban) Director (Customs) Ph-23093908 Copy to, Shri Jagdeep Goel, Director ITA-I, CBDT.", "We have found that there is a specific reference made by the Delhi High Court to the communication dated 24 th April, 2007, from the Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of SRP 58/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc Revenue.", "These are then classified as inland ports and categorised accordingly.", "There is a further communication from the Ministry of Commerce and Industry as well.", "We do not find that a view different than the one taken by the Delhi High Court is possible.", "Bearing in mind the facilities that are extended and for purposes of loading, unloading, storage and warehousing of the goods that the facility is a infrastructure facility.", "That it has easy accessibility to the port and particularly the sea-port gives it certain advantages and benefits and which clearly accrue to those using the port for import and export of cargo.", "Further, the location thereof is also a relevant factor as noted.", "In such circumstances, the reliance by the Special Bench and equally by the Bench of the Tribunal in the impugned orders on the Division Bench judgment of the Delhi High Court is thus well placed.", "We do not find that anything other and further than this material is relied.", "However, even the High Court of Judicature at Madras has referred in its Division Bench decision to the view taken by the Delhi High Court.", "The Division Bench in paragraphs 10 and 12 of its judgment extensively referred to the Tribunals conclusions.", "It also SRP 59/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc referred to the Special Bench decision of the Tribunal.", "Thus, when the proposal to set up a CFS has been accepted by the Government, there is no requirement of either a specific agreement as contended by Mr. Suresh Kumar.", "Nor can it be said that by virtue of any certification of the JNPT and its subsequent withdrawal the position undergoes any change.", "Once the facility is nothing but a infrastructural facility set up and within the precincts of the port, then, considering and even otherwise having considered its proximity to the sea port and its activities that we have no doubt and it can be safely concluded that the deduction admissible under sub-section (4) of section 80-IA can be claimed by both the ICDs and CFSs.", "We do not think that the view taken by the Tribunal is in any way perverse or runs contrary to the language of sub-section (4) of section 80-IA or the object of the Income Tax Act, 1961, as a whole.", "Once such a conclusion is reached, then, it is not necessary to refer to any other material, particularly any circulars of the Board or otherwise or the certificates issued by the authorities.", "Even their contents need not be referred to.", "We are of the view that the extensive reasoning in SRP 60/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 ::: ITXA523.13.doc the judgment of the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court and which finds approval even of the High Court of Madras and with which we broadly agree that the substantial questions of law on both counts need to be answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue.", "We, therefore, dismiss the Revenue appeals and answer the substantial questions of law against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee.", "There shall be no order as to costs.", "K. MENON, J. S.C. DHARMADHIKARI , J. SRP 61/61 ::: Downloaded on - 07/05/2015 20:55:37 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2015_738", "text": ["On the earlier occasion, we had heard both sides extensively and referred to the pleadings.", "The matter was placed today for passing orders.", "Page 1 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc Rule.", "Respondents waive service.", "Since extensive arguments were canvassed and pleadings are complete, that by consent of both sides, we make the Rule returnable forthwith.", "By this Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner prays for issuance of writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ, order or direction calling for the records of the Petitioners case pertaining to the notice dated 24 th January, 2014 issued by Respondent Number 2 invoking section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the IT Act) and the order dated 21 st January, 2015 (Annexure B) and, further relief is that upon scrutiny thereof, this Court should quash and set aside the same.", "The other relief is that the Respondents be restrained and prohibited from proceeding in furtherance of this notice and the impugned order and reassessing the alleged income escaping assessment.", "We are required to refer to very few facts to appreciate the arguments of both sides.", "The Petitioner is a private limited company having its registered office at the address mentioned in the cause title.", "For the assessment year 2010-11, return of income was filed on 15 th September, 2010 declaring a business loss of Rs.1,61,793/- under Page 2 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc section 28 of the IT Act and booking loss amounting to Rs.1,22,95,221/- under section 115JB of the IT Act.", "The relevant and material aspect of this return is that in it Rs. 1,21,33,429/- was shown as book value of the shares transferred by way of gift.", "The case of the Petitioner was that in terms of memorandum of association of the Petitioner, it gifted 9,39,980 equity shares of United Phosphorus Limited and 93,400 shares of Uniphos Enterprises Limited.", "Both being companies, in which public are substantially interested.", "These shares were transferred to one M section Nerka Chemicals Private Limited.", "There was a transfer agreement dated 26th February, 2010.", "The book value of the said shares was Rs.1,21,33,429/-.", "As a consequence of the gift, this sum was debited to the Profit and Loss Account for the year ended 31 st March, 2010.", "However, the Petitioners case is that the book value of these shares was added back to the total income and not claimed as deduction while computing the income chargeable under the head profits and gains from business or profession.", "The Petitioner is relying upon point Number23 of column A of Schedule BP at page 13 of the return of income.", "This return was initially processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act.", "The Assessing Officer accepted the loss computed by the Petitioner in the return.", "There was a communication dated 24 th February, 2011.", "Page 3 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc However, no regular assessment order was made under section 143(3) of the IT Act.", "Subsequently, on 28 th January, 2014, a notice under section 148 of the IT Act proposing to reassess the income of the Petitioner, for the assessment year 2010-11, was issued alleging that income has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act.", "The Petitioner addressed a letter on 3 rd February, 2014 requesting the second Respondent to provide the reasons recorded and which led to the issuance of the notice.", "On 22 nd April, 2014, a communication was addressed by the second Respondent to the Petitioner, under which, the reasons were communicated.", "Annexure G is a copy of this letter.", "The claim of the Petitioner is that no opportunity to raise objections came to be provided and a notice under section 143(2) of the IT Act dated 2 nd May, 2014, calling upon the Petitioner to furnish information and attend the office of the second Respondent, was issued.", "The Petitioner filed detailed objections and pointed out that the income accrued to it as a consequence of the gift cannot be termed as transfer within the meaning of section 47(iii) of the IT Act.", "The Petitioner objected to the reopening of the assessment by pointing out that there has been no understatement of the income nor there is any Page 4 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc claim of excessive loss, deduction by which it can be alleged that there is an income which is chargeable to tax escaping assessment.", "In the circumstances, it prayed that the proceedings be dropped.", "The Petitioner submitted that without these objections being dealt with, a notice under section 142(1) of the IT Act dated 20th November, 2014 was issued, calling upon the Petitioner to submit books of account and other documents.", "That is in support of the return of income.", "Some information was also called for. 9) Subsequently on 21st January, 2015, the impugned order came to be passed rejecting the objections.", "Mr. Pardiwalla-learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits that the Respondents could not have invoked this power of reopening the assessment on a mere change of opinion.", "Apart from that, he invited our attention to the contents of the notice and submits that the notice does not indicate any reasons and for the belief that income chargeable to tax for assessment year 2010-11 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act.", "Pardiwalla would submit that the purported reasons, copy of which is at page 89 of the paper book, are nothing but a reiteration of the position emerging from the return.", "It is clear from the reasons supplied that the return of income filed by the Assessee for the assessment year Page 5 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc 2009-10 was verified.", "In that, long term capital gains from investment in shares amounting to Rs.1,54,81,620/- and dividend income of Rs.9,74,420/- was disclosed.", "However, for the assessment year 2010- 11, the Assessee has shown long term capital gain of Rs.33,48,191/- and dividend income of Rs.14,44,763/-.", "It also showed a sum of Rs.1,21,33,429/- as gift.", "Mr. Pardiwalla states that this is nothing but reiteration of the figures and the statements made in the return of income.", "Mr. Pardiwalla then submits that the Department Revenue proceeded on the footing that the Assessee had gifted these shares without any consideration.", "All that the reasons supplied indicate is that the Revenue wants to verify this fact and in terms of section 47(iii) of the IT Act.", "It also wants to verify whether the value of these shares has been computed on the market rate as on the date of such transfer.", "Mr. Pardiwalla submits that this cannot be termed as reasons for the belief and enabling reopening of the assessment.", "A mere communication and asking for some clarification so also proposing verification of what has been already supplied and is on record cannot be enough to resort to the powers under section 147 of the IT Act.", "Mr. Pardiwalla submits that the principal condition for invoking section 147 of the IT Act is that during the assessment year in question income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "This principal condition is not satisfied and it is apparent from reading of these reasons.", "If the Respondents failed to Page 6 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc indicate as to how acceptance of the assessees version on the gift without any consideration, results in any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment, then, they could not have resorted to the above power.", "There is no reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the Respondents themselves refer to section 47(iii) of the IT Act.", "In the circumstances, the attempt of the Revenue should not be sustained.", "Mr. Pardiwalla places strong reliance upon two Division Bench Judgments of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Smt.", "Maniben Valji Shah reported in (2006) 283 ITR 453 and Prashant section Joshi and Anr.", "vs Income Tax Officer reported in (2010) 324 ITR 154.", "Our attention is also invited to an order passed in Writ Petition Number 11911 of 2013 on 25th March, 2014.", "In such circumstances, Mr. Pardiwalla would submit that the Writ Petition be allowed, as the issuance of notice is not in accordance with law.", "The notice is ex-facie bad in law and the proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction.", "The Petitioner there should not be forced to go through the process and await the outcome of reassessment.", "Mr. Pardiwalla would submit that once the principal condition is not satisfied, then, at the threshold the notice be quashed.", "Page 7 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc On the other hand, Mr. Vimal Gupta-learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Department Respondents would submit that there is no merit in this Writ Petition.", "In the affidavit in reply as also prior thereto in the communications referred in the Writ Petition, it has been pointed out that no regular assessment order was made under section 143(3) of the IT Act.", "Intimation issued under section 143(1) cannot be treated as an order of assessment.", "Once the intimation was received from the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 38, Mumbai by letter dated 19th December, 2003 that the Petitioner had transferred 10,33,380 shares, whose market value on the date of transfer was 14,86,85,700/-, without consideration to M section Nerka Chemicals Limited by way of a transfer deed dated 26 th February, 2010, then, the balance sheet of the Petitioner was scrutinised.", "On scrutiny and perusal thereof and which is of the year ended 31 st March, 2009 and 31st March, 2010, it was noticed that the long term investment of M section Nivi Trading Limited had reduced.", "The Assessee debited an amount of Rs.1,21,33,429/- as gift in its profit and loss account.", "Thus, these facts cumulatively prove that the Assessee has transferred the capital asset without any consideration and hence avoided the resultant capital gains culminating in escapement of income.", "Thereafter, the procedural formalities and of obtaining approval, recording of satisfaction were completed and the assessment was reopened.", "In Page 8 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc response to this notice under section 148 of the IT Act, the Petitioner, by its letter dated 3rd February, 2014, requested the Assessing Officer to treat the original return of income filed as a return of income filed under section 147 of the IT Act and also made a request to the Assessing Officer to provide the reasons for reopening the assessment.", "Mr. Gupta would therefore submit that the objections raised by the Petitioner to the reopening could not have been accepted and have been rightly rejected or disallowed.", "The so called gift made by the Petitioner is nothing but a transaction for the purpose of avoiding the capital gains tax.", "It is common ground that the transferee M section Nerka Chemicals Private Limited is also a private limited company.", "Thus, this transfer was nothing but avoiding paying a tax on the income which is chargeable as such.", "That is why the assessment was reopened.", "Mr. Gupta relied strongly upon the language of section 147 and prior thereto the provisions of sections 142 and 143 to submit that once there has been no assessment in this case, then, the question of the same being reopened really does not arise.", "Without prejudice and in the alternative, it is submitted that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and that is a factor on which the belief is based.", "The reasons supplied fully disclose as to how the income chargeable to tax shall also be deemed to be escaping assessment.", "In this case, a Page 9 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc return of income was furnished by the Assessee but no assessment has been made and it is noticed by the Assessing Officer that the Assessee has understated the income.", "Therefore, the reopening of the assessment was fully permissible.", "Mr. Gupta therefore justified the issuance of notice and by relying upon the law laid down by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax vs Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt.", "Limited reported in (2007) 291 ITR 500.", "He would therefore submit that the Writ Petition be dismissed, as the Petitioner can appear before the Assessing Officer produce the requisite material and in the event adverse order is passed, challenge it in accordance with law.", "At this stage, this Court should not interfere.", "With the assistance of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for both sides, we have perused the Writ Petition, the relevant Annexures and the decisions brought to our notice.", "In the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court, which has been relied upon by Mr. Gupta Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt.", "Limited (supra), the Honble Supreme Court was concerned with a case where a private limited company filed its return of income for assessment year 2001-02.", "That was filed on 30 th October, 2001 declaring loss at a certain figure.", "The return was processed under section 143(1) of the IT Act and the loss returned was accepted.", "A notice under section 148 of Page 10 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc the IT Act was issued on the ground that claim of bad debts as expenditure was not acceptable.", "The return of income was filed under protest declaring a loss at the same figure as in the original return by the Assessee.", "He sought for the copy of the reasons recorded and they were supplied to the Assessee in November, 2004.", "The Assessee raised various objections, both on jurisdiction and the merits of the reasons recorded.", "These objections were disposed of and because they were rejected that the notice under section 148 of the IT Act was challenged by the Assessee before the Gujarat High Court.", "The said Writ Petition was allowed by a Division Bench of that High Court and that is why the Revenue approached the Honble Supreme Court in Appeal.", "The argument of both sides and the reliance upon case law have been noted in the Judgment of the Honble Supreme Court up to paragraph 8.", "In para 9, section 143(1) as stood before and after amendment with effect from June 1, 1999 and sections 147 and 148 (after amendment) of the IT Act have been reproduced together with the Explanations.", "In paras 12 and 13, the Honble Supreme Court has held as under:- 12 What were permissible under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a) to be adjusted were, (i) only apparent arithmetical error in the return, accounts or documents accompanying the return, (ii) loss carried forward, deduction, allowance or relief, which was prima facie admissible on the basis of information available in the return but not claimed in the return and similarly (iii) those claims Page 11 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc which were on the basis of the information available in the return, prima facie inadmissible, were to be rectified allowed disallowed.", "What was permissible was correction of errors apparent on the basis of the documents accompanying the return.", "The Assessing Officer had no authority to make adjustments or adjudicate upon any debatable issues.", "In other words, the Assessing Officer had no power to go behind the return, accounts or documents, either in allowing or in disallowing deductions, allowance or relief.", "13 One thing further to be noticed is that intimation under section 143(1)(a) is given without prejudice to the provisions of section 143(2).", "Though technically the intimation issued was deemed to be a demand notice issued under section 156, that did not per se preclude the right of the Assessing Officer to proceed under section 143(2).", "That right is preserved and is not taken away.", "Between the period from April 1, 1989, and March 31, 1998, the second proviso to section 143(1)(a), required that where adjustments were made under the first proviso to section 143(1) (a), an intimation had to be sent to the assessee notwithstanding that no tax or refund was due from him after making such adjustments.", "With effect from April 1, 1998, the second proviso to section 143(1)(a) was substituted by the Finance Act, 1997, which was operative till June 1, 1999.", "The requirement was that an intimation was to be sent to the assessee whether or not any adjustment had been made under the first proviso to section 143(1) and notwithstanding that no tax or interest was found due from the assessee concerned.", "Between April 1, 1998, and May 31, 1999, sending of an intimation under section 143(1)(a) was mandatory.", "Thus, the legislative intent is very clear from the use of the word intimation as substituted for assessment that two different concepts emerged.", "While making an assessment, the Assessing Officer is free to make any addition after grant of opportunity to the assessee.", "By making adjustments under the first proviso to section 143(1)(a), no addition which is impermissible by the information given in the return could be made by the Assessing Officer.", "The reason is that under section 143(1)(a) no opportunity is granted to the assessee and the Assessing Officer proceeds on his opinion on the basis of the return filed by the assessee.", "The very fact that no opportunity of being heard is given under section 143(1)(a) indicates that the Assessing Officer has to proceed accepting the return and making the permissible adjustments only.", "As a result of insertion of the Explanation to section 143 by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991 with effect from October 1, 1991, and subsequently with effect from June 1, 1994, by the Finance Act, 1994, and ultimately omitted with effect from June 1, 1999, by the Explanation as introduced by the Finance (No. 2) Act of 1991 an intimation sent to the assessee under section 143(1)(a) was Page 12 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc deemed to be an order for the purposes of section 246 between June 1, 1994 and May 31, 1999, and under section 264 between October 1, 1991, and May 31, 1999.", "It is to be noted that the expressions intimation and assessment order have been used at different places.", "The contextual difference between the two expressions has to be understood in the context the expressions are used.", "Assessment is used as meaning sometimes the computation of income, sometimes the determination of the amount of tax payable and sometimes the whole procedure laid down in the Act for imposing liability upon the tax payer.", "In the scheme of things, as noted above, the intimation under section 143(1)(a) cannot be treated to be an order of assessment.", "The distinction is also well brought out by the statutory provisions as they stood at different points of time.", "Under section 143(1)(a) as it stood prior to April 1, 1989, the Assessing Officer had to pass an assessment order if he decided to accept the return, but under the amended provision, the requirement of passing of an assessment order has been dispensed with and instead an intimation is required to be sent.", "Various circulars sent by the Central Board of Direct Taxes spell out the intent of the Legislature, i.e., to minimize the Departmental work to scrutinize each and every return and to concentrate on selective scrutiny of returns.", "These aspects were highlighted by one of us K. Jain J.) in Apogee International Limited v. Union of India 1996 220 ITR 248 (Delhi).", "It may be noted above that under the first proviso to the newly substituted section 143(1), with effect from June 1, 1999, except as provided in the provision itself, the acknowledgment of the return shall be deemed to be an intimation under section 143(1) where (a) either no sum is payable by the assessee, or (b) no refund is due to him.", "It is significant that the acknowledgment is not done by any Assessing Officer, but mostly by ministerial staff.", "Can it be said that any assessment is done by them? The reply is an emphatic number The intimation under section 143(1)(a) was deemed to be a notice of demand under section 156, for the apparent purpose of making machinery provisions relating to recovery of tax applicable.", "By such application only recovery indicated to be payable in the intimation became permissible.", "And nothing more can be inferred from the deeming provision.", "Therefore, there being no assessment under section 143(1)(a), the question of change of opinion, as contended, does not arise.", "The Honble Supreme Court thus held that section 147 authorises and permits the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess the income chargeable to tax, if he has reason to believe that income Page 13 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "The word reason in the phrase reason to believe would mean cause or justification.", "If the Assessing Officer has cause or justification to know or suppose that income had escaped assessment, it can be said to have reason to believe that an income had escaped assessment.", "The expression cannot be read to mean that the Assessing Officer should have finally ascertained the fact by legal evidence or conclusion.", "Thus, at that stage, what is required is reason to believe, but not the established fact of escapement of income.", "At the stage of issuance of notice, the only question is whether there was relevant material on which a reasonable person could have formed a requisite belief.", "Whether the materials would conclusively prove the escapement is not the concern at that stage.", "The substantive satisfaction in that case of the Assessing Officer was therefore wrongly interfered with by the Gujarat High Court is the view taken by the Honble Supreme Court.", "All these legal principles are undisputed.", "They go to show, as Mr. Gupta emphasises, that there should be a reason to believe that in the relevant assessment year income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "We are of the view that in the present case, the reasons recorded fall short of this test.", "There is no dispute that a return of income was filed by the Petitioner Assessee.", "The return of income so filed could have been Page 14 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc subjected to verification and scrutiny and in terms of the applicable law and sections in the Income Tax Act, 1961 itself.", "However, if this notice has been issued in the present case and on the footing that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment during the course of the assessment proceedings, then, we would not go by the stand taken by the Revenue and on affidavit and reiterated by Mr. Gupta.", "It is too late now to urge that there was no assessment and therefore no question arises of reopening thereof.", "In the light of the language of the notice itself, it would not be proper for us and to permit the Revenue to raise such a plea.", "The notice impugned in this case reads as under:- NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 No. ITO 7(1)(1)/148/2013-14 Office of the Income Tax Officer, Ward 7(1)(1), Room Number 670, Aayakar Bhavan, K.Road, Mumbai - 400020 Date 24.01.2014 To, The Principal Officer, M section Nivi Trading Limited 4th Floor, Ready Money Terrace, 167, Dr. A. B. Road, Mumbai - 400018.", "PAN: AAACN2703L Whereas I have reason to believe that your income in respect of which you are assessable chargeable to tax for the A. Y. 2010-2011 has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "I, therefore, propose to assess for the said assessment year and I hereby require you to deliver to me within 30 days from the date of service of this notice, a return in the prescribed form of your Income in respect of which you are assessable for the said assessment year.", "(TANVI S SAVANT) Income Tax Officer 7(1)(1), Mumbai.", "Page 15 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc When this was objected to by the Petitioner Assessee and sought the reasons, what the Petitioner was provided with are the reasons and which read as under:- Reasons for reopening u section 147 in the case of M section NIVI TRADING LTD.", "A. Y. 2010-11 It is verified from the Return of Income filed by the assessee for A. Y. 2009-10 that it had shown LTCG from investments in shares amounting to Rs.1,54,81,620/- and had shown dividend of Rs.9,74,420/-.", "During the A. Y. 2010-11, assessee had shown LTCG of Rs.33,48,191/- and dividend income of Rs.14,44,763/- and shown Rs.1,21,33,429/- as gift.", "Hence, it is seen that assessee had gifted these shares without any consideration.", "This fact needs to be verified as per section 47(iii) of the I. T. Act.", "Also it has to be verified whether the value of these shares have been computed on the market rate as on the date of such transfer.", "Hence, I have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax amounting to Rs.1,21,33,429/- as per provision u section 147 of the Act has escaped assessment in this case for A. Y. 2010-11.", "Issue Notice u section 148 of the I. T. Act.", "Dated: 24/01/2014 (TANVI section SAVANT) Income-Tax Officer 7(1)(1), Mumbai.", "In the light of this factual position, it would not be proper for us to permit the Revenue to take a contrary stand.", "We are of the opinion that in the present case, the contents of the notice as reproduced above and the reasons recorded, the objections and the order rejecting them are enough to turn down the first submission of Mr. Gupta.", "Page 16 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc Insofar as the second aspect is concerned and which has really arisen for our determination and consideration, we find that the return of income was filed.", "There was a processing and verification thereof.", "In the return of income and on the own showing of the Respondents, on its verification, the long term capital gains and dividend income in the sum came to be disclosed and equally another sum (Rs.1,21,33,429/-) as gift.", "The Revenue proceeds on the footing that these shares were gifted without consideration.", "It is this fact which it wants to verify and particularly whether the value of these shares has been computed on the market value.", "The Petitioner objected to this and pointed out that all the material facts were disclosed truly and fully.", "All the amounts, as reflecting in the return, were set out and with the explanations.", "This is nothing but a version given by the Petitioner that no income accrued or has arisen from the transfer of shares since that has been made voluntarily and without any consideration.", "The Assessee pointed out in its objections and on merits that the voluntary transfer of shares without any consideration would qualify as gift and it would be treated as exempt transfer.", "It relied upon clause (iii) of section 47 of the IT Act.", "Apart therefrom and without in any manner giving up its challenge to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer, it pointed out that there is no understatement of income or claim of loss, deduction allowance in the return of income.", "Thus, there is no question Page 17 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:22 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc of any income chargeable to tax escaping assessment.", "More so, when the amount of Rs.1,21,33,429/- had been added back while computing the total income.", "It is this stand of the Petitioner and which to our mind would fall within the parameters of the principles and emerging from a reading of the Judgment of this Court.", "In the case of Smt.", "Maniben Valji Shah (supra) this Court emphasised that the important words in section 147 of the IT Act are has reason to believe and they are stronger than the words is satisfied.", "The belief entertained by the Income Tax Officer must not be arbitrary or irrational.", "It must be reasonable or in other words it must be based on reasons which are relevant and material.", "While the Court cannot investigate into the adequacy or sufficiency of the reasons which have weighed with the Income Tax Officer in coming to the belief, but the Court can certainly examine whether the reasons are relevant and have a bearing on the matter in regard to which he is required to entertain the belief before he can issue notice under section 147(a).", "If there is no rational and intelligible nexus between the reasons and the belief, so that, on such reasons, no one properly instructed on the facts and law could reasonably entertain the belief, then, the exercise undertaken by the Income Tax Officer can be interfered with.", "Page 18 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:23 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc In the said case as well the notice was issued under the said provision for reopening of the assessment because the return of income showed certain income declared.", "However, a capital gain of the assessee revealed purchase of a flat, for which no details were filed along with the details of income, namely, the purchase agreement, source of funds and therefore, in absence thereof, the assessment was proposed to be reopened.", "It is in that regard that this Court has held as under:- Having heard Shri Desai, learned senior counsel for the appellant, as well as Shri Bhujale, learned counsel for the respondent, it is an admitted position that the assessee had invested a sum of Rs.2,50,000 for the purpose of purchasing the flat and what was sought to be investigated was the source of income.", "A bare perusal of the aforesaid notice dated October 10, 1991, clearly indicates that the officer was wanting to know the details with regard to the source of funds with regard to purchase of the said flat for a sum of Rs.2,50,000/-.", "Obviously in the above, there is no question of the Assessing Officer having any basis to reasonably entertain the belief that any part of the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and that such escapement was by reason of omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "Thus, if more details are sought or some verification is proposed that cannot be a substitute for the reasons and which led the Assessing Officer to believe that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "We are not in agreement with Mr. Gupta because the clear language of section 147 of the IT Act reveals that if the Assessing Officer Page 19 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:23 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc has reason to believe that any income has escaped assessment, then, he can resort to such power.", "While it is true, as Mr. Gupta argued, that sub-section (1) of section 148 of the IT Act enables issuance of notice before the assessment, reassessment or re-computation under section 147 of the IT Act, but that is dealing with the service of the notice.", "The principal condition for issuance of notice is to be found in section 147 of the IT Act and that is on the reason to belief that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, then, the Assessing Officer may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be.", "In the present case, the Respondents do not state that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "All that the Revenue desires is verification of certain details and pertaining to the gift.", "That is not founded on the belief that any income which is chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and hence, such verification is necessary.", "That belief is not recorded and which alone would enable the Assessing Officer to proceed.", "Thus, the reasons must be founded on the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "Once that is not to be found, then, we are not Page 20 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:23 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc in a position to sustain the impugned notice.", "Having reproduced the same and contents thereof being clear, it is not possible to agree with Mr. Gupta that this Court should not interfere at the threshold.", "We find additionally that in the affidavit in reply the Revenue has stated that the concept of gift prevails between two individual persons out of love and affection, which does not prevail in the case of companies.", "In the case of companies, the financial transaction exists to earn profit and the transaction of the so called gift made by the Assessee is only for the purpose of avoiding capital gains tax.", "This is a stand taken in the affidavit in reply but what we find is that the gift without any consideration and as noted in the reasons recorded and supplied has not been termed as one which attracts any tax or which is chargeable to tax and therefore there is any income which has escaped assessment.", "In other words, the amount of Rs.1,21,33,429/- shown as gift has not been termed as an income and which is chargeable to tax and which has escaped assessment.", "All that is required from the Assessee is a verification and in terms of section 47(iii) of the IT Act and for enabling it, the Assessee was called upon to appear before the Assessing Officer.", "Thus, it is for verification of the value of these shares and whether the computation is on the market rate on the date of such transfer.", "This, to our mind, would not in any Page 21 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:23 ::: WP.2314.2015.Oral Judgment.doc manner enable the Revenue Respondents to resort to section 147 of the IT Act.", "In the view that we have taken above, it is not necessary to refer to other Judgments relied upon by Mr. Pardiwalla and which also reiterate the settled principle that the reasons ought to be recorded on the date of the issuance of the notice and which must disclose the requisite satisfaction.", "The reasons as recorded cannot then be substituted or supplemented by filing an affidavit in the Court.", "Thus, additional reasons cannot be supplied and on affidavit.", "We are of the view that it is not necessary to refer to this principle any further in the facts and circumstances of the present case.", "As a result of the above discussion, this Writ Petition succeeds.", "Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer clause (a).", "The notice under section 148(1) is quashed and set aside.", "There would be no order as to costs.", "K.MENON, J.) (S.C.DHARMADHIKARI, J.) Page 22 of 22 V.Salunke,PA ::: Downloaded on - 11/04/2015 00:00:23 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1969_129", "text": ["B. Mukharji, J. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal has referred two points of law in the following manner, for answer by this court under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961: At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax--Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a proper interpretation of Section 271(1)(iii) and Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the Tribunal was right in reducing the penalty imposed on the assessee below the minimum prescribed under Section 271(1)(iii) of the said Act ? At the instance of the assessee- Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty proceedings were properly initiated and that the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were valid in law ? The facts of this reference as appearing in the statement of the case may be briefly summarised as follows : The assessee is an individual.", "The assessment years concerned in this reference are 1955-56 to 1962-63.", "The original assessments for these years were completed on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee.", "Subsequently, some time in 1963 the Income-tax Officer received information that during these years there were substantial deposits in the assessees account in the Hindustan Commercial Bank Limited, Netaji Subhas Road Branch, amounting to about Rs. 2,26,000.", "The Income-tax Officer required the assessee to explain the deposits in his account in the said bank.", "Thereafter, the assessee made full disclosure of the deposits either in his name or in the names of other persons in this account during those assessment years to the extent of Rs. 3,70,208.", "What is more, the assessee also admitted that these were his concealed income.", "The Income-tax Officer took proceedings under Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for reassessment of the assessees escaped income for these years.", "In response to the notices issued, the assessee filed returns giving full details of the deposits in his bank account in respect of those years.", "The Income-tax Officer passed orders of assessment under Section 143(3)/147 for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1962-63 on the 31st August, 1964, on the basis of the returns filed by the assessee.", "From the orders of penalty of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner it appears that the total escaped income assessed in those reassessment proceedings came to Rs. 4,29,624 and the tax sought to be evaded in respect thereof came to Rs. 3,21,820.", "The Income-tax Officer in the assessment orders made on the 31st August, 1964, recorded that proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) have already been started separately.", "From the order-sheet of such assessment proceedings it also appears that on the 31st August, 1964, the Income-tax Officer gave direction for issue of show cause notice under Sections 274/271.", "There is also an entry in the order-sheet dated 29th August, 1964, to the effect that notice under Sections 274/271 was issued to the assessee and the cases were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "It also appears from the statement of the case that a copy of the aforesaid notice dated 29th August, 1964, was served on Shri B. B. Das, the assessees accountant and authorised representative, who was present in the income-office and the receipt of such notice had been acknowledged by the said Shri B. B. Das by putting his signature on a copy thereof.", "The intimation regarding the transfer of the case was received at the Inspecting Assistant Commissioners office on the 29th August, 1964.", "It also appears that a further notice was issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 274(1) requiring the assessee to show cause why the penalty should not be imposed and the hearing was fixed on the 22nd September, 1964.", "The demand notices in respect of the reassessment for the years 1955-56 to 1962-63 were served on the assessee on the 12th September, 1964, while assessment orders for these years were received by the assessee on the 24th September, 1964.", "The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner came to the finding that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income at the time of the original assessment and that the penal proceedings were attracted to his case.", "But in consideration of the co-operation extended by the assessee subsequently in the matter of reassessment proceedings, he restricted the amounts of the penalty to 33 1/3 per cent.", "of the tax sought to be evaded.", "The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gave reasons for his decision in his order under Sections 274(2)/271(1)(c) for the assessment year 1955-56 while in his order for the other years he followed his earlier orders and mentioned the amount of penalty determined for those years.", "From this order of penalty the assessee appealed to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.", "In the original ground filed by the assessee he prayed for mitigation of the amounts of penalty.", "But with the leave of the Tribunal the assessee urged the additional ground before it, namely, that the penalty proceedings, not having been commenced in the course of the assessment proceedings, the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were bad in law.", "The point of that submission is that under Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, penalty proceedings must be commenced before the completion of the assessment proceedings.", "In this case the assessment proceedings were completed by the passing of the assessment orders on the 31st August, 1964, and as the notices to show cause under Section 274(2) were issued by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the 11th March, 1965, the penalty proceedings were void.", "In addition or rather in the alternative it was also contended by the assessee before the Tribunal that even if the penalty proceedings were held to commence on the issue of the notices by the Income-tax Officer under Section 274(1), as such notices were served on the 2nd September, 1964, the penalty proceedings were still bad in law.", "The revenue, on the other hand, contended before the Tribunal that the penalty proceedings commenced with the Income-tax Officers satisfaction and direction to issue a show cause notice to the assessee.", "Therefore, the revenue contended that such satisfaction was recorded and such direction was given on the 29th August, 1964, and, hence, the penalty proceedings were commenced in time.", "Following a former decision of another Bench of the Tribunal in I.T.A. Number 11877 of 1964-65 the Tribunal in this case held that the penalty proceedings commenced on a reference being made by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) and as such reference was made on the 29th August, 1964, and the notice of the transfer was given to the assessee on that date, the penalty proceedings were properly initiated and the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were valid in law.", "But the Tribunal accepted the alternative contention of the assessee, namely, that the quantum of the penalties was excessive.", "The Tribunal repelled the contention of the revenue that the minimum of 20 per cent.", "of the tax evaded as representing the penalty under Section 271(1)(iii) was not applicable either to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner acting under Section 274 or to the Tribunal hearing appeals from penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in such proceedings.", "The Tribunal held that the powers of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose a penalty were not confined by the provision of Section 271(1)(iii) and there can be no restriction on the powers of the Tribunal in hearing appeals from the orders of penalty imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "As a result, the Tribunal reduced the amounts of the penalty much below the 20 per cent.", "limit.", "On those facts the questions set out above have been referred to this court for an answer.", "Long and elaborate arguments have been advanced from the Bar both by the assessee and the revenue, supported by the usual wealth of citations of case law.", "There are certain preliminary points which require disposal at first.", "One is a matter of the form in which questions have been raised by the Tribunal in this reference and the statement of case.", "The question is, is it proper that the Tribunal should say while stating the question, At the instance of the assessee and At the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax? This point may be disposed of briefly.", "Reference to this court is controlled by Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The governing words in Section 256(1) of the Act on this point are, inter alia : The Appellate Tribunal shall within one hundred and twenty days of the receipt of such application, draw up a statement of the case and refer it to the High Court.", "In acting under Section 256(1) the Tribunal acts at the instance of the assessee or the Commissioner no doubt.", "The Tribunal cannot act suo motu.", "Once the Tribunal is moved either by the assessee or the Commissioner in the manner laid down under Section 256(1) of the Act, which require the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising out of such order, and subject to the other provisions contained in this section, the Tribunal has two courses open : either it shall refer as indicated above or it can refuse to refer in which event Section 256(2) will operate.", "It appears that when the Tribunal refers a case under Section 256(1).", "it must have to be satisfied that a question of law fit for reference to the High Court arises.", "That responsibility and that satisfaction must belong to the Tribunal.", "Therefore, the question raised in the statement of the case and referred to the High Court for an answer must in essence be the questions of the Tribunal and implies that the Tribunal is satisfied that a question of law has arisen.", "It is therefore inappropriate in such context when the Tribunal does refer the question of law under Section 256(1) to say that it is doing so at the instance of either the assessee or the revenue or the Commissioner of Income-tax.", "It is unnecessary to say anything further on this point.", "But the other preliminary point raises a more important question.", "That question, in short, is: Can the Tribunal raise a question of law under Section 256(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, where there is no application by the aggrieved party as required and within the time thereunder ? Mr. Pal on behalf of the revenue contends that this practice is illegal but has been growing unnoticed without a formal decision by the courts deciding the exact point of controversy.", "The point arises directly in this case because the assessee did not make any application to raise question Number 2 asked before the Tribunal.", "What the assessee did was to state it in reply to the application made by the Commissioner of Income-tax raising question Number 1.", "The point is: Can it be done ? It is contended by Mr. Pal on behalf of the revenue that this cannot be done and should not be permitted by the court.", "He emphasizes the expression by application in the prescribed form, accompanied where the application is made by the assessee by a fee of Rs. 100 in Section 256(1) of the Act.", "The relevant portion of Section 256(1) of the Act on this point is, barring the unnecessary details for this purpose, as follows : The assessee or the Commissioner may, within 60 days of the date upon which he is served with notice of an order under Section 254, and by such application in the prescribed form require the Appellate Tribunal to refer the same to the High Court.", "No doubt the word used is may.", "But being a statutory procedure, this is the only procedure by which the assessee or the Commissioner may move in order to require the Appellate Tribunal to make the reference to the High Court.", "There is no other procedure.", "The procedure being entirely statutory, although the word may is used, there is no other available procedure allowed by the statute.", "The form prescribed is Form Number 37.", "These forms are prescribed under Rule 48 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, which provides : An application under Sub-section (1) of Section 256 requiring the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law shall be made in Form Number 37.", "Paragraph 4 of that form requires the applicant to state the questions of law that arise out of the order of the Appellate Tribunal.", "Apart from this requirement of an application in the prescribed form, the second condition flows from the limitation of time under Section 256(1) of the Act.", "The first limitation is that such an application in the prescribed form by the assessee or the Commissioner, as the case may be, has to be made within sixty days of the date upon which he is served with a notice of an order under Section 254.", "The Tribunal, therefore, has to be enabled to do so by the application in the prescribed form within this period of 60 days.", "If this period of 60 days is allowed to expire, the statute does not provide, except in the proviso which we shall presently mention, to entertain such an application beyond that period.", "Now, the proviso expressly says : Provided that the Appellate Tribunal may, if it is satisfied that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the period hereinbefore specified, allow it to be presented within a further period not exceeding 30 days.", "The proviso means only this that a further period of 30 days in addition to the 60 days mentioned above might be available but then this is not as a matter of right cither to the assessee or to the Commissioner but it depends on the satisfaction of the Appellate Tribunal that the applicant was prevented by sufficient cause from presenting the application within the prescribed period of 60 days.", "It follows that if there be no application in the prescribed form within the period of limitation mentioned in Section 256(1) read with the proviso, the Appellate Tribunal cannot entertain any other application to make a reference to the High Court or even cannot act suo motu, on its own, to make such a reference.", "Being matters of revenue, this period of limitation is clearly imposed by statute to close disputes and controversy as soon as possible and within a reasonable time from the order of the Tribunal.", "From a reading of Section 256, the conclusion is that no question can be raised in a statement of the case by the Tribunal without an application in the prescribed form by the applicant within the prescribed time.", "It appears that neither of these statutory requirements was satisfied by the assessee to qualify him for raising the second question.", "The assessees reply raising such a question is dated as late as the 6th December, 1966, which was about four months after the date of the order of the Tribunal of 5th August, 1966, and the assessee has not either shown that the service upon him was delayed in order to enable him to come within the time prescribed even on the basis of the date of his reply.", "We are of the opinion that when the applicant does not satisfy the requirements either of : (1) the application in the prescribed form with the fee, and (2) within the limitations expressly invoked, he disqualifies himself from asking for a reference under Section 256(1) of the Act by any other procedure unknown in law or in the statute.", "We need only say that where there is no application in the prescribed form and within the time imposed under Section 256(1) of the Act, the provision of Section 254(4) of the Income-tax Act comes into force, namely, as stated there : Save as provided in Section 256, orders passed by the Appellate Tribunal on appeal shall be final.", "At this point we shall notice two authorities of the Supreme Court.", "One is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited, The Supreme Court there, at pages 609-10, observed as follows : the question must be one which the Tribunal was bound to refer under Section 66(1) and the applicant must have required the Tribunal to refer it.", "R(T) is the form prescribed under Rule 22A for an application under Section 66(i), and that shows that the applicant mast set out the questions which he desires the Tribunal to refer and that further, those questions must arise out of the order of the Tribunal.", "It is, therefore, clear that under Section 66(2), the court cannot direct the Tribunal to refer a question unless it is one which arises out of the order of the Tribunal and was specified by the applicant in his application under Section 66(1).", "Now, if we are to hold that the court can allow a new question to be raised on the reference, that would in effect give the applicant a right which is denied to him under Section 66(1) and (2) and enlarge the jurisdiction of the court so as to assimilate it to that of an ordinary civil court of appeal.", "The Supreme Court in that case was dealing with Section 66 of the old Act.", "But the principles are found in the observations quoted.", "The other case is Commissioner of Income-tax v. Arunachalam Chettiar, .", "There also the Supreme Court discussed the principles which should guide references under the Income-tax Act to the High Court.", "The ratio of that decision also supports the principle quoted above.", "It is now necessary to examine the arguments put forward on this point by Mr. Roy on behalf of the assessee, contending that the Tribunal has a right to allow cross-objections and regulate its own procedure.", "His first reliance is on Section 255(5) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which reads as follows : Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Appellate Tribunal shall have power to regulate its own procedure and the procedure of Benches thereof in all matters arising out of the exercise of its powers or of the discharge of its functions, including the places at which the Benches shall hold their sittings.", "On the basis of this provision it is said that the Appellate Tribunal has the power to treat the reply of the assessee in this case as a kind of cross-objection raising the second question under reference.", "Prima facie, there appears to be a good deal of force in such an argument.", "On closer scrutiny it appears that the significant words of that sub-section are subject to the provisions of this Act Necessarily, therefore, it must be subject to Section 256(1) of the Act.", "Equally necessarily, therefore, the power to regulate the procedure cannot override the express provision regarding (1) requirement of an application in the prescribed form, and (2) such application to be within the period of time mentioned there.", "Thirdly, the Appellate Tribunal cannot be said to have power in the name of regulating its own procedure to follow a procedure which is directly against Section 256 and the limitations imposed therein.", "Almost by the application of the doctrine of expressio unius it will appear that the Appellate Tribunal in making the reference to the High Court has no power at all to evolve a procedure for cross-objection as under the Civil Procedure Code.", "The Tribunal is a statutory institution and has to find its powers within the four corners of the statute and its relevant sections.", "Section 253(4) in dealing with the appeals to the Appellate Tribunal expressly provides for the case of filing a memorandum of cross-objections.", "It expressly gives the party other than the appellant before it the right to file a memorandum of cross-objections verified in the prescribed manner against any part of the order of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it expressly provides, such memorandum shall be disposed of by the Appellate Tribunal as if it were an appeal presented, within the time specified in Sub-section (3).", "By sharp and deliberate contrast this provision for cross-objection has not been made in the case of reference to the High Court by the Tribunal under Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "That is recognised in the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Sundaram Company Private Limited .", "It is a mistake to think that the Appellate Tribunal in making a reference to the High Court is either a regular court of appeal with all the powers available in the Civil Procedure Code or that in any other way it has any implied power to permit cross-objections, where it is not provided for in the Income-tax Act, and particularly where it is against the express provisions in the statute regarding limitation and form.", "To support and illustrate this conclusion it will be necessary to refer to certain provisions in the statute and to certain authorities.", "Section 255(6) dealing with the procedure of the Appellate Tribunal makes it quite clear that the proceedings before the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be judicial proceedings but within the meaning of Sections 193 and 288 and for the purpose of Section 196, Indian Penal Code, and that the Appellate Tribunal shall be deemed to be a civil court for all the purposes of Section 195 and Chapter XXXV of the Criminal Procedure Code, That provision implies that the Appellate Tribunal is not a regular court of appeal with all the powers of the court under the Civil Procedure Code, We have failed to find any particular section of the Income-tax Act vesting the Appellate Tribunal with all the powers of a civil court under the Civil Procedure Code.", "A reference to the cases on this point will be necessary.", "In R.M. Seshadri v. Second Addl.", "Income-tax Officer a Division Bench of the Madras High Court came to the conclusion that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not a court.", "(See the observations of the Madras High Court from page 403 to page 406 of that report).", "The Andhra Pradesh High Court in Bh.", "Satyanarayanamurthi v. Income-tax Appellate Tribunal expressed the same view, where Subba Rao C. J. at page 126 observed as follows: In either ordinary parlance or legal sense, the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal cannot be held to be a civil, criminal or revenue court.", "The picture on the point gets confused by doctrines derived from analogy and similarity found in many of the law reports.", "In Kanpur Industrial Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax the observation was made by M. C. Desai C. J. at page 417 to the following effect: By its order an appellate court can dispose of the appeal and not something not included within its scope.", "In the departments appeal for an increase in the assessable income, the only question for its consideration is whether the increase or part of it should be allowed or not.", "Whether the amount already assessed was wrongly assessed or not or whether the assessee is liable to be assessed at all or not is a question quite outside the scope of the appeal and any decision on it cannot be said to be an order on the appeal.", "Again at page 421 of the report the observation is as follows : If it prayed that the assessment order be quashed it was not entitled to be heard, whereas if it simply prayed that the departments appeal be dismissed it was entitled to be heard.", "What the assessee prayed before the Tribunal is essentially a question of fact, which cannot be investigated by this court and on which no finding can be given by it for the first time or given adversely to the finding recorded by the Tribunal.", "In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Hazarimal Nagji Company a Bench of the Bombay High Court expressed the view affirming the previous view expressed in the case of New India Life Assurance Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax that the position of the Appellate Tribunal is the same as a court of appeal under the Civil Procedure Code and its powers are identical with the powers enjoyed by an appellate court under the Code.", "Many of the above observations have been applied out of their context and the resulting confusion has been very misleading indeed in some cases.", "Whatever the position may be, this much is clear to our mind that so far as the Appellate Tribunals jurisdiction to refer a case to the High Court under Section 256 is concerned, it is strictly limited by the statutory provision and it does not enjoy the powers of a full appellate court under the Civil Procedure Code.", "The sheet-anchor of Mr. Roy for the assessee on this point has been the decision of the Bombay High Court in Girdhardas Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax .", "There, Chagla C.J., delivering the judgment of the Division Bench of the Bombay High Court, made the following observations at page 91 : It is obvious that there may be cases where a winning party would be seriously prejudiced if it was precluded from raising a question of law merely because it had not made an application for a reference and the reference was asked for at the instance of the losing party.", "The winning party can never apply for a reference.", "But it may happen that if the court takes a particular view on the reference asked for by the losing party, certain other questions of law may arise which may have to be decided in the interest of the winning party.", "Therefore, it would not be proper to shut out a party before the Tribunal from raising a question of law which clearly arises from the order of the Tribunal merely because it so happens that it has not made an application for a reference.", "making the above observations, the Bombay High Court was following one of its previous decisions, unreported, in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Banthia Bank Limited (I.T. Ref.", "Number 20 of 1950--decided on 10-10-50) and mentioned at page 90 of the report in Girdhardas.", "Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income-tax.", "This Bombay decision does not discuss, (1) the then existing Section 66 of the Income-tax Act, (2) the statutory provisions for the application in the prescribed form, and (3) the nature of jurisdiction o5 the Appellate Tribunal in respect of a reference and the character of advisory jurisdiction of this High Court in hearing a reference which necessarily limits ordinary appellate courts powers under the Civil Procedure Code, which are co-equal with the trial court even m the matter of taking evidence, and (4) it is doubtful how far it is good law after the subsequent decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company which, we have already discussed.", "This view of Chagla C. J. creates a conflict of decisions in the Indian High Courts.", "His Lordships view was followed by the Rajasthan and the Gujarat High Courts and not followed in the Madhya Pradesh and Madras High Courts.", "In Educational Civil List Reserve Fund through H.H. Maharana of Udaipur v. Commissioner of Income-tax the Rajasthan High Court came to the conclusion that it was open to the department also on an application for a reference made by the assessee to ask for a question which according to it arose from the order of the Tribunal to be referred to the High Court.", "At page 119 of the report the Rajasthan High Court followed the Bombay High Court decision in Girdhardass case.", "Similar view was expressed by the Gujarat High Court in Smt.", "Dhirajben R. Amin v. Commissioner of Income-tax But the opposite view was taken by the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Dr. Fida Hussain where the following observations were made at page 318: In regard to the second question we are of opinion that It could not have been referred to this court without an. application duly made by the assessee under Section 66(1) of the Act.", "We had occasion to consider an identical question in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Jiwaji Rao Sugar Company Limited Having regard to this conflict of judicial opinion in the different High Courts in India, Mr. Pal for the revenue naturally insisted that it was essential that the point must be decided on this reference so far as this court is concerned.", "We have already expressed our conclusion on this point.", "We hold that section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, lays down the whole procedure how reference has to be made.", "That procedure, in our view, does not give the Appellate Tribunal any jurisdiction or power to admit cross-objections within the meaning of the Civil Procedure Code to raise a question of law not raised by an application in the prescribed form and not within the time prescribed and make a reference of the same to this court.", "We hold further that it is a course which can never be taken specially where it is beyond the express limitation stated in Section 256 of the Income-tax Act.", "Our observations should not be understood as limiting any scope for argument on the question raised on the reference according to the procedure laid down in Section 256 even though that argument is not raised by way of a question.", "We would like to elaborate on this particular aspect.", "An argument has been advanced about related and unrelated questions.", "If a question is duly raised according to the procedure of Section 256 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, then different approaches and aspects of that question certainly will be open to argument in the reference and the question from that point of view may be reframed or appropriately framed.", "But that is not the same as saying that a wholly unrelated question can be allowed to be raised which was not raised by way of an application in the prescribed form and within the statutory limitation.", "This is acutely illustrated in the instant reference before us.", "The first question raised only relates to the power of reduction of the penalty below the statutory limit prescribed in Section 271(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "It proceeds on the assumption that Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act applied.", "What is now being said is that not the whole of Section 271 was inapplicable.", "For that purpose reliance was placed on the authority in Kanpur Industrial Works v. Commissioner of Income-tax already quoted.", "But, then, there, in that case, the increase of the assessment was the total ambit of the appeal.", "In fact, there it was held that the point of no assessability at all should not be allowed o be raised as against the whole assessment but confined only to the part of the increase in assessment which was the subject-matter of the appeal before the Tribunal.", "It was in that case that the word incongruity has been used and the incongruity was avoided by suggesting the course, that legal assessability was not generally to be the issue and not allowed to be raised but in so far as it affected the increase only in the assessment, it was allowed.", "To follow such a course in this case would be not only incongruous but completely illogical.", "If the penalty proceedings were invalid in law altogether, then there can be no question of the penalty being lower than the minimum statutory limit, for ex hypothesis the penalty did not come under the statute at all.", "We do not think that such a course is open, any further, to argument after the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Scindia Steam Navigation Company Limited Although we are of the opinion that this question should not have been referred in the manner as it is done, we have allowed the assessee to address us on the merits of question Number 2 in order to find out and decide if they are a part and parcel of and are implicit in the first question.", "Question 2, as quoted above, is: whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the penalty proceedings were properly initiated and that the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were valid in law ? In order to appreciate the merits of this point urged by the assessee, it will be helpful to have the following calendar -- 1-4-62 : The new Income-tax Act, 1951, came into force.", "29-8-64 : I.T.O.s reference under Section 274(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the Inspecting Asstt.", "Commissioner.", "31-8-64 : I.T.O.s order of assessment and notice under Section 274(1) of the I.T, Act.", "2-9-64 : Service of the above notice on the assessee.", "22-9-64 : I.T.O.s hearing of the assessee.", "11-3-65 : Inspecting Asstt.", "Commissioners notice under sec.", "274(1) of the Act to the assessee.", "We have already described the facts as appearing in the statement of the case.", "The assessees point is that the penalty proceedings on those facts started on March 11, 1965, when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner gave notice under Section 274(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The Tribunal held that the penalty proceedings started from either August 29, 1964, or August 31, 1964.", "The point of contention, however, must not be missed.", "It is not that the order imposing the penalty was not within two years.", "The point of contention is that the penalty proceedings were initiated after the commencement of the assessment proceedings.", "It will be necessary and helpful to have Section 275 to decide this question.", "Section 275 reads as follows : No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be passed after the expiration of two years from the date of the completion of the proceedings in the course of which the proceedings for the imposition of penalty have been commenced.", "It is followed by an Explanation with which we are not concerned.", "What is complained of by the assessee in this case is that the proceedings for the imposition of penalty have been commenced in this case after the completion of assessment proceedings.", "Therefore, it is contended that the whole penalty proceeding is bad and vitiated.", "The Tribunal came to the following finding on this issue : In this case, assessment proceedings were completed by the passing of the assessment order on 31st August, 1964.", "Learned counsel for the assessee contended that, though usually penalty proceedings would be commenced by the issue and service of notice under Section 274 of the Income-tax Act by the Income-tax Officer, yet in the case where the penalty proceedings are transferred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2), such proceedings are commenced by the issue and service of the notice by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on the assessee to show cause.", "Having noticed this, the Tribunal proceeds to record the finding in these terms : The proceedings are initiated by the Income-tax Officer and transferred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and that the provision for imposition of penalty are attracted must be to the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer under Section 271(1)(c).", "This argument overlooks the fact that under Section 274(2) the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has all the powers conferred under Chapter XXI, which also includes Section 271 for the imposition of penalty.", "As in this case, the penalty proceedings were referred to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on 29th August, 1964, which was before the completion of the assessment proceedings, and the notice of the transfer was given to the assessee on that date, it must be held that the penalty proceedings were properly initiated and the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner are valid in law.", "In coming to that conclusion, the Tribunal distinguished a Bombay Tribunal Bench decision on the ground that that was not a case of imposition of the penalty by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner on transfer but of a penalty imposed by the Income-tax Officer.", "The answer to this question really turns on the interpretation of the expression proceedings for the imposition of penalty have been commenced appearing in Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "In other words, what is the commencement of the penalty proceedings ? When do the penalty proceedings commence ? Again, in our view, these questions must be answered on the terms of the statute and by strict reference to the relevant sections which govern the procedure for and imposition of the penalty.", "Analogies we consider to be misleading and inappropriate.", "Before dealing with the numerous authorities and various analogies placed before us by Mr. Roy, appearing for the assessee, a close look at the sections relevant for this purpose is the first step.", "The three sections relevant for this purpose are: Sections 271, 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "Chapter 21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, deals with penalties imposable.", "Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, lays down, inter alia, as follows: If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act is satisfied that any person-- (c) has concealed the particulars o his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty--.", "(iii) a sum which shall not be less than 20 but which shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income.", "In quoting the above section I have left out the irrelevant or immaterial portions for the purpose of this question.", "The dominant features are plain from the sections as quoted.", "They are three in number.", "In the first place, the Income-tax Officer has to be satisfied.", "In the second place, such satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer must be in the course of any proceedings under this Act.", "Thirdly, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty a certain amount.", "The overall condition is that there has to be a concealment.", "Certain results follow from a provision of this nature.", "The first is that the authority, prima facie, belongs to the Income-tax Officer, It is before him that the first foundations of penalty are laid.", "That foundation is his satisfaction in the course of assessment proceedings that there has been concealment.", "He is therefore the fons et origo of this penalty proceeding.", "Unless he initiates or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner initiates, the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner cannot initiate.", "In the natural context that is what should be when one remembers that after all the assessment proceedings are being held by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner who are the persons likely at all to know whether there has been a concealment and not the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who, not dealing with the regular assessment proceedings, would have little or no knowledge of concealment.", "It is significant to emphasise also that Section 271 of the Income-tax Act does not breathe a word about Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "The next stage is reached in Section 274 which is described as the procedure.", "Section 274 reads as follows: No order imposing a penalty under this Chapter shall be made unless the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.", "Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271, if in a case falling under Clause (c) of that sub-section, the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of Rs. 1,000, the Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who shall, for the purpose, have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty.", "Section 274(1) makes it clear that no order imposing a penalty can be made unless the assessee has been heard or given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.", "Its plain meaning is that no order of penalty can be imposed upon the assessee without his being heard or given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.", "It does not mean that no proceeding can be taken against him without those two conditions of hearing or reasonable opportunity of being heard, nor does it posit or stipulate for a notice when the penalty proceeding is commenced.", "Sub-section (2) of Section 274 is significant in many ways.", "In the first place, it is the proverbial non-obstante clause beginning with the words notwithstanding anything contained in Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271, if in a case falling under Clause (c) of that sub-section The language of this notwithstanding clause on a proper interpretation can only mean this that the entire provision of Section 271(1) is not wiped out.", "It only prevails in the limited case mentioned under Section 271(1) (c) and (iii) and for the particular case where the penalty imposable exceeds the sum of Rs. 1,000 and that only so far as the Income-tax Officer is concerned and not the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as mentioned in Section 271(1).", "That is the scope and ambit of limitation of the non-obstante expression under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The conclusion follows that all cases of penalty and penalty proceedings have their source originally with the Income-tax Officer.", "The operation of Section 274(2) of the Act comes into play when the minimum penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000.", "This can only mean that the Income-tax Officer has to find initially that the minimum penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000 because none else can make this initial finding under the scheme of the Income-tax Act.", "That means a judicial consideration by the Income-tax Officer when the minimum penalty imposable in a particular case exceeds the sum of Rs. 1,000.", "This is the second feature of Section 274(2) of the Act.", "Thirdly, the significant expression in Section 274(2) of the Act is : The Income-tax Officer shall refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "The words refer the case plainly indicate that the case is with the Income-tax Officer and he is referring that case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "It follows again, therefore, that it is the Income-tax Officer before whom the case originates and he is referring that case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "In other words, the penalty proceedings in this context commence before the Income-tax Officer.", "Fourthly, when the Income-tax Officer has referred the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, the power and the function of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner are controlled by the expression that follows, viz., who shall for the purpose have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty.", "That means that after the Income-tax Officer refers the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, he has all the powers under Chapter 21 given to the Income-tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 271 of the Act.", "It is necessarily so because in that particular case where the minimum penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000, the case is transferred by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and who, in order to discharge his functions, must, a fortiori, be clothed with the powers given under the statute under Section 271 of the Act or else he could not function.", "From this, it follows that what the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner does is to take over the pending case before the Income-tax Officer with regard to the penalty proceedings on the ground that the minimum penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000.", "In that view of the matter, Section 274(2) read with Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not suggest that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is the institutional authority where penalty proceedings are or can be commenced.", "The Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in this view is really a transferee authority whose jurisdiction is dependent on the condition that the Income-tax Officer must make the reference of the case where the minimum penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000.", "Under Section 28 of the old Income-tax Act of 1922, the Income-tax Officer had no power to impose any penalty without any previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and it is significant that the new Income-tax Act of 1961 does not require the Income-tax Officer to obtain such sanction in any case.", "It confirms the conclusion that we are reaching that the Income-tax Officer is the institutional authority- where the penalty proceedings are commenced.", "All that the present Act does is that, if the case falls within Section 271(1) concerning a case of concealment read with Sub-clause (c) thereof and where the minimum penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000, he is bound to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who is then empowered to impose a penalty in that case.", "It has to be emphasized in this context that the Income-tax Officers jurisdiction to impose a penalty in any case falling outside Section 271(1)(c) is not in any way affected or qualified by Section 274(2) of the new Income-tax Act of 1961.", "The words for the purpose under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, can only mean for the purpose of imposing the penalty and not for commencing the penalty proceeding but for concluding it, It will be necessary now to come to the next section, Section 275.", "This has already been quoted.", "Mr. Roy for the assessee argues that this section contemplates two different proceedings which he describes as : (1) the assessment proceedings and (2) the penalty proceedings.", "His argument suggests that they are two independent and entirely different proceedings.", "No water-tight distinction of this nature appears possible in the scheme of the Act.", "It will be unnecessary to discuss the old controversy whether penalty is an additional tax or not which culminated in the two Supreme Court decisions in C.A. Abraham v. Income-tax Officer, Kottayam, and Commissioner of Income-tax v. Bhikaji Dadabhai Company Mr. Roy for the assessee contends that the transfer of the case by the Income-tax Officer to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner is in the nature of an administrative or departmental act and only after that transfer the penalty proceeding before the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner starts.", "Therefore, his submission is that the commencement of the proceedings really starts with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, on the basis of this distinction between penalty proceedings and the assessment proceedings.", "The opening words of Section 274(1) of the Act are clear enough to say that the requirement that the assessee shall be heard or be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard is a requirement before an order imposing a penalty under Chapter 21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, is made.", "The order imposing the penalty requires that condition to be satisfied but there is no such limitation for initiating or commencing penalty proceedings with the notice.", "This is an important difference because under other sections like Sections 22 and 34 of the old Income-tax Act with corresponding provisions in the new Act require such notices as statutory conditions and, therefore, commencement of proceedings under those sections is bound to be different from commencement of proceedings under Section 271 read with Sections 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act of 1961.", "When we come to the discussion of the relevant authorities on that subject we shall deal with the point in further detail.", "Modern statutes have many provisions for penalty proceedings and specially in the case of dismissal of public servants.", "Such penalty proceedings assume and also are required to satisfy particular statutory conditions of giving two notices, such as, a preliminary notice why the public servant should not be discharged or dismissed and a second notice why a particular penalty should not be imposed upon him.", "These considerations, however, are clearly inapplicable to penalty proceedings under Chapter 21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The reason why the Income-tax Act, 1961, in Section 274(1) requires that no order of penalty shall be made without hearing the assessee or giving him a reasonable opportunity, and the reason for dispensing with any such requirement or comparable notice at the initial stage of the penalty proceeding under Section 271 of the Act are plain and can he sensibly and rationally justified.", "The justification lies in this fact that Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, begins with this requirement that this satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer must arise in the course of any proceeding under this Act that means that the Income-tax Officer who is dealing with the assessment proceedings under the scheme of the Income-tax Act which are not ex parte but on notice and opportunities given to the assessee mentioned in that Act.", "It is only in such course of assessment proceedings that the Income-tax Officer is satisfied that a concealment has occurred under Section 271(1)(c).", "Therefore, the initial notice about the commencement is dispensed with because the notice is already there as the assessee is appearing before the Income-tax Officer in connection with the assessment proceedings.", "Therefore, the argument that the assessment proceedings and the penalty proceedings are two separate independent proceedings cannot really be sustained.", "One flows from the other.", "There cannot be a penalty proceeding which does not spring from the assessment proceeding.", "They are in that sense inseparably connected.", "It is not open to the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant-Commissioner under Chapter 21 of the Act to take penalty steps against the assessee which does not arise out of the assessment proceedings.", "In that sense it is not an unrestrained or unqualified power of penalty.", "In that sense it is not possible to separate the two proceedings completely and describe the penalty proceedings in that sense as independent of the assessment proceeding.", "I understand the Division Bench decision in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, only in that context.", "Were it necessary to express any difference with the view expressed in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali, we would have certainly referred it to a Fuller Bench but it is not necessary to do so in the instant reference before us, for we are only considering here the commencement of the penalty proceedings and whether in that context the commencement has the soil of origin in the assessment proceedings.", "The conclusion is also enforced by an analysis and scrutiny of the powers, functions and jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "A broad analysis of the Act shows six specific powers or functions or jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "In the first place, he acts under the direction of the Commissioner under Section 123 of the Act.", "In the second place, he has the power to call for information under Section 133.", "In the third place, he has the power to inspect the register of companies under Section 134.", "Fourthly, he has the power to give permission for levy of super-tax on undistributed income of certain companies under Section 104 of the Act.", "Fifthly, he has the power to impose a penalty under Section 274(2) of the Act in cases of concealment and referred to by the Income-tax Officer.", "Sixthly, he has the power to accord previous approval in connection with the under-statement of the consideration for transfer of capital asset under Section 52 of the Act.", "This analysis of the powers and jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under the Income-tax Act, 1961, shows that he has not any power to commence the penalty proceedings as in this case.", "He is an institutional authority with very strictly enumerated powers.", "Section 2(27) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, says that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner means a person appointed to be such under Section 117(1) of the Act.", "He is more or less--to use a kind of non-technical language--a kind of a supervisor, superintendent, although we would not call him a watch-dog.", "On the interpretation and construction of Section 271, Section 274 and Section 275 we have come to the conclusion that the penalty proceedings commence and are initiated before the Income-tax Officer of, as the case may be, with the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under the statute and not with the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "It will be now necessary to examine the various authorities on which Mr. Roy for the assessee relied and also examine the analogies he tried to draw with regard to the concept and procedure for penalty from other branches of law.", "In the first place, he submits that penalty is quasi-criminal.", "The reason for his submission is that he wanted to draw upon the criminal law and Criminal Procedure Code for elucidating the expression commencement of the proceedings with a view to apply them to this particular Income-tax Act of 1961.", "For this purpose, he relied on the observations of D. Basu J. in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Anwar Ali .", "Penalty in this context should always be construed within the terms and language of the particular statute.", "Penalties in modern law are always statutory.", "Therefore, the statute creating the penalty is the first and the last consideration in this respect.", "Analogies are often misleading, because these statutes are not in pari materia.", "The popular and literary notion about penalty and the concepts associated with it have to subordinate themselves to the actual words and terms used in the statute creating the penalty and laying down the procedure for its imposition.", "It will be trite to say that penalty is penal.", "It is confusing to say that penalty is criminal or quasi-criminal.", "Penalty is statutory just as much as legal misconduct is not necessarily the popular misconduct.", "Secondly, Mr. Roy for the assessee has drawn analogies from the Sales Tax Act, the Arms Act and the Ticca Tenancy Act.", "In support of his submission on these analogies, he has referred to three cases.", "The first case is Hossein Kasam Duda (India) Limited v. State of Madhya Pradesh, .", "This is a decision construing Section 22(1), proviso, of the C.P. and Berar Sales Tax Act and was concerned with the problem whether the amendment of that proviso by Act 17 of 1949 applied to proceedings commenced before the amendment.", "It has nothing to do with the point for decision in this instant reference before us.", "Neither its adumbration of the law nor discussion of facts has any relevance or application to the points for decision in the present reference before us.", "The observations of that report at page 225 about lis have no application in the present context for the simple reason that here the penalty proceedings under Chapter 21 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, spring from the assessment proceedings before the Income-tax Officer.", "The second case on which Mr. Roy relied is Emperor v. Gulam Nabi, A.I.R. 1928 Pat. 146 which was concerned with Section 417 of the Criminal Procedure Code on the point of appeal against acquittal and Section 29 of the Arms Act where proceedings of that Act were construed to mean legal proceedings in court.", "We are not prepared to apply the analogy of Section 29 of the Arms Act to Sections 271, 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which we consider are entirely different.", "The third case on which Mr. Roy relied, is Abdul Gani v. David Jacob Cohen, 1953 57 C.W.N. 313 which only decided the point that taking out of a summons or notice of motion under the practice of the court was not making of an application.", "We do not think that that case has any application to the points before us.", "But the next group of authorities on which Mr. Roy for the assessee relied relates to the Income-tax Act and is nearer the field.", "These decisions, however, are not on penalty proceedings under the Income-tax Act but under other sections of the Income-tax Act.", "All these authorities are on Sections 22 and 34 of the old Income-tax Act of 1922.", "We shall briefly notice these authorities now.", "Mr. Roy opens this branch of citation with the case in D.P. Wadia Sons v. Commissioner of Income-tax .", "In particular, he relies on the observations of Desai J. at pages 762 and 763.", "This case supplied Mr. Roy with the open the arena expression.", "That expression was used in that authority.", "Mr. Roy, therefore, suggests that all the proceedings before the Income-tax Officer under Section 271, until he refers the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) of the Act, are all only steps to open the arena.", "The phrase is attractive and liable to seduce.", "But, on the particular sections of the Income-tax Act, in this case, like Sections 271, 274 and 275, the attraction loses its force and glamour.", "This decision of D. P. Wadia v. Commissioner of Income-tax, was given on Section 22(2) and the notice was under the old Act.", "The ratio of that decision was that the issue of a public notice under Section 22(1) did not mark the start of assessment proceeding against an individual assesses and the public notice only opened the arena as it were for the proceedings to commence and was anterior to the commencement of assessment proceedings against any individual assessee.", "The controversy about public notice and individual notice for assessment proceeding has been the subject-matter of many judicial decisions but that is not the point here before us.", "Whether proceedings are commenced by public notice or by individual notice is not the point calling for an answer on this reference.", "We do not think that it is possible to argue on the relevant sections operating on penalty proceedings to suggest that proceedings only start under notice under Section 274(1) road with Section 274(2).", "We do not wish to repeat the reasons which we have already given.", "The authority of this decision also is now in dubio because it is contrary to the observations made by the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddus Karsondas, The next case on which Mr. Roy relied is Dr. Onkar Dutt Sharma v. Commissioner of Income-tax and the observations made at pages 362-63.", "That case decided that initiation of proceedings under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act commenced only with the issue of notice under the section and did not commence when the Income-tax Officer applied for sanction of the Commissioner to issue such notice.", "It is essential to recall and emphasise that the provisions contained in Section 34 of the old Income-tax Act 1922, are very different from Sections 271, 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "Neither Section 22 nor Section 34 of the old Income-tax Act of 1922 used the expression commencement of the proceedings.", "To continue with the authorities cited by Mr. Roy some more references have to be examined.", "The decision in Harakchand Makanji Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax was a case under Section 34 again of the old Income-tax Act of 1922.", "There Chagla C.J., at page 122, observed : Therefore once a public notice is given under Sub-section (1) the assessment proceedings have commenced and there is no obligation upon the Income-tax Officer to serve an assessee individually as well.", "The other case cited by Mr. Roy is Y. Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore, 1959 35 I T.R. 388 of the Supreme Court.", "Mr. Roy relied on the observations of Gajendragadkar J., at page 392, where it was observed that notice prescribed under Section 34 could not be regarded as a mere procedural requirement and that the service of the requisite notice on the assessee was a condition precedent to the validity of any reassessment made under Section 34.", "It was held by the Supreme Court in that case that the notice prescribed by Section 34 of the Income-tax Act for the purpose of initiation of reassessment proceedings was not merely a procedural requirement but was a condition precedent going to the very validity of the reassessment proceedings and if no such notice was issued or was invalid then the entire proceedings by the Income-tax Officer were illegal and void.", "These last two decisions in Harakchand Makanji Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax and v. Narayana Chetty v. Income-tax Officer, Nellore, were followed with approval by the Supreme Court subsequently in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Ranchhoddas Karsondas.", "The next case cited is a decision of the Supreme Court in section Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax .", "That again was a case on Section 34 of the old Income-tax Act of 1922.", "There the Supreme Court had expressed the view that the words reason to believe under Section 34 did not mean purely a subjective satisfaction but that the belief must be in good faith and cannot be a mere pretence and it was open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief had a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and were not extraneous or irrelevant.", "The Supreme Court also expressed the view that proceedings for assessment or reassessment under Section 34(1)(a) started with the issue of a notice and it was only after the service of the notice that the assessee, whose income was sought to be assessed or reassessed, became a party to those proceedings.", "The relevant observations of Ramaswami J., who delivered the judgment, may be seen at pages 222-223.", "The opinion was expressed that the earlier stage of the proceedings for recording the reasons of the Income-tax Officer for obtaining the sanction of the Commissioner are administrative in character and not quasi-judicial.", "It was this part of the judgment which was used by Mr. Roy for the assessee in his argument to submit that the part or role played by the Income-tax Officer under Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, until the case was referred by him to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, was administrative in character and not quasi-judicial.", "Now, we have already said that Section 34 in structure and purpose is entirely different from Sections 271, 274 and 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The word in Section 271 is not reason to believe as in old Section 34.", "The word in Section 271 is satisfaction.", "The further controlling expressions in the course of any proceedings under this Act are always with notice to the assessee.", "The other case to which reference was made by Mr. Roy is S.S. Gadgil v. Lal Company a decision of the Supreme Court, and the observations are at pages 237-239.", "It will be unnecessary to discuss that case again in detail because that was also under Section 34 of the old Income-tax Act of 1922 and the foregoing remarks apply also to distinguish that from the instant case before us.", "We need only refer to another aspect of the decision appearing from the judgment of Shah J. that the income-tax authorities who have power to assess and recover taxes are not acting as judges deciding a litigation between the citizen and the State they arc administrative authorities whose proceedings are regulated by the statute, but whose function is to estimate the income of the taxpayer and to assess him to tax on the basis of that estimate.", "We can conclude our analysis of these authorities by referring to the decision of the Supreme Court on which Mr. Pal for the revenue relied and which is nearest to the point.", "That is the decision of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. S.V. Angidi Chettiar, .", "This decision was rendered on the somewhat comparable Section 28 of the old Income-tax Act of 1922.", "Shah J., delivering the judgment of the Supreme Court in that case, made the following observations at page 745 of the report: The power to impose penalty under Section 28 depends upon the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in the course of proceedings under the Act it cannot be exercised if he is not satisfied about the existence of conditions specified in Clauses (a), (b) or (c) before the proceedings are concluded.", "The proceeding to levy penalty has, however, not to be commenced by the Income-tax Officer before the completion of the assessment proceeding by the Income-tax Officer.", "Satisfaction before conclusion of the proceedings under the Act, and not the issue of a notice or initiation of any step for imposing penalty is a condition for the exercise of the jurisdiction.", "From the above authority, it follows that satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer is the first step.", "As we have already indicated, Section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, does not rest only with the satisfaction but proceeds further to say that the Income-tax Officer on being satisfied may direct that such a person must pay by way of penalty.", "On that ground, we are satisfied that the initiation of penalty proceedings commences with the Income-tax Officer.", "It will be unnecessary to discuss in detail an English decision cited at the Bar, viz Turner v. Jacaranda Clubs Limited, 1953 2 All E.R. 548 construing the expression action commenced where the action was commenced in the county court but transferred to the High Court under the County Courts Act in England.", "It cannot be over-emphasised that analogies in this respect in construing taxing statutes on particular procedure are as misleading and should generally be avoided.", "We can do no better than quote the observation of the Pareq J. in Cross v. British Oak Insurance Company Limited, 1938 1 All E.R. 383 where interpreting the words commencement of proceedings under the British Road Traffic Act, 1938, the learned judge at page 386 observed as follows : I do not think that great assistance is to be obtained from earlier cases dealing with other sections of other Acts of Parliament.", "We, therefore, hold that the Tribunal was right in coming to the conclusion that the penalty proceedings in this case and in the facts and circumstances stated above commenced on August 29, 1964, which is the date when the Income-tax Officer referred the case under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, or, at any rate, on August 31, 1964, with the passing of the assessment orders and notice under Section 274(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "In this case, the Tribunal at page 18 of the paper book records the finding : In this case such satisfaction was recorded and such direction was given on August 31, 1964, as recorded in the assessment orders themselves the order sheet shows that on August 31, 1964, the Income-tax Officer directed the issue of notice under Section 271/ 274 .", "Therefore, the penalty proceedings commenced on that date.", "The facts are not challenged.", "But here a point was raised by Mr. Roy for the assessee by trying to suggest that the Income-tax Officer gave a notice on August 29, 1964, under Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and again the Income-tax Officer gave a notice on September 2, 1964, asking the assessee to show cause why an order imposing a penally should not be passed under Section 271.", "Therefore, he suggests that the second notice of September 2, 1964, is illegal because by that time the Income-tax Officer had become functus officio, having made the reference on August 29, 1964, to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "We do not think that Mr. Roy is entitled to raise these questions of fact if he is disputing the dates of notices.", "But we have failed to see how even then there is any question of illegality and how it helps the assessees argument on the point of commencement of proceedings.", "For the reasons and on the authorities stated above we hold that the penalty proceedings were properly initiated and that the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner were valid in law, We, therefore, answer the second question in the affirmative.", "We shall now deal with the first question raised in the statement of the case.", "This relates to the reduction of penalty.", "Mr. Pal for the revenue contends that the following conclusion of the Tribunal is wrong in, law : Section 271(1)(iii) provides a minimum of 20 per cent.", "of the tax sought to be evaded in case of imposition of a penalty by the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner.", "The minimum prescribed above is not applicable to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner acting under Section 274 or the Tribunal hearing appeals from the penalty orders passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner in such proceedings.", "Section 274(2) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in Section 271(1)(iii), if in a case falling under Clause (c) of that sub-section, the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of Rs. 1,000, the Income-tax Officer has to refer the case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who was to have all the powers conferred under that Chapter.", "It would appear from a simple reading of that sub-section that the powers of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner to impose a penalty are not confined by the provisions of Clause (iii) of Sub-section (1) of Section 271.", "If that be so, the powers of the Tribunal in hearing the appeals from penalties imposed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) would also not be restricted to the amount prescribed in Section 271(1)(iii).", "In our opinion in this case the penalties imposed are excessive.", "While therefore sustaining the orders of penalty, we reduce the amounts as follows On a careful consideration of the law and the interpretation of the relevant sections we have come to the conclusion that the Tribunal came to a wrong decision in law on the above point.", "Section 274(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, has already been set out and its interpretation given elsewhere in this judgment.", "The jurisdiction of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2) arises on the three conditions mentioned, namely, (1) it must be a case of concealment under Section 271(1)(iii) the minimum penalty imposable exceeds a sum of Rs. 1,000, and (3) that the Income-tax Officer shall refer his case to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "When these three conditions are satisfied it is only then that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner acquires the jurisdiction.", "But that jurisdiction is expressly qualified by the language of Section 274(2) saying who shall for the purpose have all the powers conferred under this Chapter for the imposition of penalty.", "There has been in the Tribunals order a confusion between the statutory limits of penalty and the powers of the officers.", "As we read Section 271 and Section 274 the limit is on the quantum of penalty, not on the power of the officer dealing with it except in the case that, so far as the Income-tax Officer is concerned, if the penalty imposable exceeds Rs. 1,000, it goes to the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner.", "That does not mean that the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner has a free hand in the matter and can disregard the minimum or maximum limits of penalty clearly stated and prescribed in Section 271(1)(iii).", "The maximum and the minimum limits in Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act are attached to the penalty and whoever imposes the penalty has to observe those statutory limits.", "It is wrong, in our view, to interpret Section 271 and Section 275 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, in such a way as to confine the statutory limits mentioned in Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, only to the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner but when the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal deals with the matters, these last two authorities or institutions can act without limit and beyond the limits specified by the statute.", "This conclusion is further reinforced by the interpretation of the clear words in Section 274 which definitely limits the power of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner by saying that he has all the powers but only for the purpose.", "That is for the purpose of Section 271(1)(iii) and no more.", "It is also enforced by the words all the powers.", "All these powers mean those powers which are mentioned under Section 271 and no more powers.", "It does not confer unlimited powers to disregard statutory limits of maximum and minimum penalties prescribed and laid down in mandatory language in Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The scope of the non obstante clause beginning with the word Notwithstanding has already been indicated by us to say that it does not wipe out the whole of Section 271 of the Act to such an extent, that it also wipes out the statutory limits in Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Act, but only to the extent it conflicts with Section 271, namely, the Income-tax Officer cannot deal with it where the penalty imposable is over Rs. 1,000.", "To accept the argument of Mr. Roy for the assessee would also mean another odd conclusion and that is while the Appellate Assistant Commissioner under Section 271(1) of the Act would be bound by the minimum and maximum statutory limits of the penalty, the -Inspecting Assistant Commissioner will be free to disregard such statutory limits, a conclusion which seems to us to be inconsistent with the principles of the Act.", "The further consideration on this point is that penalties are not the normal features.", "They arise only in certain cases, such as in the case of concealment.", "The penalty should always be strictly construed.", "Courts should be reluctant to construe a power of penalty without any limitation unless the words are clear or create an inescapable compelling implication.", "We are, therefore, not inclined to hold that the Tribunal and the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner have unfettered powers to impose whatever penalty they consider necessary.", "Penalties are strictly creatures of statute.", "No doubt under Section 253(1)(b) an assessee may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against an order passed by the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner under Section 274(2).", "Equally no doubt, Section 254(1) of the Act gives the Appellate Tribunal the power to pass such orders thereon as it thinks fit.", "The expression such orders as it thinks fit cannot mean an order against the statutory mandate imposing limits of penalty under Section 271(1)(iii) of the Act of 1961.", "The words as it thinks fit in Section 254(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, even then will have to observe the prohibitions of the Income-tax Act, and do not mean that the Tribunal can think fit to disregard the clear mandates of the statute.", "The Tribunal as much as any other authority has to carry out the dictates of the statute.", "If the statute says, and as we interpret that it does so, that the limitation is on the penalty and not on the officer or the institution, then whoever administers the penalty, whether it is the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner or the Tribunal, must have to observe the maximum and minimum limits of penalty imposed under Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "Lastly, Mr. Roy for the assessee raised the new contention before us that except for the assessment of 1962-63, the penalty imposed in respect of the years l955-56 to 1961-62 can be imposed in this case only in terms of Section 28(1)(c) of the old Income-tax Act, 1922, for that was the Act which was in operation in those years.", "His next step in the argument was that as the old Income-tax Act, 1922, did not provide for the lower limit, therefore, the Tribunal was within its legal competence to lower the penalty below the minimum limit imposed by the Income-tax Act of 1961, which came subsequently.", "This argument was ingenious and resourceful.", "But the point is that this was not argued before the Tribunal when the whole question of penalty was argued before it to say that not only was the penalty illegal but that the old Act applied and the new Act did not.", "This is not merely a technical point of not arguing or raising the question any time before but it also involves the practical difficulty on the ground that necessary facts have to be found with regard to the exact time and dates of the assessments of those previous years.", "The answer, however, to this contention is provided by Section 297(2)(g) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides that any proceeding for the imposition of a penalty in respect of any assessment for the year ending on 31st day of March, 1962, or any earlier year, which as completed on or after the 1st day of April, 1962, may be initiated and any such penalty may be imposed under this Act.", "We are, therefore, unable to accept this argument of Mr. Roy.", "For these reasons, we hold that the Tribunal was wrong in reducing the penalty imposed on the assessee below the minimum prescribed under Section 271(1)(iii) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "We answer question Number 1 in the negative in favour of the revenue.", "Question Number 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.", "Each party will bear his own costs.", "Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. I agree."