{"id": "SC_2009_710", "text": ["B. Sinha, J. Leave granted.", "These two appeals, being interconnected, were taken up for hearing together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.", "They arise out of a common judgment and order dated 2.3.2006 in ITA Number 50 of 2005 and Civil Writ Petition Number800 of 2005 as also out of common judgment and order dated 3.4.2007 in Civil Review Number 15 and 16 of 2006 in ITA Number50 of 2005 and C.W.P. Number 800 of 2005 passed by the High court of Himachal Pradesh, Shimla.", "M s Green World Corporation is a partnership concern of Shri R.S. Gupta and his wife Smt.", "Sushila Gupta.", "They had set up two units for manufacturing exercise books, writing pads, etc.", "at Parwanoo in the State of Himachal Pradesh in the year 1995.", "The said purported units were established after declaration and enforcement of a policy for tax holiday for certain period specified in the Union Budget.", "They had also set up a third unit for manufacturing computer software.", "They started filing income tax returns from the Assessment Year 1996-97 showing huge profits.", "In the return for the Assessment Year 2000-01 they disclosed their total sales to the tune of Rs.1,51,69,515/- out of which a sum of Rs.74,69,314/- was shown as net profit.", "Thus, the profits bore a proportion of 49 to the gross sales.", "For the earlier assessment year, i.e. 1999-2000, the proportion of the net profit to the total sales was as high as 66 because out of the total sales of Rs. 2,97,12,106/- net profits were declared to be to the tune of Rs.1,96,77,631/-.", "For the subsequent three assessment years i.e. 2001-2002, 2002-2003 and 2003-2004, the proportionate net profits to the gross sales were 81, 95 and 95 respectively.", "It is furthermore stated that the total investment on plant and machinery for unit Number 1 was shown to be just Rs.1,25,000/- and a very small amount of money was shown to have been spent on plant and machinery for the second unit.", "On or about 7.2.2000, the Assessing Officer (AO) conducted a survey at the premises of the assessee in terms of Section 133-A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to for the sake of brevity as, the said Act) and verified for herself: (a) factum of the existence and actual working of Unit (b) Installation of Plant and machinery working with the aid of power (c) Presence of requisite number of workers, some of whose statement were records (d) available of stock of raw, semi-finished and finished material prior to Assessment year 2000-2001.", "On or about 19.12.2002, AO after completing the proceeding for assessment passed an order, which reads as under: Return declaring nil income after deduction under Section 80IB on the profit of Rs.74,79,995/- was filed on 31.10.2000 which was processed under Section 143(1)(a) on 26.7.2001 at returned income by my predecessor.", "Survey under Section 133A was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 7.2.2000 by the then ITO.", "The case was selected under compulsory scrutiny.", "Detailed questionnaire along with statutory notices under Section 143(2)/142(1) was issued and in response to the same, Shri Surinder Babbar, CA attended the assessment proceedings from time to time.", "Various details information called for were supplied which were verified.", "The case is discussed as under: The assessee details in manufacturing of Exercise books and Writing pads.", "The firm has two partners namely Shri Radhey Shyam Gupta and Smt.", "Sushila Gupta.", "Two units were set up by the assessee for manufacturing of Exercise Books in Unit-I and that of Writing Pads in Unit-II.", "Separate books of account were maintained for both the units and 11 workers were found working at the time of survey.", "Certain discrepancies as per cash book to that of day book were found which could not explain by the Accountant at the time of survey which were reconciled by the counsel of the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings.", "On sale of Rs.88,55,592/- gross profit of Rs.57,28,980/- giving rate of 64.69 for unit - 1 and on sale of Rs.63,16,392/-, gross profit of Rs.19,12,565/- for Unit-II giving 30.29 has been declared by the assessee.", "Sales were made both on credit as well as cash basis.", "Confirmed copy of account of the creditors has been produced, which is placed on record.", "Keeping in view the information supplied by the assessee and facts on file, the income returned by the assessee is hereby accepted.", "In the said order of assessment, AO recorded a note, which reads as under: After receiving a call from Shimla on 3.12.2002, I visited the office of Worthy CIT, Shimla on 4.12.2002 along with all the assessment records and relevant documents of M s Green World Corporation.", "The case was thoroughly discussed with (sic) records and relevant worthy CIT, Shimla in the presence of learned Addl.", "CIT, Solan Range, Solan.", "All the documents and queries raised and further reply submitted by the assessee was properly glanced through by the worthy CIT and after going through the questionnaire issued to the assessee on 18.10.2002 and reply submitted by the assessee in response to that on 7.11.2002, 13.11.2002 and 25.11.2002, worthy CIT has directed that since the reply submitted by the assessee is satisfactory and upto the mark, no more information is required to be called for and to assess the case as such.", "He, therefore, directed in presence of the learned Addl.", "CIT, Solan Range, Solan to incorporate that discussion in the body of the order sheet.", "Needful has been done as directed.", "A copy of the draft assessment order was sent to the Addl.", "CIT, Solan Range, Solan under the office letter Number ITO PWN.2002/03/2127 dated 13.12.2002 for according necessary approval.", "Approval to complete the assessment was received through telephonic from the office of the Addl.", "Commissioner of Income Tax, Solan Range Solan and assessment has been completed and the assessment order has been served upon the assessee on 19.12.2002.", "Indisputably, the Commissioner of Income Tax (CIT, for short) on whose dictates the order of assessment dated 19.12.2002 purported to have been passed was transferred and his successor on or about 5.12.2003 issued notice to the assessee purported to be under Section 263 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2000-2001 only, inter alia on the premise that the said order of assessment dated 19.12.2002 was prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.", "Assessee filed its reply thereto on or about 16.3.2004.", "He inter alia on account of his old age, ill-health, etc.", "also filed an application for transfer of its cases from CIT (Shimla) to CIT (Delhi) on 4.5.2004.", "The CIT (Shimla) passed an order dated 12.7.2004 under Section 263 of the Act inter alia on the premise that the Assessing Officer while finalizing the Assessment had not examined the case properly.", "In the said order, the following directions were issued: 16.3 Under the circumstances, I am left with no alternative but to decide the proceedings on the basis of material on record.", "In the assessment year under review, I estimate the assessees income from Units at Parwanoo at 5 of the declared turnover.", "The income shown in excess of 5 amount is treated as undisclosed income from undisclosed sources.", "As the assessee does not fulfill many of the conditions for being entitled to deduction u s 80IA IB, no part of the total income, not even the one estimated 5 of the turnover at Parwanoo, would be entitled for deduction u s 80IA IB.", "16.4 Charge interest u s 234B C for non-payment of advance tax.", "Penalty proceedings u s 271(1)(c) are initiated separately for furnishing of in-accurate particulars of income assessed.", "The Assessing Officer is directed to calculate the tax and interest on this income and issue Demand Notice and Challan to the assessee firm.", "Similar conditions i.e. non fulfillment of the prerequisite conditions for deduction u s 80IA IB and excessive declared profits prevailed in the preceding assessment years i.e. A.Y. 1996-97 , 1997-98, 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and succeeding assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003- 04 also.", "It is thus obvious that either the whole or substantially the whole of income shown by the assessee in the aforementioned different assessment years could not be said to be income derived from the business of industrial undertaking and was therefore not entitled to deduction u s 80IA IB.", "Thus substantial taxable income for these assessment years have escaped assessment because of non fulfillment of the pre- requisite conditions for deduction u s 80IA/80IB.", "The Assessing Officer is hereby directed to examine the case records for all the preceding assessment years including those for assessment year 1996-97 and initiate necessary proceedings u s 148 within a week.", "The Assessing Officer is further directed to examine the succeeding assessment years also i.e. A.Y. 2001-02, 2002-03 and 2003-04 and initiate appropriate action u s 148/143(2) as may be applicable, in a weeks time.", "Pursuant thereto or in furtherance thereof, notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued to the Assessee for the Assessment Years 1996-97 to 1999-2000, 2001-2002 and 2002-2003.", "Assessee preferred an appeal against the order dated 12.7.2004 before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short, ITAT).", "In its memo of appeal, the assessee raised contentions relating to: (1) jurisdiction, (2) bias on the part of the CIT (Shimla), and (3) on merit of the matter.", "The Income Tax Officer of CIT (Shimla) himself remained personally present before ITAT for the purpose of defending his order under Section 263 of the Act.", "By reason of an order dated 15.4.2005, ITAT allowed the appeal filed by the assessee setting aside the order of the CIT (Shimla) on the jurisdictional issue alone.", "It did not enter into the merit of the matter.", "It was held: As such, considering all the facts of the case and legal position emanating from the aforesaid judicial pronouncements, we are of the considered opinion from the assessment in the present case was made by the Assessing Officer after making proper and adequate enquiries as required in the facts of the case and since the claim of the assessee for deduction u s 80-IA was allowed by her on proper application of mind to the detailed submissions made on behalf of the assessee as well as the other relevant material including the findings of the survey, there was no error in her order as alleged by the learned CIT.", "On the other hand, the learned CIT held the said assessment to be erroneous mainly on the basis of surmises and conjectures without there being any material to support and substantiate the same and he having virtually reviewed the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer applying his mind again to the entire material available on record and by making fresh enquiry brushing aside totally the examination made by the Assessing Officer, we hold that his impugned order passed u s 263 was not sustainable in law.", "The same is, therefore, set aside restoring back the order of the Assessing Officer passed u s 143(3).", "It is worthwhile to note here that the claim of the assessee for deduction u s 80-IA was allowed by the Assessing Officer in the immediately preceding years involving identical facts and circumstances and this material and relevant aspect again appears to have been ignored by the learned CIT while exercising his powers conferred u s 263.", "On the contrary he directed the Assessing Officer by issuing notices u s 148 and also directed him to examine the returns filed by the assessee for the subsequent years by his impugned order which was beyond the jurisdiction conferred on him u s 263 since the same was confined only to the year for which the assessment order was sought to be revised.", "We, therefore, direct that the said directions pertaining to the years other than the year under consideration as contained in the impugned order be omitted.", "As a result of our decision on ground Numbers 1 to 5 cancelling the impugned order passed by the learned CIT u s 263, the other grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal have been rendered only of academic nature.", "We, therefore, do not deem it necessary or expedient to consider and decide the same on merits.", "On or about 5.7.2005, notice under Section 148 of the Act was also issued for the Assessment year 2000-2001.", "Assessee questioned the legality of the notice under Section 148 of the Act by filing a Writ Petition before the Himachal Pradesh High Court on or about 5.8.2005, which was marked as Civil Writ Petition Number 800 of 2005.", "Indisputably, the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, CBDT), on the application for transfer of the case filed by the assessee on 4.5.2004, passed an order dated 1.9.2005 transferring the case from the jurisdiction of CIT (Shimla) to that of CIT (Delhi) with effect from 5.9.2005, stating: In exercise of powers conferred by clause (b) of sub-section (2) of Section 127 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 43 of 1961, the Central Board of Direct Taxes hereby orders the transfer of the jurisdiction over the case of The Green World Corporation PAN NO.", "AAAFG6719Q from the Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo in the Commissionerate of Income Tax, Shimla in the region of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Shimla to the Income Tax Officer, Ward 19 3, New Delhi in the Commissionerate of Income Tax, Delhi-VII, New Delhi, in the region of Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi-VII, New Delhi.", "The said order shall take effect from 5th September, 2005.", "CIT (Shimla) preferred an appeal before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act on or about 17.10.2005.", "On or about 30.11.2005, the High Court while condoning the delay admitted the appeal without formulating the substantial questions of law as required under Section 260A. By reason of an order dated 9.1.2006, the High Court entertained the appeal, stating: Learned Counsel for the appellant states that though CIT, Shimla has locus-standi to file the present appeal, but as an abundant caution appeal may also be taken to have been filed by CIT, Delhi as well and CIT Delhi may be ordered to be impleaded as appellant Number 2.", "Ordered accordingly, Registry to make necessary correction in the memo of parties.", "Learned Counsel for the appellants undertakes to file amended memo of parties and also the Vakalatnama for appellant Number 2 in the Registry.", "Arguments heard.", "Judgment reserved.", "Assessee filed Special Leave Petition Number 3273 of 2006 before this Court questioning the orders dated 30.11.2005 and 9.1.2006 passed by the High Court.", "By reason of the impugned order dated 2.3.2006, the High Court while allowing the Appeal filed by CIT (Shimla) dismissed the writ petition filed by the assessee, inter alia, opining: The order of the Assessing Officer, having been based on uncalled for interference in the judicial functions of the Commissioner, was bad in law.", "The issue in regard to the maintainability of the appeal vis--vis the locus standi of the CIT (Shimla) was significant as CIT (Delhi) had also been impleaded As the Assessing Officer had acted under the dictates and pressure of CIT (Shimla), the order of assessment was not maintainable.", "Assesseee not being a new unit, the order of assessment was bad in law.", "CIT could issue directions for reopening the proceedings for the other Assessment Years apart from Assessment Year 2000-2001 also, subject of course to the law of limitation.", "Feeling aggrieved by the said judgment and order dated 2.3.2006, Assessee filed two Review Petitions being Civil Review Numbers 15 and 16 of 2006.", "Civil Review Number14 of 2006 was also filed by the Income Tax Officer, Shimla against the same.", "Another Civil Review Number 22 of 2006 also came to be filed by the Mr. D. Khare, who was the CIT at the time of passing of the Assessment Order dated 19.12.2002 as certain strictures were passed in the said order dated 2.3.2006 against him without giving an opportunity of hearing to him.", "A Special Leave Petition Number 1789 of 2007 was also filed by the CIT (Shimla) against the said High Courts judgment and order dated 2.3.2006.", "On or about 7.4.2006, this Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition No. 3273 of 2006 filed by the Assessee as infructuous.", "On or about 14.11.2006, Civil Review Number 14 of 2006 filed by the Income Tax Officer, Shimla was dismissed.", "By reason of an order dated 3.4.2007, the High Court while allowing Mr. Khares Civil Review Number 22 of 2006 expunging all observations made in the order dated 2.3.2006 rejected the assessees review petitions to recall order against it founded on the same observations.", "The High Court in its impugned order dated 3.4.2007 inter alia held: We have heard the learned counsel for the review petitioner.", "It is true that no notice was issued to the review petitioner nor any opportunity of being heard was granted to him by this Court before making the observations.", "But the aforesaid observations are not the findings of this Court that the review petitioner in fact interfered with the functioning of the Assessing Officer, Solan or pressurized her into closing the inquiry and passing the order of accepting the return as such.", "These observations are based on the interpretation and construction of the note appearing below the order dated 19.12.2002 of the Assessing Officer, Solan.", "Even though the observations are based on the interpretation and the construction of the note below the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer, still at certain points in para 16 and particularly in para 41 this Court has not specifically said that these observations are based on the interpretation of the said note and one may gather an impression (from some of the observations, about which there is no specific reference) that the same are the Courts own observations findings.", "As a matter of fact there was no material before this Court suggesting whether what was written in the note was true or untrue.", "The observations were made because the note appears below the order.", "The purpose of