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1976_223", "text": ["Salil Kumar Datta, J. This is an appeal against the judgment and order of Sabyasachi Mukharji J., dated May 14, 1976, discharging the rule obtained by the petitioner.", "The facts relevant arc as follows : The petitioner, appellant (hereinafter referred to as the company ) duly filed its return along with its balance-sheet and profit and loss account for the assessment year 1969-70, showing an income of Rs. 2,61,307.", "D. K. Gupta, the Income-tax Officer, E Ward, Comp.", "I, Calcutta, by his order dated November 29, 1969, assessed the total income of the company for the said year under Section 143(3) at Rs. 3,13,059 disallowing various claims.", "On appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax by order dated January 6, 1970, revised the total income to Rs. 2,92,208.", "The company thereupon became entitled to a refund of Rs. 11,026.04 and the same was given effect to by the Income-tax Officer.", "The company preferred an appeal to the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal against disallowance of the remuneration paid to the director for Rs. 23,000 and by its order dated September 29, 1972, the Appellate Tribunal allowed the remuneration, reducing the total income to Rs. 2,69,208 and increasing the refund to Rs. 12,650 and the order giving effect to the same was also served on the company.", "It was alleged that at the time of the original assessment the company produced all its books of accounts and evidence relevant for the purpose and on full examination and satisfaction, the income was computed by the officer.", "There was, it was further alleged, no omission or failure on the part of the company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.", "All on a sudden, on March 22, 1974, the company was served with a notice under Section 148 issued by D. P. Majumdar, Income-tax Officer, E Ward, C1, Calcutta, calling upon the company to deliver to him within thirty days of service a return in the prescribed form of its income for assessment year 1969-70 for reassessment by him.", "The notice recited that the said officer had reason to believe that the income of the company for the aforesaid assessment had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The company filed its return under protest and submitted through its representative that the notice was without jurisdiction as the condition precedent to the issue of the notice was not satisfied.", "By its letter of June 10, 1974, the company pointed out that the said officer had no such information in his possession on the basis whereof he could assume jurisdiction and in any event the material should be furnished or otherwise the notice should be cancelled.", "Thereafter on June 18, 1974, the company moved an application under article 226 of the Constitution contending, in addition to the above contentions, that there was no omission or failure on its part to disclose truly and fully all primary facts necessary and material for assessment.", "Accordingly, the purported action was a roving and fishing investigation without any information or material as the basis of the alleged belief and thus a colourable exercise of power on mere change of opinion.", "The company accordingly prayed for issuance of appropriate writs quashing the impugned notice and directing the authority to withdraw and cancel the same.", "On this application a rule nisi was issued on June 18, 1974, calling upon the respondents, the Income-tax Officer, E Ward, Companies Dist.", "I, Calcutta, the Commissioner of income-tax, West Bengal, Calcutta, as also the Union of India, to show cause why appropriate writs prayed for should not be issued.", "An interim order was passed staying further proceedings on the basis of the impugned notice.", "A return to the rule was made by the respondents by filing an affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by B. G. Agarwal, the Income-tax Officer, B1 Ward, Companies Dist.", "I, verified on April 5, 1976.", "It was stated therein that there was failure of the company to disclose fully and truly all materials facts necessary for the assessment for the assessment year 1969-70.", "The assessment was re-opened on the basis of fresh information, as the concerned officer had reason to believe that certain income of the company had escaped assessment.", "The material averments in paragraphs 7, 9 and 10 of the said affidavit are set out as follows : The statements made in paragraph 7 of the said petition are not admitted.", "I say that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully at the time of original assessment particulars regarding the nature of certain bills drawn by the petitioner-company in favour of Sri 1).", "N. Bhattacharjee, a director of the petitioner-company, resulting in allowance in the original assessment of expenses which arc for extra-commercial considerations and prima facie not allowable With reference to the statements made in paragraph 9 of the said petition nothing is admitted save and except what appears from the records.", "It is further stated that no letter purported to have been addressed to the Income-tax Officer, E Ward, Companies Dist.", "I, dated 10th June, 1974, is available from the records.", "I say that there was ample material in the possession of the Income-tax Officer on which he had formed a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.", "I further say that an anonymous petition was received in the income-tax department pointing out various irregularities in the accounts of the assessee which prima facie also led to the belief that the assessees income has escaped assessment.", "Copy of the said petition would be produced at the time of the hearing of the matter to show the charges made in the said petition and that on going through the said petition and the records of the case the Income-tax Officer had prima facie reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment for the relevant assessment year, I say that the petitioner-company failed to disclose before the Income-tax Officer at the time of original assessment truly and fully all material facts necessary for that assessment.", "Subsequently, on the basis of some fresh information, the Income-tax Officer reopened the assessment under Section 147, since on the basis of such information he had.", "reason to believe that certain income of the petitioner-company escaped assessment.", "The Income-tax Officer did not assume jurisdiction under Section 147 on the basis of a mere change of opinion as alleged, The statements made in the aforesaid paragraphs 7 and 9 were stated to be true to the deponents information derived from the records of the case which he verily believed to be true while those in paragraph 10 were submissions.", "An affidavit-in-reply to this affidavit affirmed by Batuk Nath Bhattacharjee on behalf of the petitioner affirmed on April 21, 1976, was filed reiterating the allegations made in the petition of motion and denying allegations contrary thereto.", "According to the learned judge the assessee could validly contend that there was no material to believe that there was failure or omission on its part to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "But in the anonymous petition there might be some information of such nature which prompted the Income-tax Officer to examine the facts in a little more detail, to find out if certain allowances or certain expenditure had been allowed which should not have been allowed.", "Accordingly, it could not be said that there was no information or belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment and no further information was necessary to satisfy Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "The challenge to the notice accordingly failed and the rule was discharged.", "The appeal before us is against his decision.", "Before we proceed to consider the respective contentions of the parties it will be proper at this stage to state that the recorded reasons for issue of notice under Section 148 was disclosed before the trial court.", "The said reasons which form an extract of the order sheet of the case for the assessment year is as per copy supplied by the revenue and compared with the original is as follows : 21-3-74.", "As per information in my possession, I have reason to believe that income of about Rs. 1,00,000 (approx.) has escaped assessment as a result of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully arid truly all material facts at the time of original assessment.", "Therefore, the provisions Under Section 147(a) and 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, are clearly attracted and Sections 147(a) and 147(b) arc consequently involved.", "Issue notice Under Section 148 immediately.", "Sd - D. P. Majumdar, I.T.O. In support of the appeal it was contended by Dr. Pal that in the return to the rule no affidavit was filed by the Income-tax Officer, D. P. Majumdar, who issued the impugned notice.", "Instead, the affidavit was affirmed by another Income-tax Officer who was not in any way connected with the proceedings.", "The only competent person who could vouch about the reasons for belief in consequence of information in his possession that the income had escaped assessment, was the officer who issued the notice and no one else.", "Accordingly, it was submitted there was no material before the court to examine if the conditions precedent existed for issuance of the impugned notice.", "There can be little dispute that when a challenge is thrown about the existence of the conditions precedent for issue of notice under Section 148, namely, as here, about existence of information and the reasons for belief that income had escaped assessment, in consequence thereof the officer concerned is the proper person to depose to the relevant facts.", "Even so, it does not mean as an invariable proposition that no other person is competent to disclose before the court the existence of such conditions precedent in respect of the notice as appearing from records.", "The Income-tax Officer under Section 148(2) before issuing any notice under Sub-section (1) has to record his reasons for doing so.", "The information as also the reasons for issuing notice will be in the relevant record.", "We accordingly do not find any fatal infirmity in respect of the affidavit on behalf of the revenue when the facts appearing from the records arc merely disclosed to the court by an affidavit by another officer.", "Further, as we have seen, the rule was issued for issuance of a writ of certiorari for quashing the notice and all relevant records were called for the purpose.", "The respondents in pursuance thereof have produced the records for inspection of the court following the uniform and consistent practice in such cases and it will be for the court to inspect the record to examine if the conditions precedent for issue of notice which is always justiciable did in fact exist.", "Of course, it is desirable that such affidavit as far as possible should be filed by the officer concerned unless there are reasons for not doing so.", "Mr. Pal appearing for the respondents submitted that no objection, as it seems to be so, was taken on this ground in the affidavit-in-reply on behalf of the company or even at the hearing before the trial court, as otherwise the affidavit from the officer concerned could have been produced.", "He that as it may, we do not consider the alleged defect in the affidavit to be of any serious consideration when we ourselves have looked into the relevant records.", "Dr. Pal next contended that the affidavit-in-opposition disclosed that the information that the Income-tax Officer had before him was contained in an anonymous petition.", "Such petition being without any disclosed source had no authenticity and could not constitute information as contemplated in Section 147, Clause (b).", "Accordingly, there was no information on the basis whereof the Income-tax Officer could have reason to believe that income had escaped assessment.", "Reference was made to the decision in Shea Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax 1971 82 ITR 147, where the Supreme Court laid down that the words reason to believe in Section 34(1A) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (similar to Section 147, Clause (b), of the Income-tax Act, 1961), must be the belief of an honest and reasonable person based upon reasonable grounds but not on mere suspicion, gossip or rumour.", "The anonymous letter, it was contended, was of the same category as mere suspicion, gossip or rumour.", "On a review of the relevant cases, the Supreme Court in Kalyanji Mavji Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax 1976 102 ITR 287 laid down the tests and principles which would apply to determine the applicability of Section 34(1)(b) of the 1922 Act (in material portions similar to Section 147, Clause (b), of the Income-tax Act, 1961) to the following category of cases : (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions.", "(2) where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer.", "This is obviously based on the principle that the taxpayer would not be allowed to take advantage of an oversight or mistake committed by the taxing authority.", "(3) where the information is derived from an external source of any kind.", "Such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of the original assessment.", "(4) where the information may be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law.", "If these conditions are satisfied then the Income-tax Officer would have complete jurisdiction to reopen the original assessment.", "It is thus obvious that information from an external source of any kind, which includes discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts not present at the time of assessment, would satisfy the conditions of applicability of the relevant .section.", "An information anonymous is information from unknown authorship but none the less it constitutes information and not the less an information though anonymous.", "This is now a recognised and accepted source for detection of large scale tax evasion.", "Non-disclosure of the -source of information by itself does not reduce the credibility of the information.", "There may be good and substantial reasons for such, anonymous disclosure, but the real thing to be looked into is the nature of the information dis-closed whether it is mere gossip, suspieion or rumour.", "If it is none of those, but a discovery of fresh facts or new and important matters not present at the time of assessment, which appears to be credible to an honest and rational mind leading to a scrutiny of facts indicating incorrect allowance of expenses such disclosure, it appears, would constitute information as contemplated in Clause (b) of Section 147.", "This is a change of opinion by the Income-tax Officer in consequence of information that has since come to his possession leading to his requisite belief which gives him jurisdiction to take appropriate action.", "Merely because, the information, the Income-tax Officer has, is without any disclosed source, there is no legal warrant to discard such information only on the ground that it is anonymous.", "The records of the case at the hearing were brought to the court for its inspection.", "There is no dispute that the reasons for assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer, as set out above, was before the trial court.", "This dispute, however, relates to the production of other records for inspection by the court.", "While the company contends that no other documents were produced before the trial court, the respondents case is that the entire records were before the court.", "Be that as it may, in this court at the appellate stage, there is no impediment on the court to look into such records as the respondents were asked to produce at the hearing.", "To such inspection of records by the court the assessee-company has no objection, as the action of the Income-tax Officer in reopening an assessment finally made, as the authorities held, is always justiciable by the court.", "Hut it is strongly contended that if the court inspects any document or paper from the record, the assessee is also entitled to inspection of such document or paper at the same time.", "The reason is, as contended by Mr. R. C. Deb, that it is a fundamental basis of justice that the aggrieved party should be allowed to meet allegations against him before he is called upon to act to his prejudice.", "A disclosure to court alone and not the person aggrieved will introduce something unknown to judicial procedure.", "Reference was made to the observations of A. N. Ray C.J. in paragraph 116 in the decision of Additional District Magistrate, Jabalpur v. Shivakant Shukla, , in which the court observed that such procedure would preclude the parties from representing their respective cases.", "Since the satisfaction of the Income-tax Officer in taking action under Section 147 is justiciable, the aggrieved party must be entitled to see for himself the information in possession of such officer to effectively represent that the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction did not exist.", "Apart from the question of natural justice, which is also violated by the disclosure of the information to court only, the assessee should not be condemned without due opportunity to effectively challenge that the action leading to the issuance of notice was wholly without jurisdiction.", "On the ground that such procedure would not enable the court effectively to examine the conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer without the assistance of the assessee, the company has opposed the disclosure of any record to the court only.", "In Rungta Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. Income-tax Officer 1962 44 ITR 315 (Cal), a Division Bench of this court observed (page 323) : The Income-tax Officer is entitled to initiate proceedings under Section 34(1 A) if he in good faith has reason to believe the matters specified in Section 34(1A)(i) and (ii) (similar to Section 147(a) and (b) of the 1961 Act).", "He is not bound to disclose to the assessee the source of information upon which he came to entertain that belief.", "The working of Section 34(1A) will be wholly impossible if we are to hold that the Income-tax Officer is bound to disclose the source of his confidential information or the name of the informant.", "The notice under Section 34(1A) commences a quasi-judicial enquiry in which the assessee is entitled to appear and produce his evidence.", "In that enquiry, the Income-tax Officer will be bound to disclose to the assessee the material on the basis of which he seeks to find that the assessees income to the extent of rupees one lakh or more has escaped assessment during the relevant years.", "Natural justice demands full disclosure of all the materials which the Income-tax Officer seeks to use against the assessee in course of that enquiry, so that the assessee has sufficient opportunity to meet the case made against him.", "That stage of the enquiry will arise in this case after the assessee files its return and produces its account books.", "It is not desirable that the assessee should be informed of those materials at this stage.", "The court made the above observation while meeting the attack on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.", "The appellants counsel contended, we have indicated above, that since it is the settled law that the court had the jurisdiction to examine if conditions precedent for initiation of action under the law did in fact exist such scrutiny can only be made where the aggrieved party is also given adequate opportunity to present his case on the materials which is the basis of the impugned action.", "Such opportunity can only be had by the disclosure of the materials to the court as also to the aggrieved party when a challenge is thrown to the very existence of the conditions precedent for initiation of the action.", "Any procedure contrary to the above would be opposed to the fundamental concept of justice, as when a disclosure is only made to the court as in the present case.", "The decision in Rimgtas case 1962 44 ITR 315 (Cal), it is contended, did not consider this aspect of the question and in subsequent decisions, a different view was taken.", "Reference was made to the decision in Calcutta Discount Company Lid.", "v. Income-tax Officer in which the court considered the report of the Income-tax Officer to the Commissioner for sanction for initiation of proceeding under Section 34(1)(a) of the 1922 Act.", "The report was also obviously before the assessee as it was challenged by its counsel on the ground that there could be no omission to state the material facts in its failure to disclose the true intention behind the sale of shares as stated in the report and which contention was accepted by the court.", "In this case, the court observed that the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction by issuance of appropriate writs when the assessee establishes that the Income-tax Officer had no material before him for believing at all that there had been such non-disclosure.", "Relying on this authority in Daulatram Rawatmall v. Income-tax Officer Appeal Number 209 of 1959 decided on August 1, 1961 (unreported), H. K. Bose C.J. observed that, when existence of the conditions precedent to the exercise of jurisdiction under Section 34 was directly in issue, the full disclosure of the materials on which the belief of the Income-tax Officer had been founded, became necessary, and had to be made and the assessee was thus given the fullest opportunity to establish before the court that the conditions precedent in fact did not exist.", "While approving the interpretation as to the objects under Section 34 in Rungtas case 1962 44 ITR 315 (Cal), it was observed that in appropriate cases the court will compel the Income-tax Officer to place before the court and the assessee all materials which prompted him to proceed under Section 34(1A) of the Act and to determine the question whether such conditions precedent do in fact exist or not.", "In the concurring judgment Debabrata Mukherjee J. observed that once the reasons are held justiciable they cannot be withheld from the assessee.", "It was further observed that where the court is persuaded that the conditions precedent for exercise of jurisdiction had not been fulfilled, i.e., no reasons existed for the belief that income liable to tax has escaped assessment and consequently none recorded, and no sanction of the Central Board of Revenue obtained, disclosure could not be resisted.", "But where disclosure would defeat justice as when there was the revenues apprehension that the assessees books of account might be destroyed or tampered with, it was in the interest of justice and fairplay (sic) and no abridgement of an indefeasible right not to order disclosure of documents produced.", "The appellants also strongly relied on the decision in F.M.A. No, 280 of 1970 (Hindusthan Motors Limited v. T. N. Kaul) decided on March 25, 1971, in which thecourt was concerned with the legality of issue of notices for search and seizure of documents alleged to have been secreted in connection with proceedings under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947.", "The court held that disclosure could not be prevented on the ground that disclosure might prejudice investigation and it was also held that there was little substance in the plea that disclosure would hamper investigation while the court also refused to look into the documents behind the back of the parties as such procedure would be contrary to the principles of natural justice.", "The proceedings before the commencement of reassessment proceeding are only administrative in character and there is no requirement by law that there should be a disclosure of materials to the assessee at that stage.", "All that is necessary to give this special jurisdiction is that, (a) the Income-tax Officer had when he assumed jurisdiction some prima facie grounds for believing that there had been some non-disclosure of material facts having material bearing on under-assessment, or (b) the Income-tax Officer should have, in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income has escaped assessment .", "Such belief must he in good faith and not purely subjective or founded on mere suspicion, gossip, rumour or change of opinion but on evidence which prima facie supports such belief though adequacy of such evidence or grounds for arriving at the conclusion is not open to the courts investigation.", "It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the belief have a rational connection or a relevant bearing to the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant to the purpose of the section.", "To this limited extent the action of the Income-tax Officer in starting proceeding under Section 34 of the Act (of 1922) is open to challenge in a court of law.", "This has been the uniform view taken by the courts, following earlier decisions, in section Narayanappa v. Commissioner of Income-tax and Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v. Income-tax Officer as also sub-sequent decisions.", "In Commissioner of Income-tax v. Mahaliram Ramjidas 1940 8 ITR 442 (PC), it was laid down that the Income-tax Officer is not required by the section to convene the assessee or to intimate to him the nature of the alleged escapement or give him an opportunity of being heard, before he decides to operate the power conferred by the section.", "It is enough that the Income-tax Officer on the information which he had before him and in good faith considered that he has good ground for believing that he assessed at too low a rate.", "It was held in K. section Rashid and Son v. Income-tax Officer 1964 52 ITR 355 (SC) that the assessee is not entitled to a copy of the reasons recorded at the time of issue of notice under Section 34.", "When, therefore, a challenge is thrown to the absence of requisite conditions precedent for issuance of notice, the court following the uniform and consistent practice looks into the relevant records for the purpose to sec if them was any material at all before the income-tax Officer for his belief that there has been an escapement of income on account of the failure of the assesses to disclose fully or truly all material facts or in consequence of information in his possession.", "The court will also scrutinise that the action has been taken purely on subjective satisfaction or the conclusion arrived at is bona fide and of a prudent or rational man and not merely based on gossip, rumour or change of opinion and the like and if there be any of such infirmities the proceeding would be quashed.", "To investigate these aspects by the court it is not necessary that the reasons and materials must be disclosed to the assesses and he should be heard before the High Court comes to its conclusion and the court is not to decide the adequacy or sufficiency of reasons.", "Unlike the cases cited above, at this stage no order prejudicial to the asscssee is being passed except that he has to file a fresh return and produce the relevant books before the Income-tax Officer and appear in support of the return.", "This may undoubtedly be irksome or inconvenient to a bona fide assessce who may be put to unnecessary trouble and harassment.", "In view, however, of large scale evasion of tax which has shattered the economy of the country such inconvenience to even a bona fide asscssee cannot be avoided, while disclosure of the reasons or materials beforehand might lead to destruction or tampering of relevant records to the loss of the national exchequer.", "It is also to be remembered that before reassessment, the Income-tax Officer concerned will have to disclose to the assessee the relevant materials on which his belief is founded and also suitable opportunity, for explaining the allegations against him will have to be afforded to him.", "In this context, it cannot be said that such a procedure is opposed to the fundamental, concept of justice since no order to the prejudice of the aggrieved patty is being passed at that stage when the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction is under scrutiny by the court.", "The decisions relied on do not lay down any contrary proposition and as we have already noted at that stage no order or decision prejudicial to the assessee is passed or can be taken.", "For these reasons, the disclosure of the materials to the appellant cannot be directed at this stage in the circumstances, .", "It is now to be seen if there was in fact any information subsequent to the assessment in the possession of the Income-tax Officer which could warrant the action taken by him.", "The assessment, as we have seen, was completed on January 8, 1969, by the Income-tax Officer and finally by the Tribunal on September 29, 1972, the assessment year being 1969-70.", "From the records produced before us it.", "appears that on January 10, 1974, a letter was addressed to the Income-tax Officer, E Ward, Companies District 1, Calcutta, by the Income-tax.", "Appellate Commissioner, Survey Range, Calcutta, forwarding to him a carbon copy of an. unsigned letter with a number of sheets containing statements of accounts as annexures, the: original whereof was sent to other Governmental authority.", "This letter contained various allegations about irregularities in the accounts maintained by the appellant for a number of years including the assessment year we are concerned with.", "Reference was made therein in respect of the relevant year to entries in the books of accounts with specific reference and sufficient particulars in respect of specific sums which should not have resulted in allowance of expenses in the original assessment.", "This information from an external source came into the possession of the Income-tax Officer long after the original assessment and the conclusion thereon by the Income-tax Officer cannot be said to be purely subjective or a change of opinion or bare pretext, or based on gossip or rumour.", "It cannot also be said that there is no live link or rational connection between the information and the belief or that the information is too tenuous to warrant a support for the belief or that such conclusion could not be bona lido or that of a rational or prudent man.", "It is accordingly not possible to hold that the conditions precedent for assumption of jurisdiction by the Income-tax Officer was absent.", "The appeal, as all contentions raised, accordingly fails and is dismissed.", "There will be no order for costs in the circumstances.", "N. Sen, J. The facts leading to this appeal may be briefly stated as follows : In respect of the assessment year 1969-70, the appellant-company had been assessed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "On appeal initially before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and then before the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal the appellant-company succeeded in bringing down the revised total income and the tax refundable rose up to Rs. 12,650.", "The company then asked the Income-tax Officer, E Ward, to issue a refund voucher.", "Some time thereafter, a notice purported to be under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was served upon the appellant-company in regard to the assessment year 1969-70 alleging that the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax for the said assessment year had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the said Act and the appellant-company was called upon to submit its return of income for the said assessment year.", "The appellant-company submitted the return under protest asserting at the same time that it produced at the time of the original assessment all the evidence and other documents relevant or necessary to the proceedings for the said assessment year and the Income-tax Officer also made requisition and the representative of the appellant-company appeared before the Income-tax Officer and the assessment was completed after a full examination of the books of account and other documents.", "There was, therefore, no omission or failure on the part of the appellant-company to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.", "The appellant-company further asserted that there was no information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer in consequence whereof he could form his reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment during the relevant, year.", "In the writ petition filed, the company challenged the notice as being without jurisdiction and its ground of attack was that the conditions precedent to the issue of the notice had not been satisfied and there was no disclosure to the company about the reason to believe which was a prerequisite for assumption of jurisdiction.", "The appellant-company, therefore, contended that the Income-tax Officer purported to assume jurisdiction on a mere change of opinion on the basis of materials which were produced before him and which wore duly examined and considered by him at the time of the original assessment and an attempt has now been made for starting a fishing and roving investigation unwarranted in law.", "While dismissing the application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, Sabyasachi Mukharji J. observed as follows : In this case possibly the assessee might validly contend that there was no material to believe that there was failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material facts.", "But in the anonymous petition there may be some information of such a nature which prompted the Income-tax Officer to examine the facts in a little more detail and then to infer whether there was escapement of income.", "In other words, the anonymous petition may be of such a nature which put the Income-tax Officer to re-examine to find out if certain allowances or certain expenditure had been allowed which should not have been allowed It is true that an anonymous information may not be a safe or reliable guide for coming to the belief that there was failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose fully or truly all material or relevant factsIn the facts and circumstances of the case, in my opinion, it cannot be said that there was no information to believe that the income of the petitioner has escaped assessment.", "No further information was necessary to satisfy Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "In the aforesaid view of the matter, the challenge to the notice must fail.", "On behalf of the appellant-company it was urged that the learned judge erred in law in sustaining the notice as one under Section 147(b) as there was no valid information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer in, consequence whereof the assessment for the relevant year could be reopened and, in any event, the alleged information contained in an anonymous petition was neither credible nor could operate or constitute as an information in law upon which the Income-tax Officer can form his reason to believe, it was further urged that on a challenge being thrown the Income-tax Officer is bound to disclose the materials on which he is said to have formed his reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and without such disclosure the Income-tax Officer cannot assume jurisdiction to initiate any proceeding under Section 147 read with Section 148 of the Income-tax Act.", "The conditions precedent to assumption of jurisdiction not having been satisfied the burden lay upon the revenue to satisfy the court that the said conditions had been satisried before assumption of jurisdiction to issue the notice.", "In support of the contention that on a challenge being thrown, the Income-tax Officer is bound to make necessary disclosure of materials upon which he formed his reason to believe that income had escaped from tax, the learned counsel for the appellant-company relied principally upon the cases in Thanthi Trust v. Income-tax Officer and in Calcutta Discount Company Limited v. Income-tax Officer and Sales Tax Officer v. Uttareswari Rice Mills .", "The learned counsel for the revenue also relied upon the case reported in Thanthi Trust v. Income-tax Officer as an authority on the stage of the proceeding in which disclosure is a must .", "It was held in the abovementioned case that at the initial stage the action taken in issuing notice was merely administrative.", "No disclosure is warranted at that stage.", "The proceeding under Section 147 actually commences as a quasi-judicial proceeding after the return and books of account are filed by the assessec.", "It is at that stage that the disclosure of materials should be made to give the assessec proper opportunity to place such further materials which might safeguard his interest from any further penalty.", "It was further held that where (as in the present case before us) the assessec challenges the jurisdiction to issue such a notice under Section 148 and the disclosure is made to the court about reasons for such action, it is for the court to decide whether the challenge is well founded or not on the materials produced before the court.", "That was also the view taken by a Bench of this court in the case in Girindranath Paul v. Income-tax Officer .", "The same view was taken in the case in Rungta Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. Income-tax Officer 1962 44 ITR 315 (Cal).", "The appellants contention that the above decision stood modified by the un-reported decision in the case of Daulatram Rawalmull v. Income-tax Officer (Appeal from Original Order Number 209 of 1959) does not bear scrutiny.", "While agreeing with the view taken by H. K. Bose C.J., Debabrata Mukherjee J., in his separate judgment, only expressed somewhat differently under different hypothesis.", "The case in Calcutta Discount Company Limited v. Income-tax Officer does not lay down any new proposition.", "All that was laid down therein was that upon disclosure of material facts the assessment could be proceeded with even if challenged.", "The case in Sales Tax Officer v. Ullareswari Rice Mills was a case under the Sales Tax Act and the question of disclosure of materials was decided on the ground of attack based on natural justice which was altogether different from the grounds of attack made in the case before us.", "Incidentally, I may state here and now that the preponderance of decisions on the subject is in accord with the view that all relevant materials which led the Income-tax Officer to form his reason to believe should be disclosed after return is filed and various books of account are produced by the assessee.", "On a consideration of the case laws cited before us it is clear that the proper stage for full disclosure of all relevant materials had not yet reached and the contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant appears to be rather premature.", "Before disposing of the above point raised by the appellant-company it may be stated that the other case, Addl, District Magistrate v. Shivahant Shukla, , cited before us bad no bearing on the subject.", "The case , relates to a different matter where it was held that disclosure to court without disclosure to the person affected would introduce an element of arbitrariness and thus precluded both parties from representing their respective cases.", "Before proceeding with the other point raised before us it is necessary to advert to certain facts affirmed in the affidavits filed by the respective parties.", "In paragraph 9 of the writ application under Article 226 of the Constitution there was a reference to issuance of a letter dated 10th June, 1974 pointing out that there was no information on the basis of which the Income-tax Officer could assume jurisdiction even under Section 147(b).", "In paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition from the side of the revenue it was specifically stated that no letter dated June 10, 1974, was available from the records.", "It was further stated therein that there was ample material in the possession of the Income-tax Officer on which he formed his reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.", "Besides that an anonymous petition was received in the department pointing out various irregularities in the accounts of the assessee which prima facie also led to the belief that the assessees income had escaped assessment.", "Then it was further stated therein that on going through the said petition and the records of the case the Income-tax Officer had prima facie reasons to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment during the relevant year.", "About the letter dated June 10, 1974, addressed to the Income-tax Officer concerned there was no specific denial by any specific assertion in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-reply.", "As regards the various irregularities in accounts, the existence of which had not been specifically denied in the affidavit-in-reply, the only statement made in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-reply was that in any event the alleged irregularities in the accounts of the assessee cannot warrant reopening of assessment.", "Furthermore, in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition it was explicitly mentioned that the assessee failed to disclose truly and fully at the time of the original assessment particulars regarding the nature of certain hills drawn in favour of Sri D. N. Dhattacharyya, a director of the company, relating to allowance of expenses which arc for extra-commercial considcration and prima facie not allowable.", "This was in effect a disclosure of a material fact upon discovery of which by inquiry or research into matters of record the Income-tax Officer sought to reopen the assessment.", "The contention put forward by the learned counsel for the appellant for attacking the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by an Income-tax Officer other than the officer who made the original assessment or the officer who issued the notice under Section 148 as wholly useless does not appear to be acceptable inasmuch as neither in the affidavit nor in the grounds of appeal was there any averment to suggest even that the affidavit-in-opposition was absolutely useless.", "Had there been any averment to indicate how the appellant took it the revenue could offer necessary explanation or to make arrangements to put in an affidavit sworn by the concerned Income-tax Officer.", "In the circumstances, the appellant cannot be heard to raise any such objection to or comments against the affidavit-in-opposition sworn by another Income-tax Officer of Company District I, from knowledge derived from records.", "It thus appears from paragraphs 7 and 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition that there was allegation about the asscssee having failed to disclose fully or truly at the time of the original assessment particulars regarding the nature of certain bills and about receipt of an anonymous petition pointing out various irregularities in the accounts of the assessee and it was disclosed that all these prima facie led the Income-tax Officer to form his reason to believe that income of the assessee had escaped assessment.", "This undoubtedly amounted to disclosure of facts or nature of information which led the Income-tax Officer to form his reason to believe .", "The ground of attack made by the appellant-company in the appeal before us was not based upon a supposed violation of natural justice as it was in the case of Rungta Engineering Construction Company Ltd v. Income-tax Officer 1962 44 1TR 315 (Cal).", "The attack in the appeal before us is principally based on the ground that the conditions precedent to the assumption of jurisdiction for issuing the notice under challenge, had not been satisfied and that there was no valid information in consequence whereof the Income-tax Officer could have reasons to believe that there had been escapement of tax during the relevant year.", "The learned judge sustained the notice under Section 147(b) of the income-tax Act, 1961.", "It was contended on behalf of the appellant-company that on the facts and circumstances of the case there was really no valid information in the possession of the Income-tax Officer inconsequence of which ho could have reason to believe that income of the assessee chargeable to tax had escaped assessment and as such the conditions precedent for issue of a notice even under Section 147(b) had not been satisfied and unless such requirement was satisfied the Income-tax Officer had no jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 148.", "In this connection, it was further contended that information in an anonymous petition was no information at all as the source was not identifiable.", "Reliance was placed on the cases in Chhugamal Rajpal v. S.P. Chaliha , Madhya Pradesh Industries Limited v. Income-tax Officer , Income-tax Officer v. Lakhmani Mewal Das and Sheo Nath Singh v. Appellate Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax , in support of the above contention as also the contention that the belief must be the belief of a reasonable man based upon direct or circumstantial evidence and that the reasons for the belief must have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief.", "In other words, there must be direct nexus or live-link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of the belief that there has been escapement of income chargeable to tax during the relevant year.", "True, the reason to believe should be there and such reason must be held in good faith and should not be a mere pretence and it must also bear a link between the material coming to the notice of the Income-tax Officer and the formation of the belief on such material.", "The above principles are not in conflict with the materials appearing from affidavits as such materials appear to have led the Income-tax Officer prima facie to have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment during the relevant year.", "Even such materials prima facie satisfied the requirement of being in possession of information in consequence of which the Income-tax Officer had reason to believe that income of assessee had escaped assessment In the above view of the matter, the facts and circumstances of the ease before us are not in conflict with the propositions mentioned above and, as held in C. Vasantlal Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax , the Income-tax Officer is not bound by any technical rules of evidence and it is open to him to collect materials even by a private enquiry to facilitate assessment.", "Relying upon the case of Kalyanji Mavji and Company v. Commissioner of Income-tax , the learned counsel for the revenue contended that, in the facts and circumstances of the case before us, the matter falls squarely within the extent and ambit of Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, couched in language identical with those appearing in Section 147(b) of the Act of 1961, This is because in that case the Income-tax Officer proceeded on the basis of information which came to him after the original assessment by discovery of fresh facts revealed during the assessment year 1958-59 and consisted of the conduct of the assesses by not adducing evidence in support of its plea that the amount was incurred for the expenses of the partnership business.", "It was, therefore, held that it was not a case of a mere change of opinion on the materials which were already on record.", "In the above mentioned case the Supreme Court held that the word information used in Section 34(1)(b) is of the widest amplitude and includes a variety of factors.", "However wide it may be, it is not plenary because the discretion of the Income-tax Officer is controlled by the words reason to believe .", "The Supreme Court again laid down certain tests and principles governing the applicability of Section 34(1)(b) to the several categories of cases mentioned below : (1) where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions (2) where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer (3) where the information is derived from an external source of any kind.", "Such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of the original assessment (4) where the information can be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on record or facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law.", "The Supreme Court then held that if these conditions are satisfied then the Income-tax Officer would have complete jurisdiction to reopen the original assessment.", "What constitutes information came up also for consideration of the court in the case in Bai Aimai Gustadji Kerala v. Gift-tax Officer 1975 99 ITR 257 (Guj).", "It was a case under the Gift-tax Act, the provision for notice under Section 16(1) of which was in identical terms as in Section 147(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "It was held that information means instructive knowledge concerning the matter bearing on the Assessment received from an external source after the original assessment and it must be capable of arousing or suggesting ideas or notions not before existent in the mind of the recipient so that he could form a reasonable belief that there has been an escapement of income from assessment to tax.", "Basing his argument upon the Supreme Court case of Kalyanji Mavji Co. ,, the learned counsel for the revenue quite correctly contended that non-disclosure of relevant or material facts relating to certain hills mentioned in paragraph 7 of the affidavit-in-opposition at the time of the original assessment and subsequent discovery of such facts from the record of the original assessment by enquiry or research into facts would satisfy.", "the third and fourth tests laid down by the Supreme Court and the Income-tax-Officer had complete jurisdiction to reopen the assessment even on that score within the meaning of Section 147(b) oven apart from the information obtained from the anonymous petition regarding various irregularities in the accounts maintained by the assesseee-company.", "The learned counsel for the revenue again contended that existence of irregularities in the accounts of the assessec-company not specifically denied in the affidavit-in-reply would undoubtedly be information with in the meaning of Section 147(b) and the tests laid down by the Supreme Court that it may come from an external source of any kind.", "Information derived from an anonymous petition as detailed in paragraph 9 of the affidavit-in-opposition must, therefore, be held to be information within the meaning of the above test laid down by the Supreme Court in consequence whereof the Income-tax Officer had possibly reinforced his reason to believe derived, from enquiry or research into facts appearing from the record of the original assessment.", "Rightly, therefore, the learned judge came to the conclusion that it could not be said that, there was no information before the Income-tax Officer upon which he formed his reason to believe that there had been escapement of income from assessment to tax.", "Merely because such information was contained in an anonymous petition the same, cannot go out of consideration.", "The changing and diverse society of ours with complex commercial activities has ushered into existence different facets of taxable income.", "order to check avoidance of tax under cloak of different baffling propositions revenue administration maintains vigilance through numerous sources and gets information from such source.", "Anonymous petition is one such potent source of information and the administration is obviously benefited by such information when they are verifiable by enquiry or investigation or research into facts as contained therein.", "In the changing society of ours, where there is a tendency to avoid assessment to tax, anonymous petitions are always a potent source of information and utilisation of such information very often serves the purpose of revenue administration.", "The learned judge, therefore, was justified to say that it cannot be said that there was no information upon which the Income-tax Officer could form his reason to believe that there was escapement of income from assessment to tax.", "All the points raised on behalf of the appellant-company, therefore, fail.", "The appeal, therefore, fails and is dismissed as proposed."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1977_54", "text": ["N. Sen, J. The department has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order passed by T. K. Basu J. on the 28th February, 1973 (See 1975 100 ITR 531).", "By this order, the learned judge for reasons stated in his judgment quashed several notices issued by the ITO under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening the assessments of the assessee, Hongkong and Shanghai Banking Corporation (hereinafter referred to as the assessee or the bank), for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1960-61.", "The assessee filed this writ petition in this court under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the validity of the various notices issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening the assessment of the bank for the assessment years 1950-51 to 1960-61.", "In the said application an affida-vit-in-opposition was filed on behalf of the departmeat by one Ranabir Prosad Dobe affirmed by him on the 22nd November, 1965.", "As the said affidavit, according to the learned trial judge, was of no assistance and did not furnish any material, the learned trial judge gave the department another opportunity of filing a further affidavit.", "Pursuant to leave granted by the court a further affidavit was filed by one Sailesh Kumar Chakra-borty affirmed on the 28th May, 1970.", "It appeared that in the said affidavit filed by Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty, ITO, C Ward, there was a palpably incorrect statement.", "The attention of the learned trial judge was drawn to the said false statement made in the said affidavit and Mr. Suhas Sen, learned counsel, who appeared on behalf of the department before the learned trial judge, tendered an apology on behalf of the deponent for the obviously untrue statement made by him in the said affidavit.", "In view of the apology tendered before the learned trial judge, the learned trial judge did not pursue the matter any further.", "The learned trial judge had called for the records and the reasons which were recorded for the purpose of reopening the assessment were also produced before the learned trial judge and copies thereof were tendered by consent of the parties before the learned trial judge.", "The learned trial judge has set out in his judgment the recorded reasons.", "The learned trial judge carefully considered the facts and circumstances of this case and also the recorded reasons and on a consideration of the materials the learned trial judge was of the opinion that there were no materials which could lead to the formation of belief on the part of the ITO that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment on account of any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts.", "In other words, the learned trial judge was of the opinion that the requirements of Section 147 of the Act were not complied with and the ITO did not have the jurisdiction to issue the notices.", "The learned trial judge, therefore, made the rule absolute and passed an order quashing the said notices.", "Against the said order of the learned trial judge, this appeal has been preferred by the department.", "In the paper book printed by the department in this appeal the affidavit of Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty which was filed before the learned trial judge and which became the subject-matter of comment was not included.", "In place of the said affidavit of Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty containing the untrue statement for which an apology was tendered en behalf of the deponent before the learned trial judge, another affidavit, alleged to have been affirmed by him on the 28th May, 1970, which was in fact never affirmed by him and which did not form any part of the proceeding before the learned trial judge was included.", "In the affidavit which was included in the paper book alleged to have been affirmed on the 28th May, 1970, the material paragraph containing the untrue statement in the affidavit of Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty filed before the learned trial judge was not there.", "At the time, when the appeal came up for hearing the attention of this court was drawn to this fact by Dr. Pal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-bank.", "Mr. Suhas Sen, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant asked for adjournment of the appeal for the purpose of looking into the matter and Mr. Sen at that point of time had also submitted before the court that if he did not find any satisfactory explanation as to how this had happened he might not press the appeal.", "When the appeal came up for hearing on the adjourned date Mr. Sen stated before us that he would not be pressing the appeal.", "It appears to us that he was not obviously satisfied as to how this thing had happened.", "On the aforesaid statement of Mr. Sen we dismissed the appeal on that occasion, as the appeal was not pressed.", "Thereafter an application was made on behalf of the appellant for recalling the said order of dismissal of the appeal.", "The main ground urged for recalling the order of dismissal was that the learned counsel had no authority not to proceed with this appeal.", "It was further urged that it was the duty of the learned counsel to proceed with this appeal and the dismissal of the appeal on the ground that the same had not been proceeded with has caused the department serious prejudice.", "On a proper consideration of the said application we recalled the earlier order of dismissal and directed the appeal to be restored to the list and we also gave liberty to the department to file a supplementary paper book containing the affidavit affirmed by Sailesh Kumar Chakraborty which was in fact filed before the learned trial judge.", "We cannot help observing with regret that the conduct of the department in the instant case appears to be far from what it should be.", "We only hope that there will be no repetition of this in future.", "Let us now consider the merits of the appeal.", "The facts of this case have been fully set out by the learned trial judge in his judgment.", "He has also properly considered the respective contentions of the parties and also the various decisions which were cited.", "In our opinion, the learned trial judge on a proper consideration of the materials has correctly come to the conclusion that the issue of the impugned notices for reopening the assessments of the assessee is clearly unjustified.", "In our view no grounds have been made out for any interference with the order passed by the learned trial judge.", "The question of validity of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and also under the appropriate sections of the earlier Act has come up for consideration in a large number of cases before the Supreme Court and also the High Courts.", "The principles of law, in our opinion, are well settled.", "Applying the well settled principles of law we are of the opinion that in the instant case there is no material which could lead to the formation of the belief on the part of the ITO that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment due to any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all material facts.", "As the learned trial judge has rightly observed the affidavits affirmed on behalf of the department are of no assistance.", "The recorded reasons which have been quoted by the learned trial judge in his judgment also do not go to show that there is any material which can lead to the formation of any belief on the part of the ITO that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment in the relevant years because of any failure or omission on the part of the assessee to disclose truly and fully all the material facts.", "The learned Advocate-General appearing on behalf of the appellant has argued that the fact that the assessee has claimed the very same expenses in, respect of which the assessee had claimed deduction in its assessment in India in the respective foreign countries clearly furnishes the necessary material on the basis of which the ITO was entitled to act.", "The learned Advocate-General has contended that sufficiency or adequacy of the material is of no consideration.", "It is his argument that the fact that the assessee had asked for deduction in respect of the very same expenses in the foreign countries justifiably leads the ITO to the belief that the said expenses in India could not, therefore, have been claimed as allowable deduction in the computation of assessees tax liability in India.", "In our opinion, this contention of the learned Advocate-General has no substance in the facts and circumstances of this case.", "It is to be noticed that the assessee had made the claim in his return.", "After the assessee had made the claim, by the letter dated the 22nd January, 1951, which appears at page 39 of the paper book, the ITO dealing with the assessments of the assessee made, inter alia, the following query : It is noticed that for the first time proportion of Head Office, London Office, U.S.A. Office expenses applicable to London Offices amounting to Rs. 4,21,918 has been deducted from profit--please state the circumstances in which such deduction has been made.", "This query of the ITO was answered by the assessee by its letter dated the 12th March, 1951, which appears at page 37 of the paper book.", "The assessee has stated in reply: Our London and New York Offices each in their own spheres collects proceeds and handle all our export bills and documents and establish letters of credit for Indian exporters.", "They also supervise and handle all bills and documents covering imports into India and transmit letters of credit established by our Indian Branches at the request of the Indian Importers.", "Further queries were raised by the ITO by his letter dated the 20th March, 1951, which appears at page 35 of the paper book.", "In this letter the ITO asked for details of charges, special charges and legal charges in respect of London and U.S.A. expenses so that their co-relation with the Indian business may be judged.", "Further information was given by the assessee.", "It appears that after discussion a formula was also accepted as to how the computation is to be made.", "The facts and circumstances clearly go to indicate that there had been no failure on the part of the assessee in the. matter of disclosure and it cannot be said that the assessee had failed to disclose truly and fully all the material facts which were necessary for the purpose of the assessees assessment.", "An analysis of the recorded reasons also clearly indicates that the said recorded reasons do not furnish any material.", "The said recorded reasons at the most may indicate some kind of suspicion or disbelief in the mind of the ITO but the recorded reasons do not furnish any materials which can lead to the formation of the belief that the income of the assessee had escaped assessment due to the failure of the assessee.", "to disclose fully and truly all the material facts.", "This aspect of the matter has also been carer fully considered by the learned trial judge.", "We are, therefore, of the opinion that there is no merit in this appeal.", "This appeal, therefore, fails.", "The appeal is dismissed.", "There will be no order as to costs.", "Assessments, if any, pursuant to the said notices are also quashed.", "Bimal Chandra Basak, J. I agree."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1978_405", "text": ["N. Roy, J. The petitioner Number 1, M section Tube Mill (India) Private Limited (hereinafter referred to as the said company), is a company registered and incorporated under the Companies Act, 1956, and the petitioner Number 2, Sri Satya Narayan Mundhra, is a director and shareholder of the same.", "The said company is stated to be a regular assessee and duly assessed under the provisions of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).", "It has been alleged that the said company held on lease a land under a lease deed between one Juggi Lal Kamalapat and Sri Jagadish Rai Jain, one of the directors of the said company.", "The said deed was executed on 25th April, 1962.", "It has been stated further that by the said deed, it was agreed by and between the parties that the lessor would not give notice of termination of the lease for a period of 10 years from 1st March, 1962.", "The lease in question was in respect of a total land of 5 bighas 1 cottah and 14 chataks 32 sq.", "ft. of land.", "It has also been stated that although, as a lessee, the name of Jagadish Rai Jain appeared in the aforesaid deed, he held the property for and on behalf of the said company.", "The term of the lease admittedly is to expire on 21st April, 1982, as the lease in question would be valid for 20 years from the date as mentioned hereinbefore, the same is to continue at a monthly rental of Rs. 2,150.", "M section Juggi Lal Kamlapat published an advertisement in the daily issues of The Statesman on 7th June, 1972, to sell the entire land holdings, being approximately 28 bighas at 27, Malipanchghara Street, Bally, Howrah, and in pursuance of such advertisement, although there were offers by various intending purchasers, none of those offers could materialise because a low price was offered in view of the fact that the premises was subject to an existing lease.", "It has been contended that, thereafter, one Smt.", "Poonam Devi Jain and Smt.", "Rashmi Devi Jain expressed their willingness for the purchase of the premises and these lands in question and ultimately for a sum of Rs. 80,000, 5 bighas 1 cottah 14 chataks and 32 sq.", "ft. of land was sold to them by the said Shri Juggi Lal Kamlapat.", "The petitioners have alleged that since the property was held by the said company and as the subsequent purchaser as mentioned above found it extremely difficult to eject the said company, they agreed to sell 1/2 of their respective shares of land to the said company at a sum of Rs. 60,000 and in fact such transfer between those transferees on the one hand and the said company on the other was effected under two deeds of conveyances dated 29th September, 1973, and 27th September, 1973, respectively.", "These apart, it has been contended that after such purchase, the said company has been in due possession of the lands in question as aforesaid and also of the balance of the lands on purchase for Rs. 60,000 and thereon constructed structures and boundary walls, not only on the lands so purchased, but also on the lands for which they were lessees, with the stipulation that on the expiry of the lease they would get the price of the said construction as settled or would remove the structures as constructed.", "It has also been alleged by the petitioners that at the time of the purchase of the property, the title to the same was fully and duly investigated, that no notices of ejectment, acquisition or anything of a like nature or any notice under Section 269D(1) of the said Act, was served upon their vendors.", "It appears that on 23rd August, 1973, and 31st August, 1973, one Shri B.P. Gupta, describing himself as a valuation officer of the I.T. department, came to the premises which was occupied by the said company as a lessee and, thereafter, the said company was asked to be present before the Valuation Officer concerned for ascertainment of certain facts regarding the construction of structures as referred to hereinbefore.", "The petitioners have alleged that they have informed and intimated to the said Valuation Officer on 7th September, 1973, that according to the lease agreement between the said company and M section Juggi Lal Kamlapat, it would appear that there were and are some structures and boundary walls on the land in question.", "Those constructions and structures were very old.", "It was also stated that after sometime, those old structures and boundary walls fell down and with the verbal permission of M section Juggi Lal Kamlapat, the said company repaired the boundary walls and also constructed new structures on the understanding that, at the time of the expiry of the lease, either the said company would mutually settle the price or they would remove the structures thereon.", "It has been stated that thereafter, on 9th August, 1974, the said company was served with a notice dated 1st August, 1974, being annex.", "C to the petition and treating the said company as a person interested in the property, having purchased one-half share in the same on 29th September, 1973.", "From that notice it would appear that acquisition proceedings under Chap.", "XXA in respect of the property at 57, Malipan-chghara Street, as aforesaid, was started, calling in question the registration, bearing registration deed Number 1867 of 1973, which was registered before the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta, on 31st March, 1973.", "By the said notice, the hearing of the acquisition proceeding and the petition filed under Section 269A of the said Act was fixed on 21st August, 1974, before the IAC, Acquisition Range III, Calcutta, who has been described as the competent authority within the meaning of Chap.", "XXA of the said Act.", "The said notice also disclosed that a valuation was made under Section 269L(1) and was to the following effect: for determination of the fair market value of the property on the date of the transfer in question and on the basis of a report purported to have been submitted by the Valuation Officer wherein he has estimated the valuation of the property as Rs. 1,32,140 whereas for a consideration of Rs. 80,000 only the entire land of 5 bighas 1 cottah 10 chataks and 32 sq.", "ft. was purchased by the ladies as mentioned above.", "In the notice it has also been stated that the competent authority recorded reasons on 20th September, 1973, and by virtue of the application under Section 269C(2)(a) and (b) of the said Act, which are to the following effect: (a) where the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than twenty-five per cent.", "of such apparent consideration, it shall be conclusive proof that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer (b) where the property has been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than its fair market value, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with such object as is referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1).", "The said competent authority had initiated the proceedings under Chap.", "XXA for the acquisition of the transferred property.", "That apart, it has further been alleged that the notice under Section 269D(1) of the said Act was thus duly and properly issued.", "From the said notice, it would also appear that a copy of the same is alleged to have been affixed to the notice board and also in a conspicuous place in the property and the substance of the notice is alleged to have been made known in the locality by the beating of drums.", "It has also been alleged that the copies of the notices were also sent, inter alia, to the principal officer of the said company and also to the ladies as mentioned hereinbefore, who has sold the immovable property in question.", "On receipt of the notice, the said company by a letter of 20th August, 1974, requested the IAC of Income-tax, Acquisition Range III, respondent Number 1, to adjourn the hearing at least for 6 weeks, as the principal officer dealing with the matter was away from Calcutta.", "By the said letter, it was also intimated to the officer concerned that no notice prior to that of 1st August, 1974, was received by the said company.", "It has also been categorically alleged by the said company that the entire proceedings, so far as they were concerned, was unconstitutional, against the principles of natural justice and as such was invalid.", "These apart, the correctness of the valuation, as referred to in the notice in question, was also disputed.", "Thereafter, the matter on being adjourned from time to time, was finally fixed for consideration on 20th August, 1974, when again time was asked for by the said company.", "The respondent Number 1 as aforesaid refused such prayer and finally fixed the case for disposal on 31st August, 1974.", "It has been contended by the petitioner that since the Valuation Officer of the department has himself valued the property at Rs. 1,32,140 and the said company has purchased half of the entire 5 bighas 1 cottah 14 chataks and 32 sq.", "ft. of land at Rs. 60,000 and the other half also was sold by a sale deed at Rs. 60,000, the entire land was ultimately sold to them or acquired by them for Rs. 1,20,000 and in that view of the matter it cannot be alleged that the price at which the said company has purchased is less than 15 of the alleged fair market value as determined by the said Valuation Officer.", "Thus, it has also been submitted that the property of the said company cannot be taken away without questioning the validity of the transfer dated 29th September, 1973, and also without serving the requisite notices under Chap.", "XXA of the said Act.", "In view of the above, it has further been contended that the proceedings, so far as the petitioners are concerned, was a nullity and entirely without jurisdiction.", "It has also been stated by the said company that it purchased the property only, and at a proper market value, apart from the fact that the consideration for the same was truly stated.", "In fact, it has been contended that there has been neither any understatement of the consideration as paid nor the consideration as paid has been shown at a lower figure.", "As such, it has been contended that, in the instant case, there was no question of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability to pay tax under the said Act or any attempt to conceal income either under the said Act or under the W.T. Act.", "The said company has further alleged to have improved the property after purchase.", "It is the categorical assertion of the said company that in his attempt to take steps in the matter, the respondent Number 1 has intentionally and deliberately started a fishing or roving enquiry and there has been or is no material, on which he could have formed the opinion or had reasons to believe that the dealings in the instant case were contrary to law and were for the purposes as mentioned in the notice.", "It has been categorically alleged that the power under Section 269C, which is quoted hereunder : 269C. (1) Where the competent authority has reason to believe that any immovable property of a fair market value exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees has been transferred by a person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferor) to another person (hereafter in this Chapter referred to as the transferee) for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of-- (a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under this Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer or (b) facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957), the competent authority may, subject to the provisions of this Chapter initiate proceedings for the acquisition of such property under this Chapter: Provided that before initiating such proceedings, the competent authority shall record his reasons for doing so: Provided further that no such proceedings shall be initiated unless the competent authority has reason to believe that the fair market value of the property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than fifteen per cent.", "of such apparent consideration.", "In any proceedings under this Chapter in respect of any immovable property,-- (a) where the fair market value of such property exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than twenty-five per cent.", "of such apparent consideration, it shall be conclusive proof that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer (b) where the property has been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than its fair market value, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the parties has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with such object as is referred to in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1).", "read with Section 269D, which is to the following effect: 269D. (1) The competent authority shall initiate proceedings for the acquisition, under this Chapter, of any immovable property referred to in Section 269C by notice to that effect published in the Official Gazette : Provided that no such proceedings shall be initiated in respect of any immovable property after the expiration of a period of nine months from the end of the month in which the instrument of transfer in respect of such property is registered under the Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908): Provided further that-- (a) in a case where it is determined under Sub-section (4) of Section 269B by the competent authority who has initiated proceedings for the acquisition of any immovable property under this Chapter or by the Board that such competent authority has no jurisdiction to initiate such proceedings, the competent authority having jurisdiction may initiate such proceedings within-- the period of nine months specified in the foregoing proviso or a period of thirty days from the date of such determination, whichever period expires later (b) in a case where proceedings for the acquisition of any immovable property under this Chapter could not be initiated during any period of time by reason of any injunction or order of any court prohibiting the initiation of such proceedings or preventing the examination of documents or other materials required to be examined for the purpose of determining whether such proceedings should be initiated, the time of the continuance of the injunction or order, the day on which it was issued or made and the day on which it was withdrawn shall be excluded in computing the period during which such proceedings may be initiated under this Sub-section.", "The competent authority shall-- (a) cause a notice under Sub-section (1) in respect of any immovable property to be served on the transferor, the transferee, the person in occupation of the property, if the transferee is not in occupation thereof, and on every person whom the competent authority knows to be interested in the property (b) cause such notice to be published-- in his office by affixing a copy thereof to a conspicuous place in the locality in which the immovable property to which it relates is situate, by affixing a copy thereof to a conspicuous part of the property and also by making known in such manner as may be prescribed the substance of such notice at convenient places in the said locality and, more particularly, the necessary power under Chap.", "XXA of the said Act have been sought to be utilised as a mere cloak or pretence for the purposes as mentioned above, and, as such, the entire action was absolutely unwarranted by law, irregular, improper and unauthorised.", "These apart, it has been contended that the IAC concerned, respondent Number 1, has not recorded any reason before initiation of the connected proceeding and even if reasons have been recorded, they are no reasons at all.", "The petitioners have also argued on the constitutional validity of Chap.", "XXA, as added by the Taxation Laws Amendment Act, 1972, and contended the same to be violative of Articles 19(1)(f) and (g), 31 and 31A of the Constitution of India.", "It has been categorically contended that the provisions for acquisition of property as embodied in Chap.", "XXA of the said Act are beyond the legislative competence of Parliament.", "Since there was no public purpose involved in the acquisition, the petitioner also contended the action to be improper and irregular apart from being illegal and unauthorised.", "The appearing respondents, in their return to the rule, have stated that the notice under Section 269D(1), which was dated 20th September, 1973, was issued in respect of the property as purchased by these ladies as mentioned above.", "Such purchase was admitted to be effected on 31st March, 1973, on a consideration shown at Rs. 80,000.", "But it has been alleged that the fair market value of the property, according to the valuation estimate, as made on 14th September, 1973, should be about Rs. 1,32,140.", "It has been stated that on the above basis, the competent authority, on 20th September, 1973, duly recorded the reasons and initiated the concerned proceedings under Chap.", "XXA of the said Act.", "The notice in question has been stated to be issued duly and properly by the predecessor-in-office of the deponent to the affidavit and was appropriately served on both the transferor and the transferees, who again, have filed their objection.", "It has been stated further that, afterwards, it was found that the ladies as mentioned above had sold the property in question on 29th September, 1973, to the petitioners and to one Shri Pranlal Trivedi for a total consideration of Rs. 1,20,000, without any improvement to the same, since their purchase.", "The respondents have stated that notices of hearing of objection were duly served on both the transferror and the transferees and also to the said company and the said Shri Pranlal Trivedi because of the subsequent knowledge of their interest in the same.", "At the stage of hearing of objections, the said Shri Trivedi prayed for time, the said company appeared through their representative and the ladies concerned obtained copies of the reasons as recorded and so also the Valuation Officers report and filed detailed statements by their letter of 27th August, 1974.", "It has been stated that although those ladies effectively represented their case, yet they wanted an adjournment on behalf of the said company on 28th August, 1974.", "Such prayer was allowed and the case was fixed on 31st August, 1974.", "It has been alleged by the respondents that after obtaining such time, the present rule has been obtained on 30th August, 1974, and this was certainly not a bona fide act.", "These apart, it has been contended that the notice under Section 269D(1) was duly served on all concerned.", "The proceeding has been stated to have been initiated on account of sale effected on 31st March, 1973, by Shri Juggl Lal Kamlapat to the ladies as mentioned above.", "It has also been stated that the property was subsequently sold to the petitioners on 29th September, 1973, and the proceedings for acquisition of the said property had already been started by the issue of the notice dated 20th September, 1973.", "The respondents have stated that since the notices sent to the correct and last known address of the petitioners were sent by registered post and they have been returned with the postal endorsement not known, which was very difficult to believe, such service should be deemed to be good service.", "The respondents, on being directed, produced the reasons for initiation of the proceedings under Section 269D. I direct the copy of the said reasons, as produced, to be kept in the record as exhibit 1 and I further quote the said reasons, which are to the following effect: Information was received from the Registrar of Assurances, Calcutta, that on 2-4-1973 Sri Juggilal Kamlapat, 7, Council House Street, Calcutta, had sold a plot of land at 57, Malipanchghara Street, Bally, Howrah, to Smt.", "Punam Debi Jain and Smt.", "Roshni Debi Jain at a purchase consideration of Rs. 80,000.", "The matter was, thereafter, referred to me for valuation by the Valuation Officer, Unit VII, Calcutta.", "The Valuation Officer submitted his report on 14-9-73 valuing the property at Rs. 1,32,140.", "The fair market value thus exceeds the admitted price by more than 25 under Sub-section (2), Clause (a) of Section 269C. It is conclusive proof that the amount of consideration mentioned in the instrument of transfer has not been truly stated.", "Further, under Clause (b) it can be presumed that the price has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with such object as has been mentioned in Clauses (a) (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C. In the context, I find that the fair market value is more than 25 of the admitted price of Rs. 80,000.", "The provision of Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 269C are thus clearly attracted.", "I, therefore, issue notice Under Section 269D(1) to initiate proceeding to acquire the property As a consideration of the same would be relevant on the arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee, amongst others, viz., that there was no material either relevant for the formation of the reasons or the reasons as formed were not on due and necessary compliance with the requirements of law and, furthermore, the reasons were not the reasons of a reasonable man.", "It was contended by Mr. Bhattacharjee, apart from the contentions as mentioned hereinbefore, that the powers under Section 269C read with Section 269D of the said Act have in fact and, in the facts of the case, sought to be used and utilised as a mere cloak or pretence for making a roving enquiry or fishing investigation, and, as such, and that too, also on the reasons as recorded, it is apparent that the conditions precedent for the exercise and assumption of jurisdiction have not been duly followed or complied with and in fact such circumstances do not at all exist.", "It was also contended that such exercise of power in the instant case was not bona fide and was a colourable use of the same and in fact, the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under Section 269C read with Section 269D of the said Act have not been satisfied and such shortfall has made the entire initiation void, illegal, bad and inoperative.", "In fact, it was categorically submitted by Mr. Bhatta-charjee that since the notice in question did not disclose -any material on which the IAC concerned, respondent Number 1, had reasons to believe as alleged, the same was inoperative and bad because that was issued mechanically and without application of the mind.", "On the construction of Section 269C, Mr. Bhattacharjee contended that the competent authority was required to form the opinion, which would again be his reasons to believe that, (1) immovable property of a fair market value exceeding Rupees twenty-five thousand has been transferred, (2) such transfer must be by the transferee for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property, and (3) that too without stating truly in the instrument of transfer with the object of--(a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the said Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer, or (b) facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or the said Act or the W.T. Act, 1957.", "It was conceded by Mr. Bhattacharjee that if the above requirements were satisfied, then the competent authority, in the instant case, the respondent Number 1, could have initiated the proceedings subject to the further requirements of the said Section 269C and as mentioned in the two provisos.", "As mentioned hereinbefore, the categorical and firm stand of Mr. Bhattacharjee was that in the instant case the mandatory requirements of the sections were neither fulfilled nor complied with, and as such the initiation was void ab initio.", "On the language of Section 269C, which uses the terms the competent authority may, subject to the provisions of this Chapter, initiate proceedings read with the requirements of the provisos, Mr. Bhattacharjee supplemented his arguments that the fulfilment of the conditions were mandatory and the necessary and due procedures were required to be taken prior to the initiation.", "On facts, it was contended that since the enhancement of rate as shown on the estimates as prepared by the authorities concerned, amittedly, did not exceed 15, the initiation on that basis was also bad and improper.", "It was also contended by Mr. Bhattacharjee that the findings under Section 269C(2) are also required to be arrived at independent of the findings under Section 269C(1) and the requirements under Sub-section (2) exclude and, as mentioned hereinbefore, are independent of those under Sub-section (1) of Section 269(C).", "In fact, it was contended by Mr. Bhattacharjee that both Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 269C have been applied in the instant case.", "In support of his submissions that the primary satisfaction under Section 269C(2) was not arrived at either duly or at all, Mr. Bhattacharjee referred to the determinations in the case of Smt.", "Bani Roy Chowdhury v. Competent Authority, IAC .", "In that case, there was a transfer of immovable property by the Life Insurance Corporation to the petitioner in 1962.", "The competent authority issued a notice in 1973 under Section 269D of the I.T. Act, 1961, whereby proceedings were initiated for acquisition of this property from the petitioner.", "On the petition for a writ to set aside the notice it had been observed that the reasons recorded by the competent authority showed that it had failed to appreciate the fact that the transfer had been made by a statutory body and one of the confirming parties had been shown as one of the transferors.", "The competent authority had taken into account transfers in areas situated in more central places in the city and in accounting years subsequent to the relevant accounting year and had applied both Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C. The petitioner is entitled to succeed as the acquisition proceedings had not been validly initiated and were liable to be set aside.", "In that case, it has also been laid down, on the arguments as advanced, that proceedings can be initiated for the acquisition of immovable property under Section 269C of the I.T. Act, 1961, only if the competent authority has reason to believe that, (i) the property concerned which is sought to be transferred has a fair market value exceeding Rs. 25,000 (ii) it has been transferred for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property by 15 or more and (iii) the consideration has not been truly stated in the instrument of transfer with the object of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the I.T. Act or with the object of facilitating the concealment of any income or assets which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purpose of the I.T. Act or the W.T. Act.", "The word or occurring between Clauses (a) and (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 269C shows that it is sufficient if any one of them applies and (iv) it is incumbent on the competent authority to record his reasons for initiating the proceedings and the reasons for the formation of the belief must have a rational connection with or relevant bearing to the formation of the belief.", "Rational connection postulates that there must be a direct nexus between the material coming to the notice of the competent authority and the formation of his belief.", "The provisions of Sub-section (2) of Section 269C relate to matters of proof for the purpose of simplifying the law of evidence in so far as the competent authority is concerned.", "The language of Sub-section (2) makes it clear that it is not applicable at the initial stage when the competent authority has to form its reason to believe.", "These apart, Mr. Bhattacharjee, on a reference to Section 269D of the said Act, argued that the issue of a notification was also a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction and power, and in the instant case such notification not having been duly and appropriately made and published, the entire proceedings also became void and inoperative, apart from being without jurisdiction.", "Such contentions about the non-publication of the notification was contested by Mr. Pal and he produced a copy of the Gazette of India dated 13th October, 1973, Part III, sec.", "1, p. 4476, showing the publication of the notification.", "I direct the said copy of the Gazette to be kept in the record marked as exhibit 2.", "The date of the notification under Section 269D(1) is 20th September, 1973, which, as mentioned hereinbefore, was published on 13th October, 1973, and the same has been in the following terms: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA OFFICE OF THE INSPECTING ASSTT.", "COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, ACQUISITION RANGE III Calcutta-1, the 20th September, 1973, Number C-44/Acq R-III/73-74.", "Whereas, I, S.K. Chakravarty, being the competent authority under Section 269B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), have reason to believe that the immovable property, having a fair market value exceeding Rs. 25,000 and bearing Number 57, situated at Malipanchghara Street, Bally, Howrah, and more fully described in the Schedule annexed hereto has been transferred as per deed registered under the Indian Registration Act, 1908 (16 of 1908), in the office of the registering officer at Calcutta on April 2, 1972, for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the aforesaid property and I have reason to believe that the fair market value of the property as aforesaid exceeds the apparent consideration therefor by more than fifteen per cent.", "of such apparent consideration and that the consideration for such transfer as agreed to between the transferor(s) and the transferee(s) has not been truly stated in the said instrument of transfer with the object of-- (a) facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), in respect of any income arising from the transfer and or (b) facilitating the concealment of any income or any moneys or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee for the purposes of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), or the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).", "And whereas the reasons for initiating proceedings for the acquisition of the aforesaid property in terms of Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), have been recorded by me.", "Now, therefore, in pursuance of Section 269C, I hereby initiate proceedings for the acquisition of the aforesaid property by the issue of the notice under Sub-section (1) of Section 269D of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), to the following persons namely :-- M section Juggi Lal Kamlapat (Transferor).", "Punam Devi Jain and Smt.", "Reshmi Debi Jain (transferee).", "Objections, if any, to the acquisition of the property may be made in writing to the undersigned :-- (a) by any of the aforesaid persons within a period of 45 days from the date of publication of this notice in the Official Gazette or a period of 30 days from the service of notice on the respective persons, whichever period expires later (b) by any other person interested in the said immovable property within 45 days from the date of the publication of this notice in the Official Gazette.", "It is hereby notified that a date and place for hearing the objections, if any, made in response to the notice against the acquisition of the immovable property will be fixed, and notice thereof shall be given to every person who has made such objection, and the transferee of the property.", "It is hereby further notified that every person to whom notice is given under the preceding paragraph shall have a right to be heard at the hearing of the objections.", "Explanation.--The terms and expressions used herein as are defined in Chapter XXA of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), shall have the said meaning as given in that Chapter.", "THE SCHEDULE A plot of land measuring 5 Bighas 1 Cottah 14 Chittacks and 32 sq.", "together with one single storeyed building situated at 57, Malipanchghara Street, Bally, Howrah.", "K. Chakravarty Competent Authority Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, Acquisition Range-III, P.-13, Chowringhee Square, Calcutta-1.", "Mr. Bhattacharjee further sought to argue that the incorporation of the period of nine months from the end of the month in which the instrument of transfer in respect of such property is registered under the Registration Act, 1908, as substituted in Section 269D by I.T. (Amend.) Act, 1973, and with effect from 15th November, 1972, was void and inoperative and thus the retrospective effect, as was, sought to be given to transfers from the end of the month of registration of the document in question, was also inoperative.", "Such points, as pointed out by Mr. Pal, have not been specifically and categorically made out in the pleadings and, as, such, he was justified in contending that the respondents have been deprived of producing or furnishing the necessary particulars in their defence.", "Even then, in view of the determinations in the case of Basudev Sahu v. Union of India 1976 102 ITR 572 (Orissa), to which reference was made by Mr. Pal, I think the arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee are of no substance.", "In that case, the validity of Chap.", "XXA, incorporating Sections 269A to 269S of the said Act, came up for consideration before the Orissa High Court and, on the facts of that case and on the arguments as advanced, it has been observed thus (p. 573): While the right to hold property has been protected by Articles 19(1)(f) and 31, reasonable restrictions over the said right in the interests of the general public have been built into the right from the commencement of the Constitution.", "Property rights of the individual citizen have to be balanced by the interests of the society embodied in the Directive Principles of State Policy contained and enumerated in Part IV of the Constitution.", "Since Article 37 holds out a mandate to the State to apply the principles of State Policy into the process of legislation, a law enacted to implement one or more of the directive principles so enumerated cannot be considered as introducing an unreasonable restriction.", "Legislation giving effect to a directive principle has got to be regarded as a reasonable restriction on the corresponding fundamental right otherwise, the provisions in Part III and Part IV cannot co-exist.", "The duty of the State is not limited to the protection of individual interest but extends to acts for the achievement of the general welfare in all cases where it can safely act.", "Article 19(5) authorises reasonable restrictions on the exercise of the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in the interest of the general public.", "The menace of black money and evasion of tax which had been ruining the economy of the country had to be tackled and it was for the said purpose that the provisions of Chapter XXA of the Act were incorporated by amendment.", "The amended provision is covered by Article 19(5).", "Legislation introducing Chapter XXA is in furtherance of the principles in Article 31-C. Land is scarce goods and is an important factor in the process of production.", ", The mischief which the amendment seeks to hit and eradicate is concentration of lands in the hands of a few.", "The impugned provisions, therefore, squarely come within the ambit of Article 31-C of the Constitution, and therefore, even if the petitioners contention that the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property conferred under Article 19(1)(f) is affected, the petitioner is not entitled to raise any challenge.", "Nextly, it was contended that it was under entry 82 of List 1 of the Seventh Schedule of the Constitution authorising legislation relating to taxes on income other than agricultural income that the impugned provisions were enacted, that the true purpose of Chapter XXA of the Act is beyond the purview of the entry and, therefore, Parliament had no legislative competence to enact the Amending Act of 1972 which introduced Chapter XXA.", "The ambit of each entry is of the widest amplitude and law is settled beyond doubt that, if by the pith and substance test, the legislative entry supports legislation, a statute is not open to attack on the ground of want of competence.", "Undoubtedly, the Income-tax Act is a legislation in exercise of legislative powers under entry 82.", "So is the provision now impugned.", "The impugned Chapter makes provision for imposition of penalty and for checking evasion of law, because such a position is concomitant to the power to raise taxes.", "Such supplementary provisions are necessary for administering the statute effectively and for meeting the purpose for which the law is made.", "The scheme under the impugned provision for compulsory buying of the property at the stated consideration together with fifteen per cent.", "thereof in the event of a clandestine deal to evade tax is not foreign to the law of income-tax.", "Parliament was initially satisfied with the levy of penalty.", "By experience it appeared that that was not sufficient to meet the growing evil.", "Consequently, the Amending Act was passed.", "The Amending Act, in these circumstances, could not be held to be beyond the range of legislative competence.", "In the instant case, admittedly, the assistance of a valuer was taken for the purpose of obtaining the valuation, which was contended by Mr. Bhattacharjee to be irregular, void and unauthorised under the scheme of the said Act.", "It seems, on the arguments in reply by Mr. Pal, that such argument is of little avail or consequence, in view of the provisions of Section 269L of the said Act which is to the following effect: Section 269L: The competent authority may,-- (a) for the purpose of initiating proceedings for the acquisition of any immovable property under Section 269C or for the purpose of making an order under Section 269F in respect of any immovable property, require a Valuation Officer to determine the fair market value of such property and report the same to him (b) for the purpose of estimating the amount by which the compensation payable under Sub-section (1) of Section 269J in respect of any immovable property may be reduced or, as the case may be, increased under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of that section, require the Valuation Officer to make such estimate and report the same to him.", "The Valuation Officer to whom a reference is made under Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) shall, for the purpose of dealing with such reference, have all the powers that he has under Section 38A of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (27 of 1957).", "If in an appeal under Section 269G against the order for acquisition of any immovable property, the fair market value of such property is in dispute, the Appellate Tribunal shall, on a request being made in this behalf by the competent authority, give an opportunity of being heard to any Valuation Officer nominated for the purpose by the competent authority.", "The said section authorises the competent authority to take the help and assistance of Valuation Officers, which have the same meaning as in Section 2(r) of the W.T. Act, 1957.", "In answer to the main arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee, Mr. Pal, on a reference to Section 269E of the said Act, which lays down that: 269E. (1) Objections against the acquisition of the immovable property in respect of which a notice has been published in the Official Gazette under Sub-section (1) of Section 269D may be made-- (a) by the transferor or the transferee or any other person referred to in Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of that section, within a period of forty-five days from the date of such publication or a period of thirty days from the date of service of notice on such person under the said clause, whichever period expires later (b) by any other person interested in such immovable property, within forty-five days from the date of such publication.", "Every objection under Sub-section (1) shall be made to the competent authority in writing.", "For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that objection may be made under Sub-section (1) that the provisions of Clause (a) of Sub-section (2) of Section 269C do not apply in relation to any immovable property on the ground that the fair market value of such property does not exceed the apparent consideration therefor by more than twenty-five per cent.", "of such apparent consideration.", "contended, that since notice to object under the section has been given and no objection has admittedly been filed, the present proceedings are premature, as till now, there is no present or existing grievance of the petitioners and in fact they have not as yet been able to establish any such grievance.", "In fact, Mr. Pal contended that since no penal action has as yet been taken, the petition, at this stage, would not be maintainable.", "In support of his contentions, Mr. Pal relied on the determination in the case of Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Punjab, .", "That was a case, where the disciplinary proceedings against an employee dropped by an authority who was not competent to impose punishment, were revived by a competent officer, by issuing a fresh show-cause notice against the dismissal and a writ petition challenging the said revival had been found to be premature as no punitive action was taken yet and there was no present grievance which can be ventilated in court.", "Mr. Pal sought to distinguish the determination in the case of Smt.", "Bani Roy Chowdhury v. Competent Authority on merits and on the facts from the present case.", "He submitted that, in that case, valuation was arrived at on the basis of insertions in newspapers, which is not the case here, as admittedly, in the instant case, valuation was duly made on the basis of help and assistance received from approved valuers under Section 269L of the said Act.", "It should be noted that one of the contentions of Mr. Bhattacharjee was that the said company cannot be said to have purchased the property at less than 15 of the alleged market value, even as determined by the valuer concerned, as it would be evident that the entire land of 5 bighas 1 cottah 14 chataks and 32 sq.ft. was valued by him at Rs. 1,32,140, whereas on the own showing of the respondents, the said company has purchased half of the said land at Rs. 60,000 and the other half was also sold for the same amount.", "Thus, the entire land was ultimately sold for Rs. 1,20,000.", "Mr. Pal of course wanted to establish and that too on the indenture in question, that since the actual consideration for transfer was Rs. 80,000, the test of 15 as referred to hereinbefore was also satisfied.", "It is true that the proceedings before the respondent Number 1 were adjourned to 31st August, 1974, at the instance of the ladies as referred to hereinbefore, such adjournment was obtained on 27th August, 1974, and the present rule was obtained on 30th August, 1974.", "These facts, according to Mr. Pal, not only establish collusion between the parties, viz., those ladies and the petitioners herein, but also establish an unholy alliance between them to thwart the recovery of revenue apart from mala fide because those ladies on the one hand obtained time to have themselves or their cases duly and properly represented in the connected proceedings, while on the other hand the petitioners have obtained this rule with the corresponding interim order and have frustrated the proceedings.", "In reply to the arguments of Mr. Pal on the Gazette as produced, Mr. Bhattacharjee referred to the date of transfer which has been mentioned to have been completed by a registered deed of 2nd April, 1973, whereas the deed in question, it was submitted by him, on production of the same, to be of 31st March, 1973, and as such contended that the Gazette notification was also not in accordance with law or in terms of the requirer ments of the same.", "In fact, it was contended by Mr. Bhattacharjee that this wrong or mis-quotation of the date has made the entire notification, so far as the present initiation is concerned, invalid, inoperative, void and bad and has also established a non-application of the mind.", "He contended that, as such, the notification in question was not in accordance with the requirements of the statute and such non-application of mind, which was also reflected in the notice, established beyond any reasonable doubt that the conditions necessary for the exercise of power under Section 269C of the said Act, were not fulfilled, the more so when the answering respondents themselves, in the return to the rule, have mentioned the date of sale as 31st March, 1973.", "Mr. Pal of course tried to establish that the discrepancy in the date as referred to hereinbefore has occurred because in the information which has been received from the Registrar of Assurances the date of registration has been mentioned as 2nd April, 1973, The original deed was produced by Mr. Bhattacharjee and that appears to have been registered on 31st March, 1973, and entered in Book No, I, Volume Number 81, pages 237-261, being Number 1867 for the year 1973.", "On the question of entering the satisfaction and reasons to believe or the basis and background for such formation, Mr. Bhattacharjee referred to the determination of the Supreme Court in the case of ITO v. Lakkmani Mewal Das , even though the said determination was made under Sections 147 and 148 of the said Act, because the principles as enunciated or laid down therein, according to him, would be applicable and available in this case.", "In that case, it has been- observed amongst others that two conditions have to be satisfied before an ITO acquires jurisdiction to issue notice under Section 147 in respect of an assessment beyond the period of four years but within a period of eight years from the end of the relevant year, viz., (i) the ITO must have reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment, and (ii) he must have reason to believe that such income has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee, (a) to make a return under Section 139 for the assessment year to the ITO, or (b) to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for his assessment for that year.", "Both these conditions must co-exist to confer jurisdiction on the ITO.", "It is also imperative for the ITO to record his reasons before initiating proceedings as required by Section 148(2).", "Another requirement is that before notice is issued after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment years, the Commissioner should be satisfied on the reasons recorded by the ITO that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.", "The duty which is cast upon the assessee is to make a true and full disclosure of the primary facts at the time of the original assessment.", "Production before the ITO of the account books or other evidence from which material evidence could with due diligence have been discovered by the ITO will not necessarily amount to disclosure as contemplated by law.", "The duty of the assessee in any case does not extend beyond making a true and full disclosure of primary facts.", "Once he has done that, his duty ends.", "It is for the ITO to draw the correct inference from the primary facts.", "It is no responsibility of the assessee to advise the ITO with regard to the inference which he should draw from the primary facts.", "If an ITO draws an inference which appears subsequently to be erroneous, mere change of opinion with regard to that inference would not justify initiation of action for reopening the assessment.", "The grounds or reasons which lead to the formation of the belief, contemplated by Section 147(a) of the Act, must have a material bearing on the question of escapement of income of the assessee from assessment because of his failure or omission to disclose fully and truly all material facts.", "Once there exist reasonable grounds for the ITO to form the above belief, it would be sufficient to clothe him with jurisdiction to issue notice.", "Whether the grounds are adequate or not is not a matter for the court to investigate.", "The sufficiency of grounds which induce the ITO is, therefore, not a justiciable issue.", "It is, of course, open to the assessee to contend that the officer did not hold the belief that there had been such non-disclosure.", "The existence of the belief can be challenged by the assessee but not the sufficiency of reasons for the belief.", "The expression reason to believe does not mean a purely subjective satisfaction on the part of the ITO.", "The reason must be held in good faith.", "It cannot be merely a pretence.", "It is open to the court to examine whether the reasons for the formation of the belief have a rational connection with or a relevant bearing on the formation of the belief and are not extraneous or irrelevant for the purpose of the section.", "To this limited extent, the action of the ITO in starting proceedings in respect of income escaping assessment is open to challenge in a court of law.", "To establish the mandatory nature and character of the requirements of Section 269D, reference was made by Mr. Bhattacharjee to the determination in the case of U.S. Awasthi v. IAC , wherein it has been observed amongst others that the preliminary notice which initiates the proceedings has to be given by publication in the Official Gazette.", "Unless this preliminary notice is published in the Official Gazette within nine months from the end of the month in which the instrument of transfer is registered proceedings cannot be said to have been initiated, and, in the absence of such publication within the statutory time, the commencement of acquisition proceedings under Chap.", "XXA of the Act will be without jurisdiction.", "It has also been observed that the fact that the individual notices were given to the petitioners within the prescribed period will not dispense with the requirement of the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette, and the requirements contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 269D of the publication of the notice in the Official Gazette within the prescribed time is a mandatory requirement and if this requirement is not met the entire proceedings fail.", "It has further been observed that publication contemplated by Section 269D(1) is that the notification not only must be printed in the Gazette but the Gazette containing the notification must also be available to the public within the statutory period.", "The fact that the ladies as mentioned above took all steps to have their cases effectively represented, thereafter got adjournment and then the said company moved and obtained this rule with the corresponding interim order, do give rise to some suspicion and I am of the view that perhaps such steps were taken by them in collusion with the said company and that too for helping their cause.", "I find from the records (exhibit 2) and the evidence as disclosed that the conditions precedent for the issue of a notification and the publication of the same, as required under Section 269D of the said Act, have been duly satisfied and complied with and the explanation as given by the respondents regarding the discrepancy in the date and the deed in question and the notification is reasonable and can be accepted.", "These apart, in respectful agreement with the views and reasons in the case of Basudev Sahu v. Union of India 1976 102 ITR 572 (Orissa), I find that there is no substance in the arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee on the question of the validity of Chap.", "XXA, whereby Sections 269A to 269S of the said Act have been incorporated.", "On a reference to the provisions of Section 269L of the said Act, I also find that the competent authority in the instant case duly and authorisedly took the help and assistance of a valuation officer and as such the arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee on that aspect are, also without any substance.", "Thus, we are now left with the consideration of the main arguments of Mr. Bhattacharjee to the effect that power under Section 269C read with Section 269D of the said Act, and more particularly, the necessary powers under Chap.", "XXA, have been sought to be utilised as a mere cloak or pretence and as such the entire action was unwarranted, irregular, improper and unauthorised, apart from the fact that the IAC concerned has not duly recorded any reasons, before initiating the proceedings and even if reasons have been recorded, they are no reasons or reasons of a reasonable man at all.", "The material facts on which such arguments have been based have been mentioned hereinbefore.", "The main plank of the reply of Mr. Pal, in answer to the aforesaid submissions of Mr. Bhattacharjee, was based on a reference to the provisions of Section 269E of the said Act.", "It was specifically contended by him, on a reference to the said section, that since no objection, in terms of the requirements of the said section has been filed, the present writ application would be premature and since there has also been no present grievance in view of the determinations in the case of Chanan Singh v. Registrar, Co-operative Societies, , interference in this jurisdiction should not be made.", "The aforesaid was of course the submissions of Mr. Pal, in addition to his submissions that the opinion in the instant case was duly, reasonably and appropriately formed and that too on relevant materials and on an application of mind, before the initiation of the proceedings, by the issue of the concerned notice.", "In view of the Supreme Court case as cited and mentioned above, if the proceedings have not been duly, properly and legally initiated and otherwise or more particularly the initiation itself is bad, void, irregular, unauthorised and without jurisdiction, then the said determination would not hold good and would not be applicable.", "The points at issue in the instant case were specifically in issue in the determination in the case of Smt.", "Bani Roy Chowdhury v. Competent Authority and as such if Mr. Pal fails in his submissions to prove the conditions necessary and precedent for the initiation of proceedings in the instant case under Section 269C read with Section 269D of the said Act to be followed, then following the determination in the Calcutta decision as referred to above, this rule will have to be made absolute as I feel that as a judge of the co-ordinate jurisdiction, the said decision should be followed by me.", "It is true, and as submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, a wrong date of transfer has been mentioned in the Gazette and more particularly in the Gazette it has been mentioned that the transfer was completed on 2nd April, 1973, whereas the deed as produced showed such date to be 31st March, 1973.", "But this, in my view, would not establish the alleged non-application of mind, in view of the explanation as given.", "On the question of entering the satisfaction and reasons to believe or the basis and the background for such formation, the notice in exhibit 1, which has been quoted hereinbefore, will have to be scrutinised and tested on the basis of the determination in the case of ITO v. Lakhmani Mewal Das .", "Even though that determination was under sections 147 and 148 of the said Act, the principles as laid down therein, as submitted by Mr. Bhattacharjee, can be applied in the instant case and on the challenge as thrown.", "From a reference to exhibit 1, it appears that no opinion has been formed that the fair market value of the immovable property exceeding twenty-five thousand rupees has been transferred, the transfer in question is by the transferee for an apparent consideration which is less than the fair market value of the property and that too without stating truly in the instrument of transfer, with the object of facilitating the reduction or evasion of the liability of the transferor to pay tax under the said Act in respect of any income arising from the transfer or for facilitating the concealment of any income or any money or other assets which have not been or which ought to be disclosed by the transferee, for the purpose of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, or the said Act or the W.T. Act.", "The aforesaid, in agreement with the submissions of Mr. Bhattacharjee, I hold are the mandatory requirements of Section 269C, subject to the provisos as mentioned thereunder.", "Since the requirements as mentioned above have not been fulfilled or complied with, the initiation as made, in view of the above, and also in view of the determination in the case of Smt.", "Bani Roy Chowdhury v. Competent Authority , which was under Section 269C(2), must be held to be void and irregular.", "It is true that in the instant case both Sub-sections (1) and (2) of Section 269C have been applied.", "But on the construction of the said Sub-sections, I find that the findings under them should be made and arrived at independently and the findings under them exclude each other.", "In view of the above, although the conduct of, the petitioner is not absolutely bona fide, the rule will have to be made absolute, only on the point regarding the non-fulfilment of the necessary conditions or conditions precedent for initiation of proceedings under Section 269C and, furthermore, considering exhibit 1, I find that the same has not disclosed any material relevant for the formation of the reasons and in fact the reasons as sought to be formed were not on due and necessary compliance with the requirements of the section as aforesaid and in fact the powers under Section 269C read with Section 269D have been sought to be used as a mere cloak or pretence for making a roving enquiry or fishing investigation.", "Thus, the initiation on the basis of exhibit 1, for the reasons as aforesaid, apart from the other reasons as disclosed, should be deemed to be inoperative, bad, unauthorised and without jurisdiction.", "Since the initiation was without jurisdiction, the proceedings, as initiated should also be deemed to be void ab initio and as such the existence of other remedy, if any, or the non-existence of any present grievance, as was argued by Mr. Pal as a bar to the power of interference by this court at this stage and in this jurisdiction, would also be of no avail and substance.", "So, the rule is made absolute.", "There will, however, be no order as to costs.", "This order will not of course prejudice the respondents from proceeding afresh in the matter and to make appropriate determination in accordance with law, if such course is available to them in law.", "The prayer for stay of operation of this order is refused."