making the observations in para 16 was to elaborate that the order of the Assessing Officer was bad having been passed on account of interference and under pressure from the Superior authority, according to the Assessing Officer herself.", "Whether the interference and the pressure mentioned in the said note, were real or imaginary, that was not gone into by this Court nor was it necessary to do so for the purpose of disposing of the appeal, because in their case (that is to say, in the case of the interference and pressure being real or even in the case of it being unreal or imaginary) the order was bad because of its being not based on any reasoning and hence an order passed without application of mind.", "In view of the above stated position, we allow the present petition (Civil Review Petition No. 22 of 2006) and order the expunction of all those observations appearing in para 16 or 41 or elsewhere in the judgment, which give the impression that the review petitioner stands indicted for interfering with the working of the Assessing Officer, Solan or pressurizing her into accepting the return as submitted by the assessee, without making any further probe.", "In fact the inquiry ordered by this Court, vide para 41 of the judgment, is for the purpose of finding out whether the review petitioner had actually interfered with the working of the Assessing Officer, Solan and pressurized her into passing the order of acceptance of the return as stated in the foot note of the order of Assessing Officer.", "Two other Review Petitions Number 15 and 16 of 2006 have been filed by the assessee.", "The contents and the pith and substance of both the two review petitions are the same.", "Instead of one, two petitions have been filed because by the judgment of this Court not only the appeal filed against the assessee by the Revenue but also a writ petition filed by the assessee were disposed of.", "One petition is for the review of the order passed in the writ petition and the other for the review of the judgment passed in the appeal.", "We have heard the learned counsel for the assessee.", "The points raised by him are: The appeal itself was not maintainable, because it was the Commissioner of Income Tax, New Delhi (to whom the area, where the assessee was doing his business, stands transferred) who had the competence to file the appeal, but the same had been filed by the Income Tax Commissioner, Shimla.", "Appeal was admitted on twelve questions as submitted to the Court by the appellant - Commissioner of Income Tax, but this Court formulated two questions after the conclusion of the hearing and answered only those two questions, which was contrary to the spirit of Section 260-A of the Income Tax Act Questions which this Court dealt with, while disposing of the appeal, did not arise out of the order of the Tribunal as the Tribunal dealt with only the question of jurisdiction while disposing of the appeal and it did not touch the merits.", "We find no merit in any of the aforesaid submissions.", "Question of maintainability of the appeal, which was initially filed by the Income Tax Commissioner, Shimla and to which the Income Tax Commissioner, Delhi was later on added as a co-appellant, was considered by this Court while passing the judgment and the contention raised by the counsel for the assessee was dismissed with a clear cut finding that the appeal was maintainable.", "It is not open to the review petitioner to assail and challenge the said finding by way of review.", "Coming to the next point, it is true that the appeal was admitted on twelve questions, but while making their submissions the counsel for the parties confined themselves only to a few points, which were covered partly by one and partly by some other questions and so the questions were re- formulated into two questions, confining their scope only to those points about which submissions were made by the learned counsel for the parties.", "Otherwise also, by the judgment, in question, this Court decided not only the appeal but also a writ petition filed by the review petitioner itself and this also necessitated reformulation of questions.", "As regards submission C above, learned counsel submitted that this court gave the finding that the order of the Assessing Officer, Solan was bad but that such a question did not arise out of the appeal decided by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as the Tribunal had dealt with the question of jurisdiction only and hence this court exceeded its appellate jurisdiction while holding that the order was bad on account of non- application of mind.", "The submission is factually incorrect.", "The Tribunal while accepting the appeal of the assessee held that the order had been passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act on the basis of the inquiry conducted by her and that the Commissioner of Income Tax could not have interfered with the said order merely because he formed a different view on scanning the record.", "Appellate Tribunal clearly said that the order of the Assessing Officer was based on an inquiry conducted by her.", "This court did not approve of this finding of the Tribunal, because the note appearing below the order of the Assessing Officer clearly shows that it is not passed on application of mind but on the interference by the Commissioner of Income Tax.", "Since none of the submissions made by the learned counsel has any merit, both the review petitions (petition Numbers 15 and 16 of 2006) filed by the assessee, i.e. M s The Green World Corporation, are dismissed.", "Mr. Harish N. Salve and Mr. Sunil Gupta, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Assessee inter alia would submit: Having regard to the order of transfer passed by CBDT transferring the case from CIT (Shimla) to CIT (Delhi), CIT (Shimla) had no locus standi to maintain the appeal preferred before the High Court under Section 260A of the Act.", "Despite order by the High Court, CIT (Delhi) having not been impleaded as a party, it must be held that the CIT (Shimla) has no locus standi to maintain the appeal.", "Notice under Section 263 having been issued in respect of Assessment Year 2000-2001 only, directions in respect of the past and the future years of Assessments could not have been issued some of them being barred by limitation.", "The order of the CIT (Shimla) being biased, the Tribunal has rightly interfered therewith as the notices under Section 148 of the Act had been issued pursuant to the directions of the CIT (Shimla), the same are not maintainable.", "Mere error of law and or a different view from that of the Assessing Officer by itself could not have been a ground for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act.", "Section 150(1) of the Act whereupon reliance has been placed by the Revenue is not applicable.", "Special Leave Petition filed by CIT (Shimla) on the self same reasons is not maintainable.", "CIT (Shimla) has not raised any question that the order of assessment was passed at the behest of the CIT, the High Court committed a serious error in passing the impugned judgment relying on or on the basis of the said footnote.", "The said footnote was issued having regard to the circular letter issued by the CBDT itself dated 3.7.2001.", "In any event, the Tribunal having not entered into the merit of the matter, the only option available to the High Court was to remand the matter back to the Tribunal and not to enter into the merit itself.", "CITs direction to the Assessing Officer to initiate action under Section 148 of the Act for the earlier and subsequent years was illegal and bad in law, and, thus, the proceedings so initiated were also illegal, bad in law and were liable to be quashed.", "Mr. I. Venkatanarayana, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Revenue, on the other hand, would contend: CIT (Shimla) had the locus standi to prefer an appeal before the High Court as he had passed the order prior to the order of transfer.", "The Assessee having played fraud on the Department as it had shown a huge amount of profit without there being sufficient number of workmen engaged and without consuming requisite units of electrical energy only with a view to enjoy the tax holidays, CIT (Shimla) had rightly interfered therewith.", "The amount of profit shown from the Parwanoo having been holding disproportionate to the investment made, the High Court was correct in passing the impugned judgment.", "In any event, the Assessee cannot be said to have been prejudiced in any manner whatsoever by the order of the High Court, as the appeal although was improperly filed may be held to be maintainable.", "The principal question which arises for consideration is as to whether the order of assessment was passed at the instance of the Higher Authority.", "An Income Tax Officer while passing an order of assessment performs judicial function.", "An appeal lies against his order before the Appellate Authority.", "A Revision Application would also lie before the Commissioner of Income Tax.", "It is trite that the jurisdiction exercised by the Revisional Authority pertains to his Appellate jurisdiction.", "See Shankar Ramchandra Abhyankar vs Krishnaji Dattatraya Bapat AIR 1970 SC 1 The Act provides for its own hierarchy of authorities.", "Section 116 of the Act occurring in Chapter XIII thereof provides for classes of Income-tax authorities for the purpose of the Act.", "Clauses (e) and (f) thereof read as under: Assistant Directors of Income-tax or Assistant Commissioners of Income-tax.", "Income-tax Officers Section 117 of the Act provides for appointment of Income-tax authorities.", "Control of Income-tax authorities is specified in Section 118 in the following terms: The Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, direct that any income-tax authority or authorities specified in the notification shall be subordinate to such other income-tax authority or authorities as may be specified in such notification.", "Section 119 lays down the manner in which the instructions may be given to the subordinate authorities by the higher authorities.", "Sub-Section (1) thereof provides for the power of the Board whereas sub-section (2) specifies the power of the Board to issue such directions.", "The said orders passed by the Board are required to be placed before each House of Parliament.", "It must be read before each House of Parliament by the Central Government.", "Section 120 of the Act provides for the jurisdiction of Income-tax authorities.", "Sub-section (1) thereof reads as under: 120.", "(1) Income-tax authorities shall exercise all or any of the powers and perform all or any of the functions conferred on, or, as the case may be, assigned to such authorities by or under this Act in accordance with such directions as the Board may issue for the exercise of the powers and performance of the functions by all or any of those authorities.", "Section 124 of the Act lays down the jurisdiction of Assessing Officers.", "Power to transfer cases is provided for under Section 127 sub- Sections (1) and (2) whereof read as under: Power to transfer cases The Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, transfer any case from one or more Assessing Officers subordinate to him (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) to any other Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers (whether with or without concurrent jurisdiction) also subordinate to him.", "Where the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers from whom the case is to be transferred and the Assessing Officer or Assessing Officers to whom the case is to be transferred are not subordinate to the same Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner,- (a) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners to whom such Assessing Officers are subordinate are in agreement, then the Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner from whose jurisdiction the case is to be transferred may, after giving the assessee a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter, wherever it is possible to do so, and after recording his reasons for doing so, pass the order (b) where the Directors General or Chief Commissioners or Commissioners aforesaid are not in agreement, the order transferring the case may, similarly, be passed by the Board or any such Director General or Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as the Board may, by notification in the Official Gazette, authorise in this behalf.", "The Explanation appended to the said provision states: Explanation.-- In section 120 and this section, the word case, in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued thereunder, means all proceedings under this Act in respect of any year which may be pending on the date of such order or direction or which may have been completed on or before such date, and includes also all proceedings under this Act which may be commenced after the date of such order or direction in respect of any year.", "Sections 131 to 136 provide for the administrative powers of the Commissioner.", "Section 253 of the Act provides for appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.", "Sub-Section (1) whereof reads thus: Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal.", "Any assessee aggrieved by any of the following orders may appeal to the Appellate Tribunal against such order- (a) an order passed by a Deputy Commissioner (Appeals) before the 1st day of October, 1998 or, as the case may be, a Commissioner (Appeals) under section 154, section 250, section 271, section 271A or section 272A or (b) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under clause (c) of section 158BC, in respect of search initiated under section 132 or books of account, other documents or any assets requisitioned under section 132A, after the 30th day of June, 1995, but before the 1st day of January, 1997 or (ba) an order passed by an Assessing Officer under sub-section (1) of section 115VZC or (c) an order passed by a Commissioner under section 12AA or under clause (vi) of sub-section (5) of section 80G or under section 263 or under section 271 or under section 272A or an order passed by him under section 154 amending his order under section 263 or an order passed by a Chief Commissioner or a Director General or a Director under section 272A. An appeal before the High Court would lie on a substantial question of law as provided for under Section 260A of the Act.", "We may, at this juncture, also notice the CBDT circular issued on 3.7.2001 vesting powers on different Commissioners Item 27 whereof confers power in the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi-VII, Delhi to exercise jurisdiction in respect of offices of the Income Tax Assessing Officer situate at Civil Lines (No. 114).", "Before, however, adverting to the jurisdictional issue raised by the Assessee herein, we may consider the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Income-tax to issue notice in terms of Section 263 of the Act.", "It provides for a revisional power.", "It has its own limitations.", "An order can be interfered suo motu by the said authority not only when an order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous but also when it is prejudicial to the interests of the Revenue.", "Both the conditions precedent for exercising the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act are conjunctive and not disjunctive.", "An order of assessment passed by an Income-tax Officer, therefore, should not be interfered with only because another view is possible.", "The Commissioner of Income-tax, however, has specified a number of reasons in support of its order, namely, (1) on non-fulfillment of pre-requisite conditions for deduction under Section 80-IA/80-IB - it was held that the activities of the assessee do not amount to manufacturing (2) little consumption of electricity and thus manufacturing is without the aid of power (3) non-employment of requisite workers in manufacturing process (4) non-fulfillment of the condition of new plant and machinery (5) extra- ordinary high profits (6) abrupt closure of business (7) no reason for more than ordinary profits (8) books of accounts incomplete and unreliable (9) the manufacturing units at Parwanoo were not genuinely run (10) high profits have been declared.", "In regard to reasons for more than ordinary profits, it was stated: 12.1 Many of the essential expenses without which business cannot be run or either not debited at all or have been suppressed considerably.", "Depreciation of assets such as furniture, fixtures, car, scooter etc.", "has also been claimed at half the rate while have been with the assessee through out the year.", "The lower claim of depreciation prejudices the revenues case for the subsequent years also.", "It was concluded: 15.6 Keeping in view the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, the only inescapable conclusion in this case is that the assessee has had no genuine manufacturing unit at Parwanoo.", "The Parwanoo base is being only used as a fagade to convert route its otherwise undisclosed income from undisclosed sources through the units at Parwanoo to claim deduction u s 80IA/80IB.", "Otherwise, there was no reason that the partners should not have stationed themselves at Parwanoo or nearby.", "There is no justification for abrupt closure of almost each of the three units in the 4th or 5th year when they were yielding peak profits.", "The Unit Number 1 and Unit 2 were closed following a surprise survey u s 133A which revealed that there was little industrial activity in the premises at Parwanoo.", "It was with a view to avoid the embarrassing situation of defending the indefensible that the assessee deemed it fit to show these units as having been closed before the date of Survey in the accounting period relevant to A.Y. 2000-01.", "It was held: I have carefully considered the written submission of the assessee and these are not acceptable as being incorrect.", "In view of the above, I am of the view that the Assessing Officer has acted not only erroneously, but also in a manner prejudicial to the interest of revenue by allowing the deduction u s 80IB in the assessment order dated 19.12.2002 where he had brought substantial amount of evidence against it on record and proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the assessee had falsely made claim of heavy deductions knowing fully well: that its activities operations did not amount to manufacturing that the manufacturing, if any, was not carried with the aid of power that it does not fulfill the condition of new Plant Machinery that it did not satisfy the condition of employment of 20 workers throughout or through the substantial part of the year, and that the declared profits were reasonably high and exorbitant and non genuine also.", "On the aforementioned finding, it was held: 16.3 Under the circumstances, I am left with no alternative but to decide the proceedings on the basis of material on record.", "In the assessment year under review, I estimate the assessees income from Units at Parwanoo at 5 of the declared turnover.", "The income shown in excess of 5 amount is treated as undisclosed income from undisclosed sources.", "As the assessee does not fulfill many of the conditions for being entitled to deduction u s 80IA IB, no part of the total income, not even the one estimated 5 of the turnover at Parwanoo, would be entitled for deduction u s 80IA IB.", "Other directions were issued and diverse proceedings were also directed to be initiated.", "Indisputably, the Assessee carried the matter in appeal.", "Before the Appellate Authority, a large number of grounds were raised.", "We may, however, notice that a question with regard to the propriety on the part of the Commissioner of Income-tax to interfere with the functions of the Assessing Officer was raised, stating that the said order was passed at the dictate of the higher authorities.", "The Tribunal in its order dated 15.4.2005 referred to in great details the respective contentions raised by the parties before it.", "It, however, went to the merit of the matter to opine inter alia that the machineries were installed production of finished goods was shown in the books of accounts Assessee had furnished explanation with regard to the queries made and also filed its detailed reply as required by the Assessing Officer books of account have been produced by the Assessee before the Assessing Officer as would appear from the letter of the Assessing Officer dated 18.10.2002 the activities of the Assessee amounted to manufacture and it was wrongly held by the Commissioner of Income-tax that the unit of the Assessee was not registered with the Central Excise Department it was exempt from payment of excise duty.", "It was furthermore held that there was no error in the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer.", "It was observed: Similarly, the other discrepancies sought to be pointed out by the learned CIT in his impugned order were duly explained on behalf of the assessee firm leaving no error in the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer u s 143(3).", "For instance, the lower claim of the assessee for depreciation in the year under consideration was based on straight line method followed by the assessee and since the same method followed consistently in the preceding years was accepted by the Department, the order of the Assessing Officer accepting the same even in the year under consideration as per rule of consistency could not be held to be erroneous.", "In any case, the entire income of the assessee being deductible u s 80IA, the lower claim of depreciation was not causing any prejudice to the interest of Revenue at least in the year under consideration and the apprehension of the learned CIT about such prejudice which may be caused to the Revenue in the subsequent years was based on assumptions and surmises depending on ultimate eventualities like the one happened in the present case when the units were finally closed down by the assessee after five years.", "Even the other discrepancies pointed out by the learned CIT in his impugned order in terms of maintenance of stock record and books of accounts including cash book were duly examined by the Assessing Officer as is evident from the specific queries raised by her in writing seeking clarification explanation from the assessee and the elaborate submissions made in reply on behalf of the assessee explaining clarifying each and every query so raised.", "Even the closure of unit by the assessee firm situated at Parwanoo despite substantial profit was entirely a decision taken by the assessee which might have been influenced by different considerations and in any case, this aspect was not relevant so much so to make the assessment completed by the Assessing Officer to be erroneous for non-consideration of the same.", "We must also place on record that the incumbent of the office of the CIT (Shimla) himself appeared before the Tribunal which is a bit unusual.", "In fact, in the memo of appeal, the Revenue went to the extent of attributing bias to the Tribunal, stating that after the great amount of arguments that Shri A.K. Manchanda, CIT, Shimla who was himself the respondent also and had a natural, legal and constitutional right to defend his case that the Honble Tribunal permitted him to represent the case on facts subject to the condition that he would not be permitted to address the bench on legal issue.", "The High Court furthermore noticed the objection of the Assessee that CIT (Shimla) could not maintain appeal before it.", "It furthermore noticed the question raised before it for the first time that the Assessment Order has been passed by the Assessing Officer at the dictates of the higher authorities.", "Before the High Court as many as 12 questions were raised.", "The High Court held: The aforesaid discussion pertaining to the interpretation of Sections 150 (1) and 153(3)(ii) including the operation of Section 149, prescribing limitation for issue of notice, under Section 148 and Section 153(2) providing limitation for passing an order, under Section 147, however, does not mean that the Commissioner of Income Tax, in exercise of his power, under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, cannot record a finding or give a direction for re-opening the assessment pertaining to assessment years other than the assessment year(s) covered by the revisional proceedings.", "The only effect of the above discussion and interpretation is that the bar of limitation contained in Sections 149 and 153 (2) will not be lifted, if the order or the finding or the direction of the appellate or the revisional authority, pertain to an assessment year other than the assessment year, which was the subject matter of the appellate or revisional proceedings, unless the case is covered by Explanations 2 and 3 to Section 153.", "In other words, the Revenue cannot successfully press into service the provisions of Sections 150(1) and 153(2) lifting the bar of limitation in cases where the order of revisional or appellate authority relates to assessment year (s) other than the assessment year(s) to which the appeal or revision pertained.", "In regard to the validity of the notices under Section 148 of the Act, it was opined that they were not saved from the limitation under the exclusionary provisions of Sections 150(1) and 153(3)(ii) of the Act.", "It was directed: Before parting with the judgment, we feel that is desirable and in the public interests that the Chief Vigilance Commissioner is approached by the Appointing Authority of the Commissioner of Income Tax, who interfered in the statutory functioning of the Assessing Officer and pressurized her to pass the order accepting the return of the assessee to inquire into the matter and if on inquiry the Chief Vigilance Commissioner finds and reports that the said Commissioner of Income Tax was guilty of misconduct, action is taken against him by his such Authority, as per law.", "We direct the Appointing Authority of the said Commissioner accordingly.", "Two sets of review applications were filed one by Shri Dhirendra Khare, and another by the Assessee.", "The High Court while allowing the Khares review application expunging all observations made in its order dated 2.3.2006 rejected the review application filed by the Assessee.", "JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 263 The scope of provisions of Section 263 of the Act is no longer res integra.", "The power to exercise of suo motu of revision in terms of Section 263(1) is in the nature of supervisory jurisdiction and same can be exercised only if the circumstances specified therein, viz., (1) the order is erroneous (2) by virtue of the order being erroneous prejudice has been caused to the interest of the revenue, exist.", "In Malabar Industrial Company Limited vs CIT 243 ITR 83 (SC) : (2000) 2 SCC 718), this Court held: There can be no doubt that the provision cannot be invoked to correct each and every type of mistake or error committed by the Assessing Officer, it is only when an order is erroneous that the section will be attracted.", "An incorrect assumption of facts or an incorrect application of law will satisfy the requirement of the order being erroneous.", "In the same category fall orders passed without applying the principles of natural justice or without application of mind.", "xxx xxx xxx The phrase prejudicial to the interests of the revenue has to be read in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the assessing officer.", "Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, for example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law.", "It has been held by this court that where a sum not earned by a person is assessed as income in his hands on his so offering, the order passed by the assessing officer accepting the same as such will be erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.", "(emphasis supplied) The principle laid down therein was followed in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Max India Limited (2007) 295 ITR 282 (SC), stating: In our view at the relevant time two views were possible on the word profits in the proviso to Section 80HHC(3).", "It is true that vide the 2005 amendment the law has been clarified with retrospective effect by insertion of the word loss in the new proviso.", "We express no opinion on the scope of the said amendment of 2005.", "Suffice it to state that in this particular case when the order of the Commissioner was passed under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, two views on the said word profits existed.", "Referring to Malabar Industrial Company Limited (supra), it was observed: Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue.", "For example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the Commissioner does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue , unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law.", "It is beyond any doubt or dispute that only in terms of the directions issued by the Commissioner dated 12.7.2004 under Section 263 of the Act, notices under Section 148 of the Act were issued.", "Indisputably, CIT (Shimla) had no jurisdiction to issue directions.", "Notices issued pursuant thereto would be bad in law.", "We may, however, place on record that the Revenue in the List of Dates while questioning the observations made by the High Court that the notices under Section 148 of the Act for Assessment Years 1996-97 and 1997-98 are not saved from the rigors of the law of limitation, under the exclusionary provisions of Sections 150(1) and 153(3)(ii) of the Act, stated: In this regard, it is important to note that these notices were issued to give effect to the directions contained in the revision order u s 263 passed by the CIT on 12.7.2004 unlike Section 149 of the Act, there is no time limit u s 150(1) that starts with non obstante clause and to that extent the observations of the Honble High court are in error.", "Further Section 150(2) provides necessary restriction on Section 150(1) and even under the said restriction provided by Section 150(2), the issue of notices u s 148 of the AY 1996-97 and 1997-98 in instant case is within the restricted time limit provided u s 150(2) of the IT Act.", "Section 150 of the Act reads as under: 150 - Provision for cases where assessment is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc.", "(1) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 149, the 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 proceeding under this Act by way of appeal, reference or revision or by a Court in any proceeding under any other law.", "The provisions of sub-section (1) shall not apply in any case where any such assessment, reassessment or recomputation as is referred to in that sub-section relates to an assessment year in respect of which an assessment, reassessment or recomputation could not have been made at the time the order which was the subject-matter of the appeal, reference or revision, as the case may be, was made by reason of any other provision limiting the time within which any action for assessment, reassessment or recomputation may be taken.", "The aforementioned provision although appears to be of a very wide amplitude, but would not mean that recourse to reopening of the proceedings in terms of Sections 147 and 148 of the Act can be initiated at any point of time whatsoever.", "Such a proceeding can be initiated only within the period of limitation prescribed therefor as contained in Section 149 of the Act.", "Section 150 (1) of the Act is an exception to the aforementioned provision.", "It brings within its ambit only such cases where reopening of the proceedings may be necessary to comply with an order of the higher authority.", "For the said purpose, the records of the proceedings must be before the appropriate authority.", "It must examine the records of the proceedings.", "If there is no proceeding before it or if the Assessment year in question is also not a matter which would fall for consideration before the higher authority, Section 150 of the Act will have no application.", "In Income-Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur vs Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 ITR 335 (SC), it was held: The proceedings would be in time, if the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act could be invoked.", "The question, therefore, is what is the true meaning of the terms of the second proviso to section 34(3) of the Act.", "It reads: Provided further that nothing in this section limiting the time within which any action may be taken, or any order, assessment or re-assessment may be made, shall apply to a re-assessment made under section 27 or to an assessment or re- assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of or to give effect to any finding or direction contained in an order under section 31, section 33, section 33A, section 33B, section 66 or section 66A. Prima facie this proviso lifts the ban of limitation imposed by the other provisions of the section in the matter of taking an action in respect of or making an order of assessment or re- assessment falling within the scope of the said proviso.", "The scope of the proviso is confined to an assessment or re-assessment made on the assessee or any person in consequence of an order to give effect to any finding or direction contained in any order made under section 31 i.e., in an appeal before the Assistant Appellate Commissioner, under section 33 i.e., in an appeal before the Tribunal, under section 33A i.e., in a revision before the Commissioner, under section 33B i.e., in a revision before the Commissioner against an order of the Income-tax Officer, and under sections 66 and 66A i.e., in a reference to the High Court and appeal against the High Courts order to the Supreme Court.", "Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the scope of the proviso is only confined to the assessment of the year that is the subject-matter of the appeal or the revision, as the case may be.", "Learned counsel for the Department argues that the comprehensive phraseology used in the proviso takes in its broad sweep any finding given by the appropriate authority necessary for the disposal of the appeal or the revision, as the case may be, and to any direction given by the said authority to effectuate its finding and that the said finding or direction may be in respect of any year or any person.", "As the phraseology used in the proviso is not clear or unambiguous, the question raised cannot be satisfactorily resolved without having a precise appreciation of a brief history of section 34 of the Act culminating in the enactment of the proviso in the present form.", "This Court noticed the development of law as also the fact that the decision of the Income-Tax Officer given in a particular year does not operate as res judicata to opine: The lifting of the ban was only to give effect to the orders that may be made by the appellate, revisional or reviewing tribunal within the scope of its jurisdiction.", "If the intention was to remove the period of limitation in respect of any assessment against any person, the proviso would not have been added as a proviso to sub-section (3) of section 34, which deals with completion of an assessment, but would have been added to sub- section (1) thereof.", "In regard to the question that what would be the meaning of the term finding or direction, it was held: A finding, therefore, can be only that which is necessary for the disposal of an appeal in respect of an assessment of a particular year.", "The Appellate Assistant Commissioner may hold, on the evidence, that the income shown by the assessee is not the income for the relevant year and thereby exclude that income from the assessment of the year under appeal.", "The finding in that context is that that income does not belong to the relevant year.", "He 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 year of assessment in question.", "The expression direction cannot be construed in vacuum, but must be collated to the directions which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner can give under section 31.", "Under that section he can give directions, inter alia, under section 31(3)(b), (c) or (e) or section 31(4).", "The expression directions in the proviso could only refer to the directions which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or other tribunals can issue under the powers conferred on him or them under the respective sections.", "Therefore, the expression finding as well as the expression direction can be given full meaning, namely, that the finding is a finding necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment of the year in question and the direction is a direction which the appellate or revisional authority, as the case may be, is empowered to give under the sections mentioned therein.", "It was clarified that the words any person would refer to those who were not eo nominee parties to the appeal although the assessment of their income would depend upon the assessments of the Assessee.", "Mudholkar, J. speaking for the minority referred to this Courts decision in S.C. Prashar vs Vasantsen Dwarkadas (1963) 49 ITR 1 wherein the validity of the aforementioned provisions was questioned read down the proviso appended to Section 34(1) stating: No doubt, this Court has recently held in section C. Prashar Anr.", "v. Vasantsen Dwarkadas ors.", "(1963) 49 ITR 1 that the proviso in so far as it removes the bar of limitation with respect to persons other than the assessee, is invalid as it infringes the provisions of article 14 of the Constitution.", "That, however, is a question apart.", "What we have to consider is the legislative intent, and for ascertaining it, it is legitimate to look also at that part of the enactment which has been held to be invalid.", "To the similar effect are the decisions of this Court in N. KT.", "Sivalingam Chettiar vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Madras 66 ITR 586 (SC) and Rajinder Nath vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Delhi 120 ITR 14 (SC).", "In N.KT.", "Sivalingam Chettiar (supra), this Court held: Counsel for the commissioner contends that the principle of Murlidhar Bhagwan Dass case does not govern the present case, because in that case proceedings for assessment were commenced in consequence of or to give effect to an express direction of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and it was held by this court that a direction not necessary for the disposal of the appeal in respect of the assessment of the year in question before him was inoperative to remove the bar of limitation.", "Counsel says that, where a mere finding in recorded by the appellate or revisional authority different considerations arise and the bar of limitation prescribed by section 34 would be removed if a proceeding be commenced for assessment in consequence of or to give effect to the finding.", "This argument has, in our judgment, no force.", "xxx xxx xxx It is clear from the observation made by this court that a finding within the second proviso to section 34(3) must be necessary for giving relief in respect of the assessment of the year in question.", "The court in that case expressly lent approval to the observations of the Allahabad High Court in Pt.", "Hazari Lal v. Income-tax Officer, Kanpur that the word finding only covers material questions which arise in a particular case for decision by the authority hearing the case or the appeal which, being necessary for passing the final order or giving the final decision in the appeal, has been the subject of controversy between the interested parties or on which the parties concerned have been given a hearing.", "In Rajinder Nath (supra), this Court held: The expressions finding and direction are limited in meaning.", "A finding given in an appeal, revision or reference arising out of an assessment must be a finding necessary for the disposal of the particular case, that is to say, in respect of the particular assessee and in relation to the particular assessment year.", "To be a necessary finding, it must be directly involved in the disposal of the case.", "It is possible in certain cases that in order to render a finding in respect of A, a finding in respect of B may be called for.", "For instance, where the facts show that the income can belong either to A or B and to no one else, a finding that it belongs to B or does not belong to B would be determinative of the issue whether it can be taxed as As income.", "A finding respecting B is intimately involved as a step in the process of reaching the ultimate finding respecting A If, however, the finding as to As liability can be directly arrived at without necessitating a finding in respect of B, then a finding made in respect of B is an incidental finding only.", "It is not a finding necessary for the disposal of the case pertaining to A. The same principles seem to apply when the question is whether the income under enquiry is taxable in the assessment year under consideration or any other assessment year.", "As regards the expression direction in Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act, it is now well settled that it must be an express direction necessary for the disposal of the case before the authority or court.", "It must also be a direction which the authority or court is empowered to give while deciding the case before it.", "The expressions finding and direction in Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act must be accordingly confined.", "Section 153(3)(ii) is not a provision enlarging the jurisdiction of the authority or court.", "It is a provision which merely raises the bar of limitation of making an assessment order under Section 143 or Section 144 or Section 147.", "Income Tax Officer, A-Ward, Sitapur v. Murlidhar Bhagwan Das 52 I.T.R. 335 and N. Kt.", "Sivalingam Chettiar v. Commissioner of Income-tax, Madras 66 I.T.R. 586 (S.C.).", "The question formulated by the Tribunal raises the point whether the Appellate Assistant Commissioner could convert the provisions of Section 147(1) into those of Section 153(3)(ii) of the Act.", "in view of Section 153(3)(ii) dealing with limitation merely, it is not easy to appreciate the relevance or validity of the point.", "It is, thus, evident that jurisdiction to issue directions is limited.", "We may now consider the effect of the Noting.", "The Noting of the Assessing Officer was specific.", "It was stated so in the proceedings sheet at the instance of the higher authorities itself.", "No doubt in terms of the circular letter issued by CBDT, the Commissioner or for that matter any other higher authority may have supervisory jurisdiction but it is difficult to conceive that even the merit of the decision shall be discussed and the same shall be rendered at the instance of the higher authority who, as noticed hereinbefore, is a supervisory authority.", "It is one thing to say that while making the orders of assessment the Assessing Officer shall be bound by the statutory circulars issued by CBDT but it is another thing to say that the assessing authority exercising quasi judicial function keeping in view the scheme contained in the Act, would lose its independence to pass an independent order of assessment.", "In State of Kerala Ors.", "vs Kurian Abraham (P) Limited Anr.", "(2008) 3 SCC 582, noticing Union of India vs Azadi Bachao Andolan (2004) 10 SCC 1, this Court held: In Union of India and Anr.", "vs Azadi Bachao Andolan, a circular was issued by CBDT under Section 119 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.", "It was challenged inter alia on the ground that it was ultra vires the provisions of Section 19(1).", "The argument was rejected by this Court in the following words: (SCC p.32, para 47) It was contended successfully before the High Court that the circular is ultra vires the provisions of Section 119.", "Sub-section (1) of Section 119 is deliberately worded in a general manner so that CBDT is enabled to issue appropriate orders, instructions or directions to the subordinate authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act.", "As long as the circular emanates from CBDT and contains orders, instructions or directions pertaining to proper administration of the Act, it is relatable to the source of power under Section 119 irrespective of its nomenclature.", "Apart from Sub-section (1), Sub- section (2) of Section 119 also enables CBDT for the purpose of proper and efficient management of the work of assessment and collection of revenue, to issue appropriate orders, general or special, in respect of any class of income or class of cases, setting forth directions or instructions (not being prejudicial to the assessees) as to the guidelines, principles or procedures to be followed by other Income Tax Authorities in the work relating to assessment or collection of revenue or the initiation of proceedings for the imposition of penalties.", "In our view, the High Court was not justified in reading the circular as not complying with the provisions of Section 119.", "The circular falls well within the parameters of the powers exercisable by CBDT under Section 119 of the Act.", "Lastly, the binding effect of the said circular No. 16/98 needs to be kept in mind.", "As stated above, the said circular was issued by the Board by exercising statutory powers vested in it under Section 3(1A).", "As stated above, Section 3(1A) provides for an enabling power of the Board which was recognized as an Authority under the 1963 Act.", "The said power was to be exercised in special cases.", "As stated above, granting of administrative reliefs by the Board came within its authority.", "As stated above, the said circular was issued for just and fair administration of the 1963 Act.", "As stated above, Section 3(1A) is similar to Section 119(1) of the 1961 Act.", "The circulars of this nature are issued by the Board consisting of highest senior officers in the Revenue Department.", "These circulars are to be respected by the officers working under the supervision of the Board.", "These circulars are binding on all the authorities administering the tax department.", "The power of the Board to issue such circular is traceable to Section 3(1A)(c) of the Act.", "The said circular is statutory in nature.", "Therefore, it is binding on the Department though not on the courts and the assessees.", "In the present case, as stated above, completed assessments were sought to be reopened by the AO on the ground that the said circular Number 16/98 was not binding.", "Such an approach is unsustainable in the eyes of law.", "If the State Government was of the view that such circulars are illegal or that they are ultra vires Section 3(1A), which it is not, it was open to the State to nullify withdraw the said circular under Section 60 of the 1963 Act.", "Till today, the circular continue to remain in force.", "Till today, it has not been withdrawn.", "In the circumstances, it is not open to the officers administering the law working under the Board of Revenue to say that the said circular is not binding on them.", "If such a contention was to be accepted, it would lead to chaos and indiscipline in the administration of tax laws.", "When a statute provides for different hierarchies providing for forums in relation to passing of an order as also appellate or original order by no stretch of imagination a higher authority can interfere with the independence which is the basic feature of any statutory scheme involving adjudicatory process.", "In Commissioner of Police, Bombay vs Gordhandas Bhanji AIR 1952 SC 16, this Court has held: 7 This sanction occasioned representations to Government presumably by the public who were opposing the scheme.", "Anyway, the Commissioner wrote to the respondent on the 19/20th September, 1947, and direct him not to proceed with the construction of the cinema pending Government orders.", "Shortly after, on the 27/30th September, 1947, the Commissioner sent the respondent the following communication: I am directed by Government to inform you that the permission to erect a cinema at the above site granted to you under this office letter dated the 16th July, 1947, is hereby cancelled.", "It was furthermore opined: We are clear that public orders, publicly made, in exercise of a statutory authority cannot be construed in the light of explanations subsequently given by the officer making the order of what he meant, or of what was in his mind, or what he intended to do.", "Public orders made by public authorities are meant to have public effect and are intended to affect the actings and conduct of those to whom they are addressed and must be construed objectively with reference to the language used in the order itself.", "See also Pancham Chand Ors.", "vs State of Himachal Pradesh Ors.(2008) 7 SCC 117 Yet again in The Purtabpur Company Limited vs Cane Commissioner of Bihar AIR 1970 SC 1896, this Court held: The power exercisable by the Cane Commissioner under Clause 6(1) is a statutory power.", "He alone could have exercised that power.", "While exercising that power he cannot abdicate his responsibility in favour of anyone - not even in favour of the State Government or the Chief Minister.", "It was not proper for the Chief Minister to have interfered with the functions of the Cane Commissioner.", "In this case what has happened is that the power of the Cane Commissioner has been exercised by the Chief Minister, an authority not recognised by Clause (6) read with Clause (11) but the responsibility for making those orders was asked to be taken by the Cane Commissioner.", "The executive officers entrusted with statutory discretions may in some cases be obliged to take into account considerations of public policy and in some context the policy of a Minister or the Government as a whole when it is a relevant factor in weighing the policy but this will not absolve them from their duty to exercise their personal judgment in individual cases unless explicit statutory provision has been made for them to be given binding instructions by a superior.", "See also Tarlochan Dev Sharma vs State of Punjab Ors.", "(2001) 6 SCC 260 The other question which requires determination is as to whether the CIT (Shimla) could maintain an appeal before the High Court.", "An appeal is ordinarily maintainable at the instance of the Assessing Officer.", "Not only an order of assessment was passed but also CIT (Shimla) had already passed an order.", "Notices under Section 148 of the Act had already been issued much prior thereto.", "Before us, reliance has been placed upon some decisions by Mr. Salve to contend that CIT (Shimla) has no jurisdiction.", "Even in a situation of this nature such a view appears to have been taken in Commissioner of Income Tax vs Sahara India Financial Corporation Limited 212 CTR 178 (Delhi) wherein a question whether the appeal preferred by the Revenue in the Delhi High Court was questioned by the assesse on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction, it was held: Learned Counsel for the assessed contended that since the assessment orders had already been passed in respect of the assessed and a decision had also been taken by the Tribunal, there was no question of transferring the jurisdiction in respect of the assessed from one place to another.", "We are of the view that this argument is completely misplaced.", "The Explanation to Section 127(4) of the Act tells us what the word case means in relation to any person whose name is specified in any order or direction issued under Section 127 of the Act.", "The Explanation says that case means all proceedings under the Act in respect of any year: which may be pending on the date of the order or direction which may have been completed on or before the date of the order or direction including all proceedings which may be commenced after the date of the order or direction in respect of any year.", "In other words, the Explanation to Section 127(4) of the Act talks of proceedings, past, present and future in respect of a person whose name is specified in the order or direction passed under Section 127 of the Act and this would apply to any previous year.", "The order passed under Section 127(2) of the Act clearly relates to the case of the assessed mentioned in the Schedule, and by virtue of the Explanationn, all future proceedings that may be taken under the Act (obviously including an appeal under Section 260A thereof) would now have to be in harmony with the order passed under Section 127(2) of the Act.", "Consequently, the jurisdiction in respect of the case and the assessed having been shifted from Lucknow to Delhi, the Revenue could file the appeal under Section 260A of the Act only in Delhi and it could not have filed an appeal in the Lucknow Bench of the Allahabad High Court.", "Yet again in Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Bengal Anr.", "vs Anil Kumar Roy Chowdhury Anr.", "66 ITR 367 (SC) this Court opined: It may be that the Income-tax Officer who completed the original assessment would also be concerned with the appeal to be filed by the Commissioner, but it does not mean that he is exclusively so concerned.", "If the case had been transferred by the Commissioner or the Board of Revenue from the Income-tax Officer who completed the assessment to another Income-tax Officer, then obviously the former officer will have no concern with the appeal.", "But if there has been no such transfer then we are unable to appreciate why he alone is concerned with the appeal.", "The Income-tax Officers can have concurrent jurisdiction over some matters.", "On illustration of this is provided by section 64(4).", "The High Court dissented from the decision of the Punjab High Court in R. B. L. Benarsi Das Commissioner of Income-tax.", "The Punjab High Court in that case held that there was nothing in section 33(2) to prohibit the Commissioner from directing any Income-tax Officer, other than the one who in fact passed the assessment order, to appeal.", "We consider that it is not correct to say that any Income-tax Officer who has concern with the appeal.", "The High Court rightly relied on Commissioner of Income-tax v. section Sarkar Company in dissenting from the view expressed by the Punjab High Court in R. B. L. Benarsi Das v. Commissioner of Income-tax, but in our view the High Court erred in holding that the facts of the present case are governed by the earlier decision of the Calcutta High Court.", "In this case, on the facts found by the Appellate Tribunal, one Income-tax Officer had passed the assessment order while another Income-tax Officer has jurisdiction over the assessee.", "In our view, the latter Income-tax Officer having jurisdiction over the assessee could be directed by the Commissioner to file the appeal.", "In the aforementioned case, therefore, this Court proceeded on the basis that the concurrent jurisdiction of two authorities is permissible.", "In Uday Shankar Triyar vs Ram Kalewar Prasad Singh Anr.", "(2006) 1 SCC 75, this Court referring to