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1978_49", "text": ["Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, we are concerned with four assessment years, namely, assessment years 1966-67 to 1969-70 and the relevent accounting years are Diwali years 2022 to 2025 respectively.", "The assessee is a private limited company.", "By a lease dated the 21st September, 1954, entered into between the assessee and one Maharaja Probirendra Mohau Tagore, the latter gave on lease, all these messuages, lands, hereditaments and premises Number 26, Prosanna Kumar Tagore Street, commonly known as Tagore Castle in the town of Calcutta to the assessee for a period of 84 years with an option of renewal for a further period of 7 years.", "In order to appreciate the contentions urged in this case, it would be necessary to set out in extenso the relevant clauses of the said lease dated the 21st September, 1954.", "In the recital clause it was stated, inter alia, as follows : And Whereas the Lessee has agreed to take a lease for the said period of 84 years of the said messuages, tenements or dwelling houses, land, hereditaments and premises Number 26, Prosonno Coomar Tagore Street, commonly known as Tagore Castle together with the land thereto belonging, particularly described in Schedule A hereunder written and delineated in the Map or Plan hereunto annexed and therein enclosed by Red lines including the additions and alterations thereto upon rent hereby reserved and upon terms and conditions hereinafter appearing.", "Now This Indenture Witnesseth that in consideration of the rent hereby reserved and of the covenants herein contained and on the part of the Lessee to be observed and performed the Lessor doth hereby grant a lease unto the Lessee to commence immediately on the execution of these presents all those messuages, lands, hereditaments and premises Number 26, Prosonno Coomar Tagore Street, commonly known as Tagore Castle in the town of Calcutta particularly described in Schedule A hereunder written and delineated in the Map and Plan hereto annexed and therein enclosed by Red lines (hereinafter for the sake of brevity called the demised premises) together with all buildings, structures and appurtenances whatsoever belonging to the Lessor or in any way appertaining thereto provided however during the subsistence of the Lease hereby granted the Lessor shall have the free use of four garages and three small rooms forming part of the stables standing on part of and comprised in the demised premises and more particularly shown and delineated in the Map or Plan hereunto annexed and therein marked with hatched lines and also subject to the free right of ingress and egress thereto and therefrom through the Southern gate of the demised premises from and into Prosonno Coomar Tagore Street which would also include the demised premises as may be altered or added to by the Lessee.", "To Hold the same unto the Lessee as from the date of execution of these presents for the term of 84 years yielding and paying therefor during the terms hereby created the monthly sum of Rs. 3,000 (Rupees Three thousand) only without any abatement or deduction whatsoever on the 7th (seventh) of each and every Bengali calendar month following the month for which the same shall become due and payable The lessee took upon himself the obligations to pay the rent reserved on the day and in the manner mentioned in the recital irrespective of the fact that the demised premises or the buildings to be erected thereon, as hereinafter mentioned, or any part thereof, might be destroyed or damaged by fire or other irresistible force or act of God.", "The other clauses of the lessees obligations to the lessor were as follows : To pay the rent reserved on the days and in the manner aforesaid and that notwithstanding that any time or times the demised premises or the buildings to be erected thereon as hereinafter mentioned or any part thereof may be destroyed or damaged by fire or other irresistible force or act of God.", "To pay and discharge all existing and future municipal rates and taxes, impositions and all outgoings of whatsoever nature which are to be or shall be assessed, charged or imposed on the demised premises (including in such expression throughout these presents whenever appropriate the buildings and structures to be erected and alterations to be made by the Lessee) and payable by either owner or occupier in respect thereof.", "The present Municipal Tax in respect of the owners share is Rs. 4,281-2-0 (Rupees Four thousand two hundred eighty-one and annas two) and in respect of the occupiers share Rs. 4,281-2.0 (Rupees Four thousand two hundred eighty-one and annas two only) per annum.", "The Lessee shall have the optipn to erect from time to time during the term of these presents at its own cost upon the demised premises in a substantial and workmanlike manner with good materials of the several kinds in accordance with the plans, elevations, sections and specifications according to the choice of the Lessee and sanctioned by the Corporation of Calcutta and under the inspection of a competent supervisor to be selected mutually buildings with all necessary out offices, out buildings, boundary walls, sewers, drains and to spend upon such work such sums as the Lessee may in its absolute discretion think proper but such sum or sums to be expended by the Lessee shall not be less than the sum of Rupees Five Lakhs only in the aggregate and to allow the Lessors Surveyor to verify such expenditure if required to his satisfaction.", "If the Lessee constructs any new structures and or building as mentioned in the preceding Clause 3 hereof the said structures and or buildings or erections together with all alterations thereto shall belong absolutely to the Lessor on the expiration or sooner determination of the terms hereby granted At the expiration of the term hereby granted or earlier determination thereof to peaceably and quietly yield up the demised premises together with the buildings to be erected thereon as aforesaid and all additions and alterations thereto and all other buildings at any time erected or standing on the demised premises together with all fixtures in such repair or such condition as aforesaid by delivering vacant possession of such portion as will at the time remain vacant and by attornment of tenancy of such portions as will be in occupation of tenants.", "That the Lessee shall at its own expense comply with, carry out, observe and perform all notices, requirements and requisitions that may from time to time be issued or made by the Government, Municipality or any other authority for the time being vested with such power in respect of the demised premises of the buildings or structures to be erected by the Lessee as aforesaid and shall always keep the Lessor indemnified saved and harmless against any damages, costs and consequences of non-compliance, non-performance or non-observance of any such notice, requirement or requisition Not to keep or store or permit to be kept or stored in or upon any part of the demised premises or in the buildings standing and or to be erected by the Lessee as aforesaid any explosive, inflammable, combustible or dangerous articles or things except in such quantities as may be allowed by the Government or Police under licence granted to the occupants for purpose of business.", "Not to carry on or permit to be carried on upon the demised land or any part thereof of any building that may during the said term be erected thereon any obnoxious or offensive or unlawful business whatsoever and not to cause, permit or suffer upon the same anything which may be or become a nuisance or annoyance to the neighbours.", "That the Lessee shall not assign this Lease without first obtaining the permission in writing of the Lessor such permission however is not to be unreasonably withheld by the Lessor provided however that such assignment if permitted will not relieve the Lessee of its obligation and liabilities under these presents to the Lessor.", "The Lessee shall prior to any assignment of its lease give notice thereof to the Lessor in writing containing the name and address of the assignee and furnish other necessary particulars concerning such assignment notwithstanding anything hereinbefore contained the Lessee shall subject to the conditions and covenants herein contained be entitled to sublet or underlet the demised premises or any part thereof and or grant sub-lease or sub-leases in respect of the demised premises or any portion or portions thereof for a certain term not exceeding or beyond the term hereby created.", "And the Lessee will at all times during the said term insure and keep insured from loss or damages by fire or other accident the demised premises as aforesaid up to the amount of Rs. 3,00,000 (Rupees Three lakhs) in the joint names of the Lessor and the Lessee in Concord of India Insurance Company Limited of 8, Clive Row, or any other company to be approved of mutually in Calcutta aforesaid and will from time to time whenever requested by the Lessor produce the premium receipt.", "In case the demised premises shall be destroyed or damaged by fire or other accidents the Lessee shall immediately thereafter lay out and apply the money to be received by virtue of the said Insurance and also all such other sums of money as may be required for that purpose in well and substantially rebuilding, repairing and reinstating the damaged portion under the inspection and the satisfaction of the Surveyor to be appointed by mutual consent and the Lessor shall also continue in applying such money for such repairs and reinstatement Clause II by Sub-clause (iv) provides as follows : It is hereby further agreed and declared that in case of acquisition of the demised premises under the Land Acquisition Act or any other Act or enactment or ordinance for the time being in force the Lessor will be entitled to the compensation that may be awarded therefor for the land and the existing structures and the Lessor and the Lessee will be entitled to the compensation awarded for the leasehold right and also the buildings if any constructed by the Lessee in the demised premises in the same ratio as may be finally determined and awarded under law.", "Sub-clause (vi) of Clause II provides as follows: On the expiration of the term hereby created the Lessee shall have the option of renewal for another seven years on similar terms and conditions save and except this condition for the renewal of the lease provided all rents and outgoings up to the date of such fresh lease have been paid and there has been no subsisting or continuing breach of any of the terms and conditions herein contained and to be observed and performed by the lessee.", "Provided however the Lessor shall not be entitled to refuse to extend the terms of the Lease on the ground of any breach of terms or conditions which had been waived earlier.", "The assessee was also entitled to install a cold storage plant in the demised premises, clauses in respect of which we need not refer.", "The area of the premises leased out was over 7 bighas of land with a partly four-storeyed and partly three-storeyed house.", "It appears that upon taking possession of the said leasehold property, the assessee constructed several buildings thereon including a two-storeyed structure on an area of 8,332 sq.ft. of land and named as Sashi Sadan.", "By a deed of assignment dated the 6th August, 1962, the assessee in consideration of a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 paid by one Sm.", "Kiran Devi Khaitan, transferred to her by way of sublease, the said Sashi Sadan together with the leasehold land appertaining thereto measuring 8,332 sq.ft., for the residue of the unexpired period of the said lease dated the 21st September, 1954, together with the benefits, rights, liberties, privileges thereunder and subject to the payment of a monthly rent of Rs. 51 in respect of the said 8,332 sq.ft.", "of land on which Sashi Sadan stood and further subject to payment of owners share and occupiers share of municipal taxes relating to Sashi Sadan.", "It would also be appropriate at this stage to set out the relevant clauses of the said deed of assignment.", "The said deed recited as follows: The Deed of Assignment made this 6th day of August One thousand nine hundred and sixty-two between section B. (House Land) Limited, a private limited company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, and having its registered office at Number 2, Ganpat Bagla Road, in Calcutta, hereinafter called the Transferor (which expression shall unless excluded by or repugnant to the context be deemed to include its successors) on the One Part And Srimati Kiron Debi Khaitan, wife of Lalit Kumar Khaitan, residing at Number 4, Queens Park in the town of Calcutta, hereinafter called the Transferee (which term shall Unless excluded by or repugnant to the context be deemed to include her heirs, executors, administrators, representatives and assigns) of the Other Part.", "The recital clause further went on to state : Whereas : After the said Lease the Transferor constructed a two storied structure on 8,332 sq.ft. of land (which is used as Cold Storage) which is a portion of the said premises Number 26, Prosonna Coomar Tagore Street, and which is particularly described in the Schedule hereunder written and delineated in the plan hereto annexed and the structure is known as Sashi Sadan.", "The Transferor is seized and possessed of or otherwise well and sufficiently entitled to All That Pucca two storied structure known as Sashi Sadan and used as Cold Storage situated on 8,332 sq.ft.", "of leasehold land being a portion of the said premises Number 26, Prosonna Coomar Tagore Street, Calcutta, and more particularly described in the Schedule hereunder written and delineated in the plan hereto annexed free from all encumbrances whatsoever but subject to the said lease dated 21st September, 1954.", "The Transferor has agreed to transfer by way of sub-lease unto the Transferee All That two storied brick built messuages or house and structure situated on leasehold land measuring 8,332 square feet be the same a little more or less situate lying at and being a portion of premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street in the town of Calcutta known as Sashi Sadan and more fully described in the Schedule hereunder written and shown in the plan hereto annexed to Hold the said two storied structure known as Sashi Sadan and being a portion of premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street, unto the transferee for the residue of the unexpired term of years created by the lease dated 21st September, 1954, and subject to the terms and conditions therein for a consideration of Rs. 1,50,000.", "(Rupees One Lakh and fifty thousand only).", "The first clause in the habendum clause was to the following effect : That in pursuance of the said agreement and in consideration of the sum of Rs. 1,50,000 (Rupees One Lakh fifty thousand only) paid by the Transferee to the Transferor at or immediately before the execution of these presents (the receipt whereof the transferor doth hereby and by the receipt hereunder written admit and acknowledge and of and from the same for ever release and discharge the Transferee as well as the said structure and building hereby transferred together with the sub-leasehold land appertaining thereto) the transferor doth hereby transfer unto the Transferee by way of sub-lease All That the said two storied pucca structure known as Sashi Sadan and used as cold storage together with the sub-leasehold land appertaining thereto and measuring 8,332 square feet be the same a little more or less situate lying and being a portion of premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street in the town of Calcutta and more fully described in the Schedule hereunder written and shown in the Plan hereto annexed (hereinafter referred to as the said premises) To Have And To Hold the same unto the transferee for the residue now unexpired of the said term of the said lease dated 21st September, 1954, together with the benefits, rights, liberties, privileges thereunder, and subject to the payment of rent mentioned hereinafter to the transferor in respect of the sub-leasehold premises being 8,332 sq.", "ft. of land appertaining to the said structure known as Sashi Sadan.", "This gave the transferee the following rights : The transferor doth hereby covenant with the transferee as follows :-- The transferee shall and may at all times hereafter peaceably and quietly possess and enjoy the said two storied structure known as Sashi Sadan together with the sub-leasehold premises appertaining thereto and measuring 8,332 sq.", "ft., being portion of premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street, for the residue of the said unexpired term of years created by the said lease dated 21st September, 1954, without any lawful eviction, interruption, claim or demand whatsoever from or by the transferor or any person or persons lawfully or equitably claiming from under or in trust for the transferor.", "And that free from all encumbrances whatsoever made or suffered by the transferor or any person or persons lawfully or equitably claiming as aforesaid.", "The transferor and all persons having or lawfully or equitably claiming any estate right title or interest whatsoever in the said two storied structure known as Sashi Sadan and the said sub-leasehold premises appertaining thereto and measuring 8,332 sq.", "being portion of premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street, Calcutta, or any part thereof from under or in trust for the transferor shall and will from time to time and at all times hereafter at the request and cost of the transferee do and execute or cause to be done and executed all such acts, deeds and things whatsoever for further better and more perfectly assuring the said two storied structure and the said sub-leasehold land appertaining thereto unto the transferee in the manner aforesaid as shall or may be reasonably required.", "The transferee further covenanted as follows : The transferee doth hereby covenant with the transferor as follows : The transferee shall hold the sub-leasehold land on which the said two storied structure hereby transferred is situated as a sub-lease under the transferor for the unexpired residue of the term of years created by the lease dated 21st September, 1954.", "The transferee shall pay to the transferor a monthly sum of Rs. 51 (Rupees Fifty one) only by way of monthly rent in respect of said sub-leasehold land measuring approximately 8,332 square feet on which the structure hereby transferred is situated.", "The said sum of Rs. 51 (Rupees Fifty one) shall be paid by the transferor within the 7th day of the month following the month for which such rent shall become due commencing from the 6th day of August, 1962.", "The transferee shall also pay the owners and occupiers share of municipal taxes of the said structure hereby transferred.", "The Schedule to the said document described the property as under : All that two storied structure known as Sashi Sadan and used as cold storage and situated on sub-leasehold land measuring 8,332 square feet more or less being portion of premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street, Calcutta, in Sutanutty in the North Division in the town of Calcutta and delineated in the plan hereto annexed therein bounded with the red border or howsoever otherwise the said structure or any part thereof is or are or at any time heretobefore were or was situate called, known, numbered or distinguished.", "In the original assessment made by the ITO under Section 143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the ITO had not considered the income from the said Sashi Sadan in the hands of the assessee.", "Subsequently on the basis of the note prepared by the IAC, Range-VII, the ITO was of the view that since the assessee was the owner of Sashi Sadan, the annual income therefrom should have been included in the total income of the assessee.", "He, accordingly, reopened the assessment for the years under reference with a view to include such income of the respective years.", "It would be relevant at this stage to refer to the note of the IAC upon which the ITO was supposed to have acted.", "The said note was to the following effect: The amount of Rs. 1,50,000 received by the assessee is only a lump sum consideration for the agreement and hence this amount is taxable as capital gains in the hands of the assessee being a capital receipt of rent.", "Hence the capital gains has to be levied on this amount.", "The assessee being the owner of the superstructure and the deed dated 6-8-62 being only for letting out of the property, the assessee should continue to be taxed on the annual value of the property under Section 22.", "I find, however, that even the amount of Rs. 51 per month as rent shown by the assessee has not been brought to tax.", "The annual value of the property may be determined on the basis of the rent which it now fetches to Kiran Devi.", "The assessee should accordingly be taxed as owner of the property under Section 22 for all years from 6-8-62 (i.e., pertaining to the assessment year 1953-54) and onwards suitable action under Section 147(b) for these periods may be taken immediately.", "After notice to the assessee and after hearing the assessees contention the ITO included the income from Sashi Sadan in each of the years under appeal in his orders made under Sub-section (3) of Section 143 read with Section 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "The assessee preferred appeals before the AAC and challenged the action of the ITO both on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to reopen as also on the ground that the assessments made were not valid.", "As regards the initiation of the proceedings under Section 147(b) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was contended on behalf of the assessee that since it had disclosed all material facts and evidence before the ITO at the time of the original assessments, the reopening of the assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion was bad in law.", "It was, further, pointed out by the assessee that in the assessment year 1963-64 the ITO had determined the capital account of Rs. 52,528 on the transfer of Sashi Sadan after considering the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962.", "As regards the validity of the assessments made it was submitted by the assessee that since it had sold the superstructure called Sashi Sadan and had sub-let the land by the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962, the assessments, as originally made by the ITO were in order and, therefore, the inclusion of income from Sashi Sadan under Section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in each of the years under reference was bad in law.", "The AAC, however, in his order dated 15th October, 1973, rejected all the contentions of the assessee and upheld the order of the ITO.", "Being aggrieved by the said order of the AAC, the assessee went up in further appeal before the Tribunal and, after elaborate discussion, the Tribunal held that the assessments under Section 147(b) of the I.T. Act were valid.", "The Tribunal, further, on the construction of the two documents were of the opinion that the assessee was the owner of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan and the income therefrom was liable to be included in the assessees total income.", "The Tribunal in its order, inter alia, discussed as follows : Now coming to the deed of assignment dated 6-8.-62 it is pertinent to note that all along in the said deed the term used is sub-lease and not sale of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan and sub-letting the land underneath.", "We find considerable force in the submissions made on behalf of the department that if the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan was sold to Smt.", "Khaitan as contended on behalf of the assessee, there was no need of Sub-clause (c) of Clause 3 which stipulated that the transferee Smt.", "Khaitan shall also pay the owners and occupiers shares of municipal taxes of the said structure, hereby transferred.", "We may also mention here that the cost of superstructure was Rs. 2,22,000 as per the letter of the assessee dated 28-11-66 addressed to the ITO during the course of assessment proceedings.", "If the assessee had spent Rs. 2,22,000 for the construction of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan, it is difficult to believe why the assessee has sold the same to Smt.", "Khaitan for a sum of Rs. 1,50,000.", "This fact would clearly indicate that Rs. 1,50,000 received from Smt.", "Khaitan was nothing but a premium for the purpose of sub-lease of the superstructure along with the land underneath for the unexpired period of the lease as contemplated in the lease agreement dated 29-9-54.", "We entirely agree with the submission made on behalf of the department that merely because in the assessment year 1963-64 the ITO had attempted to charge capital gains on the transfer of the Sasbi Sadan would not by itself preclude the department to hold that the assessee was the owner of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan and, as such, the income therefrom should be included in the total income of the assessee for the years under appeal.", "The aforesaid decisions relied on on behalf of the assessee as regards the ownership of the superstructure are not of much help to support the assessees case as, in our view, we have to decide the present appeals on the terms of the agreement contained in the deeds dated 21-9-54 and 6-8-62.", "Reading the said deeds as a whole, we have no doubt in our mind that the assessee was the owner of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan and as such the income therefrom was liable to be included in the assessees total income.", "In this view of the matter, we uphold the order of the AAC under appeal.", "Thereupon, under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two questions have been referred to this court : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the reassessment proceedings under Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, had been validly initiated by the Income-tax Officer for the assessment years under reference ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and on a true construction of the lease agreement dated September 21, 1954, and the deed of assignment dated August 6, 1962, the Tribunal was right in holding that the assessee was the owner of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan and, as such, the income therefrom was liable to be included in the assessees total income for all the years under reference, under Section 22 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? The first question, as we have noticed is directed against the reopening of the assessment.", "Clause (b) of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961, authorises the ITO to reopen the assessment, if in spite of the fact that there has been no omission or failure on the part of the assessee, as mentioned in Clause (a) of Section 147, the ITO has, in consequence of information in his possession, reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that assessment year.", "Large number of decisions both of the High Courts and of the Supreme Court have considered this question.", "But it may be profitable to concentrate our attention on the requirements of the section itself.", "First essential point is that there should be belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "The next requirement of this section is that such belief must be formed in consequence of information.", "It has been said and said very often that mere change of opinion does not justify the reopening of assessment under Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act.", "It is, however, important to remember that wherever a completed assessment is to be reopened there has to be a change of opinion.", "The assessment that was made originally must have been because it was thought to be all right by the ITO on the basis that all income had been included in the assessment.", "Subsequently the ITO forms the belief that some income has escaped assessment or has been under assessed.", "Therefore, change of opinion must be there in the belief that this is tentatively formed under Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act in reopening the assessment.", "But what has been emphasised is that such change of opinion must not be mere change of opinion.", "The change of opinion must be brought about in consequence of information .", "This has been introduced in the section and so was interpreted by the different courts from time to time in order to prevent arbitrary and unilateral reopening of assessments depriving any finality to the assessment orders passed.", "But the section itself visualises the possibility of reopening on the change of opinion but such change, as we have mentioned before, must only be in consequence of information, in the possession of the ITO and such information, again, must have a reasonable nexus to that opinion that income has escaped assessment or has been under-assessed for any assessment year.", "In this light the contentions urged in this case will have to be examined.", "It is now well settled that the information may be regarding the facts as well as the law.", "It is also well settled that the information may be from the internal source or external source.", "The information may come from the records of the revenue department.", "Counsel for the assessee urged before us that the information must be confined to the premises, either major or minor, whereby he described the legal proposition as major premises and the factual aspect as minor premises and the information may be pertaining to either of these premises, but he submitted that there could not be any new information which could lead to the formation of the belief contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 147 on the conclusion or the deduction made from those premises.", "But, if on certain information, the ITO comes to the belief that the opinion formed by him previously was wrong or incorrect then though that would be a change of opinion, yet such change of opinion, in our opinion, would still be supported by the information received.", "The process of reasoning or inductive lead, as counsel for the assessee suggested, is a process inevitable in the formation of the belief and if the information, internal or external, throws any light on the process of reasoning then that information justifies the change of opinion and such change of opinion would not fall within the mischief of mere change of opinion condemned by the courts.", "This position, in our opinion, is clearly brought out in the judgment of the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. H. Holck Larsen 1972 85 ITR 467, where Chandrachud J. made the following observations at page 479 of the report : What is obligatory in order to apply Section 34(1)(b) is that he must have information in his possession in consequence of which he has reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment or is under-assessed, etc.", "The distinction really consists in a change of opinion unsupported by subsequent information on the one hand and a change of opinion based on information subsequently obtained, on the other.", "In the former class of cases, the assessment proceedings are attempted to be reopened without the discovery of an error and without receiving any information as to fact or law Such a reopening is based on a mere change of opinion and is without jurisdictionIn the latter class of cases, the reopening is based on information leading to the requisite belief and is, therefore, within the jurisdiction of the officer.", "The aforesaid observations were noted by the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji Company v. CIT 1976 102 ITR 287.", "There, what had happened was in its original assessment for the assessment year 1956-57, a sum of Rs. 43,116 being interest paid by the appellant-firm on amounts borrowed by it was allowed as a deduction.", "During the course of the assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1958-59, the ITO had discovered that the assessee had not utilised the entire borrowed money for the purpose of its business but had given interest-free loans to its partners for clearing up their income-tax dues.", "The ITO reopened the assessment for 1956-57, under Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and disallowed the interest paid.", "The Appellate Tribunal held that the ITO had merely changed his opinion on the basis of the very materials that were before him when the original assessment was made and that was not sufficient to attract Section 34(1)(b).", "On a reference, the High Court held that the reassessment was valid in law as the information on the basis of which the ITO had sought to reopen the assessment was based on subsequent facts as also on the materials of the original assessment revealed by more careful and closer investigation.", "On appeal, the Supreme Court, affirming the decision of the High Court, held that the reassessment under Section 34(1)(b) was valid in law inasmuch as the ITO proceeded on the basis of information which came to him after the original assessment by fresh facts.", "The word information in Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was of the widest amplitude and comprehended a variety of factors.", "Nevertheless, the Supreme Court observed, the power under this section, however wide it might be, was not plenary because the discretion of the ITO was controlled by the words reason to believe .", "Information might come from external sources or even from the materials already on record or might be derived from the discovery of new and important or fresh facts and, according to the Supreme Court, Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, would apply to, (a) where the information was as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions, (b) where in the original assessment the income liable to tax had escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the ITO, (c) where the information was derived from an external source of any kind, such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of original assessment, and (d) where the information might be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record or the facts disclosed therefrom or from other enquiry or research into facts or law.", "Where, however, the ITO got no subsequent information but merely proceeded to reopen the original assessment without any fresh facts or materials or without any enquiry into the materials which formed part of the original assessment, Section 34(1)(b) would have no application.", "The Supreme Court quoted the aforesaid observations of Chandrachud J. of the Bombay High Court and expressed the opinion that they were inclined to agree with the observations of Chandrachud J. The content and nature of information which would justify the reopening had been considered in the decision of this court in the case of Diamond Sugar Mills Limited v. ITO and in the Bench decision of this court in the case of ITO v. Panama P. Limited .", "Counsel for the revenue further drew our attention to the observations of Lord Denning M.R. in the case of Parkin v. Cattell 1971 48 TC 462 (CA).", "There what happened was that the assessee was the appellant and at all material times a director of a building company.", "Between the years 1954 and 1962, at the instigation of his father, who was short of liquid resources, he bought from him a number of houses including those to which that case related.", "When he purchased those houses they were occupied by sitting tenants at controlled rents.", "As they became vacant the appellant sold them.", "They were not regarded as capable of being relet so as to give an economic yield.", "The appellant did not set up any selling organisation and did not employ estate agents to exploit the houses which became vacant.", "On examining the appellants income-tax returns which disclosed the material transactions, the Inspector of Taxes considered that they did not give rise to liability to income-tax.", "Subsequently, being of opinion that each of the acquisitions and sales had the characteristics of a venture in the nature of trade and that taken together they amounted to the carrying on of a trade, another Inspector raised assessments to income-tax under Case I of Schedule D for the years 1958-59 to 1960-61 and 1963-64 in respect of the relevant profits.", "On appeal, the assessee contended that the transactions were not of a trading nature and that there was no evidence of the discovery by the Inspector of any new fact which justified the raising of the assessments.", "The General Commissioners found that the acquisition and sale of the properties in question constituted a trade and the profits therefrom were taxable.", "In the High Court, the appellant contended further that the Crown could not rely on discovery unless the Inspector concerned gave evidence before the Commissioners to show what had been discovered.", "It was held by the Court of Appeal that there was evidence to justify the Commissioners conclusion that the appellant was trading and the Inspector had made the requisite discovery that income which ought to have been assessed had not been assessed.", "After setting out the relevant section which permitted the revenue to act if the surveyor or the Board discovers or discovered , Lord Denning M.R. observed at page 474 of the report as follows : Mr. Marcus Jones says that this case does not come within the word discover in either of these sections.", "He relied on Anderton Halstead Limited v. Birrell 1931 16 TC 200 (KB), at page 208 where Rowlatt J. said that a change of opinion was in his view not enough The word discover does not, in my view, include a mere change of opinion on the same facts and figures upon the same question of accountancy, being a question of opinion.", "The decision in that case may well be justified on its own facts, but the dictum cannot stand in the light of latter cases.", "The word discover simply means find out.", "That is what Lord President Normand said in Commissioners of Inland Revenue v. Mackinlays Trustees 22 TC 305 (at page 312) with the approval of Tucker L.J. in Commercial Structures Limited v. Briggs 1948 30 TC 477 (at page 492) 1949 17 ITR (Supp) 30 (CA).", "An Inspector of Taxes discovers (that income has not been assessed when it ought to have been), not only when he finds out new facts which were not known to him or his predecessor, but also when he finds out that he or his predecessor drew a wrong inference from the facts which were then known to him and further, when he finds out that he or his predecessor got the law wrong and did not assess the income when it ought to have been.", "That appears in Cenlon Finance Company Limited v. Ellwood 1962 AC 782 1965 58 ITR 255 (HL).", "I venture to quote what I said at page 799: Every lawyer who, in his researches in the books, finds out that he was mistaken about the law, makes a discovery.", "So also does an Inspector of Taxes.", "Mr. Marcus Jones suggested that the recent case of Banning v. Wright 1972 48 TC 421 (HL) had altered the law in some way.", "I do not think so.", "That case turned on the fact that, after notice of appeal, there was an agreement which was equivalent, under Section 510 of the Income-tax Act, 1952, to a determination of the appeal.", "There was nothing of the kind here.", "In the present case, I accept that the previous Inspector of Taxes knew all the facts about the acquisition and sale of houses.", "He clearly made a mistake.", "He drew the wrong inference from the facts.", "The new Inspector found out that the previous Inspector was wrong.", "He thought that the true inference was that these acquisitions and sales had the characteristics of a venture in the nature of trade.", "He made the assessments accordingly.", "This was a discovery within the statute.", "The Commissioners were quite entitled to uphold those assessments which they did.", "Therefore, it appears that according to Lord Denning M. R., a view with which Lord Justice Stamp agreed, finding out fresh facts as well as drawing new inference would be to discover .", "On behalf of the revenue, it was urged that if finding out fresh facts could amount to discovery then changing an opinion from a previously held one in view of certain facts coming to the knowledge of the ITO would be acting on information as contemplated under Clause (b) of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "It may in this connection be noted that in the section as it stood in 1922 the word information was not there and the section empowered the ITO to reopen the assessment for any year where income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.", "No conditions or limitations on the power of the ITO were at all laid down under the section.", "It was thereafter by the Indian I.T. (Amend.) Act, 1939, that the expression definite information was introduced within the section.", "The word information was then qualified by the word definite and a further condition was imposed that the ITO had to discover that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment.", "Thereafter by the Income-tax and Business Profits Tax (Amendment) Act, 1948, the section was recast and only information was required for the ITO to act in terms of Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act.", "In view of the aforesaid history and in view of the expression used in the Act with which we are concerned it would not be proper to say that drawing new inference from the old facts would be acting on information.", "In the case of R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbai Lalbai 1977 109 ITR 537, the Supreme Court had to consider whether the audit department note could be considered to be an information.", "There, what had happened was that in the original assessment of the respondent, the ITO had allowed deductions on municipal taxes in computing the annual value of house properties in the occupation of the respondent.", "Subsequently, the audit department of the office of the Comptroller and Auditor-General of India pointed out that on the true interpretation of Section 23(2) of the I.T. Act that the deduction of municipal taxes in respect of self-occupied properties was not admissible.", "Treating this as information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, the ITO had issued a notice under s, 148 to reopen the assessment.", "It was held that the audit department was the proper machinery to scrutinise the assessments of income and about the errors, if any, in law and the intimation received by the ITO constituted an information within the meaning of Section 147(b) in consequence of which the ITO could reopen the assessment.", "It was reiterated that two conditions were necessary for invoking Section 147(b).", "First, the officer should receive an information after the original assessment and, second, in consequence of such information he should have reason to believe that the income has escaped assessment.", "The information may be on facts or on law.", "The information on a fact may be from internal source.", "The fact that the ITO, if diligent, could have obtained this information from the previous assessment on a proper investigation of the materials on the record or the fact disclosed thereby would not make any less information if the fact was in fact obtained and came to the knowledge only subsequently.", "So also the fact that on research as to the state of law, the ITO would have ascertained the true legal position, would not make any difference if the officer came to know the real position of the law subsequently.", "The external source need not mean that it must be outside the record.", "The information may be gathered from the assessment record itself.", "In the case of Anandji Haridas Company (P.) Limited v. section P. Khushare 1968 21 STC 326 the Supreme Court had to consider this aspect under the provisions of the C. P. Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.", "There, at page 336 of the report, the Supreme Court observed that the term information in Section 34(1)(b) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, really meant knowledge.", "Therefore, if there is new knowledge or new information and such knowledge leads to a change of opinion, then, in our opinion, as was observed by the court in the case of CIT v. H. Hoick Larsen 1972 85 ITR 467 (Bom) that would not be a case of mere change of opinion but it would be a change of opinion supported by or in consequence of the knowledge received by the ITO and such a change of opinion will not be outside the scope of Clause (b) of Section 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "As, in this case, there was such an information or knowledge that the original assessment might have been wrong and the ITO because of that information had to re-examine the facts of this case and formed the belief that the income had escaped assessment, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the proceedings were not validly initiated.", "In the premises, the question Number 1 referred to this court must be answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.", "This leads us to the second question which is the main controversy on the merits of this case.", "The question is, whether the assessee was the owner of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan and as such the income therefrom was liable to be included in the assessees total income for all the years under reference under Section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "Whether a particular assessee is the owner of house property or not depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case.", "In the instant case, we have primarily to construe the effect of the document or the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962.", "In order to construe such a deed, it has primarily to be examined in the background of the facts and circumstances of the case.", "We must notice that the revenue did not adduce before the Tribunal any evidence as to the question whether appropriate stamp duty had been paid in respect of the deed of assignment if the same was to be considered as a sale or conveyance.", "Counsel for the revenue drew our attention to the fact that in the instant case only a sum of Rs. 2,287 had been paid as stamp duty while according to him if the deed was considered to be a deed of sale or conveyance of the superstructure known as Sashi Sadan it should have borne the stamp duty of Rs. 5,000.", "We are, however, unable to go into this aspect of the matter because this aspect of the matter had not been examined by the Tribunal and the revenue had not sought to place any materials before the Tribunal on this aspect of the matter which might have given some evidence on the intention of the parties as to how they had treated this transaction.", "It is also not possible for us to consider the circumstances in which a sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was paid in respect of the superstructure, which according to the assessee was being conveyed as outright sale and which had cost the assessee a sum of Rs. 2,20,000.", "The Tribunal, though it had referred to it in its order, as we have mentioned hereinbefore, had not any further material to investigate this aspect of the matter and, therefore, it is not possible for us to pursue the examination on this aspect of the matter.", "There is, however, one important context in which the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962, has to be understood, viz., the deed of lease in favour of the assessee from Maharaja Prabirendra Nath Tagore dated 21st September, 1954.", "We have set out hereinbefore the provisions of the said deed so far as relevant for our present purpose.", "We have set out that there are two definitions of the demised premises.", "According to one, indisputably the structures to be built on the leasehold land by the lessee would come within the purview of the demised premises .", "According to the other, the first definition of the demised premises as set out in the recital portion, it is, however, doubtful whether the expression demised premises would include the structure or structures built on the leasehold land by the lessee.", "It is, however, clear that Clause (b) of the lease speaks of the obligation to pay rent notwithstanding that the demised premises or the building erected thereonmay be destroyed or demolished.", "In that clause the expression demised premises certainly does not cover the structures to be built on subsequently by the lessee in pursuance of the lease.", "Under the said lease, on the expiry of the term, that is to say, 84 years or earlier determination, the lessee took upon himself the obligation to peaceably and quietly yield up the demised premises together with the buildings to be erected thereon and all additions and alterations thereto and all other buildings at any time erected or standing on the demised premises together with all fixtures in such repair or such condition or by delivering vacant possession of such portion as would at the time remain vacant and by attornment of tenancy of such portions as would be in the occupation of tenants.", "The lessee took upon himself the obligation to meet all the notices, requirement and requisitions of the Government and of the municipality and not to permit or to keep in any part of the demised premises on the buildings standing and or to be erected any explosive inflammable combustible or dangerous articles and also not to carry on or permit to be carried on upon the demised land or any part thereof of any building during the said term be erected thereon any obnoxious or offensive or unlawful business.", "Clause 12 of the said lease is important in the sense that it permitted sub-lease but not assignment of the lease except on certain conditions up to the term of the lessees interest.", "In case of acquisition of the property we have noticed the provision in Clause 4 and also the obligation of the lessee under Clause 6 on the expiry of the lease.", "It is in this context and in this background that the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962, would have to be considered whether it amounted to a lease or a sale.", "It is common knowledge that a document of this nature must first be understood in the context in which it is executed.", "We have noted the context so far as it is relevant for our present purpose.", "It is well settled that such a document must be construed or interpreted reasonably, fairly and reading the document as a whole and it is also clear that the document must primarily be interpreted on its plain meaning, or, in other words, the intention of the parties have to be gathered from the language used.", "It is in this light important to remember that in the recital clause it has been recited that the transferor, viz., the assessee, is entitled to sub-lease or underlease the demised premises .", "It is also recited that the transferor has constructed certain structure on 8,332 sq.", "ft, of land of which he is the absolute owner thereof.", "It is in this context that Clause 5 recites this purpose of the deed of assignment.", "The purpose is, as the clause says, to transfer by way of sub-lease .", "The second important aspect of this clause is the object of such transfer.", "It is clearly stated to be the two-storeyed brick-built messuage or house and structure situated on leasehold land measuring 8,332 sq.", "and the object is to allow the transferee to hold the said two-storeyed structure known as Sashi Sadan and being a portion of premises Number 26, Prasanna Kumar Tagore Street, unto the transferee for the residue of the unexpired term of years created by the lease dated 21st September, 1954, and subject to the terms and conditions therein .", "Incidentally we may note that counsel for the assessee made a point that while in the deed, that is, the headlease with Maharaja Probirendra Mohan Tagore, the expression used was to hold indicating thereby that a lease was being created in the habendum clause of the instant deed of assignment the expression used on this aspect was to have and to hold .", "Counsel, therefore, sought to urge that while by the lease the lessee was holding only but was not having in the instant deed of assignment the transferee was having it and also holding it.", "We are of the opinion that much cannot be made of such terminological differences between these two documents.", "Indeed, the recital portion of the present deed says that the document was being executed for the purpose of to hold and not to have and to hold.", "Nothing of significance, therefore, in our opinion turns on this difference in the language used.", "But the important point is that in the recital clause the parties recite that they want to transfer by way of sub-lease.", "Counsel for the assessee urged that in the case of the structure the expression sub-lease would be inappropriate in any event.", "He submitted that as the assessee was the owner of the structures, it would be wholly inappropriate to say, even in the case of a lease, that the transfer was by way of sub-lease.", "The appropriate expression, if it was a lease, according to the counsel for the assessee, was the expression by way of sublease of land and lease of the structures.", "But that expression had not been used.", "Counsel, therefore, sought to urge that the expression by way of sub-lease was only confined to the act of sub-leasing the leasehold land upon which the structure was standing.", "The difficulty of accepting this contention of the counsel for the asseseee is that the parties have in cl.", "5 clearly indicated what they wanted to transfer and that is this two-storied brick-built messuage or house and the structure situated on the leasehold land measuring 8,332 sq.ft.", "Therefore, by way of sub-tease what was being transferred was the two-storied brick-built messuage or house.", "So, in our opinion, this factor of the intention of the parties, which is recited in clear language has to be borne in mind in considering the effect of the document.", "Then Clause 1 of the habendum clause jclearly provides that the transferor doth hereby transfer unto the transferee by way of sub-lease .", "Here again the object of such transfer has been clearly indicated, namely, that all two-storied pucca structure known as Sashi Sadan and used as cold storage together with the sub-leasehold land and appurtenances thereto.", "If this Clause I of the habendum clause is taken in conjunction with Clause 5 of the recital clause, then the intention and the action of the parties to transfer by way of sub-lease the property in question becomes abundantly clear.", "Then again, though Clause 3 deals with the transferees right and specifically provides that the transferee shall hold the sub-lease until the expiry of the period of the leasehold term of the head lease, it does not specifically provide that the transferee should enjoy the property or superstructure as the owner thereof.", "The obligation of the transferee to pay the monthly sum of Rs. 51 is reiterated together with the obligation to pay the owners and occupiers share of the municipal taxes of the said superstructure transferred.", "In the background of the head lease, therefore, it appears to us that the transaction, read in its entirety, indicates a desire to convey the property, that is, the superstructure in question, by way of sub-lease rather than a conveyance of the property by way of sale.", "In this connection it would be appropriate to remember that assignment can be both by way of lease or sale.", "Therefore, the use of the expression as the deed of assignment does not conclude the matter.", "Under Clause (j) of Section 108 of the Transfer of Property Act it is provided that a lessee may transfer absolutely or by way of mortgage or sub-lease the whole or any part of his interest in the property and any transferee of such interest or part may again transfer it.", "The lessee shall not by reason of such transfer cease to be subject to the liabilities attached to the lease.", "Lease as defined in Section 105 of the Transfer of Property Act means as follows : A lease of immovable property is a transfer of a right to enjoy such property made for a certain time, express or implied, or in perpetuity, in consideration of a price paid or promised, or of money, a share of crops, service or any other thing of value, to be rendered periodically or on specified occasions to the transferor by the transferee, who accepts the transfer on such terms.", "The transferor is called the lessor, the transferee is called the lessee, the price is called the premium, and the money, share, service or other thing to be so rendered is called the rent.", "A sale under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act means a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised or part paid and part promised.", "The question is, whether in this case there has been this transfer of the right to enjoy the superstructure for the unexpired period of the assessees interest in the original lease in consideration of a price paid, or a transfer of ownership in exchange for a price paid or promised.", "Counsel for the assessee contended that there has been transfer of ownership.", "Ownership consists of a bundle of rights in respect of a property as have been aptly discussed in the Full Bench decision of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Indar Sen v. Naubat Singh 1885 ILR 7 All 553 at page 556.", "There Mr. Justice Mahmood observed that the term ownership is not merely a word of technical legal meaning, but it is a general canon of construction, to be interpreted in its broadest possible meaning and it consists of a bundle of rights.", "Counsel for the assessee contended that in this case, though there can be a sub-lease of the entirety of the unexpired period, there must be something reserved for the owner to remain the owner.", "If all the rights of the ownership in respect of the superstructure had been divested or transferred by the deed of assignment, then such a transaction must be considered to be a sale as contemplated under Section 54 of the Transfer of Property Act.", "It appears, however, that the ownership rights may be of a very limited nature in a particular context.", "It was contended on behalf of the revenue that certain obligations, namely, the obligations contained in Clause 13 of the document of 21st September, 1954, had not been affected by the deed of assignment.", "It is doubtful, however, whether Clause 13 dealt with the insurance in respect of the building to be constructed by the lessee.", "It was because the said structure might not have been included in the expression demised premises in the context of Clause 13 of the document of 21st September, 1954.", "It is, however, clear that the obligations and the rights flowing from such obligations as contemplated in Clause 8 of the document of 21st September, 1954, had not been parted with by the deed of assignment.", "Similarly, the right or the option to have the renewal has not been parted with in the deed of assignment.", "Counsel for the assessee contended that on expiration the property would have to be vested in the lessor and, therefore, thereafter it would be given on lease again if the option clause is exercised and renewal is made to the lessee.", "But exercise of an option of renewal does not transfer any property.", "(See the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of R. Kempraj v. Burton Son Company P. Limited, ).", "But this right, which the lessee had, and a valuable right in our opinion, of exercising the renewal was not parted with by the deed of assignment and that right of the ownership of the superstructure remained with the transferor.", "Then again under Clause 4 of the lessees obligations under the head lease it appears that in case the property is acquired then the compensation awarded should be divided between the lessor and the lessee.", "But this will also apply in case of the acquisition of the superstructure.", "This right to share the compensation in the event of acquisition under the Land Acquisition Act in accordance with law had not also been parted with in the deed of assignment mentioned hereinbefore.", "Counsel for the assessee, however, contended that these rights were not really rights but mainly obligations.", "But as we have mentioned before, these are obligations carrying with them certain rights.", "Therefore, it appears to us that the entire interest of the transferor has not passed and many obligations by which the lessee was bound had not been passed by the deed.", "Perhaps it is for this reason that the deed did not contain any power in express terms to sell the superstructure.", "However, on behalf of the assessee, it was contended that such express power was not necessary because the transferor would be the owner of the said superstructure.", "In this context, it is now necessary for us to examine some of the decisions in which some of the aspects were considered.", "In the case of Sohan Lal v. Mokan Lal 1928 AIR 1928 All 726 FB, at page 731, Mr. Justice Kendall referred to the meaning of ownership as appearing in Salmonds Jurisprudence.", "The concept of ownership is treated at page 731 of the report thus: In Salmonds Jurisprudence, 6th edn Chap.", "12, the author points out that although strictly nothing can be owned except abstract rights, yet a very common form of speech enables us to speak of the ownership of a material thing and that (on p. 22) : The ownership of a material thing means the ownership of a jus in re propria in respect of that thingThe ownership of a jus in re aliena is always incorporeal, even though the object of that right is a corporeal thing In its full and normal compass a jus in re propria over a material object is a right to the entirety of the lawful uses of that object.", "It is a general right of use and disposal, all jura in re aliena being merely special and limited rights derogating from it in special respects.", "It is only this absolute and comprehensive right--this universum jus--that is, identified with its object This compass, however, may be limited to any extent by the adverse of jura in re aliena vested in other persons.", "The right of the owner of a thing may be all but eaten up by the dominant rights of lessees, mortgagees, and other encumbrances.", "His ownership may be reduced to a mere name rather than a reality.", "Yet he none the less remains the owner of the thing, while all the others own nothing more than rights over it.", "This decision was reversed on the point of registration in the case of Raghunath v. Kedarnath, .", "The Supreme Court was not concerned with this aspect of the matter.", "Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of Abhiram Goswami v. Shyama Charan Nandi 1909 LR 36 IA 148 ILR 36 Cal 1003 (PC) and reliance was placed on the observations at page, 166.", "There Sir Andrew Scoble for the Judicial Committee observed as follows (see p. 1015 of ILR 36 Cal) : Sir Robert Finlay, in his able argument for the respondents, contended that a mokurari lease is tantamount to a conveyance in fee simple, and that the lessee must therefore be treated as a purchaser within the meaning of the Limitation Act.", "But the distinction between the two transactions has been well pointed out by Jenkins J. in his judgment in the case of Kally Dass Ahiri v. Monmohini Dassee 1897 ILR 24 Cal 440, 447.", "Because at the present day , says the learned Judge, a conveyance in fee simple leaves nothing in the grantor, it does not follow that a lease in perpetuity here has any such result The law of this country does undoubtedly allow of alease in perpetuity A man who, being owner of land, grants a lease in perpetuity carves a subordinate interest out of his own, and does not annihilate his own interest.", "This result is to be inferred by the use of the word lease, which implies an interest still remaining in the lessor.", "He held, therefore, that, whether the Transfer of Property Act applied or not, such a lease is forfeitable, notwithstanding that it is permanent.", "In this opinion their Lordships concur, and it follows that they are unable to give to the Limitation Act the wider interpretation adopted by the High Court, and to treat the lessee as a purchaser under Article 134 of the Act.", "The purchaser must be the purchaser of an absolute title.", "Reliance was also placed on the judgment of the Privy Council in the case of Hunsraj v. Bejoy Lal Seal 1930 LR 57 IA 110 at page 113 AIR 1930 PC 59.", "For the reasons mentioned hereinbefore, we are inclined to think that in this case the documents in its entirety in the context of the headlease of 21st September, 1954, indicate that it was a lease of the superstructure and not a sale denuding the transferor of all rights of ownership in respect of the superstructure.", "On behalf of the assessee reliance was placed on certain observations in Halsburys Laws of England, 4th edn., Vol. 12, at page 606, para. 1472, in aid of the proposition that such a document should be construed in favour of the grantee.", "This principle in our opinion is not in dispute, but this principle will only be applicable subject to the terms and conditions of the document itself.", "On behalf of the assessee, it was contended that in this case the owner in terms of Section 22 should be construed to mean one who has the right to receive the rent.", "Therefore, reliance was placed on the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of R. B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala, v. CIT 1971 82 ITR 570.", "It is clear, however, that under Section 22 the annual value of property consisting of any building or lands of which the assessee is the owner will be chargeable to income-tax.", "Therefore, the liability to income-tax is attracted by the fact that the assessee is the owner of the property and is not dependent on whether the assessee has the right to receive the income thereof.", "This point is clearly settled by the decision of the Judicial Committee in the case of CIT v. Dewan Bahadur Dewan Krishna Kishore 1941 9 ITR 695, where the judicial Committee dealing with Section 9 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which is a similar provision, emphasised that the words were property of which he is the owner and that cannot be read as to mean of which annual value he is the owner .", "The decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R.B. Jodha Mal Kuthiala 1971 82 ITR 570 was given in the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in the light of the provisions of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Ordinance.", "There analysing the relevant provisions of the said Ordinance, the Supreme Court had come to the conclusion that Section 6 of the said Ordinance provided that the property should vest and it shall be deemed always to have vested in the custodian.", "The effect of the Ordinance read in its proper perspective was to make the custodian the owner both in law and in fact and, therefore, in that context it was observed by the Supreme Court that an assessee whose property had remained vested in the custodian of evacuee property was not the owner of the property for the purpose of Section 9 of the I.T. Act.", "In that light it was further held that the assessee could not exercise any rights over the property except with the consent of the Government and though he had some residuary beneficial interests in the property that he had left in Pakistan those residual beneficial interests would not be considered to be the ownership for the purpose of Section 9.", "The Supreme Court decision affirmed the decision of the Delhi High Court which is reported in 1968 69 ITR 598 FBJ.", "The said decision of the Delhi High Court was considered by a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Ganga Properties Limited and it was held that in the case of sale of immovable property a registered document was necessary to give effect to the sale and the sale took effect only from the date of execution of the document.", "It was further held that in Indian law beneficial ownership was unknown, there was but one owner, namely, the legal, owner, both in respect of vendor and purchaser, and trustee and trust and that the expression income from property used in Sections 6 and 9 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, refers to the income of the legal owner of the property and he was the only person assessable to tax on the basis of the bona fide annual value thereof.", "Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of section G. Mercantile Corporation P. Limited v. CIT 1972 83 ITR 700, where at page 704, the Supreme Court observed that the liability to tax under Section 9 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, is that of the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto.", "In case the assessee was the owner of the building or land appurtenant thereto he would be liable to pay tax under Section 9 even if the object of the assessee in purchasing the landed property was to promote and develop a market thereon.", "In the case of CIT v. Union Land and Building Society Pvt.", "Limited 1972 83 ITR 794, the Bombay High Court had to consider this aspect of the matter in question and there at page 813 of the report the Chief Justice observed : The liability to income-tax on property depends on the fact that the assessee is the owner of the property.", "The assessee is made liable to pay the income-tax on the annual value of the property computed in the manner prescribed.", "That liability does not depend either on the power of the owner to earn the income therefrom or on the power or capacity of a person to let it out or his own power to receive rent or income from the bona fide annual value.", "Reliance for this may also be placed in the observance in the case of Sir Currimbhoy Ebrahim Baronetcy Trust v. CIT 1963 48 ITR 507 at page 512 (Bom).", "In view of the fact that we have come to the conclusion that by the document in question there has been a transfer by way of lease and not a sale divesting the transferor of all its rights of ownership, the assessee remained the owner of the property in question and was, therefore, liable to be assessed.", "Counsel for the revenue contended that this aspect of the matter was not agitated before the Tribunal and should not be allowed to be agitated here.", "But as this aspect of the matter appears to us to be another legal aspect of the matter we allowed the assessee to raise this contention.", "In the view we have taken, however, the question Number 2 is answered in the affirmative and in favour of the revenue.", "Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. I agree with My Lord and want to add a few words as regards question Number 2.", "The crux of the whole dispute hinges on the interpretation of the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962, which is characterised by the revenue as a deed of sub-lease.", "The assessee on the other hand describes it as a combined deed of transfer by way of sale of a two-storyed structure used as a cold storage, and by way of sub-lease of land underneath measuring about 8,332 sq.", "By a deed of lease dated 21st September, 1954, registered on 22nd September, 1954, Maharaja Prabindra Mohan Tagore demised unto section B. (House Land) Limited, a private company, the assessee, all those messuages, lands, hereditaments and premises Number 26, Prosonna Kumar Tagore Street, commonly known as Tagore Castle for a term of 84 years from 21st September, 1954, with an option of renewal for a further period of 7 years.", "Under the terms and conditions the lessee was not entitled to make any structural alterations or additions to the main building known as Tagore Castle without the prior permission in writing of the said Maharaja but the lessee was free to make any addition or alteration to any other part of the demised premises including the out-house or to erect at its own cost upon the demised premises.", "The new structures and or buildings or erections together with alterations thereto were to belong to the lessor on the expiration or sooner determination of the terms of the lease.", "The area of the demised premises was over 7 bighas of land.", "Upon taking possession of the demised premises the lessee constructed several buildings thereon including a two-storeyed structure on an area of 8,332 sq.", "ft. of land known as Sashi Sadan .", "The assessee claimed to have transferred by way of sale this building known as Sashi Sadan to Smt.", "Keeran Debi Khaitan.", "The learned counsel for the assessee argues that the assessee was the absolute owner of this building and had every right to transfer the same in favour of Smt.", "Khaitan by sale on consideration.", "He drew our attention to Clauses 2(a), 2(b), 2(c), 3(a) and 3(b) of the deed of assignment and argued that the intention of the parties was clear thereunder that the building, Sashi Sadan, would be sold on consideration and the land underneath would be sub-let at a monthly rent of Rs. 51.", "In order to find out whether the transaction is sale or any other form of transfer, the court shall examine the real nature and essence of the transaction, taken as a whole, not merely the words used in the deed or the ostensible appearance of the sale.", "The conclusion shall be the cumulative effect of the totality of the circumstances emerging from the agreement.", "It should be remembered that in a sale there is an absolute transfer of all rights in the property sold, but in a lease there is a partial transfer or divesting of the rights left in the transferor which are called the reversion.", "It is noticed that under Clause 4 of the deed of lease dated 21st September, 1954, a newly constructed structure would belong absolutely to the lessee on the expiration or sooner determination of the terms of the lease.", "So, the lessee or the assessee did not have the absolute proprietary right in Sashi Sadan , though it had constructed the same at its own cost.", "In other words, the lessee had not acquired any better or superior right than that of leasehold.", "Again, under para.", "12 of the deed of lease, the lessee, subject to, conditions and covenants, was entitled to sub-let or under-let the demised premises or any part thereof and or grant sub-lease in respect of the demised premises or any portion or portions thereof for a term not exceeding beyond the term created under the deed of lease.", "Thus, no right of transfer by way of sale was granted to the lessee or the assessee.", "With this background let us examine the deed of assignment dated 6th August, 1962, between the assessee and Smt.", "Kalyani Debi Khaitan, Under para.", "5 of this document, the transferor was agreeable to transfer by way of sub-lease to the transferee the building known as Sashi Sadan situate on leasehold land measuring 8,332 sq.", "on consideration of Rs. 1,50,000.", "It would also be clear from the recital in Clause 1 that both the building and land underneath were transferred by way of sub-lease on payment of consideration of Rs. 1,50,000 and subject to payment of rent of Rs. 51 per month, specifically mentioned in Clause 3(b) for the unexpired residue of the term of years created by the lease dated 21st September, 1954.", "It is argued that unlike the leasehold land measuring 8,332 sq.", "no rent was reserved for the building Sashi Sadan .", "A sum of Rs. 1,50,000 was said to have passed as a consideration for sale.", "The sum of Rs. 1,50,000, according to the revenue, passed as prima facie for the sublease.", "The consideration for lease is either a premium or rent.", "Premium is the price paid or promise in consideration of the demise.", "In India there may be a lease, even if no rent is payable.", "The absence of the right of alienation to the transferee under the deed of assignment goes to indicate that it was not a conveyance on consideration.", "Again, where a document provides that municipal taxes are payable by the lessee, that may have formed a part of rent.", "On examination of the recitals of the deed in question it cannot be said that the assessee was divested of all rights, title and interest in the property known as Sashi Sadan.", "The right of reversion of the assessee was still there.", "Thus, on consideration of the recitals of the deed of assignment, taken as a whole, it appears that there was no transfer of the buildings known as Sashi Sadan by way of sale.", "On the other hand, both the building and the land underneath had been transferred by way of sub-lease."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1979_145", "text": ["Sankar Prasad Mitra, C.J. This is an appeal against a judgment delivered by A. N. Sen J., on July 24 and 25, 1975, dismissing an application under Article 226 of the Constitution.", "The petition under Article 226 was affirmed on behalf of the appellant by an affidavit of Mohammad Khaliloor Rahaman sworn on the 11th March, 1965.", "There were some amendments to the original petition and the amended petition, was reaffirmed by the same person on the 9th August, 1972.", "In the petition, five several notices dated the 4th December, 1964, under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1959-60 were challenged.", "It appears that the appellants income for the assessment years 1953-54 and 1955-56 were assessed on an agreed basis at a flat rate of 9 per cent, on the total turnover of each year.", "The appellant is a registered partnership firm and carries on business, inter alia, in mining and export of manganese, chrome and other kinds of mineral ores.", "On December 23, 1959, while the assessment for the assessment year 1956-57 was pending, the ITO made an ex parte assessment under section 23(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, for the assessment years 1957-58 and 1958-59.", "The appellant preferred appeals against the ex parte assessment.", "While the appeals were pending before the AAC, the appellant made an application before the CBR for settlement of its tax liabilities for the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60.", "The revenue authorities made enquiries and investigations with a view to a settlement for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1959-60.", "In December, 1959, the customs authorities searched the appellants business premises.", "In 1960, the I.T. authorities inspected the books, papers and documents which the customs authorities had seized and were lying in the custody of the Chief Presidency Magistrate.", "It is alleged that the I.T. authorities found certain discrepancies in various assessments.", "On the 18th January, 1961, the ITO wrote to the appellant stating that as many as eleven categories of discrepancies in connection with pending assessment proceedings as well as the settlement petition had been found.", "The discrepancy Number VIII which the ITO had referred to related to under-invoicing amounting to Rs. 29 lakhs.", "The appellant gave its reply to the ITOs letter on February 25, 1961.", "The assessments for the years 1952-53 to 1955-56 were reopened on March 3, 1961, under section 34 of the 1922 Act.", "The tax authorities made investigations based on the allegations in the letter of the 18th January, 1961.", "On the 27th March, 1961, a settlement was arrived at between the petitioner and its associate companies on the one hand and the CIT on the other, whereby the assessments and penalties of the petitioner were settled for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1959-60.", "The total income was settled at Rs. 79,44,963 and the penalty at Rs. 2,72,332.", "On March 4, 1963, an agreement was executed by and between the appellant and the President of India represented by the CIT, Central, Calcutta, whereby it was agreed that the appellant would pay the outstanding dues by monthly instalments of Rs. 25,000 with retrospective effect from October, 1962.", "The case of the revenue before us is that information was received from the customs authorities in June, 1963, that as a result of their subsequent raids and seizures a large number of documents had been discovered which tend to show that during the years 1962 and 1963 there was under-invoicing by the appellant to the extent of nearly a crore of rupees.", "Then came the crucial notices of the 4th December, 1964, for the assessment years 1955-56, 1956-57, 1957-58, 1958-59 and 1959-60, whereby the ITO proposed to reopen the assessments for these assessment years.", "These are the notices, as we have already said, which have been challenged in the application under Article 226.", "The appellant then addressed a letter dated the 26th December, 1964, to the CIT, West Bengal II, stating various facts and requesting the Commissioner to drop the proceedings started by the said notices of the 4th December, 1964.", "The CIT, West Bengal II, by his letter dated the 25th February, 1965, informed the appellant that proceedings under section 148 of the 1961 Act had been started on information which was not there at the time the settlement was made in 1961.", "The appellant then wrote to the ITO on the 2nd March, 1965, asking him, inter alia, to furnish the reasons and materials on the basis whereof the notices under section 148 had been issued.", "The ITO by his reply dated the 3rd March, 1965, repeated the statements which the CIT had made on the 25th February, 1965, and requested the appellant to file returns pursuant to the said notices.", "On the 8th March, 1965, the appellants solicitor wrote to the revenue authorities demanding justice.", "On the 12th March, 1965, a rule was issued by this court and an interim order wa? passed that the appellant would file returns in terms of the notices under section 148 and thereafter all further proceedings under the said notices would remain stayed until further orders of this court.", "This interim order was vacated by A. N. Sen J. on the 12th July, 1975.", "Long arguments were advanced before us on behalf of the appellant.", "Numerous decisions of the Supreme Court and of our court were placed before us.", "The appellants counsel emphasised that before effecting the settlement the revenue authorities carried on the fullest possible enquiries and investigations and it was highly improper on their part to reopen assessments for years for which they had made settlements.", "And the principles analogous to the principles of promissory estoppel should apply to this case.", "It has been urged that no new source of income has been subsequently discovered.", "After going through the judgment of the learned trial judge, it seems to us, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, that the authorities relied on would not assist us in disposing of this appeal.", "Let us go through some of the relevant provisions of the 1961 Act directly applicable to this appeal.", "In Section 147(a) it is stated, inter alia, that if the ITO has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any assessment year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, he may, subject to the provisions, inter alia, of Section 148(2) and Section 151 assess or reassess such income.", "Under this provision, therefore, the ITO has the power to reassess income if he has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disglose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for any assessment year, income chargeable to tax for that year has escaped assessment.", "But to take action under section 147(a) the ITO is subjected to various restrictions.", "Sub-section (2) of Section 148 requires that the ITO shall, before issuing any notice under section 148, record his reasons for doing so.", "There are further restrictions in Section 151.", "Sub-section (1) of Section 151 provides that no notice shall be issued under section 148 after the expiry of eight years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Board is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the ITO, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.", "Sub-section (2) of Section 151 prescribes that no notice shall be issued under section 148 after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the Commissioner is satisfied, on the reasons recorded by the ITO, that it is a fit case for the issue of such notice.", "In the instant case, for the assessment year 1955-56, the sanction has been given by the Board.", "For the assessment years 1956-57 to 1959-60, the sanction has been given by the Commissioner.", "After the appeal was argued before us for some time, the revenue authorities produced before us the ITOs report in connection with the starting of proceedings under section 147 of the 1961 Act.", "In this report the ITO says that the cases fall under section 147(a).", "In giving his reasons for starting proceedings under section 147(a) he has referred to a detailed investigation report which he had submitted on the 7th September, 1964.", "We have gone through the relevant portions of this investigation report.", "We set out below certain extracts from this report which speak for themselves.", "At pages 7, 8, 9 and 10 of the copy of the report which has been handed over to us we find the following statements: A consolidated estimate of income escaping assessment as a result of under-invoicing in chrome and manganese ores during the assessment years 1954-55 to 1959-60, in the hands of M section Serajuddin Bros, and in respect of M section India Ferro Alloy Industries Private Limited, and M section Estate Minerals Development Company Private Limited is given below In the earlier part of this report, it has been mentioned that a settlement was effected between the department and M section Serajuddin Bros, (including M section India Ferro Alloy Industries (P.) Limited M section Estate Minerals Development Company (P.) Limited) on 27-3-1961, when the file was in Central Circle, Calcutta.", "Apart from surplus in the balance sheet as prepared from undisclosed and unadjusted books of accounts relating to the assessment years 1957-58 to 1959-60, which was determined at rupees 26 lakhs (spread over in the above 3 years), a sum of Rs. 29.76 lakhs for on money as per seized personal note books written in the handwriting of Md. Serajuddin and a sum of Rs. 5.98 lakhs for inflation of expenses were also brought to tax under the terms of the settlement dt.", "27-3-61, during the assessment years 1952-53 to 1959-60.", "The extracts regarding on money recorded in the note books of Serajuddin revealed receipt of cash on various dates from a number of parties to whom sale of manganese and chrome ore was being made.", "Code words were used for each party.", "I have already furnished a settlement of year-wise receipt of on money from each party and these amounts were not found recorded in the books of account kept by the assessee.", "However, in the absence of any particulars, this on money could not be co-related with reference to any particular contract or shipment.", "It is also not known whether the above secret record of Serajuddin was full and complete and whether he had fully accounted for all the clandestine receipts for under-invoicing his exports to the foreign customers.", "In the absence of definite evidence the amount included in the settlement assessments on account of on money cannot be admitted to represent part of the under-invoiced profits estimated in this report, unless the assessee furnishes points of evidence to prove his contention.", "In the course of the settlement proceedings, the assessee did not admit this on money as representing extra sale proceeds from his foreign shipments, nor in the settlement deed dt.", "27-3-61.", "It has been accepted that these secret extra amounts collected overseas in foreign currency have been repatriated to India by various means to form the subject-matter of the settlement.", "In fact, in the settlement deed there is no mention at all of any evasion of tax due to under-invoicing of exports.", "Even assuming that consideration may be given for the amount already included in settlement the final position would be as under: Asstt.", "Total estimated under-invoicing Amount considered as on money in settlement Balance to be taxed now Rs. Rs. Rs. 1952-53 -- 33,000 Nil 1953-54 -- 6,34,000 Nil 1954-55 15,133 9,52,000 15,133 1955-56 4,52,947 2,25,000 2,27,947 1956-57 31,55,845 2,34,000 29,21,845 1957-58 34,13,030 6,08,000 28,05,030 1958-59 9,99,071 45,000 9,54,072 1959-60 7,33,490 Nil 7,33,490 From the above table it is apparent that even after making allowance for overlapping substantial income has escaped assessment and action Under section 147 is necessary to re-open the proceedings for the assessment years 1955-56 to 1959-60.", "Conclusion:-- It is regretted that this report has become unusually lengthy on account of the complicated nature of the case and the huge revenue involved in this group.", "The technique adopted by the cunning and ingenious devices adopted by the assessee required elaborate discussion on the entire background and operational activities of the business.", "In the end, it is submitted that though every effort has been made to obtain and extract as much relevant material as possible from the seized books of account, it is not possible to say at this stage that the evidence collected is full and complete.", "The volume of the seized records (about 2,000 files and documents) and the difficulties experienced in having access to the 1959 seizure books and also the fact that the records are kept somewhere else in the custody of other departments, are the factors responsible in this respect.", "Moreover, in the course of the reopened proceedings additional material and facts may have to be gathered for which further references will have to be made to the seized records as and when necessary under these circumstances.", "P. L. Kanojia, Income-tax Officer, A Ward, Dist. V(2), Calcutta.", "7-9-64 Learned counsel for the appellant has urged before us that in the investigation report which has been shown to us, the ITO has merely made a proposal to reopen the assessments for the assessment years in question.", "There is no indication at all in this report of the formation of any belief that due to the failure of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment for the relevant years, the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "On the basis of such an investigation report, therefore, neither the Board nor the Commissioner should have given sanction to reopen the assessments and as such all the purported notices under section 148 dated the 4th December, 1964, should be struck down.", "Now, Sub-section (2) of Section 148 requires that before issuing any notice under section 148 the ITO must record his reasons for issuing the notice.", "This subsection does not also require that he should state that he has formed the belief that, by reason of the omission or failure of the assessee, income has escaped assessment.", "This belief of his can be inferred from the reasons recorded and the manner in which the recording has been made.", "Each case has to be determined on its own facts.", "This is a case in which at no point of time the assessee has produced on its own any books, papers or documents relating to the assessees income.", "Some of these books, papers and documents were seen by the revenue authorities before the settlement was arrived at in 1961.", "It is apparent from the report of the 7th September, 1964, that after the settlement the revenue authorities have examined other books, papers and documents which had not been either discovered or examined at all before the settlement and from the examination of these other books, papers and documents, the ITO has reached the conclusion in his report that the assessee had adopted cunning and ingenious devices in its operational activities which resulted in escapement of assessment.", "Upon consideration of this investigation report of the 7th September, 1964, we are clearly of opinion that in the instant case all the requirements of Sections 147(a), 148 and 151 have been complied with before the issue of the notices under section 148 dated the 4th December, 1964.", "Had this report been placed earlier before us, we would not have spent such a long time on this appeal.", "The recorded reasons, in our opinion, establish sufficiently that there was failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts relating to the relevant assessments.", "It is clear that many of the under-invoicings concerning transactions in chrome and manganese ores were not known to the I.T. authorities when they made the settlement in 1961.", "We are, therefore, inclined to agree with the conclusions which the learned trial judge has reached.", "We dismiss the appeal, discharge the rule that was issued by this court and dismiss the application under Article 226 of the Constitution.", "Interim orders, if any, are vacated.", "We are making no order as to costs.", "We direct that an engrossed copy of the extracts from the investigation report of the ITO dated the 7th September, 1964, which have been placed before us, be kept in the records of this appeal and be preserved in this court.", "We direct further that the revenue authorities shall preserve the entire records including the said report at least for a period of five years.", "K. Datta, J. I agree."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1981_240", "text": ["Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. We are concerned in this reference with the assessment year 1970-71.", "The assessee is one of the co-owners of the house property known as Radia House situated in Bombay.", "She had one-eighth share in the said property.", "A part of the building, viz., two-thirds of the total floor area, has been in occupation of the tenants under certain lease agreements and the remaining one-third of the building has been in the occupation of the licensees under Leave and Licence system which has been in vogue in the State of Bombay.", "It appears that the said system has been adopted by the house-owners so that the occupants could not claim statutory protection under the Rent Control Act and they could be evicted by the owners at their will.", "It further appeared before the Tribunal that under this system the licence for occupation was generally given for a period not exceeding 11 months so that there might not be any possibility of the transactions being construed as lease.", "As per the particulars furnished by the assessee, the area in the occupation of such licensees under the Leave and Licence system was 11,159.56 sq.", "as against the area of 19,787.44 sq.", "in the occupation of the tenants under regular tenancy agreements, the actual area of the building being 30,947 sq.", "The actual receipts per year from the licensees by way of licence fees were Rs. 1,58,511.20 as against Rs. 86,036.86, being receipts from the tenants.", "The total receipts from both categories of occupants were Rs. 2,84,548.08.", "While furnishing these figures of actual receipts, the assessee claimed that the annual value should be determined not with reference to the actual receipts but with reference to the fair rent.", "It was claimed that the sum of Rs. 86,036.86 being the rent received from the tenants for the portion of 19,787.44 sq.", "in their occupation represented fair rent or rent which that portion might reasonably be expected to fetch and the fair rent which the portion of 11,159.56 sq.", "in the occupation of licensees might be estimated proportionately at Rs. 48,544.09 as against the actual receipts of Rs. 1,58,511.20 realised from those licensees for that portion.", "The assessee thus claimed the gross annual value of the property to be fixed as Rs. 1,34,580.97 (Rs. 86,036.86 plus Rs. 48,544.09).", "The ITO, however, did not accept this claim of the assessee.", "He took the actual receipts of Rs. 2,84,548.08 from both the tenants and the licensees as the annual value of the building and after giving the statutory deductions, determined the income from the house property at Rs. 1,70,916.", "He assessed one-eighth share thereof, that is to say, at Rs. 21,356, in the hands of the assessee, she being the owner of one-eighth share of the property.", "Being aggrieved by the said decision, the assessee went up in appeal before the AAC.", "Before him, it was contended by the assessee that what was paid by the licensees for the portion in their occupation was in the nature of compensation and it could never be equated with the fair rent and that the net rateable value of the building, as fixed by the Bombay Municipal Corporation, should form the basis of computation of the annual value of the building under the I.T. Act, 1961.", "In support of this contention, reliance was placed upon the order of the Bombay Bench Tribunal in two other appeals and reliance was also placed on certain observation of the Supreme Court in the Case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, CIT, , that in some cases the actual receipts from the property might be in excess of its annual value.", "On a consideration of the submissions made before him, the AAC held as follows : and as the principles which the annual value of the property in question have been decided by the Appellate Tribunal in Bombay, in the appeal of the co-owner as stated above by the learned counsel, it has to be held that the computation of the property in question made by the ITO is wrong.", "He is, therefore, directed to compute the property income on the basis of its rateable value, subject to various outgoings as provided in Section 23(1) and 24.", "He will accordingly compute the assessees 1/8th share in the income thus determined and substitute that share in place of Rs. 21,356 as adopted by the Income-tax Officer.", "Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order of the AAC, the Revenue went up in appeal before the Tribunal.", "On behalf of the Revenue, it was contended before the Tribunal that the Bombay Bench Tribunal was not correct in applying the theory of standard rent to that part of the building which was in the occupation of the licensees and holding that the standard rent of that area could not be more than the actual rent fetched from the other portion in the occupation of the tenants.", "It was submitted that in the case of a tenant-occupied premises governed by the Rent Control Act, the standard rent as defined in that Act might be taken as representing the sum for which the premises might reasonably be expected to be let but in case of the premises not occupied by tenants only the commercial rent which the premises would fetch if let out in the open market should be taken as the sum for which it might reasonably be expected to let for the purpose of determination of the annual value under Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "Another argument of the Revenue was that what was collected from the so-called licensees in the guise of licence fees or compensation stood on the same footing as rent and that portion in the occupation of licensees must be presumed to fetch the same amount by way of rent if let out in the absence of any evidence to the contrary and the assessee had not adduced any evidence against that presumption.", "These submissions are important and are to be borne in mind because same contentions have been raised on behalf of the Revenue before us.", "We, however, do not think that these aspects raised on behalf of the Revenue, are very relevant or come within the ambit of the question referred to us.", "But quite apart from that the contention raised on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal is also important and has to be borne in mind on this aspect.", "Before the Tribunal, reliance was placed by the assessee upon another order of the Tribunal in the case of two other co-owners of the same property as also the decision in Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, , which we have referred to hereinbefore.", "Attention of the Tribunal was also drawn to the decision in the case of C.J. George v. CIT, .", "The Tribunal, after considering the entire matter, was of the view that there might be some indication in which the income actually received from the property by the owner thereof in any year might exceed the notional figure representing its annual value.", "The Tribunal referred to the decision of the Supreme Court and observed that there might be some cases in.", "which the income actually received from property by the owner in any year might exceed the notional figure representing its annual value but these observations, according to the Tribunal, could not be understood as meaning that in every case the actual income received by the owner from property must be presumed to be in excess of its annual value.", "The Tribunal was, therefore, unable to agree with the contention urged on behalf of the Revenue that the sum of Rs. 1,98,511.20 actually received by the assessee as licence fee or compensation from the licensees in occupation of a portion of the building comprising 11,159.56 sq.", "ft. must be presumed to be the sum for which that portion of the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year within the meaning of Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary.", "The Tribunal observed that this portion of the building had not been in the occupation of the tenants under regular lease agreements and this sum of Rs. 1,98,511.20 was in the nature of licence fee but not rent, in character.", "Secondly, the Tribunal noted that the sum of Rs. 86,036.88 paid by the regular tenants in the occupation of the remaining area of 19,787.44 sq.", "ft. was accepted by the ITO himself as representing the annual value of that portion of the building.", "According to the Tribunal, this itself was proof of the fact that the sum of Rs. 1,98,511.20 paid by the licensees by way of licence fee for the lesser area of 11,159.56 sq.", "ft. was far in excess of the sum for which that portion might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.", "The Tribunal, therefore, was unable to accept the contention of the Revenue that the sum of Rs. 1,98,511.20 which was actually realised by the owners of the building by way of licence fees from the licensees in occupation of the lease area of 11,159.56 sq.", "ft. must be presumed to represent the annual value of that portion of the buildings.", "The Tribunal referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Nalinikant A. Mody v. Narayan Row, .", "The Tribunal was of the view that in a case where there was controversy as to whether the income realised by the owner from the occupants of the property was in excess of the sum for which that property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, one of the tests for resolving the controversy was to see how the annual letting value of the property was valued by the local authority for the purpose of taxation under the law by which that local authority was authorised to levy property tax.", "In this connection reference was made to the observations of the Kerala High Court in C.J. George v. CIT .", "Thereafter the Tribunal considering the matter noted that no argument was advanced as to why the controversy as to whether the actual receipt from the property during the year was not in excess of the sum for which that property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year could not be resolved with reference to the municipal rateable value of the property.", "It was not suggested or contended that the municipal rateable valuation of the property was made without taking into account relevant consideration or that it was made on the basis of irrelevant consideration.", "The local authority, i. e., the Municipal Corporation, was also a responsible body and, as was observed by the Kerala High Court, naturally, the said local authority was also interested in imposing as much legitimate tax as possible, -That being so, the Tribunal felt that in the absence of any material to show that the municipal valuation was not a safe guide for determining the annual value of the property, the Tribunal was inclined to hold that the AAC was justified in directing the ITO to determine the annual value of the property afresh with reference to its municipal rateable valuation.", "Therefore, in this case what the Tribunal has done is to direct the ITO to determine the property income on the basis of annual value of the property with reference to the municipal rateable valuation.", "Upon this decision at the instance of the Revenue under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the Tribunal has referred the following two questions to us : Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the sum of Rs. 2,84,548 being the aggregate amount receivable by the assessee partly from the tenants in occupation of an area of 19,767.44 sq.", "under regular tenancy agreements and partly from licence in occupation of an area of 11,159.56 sq.", "under the leave and licence system could not be taken as the annual value of the property known as Radia House for the purpose of computing the income assessable under the head Income from house property ? Whether, on the facts, and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in directing the Income-tax Officer to redetermine the annual value of the property under Section 23(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, afresh with reference to its rateable value as determined by the Municipal Corporation ? The question, as we have indicated before, is whether in determining the annual value of the property known as Radia House for the purpose of computing the income assessable under the head Income from house property , the Tribunal was justified in directing that it should be done by the ITO keeping in view the municipal rateable valuation.", "This question, in our opinion, has to be adjudicated in the light of the provision of law and on the clear authorities on this point.", "Section 22 of the I.T. Act, 1961, enjoins that the annual value of property consisting of any building or lands appurtenant thereto of which the assessee was the owner, other than such portions of such property as he might occupy for the purposes of any business or profession carried on by him the profits of which were chargeable to income-tax, should be chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from house property .", "That income from house property is to be computed as provided in Section 23 of the Act.", "Section 23 of the Act, before its amendment with effect from 1st April, 1976, by the T.L. (Amend.) Act, 1975, which is not material for our present purpose, indicated that for the purposes of Section 22, the annual value of any property should be deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.", "There was a certain proviso with which we are not concerned for our present purpose.", "This Sub-section (1) of Section 23 was amended, as we have indicated before, with effect from 1st April, 1976, The amended provision, so far as it is material for our present purpose, leaving aside the proviso, reads as follows Annual value how determined.