the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure held as under: Non-compliance with any procedural requirement relating to a pleading, memorandum of appeal or application or petition for relief should not entail automatic dismissal or rejection, unless the relevant statute or rule so mandates.", "Procedural defects and irregularities which are curable should not be allowed to defeat substantive rights or to cause injustice.", "Procedure, a hand-maid to justice, should never be made a tool to deny justice or perpetuate injustice, by any oppressive or punitive use.", "The well recognized exceptions to this principle are: i) where the Statute prescribing the procedure, also prescribes specifically the consequence of non-compliance ii) where the procedural defect is not rectified even after it is pointed out and due opportunity is given for rectifying it iii) where the non-compliance or violation is proved to be deliberate or mischievous iv) where the rectification of defect would affect the case on merits or will affect the jurisdiction of the court v) in case of Memorandum of Appeal, there is complete absence of authority and the appeal is presented without the knowledge, consent and authority of the appellant It was a case where the Assessing Officer before whom the case was transferred completed the proceedings.", "It was in the aforementioned context it was opined that new Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction exclusively in completing the proceedings.", "Such is not the case here.", "In this case, CIT (Shimla) had passed an order.", "His order was set aside by the Tribunal.", "He, therefore, in ordinary course could have preferred an appeal only by the time when administrative decision could be taken by him to prefer an appeal.", "The right to prefer an appeal arose on the date on which the Tribunal passed an order.", "It might have taken some time to prefer an appeal.", "Ordinarily, he was the authority who could have preferred an appeal.", "By preferring an appeal new proceedings were initiated.", "In any event, nothing has been shown as to how the assessee was prejudiced.", "In a case of this nature, the provisions akin to Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure may be held to be applicable for the purposes of questioning the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain an appeal on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction.", "In a peculiar case of this nature, we are of the opinion that prejudice must be shown.", "See Kiran Singh Ors.", "vs Chaman Paswan Ors.", "AIR 1954 SC 340 Para 11 In Mantoo Sarkar vs Oriental Insurance Company Limited Ors.", "2008 (16) SCALE 197, this Court held: The Tribunal is a court subordinate to the High Court.", "An appeal against the Tribunal lies before the High Court.", "The High Court, while exercising its appellate power, would follow the provisions contained in the Code of Civil Procedure or akin thereto.", "In view of sub-section (1) of Section 21 of the Code of Civil Procedure, it was, therefore, obligatory on the part of the appellate court to pose unto itself the right question, viz., whether the first respondent has been able to show sufferance of any prejudice.", "If it has not suffered any prejudice or otherwise no failure of justice had occurred, the High Court should not have entertained the appeal on that ground alone.", "We, however, while taking that factor into consideration must place on record that we are not oblivious of the fact that a decision rendered without jurisdiction would be coram non juris.", "Objection in regard to jurisdiction may be taken at any stage.", "( See Chief Engineer, Hydel Project v. Ravinder Nath , (2008) 2 SCC 350 ) wherein inter alia the decision of this Court in Kiran Singh Chaman Paswan, AIR 1954 SC 340 was followed, stating: The Court also relied upon the decision in Kiran Singh v. Chaman Pawan AIR 1954 SC 340 and quoted (in Harshad Chiman Lal case (2005) 7 SCC 791, SCC pp.", "804-805, para 33 therefrom: Kiran Singh case (supra), AIR p.342, para6 It is a fundamental principle well established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings.", "A defect of jurisdiction, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties.", "Though in the aforementioned decision these observations were made since the defendants before raising the objection to the territorial jurisdiction had admitted that the court had the jurisdiction, the force of this decision cannot be ignored and it has to be held that such a decree would continue to be a nullity.", "A distinction, however, must be made between a jurisdiction with regard to subject matter of the suit and that of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction.", "Whereas in the case falling within the former category the judgment would be a nullity, in the latter it would not be This case poses before us some peculiar questions.", "Whereas the order under Section 263 of the Act and consequently the notices under Section 148 of the Act have been held to be not maintainable, we are constrained to think that the Assessing Officer had passed an order at the instance of the higher authority which is illegal.", "For the aforementioned purpose, we may not go into the question of bona fide or otherwise of the authorities under the Income Tax Act.", "They might have proceeded bona fide but the order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer on the dictates of the higher authorities being wholly without jurisdiction, it was a nullity.", "We, therefore, are of the opinion that with a view to do complete justice between the parties, the assessment proceedings should be gone through again by the appropriate assessing authority.", "It is true that despite order passed by the High Court, CIT (Delhi) has not been impleaded.", "Presumably, because of the said defect in the order passed by the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla, Revenue could not implead CIT (Delhi) as a party in the appeal.", "CIT (Delhi), however, has been impleaded as a party in the Special Leave Petition (SLP) filed by the Assessee.", "CIT (Delhi) has although in an irregular manner filed a rejoinder.", "Counter affidavit was filed by the Assessee in the appeal preferred by the Revenue and the same is on record.", "The said authority, therefore, is otherwise before us.", "It is now well settled that this Court in exercise of its extra-ordinary jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India may, in the event an appropriate case is made out, either refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction or quash both the orders if it is found that setting aside of one illegal order would give rise to another illegality.", "In Transmission Corpn.", "of A.P. Limited vs Lanco Kondapalli Power (P) Ltd. (2006) 1 SCC 540, this Court held: It is now well-settled that this Court would not interfere with an order of the High Court only because it will be lawful to do so.", "Article 136 of the Constitution vests this Court with a discretionary jurisdiction.", "In a given case, it may or may not exercise its power.", "We, therefore, in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 142 of the Constitution of India direct that the assessment be reopened by the Commissioner of Income-tax, Delhi -VII.", "These appeals are disposed of with the aforementioned directions.", "No costs.", "J. B. Sinha J. Dr. Mukundakam Sharma New Delhi May 06, 2009"], "expert_1": {"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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "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", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "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", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "overall": ["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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "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", "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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "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", "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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "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", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
{"id": "SC_2017_195", "text": ["RANJAN GOGOI, J. The appellant Company, incorporated in the year 1932, is engaged in the business of manufacture of steel furniture, security equipments, typewriters, electrical equipments and a host of other related products.", "It is also a promoter of various other companies and invests its funds in such companies in order to maintain control of such concerns as sister concerns.", "The issue in the present appeal relates to the admissibility or otherwise of deduction of expenditure incurred in earning dividend income which is not includible in the total income of the Assessee by virtue of the provisions of Section 10(33) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) as in force during the relevant Assessment Year i.e. 2002-2003.", "For the Assessment Year 2002-2003, the appellant Company filed its return declaring a total loss of Rs.45,90,39,210/-.", "In the said return, it had shown income by way of dividend from companies and income from units of mutual funds to the extent of Rs.34,34,78,686.", "Dividend income to the extent of 98 of the said amount was contributed by the Godrej group companies whereas only 0.05 thereof amounting to Rs.1,71,000/- came from non-Godrej group companies.", "A sum of Rs.66,79,000/-, constituting 1.95 of the aforesaid dividend income, came from mutual funds.", "Admittedly, a substantial part of the appellants investment in the group companies was in the form of bonus shares which did not involve any fresh capital investment or outlay.", "The other relevant facts which may be taken notice of is that on the first day of the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2002- 2003 i.e. 1st April, 2001, the investment in shares and mutual funds of the appellant company stood at Rs.127.19 crore whereas at the end of the previous year i.e. as on 31st March, 2002 the investment was Rs.125.54 crore.", "The above figures would go to show that there were no fresh investments made during the previous year relevant to the Assessment Year 2002-2003.", "In fact, the investments had come down to the extent noticed above.", "Furthermore, as against the investment of Rs.125.54 crore as on 31st March, 2002, on the said date the appellant had a total of Rs.280.64 crore by way of interest free funds in the form of share capital (Rs.6.55 crore) as well as Reserves and Surplus (Rs.274.09 crore).", "On the other hand, as against the investment of Rs.127.19 crore on the first day of the previous year i.e. 1st April, 2001, the appellant had a total of Rs.270.51 crore by way of interest free funds in the form of share capital (Rs.6.55 crore) and Reserves and Surplus (Rs.263.96 crore).", "The above facts would show that the appellant had sufficient interest free funds available for the purpose of making investments.", "At this stage we may go back a little in time and start with the Assessment Year 1998-1999 wherein the appellants dividend income was Rs.11,41,34,093/-.", "The Assessing Officer notionally allocated Rs.1,47,40,000/- out of the total interest expenditure of Rs.34,64,89,000/- as referable to the earning of the said dividend income and had disallowed such interest expenditure and consequently reduced the exemption available under Section 10(33) of the Act to the net dividend.", "In appeal, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) allowed exemption of the entire dividend income on the ground that the Assessing Officer had failed to show any nexus between the investments in shares and units of mutual funds on the one hand and the borrowed funds on the other.", "The learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereinafter referred to as Tribunal) which was moved by the Revenue confirmed the appellate order.", "The said order had attained finality.", "For the Assessment Years 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 the issue with regard to exemption under Section 10(33) of the Act was similarly held in favour of the assessee by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal, once again.", "Initially, the Assessing Officer, in both the Assessment Years, had disallowed notionally computed interest expenditure as being relatable to the earning of dividend income.", "The said appellate order(s) had also attained finality.", "For the intervening Assessment Year 2000-2001 there was no scrutiny of the appellants return of income.", "Consequently, the dividend income was allowed in full without disallowing any expenditure incurred in relation to earning such income.", "However, for the Assessment Year 2002-2003, the Assessing Officer did not allow interest expenditure to the extent of Rs.6,92,06,000/- holding the same to be attributable to earning the dividend income of Rs. 34,34,78,686/- The said figure of interest expenditure disallowed was worked out from the total interest expenditure for the year on a notional basis in the ratio of the cost of the investments in shares and units of mutual funds to the cost of the total assets appearing in the balance sheet.", "Though the aforesaid order of the Assessing Officer was reversed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) following the earlier orders pertaining to the previous Assessment Years, as noticed above, the learned Tribunal, in appeal, took a different view by its order dated 26th August, 2009.", "The learned Tribunal held that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act (inserted by the Finance Act, 2006 with effect from 1st April, 2007) were retrospectively applicable to the Assessment Year 2002-2003 and, therefore, the matter should be remanded to the Assessing Officer for recording his satisfaction findings in the light of the said sub-sections of Section 14A of the Act.", "This was notwithstanding the fact that the only disallowance made by the Assessing Officer which was reversed in appeal by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was in respect of interest expenditure what was worked out on a notional basis.", "The High Court by the impugned judgment dated 12th August, 2010, inter alia, held that Section 14A of the Act has to be construed on a plain grammatical construction thereof and the said provision is attracted in respect of dividend income referred to in Section 115-O as such income is not includible in the total income of the shareholder.", "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act and rule 8D of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) would, however, not apply to the AY 2002-03 as the said provisions do not have retrospective effect.", "Notwithstanding the above the High Court upheld the remand as made by the Tribunal to the AO though for a slightly different reason as will be noticed hereinafter.", "We may also notice that the High Court in its impugned judgment also held that the tax paid under section 115-O of the Act is an additional tax on that component of the profits of the dividend distributing company which is distributed by way of dividends and that the same is not a tax on dividend income of the assessee.", "Aggrieved, the instant appeal has been filed raising two questions in the main which have been summarized by the appellant, and we may say accurately, as follows : Irrespective of the factual position and findings in the case of the Appellant, whether the phrase income which does not form part of total income under this Act appearing in Section 14A includes within its scope dividend income on shares in respect of which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act and income on units of mutual funds on which tax is payable under Section 115-R. Whatever be the view on the legal aspects, whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the Appellants case and bearing in mind the unanimous findings of the lower authorities over a considerable period of time (which were accepted by the Revenue) there could at all be any question of the provisions of Section 14A in the appellants case.", "We have heard Shri Sohrab E. Dastur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant and Shri Ranjit Kumar, learned Solicitor General appearing for the Revenue.", "At the very outset, the relevant provisions of the Act which will require a consideration are extracted below: In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires, (22) dividend includes any distribution by a company of accumulated profits, whether capitalised or not, if such distribution entails the release by the company to its shareholders of all or any part of the assets of the company xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx but dividend does not include xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (24) income includes profits and gains dividend (iia) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 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- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (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 xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 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.", "The Assessing Officer shall determine the amount of expenditure incurred in relation to such income which does not form part of the total income under this Act in accordance with such method as may be prescribed , if the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee, is not satisfied with the correctness of the claim of the assessee in respect of such expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act.", "The provisions of sub-section (2) shall also apply in relation to a case where an assessee claims that no expenditure has been incurred by him in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under this Act: Provided that nothing contained in this section shall empower the Assessing Officer either to reassess under section 147 or pass an order enhancing the assessment or reducing a refund already made or otherwise increasing the liability of the assessee under section 154, for any assessment year beginning on or before the 1st day of April, 2001.", "Rule 8D.