--(1) For the purposes of Section 22, the annual value of any property shall be deemed to be- (a) the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to lot from year to year or (b) where the property is let and the annual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum referred to in Clause (a), the amount so received or receivable It is important to bear in mind the difference introduced by the amendment.", "But as we have indicated before we are concerned with the position prior to the amendment.", "Therefore, we have to find out what is the annual value of the property and that would be on the basis for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.", "Before we refer to certain judicial authorities we may in this connection refer to the provisions of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, rateable value and the section which deals with the valuation of the property assessable to property tax.", "Section 154 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, being Bombay Act Number III of 1888 provides as follows : 154.", "(1) In order to fix the rateable value of any building or land assessable to a property tax, there shall be deducted from the amount of the annual rent for which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year a sum equal to ten per centum of the said annual rent and the said deduction shall be in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatsoever.", "The value of any machinery contained or situated in or upon any building or land shall not be included in the rateable value of such building or land.", "Notwithstanding anything contained in this section, the rateable value in the case of building,-- (a) owned by or belonging to the Government or the Bombay Housing Board constituted under the Bombay Housing Boards Act, 1948, or other similar body constituted by any law for the time being in force for the purpose of providing housing accommodation (b) constructed, purchased or occupied on or after the 1st day of April, 1947, as part of a recognised scheme of subsidised housing for industrial workers or persons belonging to lower income groups or proper classes and (c) comprising in part or in whole of tenements let out to such workers or persons on a monthly rent, inclusive of all service and other charges not exceeding rupees thirty-two and fifty naye paise for each such tenement shall be fixed- with respect to such tenements comprised therein, with retrospective effect from the date of their construction, purchase or occupation as stated in Clause (b) on the actual rent charged for such tenements and not on the rent, for which such tenements might reasonably be expected to let from year to year less deduction of ten per cent.", "of the said annual actual rent in lieu of all allowances for repairs or on any other account whatsoever and with respect to the remaining portions, if any, of such building, on the basis of the provisions of Sub-sections (1) and (2).", "We are leaving aside the Explanation which is not necessary for our present purpose.", "This principle, that is to say, that the value of any building or land assessable to property tax shall be reduced from the amount of the annual rent for which such land or building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, seems to be more or less the basis both of the Calcutta Municipal Act and the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act upon which certain decision proceeded.", "While on this, we may also refer to the provisions of the Bombay Rents, Hotel and Lodging House Rates Control Act, 1947.", "Section 7(1) of the said Act was as follows: Rent (or licence fee or charge) in excess of standard rent illegal.--(1) Except where the rent is liable to periodical increment by virtue of an agreement entered into before the 1st day of September, 1940, it shall not be lawful to claim or receive on account of rent for any premises any increase above the standard rent, unless the landlord was, before the coming into operation of this Act, entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of the Bombay Rent Restriction Act, 1939, or the Bombay Rents, Hotel Rates and Lodging House Rates (Control) Act, 1944, or is entitled to recover such increase under the provisions of this Act.", "Section 7(2) was introduced in a year subsequent to the year with which we are concerned.", "Therefore, we need not consider Section 7(2).", "We have to find out what is the annual value in order to make it assessable under the head Income from house property and whether such annual value could be anything more than the standard rent as enjoined under the Rent Act.", "The principle applicable clearly emerges from the several decisions which we may presently note.", "We may first refer to the decision in the case of Ganesh Chandra Khan v. ITO, .", "The case was, however, concerned really with whether reopening under Section 148 was valid or not, in other words, whether the condition precedent as provided by Clause (a) of Section 147 for such reopening was there.", "Dealing with this aspect of the matter and referring to several Supreme Court decisions at p. 940 of the report it was observed that a combined reading of the provisions of the Act and the Rent Control Act left no room for doubt that a contract for rent higher than the standard rent was not only not enforceable but also the landlord would be committing an offence if he collected rent above the standard rent.", "Therefore, it was observed that if anything in excess of certain sum of money was realised by the assessee as the rent the same would not be the reasonable letting value of the property.", "It was above the standard rent and could not be computed as income from house property.", "In this connection reference was made to the decisions in the case of Nalinikant Ambalal Mody v. S.A.L. Narayan Row, CIT, , Corporation of Calcutta v. Smt.", "Padma Debi, , and the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Guntur Municipal Council v. Guntur Town Rate Payers.", "Association, , This question directly came up for consideration before the Kerala High Court in the case of C. J. George v. CIT, , a decision upon which the Tribunal relied.", "There the assessee constructed a building which he let out to a company on an annual rent of Rs. 33,000.", "The ITO fixed the annual value of the building at Rs. 33,000.", "The Appellate Tribunal came to the conclusion that there was no material available to accept the contention of the assessee that the notional annual letting value was less than the sum of Rs. 33,000 for which the building had actually been let.", "The Tribunal rejected the certificate produced by the assessee showing that the annual letting value had been fixed by the local authority at Rs. 18,000, It was held by the High Court that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the rent received by the assessee represented the annual letting value of the building.", "For the purpose of taxation it was not the actual amount of rent, according to the Kerala High Court, that must be taken into account but the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, as provided by Section 23 of the I.T, Act, 1961.", "The reasons given by the Tribunal for not accepting the certificate showing the annual letting value fixed by the local authority were not tenable.", "Prima facie, the High Court felt that the certificate afforded evidence to sustain the contention of the assessee that the contract rent was in excess of the reasonable rent which could be expected from the building.", "This question was looked into from a different point of view by the Madras High Court in the case of Addl.", "CIT v. Mrs. Leela Govindan, 1978 113 ITR 136.", "We may incidentally point out that Chief Justice P. Govindan Nair, who was a party to the judgment, was also a party to the decision of the Kerala High Court referred to hereinabove.", "In this case the assessee purchased certain house properties in 1951 in respect of which there existed a lease dated December 20, 1935, for a period up to 1st of May, 1959, on a rent of Rs. 225 per month with an .option for renewal for a further period of 15 years.", "The lessees had agreed to pay to the previous owners additional amounts so that the previous owners were getting a total sum of Rs. 6,226 from the lease.", "The annual municipal valuations of the two properties were Rs. 7,502 and Rs. 10,374.", "Accordingly, the ITO computed the income from these two properties under Section 23(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, at Rs. 5,021 and Rs. 6,944 totalling Rs. 11,965.", "The AAC on appeal accepted the assessees claim that the properties could not be let for any amount higher than Rs. 6,226 per annum during the period of the lease and accordingly arrived at the income from property after necessary deductions at Rs. 603.", "The Appellate Tribunal agreed with this view.", "On a reference to the High Court at the instance of the Revenue it was held that though the lessees might have sublet the building for a larger rent, what the assessee was entitled to get under the terms of the lease deed dated December 20, 1935, was only Rs. 225 per mensem which by persuasion had been slightly raised.", "As it could not be said that the rent fixed under the lease deed was not genuine or had been fixed under the lease deed at a lower figure for some ulterior reason or other, it was not open to the Revenue to ignore the rent actually received by the assessee who could not claim more than that by reason of the lease deed subject to which alone he purchased the property and contend that the income should be computed on the basis of the annual value of the property which probably had been arrived at by the local authority on the basis of the rent received by the lessees.", "Accordingly, the Tribunal was right in its conclusion.", "The Division Bench of the Madras High Court held that the annual letting value would in certain circumstances, in view of the contract, be at a higher rent than the municipal valuation arrived at on the basis of rent received by the assessee.", "This view cannot be accepted in view of certain subsequent decisions of the Supreme Court.", "This question came up first before the Supreme Court in the case of New Delhi Municipal Committee v. M.N. Soi, AIR 1977 SC 302.", "There the Supreme Court observed although legislative provisions for the fixation of standard rent in New Delhi contained in Section 9 of the Delhi Rent Control Act of 1958 were comparatively recent and fairly elaborate, yet the fixation of rates for purposes of assessment of house tax was still governed by the provisions of Section 3(1)(b) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, enacted at a time when there was no machinery for the control of rents.", "On a bare reading of the provisions of Section 3(1)(a), no doubt was left that, although, annual value, for purposes of rating land, may be linked to the assessment of land revenue, if the State Government so directs, yet, in the cases of houses or buildings, it was the reasonable expectation to let such buildings subject to certain reasonable deductions, which governed valuation, whatever might have been the origin of rating.", "It is the same principle that has been mentioned in Section 154 of the Delhi Municipal Act which we have set out hereinbefore.", "The Supreme Court went on observing where rent was higher than that which could be legally demanded by the landlord and actually paid by a tenant despite the fact that such violation of the restriction on rent chargeable by law was visited by penalty consequences, the Municipal authorities could not take advantage of this defiance of the law by the landlord.", "Rating could not operate as a mode of sharing the benefits of illegal rack-renting indulged in by landlords for whose activities the law prescribed condign punishment.", "It was not the expectation of a landlord who took the risk of prosecution and punishment which the violation of the law involved but the expectation of the landlord who was prudent enough to abide by the law that served as the standard of reasonableness for purposes of rating.", "The Supreme Court observed that where fair rent relating to the house in question in New Delhi was fixed in 1941 under the New Delhi House Rent Control Order, 1939, and that fixation continued to be valid notwithstanding the repeal of the Control Order, even after the Delhi Rent Control Act 59 of 1958 came into force, the fair rent determined the standard rent which still effected the assessment of rates of the house in question for fixation of rates for assessment of house tax under the Punjab Municipal Act, notwithstanding the fact that the landlord was deriving at the time of fixation a much higher rent than the standard rent.", "Therefore, the ratio of the said decision is that the annual value under the Municipal Corporation should be fixed on the basis of standard rent receivable by the houses in question.", "This principle has been extended by the Supreme Court in the case of Dewan Daulat Rai Kapoor v. New Delhi Municipal Committee, .", "There also the Supreme Court observed that in relation to a building within the jurisdiction of the New Delhi Municipal Committee or the Corporation of Delhi, even if the standard rent had not been fixed by the Controller under the Delhi Rent Control Act, 1958, the landlord could not reasonably expect to receive from a hypothetical tenant anything more than the standard rent determinable under that Act.", "This would be so equally whether the building had been let out to a tenant who had lost his right to apply for fixation of standard rent or the building was occupied by the owner himself.", "This principle, as the Supreme Court noted, would apply to self-occupied house and further when rent control legislation provided for fixation of standard rent which along and nothing more than which the tenant should be liable to pay to the landlord, it did so because it considered the measure of the standard rent prescribed by it to be reasonable.", "It laid down the norm of reasonableness in regard to the rent payable by the tenant to the landlord.", "Any rent which exceeded this norm of reasonableness was regarded by the Legislature as unreasonable or excessive.", "The Legislature obviously regarded recovery of rent in excess of the standard rent as exploitative of the tenant and would it be proper for the court to say that it would be reasonable on the part of the landlord to expect to recover such exploitative rent from the tenant ? This view was extended by the Supreme Court in the case of Mrs. Sheila Kaushish v. CIT, (Civil Appeal Number 1184 and 1185).", "This has not yet been fully reported (since reported in, , and the relevant portion of the judgment with which we are concerned has been reported in the Statutes portion of the Supreme Court in, 1981 131 ITR (St.) 65, which reads as follows (see p. 442) : this was a decision given on the interpretation of the definition of annual value in the Delhi Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911, for the purpose of levy of house tax, but it would be equally applicable in interpreting the definition of annual value in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961, because these definitions are in identical terms and it is impossible to distinguish the definition of annual value in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961, from the definition of that term in the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957, and the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.", "We must, therefore, hold, on an identical line of reasoning, that even if the standard rent of a building has not been fixed by the Controller under Section 9 of the Kent Act and the period of limitation prescribed by Section 12 of the Rent Act for making an application for fixation of the standard rent having expired, it is no longer competent to the tenant to have the standard rent of the building fixed, the annual value of the building according to the definition given in Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961, must be held to be the standard rent determinable under the provisions of the Rent Act and not the actual rent received by the landlord from the tenant.", "This interpretation which we are placing on the language of Sub-section (1) of Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961, may be regarded as having received legislative approval, for, we find that by Section 6 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, Sub-section (1) of Section 23 has been amended and it has now been made clear by the introduction of Clause (b) in that sub-section that where the property is let and the annual rent received or receivable by the owner in respect thereof is in excess of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the amount so received or receivable shall be deemed to be the annual value of the property.", "The newly added Clause (b) clearly postulates that the sum for which a building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year may be less than the actual amount received or receivable by the landlord from the tenant.", "On Section 154 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act, which we have set out hereinbefore, the Supreme Court has delivered a judgment dealing with the effect thereof in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Polychem Limited, .", "There, the Supreme Court held that the land on which a building was being constructed did not cease to be rateable simply because the construction was going on upon it.", "So long as a building was not completed or constructed to such an extent that at least a partial completion notice could be given so that the completed portion could be occupied and let out, the land could, for the purpose of rating, be equated with or treated as vacant land.", "It was only when the building which was being put up in such a state which would actually and legally be capable of occupation that the letting value of the building would enter into computation for rating rebus sic stantibus.", "Although the definition of land which was rateable covered three kinds of land, yet for the purpose of rating, according to the Supreme Court, Section 154 recognised only two categories.", "Therefore, all lands must fall in one of those two categories for the purpose of rating and not outside.", "This decision is important in view of the fact that this decision considered the effect of Section 154 and considered also the previous decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay v. Royal Western India Turf Club, .", "The Supreme Court in that decision had also referred to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Motichand Hirachand v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, .", "In view of the fact that on behalf of the Revenue, reliance was placed on certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Motichand Hirachand, , it would be instructive to refer to the observations of the Supreme Court in the said decision at p. 442 which explains the entire position.", "There the Supreme Court observed as follows : The assessing authority for the purpose of fixing the rateable value has, therefore, to determine the annual rent, that is, the animal rent for which such building might reasonably be expected to let from year to year and to deduct the 10 per cent.", "statutory allowance therefrom and arrive at the net rateable value which would be equivalent to the net annual rent.", "The rateable value is thus taken to be the same as the net annual rent of the property.", "It is a well recognised principle in rating that both gross value and net annual value are estimated by reference to the rent at which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.", "Various methods of valuation are applied in order to arrive at such hypothetical rent, for instance by reference to the actual rent paid for the property or for others comparable to it or where there are no rents by reference to the assessments of comparable properties or to, the profits earned from the property or to the cost of construction.", "The expression gross value means the rent at which a hereditament might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.", "The rent which a tenant could afford to give is calculated rebits sic stantibus, that is to say, with reference to the property in its existing physical condition and to the mode in which it is actually used.", "The hypothetical tenant includes all persons who might possibly take the property including the person actually in occupation, even though he happens to be the owner of the property.", "The rent is that which he will pay in the higgling of the market, taking into account all existing circumstances and any relevant future trends.", "If the property affords the opportunity for the carrying on of a gainful trade, that fact also must be taken into account.", "The property is assumed to be vacant and to let and the material date for the valuation is that of the proposal which gives rise to the proceedings.", "The actual rent paid for the property is not conclusive evidence of value, though such actual rent may serve as an indication as to what a hypothetical tenant can afford to pay.", "However, if the actual rent is paid on terms which differ from those of the hypothetical tenancy it must be adjusted, if possible, to the terms of an hypothetical tenancy before it affords evidence of value.", "(see Halburys Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol.", "32, p. 60 and onwards).", "It is also well recognised that while valuing the property in question every intrinsic quality and every intrinsic circumstance which tends to push the rental value up or down must be taken into consideration.", "Therefore, the Supreme Court made it clear that the actual rent paid for the property was not conclusive evidence of value, though such actual rent might serve as an indication as to what a hypothetical tenant could afford to pay but no more.", "Therefore, for the purpose of computing the income from house property, it must be done on the basis of Section 23 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "As we have mentioned before, we have to consider the position of Section 23 before the amendment effected with effect from 1st April, 1976.", "This position has been made quite clear by the circular issued by the Board of Direct Taxes.", "We may refer to Circular Number 204 dated 24th July, 1976, where dealing with this aspect of the matter, the circular stated as follows (see, 1977 110 ITR (St.) 21, 26) : Determination of annual value where the rent received exceeds the municipal valuation--(Section 23(1)).", "Hitherto, the annual value of house property chargeable to income-tax under the head Income from house property was deemed to be the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year.", "In many cases, however, the actual rent received or receivable in a year exceeds the municipal valuation of the property.", "Sub-section (1) of Section 23 has been amended to provide that where any property is in occupation of a tenant and the annual rent received or receivable by the owner is in excess of the sum for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year, the annual rent received or receivable shall be taken as the annual value of the property.", "Where the property is let out only for a part of the previous year, the annual rent for this purpose will be the rent received or receivable for a period of twelve months calculated on the basis of the average rent received or receivable for the period the property was actually let out.", "This amendment has come into force with effect from 1-4-1976 and is, accordingly, applicable in relation to the assessment year 1976-77 and subsequent years (Section 6 (part) of the Amending Act).", "Therefore, in a case where the actual rent received is higher than that for which the property might reasonably be expected to let from year to year in respect of an income accruing subsequent to the amendment different considerations might arise.", "But we are not concerned with such a situation in the instant case.", "Therefore, in view of that position and the municipal law and in view of the decision of the Supreme Court, it appears to us that the income from house property must be computed on the basis of the sum which might reasonably be expected to let from year to year and with the annual municipal value provided such a value is not above the standard rent receivable and that would be the safest guide for this purpose and the rent actually received would not be of any relevance.", "On behalf of the Revenue, however, it was contended that the amount of money which was received was in respect of a transaction, though connected with property, it need not be confined to income from house property under Section 22 read with Section 23 of the I.T. Act, it could be taxed under Section 56 of the I.T. Act.", "It is not possible to accept this contention for reasons more than one.", "Firstly, that is not the question before us as we have set out the question.", "Secondly, as we have set out the contentions urged on behalf of the Revenue before the Tribunal, it was the Revenues case that this compensation should be taxed as income on account of rent under Section 22 and, therefore, it is not open to the Revenue to contend otherwise now.", "Quite apart from that fact, in law also, this position is not acceptable.", "Reliance was placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of S.G. Mercantile Corporation P. Limited v. CIT, 1972 83 ITR 700.", "There, the assessee-company was incorporated in January, 1955.", "One of the objects specified in its memorandum of association was to take on lease or otherwise acquire and to hold, improve, lease or otherwise dispose of land, houses and other real and personal property and to deal with the same commercially.", "Within less than two weeks of its incorporation, the company took on lease a market place for an initial term of 50 years undertaking to spend Rs. 5 lakhs for the purpose of re-modelling and repairing the structure at the site.", "It was also given the right to sublet the different portions.", "The assessee-companys activity during the period covered by the assessment years 1956-57 to 1958-59 consisted of developing, procuring and letting out portions thereof as shops, stalls and ground spaces to shop-keepers, stall-holders and daily casual market vendors.", "The question was whether the assessee-companys income from sub-letting the stalls was assessable as business income under Section 10 of the Indian I.T Act, 1922, or as income from other sources under Section 12.", "It was held that since the assessee-company was not the owner of the property or any part thereof, no question of making the assessment under Section 9 arose that the definition of business in Section 2(4) was of a wide amplitude and it could embrace within itself dealing in real property as also the activity of taking the property on lease, setting up a market thereon and letting out shops and stalls in the market.", "The Supreme Court further held that, on the facts, the taking of the property on lease and sub-letting portions thereof was a part of the business and trading activity of the assessee-company and the income of the assessee-company fell under Section 10 of the Act, and that where, as in that case, the income could appropriately fall under Section 10 as being the business income, no resort could be made to Section 12.", "The liability to tax under Section 9 of the Indian I.T. Act was of the owner of the buildings and of land appurtenant thereto.", "In case the assessee was the owner of the buildings or land appurtenant thereto, he would be, according to the Supreme Court, liable to pay tax under Section 9 even if the object of the assessee in purchasing the landed property was to promote and develop a market thereon.", "It would also make no difference if the assessee was a company which had been incorporated with the object of buying and developing the landed properties and promoting and setting up a market thereon.", "The residuary head of income should be resorted to only if none of the specific heads was applicable to the income in question.", "It came into operation only after the preceding heads were excluded.", "The narration of facts, in this case, would make it clear that the facts of the instant case are not coming within the mischief of Section 56, As we have mentioned before, the controversy before the authority below had all along been whether it was the business income or income from house property.", "Here, on the other, hand, it was contended that it should be treated as extra compensation or extra rent and the money which was receivable apart from rent as licence fee should be taxed as income from house property.", "Therefore, the observations of the Supreme Court cannot be of any assistance to the Revenue in aid of their submissions in this regard.", "Reliance was also placed on the observations of Mr. Justice Ghose, as the Chief Justice then was, in the case of Mrs. Roma Base v. ITO, .", "There the observations were made entirely in a different context.", "What happened there was that a particular person who was a practising lawyer had died and after his death his wife received certain fees payable to the lawyer.", "The question was whether such fees could be taxed, in view of the provisions of Section 176(4) of the I.T. Act read with Section 56 of the Act.", "That is a controversy with which we are not concerned.", "We are not concerned with the similar situation here arising out of Section 176(4) of the Act.", "Therefore, the observation made in that decision cannot be of any relevance for the Revenue in the case before us.", "Our attention was also drawn to the decision of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Sakarlal Balabhai v. ITO, 1975 100 ITR 97.", "There our attention was drawn to certain observations of the court appearing at p. 106 where the court referred to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Motichand Hirachand v. Bombay Municipal Corporation, , which we have set out hereinbefore in the context in which the said observations were made.", "As the actual facts involved in the said case before the Gujarat High Court were entirely different, we do not think we can derive much assistance from the said decision.", "Reliance was also placed on certain observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Piara Singh, .", "There it was held that for a business loss, which was an illegal business, deduction could be allowable under Section 10 of the Act.", "This proposition cannot be disputed.", "The illegal gains from a business is certainly taxable.", "But that, is not the issue before us.", "Therefore, the observations of the Supreme Court in the said case cannot be of much assistance for the learned advocate for the Revenue.", "Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Bhagwan Dass Jain v. Union of India, , and our attention was drawn to the observations of the Supreme Court at p. 319 of the report where the court referred to the observation of Lord Macnaghten in his celebrated judgment in Attorney-General v. London County Council, 1900 4 TC 265 1901 AC 35, Income-taxis a tax on income .", "Our attention was also drawn to p. 320 of the report where the decision of the Supreme Court was referred to say what was the natural and grammatical meaning of the word income .", "According to the dictionary meaning, it meant a thing that comes in .", "Therefore, it was argued that, as the money came in, this amount should be taxable.", "As we have mentioned, property income can be taxed as an income within the notion of Section 23(2) of the Act and that is the only head before the Tribunal and in that view of the matter, these observations cannot be of much assistance to the learned advocate for the Revenue.", "Reliance was also placed on Strouds Judicial Dictionary as to what was the meaning of reasonable .", "But this is not relevant for us.", "Reference was also made to a decision of the House of Lords in Smart (Inspector of Taxes) v. Lincolnshire Sugar Company Ltd, 1937 20 TC 643, and our attention was drawn to the observations of Lord Macmillan appearing at p. 671 of the report.", "But we are unable to find any relevance of the said finding to the facts of the case.", "In the view we have taken and the reasons as we have mentioned hereinbefore, both the questions referred to this court are answered in the affirmative and in favour of the assessee.", "Parties will pay and bear their own costs.", "K. Banerji, J. I agree."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1981_55", "text": ["Sabyasachi Mukharji, J. In this reference under Section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following questions have been referred to this court: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in holding that the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, were not saved for the purpose of completing the assessment under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, after April 1, 1962, in a case where a notice under Section 22(2) has been validly served prior to that date but no return had been filed and in that view cancelling the order under Section 23(4) for the assessment year 1961-62 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in holding that the provisions of the Income-tax Act, 1961, were not applicable and the order under Section 23(4) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, could not be sustained as having been passed u section 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in law in holding that the validity of the ex parte order could be decided upon in the appeal against the order under Section 27 of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 ? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in cancelling the penalties under Section 271(1)(a) 273(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ? In order to appreciate the questions, we have to refer to certain facts.", "The above questions arose out of the assessment for the assessment year 1961-62.", "It is important to bear in mind a few dates before we go to the controversy.", "A notice under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was served on the assessee on the 10th June, 1961.", "On the 1st April, 1962, the I.T. Act, 1961, came into operation.", "It is the case of the ITO, in his assessment order, that pursuant to the notice under Section 22(2), the return was not furnished by the assessee.", "For filing the return, from time to time, reminders were given to the assessee but without any effect.", "A notice under Section 28(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was also issued in November, 1961.", "But this was also not complied with.", "Ever since July, 1965, it was further stated by the ITO in his order, that efforts were made to find out whether the claim made on behalf of the firm that due to disputes among the partners it was not possible to file the return of income was correct or not.", "Ultimately after the examination of witnesses and examination of whatever papers and documents available, the ITO could gather otherwise, that the assessment was made under Section 23(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, on 9th March, 1960 (sic).", "After considering the various incomes in various sets of books, the ITO computed the total income at Rs. 52,98,996.", "He also initiated proceedings under Section 271(1)(a), (b) and (c) and also under Section 273(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "Thereafter, the assessee filed a petition under Section 27 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and considering the points urged, it was held by the ITO in its order, that no sufficient cause had been made out and as a result the application under Section 27 was rejected.", "The matter was taken up in appeal by the assessee, both with regard to the order under Section 27 as well as the assessment made under Section 23(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, before the AAC.", "It was urged in the appeal against the order under Section 27 that the assessment was bad in law as it was completed under Section 23(4) at a time when the old Act stood repealed.", "It was urged, Section 297(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, indicated an intention that Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act would not be applicable.", "This argument was accepted by the AAC and he held that the ITO was not justified in making the assessment under Section 23(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.", "According to the Appellate Tribunal, the AAC had not specifically said whether the provisions of the new Act were applicable to the case and whether the ITO could make an assessment under the new Act.", "In any event, however, the AAC held that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not save the application of the old Act in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.", "The AAC, accordingly, cancelled the assessment under Section 23(4) of the 1922 Act and directed the ITO to make fresh assessment according to law.", "This order, he passed in the appeal against the rejection order under Section 27 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.", "In the appeal against the order under Section 23(4), the AAC was of the view that the same had become infructuous and ordered the filing of the proceedings.", "Consequently, he also cancelled the penalty order passed by the ITO under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "He, however, had not gone specifically into the merits of these orders.", "The Revenue, being aggrieved, went up in appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against all these orders.", "There, various contentions were urged.", "It was contended that, even if it was necessary, the order might be treated as an order under Section 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961, and whether the ITO had the jurisdiction or not, the reference to a wrong section would not make the exercise of the power invalid.", "Reliance was also placed for this proposition on certain authorities of the Supreme Court.", "It is not necessary for us to go into the details of the arguments advanced before the Tribunal as well as to the findings of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal.", "The Tribunal was, however, of the view that the old Act was repealed and in the contingency that had happened, Section 297(2) could not save the old provisions and there was contrary intention expressed in Section 297 which indicated that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not be applicable to save the pending proceedings in the instant case.", "The Appellate Tribunal, therefore, held that the AAC was right in holding that the assessments were wrongly made under Section 23(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.", "As to the contention that the AAC was incompetent to go into the validity of the order in an appeal against the order under Section 27, the Tribunal was unable to accept this contention urged on behalf of the Revenue.", "In the premises, according to the Tribunal, the action of the AAC was justified.", "The Tribunal, therefore, dismissed the departmental appeal.", "As a result of this order, four questions, indicated above, have been referred to this court.", "The basic question, in our opinion, is whether the assessment could have been made under Section 23(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in the facts and circumstances of the case, after 1st April, 1962.", "This involves the examination of the effect of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act read in conjunction with the intention of the Legislature as evidenced in Section 297 of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "This question has been examined in several decisions of the Supreme Court as well as in different High Courts.", "The first decision to which we must refer is the decision in the case of Kalawati Devi Harlalka v. CIT .", "It is not necessary, in view of the fact that this case was analysed in other decisions, to recapitulate in detail the facts of that case.", "What had happened in that case was that assessments were made on 7th February, 1961, on the assessee for the assessment years 1952-53 to 1960-61 under the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and on 24th January, 1963, after the repeal of the said Act by the I.T. Act, 1961, the Commissioner had issued a notice under Section 33B of the Act of 1922, to revise these assessments.", "It was held that the Commissioner had jurisdiction to issue the notices under Section 33B of the 1922 Act in view of Section 297(2) of the Act of 1961, and paragraph 4 of the I.T. (Removal of difficulties) Order, 1962.", "The expression assessment was to be construed in as wide a language as was possible.", "There, at pp.", "690-691 of the report, the Supreme Court enunciated the principles which would be applicable in the present controversy, which are as follows : It is quite clear from the authorities cited above that the word assessment can bear a very comprehensive meaning it can comprehend the whole procedure for ascertaining and imposing liability upon the taxpayer.", "Is there then anything in the context of Section 297 which compels us to give to the expression procedure for the assessment the narrower meaning suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant ? In our view, the answer to this question must be in the negative.", "It seems to us that Section 297 is meant to provide, as far as possible, for all contingencies which may arise out of the repeal of the 1922 Act.", "It deals with pending appeals, revisions, etc.", "It deals with non-completed assessments pending at the commencement of the 1961 Act, and assessments to be made after the commencement of the 1961 Act, as a result of returns of income filed after the commencement of the 1961 Act.", "Then in Clause (d) it deals with assessments in respect of escaped income in Clauses (f) and (g) it deals with levy of penalties Clause (h) continues the effect of elections or declarations made under the 1922 Act Clause (i) deals with refunds Clause (j) deals with recovery Clause (k) deals generally with all agreements, notifications, orders issued under the 1922 Act Clause (1) continues the notifications issued under Section 60(1) of the 1922 Act, and Clause (m) guards against the application of a longer period of limitation prescribed under the 1961 Act to certain applications, appeals, etc.", "It is hardly believable in this context that Parliament did not think of appeals and revisions in respect of assessment orders already made or which it had authorised to be made under Clause (a) of Section 297(2).", "The learned counsel for the appellant submits that Parliament had Section 6 of the General Clauses Act in view, and, therefore, no express provision was made dealing with appeals and revisions, etc.", "In our view, Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not apply because Section 297(2) evidences an intention to the contrary.", "In Union of India v. Madan Gopal Kabra , while interpreting Section 13 of the Finance Act, 1950, already extracted above, this court observed at page 68 : Nor can Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, serve to keep alive the liability to pay tax on the income of the year 1949-50 assuming it to have accrued under the repealed State law, for a different intention clearly appears in Sections 2 and 13 of the Finance Act read together as indicated above.", "It is true that whether a different intention appears or not, must depend on the language and content of Section 297(2).", "It seems to us, however, that by providing for so many matters mentioned above, some in accord with what would have been the result under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and some contrary to what would have been the result under Section 6, Parliament has clearly evidenced an intention to the contrary, Therefore, the principles that emerge are that, normally, pending proceedings are generally saved by the operation of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.", "When, however, a different intention appears from the repealed provision, then the proceedings cannot be said to be saved.", "Whether a different intention appears or not in the facts and circumstances of controversy must depend on the language and contents of Section 297(2).", "The Supreme Court, in that case, held that by providing for so many matters, some in accord with what would have been the result under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and some contrary to what would have been the result under Section 6, Parliament had expressed the intention of reopening an assessment made under the old Act, and thereby had clearly evidenced an intention to the contrary.", "The aforesaid principle enunciated by the Supreme Court was again reviewed by the Supreme Court in the case of T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Rangachari, ITO .", "There, the court was concerned with Section 52 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.", "The provisions of Section 52 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, did not alter the nature or quality of the offence indicated, according to the Supreme Court, in Section 177 of the Indian Penal Code but they merely provided a new course of procedure for what was already an offence.", "There was no repugnancy or inconsistency.", "The two enactments could stand together and must be treated as cumulative in effect.", "The Supreme Court was of the view that in enacting Section 297(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, it was not the intention of Parliament to take away the right of instituting the proceedings in respect of which proceedings were pending on the commencement of the Act.", "Parliament had not made, according to the Supreme Court, any detailed provision for the institution of proceedings or prosecution in respect of any offence under the 1922 Act.", "Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act applied for the condonation of such proceedings after the repeal of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, and a legal proceeding in respect of an offence committed under the 1922 Act might be instituted after the repeal of the Act by the 1961 Act and punishment might be imposed as if the repealing Act had not been passed.", "The Supreme Court had observed at p. 793 of the report that the principle of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act was that unless a different intention appeared in the repealing Act, any legal proceedings could be instituted and continued in respect of any matter pending under the repealed Act, as if that Act was in force at the time of the repeal.", "When the repeal is followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject, the court would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act but only for the purpose of determining whether the provision indicated a different intention.", "The question is, according to the Supreme Court, not whether the new Act expressly kept alive old rights and liabilities but whether it manifests an intention to destroy them.", "Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, therefore, would be applicable unless the new legislation manifests an intention, incompatible with or contrary to the provision of this section.", "Such an incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all the relevant provisions of the new statute and the mere absence of a saving clause would by itself not be material.", "The Supreme Court noted that it was true that there was no express sub-clause in Section 297(2) of the Act of 1961, which provided for a condonation of such proceedings, that is, the proceedings under Section 52 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, but Parliament did not intend that Section 297(2) of the 1961 Act would be completely exhaustive and with regard to such matters as were not expressly saved by Section 297(2), the provisions of Section 6(e) of the General Clauses Act would be applicable.", "In the case Tiwari Kanhaiyalal v. CIT 1975 100 ITR 5, the Supreme Court had to consider Section 28(4) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, which provided that no prosecution for an offence against this Act shall be instituted in respect of the same facts on which a penalty has been imposed under this section did not, according to the Supreme Court, bar the institution of a prosecution for an offence against the 1922 Act or the 1961 Act, when penalty had been imposed not under Section 28(1) of the 1922 Act, but under Section 271(1) of the 1961 Act.", "Section 28(4) did not obliterate the factum of commission of an offence under Section 52 of the 1922 Act and did not transmute the offence into an innocent act because of the imposition of the penalty under Section 28 of the 1922 Act.", "Such an imposition merely barred the prosecution for trial and conviction for the commission of an offence.", "Where penalty was imposed under Section 271(1) of the 1961 Act, launching of the prosecution became permissible and was not hit by Article 20(1) of the Constitution of India.", "The accused would be entitled to rely upon Article 20(1) only to the extent of the awarding of a lesser punishment under Section 52 of the 1922 Act.", "Where a false statement was made in a declaration or in a return submitted under the 1922 Act prior to the coming into operation of the 1961 Act, it was not correct to take recourse to Section 297(2)(h) of the 1961 Act to make the offence come under Section 277 of the 1961 Act.", "There, the Supreme Court referred to the observations of Ramaswamy J., in the case of T.S. Baliah v. T.S. Rangachari, ITO and reiterated the same principle.", "The question with which we are now faced, that is to say, whether the assessment under Section 23(4) or in respect of which a notice had been issued under Section 22(2) prior to the coming into operation of the new Act, came up for consideration before the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court after coming into operation of the new Act in the case of Amolak Singh Jain v. CIT 1971 31 Tax (1)-120 (Delhi).", "There, Chief Justice Khanna, speaking for the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court, observed that Section 6 of the General Clauses Act naturally enabled the institution and continuation of the legal proceedings in respect of any matter pending under the repealed Act as if that Act was in force subsequent to the repeal unless a different intention appeared in the repealing Act.", "Where the repeal was followed by a fresh legislation on the same subject, the Delhi High Court was of the view that the court would undoubtedly have to look to the provisions of the new Act but only for the purpose of determining whether this indicated a different intention.", "The question is not whether the new Act expressly kept alive the old rights and liabilities but whether it manifested an intention to destroy these.", "Section 6 of the General Clauses Act, therefore, would be applicable unless the new legislation manifested any intention incompatible with or contrary to the provisions of the section.", "Such incompatibility would have to be ascertained from a consideration of all relevant provisions of the new statute and the mere absence of a saving clause would, by itself, not be material.", "In other words, the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would apply to the case of a repeal even if there was a simultaneous re-enactment unless a contrary intention can be gathered from the new statute.", "Where, under Section 22(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, as well as under Section 22(4) of the said Act, a notice had been issued by the ITO to the assessee before the coming into operation of the new Act, it was held that the ITO could continue and complete the proceedings of assessment under the 1922 Act.", "As we have said before, the ratio of the said decision would be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case.", "But while we are on this aspect, it would be appropriate to refer to a single Bench decision of mine in the case of Amarnath Mehra v. ITO , where I held that where the assessee did not file his return of income within 30th September under Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961, even though the assessee had the privilege of filing its return before the completion of the assessment up to 31st March, 1961, the notice issued to the assessee under Section 147 of the Act before March, 1961, would be a valid notice.", "Failure to file the return, it was observed by me, within the time mentioned under Section 139(2) would attract the provisions of Section 147(a) of the Act.", "Learned advocate for the assessee sought to urge that the principle enunciated in the aforesaid decision of mine would be contrary to the view taken by Khanna C.J., in the decision referred to hereinbefore.", "According to learned advocate for the assessee, the facts of the instant case before us would come within the purview of Sub-clause (ii) of Section 297(2)(d) of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "In this case also the learned advocate for the assessee contended that the income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment within the meaning of that expression in Section 147 which stipulated that if the ITO had reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under Section 139 for any assessment year, he could take action under Section 148, and no proceedings under Section 34 of the repealed Act in respect of any such income were pending at the commencement of this Act, a notice under Section 148 could be issued with respect to that assessment year.", "Therefore, according to learned advocate for the assessee, the moment there was a failure to file the return on the expiry of the time required for filing the return, there was an escapement in the assessment of income and, therefore, Section 147 would be applicable and in this case as no notice under Section 34 of the old Act had been issued, action could not have been taken under Section 297(2)(d)(ii).", "Therefore, there was a contrary intention, according to learned advocate for the assessee, expressed in the aforesaid Sub-clause (vi) of s, 297(2)(d) of the Act, which ousted the operation of the provisions of the General Clauses Act.", "We are, however, unable to accept this contention.", "The expressions income not assessed and income escaping assessment are not synonymous expressions.", "In the case of Rajendranath Mukerjee v. CIT 1934 2 ITR 71 (PC) the Judicial Committee had observed that if an assessment was not made on income within the tax year then that income could not be said to have escaped assessment.", "The Judicial Committee noted that a reading of the expression has escaped assessment as equivalent to has not been assessed could not be assented to.", "According to the Judicial Committee, it gave too narrow a meaning to the word assessment and too wide a meaning to the word escaped.", "Now, Section 147 of the 1961 Act requires the formation of an opinion by the ITO that income had escaped assessment and that opinion may be formed by reason of an omission or failure to file a return or otherwise as mentioned in Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Section 147 of the Act.", "But in a case where the time to file the return had expired and notice had been issued to the assessee to file the return and proceedings for assessment pursuant to that notice were pending, unless the proceedings had been terminated either by an assessment or the completion of the proceedings, it could not be said, merely on the failure of the assessee to file the return, that income had escaped assessment by reason of the failure or omission to file the return within time.", "This view, which, in our (sic) is the correct view, was first expressed in the observations of the unreported decision of this court in Income-tax Reference Number 128 of 1961, Haji Mohamed Mian v. CIT, judgment delivered on 23rd February, 1965, the observations in respect of which were approved by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar .", "There the Supreme Court again reiterated the principle that where the proceedings for an assessment were pending and action under Section 34 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, had to be taken for not filing the return by the assessee, such action could be taken by the ITO, and, in this connection, reliance was placed on the aforesaid observations of the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court, which we have just referred to hereinbefore.", "So far as the decision in the case of Amarnath Mehra v. ITO , the controversy was not whether when proceedings were pending it can be said that income had escaped assessment and such proceedings for reopening under Section 147 could be taken or not.", "The controversy was, where the time to file the return was at the option of the assessee, i.e., up to four years, when the assessment was not completed even though the time to file the return under Section 139(2) had expired, whether action could be taken by the ITO under Section 147.", "There, I had held that Section 139(2) imposed an obligation on the assessee to file the return within the time mentioned.", "Failure to file the return within the time mentioned in Section 139(2) would attract the jurisdiction of Clause (a) of Section 147 of the Act of 1961.", "I further observed that this was an additional privilege given to the assessee under Sub-section (4) of Section 139 and that would not defeat the right of the ITO to issue the notice on the failure of the assessee to file the return within the time mentioned under Sub-section (2) of Section 139 of the Act.", "Now, in the scheme of Section 139 of the I.T. Act, 1961, under Sub-section (1) the assessee was obliged to file the return within the time prescribed for the different contingencies.", "Sub-section (2) of Section 139 gives the right to the ITO to issue a notice to file the return.", "Sub-section (4) of Section 139 gives the assessee an option before an assessment is made to furnish a return for any previous year at the end of the period specified in Clause (b) and the provisions of Sub-section (8) shall apply in every such case.", "What was argued before me in the Single Bench decision, referred to hereinbefore, was whether a notice under Section 147 could be issued even in a case where the time to file the return had expired under Section 139(2) of the Act.", "It is not quite clear whether the court really dealt with Section 147 or Section 139(2) of the I.T. Act, because there is no reference as to whether, in fact, any notice under Section 139(2) had been issued or not or whether any proceedings were pending, It was not canvassed before the court that where a notice under Section 139(2) had been issued and a proceeding had been initiated, unless the said proceedings had been terminated by assessment or otherwise, whether notice under Section 147 could be issued at all or not.", "That was not the controversy there.", "The controversy was solely whether before the expiry of the time a fresh notice could be issued, subject to the fulfilment of other conditions for the issue of a notice under Section 147 of the Act.", "In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that it cannot be said that the view taken in the said decision in the case of Amarnath Mehra v. ITO , is in any way in conflict with the views expressed by the Division Bench of the Delhi High Court in the decision referred to hereinbefore.", "On the question that unless the proceedings taken for assessment had been terminated by assessment or otherwise, fresh proceedings under Section 147 could not be taken, reference may be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Bidhu Bhusan Sarkar , which we have already referred to and the observation of the Supreme Court in the case of Ghanshyamdas v. Regional Assistant Commissioner of Sales Tax .", "There, the Supreme Court was dealing with the C.P. Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.", "There the Supreme Court observed that the rules laid down in the judgments relating to the income-tax that the words escaping assessment applied equally to cases where a notice was received by the assessee but resulted in no assessment at all and to cases where due to any reason no notice was issued to the assessee and, therefore, there was no assessment of his income, was applicable to assessments of turnover tax under the C.P. Berar Sales Tax Act, 1947.", "The Supreme Court further observed that if assessment proceedings had been initiated, income could not be said to have escaped assessment until a final order of assessment was passed on the pending proceedings.", "In this connection, the Supreme Court referred to the observations of the Judicial Committee in the case of Rajendranath Mukerjee v. CIT 1934 2 ITR 71 (PC), referred to hereinbefore.", "In this connection reference may also be made to the observations of the Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Raman Chettiar .", "In the case of State of Assam v. D.C. Choudhuri 1970 76 ITR 706, the Supreme Court was concerned with the Assam Agrl.", "I.T. Act, 1939, and was of the view that if the assessee did not file a return of his agricultural income pursuant to a general notice under Section 19(1) of the Assam Agrl.", "I.T. Act, 1939, the assessment could be made only after due notice under Section 19(2) or by initiating proceedings under Section 30 for assessing income escaping assessment.", "The Agrl.", "ITO could not proceed directly to assess to the best of his judgment under Section 20(4) without serving notice under Section 19(2) within the financial year or by having resort to the provisions of Section 30.", "The basic principle underlined by these decisions is this : Normally pending proceedings would be saved unless a contrary provision is expressed by the repealing Act.", "It is necessary to refer to the specific provision of the repealing Act to see if there is a contrary provision expressed.", "If, on the other hand, there is a contrary intention expressed by dealing with a particular contingency contemplated in the repealing Act itself, then by a normal user of the power given by the appropriate provision of the repealing Act it could be said that there was no provision made in the repealing Act indicating a contrary intention to repeal the provisions of the old Act, so far as those Acts were contemplated.", "In this case, it was argued that Section 297 dealt with all the possible contingencies, in the case of an assessment.", "These are Clauses (a), (b), (c) and (d) of Sub-section (2) of Section 297.", "In this connection, on behalf of the Revenue reliance was placed on a Division Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. B.P. (India) Limited 1979 116 ITR 440, where, agreeing with all the decisions of the Supreme Court we found that the purpose and effect of Section 25(3) of the 1922 Act was clearly to give relief to a taxpayer, who, but for it, would, in the aggregate, be charged with tax once in respect of every years income and twice in respect of one years income, because, under the 1918 Act, the tax was levied on the income of the year in which the assessment was made, whereas under the 1922 Act, the tax was on the income of the previous year, and we felt that in the 1961 Act, there was no provision in Section 297 which dealt with this contingency and as it appeared to us from the report of the Commission that there was no contrary intention sought to be expressed by the absence of the similar provisions in Section 297 of the Act.", "We held that the Tribunal was right in holding that the relief claimed by the assessee under Section 25(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, even though the relief was granted after the coming into operation of the 1961 Act, was justified.", "More or less, the same view was expressed by us in the decision in the case of Imperial Chemical Industries Limited v. CIT .", "There we had also noted that in certain cases the Legislature had chosen to use the expression may in contradistinction to shall in the different clauses of Section 297(2) of the Act and where it was so done the expression may should be construed in the light that it was only a permissive power.", "In the case of Chhogmal Agarwalla v. ITO , we had held that Section 35(5) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, enabled the reopening and rectifying of the completed assessment of a partner on the assessment of the firm.", "It dealt primarily with the rectification proceeding for the assessment of a partner but that power was dependent upon the assessment or reassessment of the firm.", "The power was given to rectify the assessment of a partner on the assessment or reassessment of a firm only on a proper assessment or reassessment of the firm in accordance with law and that the assessment, if, in a particular case, had to be under the Act of 1922, then it had to be under the Act of 1922.", "If, however, the assessment of a firm had to be made under the 1961 Act, because of Section 297(2)(a) of the 1961 Act, then the power of rectification could be utilised on the proper assessment or reassessment of the firm in accordance with the provisions of the Act of 1961.", "Therefore, where an assessment on a firm for the year 1961-62 had been made under the 1961 Act, as the return had been filed after 1st April, 1962, in view of the provisions of Section 297(2)(b) of the 1961 Act, the power to rectify the assessment of a partner of the firm could be exercised under Section 35(5) of the Act of 1922, and even where a notice of reassessment was purported to have been issued under the Act of 1961, it could be treated as a notice in exercise of the powers under the Act of 1922.", "The two Division Benches of different High Courts, viz., the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the High Court of Rajasthan, have accepted the Revenues contention on this aspect in a different light.", "In the case of Indra Company v. Union of India 1967 64 ITR 664, the Rajasthan High Court referred to Section 297(2)(k) to save the provisions of this nature.", "In view of the expression used in Clause (a), Sub-section (2) of Section 297, in the facts and circumstances of our case, and in the view we have taken on the other aspect of the matter, it is not necessary for us to rest our decision on the construction of Clause (a) of Section 297(2) of the Act.", "Reliance was also placed on the decision of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Bipan Lal Kuthiala 1972 83 ITR 182.", "There also the Punjab and Haryana High Court had relied on the provisions of Section 297(2)(k) in saving pending proceedings.", "Reliance was placed on the decision of the Rajasthan High Court, which we have referred to hereinbefore.", "For the reasons we have mentioned before, it is also not necessary for us to place any reliance for the purpose of our present controversy on Clause (a) of Section 297(2) of the Act.", "Our attention was drawn to a Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Bidhu Bhusan Sarcar 1966 59 ITR 590, where the Division Bench of this court held that the judgment of the Calcutta High Court on a reference under Section 66 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, would be governed in matters of appeal from that decision or order to the Supreme Court by the provisions of the repealed Act.", "In respect of such matter, the provisions of Section 261 of the Act were not attracted.", "The Division Bench observed at p. 596 of the report that the effect of the repeal of an enactment was as if it had never existed except as to matters and transactions past and closed, in the absence of any saving clause which manifested or implied a different intention.", "If particular matters were kept alive by the saving clause, the repealed enactment was treated for all purposes as alive in respect of such matters.", "The saving clauses contained in Sub-section (2) of Section 297 did indicate a different intention as contemplated by Section 6 of the General Clauses Act and ousted the operation of the general provisions contained in Section 6 with the result that Section 66A(2) of the Act which was completely obliterated by reason of the provision for repeal contained in Sub-section (1) of Section 297 of the new Act could not be availed of by the petitioner for the purpose of initiating the proceeding for a certificate for appeal to the Supreme Court as contemplated in Section 66A(2) of the Act.", "Now, so far as the general principles on the construction and effect of the repealing provisions under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act are concerned, there cannot be any exception to the view expressed by the Division Bench of this court in the aforesaid decision.", "But we may incidentally point out to another Division Bench decision of this court in the case of CIT v. Allahabad Bank Limited 1966 62 ITR 476, where a contrary view was taken on the construction of Section 66A(2) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, read with Section 297(2) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on this aspect.", "We are, however, not concerned with the controversy in the present case and we need not express any opinion as to which of the decisions on this aspect is correct.", "As the basic principles are well settled the question is, therefore, to find out whether Section 297(2) expresses any contrary intention to the effect that the provisions of Section 6 of the General Clauses Act would not be applicable.", "If the repealing Act has made detailed provisions for a specific contingency concerned then, and then only, could it be said that by the repealing Act the Legislature has expressed a contrary intention.", "In this case the situation with which we are faced is that a proceeding under the old Act had been initiated by issuing a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act on 10th of June, 1961, prior to the coming into operation of the new Act.", "The said proceeding was continuing, as the ITO was trying by issuing reminders, etc., to complete the said proceeding.", "The said proceeding when the new Act came into operation had not been completed either by assessment or by closing the proceeding.", "In such a case could it be said that either Clauses (a) (b), (c) or (d) of Section 297(2) of the Act covers the situation ? On behalf of the assessee it was contended that Clause (d) of Section 297(2) would be applicable.", "It was urged that inasmuch as there was a failure to file the return within the time stipulated either under Section 22(1) or Section 22(2) the provisions of Section 147 were attracted when the new Act had come into effect because notice under Section 34 of the old Act had not been issued.", "Therefore, the Legislature had contemplated such a situation by not using the power under Sub-clause (d) of Clause (2) of Section 297.", "The Revenue cannot resort to the provisions of the General Clauses Act when an express contrary intention has been expressed by the Legislature in this case by making a specific provision.", "This argument, in our opinion, cannot be accepted for reasons more than one, firstly, as we have mentioned before, under the law, the proceeding has been initiated, that is to say, a notice has been issued under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act without terminating the proceeding, that is to say, either by closing the proceeding or dropping the proceeding or making the assessment on a best judgment under Section 23(4) of the said Act.", "Therefore, under Section 34 of the old Act or Section 147 of the new Act it could not have been taken.", "Therefore, a situation of this nature had been contemplated (sic).", "Furthermore, merely because in a certain case an additional power of reopening is given, in our opinion, it does not exhaust the power of the ITO to complete the pending proceedings which he would otherwise have under Section 6 of the General Clauses Act.", "There is no contrary intention by the grant of this express power in Clause (d) of Section 297(2) of the Act.", "We have further to remember that even under the old Act while there was the power under Section 22(2) to issue a notice on failure of the assessee to make the return within time under Section 23(4) simultaneously, there was the power of Section 34 of the old Act to reopen the assessment.", "The existence of both these powers was not destructive of each other.", "Similarly, the existence of the power under Section 23(4) to complete the pending proceeding by issuing a notice under Section 22(2) of the Act is not destructive of the power if the condition or otherwise is fulfilled and if the contingency arises to be utilised under Clause (d) of Section 297(2).", "In that view of the matter, in our opinion, the AAC as well as the Tribunal were in error in holding that the proceedings could not be completed under the old Act in the facts and circumstances of this case.", "If that is the position then question Number (i) must be answered in the negative and in favour of the Revenue.", "We also answer the second question by saying that the Tribunal was not justified in holding that the order under Section 23(4) could not be made.", "The other aspect of the question does not, in the view we have already expressed, arise.", "This question is also answered in favour of the Revenue.", "So far as question Number (iii) is concerned, it appears to us that the view taken by the AAC that the assessment order was bad, having been under Section 27(2) of the old Act after the coming into operation of the new Act, was incorrect for the reasons mentioned hereinbefore.", "In any event, in an appeal under Section 27 of the 1922 Act, the AAC was not competent to go into the validity of the assessment.", "He, however, directed that the assessment would be made afresh in accordance with law.", "The order of the AAC was incorrect in law.", "The Tribunal in disposing of the appeal may direct the ITO to consider the appeal under Section 27 on its merits, that is to say, whether sufficient cause has been made out, and dispose of the appeal under Section 27 of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, in accordance with law.", "The question is answered in the manner as aforesaid in favour of the Revenue with the aforesaid direction.", "If the appeal under Section 27 before the AAC is rejected, this will not preclude the Tribunal from directing the AAC for considering the merits of the quantum appeal, but we make it clear that the validity of the power to make the assessment under the old Act could not as such be questioned.", "So far as question Number (iv) is concerned, the Tribunal was not justified in cancelling the penalties under Section 271(1)(a) and Section 273(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, on the grounds it has shown.", "But neither the AAC nor the Tribunal have considered the merits of the said appeal.", "In disposing of the appeal the Tribunal would be at liberty to consider the merits of the order imposing the penalties.", "This question is answered in the manner as aforesaid and by saying that so far as question Number (iv) is concerned, we say, penalty was exigible in law, but as to whether the penalty should be imposed, and the quantum thereof, the Tribunal or the AAC will have to consider them on merits.", "In the facts and circumstances of this case, each party will pay and bear its own costs.", "Sudhindra Mohan Guha, J. I agree."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_2014_2478", "text": ["The Court : the subject-matter of challenge in this appeal is a judgment and order dated 14th June, 2013 by which the learned appellate Tribunal dismissed the appeal preferred by the revenue agreeing with the views expressed by the CIT (Appeal).", "The revenue has come up in appeal before this Court.", "The question for consideration was whether the CIT (Appeal) erred in deleting the disallowance of interest to the tune of Rs.45,93,522/- under Section 14A of the Income Tax Act which was determined by the assessing officer applying Rule 8D. The reasoning offered by the CIT (Appeal) was that all the investments were continuing from the year before the previous year and there was as such no fresh investment.", "To be precise, the views appearing from the impugned judgment and order are as follows: Simultaneously the ld.", "AR of the assessee has shown that the assessees investment as on 31.03.2007 was Rs.6,81,08,966/- which was reduced to Rs.6,56,92,865/-.", "Thus there was not fresh investment in shares by the assessee during the year under consideration.", "The ld.", "AR therefore submitted that at best the disallowance of interest can be made out of interest attributable to the loan of Rs.27,68,247/-.", "Hence the ld.", "CIT(A) was justified in making the proportionate disallowance out of the interest expenditure of Rs.17,00,042/- on the loan of Rs.27,68,247/-.", "The ld.", "DR could not controvert the above submissions of the ld.", "AR of the assessee.", "The ld.", "DR also could not point out any specific error in the order of the ld.", "CIT(A) by bringing any cogent and positive material.", "In absence of such evidence being brought on record we do not find any good and justifiable reason to interfere with the order of the ld.", "CIT(A) which is confirmed and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed.", "During hearing in this Court Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, on our request, produced a copy of the paper book filed before the learned Tribunal.", "The paper book was given to Mrs. Gutgutia for examination.", "After examining the papers including the balance-sheet appearing from the paper book she submitted that from Schedule-I to the balance-sheet, it would appear that a sum of Rs.6,55,22,980/- was shown in the asset side by way of share application money.", "She contended that it is not, therefore, correct to say that there was no fresh investment.", "Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate contended that share application money was never treated as investment.", "Considering that the point raised by Mrs. Gutgutia was not considered either by the CIT (Appeal) or by the learned tribunal, we deem it proper to remand the matter to the assessing officer for considering the aforesaid matter.", "It is made clear that we should not be deemed to have expressed any opinion as to whether the share application money does or does not amount the investment.", "This question will also be taken into account by them and they shall decide the same in accordance with law.", "Needless to mention, that the impugned judgment and order including the orders passed by the CIT (Appeal) and the assessing officer are all set aside on this limited aspect of the matter.", "(GIRISH CHANDRA GUPTA, J.) (DR.", "MRINAL KANTI CHAUDHURI, J.) A section"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"]}, "labels": ["RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_2018_2050", "text": ["IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Special Jurisdiction (Income Tax) ORIGINAL SIDE ITA Number201 of 2007 Commissioner of Income Tax, Kolkata-II Versus Brentwood Investments Limitd BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE I.P. MUKERJI AND The Honble JUSTICE AMRITA SINHA Date : June 27, 2018 Appearance: Mr. J. P. Khaitan, Sr.", "Mr. Pramit Bag, Adv.", "Mr. A. K. Dey, Adv.", "Mr. M. P. Agarwal, Adv.", "Ms. Smita Das De, Adv.", "The Court : This is an appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "More than 10 years ago, on 9th April, 2007 this appeal was admitted by a Division Bench of this Court to be heard on the following substantial questions of law: Whether, in the circumstances of the case, the Income tax Appellate Tribunal is correct in restricting the disallowance of interest to Rs.8,12,926/- only out of interest of Rs.3,29,43,952 claimed in view of the fact that the interest pertaining to the money lending business, as stated by the assessee before the Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) amounted to Rs.38,75,246/- only and the balance interest pertaining to acquisition of shares held as investment and dealing shares, income from dividend being exempt under section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act and the interest paid for acquisition of shares inadmissible in terms of section 14A of the act? Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Tribunal deleting Rs.9,12,926 being provision for NPA (non-performing assets) is erroneous in view of the decision of the Honble Madras High Court in case of the T.N. Power Finance Infrastructure Corp. Limited 491 as the provision is not allowable as a bad debt according to provisions of the Income Tax Act,l 1961, section 36(1(vii)? As far as the second question is concerned, most fairly, Mr. Khaitan, learned Sr. Advocate for the assessee, concedes that the issue is covered in favour of the Revenue by the Supreme Court in Southern Technologies Limited V. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 2010 320 ITR 577 (SC).", "We answer the question in the affirmative in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.", "As far as question Number1 is concerned, we find that the Tribunal had no difficuly in understanding the law, namely, that expenses could not be claimed as a deduction from income which was exempted from taxation or was not exigible to tax.", "From the formulation of the question by the order dated 9th April, 2007, it appears that the greivance of the Revenue is misapplication of the law by the tribunal.", "We do not think this is a substantial question of law at all.", "There is no dispute or misunderstanding with regard to the law.", "For those reasons, we do not think it proper to interfere with the finding of the Tribunal with regard to the issue covered by question Number1.", "Mr. Agarwal, learned Advocate for the Revenue, proposed to introduce a third issue.", "He said that this question was sought to be raised in Court at the time of admission of the appeal.", "This particular question was not accepted by the Court.", "The question is set out below: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was correct in holding that the provisions of Explanation below Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were not attracted in the case of the assessee.", "The records do not show that this issue was considered by the Court at the time of admission of the appeal.", "Hence the question of res judicata does not apply.", "The proviso to Section 260A, sub-Section (4) provides that nothing shall be deemed to take away or abridge the power of the court to hear, for reasons to be recorded, the appeal on any other substantial question of law not formulated by it, if it is satisfied that the case involved such question.", "Mr. Agarwal was on the explanation to Section 73 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "He stated that if any part of the business of the company was of a nature other than those stipulated in the explanation, such company shall for the purposes of the section be deemed to be carrying on speculation business, if it dealt with the purchase and sale of shares of other companies.", "He contended that the assessee was carrying on the kind of speculative business contemplated in the section.", "He relied upon a Division Bench of this Court in R.P.G. Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax and Another reported in 2011 338 ITR 313 (Cal).", "Therefore, any speculation loss concerning the assessees business could be adjusted against income from a similar kind of business and not from any other business.", "Mr. Khaitan, learned Senior Advocate, shows us the judgment of the Tribunal where it was specifically observed that the income of the assessee from dealing with shares etc.", "did not result in any loss.", "Hence, there was no question of adjustment of this loss against any other head of income from the business which was not speculative in nature.", "Hence, although the proposition of law formulated by Mr. Agarwal is absolutely correct, it is inapplicable to the facts of this case.", "In those circumstances, this 260A appeal is partly allowed by answering question number2 in favour of the revenue and against the assessee.", "No order as to costs.", "P. MUKERJI, J.) (AMRITA SINHA, J.) CS"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Issue", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Issue", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_2018_38", "text": ["The Court : We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.", "Service has been effected on the assessee.", "Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-assessee, waives service of notice of appeal.", "We admit the appeal on the following substantial questions of law: Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned Tribunal was justified in law in dismissing the appeal of the revenue by relying upon the decision of the Honble Bombay High Court in the case of M section Allana Cold Storage Limited -vs- I.T.O. (2006) 206 CTR 401 (Bom), holding, inter-alia, that since it was the mandatory duty of the Assessing Officer to furnish the reasons with regard to the re-opening of the assessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, the Assessing Officer had failed to provide the reasons to the assessee.", "ii) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Tribunal was justified in law to dismiss the appeal on the ground on non-furnishing the reasons recorded for re-opening of the case.", "By consent of the learned counsel for the parties, we take up both the appeal and the stay petition together for hearing dispensing with the requirement of compliance of regular formalities for making the appeal ready.", "The dispute arises out of proceedings initiated for re-assessment on the ground of income escaping assessment.", "The assessee was successful before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the matter was carried up in appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "The Tribunal in its decision confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax.", "The only ground on which the Tribunal decided the issue in favour of the assessee was that no reason was communicated to the assessee for initiating proceedings under Section 147/148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "Needless to add, the order was passed in a scrutiny assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.", "Ms. Das De, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue has argued that the obligation on the part of the income tax authorities to furnish reasons arises only if the assessee seeks such reasons.", "According to her, this is apparent from sub-section (2) of Section 148 of the Act.", "Her interpretation of the aforesaid provision is that for issue of notice under Section 148, the obligation of the Assessing Officer is to record reasons.", "But there is no mandate for communicating the reason without any request from the assessee.", "This proposition of law is not really disputed by Mr. Mazumdar, learned counsel for the assessee.", "The Honble Supreme Court in the case of GKN Driveshafts (India) Limited vs Income Tad Officer Ors., reported in 259 ITR 19, has held :- We see no justifiable reason to interfere with the order under challenge.", "However, we clarify that when a notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file a return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices.", "The Assessing Officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time.", "On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the Assessing Officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order.", "In the instant case, as the reasons have been disclosed in these proceedings, the Assessing Officer has to dispose of the objections, if filed, by passing a speaking order, before proceeding with the assessment in respect of the abovesaid five assessment years.", "Mr. Mazumdars submission, however, is that the assessee had made request for reasons, but in spite of such request, the same was not furnished.", "This submission of Mr. Mazumdar will appear from the following passage of the order of the Tribunal.", "At the outset, it was observed that assessee has challenged the legality and validity of assessment framed u section 147 of the Act on the ground that no reasons for reopening whatsoever has been communicated to assessee.", "AR further submitted that several requests for the reasons for the reopening the assessment u s 147 of the Act was made but no details were submitted by AO.", "We also find that Ld.", "DR also failed to bring anything on record to controvert the argument made by A O and also the finding of Ld.", "CIT(A).", "The Revenues case on the other hand is that no such request was made and the records forming part of this appeal do not reveal any finding on the part of any of the statutory fora that request to that effect was made.", "From the aforesaid passage of the Tribunals order, quoted above, it appears to us that submission by the Revenue on that count was made before it, but there is no finding to that effect.", "In such circumstances, we are of the view that the Tribunal ought to re-examine the question as to whether the assessee had made any request for reasons as contemplated in Section 148(2) of the Act prior to passing the re-assessment order under Section 143(3)/147 of the Act.", "On the basis of that finding, fresh decision shall be taken by the Tribunal.", "We, accordingly, set aside the decision of the Tribunal and remand the matter to the Tribunal for a decision on this limited point.", "No other point has been urged before us by the learned counsel for the parties.", "The appeal is allowed in the above terms and the matter is remanded to the Tribunal.", "Both the appeal and the stay petition stand disposed of accordingly.", "(ANIRUDDHA BOSE, J.) (SHIVAKANT PRASAD, J.) sm"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "KHC_KolHC_2019_3329", "text": ["WP 477 OF 2019 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction ORIGINAL SIDE THE PEERLESS GENERAL FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3(1), KOL ORS.", "BEFORE: The Honble JUSTICE SHAMPA SARKAR Date : 17th October, 2019.", "Appearance: Mr. Abhijit Chatterjee, Sr.", "Mr. Gopal Ram Sharma, Adv.", "for the petitioner The Court : Despite service, none appears for the respondents.", "The writ petitioner company has filed this writ petition for a direction upon the respondents i.e. the income tax authorities to recall and or cancel the notice dated March 31, 2019 and order dated September 3, 2019, which are Annexure P-14 and P-19 to the writ petition.", "An interim order has also been prayed for restraining the authorities from giving further effect to the above notices.", "It is the contention of the petitioner that the order dated September 3, 2019 suffers from non-application of mind and has been issued mechanically without considering the rebuttal filed by the petitioner by its letter dated August 26, 2019 pursuant to the notice dated March 31, 2019 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act).", "The first contention of the petitioner is that the notice dated March 31, 2019 and the order dated September 3, 2019 do not satisfy the first proviso to Section 147 of the said Act.", "It is contended that the incomes allegedly which had escaped assessment, according to the authorities, were a part of the assessment for the assessment year 2015-16.", "The authorities were made aware of such position by the petitioner in the answer to the notice issued under Section 148 of the said Act.", "It is further contended that pursuant to a notice received under scrutiny assessment for the assessment year 2012-13, the petitioner by a letter dated January 21, 2015 had already answered the queries with regard to the advance received by the petitioner for sale of the flats mentioned in the notices during the assessment year 2012-13.", "The petitioner in the said letter had categorically explained why the said advance received against the said flats had not been accounted for in the return for the assessment year 2012-13 but in stead was accounted for in the return filed for the assessment year 2015-16.", "Under such circumstances, it is further contended by the petitioner that the petitioner had under no circumstances failed to disclose any facts relating to the notice issued by the authorities with regard to income which had allegedly escaped assessment.", "The petitioner relies on the decision of India Steamship Co. Limited Versus Jt.", "Commissioner of Income-tax reported in 2005 275 ITR 155 (Calcutta) and submits that it is a well-settled principle of law that unless the assessee failed to disclose the facts fully and truly necessary for assessment with regard to which the notices have been issued, the income tax authorities did not assume jurisdiction under the law to reopen such assessment after a period of four years.", "The relevant portion of the judgment relied upon by the petitioner is quoted below :- It would be seen from the above recorded reasons that there is no allegation whatsoever of any nature of any fact not being disclosed by the assessee in any of the assessments.", "From the said recorded reasons, it is evident that on account of the changed view of the Assessing Officer in the assessment year 1998-99, the said proceedings have been sought to be reopened.", "Thus it is evident from the recorded reasons that the basic condition namely of any alleged escapement on account of omission or failure to disclose the material facts by the assessee does not exist in the instant case.", "In the case of Calcutta Discount Company Limited 1961 41 ITR 191, the apex court held as hereunder (page 199) : To confer jurisdiction under this section to issue notice in respect of assessments beyond the period of four years, but within a period of eight years, from the end of the relevant year two conditions have therefore to be satisfied.", "The first is that the Income-tax Officer must have reason to believe that income, profits or gains chargeable to income-tax have been under-assessed.", "The second is that he must have also reason to believe that such under assessment has occurred by reason of either (i) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return of his income under Section 22, or (ii) omission or failure on the part of an assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year.", "Both these conditions are conditions precedent to be satisfied before the Income-tax Officer could have jurisdiction to issue a notice for the assessment or reassessment beyond the period of four years but within the period of eight years, from the end of the year in question.", "(emphasis supplied) At page 201 of the Reports it as held as under : Does the duty, however, extend beyond the full and truthful disclosure of all primary facts? In our opinion, the answer to this question must be in the negative.", "Once all the primary facts are before the assessing authority, he requires no further assistance by way of disclosure.", "It is for him to decide what inference of facts can be reasonably drawn and what legal inference have ultimately to be drawn.", "It is not for somebody else -far less the assessee - to tell the assessing authority what inferences, whether of facts or law, should be drawn.", "Indeed, when it is remembered that people often differ as regards what inferences should be drawn from given facts, it will be meaningless to demand that the assessee must disclose what inferences whether of facts or law - he would draw from the primary facts.", "(emphasis supplied) The above contention of the petitioner was already on record before the income tax authorities.", "Moreover, the same income which has been termed as escaped income for the assessment year 2012-13 was a subject matter of challenge before the appellate authority under the said Act in a different proceeding.", "The appellate authority had upheld the contention of the petitioner before it with regard to the computation of the said income as income from capital gains and an income not from business and profession.", "It is thus contended that there could be no reason for the authorities to come to a conclusion that the income had escaped assessment or that the petitioner had failed to fully and truly disclose all material facts for assessment and an arguable case has been made out by the petitioner.", "This matter requires to be heard on affidavits.", "Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within a week after re-opening reply thereto, if any, within a week thereafter.", "The authorities shall not proceed with the re-assessment up to November 30, 2019.", "Learned Advocate for the petitioner is directed to communicate this order to the respondents as also the learned Advocate who had appeared for the respondents.", "The matter will appear before the Regular Bench two weeks after re- opening of Puja Vacation.", "(SHAMPA SARKAR, J.) Dey S.De"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2007_560", "text": ["CIVIL APPEAL NO.", "3301 OF 2007 Arising out of SLP (Civil) Number 18372 of 2006 B. SINHA, J : Leave granted.", "Whether for the purpose of computing the period of limitation envisaged under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act), the date of order of assessment or that of the reassessment, is to be taken into consideration is the question involved in this appeal which arises out of a judgment and order dated 18.01.2006 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Madras passed in Income Tax Appeal Number 1384 to 1386 of 2005.", "The said question arises on the following facts : Respondent is a company incorporated under the Indian Companies Act, 1956.", "It filed its returns for assessment under the Act for the assessment years 1994-95, 1995-96 and 1996-97 on 23.11.1994, 27.11.1995 and 26.11.1997 respectively.", "Assessment for the year 1994-95 was completed on 27.02.1997 and those of the Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97 were completed on 12.05.1997 and 30.03.1998 respectively.", "In the said orders of assessment, the assessees return under the Head Lease Equalization Fund was accepted.", "However, proceedings for reassessment were initiated by the assessing officer on 05.03.2004.", "Orders of reassessment were passed on 28.03.2002.", "Proceedings for reassessment, however, were initiated only in respect of three items, viz., (i), the expenses claimed for share issue, (ii), bad and doubtful debts and (iii), excess depreciation on gas cylinders and goods containers.", "Although the assessees return in respect of lease equalization was not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax purported to invoke his revisional jurisdiction in terms of Section 263 of the Act and by an order dated 29.03.2004 held as under: In short, from the example given it is the depreciation on the leased assets that is clamed as Book Depreciation and disallowed in the computation of income, the assessee sought to claim in the form of Lease Equalisation from the lease rentals by virtue of the guidelines note of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India.", "Since the assessee has not given the complete details, the method adopted by the assessee in arriving at the correct profit for the corresponding year cannot be checked.", "I clearly feel that the orders by the Assessing Officer are prejudicial to the interest of the revenue as the lease rentals had not been properly brought to tax.", "Hence, all the three assessments are reopened u s 263 and the Assessing Officer is directed to check and assess the lease rentals from Lease equalisation fund, if any, and to bring to tax the same for all the above three years.", "Pursuant to or in furtherance of the said order, reassessment proceedings were carried out in respect of the aforementioned assessment years by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax only in respect of the income on equalization reserve stating: I have considered the various arguments of the assessees representative and I am satisfied that the deduction made from the gross lease rent is only a provisional and not an actual expenditure and therefore the same is to be disallowed and added to the income returned The matter came up for consideration before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal wherein the contention of the respondent that the said purported proceedings under Section 263 of the Act were barred by limitation, found favour with, opining: We have carefully gone through the record and considered the rival submissions.", "In our view, the contentions of the Assessee deserve to succeed.", "The facts of the case clearly show the claim of lease equalisation fund, if at all accepted, is an error committed by the Assessing Officer in his order passed under Sec.", "143 (3) of the Act for the Asst.", "Year 94-95 on 27.2.97, for the Asst.", "Year 95- 96 on 12.5.97 and for the Asst.", "Year on 30.3.98.", "The Assessee, no doubt, took up these assessments in appeal before the CIT (Appeals) and thereafter the assessment itself was subject to proceedings under Sec.", "148 and ultimately, the orders of reassessment were framed on 28.3.2002.", "All the subsequent events are in respect of matters other than the allowance of lease equalization fund.", "In other words, the error, if any, has been committed, it was done in the order of the Assessing Officer passed Asst.", "the year 97-98.", "Therefore, these orders very much subsist despite the subsequent proceedings under sec.", "148 of the Act.", "The learned Tribunal referred to several decisions of this Court and other High Courts for arriving inter alia at the following conclusion: In the light of the above decisions and authorities, we are of the opinion that the impugned order passed under Sec.", "263 on 29.03.2004 are clearly barred by limitation with reference to the orders passed under Sec.", "143 (3) by the Assessing Officer for the above Asst.", "years on 27.2.97 25.12.97 and 30.3.98 respectively.", "Accordingly, the orders of the CIT under Sec.", "263 are vacated and the ground taken by the Assessee is allowed.", "Revenue preferred an appeal thereagainst before the High Court which was dismissed by a Division Bench stating: Learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel submits that the very same issue has been raised and decided by the Court against the Revenue in the case of CWT Vs.", "A.K. Thanga Pillai (252 ITR 260).", "Aggrieved by and dissatisfied therewith, the Revenue is before us.", "Mr. Rajiv Dutta, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal inter alia would submit that having regard to the Explanation appended to Sub-section (3) of Section 263 of the Act as also in view of the doctrine of merger, the Tribunal committed a manifest error in passing the impugned judgment insofar as it failed to take into consideration that in law computation of period of limitation was to commence from the date of passing of the order of reassessment viz., 28.03.2002 and not from the date of the initial assessment, and as the proceeding under Section 263 was initiated on 05.03.2004, the provision of sub-section (2) of Section 263 would not be attracted in the instant case.", "Strong reliance in this behalf has been placed on Hind Wire Industries Limited Commissioner of Income Tax 212 ITR 639.", "Mr. Anil Diwan, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent assessee, on the other hand, submitted: The income head lease equalization fund being not the subject matter of the reassessment proceedings, the doctrine of merger will have no application in the instant case and in that view of the matter, the impugned order of the Tribunal as also the High Court is unassailable.", "The issue has rightly been held by the High Court to be squarely covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in Commissioner of Wealth-Tax v. A.K. Thanga Pillai 252 ITR 260.", "Before embarking upon the rival contentions of the parties raised before us, we may notice the relevant part of Section 263 of the Act which is as under: Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue - The 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 to be made such inquiry 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.", "Explanation.-For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that, for the purposes of this sub- section,- (a) (b) (c) where any order referred to in this sub- section and passed by the Assessing Officer had been the subject matter of any appeal filed on or before or after the 1st day of June, 1988, the powers of the Commissioner under this sub- section shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in such appeal.", "No order shall be made under sub-section (1) after the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the order sought to be revised was passed.", "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub- section (2), an order in revision under this section may be passed at any time in the case of an order which has been passed in consequence of, or to give effect to, any finding or direction contained in an order of the Appellate Tribunal, the High Court or the Supreme Court.", "Explanation.-In computing the period of limitation for the purposes of sub-section (2), the time taken in giving an opportunity to the assessee to be reheard under the proviso to section 129 and any period during which any proceeding under this section is stayed by an order or injunction of any court shall be excluded.", "A bare perusal of the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax would clearly demonstrate that only that part of order of assessment which related to lease equalization fund was found to be prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.", "The proceedings for reassessment have nothing to do with the said head of income.", "Doctrine of merger, therefore, would not apply in a case of this nature.", "Furthermore, Explanation (c) appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act is clear and unambiguous as in terms thereof doctrine of merger applies only in respect of such items which were the subject matter of appeal and not which were not.", "The question came up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Sun Engineering Works P. Limited 198 ITR 297.", "Therein the assessee raised a contention that once jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Act is invoked, the whole assessment proceeding became reopened, which was negatived by the court opining: Section 147, which is subject to Section 148, divides cases of income escaping assessment into two clauses i.e. viz. (a) those due to the non- submission of return of income or non-disclosure of true and full facts and (b) other instances.", "Explanation (1) defines as to what constitutes escape of assessment.", "In order to invoke jurisdiction under Section 147(a) of the Act, the ITO must have reason to believe that some income chargeable to tax of an assessee has escaped assessment by reason of the omission or failure on the part of the assessee either to make a return under Section 139 for the relevant assessment year or to disclose fully and truly material facts necessary for the assessment for that year.", "Both the conditions must exist before an ITO can proceed to exercise jurisdiction under Section 147(a) of the Act.", "Under Section 147(b) the Income-tax Officer also has the jurisdiction to initiate proceedings for reassessment where he has reason to believe, on the basis of information in his possession, that income chargeable to tax has been either under- assessed or has been assessed at too low a rate or has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or excessive loss or depreciation allowance has been computed.", "In either case whether the Income-tax Officer invokes his jurisdiction under Clause (a) or Clause (b) or both, the proceedings for bringing to tax an escaped assessment can only commence by issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act within the time prescribed under the Act.", "Thus, under Section 147, the assessing officer has been vested with the power to assess or reassess the escaped income of an assessee.", "The use of the expression assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or depreciation allowance in Section 147 after the conditions for reassessment are satisfied, is only relatable to the preceding expression in Clauses (a) and (b) viz., escaped assessment.", "The term escaped assessment includes both non- assessment as well as under assessment.", "Income is said to have escaped assessment within the meaning of this section when it has not been charged in the hands of an assessee in the relevant year of assessment.", "The expression assess refers to a situation where the assessment of the assessee for a particular year is, for the first time, made by resorting to the provisions of Section 147 because the assessment had not been made in the regular manner under the Act.", "The expression reassess refers to a situation where an assessment has already been made but the Income-tax Officer has, on the basis of information in his possession, reason to believe that there has been under assessment on account of the existence of any of the grounds contemplated by the provisions of Section 147(b) read with the Explanation (I) thereto.", "We may at this juncture also notice the decision of this Court in Hind Wire Industries Ltd (supra) wherein the decision of this Court in V. Jaganmohan Rao v. CIT and CEPT 75 ITR 373 interpreting the provisions of Section 34 of the Act was reproduced which reads as under: Section 34 in terms states that once the Income- tax officer decides to reopen the assessment, he could do so within the period prescribed by serving on the person liable to pay tax a notice containing all or any of the requirements which may be included in a notice under section 22(2) and may proceed to assess or reassess such income, profits or gains.", "It is, therefore, manifest that once assessment is reopened by issuing a notice under sub-section (2) of section 22, the previous underassessment is set aside and the whole assessment proceedings start afresh.", "When once valid proceedings are started under section 34(1)(b), the Income-tax Officer had not only the jurisdiction, but it was his duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during that year.", "There may not be any doubt or dispute that once an order of assessment is reopened, the previous underassessment will be held to be set aside and the whole proceedings would start afresh but the same would not mean that even when the subject matter of reassessment is distinct and different, the entire proceeding of assessment would be deemed to have been reopened.", "In Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd (supra) also, V. Jaganmohan Rao (supra) was noticed stating: The principle laid down by this Court in Jaganmohan Raos case, therefore, is only to the extent that once an assessment is validly reopened by issuance of a notice under Section 22(2) of the 1922 Act (corresponding to Section 148 of the Act) the previous under assessment is set aside and the ITO has the jurisdiction and duty to levy tax on the entire income that had escaped assessment during the previous yearThe judgment in Jaganmohan Raos case, therefore, cannot be read to imply as laying down that in the reassessment proceedings validly initiated, the assessee can seek reopening of the whole assessment and claim credit in respect of items finally concluded in the original assessment.", "The assessee cannot claim recomputation of the income or redoing of an assessment and be allowed a claim which he either failed to make or which was otherwise rejected at the time of original assessment which has since acquired finality.", "Of course, in the reassessment proceedings it is open to an assessee to show that the income alleged to have escaped assessment has in truth and in fact not escaped assessment but that the same had been shown under some inappropriate head in the original return, but to read the judgment in Jaganmohan Raos case, as if laying down that reassessment wipes out the original assessment and that reassessment is not only confined to escaped assessment or under assessment but to the entire assessment for the year and starts the assessment proceeding de novo giving the right to an assessee to reagitate matters which he had lost during the original assessment proceeding, which had acquired finality, is not only erroneous but also against the phraseology of Section 147 of the Act and the object of reassessment proceedings.", "Such an interpretation would be reading that judgment totally out of context in which the questions arose for decision in that case.", "It is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or a sentence from the judgment of this Court, divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by this Court.", "The judgment must be read as a whole and the observations from the judgment have to be considered in the light of the questions which were before this Court.", "A decision of this Court takes its colour from the questions involved in the case in which it is rendered and while applying the decision to a later case, the courts must carefully try to ascertain the true principle laid down by the decision of this Court and not to pick out words or sentences from the judgment, divorced from the context of the questions under consideration by this Court, to support their reasonings It was furthermore held: As a result of the aforesaid discussion, we find that in proceedings under Section 147 of the Act, the Income Tax Officer may bring to charge items of income which had escaped assessment other than or in addition to that item or items which have led to the issuance of notice under Section 148 and where ressessment is made under Section 147 in respect of income which has escaped tax, the Income Tax Officers jurisdiction is confined to only such income which has escaped tax or has been under-assessed and does not extend to revising, reopening or reconsidering the whole assessment or permitting the assessee to reagitate questions which had been decided in the original assessment proceedings.", "It is only the under- assessment which is set aside and not the entire assessment when reassessment proceedings are initiated.", "The Income Tax Officer cannot make an order of reassessment inconsistent with the original order of assessment in respect of metters which are not the subject-matter of proceedings under Section 147 We may at this juncture also take note of the fact that even the Tribunal found that all the subsequent events were in respect of the matters other than the allowance of lease equalization fund.", "The said finding of fact is binding on us.", "Doctrine of merger, therefore, in the fact situation obtaining herein cannot be said to have any application whatsoever.", "It is not a case where the subject matter of reassessment and subject matter of assessment were the same.", "They were not.", "It may be of some interest to notice that a similar contention raised at the instance of an assessee was rejected by a 3-Judge Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Shri Arbuda Mills Limited 231 ITR 50.", "This Court took note of the amendment made in Section 263 of the Act by the Finance Act, 1989 with retrospective effect from June 1, 1988, inserting Explanation (c) to Sub-section (1) of Section 263 of the Act stating: The consequence of the said amendment made with retrospective effect is that the powers under section 263 of the Commissioner shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to such matters as had not been considered and decided in an appeal.", "Accordingly, even in respect of the aforesaid three items, the powers of the Commissioner under section 263 shall extend and shall be deemed always to have extended to them because the same had not been considered and decided in the appeal filed by the assessee.", "This is sufficient to answer the question which has been referred.", "We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that in a case of this nature, the doctrine of merger will have no application.", "The Madras High Court in A.K. Thanga Pillai (supra), in our opinion, has rightly considered the matter albeit under Section 17 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957 which is in pari materia with the provisions of the Act.", "Relying on Sun Engineering Works P. Ltd (supra), it was held: Under section 17 of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957, even as it is under section 147 of the Income-tax Act, proceedings for reassessment can be initiated when what is assessable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year.", "The power to deal with underassessment and the scope of reassessment proceedings as explained by the Supreme Court in the case of Sun Engineering 1992 198 ITR 297, is in relation to that which has escaped assessment, and does not extend to reopening the entire assessment for the purpose of redoing the same de novo.", "An assessee cannot agitate in any such reassessment proceedings matters forming part of the original assessment which are not required to be dealt with for the purpose of levying tax on that which had escaped tax earlier.", "Cases of underassessment are also treated as instances of escaped assessment.", "The order of reassessment is one which deals with the assessment already made in respect of items which are not required to be reopened, as also matters which are required to be dealt with in order to bring what had escaped in the earlier order of assessment, to assessment.", "An assessee who has failed to file an appeal against the original order of assessment cannot utilise the reassessment proceedings as an occasion for seeking revision or review of what had been assessed earlier.", "He may only question the extent of the reassessment in so far as the escaped assessment is concerned.", "The Revenue is similarly bound The same principle was reiterated by a Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax v. Kanubhai Engineers (P.) Limited 241 ITR 665.", "We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and, in particular, having regard to the fact that the Commissioner of Income Tax exercising its revisional jurisdiction reopened the order of assessment only in relation to lease equalization fund which being not the subject of the reassessment proceedings, the period of limitation provided for under Sub-section (2) of Section 263 of the Act would begin to run from the date of the order of assessment and not from the order of reassessment.", "The revisional jurisdiction having, thus, been invoked by the Commissioner of Income Tax beyond the period of limitation, it was wholly without jurisdiction rendering the entire proceeding a nullity.", "The Tribunal and the High Court, therefore, in our opinion were correct in passing the impugned judgment.", "The appeal, therefore, being devoid of any merit is dismissed with costs.", "Counsels fee assessed at Rs. 25,000/-."