- (introduced by CBDT Notification Number45/2002 dated 24.03.2008.", "Method for determining amount of expenditure in relation to income not includible in total income.", "8D.(1) Where the Assessing Officer, having regard to the accounts of the assessee of a previous year, is not satisfied with- (a) the correctness of the claim of expenditure made by the assessee or (b) the claim made by the assessee that no expenditure has been incurred, in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act for such previous year, he shall determine the amount of expenditure in relation to such income in accordance with the provisions of sub-rule (2).", "The expenditure in relation to income which does not form part of the total income shall be the aggregate of following amounts, namely:- the amount of expenditure directly relating to income which does not form part of total income in a case where the assessee has incurred expenditure by way of interest during the previous year which is not directly attributable to any particular income or receipt, an amount computed in accordance with the following formula, namely:- A x B C Where A amount of expenditure by way of interest other than the amount of interest included in clause (i) incurred during the previous year B the average of value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year C the average of total assets as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year an amount equal to one-half per cent of the average of the value of investment, income from which does not or shall not form part of the total income, as appearing in the balance sheet of the assessee, on the first day and the last day of the previous year.", "For the purposes of this rule, the total assets shall mean, total assets as appearing in the balance sheet excluding the increase on account of revaluation of assets but including the decrease on account of revaluation of assets.", "115-O. Tax on distributed profits of domestic companies.- Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act and subject to the provisions of this section, in addition to the income- tax chargeable in respect of the total income of a domestic company for any assessment year, any amount declared, distributed or paid by such company by way of dividends (whether interim or otherwise) on or after the 1st day of April, 2003, whether out of current or accumulated profits shall be charged to additional income-tax (hereafter referred to as tax on distributed profits) at the rate of fifteen per cent.", "(1A) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (1B) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Notwithstanding that no income-tax is payable by a domestic company on its total income computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, the tax on distributed profits under sub-section (1) shall be payable by such company.", "The principal officer of the domestic company and the company shall be liable to pay the tax on distributed profits to the credit of the Central Government within fourteen days from the date of (a) declaration of any dividend or (b) distribution of any dividend or (c) payment of any dividend, whichever is earliest.", "The tax on distributed profits so paid by the company shall be treated as the final payment of tax in respect of the amount declared, distributed or paid as dividends and no further credit therefor shall be claimed by the company or by any other person in respect of the amount of tax so paid.", "No deduction under any other provision of this Act shall be allowed to the company or a shareholder in respect of the amount which has been charged to tax under sub-section (1) or the tax thereon.", "(6) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (7) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (8) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 115R. Tax on distributed income to unit holders.- (1) Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of this Act and section 32 of the Unit Trust of India Act, 1963 (52 of 1963), any amount of income distributed on or before the 31st day of March, 2002 by the Unit Trust of India to its unit holders shall be chargeable to tax and the Unit Trust of India shall be liable to pay additional income-tax on such distributed income at the rate of ten per cent: Provided that nothing contained in this sub-section shall apply in respect of any income distributed to a unit holder of open-ended equity oriented funds in respect of any distribution made from such fund for a period of three years commencing from the 1st day of April, 1999.", "Notwithstanding anything contained in any other provision of this Act, any amount of income distributed by the specified company or a Mutual Fund to its unit holders shall be chargeable to tax and such specified company or Mutual Fund shall be liable to pay additional income-tax on such distributed income at the rate of xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Shri Sohrab E. Dastur, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant has argued that Section 14A of the Act pertains to disallowance of expenditure relatable to an item of income on which tax has not been paid.", "According to the learned counsel, Section 14A applies only in situations where income is tax free non-taxable and there is no incidence of tax per se.", "Dividend on shares is subjected to tax under Section 115-O of the Act whereas returns of units or mutual funds is subjected to tax under Section 115R. The fact that the tax on such dividend is paid by the dividend paying company and not by the recipient of the dividends, according to the learned counsel, is of no consequence.", "Proceeding further, Shri Dastur has argued that under Section 10(33) of the Act, income by way of dividend referred to in Section 115-O of the Act or income received in respect of units from the UTI or of mutual funds alone is exempted.", "It is only one specie of dividend income which is exempted under Section 10(33) of the Act whereas other species of such (dividend) income, say for example, dividend from foreign companies is still liable to tax.", "As tax has already been paid on such dividend, though by the dividend paying company, Section 14A will not apply to exclude expenditure incurred to earn such dividend income as the said income, really, is not tax-free.", "Shri Dastur has further argued that there is a discernible correlation between Section 10(33) and Section 115-O of the Act inasmuch as both the Sections were inserted in the Act by the Finance Act, 1997.", "When the earlier status was restored by the Finance Act, 2002 shareholders once again became liable for tax on dividends which position continued until the provisions of Section 10(33) of the Act engrafted as Section 10(34) and Section 115-O were reintroduced by the Finance Act, 2003 with effect from 1st April, 2003.", "It is, therefore, argued that both the Sections 10(33) and Section 115-O of the Act constitute a composite scheme for taxation of dividend income wherein the legislative policy is clear that dividend, though to be taxed in the hands of the company distributing the same, is not to be included in the total income of the recipient Assessee.", "The mere fact that the amount is not to be included in the total income of the recipient Assessee, would not attract the provisions of Section 14A of the Act, inasmuch as the cardinal test is whether the dividend income is tax- free or not.", "The person paying the tax, according to the learned counsel, is not relevant for the aforesaid purpose.", "Shri Dastur has also urged that the above position has been accepted by the Revenue in its counter affidavit wherein it has been admitted that the exemption granted under Section 10(33) is consequent upon collection of tax on dividend income from the dividend distributing company under Section 115-O of the Act.", "It is, therefore, argued by Shri Dastur that a literal interpretation of Section 14A must be avoided.", "Reference in this regard is made to the case of K.P. Varghese vs Income-Tax Officer, Ernakulam and Anr.1.", "It is specifically contended by Shri Dastur that tax on the dividend paid is not a tax on profits out of which dividend is distributed inasmuch as under Section 115-O of the Act dividend can be paid either from accumulated profits or current profits.", "In fact, Section 205 of the Companies Act permits payment of dividend out of accumulated profits in the year though the company may have incurred losses.", "Furthermore, it is contended that the dividend paying company would be charged to tax under Section 115-O of the Act even in a case where no tax is payable under the regular provisions of the Act because its entire income, say, is otherwise eligible for deductions.", "In other words, tax under Section 115-O of the Act is payable by the dividend paying company even when no tax is payable on the income of such company under the regular provisions of the Act.", "On the other hand, the learned Solicitor General of India, who has argued the case on behalf of the Revenue has laid before the Court the position of law prior to insertion of Section 14A of the Act by the Finance Act of 2001.", "According to the learned Solicitor General, the insertion of Section 14A in the Act was to offset several judicial pronouncements holding that in case of an assessee earning income which is both includible and non-includible in the total income, the entire expenses would be permissible as deduction, including, expenses pertaining to income not includible in the total income.", "The learned Solicitor General has drawn the attention of the Court to the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 2001 which is to the following effect.", "Certain incomes which are not includible while computing the total income as these are exempt under various provisions of the Act.", "There have been cases where deductions have been claimed in respect of such exempt income.", "This in effect means that the tax incentive given by way of exemptions to certain categories of income is being used to reduce also the tax payable on the non-exempt income by debiting the expenses incurred to earn the exempt income against taxable income.", "This is against the basic principles of taxation whereby only the net income, that is, gross income minus the expenditure, is taxed.", "On the same analogy, the exemption is also in respect of the net income.", "Expenses incurred can be allowed only to the extent they are relatable to the earning of taxable income.", "Therefore, it is proposed to insert a new section 14A so as to clarify the intention of the Legislature since the inception of the Income-tax Act, 1961, that no deduction shall be made in respect of any expenditure incurred by the assessee in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Income-tax Act.", "The position is made clear by Circular Number 14 issued by the B.D.T. explaining the said purpose of the Finance Act, 2001.", "The said Circular has also been placed before the Court by the learned Solicitor General.", "The learned Solicitor General has also traced the history of the Amendments to Section 14A of the Act and, in particular, to the insertion of sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof by the Finance Act of 2006.", "The purpose of insertion of sub-sections (2) and (3), as explained in the Memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill 2006, has also been relied upon by the learned Solicitor General, who contends that from the said Memorandum it is clear that sub-sections (2) and (3) had been introduced as the existing provisions of Section 14A did not provide any method of computation of expenditure incurred to earn an income which does not form a part of the total income.", "It is, therefore, urged by the learned Solicitor General that the legislative intent behind enactment of Section 14A and sub-sections (2) and (3) thereof was to combat situations where tax incentives given by way of non-inclusion of different categories of income under the head Income which do not form part of the total Income was actually used to reduce the tax payable on the total income.", "The Scheme of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been sought to be explained by the learned Solicitor General to contend that Section 14 of the Act provides for five heads of income i.e. Income from Salaries Income from House Property Income from Profits Gains of Business or Profession Income from Capital Gains and Income from Other Sources.", "It is contended that even though Income from dividend falls under the head Income from Other Sources specifically provided for under Section 56 of the Act, dividend income referred to in Section 115-O of the Act is excluded from the provisions of deductions contained in Section 57 inasmuch as such income does not form a part of the total income in view of Section 10(33) of the Act.", "The learned Solicitor General has argued that Section 14A reiterates a fundamental principle enshrined by the Act that expenses are allowable only to the extent that they have a nexus to the earning of taxable income or income which forms a part of the total income.", "Reliance in this regard is placed on the decision of this Court in C.I.T. vs Walfort Share Stock Brokers P. Limited2 which decision, according to the learned Solicitor General, virtually decides the issues arising in the present case.", "Referring to Section 115-O of the Act, the learned Solicitor General had submitted that the said section levies an additional income tax on the profits of a company which has been declared and distributed to its shareholders in the form of dividend.", "No credit of such additional income tax paid by the company is available either to the company or the shareholders Section 115-O(4).", "Such additional income tax paid by the company does not also enure to the benefit of the shareholders receiving the amount of dividend distributed by such company.", "The amount of such dividend does not form part of tax paid dividend in the hands of the shareholders.", "In fact, pointing to the provisions of Section 115-O(5) it is argued that under the said provisions a shareholder cannot claim deduction in respect of the dividend received by it him from a dividend paying company on which tax has been paid by the said company under Section 115- O(1) of the Act.", "This, according to the learned Solicitor General, makes the intent of Section 14 crystal clear.", "The liability to pay tax under Section 115-O in respect of the dividend is on the dividend paying company and the shareholder assessee has no connection with the same.", "Such an assessee is not required to include the dividend amount in his its total income for the purposes of charge to tax.", "In such a situation, the expenditure incurred for earning the said income cannot be allowed.", "There is a supplemental argument made by the learned Solicitor General based on the provisions of Sections 194, 195, 196C and 199 contained in Chapter XVII of the Act which deals with Collection and Recovery of Tax including tax on dividend income received by a shareholder.", "It may be convenient, to appreciate what has been argued, to notice what the aforesaid provisions of the Act actually say.", "Dividends.", "The principal officer of an Indian company or a company which has made the prescribed arrangements for the declaration and payment of dividends (including dividends on preference shares) within India, shall, before making any payment in cash or before issuing any cheque or warrant in respect of any dividend or before making any distribution or payment to a shareholder, who is resident in India, of any dividend within the meaning of sub-clause (a) or sub-clause (b) or sub-clause (c) or sub- clause (d) or sub-clause (e) of clause (22) of section 2, deduct from the amount of such dividend, income-tax at the rates in force : Provided that no such deduction shall be made in the case of a shareholder, being an individual, if (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Provided further that the provisions of this section shall not apply to such income credited or paid to (a) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (b) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (c) xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Provided also that no such deduction shall be made in respect of any dividends referred to in Section 115-O. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx Other sums.- (1) Any person responsible for paying to a non-resident, not being a company, or to a foreign company, any interest (not being interest referred to in section 194LB or section 194LC) or section 194LD 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 .", "Provided further that no such deduction shall be made in respect of any dividends referred to in section 115-O. xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx 196C. Income from foreign currency bonds or shares of Indian company.- Where any income by way of interest or dividends in respect of bonds or Global Depository Receipts referred to in section 115AC or by way of long- term capital gains arising from the transfer of such bonds or Global Depository Receipts is payable to a non-resident, the person responsible for making the payment 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 rate of ten per cent : Provided that no such deduction shall be made in respect of any dividends referred to in section 115-O. Credit for tax deducted.