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "SC_2007_564", "text": ["CIVIL APPEAL Number 2914 OF 2007 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Number 12907 of 2006) with CIVIL APPEAL Number 2915 OF 2007 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) Number 16163 of 2006) M s Morgan Stanley Company INC.", "Appellant versus Director of Income Tax, Mumbai Respondent KAPADIA, J. Leave granted.", "In these civil appeals we are concerned with the articles in Double Tax Avoidance Agreement (DTAA) between India and United States which have implication on transfer pricing legislation.", "The said Treaty either advocates application of arms length principle or provides a mechanism for avoiding double taxation on income.", "Morgan Stanley Group (MS Group) is one of the worlds largest diversifying financial services companies.", "It is a world wide leader in investment banking and it is ranked amongst the top institutions in merger and acquisitions, underwriting of equity and equity and related transactions.", "It has a major presence in major securities market, with traders in numerous countries around the world offering a unique distribution of products.", "It has three main lines of business, namely securities investment management and investment banking and credit services.", "Morgan Stanley and Company (for short, MSCo) is an investment bank engaged in the business of providing financial advisory services, corporate lending and securities underwriting.", "One of the group companies of Morgan Stanley, Morgan Stanley Advantages Services Pvt.", "Limited (for short, MSAS) entered into an agreement for providing certain support services to MSCo.", "MSCo outsourced some of its activities to MSAS.", "The said MSAS was set up to support the main office functions in equity and fixed income research, account reconciliation and providing IT enabled services such as back office operation, data processing and support centre to MSCo.", "On 19.5.2005 MSCo (Applicant) filed its advance ruling application in Form 34-C inviting its advance ruling on the points enumerated hereinbelow.", "The basic question relating to the transaction between the applicant and MSAS on which advance ruling was sought was two fold namely, whether the applicant was having a PE in India under Article 5(1) of the DTAA on account of the services rendered by MSAS under the Services Agreement dated April 14, 2005 entered into by MSAS with the applicant and if so, the amount of income attributable to such PE.", "By the impugned ruling delivered on 13.2.2006 by the Authority for Advance Ruling (for short, AAR) it was held, inter alia, that the applicant cannot be regarded as having a fixed place of business PE under Article 5(1) of the DTAA that MSAS cannot be regarded as an agency PE under Article 5(4) of the DTAA that the applicant would be regarded as having a PE in India under Article 5(2)(l) if it were to send some of its employees to India as stewards or as deputationists in the employment of MSAS.", "Against this ruling of the AAR the applicant and the Department have come to this Court in appeal by way of special leave petition.", "According to the Department the applicant should be regarded as having a fixed place in India under Article 5(1) as the applicant proposes to carry on its business through MSAS in India.", "According to the Department MSAS was the PE of the MSCo in India.", "They had a fixed place of business in Mumbai.", "According to the Department the nature of the activities proposed to be performed by MSAS in Mumbai indicated that the said company represented the business presence of the MSCo in India.", "The Department also submitted that MSAS was legally and financially dependent upon the applicant and consequently MSAS constituted an agency PE of the applicant under Article 5(4) of the DTAA.", "Both these contentions were rejected by the AAR vide the above impugned ruling.", "However, it has been ruled by the AAR that MSAS should be regarded as constituting a service PE under Article 5(2)(l) as it proposed to send its employees to India for undertaking stewardship activities and for undertaking to send some of its employees to India as deputationists in the employment of MSAS.", "It is against this ruling of the AAR that the applicant has come to this Court by way of appeal.", "On the second question the AAR ruled that the Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) was the most appropriate method for the determination of the Arms Length Price (ALP) in respect of the service agreement dated 14.4.2005 between the applicant and the MSAS and as the said method meets the test of arms length as prescribed under Section 92-C of the 1961 Act, no further income was attributable in the hands of MSAS in India.", "The said ruling of the AAR on the question of income attributable to the PE is the subject matter of challenge by the Department.", "EXISTENCE OF P.E. IN INDIA With globalization, many economic activities spread over to several tax jurisdiction.", "This is where the concept of P.E. becomes important under Article 5(1).", "There exists a P.E. if there is a fixed place through which the business of an enterprise, which is multinational enterprise (MNE), is wholly or partly carried on.", "In the present case MSCo is a multi- national entity.", "As stated above it has outsourced some of its activities to MSAS in India.", "A general definition of the P.E. in the first part of Article 5(1) postulates the existence of a fixed place of business whereas the second part of Article 5(1) postulates that the business of the MNE is carried out in India through such fixed place.", "One of the questions which we are called upon to decide is whether the activities to be undertaken by MSAS consists of back office operations of the MSCo and if so whether such operations would fall within the ambit of the expression the place through which the business of an enterprise is wholly or partly carried out in Article 5(1).", "We quote herein below Articles 5 and 7 of the DTAA : Article 5 PERMANENT ESTABLISHMENT For the purposes of this Convention, the term permanent establishment means a fixed place of business through which the business of an enterprise wholly or partly carried on.", "The term permanent establishment includes especially: (a) a place of management (b) a branch (c) an office (d) a factory (e) a workshop (f) a mine, an oil or gas well, a quarry or any other place of extraction of natural resources (g) a warehouse, in relation to a person providing storage facilities for others (h) a farm, plantation or other place where agriculture, forestry, plantation or related activities are carried on a store or premises used as a sales outlet (j) an installation or structure used for the exploration or exploitation of natural resources, but only if so used for a period of more than 120 days in any twelve month period (k) a building site or construction, installation or assembly project or supervisory activities in connection therewith, where such site, project or activities (together with other such sites, projects or activities, if any) continue for a period of more than 120 days in any twelve month period (l) the furnishing of services other than included services as defined in Article 12 (Royalties and Fees for Included Services), within Contracting State by an enterprise through employees or other personnel, but only if activities of that nature continue within that State for a period or periods aggregating more than 90 within any twelve-month period or the services are performed within that State for a related enterprise (within the meaning of paragraph 1 of Article 9 (Associated Enterprise).", "Notwithstanding the preceding provisions of this Article, the term permanent establishment shall be deemed not to include any one or more of the following : (a) the use of facilities solely for the purpose of storage, display or occasional delivery of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise (b) the maintenance of a stock of goods or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of storage, display, or occasional delivery (c) the maintenance of a stock of goods, or merchandise belonging to the enterprise solely for the purpose of processing by another enterprise (d) the maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for the purpose of purchasing goods or merchandise, or of collecting information, for the enterprise (e) the maintenance of a fixed base of business solely for the purpose of advertising, for the supply of information, for scientific research, or for other activities which have preparatory or auxiliary character, for the enterprise.", "Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraphs 1 and 2, where a person other than an agent of an independent status to whom paragraph 5 applies is acting in a Contracting State on behalf of an enterprise of the other Contracting State other Contracting State, that enterprise shall be deemed to have permanent establishment in the first- mentioned State if: (a) he has an habitually exercises in that first-mentioned State an authority to conclude contracts on behalf of the enterprise, unless his activities are limited to those mentioned in paragraph 3 which, if exercised through a fixed place of business, would not make that fixed place of business, would not make that fixed place of business a permanent establishment under the provisions of that paragraph (b) he has no such authority but habitually maintains in the first- mentioned State a stock of goods or merchandise from which he regularly delivers goods or merchandise on behalf of the enterprise, and some additional activities conducted in that State on behalf of the enterprise have contributed to the sale of the goods or merchandise or (c) he habitually secures orders in the first-mentioned State, wholly or almost wholly for the enterprise.", "An enterprise of a Contracting State shall not be deemed to have a permanent establishment in the other Contracting State merely because it carries on business in that State through a broker, general commission agent or any other agent of an independent status, provided that such persons are acting in the ordinary course of their business.", "However, when the activities of such an agent are devoted wholly or almost wholly on behalf of that enterprise and the transactions between the agent and the enterprise and the transactions between the agent and the enterprise are not made under arms length conditions, he shall not be considered an agent of independent status within the meaning of this paragraph.", "The fact that a company which is a resident of a Contracting State controls or is controlled by a company which is a resident of the other Contracting State, or which carries on business in that other State (whether through a permanent establishment or otherwise), shall not of itself constitute either company a permanent establishment of the other.", "xxxxx Article 7 BUSINESS PROFITS The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein.", "If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment (b) sales in the other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar kind as those sold through that permanent establishment or (c) other business activities carried on in the other State of the same or similar kind as those effected through that permanent establishment.", "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, where an enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and independent enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under the same or similar conditions and dealing wholly at arms length with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment and other enterprises controlling, controlled by or subject to the same common control as the enterprise, in any case where the correct amount of profits attributable to a permanent establishment is incapable of determination or the determination thereof presents exceptional difficulties, the profits attributable to the permanent establishment may be estimated on a reasonable basis.", "The estimate adopted shall, however, be such that the result shall be in accordance with the principles contained in this Article.", "In the determination of the profits of a permanent establishment, there shall be allowed as deductions expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the business of the permanent establishment, including a reasonable allocation of executive and general administrative expenses, research and development expenses, interest and other expenses, incurred for the purposes of the enterprise as a whole (or the part thereof which includes the permanent establishment), whether incurred in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere, in accordance with the provisions of and subject to the limitations of the taxation laws of that State.", "However, no such deduction shall be allowed in respect of amounts, if any, paid (otherwise than towards reimbursement of actual expenses) by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents, know-how or other rights, or by way of commission or other charges for specific services performed or for management, or except in the case of banking enterprise, by way of interest on moneys lent to the permanent establishment.", "Likewise, no account shall be taken, in the determination of the profits of a permanent establishment, for amounts charged (otherwise than toward reimbursement of actual expenses), by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents, know-how or other rights, or by way of commission or other charges for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by way of interest on moneys lent to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices.", "No profits shall be attributed to a permanent establishment by reason of the mere purchase by that permanent establishment of goods or merchandise for the enterprise.", "For the purposes of this Convention, the profits to be attributed to the permanent establishment as provided in paragraph 1 (a) of this Article shall include only the profits derived from the assets and activities of the permanent establishment and shall be determined by the same method year by year unless there is good and sufficient reason to the contrary.", "Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other Articles of the Convention, then the provisions of those Articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this Article.", "For the purposes of the Convention, the term business profits means income derived from any trade or business including income from the furnishing of services other than included services as defined in Article 12 (Royalties and Fees for Included Services) and including income from the rental of tangible personal property other than property described in paragraph 3 (b) of Article 12 (Royalties and Fees for Included Services).", "In our view, the second requirement of Article 5(1) of DTAA is not satisfied as regards back office functions.", "We have examined the terms of the Agreement along with the advance ruling application made by MSCo inviting the AAR to give its ruling.", "It is clear from reading of the above Agreement /application that MSAS in India would be engaged in supporting the front office functions of MSCo in fixed income and equity research and in providing IT enabled services such as data processing support centre and technical services as also reconciliation of accounts.", "In order to decide whether a E. stood constituted one has to undertake what is called as a functional and factual analysis of each of the activities to be undertaken by an establishment.", "It is from that point of view, we are in agreement with the ruling of the AAR that in the present case Article 5(1) is not applicable as the said MSAS would be performing in India only back office operations.", "Therefore to the extent of the above back office functions the second part of Article 5(1) is not attracted.", "Lastly, as rightly held by the AAR there is no agency PE as the PE in India had no authority to enter into or conclude the contracts.", "The contracts would be entered in the United States.", "They would be concluded in US.", "The implementation of those contracts only to the extent of back office functions would be carried out in India, and therefore, MSAS would not constitute an Agency PE as contended on behalf of the Department.", "In the DTAA, the term P.E. means a fixed place of business through which the business of an MNE is wholly or partly carried out.", "The definition of the word P.E. in Section 92(F)(iii) is inclusive, however it is not under Article 5(1) of the Treaty.", "It is for this reason that Article 5(2) of the DTAA herein refers to places included as P.E. of the MNE.", "One such place is mentioned in Article 5(2)(l) which deals with furnishing of services.", "The concept of P.E. was introduced in 1961 Act as part of the statutory provisions of transfer pricing by the Finance Act of 2001.", "In Section 92-F (iii) the word enterprise is defined to mean a person including a P.E. of such person who is proposed to be engaged in any activity relating to the production. .", "Under the CBDT circular Number14 of 2001 it has been clarified that the term P.E. has not been defined in the Act but its meaning may be understood with reference to the DTAA entered into by India.", "Thus the intention was to rely on the concept and definition of P.E. in the DTAA.", "However, vide Finance Act, 2002 the definition of P.E. was inserted in the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, I.T. Act) vide Section 92-F (iiia) which states that the P.E. shall include a fixed place of business through which the business of the MNE is wholly or partly carried on.", "This is where the difference lies between the definition of the word P.E. in the inclusive sense under the I.T. Act as against the definition of the word P.E. in the exhaustive sense under the DTAA.", "This analysis is important because it indicates the intention of the Parliament in adopting an inclusive definition of P.E. so as to cover service P.E., agency E., software P.E., Construction PE etc.", "There is one more aspect which needs to be discussed namely, exclusion of P.E under Article 5(3).", "Under Article 5(3) (e) activities which are preparatory or auxiliary in character which are carried out at a fixed place of business will not constitute a P.E. Article 5(3) commences with a non obstante clause.", "It states that notwithstanding what is stated in Article 5(1) or under Article 5(2) the term P.E. shall not include maintenance of a fixed place of business solely for advertisement, scientific research or for activities which are preparatory or auxiliary in character.", "In the present case we are of the view that the above mentioned back office functions proposed to be performed by MSAS in India falls under Article 5(3) (e) of the DTAA.", "Therefore, in our view in the present case MSAS would not constitute a fixed place P.E. under Article 5(1) of the DTAA as regards its back office operations.", "However, the question which arises for determination in the present case is the nature of activities performed by stewards and deputationists deployed by MSCo to work in India as employees of MSAS.", "Under Article 5(2)(l) furnishing of services through the fixed place in India can constitute a P.E. The AAR in the impugned ruling has held that the stewards and deputationists are proposed to be sent by the MSCo from section According to the AAR there is a flow of service from the MSCo to the MSAS when the former deputes its own employees to work in India in MSAS.", "Therefore, according to the AAR the service Agreement between MSCo and MSAS dated 14.4.2005 would fall under Article 5(2)(l) and consequently the transfer pricing regulation would apply for evaluating the charges payable by MSCo to MSAS in India for such service contract.", "This ruling has been challenged by the applicant.", "Article 5(2)(l) of the DTAA applies in cases where the MNE furnishes services within India and those services are furnished through its employees.", "In the present case we are concerned with two activities namely stewardship activities and the work to be performed by deputationists in India as employees of MSAS.", "A customer like an MSCo who has world wide operations is entitled to insist on quality control and confidentiality from the service provider.", "For example in the case of software P.E. a server stores the data which may require confidentiality.", "A service provider may also be required to act according to the quality control specifications imposed by its customer.", "It may be required to maintain confidentiality.", "Stewardship activities involve briefing of the MSAS staff to ensure that the output meets the requirements of the MSCo.", "These activities include monitoring of the outsourcing operations at MSAS.", "The object is to protect the interest of the MSCo.", "These stewards are not involved in day to day management or in any specific services to be undertaken by MSAS.", "The stewardship activity is basically to protect the interest of the customer.", "In the present case as held hereinabove the MSAS is a service P.E. It is in a sense a service provider.", "A customer is entitled to protect its interest both in terms of confidentiality and in terms of quality control.", "In such a case it cannot be said that MSCo has been rendering the services to MSAS.", "In our view MSCo is merely protecting its own interests in the competitive world by ensuring the quality and confidentiality of MSAS services.", "We do not agree with the ruling of the AAR that the stewardship activity would fall under Article 5(2)(l).", "To this extent we find merit in the civil appeal filed by the appellant (MSCo) and accordingly its appeal to that extent stands partly allowed.", "As regards the question of deputation, we are of the view that an employee of MSCo when deputed to MSAS does not become an employee of MSAS.", "A deputationist has a lien on his employment with MSCo.", "As long as the lien remains with the MSCo the said company retains control over the deputationists terms and employment.", "The concept of a service PE finds place in the U.N. Convention.", "It is constituted if the multinational enterprise renders services through its employees in India provided the services are rendered for a specified period.", "In this case, it extends to two years on the request of MSAS.", "It is important to note that where the activities of the multinational enterprise entails it being responsible for the work of deputationists and the employees continue to be on the payroll of the multinational enterprise or they continue to have their lien on their jobs with the multinational enterprise, a service PE can emerge.", "Applying the above tests to the facts of this case we find that on request requisition from MSAS the applicant deputes its staff.", "The request comes from MSAS depending upon its requirement.", "Generally, occasions do arise when MSAS needs the expertise of the staff of MSCo.", "In such circumstances, generally, MSAS makes a request to MSCo.", "A deputationist under such circumstances is expected to be experienced in banking and finance.", "On completion of his tenure he is repatriated to his parent job.", "He retains his lien when he comes to India.", "He lends his experience to MSAS in India as an employee of MSCo as he retains his lien and in that sense there is a service PE (MSAS) under Article 5(2)(l).", "We find no infirmity in the ruling of the ARR on this aspect.", "In the above situation, MSCo is rendering services through its employees to MSAS.", "Therefore, the Department is right in its contention that under the above situation there exists a Service PE in India (MSAS).", "Accordingly, the civil appeal filed by the Department stands partly allowed.", "Income Attributable to PE Under Article 7, the taxability is of the MNE.", "What is to be taxed under Article 7 is income of the MNE attributable to the P.E. in India.", "The income attributable to the said P.E. is the income attributable to foreign companys operations in India, which in term, implies the income attributable to the activities carried on by the MNE through its P.E. in India.", "Therefore, there is a difference between the taxability of the E. in respect of its income earned by it in India which is in accordance with the Income-Tax Act, 1961 and which has nothing to do with the taxability of the MNE, which is also taxable in India under Article 7, in respect of the profits attributable to its P.E Under Article 7, the taxability is of the MNE.", "What is taxable under Article 7 is profits earned by the MNE.", "Under the said IT Act, the taxable unit is the foreign company, though the quantum of income taxable is income attributable to the P.E. of the said foreign company in India.", "An important question which arises for determination is whether the AAR is right in its ruling when it says that once the transfer pricing analysis is under taken there is no further need to attribute profits to a PE.", "Computation of income arising from international transactions has to be done keeping in mind the principle of arms length price.", "Charges paid or payable by MSCo to MSAS under the service contract have to be accounted as income at arms length price.", "There are different methods for determining appropriate transfer pricing.", "Under Section 92C(1) of the I.T. Act, arms length price in relation to international transaction has to be determined by any of the following methods: Comparable Uncontrolled Price Method (CUPM) Resale Price Method (RPM) Cost Plus Method (CPM) Profit Split Method (PSM) Transactional Net Margin Method (TNMM) Such other method as may be prescribed by CBDT The taxpayer is required to compute arms length price for a transaction(s) using one of the five methods stipulated in the Income Tax Rules.", "Rule 10C(1) of Income Tax Rules defines the most appropriate method as the method which is best suited to the facts and circumstances of each particular international transaction.", "As per Rule 10C(2) the most appropriate method has to be selected having regard to number of factors which are enumerated therein.", "The arms length price has to be computed by the application of methods mentioned in Section 92C(1) of the I.T. Act.", "In the present case, the applicant has taken the opinion of Earnest and Young (for short, E Y), Consultants, as experts who have suggested, keeping in mind the various activities undertaken by MSCo and MSAS in India, TNMM as the most appropriate method for determination of arms length price in respect of transaction between MSCo and MSAS.", "The applicant sought a ruling from the ARR on the appropriateness of the said method.", "On the adequacy of the mark-up the applicant relied upon a transfer pricing review undertaken by E Y, an independent consultant, for benchmarking the transaction between the applicant and MSAS and as per that review, the average mark-up (on costs) of comparable companies providing similar services, was taken into account at 29.", "This was agreed upon by MSAS and the applicant (MSCo).", "It has been accepted by the Transfer Pricing Officer and by the Assessing Officer.", "It has not been disputed by T.N. Chopra Associates, consultants appointed by the Department.", "Accordingly, the applicant (MSCo) preferred an applicant to the AAR on the following issues: Appropriateness of TNMM for determination of arms length in respect of transaction between MSCo and MSAS.", "Adequacy of the mark-up charged by MSAS for provision of service to MSCo based on arms length principle.", "Attribution of further profits in the hands of PE of MSCo where the transaction is at arms length.", "Appropriateness of remuneration based on margin on total operating cost of PE for determining profit attributable to service PE.", "As stated above, one of the main points which arises for determination in the present case is : whether the AAR was right in ruling that as long as MSAS was remunerated for its services at arms length, there should be no additional profits attributable to the applicant or to MSAS in India.", "To answer the above question one has to examine the provisions of the I.T. Act as well as the provisions of DTAA between India and U.S.A. Sections 92 to 92E of the I.T. Act contains transfer pricing provisions in the I.T. Act with effect from the financial year commencing from 1.4.2001.", "With the enactment of the said sections the rules for the interpretation and implementation of the said provisions were also amended so as to include Rules 10A to 10E in the Income Tax Rules.", "Sections 92A and 92B provide meanings of the expressions Associated Enterprise and International Transaction respectively with reference to which the income is to be computed under Section 92 of I.T. Act.", "We quote hereinbelow Sections 92A and 92B of the I.T. Act: Meaning of associated enterprise.", "Section 92A. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92B, 92C, 92D, 92E and 92F, associated enterprise, in relation to another enterprise, means an enterprise (a) which participates, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise or (b) in respect of which one or more persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in its management or control or capital, are the same persons who participate, directly or indirectly, or through one or more intermediaries, in the management or control or capital of the other enterprise.", "For the purposes of sub-section (1), two enterprises shall be deemed to be associated enterprises if, at any time during the previous year, (a) one enterprise holds, directly or indirectly, shares carrying not less than twenty-six per cent.", "of the voting power in the other enterprise or (b) any person or enterprise holds, directly or indirectly, shares carrying not less than twenty-six per cent.", "of the voting power in each of such enterprises or (c) a loan advanced by one enterprise to the other enterprise constitutes not less than fifty-one per cent.", "of the book value of the total assets of the other enterprise or (d) one enterprise guarantees not less than ten per cent.", "of the total borrowings of the other enterprise or (e) more than half of the board of directors or members of the governing board, or one or more executive directors or executive members of the governing board of one enterprise, are appointed by the other enterprise or (f) more than half of the directors or members of the governing board, or one or more of the executive directors or members of the governing board, of each of the two enterprises are appointed by the same person or persons or (g) the manufacture or processing of goods or articles or business carried out by one enterprise is wholly dependent one the use of know-how, patents, copyrights, trade-marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, or any data, documentation, drawing or specification relating to any patent, invention, model, design, secret formula or process, of which the other enterprise is the owner or in respect of which the other enterprise ha exclusive rights or (h) ninety per cent.", "or more of the raw materials and consumables required for the manufacture or processing of goods or articles carried out by one enterprise, are supplied by the other enterprise, or by persons specified by the other enterprise, and the prices and other conditions relating to the supply are influenced by such other enterprise or the goods or articles manufactured or processed by one enterprise, are sold to the other enterprise or to persons specified by the other enterprise, and the prices and other conditions relating thereto are influenced by such other enterprise or (j) where one enterprise is controlled by an individual, the other enterprise is also controlled by such individual or his relative or jointly by such individual and relative of such individual or (k) where one enterprise is controlled by a Hindu undivided family, the other enterprise is controlled by a member of such Hindu undivided family, or jointly by such member and his relative or (l) where one enterprise is a firm, association of persons or body of individuals, the other enterprise holds not less than ten per cent.", "interest in such firm, association of persons or body of individuals or (m) there exists between the two enterprises, any relationship of mutual interest, as may be prescribed.", "Meaning of international transaction.", "Section 92B. (1) For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, international transaction means a transaction between two or more associated enterprises, either or both of whom are non-residents, in the nature or purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property, or provision of services, or lending or borrowing money, or any other transaction having a bearing on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises and shall include a mutual agreement or arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of, or any contribution to, any cost or expense incurred or to be incurred in connection with a benefit, service or facility provided or to be provided to any one or more of such enterprises.", "A transaction entered into by an enterprise with a person other than an associated enterprise shall, for the purposes of sub-section (1), be deemed to be a transaction entered into between two associated enterprises, if there exists a prior agreement in relation to the relevant transaction between such other person and the associated enterprise or the terms of the relevant transaction are determined in substance between such other person and the associated enterprise.", "(emphasis supplied) Section 92B defines International Transaction to mean a transaction between two or more associated enterprises which are, either or both of whom are non residents.", "The said transaction covers purchase, sale or lease of tangible or intangible property or provision of services or lending or borrowing money or any other transaction having an impact on the profits, income, losses or assets of such enterprises and shall include a mutual arrangement between two or more associated enterprises for the allocation or apportionment of any cost or expense incurred in connection with the benefit, service or facility provided to anyone or more of associated enterprises.", "Determination of arms length price in relation to international transaction is provided for in Section 92C to the T. Act read with Rule 10B. We quote herein below Section 92C of the I.T. Act read with Rules 10B and 10C of the Income Tax Rules which reads as under: Computation of arms length price.", "Section 92C. (1) The arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, having regard to the nature of transaction or class of transaction or class of associated persons or functions performed by such persons or such other relevant factors as the Board may prescribe, namely:- (a) comparable uncontrolled price method (b) resale price method (c) cost plus method (d) profit split method (e) transactional net margin method (f) such other method as may be prescribed by the Board.", "The most appropriate method referred to in sub- section (1) shall be applied, for determination of arms length price, in the manner as may be prescribed: Provided that where more than one price is determined by the most appropriate method, the arms length price shall be taken to be the arithmetical mean of such prices, or, at the option of the assessee, a price which may vary from the arithmetical mean by an amount not exceeding five per cent.", "of such arithmetical mean.", "Where during the course of any proceeding for the assessment of income, the Assessing Officer is, one the basis of material or information or document in his possession, of the opinion that- (a) the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2) or (b) any information and document relating to an international transaction have not been kept and maintained by the assessee in accordance with the provisions contained in sub-section (1) of section 92D and the rules made in this behalf or (c) the information or data used in computation of the arms length price is not reliable or correct or (d) the assessee has failed to furnish, within the specified time, any information or document which he was required to furnish by a notice issued under sub-section (3) of section 92D, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arms length price in relation to the said international transaction in accordance with sub-sections (1) and (2), on the basis of such material or information or document available with him: Provided that an opportunity shall be given by the Assessing Officer by serving a notice calling upon the assessee to show cause, on a date and time to be specified in the notice, why the arms length should not be so determined on the basis of material or information or document in the possession of the Assessing officer.", "Where an arms length price is determined by the Assessing Officer under sub-section (3), the Assessing Officer may compute the total income of the assessee having regard to the arms length price so determined: Provided that no deduction under section 10A or section 10B or under Chapter VI-A shall be allowed in respect of the amount of income by which the total income of the assessee is enhanced after computation of income under this sub-section.", "Provided further that where the total income of an associated enterprise is computed under this sub- section on determination of the arms length price paid to another associated enterprise from which tax has been deducted or was deductible under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB, the income of the other associated enterprise shall not be recomputed by reason of such determination of arms length price in the case of the first mentioned enterprise.", "Determination of arms length price under section 92C. Rule 10B. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (2) of section 92C, the arms length price in relation to an international transaction shall be determined by any of the following methods, being the most appropriate method, in the following manner, namely: - (a) comparable uncontrolled price method, by which, - the price charged or paid for property transferred or services provided in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is identified such price is adjusted to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the price in the open market the adjusted price arrived at under sub-clause (ii) is taken to be an arms length price in respect of the property transferred or services provided in the international transaction (b) resale price method, by which, - the price at which property purchased or services obtained by the enterprise from an associated enterprise is resold or are provided to an unrelated enterprise, is identified such resale price is reduced by the amount of a normal gross profit margin accruing to the enterprise or to an unrelated enterprise from the purchase and resale of the same or similar property or from obtaining and providing the same or similar services, in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions the price so arrived at is further reduced by the expenses incurred by the enterprise in connection with the purchase of property or obtaining of services the price so arrived at is adjusted to take into account the functional and other differences, including differences in accounting practices, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of gross profit margin in the open market the adjusted price arrived at under sub-clause (iv) is taken to be an arms length price in respect of the purchase of the property or obtaining of the services by the enterprise from the associated enterprise (c) cost plus method, by which, - the direct and indirect costs of production incurred by the enterprise in respect of property transferred or services provided to an associated enterprise, are determined the amount of a normal gross profit mark-up to such costs (computed according to the same accounting norms) arising from the transfer or provision of the same or similar property or services by the enterprise, or by an unrelated enterprise, in a comparable uncontrolled transaction, or a number of such transactions, is determined the normal gross profit mark-up referred to in sub-clause (ii) is adjusted to take into account the functional and other differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect such profit mark- up in the open market the costs referred to in sub-clause (i) are increased by the adjusted profit mark-up arrived at under sub- clause (iii) the sum so arrived at is taken to be an arms length price in relation to the supply of the property or provisions of services by the enterprise (d) profit split method, which may be applicable mainly in international transactions involving transfer of unique intangibles or in multiple international transactions which are so interrelated that they cannot be evaluated separately for the purpose of determining the arms length price of any one transaction, by which - the combined net profit of the associated enterprises arising from the international transaction in which they are engaged, is determined the relative contribution made by each of the associated enterprises to the earning of such combined net profit, is then evaluated on the basis of the functions performed, assets employed or to be employed and risks assumed by each enterprise and on the basis of reliable external market data which indicates how such contribution would be evaluated by unrelated enterprise performing comparable functions in similar circumstances the combined net profit is then split amongst the enterprises in proportion to their relative contributions, as evaluated under sub-clause (ii) the profit thus apportioned to the assessee is taken into account to arrive at an arms length price in relation to the international transaction : Provided that the combined net profit referred to in sub-clause (i) may, I the first instance, be partially allocated to each enterprise so as to provide it with a basic return appropriate for the type of international transaction in which it is engaged, with reference to market returns achieved for similar types of transactions by independent enterprises, and thereafter, the residual net profit remaining after such allocation may be split amongst the enterprises I proportion to their relative contribution in the manner specified under sub-clauses (ii) and (iii), and in such a case the aggregate of the net profit allocated to the enterprise in the first instance together with the residual net profit apportioned to that enterprise on the basis of its relative contribution shall be taken to be the net profit arising to that enterprise from the international transaction (e) transactional net margin method, by which, - the net profit margin realized by the enterprise from an international transaction entered into with an associated enterprise is computed in relation to costs incurred or sales effected or assets employed or to be employed by the enterprise or having regard to any other relevant base the net profit margin realized by the enterprise or by an unrelated enterprise from a comparable uncontrolled transaction or a number of such transactions is computed having regard to the same base the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (ii) arising in comparable uncontrolled transactions is adjusted to take into account the differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transactions, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions, which could materially affect the amount of net profit margin in the open market the net profit margin realized by the enterprise and referred to in sub- clause (i) is established to be the same as the net profit margin referred to in sub-clause (iii) the net profit margin thus established is then taken into account to arrive at an arms length price in relation to the international transaction.", "For the purposes of sub-rule (1), the comparability of an international transaction with an uncontrolled transaction shall be judged with reference to the following, namely:- (a) the specific characteristics of the property transferred or services provided in either transaction (b) the functions performed, taking into account assets employed or to be employed and the risks assumed, by the respective parties to be transactions (c) the contractual terms (whether or not such terms are formal or in writing) of the transactions which lay down explicitly or implicitly how the responsibilities, risks and benefits are to be divided between the respective parties to the transactions (d) conditions prevailing in the markets in which the respective parties to the transactions operate, including the geographical location and size of the markets, the laws and Government orders in force, costs of labour and capital in the markets, overall economic development and level of competition and whether the markets are wholesale or retail.", "An uncontrolled transaction shall be comparable to an international transaction if - none of the differences, if any, between the transactions being compared, or between the enterprises entering into such transactions are likely to materially affect the price or cost charged or paid in, or the profit arising from such transactions in the open market or reasonably accurate adjustments can be made to eliminate the material effects of such differences.", "The data to be used in analyzing the comparability of an uncontrolled transaction with an international transaction shall be the data relating to the financial year in which the international transaction has been entered into: Provided that data relating to a period not being more than two years prior to such financial year may also be considered if such data reveals facts which could have an influence on the determination of transfer prices in relation to the transactions being compared.", "Most appropriate method.", "Rule 10C. (1) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of section 92C, the most appropriate method shall be the method which is best suited to be facts and circumstances of each particular international transaction, and which provides the most reliable measure of an arms length price in relation to the international transaction.", "In selecting the most appropriate method as specified in sub-rule (1), the following factors shall be taken into account, namely:- (a) the nature and class of the international transaction (b) the class of classes of associated enterprises entering into the transaction and the functions performed by them taking into account assets employed or to be employed and risks assumed by such enterprises: (c) the availability, coverage and reliability of data necessary for application of the method (d) the degree of comparability existing between the international transaction and the uncontrolled transaction and between the enterprises entering into such transactions (e) the extent to which reliable and accurate adjustments can be made to account for differences, if any, between the international transaction and the comparable uncontrolled transaction or between the enterprises entering into such transactions (f) the nature, extent and reliability of assumptions required to be made in application of a method.", "(emphasis supplied) The methods, quoted above, namely, CUPM, RPM, CPM, PSM, TNMM etc.", "are mentioned in Section 92C read with Rule 10B. The most appropriate method has to be applied for computation of the arms length price.", "It will depend on the facts and circumstances of each particular international transaction (see: Rule 10C).", "Section 92C inter alia provides that if the Assessing Officer, during the course of any proceedings for the assessment on income, is of the opinion on the basis of material or information or document that the price charged or paid in an international transaction has not been determined on arms length basis or if he finds that the assessee has not maintained proper documents relating to the international transaction in accordance with the provisions of the I.T. Act or if he finds that the data used in the computation of arms length price is not reliable, the Assessing Officer may proceed to determine the arms length price in relation to the said transaction.", "Rules 10B, 10C and 10D explains the determination of ALP under each of the above methods.", "At this stage, it may be noted that on the question of appropriateness of the said TNMM, the AAR did not give its ruling as the transfer pricing as proceedings had commenced before the tax officer before MSCo could seek the ruling.", "However, after the impugned ruling, Transfer Pricing Officer and the Assessing Officer have found the said method (TNMM) to be appropriate.", "In our view, apart from the orders passed by the Assessing Officer and the Transfer Pricing Officer, the said method (TNMM) is the appropriate method in the case of Service PE as TNMM apportions the total operating profit arising from the transaction on the basis of sales, costs, assets, etc.", "As regards determination of profits attributable to a PE in India (MSAS) is concerned on the basis of arms length principle we have quoted Article 7(2) of the DTAA.", "According to the AAR where there is an international transaction under which a non-resident compensates a PE at arms length price, no further profits would be attributable in India.", "In this connection, the AAR has relied upon Circular Number23 of 1969 issued by CBDT as well as Circular Number5 of 2004 also issued by CBDT.", "This is the key question which arises for determination in these civil appeals.", "To answer the above question we quote Article 7 of the N. Model Convention which reads as under: ARTICLE 7 : ATTRIBUTION OF BUSINESS PROFITS Article 7 of the UN Model Convention states as under: business profits The profits of an enterprise of a Contracting State shall be taxable only in that State unless the enterprise carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein.", "If the enterprise carries on business as aforesaid, the profits of the enterprise may be taxed in the other State but only so much of them as is attributable to (a) that permanent establishment (b) sales in that other State of goods or merchandise of the same or similar kind as those sold through that permanent establishment or (c) other business activities carried on in that other State of the same or similar kind as those effected through that permanent establishment.", "Subject to the provisions of paragraph 3, where en enterprise of a Contracting State carries on business in the other Contracting State through a permanent establishment situated therein, there shall in each Contracting State be attributed to that permanent establishment the profits which it might be expected to make if it were a distinct and separate enterprise engaged in the same or similar activities under he same or similar conditions and dealing wholly or independently with the enterprise of which it is a permanent establishment.", "In the determination of the profits of a permanent establishment, there shall be allowed as deductions expenses which are incurred for the purposes of the business of the permanent establishment including executive and general administrative expenses so incurred, whether in the State in which the permanent establishment is situated or elsewhere.", "However, no such deduction shall be allowed in respect of amounts, if any, paid (otherwise than towards reimbursement of actual expenses) by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for the use of patents or other rights, or by way of commission, for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise, by way of interest on moneys lent to the permanent establishment.", "Likewise, no account shall be taken, in the determination of the profits of a permanent establishment, for amounts charged (otherwise than towards reimbursement of actual expenses), by the permanent establishment to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices, by way of royalties, fees or other similar payments in return for he use of patents or other rights, or by way of commission for specific services performed or for management, or, except in the case of a banking enterprise by way of interest on moneys lent to the head office of the enterprise or any of its other offices.", "Insofar as it has been customary in a Contracting State to determine the profits to be attributed to a permanent establishment on the basis of an apportionment of the total profits of the enterprise to its various parts, nothing in paragraph 2 shall preclude that Contracting State from determining the profits to be taxed by such an apportionment as may be customary the method of apportionment adopted shall, however, be such that the result shall be in accordance with the principles contained in this article.", "For the purposes of the preceding paragraphs, the profits to be attributed to the permanent establishment shall be determined by the same method year-by-year unless there is good and sufficient reason to the contrary.", "Where profits include items of income which are dealt with separately in other articles of this Convention, then the provisions of those articles shall not be affected by the provisions of this article.", "Note: The question of whether profits should be attributed to a permanent establishment by reason of the mere purchase by that permanent establishment of goods and merchandise for the enterprise was not resolved.", "It should therefore be settled in bilateral negotiations.", "Article 7 of the U.N. Model Convention inter alia provides that only that portion of business profits is taxable in the source country which is attributable to the PE.", "It specifies how such business profits should be ascertained.", "Under the said Article, a PE is treated as if it is an independent enterprise (profit centre) dehors the head office and which deals with the head office at arms length.", "Therefore, its profits are determined on the basis as if it is an independent enterprise.", "The profits of the PE are determined on the basis of what an independent enterprise under similar circumstances might be expected to derive on its own.", "Article 7(2) of the U.N. Model Convention advocates the arms length approach for attribution of profits to a PE.", "The object behind enactment of transfer pricing regulations is to prevent shifting of profits outside India.", "Under Article 7(2) not all profits of MSCo would be taxable in India but only those which have economic nexus with PE in India.", "A foreign enterprise is liable to be taxed in India on so much of its business profit as is attributable to the PE in India.", "The quantum of taxable income is to be determined in accordance with the provisions of I.T. Act.", "All provisions of I.T. Act are applicable, including provisions relating to depreciation, investment losses, deductible expenses, carry- forward and set-off losses etc.", "However, deviations are made by DTAA in cases of royalty, interest etc.", "Such deviations are also made under the I.T. Act (for example: Sections 44BB, 44BBA etc.).", "Under the impugned ruling delivered by the AAR, remuneration to MSAS was justified by a transfer pricing analysis and, therefore, no further income could be attributed to the PE (MSAS).", "In other words, the said ruling equates an arms length analysis (ALA) with attribution of profits.", "It holds that once a transfer pricing analysis is undertaken there is no further need to attribute profits to a PE.", "The impugned ruling is correct in principle insofar as an associated enterprise, that also constitutes a PE, has been remunerated on an arms length basis taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the enterprise.", "In such cases nothing further would be left to be attributed to the PE.", "The situation would be different if transfer pricing analysis does not adequately reflect the functions performed and the risks assumed by the enterprise.", "In such a situation, there would be a need to attribute profits to the PE for those functions risks that have not been considered.", "Therefore, in each case the data placed by the taxpayer has to be examined as to whether the transfer pricing analysis placed by the taxpayer is exhaustive of attribution of profits and that would depend on the functional and factual analysis to be undertaken in each case.", "Lastly, it may be added that taxing corporates on the basis of the concept of Economic Nexus is an important feature of Attributable Profits (profits attributable to the PE).", "Conclusion: To conclude, we hold that the AAR was right in ruling that MSAS would be a Service PE in India under Article 5(2)(l), though only on account of the services to be performed by the deputationists deployed by MSCo and not on account of stewardship activities.", "As regards income attributable to the PE (MSAS) we hold that the Transactional Net Margin Method was the appropriate method for determination of the arms length price in respect of transaction between MSCo and MSAS.", "We accept as correct the computation of the remuneration based on cost plus mark-up worked out at 29 on the operating costs of MSAS.", "This position is also accepted by the Assessing Officer in his order dated 29.12.06 (after the impugned ruling) and also by the transfer pricing officer vide order dated 22.9.06.", "As regards attribution of further profits to the PE of MSCo where the transaction between the two are held to be at arms length, we hold that the ruling is correct in principle provided that an associated enterprise (that also constitutes a PE) is remunerated on arms length basis taking into account all the risk-taking functions of the multinational enterprise.", "In such a case nothing further would be left to attribute to the PE.", "The situation would be different if the transfer pricing analysis does not adequately reflect the functions performed and the risks assumed by the enterprise.", "In such a case, there would be need to attribute profits to the PE for those functions risks that have not been considered.", "The entire exercise ultimately is to ascertain whether the service charges payable or paid to the service provider (MSAS in this case) fully represents the value of the profit attributable to his service.", "In this connection, the Department has also to examine whether the PE has obtained services from the multinational enterprise at lower than the arms length cost? Therefore, the Department has to determine income, expense or cost allocations having regard to arms length prices to decide the applicability of the transfer pricing regulations.", "Economic nexus is an important aspect of the principle of Attribution of Profits.", "In the light of what is stated above, the impugned ruling by AAR stands modified to the extent indicated hereinabove.", "Accordingly, both the civil appeals filed by the applicant (MSCo) and by the Department are partly allowed with no order as to costs."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
+{"id": "SC_2008_1597", "text": ["Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J. Challenge in these appeals in each case is to the order passed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court answering the reference made by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad Bench (in short the ITAT) under Section 256(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act) in favour of the assessee and against the revenue.", "For answering the references in favour of the assessee the High Court relied upon its judgment for two previous assessment years i.e. 1972-73 and 1973-74 in the assessees case which is reported in Commissioner of Income Tax v. J.K. Charitable Trust (1992 (196) IIR 31).", "The present dispute relates to several assessment years, i.e. 1972-73 (in respect of an assessment re done under Section 147(1) of the Act) and assessment years 1975-76 to 1982-83.", "Learned counsel for the revenue appellant submitted that each assessment year is a separate assessment unit and the factual scenario has to be seen.", "Dispute relates to the question whether the respondent, assessees trust was hit by the provisions of Section 13(1)(c) and 13(2)(a)(f) (h) of the Act and therefore cannot be given the benefit of exemption provided under Section 11 of the Act.", "Learned counsel for the assessee submitted that for several years no appeal has been filed even though the factual position is the same i.e. for the assessment years 1983-84 upto assessment year 2007-08.", "Even no appeal was filed against the decision reported in 1992(196) ITR 31 (supra).", "It is also pointed out that several other High Courts have taken a similar view and no appeal was preferred by the revenue against any of the judgments of the different High Courts.", "Reference is made to the decisions reported in CIT, Bombay City VII v. Trustees of the Jadi Trust (1982) 133 ITR 494, CIT v. Hindusthan Charity Trust (1983) 139 ITR 913, CIT v. Sarladevi Sarabhai Trust Number2 1988 (172) ITR 698 and CIT v. Nirmala Bakubhai Foundation 1996 (226) ITR 394.", "The first two judgments have been rendered by the Bombay and Calcutta High Court respectively while the other two decisions are of the Gujarat High Court.", "Learned counsel for the revenue submitted that even though appeal has not been preferred in respect of some assessment years, that does not create a bar for the revenue filing an appeal for other assessment years.", "Reliance is placed on a decision of this Court in C.K. Gagadharan Anr.", "v. Commissioner of Income Tax (2008)304 ITR 61 (SC).", "The factual scenario is undisputed that for a large number of assessment years no appeal has been filed.", "The basic question therefore is whether the revenue can be precluded from filing an appeal even though in respect of some other years involving identical dispute no appeal is filed.", "For deciding the issue a few decisions of this Court need to be noted.", "In Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited v. Union of India (2006 (3) SCC 1) it was noted as follows: The decisions cited have uniformly held that res judicata does not apply in matters pertaining to tax for different assessment years because res judicata applies to debar courts from entertaining issues on the same cause of action whereas the cause of action for each assessment year is distinct.", "The courts will generally adopt an earlier pronouncement of the law or a conclusion of fact unless there is a new ground urged or a material change in the factual position.", "The reason why the courts have held parties to the opinion expressed in a decision in one assessment year to the same opinion in a subsequent year is not because of any principle of res judicata but because of the theory of precedent or the precedential value of the earlier pronouncement.", "Where facts and law in a subsequent assessment year are the same, no authority whether quasi-judicial or judicial can generally be permitted to take a different view.", "This mandate is subject only to the usual gateways of distinguishing the earlier decision or where the earlier decision is per incuriam.", "However, these are fetters only on a coordinate Bench which, failing the possibility of availing of either of these gateways, may yet differ with the view expressed and refer the matter to a Bench of superior strength or in some cases to a Bench of superior jurisdiction.", "A decision can be set aside in the same lis on a prayer for review or an application for recall or under Article 32 in the peculiar circumstances mentioned in Hurra v. Hurra (2002 (4) SCC 388).", "As we have said, overruling of a decision takes place in a subsequent lis where the precedential value of the decision is called in question.", "No one can dispute that in our judicial system it is open to a court of superior jurisdiction or strength before which a decision of a Bench of lower strength is cited as an authority, to overrule it.", "This overruling would not operate to upset the binding nature of the decision on the parties to an earlier lis in that lis, for whom the principle of res judicata would continue to operate.", "But in tax cases relating to a subsequent year involving the same issue as an earlier year, the court can differ from the view expressed if the case is distinguishable or per incuriam.", "The decision in State of U.P. v. Union of India (2003(3) SCC 239) related to the year 1988.", "Admittedly, the present dispute relates to a subsequent period.", "Here a coordinate Bench has referred the matter to a larger Bench.", "This Bench being of superior strength, we can, if we so find, declare that the earlier decision does not represent the law.", "None of the decisions cited by the State of U.P. are authorities for the proposition that we cannot, in the circumstances of this case, do so.", "This preliminary objection of the State of U.P. is therefore rejected.", "In State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995(4) SCC 683) the position was highlighted by this court as follows: We are unable to appreciate the objection raised against the prosecution of this appeal by the appellant or other SLPs filed in similar matters.", "Sometimes, as it was stated on behalf of the State, the State Government may not choose to file appeals against certain judgments of the High Court rendered in writ petitions when they are considered as stray cases and not worthwhile invoking the discretionary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 136 of the Constitution, for seeking redressal therefor.", "At other times, it is also possible for the State, not to file appeals before this Court in some matters on account of improper advice or negligence or improper conduct of officers concerned.", "It is further possible, that even where SLPs are filed by the State against judgments of the High Court, such SLPs may not be entertained by this Court in exercise of its discretionary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution either because they are considered as individual cases or because they are considered as cases not involving stakes which may adversely affect the interest of the State.", "Therefore, the circumstance of the non-filing of the appeals by the State in some similar matters or the rejection of some SLPs in limine by this Court in some other similar matters by itself, in our view, cannot be held as a bar against the State in filing an SLP or SLPs in other similar matters where it is considered on behalf of the State that non- filing of such SLP or SLPs and pursuing them is likely to seriously jeopardise the interest of the State or public interest.", "In Government of West Bengal v. Tarun K. Roy 2004(1)SCC 347 reference was made to the judgments in Digambars case (supra) and State of Bihar v. Ramdeo Yadav (1996(3) SCC 493).", "It was noted as follows: In the aforementioned situation, the Division Bench of the Calcutta High Court manifestly erred in refusing to consider the contentions of the appellants on their own merit, particularly, when the question as regards difference in the grant of scale of pay on the ground of different educational qualification stands concluded by a judgment of this Court in State of West Bengal v. Debdas Kumar (1991) Supp(1) SCC 138.", "If the judgment of Debdas Kumars case (supra) is to be followed, a finding of fact was required to be arrived at that they are similarly situated to the case of Debdas Kumar (supra) which in turn would mean that they are also holders of diploma in Engineering.", "They admittedly being not, the contention of the appellants could not be rejected.", "Non-filing of an appeal, in any event, would not be a ground for refusing to consider a matter on its own merits.", "(See State of Maharashtra v. Digambar (1995) 4 SCC 683) In State of Bihar v. Ramdeo Yadav (1996) 3 SCC 493) wherein this Court noticed Debdas Kumars case (supra) by holding: (SCC p. 494, para 4) Shri B.B. Singh, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that though an appeal against the earlier order of the High Court has not been filed, since larger public interest is involved in the interpretation given by the High Court following its earlier judgment, the matter requires consideration by this Court.", "We find force in this contention.", "In the similar circumstances, this Court in Digambars case (supra) and in Debdas Kumars case (supra) had held that though an appeal was not filed against an earlier order, when public interest is involved in interpretation of law, the Court is entitled to go into the question.", "In Ramdeos case (supra) reference was made to Debdas Kumars case (supra) wherein it was observed at paragraph 5 as follows: It is then contended that Section 3(2) and (3) make distinction between the employees covered by those provisions and the employees of the aided schools taken over under Section 3(2).", "Until the taking over by operation of Section 3(4) recommendation is complete, they do not become the employees of the Government under Section 4 of the Act.", "The Government in exercise of the power under Section 8 constituted a committee and directed to enquire and recommend the feasibility to take over the schools.", "On the recommendation made by them, the Government have taken decision on 13-1-1981 by which date the respondents were not duly appointed as the employees of the taken over institution.", "Therefore, the High Court cannot issue a mandamus directing the Government to act in violation of law.", "In Commissioner of Central Excise v. Hira Cement (2006(2)SCC 439) at paragraph 24 the position was reiterated.", "In Chief Secretary to Government of Andhra Pradesh v. V.J. Cornelius (1981) 2 SCC 347 it was observed that equity is not a relevant factor for the purpose of interpretation.", "It will be relevant to note that in Karamchari Union v. Union of India (2000)243 ITR 143 (SC) and Union of India v. Kaumudini Narayan Dalal (2001) 249 ITR 219 this Court observed that without a just cause the Revenue cannot file the appeal in one case while deciding not to file an appeal in another case.", "This position was also noted in CIT v. Shivsagar Estate (2004)9 SCC 420.", "In C.K. Gangadharans case (supra) this Court held that where different High Courts have taken different views and some of the High Courts have decided in favour of the revenue, same is a just cause for the revenue to prefer an appeal.", "If the assessee takes the stand that the Revenue acted mala fide in not preferring appeal in one case and filing the appeal in other case, it has to establish malafides.", "As a matter of fact, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the revenue, there may be certain cases where because of the small amount of revenue involved, no appeal is filed.", "Policy decisions have been taken not to prefer appeal where the revenue involved is below a certain amount.", "Similarly, where the effect of the decision is revenue neutral there may not be any need for preferring the appeal.", "All these certainly provide the foundation for making a departure.", "In C.K. Gangadharans case (supra) it was held that merely because in some cases revenue has not preferred an appeal that does not operate as a bar for the revenue to prefer an appeal in another case where there is just cause for doing so or it is in public interest to do so or for a pronouncement by the higher court when divergent views are expressed by the different High Courts.", "In this case, it is accepted by the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue that the fact situation in all the assessment years is same.", "According to him, if the fact situation changes then the revenue can certainly prefer an appeal notwithstanding the fact that for some years no appeal was preferred.", "This question is of academic interest in the present appeals as undisputedly the fact situation is the same.", "The appeals are without merit and are accordingly dismissed.", "No costs.", "J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT) J. K. THAKKER) J. (LOKESHWAR SINGH PANTA) New Delhi November 7, 2008"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2010_0", "text": ["H. KAPADIA,J. Heard learned counsel on both sides.", "A short question which arises for determination in this batch of civil appeals is, whether the concept of change of opinion stands obliterated with effect from 1st April, 1989, i.e., after substitution of Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987? To answer the above question, we need to note the changes undergone by Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short, the Act.", "Prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Section 147 reads as under: 2/- - 2 - Income escaping assessment.", "If-- a the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that, by reason of the omission or failure on the part of an assessee to make a return under section 139 for any assessment year to the Income-tax Officer or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for that year, or b notwithstanding that there has been no omission or failure as mentioned in clause (a) on the part of the assessee, the Income- tax Officer has in consequence of information in his possession reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).", "After enactment of Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, i.e., prior to 1st April, 1989, Section 147 of the Act, reads as under: Income escaping assessment.-- If the Assessing Officer, for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also 3/- - 3 - any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in Sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).", "After the Amending Act, 1989, Section 147 reads as under: Income escaping assessment.", "If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assess or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned (hereafter in this section and in sections 148 to 153 referred to as the relevant assessment year).", "On going through the changes, quoted above, made to Section 147 of the Act, we find that, prior to Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, re-opening could be done under above two conditions and fulfillment of the said conditions alone conferred jurisdiction on the Assessing Officer to make a back assessment, but in section 147 of the Act with effect from 1st April, 1989, they are given a go-by and only one condition has remained, viz., that 4/- - 4 - where the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income has escaped assessment, confers jurisdiction to re- open the assessment.", "Therefore, post-1st April, 1989, power to re-open is much wider.", "However, one needs to give a schematic interpretation to the words reason to believe failing which, we are afraid, Section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to re-open assessments on the basis of mere change of opinion, which cannot be per se reason to re-open.", "We must also keep in mind the conceptual difference between power to review and power to re-assess.", "The Assessing Officer has no power to review he has the power to re-assess.", "But re-assessment has to be based on fulfillment of certain pre-condition and if the concept of change of opinion is removed, as contended on behalf of the Department, then, in the garb of re-opening the assessment, review would take place.", "One must treat the concept of change of opinion as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer.", "Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment.", "Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief.", "Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove.", "Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words reason to believe but also inserted the word opinion in Section 147 of the Act.", "However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of 5/- - 5 - the words reason to believe, Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word opinion on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer.", "We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular Number549 dated 31st October, 1989, which reads as follows: 7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression reason to believe in Section 147.--A number of representations were received against the omission of the words reason to believe from Section 147 and their substitution by the opinion of the Assessing Officer.", "It was pointed out that the meaning of the expression, reason to believe had been explained in a number of court rulings in the past and was well settled and its omission from section 147 would give arbitrary powers to the Assessing Officer to reopen past assessments on mere change of opinion.", "To allay these fears, the Amending Act, 1989, has again amended section 147 to reintroduce the expression has reason to believe in place of the words for reasons to be recorded by him in writing, is of the opinion.", "Other provisions of the new section 147, however, remain the same.", "For the afore-stated reasons, we see no merit in these civil appeals filed by the Department, hence, dismissed with no order as to costs.", "J. H. KAPADIA J. AFTAB ALAM J. SWATANTER KUMAR New Delhi, January 18, 2010."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2010_116", "text": ["H. KAPADIA,J. Heard learned counsel on both sides.", "Leave granted.", "Assessee(s) is a cooperative credit society.", "During the relevant assessment years in question, it had surplus funds which the assessee(s) invested in short-term deposits with the Banks and in Government securities.", "On 2/- - 2 - such investments, interests accrued to the assessee(s).", "Assessee(s) provides credit facilities to its members and also markets the agricultural produce of its members.", "The substantial question of law which arises in this batch of civil appeals is - Whether such interest income would qualify for deduction as business income under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? According to the impugned judgement, which affirms the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Tribunal, for short, such interest income would fall under the Head Income from other sources under Section 56 and not under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act, for short, and, consequently, the assessee- Society would not be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "The bunch of civil appeals filed by the assessee-Society concerns Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 excluding Assessment Year 1995-1996 however, the lead matter is civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.7572 of 2009 which relates to Assessment Year 1991- 1992.", "The assessee-Society was assessed to tax as a cooperative society.", "The assessee is the appellant in all eight civil appeals.", "For all the above Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 except Assessment Year 1995- 1996, assessee(s) filed its Returns disclosing income from business, i.e., marketing of agricultural produce of its members and providing credit facilities to them.", "Assessee(s) also filed its Profits and Loss Accounts and its balance-sheets along with its Returns.", "In respect of 3/- - 3 - above-mentioned interest income, assessee(s) claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "The assessment(s) for the afore-stated period stood re-opened by issue of notice(s) under Section 148 of the Act.", "In this case, we are only concerned with interest income on short-term Bank deposits and securities.", "On the basis of the balance-sheets for the relevant assessment years, under instructions from the Assessing Officer, assessee(s) submitted a chart to the Assessing Officer giving break-up of assets and liabilities.", "We re-produce hereinbelow the said chart See Annexure B under the caption Liabilities: LIABILITIES Asstt.", "Capital Asami A c Deposits, Other Total (3), (4) Year Reserve Fund Purchasers A c Loans, Interest Liabilities (5) Other Funds Payable Expenditure Profits 1 2 3 4 5 6 1991-92 79,200,553.00 39,341,647.00 45,772,398.00 3,948,442.00 89,176,115.00 1992-93 97,769,923.00 41,684,890.00 59,071,490.00 902,856.00 101,659,132.00 1993-94 116,354,655.00 37,674,924.00 68,927,247.00 2,893,519.00 109,494,694.00 1994-95 133,817,620.00 42,882,786.00 86,462,118.00 1,440,446.00 142,886,414.00 1995-96 156,948,290.00 46,898,160.00 107,201,490.00 4,189,923.00 158,289,580.00 1996-97 180,468,526.00 53,274,684.00 125,289,995.00 3,568,644.00 182,133,326.00 1997-98 211,686,266.00 52,510,175.00 142,529,130.00 46,694,814.00 241,734,125.00 1998-99 253,295,055.00 66,074,107.00 175,757,230.00 17,342,956.00 259,174,281.00 1999-00 269,520,510.00 124,571,325.00 209,202,203.00 25,199,555.00 358,973,088.00 The Assessing Officer held, on the facts and circumstances of these cases, that the interest income which the assessee(s) had disclosed under the Head Income from business was liable to be taxed under the Head Income from other sources.", "In this connection, the 4/- - 4 - Assessing Officer held that the assessee-Society had invested the surplus funds as, and by way of, investment by an ordinary investor, hence, interest on such investment has got to be taxed under the Head Income from other sources.", "Before the Assessing officer, it was argued by the assessee(s) that it had invested the funds on short-term basis as the funds were not required immediately for business purposes and, consequently, such act of investment constituted a business activity by a prudent businessman therefore, such interest income was liable to be taxed under Section 28 and not under Section 56 of the Act, and, consequently, the assessee(s) was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "This argument was rejected by the Assessing Officer as also by the Tribunal and the High Court, hence, these civil appeals have been filed by the assessee(s).", "It was the case of the assessee(s) before us that the assessee(s) is a cooperative credit society.", "Its business is to provide credit facilities to its members and to market the agricultural produce of its members.", "According to the assessee(s), its activity constituted eligible activity under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, hence, it was entitled to the benefit of deduction from its gross total income.", "In this connection, it was urged that, under Section 80P(2) of the Act, the whole of the amount of business profits attributable to any one of the enumerated activities is entitled to deduction.", "According to the assessee(s), one need not go by the source head of such interest income because no sooner 5/- - 5 - interest income accrued to the assessee(s) on above- mentioned specified deposits securities, it became business income attributable to the activity carried on by the assessee(s) by providing credit facilities to its members or marketing of agricultural produce of its members and no sooner such interest income falls under the head business profits attributable to one or more of such eligible activities, such interest income became eligible for deduction under the said section.", "The assessee(s) further contended, before us, that, under Regulations 23 and 28 read with Sections 57 and 58 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, a statutory obligation was imposed on cooperative credit societies to invest its surplus funds in specified securities and, in view of such statutory obligation, the above-mentioned interest income derived from short-term deposits and securities must be considered as income derived by the assessee(s) from its business activities.", "In the alternative, it was submitted that, even assuming for the sake of argument that such interest income is held to be covered by Section 56 of the Act under the head Income from other sources, even then the assessee-Society was entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee(s) submitted, placing reliance on numerous judgements, that the source or head of income was irrelevant for deciding the question as to whether a given item is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act.", "According to the assessee(s), once interest income 6/- - 6 - accrues on specified investments, particularly when a local enactment makes it statutorily incumbent on the society to invest in specified investments, the interest income is automatically eligible for deduction irrespective of the source or head under which such income would fall.", "In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee(s) submitted that one needs to compare the language of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Act with Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, the language used in Section 80HHD(3) and the words used in Section 80HHE(5) of the Act.", "In this connection, it was urged that there is a wide contrast in the language between Section 80P(2)(a) on one hand and the language used in Section 80HHC read with Explanation (baa), Section 80HHD(3) and Section 80HHE(5) as also the language used in Sections 72 and 32AB of the Act.", "According to the assessee(s), if one keeps this contrast in mind, it is clear that the concept of head of income or source of income will not apply to the provisions of Section 80P(2) of the Act because wherever Parliament intended to emphasise the applicability of such concept, it has expressly so stated in the relevant section.", "According to the assessee(s), by way of illustration, under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC or under Section 80HHD(3) or under Section 80HHE(5), etc., the words used are, profits of the business means the profits of the business as computed under the head Profits and gains of business.", "Therefore, according to the assessee(s), when such words do not find place in Section 80P(2) of the Act, it is clear that the concept of 7/- - 7 - source of income or head of income is not inbuilt in Section 80P(2) of the Act and, consequently, such a concept cannot be read into the said section.", "As stated above, according to the assessee(s), no sooner surplus funds are invested in specified securities, interest income from such investment is automatically eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)of the Act.", "In order to determine the issue involved in these civil appeals, we need to re-produce hereinbelow the relevant provision of Section 80P of the Act, as it stood at the material time.", "It reads thus: Deduction in respect of income of co- operative societies.", "80P.(1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub- section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub- section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee.", "2 The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:-- a in the case of a co-operative society engaged in-- i carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or ii a cottage industry, or iii the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members, or 8/- - 8 - iv the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or v the processing, without the aid of power, of the agricultural produce of its members, or vi the collective disposal of the labour of its members, or vii fishing or allied activities, that is to say, the catching, curing, processing, preserving, storing or marketing of fish or the purchase of materials and equipment in connection therewith for the purpose of supplying them to its members, the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities.", "At the outset, an important circumstance needs to be highlighted.", "In the present case, the interest held not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not the interest received from the members for providing credit facilities to them.", "What is sought to be taxed under Section 56 of the Act is the interest income arising on the surplus invested in short- term deposits and securities which surplus was not required for business purposes.", "Assessee(s) markets the produce of its members whose sale proceeds at times were retained by it.", "In this case, we are concerned with the tax treatment of such amount.", "Since the fund created by such retention was not 9/- - 9 - required immediately for business purposes, it was invested in specified securities.", "The question, before us, is - whether interest on such deposits securities, which strictly speaking accrues to the members account, could be taxed as business income under Section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of Income from other sources, hence, such interest income would be taxable under Section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer.", "In this connection, we may analyze Section 80P of the Act.", "This section comes in Chapter VI-A, which, in turn, deals with Deductions in respect of certain Incomes.", "The Headnote to Section 80P indicates that the said section deals with deductions in respect of income of cooperative Societies.", "Section 80P(1), inter alia, states that where the gross total income of a cooperative Society includes any income from one or more specified activities, then such income shall be deducted from the gross total income in computing the total taxable income of the assessee-Society.", "An income, which is attributable to any of the specified activities in Section 80P(2) of the Act, would be eligible for deduction.", "The word income has been defined under Section 2(24)(i) of the Act to include profits and gains.", "This sub-section is an inclusive provision.", "The Parliament has included specifically business profits into the definition of the word income.", "Therefore, we are required to give a precise meaning to the words profits and gains of business mentioned in Section 80P(2) of the Act.", "In the present case, as stated above, 10/- - 10 - assessee-Society regularly invests funds not immediately required for business purposes.", "Interest on such investments, therefore, cannot fall within the meaning of the expression profits and gains of business.", "Such interest income cannot be said also to be attributable to the activities of the society, namely, carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members or marketing of the agricultural produce of its members.", "When the assessee-Society provides credit facilities to its members, it earns interest income.", "As stated above, in this case, interest held as ineligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not in respect of interest received from members.", "In this case, we are only concerned with interest which accrues on funds not required immediately by the assessee(s) for its business purposes and which have been only invested in specified securities as investment.", "Further, as stated above, assessee(s) markets the agricultural produce of its members.", "It retains the sale proceeds in many cases.", "It is this retained amount which was payable to its members, from whom produce was bought, which was invested in short-term deposits securities.", "Such an amount, which was retained by the assessee-Society, was a liability and it was shown in the balance-sheet on the liability-side.", "Therefore, to that extent, such interest income cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or in Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.", "Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the 11/- - 11 - Assessing Officer was right in taxing the interest income, indicated above, under Section 56 of the Act.", "An alternative submission was advanced by the assessee(s) stating that, if interest income in question is held to be covered by Section 56 of the Act, even then, the assessee-Society is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of such interest income.", "We find no merit in this submission.", "Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be placed at par with Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, Section 80HHD(3) and Section 80HHE(5) of the Act.", "Each of the said sections has to be interpreted in the context of its subject-matter.", "For example, Section 80HHC of the Act, at the relevant time, dealt with deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.", "The scope of Section 80HHC is, therefore, different from the scope of Section 80P of the Act, which deals with deduction in respect of income of cooperative Societies.", "Even Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC was added to restrict the deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.", "The words used in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, therefore, cannot be compared with the words used in Section 80P of the Act which grants deduction in respect of the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business.", "A number of judgements were cited on behalf of the assessee(s) in support of its contention that the source was irrelevant while construing the provisions of Section 80P of the Act.", "We find no merit because all the judgements cited were cases relating to Cooperative Banks 12/- - 12 - and assessee-Society is not carrying on Banking business.", "We are confining this judgement to the facts of the present case.", "To say that the source of income is not relevant for deciding the applicability of Section 80P of the Act would not be correct because we need to give weightage to the words the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to one of the activities specified in Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act.", "An important point needs to be mentioned.", "The words the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the Society.", "In this particular case, the evidence shows that the assessee- Society earns interest on funds which are not required for business purposes at the given point of time.", "Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, such interest income falls in the category of Other Income which has been rightly taxed by the Department under Section 56 of the Act.", "Apart from the substantial question of law which we have answered, assessee-Society has challenged the re-opening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act.", "In this connection, it was urged on behalf of the assessee(s) that, for the relevant assessment years in question, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "According to the assessee(s), the proposal for re-opening 13/- - 13 - was made on 31st May, 2001, it was not sent through fax to the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, and the fax report indicates the time of 5.18 p.m., which establishes the fact that service of notice on 31st May, 2001, on the assessee(s) was done prior to the sending of fax for approval.", "According to the assessee(s), the approval was given by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on 8th June, 2001.", "The notice under Section 148 of the Act was served on 31st May, 2001, i.e., prior to the approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.", "In the circumstances, it was urged that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid and consequential re-assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144A of the Act was bad in law.", "We find no merit in this argument.", "At the outset, we may state that the point raised on validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act essentially concerns factual aspect.", "The Tribunal is the final fact finding Authority under the Income Tax Act.", "It has given a finding of fact that, though the written communication of the sanction, which has no prescribed format, was received by the Assessing Officer on 8th June, 2001, yet, it cannot be said that sanction was not accorded prior to 31st May, 2001.", "The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was a detailed correspondence between the concerned officers prior to 31st May, 2001, in the context of re-opening of assessment.", "It may also be mentioned that there is a vital difference between grant of sanction and communication of such sanction.", "As stated by the Tribunal, no particular form has been prescribed in the 14/- - 14 - matter of grant of sanction.", "For the afore-stated reason, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that approval sanction for re-opening of assessment in terms of Section 148 of the Act read with Section 151 existed even prior to 31st May, 2001.", "We see no reason to interfere with this finding of fact given by the Tribunal.", "In this matter, one question advanced by the assessee(s) before the Authorities below has remained un-answered.", "That question is as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income by way of interest on deposits held with scheduled banks, bonds and other securities was chargeable to tax under section 56 under the head Income from other sources without allowing any deduction in respect of cost of funds and proportionate administrative and other expenses under section 57? The above question requires an answer.", "It involves interpretation of Section 56 and Section 57 of the Act.", "It also involves applicability of the said sections to the facts of the present case.", "We, accordingly, remit the said question to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law.", "Subject to what is stated above, these civil appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed with no order as to costs.", "J. H. KAPADIA J. AFTAB ALAM New Delhi, February 08, 2010.", "REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO. 1622 OF 2010 (Arising out of S.L.P. (C) Number7572 of 2009) M section The Totgars Cooperative Sale Society Limited Appellant(s) Versus Income Tax Officer, Karnataka Respondent(s) W I T H Civil Appeal Number1623/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10489 of 2009 Civil Appeal Number1624/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10490 of 2009 Civil Appeal Number1625/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10491 of 2009 Civil Appeal Number1626/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10492 of 2009 Civil Appeal Number1627/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10494 of 2009 Civil Appeal Number1628/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10497 of 2009 Civil Appeal Number1629/2010 S.L.P. (C) Number10498 of 2009 J U D G M E N T H. KAPADIA,J. Heard learned counsel on both sides.", "Leave granted.", "Assessee(s) is a cooperative credit society.", "During the relevant assessment years in question, it had surplus funds which the assessee(s) invested in short-term deposits with the Banks and in Government securities.", "On 2/- - 2 - such investments, interests accrued to the assessee(s).", "Assessee(s) provides credit facilities to its members and also markets the agricultural produce of its members.", "The substantial question of law which arises in this batch of civil appeals is - Whether such interest income would qualify for deduction as business under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Income Tax Act, 1961? According to the impugned judgement, which affirms the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Tribunal, for short, such interest income would fall under the Head Income from other sources under Section 56 and not under Section 28 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 Act, for short, and, consequently, the assessee- Society would not be entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "The bunch of civil appeals filed by the assessee- Society concerns Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 excluding Assessment Year 1995-1996 however, the lead matter is civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) Number7572 of 2009 which relates to Assessment Year 1991-1992.", "The assessee-Society was assessed to tax as a cooperative society.", "The assessee is the appellant in all eight civil appeals.", "For all the above Assessment Years 1991-1992 to 1999-2000 except Assessment Year 1995-1996, assessee(s) filed its Returns disclosing income from business, i.e., marketing of agricultural produce of its members and providing credit facilities to them.", "Assessee(s) also filed its Profits and Loss Accounts and its balance-sheets along with its Returns.", "In respect of 3/- - 3 - above-mentioned interest income, assessee(s) claimed deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "The assessment(s) for the afore-stated period stood re-opened by issue of notice(s) under Section 148 of the Act.", "In this case, we are only concerned with interest income on short-term Bank deposits and securities.", "On the basis of the balance-sheets for the relevant assessment years, under instructions from the Assessing Officer, assessee(s) submitted a chart to the Assessing Officer giving break-up of assets and liabilities.", "We re-produce hereinbelow the said chart See Annexure B under the caption Liabilities: LIABILITIES Asstt.", "Capital Asami A c Deposits, Other Total (3), (4) Year Reserve Fund Purchasers A c Loans, Interest Liabilities (5) Other Funds Payable Expenditure Profits 1 2 3 4 5 6 1991-92 79,200,553.00 39,341,647.00 45,772,398.00 3,948,442.00 89,176,115.00 1992-93 97,769,923.00 41,684,890.00 59,071,490.00 902,856.00 101,659,132.00 1993-94 116,354,655.00 37,674,924.00 68,927,247.00 2,893,519.00 109,494,694.00 1994-95 133,817,620.00 42,882,786.00 86,462,118.00 1,440,446.00 142,886,414.00 1995-96 156,948,290.00 46,898,160.00 107,201,490.00 4,189,923.00 158,289,580.00 1996-97 180,468,526.00 53,274,684.00 125,289,995.00 3,568,644.00 182,133,326.00 1997-98 211,686,266.00 52,510,175.00 142,529,130.00 46,694,814.00 241,734,125.00 1998-99 253,295,055.00 66,074,107.00 175,757,230.00 17,342,956.00 259,174,281.00 1999-00 269,520,510.00 124,571,325.00 209,202,203.00 25,199,555.00 358,973,088.00 The Assessing Officer held, on the facts and circumstances of these cases, that the interest income which the assessee(s) had disclosed under the Head Income from business was liable to be taxed under the Head Income from other sources.", "In this connection, the 4/- - 4 - Assessing Officer held that the assessee-Society had invested the surplus funds as, and by way of, investment by an ordinary investor, hence, interest on such investment has got to be taxed under the Head Income from other sources.", "Before the Assessing officer, it was argued by the assessee(s) that it had invested the funds on short-term basis as the funds were not required immediately for business purposes and, consequently, such act of investment constituted a business activity by a prudent businessman therefore, such interest income was liable to be taxed under Section 28 and not under Section 56 of the Act, and, consequently, the assessee(s) was entitled to deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "This argument was rejected by the Assessing Officer as also by the Tribunal and the High Court, hence, these civil appeals have been filed by the assessee(s).", "It was the case of the assessee(s) before us that the assessee(s) is a cooperative credit society.", "Its business is to provide credit facilities to its members and to market the agricultural produce of its members.", "According to the assessee(s), its activity constituted eligible activity under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act, hence, it was entitled to the benefit of deduction from its gross total income.", "In this connection, it was urged that, under Section 80P(2) of the Act, the whole of the amount of business profits attributable to any one of the enumerated activities is entitled to deduction.", "According to the assessee(s), one need not go by the source head of such interest income because no sooner 5/- - 5 - interest income accrued to the assessee(s) on above- mentioned specified deposits securities, it became business income attributable to the activity carried on by the assessee(s) by providing credit facilities to its members or marketing of agricultural produce of its members and no sooner such interest income falls under the head business profits attributable to one or more of such eligible activities, such interest income became eligible for deduction under the said section.", "The assessee(s) further contended, before us, that, under Regulations 23 and 28 read with Sections 57 and 58 of the Karnataka Cooperative Societies Act, 1959, a statutory obligation was imposed on cooperative credit societies to invest its surplus funds in specified securities and, in view of such statutory obligation, the above-mentioned interest income derived from short-term deposits and securities must be considered as income derived by the assessee(s) from its business activities.", "In the alternative, it was submitted that, even assuming for the sake of argument that such interest income is held to be covered by Section 56 of the Act under the head Income from other sources, even then the assessee-Society was entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act.", "In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee(s) submitted, placing reliance on numerous judgements, that the source or head of income was irrelevant for deciding the question as to whether a given item is eligible for deduction under Section 80P of the Act.", "According to the assessee(s), once interest income 6/- - 6 - accrues on specified investments, particularly when a local enactment makes it statutorily incumbent on the society to invest in specified investments, the interest income is automatically eligible for deduction irrespective of the source or head under which such income would fall.", "In this connection, learned counsel for the assessee(s) submitted that one needs to compare the language of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) and (iii) of the Act with Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, the language used in Section 80HHD(3) and the words used in Section 80HHE(5) of the Act.", "In this connection, it was urged that there is a wide contrast in the language between Section 80P(2)(a) on one hand and the language used in Section 80HHC read with Explanation (baa), Section 80HHD(3) and Section 80HHE(5) as also the language used in Sections 72 and 32AB of the Act.", "According to the assessee(s), if one keeps this contrast in mind, it is clear that the concept of head of income or source of income will not apply to the provisions of Section 80P(2) of the Act because wherever Parliament intended to emphasise the applicability of such concept, it has expressly so stated in the relevant section.", "According to the assessee(s), by way of illustration, under Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC or under Section 80HHD(3) or under Section 80HHE(5), etc., the words used are, profits of the business means the profits of the business as computed under the head Profits and gains of business.", "Therefore, according to the assessee(s), when such words do not find place in Section 80P(2) of the Act, it is clear that the concept of 7/- - 7 - source of income or head of income is not inbuilt in Section 80P(2) of the Act and, consequently, such a concept cannot be read into the said section.", "As stated above, according to the assessee(s), no sooner surplus funds are invested in specified securities, interest income from such investment is automatically eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)of the Act.", "In order to determine the issue involved in these civil appeals, we need to re-produce hereinbelow the relevant provision of Section 80P of the Act, as it stood at the material time.", "It reads thus: Deduction in respect of income of co- operative societies.", "80P.(1) Where, in the case of an assessee being a co-operative society, the gross total income includes any income referred to in sub- section (2), there shall be deducted, in accordance with and subject to the provisions of this section, the sums specified in sub- section (2), in computing the total income of the assessee.", "2 The sums referred to in sub-section (1) shall be the following, namely:-- a in the case of a co-operative society engaged in-- i carrying on the business of banking or providing credit facilities to its members, or ii a cottage industry, or iii the marketing of the agricultural produce of its members, or 8/- - 8 - iv the purchase of agricultural implements, seeds, livestock or other articles intended for agriculture for the purpose of supplying them to its members, or v the processing, without the aid of power, of the agricultural produce of its members, or vi the collective disposal of the labour of its members, or vii fishing or allied activities, that is to say, the catching, curing, processing, preserving, storing or marketing of fish or the purchase of materials and equipment in connection therewith for the purpose of supplying them to its members, the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to any one or more of such activities.", "At the outset, an important circumstance needs to be highlighted.", "In the present case, the interest held not eligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act is not the interest received from the members for providing credit facilities to them.", "What is sought to be taxed under Section 56 of the Act is the interest income arising on the surplus invested in short-term deposits and securities which surplus was not required for business purposes.", "Assessee(s) markets the produce of its members whose sale proceeds at times were retained by it.", "In this case, we are concerned with the tax treatment of such amount.", "Since the fund created by such retention was not 9/- - 9 - required immediately for business purposes, it was invested in specified securities.", "The question, before us, is - whether interest on such deposits securities, which strictly speaking accrues to the members account, could be taxed as business income under Section 28 of the Act? In our view, such interest income would come in the category of Income from other sources, hence, such interest income would be taxable under Section 56 of the Act, as rightly held by the Assessing Officer.", "In this connection, we may analyze Section 80P of the Act.", "This section comes in Chapter VI-A, which, in turn, deals with Deductions in respect of certain Incomes.", "The Headnote to Section 80P indicates that the said section deals with deductions in respect of income of cooperative Societies.", "Section 80P(1), inter alia, states that where the gross total income of a cooperative Society includes any income from one or more specified activities, then such income shall be deducted from the gross total income in computing the total taxable income of the assessee-Society.", "An income, which is attributable to any of the specified activities in Section 80P(2) of the Act, would be eligible for deduction.", "The word income has been defined under Section 2(24)(i) of the Act to include profits and gains.", "This sub-section is an inclusive provision.", "The Parliament has included specifically business profits into the definition of the word income.", "Therefore, we are required to give a precise meaning to the words profits and gains of business mentioned in Section 80P(2) of the Act.", "In the present case, as stated above, 10/- - 10 - assessee-Society regularly invests funds not immediately required for business purposes.", "Interest on such investments, therefore, cannot fall within the meaning of the expression profits and gains of business.", "Such interest income cannot be said also to be attributable to the activities of the society, namely, carrying on the business of providing credit facilities to its members or marketing of the agricultural produce of its members.", "When the assessee-Society provides credit facilities to its members, it earns interest income.", "As stated above, in this case, interest held as ineligible for deduction under Section 80P(2)(a)(i) is not in respect of interest received from members.", "In this case, we are only concerned with interest which accrues on funds not required immediately by the assessee(s) for its business purposes and which have been only invested in specified securities as investment.", "Further, as stated above, assessee(s) markets the agricultural produce of its members.", "It retains the sale proceeds in many cases.", "It is this retained amount which was payable to its members, from whom produce was bought, which was invested in short-term deposits securities.", "Such an amount, which was retained by the assessee-Society, was a liability and it was shown in the balance-sheet on the liability-side.", "Therefore, to that extent, such interest income cannot be said to be attributable either to the activity mentioned in Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act or in Section 80P(2)(a)(iii) of the Act.", "Therefore, looking to the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the view that the 11/- - 11 - Assessing Officer was right in taxing the interest income, indicated above, under Section 56 of the Act.", "An alternative submission was advanced by the assessee(s) stating that, if interest income in question is held to be covered by Section 56 of the Act, even then, the assessee-Society is entitled to the benefit of Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act in respect of such interest income.", "We find no merit in this submission.", "Section 80P(2)(a)(i) of the Act cannot be placed at par with Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, Section 80HHD(3) and Section 80HHE(5) of the Act.", "Each of the said sections has to be interpreted in the context of its subject- matter.", "For example, Section 80HHC of the Act, at the relevant time, dealt with deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.", "The scope of Section 80HHC is, therefore, different from the scope of Section 80P of the Act, which deals with deduction in respect of income of cooperative Societies.", "Even Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC was added to restrict the deduction in respect of profits retained for export business.", "The words used in Explanation (baa) to Section 80HHC, therefore, cannot be compared with the words used in Section 80P of the Act which grants deduction in respect of the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business.", "A number of judgements were cited on behalf of the assessee(s) in support of its contention that the source was irrelevant while construing the provisions of Section 80P of the Act.", "We find no merit because all the judgements cited were cases relating to Cooperative Banks 12/- - 12 - and assessee-Society is not carrying on Banking business.", "We are confining this judgement to the facts of the present case.", "To say that the source of income is not relevant for deciding the applicability of Section 80P of the Act would not be correct because we need to give weightage to the words the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business attributable to one of the activities specified in Section 80P(2)(a) of the Act.", "An important point needs to be mentioned.", "The words the whole of the amount of profits and gains of business emphasise that the income in respect of which deduction is sought must constitute the operational income and not the other income which accrues to the Society.", "In this particular case, the evidence shows that the assessee- Society earns interest on funds which are not required for business purposes at the given point of time.", "Therefore, on the facts and circumstances of this case, in our view, such interest income falls in the category of Other Income which has been rightly taxed by the Department under Section 56 of the Act.", "Apart from the substantial question of law which we have answered, assessee-Society has challenged the re- opening of assessment under Section 148 of the Act.", "In this connection, it was urged on behalf of the assessee(s) that, for the relevant assessment years in question, the Assessing Officer was required to obtain prior approval of the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax before issuance of notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "According to the assessee(s), the proposal for re-opening 13/- - 13 - was made on 31st May, 2001, it was not sent through fax to the office of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Panaji, and the fax report indicates the time of 5.18 p.m., which establishes the fact that service of notice on 31st May, 2001, on the assessee(s) was done prior to the sending of fax for approval.", "According to the assessee(s), the approval was given by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax on 8th June, 2001.", "The notice under Section 148 of the Act was served on 31st May, 2001, i.e., prior to the approval of the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax.", "In the circumstances, it was urged that the notice under Section 148 of the Act was invalid and consequential re-assessment under Section 147 read with Section 144A of the Act was bad in law.", "We find no merit in this argument.", "At the outset, we may state that the point raised on validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Act essentially concerns factual aspect.", "The Tribunal is the final fact finding Authority under the Income Tax Act.", "It has given a finding of fact that, though the written communication of the sanction, which has no prescribed format, was received by the Assessing Officer on 8th June, 2001, yet, it cannot be said that sanction was not accorded prior to 31st May, 2001.", "The Tribunal has recorded a finding of fact that there was a detailed correspondence between the concerned officers prior to 31st May, 2001, in the context of re-opening of assessment.", "It may also be mentioned that there is a vital difference between grant of sanction and communication of such sanction.", "As stated by the Tribunal, no particular form has been prescribed in the 14/- - 14 - matter of grant of sanction.", "For the afore-stated reason, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that approval sanction for re-opening of assessment in terms of Section 148 of the Act read with Section 151 existed even prior to 31st May, 2001.", "We see no reason to interfere with this finding of fact given by the Tribunal.", "In this matter, one question advanced by the assessee(s) before the Authorities below has remained un- answered.", "That question is as follows: Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in holding that the income by way of interest on deposits held with scheduled banks, bonds and other securities was chargeable to tax under section 56 under the head Income from other sources without allowing any deduction in respect of cost of funds and proportionate administrative and other expenses under section 57? The above question requires an answer.", "It involves interpretation of Section 56 and Section 57 of the Act.", "It also involves applicability of the said sections to the facts of the present case.", "We, accordingly, remit the said question to the High Court for consideration in accordance with law.", "Subject to what is stated above, these civil appeals filed by the assessee(s) are dismissed with no order as to costs.", "J. H. KAPADIA J. AFTAB ALAM New Delhi, February 08, 2010."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Issue", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2010_1296", "text": ["H. KAPADIA, CJI Leave granted.", "In this batch of cases the question which arises for determination is: whether BSE Membership Card can be considered an intangible asset for the purpose of depreciation under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the 1961 Act)? Facts in M s Techno Shares Stocks Limited Lead matter In this case, we are concerned with the Assessment Years 1999-2000, 2000-2001, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.", "The assessee company filed its Return of income for the Assessment Year 1999-2000 disclosing a loss of Rs. 10,77,276/-.", "The return was processed under Section 143(1) on November 8, 2000.", "The case stood reopened under Section 147 and Notice u s 148 stood issued to the assessee on 16.7.2002.", "The assessee filed its return of income under protest.", "The assessee filed its return of income pursuant to the Notice u s 148 once again declaring loss of Rs. 10,77,276/-, the same as was in the original return of income.", "The main reason for reopening of assessment under Section 147 was the claim of depreciation by the assessee on BSE membership card amounting to Rs. 23,65,000/-.", "The claim of depreciation of the assessee was based on Section 32(1)(ii) which stood inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998 w.e.f. 1.4.1999.", "However, the said Section deals with claim for depreciation of items acquired on or after 1.4.1998.", "The assessee claimed before the A.O. that the BSE membership card is a licence or business or commercial right of similar nature u s 32(1)(ii) and is, therefore, an intangible asset eligible for depreciation u s 32(1)(ii) which submission was not accepted by the O. It was held that membership is only a personal permission which is non-transferable and which does not devolve automatically on legal heirs and, therefore, it is not a privately owned asset.", "That, there is no ownership of an asset and that what ultimately can be sold is only a Right to Nomination.", "Further, according to the A.O., in the case of BSE membership, there is no obsolescence, wear and tear or diminution in value by its use, hence, the assessee was not entitled to claim depreciation u s 32(1)(ii).", "This decision of the A.O. stood affirmed by I.T. (A) in the appeal filed by the assessee.", "Aggrieved by the said decision of CIT (A), the assessee carried the matter in appeal to the Tribunal which took the view that since the assessee had acquired a right to trade on the floor of BSE through the membership card, it was not entitled to depreciation u s 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act.", "That, the said Card is a capital asset through which right to trade on the floor of BSE is acquired and since it is intangible asset the said assessee was entitled to depreciation u s 32(1)(ii).", "Against the said decision, the Department carried the matter in appeal to the High Court which came to the conclusion, following certain decisions of this Court, that the BSE membership card is only a personal privilege granted to a member to trade in shares on the floor of the Stock Exchange that, such a privilege cannot be equated with the expression licence or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature u s 32(1)(ii) that, there is a difference between acquiring a know-how, patent, copyright or trademark and acquiring a licence to use such know-how, patent, copyright, trademark or franchise that the expression business or commercial rights of similar nature in Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act would take its colour from the preceding words, namely, know-how, patent, copyright, trademark and franchise which belong to a class of intellectual property rights and applying the rule of ejusdem generis, the High Court held that the expression licence as well as the expression business and commercial rights of similar nature in Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act are referable to IPRs such as know-how, patent, copyright, trademark and franchise and since the BSE membership card does not fall in any of the above categories, the claim for depreciation was not admissible on the BSE membership card acquired by the assessee u s 32(1)(ii).", "Consequently, the appeals filed by the Department stood allowed, hence, these civil appeals.", "Importance of BSE: BSE is recognized by the Government of India under Securities Contracts (Regulation) Act, 1956.", "Approximately 70000 deals are executed on a daily basis.", "There are about 3500 companies which are listed on BSE.", "The market capitalization of the BSE is Rs. 5 trillion.", "The main aim and object of the BSE is to provide a market place for the purchase and sale of securities.", "It aims to promote, develop and maintain a well regulated market for dealing in securities and to safeguard the interests of the members and the investing public having dealings in the Exchange.", "It helps industrial development of the country through resources mobilization.", "It is set up to establish and promote just practices in securities transactions.", "In November, 1996, the BSE constituted a Trade Guarantee Scheme under which all trades carried out on online trading are guaranteed by the clearing house of BSE.", "Similarly, a depository has been set up as a joint venture between BSE and Bank of India etc.", "BSE has introduced trading also in fixed income securities to give impetus to trading in debentures and corporate debt instruments to increase trading in Government owned securities.", "Question arising in the Present Matters: Is depreciation allowable on the cost of a Stock Exchange Membership Card under Section 32(1)(ii) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which was enacted and inserted by Finance (No. 2) Act, 1998? Answer to the above Question: To answer the above question, we need to quote hereinbelow certain relevant provisions of the 1961 Act: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (14)capital asset means property of any kind held by an assessee, whether or not connected with his business or profession, but does not include-- any stock-in-trade, consumable stores or raw materials held for the purposes of his business or profession personal effects, that is to say, movable property (including wearing apparel and furniture, but excluding jewellery) held for personal use by the assessee or any member of his family dependent on him.", "Depreciation.", "(1) In respect of depreciation of-- (i) know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after the 1st day of April, 1998, owned, wholly or partly, by the assessee and used for the purposes of the business or profession, the following deductions shall be allowed-- Explanation 3.- For the purposes of this sub- section, the expressions assets and block of assets shall mean- (a) tangible assets, being buildings, machinery, plant or furniture (b) intangible assets, being know-how, patents, copyrights, trademarks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature.", "We also quote hereinbelow relevant Rules of Bombay Stock Exchange Limited as they stood at the relevant time: Membership a Personal Privilege The membership shall constitute a personal permission from the Exchange to exercise the rights and privileges attached thereto subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange.", "Right of Membership Inalienable A member shall not assign, mortgage, pledge, hypothecate or charge his right of membership or any rights or privileges attached thereto and no such attempted assignment, mortgage, pledge, hypothecation or charge shall be effective as against the Exchange for any purpose nor shall any right or interest in any membership other than the personal right or interest of the member therein be recognized by the Exchange.", "The Governing Board shall expel any member of the Exchange who acts or attempts to act in violation of the provisions of this Rule.", "Right of Nomination Subject to the provisions of these Rules a member shall have the right of nomination which shall be personal and non- transferable.", "Right of Nomination of Deceased or Defaulter Member On the death or default of a member his right of nomination shall cease and vest in the Exchange.", "Forfeited or Lapsed Right of Membership When a right of membership is forfeited to or vest in the Exchange under any Rule, Bye-law or Regulation of the Exchange for the time being in force it shall belong absolutely to the Exchange free of all rights, claims or interest of such member or any person claiming through such member and the Governing Board shall be entitled to deal with or dispose of such right of membership as it may think fit.", "Nomination by Member 11(a) A member of not less than three years standing who desires to resign may nominate a person eligible under these Rules, for admission to membership of the Exchange as a candidate for admission in his place: Provided that a member of less than three years standing who desires to resign may with the sanction of the Governing Board nominate his own son eligible under these Rules for admission to membership of the Exchange as a candidate for admission in his place Provided further that the Governing Board may, at its absolute discretion and in exceptional cases and for cogent reasons to be recorded in writing, permit by a special resolution, a member of less than three years standing, who desires to resign, to nominate a person as a candidate for admission in his place, subject to such terms and conditions as the Governing Board may in its absolute discretion think fit to impose.", "Nomination in Case of Deceased Member The legal representatives of a deceased member or his heirs or the persons mentioned in Appendix C to these Rules may with the sanction of the Governing Board nominate any person eligible under these Rules for admission to membership of the Exchange as a candidate for admission in the place of the deceased member.", "In considering such nomination the Governing Board shall be guided so far as practicable by the instructions set out in Appendix C to these Rules.", "Nomination in case of Defaulter The forfeited right of membership of a defaulter shall be restored to him if he be re-admitted as a member within six months from the date of default but if an application by a defaulter for re- admission be rejected by the Governing Board or if no such application be made within six months of the declaration of default the Governing Board may at any time exercise the right of nomination in respect of such membership.", "Dues and Claims The Governing Board shall not approve a nomination unless the nominating member or in the case of a deceased member his legal representatives or heirs or the persons mentioned in Appendix C to these Rules or any other person on his behalf shall have paid and satisfied in full.", "Dues of the Exchange Such subscriptions, debts, fines, fees, charges and other monies as shall have been determined by the Governing Board to be due to the Exchange or the Clearing House by the nominating or deceased member and Liabilities relating to Contracts Such debts, liabilities, obligations and claims arising out of any contracts made by such member subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange as shall have been admitted by the Governing Board and all amounts due or payable by the nominating or deceased member to the Trade Guarantee Fund.", "Allocation in Order of Priority 16.", "(1) When as provided in these Rules the Governing Board has exercised the right of nomination in respect of a membership vesting in the Exchange the consideration received therefor shall be applied to the following purposes and in the following order of priority, namely- Dues of Exchange and Clearing House first - the payment of such subscriptions, debts, fines, fees, charges and other monies as shall have been determined by the Governing Board to be due to the Exchange, to the Clearing House or to the Trade Guarantee Fund by the former member whose right of membership vests in the Exchange.", "Liabilities relating to Contracts second-the payment of such debts, liabilities, obligations and claims arising out of any contracts made by such former member subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange as shall have been admitted by the Governing Board: Provided that if the amount available be insufficient to pay and satisfy all such debts, liabilities, obligations and claims in full they shall be paid and satisfied pro rata, and Surplus third - the payment of the surplus, if any, to the funds of the Exchange: provided that the exchange in general meeting may at its absolute discretion direct that such surplus be disposed of or applied in such other manner as it may deem fit.", "The provisions of clause (1) of this Rule shall not apply in cases where the Governing Board has exercised the right of nomination in respect of a membership which has vested in the Exchange upon a member having been declared a defaulter on or subsequent to such date as the Governing Board may specify in this behalf.", "Application of Consideration 16A When the Governing Board has exercised the right of nomination in respect of a membership which has vested in the Exchange upon a member having been declared a defaulter on or subsequent to the date to be specified by the Governing Board as referred to in clause (2) of Rule 16, the consideration received therefor shall be paid by the Governing Board to the Defaulters Committee to be applied for the purposes and in the order of priority specified in the Bye-laws and the Regulations of the Exchange.", "We also quote hereinbelow Bye-law 400 of BSE, which reads as under: Application of Defaulters Assets and Other Amounts Subject to the provisions of Bye-law 398, the Defaulters Committee shall realise and apply all the money, rights and assets of the defaulter which have vested in or which have been received by the Defaulters Committee (other than the amount paid by the Governing Board to the Defaulters Committee pursuant to Rule 16A in respect of the consideration received by the Governing Board for exercising the right of nomination in respect of the defaulters erstwhile right of membership) and all other assets and money of the defaulter in the Exchange or the market including the money and securities receivable by him from any other member, money and securities of the defaulter lying with the Clearing House or the Exchange, credit balances lying in the Clearing House, security deposits, any bank guarantees furnished on behalf of the defaulter, fixed deposit receipts discharged or assigned to or in favour of the Exchange, Base Additional Capital deposited with the Exchange by the defaulter, any security created or agreed to be created by the defaulter or any other person in favour of the Exchange or the Defaulters Committee for the obligations of the defaulter to the following purposes and in the following order of priority , viz.:- First - to make any payments required to be made under Bye-law 391 and 394 Second - the payment of such subscriptions, debts, fines, fees, charges and other money as shall have been determined by the Defaulters Committee to be due to the Securities and Exchange Board of India, to the Exchange or to the Clearing House by the defaulter Third - the rectification or replacement of or compensation for any bad deliveries made by or on behalf of the defaulter to any other member in the settlement in which the defaulter has been declared a defaulter or in any prior or subsequent settlement (unless the Governing Board has otherwise determined in respect of such settlement or settlements under Bye-law 394) provided the conditions of Bye-law 153 and all other applicable Rules, Bye-Laws and Regulations and instruc- tions of the Governing Board are complied with Fourth - the balance, if any, shall be paid into the Fund to the extent of the money paid out of the Fund (other than payments made out of Members refundable contributions) and not recovered by the Fund and the interest payable by the defaulter to the Fund in respect thereof Fifth - the balance, if any, shall be paid into the Fund to the extent of the money paid out of the Fund out of the refundable contributions of members (other than the refundable contribution of the defaulter) and not recovered by the Fund and the interest payable by the defaulter to the Fund in respect thereof Sixth - subject to the Rules, Bye-Laws and Regulation of the Exchange, including in particular Bye-Law 343, the balance, if any, shall be applied by the Defaulters Committee for the payment of such unpaid outstandings, debts, liabilities, obligations and claims to or of members of the Exchange arising out of any contracts made by the defaulter with such members subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange as shall have been admitted by the Defaulters Committee provided that if the amount available be insufficient to pay and satisfy all such debts, liabilities, obligations and claims in full they shall be paid and satisfied pro rata Seventh - subject to the Rules, Bye-Laws and Regulation of the Exchange, including in particular Bye-Law 343, the balance, if any, shall be applied by the Defaulters Committee for the payment of such unpaid debts, liabilities, obligations and claims to or of the defaulters constituents arising out of any contracts made by such defaulter subject to the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations of the Exchange as shall have been admitted by the Governing Board provided that if the amount available be insufficient to pay and satisfy all such debts, liabilities, obligations and claims in full they shall be paid and satisfied pro rata Eighth - the balance, if any, shall be paid into the Exchanges Customers Protection Fund to the extent of any and all amounts paid out of the Customers Protection Fund towards the obligations or liabilities of the defaulter and interest thereon at the rate of 2.5 per month (or such other rate as the Governing Board may specify) from the date of payment out of the Customers Protection Fund to the date of repayment to the Fund and Ninth - the surplus, if any, shall be paid to the defaulter.", "Clarification: It is clarified that this Bye-law 400 does not apply to the amount paid by the Governing Board to the Defaulters Committee pursuant to Rule 16A in respect of the consideration received by the Governing Board for exercising the right of nomination in respect of the defaulters erstwhile right of membership as the same does not belong to the defaulter and the defaulter has no claim, right, title or interest therein.", "At the outset we wish to clarify that our present judgment is confined to the Rules and Bye-laws of BSE, as they stood during the relevant assessment years.", "Section 32 of the 1961 Act provides for a deduction of allowance being made in respect of depreciation of building, machinery, plant or furniture, being a tangible asset.", "Vide Finance (No.2) Act, 1998, the Parliament thought it fit to extend the benefit of depreciation also to intangible assets enumerated in Section 32(1)(ii) in respect of know-how, patents, copyrights, trade marks, licences, franchises or any other business or commercial rights of similar nature, being intangible assets acquired on or after 1st April, 1998.", "In the lead matter, the assessee bought the membership card of BSE for Rs. 95 lakhs.", "In the case of M section HDFC Securities Limited v. The Commissioner of Income Tax-4 (Civil Appeal arising out of SLP (C) Numbers 5656-5657 of 2010), the assessee bought the membership card of BSE for Rs. 2.80 crores.", "Appellant before us claims that the membership card enables him to trade on the floor of BSE and, consequently, it is a business or commercial right in the nature of a licence under Section 32(1)(ii).", "On the other hand, it is the case of the Department that membership is a personal privilege that it is not an asset that it is not owned by the assessee, therefore, the claim of the assessee for depreciation was not admissible under Section 32(1)(ii).", "To decide the above controversy, we need to examine the Rules of BSE.", "Rule 5, quoted above, states that membership shall constitute a personal permission from the Exchange to exercise the rights and privileges attached thereto.", "Rule 6 inter alia states that membership shall not be alienable.", "Rule 7 confers right of nomination on the member of the Exchange.", "However, that Rule clarifies that although a member has a right of nomination, such right shall be personal and non-transferable.", "Rule 9 inter alia states that on the demise or default of a member the said right of nomination shall cease and vest in the Exchange.", "Rule 10 refers to forfeited or lapsed right of membership.", "It inter alia states that when a right of membership is forfeited to or when such right vests in the Exchange under any Rule or Bye-law, it shall belong absolutely to the Exchange free of all rights, claims or interests of such member or any person claiming through such member and the Governing Board alone shall be entitled to deal with or dispose of such right of membership as it may think fit.", "Rule 15 inter alia states that the Governing Board shall not approve a nomination unless the nominating member or in the case of a deceased member his legal representatives satisfy in full all dues of the Exchange all liabilities relating to contracts and all amounts due and payable to the Trade Guarantee Fund.", "Rule 16 deals with allocation in the Order of Priority.", "It inter alia states that when the Board has exercised the right of nomination in respect of a membership vesting in the Exchange the consideration received thereof shall be applied to the specified purposes.", "On reading Rules 5 to 10 it becomes clear that the right of nomination is conferred on the member of the Exchange that, the said right shall cease and vest in the Exchange when his membership gets forfeited to the Exchange that on such forfeiture the right of membership gets vested in the Exchange and on such vesting the Exchange has the right to deal with it as it may think fit.", "That, on forfeiture even the right of nomination vests in the Exchange.", "Thus, a non-defaulting continuing member owns the right of nomination with respect to the membership of the Exchange till his right of membership is forfeited to the Exchange.", "The question which we are required to examine is - whether the right of nomination in the non-defaulting continuing member comes within the expression business or commercial right of similar nature in Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act? On the analysis of the Rules of BSE, it is clear that the right of membership (including right of nomination) gets vested in the Exchange on the demise/ default committed by the member that, on such forfeiture and vesting in the Exchange the same gets disposed of by inviting offers and the consideration received thereof is used to liquidate the dues owed by the former defaulting member to the Exchange, Clearing House, etc.", "see Rule 16 and Bye-law 400.", "It is this right of membership which allows the non-defaulting member to participate in the trading session on the floor of the Exchange.", "Thus, the said membership right is a business or commercial right conferred by the Rules of BSE on the non-defaulting continuing member.", "The next question is - whether the membership right could be said to be owned by the assessee and used for the business purpose in terms of Section 32(1)(ii).", "Our answer is in the affirmative for the reason that the Rules and the Bye-laws analysed hereinabove indicate that the right of membership (including the right of nomination) vests in the Exchange only when a member commits default.", "Otherwise, he continues to participate in the trading session on the floor of the Exchange that he continues to deal with other members of the Exchange and even has the right to nominate subject to compliance of the Rules.", "Moreover, by virtue of Explanation 3 to Section 32(1)(ii) the commercial or business right which is similar to a licence or franchise is declared to be an intangible asset.", "Moreover, under Rule 5 membership is a personal permission from the Exchange which is nothing but a licence which enables the member to exercise rights and privileges attached thereto.", "It is this licence which enables the member to trade on the floor of the Exchange and to participate in the trading session on the floor of the Exchange.", "It is this licence which enables the member to access the market.", "Therefore, the right of membership, which includes right of nomination, is a licence or akin to a licence which is one of the items which falls in Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act.", "The right to participate in the market has an economic and money value.", "It is an expense incurred by the assessee which satisfies the test of being a licence or any other business or commercial right of similar nature in terms of Section 32(1)(ii).", "Since heavy reliance is placed by the Department on the judgments of this Court in the following cases, we need to discuss those judgments and clarify the position in law: Vinay Bubna v. Stock Exchange, Mumbai (1999) 6 SCC 215 Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad v. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax (2001) 248 ITR 209 In the case of Vinay Bubna (supra), one Yogesh Mehta who was a member of BSE was declared a defaulter by the Exchange.", "An amount of Rs. 21.81 crores was due and payable by the defaulter to Vinay Bubna who had moved the Bombay High Court by way of an arbitration petition against Yogesh Mehta (defaulter).", "In the said proceedings, an application was filed for appointing a court receiver.", "The High Court did not grant to Vinay Bubna any relief in respect of the membership card of the defaulter - member.", "In the said proceedings, Rule 16 was challenged on the ground that membership of BSE was an asset of the share-broker and on its sale from the proceedings thereof payment should be made to creditors like Vinay Bubna and proceeds should not be allowed to be distributed by BSE in the manner indicated by Rule 16.", "On behalf of the Stock Exchange, it was submitted that after respondent Number 3, Yogesh Mehta stood declared to be a defaulter he ceased to be the member of the Stock Exchange whereupon his rights of membership vested in the Exchange free of all rights, claims and interests and, therefore, the Exchange was at liberty to invite applications from other persons and to admit anyone who offers to pay the highest amount.", "It was argued that the said proceeds so received did not belong to the ex-member and the order of priority contained in Rule 16 was just and fair and was not illegal, wrong or arbitrary.", "The contention of the Stock Exchange was accepted by this Court observing that when the defaulting member is expelled from the Exchange no interest in his membership card remains in himself and none can pass to his assignee.", "It was held that once the membership ceases to be an asset of the share-broker the question of Rule 16 being contrary to the insolvency law does not arise.", "In our view, the judgment in Vinay Bubnas case supports our reasoning in this case.", "The judgment in Vinay Bubnas case clearly indicates that it was a case dealing with the rights of a defaulting non- continuing member.", "The judgment in Vinay Bubnas case clearly indicates that membership card is an asset of a non-defaulting continuing member.", "However, the membership card ceases to be an asset only when the member commits a default in which event the card vests in the Exchange free from all encumbrances and once it so vests in the Exchange then the Exchange is free to allocate the consideration in the order of priority indicated by Rule 16.", "In the case of Stock Exchange, Ahmedabad (supra), the question which arose for determination was whether after the demise of a stock-broker could he be declared a defaulter by the Exchange? In that case the facts were as follows.", "Ahmedabad Stock Exchange (ASE) admitted Rajesh Shah as its member on 19th February, 1988.", "He died on 7th February, 1994.", "On February 12, 1994, his legal representatives wrote to the Stock Exchange that they were unable to meet the liabilities of the deceased.", "Thereafter, the Governing Board of ASE passed a resolution on 12th February, 1994 declaring Rajesh Shah, the deceased member, as a deemed defaulter.", "By the said resolution, the Board resolved that the membership rights of the deceased member who was declared to be a deemed defaulter should vest in the Stock Exchange and the said membership rights be disposed of by inviting offers within a minimum floor price of Rs. 25 lakhs.", "It is the said declaration dated 12th February, 1994 by which Rajesh Shah was declared to be a deemed defaulter came to be challenged.", "Another interesting fact which needs to be mentioned was that on 15th February, 1994 a provisional attachment order was passed under Section 281B of the 1961 Act in respect of the membership card in the name of Rajesh Shah.", "On 16th February, 1994, the Stock Exchange issued advertisement inviting claims from member creditors to lodge their claims within 30 days.", "They invited offers for purchase of membership also within the minimum floor price of Rs. 25 lakhs.", "On 5th December, 1994, ASE passed a resolution disposing of the membership right of the deceased in favour of UTI Security Limited for Rs. 27 lakhs.", "However, a garnishee notice was issued by the Department under Section 226(3) of the 1961 Act in the sum of Rs. 12.25 lakhs.", "That notice was addressed to the Executive Director of the Stock Exchange by the Department.", "Under the said circumstances, ASE filed a writ petition in the High Court challenging the orders of provisional attachment as well as the garnishee notice.", "The question for determination which arose in the said judgment was as to the nature of the rights of the deceased or his legal representatives in the membership card.", "It was held by this Court, after examining the Rules and the Bye-laws, that the right of nomination which earlier vested in Rajesh Shah stood vested in the Exchange under the Rules when he committed default.", "On default, that right vested in the Stock Exchange absolutely and, therefore, the consideration received by the Stock Exchange of Rs. 27 lakhs from UTI Security Limited could not be attached by the Income Tax Department because on vesting, such right of nomination belonged to the Exchange absolutely.", "For the afore-stated reasons, we are of the view that both the afore-stated judgments support the reasoning given by us hereinabove.", "Before concluding, we wish to clarify that our present judgment is strictly confined to the right of membership conferred upon the member under the BSE membership card during the relevant assessment years.", "We hold that the said right of membership is a business or commercial right which gives a non-defaulting continuing member a right to access the Exchange and to participate therein and in that sense it is a licence or akin to licence in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act.", "That, such a right vests in the Exchange only on default/ demise in terms of the Rules and Bye-laws of BSE, as they stood at the relevant time.", "Our judgment should not be understood to mean that every business or commercial right would constitute a licence or a franchise in terms of Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act.", "Conclusion We answer the question at page 6 in the affirmative by holding that on the facts and circumstances of these cases the Tribunal was right in holding that depreciation was allowable on the cost of the membership card under Section 32(1)(ii) of the 1961 Act.", "Accordingly, the impugned judgment(s) of the Bombay High Court is set aside and the appeal(s) filed by the nominated non-defaulting continuing member stands allowed with no order as to costs.", "CJI H. Kapadia) J. section Radhakrishnan) New Delhi September 09, 2010"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2010_170", "text": ["section SIRPURKAR, J. Leave granted.", "The only question in this appeal which has been filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-III is as to whether the respondent-assessee is liable to pay the penalty amounting to Rs.11,37,949/- under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) ordered by the Assessing Authority.", "The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), however, deleted the said penalty.", "The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was appealed against before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to the Tribunal) which confirmed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue.", "However, the Revenue challenged the said order before the High Court which confirmed the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal while dismissing the Tax Appeal filed by the Revenue.", "Few facts would be relevant.", "The assessee is a company and the relevant Assessment Year is 2001-02.", "The Return was filed on 31.1.2001 declaring loss of Rs.26,54,554/-.", "This assessment was finalized under Section 143(3) of the Act on 25.11.2003 whereby the total income was determined at Rs.2,22,688/-.", "In this assessment the addition in respect of interest expenditure was made.", "Simultaneously penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated on account of concealment of income furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.", "The said expenditure was claimed by the assessee on the basis of expenditure made for paying the interest on the loans incurred by it by which amount the assessee purchased some IPL shares by way of its business policies.", "However, admittedly, the assessee did not earn any income by way of dividend from those shares.", "The company in its Return claimed disallowance of the amount of expenditure for Rs.28,77,242/- under Section 14A of the Act.", "By way of response to the Show Cause Notice regarding the penalty in its reply dated 22.3.2006, the assessee claimed that all the details given in the Return were correct, there was no concealment of income, nor were any inaccurate particulars of such income furnished.", "It was pointed out that the disallowance made by the Assessing Authority in the Assessment Order under Section 143(3) of the Act were solely on account of different views taken on the same set of facts and, therefore, they could, at the most, be termed as difference of opinion but nothing to do with the concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.", "It was claimed that mere disallowance of the claim in the assessment proceedings could not be the sole basis for levying penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "It was submitted specifically that it was an investment company and in its own case for Assessment Year 2000-01 the Commissioner (Appeals) had deleted the disallowance of interest made by the Assessment Officer and the Tribunal has also confirmed the stand of the Commissioner (Appeals) for that year and, therefore, it was on the basis of this that the expenditure was claimed.", "It was further submitted that making a claim which is rejected would not make the assessee company liable under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "It was again reiterated that there was absolutely no concealment, nor were any inaccurate particular ever submitted by the assessee-company.", "Shri Bhattacharya, Learned ASG submits that Commissioner (Appeals), the Tribunal as well as the High Court have ignored the positive language of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "He pointed out that the claim of the interest expenditure was totally without legal basis and was made with the malafide intentions.", "It was further pointed out that the claim made for the interest expenditure was not accepted by the Assessing Authority nor by the Commissioner (Appeals) and, therefore, it was obvious that the claim for the interest expenditure did not have any basis.", "He further pointed out that the contention about the earlier claims being finalized was also not correct as the appeal was pending before the High Court against the order of the Tribunal for the year 2000-01.", "According to the Learned ASG, even otherwise, the expenditure on interest could not have been claimed in law, as under Section 36(1)(iii), only the amount of interest paid in respect of capital borrowed for the purposes of the business or profession could have been claimed and it was clear that the interest in the present case was not in respect of the capital borrowed.", "Our attention was also invited to Section 14A of the Act, which provides that no deduction could be allowed in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.", "The Learned ASG also invited our attention to provision of Section 10(33) to show that the income arising from the transfer of a capital asset could not be reckoned as an income which can form the part of the total income.", "In short, the contention was that the assessee in this case had made a claim which was totally unacceptable in law and thereby had invited the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act and had, therefore, exposed itself to the penalty under that provision.", "As against this, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent pointed out that the language of Section 271(1)(c) had to be strictly construed, this being a taxing statute and more particularly the one providing for penalty.", "It was pointed out that unless the wording directly covered the assessee and the fact situation herein, there could not be any penalty under the Act.", "It was pointed out that there was no concealment or any inaccurate particulars regarding the income were submitted in the Return.", "Section 271(1)(c) is as under:- 271(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person- (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.", "A glance at this provision would suggest that in order to be covered, there has to be concealment of the particulars of the income of the assessee.", "Secondly, the assessee must have furnished inaccurate particulars of his income.", "Present is not the case of concealment of the income.", "That is not the case of the Revenue either.", "However, the Learned Counsel for Revenue suggested that by making incorrect claim for the expenditure on interest, the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars of the income.", "As per Law Lexicon, the meaning of the word particular is a detail or details (in plural sense) the details of a claim, or the separate items of an account.", "Therefore, the word particulars used in the Section 271(1)(c) would embrace the meaning of the details of the claim made.", "It is an admitted position in the present case that no information given in the Return was found to be incorrect or inaccurate.", "It is not as if any statement made or any detail supplied was found to be factually incorrect.", "Hence, at least, prima facie, the assessee cannot be held guilty of furnishing inaccurate particulars.", "The Learned Counsel argued that submitting an incorrect claim in law for the expenditure on interest would amount to giving inaccurate particulars of such income.", "We do not think that such can be the interpretation of the concerned words.", "The words are plain and simple.", "In order to expose the assessee to the penalty unless the case is strictly covered by the provision, the penalty provision cannot be invoked.", "By any stretch of imagination, making an incorrect claim in law cannot tantamount to furnishing inaccurate particulars.", "In Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi Vs.", "Atul Mohan Bindal 2009(9) SCC 589, where this Court was considering the same provision, the Court observed that the Assessing Officer has to be satisfied that a person has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.", "This Court referred to another decision of this Court in Union of India Vs.", "Dharamendra Textile Processors 2008(13) SCC 369, as also, the decision in Union of India Vs.", "Rajasthan Spg.", "Mills 2009(13) SCC 448 and reiterated in para 13 that:- It goes without saying that for applicability of Section 271(1)(c), conditions stated therein must exist.", "Therefore, it is obvious that it must be shown that the conditions under Section 271(1)(c) must exist before the penalty is imposed.", "There can be no dispute that everything would depend upon the Return filed because that is the only document, where the assessee can furnish the particulars of his income.", "When such particulars are found to be inaccurate, the liability would arise.", "In Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr.", "2007(6) SCC 329, this Court explained the terms concealment of income and furnishing inaccurate particulars.", "The Court went on to hold therein that in order to attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c), mens rea was necessary, as according to the Court, the word inaccurate signified a deliberate act or omission on behalf of the assessee.", "It went on to hold that Clause (iii) of Section 271(1) provided for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the Assessing Authority, inasmuch as the amount of penalty could not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of income, but it may not exceed three times thereof.", "It was pointed out that the term inaccurate particulars was not defined anywhere in the Act and, therefore, it was held that furnishing of an assessment of the value of the property may not by itself be furnishing inaccurate particulars.", "It was further held that the assessee must be found to have failed to prove that his explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his income were not disclosed by him.", "It was then held that the explanation must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner, the assessee had furnished the particulars of his income.", "The Court ultimately went on to hold that the element of mens rea was essential.", "It was only on the point of mens rea that the judgment in Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr. was upset.", "In Union of India Vs.", "Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), after quoting from Section 271 extensively and also considering Section 271(1)(c), the Court came to the conclusion that since Section 271(1)(c) indicated the element of strict liability on the assessee for the concealment or for giving inaccurate particulars while filing Return, there was no necessity of mens rea.", "The Court went on to hold that the objective behind enactment of Section 271(1)(c) read with Explanations indicated with the said Section was for providing remedy for loss of revenue and such a penalty was a civil liability and, therefore, willful concealment is not an essential ingredient for attracting civil liability as was the case in the matter of prosecution under Section 276-C of the Act.", "The basic reason why decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr.", "(cited supra) was overruled by this Court in Union of India Vs.", "Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), was that according to this Court the effect and difference between Section 271(1)(c) and Section 276-C of the Act was lost sight of in case of Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr.", "(cited supra).", "However, it must be pointed out that in Union of India Vs.", "Dharamendra Textile Processors (cited supra), no fault was found with the reasoning in the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr.", "(cited supra), where the Court explained the meaning of the terms conceal and inaccurate.", "It was only the ultimate inference in Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr.", "(cited supra) to the effect that mens rea was an essential ingredient for the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) that the decision in Dilip N. Shroff Vs.", "Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai Anr.", "(cited supra) was overruled.", "We are not concerned in the present case with the mens rea.", "However, we have to only see as to whether in this case, as a matter of fact, the assessee has given inaccurate particulars.", "In Websters Dictionary, the word inaccurate has been defined as:- not accurate, not exact or correct not according to truth erroneous as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript.", "We have already seen the meaning of the word particulars in the earlier part of this judgment.", "Reading the words in conjunction, they must mean the details supplied in the Return, which are not accurate, not exact or correct, not according to truth or erroneous.", "We must hasten to add here that in this case, there is no finding that any details supplied by the assessee in its Return were found to be incorrect or erroneous or false.", "Such not being the case, there would be no question of inviting the penalty under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "A mere making of the claim, which is not sustainable in law, by itself, will not amount to furnishing inaccurate particulars regarding the income of the assessee.", "Such claim made in the Return cannot amount to the inaccurate particulars.", "It was tried to be suggested that Section 14A of the Act specifically excluded the deductions in respect of the expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act.", "It was further pointed out that the dividends from the shares did not form the part of the total income.", "It was, therefore, reiterated before us that the Assessing Officer had correctly reached the conclusion that since the assessee had claimed excessive deductions knowing that they are incorrect it amounted to concealment of income.", "It was tried to be argued that the falsehood in accounts can take either of the two forms (i) an item of receipt may be suppressed fraudulently (ii) an item of expenditure may be falsely (or in an exaggerated amount) claimed, and both types attempt to reduce the taxable income and, therefore, both types amount to concealment of particulars of ones income as well as furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.", "We do not agree, as the assessee had furnished all the details of its expenditure as well as income in its Return, which details, in themselves, were not found to be inaccurate nor could be viewed as the concealment of income on its part.", "It was up to the authorities to accept its claim in the Return or not.", "Merely because the assessee had claimed the expenditure, which claim was not accepted or was not acceptable to the Revenue, that by itself would not, in our opinion, attract the penalty under Section 271(1)(c).", "If we accept the contention of the Revenue then in case of every Return where the claim made is not accepted by Assessing Officer for any reason, the assessee will invite penalty under Section 271(1)(c).", "That is clearly not the intendment of the Legislature.", "In this behalf the observations of this Court made in Sree Krishna Electricals v. State of Tamil Nadu Anr.", "(2009) 23VST 249 (SC) as regards the penalty are apposite.", "In the aforementioned decision which pertained to the penalty proceedings in Tamil Nadu General Sales Tax Act, the Court had found that the authorities below had found that there were some incorrect statements made in the Return.", "However, the said transactions were reflected in the accounts of the assessee.", "This Court, therefore, observed: So far as the question of penalty is concerned the items which were not included in the turnover were found incorporated in the appellants account books.", "Where certain items which are not included in the turnover are disclosed in the dealers own account books and the assessing authorities include these items in the dealers turnover disallowing the exemption, penalty cannot be imposed.", "The penalty levied stands set aside.", "The situation in the present case is still better as no fault has been found with the particulars submitted by the assessee in its Return.", "The Tribunal, as well as, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the High Court have correctly reached this conclusion and, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue has no merits and is dismissed.", "J. section Sirpurkar) J. (Dr. Mukundakam Sharma) New Delhi March 17, 2010.", "Digital Performa Case Number : Civil Appeal No of 2010 (Arising out of SLP(C) Number 27161 of 2008) Date of Decision : 17.03.2010 Cause Title : C.I.T., Ahmedabad Versus Reliance Petroproducts Pvt.", "Limited Coram : Honble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Honble Dr. Justice Mukundakam Sharma A.V. On : 09.02.2010 Judgment delivered by : Honble Mr. Justice V.S. Sirpurkar Nature of Order : Reportable"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentOverruled", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2010_404", "text": ["H. KAPADIA, CJI.", "Delay condoned.", "Leave granted.", "Whether the loss arising in the course of dividend stripping transaction taking place prior to 1.4.2002 was disallowable on the ground that such loss was artificial as the dividend stripping transaction was not a business transaction, is the question which arises for determination in this batch of Civil Appeals the lead matter of which is C.I.T., Mumbai v. M section Walfort Share Stock Brokers Pvt.", "Limited The facts in the lead matter are as follows: The assessee is a member of Bombay Stock Exchange and it earns income mainly from share trading and brokerage.", "During the financial year 1999-2000, relevant to the assessment year 2000-01, the Chola Freedom Technology Mutual Fund came out with an advertisement stating that tax free dividend income of 40 could be earned if investments were made before the record date, i.e., 24.3.2000.", "The assessee by virtue of its purchase on 24.3.2000 became entitled to the dividend on the units at the rate of Rs. 4/- per unit and earned a dividend of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80.", "As a result of the dividend payout, the NAV of the said mutual fund which was Rs. 17.23 per unit on 24.3.2000, at which rate it was purchased, stood reduced to Rs. 13.23 per unit on 27.3.2000, which was the succeeding working day in the stock exchange.", "This fall in the NAV was equal to the amount of the dividend payout.", "The assessee sold all the units on 27.3.2000 at the NAV of Rs. 13.23 per unit and collected an amount of Rs. 5,90,55,207.75.", "The assessee also received an incentive of Rs. 23,76,778/- in respect of the said transaction.", "Thus, the assessee thereby received back Rs. 7,96,44,847 (Rs. 1,82,12,862.80 Rs. 5,90,55,207.75 Rs. 23,76,778) against the initial payout of Rs. 8,00,00,000/-.", "For the income tax purposes, the assessee, in its return, claimed the dividend received of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80 as exempt from tax under Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act for short) and also claimed a set-off of Rs. 2,09,44,793 as loss incurred on the sale of the units thereby seeking to reduce its overall tax liability.", "The AO in his assessment order dated 21.3.2003 accepted that the dividend income amounting to Rs. 1,82,12,862.80 was exempt under Section 10(33) of the Act.", "However, the AO disallowed the loss of Rs. 2,09,44,793 claimed by the assessee inter alia on the ground that a dividend stripping transaction was not a business transaction and since such a transaction was primarily for the purpose of tax avoidance, the loss so- called was an artificial loss created by a pre-designed set of transaction.", "Accordingly, the AO deducted the incentive income of Rs. 23,76,778 received by the assessee transaction charges from the loss of Rs. 2,09,44,793 and added back the reduced loss of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80 to the repurchase price redemption value amounting to Rs. 5,90,55,207.75.", "(See page 77 of the SLP Paper Book) Being aggrieved by the disallowance of the reduced loss of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80, the assessee filed an appeal before CIT(A) who by his order dated 12.12.2003 confirmed the order of the AO saying that the loss of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80 incurred by the assessee on the sale of units should be totally ignored and that the same should not be allowed to be set-off or carried forward.", "Thus, the Department disallowed the reduced loss of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80 which amount was equal to the dividend, on the units declared by the mutual fund, of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80.", "In other words, by the impugned orders passed by the AO, the Department sought to tax the dividend income of the assessee during the relevant assessment year of Rs. 1,82,12,862.80.", "To complete the chronology of events, it may be stated that the assessee moved the tribunal against the order dated 12.12.2003.", "The disallowance stood deleted by the Special Bench of the Tribunal vide its impugned order dated 15.7.2005 by holding that the assessee was entitled to set-off the said loss from the impugned transactions against its other income chargeable to tax.", "This view of the tribunal has been affirmed by the High Court vide its impugned judgment dated 8.8.2008, hence this civil appeal.", "According to Shri Parag P. Tripathi, learned Additional Solicitor General and Shri Preetesh Kapur, learned counsel for the Department, the amount received by the assessee as dividend, in fact and in law, constitutes a return of investment in the hands of the assessee and, therefore, it follows that the said amount is required to be adjusted against the cost of purchase of the original units and once that is done there is in fact no loss suffered by the assessee on subsequent sale redemption.", "Alternatively, if the so-called dividend did not constitute a return of investment, then since the price of units necessarily included the price of dividend as an identifiable element embedded therein to which a definite value could be assigned at the time of the purchase, the dividend is in effect paid for.", "In such circumstances that part of the price of units which clearly represented the cost of the dividend, is the expenditure incurred for obtaining exempt income and if that is the case then Section 14A requires that such expenditure should be netted against the receipt of dividend.", "Before us, it was also submitted that in any event loss is a commercial concept under the Act, if a transaction is such that a tax loss is created or contrived without suffering any corresponding financial commercial loss inasmuch as the money has in fact been recouped in some other form (such as dividend), then such a loss needs to be ignored for tax purposes, only to the extent that the loss has in fact been recouped in another form.", "This is because such a loss, not being a commercial loss, was never intended to be allowed under the Act.", "As a corollary, it was submitted that introduction of Section 94(7) prospectively w.e.f.", "1.4.2002 does not obliterate the aforementioned last submission since a prospective amendment, by its very definition, did not alter the existing law in respect of the past transactions.", "Moreover, Section 94(7) specifically adopts the above principle of tax avoidance and modifies it for the purpose of dealing with what is called as dividend stripping transactions.", "On facts it was submitted that the assessee had the option to buy three different kinds of assets.", "Option was available to the assessee to buy either the unit (ex-dividend) or the unit and the dividend (cum- dividend) or only the dividend.", "As far as the first two assets, there was no issue.", "If an assessee wanted to buy a unit after declaration of the dividend, then he can buy the ex-dividend unit as soon as possible after the record date so that he pays only for the NAV relatable to ex-dividend unit, after declaration of the dividend, without being affected by market fluctuations.", "Similarly, if an assessee wants to buy an asset consisting of the dividend and the unit, he can buy cum- dividend unit at any point of time after the declaration of the dividend but before the record date.", "According to the Department, the problem arises in cases where an assessee is desirous of buying only the dividend.", "In order to do so, he buys the cum-dividend unit, after declaration of dividend but as close as possible to the record date (so as to isolate himself from market fluctuations), whereby he becomes entitled to receive the dividend payout on the record date and immediately after the record date is able to sell the ex-dividend unit.", "Consequently, by a series of fiscal transactions, the assessee ends up buying the dividend.", "Therefore, if x is the price expenditure associated with the purchase of dividend, y is the price expenditure associated with the unit without dividend then, x y would be the price of cum-dividend unit.", "Then price may be called z in which event, the equation is: x y z There is no dispute as to the identity of z, which is the price expenditure for purchasing cum- dividend unit, i.e., Rs. 17.23.", "In that event, y would represent the sale price of ex-dividend unit, i.e., Rs. 13.23.", "Thus, x can be found by the simple mathematical formula: x z - y x is equal to Rs. 17.23 (z) - Rs. 13.23 (y) Rs. 4 According to the Department, therefore, in the present case, Rs. 4 will be expenditure, attributable towards earning tax free dividend income which is disallowable under Section 14A of the Act.", "That, the newspaper advertisements issued by the Mutual Fund in the present case as on March 8, March 18 and March 22 amounted to an offer by Mutual Fund to the target buyers, i.e., a buyer who wants to claim losses in the trade of shares and securities so as to set it off against his other income.", "The effect of the newspaper advertisements is to segregate the unit into two assets, namely, the asset of the tax free dividend and the ex- dividend unit which will have an NAV reduced by the amount of the dividend payout per unit.", "Since there are two assets which are sold to the buyer of the cum- dividend units, it follows that the difference between the purchase and sale price of the unit, is nothing but the expenditure incurred for purchasing the asset of tax free dividend.", "In this connection, reliance is placed on the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the Finance Bill of 2001 reported in 248 ITR 195 (St.).", "In conclusion, it was submitted before us that the tax free dividend income was really in essence a cost recovery mechanism which finds an independent support in Accounting Standard Number 13, i.e., to the effect that such a return should go to reduce the cost of acquisition as such a return is really a return of investment and not return on investment.", "On behalf of assessee(s), Shri S.E. Dastur, learned senior counsel, Shri Ajay Vohra, learned counsel and Shri O.S. Bajpai, learned senior counsel, submitted that the basic submission of the Department to the effect that the amount received by the assessee as dividend, in fact and in law, constitutes return of investment is fallacious for several reasons.", "Firstly, the question whether an amount is a cost return depends on the terms of the contract.", "Secondly, the argument of the Department runs counter to Section 94(7).", "That sub-section clearly accepts that payment by way of dividend is a revenue receipt but it is exempt from tax under Section 10(33).", "According to the assessee, if the argument of the Department is to be accepted that the amount represents return of investment then it would constitute a capital receipt and not a revenue receipt.", "Thirdly, if the dividend of Rs. 4 per unit is treated as expenditure covered by Section 14A and not as dividend as required by Section 94(7), it would mean that for the assessment years 2000- 01 and 2001-02 the assessee would be in a worse position because for the relevant assessment years based on the fiscality principle the entire loss of Rs. 1,85,68,015 would be disallowed whereas for the subsequent years after insertion of Section 94(7) w.e.f. 1.4.2002 only loss to the extent of the dividend amounting to Rs. 1,82,12,862 would stand disallowed leaving Rs. 3,55,153/- as loss allowable.", "That was never the intention of the Parliament for inserting Section 94(7).", "The said sub-section was not intended to be beneficial.", "Fourthly, the fact that Section 94(7) allows loss in excess of dividend means that it accepts that the transaction is genuine and in course of business.", "If the transaction was a nullity, the entire loss would have been disallowed and not only to the extent of the dividend.", "Moreover, if losses could be disallowed on fiscality first principles then Section 94(7) is redundant.", "Fifthly, Section 14A is enacted for non- deduction of expenditure whereas Section 94(7) is enacted to curb creation of short-term losses.", "Lastly, there is nothing to show that the NAV fell on the next trading date after the record date on account of the dividend payout.", "In this connection, it was submitted that fall or increase in NAV depended upon the value of the underlying assets and not on the basis of the dividend payout.", "On interpretation of Sections 14A and 94(7) it was submitted that Section 14A deals with expenditure in relation to income whereas Section 94(7) deals with acquisition and sale of securities or units and provides for a consequence where the purchase and sale take place within a specified time period.", "Each provision operates in its own field.", "When Section 14A refers to disallowance of expenditure in relation to non-taxable income for computing the total income, what is meant is that such expenditure should be taken into account only for determining the quantum of the non- taxable income.", "This would result in the exempt dividend being reduced by the alleged expenditure.", "The only impact on the exempting provision of Section 10(33) for unit income is by Section 94(7) and one cannot interpret Section 14A as leading to the same conclusion as then Section 94(7) will be rendered nugatory.", "In other words, the two provisions operate in different time and space zones.", "In support of the above contention, the assessee (s) has relied on the Memorandum as well as Circular Number 14 which clearly states that losses referred to in Section 94(7) are allowable from the assessment year 2002-03 subject to reduction of the actual computed loss to the extent of the dividend.", "If Section 14A is also to apply simultaneously then Section 94(7) will become nugatory.", "Whereas Section 14A applies to expenditure incurred to earn tax free income from the inception of the Act, Section 94(7) seeks to reduce the quantum of the loss with reference to the dividend earned from the assessment year 2002-03.", "The two terms expenditure and loss are conceptually different.", "Section 94(7) is a provision to set at naught avoidance of tax.", "If Sections 14A and 94(7) are applied to the same transaction, it will result in Section 94(7) being a tax levying provision and not an avoidance of tax provision.", "The effect of accepting the submission of the Department is that in the present case the sum of Rs. 1,82,12,862 would have to be considered twice, once, by way of expenditure to earn the dividend income and the second time by way of ignoring the loss to the extent it does not exceed the dividend income of Rs. 1,82,12,862.", "According to the assessee (s), the embargo in Section 14A on the deductibility of expenditure applies where admittedly an expenditure has been incurred and a deduction is claimed specifically in respect thereof.", "In this connection, reliance was placed on the word allowed in the said Section.", "In the present case, the assessee (s) has not made any claim for deduction of Rs. 1,82,12,862 and, therefore, the question of the said sum being disallowed did not arise.", "On the other hand, Section 94(7) proceeds on the footing that the entire dividend income falls within Section 10(33) and the only adjustment is that the loss which has arisen and would otherwise be allowable shall be ignored to the extent it does not exceed the Section 10(33) income.", "Therefore, according to the assessee (s), in applying Section 94(7) there is no question of making a deduction at the stage of Section 14A as suggested by the learned Solicitor General Shri Gopal Subramanium.", "According to the assessee (s), under Section 94(7) the dividend should go to reduce the loss already worked out which implies that the loss is more than the dividend income because it is only then that the question of reducing the loss to some extent would arise.", "In this connection, the assessee(s) submitted that for the assessment year 2002-03 the loss was Rs. 1,85,68,015 which exceeded the dividend of Rs. 1,82,12,862 and, therefore, the loss allowable applying Section 94(7) stood at Rs. 3,55,153.", "Therefore, in order to reconcile Section 14A with Section 94(7) it was suggested on behalf of the assessee(s) that Section 14A should be confined to a case where there is expenditure on earning tax free income but where there is no acquisition of an asset and Section 94(7) should be confined to a case where there is acquisition of an asset thereby indicating a distinction between a claim for deduction of an expenditure and a claim for allowance of a business loss.", "Section 14A deals with disallowance of expenditure per se and not with a disallowance of a loss which arises at a point of time subsequent to the purchase of units and the receipt of exempt income and occurring only when there is a sale of the purchased units.", "Section 14A is not concerned with a purchase and subsequent sale of an asset which is dealt with in Section 94(7) alone.", "In other words, Section 14A does not apply to the case of a claim for set off of a loss which is dealt with only in Section 94(7) and that too from assessment year 2002-03.", "Section 14A was inserted to meet cases where deductions have been claimed in respect of expenditure for earning exempt income like dividend income and the said Section was never intended and does not apply to the case of a claim for set off of a loss which as stated above is dealt with in Section 94(7) alone and that too with effect from the assessment year 2002-03.", "Thus, whereas Section 14A was designed to overcome the problem created by certain decisions of this Court in Rajasthan State Warehousing Corporation v. Commissioner of Income- Tax 242 ITR 450 and in the case of Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras v. Indian Bank Limited 56 ITR 77, Section 94(7) had no such object.", "The two, therefore, operate in different fields and they have different objects and because the two provisions operated in two different fact situations Section 14A was made effective from assessment year 1962-63 whereas Section 94(7) is made effective from the assessment year 2002-03.", "Thus, the Parliament has treated both the sections as dealing with separate circumstances and, therefore, one must confine Section 14A to expenditure of the type referred to in Sections 30 to 43B of the Act which relates to expenditure which does not result in acquisition of an asset.", "It is clear that where the asset so acquired is sold and results in a loss Section 94(7) steps in.", "According to the learned Solicitor General of India, Section 14A was inserted by Finance Act 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962.", "According to him, the fundamental principle underlying Section 14A is that income which is not taxable or exempt falls in a separate stream distinct from income taxable under the Act.", "That, expenditure which is incurred in relation to income subject to tax would be admissible under Sections 30 to 43B whereas expenditure incurred to earn exempt income would be extraneous in the computation of taxable income under the Act.", "Thus, only that expenditure is deductible which is incurred in relation to business or profession.", "Expenditure producing non-taxable income would not be permitted to be claimed as admissible expenditure.", "Thus, in all cases where the assessee has some exempt income, his total expenditure has got to be apportioned between taxable income and exempt income and the latter would have to be disallowed.", "The only event that triggers Section 14A is that the assessee has both taxable and exempt income and, therefore, one need not go by the two asset theory.", "According to the learned SGI, Section 14A is not concerned with whether the assessee makes a profit or a loss.", "According to the learned SGI, application of Section 94(7) will not rule out Section 14A. It was submitted that both the provisions can apply simultaneously.", "In this connection, it was urged that in the first stage Section 14A can be applied to determine the expenditure to be excluded.", "After excluding such expenditure from the cost of purchase, what remains may be called as adjusted purchase cost.", "If units are bought and sold within 3/9 months period, then, the adjusted purchase cost must be deducted from the sale.", "If this leads to a profit then Section 94(7) will not apply.", "However, if there is a loss, such loss will have to be ignored to the extent of the dividend received.", "This was the suggested mode for reconciling Section 14A with Section 94(7) by the learned SGI, which according to the assessee(s) would result in double counting of the dividend amount of Rs. 1,82,12,862, one as dividend and the other as a loss.", "In this batch of cases, we are required to decide three distinct points which are as follows: Whether return of investment or cost recovery would fall within the expression expenditure incurred in Section 14A? Impact of Section 94(7) w.e.f. 1.4.2002 on the impugned transactions.", "Reconciliation of Section 14A with Section 94(7) of the Act.", "To answer the above, we need to reproduce hereinbelow Sections 10(33), 14A, 94(7) and the relevant paras of Circular Number 14 of 2001 issued by the CBDT: Section 10 - Incomes not included in total income In computing the total income of a previous year of any person, any income falling within any of the following clauses shall not be included- (33) any income by way of - dividends referred to in section 115-O or income received in respect of units from the Unit Trust of India established under the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963) or income received in respect of the units of a mutual fund specified under clause (23D): Provided that this clause shall not apply to any income arising from transfer of units of the Unit Trust of India or of a mutual fund, as the case may be.", "Section 14A - Expenditure incurred in relation to income not includible in total income For the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter, no deduction shall be allowed in respect of expenditure incurred by the assessee 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.", "Chapter : X - SPECIAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO AVOIDANCE OF TAX Section 94 - Avoidance of tax by certain transactions in securities Where - (a) any person buys or acquires any securities or unit within a period of three months prior to the record date (b) such person sells or transfers such securities or within a period of three months after such date (c) the dividend or income on such securities or unit received or receivable by such person is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising to him on account of such purchase and sale of securities or unit, to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of dividend or income received or receivable on such securities or unit, shall be ignored for the purposes of computing his income chargeable to tax.", "Circular Number 14 of 2001 Measures to curb creation of short-term losses by certain transactions in securities and units 56.1 Under the existing provisions contained in Section 94, where the owner of any securities enters into transactions of sale and repurchase of those securities which result in the interest or dividend in respect of such securities being received by a person other than such owner, the transactions are to be ignored and the interest or dividend from such securities is required to be included in the total income of the owner.", "56.2 The existing provisions did not cover a case where a person buys securities (including units of a mutual fund) shortly before the record date fixed for declaration of dividends, and sells the same shortly after the record date.", "Since the cum-dividend price at which the securities are purchased would normally be higher than the ex-dividend price at which they are sold, such transactions would result in a loss which could be set off against other income of the year.", "At the same time, the dividends received would be exempt from tax under Section 10(33).", "The net result would be the creation of a tax loss, without any actual outgoings.", "56.3 With a view to curb the creation of such short-term losses, the Act has inserted a new Sub-section (7) in the section to provide that where any person buys or acquires securities or units within a period of three months prior to the record date fixed for declaration of dividend or distribution of income in respect of the securities or units, and sells or transfers the same within a period of three months after such record date, and the dividend or income received or receivable is exempt, then, the loss, if any, arising from such purchase or sale shall be ignored to the extent such loss does not exceed the amount of such dividend or interest, in the computation of the income chargeable to tax of such person.", "56.4 Definitions of the terms record date and unit have also been provided in the Explanation after sub-section (7) of section 94.", "56.5 This amendment will take effect from 1st April, 2002, and will accordingly, apply in relation to the assessment year 2002-2003 and subsequent years.", "The main issue involved in this batch of cases is - whether in dividend stripping transaction (alleged to be colourable device by the Department) the loss on sale of units could be considered as expenditure in relation to earning of dividend income exempt under Section 10(33), disallowable under Section 14A of the Act? According to the Department, the differential amount between the purchase and sale price of the units constituted expenditure incurred by the assessee for earning tax-free income, hence, liable to be disallowed under Section 14A. As a result of the dividend pay-out, according to the Department, the NAV of the mutual fund, which was Rs. 17.23 per unit on the record date, fell to Rs. 13.23 on 27.3.2000 (the next trading date) and, thus, Rs. 4/- per unit, according to the Department, constituted expenditure incurred in terms of Section 14A of the Act.", "In its return, the assessee, thus, claimed the dividend received as exempt under Section 10(33) and also claimed set-off for the loss against its taxable income, thereby seeking to reduce its tax liability and gain tax advantage.", "The insertion of Section 14A with retrospective effect is the serious attempt on the part of the Parliament not to allow deduction in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income, which does not form part of the total income under the Act against the taxable income (see Circular No. 14 of 2001 dated 22.11.2001).", "In other words, Section 14A clarifies that expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income.", "In many cases the nature of expenses incurred by the assessee may be relatable partly to the exempt income and partly to the taxable income.", "In the absence of Section 14A, the expenditure incurred in respect of exempt income was being claimed against taxable income.", "The mandate of Section 14A is clear.", "It desires to curb the practice to claim deduction of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income against taxable income and at the same time avail the tax incentive by way of exemption of exempt income without making any apportionment of expenses incurred in relation to exempt income.", "The basic reason for insertion of Section 14A is that certain incomes are not includible while computing total income as these are exempt under certain provisions of the Act.", "In the past, there have been cases in which deduction has been sought in respect of such incomes which in effect would mean that tax incentives to certain incomes was being used to reduce the tax payable on the non-exempt income by debiting the expenses, incurred to earn the exempt income, against taxable income.", "The basic principle of taxation is to tax the net income, i.e., gross income minus the expenditure.", "On the same analogy the exemption is also in respect of net income.", "Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income.", "This is the purport of Section 14A. In Section 14A, the first phrase is for the purposes of computing the total income under this Chapter which makes it clear that various heads of income as prescribed under Chapter IV would fall within Section 14A. The next phrase is, in relation to income which does not form part of total income under the Act.", "It means that if an income does not form part of total income, then the related expenditure is outside the ambit of the applicability of Section 14A. Further, Section 14 specifies five heads of income which are chargeable to tax.", "In order to be chargeable, an income has to be brought under one of the five heads.", "Sections 15 to 59 lay down the rules for computing income for the purpose of chargeability to tax under those heads.", "Sections 15 to 59 quantify the total income chargeable to tax.", "The permissible deductions enumerated in Sections 15 to 59 are now to be allowed only with reference to income which is brought under one of the above heads and is chargeable to tax.", "If an income like dividend income is not a part of the total income, the expenditure/ deduction though of the nature specified in Sections 15 to 59 but related to the income not forming part of total income could not be allowed against other income includible in the total income for the purpose of chargeability to tax.", "The theory of apportionment of expenditures between taxable and non-taxable has, in principle, been now widened under Section 14A. Reading Section 14 in juxtaposition with Sections 15 to 59, it is clear that the words expenditure incurred in Section 14A refers to expenditure on rent, taxes, salaries, interest, etc.", "in respect of which allowances are provided for (see Sections 30 to 37).", "Every pay-out is not entitled to allowances for deduction.", "These allowances are admissible to qualified deductions.", "These deductions are for debits in the real sense.", "A pay-back does not constitute an expenditure incurred in terms of Section 14A. Even applying the principles of accountancy, a pay-back in the strict sense does not constitute an expenditure as it does not impact the Profit Loss Account.", "Pay-back or return of investment will impact the balance-sheet whereas return on investment will impact the Profit Loss Account.", "Cost of acquisition of an asset impacts the balance sheet.", "Return of investment brings down the cost.", "It will not increase the expenditure.", "Hence, expenditure, return on investment, return of investment and cost of acquisition are distinct concepts.", "Therefore, one needs to read the words expenditure incurred in Section 14A in the context of the scheme of the Act and, if so read, it is clear that it disallows certain expenditures incurred to earn exempt income from being deducted from other income which is includible in the total income for the purpose of chargeability to tax.", "As stated above, the scheme of Sections 30 to 37 is that profits and gains must be computed subject to certain allowances for deductions expenditure.", "The charge is not on gross receipts, it is on profits and gains.", "Profits have to be computed after deducting losses and expenses incurred for business.", "A deduction for expenditure or loss which is not within the prohibition must be allowed if it is on the facts of the case a proper Debit Item to be charged against the Incomings of the business in ascertaining the true profits.", "A return of investment or a pay-back is not such a Debit Item as explained above, hence, it is not expenditure incurred in terms of Section 14A. Expenditure is a pay-out.", "It relates to disbursement.", "A pay-back is not an expenditure in the scheme of Section 14A. For attracting Section 14A, there has to be a proximate cause for disallowance, which is its relationship with the tax exempt income.", "Pay-back or return of investment is not such proximate cause, hence, Section 14A is not applicable in the present case.", "Thus, in the absence of such proximate cause for disallowance, Section 14A cannot be invoked.", "In our view, return of investment cannot be construed to mean expenditure and if it is construed to mean expenditure in the sense of physical spending still the expenditure was not such as could be claimed as an allowance against the profits of the relevant accounting year under Sections 30 to 37 of the Act and, therefore, Section 14A cannot be invoked.", "Hence, the two asset theory is not applicable in this case as there is no expenditure incurred in terms of Section 14A. The next point which arises for determination is whether the loss pertaining to exempted income was deductible against the chargeable income.", "In other words, whether the loss in the sale of units could be disallowed on the ground that the impugned transaction was a transaction of dividend stripping.", "The AO in the present case has disallowed the loss of Rs. 1,82,12,862 on the sale of 40 tax-free units of the mutual fund.", "The AO held that the assessee had purposely and in a planned manner entered into a pre-meditated transaction of buying and selling units yielding exempted income with the full knowledge about the guaranteed fall in the market value of the units and the payment of tax-free dividend, hence, disallowance of the loss.", "In the lead case, we are concerned with the assessment years prior to insertion of Section 94(7) vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002.", "We are of the view that the AO had erred in disallowing the loss.", "In the case of Vijaya Bank v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax 1991 187 ITR 541, it was held by this Court that where the assessee buys securities at a price determined with reference to their actual value as well as interest accrued thereon till the date of purchase the entire price paid would be in the nature of capital outlay and no part of it can be set off as expenditure against income accruing on those securities.", "The real objection of the Department appears to be that the assessee is getting tax-free dividend that at the same time it is claiming loss on the sale of the units that the assessee had purposely and in a planned manner entered into a pre-meditated transaction of buying and selling units yielding exempted dividends with full knowledge about the fall in the NAV after the record date and the payment of tax-free dividend and, therefore, loss on sale was not genuine.", "We find no merit in the above argument of the Department.", "At the outset, we may state that we have two sets of cases before us.", "The lead matter covers assessment years before insertion of Section 94(7) vide Finance Act, 2001 w.e.f. 1.4.2002.", "With regard to such cases we may state that on facts it is established that there was a sale.", "The sale-price was received by the assessee.", "That, the assessee did receive dividend.", "The fact that the dividend received was tax-free is the position recognized under Section 10(33) of the Act.", "The assessee had made use of the said provision of the Act.", "That such use cannot be called abuse of law.", "Even assuming that the transaction was pre-planned there is nothing to impeach the genuineness of the transaction.", "With regard to the ruling in McDowell Company Limited v. Commercial Tax Officer 154 ITR 148(SC), it may be stated that in the later decision of this Court in Union of India v. Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706(SC) it has been held that a citizen is free to carry on its business within the four corners of the law.", "That, mere tax planning, without any motive to evade taxes through colourable devices is not frowned upon even by the judgment of this Court in McDowell Company Limiteds case (supra).", "Hence, in the cases arising before 1.4.2002, losses pertaining to exempted income cannot be disallowed.", "However, after 1.4.2002, such losses to the extent of dividend received by the assessee could be ignored by the AO in view of Section 94(7).", "The object of Section 94(7) is to curb the short term losses.", "Applying Section 94(7) in a case for the assessment year(s) falling after 1.4.2002, the loss to be ignored would be only to the extent of the dividend received and not the entire loss.", "In other words, losses over and above the amount of the dividend received would still be allowed from which it follows that the Parliament has not treated the dividend stripping transaction as sham or bogus.", "It has not treated the entire loss as fictitious or only a fiscal loss.", "After 1.4.2002, losses over and above the dividend received will not be ignored under Section 94(7).", "If the argument of the Department is to be accepted, it would mean that before 1.4.2002 the entire loss would be disallowed as not genuine but, after 1.4.2002, a part of it would be allowable under Section 94(7) which cannot be the object of Section 94(7) which is inserted to curb tax avoidance by certain types of transactions in securities.", "There is one more way of answering this point.", "Sections 14A and 94(7) were simultaneously inserted by the same Finance Act, 2001.", "As stated above, Section 14A was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1962 whereas Section 94(7) was inserted w.e.f. 1.4.2002.", "The reason is obvious.", "Parliament realized that several public sector undertakings and public sector enterprises had invested huge amounts over last couple of years in the impugned dividend stripping transactions so also declaration of dividends by mutual fund are being vetted and regulated by SEBI for last couple of years.", "If Section 94(7) would have been brought into effect from 1.4.1962, as in the case of Section 14A, it would have resulted in reversal of large number of transactions.", "This could be one reason why the Parliament intended to give effect to Section 94(7) only w.e.f. 1.4.2002.", "It is important to clarify that this last reasoning has nothing to do with the interpretations given by us to Sections 14A and 94(7).", "However, it is the duty of the court to examine the circumstances and reasons why Section 14A inserted by Finance Act 2001 stood inserted w.e.f. 1.4.1962 while Section 94(7) inserted by the same Finance Act as brought into force w.e.f. 1.4.2002.", "The next question which we need to decide is about reconciliation of Sections 14A and 94(7).", "In our view, the two operate in different fields.", "As stated above, Section 14A deals with disallowance of expenditure incurred in earning tax-free income against the profits of the accounting year under Sections 30 to 37 of the Act.", "On the other hand, Section 94(7) refers to disallowance of the loss on the acquisition of an asset which situation is not there in cases falling under Section 14A. Under Section 94(7) the dividend goes to reduce the loss.", "It applies to cases where the loss is more than the dividend.", "Section 14A applies to cases where the assessee incurs expenditure to earn tax free income but where there is no acquisition of an asset.", "In cases falling under Section 94(7), there is acquisition of an asset and existence of the loss which arises at a point of time subsequent to the purchase of units and receipt of exempt income.", "It occurs only when the sale takes place.", "Section 14A comes in when there is claim for deduction of an expenditure whereas Section 94(7) comes in when there is claim for allowance for the business loss.", "We may reiterate that one must keep in mind the conceptual difference between loss, expenditure, cost of acquisition, etc.", "while interpreting the scheme of the Act.", "Before concluding, one aspect concerning Para 12 of Accounting Standard AS-13 relied upon by the Revenue needs to be highlighted.", "Para 12 indicates that interest dividends received on investments are generally regarded as return on investment and not return of investment.", "It is only in certain circumstances where the purchase price includes the right to receive crystallized and accrued dividends/ interest, that have already accrued and become due for payment before the date of purchase of the units, that the same has got to be reduced from the purchase cost of the investment.", "A mere receipt of dividend subsequent to purchase of units, on the basis of a person holding units at the time of declaration of dividend on the record date, cannot go to offset the cost of acquisition of the units.", "Therefore, AS-13 has no application to the facts of the present cases where units are bought at the ruling NAV with a right to receive dividend as and when declared in future and did not carry any vested right to claim dividends which had already accrued prior to the purchase.", "For the above reasons, we find no infirmity in the impugned judgment of the High Court and, accordingly, these Civil Appeals filed by the Department are dismissed with no order as to costs.", "CJI H. Kapadia) J. (Swatanter Kumar) New Delhi July 06, 2010"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2010_725", "text": ["H. KAPADIA, CJI Leave granted.", "Vide referral orders dated 14.12.2004 and 20.1.2005 the following questions have been referred to the Constitution Bench of this Court: Whether sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) are at all applicable to proceedings of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Act? Whether the Settlement Commission can reopen its concluded proceedings by having recourse to section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under sections 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act, though it was not so done in the original proceedings? Whether in the absence of period of limitation prescribed for making the order of the Settlement, the relevant date for determining the quantum of interest could be the date of the said order? For the sake of convenience, after hearing learned counsel on both sides, we reframe the above questions.", "Whether section 234B applies to proceedings of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the said Act? (II) If answer to the above question is in the affirmative, what is the terminal point for levy of such interest - Whether such interest should be computed up to the date of the Order under section 245D(1) or up to the date of the Order of the Commission under section 245D(4)? (III) Whether the Settlement Commission could reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the said Act so as to levy interest under section 234B, though it was not so done in the original proceedings? Relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961: In order to answer the reframed questions, quoted above, it would be necessary for us to cite the relevant provisions of the Act and the Income Tax Rules, as they stood at the material time, which are as under: Definitions 2(40) regular assessment means the assessment made under sub-section (3) of section 143 or section 144 2(45) total income means the total amount of income referred to in section 5, computed in the manner laid down in this Act Chapter XIV - Procedure for Assessment Self-assessment 140A. (1) Where any tax is payable on the basis of any return required to be furnished under section 139 or section 142 or as the case may be, section 148, after taking into account the amount of tax, if any, already paid under any provision of this Act, the assessee shall be liable to pay such tax together with interest payable under any provision of this Act for any delay in furnishing the return or any default or delay in payment of advance tax, before furnishing the return and the return shall be accompanied by proof of payment of such tax and interest.", "Explanation.--Where the amount paid by the assessee under this sub-section falls short of the aggregate of the tax and interest as aforesaid, the amount so paid shall first be adjusted towards the interest payable as aforesaid and the balance, if any, shall be adjusted towards the tax payable.", "After a regular assessment under section 143 or section 144 has been made, any amount paid under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment.", "Assessment 143.", "(1)(a) Where a return has been made under section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, - if any tax or interest is found due on the basis of such return, after adjustment of any tax deducted at source, any advance tax paid and any amount paid otherwise by way of tax or interest, then, without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (2), an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly Provided also that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of two years from the end of the assessment year in which the income was first assessable.", "Where as a result of an order made under sub-section (3) of this section or section 144 or section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264, or any order of settlement made under sub- section (4) of section 245D relating to any earlier assessment year and passed subsequent to the filing of the return referred to in clause (a), there is any variation in the carry forward loss, deduction, allowance or relief claimed in the return, and as a result of which, - if any tax or interest is found due, an intimation shall be sent to the assessee specifying the sum so payable, and such intimation shall be deemed to be a notice of demand issued under section 156 and all the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly, and if any refund is due, it shall be granted to the assessee: Provided that an intimation for any tax or interest due under this clause shall not be sent after the expiry of four years from the end of the financial year in which any such order was passed.", "Where a regular assessment under sub- section (3) of this section or section 144 is made, -- (a) any tax or interest paid by the assessee under sub-section (1) shall be deemed to have been paid towards such regular assessment Rectification of mistake.", "(1) With a view to rectifying any mistake apparent from the record an income-tax authority referred to in section 116 may,-- (a) amend any order passed by it under the provisions of this Act (b) amend any intimation sent by it under sub-section (1) of section 143.", "or enhance or reduce the amount of refund granted by it under that sub-section.", "(1A) Where any matter has been considered and decided in any proceeding by way of appeal or revision relating to an order referred to in sub-section (1), the authority passing such order may, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, amend the order under that sub-section in relation to any matter other than the matter which has been so considered and decided.", "Subject to the other provisions of this section, the authority concerned-- (a) may make an amendment under sub-section (1) of its own motion, and (b) shall make such amendment for rectifying any such mistake which has been brought to its notice by the assessee, and where the authority concerned is the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals), or the Commissioner (Appeals) by the Assessing Officer also.", "An amendment, which has the effect of enhancing an assessment or reducing a refund or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee, shall not be made under this section unless the authority concerned has given notice to the assessee of its intention so to do and has allowed the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard.", "Chapter XVII - Collection and Recovery of Tax Liability for payment of advance tax.", "Tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year, in accordance with the provisions of sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive), in respect of the total income of the assessee which would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following the financial year, such income being hereafter in this Chapter referred to as current income.", "Computation of advance tax.", "(1) The amount of advance tax payable by an assessee in the financial year shall, subject to the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3), be computed as follows, namely:-- (a) where the calculation is made by the assessee for the purposes of payment of advance tax under sub-section (1) or sub- section (2) or sub-section (5) or sub-section (6) of section 210, he shall first estimate his current income and income-tax thereon shall be calculated at the rates in force in the financial year Payment of advance tax by the assessee of his own accord or in pursuance of order of Assessing Officer.", "(1) Every person who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 (whether or not he has been previously assessed by way of regular assessment) shall, of his own accord, pay, on or before each of the due dates specified in section 211, the appropriate percentage, specified in that section, of the advance tax on his current income, calculated in the manner laid down in section 209.", "A person who pays any instalment or instalments of advance tax under sub-section (1), may increase or reduce the amount of advance tax payable in the remaining instalment or instalments to accord with his estimate of his current income and the advance tax payable thereon, and make payment of the said amount in the remaining instalment or instalments accordingly.", "Interest payable by assessee.", "(1) Where, in any financial year, an assessee has paid advance tax under section 209A or section 212 on the basis of his own estimate (including revised estimate), and the advance tax so paid is less than seventy-five per cent of the assessed tax, simple interest at the rate of fifteen per cent per annum from the 1st day of April next following the said financial year up to the date of the regular assessment shall be payable by the assessee upon the amount by which the advance tax so paid falls short of the assessed tax: Provided that in the case of an assessee, being a company, the provisions of this sub-section shall have effect as if for the words seventy- five per cent, the words eighty-three and one- third per cent had been substituted.", "Where before the date of completion of a regular assessment, tax is paid by the assessee under section 140A or otherwise,-- interest shall be calculated in accordance with the foregoing provision up to the date on which the tax is so paid and thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax as so paid (in so far as it relates to income subject to advance tax) falls short of the assessed tax.", "Where as a result of an order under section 147 or section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub- section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and-- in a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee, a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly in a case where the interest is reduced, the excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded.", "In such cases and under such circumstances as may be prescribed, the Assessing Officer may reduce or waive the interest payable by the assessee under this section.", "In this section and sections 217 and 273, assessed tax means the tax determined on the basis of the regular assessment (reduced by the amount of tax deductible in accordance with the provisions of sections 192 to 194, section 194A, section 194C, section 194D, section 195 and section 196A so far as such tax relates to income subject to advance tax and so far as it is not due to variations in the rates of tax made by the Finance Act enacted for the year for which the regular assessment is made.", "Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section and sections 216, 217 and 273.", "Interest for defaults in furnishing return of income.", "234A. (1) Where the return of income for any assessment year under sub-section (1) or sub-section (4) of section 139, or in response to a notice under sub-section (1) of section 142, is furnished after the due date, or is not furnished, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the date immediately following the due date, and,-- (a) where the return is furnished after the due date, ending on the date of furnishing of the return or (b) where no return has been furnished, ending on the date of completion of the assessment under section 144, on the amount of the tax on the total income as determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and any tax deducted or collected at source Explanation 1.--In this section, due date means the date specified in sub-section (1) of section 139 as applicable in the case of the assessee.", "Explanation 2.--In this sub-section, tax on the total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143 shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143.", "Explanation 3.--Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section.", "Explanation 4.", "- In this sub-section, tax on the total income as determined under sub- section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment shall, for the purposes of computing the interest payable under section 140A, be deemed to be tax on total income as declared in the return.", "The interest payable under sub-section (1) shall be reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section.", "Where as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount of tax on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of this section has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and-- in a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable, and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly in a case where the interest is reduced, the excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded.", "The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent assessment years.", "Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax.", "234B. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April next following such financial year to the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 and where a regular assessment is made, to the date of such regular assessment, on an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax.", "Explanation 1.--In this section, assessed tax means (a) for the purposes of computing the interest payable under section 140A the tax on the total income as declared in the return referred to in that section (b) in any other case, the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment, as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income.", "Explanation 2.--Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section.", "Explanation 3.