- (1) Any deduction made in accordance with the foregoing provisions of this Chapter and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as a payment of tax on behalf of the person from whose income the deduction was made, or of the owner of the security, or of the depositor or of the owner of property or of the unit-holder, or of the shareholder, as the case may be.", "Any sum referred to in sub-section (1A) of section 192 and paid to the Central Government shall be treated as the tax paid on behalf of the person in respect of whose income such payment of tax has been made.", "The Board may, for the purposes of giving credit in respect of tax deducted or tax paid in terms of the provisions of this Chapter, make such rules as may be necessary, including the rules for the purposes of giving credit to a person other than those referred to in sub-section (1) and sub- section (2) and also the assessment year for which such credit may be given.", "All the said provisions, noticeably, exclude dividend received under Section 115-O. As the provisions of the aforesaid Sections of the Act contemplate deduction of tax payable by the shareholder on the dividend income, however, to the exception of dividend income under Section 115-O, it is submitted by the learned Solicitor General that it is crystal clear that the additional income tax paid under Section 115-O by the dividend paying company cannot assume the character of tax paid on dividend income by the assessee shareholder.", "The position, according to the learned Solicitor General, is further fortified by the provisions of Section 115- O(4), reference to which has already been made earlier.", "Specific reference is made to Section 199 of the Act which provides for credit to be given for the tax deducted at source on dividend paid.", "If the tax paid on dividend under Section 115-O is on income earned by the shareholder, Section 199 would have also provided for deduction of tax at source in respect of the dividends paid under Section 115-O of the Act to the assessee, it is contended.", "Insofar as the second issue arising in the case is concerned, namely, the appellate orders of the learned Tribunal for the Assessment Years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002 granting the benefit of full deduction on interest expenditure, it is submitted by the learned Solicitor General that each assessment year has to be reckoned separately there is no estoppel and, furthermore, sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A having been introduced by the Finance Act of 2006, the Tribunal and the High Court was fully justified in remanding the matter to the Assessing Officer for a de novo consideration in the light of the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act.", "The object behind the introduction of Section 14A of the Act by the Finance Act of 2001 is clear and unambiguous.", "The legislature intended to check the claim of allowance of expenditure incurred towards earning exempted income in a situation where an assessee has both exempted and non- exempted income or includible or non-includible income.", "While there can be no scintilla of doubt that if the income in question is taxable and, therefore, includible in the total income, the deduction of expenses incurred in relation to such an income must be allowed, such deduction would not be permissible merely on the ground that the tax on the dividend received by the assessee has been paid by the dividend paying company and not by the recipient assessee, when under Section 10(33) of the Act such income by way of dividend is not a part of the total income of the recipient assessee.", "A plain reading of Section 14A would go to show that the income must not be includible in the total income of the assessee.", "Once the said condition is satisfied, the expenditure incurred in earning the said income cannot be allowed to be deducted.", "The section does not contemplate a situation where even though the income is taxable in the hands of the dividend paying company the same to be treated as not includible in the total income of the recipient assessee, yet, the expenditure incurred to earn that income must be allowed on the basis that no tax on such income has been paid by the assessee.", "Such a meaning, if ascribed to Section 14A, would be plainly beyond what the language of Section 14A can be understood to reasonably convey.", "The reliance placed by the Assessee on K.P. Varghese (supra) may now be considered.", "In K.P. Varghese (supra) the interpretation of sub- section (2) of Section 52 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (as it then in force), which is in the following terms, came up for consideration before this Court.", "Consideration for transfer in cases of under-statement.", "52 (1) Where the person who acquires a capital asset from an assessee is directly or indirectly connected with the assessee and the Income-tax Officer has reason to believe that the transfer was effected with the object of avoidance or reduction of the liability of the assessee under Section 45, the full value of the consideration for the transfer shall, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, be taken to be the fair market value of the capital asset on the date of the transfer.", "(2) without prejudice to the provisions of Sub-section (1), if in the opinion of the Income-tax Officer the fair market value of a capital asset transferred by an assessee as on the date of the transfer exceeds the full value of the consideration declared by the assessee in respect of the transfer of such capital assets by an amount of not less than fifteen per cent of the value declared, the full value of the consideration for such capital asset shall, with the previous approval of the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner, be taken to be its fair market value on the date of its transfer.", "Provided that On behalf of the Assessee, it was contended that a literal construction of Section 52(2) of the Act, as quoted above, could lead to a manifestly unreasonable and absurd consequence.", "Such consequence as urged by the Assessee was appreciated by the Court by taking the illustration of the price in a sale agreement of immovable property as on the date of the agreement and the market price thereof as on the date of the sale which could be at a later point of time.", "If Section 52(2) were to be interpreted literally, the Assessee would be required to pay tax on capital gains which had not occurred to him.", "It was, therefore, held: It is difficult to conceive of any rational reason why the Legislature should have thought it fit to impose liability to tax on an assessee who is bound by law to carry out his contractual obligation to sell the property at the agreed price and honestly carries out such contractual obligation.", "It would indeed be strange if obedience to the law should attract the levy of tax on income which has neither arisen to the assessee nor has been received by him.", "Accordingly, it was held that: where the plain literal interpretation of a statutory provision produces a manifestly absurd and unjust result which could never have been intended by the Legislature, the court may modify the language used by the Legislature or even do some violence to it, so as to achieve the obvious intention of the Legislature and produce a rational construction: Vide Luke v. IRC 1963 AC 557 1964 54 ITR 692.", "We do not see how the aforesaid principle of law in K.P. Varghese (supra) can assist the Assessee in the present case.", "The literal meaning of Section 14A, far from giving rise to any absurdity, appears to be wholly consistent with the scheme of the Act and the object purpose of levy of tax on income.", "Therefore, the well entrenched principle of interpretation that where the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous recourse cannot be had to principles of interpretation other than the literal view will apply.", "In this regard, the view expressed by this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax-III vs Calcutta Knitwears, Ludhiana3 may be usefully noticed below: the language of a taxing statute should ordinarily be read and understood in the sense in which it is harmonious with the object of the statute to effectuate the legislative animation.", "A taxing statute should be strictly construed common sense approach, equity, logic, ethics and morality have no role to play.", "Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied one can only look fairly at the language used and nothing more and nothing less.", "A similar view is to be found in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Tara Agencies4 wherein this Court had concluded that: Therefore, the legal position seems to be clear and consistent that it is the bounden duty and obligation of the court to interpret the statute as it is.", "It is contrary to all rules of construction to read words into a statute which the legislature in its wisdom has deliberately not incorporated.", "(para 69) The off-quoted observations of Rowlatt,J. in the case of Cape Brandy Syndicate vs IRC5 may also be noticed at this juncture.", "On the question arising the learned Judge had observed (page 71) that: in a taxing statute one has to look at what is clearly said.", "There is no room for any intendment.", "There is no equity about a tax.", "There is no presumption as to a tax.", "Nothing is to be read in, nothing is to be implied.", "One can only look fairly on the language used.", "While it is correct that Section 10(33) exempts only dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act and there are other species of dividend income on which tax is levied under the Act, we do not see how the said position in law would assist the assessee in understanding the provisions of Section 14A in the manner indicated.", "What is required to be construed is the provisions of Section 10(33) read in the light of Section 115-O of the Act.", "So far as the species of dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act is concerned, the earning of the said dividend is tax free in the hands of the assessee and not includible in the total income of the said assessee.", "If that is so, we do not see how the operation of Section 14A of the Act to such dividend income can be foreclosed.", "The fact that Section 10(33) and Section 115-O of the Act were brought in together deleted and reintroduced later in a composite manner, also, does not assist the assessee.", "Rather, the aforesaid facts would countenance a situation that so long as the dividend income is taxable in the hands of the dividend paying company, the same is not includible in the total income of the recipient assessee.", "At such point of time when the said position was reversed (by the Finance Act of 2002 reintroduced again by the Finance Act, 2003), it was the assessee who was liable to pay tax on such dividend income.", "In such a situation the assessee was entitled under Section 57 of the Act to claim the benefit of exemption of expenditure incurred to earn such income.", "Once Section 10(33) and 115-O was reintroduced the position was reversed.", "The above, actually fortifies the situation that Section 14A of the Act would operate to disallow deduction of all expenditure incurred in earning the dividend income under Section 115-O which is not includible in the total income of the assessee.", "So far as the provisions of Section 115-O of the Act are concerned, even if it is assumed that the additional income tax under the aforesaid provision is on the dividend and not on the distributed profits of the dividend paying company, no material difference to the applicability of Section 14A would arise.", "Sub-sections (4) and (5) of Section 115-O of the Act makes it very clear that the further benefit of such payments cannot be claimed either by the dividend paying company or by the recipient assessee.", "The provisions of Sections 194, 195, 196C and 199 of the Act, quoted above, would further fortify the fact that the dividend income under Section 115-O of the Act is a special category of income which has been treated differently by the Act making the same non-includible in the total income of the recipient assessee as tax thereon had already been paid by the dividend distributing company.", "The other species of dividend income which attracts levy of income tax at the hands of the recipient assessee has been treated differently and made liable to tax under the aforesaid provisions of the Act.", "In fact, if the argument is that tax paid by the dividend paying company under Section 115-O is to be understood to be on behalf of the recipient assessee, the provisions of Section 57 should enable the assessee to claim deduction of expenditure incurred to earn the income on which such tax is paid.", "Such a position in law would be wholly incongruous in view of Section 10(33) of the Act.", "A brief reference to the decision of this Court in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Limited (supra) may now be made, if only, to make the discussion complete.", "In Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Limited(supra) the issue involved was: whether in a dividend stripping transaction 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? While answering the said question this Court considered the object of insertion of Section 14A in the Income Tax Act by Finance Act, 2001, details of which have already been noticed.", "Noticing the objects and reasons behind introduction of Section 14A of the Act this Court held that: Expenses allowed can only be in respect of earning of taxable income.", "In paragraph 17, this Court went on to observe that: 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 expenditure 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.", "The views expressed in Walfort Share and Stock Brokers P. Limited (supra), in our considered opinion, yet again militate against the plea urged on behalf of the Assessee.", "For the aforesaid reasons, the first question formulated in the appeal has to be answered against the appellant-assessee by holding that Section 14A of the Act would apply to dividend income on which tax is payable under Section 115-O of the Act.", "We may now deal with the second question arising in the case.", "Section 14A as originally enacted by the Finance Act of 2001 with effect from 1.4.1962 is in the same form and language as currently appearing in sub-section (1) of Section 14A of the Act.", "Sections 14A (2) and (3) of the Act were introduced by the Finance Act of 2006 with effect from 1.4.2007.", "The finding of the Bombay High Court in the impugned order that sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A is retrospective has been challenged by the Revenue in another appeal which is presently pending before this Court.", "The said question, therefore, need not and cannot be gone into.", "Nevertheless, irrespective of the aforesaid question, what cannot be denied is that the requirement for attracting the provisions of Section 14A(1) of the Act is proof of the fact that the expenditure sought to be disallowed deducted had actually been incurred in earning the dividend income.", "Insofar as the appellant-assessee is concerned, the issues stand concluded in its favour in respect of the Assessment Years 1998-1999, 1999-2000 and 2001-2002.", "Earlier to the introduction of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act, such a determination was required to be made by the Assessing Officer in his best judgment.", "In all the aforesaid assessment years referred to above it was held that the Revenue had failed to establish any nexus between the expenditure disallowed and the earning of the dividend income in question.", "In the appeals arising out of the assessments made for some of the assessment years the aforesaid question was specifically looked into from the standpoint of the requirements of the provisions of sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act which had by then been brought into force.", "It is on such consideration that findings have been recorded that the expenditure in question bore no relation to the earning of the dividend income and hence the assessee was entitled to the benefit of full exemption claimed on account of dividend income.", "We do not see how in the aforesaid fact situation a different view could have been taken for the Assessment Year 2002-2003.", "Sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 14A of the Act read with Rule 8D of the Rules merely prescribe a formula for determination of expenditure incurred in relation to income which does not form part of the total income under the Act in a situation where the Assessing Officer is not satisfied with the claim of the assessee.", "Whether such determination is to be made on application of the formula prescribed under Rule 8D or in the best judgment of the Assessing Officer, what the law postulates is the requirement of a satisfaction in the Assessing Officer that having regard to the accounts of the assessee, as placed before him, it is not possible to generate the requisite satisfaction with regard to the correctness of the claim of the assessee.", "It is only thereafter that the provisions of Section 14A(2) and (3) read with Rule 8D of the Rules or a best judgment determination, as earlier prevailing, would become applicable.", "In the present case, we do not find any mention of the reasons which had prevailed upon the Assessing Officer, while dealing with the Assessment Year 2002-2003, to hold that the claims of the Assessee that no expenditure was incurred to earn the dividend income cannot be accepted and why the orders of the Tribunal for the earlier Assessment Years were not acceptable to the Assessing Officer, particularly, in the absence of any new fact or change of circumstances.", "Neither any basis has been disclosed establishing a reasonable nexus between the expenditure disallowed and the dividend income received.", "That any part of the borrowings of the assessee had been diverted to earn tax free income despite the availability of surplus or interest free funds available (Rs. 270.51 crores as on 1.4.2001 and Rs. 280.64 crores as on 31.3.2002) remains unproved by any material whatsoever.", "While it is true that the principle of res judicata would not apply to assessment proceedings under the Act, the need for consistency and certainty and existence of strong and compelling reasons for a departure from a settled position has to be spelt out which conspicuously is absent in the present case.", "In this regard we may remind ourselves of what has been observed by this Court in Radhasoami Satsang vs Commissioner of Income-Tax6.", "We are aware of the fact that strictly speaking res judicata does not apply to income tax proceedings.", "Again, each assessment year being a unit, what is decided in one year may not apply in the following year but where a fundamental aspect permeating through the different assessment years has been found as a fact one way or the other and parties have allowed that position to be sustained by not challenging the order, it would not be at all appropriate to allow the position to be changed in a subsequent year.", "In the above circumstances, we are of the view that the second question formulated must go in favour of the assessee and it must be held that for the Assessment