--In Explanation 1 and in sub- section (3) tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143.", "Where, before the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 or completion of a regular assessment, tax is paid by the assessee under section 140A or otherwise,-- interest shall be calculated in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section up to the date on which the tax is so paid, and reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax so paid together with the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax.", "Where, as a result of an order of reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of two per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the day following the date of determination of total income under sub- section (1) of section 143 and where a regular assessment is made as is referred to in sub- section (1) following the date of such regular assessment and ending on the date of the reassessment or recomputation under section 147, on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of the reassessment or recomputation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid.", "Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and-- in a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly in a case where the interest is reduced, the excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded.", "The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent assessment years.", "Interest for deferment of advance tax.", "234C. (1) Where in any financial year,-- (a) the company which is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or-- the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less than forty-five per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of December is less than seventy-five per cent of the tax due on the returned income, then, the company shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month for a period of three months on the amount of the shortfall from fifteen per cent or forty-five per cent or seventy-five per cent, as the case may be, of the tax due on the returned income the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of March is less than the tax due on the returned income, then, the company shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent on the amount of the shortfall from the tax due on the returned income: Explanation.--In this section, tax due on the returned income means the tax chargeable on the total income declared in the return of income furnished by the assessee for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April immediately following the financial year in which the advance tax is paid or payable, as reduced by the amount of tax deductible or collectible at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent assessment years.", "Chapter XIX-A - Settlement of Cases Definitions 245A. In this Chapter, unless the context otherwise requires,-- (b) case means any proceeding under this Act for the assessment or re- assessment of any person in respect of any year or years , or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such assessment or re- assessment, which may be pending before an Income Tax Authority on the date on which an application under sub-section (1) of section 245C is made: Provided that where any appeal or application for revision has been preferred after the expiry of the period specified for the filing of such appeal or application for revision under this Act and which has not been admitted, such appeal or revision shall not be deemed to be a proceeding pending within the meaning of this clause Application for settlement of cases.", "245C. (1) An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: Provided that no such application shall be made unless,-- (a) the assessee has furnished the return of income which he is or was required to furnish under any of the provisions of this Act and (b) the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds one hundred thousand rupees.", "(1A) For the purposes of sub-section (1) of this section and sub-section (2A) to (2D) of Section 245D, the additional amount of income-tax payable in respect of the income disclosed in an application made under sub-section (1) of this section shall be the amount calculated in accordance with the provisions of sub-sections (1B) to (1D).", "(1B) Where the income disclosed in the application relates to only one previous year,-- if the applicant has not furnished a return in respect of the total income of that year (whether or not an assessment has been made in respect of the total income of that year), then, except in a case covered by clause (iii), tax shall be calculated on the income disclosed in the application as if such income were the total income if the applicant has furnished a return in respect of the total income of that year (whether or not an assessment has been made in pursuance of such return), tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income returned and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income if the proceeding pending before the income-tax authority is in the nature of a proceeding for reassessment of the applicant under section 147 or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such reassessment, and the applicant has not furnished a return in respect of the total income of that year in the course of such proceeding for reassessment, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed in the earlier proceeding for assessment under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate were the total income.", "FORM NO.", "34B See rules 44C and 44CA Form of application for settlement of case under section 245C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 IN THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION Settlement application Number 19-19 Full name and address of the applicant Permanent Account Number Status See Note 4 The Commissioner having jurisdiction over the applicant Assessment year(s) in connection with which the application for settlement is made Date of filing the return of income for assessment year(s) referred to in column 5 Proceedings to which application for settlement relates, the date from which the proceedings are pending and the income-tax authority before whom the proceedings are pending See Note 6 Where any appeal or application for revision has been preferred after the expiry of the period specified for the filing of such appeal or application for revision, as the case may be, whether such appeal or revision has been admitted.", "Date of seizure, if any, under section 132 of the Income-tax Act Particulars of the issues to be settled, nature and circumstances of the case and complexities of the investigation involved See Note 7 Full and true disclosure of income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived and the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income See Notes 9 and 10 Signed (Applicant) Verification I, , son daughter wife of do hereby solemnly declare that to the best of my knowledge and belief, what is stated above and in the Annexure including the statement(s) and documents accompanying such Annexure is correct and complete.", "I further declare that I am making this application in my capacity as (designation) and that I am competent to make this application and to verify it.", "Verified today the day of 19 Place Signed (Applicant) Procedure on receipt of an application under section 245C. 245D. (1) On receipt of an application under section 245C, the Settlement Commission shall call for a report from the Commissioner and on the basis of the materials contained in such report and having regard to the nature and circumstances of the case or the complexity of the investigation involved therein, the Settlement Commission may, by order, allow the application to be proceeded with or reject the application: Provided that an application shall not be rejected under this sub-section unless an opportunity has been given to the applicant of being heard: Provided further that the Commissioner shall furnish the report within a period of forty-five days of the receipt of communication from the Settlement Commission in case of all applications made under Section 245C on or after the 1st day of July, 1995 and if the Commissioner fails to furnish the report within the said period, the Settlement Commission may make the order without such report.", "(2B) If the Settlement Commission is satisfied, on an application made in this behalf by the assessee, that he is unable for good and sufficient reasons to pay the additional amount of income tax referred to in sub- section (2A) within the time specified in that sub-section, it may extend the time for payment of the amount which remains unpaid or allow payment thereof by instalments if the assessee furnishes adequate security for the payment thereof.", "(2C) Where the additional amount of income- tax is not paid within the time specified under sub-section (2A), then, whether or not the Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of the amount which remains unpaid or has allowed payment thereof by instalments under sub-section (2B), the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at fifteen per cent per annum on the amount remaining unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty-five days referred to in sub- section (2A).", "After examination of the records and the report of the Commissioner, received under sub-section (1), and the report, if any, of the Commissioner received under sub-section (3), and after giving an opportunity to the applicant and to the Commissioner to be heard, either in person or through a representative duly authorised in this behalf, and after examining such further evidence as may be placed before it or obtained by it, the Settlement Commission may, in accordance with the provisions of this Act, pass such order as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case not covered by the application, but referred to in the report of the Commissioner under sub-section (1) or sub-section (3).", "Every order passed under sub-section (4) shall provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest, the manner in which any sum due under the settlement shall be paid and all other matters to make the settlement effective and shall also provide that the settlement shall be void if it is subsequently found by the Settlement Commission that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts.", "(6A) Where any tax payable in pursuance of an order under sub-section (4) is not paid by the assessee within thirty-five days of the receipt of a copy of the order by him, then, whether or not the Settlement Commission has extended the time for payment of such tax or has allowed payment thereof by instalments, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at fifteen per cent per annum on the amount remaining unpaid from the date of expiry of the period of thirty-five days aforesaid.", "Where a settlement becomes void as provided under sub-section (6), the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have been revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission and the income-tax authority concerned, may, notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, complete such proceedings at any time before the expiry of two years from the end of the financial year in which the settlement became void.", "Power of Settlement Commission to reopen completed proceedings.", "245E. If the Settlement Commission is of the opinion (the reasons for such opinion to be recorded by it in writing) that, for the proper disposal of the case pending before it, it is necessary or expedient to reopen any proceeding connected with the case but which has been completed under this Act by any income-tax authority before the application under section 245C was made, it may, with the concurrence of the applicant, reopen such proceeding and pass such order thereon as it thinks fit, as if the case in relation to which the application for settlement had been made by the applicant under that section covered such proceeding also : Powers and procedure of Settlement Commission.", "245F. (1) In addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under this Chapter, it shall have all the powers which are vested in an income-tax authority under this Act.", "Where an application made under section 245C has been allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D, the Settlement Commission shall, until an order is passed under sub- section (4) of section 245D, have, subject to the provisions of sub-section (3) of that section, exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers and perform the functions of an income-tax authority under this Act in relation to the case Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2) and in the absence of any express direction to the contrary by the Settlement Commission, nothing contained in this section shall affect the operation of any other provision of this Act requiring the applicant to pay tax on the basis of self- assessment in relation to the matters before the Settlement Commission.", "For the removal of doubt, it is hereby declared that, in the absence of any express direction by the Settlement Commission to the contrary, nothing in this Chapter shall affect the operation of the provisions of this Act in so far as they relate to any matters other than those before the Settlement Commission.", "Order of settlement to be conclusive.", "245-I. Every order of settlement passed under sub-section (4) of section 245D shall be conclusive as to the matters stated therein and no matter covered by such order shall, save as otherwise provided in this Chapter, be reopened in any proceeding under this Act or under any other law for the time being in force.", "At this stage, it may be noted that section 245C stood substituted by Finance Act, 2007, w.e.f. 1.6.2007.", "Prior to its substitution, the proviso to section 245C(1), as substituted by the Finance Act, 1987, w.e.f. 1.6.1987 and later on amended by Finance Act, 1995, w.e.f. 1.7.1995, read as under: Provided that no such application shall be made unless,-- (a) the assessee has furnished the return of income which he is or was required to furnish under any of the provisions of this Act and (b) the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds one hundred thousand rupees.", "Section 245C(1) read with the proviso thereto, as substituted by Finance Act, 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007, reads as under: 245C. (1) An assessee may, at any stage of a case relating to him, make an application in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed, and containing a full and true disclosure of his income which has not been disclosed before the Assessing Officer, the manner in which such income has been derived, the additional amount of income-tax payable on such income and such other particulars as may be prescribed, to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled and any such application shall be disposed of in the manner hereinafter provided: Provided that no such application shall be made unless,-- the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application exceeds three lakh rupees and such tax and the interest thereon, which would have been paid under the provisions of this Act had the income disclosed in the application been declared in the return of income before the Assessing Officer on the date of application, has been paid on or before the date of making the application and the proof of such payment is attached with the application.", "Analysis of the Act Liability to pay advance tax arises under section 207.", "The said section is based on the principle pay as you earn.", "It requires tax to be paid during the financial year.", "It has to be in respect of the total income of the assessee which would be chargeable to tax under the Act.", "The said total income is not as understood in section 2(45) but it is equated to current income for the purposes of Chapter XVII.", "After the Amending Act of 1987, advance tax is to be paid on the current income which would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following the financial year.", "Section 210 casts the responsibility of payment of advance tax on the assessee without requiring the assessee to submit his estimate of advance tax payable.", "Provision for payment of advance tax is mode of quick collection of tax.", "Thus, section 207 defines liability to pay advance tax in respect of incomes referred to in section 208.", "However, advance tax paid is adjustable towards the tax due.", "Advance tax is collected even before the income tax becomes due and payable.", "By its very nature, advance tax is pre-assessment collection of taxes either by deduction of tax at source or by payment of advance tax which has to be adjusted towards income tax levied on the total income.", "The above two methods of realization even before any assessment is authorized by section 4(2) are incorporated in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery.", "In fact, section 190(1) clarifies that this method of payment of tax will not prejudice the charge of tax under section 4(1) nor will it modify the liability of the assessee to pay income tax pursuant to an assessment order.", "See Modi Industries Limited, Modinagar and Others v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi and Another, 216 ITR 759 at 780 At one point of time, section 209(1)(a)(iii) (relating to computation of advance tax) provided that the income tax calculated on the total income with reference to which the demand for advance tax was made should be reduced by the amount of income tax deductible in accordance with sections 192 to 194, 194A and 195 on any income included in the total income.", "The levy of interest under section 215 is part of the process of assessment.", "If the income tax liability on the first day of the assessment year is larger than the amount of advance tax standing to the credit of the assessee then interest will have to be paid under section 215 on 75 of the deficit amount of tax from the first day of the assessment year to the date of computation of total income vide assessment order.", "Interest under section 215 is chargeable from the first day of April next following the financial year wherein the advance tax was paid up to the date of regular assessment, if no tax has been paid under section 140A or otherwise.", "However, section 215(2) provides that where advance tax paid is less than 75 of the assessed tax, but the assessee has paid tax under section 140A or otherwise before the date of completion of regular assessment then the interest shall be limited to the interest on the shortfall between the assessed tax and the advance tax paid for the period from the first April next following the financial year up to date of payment under section 140A plus interest on the shortfall between assessed tax and total tax paid for the period from the day following the date of such payment under section 140A up to the date of regular assessment.", "Coming to section 140A, as a result of the amendment of section 140A(1) by Direct Tax Laws Amendment Act, 1987 w.e.f.", "1.4.1989 and vide Finance Act of 1999, the assessee is required to calculate the tax payable on the basis of the return to be furnished under section 139 or under section 142 or under section 148 after taking into account the amount of tax paid under the Act to calculate also interest payable under section 234A or under section 234B/234C for any default or delay in payment of advance tax to pay such tax with interest before the assessee furnishes his return.", "The Explanation to section 140A(1) inter alia provides that where the amount paid by the assessee under section 140A(1) falls short of the aggregate of the tax and interest thereon the amount so paid is first adjusted towards interest payable and the balance, if any, is adjusted towards the tax payable.", "Thus, amount(s) paid under section 140A is deemed to have been paid towards regular assessment.", "The liability to pay income tax is founded on sections 4 and 5 which are the charging sections.", "Sections 143, 144 and 147 are machinery sections to determine the amount of tax payable.", "Thus, whereas section 143(3) signifies computation of income, section 147 signifies computation of escaped income.", "As held in the case of C.A. Abraham v. Income-Tax Officer, Kottayam and Another (1961) 41 ITR 425 (SC), the expression assessment in a given provision must be determined on an examination of the relevant provisions in question and the fact that it is used in the narrower sense elsewhere will not mean that it is so used in the provision under examination.", "The word can be used to cover the whole procedure to ascertain the liability and the machinery for enforcement.", "Prior to 1.6.1999, section 143(1A)(a) inter alia provided that where the total income as a result of any adjustments made exceeded the total income declared in the return by any amount then it was open to the O. to increase the amount of tax payable under section 143(1) by additional income tax calculated at the specified rate.", "In brief, section 143(1A) provided for the levy of additional income tax of an amount equal to 20 of the tax payable on the amount of difference between the total income determined under section 143(1) and total income declared in the return.", "Where the additional income tax was increased, the A.O. had to serve a notice under section 156.", "Even under section 143(1B), as it stood before 1.6.1999, where an assessee furnished a revised return under section 139(5) after service of intimation, the assessee was liable to pay additional income tax in relation to adjustments made under section 143(1)(a) read with the proviso.", "Now, Chapter XVII deals with collection and recovery.", "It covers Tax Deduction at Source and Advance Payment of taxes (see section 190).", "Section C deals with advance payment of taxes.", "Section 207 refers to liability to pay advance tax whereas section 209 deals with computation of advance tax.", "Section 215 refers to interest payable by the assessee.", "Section 210(1) inter alia provides that every person who is liable to pay interest under Section 208, shall of his own accord pay, on each of the due dates specified in section 211, the appropriate percentage of advance tax on his current income calculated in the manner under section 209.", "Under section 209(1)(a), the amount of advance tax payable by the assessee in any financial year is as follows: (a) where calculation is made by the assessee for the purposes of payment of advance tax under section 209(1), he shall first estimate his current income and the tax shall be computed at the rates in force in the financial year.", "Thus, liability and computation of advance tax is done under section C of Chapter XVII.", "On the other hand, interest for defaults in payment of advance tax falls under section 234B, apart from sections 234A and 234C, in section F of Chapter XVII.", "Thus, levy of interest is incidental to the liability and computation of advance tax.", "It is interesting to note that section 234A(4) in turn refers to the increase or reduction of interest subsequent to the Order of the Commission under section 245D(4) increasing or reducing the amount of tax payable and so also section 234B(4).", "Under section 234B, where in any financial year an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 fails to pay such tax or where the advance tax paid under section 210 is less than 90 of the assessed tax the assessee shall pay interest from the first day of April next following such financial year to the date of determination of total income under section 143(1) or to the date of regular assessment on the amount equal to the assessed tax which has been defined in Explanation 1 to mean tax on the total income as determined under section 143(1) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted at source in accordance with Chapter XVII on income which is subject to deduction and which is taken into account in computing total income.", "By Explanation 3, it is clarified that for default of short payment interest will be charged on the difference between assessed tax (as defined) and the advance tax paid by the assessee and that for the above purpose additional income tax if any payable under section 143 is not to be taken into account.", "However, section 234B(2) covers a situation where, before the date of determination of total income under section 143(1) or completion of regular assessment, tax is paid by the assessee under section 140A or otherwise, interest shall be calculated under section 234B(1) up to the date on which tax was so paid and reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards interest chargeable under section 234B. Coming to Chapter XIX-A which deals with Settlement of Cases, it may be stated that the word case is defined under section 245A(b).", "It is an exhaustive definition.", "The definition makes it clear that an application for Settlement shall lie only when any proceedings for assessment or re- assessment is pending or an appeal or revision in connection with such assessment or re-assessment is pending before the Income Tax Authority.", "Under section 245C(1), such application for settlement will not be maintainable without full and true disclosure of the income by the applicant, the manner in which such undisclosed income was derived and that the applicant had furnished his return of income and that the additional tax payable on such income exceeds the specified amount.", "This was the position prior to Finance Act of 2007.", "However, section 245C(1A) inter alia provides that additional amount of income tax payable in respect of the income disclosed shall be calculated in accordance with the provisions of section 245C(1B).", "Under sub-section (1B) if the applicant has furnished his return in respect of his total income and no assessment is made, the tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of the total income returned and the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate was the total income.", "The words regular assessment are not there in section 245C(1B)(ii).", "However, under section 245C(1C)(b), it is provided that the additional tax calculated under section 245C(1B)(ii) shall be reduced by the aggregate of the tax deducted at source or tax paid in advance and the amount of tax paid under section 140A. The resultant amount is the additional tax payable by the assessee.", "Thus, section 245C incorporates within it the provisions of Chapters XVIIB, XVIIC and section 140A of the Act.", "It may be noted that section 245C(1B)(iii), as it stood before 1.6.1987, required income tax to be calculated on the aggregate of the total income as assessed plus the income disclosed in the application as if such aggregate was the total income.", "But after 1.6.1987, the tax is required to be worked out on the returned total income plus the income disclosed in the application as if the aggregate is the total income.", "Under section 245D(2A) the applicant is required to pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed in the application within 35 days of the receipt of the copy of the order passed by the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1) allowing such application to be proceeded with.", "Under section 245D(2A) the applicant shall, within 35 days of the receipt of the order under section 245D(1) allowing the application to be proceeded with, pay the additional amount of income tax payable on the income disclosed.", "Under section 245D(4) on compliance of sections 245D(2A) and (2C) and on examination of relevant records and reports, the Settlement Commission may pass such orders as it thinks fit on the matters covered by the application and any other matter relating to the case referred to in the report of the Commissioner of Income Tax.", "If one carefully analyses the provisions of sections 245D(1) and 245D(4), one finds two distinct stages - one allowing the application to be proceeded with (or rejected) and the other of disposal of the application by appropriate orders being passed by the Settlement Commission.", "In between the two stages, we have provisions which require the applicant to pay the additional income tax and interest.", "Even under section 245D(7) it is provided that where the settlement becomes void under section 245D(6) the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission and the income tax authority may complete the proceedings within the period mentioned therein.", "Thus, section 245D(7) brings out the difference between section 245D(1) stage and section 245D(4) stage.", "Under section 245D(6), it is laid down that every order under section 245D(4) shall provide for the Terms of Settlement including any demand by way of tax, penalty or interest.", "In the case of I.T. v. Damani Brothers reported in 259 ITR 475, a 3- Judge Bench of this Court, while analyzing the scheme of Chapter XIX-A, has held that section 234B, section 245D(2C) and section 245D(6A) operate in different fields.", "Section 234B comes into operation when there is default in payment of advance tax whereas liability to pay interest under section 245D(2C) arises when the additional amount of income tax is not paid within time specified under section 245D(2A).", "Section 245D(6A), on the other hand, imposes liability to pay interest only when the tax payable in pursuance of an order of Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) is not made within the specified time.", "Consequently, section 234B, section 245D(2C) and section 245D(6A) in Chapter XIX-A operate in different fields.", "To this extent, we agree with the view expressed in Damani Brothers case (supra).", "Descriptively, it can be stated that assessment in law is different from assessment by way of settlement.", "If one reads section 245D(6) with section 245I, it becomes clear that every order of settlement passed under section 245D(4) shall be final and conclusive as to the matters contained therein and that the same shall not be re-opened except in the case of fraud and misrepresentation.", "Under section 245F(1), in addition to the powers conferred on the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A, it shall also have all the powers which are vested in the income tax authority under the Act.", "In this connection, however, we need to keep in mind the difference between procedure for assessment under Chapter XIV and procedure for settlement under Chapter XIX-A (see section 245D).", "Under section 245F(4), it is clarified that nothing in Chapter XIX-A shall affect the operation of any other provision of the Act requiring the applicant to pay tax on the basis of self-assessment in relation to matters before the Settlement Commission.", "The point to be noted on the basis of the above analysis is that several provisions of the Act like section 140A furnishing of the return of income by the applicant as indicated in the proviso (a) to section 245C(1) provisions of the Act governing liability and computation to pay additional income tax as indicated by proviso (b) to section 245C(1) aggregation of total income inter alia in terms of sections 143, 144 or 147 as indicated by section 245C(1B)(iii) aggregation of total income as returned plus income disclosed in the application for settlement as indicated in section 245C(1B)(ii) the deductions in section 245C(1C) increase of interest under section 215(3) pursuant to the orders of the Settlement Commission and the levy of interest under sections 234A(4) and 234B(4) all bring into Chapter XIX-A various provisions of the Act.", "Thus, when we read the provisions of Sections 245C and 245D one has to keep in mind various above provisions of the Act and the concepts of self-assessment, assessment, regular assessment and computation of total income which have been engrafted in Chapter XIX-A. Whether Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are applicable to Chapter XIX-A proceedings? Our detailed analysis shows that though Chapter XIX- A is a self-contained Code, the procedure to be followed by the Settlement Commission under sections 245C and 245D in the matter of computation of undisclosed income in the matter of computation of additional income tax payable on such income with interest thereon the filing of settlement application indicating the amount of income returned in the return of income and the additional income tax payable on the undisclosed income to be aggregated as total income shows that Chapter XIX-A indicates aggregation of incomes so as to constitute total income which indicates that the special procedure under Chapter XIX-A has inbuilt mechanism of computing total income which is nothing but assessment (computation of total income).", "To elaborate, under section 245C(1B), if the applicant has furnished a return in respect of his total income, tax shall be calculated on the aggregate of total income returned and the income disclosed in the settlement application as if such aggregate were total income.", "Under the Act, tax is payable on the total income as computed in accordance with the provisions of the Act.", "Thus, section 143(3) provision is sought to be incorporated in section 245C. When Parliament uses the words as if such aggregate would constitute total income, it presupposes that under the special procedure the aggregation of the returned income plus income disclosed would result in computation of total income which is the basis for the levy of tax on the undisclosed income which is nothing but assessment.", "Similarly, section 245C(1C) provides for deductions from the total income computed in terms of section 245C(1B).", "Thus, the special procedure under sections 245C and 245D in Chapter XIX-A shows that a special type of computation of total income is engrafted in the said provisions which is nothing but assessment which takes place at section 245D(1) stage.", "However, in that computation, one finds that provisions dealing with a regular assessment, self-assessment and levy and computation of interest for default in payment of advance tax, etc. are engrafted.", "See sections 245C(1B), 245C(1C), 245D(6), 245F(3) in addition to sections 215(3), 234A(4) and 234B(4) (II) Terminal point for the levy of interest - Whether interest is payable under Chapter XIX-A up to the date of the order under section 245D(1) or up to the date of the order under section 245D(4)? In our view the answer to the above question lies in the provisions of the proviso to Sections 245C(1), 245C(1B) and 245C(1C), 245D(4) and 245F(3) which bring in the concepts of returned income, self-assessment, aggregation of income returned and income disclosed as if it is total income levy of interest under section 215(3) read with section 245D(4) increase of interest under sections 234A(4) and 234B(4) read with section 245D(4) as also sections 140A(1A) and (1B) read with sections 234A and 234B. For example, section 140A deals with self-assessment which is different from regular assessment.", "Under section 140A(1) where tax is payable on the basis of any return furnished by the assessee see proviso (a) to section 245C(1), after taking into account tax paid, the assessee shall be liable to pay such tax with interest payable for default under section 234B in payment of advance tax before furnishing the return.", "This position is clarified by sections 140A(1A) and (1B) under which inter alia interest payable for default in payment of advance tax under section 234A shall be computed on the amount of tax on the total income as declared in the return minus the advance tax paid.", "Similarly, it is clarified vide sub-section (1B) to section 140A that interest payable under section 234B for default in payment of advance tax shall be computed on an amount equal to the assessed tax same words are used in section 234B(1) or on the amount by which the advance tax falls short of the assessed tax.", "However, what is assessed tax for the purposes of section 140A is explained by Explanation.", "It says that assessed tax will be tax on the total income as declared in the return minus the amount of tax deducted at source or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII (which covers sections 207, 209 and 215 of the Act).", "Now, section 245C(1) is voluntary disclosure by the assessee of his undisclosed income.", "Under section 245C(1), the assessee has to mention in his settlement application the additional amount of tax payable by him on such undisclosed income.", "Under proviso (a), the application for settlement shall not be entertained till the assessee has furnished the return of income which he was required to file under the Act to the extent of his income.", "Under proviso (b), the assessee has to declare the additional amount of tax payable.", "Thus, the two provisos to section 245C(1) show that Chapter XIX-A, which prescribes a special procedure for assessment by settlement, contemplates a pre-assessment collection of tax.", "With the filing of the settlement application and after such application is allowed to be proceeded with under section 245D(1), intimation under section 143(1), regular assessment under sections 143(3)/144 and re-assessment under section 147 lose their existence as under sections 245C(1A) and (1B) it is only the income disclosed in the return of income before the A.O. alone which survives for consideration by the Settlement Commission for settling the amount of income which is not disclosed in the return.", "Under section 245C(1B)(ii), if the applicant has furnished a return in respect of the total income, whether or not assessment is made in pursuance of the return, the additional amount of income tax payable in respect of the total income disclosed shall be on the aggregate of the total income returned and the income disclosed in his application for settlement as if such aggregate was his total income.", "This is pre-assessment collection of tax.", "Such pre- assessment is based on the estimation of the current income and tax thereon by the applicant himself.", "Now, when the Settlement Commission accepts the Voluntary Disclosure vide the application for settlement, section 234B(2) steps in.", "It is important to remember that the assessee is liable to pay advance tax, he commits default in payment to the extent of the undisclosed income but he offers to pay additional income tax then interest has to be calculated in accordance with sections 207, 208 and 234B(2) up to the date on which such tax is paid.", "This is not the interest which assessee has to pay after assessment under section 245D(4).", "Under sections 245C(1B) and (1C) the additional amount of income tax payable on the undisclosed income shall be on the total income as calculated under section 245C(1B).", "On computation of total income under sections 245C(1B) and (1C), interest follows such computation.", "It is important to note that interest follows computation of total income.", "Once such computation takes place under section 245C(1B) then section 234B(2) applies.", "The said sub-section deals with the situation where before determination of total income under section 143(1) or 143(3) tax is paid under section 140A or otherwise interest shall be calculated in accordance with section 234B(1) up to the date on which tax is so paid.", "In that sense an application under section 245C(1) is a return.", "Section 245C(1) deals with computation of total income.", "There is one more way of looking at the Act.", "Chapter XIX-A refers to procedure of settlement (see section 245D(1)).", "As stated above, section 245D(1) provides for expeditious recovery of tax by way of pre-assessment collection.", "Interest on default in payment of advance tax comes under sections 234A, 234B, 234C, which fall in Chapter XVII which deals with collection and recovery of tax.", "It is important to note that interest follows computation of additional payment of income tax under sections 245C(1B) and (1C).", "This is how sections 234A, 234B and 234C get engrafted into Chapter XIX-A at the stage of section 245D(1).", "As stated, till the Settlement Commission decides to admit the case under section 245D(1) the proceedings under the normal provisions remain open.", "But, once the Commission admits the case after being satisfied that the disclosure is full and true then the proceedings commence with the Settlement Commission.", "In the meantime, applicant has to pay the additional amount of tax with interest without which the application for settlement would not be maintainable.", "Thus, interest under section 234B would be payable up to the stage of section 245D(1).", "Our view is supported by the amendment made by Finance Act of 2007 w.e.f. 1.6.2007 in which interest is required to be paid for maintainability of the Application for Settlement.", "The question is - what happens in cases where 90 of the assessed tax is paid but on the basis of the Commissions order under section 245D(4) the advance tax paid turns out to be less than 90 of the assessed tax as defined in the Explanation to Section 234B(1)? As held hereinabove, under section 245C(1) read with section 245C(1B)(ii) and section 245C(1C)(b), the additional amount of income tax payable is to be calculated on the aggregate of total income returned and the income disclosed in the settlement application as if such aggregate is the total income.", "Thus, the scheme of the said sections is based on computation of total income and in that sense we have stated that such application for settlement is akin to a return of income.", "The said provision deals with total income.", "Thus, as stated above, sections 234A, B and C are applicable up to the stage of section 245D(1) order passed by the Settlement Commission.", "However, Parliament has not extended the provisions and the liability to pay interest beyond the date of application for settlement.", "This is the position even after Finance Act of 2007.", "Once this position is taken, section 140A is attracted.", "When an assessee has paid interest under sections 234A, B and C in self-assessment under section 140A, which is similar to the scheme of section 245C(1), and once the Settlement Commission admits the application for settlement, one finds that even under section 140A(1B) interest payable under section 234B has to be computed on an amount equal to the assessed tax as defined in the Explanation to mean tax on the total income as declared in the return.", "Under sub-section (1B) to Section 140A interest payable under section 234B can also be computed on an amount by which the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax as defined in the Explanation thereto.", "Thus, there is no provision under Chapter XIX-A or even under section 140A (dealing with self-assessment) to charge interest beyond the date of application for settlement after the same is admitted by the Commission under Section 245D(1).", "Moreover, as stated above, under the Act, there is a difference between assessment in law regular assessment or assessment under section 143(1) and assessment by settlement under Chapter XIX-A. The order under section 245D(4) is not an order of regular assessment.", "It is neither an order under section 143(1) or 143(3) or 144.", "Under sections 139 to 158, the process of assessment involves the filing of the return under section 139 or under section 142 inquiry by the A.O. under sections 142 and 143 and making of the order of assessment by the A.O. under section 143(3) or under section 144 and issuing of notice of demand under section 156 on the basis of the assessment order.", "The making of the order of assessment is an integral part of the process of assessment.", "No such steps are required to be followed in the case of proceedings under Chapter XIX-A. The said Chapter contemplates the taxability determined with respect to undisclosed income only by the process of settlement/ arbitration.", "Thus, the nature of the orders under sections 143(1), 143(3) and 144 is different from the orders of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4).", "Even in Commissioner of Income Tax v. Anjum M.H. Ghaswala and others 252 ITR 1 there is no finding by this Court that the order of Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) is an order of assessment under section 143(3) or under section In Ghaswalas case the only question decided by this Court is that the interest under section 234B is mandatory in nature and that Settlement Commission, therefore, had no authority to waive it.", "Further, as stated above, the jurisdiction of the A.O. is not fettered merely because the applicant has filed the Settlement Application.", "The Act does not contemplate stay of the proceedings during that period, i.e., when the Settlement Commission is deciding whether to proceed or reject the settlement application.", "The jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission to proceed commences only after an order is passed under section 245D(1).", "That, after making an application for settlement the applicant is not allowed to withdraw it see section 245C(3).", "Once the case stands admitted, the Settlement Commission shall have exclusive jurisdiction to exercise the powers of the Income Tax Authority.", "The order of Settlement Commission under section 245D(4) shall be final and conclusive under section 245I subject to two qualifications under which it can be recalled, viz., fraud and misrepresentation but even here it is important to note that under section 245D(7) where the settlement becomes void on account of fraud and misrepresentation the proceedings with respect to the matters covered by the settlement shall be deemed to have been revived from the stage at which the application was allowed to be proceeded with by the Settlement Commission.", "This further supports our view that there are two distinct stages under Chapter XIX- A and that the Legislature has not contemplated the levy of interest between order under section 245D(1) stage and section 245D(4) stage.", "Thus, interest under section 234B will be chargeable till the order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(1), i.e., admission of the case.", "Lastly, the expression interest in section 245(6A) fastens the liability to pay interest only when the tax payable in pursuance of an order under section 245D(4) is not paid within the specified time and which levy is different from liability to pay interest under section 234B or under section 245D(2C).", "See Damani Brothers (supra) at page 485 III.", "Whether the Settlement Commission can re-open its concluded proceedings by having recourse to Section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B, if it was not done in the original proceedings? As stated, proceedings before Settlement Commission are similar to arbitration proceedings. It contemplates assessment by settlement and not by way of regular assessment or assessment under section 143(1) or under section 143(3) or under section 144 of the Act.", "In that sense, it is a Code by itself.", "It does not begin with the filing of the return but by filing the application for settlement.", "As stated above, under the Act, procedure for assessment falls in Chapter XIV (in which section 154 falls) which is different from procedure for settlement in Chapter XIX-A in which sections 245C and 245D fall.", "Provision for levy of interest for default in payment of advance tax under section 234B falls in Chapter XVII Section F which deals with collection and recovery of tax which as stated above is incidental to the liability to pay advance tax under section 207 (which is also in Chapter XVII) and to the computation of total income in the manner indicated under Chapter XIX-A vide sections 245C(1B) and 245C(1C) read with the provisos to section 245C(1) on the additional income tax payable on the undisclosed income.", "Further, if one examines the provisions of sections 245C(1B) and 245C(1C), one finds that various situations are taken into account while computing the additional amount of tax payable, viz., if the applicant has not filed his returns, if he has filed but orders of assessment are not passed or if the proceedings are pending for re-assessment under section 147 (again in Chapter XIV) or by way of appeal or revision in connection with such re-assessment and the applicant has not furnished his return of total income in which case tax has to be calculated on the aggregate of total income as assessed in the earlier proceedings for assessment under section 143 or under section 144 or under section 147 see section 245C(1B).", "The point to be noted is that in computation of additional income tax payable by the assessee, there is no mention of section 154.", "On the contrary, under section 245I the order of the Settlement Commission is made final and conclusive on matters mentioned in the application for settlement except in the two cases of fraud and misrepresentation in which case the matter could be re- opened by way of review or recall.", "Like ITAT, the Settlement Commission is a quasi-judicial body.", "Under section 254(2), the ITAT is given the power to rectify but no such power is given to the Settlement Commission.", "Thus, we hold that Settlement Commission cannot reopen its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act.", "Lastly, one must keep in mind the difference between review recall of the order and rectification under section 154.", "The Schedule of Chapter XIX-A does not contemplate invocation of section 154 otherwise there would be no finality to the assessment by settlement which is different from assessment under Chapter XIV where there is an appeal, revision, etc.", "Settlement of liability and not determination of liability is the object of Chapter XIX-A. Even otherwise, invocation of section 154 on facts of this batch of cases is not justified.", "In this batch of cases, the situation which prevailed when the Settlement Commission waived or reduced interest chargeable under sections 234A and 234B was that a debate was on as to whether the Settlement Commission has the power to reduce or waive interest.", "It is only after Ghaswalas case that the law got settled that the nature and the character of the interest was compensatory and mandatory and that the Commission had no such power.", "But even in Ghaswala, the question as to whether such interest under section 234B should run up to the order under section 245D(1) or up to the date of the order under section 234D(4) was not decided.", "In fact, that was the reason for the Orders of Reference to the Constitution Bench of this Court vide orders dated 14.12.2004 and 20.1.2005.", "There is one more reason for this Reference.", "In the case of CIT v. Hindustan Bulk Carrier (2003) 259 ITR 449, a 3- Judge Bench of this Court, by majority, held that where, upon the Order of the Settlement Commission under section 245D(4), there arises a deficit in the payment of advance tax under section 208, the end point or the terminus of the period for which interest has to be paid under section 234B on the deficit is the date on which the Settlement Commission passes the order under section 245D(4).", "This decision was delivered on 17.12.2002 after the judgment of this Court in Ghaswala (supra).", "On the same day, the same Bench in the case of Damani Brothers (supra) held that interest charged under section 234B becomes payable on the income disclosed in the return and the income disclosed before the Settlement Commission that, such interest is chargeable till the Commission acts in terms of section 245D(1) and that after the Settlement Commission allows the application for settlement to be proceeded with there will be no further charge of interest under section 234B. Thus, even on the question of terminus there was lot of controversy and in the circumstances, we are of the view that invocation of section 154 (held to be inapplicable to Chapter XIX-A proceedings) cannot be justified.", "Conclusions : 16.", "(1) Sections 234A, 234B and 234C are applicable to the proceedings of the Settlement Commission under Chapter XIX-A of the Act to the extent indicated hereinabove.", "Consequent upon conclusion (1), the terminal point for the levy of interest under section 234B would be up to the date of the order under section 245D(1) and not up to the date of the Order of Settlement under section 245D(4).", "The Settlement Commission cannot re-open its concluded proceedings by invoking section 154 of the Act so as to levy interest under section 234B, particularly, in view of section 245I. Accordingly, Reference to the Constitution Bench vide orders dated 14.12.2004 and 20.1.2005 stands duly answered and the matters are accordingly disposed of.", "CJI H. Kapadia) J. Sudershan Reddy) J. section Radhakrishnan) J. (Surinder Singh Nijjar) J. (Swatanter Kumar) New Delhi October 21, 2010."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2011_17", "text": ["H. KAPADIA, CJI Leave granted.", "A short question which arises for determination in this batch of cases is - whether interest under Section 234B can be charged on the tax calculated on book profits under Section 115JA? In other words, whether advance tax was at all payable on book profits under Section 115JA? The lead matter in this batch of cases is Joint CIT v. Rolta India Limited (Civil Appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) Number 25746/09).", "Assessee furnished a return of income on 28.11.1997 declaring total income of Rs. Nil.", "On 28.3.2000, an order under Section 143(3) was passed determining the total income at nil after set off of unabsorbed business loss and depreciation.", "The tax was levied on the book profit worked out at Rs. 1,52,61,834/- determined as per the provisions of Section 115JA.", "The interest under Section 234B of Rs. 39,73,167/- was charged on the tax on the book profit as worked out in the order of assessment.", "Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee went in appeal before CIT (A).", "The appeal on the question in hand was dismissed.", "On charging of interest under Section 234B the appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal on the ground that the case fell under Section 115JA and not under Section 115J, hence, judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of M s Kwality Biscuits Limited was not applicable.", "At one stage the Bombay High Court decided the matter in favour of the Department but later on by way of review it took the view following the judgment of Karnataka High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Limited that interest under Section 234B cannot be charged on tax calculated on book profits, hence, the CIT has come to this Court by way of Civil Appeal(s).", "We quote hereinbelow Sections 234B and 234C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act): Interest for defaults in payment of advance tax.", "234B. (1) Subject to the other provisions of this section, where, in any financial year, an assessee who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or, where the advance tax paid by such assessee under the provisions of section 210 is less than ninety per cent of the assessed tax, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April next following such financial year to the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 and where a regular assessment is made, to the date of such regular assessment, on an amount equal to the assessed tax or, as the case may be, on the amount by which the advance tax paid as aforesaid falls short of the assessed tax.", "Explanation 1.--In this section, assessed tax means,-- (a) for the purposes of computing the interest payable under section 140A, the tax on the total income as declared in the return referred to in that section (b) in any other case, the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment, as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income.", "Explanation 2.--Where, in relation to an assessment year, an assessment is made for the first time under section 147, the assessment so made shall be regarded as a regular assessment for the purposes of this section.", "Explanation 3.--In Explanation 1 and in sub- section (3) tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 shall not include the additional income-tax, if any, payable under section 143.", "Where, before the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 or completion of a regular assessment, tax is paid by the assessee under section 140A or otherwise,-- interest shall be calculated in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this section up to the date on which the tax is so paid, and reduced by the interest, if any, paid under section 140A towards the interest chargeable under this section thereafter, interest shall be calculated at the rate aforesaid on the amount by which the tax so paid together with the advance tax paid falls short of the assessed tax.", "Where, as a result of an order of re- assessment or re-computation under section 147, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) is increased, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period commencing on the day following the date of determination of total income under sub-section (1) of section 143 and where a regular assessment is made as is referred to in sub-section (1) following the date of such regular assessment and ending on the date of the re-assessment or re-computation under section 147, on the amount by which the tax on the total income determined on the basis of the re-assessment or re-computation exceeds the tax on the total income determined under sub-section (1) of section 143 or on the basis of the regular assessment aforesaid.", "Where, as a result of an order under section 154 or section 155 or section 250 or section 254 or section 260 or section 262 or section 263 or section 264 or an order of the Settlement Commission under sub-section (4) of section 245D, the amount on which interest was payable under sub-section (1) or sub- section (3) has been increased or reduced, as the case may be, the interest shall be increased or reduced accordingly, and-- in a case where the interest is increased, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum payable and such notice of demand shall be deemed to be a notice under section 156 and the provisions of this Act shall apply accordingly in a case where the interest is reduced, the excess interest paid, if any, shall be refunded.", "The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent assessment years.", "Interest for deferment of advance tax.", "234C. (1) Where in any financial year,-- (a) the company which is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or-- the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June is less than fifteen per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of September is less than forty-five per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of December is less than seventy-five per cent of the tax due on the returned income, then, the company shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month for a period of three months on the amount of the shortfall from fifteen per cent or forty-five per cent or seventy-five per cent, as the case may be, of the tax due on the returned income the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of March is less than the tax due on the returned income, then, the company shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one- half per cent on the amount of the shortfall from the tax due on the returned income: Provided that if the advance tax paid by the company on its current income on or before the 15th day of June or the 15th day of September, is not less than twelve per cent or, as the case may be, thirty-six per cent of the tax due on the returned income, then, it shall not be liable to pay any interest on the amount of the shortfall on those dates (b) the assessee, other than a company, who is liable to pay advance tax under section 208 has failed to pay such tax or,-- the advance tax paid by the assessee on his current income on or before the 15th day of September is less than thirty per cent of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before the 15th day of December is less than sixty per cent of the tax due on the returned income, then, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one-half per cent per month for a period of three months on the amount of the shortfall from thirty per cent or, as the case may be, sixty per cent of the tax due on the returned income the advance tax paid by the assessee on his current income on or before the 15th day of March is less than the tax due on the returned income, then, the assessee shall be liable to pay simple interest at the rate of one and one- half per cent on the amount of the shortfall from the tax due on the returned income: Provided that nothing contained in this sub- section shall apply to any shortfall in the payment of the tax due on the returned income where such shortfall is on account of under- estimate or failure to estimate-- (a) the amount of capital gains or (b) income of the nature referred to in sub- clause (ix) of clause (24) of section 2, and the assessee has paid the whole of the amount of tax payable in respect of income referred to in clause (a) or clause (b), as the case may be, had such income been a part of the total income, as part of the remaining instalments of advance tax which are due or where no such instalments are due, by the 31st day of March of the financial year: Explanation.--In this section, tax due on the returned income means the tax chargeable on the total income declared in the return of income furnished by the assessee for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April immediately following the financial year in which the advance tax is paid or payable, as reduced by the amount of tax deductible or collectible at source in accordance with the provisions of Chapter XVII on any income which is subject to such deduction or collection and which is taken into account in computing such total income.", "The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989 and subsequent assessment years.", "At the outset, it may be stated that Sections 234B and 234C do not make any reference to Section 115J/115JA.", "Section 234B lays down that where advance tax is required to be paid under Section 208 and there is a failure on that if the amount of advance tax paid under Section 210 is less than 90 of the assessed tax, then, in that case the assessee is liable to pay interest.", "Section 234C refers to interest for deferment of advance tax.", "It says that if the assessee has to pay advance tax on its current income on or before 15th of June and the tax paid is less than 15 of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of the advance tax paid on or before 15th of September is less than 45 of the tax due on the returned income or the amount of such advance tax paid on or before 15th of December is less than 75 of the tax due on the returned income, then the assessee shall be liable to pay interest at the specified rate on the amount of the shortfall from 15 or 45 or 75, as the case may be, of the tax due on the returned income.", "In our view, Section 115J/115JA are special provisions.", "Section 207 envisages that tax shall be payable in advance during any financial year on current income in accordance with the scheme provided in Sections 208 to 219 (both inclusive) in respect of the total income of the assessee that would be chargeable to tax for the assessment year immediately following that financial year.", "Section 215(5) of the Act defined what is assessed tax, i.e., tax determined on the basis of regular assessment so far as such tax relates to income subject to advance tax.", "The evaluation of the current income and the determination of the assessed income had to be made in terms of the statutory scheme comprising Section 115J/115JA of the Act.", "Hence, levying of interest was inescapable.", "The assessee was bound to pay advance tax under the said scheme of the Act.", "Section 115J/115JA of the Act were special provisions which provided that where in the case of an assessee, the total income as computed under the Act in respect of any previous year relevant to the assessment year is less than 30 of the book profit, the total income of the assessee shall be deemed to be an amount equal to 30 of such book profit.", "The object is to tax zero-tax companies.", "Section 115J was inserted by Finance Act, 1987 w.e.f. 1.4.1988.", "This section was in force from 1.4.1988 to 31.3.1991.", "After 1.4.1991, Section 115JA was inserted by Finance Act of 1996 w.e.f.", "1.4.1997.", "After insertion of Section 115JA, Section 115JB was inserted by Finance Act, 2000 w.e.f. 1.4.2001.", "It is clear from reading Sections 115JA and 115JB that the question whether a company which is liable to pay tax under either provision does not assume importance because specific provision(s) is made in the section saying that all other provisions of the Act shall apply to the MAT Company (Section 115JA(4) and Section 115JB(5)).", "Similarly, amendments have been made in the relevant Finance Acts providing for payment of advance tax under Sections 115JA and 115JB.", "So far as interest leviable under Section 234B is concerned, the section is clear that it applies to all companies.", "The pre-requisite condition for applicability of Section 234B is that assessee is liable to pay tax under Section 208 and the expression assessed tax is defined to mean the tax on the total income determined under Section 143(1) or under Section 143(3) as reduced by the amount of tax deducted or collected at source.", "Thus, there is no exclusion of Section 115J/115JA in the levy of interest under Section 234B. The expression assessed tax is defined to mean the tax assessed on regular assessment which means the tax determined on the application of Section 115J/115JA in the regular assessment.", "The question which remains to be considered is whether the assessee, which is a MAT Company, was not in a position to estimate its profits of the current year prior to the end of the financial year on 31st March.", "In this connection the assessee placed reliance on the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in the case of Kwality Biscuits Limited v. CIT reported in (2000) 243 ITR 519 and, according to the Karnataka High Court, the profit as computed under the Income Tax Act, 1961 had to be prepared and thereafter the book profit as contemplated under Section 115J of the Act had to be determined and then, the liability of the assessee to pay tax under Section 115J of the Act arose, only if the total income as computed under the provisions of the Act was less than 30 of the book profit.", "According to the Karnataka High Court, this entire exercise of computing income or the book profits of the company could be done only at the end of the financial year and hence the provisions of Sections 207, 208, 209 and 210 (predecessors of Sections 234B and 234C) were not applicable until and unless the accounts stood audited and the balance sheet stood prepared, because till then even the assessee may not know whether the provisions of Section 115J would be applied or not.", "The Court, therefore, held that the liability would arise only after the profit is determined in accordance with the provisions of the Companies Act, 1956 and, therefore, interest under Sections 234B and 234C is not leviable in cases where Section 115J applied.", "This view of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Limited was not shared by the Gauhati High Court in Assam Bengal Carriers Limited v. CIT reported in (1999) 239 ITR 862 and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Itarsi Oil and Flours (P.) Limited v. CIT reported in (2001) 250 ITR 686 as also by the Bombay High Court in the case of CIT v. Kotak Mahindra Finance Limited reported in (2003) 130 TAXMAN 730 which decided the issue in favour of the Department and against the assessee.", "It appears that none of the assessees challenged the decisions of the Gauhati High Court, Madhya Pradesh High Court as well as Bombay High Court in the Supreme Court.", "However, it may be noted that the judgment of the Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits Limited was confined to Section 115J of the Act.", "The Order of the Supreme Court dismissing the Special Leave Petition in limine filed by the Department against Kwality Biscuits Limited is reported in (2006) 284 ITR 434.", "Thus, the judgment of Karnataka High Court in Kwality Biscuits stood affirmed.", "However, the Karnataka High Court has thereafter in the case of Jindal Thermal Power Company Limited v. Dy.", "CIT reported in (2006) 154 TAXMAN 547 distinguished its own decision in case of Kwality Biscuits Limited (supra) and held that Section 115JB, with which we are concerned, is a self-contained code pertaining to MAT, which imposed liability for payment of advance tax on MAT companies and, therefore, where such companies defaulted in payment of advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JB, it was liable to pay interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the Act.", "Thus, it can be concluded that interest under Sections 234B and 234C shall be payable on failure to pay advance tax in respect of tax payable under Section 115JA/115JB.", "For the aforestated reasons, Circular Number 13/2001 dated 9.11.2001 issued by CBDT reported in 252 ITR(St.)50 has no application.", "Moreover, in any event, para 2 of that Circular itself indicates that a large number of companies liable to be taxed under MAT provisions of Section 115JB were not making advance tax payments.", "In the said circular, it has been clarified that Section 115JB is a self-contained code and thus, all companies were liable for payment of advance tax under Section 115JB and consequently provisions of Sections 234B and 234C imposing interest on default in payment of advance tax were also applicable.", "For the aforestated reasons CIT succeeds in the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. (C) Number 25746 of 2009 (Jt.", "CIT v. Rolta India Limited) as also in the civil appeal arising out of S.L.P. No. 18367 of 2010 (CIT-3 v. Export Credit Guarantee Corporation of India Limited).", "Consequently, Civil Appeal Number 459 of 2006 (Nahar Exports v. CIT) and Civil Appeal Number 7429 of 2008 (Lakshmi Precision Screws Limited v. CIT) stand dismissed with no order as to costs.", "CJI H. Kapadia) J. section Panicker Radhakrishnan) J. (Swatanter Kumar) New Delhi January 7, 2011"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2013_433", "text": ["Application for impleadment is allowed.", "Delay condoned.", "Leave granted.", "This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Sikkim at Gangtok in Writ Petition(C) No.44 of 2009, dated 05.10.2010.", "By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court has quashed the order of assessment passed by the Assistant CIT, Circle-I, Siliguri under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) dated 11.12.2009, whereby the assessing authority has confirmed the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act for the Assessment Years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997, respectively.", "The facts in brief are: The assessee is a Sikkim based non-Sikkimese who had filed his first return of income for Assessment Year 1997-1998.", "Upon assessment, it was discovered that he had a net profit of Rs.5,78,832/- during the Assessment Year 1996-1997 relevant to the Assessment Year 1995- 1996.", "Since no return was filed by the assessee for the Assessment Year 1996-1997 despite capitalizing the aforesaid profit, proceedings under Section 147 of the Act were initiated against him for the said Assessment Year.", "Accordingly, on 26.05.1998 the notice was issued under Section 148 of the Act.", "Further, the Revenue has found out that as on 31.03.1996 the assessee had brought forward closing capital of Rs.1,73,90,397/- including the aforesaid net profit during the Assessment Year 1996-1997.", "The same remained unexplained as the return of income for Assessment Year 1995-1996 was also not furnished by the assessee.", "Hence, another notice under Section 148 was issued to the assessee for the Assessment Year 1995-1996, dated 30.03.2000.", "It has come on record that the assessee did not comply with the aforesaid notices issued under Section 148 of the Act and thus, a letter dated 19.01.2001 came to be issued to the assessee as a reminder to file his return of income for the assessment years clearly mentioning that failure to do so would lead to an ex-parte assessment under Section 144 of the Act.", "Thereafter, upon filing of written submissions by the assessee, notice under Section 142(1) of the Act dated 25.06.2001 was issued for the Assessment Year 1995-1996 alongwith final show cause fixing compliance for hearing dated 09.07.2001.", "The assessee sought for an adjournment which was not granted and the assessments were completed ex-parte under Section 144 of the Act raising a tax demand of Rs.2,45,87,625/- and Rs.6,32,972/- for Assessment Years 1995-96 and 1996-97, respectively by orders dated 09.07.2001 and 28.03.2001, respectively.", "Further, penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act were also initiated for both Assessment Years.", "The assessee approached the Writ Court in Writ Petition(c) Numbers 31 and 38 of 2001 challenging the aforesaid notices issued under Section 148, dated 26.05.1998 and 30.03.2000 and the subsequent assessment orders, dated 09.07.2001 and 28.03.2001.", "The issue raised before the Writ Court was whether the income of the non-Sikkimese residing in Sikkim is taxable under the Act.", "The said question was referred to a Committee for its consideration and the Writ Petition was disposed of as withdrawn with the direction to maintain status quo in the matter till the declaration of final decision by the Committee, by order dated 21.07.2005.", "In the meanwhile, Section 10 (26AAA) of the Act was inserted by Section 4 of the Finance Act, 2008 whereby certain income accruing or arising to a Sikkimese individual was exempted from tax.", "Thereafter, Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the Board) issued Instruction Number 8 dated 29.07.2008 in respect of tax liability of the income accruing or arising to a non- Sikkimese individual residing in Sikkim.", "In the light of the aforesaid amendment and instruction, the Writ Court by order dated 15.07.2009 reiterated the earlier order dated 21.07.2005 and granted liberty to parties to approach the Writ Court or any other competent authority forum for redressal of their grievances arising out of the matter.", "It is in the aforesaid backdrop that the assessing authority has passed the assessment order against the assessee confirming the earlier notices issued for Assessment Years 1995-1996 and 1996-1997 respectively and held that the assessee is liable to pay the income tax as demanded by demand notice dated 11.12.2009.", "Aggrieved by the aforesaid, the assessee instead of exhausting the statutory remedy available under the Act, i.e., statutory appeal before the Statutory Appellate Authority (Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)) has approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.", "Suffice it is to notice here that the Writ Court has delved into the merits of the case and thought it fit to quash the order of the assessing authority dated 11.12.2009, by judgment and order dated 05.10.2010.", "Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment and order of the Writ Court, the Revenue is before us in this appeal questioning the correctness or otherwise of the impugned judgment and order.", "We have heard Shri Gaurab Banerjee, learned Additional Solicitor General appearing for the appellants and Shri Ganesh, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.", "Shri Gaurab Banerjee would submit that the Writ Court was not justified in entertaining the Writ Petition since the assessee has invoked its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India despite the availability of an equally efficacious alternate remedy under the Act and therefore, the Writ Court ought not to have interfered with the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment order passed by the assessing authority and the consequential demand notices issued thereon.", "Au contraire, Shri Ganesh would support the impugned judgment and order of the High Court.", "We have considered the rival contentions made by the learned counsel for the parties to the lis.", "In the instant case, the only question which arises for our consideration and decision is whether the High Court was justified in interfering with the order passed by the assessing authority under Section 148 of the Act in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 when an equally efficacious alternate remedy was available to the assessee under the Act.", "Before discussing the fact proposition, we would notice the principle of law as laid down by this Court.", "It is settled law that non-entertainment of petitions under writ jurisdiction by the High Court when an efficacious alternative remedy is available is a rule of self-imposed limitation.", "It is essentially a rule of policy, convenience and discretion rather than a rule of law.", "Undoubtedly, it is within the discretion of the High Court to grant relief under Article 226 despite the existence of an alternative remedy.", "However, the High Court must not interfere if there is an adequate efficacious alternative remedy available to the petitioner and he has approached the High Court without availing the same unless he has made out an exceptional case warranting such interference or there exist sufficient grounds to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226.", "(See: State of U.P. vs Mohammad Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 Titaghur Paper Mills Company Ltd. vs State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 Harbanslal Sahnia vs Indian Oil Corpn.", "Limited, (2003) 2 SCC 107 State of H.P. vs Gujarat Ambuja Cement Ltd., (2005) 6 SCC 499).", "The Constitution Benches of this Court in K.S. Rashid and Sons vs Income Tax Investigation Commission, AIR 1954 SC 207 Sangram Singh vs Election Tribunal, Kotah, AIR 1955 SC 425 Union of India vs T.R. Varma, AIR 1957 SC 882 State of U.P. vs Mohd. Nooh, AIR 1958 SC 86 and K.S. Venkataraman and Company (P) Limited vs State of Madras, AIR 1966 SC 1089 have held that though Article 226 confers a very wide powers in the matter of issuing writs on the High Court, the remedy of writ absolutely discretionary in character.", "If the High Court is satisfied that the aggrieved party can have an adequate or suitable relief elsewhere, it can refuse to exercise its jurisdiction.", "The Court, in extraordinary circumstances, may exercise the power if it comes to the conclusion that there has been a breach of principles of natural justice or procedure required for decision has not been adopted.", "(See: N.T. Veluswami Thevar vs G. Raja Nainar, AIR 1959 SC 422 Municipal Council, Khurai vs Kamal Kumar, (1965) 2 SCR 653 Siliguri Municipality vs Amalendu Das, (1984) 2 SCC 436 S.T. Muthusami vs K. Natarajan, (1988) 1 SCC 572 Rajasthan SRTC vs Krishna Kant, (1995) 5 SCC 75 Kerala SEB vs Kurien E. Kalathil, (2000) 6 SCC 293 A. Venkatasubbiah Naidu vs section Chellappan, (2000) 7 SCC 695 L.L. Sudhakar Reddy vs State of A.P., (2001) 6 SCC 634 Shri Sant Sadguru Janardan Swami (Moingiri Maharaj) Sahakari Dugdha Utpadak Sanstha vs State of Maharashtra, (2001) 8 SCC 509 Pratap Singh vs State of Haryana, (2002) 7 SCC 484 and GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd. vs ITO, (2003) 1 SCC 72).", "In Nivedita Sharma vs Cellular Operators Assn. of India, (2011) 14 SCC 337, this Court has held that where hierarchy of appeals is provided by the statute, party must exhaust the statutory remedies before resorting to writ jurisdiction for relief and observed as follows: In Thansingh Nathmal v. Supdt.", "of Taxes, AIR 1964 SC 1419 this Court adverted to the rule of self-imposed restraint that the writ petition will not be entertained if an effective remedy is available to the aggrieved person and observed: (AIR p. 1423, para 7).", "The High Court does not therefore act as a court of appeal against the decision of a court or tribunal, to correct errors of fact, and does not by assuming jurisdiction under Article 226 trench upon an alternative remedy provided by statute for obtaining relief.", "Where it is open to the aggrieved petitioner to move another tribunal, or even itself in another jurisdiction for obtaining redress in the manner provided by a statute, the High Court normally will not permit by entertaining a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution the machinery created under the statute to be bypassed, and will leave the party applying to it to seek resort to the machinery so set up.", "In Titaghur Paper Mills Company Limited v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 this Court observed: (SCC pp.", "440-41, para 11) It is now well recognised that where a right or liability is created by a statute which gives a special remedy for enforcing it, the remedy provided by that statute only must be availed of.", "This rule was stated with great clarity by Willes, J. in Wolverhampton New Waterworks Company v. Hawkesford, 141 ER 486 in the following passage: (ER p. 495) There are three classes of cases in which a liability may be established founded upon a statute.", "But there is a third class viz. where a liability not existing at common law is created by a statute which at the same time gives a special and particular remedy for enforcing it.", "The remedy provided by the statute must be followed, and it is not competent to the party to pursue the course applicable to cases of the second class.", "The form given by the statute must be adopted and adhered to.", "The rule laid down in this passage was approved by the House of Lords in Neville v. London Express Newspapers Limited, 1919 AC 368 and has been reaffirmed by the Privy Council in Attorney General of Trinidad and Tobago v. Gordon Grant and Company Limited, 1935 AC 532 (PC) and Secy.", "of State v. Mask and Company, AIR 1940 PC 105 It has also been held to be equally applicable to enforcement of rights, and has been followed by this Court throughout.", "The High Court was therefore justified in dismissing the writ petitions in limine.", "In Mafatlal Industries Limited v. Union of India, (1997) 5 SCC 536 P. Jeevan Reddy, J. (speaking for the majority of the larger Bench) observed: (SCC p. 607, para 77) So far as the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226or for that matter, the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 32is concerned, it is obvious that the provisions of the Act cannot bar and curtail these remedies.", "It is, however, equally obvious that while exercising the power under Article 226/Article 32, the Court would certainly take note of the legislative intent manifested in the provisions of the Act and would exercise their jurisdiction consistent with the provisions of the enactment.", "(See: G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman Raman Limited, AIR 1952 SC 192 CCE v. Dunlop India Limited, (1985) 1 SCC 260 Ramendra Kishore Biswas v. State of Tripura, (1999) 1 SCC 472 Shivgonda Anna Patil v. State of Maharashtra, (1999) 3 SCC 5 C.A. Abraham v. ITO, (1961) 2 SCR 765 Titaghur Paper Mills Co. Limited v. State of Orissa, (1983) 2 SCC 433 H.B. Gandhi v. Gopi Nath and Sons, 1992 Supp (2) SCC 312 Whirlpool Corpn.", "v. Registrar of Trade Marks, (1998) 8 SCC 1 Tin Plate Company of India Limited v. State of Bihar, (1998) 8 SCC 272 Sheela Devi v. Jaspal Singh, (1999) 1 SCC 209 and Punjab National Bank O.C. Krishnan, (2001) 6 SCC 569) In Union of India vs Guwahati Carbon Limited, (2012) 11 SCC 651, this Court has reiterated the aforesaid principle and observed: Before we discuss the correctness of the impugned order, we intend to remind ourselves the observations made by this Court in Munshi Ram v. Municipal Committee, Chheharta, (1979) 3 SCC 83.", "In the said decision, this Court was pleased to observe that: (SCC p. 88, para 23).", "when a revenue statute provides for a person aggrieved by an assessment thereunder, a particular remedy to be sought in a particular forum, in a particular way, it must be sought in that forum and in that manner, and all the other forums and modes of seeking remedy are excluded.", "Thus, while it can be said that this Court has recognized some exceptions to the rule of alternative remedy, i.e., where the statutory authority has not acted in accordance with the provisions of the enactment in question, or in defiance of the fundamental principles of judicial procedure, or has resorted to invoke the provisions which are repealed, or when an order has been passed in total violation of the principles of natural justice, the proposition laid down in Thansingh Nathmal case, Titagarh Paper Mills case and other similar judgments that the High Court will not entertain a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution if an effective alternative remedy is available to the aggrieved person or the statute under which the action complained of has been taken itself contains a mechanism for redressal of grievance still holds the field.", "Therefore, when a statutory forum is created by law for redressal of grievances, a writ petition should not be entertained ignoring the statutory dispensation.", "In the instant case, the Act provides complete machinery for the assessment re-assessment of tax, imposition of penalty and for obtaining relief in respect of any improper orders passed by the Revenue Authorities, and the assessee could not be permitted to abandon that machinery and to invoke the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution when he had adequate remedy open to him by an appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).", "The remedy under the statute, however, must be effective and not a mere formality with no substantial relief.", "In Ram and Shyam Company vs State of Haryana, (1985) 3 SCC 267 this Court has noticed that if an appeal is from Caesar to Caesars wife the existence of alternative remedy would be a mirage and an exercise in futility.", "In the instant case, neither has the assessee-writ petitioner described the available alternate remedy under the Act as ineffectual and non-efficacious while invoking the writ jurisdiction of the High Court nor has the High Court ascribed cogent and satisfactory reasons to have exercised its jurisdiction in the facts of instant case.", "In light of the same, we are of the considered opinion that the Writ Court ought not to have entertained the Writ Petition filed by the assessee, wherein he has only questioned the correctness or otherwise of the notices issued under Section 148 of the Act, the re-assessment orders passed and the consequential demand notices issued thereon.", "In view of the above, we allow this appeal and set aside the judgment and order passed by the High Court in Writ Petition (Civil) Number44 of 2009.", "We grant liberty to the respondent, if he so desires, to file an appropriate petition appeal against the orders of re-assessment passed under Section 148 of the Act within four weeks time from today.", "If the petition is filed before the appellate authority within the time granted by this Court, the appellate authority shall consider the petition only on merits without any reference to the period of limitation.", "However, it is clarified that the appellate authority shall not be influenced by any observation made by the High Court while disposing of the Writ Petition (Civil) Number44 of 2009, in its judgment and order dated 05.10.2010.", "All the contentions of the parties are left open.", "Ordered accordingly.", "J. ( H. L. DATTU ) J. ( M. Y. EQBAL ) NEW DELHI AUGUST 08, 2013."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Issue", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2014_17", "text": ["section Radhakrishnan, J. We are concerned with four Criminal Appeals Number61 to 64 of 2007, out of which two Criminal Appeals Number61 of 2007 and 63 of 2007 relate to M s Sasi Enterprises, a registered partnership firm, of which Ms. Jayalalitha and Mrs. N. Sasikala are partners, which relate to the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93 respectively.", "Criminal Appeal Nos.62 and 63 of 2007 relate to J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala respectively for the assessment years 1993-94.", "Proceedings giving rise to these appeals originated from the complaints filed by the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai, before the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate (Egmore), Chennai, for the willful and deliberate failure to file returns for the assessment years 1991-92, 1992-93 and hence committing offences punishable under Section 276 CC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act).", "Complaints were filed on 21.8.1997 after getting the sanction from the Commissioner of Income Tax, Central II, Chennai under Section 279(1) of the Income Tax Act.", "Appellants filed two discharge petitions under Section 245(2) Cr.", "P.C., which were dismissed by the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate vide order dated 14.6.2006.", "Appellants preferred Crl.", "R.C. Numbers781 to 786 of 2006 before the High Court of Madras which were dismissed by the High Court vide its common order dated 2.12.2006, which are the subject matters of these appeals.", "M s Sasikala Enterprises was formed as a partnership firm by a deed dated 06.02.1989 with N. Sasikala and T.V. Dinakaran as its partners, which was later reconstituted with effect from 04.05.1990 with J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala as partners.", "The firm did the business through two units, namely, M s Fax Universal and M s J.S. Plan Printers, which, inter alia, included the business in running all kinds of motor cars, dealing in vehicles and goods etc.", "In the complaint E.O.C.C. Number202 of 1997 filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, M s Sasi Enterprises was shown as the first accused (A-1) and J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala were shown as (A-2) and (A-3) respectively, who were stated to be responsible for the day- to-day business of the firm during the assessment years in question and were individually, jointly and severally made responsible and liable for all the activities of the firm.", "Partnership deed dated 04.05.1990 itself stated that the partners, A-2 and A-3 are responsible and empowered to operate bank accounts, have full and equal rights in the management of the firm in its business activities, deploy funds for the business of the firm, appoint staff, watchman etc.", "and to represent the firm before income tax, sales tax and other authorities.", "M s Sasi Enterprises, the firm, did not file any returns for the assessment year 1991-92 and 1992-93, for which the firm and its partners are being prosecuted under Section 276 CC of the Act.", "J. Jayalalitha and N. Sasikala did not file returns for the assessment year 1993-94 and hence they are being prosecuted for that breach (in their individual capacity) separately but not for the assessment years 1991-92 or 1992-93 and their returns have been filed as individual assessee by them for the assessment years 1991-92 and 1992-93, though belatedly on 20.11.1994 and 23.02.1994 respectively.", "In those returns it was mentioned that accounts of the firm had not been finalized and no returns of the firm had been filed.", "The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax in his complaint stated that the firm through its partners ought to have filed its returns under Section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1991-92 on or before 31st August, 1991 and for the assessment year 1992-93 on or before 31st August, 1992 and A-2 in her individual capacity also should have filed her return for the year 1993-94 under Section 139(1) on or before 31.08.1993 and A-3 also ought to have filed her return for the assessment year 1993-94 on or before 31st August, 1993, as per Section 139(1) of the Act.", "The accused persons, it was pointed out, did not bother to file the returns even before the end of the respective assessment years, nor had they filed any return at the outer statutory limit prescribed under Section 139(4) of the Act i.e. at the end of March of the assessment year.", "It was also pointed out that a survey was conducted in respect of the firm under Section 133A on 25.08.1992 and following that a notice under Section 148 was served on the partnership firm on 15.2.1994 to file the return of income tax for the years in question.", "Though notice was served on 16.2.1994, no return was filed within the time granted in the notice.", "Neither return was filed, nor particulars of the income were furnished.", "For the assessment year 1991-92, it was stated that pre-assessment notice was served on 18.12.1995, notice under Section 142(1)(ii) giving opportunities was also issued on 20.07.1995.", "The department made the best judgment assessment for the assessment year 1991-92 under Section 144 on a total income of Rs.5,84,860/- on 08.02.1996 and tax was determined as Rs.3,02,434/- and demand notice for Rs.9,95,388/- was issued as tax and interest payable on 08.02.1996.", "For the assessment year 1992-93, the best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made on 9.2.1996 on the firm on a total income of Rs.14,87,930/- and tax determined at Rs.8,08,153/-, a demand notice was issued towards the tax and interest payable.", "We may indicate, so far as A-2 is concerned, the due date for filing of return of income as per Section 139(1) of the Act for the assessment year 1993-94 was 31.8.1993.", "Notice under Section 142(1)(i) was issued to A-2 calling for return of income on 18.1.1994.", "The said notice was served on her on 19.1.1994.", "Reminders were issued on 10.2.1994, 22.8.1994 and 23.8.1995.", "No return was filed as required under Section 139(4) before 31.3.1995.", "The Department on 31.7.1995 issued notice under Section 142(1)(ii) calling for particulars of income and other details for completion of assessment.", "Neither the return of income was filed nor the particulars of income were furnished.", "Best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made on 9.2.1996 on a total income of Rs.1,04,49,153/- and tax determined at Rs.46,68,676/- and demand of Rs.96,98,801/-, inclusive of interest at Rs.55,53,882/- was raised after adjusting pre-paid tax of Rs.5,23,756/- .", "The Department then issued show-cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC on 14.6.1996.", "Later, sanction for prosecution was accorded by the Commissioner of Income Tax on 3.10.1996.", "A-3 also failed to file the return of income as per Section 139(1) for the assessment year 1993-94 before the due date i.e. 31.8.1993.", "Notice under Section 142(1)(i) was issued to A-3 calling for filing of return of income on 8.11.1995.", "Further, notice was also issued under Section 142(1)(ii) on 21.7.1995 calling for particulars of income and other details for completion of assessment.", "Neither the return of income was filed nor the particulars of income were furnished.", "Best judgment assessment under Section 144 was made on 8.2.1996 on a total income of Rs.70,28,110/- and tax determined at Rs.26,86,445/-.", "The total tax payable, inclusive of interest due was Rs.71,19,527/-.", "After giving effect to the appellate order, the total income was revised by Rs.19,25,000/-, resulting in tax demand of Rs.20,23,279/-, inclusive of interest levied.", "Later, a show-cause notice for prosecution under Section 276CC was issued to A-3 on 7.8.1996.", "A-3 filed replies on 24.11.1996 and 24.3.1997.", "The Commissioner of Income Tax accorded sanction for prosecution on 4.8.1997.", "We may incidentally also point out, the final tax liability so far as the firm is concerned, was determined as Rs.32,63,482/- on giving effect to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 1.9.2006 and after giving credit of pre-paid tax for the assessment year 1991-92.", "For the assessment year 1992-93 for the firm, final tax liability was determined at Rs.52,47,594/- on giving effect to the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 1.9.2006 and after giving credit of pre-paid tax.", "So far as A-2 is concerned, for the assessment year 1993-94 final tax liability was determined at Rs.12,54,395/- giving effect to the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 11.10.2008 after giving credit to pre-paid tax.", "So far as A-3 is concerned, for the assessment year 1993-94, final tax liability was determined as Rs.9,81,870/- after giving effect to the order of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (B Bench), Chennai dated 14.9.2004 and after giving credit to pre-paid tax.", "We have already indicated, for not filing of returns and due to non-compliance of the various statutory provisions, prosecution was initiated under Section 276CC of the Act against all the accused persons and the complaints were filed on 21.08.1997 before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, which the High Court by the impugned order has permitted to go on.", "Shri Shekhar Naphade, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants, submitted that the High Court did not appreciate the scope of Section 276CC of the Act.", "Learned senior counsel pointed out that once it is established that on the date of the complaint i.e. on 21.08.1997 the assessment had not attained finality, the complaint became pre-mature as on the date of the complaint and no offence had taken place and all the ingredients of offence under Section 276 of the Act were not satisfied.", "Learned senior counsel pointed out that unless and until it is shown that failure to file the return was willful or deliberate, no prosecution under Section 276CC could be initiated.", "Learned senior counsel pointed out that in fact, the second accused in her individual return had disclosed that the firm was doing the business and that it had some income and hence, it cannot be said that A-2 had concealed the fact that the firm had any intention to evade tax liability.", "Learned senior counsel also submitted that whether the assessee had committed any offence or not will depend upon the final assessment of income and tax liability determined by the appropriate authority and not on the assessment made by the assessing officer.", "Placing reliance on the proviso to Section 276CC learned senior counsel submitted that, that is the only interpretation that could be given to Section 276CC.", "In support of his contention reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat v. Vimlaben Vadilal Mehta (Smt.) (1983) 4 SCC 692, Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Gujarat, Ahmedabad v. Vadilal Lallubhai Ors.", "(1983) 4 SCC 697 and State of H.P. and others Gujarat Ambuja Cement Limited and another (2005) 6 SCC 499.", "Referring to Section 278E of the Act, learned senior counsel submitted that till the assessment does not attain finality, Section 276CC is not complete and the presumption under Section 278E is not attracted.", "Learned senior counsel also submitted that the High Court has wrongly applied the principles laid down by this Court in Prakash Nath Khanna and another v. Commissioner of Income Tax and another (2004) 9 SCC 686, in any view, which calls for reconsideration.", "Learned senior counsel submitted that the said Judgment deals with the factum of proviso to Section 276CC of the Act which lays down that there is no offence if the tax amount does not exceed Rs.3,000/-.", "Shri Sidharth Luthra, learned Additional Solicitor General of India, appearing for the Revenue, on the other hand, submitted that Section 139 of the Act placed a statutory mandate on every person to file an income tax return in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner before the due date i.e. 31st August of the relevant assessment year.", "Learned ASG submitted that on breach of Section 139(1) of the Act, cause of action to prosecute the assessee arises subject to other ingredients of Section 276CC of the Act.", "Learned ASG pointed out that what is relevant in the proceedings, is not only the due date prescribed in Section 139(1) of the Act, but also time prescribed under Section 142 and 148 of the Act, by which further opportunities have been given to file the return in the prescribed time.", "In other words, Section 276CC, according to the learned ASG, applies to a situation where assessee has failed to file the return of income as required under Section 139 of the Act or in response to notices issued to the assessee under Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act.", "Learned ASG also submitted that the scope of proviso to Section 276CC to protect the genuine assessees who either file their return belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or those who paid substantial amount of their tax dues by pre-paid taxes.", "Considerable reliance was placed on the Judgment of this Court in Prakash Nath Khanna and another (supra).", "Reliance was also placed on the Judgment of this Court in Maya Rani Punj (Smt.) v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi (1986) 1 SCC 445.", "Learned ASG also explained the scope of Section 278E by placing reliance on P.R. Metrani v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bangalore (2007) 1 SCC 789, Kumar Exports v. Sharma Carpets (2009) 2 SCC 513, and submitted that pendency of the appellate proceedings is not a relevant factor in relation to prosecution under Section 276CC.", "Reference was also made to Ravinder Singh v. State of Haryana (1975) 3 SCC 742 and Standard Chartered Bank and others v. Directorate of Enforcement and others (2006) 4 SCC 278.", "Learned ASG submitted that the Judgment in Prakash Nath Khanna (supra) calls for no reconsideration, as the same has been uniformly applied by this Court as well as by the various High Courts.", "Learned ASG also pointed out that the appellants have been indulging in litigative exercises by which they could hold up the proceedings for almost two decades and that the trial court has rightly rejected the application for discharge, which was affirmed by the High Court and the same calls no interference by this Court.", "We may formulate the questions that arise for our consideration, which are as under: Whether an assessee has the liability duty to file a return under Section 139(1) of the Act within the due date prescribed therein? What is the effect of best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act and will it nullify the liability of the assessee to file its return under Section 139(1) of the Act? Whether non-filing of return under Section 139(1) of the Act, as well as non-compliance of the time prescribed under Sections 142 and 148 of the Act are grounds for invocation of the provisions of Section 276CC of the Act? Whether the pendency of the appellate proceedings relating to assessment or non-attaining finality of the assessment proceedings is a bar in initiating prosecution proceedings under Section 276CC due to non-filing of returns? What is the scope of Section 278E of the Act, and at what stage the presumption can be drawn by the Court? We may, at the outset, point out that the appellants had earlier approached this Court and filed SLP(C) Numbers3655-3658 of 2005 which were disposed of by this Court directing the trial court to dispose of the petition for discharge within a period of two months by its order dated 03.03.2006.", "Learned Chief Metropolitan Magistrate rejected the petitions vide its order dated 14.06.2006.", "Though the High Court affirmed the said order vide its judgment dated 02.12.2006, these appeals were kept pending before this Court over six years for one reason or another.", "We are, in these appeals, concerned with the question of non- filing of returns by the appellants for the assessment year 1991-92, 1992-93 and 1993-94.", "Each and every order passed by the revenue as well as by the Courts were taken up before the higher courts, either through appeals, revisions or writ petitions.", "The details of the various proceedings in respect of these appeals are given in paragraph 30 of the written submissions filed by the revenue, which reveals the dilatory tactics adopted in these cases.", "Courts, we caution, be guarded against those persons who prefer to see it as a medium for stalling all legal processes.", "We do not propose to delve into those issues further since at this stage we are concerned with answering the questions which have been framed by us.", "Section 139 of the Act prior to 1989-90 and after, placed a statutory mandate on every person to file an income tax return in the prescribed form and in the prescribed manner.", "The Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 with effect from 01.04.1989 made various amendments to the Income Tax Act, by which the assessing officer has no power to extend the time for filing a return of income under Section 139(1) and to extend the time for filing under Section 139(3), a return of loss intended to be carried forward.", "The time prescribed for filing a belated return under Section 139(4) or a revised return under Section 139(5) was reduced to one year from the end of the relevant assessment year.", "The provision of Section 139(2) stood incorporated in Section 142(1)(i).", "The notice under Section 142(1)(i) to furnish a return of income cannot be issued in the course of the assessment year itself and need not give the person concerned a minimum period of 30 days for furnishing the return.", "When a return is furnished pursuant to a notice under Section 142(1)(i), the assessment may be made under Section 143 without recourse to Section 147.", "Further, with the deletion of Section 271(1)(a), a penalty for failure to furnish in due time a return of income under Section 139(1), is abolished.", "Levy of punitive interest under Section 234A made mandatory and the discretion of the assessing officer to reduce or waive the interest was taken away.", "Non-compliance with a notice under Section 142(1)(i) may attract prosecution under Section 276CC.", "The Income Tax Act, therefore, had stipulated both the penalty under Section 271(1)(a) and prosecution under Section 276CC, the former for depriving taxes due to the exchequer and later for the offence infraction committed.", "As already indicated by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1989, penalty provision under Section 271(1)(a) had been deleted w.e.f. 01.04.1989 and a provision for levy of mandatory compulsory interest under Section 234A of the Act was introduced.", "But, legislature has never waived or relaxed its prosecuting provisions under Section 276CC of the Act for the infraction or non-furnishing of return of income.", "Section 139 of the Act, as it stood at the relevant time, reads as under: 139.", "(1) Every person, if his total income or the total income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year exceeded the maximum amount which is not chargeable to income-tax, shall, on or before the due date, furnish a return of his income or the income of such other person during the previous year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed.", "Explanation: In this sub-section, due date means- (a) where the assessee is a company, the 30th day of November of the assessment year (b) where the assessee is a person, other than a company.- in a case where the accounts of the assessee are required under this Act or nay other law to be audited, or where the report of any accountant is required to be furnished under section 80HHC or Section 80HHD or in the case of a co-operative society, the 31st day of October of the assessment year: in a case where the total income referred to in this sub- section includes any income from business or profession, not being a case falling under sub-clause (i), the 31st day of August of the assessment year : in any other case, the 30th day of June of the assessment year.", "xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx If any person who has sustained a loss in any previous year under the head Profits and gains of business or profession or under the head Capital gains and claims that the loss or any part thereof should be carried forward under sub-section (1) of section 72, or sub-section (2) of section 73, or sub-section (1) or sub-section (3) of section 74, or sub-section (3) of section 74A, he may furnish, within the time allowed under sub-section (1), a return of loss in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and containing such other particulars as may be prescribed, and all the provisions of this Act shall apply as if it were a return under sub-section (1).", "Any person who has not furnished a return within the time allowed to him under sub-section (1), or within the time allowed under a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142, may furnish the return for any previous year at any time before the expiry of one year from the end of the relevant assessment year or before the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier: xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx A plain reading of the above provisions indicates that it is mandatory on the part of the assessee to file the return before the due date.", "Explanation (a) to the said section defines the term due date, which is 30th November of the assessment year.", "The consequence of non-filing of return on time has also been stipulated in the Act.", "Further a reference to Sections 142 and 148 is also necessary to properly understand the scope of Section 276CC.", "Relevant portion of Section 142, as it stood at the relevant time, is quoted below: Inquiry before assessment.- (1) For the purpose of making an assessment under this Act, the Assessing Officer may serve on any person who has made a return under section 139 or in whose case the time allowed under sub- section (1) of that section for furnishing the return has expired a notice requiring him, on a date to be therein specified,- where such person has not made a return within the time allowed under sub-section (1) of section 139, to furnish a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed, or xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Section 148 refers to the issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.", "Relevant portion of the same is also extracted hereinbelow for ready reference: 148.", "(1) Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147, the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, not being less than thirty days, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139.", "The Assessing Officer shall, before issuing any notice under this section, record his reasons for doing so.", "Sub-section (1) of Section 139, clause (i) sub-section (1) of Section 142 and Section 148 are mentioned in Section 276CC of the Act.", "Section 276CC is extracted as under: 276CC.", "Failure to furnish returns of income.", "If a person wilfully fails to furnish in due time the return of income which he is required to furnish under sub-section (1) of section 139 or by notice given under clause (i) of sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148, he shall be punishable,- in a case where the amount of tax, which would have been evaded if the failure had not been discovered, exceeds one hundred thousand rupees, with rigorous imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than six months but which may extend to seven years and with fine in any other case, with imprisonment for a term which shall not be less than three months but which may extend to three years and with fine: Provided that a person shall not be proceeded against under this section for failure to furnish in due time the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139- for any assessment year commencing prior to the 1st day of April, 1975 or for any assessment year commencing on or after the 1st day of April, 1975 , if- (a) the return is furnished by him before the expiry of the assessment year or (b) the tax payable by him on the total income determined on regular assessment, as reduced by the advance tax, if any, paid, and any tax deducted at source, does not exceed three thousand rupees.", "The constitutional validity of Section 276CC, was upheld by the Karnataka High Court in Sonarome Chemicals Pvt.", "Limited and others v. Union of India and others (2000) 242 ITR 39 (Kar) holding that it does not violate Article 14 of 21 of the Constitution.", "Section punishes the person who willfully fails to furnish the return of income in time.", "The explanation willful default, as observed by Wilber Force J. in Wellington v. Reynold (1962) 40 TC 209 is some deliberate or intentional failure to do what the tax payer ought to have done, knowing that to omit to do so was wrong.", "The assessee is bound to file the return under Section 139(1) of the Act on or before the due date.", "The outer limit is fixed for filing of return as 31st August of the assessment year, over and above, in the present case, not only return was not filed within the due date prescribed under Section 139(1) of the Act, but also the time prescribed under Section 142 and 148 of the Act and the further opportunity given to file the return in the prescribed time was also not availed of.", "Section 276CC applies to situations where an assessee has failed to file a return of income as required under Section 139 of the Act or in response to notices issued to the assessee under Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act.", "The proviso to Section 276CC gives some relief to genuine assesses.", "The proviso to Section 276CC gives further time till the end of the assessment year to furnish return to avoid prosecution.", "In other words, even though the due date would be 31st August of the assessment year as per Section 139(1) of the Act, an assessee gets further seven months time to complete and file the return and such a return though belated, may not attract prosecution of the assessee.", "Similarly, the proviso in clause ii(b) to Section 276CC also provides that if the tax payable determined by regular assessment has reduced by advance tax paid and tax deducted at source does not exceed Rs.3,000/-, such an assessee shall not be prosecuted for not furnishing the return under Section 139(1) of the Act.", "Resultantly, the proviso under Section 276CC takes care of genuine assesses who either file the returns belatedly but within the end of the assessment year or those who have paid substantial amounts of their tax dues by pre-paid taxes, from the rigor of the prosecution under Section 276CC of the Act.", "Section 276CC, it may be noted, takes in sub-section (1) of Section 139, Section 142(1)(i) and Section 148.", "But, the proviso to Section 276CC takes in only sub-section (1) of Section 139 of the Act and the provisions of Section 142(1)(i) or 148 are conspicuously absent.", "Consequently, the benefit of proviso is available only to voluntary filing of return as required under Section 139(1) of the Act.", "In other words, the proviso would not apply after detection of the failure to file the return and after a notice under Section 142(1)(i) or 148 of the Act is issued calling for filing of the return of income.", "Proviso, therefore, envisages the filing of even belated return before the detection or discovery of the failure and issuance of notices under Section 142 or 148 of the Act.", "We may in this respect also refer to sub-section (4) to Section 139 wherein the legislature has used an expression whichever is earlier.", "Both Section 139(1) and Sub-Section (1) of Section 142 are referred to in sub-section (4) to Section 139, which specify time limit.", "Therefore, the expression whichever is earlier has to be read with the time if allowed under sub-section (1) to Section 139 or within the time allowed under notice issued under sub-section (1) of Section 142, whichever is earlier.", "So far as the present case is concerned, it is already noticed that the assessee had not filed the return either within the time allowed under sub-section (1) to Section 139 or within the time allowed under notices issued under sub-section (1) to Section 142.", "We have indicated that on failure to file the returns by the appellants, income tax department made a best judgment assessment under Section 144 of the Act and later show cause notices were issued for initiating prosecution under Section 276CC of the Act.", "Proviso to Section 276CC nowhere states that the offence under Section 276CC has not been committed by the categories of assesses who fall within the scope of that proviso, but it is stated that such a person shall not be proceeded against.", "In other words, it only provides that under specific circumstances subject to the proviso, prosecution may not be initiated.", "An assessee who comes within clause 2(b) to the proviso, no doubt has also committed the offence under Section 276CC, but is exempted from prosecution since the tax falls below Rs.3,000/-.", "Such an assessee may file belated return before the detection and avail the benefit of the proviso.", "Proviso cannot control the main section, it only confers some benefit to certain categories of assesses.", "In short, the offence under Section 276CC is attracted on failure to comply with the provisions of Section 139(1) or failure to respond to the notice issued under Section 142 or Section 148 of the Act within the time limit specified therein.", "We may indicate that the above reasoning has the support of the Judgment of this Court in Prakash Nath Khanna (supra).", "When we apply the above principles to the facts of the case in hand, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that there has not been any willful failure to file their return cannot be accepted and on facts, offence under Section 276CC of the Act has been made out in all these appeals and the rejection of the application for the discharge calls for no interference by this Court.", "We also find no basis in the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that pendency of the appellate proceedings is a relevant factor for not initiating prosecution proceedings under Section 276CC of the Act.", "Section 276CC contemplates that an offence is committed on the non-filing of the return and it is totally unrelated to the pendency of assessment proceedings except for second part of the offence for determination of the sentence of the offence, the department may resort to best judgment assessment or otherwise to past years to determine the extent of the breach.", "The language of Section 276CC, in our view, is clear so also the legislative intention.", "It is trite law that as already held by this Court in B. Permanand v. Mohan Koikal (2011) 4 SCC 266 that the language employed in a statute is the determinative factor of the legislative intent.", "It is well settled principle of law that a court cannot read anything into a statutory provision which is plain and unambiguous.", "If it was the intention of the legislature to hold up the prosecution proceedings till the assessment proceedings are completed by way of appeal or otherwise the same would have been provided in Section 276CC itself.", "Therefore, the contention of the learned senior counsel for the appellant that no prosecution could be initiated till the culmination of assessment proceedings, especially in a case where the appellant had not filed the return as per Section 139(1) of the Act or following the notices issued under Section 142 or Section 148 does not arise.", "We are also of the view that the declaration or statement made in the individual returns by partners that the accounts of the firm are not finalized, hence no return has been filed by the firm, will not absolve the firm in filing the statutory return under section 139(1) of the Act.", "The firm is independently required to file the return and merely because there has been a best judgment assessment under Section 144 would not nullify the liability of the firm to file the return as per Section 139(1) of the Act.", "Appellants contention that since they had in their individual returns indicated that the firms accounts had not been finalized, hence no returns were filed, would mean that failure to file return was not willful, cannot be accepted.", "Section 278E deals with the presumption as to culpable mental state, which was inserted by the Taxation Laws (Amendment and Miscellaneous Provisions) Act, 1986.", "The question is on whom the burden lies, either on the prosecution or the assessee, under Section 278E to prove whether the assessee has or has not committed willful default in filing the returns.", "Court in a prosecution of offence, like Section 276CC has to presume the existence of mens rea and it is for the accused to prove the contrary and that too beyond reasonable doubt.", "Resultantly, the appellants have to prove the circumstances which prevented them from filing the returns as per Section 139(1) or in response to notices under Sections 142 and 148 of the Act.", "We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order passed by the High Court.", "The appeals, therefore, lack merits and the same are dismissed and the Criminal Court is directed to complete the trial within four months from the date of receipt of this Judgment.", ".J. section Radhakrishnan) .J. K. Sikri) New Delhi, January 30, 2014."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2014_810", "text": ["Leave granted.", "The issue that arise for our consideration and decision in this batch of appeals is, whether the revenue is legally responsible under Section 244A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) for payment of interest on the refund of tax made to the resident deductor under Section 240 of the Act.", "At the outset, it is relevant to notice that the assessment years in all these appeals are on and after 01.04.1989, that is after the admittance of Section 244A of the Act by Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987 (4 of 1988) with effect from 01.04.1989, whereby provision for interest on refunds on any amount due to the assessee under the Act was introduced.", "FACTS:- We would refer to the facts in Civil Appeal Number 6301 of 2011.", "The respondent is a company incorporated under the provisions of Companies Act, 1956.", "It is engaged in the manufacture of nitrogenous fertilizer.", "During the assessment year 1997-98, the respondent-company had commissioned its naptha desulphurization plant and to oversee the operation of the said plant it had sought the assistance of two technicians from M section Haldor Topsoe, Denmark.", "M section Haldor Topsoe had raised an invoice aggregating to US 43,290,06/- as service charges for services of the technicians (US 38,500/-) and reimbursements of expenses (US 4,790/-).", "The resident deductor had approached the Income Tax Officer under Section 195 (2) of the Act inter alia requesting him to provide information determination as to what percentage of tax should be withheld from the amounts payable to the foreign company, namely, M section Haldor Topsoe, Denmark.", "On the request so made, the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer had determined and passed Special order under Section 195 (2) of the Act directing the resident deductor to deduct withhold tax at the rate of 20 before remitting aforesaid amounts to M s.", "Haldor Topsoe.", "Accordingly, the resident deductor had deducted tax of Rs.1,98,878/- on the entire amount of US 43,290.00/- and credited the same in favour of the Revenue.", "After such deposit, the resident deductor had preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) against the aforesaid order passed by the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer under Section 195 (2) of the Act.", "The appellate authority while allowing the appeal so filed by the resident deductor, had concluded, that, the reimbursement of expenses is not a part of the income for deduction of tax at source under Section 195 of the Act and accordingly, directed the refund of the tax that was deducted and paid over to the Revenue on the amount of US 4790.06/- representing reimbursement of expenses by order dated 12.07.2002.", "After disposal of the appeal, the resident deductor had claimed the refund of tax on US 4790/- (amounting to Rs.22,005/-) with the interest thereon as provided under Section 244A(1) of the Act by its letter dated 09.12.2002.", "The Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer while declining the claim made, has observed, that, Section 244A provides for interest only on refunds due to the assessee under the Act and not to the deductor and since the refund in the instant case is in view of the circulars viz. Circular No. 769 and 790 issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short the Board) and not under the statutory provisions of the Act, no interest would accrue on the refunds under Section 244A of the Act.", "Therefore, the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer while granting refund of the tax paid on the aforesaid amount has refused to entertain the claim for interest on the amount so refunded by order dated 29.07.2003.", "Since the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer had declined to grant the interest on the amount so refunded, the resident deductor had carried the matter by way of an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).", "The First Appellate Authority by its order dated 28.03.2005 has approved the orders passed by the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer and declined the claim of the deductor resident on two counts : (a) that the refund in the instant case would fall under two circulars viz. Circular No. 769 and 790 issued by the Board which specifically provide that the benefit of interest under Section 244A of the Act on such refunds would not be available to the deductor resident and (b) that a conjoint reading of Section 156 and the explanation appended to Section 244A (1)(b) of the Act would indicate that the amount refunded to the deductor resident cannot be equated to the refund of the amount(s) envisaged under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, wherein only the interest on refund of excess payment made under Section 156 of the Act pursuant to a notice of demand issued on account of post-assessment tax is contemplated and not the interest on refund of tax deposited under self-assessment as in the instant case.", "The deductor resident, aggrieved by the aforesaid order, had carried the matter before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, the Tribunal).", "The Tribunal while reversing the judgment and order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has opined, that, the tax was paid by the deductor resident pursuant to an order passed under Section 195 (2) of the Act and the refund was ordered under Section 240 of the Act, therefore, the provisions of Section 244A(1)(b) are clearly attracted and the revenue is accountable for payment of interest on the aforesaid refund amount.", "Accordingly, the Tribunal has allowed the appeal of the deductor resident and directed the Assessing Officer Income Tax Officer to acknowledge the claim and allow the interest as provided under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act on the aforesaid amount of refund, by order dated 28.06.2008.", "The Revenue being of the view that they are treated unfairly by the Tribunal had carried the matter by way of Income Tax Appeal before the High Court.", "The High Court has refused to accept the appeal filed by the Revenue by the impugned judgment and order, dated 18.06.2009.", "That is how the Revenue is before us in these appeals.", "We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the Revenue and the respondent-assessee in these appeals and also carefully perused the orders passed by the forums below.", "RELEVANT PROVISIONS:- To appreciate the view point of the learned counsel for the Revenue, we require to notice certain provisions of the Act prior to the insertion of Section 244A of the Act.", "The sections that require to be noticed are Sections 156, 195(2), 240 and 244 of the Act.", "A perusal of these sections essentially would indicate the procedure whereby the tax amount is paid and the refund of excess amount is claimed by the assessee.", "The relevant part of the said sections is sequentially reproduced: Section 156.", "Notice of demand When any tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum is payable in consequence of any order passed under this Act, the Assessing Officer shall serve upon the assessee a notice of demand in the prescribed form specifying the sum so payable.", "Section 195.", "Other sums- Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest or any other sum chargeable under the provisions of this Act (not being income chargeable under the head Salaries) shall, at the time of credit of such income to the account of the payee or at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of a cheque or draft or by any other mode, whichever is earlier, deduct income- tax thereon at the rates in force: Provided that in the case of interest payable by the Government or a public section bank within the meaning of clause (23D) of Section 10 or a public financial institution within the meaning of that clause, deduction of tax shall be made only at the time of payment thereof in cash or by the issue of chaque or draft or by any other mode: Provided further that no such deduction shall be made in respect of any dividends referred to in Section 115-O. Explanation.- For the purpose of this section, where any interest or other sum as aforesaid is credited to any account, whether called Interest payable account or Suspense account or by any other name, in the books of account of the person liable to pay such income, such crediting shall be deemed to be credit of such income to the account of the payee and the provisions of this section shall apply accordingly.", "Where the person responsible for paying any such sum chargeable under this Act other than salary to a non-resident considers that the whole of such sum would not be income chargeable in the case of the recipient, he may make an application to the Assessing Officer to determine, by general or special order, the appropriate proportion of such sum so chargeable, and upon such determination, tax shall be deducted under sub-section (1) only on that proportion of the sum which is so chargeable.", "Section 240.", "Refund on appeal, etc.", "Where, as a result of any order passed in appeal or other proceeding under this Act, refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee, the Assessing Officer shall, except as otherwise provided in this Act, refund the amount to the assessee without his having to make any claim in that behalf.", "Section 244.", "Interest on refund where no claim is needed Where a refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order referred to in section 240 and the Assessing Officer does not grant the refund within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is passed the Central Government shall pay to the assessee simple interest at fifteen per cent per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted.", "(1A) Where the whole or any part of the refund referred to in sub- section (1) is due to the assessee, as a result of any amount having been paid by him after the 31st day of March, 1975, in pursuance of any order of assessment or penalty and such amount or any part thereof having been found in appeal or other proceeding under this Act to be in excess of the amount which such assessee is liable to pay as tax or penalty, as the case may be, under this Act, the Central Government shall pay to such assessee simple interest at the rate specified in sub-section (1) on the amount so found to be in excess from the date on which such amount was paid to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided that where the amount so found to be in excess was paid in instalments, such interest shall be payable on the amount of each such instalment or any part of such instalment, which was in excess, from the date on which such instalment was paid to the date on which the refund is granted: Provided further that no interest under this sub-section shall be payable for a period of one month from the date of the passing of the order in appeal or other proceeding: Provided also that where any interest is payable to an assessee under this subsection, no interest under sub-section (1) shall be payable to him in respect of the amount so found to be in excess.", "(2) The provisions of this section shall not apply in respect of any assessment for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, or any subsequent assessment years.", "Section 156 of the Act talks about payment of tax, interest, penalty, fine or any other sum payable in consequence of any order passed under the Act on service of notice of demand issued by the assessing officer to the assessee specifying the said amounts.", "Section 195(1) casts an obligation upon every person in this Country to deduct tax at the prevailing rates from out of any sum which is remitted to a non resident Foreign Company.", "Sub Section (2) of Section 195 provides that where a person responsible for paying any such sum chargeable under the Act to a non resident Foreign Company considers that the whole of such sum would not be the income chargeable in the case of recipient, he may make an application to the assessing officer income tax officer to determine, by general or special order, the appropriate proportion of such sum so chargeable.", "The assessing officer is expected to determine such sum tax which are deductible out of remittance to be sent to the recipient and only after deduction and payment of such sum tax, the balance amount is to be remitted to the non-resident.", "We clarify here that it is the statutory obligation of the person responsible for paying such sum to deduct tax thereon before making payment, if such application is not filed.", "Section 240 of the Act provides for refund on appeal etc.", "The Section envisages that if an amount becomes due to the assessee by virtue of an order passed in appeal, reference, revision, rectification or amendment proceedings, the assessing officer is bound to refund the amount to the assessee without the assessee being required to make any claim in that behalf.", "The expression other proceedings under the Act used in Section 240 of the Act, are wide enough to include any order passed in proceedings other than the appeals under the Act.", "Section 244 of the Act provides for interest on refunds where no claim is made or required to be made by the assessee.", "The said section envisages that where a refund is due to the assessee in pursuance of an order passed under Section 240 of the Act, and the assessing officer does not grant the refund within a period of three months from the end of the month in which such order is passed, the Central Government shall pay to the assessee a simple interest of 15 per annum on the amount of refund due from the date immediately following the expiry of the period of three months as aforesaid to the date on which the refund is granted.", "Since there was disconcert in the minds of both the assessee and the Revenue regarding the cases where payment of interest was required to be made to the assessee by the Revenue, the Parliament has thought it fit to insert a new Section 244A in the place of Sections 214, 243 and 244 in respect of assessments for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards.", "The Section is extracted: 244A. Interest on refunds.", "Where refund of any amount becomes due to the assessee under this Act, he shall, subject to the provisions of this section, be entitled to receive, in addition to the said amount, simple interest thereon calculated in the following manner, namely:- Where the refund is out of any tax paid under section 115WJ or collected at source under section 206C or paid by way of advance tax or treated as paid under section 199, during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period from the 1st day of April of the assessment year to the date on which the refund is granted.", "Provided that no interest shall be payable if the amount of refund is less than ten per cent of the tax as determined under sub-section (1) of section 115WE or sub-section (1) of section 143 or on regular assessment (b) in any other case, such interest shall be calculated at the rate of one-half per cent for every month or part of a month comprised in the period or periods from the date or, as the case may be, dates of payment of tax or penalty to the date on which the refund is granted.", "EXPLANATION.- For the purpose of this clause, date of payment of tax or penalty means the date on and from which the amount of tax or penalty specified in the notice of demand issued under section 156 is paid in excess of such demand.", "(2) (3) The provisions of this section shall apply in respect of assessments for the assessment year commencing on the 1st day of April, 1989, and subsequent assessment year (emphasis supplied) The objects and reasons for introduction of the aforesaid Section is clarified by the Board in its Circular Number 549, dated 31.10.1989.", "Relevant paragraphs of which are as under: 11.2 Insertion of a new section 244A in lieu of sections 214, 243 and 244,- Under the provisions of section 214, interest was payable to the assessess on any excess advance tax paid by him in a financial year from the 1st day of April next following the said financial year to the date of regular assessment.", "In case the refund was not granted within three months from the date of the month in which the regular assessment was completed, section 243 provided for further payment of interest.", "Under section 244, interest was payable to the assessee for delay in payment of refund as a result of an order passed in appeal, etc.", ", from the date following after the expiry of three months from the end of the month in which such order was passed to the date on which refund was granted.", "The rate of interest under all the three sections was 15 per cent annum.", "These provisions, apart from being complicated left certain gaps for which interest was not paid by the Department to the assessee for money remaining with the Government.", "To remove this inequity, as also to simplify the provisions in this regard, the Amending Act, 1987, has inserted a new Section 244A in the Income Tax Act, applicable from the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards which contains all the provisions for payment of interest by the Department for delay in the grant of refunds.", "The rate of interest has been increased from the earlier 15 per cent annum to 1.5 per month or part of a month, comprised in the period of delay in the grant of refund.", "The Amending Act, 1987, has also amended sections 214, 243 and 244 to provide that the provisions of these sections shall not apply to the assessment year 1989-90 or any subsequent assessment years.", "(emphasis supplied) SUBMISSIONS:- Shri Arijit Prasad, learned counsel appearing for the Revenue would submit, that, if the tax is paid under Section 195(2) of the Act, then while refunding the amounts so paid, the Revenue need not be burdened with payment of interest on the amount so refunded.", "He would submit that while Section 244A(1)(a) specifically provides for the four instances under specific provisions where the interest would be payable on the refund of tax paid, Section 244A(1)(b) does not provide for any specific instance but mentions any other cases and the explanation appended to the said Section requires payment of refund to be made in cases where notice of demand was issued under Section 156 of the Act and since no demand notice was issued to the assessee under Section 156 of the Act the assessee would not be covered even by the aforesaid provision and hence, no interest is payable to the assessee by the Revenue.", "It is further submitted that interest under Section 244A is to be granted in case where refund of any amount becomes due to an assessee under this Act and the refund of tax deducted at source made to the deductor resident is not under any statutory provisions of the Act, the deductor resident is not entitled for interest on the amount of tax deducted and deposited with the revenue.", "Per contra, learned senior counsel appearing for the resident deductor would submit that since the payment made under Section 195(2) is payment made under the Act pursuant to an order passed by the assessing officer which in turn would be sheltered under the provisions of Section 156 of the Act, by virtue of clause(b) of sub-Section(1) of Section 244A of the Act, the Revenue is obliged to refund the tax with interest.", "DISCUSSION:- It is cardinal principle of interpretation of Statutes that the words of a Statute must be understood in their natural, ordinary or popular sense and construed according to their grammatical meaning unless such construction leads to some absurdity or unless there is something in the context or in the object of the Statute to the contrary.", "The golden rule is that the words of a Statute must prima facie be given their ordinary meaning.", "It is yet another rule of construction that when the words of a Statute are clear, plain and unambiguous, then the Courts are bound to give effect to that meaning irrespective of the consequences.", "It is said that the words themselves best declare the intention of the law giver.", "The Courts have adhered to the principle that efforts should be made to give meaning to each and every word used by the legislature and it is not a sound principle of construction to brush aside words in a Statute as being inapposite surpluses, if they can have proper application in circumstances conceivable within the contemplation of the Statute (See Gurudevdatta VKSSS Maryadit v. State of Maharashtra 2001 4 SCC 534).", "It is also well settled principle that the courts must interpret the provisions of the Statute upon ascertaining the object of the legislation through the medium or authoritative forms in which it is expressed.", "It is well settled that the Court should, while interpreting the provisions of the Statute, assign its ordinary meaning.", "This Court in Shyam Sunder vs Ram Kumar (2001) 8 SCC 24 has observed that in relation to beneficent construction, the basic rules of interpretation are not to be applied where (i) the result would be re- legislation of a provision by addition, substitution or alteration of words and violence would be done to the spirit of legislation, (ii) where the words of a Provision are capable of being given only one meaning and (iii) where there is no ambiguity in a provision, however, the Court may apply the rule of beneficent construction in order to advance the object of the Act.", "Before the insertion of Section 244A as a composite Section by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, the liability to pay interest on refund of pre-paid taxes was contained in Sections 214, 243 read with Section 244 (1A) of the Act.", "The Parliament has introduced a new Section in the place of Sections 214, 243 and 244 in respect of assessment for the assessment year 1989-90 and onwards.", "The language of the Section is precise, clear and unambiguous.", "Sub-Section (1) of Section 244A speaks of interest on refund of the amounts due to an assessee under the Act.", "The assessee is entitled for the said amount of refund with interest thereon as calculated in accordance with clause (a) (b) of sub-Section (1) of Section 244A. In calculating the interest payable, the section provides for different dates from which the interest is to be calculated.", "Clause(a) of sub-Section(1) of Section 244A talks of payment of interest on the amount of tax paid under Section 155WJ, tax collected at source under section 206C, taxes paid by way of advance tax, taxes treated as paid under Section 199 during the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year.", "Under this clause, the interest shall be payable for the period starting from the first day of the assessment year to the date of the grant of refund.", "No interest is payable if the excess payment is less than 10 of the tax determined under Section 143(1) of the Act or on regular assessment.", "Clause(b) of Sub-Section(1) of Section 244A opens with the words in any other case that means in any case other than the amounts paid under Clause(a) of Sub-section(1) of Section 244A. Under this clause, the rate of interest is to be calculated at the rate of one and a half per cent per month or a part of a month comprised in the period or the periods from the date or, as the case may be, either the dates of payment of the tax or the penalty to the date on which the refund is granted.", "An explanation is appended to clause(b) of the aforesaid sub-Section to explain the meaning of the expression date of payment of tax or penalty.", "It clarifies that the date of payment of tax or penalty would mean the date on and from which the amount of tax or penalty specified in the notice of demand issued under section 156 is paid in excess of such demand.", "Having glanced through the relevant sections and the settled legal principles of interpretation of Statute, let us revert back to the factual situation placed before us in this appeal.", "In the present case, the resident deductor had approached the assessing authority inter alia requesting him to determine the tax that requires to be deducted at source before the payment is made to a non- resident foreign company.", "On such a request the assessing officer had passed an order under Section 195(2) of the Act directing the resident/ deductor to deduct tax at a particular rate.", "The resident deductor had appealed against the said order, but had deposited the tax as directed by the assessing officer Income Tax Officer by the aforesaid order in accordance with the provisions of Section 200 of the Act.", "When the resident deductor succeeded in the appeal, a direction was issued by the appellate authority for refund of tax so paid.", "In observance of the same, the assessing authority had granted the refund of the tax amount under Section 240 of the Act, but declined to grant interest on the said refund amount.", "The conclusion arrived at by the assessing officer was accepted by the first appellate authority on the ground, inter alia, that the conjoint reading of Section 156 and the explanation appended to Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act would indicate that the amount refunded to the resident/ deductor cannot be equated to the refund contemplated under Section 244A(1)(b) of the Act, whereunder only the interest on refund of excess payment made under Section 156 of the Act on account of post-assessment tax is contemplated and not the interest on refund of tax deposited under self- assessment.", "However, the Tribunal has rejected the aforesaid rationale of the assessing authority as well as the first appellate authority and granted the claim of the resident deductor.", "The High Court has endorsed the view of the Tribunal and dismissed the appeals filed the Revenue.", "The refund becomes due when tax deducted at source, advance tax paid, self assessment tax paid and tax paid on regular assessment exceeds tax chargeable for the year as a result of an order passed in appeal or other proceedings under the Act.", "When refund is of any advance tax (including tax deducted collected at source), interest is payable for the period starting from the first day of the assessment year to the date of grant of refund.", "No interest is, however, payable if the excess payment is less than 10 percent of tax determined under Section 143(1) or on regular assessment.", "No interest is payable for the period for which the proceedings resulting in the refund are delayed for the reasons attributable to the assessee (wholly or partly).", "The rate of interest and entitlement to interest on excess tax are determined by the statutory provisions of the Act.", "Interest payment is a statutory obligation and non- discretionary in nature to the assessee.", "In tune with the aforesaid general principle, Section 244A is drafted and enacted.", "The language employed in Section 244A of the Act is clear and plain.", "It grants substantive right of interest and is not procedural.", "The principles for grant of interest are the same as under the provisions of Section 244 applicable to assessments before 01.04.1989, albeit with clarity of application as contained in Section 244A. The Department has also issued Circular clarifying the purpose and object of introducing Section 244A of the Act to replace Sections 214, 243 and 244 of the Act.", "It is clarified therein, that, since there was some lacunae in the earlier provisions with regard to non-payment of interest by the revenue to the assessee for the money remaining with the Government, the said section is introduced for payment of interest by the Department for delay in grant of refunds.", "A general right exists in the State to refund any tax collected for its purpose, and a corresponding right exists to refund to individuals any sum paid by them as taxes which are found to have been wrongfully exacted or are believed to be, for any reason, inequitable.", "The statutory obligation to refund carried with it the right to interest also.", "This is true in the case of assessee under the Act.", "The question before us is, whether the resident deductor is also entitled to interest on refund of excess deduction or erroneous deduction of tax at source under Section 195 of the Act.", "We would begin our discussion by referring to circular Number 790, dated 20.04.2000, issued by the Board.", "Omitting what is not necessary, the material portion of the circular is extracted: Refund to the person making payment under Section 195 is being allowed as income does not accrue to the non-resident.", "The amount paid into the Government account in such cases, is no longer tax.", "In view of this, no interest under section 244A is admissible on refunds to be granted in accordance with this Circular or on the refunds already granted in accordance with Circular Number 769.", "What the deductor resident primarily contend is that, what has been deposited by him is a tax, may be for and on behalf of non-resident/ foreign company and when the beneficial circular provides for refund of tax to the deductor under certain circumstances, the refund of tax should carry interest.", "The circular issued by Central Board of Direct Taxes (the Board for short) is binding on the department.", "Binding nature of the circular is explained by this Court in the case of UCO Bank v. CIT 237 ITR 889, wherein this Court has observed that the circulars issued by the Board in exercise of its powers under Section 119 of the Act would be binding on the income tax authorities even if they deviate from the provisions of the Act, so long as they seek to mitigate the rigour of a particular Section for the benefit of the assessee.", "Therefore, we cannot be taking exception to the reasoning and conclusion reached by the authorities under the Act.", "However, the Tribunal and the High Court, have granted interest on the amount of tax deposited by the resident deductor from the date of payment on the ground, firstly, the refund of tax is directed by the first appellate authority in the appeal filed by the deductor resident under Section 240 of the Act and secondly, the Revenue for having retained the sum by way of tax has to compensate the person who had deposited the tax.", "Section 240 of the Act provides for refund of any amount that becomes due to an assessee as a result of an order in appeal or any other proceedings under the Act.", "The phrase other proceedings under the Act is of wide amplitude.", "This Court has observed, that, the other proceedings under the Act would include orders passed under Section 154 (rectification proceedings), orders passed by the High Court or Supreme Court under Section 260 (in reference), or order passed by the Commissioner in revision applications under Section 263 or in an application under Section 273A. A tax refund is a refund of taxes when the tax liability is less than the tax paid.", "As per the old section an assessee was entitled for payment of interest on the amount of taxes refunded pursuant to an order passed under the Act, including the order passed in an appeal.", "In the present fact scenario, the deductor assessee had paid taxes pursuant to a special order passed by the assessing officer Income Tax Officer.", "In the appeal filed against the said order the assessee has succeeded and a direction is issued by the appellate authority to refund the tax paid.", "The amount paid by the resident deductor was retained by the Government till a direction was issued by the appellate authority to refund the same.", "When the said amount is refunded it should carry interest in the matter of course.", "As held by the Courts while awarding interest, it is a kind of compensation of use and retention of the money collected unauthorizedly by the Department.", "When the collection is illegal, there is corresponding obligation on the revenue to refund such amount with interest in as much as they have retained and enjoyed the money deposited.", "Even the Department has understood the object behind insertion of Section 244A, as that, an assessee is entitled to payment of interest for money remaining with the Government which would be refunded.", "There is no reason to restrict the same to an assessee only without extending the similar benefit to a resident deductor who has deducted tax at source and deposited the same before remitting the amount payable to a non-resident foreign company.", "Providing for payment of interest in case of refund of amounts paid as tax or deemed tax or advance tax is a method now statutorily adopted by fiscal legislation to ensure that the aforesaid amount of tax which has been duly paid in prescribed time and provisions in that behalf form part of the recovery machinery provided in a taxing Statute.", "Refund due and payable to the assessee is debt-owed and payable by the Revenue.", "The Government, therebeing no express statutory provision for payment of interest on the refund of excess amount tax collected by the Revenue, cannot shrug off its apparent obligation to reimburse the deductors lawful monies with the accrued interest for the period of undue retention of such monies.", "The State having received the money without right, and having retained and used it, is bound to make the party good, just as an individual would be under like circumstances.", "The obligation to refund money received and retained without right implies and carries with it the right to interest.", "Whenever money has been received by a party which ex ae quo et bono ought to be refunded, the right to interest follows, as a matter of course.", "In the present case, it is not in doubt that the payment of tax made by resident depositor is in excess and the department chooses to refund the excess payment of tax to the depositor.", "We have held the interest requires to be paid on such refunds.", "The catechize is from what date interest is payable, since the present case does not fall either under clause (a) or (b) of Section 244A of the Act.", "In the absence of an express provision as contained in clause (a), it cannot be said that the interest is payable from the 1st of April of the assessment year.", "Simultaneously, since the said payment is not made pursuant to a notice issued under Section 156 of the Act, Explanation to clause (b) has no application.", "In such cases, as the opening words of clause (b) specifically referred to as in any other case, the interest is payable from the date of payment of tax.", "The sequel of our discussion is the resident deductor is entitled not only the refund of tax deposited under Section 195(2) of the Act, but has to be refunded with interest from the date of payment of such tax.", "In the result, the appeals fail.", "Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed.", "No order as to costs.", "J. L. DATTU) J. A. BOBDE) NEW DELHI FEBRUARY 26, 2014."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2016_544", "text": ["RANJAN GOGOI, J. SLP(C) NO.", "11621 OF 2009 Leave granted.", "The appellant - Revenue seeks to challenge the order of the High Court dated 7th August, 2008 dismissing the appeal filed by it under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and affirming the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai Bench (Tribunal for short) dated 28th August, 2007 whereby the order dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Mumbai I.T. for short) under Section 263 of the Act was reversed.", "The assessment year in question is 2001-2002 and the assessment order is dated 30th March, 2004.", "After the assessment as above was finalized, a show cause notice dated 7th November, 2005 under Section 263 of the Act was issued by the learned C.I.T. detailing as many as eleven (11) issues grounds on which the assessment order was proposed to be revised under Section 263 of the Act.", "The respondent - assessee filed his reply to the said show cause notice on consideration of which by order dated 20th March, 2006 the learned C.I.T. set aside the order of assessment dated 30th March, 2004 and directed a fresh assessment to be made.", "Aggrieved, the respondent assessee challenged the said order before the learned Tribunal which was allowed by the order dated 28th August, 2007.", "Aggrieved by the order dated 28th August, 2007 of the learned Tribunal, the Revenue filed an appeal under Section 260A of the Act before the High Court of Bombay.", "The aforesaid appeal i.e. ITA Number293 of 2008 was summarily dismissed by the High Court by the impugned order dated 7th August, 2008 holding that as the C.I.T. had gone beyond the scope of the show cause notice dated 7th November, 2005 and had dealt with the issues not covered mentioned in the said notice the revisional order dated 20th March, 2006 was in violation of the principles of natural justice.", "So far as the question as to whether the Assessing Officer had made sufficient enquiries about the assessees claim of expenses made in the re-revised return of income is concerned, which question was formulated as question No.2 for the High Courts consideration, the High Court took the view that the said question raised pure questions of fact and, therefore, ought not to be examined under Section 260A of the Act.", "The appeal of the Revenue was consequently dismissed.", "Aggrieved, this appeal has been filed upon grant of leave under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.", "We have heard Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the appellant Revenue and Shri Shyam Divan, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent assessee.", "The assessment in question was set aside by the learned C.I.T. by the order dated 20th March, 2006 on the principal ground that requisite and due enquiries were not made by the Assessing Officer prior to finalization of the assessment by order dated 30th March, 2004.", "In this connection, the learned C.I.T. on consideration of the facts of the case and the record of the proceedings came to the conclusion that in the course of the assessment proceedings despite several opportunities the assessee did not submit the requisite books of account and documents and deliberately dragged the matter leading to one adjournment after the other.", "Eventually, the Assessing Officer, to avoid the bar of limitation, had no option but to hurriedly finalize the assessment proceedings which on due and proper scrutiny disclosed that the necessary enquiries were not made.", "On the said basis the learned C.I.T. came to the conclusion that the assessment order in question was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue warranting exercise of power under Section 263 of the Act.", "Consequently, the assessment for the year 2001-2002 was set aside and a fresh assessment was ordered.", "At this stage, it must be noticed that in the order dated 20th March, 2006 the learned C.I.T. arrived at findings and conclusions in respect of issues which were not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice dated 7th November, 2005.", "In fact, on as many as seven eight (07/08) issues mentioned in the said show cause notice the learned C.I.T. did not record any finding whereas conclusions adverse to the assessee were recorded on issues not specifically mentioned in the said notice before proceeding to hold that the assessment needs to be set aside.", "However, three (03) of the issues, details of which are noticed herein below, are common to the show cause notice as well as the revisional order of the learned C.I.T. On appeal, the learned Tribunal took the view that the learned I.T. exercising powers under Section 263 of the Act could not have gone beyond the issues mentioned in the show cause notice dated 7th November, 2005.", "The learned Tribunal, therefore, thought it proper to take the view that in respect of the issues not mentioned in the show cause notice the findings as recorded in the revisional order dated 20th March, 2006 have to be understood to be in breach of the principles of natural justice.", "The learned Tribunal also specifically considered the three (03) common issues mentioned above and on such consideration arrived at the conclusion that the reasons disclosed by the learned C.I.T. in the order dated 20th March, 2006 for holding the assessment to be liable for cancellation on that basis are not tenable.", "Accordingly, the learned Tribunal allowed the appeal of the assessee and reversed the order of the suo motu revision dated 20th March, 2006.", "At this stage, it may be appropriate to reproduce hereunder the provisions of Section 263 of the Act to appreciate the arguments advanced and to understand the contours of the suo motu revisional power vested in the learned C.I.T. by the aforesaid provision of the Act.", "263 - Revision of orders prejudicial to revenue.-(1) The 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 to be made such inquiry 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.", "Explanation Under the Act different shades of power have been conferred on different authorities to deal with orders of assessment passed by the primary authority.", "While Section 147 confers power on the Assessing Authority itself to proceed against income escaping assessment, Section 154 of the Act empowers such authority to correct a mistake apparent on the face of the record.", "The power of appeal and revision is contained in Chapter XX of the Act which includes Section 263 that confer suo motu power of revision in the learned C.I.T. The different shades of power conferred on different authorities under the Act has to be exercised within the areas specifically delineated by the Act and the exercise of power under one provision cannot trench upon the powers available under another provision of the Act.", "In this regard, it must be specifically noticed that against an order of assessment, so far as the Revenue is concerned, the power conferred under the Act is to reopen the concluded assessment under Section 147 and or to revise the assessment order under Section 263 of the Act.", "The scope of the power jurisdiction under the different provisions of the Act would naturally be different.", "The power and jurisdiction of the Revenue to deal with a concluded assessment, therefore, must be understood in the context of the provisions of the relevant Sections noticed above.", "While doing so it must also be borne in mind that the legislature had not vested in the Revenue any specific power to question an order of assessment by means of an appeal.", "Reverting to the specific provisions of Section 263 of the Act what has to be seen is that a satisfaction that an order passed by the Authority under the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue is the basic pre-condition for exercise of jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.", "Both are twin conditions that have to be conjointly present.", "Once such satisfaction is reached, jurisdiction to exercise the power would be available subject to observance of the principles of natural justice which is implicit in the requirement cast by the Section to give the assessee an opportunity of being heard.", "It is in the context of the above position that this Court has repeatedly held that unlike the power of reopening an assessment under Section 147 of the Act, the power of revision under Section 263 is not contingent on the giving of a notice to show cause.", "In fact, Section 263 has been understood not to require any specific show cause notice to be served on the assessee.", "Rather, what is required under the said provision is an opportunity of hearing to the assessee.", "The two requirements are different the first would comprehend a prior notice detailing the specific grounds on which revision of the assessment order is tentatively being proposed.", "Such a notice is not required.", "What is contemplated by Section 263, is an opportunity of hearing to be afforded to the assessee.", "Failure to give such an opportunity would render the revisional order legally fragile not on the ground of lack of jurisdiction but on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice.", "Reference in this regard may be illustratively made to the decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal vs Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal and others1 and in The C.I.T., West Bengal, II, Calcutta vs M s Electro House2.", "Paragraph 4 of the decision in The C.I.T., West Bengal, II, Calcutta vs M s Electro House (supra) being illumination of the issue indicated above may be usefully reproduced hereunder: This section unlike Section 34 does not prescribe any notice to be given.", "It only requires the Commissioner to give an opportunity to the assessee of being heard.", "The section does not speak of any notice.", "It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to notice the difference in language between Sections 33-B and 34.", "For the assumption of jurisdiction to proceed under Section 34, the notice as prescribed in that section is a condition precedent.", "But no such notice is contemplated by Section 33-B. The jurisdiction of the Commissioner to proceed under Section 33-B is not dependent on the fulfilment of any condition precedent.", "All that he is required to do before reaching his decision and not before commencing the enquiry, he must give the assessee an opportunity of being heard and make or cause to make such enquiry as he deems necessary.", "Those requirements have nothing to do with the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.", "They pertain to the region of natural justice.", "Breach of the principles of natural justice may affect the legality of the order made but that does not affect the jurisdiction of the Commissioner.", "At present we are not called upon to consider whether the order made by the Commissioner is vitiated because of the contravention of any of the principles of natural justice.", "The scope of these appeals is very narrow.", "All that we have to see is whether before assuming jurisdiction the Commissioner was required to issue a notice and if he was so required what that notice should have contained? Our answer to that question has already been made clear.", "In our judgment no notice was required to be issued by the Commissioner before assuming jurisdiction to proceed under Section 33-B. Therefore the question what that notice should contain does not arise for consideration.", "It is not necessary nor proper for us in this case to consider as to the nature of the enquiry to be held under Section 33-B. Therefore, we refrain from spelling out what principles of natural justice should be observed in an enquiry under Section 33-B. This Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT, West Bengal ruled that Section 33- B does not in express terms require a notice to be served on the assessee as in the case of Section 34.", "Section 33-B merely requires that an opportunity of being heard should be given to the assessee and the stringent requirement of service of notice under Section 34 cannot, therefore, be applied to a proceeding under Section 33-B. (Page 827-828).", "Note: Section 33-B and Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 corresponds to Section 263 and Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 It may be that in a given case and in most cases it is so done a notice proposing the revisional exercise is given to the assessee indicating therein broadly or even specifically the grounds on which the exercise is felt necessary.", "But there is nothing in the section (Section 263) to raise the said notice to the status of a mandatory show cause notice affecting the initiation of the exercise in the absence thereof or to require the C.I.T. to confine himself to the terms of the notice and foreclosing consideration of any other issue or question of fact.", "This is not the purport of Section 263.", "Of course, there can be no dispute that while the C.I.T. is free to exercise his jurisdiction on consideration of all relevant facts, a full opportunity to controvert the same and to explain the circumstances surrounding such facts, as may be considered relevant by the assessee, must be afforded to him by the C.I.T. prior to the finalization of the decision.", "In the present case, there is no dispute that in the order dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the learned C.I.T. under Section 263 of the Act findings have been recorded on issues that are not specifically mentioned in the show cause notice dated 7th November, 2005 though there are three (03) issues mentioned in the show cause notice dated 7th November, 2005 which had specifically been dealt with in the order dated 20th March, 2006.", "The learned Tribunal in its order dated 28th August, 2007 put the aforesaid two features of the case into two different compartments.", "Insofar as the first question i.e. findings contained in the order of the learned C.I.T. dated 20th March, 2006 beyond the issues mentioned in the show cause notice is concerned the learned Tribunal taking note of the aforesaid admitted position held as follows: In the case on hand, the CIT has assumed jurisdiction by issuing show cause notice u s 263 but while passing the final order he relied on various other grounds for coming to the final conclusion.", "This itself makes the revision order bad in law and also violative of principles of natural justice and thus not maintainable.", "If, during the course of revision proceedings the CIT was of the opinion that the order of the AO was erroneous on some other grounds also or on any additional grounds not mentioned in the show cause notice, he ought to have given another show cause notice to the assessee on those grounds and given him a reasonable opportunity of hearing before coming to the conclusion and passing the final revision order.", "In the case on hand, the CIT has not done so.", "Thus, the order u s 263 is violative of principles of natural justice as far as the reasons, which formed the basis for the revision but were not part of the show cause notice issued u s 263 are concerned.", "The order of the CIT passed u s 263 is therefore liable to be quashed in so far as those grounds are concerned.", "The above ground which had led the learned Tribunal to interfere with the order of the learned C.I.T. seems to be contrary to the settled position in law, as indicated above and the two decisions of this Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal (supra) and M s Electro House (supra).", "The learned Tribunal in its order dated 28th August, 2007 had not recorded any finding that in course of the suo motu revisional proceedings, hearing of which was spread over many days and attended to by the authorized representative of the assessee, opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the assessee and that the assessee was denied an opportunity to contest the facts on the basis of which the learned C.I.T. had come to his conclusions as recorded in the order dated 20th March, 2006.", "Despite the absence of any such finding in the order of the learned Tribunal, before holding the same to be legally unsustainable the Court will have to be satisfied that in the course of the revisional proceeding the assessee, actually and really, did not have the opportunity to contest the facts on the basis of which the learned C.I.T. had concluded that the order of the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.", "The above is the question to which the Court, therefore, will have to turn to.", "To determine the above question we have read and considered the order of the Assessing Officer dated 30th March, 2004 as well as the order of the learned C.I.T. dated 20th March, 2006.", "From the above consideration, it appears that the learned C.I.T. in the course of the revisional proceedings had scrutinized the record of the proceedings before the Assessing Officer and noted the various dates on which opportunities to produce the books of account and other relevant documents were afforded to the assessee which requirement was not complied with by the assessee.", "In these circumstances, the revisional authority took the view that the Assessing Officer, after being compelled to adjourn the matter from time to time, had to hurriedly complete the assessment proceedings to avoid the same from becoming time barred.", "In the course of the revisional exercise relevant facts, documents, and books of account which were overlooked in the assessment proceedings were considered.", "On such re-scrutiny it was revealed that the original assessment order on several heads was erroneous and had the potential of causing loss of revenue to the State.", "It is on the aforesaid basis that the necessary satisfaction that the assessment order dated 30th March, 2004 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue was recorded by the learned C.I.T. At each stage of the revisional proceeding the authorized representative of the assessee had appeared and had full opportunity to contest the basis on which the revisional authority was proceeding had proceeded in the matter.", "If the revisional authority had come to its conclusions in the matter on the basis of the record of the assessment proceedings which was open for scrutiny by the assessee and available to his authorized representative at all times it is difficult to see as to how the requirement of giving of a reasonable opportunity of being heard as contemplated by Section 263 of the Act had been breached in the present case.", "The order of the learned Tribunal insofar as the first issue i.e. the revisional order going beyond the show cause notice is concerned, therefore, cannot have our acceptance.", "The High Court having failed to fully deal with the matter in its cryptic order dated 7th August, 2008 we are of the view that the said orders are not tenable and are liable to be interfered with.", "This will bring us to a consideration of the second limb of the case as dealt with by the learned Tribunal, namely, that tenability of the order of the learned C.I.T. on the three (03) issues mentioned in the show cause notice and also dealt with in the revisional order dated 20th March, 2006.", "The aforesaid three (03) issues are: Assessee maintaining 5 bank accounts and AO not examining the 5th bank account, books of account and any other bank account where receipts related to KBC were banked.", "ii) Regarding claim of deposits of Rs.52.06 lakhs in Special Bench A c No.11155 under the head Receipts on behalf of Mrs. Jaya Bachchan and iii) Regarding the claim of additional expenses in the re-revised return.", "On the above issues the learned Tribunal had given detailed reasons for not accepting the grounds cited in the revisional order for setting aside the assessment under Section 263 of the Act.", "The reasons cited by the learned Tribunal insofar as the first two issues are concerned may not justify a serious relook and hence need not be gone into.", "The third question would, however, require some detailed attention.", "The said question is with regard to the claim of additional expenses made by the assessee in its re-revised return which was subsequently withdrawn.", "The assessee in the re-revised return dated 31st March, 2003 had made a claim of additional expenses of 30 of the gross professional receipts (Rs.3.17 crores).", "It appears that the Assessing Officer required the assessee to file requisite details in this regard.", "The assessee responded by letter dated 13th February, 2004 stating as follows: With regard to the 30 estimated expenses claimed, we have to submit that these are the expenses which are spent for security purposes by employing certain Agencies, guards etc.", "for the personal safety of Shri Bachchan as he has to protect himself from various threats to his life received by him and to avoid extortion of money from gangsters.", "The names of such Agencies cannot be disclosed divulged as there is a possibility of leakage of information of Agencies names from the office staff, which will obviously be detrimental to the interests of Shri Bachchan.", "The payments have been made out of cash balances available and lot of outstanding expenses are to be paid which could not be paid for want of income.", "Thereafter by letter dated 13th March, 2004 the assessee informed the learned C.I.T. that the claim was made on a belief that the same is allowable but as it will not be feasible for the assessee to substantiate the same, the re-revised return of income may be taken to the withdrawn.", "It appears that thereafter the Assessing Officer issued a notice to show cause as to why the provisions of Section 69-C should not be invoked and the expenses claimed should not be treated as unexplained expenditure.", "In reply, the assessee by letter dated 24th March, 2004 submitted that the claim was made as a standard deduction and that the assessee had been wrongly advised to make the said claim and as the same has been withdrawn, Section 69-C will have no application.", "The record of the assessment proceedings disclose that the said stand was accepted by the Assessing Officer and the matter was not pursued any further.", "The learned C.I.T. took the view that notwithstanding the withdrawal of the claim by the assessee, in view of the earlier stand taken that the said expenses were incurred for security purposes of the assessee, the Assessing Officer ought to have proceeded with the matter as the assessee was following the cash system of accounting and the filing of the re-revised return, prima facie, indicated that the additional expenses claimed had been incurred.", "In this regard, the following findings reasons recorded by the learned C.I.T. in the order dated 20th March, 2006 would be of particular relevance: Withdrawal of claim by assessee can be for variety of reasons and this does not mean that Assessing Officer should abandon enquiries regarding sources for incurring expenses.", "Assessee follows cash system of accounting and the claim regarding additional expenses was made through duly verified revised return.", "The claim was pressed during assessment proceedings carried on by A.O. after filing revised return and it was specially stated in letter dated 13.02.2004 that expenses were for security purposes and that payments have been made out of cash balances available etc.", "Under the circumstances, the Assessing Officer was expected to examine the matter further to arrive at a definite finding whether assessee incurred expenses or not and in case, actually incurred, then what were sources for incurring these expenses.", "Assessing Officer was satisfied on withdrawal of the claim and in my view, his failure to decide the matter regarding actual incurring of additional expenses and sources thereof resulted into erroneous order which is prejudicial to the interest of revenue.", "An argument has been made on behalf of the assessee that notice under Section 69-C was issued by the Assessing Officer and thereafter on withdrawal of the claim by the assessee the Assessing Officer thought that the matter ought not to be investigated any further.", "This, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, is a possible view and when two views are possible on an issue, exercise of revisional power under Section 263 would not be justified.", "Reliance in this regard has been placed on a judgment of this Court in Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs CIT3 which has been approved in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Max India Ltd. 4 There can be no doubt that so long as the view taken by the Assessing Officer is a possible view the same ought not to be interfered with by the Commissioner under Section 263 of the Act merely on the ground that there is another possible view of the matter.", "Permitting exercise of revisional power in a situation where two views are possible would really amount to conferring some kind of an appellate power in the revisional authority.", "This is a course of action that must be desisted from.", "However, the above is not the situation in the present case in view of the reasons stated by the learned C.I.T. on the basis of which the said authority felt that the matter needed further investigation, a view with which we wholly agree.", "Making a claim which would prima facie disclose that the expenses in respect of which deduction has been claimed has been incurred and thereafter abandoning withdrawing the same gives rise to the necessity of further enquiry in the interest of the Revenue.", "The notice issued under Section 69-C of the Act could not have been simply dropped on the ground that the claim has been withdrawn.", "We, therefore, are of the opinion that the learned C.I.T. was perfectly justified in coming to his conclusions insofar as the issue Number(iii) is concerned and in passing the impugned order on that basis.", "The learned Tribunal as well as the High Court, therefore, ought not to have interfered with the said conclusion.", "In the light of the discussions that have preceded and for the reasons alluded we are of the opinion that the present is a fit case for exercise of the suo motu revisional powers of the learned C.I.T. under Section 263 of the Act.", "The order of the learned C.I.T., therefore, is restored and those of the learned Tribunal dated 28th August, 2007 and the High Court dated 7th August, 2008 are set aside.", "The appeal of the Revenue is allowed.", "SLP(C) Number861 of 2013 Leave granted.", "Pursuant to the revisional order dated 20th March, 2006 under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act setting aside the assessment order for the assessment year 2001-2002 and directing fresh assessment, a fresh assessment had been made by the Assessing Officer by order dated 29th December, 2006.", "Against the said order the respondent assessee filed an appeal before the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals).", "By order dated 18th October, 2007 the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had set aside the assessment order dated 29th December, 2006 as in the meantime, by order dated 28th August, 2007 of the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal the revisional order dated 20th March, 2006 under Section 263 of the Act was set aside.", "The Revenues appeal before the learned Tribunal against the order dated 18th October, 2007 was dismissed on 11th January, 2000 and by the High Court on 29th February, 2012.", "Against the aforesaid order of the High Court this appeal has been filed by the Revenue.", "As by the order passed today in the Civil Appeal arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) Number11621 of 2009 we have restored the suo motu revisional order dated 20th March, 2006 passed by the learned C.I.T., we allow this appeal filed by the Revenue and set aside the order dated 11th January, 2010 passed by the learned Tribunal and the order dated 29th February, 2012 passed by the High Court referred to above.", "However, we have to add that as the re-assessment order dated 29th December, 2006 had not been tested on merits the assessee would be free to do so, if he is so inclined and so advised.", "The appeals are disposed of in the above terms.", ",J. RANJAN GOGOI ,J. PRAFULLA C. PANT NEW DELHI MAY 11, 2016 ----------------------- 1 (1970) 76 ITR 496 2 (1971) 82 ITR 824 3 (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) 4 (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC)"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
+{"id": "SC_2019_966", "text": ["Dr Dhananjaya Y Chandrachud, J 1 This appeal arises from a judgment of a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dated 9 January 2018 which upheld the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Signature Not Verified Tribunal1.", "The Tribunal held that the assessment made in the name of Suzuki Digitally signed by MANISH SETHI Date: 2019.07.25 13:19:58 IST Reason: 1 the Tribunal Powertrain India Limited2 for Assessment Year3 2012-13 is a nullity since the entity had been amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Limited4 under an approved scheme of amalgamation and was not in existence.", "The High Court, while affirming this view of the Tribunal followed its own decision for AY 2011-12 in Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6, New Delhi v Maruti Suzuki India Limited (successor of SPIL)5 (Maruti Suzuki) .", "Holding that no question of law arose, the High Court dismissed the appeal under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act 1961 6.", "2 The Revenue is in appeal.", "3 Against the decision of the High Court for AY 2011-12, a Special Leave Petition7 was dismissed by a two judge Bench of this Court on 16 July 2018 with the following observations: Heard learned counsel for the parties.", "Delay condoned.", "In view of the order dated 02.11.2017 passed by this Court in I.T., New Delhi Vs.", "M section Spice Enfotainment Limited (Civil Appeal Number 285 of 2014 etc.", "etc.), this special leave petition also stands dismissed.", "Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.", "2 SPIL 3 AY 4 MSIL 5 (2017) 397 ITR 681 (DEL.) 6 The Act 1961 7 SLP (C) Diary Number 14106 of 2018 On behalf of the respondent, it has been urged that in view of the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition in relation to AY 2011-12, the same course of action must follow in the present case which deals with the assessment for AY 2012-13.", "4 We have heard submissions on behalf of the appellant by Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel and for the respondents by Mr Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel.", "In order to appreciate the nature of the controversy, a narration of the facts would be instructive.", "5 The assessee is a joint venture between Suzuki Motor Corporation and MSIL.", "The shareholding of the two companies in the assessee was 70 per cent and 30 per cent.", "The assessee was known upon incorporation as Suzuki Metal India Limited.", "Subsequently, with effect from 8 June 2005, its name was changed to SPIL.", "6 On 28 November 2012, the assessee filed its return of income declaring an income of Rs. 212,51,51,156/-.", "The return of income was filed in the name of SPIL (no amalgamation having taken place on the relevant date).", "7 On 29 January 2013, a scheme for amalgamation of SPIL and MSIL was approved by the High Court with effect from 1 April 2012.", "The terms of the approved scheme provided that all liabilities and duties of the transferor company shall stand transferred to the transferee company without any further act or deed.", "On the scheme coming into effect, the transferor was to stand dissolved without winding up.", "The scheme stipulated that the order of amalgamation will not be construed as an order granting exemptions from the payment of stamp duty or taxes or any other charges, if payable, in accordance with law.", "8 On 2 April 2013, MSIL intimated the assessing officer of the amalgamation.", "The case was selected for scrutiny by the issuance of a notice under Section 143(2) on 26 September 2013, followed by a notice under Section 142(1) to the amalgamating company.", "9 On 22 January 2016, the Transfer Pricing Officer8 passed an order under Section 92CA (3) determining the Arms Length Price of royalty at 3 per cent and making an adjustment of Rs. 78.97 crores in respect of royalty paid by the assessee for the relevant previous year.", "10 On 11 March 2016, a draft assessment order was passed in the name of Suzuki Powertrain India Limited (amalgamated with Maruti Suzuki India Limited).", "The draft assessment order sought to increase the total income of the assessee by Rs. 78.97 crores in accordance with the order of the TPO in order to ensure that the 8 TPO international transactions with regard to the payment of royalty to the Associated Enterprises is at Arms Length.", "11 MSIL participated in the assessment proceedings of the erstwhile amalgamating entity, SPIL, through its authorized representatives and officers.", "This is evident from the copies of the order sheets of the assessment proceedings before the assessing officer for AY 2012-13.", "Post amalgamation, on 30 September 2013, the Chartered Accountants addressed a communication to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 9(1), pursuant to the notice under Section 143(2) for an adjournment of the assessment proceedings for AY 2012-13 until the assessment proceedings for AY 2010-11 and AY 2011-12 were completed.", "On 27 October 2014, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 9 (1) addressed a communication to the Principal Officer, SPIL seeking a response to a detailed questionnaire.", "Thereafter, on 4 September 2015, the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 16(1) called for disclosure of information in the course of the assessment for AY 2012-13.", "The communication was addressed to: The Principal Officer M s Suzuki Power Train India Limited (Now known as M s Maruti Suzuki India Limited).", "12 On 8 October 2015, a communication was addressed by the DGM (Finance) for MSIL in response to the notice under Section 142 (1) adverting to the case of SPIL for AY 2012-13.", "13 On 12 April 2016, MSIL filed its appeal before the Dispute Resolution Panel9 as successor in interest of the erstwhile SPIL, since amalgamated.", "Form 35A was verified by Mr Kenichi Ayukawa, Managing Director CEO of MSIL.", "The grounds of appeal before the DRP did not allude to the objection that the draft assessment order was passed in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) or that this defect would render the assessment proceedings invalid.", "14 On 14 October 2016, the DRP issued its order in the name of MSIL (as successor in interest of erstwhile SPIL since amalgamated).", "15 The final assessment order was passed on 31 October 2016 in the name of SPIL (amalgamated with MSIL) making an addition of Rs. 78.97 crores to the total income of the assessee.", "While preferring an appeal before the Tribunal, the assessee raised the objection that the assessment proceedings were continued in the name of the non-existent or merged entity SPIL and that the final assessment order which was also issued in the name of a non-existent entity, would be invalid.", "16 By its decision dated 6 April 2017, the Tribunal set aside the final assessment order on the ground that it was void ab initio, having been passed in the name of a non-existent entity by the assessing officer.", "The decision of the Tribunal was affirmed in an appeal under Section 260A by the Delhi High Court on 9 January 2018 following 9 DRP its earlier decision in the case of the assessee for AY 2011-12.", "That has given rise to the present appeal.", "17 Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that: The High Court was not justified in quashing the final assessment order under Section 143 (3) only on the ground that the assessment was framed in the name of the amalgamating company, which was not in existence, ignoring the fact that the names of both the amalgamated company and the amalgamating company were mentioned in the assessment order Even on the hypothesis that the assessment order was framed incorrectly in the name of the amalgamating company, it would amount to a mistake, defect or omission which is curable under Section 292B when the assessment is, in substance and effect, in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of the Act During the assessment proceedings and the subsequent proceedings in appeal, the amalgamating company was duly represented by the amalgamated company.", "No prejudice was caused to any of the parties by the assessment order and hence rendering the assessment order invalid on a mere technicality would be incorrect in law.", "There was effective participation of the assessee in the assessment proceedings and there was no doubt in the minds of those who participated about the entity in relation to which the assessment proceedings took place In Spice Entertainment Limited v Commissioner of Service Tax10 (Spice Entertainment)11, the final assessment order only referred to the name of the erstwhile entity which was non-existent and there was no reference to the resulting company.", "In distinction, in the present case, in both the draft and the final assessment orders, the names of both the amalgamating and amalgamated companies were mentioned In paragraph 11 of the decision of the Delhi High Court in Spice Entertainment, it was held that: After the sanction of the scheme on 11th April, 2004, the Spice ceases to exist w.e.f. 1st July, 2003.", "Even if Spice had filed the returns, it became incumbent upon the Income tax authorities to substitute the successor in place of the said dead person.", "When notice under Section 143(2) was sent, the appellant amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO.", "He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record.", "Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M s Spice which was non existing entity on that day.", "In such proceedings and assessment order passed in the name of M s Spice would clearly be void.", "Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect.", "Mere participation by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.", "10 2012 (280) ELT 43 (Del.) This judgement has also been referred to as Spice Infotainment v. Commissioner of Income tax in Current Tax Reporter (2012) 247 CTR (Del) 500 From the above extract, it would emerge that if an assessment order had been passed on the resulting company, it would not be void.", "Hence, in the present case, the issuance of a notice under Section 143 (2) to SPIL cannot be considered to be a jurisdictional effect when the assessment order categorically mentions the names of the amalgamated and amalgamating companies The decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-28(1), New Delhi12 (Skylight Hospitality LLP), which was confirmed by this Court on 6 April 201813 dealt with a situation where a notice under Section 148 was issued in the name of a non-existent private limited company.", "The Court held that the defect in recording the name of a non-existent company in a notice under Section 148 was a procedural defect or mistake curable under Section 292B, since no prejudice was caused to the assessee.", "The Delhi High Court distinguished the decision in Spice Entertainment on the ground that in that case even the final assessment order was in the name of a non-existent company In the present case, both the draft assessment order and the final assessment order contained the names of the amalgamated and amalgamating companies and hence it cannot be held that the final order is in the name of a non-existent company.", "The order of the TPO is not the subject of a challenge by the assessee before any forum.", "The directions of the TPO were implemented by 12 (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) 13 (2018) 13 SCC 147 the assessing officer in the draft assessment order in accordance with Section 144C(1) which was then challenged by the assessee before the DRP under Section 144C(2).", "Since the names of both the amalgamated and amalgamating companies were mentioned in the draft assessment order and final assessment order, there is no jurisdictional defect In view the decision of this Court in Kunhayammed v State of Kerala14 (Kunhayammed), though the doctrine of merger does not apply when a Special Leave Petition is dismissed before the grant of leave to appeal, where an order rejecting a Special Leave Petition is a speaking order and reasons have been assigned for rejecting the petition, the law stated or declared in such an order will attract Article 141 and Consequently, in the alternative, in view of the order passed by this Court on 6 April 2018 in Skylight Hospitality LLP on the one hand and the order dated 16 July 2018 in the case of the present assessee for AY 2011-12 and the earlier order dated 2 November 2017 in CIT, New Delhi v Spice Enfotainment Limited15 (Spice Enfotainment Ltd), there appears to be a direct conflict of views on the principle whether a notice issued to a non-existent company would suffer from a jurisdictional error or whether it is a mere defect or mistake which would be governed by Section 292B. 14 (2000) 6 SCC 359 15 Civil Appeal Number 285 of 2014 18 On the other hand, Mr Ajay Vohra, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submitted that: Upon a scheme of amalgamation being sanctioned, the amalgamated company is dissolved without winding up, in terms of Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956.", "The amalgamating company ceases to exist in the eyes of law Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited v CIT16 (Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited) The amalgamating company cannot thereafter be regarded as a person in terms of Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated and an assessment order passed The jurisdictional notice under Section 143(2) of the Act, pursuant to which the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment was issued in the name of SPIL, a non-existent entity, and was invalid.", "Hence the initiation of assessment proceedings against a non-existent entity was void ab initio.", "It has been held in the following decisions that, if a statutory notice is issued in the name of a non-existent entity, the entire assessment would be a nullity in the eyes of law: - CIT v Intel Technology India (P) Ltd17 - PCIT v Nokia Solutions Network India (P) Limited (Nokia Solutions)18 - Spice Entertainment 16 (1990) 186 ITR 278 (SC) 17 2016 380 ITR 272 (Kar.) 18 2018 402 ITR 21 (Del) - Similarly, a notice to the amalgamating company, subsequent to the amalgamation becoming effective and despite the fact of the amalgamation having been brought to the notice of the assessing officer, is void ab initio as held in the following decisions: - BDR Builders and Developers Pvt.", "Limited v ACIT19 - Rustagi Engineering Udyog (P.) Limited v DCIT20 - Khurana Engineering Limited v DCIT21 - Takshashila Realties (P) Limited v DCIT22 - Alamelu Veerappan v ITO23 (Alamelu Veerappan) The order passed by the TPO in the name of SPIL, a non-existent entity was invalid in the eyes of the law: SPIL ceased to be an eligible assessee, in terms of section 144C (15) (b) of the Act.", "Consequently, there was no requirement to pass a draft assessment order reference to DRP etc.", "and Furthermore, the final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 is beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4) of the Act.", "The assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating Company is invalid: 19 2017 397 ITR 529 (Del) 20 2016 382 ITR 443 (Del) 21 2014 364 ITR 600 (Guj) 22 2017 77 taxmann.com 160 (Guj.) 23 2018 257 Taxman 72 (Madras) In terms of Section 170(2) of the Act, once the amalgamation is effective, assessment in respect of the income of the amalgamating company upto the appointed date has to be in the name of the amalgamated company as successor in interest of the amalgamating company.", "The Delhi High Court has held in Spice Entertainment that an assessment framed in the name of the amalgamating company, which ceased to exist in the eyes of law, was invalid and untenable in law.", "Such a defect would not be cured in terms of Section 292B of the Act.", "Further, the fact that the amalgamated company participated in the assessment proceedings would not operate as estoppel.", "Following the aforesaid decision of the High Court in the case of Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of an amalgamating company, recording also the name of the amalgamated company, in the following cases: -CIT v Dimension Apparels Pvt.", "Ltd24 (Dimension Apparels) affirmed by this Honble Court vide Civil Appeal Number 3125 of 2015 - CIT v Micron Steels P. Limited (Micron Steels)25 and -CIT v Micra India (P) Limited (Micra India)26.", "24 2015 370 ITR 288 (Del) 25 2015 372 ITR 386 (Del.) (MAG.) 26 2015 231 Taxman 809 (Del.) The aforesaid judgments of the Delhi High Court have been approved by this Court in Civil Appeal Number285 of 2014 ( other connected matters).", "Thus applying the doctrine of merger, the law laid down by the Delhi High Court has become a precedent under Article 141.", "The Respondents case is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in its own case for the immediately preceding year: The Delhi High Court by its judgment reported in Maruti Suzuki held in favour of the Respondent by following the judgment in the case of Spice Entertainment.", "Further, the Revenues SLP was dismissed by this Court on 16 July 2018 in SLP(C) D.No.14106/2018, following the judgment in Spice Entertainment.", "Relying on the decision of this Honble Court, in the following decisions, assessments framed in the case of a non-existent entity (the amalgamating company) have been held to be non-est in the eyes of law: - CIT v BMA Capfin Limited27 (Revenues SLP dismissed against the same vide order dated 19 November 201828 passed in SLP(C) Diary Number40486 of 2018).", "- Nokia Solutions 27 2018 100 taxmann.com 329 (Del.) 2018 100 taxmann.com 330 (SC) The judgment of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP is distinguishable and is not applicable to the facts of the present case: The judgment was rendered on its own peculiar facts.", "In that case, the tax evasion petition mentioned the factum of conversion of the company into a Limited Liability Partnership29, which was also noticed in the reasons to believe and approval of the Principal Commissioner (before issuance of a notice under Section 148 of the Act).", "However, only because of a clerical mistake, the notice was wrongly issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt.", "Limited instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP.", "In the aforesaid facts, the High Court held that this was an irregularity and procedural technical lapse which was curable under section 292B of the Act.", "The decision in the case of Spice Enfotainment was not followed on the ground that it pertained to the passing of an assessment order in the name of a non-existent entity whereas the case at hand dealt with a notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "The SLP filed by the assessee against the decision of the Delhi High Court was dismissed recording: In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of Act 1961 Subsequently, various High Courts, including the Delhi High Court have in the following decisions distinguished the judgment in the case of Skylight 29 LLP Hospitality LLP and have quashed the notice assessment framed in the name of a non-existent entity: - Rajender Kumar Sehgal v ITO (Rajender Kumar Sehgal)30 - Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v ITO (Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel)31 and - Alamelu Veerappan 19 While assessing the merits of the rival submissions, it is necessary at the outset to advert to certain significant facets of the present case: Firstly, the income which is sought to be subjected to the charge of tax for AY 2012-13 is the income of the erstwhile entity (SPIL) prior to amalgamation.", "This is on account of a transfer pricing addition of Rs. 78.97 crores Secondly, under the approved scheme of amalgamation, the transferee has assumed the liabilities of the transferor company, including tax liabilities Thirdly, the consequence of the scheme of amalgamation approved under Section 394 of the Companies Act 1956 is that the amalgamating company ceased to exist.", "In Saraswati Industrial Syndicate Limited, the principle has been formulated by this Court in the following observations: Generally, where only one company is involved in change and the rights of the shareholders and creditors are varied, it amounts to reconstruction or reorganisation of scheme of arrangement.", "In amalgamation two or more companies are fused into one by merger or by taking over by another.", "Reconstruction or amalgamation has no precise legal meaning.", "The amalgamation is a blending of two or more 30 2019 260 Taxman 412 (Del.) 31 (2019) 261 Taxman 137 (Guj) existing undertakings into one undertaking, the shareholders of each blending company become substantially the shareholders in the company which is to carry on the blended undertakings.", "There may be amalgamation either by the transfer of two or more undertakings to a new company, or by the transfer of one or more undertakings to an existing company.", "Strictly amalgamation does not cover the mere acquisition by a company of the share capital of other company which remains in existence and continues its undertaking but the context in which the term is used may show that it is intended to include such an acquisition.", "See: Halsburys Laws of England (4th edition volume 7 para 1539).", "Two companies may join to form a new company, but there may be absorption or blending of one by the other, both amount to amalgamation.", "When two companies are merged and are so joined, as to form a third company or one is absorbed into one or blended with another, the amalgamating company loses its entity.", "Fourthly, upon the amalgamating company ceasing to exist, it cannot be regarded as a person under Section 2(31) of the Act 1961 against whom assessment proceedings can be initiated or an order of assessment passed Fifthly, a notice under Section 143 (2) was issued on 26 September 2013 to the amalgamating company, SPIL, which was followed by a notice to it under Section 142(1) Sixthly, prior to the date on which the jurisdictional notice under Section 143 (2) was issued, the scheme of amalgamation had been approved on 29 January 2013 by the High Court of Delhi under the Companies Act 1956 with effect from 1 April 2012 Seventhly, the assessing officer assumed jurisdiction to make an assessment in pursuance of the notice under Section 143 (2).", "The notice was issued in the name of the amalgamating company in spite of the fact that on 2 April 2013, the amalgamated company MSIL had addressed a communication to the assessing officer intimating the fact of amalgamation.", "In the above conspectus of the facts, the initiation of assessment proceedings against an entity which had ceased to exist was void ab initio.", "20 In Spice Entertainment, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court dealt with the question as to whether an assessment in the name of a company which has been amalgamated and has been dissolved is null and void or, whether the framing of an assessment in the name of such company is merely a procedural defect which can be cured.", "The High Court held that upon a notice under Section 143 (2) being addressed, the amalgamated company had brought the fact of the amalgamation to the notice of the assessing officer.", "Despite this, the assessing officer did not substitute the name of the amalgamated company and proceeded to make an assessment in the name of a non-existent company which renders it void.", "This, in the view of the High Court, was not merely a procedural defect.", "Moreover, the participation by the amalgamated company would have no effect since there could be no estoppel against law : After the sanction of the scheme on 11th April, 2004, the Spice ceases to exit w.e.f.", "1st July, 2003.", "Even if Spice had filed the returns, it became incumbent upon the Income tax authorities to substitute the successor in place of the said dead person.", "When notice under Section 143 (2) was sent, the appellant amalgamated company appeared and brought this fact to the knowledge of the AO.", "He, however, did not substitute the name of the appellant on record.", "Instead, the Assessing Officer made the assessment in the name of M s Spice which was non existing entity on that day.", "In such proceedings an assessment order passed in the name of M s Spice would clearly be void.", "Such a defect cannot be treated as procedural defect.", "Mere participation by the appellant would be of no effect as there is no estoppel against law.", "Once it is found that assessment is framed in the name of non-existing entity, it does not remain a procedural irregularity of the nature which could be cured by invoking the provisions of Section 292B of the Act.", "Following the decision in Spice Entertainment, the Delhi High Court quashed assessment orders which were framed in the name of the amalgamating company in: Dimension Apparels Micron Steels and Micra India.", "21 In Dimension Apparels, a Division Bench of the Delhi High Court affirmed the quashing of an assessment order dated 31 December 2010.", "The Respondent had amalgamated with another company and thus, ceased to exist from 7 December 2009.", "The Court rejected the argument of the Revenue that the assessment was in substance and effect in conformity with the Act by reason of the fact that the assessing officer had used correct nomenclature in addressing the Assessee stated the fact that the company had amalgamated and mentioned the correct address of the amalgamated company.", "It was the Revenues contention that the omission on the part of the assessing officer to mention the name of the amalgamated company is a procedural defect.", "The Delhi High Court rejected this contention.", "In doing so, it relied on the holding in Spice Entertainment, where the High Court expressly clarified that the framing of assessment against a non-existing entity person is a jurisdictional defect.", "The Division Bench also relied on the holding in Spice Entertainment that participation by the amalgamated company in proceedings does not cure the defect as there can be no estoppel in law, to affirm the quashing of the assessment order.", "22 In Micron Steels, a notice was issued to Micron Steels Pvt Ltd (original assessee) after it had amalgamated with Lakhanpal Infrastructure Pvt Limited A Division Bench of the Delhi High Court upheld the setting aside of assessment orders, noting that Spice Entertainment is an authority for the proposition that completion of assessment in respect of a non-existent company due to the amalgamation order, would render the assessment a nullity.", "23 In Micra India, the original assessee Micra India Pvt.", "Ltd had amalgamated with Dynamic Buildmart (P) Limited Notice was issued to the original assessee by the Revenue after the fact of amalgamation had been communicated to it.", "The Court noted that though the assessee had participated in the assessment, the original assessee was no longer in existence and the assessment officer did not the take the remedial measure of transposing the transferee as the company which had to be assessed.", "Instead, the original assessee was described as one in existence and the order mentioned the transferees name below that of the original assessee.", "The Division Bench adverted to the judgment in Dimension Apparels wherein the High Court had discussed the ruling in Spice Entertainment.", "It was held that this was a case where the assessment was contrary to law, having been completed against a non-existent company.", "24 A batch of Civil Appeals was filed before this Court against the decisions of the Delhi High Court, the lead appeal being Spice Enfotainment.", "On 2 November 2017, a Bench of this Court consisting of Honble Mr Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Honble Mr Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul dismissed the Civil Appeals and tagged Special Leave Petitions in terms of the following order : Delay condoned.", "Heard the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the parties.", "We do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment(s) passed by the High Court.", "In view of this, we find no merit in the appeals and special leave petitions.", "Accordingly, the appeals and special leave petitions are dismissed.", "25 The doctrine of merger results in the settled legal position that the judgment of the Delhi High Court stands affirmed by the above decision in the Civil Appeals.", "26 The order of assessment in the case of the respondent for AY 2011-12 was set aside on the same ground.", "This resulted in a Special Leave Petition by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 6 Delhi32.", "The Special Leave Petition was dismissed by a two judge Bench of this Court consisting of Honble Mr Justice Rohinton Fali Nariman and Honble Ms Justice Indu Malhotra on 16 July 2018 in view of the order dated 2 November 2017 governing Civil Appeal Number 285 of 2014 in Spice Enfotainment and the connected batch of cases.", "Though, leave was not granted by this Court, reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the Special Leave Petition.", "The law declared would attract the applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution.", "For, as this Court has held in Kunhayammed: 40Where the order rejecting an SLP is a speaking order, that is, where reasons have been assigned by this Court for rejecting the petition for special leave and are stated in the order still the order remains the one rejecting prayer for the grant of leave to appeal.", "The petitioner has been turned away at the threshold without having been allowed to enter in the appellate jurisdiction of this Court.", "Here also the doctrine of merger would not apply.", "But the law stated or declared by this Court in its order shall attract applicability of Article 141 of the Constitution.", "The reasons assigned by this Court in its order expressing its adjudication (expressly or by necessary implication) on point of fact or law shall take away the jurisdiction of any other court, tribunal or authority to express any opinion in conflict with or in departure from the view taken by this Court because permitting to do so would be subversive of judicial discipline and an affront to the order of this Court.", "However this would be so not by reference to the doctrine of merger.", "27 The submission however which has been urged on behalf of the Revenue is that a contrary position emerges from the decision of the Delhi High Court in Skylight Hospitality LLP which was affirmed on 6 April 2018 by a two judge Bench of this 32 Special Leave Petition (C) (D) Number 14106 of 2018 Court consisting of Honble Mr Justice A K Sikri and Honble Mr Justice Ashok Bhushan33.", "In assessing the merits of the above submission, it is necessary to extract the order dated 6 April 2018 of this Court: In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under Section 292B of the Income Tax Act.", "The special leave petition is dismissed.", "Pending applications stand disposed of.", "Now, it is evident from the above extract that it was in the peculiar facts of the case that this Court indicated its agreement that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error, capable of being corrected under Section 292B. The peculiar facts of Skylight Hospitality emerge from the decision of the Delhi High Court34.", "Skylight Hospitality, an LLP, had taken over on 13 May 2016 and acquired the rights and liabilities of Skylight Hospitality Pvt.", "Ltd upon conversion under the Limited Liability Partnership Act 200835.", "It instituted writ proceedings for challenging a notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act 1961 dated 30 March 2017 for AY 2010-2011.", "The reasons to believe made a reference to a tax evasion report received from the investigation unit of the income tax department.", "The facts were ascertained by the investigation unit.", "The reasons to believe referred to the assessment order for AY 2013-2014 and the findings recorded in it.", "Though the notice under Sections 147/148 was issued in the name of Skylight Hospitality Pvt.", "Limited (which had ceased to exist 33 Special Leave Petition (C) Number 7409 of 2018 34 Sky Light Hospitality LLP v Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax : (2018) 405 ITR 296 (Delhi) 35 LLP Act 2008 upon conversion into an LLP), there was, as the Delhi High Court held substantial and affirmative material and evidence on record to show that the issuance of the notice in the name of the dissolved company was a mistake.", "The tax evasion report adverted to the conversion of the private limited company into an LLP.", "Moreover, the reasons to believe recorded by the assessing officer adverted to the approval of the Principal Commissioner.", "The PAN number of the LLP was also mentioned in some of the documents.", "The notice under Sections 147/148 was not in conformity with the reasons to believe and the approval of the Principal Commissioner.", "It was in this background that the Delhi High Court held that the case fell within the purview of Section 292B for the following reasons: 18There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else.", "Legal error and mistake was made in addressing the notice.", "Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply letter dated 11.04.2017.", "They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist.", "However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them.", "It was replied and dealt with by them.", "The fact that notice was addressed to M section Skylight Hospitality Pvt.", "Ltd., a company which had been dissolved, was an error and technical lapse on the part of the respondent.", "No prejudice was caused.", "28 The decision in Spice Entertainment was distinguished with the following observations: Petitioner relies on Spice Infotainment Ltd. v. Commissioner of Service Tax, (2012) 247 CTR 500.", "Spice Corp. Limited, the company that had filed the return, had amalgamated with another company.", "After notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued and received in the name of Spice Corp. Limited, the Assessing Officer was informed about amalgamation but the Assessment Order was passed in the name of the amalgamated company and not in the name of amalgamating company.", "In the said situation, the amalgamating company had filed an appeal and issue of validity of Assessment Order was raised and examined.", "It was held that the assessment order was invalid.", "This was not a case wherein notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was declared to be void and invalid but a case in which assessment order was passed in the name of and against a juristic person which had ceased to exist and stood dissolved as per provisions of the Companies Act.", "Order was in the name of non-existing person and hence void and illegal.", "29 From a reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018 in the Special Leave Petition filed by Skylight Hospitality LLP against the judgment of the Delhi High Court rejecting its challenge, it is evident that the peculiar facts of the case weighed with this Court in coming to this conclusion that there was only a clerical mistake within the meaning of Section 292B. The decision in Skylight Hospitality LLP has been distinguished by the Delhi, Gujarat and Madras High Courts in: Rajender Kumar Sehgal Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel and Alamelu Veerappan.", "30 There is no conflict between the decisions of this Court in Spice Enfotainment (dated 2 November 2017)36 and in Skylight Hospitality LLP (dated 6 April 201837).", "31 Mr Zoheb Hossain, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue urged during the course of his submissions that the notice that was in issue in Skylight Hospitality Pvt.", "Limited was under Sections 147 and 148.", "Hence, he urged that despite the fact that the notice is of a jurisdictional nature for reopening an assessment, this Court did not find any infirmity in the decision of the Delhi High Court holding that the issuance of a notice to an erstwhile private limited company which had since been dissolved was only a mistake curable under Section 292B. A close reading of the order of this Court dated 6 April 2018, however indicates that what weighed in the dismissal of the Special Leave Petition were the peculiar facts of the case.", "Those facts have been noted above.", "What had weighed with the Delhi High Court was that though the notice to reopen had been issued in the name of the erstwhile entity, all the material on record including the tax evasion report suggested that there was no manner of doubt that the notice was always intended to be issued to the successor entity.", "Hence, while dismissing the Special Leave Petition this Court observed that it was the peculiar facts of the case which led the court to accept the finding that the wrong name given in the notice was merely a technical error which could be corrected 36 Civil Appeal Number 285 of 2014 and connected cases 37 Special Leave Petition Number 7409 of 2018 under Section 292B. Thus, there is no conflict between the decisions in Spice Enfotainment on the one hand and Skylight Hospitality LLP on the other hand.", "It is of relevance to refer to Section 292B of the Income Tax Act which reads as follows: 292B. No return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding, furnished or made or issued or taken or purported to have been furnished or made or issued or taken in pursuance of any of the provisions of this Act shall be invalid or shall be deemed to be invalid merely by reason of any mistake, defect or omission in such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding if such return of income, assessment, notice, summons or other proceeding is in substance and effect in conformity with or according to the intent and purpose of this Act.", "In this case, the notice under Section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company.", "The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company.", "This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B. In this context, it is necessary to advert to the provisions of Section 170 which deal with succession to business otherwise than on death.", "Section 170 provides as follows: 170.", "(1) Where a person carrying on any business or profession (such person hereinafter in this section being referred to as the predecessor) has been succeeded therein by any other person (hereinafter in this section referred to as the successor) who continues to carry on that business or profession, (a) the predecessor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession (b) the successor shall be assesseed in respect of the income of the previous year after the date of succession.", "Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (1), when the predecessor cannot be found, the assessment of the income of the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession and of the previous year preceding that year shall be made on the successor in like manner and to the same extent as it would have been made on the predecessor, and all the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly.", "When any sum payable under this section in respect of the income of such business or profession for the previous year in which the succession took place up to the date of succession or for the previous year preceding that year, assesseed on the predecessor, cannot be recovered from him, the 99Assessing Officer shall record a finding to that effect and the sum payable by the predecessor shall thereafter be payable by and recoverable from the successor and the successor shall be entitled to recover from the predecessor any sum so paid.", "Where any business or profession carried on by a Hindu undivided family is succeeded to, and simultaneously with the succession or after the succession there has been a partition of the joint family property between the members or groups of members, the tax due in respect of the income of the business or profession succeeded to, up to the date of succession, shall be assesseed and recovered in the manner provided in section 171, but without prejudice to the provisions of this section.", "Explanation.", "For the purposes of this section, income includes any gain accruing from the transfer, in any manner whatsoever, of the business or profession as a result of the succession Now, in the present case, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent submitted that SPIL ceased to be an eligible assessee in terms of the provisions of Section 144C read with clause (b) of sub section 15.", "Moreover, it has been urged that in consequence, the final assessment order dated 31 October 2016 was beyond limitation in terms of Section 153(1) read with Section 153 (4).", "For the purposes of the present proceeding, we do not consider it necessary to delve into that aspect of the matter having regard to the reasons which have weighed us in the earlier part of this judgment.", "32 On behalf of the Revenue, reliance has been placed on the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, Shillong v Jai Prakash Singh38 (Jai Prakash Singh).", "That was a case where the assessee did not file a return for three assessment years and died in the meantime.", "His son who was one of the legal representatives filed returns upon which the assessing officer issued notices under Section 142 (1) and Section 143 (2).", "These were complied with and no objections were raised to the assessment proceedings.", "The assessment order mentioned the names of all the legal representatives and the assessment was made in the status of an individual.", "In appeal, it was contended that the assessment proceedings were void as all the legal representatives were not given notice.", "In this backdrop, a two judge Bench of this Court held that the assessment proceedings were not null and void, and at the worst, that they were defective.", "In this context, reliance was placed on the decision of the Federal Court in Chatturam v CIT39 holding that the jurisdiction to assess and the liability to pay tax are not conditional on the validity of the notice : the liability to pay tax is founded in the charging sections and not in the machinery 38 (1996) 3 SCC 525 39 (1947) 15 ITR 302 (FC) provisions to determine the amount of tax.", "Reliance was also placed on the decision in Maharaja of Patiala v CIT40 (Maharaja of Patiala).", "That was a case where two notices were issued after the death of the assessee in his name, requiring him to make a return of income.", "The notices were served upon the successor Maharaja and the assessment order was passed describing the assessee as His Highnesslate Maharaja of Patiala.", "The successor appealed against the assessment contending that since the notices were sent in the name of the Maharaja of Patiala and not to him as the legal representative of the Maharaja of Patiala, the assessments were illegal.", "The Bombay High Court held that the successor Maharaja was a legal representative of the deceased and while it would have been better to so describe him in the notice, the notice was not bad merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity.", "Following these two decisions, this Court in Jai Prakash Singh held that an omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where the liability is created by a distinct substantive provision.", "The omission or defect may render the order irregular but not void or illegal.", "Jai Prakash Singh and the two decisions that it placed reliance upon were evidently based upon the specific facts.", "Jai Prakash Singh involved a situation where the return of income had been filed by one of the legal representatives to whom notices were issued under Section 142(1) and 143(2).", "No objection was raised by the legal representative who had filed the return that a notice should also to be served to other legal representatives of the deceased assessee.", "No 40 (1943) 11 ITR 202 (Bombay) objection was raised before the assessing officer.", "Similarly, the decision in Maharaja of Patiala was a case where the notice had been served on the legal representative, the successor Maharaja and the Bombay High Court held that it was not void merely because it omitted to state that it was served in that capacity.", "33 In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name.", "The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation.", "Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law.", "This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017.", "The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012.", "In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment.", "34 We find no reason to take a different view.", "There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation.", "The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13.", "Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations.", "There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty.", "Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty.", "To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable.", "35 For the above reasons, we find no merit in the appeal.", "The appeal is accordingly dismissed.", "There shall be no order as to costs.", "J. DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD J. INDIRA BANERJEE New Delhi July 25, 2019."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentOverruled", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentOverruled", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "tertiary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "overall": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
\ No newline at end of file