Year in question i.e. 2002-2003, the assessee is entitled to the full benefit of the claim of dividend income without any deductions.", "Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the order of the High Court is set aside subject to our conclusions, as above, on the applicability of Section 14A with regard to dividend income on which tax is paid under Section 115-O of the Act.", ",J. (RANJAN GOGOI) ,J. (ASHOK BHUSHAN) NEW DELHI MAY 8, 2017 ----------------------- 1 (1981) 131 ITR 597 (SC) 2 (2010) 326 ITR 1 (SC) 3 (2014) 6 SCC 444 (para 31) 4 (2007) 292 ITR 444(SC) At Page 464 5 1921 1 KB 64 6 (1992) 193 ITR (SC) 321 At Page 329"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentOverruled", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentOverruled", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "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", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2014_498", "text": ["At the instance of the Counsel, the petition is taken up for final hearing.", "2 By this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner challenges the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).", "By the above impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, the respondent Number1 - Assessing Officer is seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07.", "On 28 November 2006, the petitioner filed its return of income for Assessment Year 2006-07, declaring a total income of Rs.60.21 lakhs.", "On 21 April 2008, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act, determining the petitioners income at Rs.62.21 lakhs.", "4 Thereafter, the impugned notice was issued on 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 2006-07.", "In response to the petitioners request, the Assessing Officer on 10 September 2013 served a copy of the reasons recorded by him for the issuing impugned notice dated 22 March 2013.", "The reasons as recorded read as under:- Date: 22/03/2013 Reasons recorded for issuing notice u section 147 of the I. T. Act, 1961 Talati Pannthaky Associates P. Limited Y. 2006-07 1 In this case, it is seen that in the computation of income net profit as per P L A c. was taken at Rs.60,80,154/- as against actual profit of Rs.1,27,40,620/- thus income was R.JOSHI 2 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 ::: wp-317-2014 considered less to the extent of Rs.66,53,466/-.", "2 Secondly, as per the details, u section 44AB furnished along with return of income, it was seen that following amounts were disallowable: 1 PF other amounts not paid by due Rs.15,19,692/- date (section 2(24)(x)) 2 Expenditure at club Rs.1,87,646/- 3 Under Section 40(a) Rs.1,48,82,417/- 4 Under Section 41 Rs.54,317/- 5 Under Section 43B Rs.4,16,166/- 6 Prior period expenses Rs.3,07,084/- Total ig Rs.1,71,79,776/- Less: Amount disallowed u s.43B in Rs.45,76,728/- the earlier year Net disallowable Rs.1,26,03,048/- The assessee has failed to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that assessment year as per proviso section 147 of the I. T. Act.", "Hence, I have reason to believe that the income amounting to Rs.1,92,56,514/- has escaped assessment.", "Notice u section 148 is being issued separately.", "5 On 20 September 2013, the petitioner filed its objections to the above reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013.", "In particular, in its objections, the petitioner pointed out that all the facts which form the basis of the reasons for re-opening as recorded were all disclosed by the petitioner during the original assessment proceedings leading to the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008.", "Thus, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 itself is without jurisdiction as there was no failure to disclose all facts necessary for R.JOSHI 3 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 ::: wp-317-2014 assessment.", "It was also pointed out that there is a mistake in the reasons as the computation of income as filed along with the return discloses the net profit at Rs.1.27 Crores and not at Rs.60.80 lakhs as alleged.", "Besides, the details filed under Section 44AB of the Act were reflected in the computation of income as disallowable expenditure and added to the income of Rs.1.27 Crores disclosed in the computation of income.", "There was no fresh tangible material to have a reasonable belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.", "In view of the above, it was prayed that the impugned notice be ordered to be withdrawn as being without jurisdiction.", "The Assessing Officer by order dated 8 January 2014 rejected the objection of the petitioner to the reasons recorded for issuing notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "The order dated 8 January 2014 merely recorded that the petitioner had failed to make a full and true disclosure of all material facts as the same were detected only as a consequence of full and further scrutiny of the documents already furnished by the petitioner.", "The other objection of the petitioner with regard to all the facts being already on record and the absence of fresh tangible material was not even dealt with.", "Accordingly, the petitioners objections were rejected.", "7 Mr. B. V. Jhaveri, learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner in support of the petition submits as under:- The impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is without jurisdiction as the reasons in support thereof do not indicate that there was any failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment The reasons itself indicate an apparent error as it proceeds on the R.JOSHI 4 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 ::: wp-317-2014 basis that the net profit as per Profit and Loss Account was taken by the petitioner at Rs.60.87 Crores instead of the actual profit is Rs.1.27 Crores.", "The computation of income filed along with return of income indicates that the net profit has indeed been taken at Rs.1.27 Crores and not Rs.60.87 Lakhs as alleged in the reasons in support of the impugned notice.", "All details as indicated in the reasons were furnished during the assessment proceedings under Section 44AB of the Act along with return of income.", "The computation of income filed along with return filed by the petitioner indicate that the amounts of expenditure which are sought to be added as disallowed were either furnished in the computation of income itself or subject of information sought for during the course of assessment proceedings as evidenced by letter dated 27 March 2008.", "In view of the above, it was submitted that the present notice has been issued on mere change of opinion.", "8 Per contra, Mr. Ahuja, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent supports the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 as well as the order dated 8 January 2014, rejecting the petitioners objection to the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice.", "In support, it is submitted as under:- That there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.", "According to him, full scrutiny of the record was required to be done so as to detect facts which were not recorded presented in a R.JOSHI 5 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 ::: wp-317-2014 manner to invite the attention of the Assessing Officer.", "Thus, there was a failure to disclose facts fully and truly on the part of the petitioner.", "In the circumstances, the revenue is entitled to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 2006-07 So fas as the disallowance of various expenditure recorded in the reasons for issuing the notice is concerned, the same would be a subject matter of examination during the reassessment proceeding.", "The explanation offered by the petitioner in respect of items being disallowed would be considered during the relevant proceeding.", "It is an undisputed position that the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 has been issued beyond the normal period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year i.e. 2006-07.", "The first proviso to Section 147 of the Act which would apply provides that where an assessment is done under Section 143(3) of the Act then no action for reassessment will be taken after the end of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year unless there has been failure on the part of the assessee to fully and truly disclose all material facts necessary for assessment.", "From the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013, it is evident that all material on the basis of which the Assessing Officer formed the reasonable belief that income has escaped assessment were on record during the assessment proceedings, leading to the Assessing Order dated 21 April 2008.", "It is, therefore, clear that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment.", "In fact, the order dated 8 January 2014 rejecting the objection for re-opening the assessment does not dispute that facts were disclosed.", "The reasons for R.JOSHI 6 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 ::: wp-317-2014 re-opening is that the facts could be detected only on full and detailed scrutiny.", "In the present case, the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008 has been passed under Section 143(3) of the Act i.e. scrutiny proceedings.", "Therefore, the Assessing Officer would have had ample occasion to consider and detect all the material disclosed by the petitioner during proceedings under Section 143(3)of the Act.", "Besides, from the reasons recorded for re-opening of the assessment, it is very clear that the same has been issued on examination of the computation of the income and details furnished under Section 44AB of the Act.", "In fact, the reason proceeded on the basis that the computation of income was presented by the petitioner along with its return of income.", "Similarly, it is not denied that the details under Section 44AB of the Act were furnished along with the return of income.", "Therefore, it cannot be said that there was a failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose material facts necessary for assessment proceeding during the original proceedings leading to the Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008.", "On the basis of the above, we find that there has been no failure on the part of the petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment during the original assessment proceeding leading to Assessment Order dated 21 April 2008.", "Thus, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is unsustainable.", "10 In view of our above finding, there is no occasion to consider the petitioners other contention that there is no reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment as the present proceeding initiated by the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is mere change of opinion.", "R.JOSHI 7 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 ::: wp-317-2014 11 In the above circumstances, we hold that the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 is an order without jurisdiction, as the requirement of the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act is not satisfied.", "Accordingly, the impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 issued under Section 148 of the Act is quashed and set aside.", "The consequent order dated 8 January 2014 of the Assessing Officer rejecting the petitioners objection to the reasons recorded for issuing impugned notice dated 22 March 2013 under Section 148 of the Act also does not survive.", "12 The petition is allowed in the above terms, with no order as to costs.", "CHIEF JUSTICE S.SANKLECHA,J.) R.JOSHI 8 of 8 ::: Downloaded on - 11/03/2014 22:54:29 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
{"id": "BHC_BomHC_1981_263", "text": ["Rege, J. In this reference, by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Bombay Bench B, at the instance of the Commissioner of Income-tax Bombay City-I, under section 256(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, the following two question have been referred to us for our opinion, namel : Whether the provision of section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, applied to the items of machinery referred to in para.", "1 of the statement of the case ? Whether clause (i) of Explanation 1 to section 10(2) (vib) of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922, prohibits the sale of machinery in respect of which development rebate is allowed even when the machinery was installed prior to January 1, 1956 ? The assessee-company had, in its return for the assessment year 1958-59, claimed development rebate in respect of certain machinery as unde : Machinery Cost of Development Year in which installed machinery rebate the machinery in the installed allowed was sold month of Rs. Rs. March, 1957 40,152 10,034 1957 April, 1957 1,595 399 1958 Dec, 1957 11,605 2,901 1958 May, 1957 56,363 14,091 (April) 1962 The ITO, while completing the assessment for the said assessment year 1958-59, allowed the assessee development rebate as claimed in respect of the machineries at Items Numbers 2 to 4 but disallowed the same for the machinery at item Number 1, on the ground that the same was sold by the assessee in that very year.", "In an appeal filed by the assessee to the AAC against the disallowance of the development rebate in respect of the machinery at item Number 1, the AAC allowed the same on the ground that the sale of the machinery date of its installation did not result in the withdrawal of the development rebate.", "As the revenue did not go in appeal against the said order of the AAC, the same became final.", "Subsequently, the ITO issued a notice to the assessee-company under section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961, for reopening of the assessment for the assessment year 1958-59, which was the year under reference in respect of the all the four items of the machinery on the ground that the development rebate had been wrongly allowed on the said machineries, as they were not installed by the assessee-company for the purposes of its business but were let out on hire.", "The ITO, however, did not pursue the said line of action any further.", "Thereafter, with a view to withdraw the development rebate already granted to the assessee-company for the said assessment year 1958-59, the ITO adopted proceedings under section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, but the Finance Act of 1958, and the insertion of section 35(11) therein, providing that when the assets, that its, the machineries, were sold within ten year from the end of the year in which they were installed, the development rebate originally allowed was to be deemed to have been wrongly allowed and, therefore, the total income for the relevant year became recomputable.", "The ITO, accordingly, withdraw the development rebate allowed to the assessee in the year 1958-59, in respect of all the said four machineries and made an order reassessing the assessee-company for the said assessment year 1958-59.", "The assessee-company preferred an appeal to the AAC against the said reassessment made by the ITO by resorting to section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961.", "The main contention before the AAC was that the ITO could not have reopened the assessment proceedings under section 147(a) inasmuch as there was no omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose the particulars for completing the assessment.", "The AAC upheld the contention of the assessee.", "He also held that the prior order of the AAC dated July 6, 1961, allowing a development rabate for the machinery at item Number 1.", "having become final, the ITOs orders as regards the reopening of the assessment in respect of the said item irregular.", "He also held that a withdrawal of the development rabate under section 10(2)(vib) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, applied to such machineries as were installed after January 1, 1958, and since in this case all the items of machineries were installed before that date, there was no power to withdraw in this case.", "Accordingly the, AAC set aside the said order of the ITO.", "The revenue thereupon preferred an appeal to the Tribunal challenging the correctness of the said order of the AAc on both the grounds.", "The main contention before the Tribunal was as regards the applicability of the provisions of section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, to the facts of this case.", "The Tribunal observed that when the ITO allowed the development rebate on the facts known to him and when the assessee forfeited its right to the same by a subsequent sale, it would not be a question of income escaping assessment as a result of the assessees commission or failure to wholly or truly disclose all the material relevant to the assessment.", "According to the Tribunal, therefore, to withdraw the rebate was provided for under section 35(11) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922.", "The Tribunal, therefore, held that section 147(a) was not attracted to the present case and the reassessment made with reference thereto was liable to be cancelled.", "The Tribunal also held, following the decision of the Supreme Court in CIT v. Rao Thakur Narayan Singh 1965 56 ITR 234, that the order of the AAC in respect of the machinery at item Number 1 having become final, the ITO was not competent to withdraw the development rebate in respect of the said machinery.", "In this case, we would be concerned with the question of a reopening of the assessment by the ITO under section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, by withdrawing the development rebate granted to the assessee, only in respect of the machineries at items Numbers 2,3 and 4, as the allowance of such rebate in respect of the machinery at item Number 1 above had become final by the order of the AAC darted July 6, 1961, in appeal, the ITO having no jurisdiction to reopen or rectify the same.", "Section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, dealing with the question of income escaping assessment, so far as is relevant, provide : 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 disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year, income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for the year, or he may assess or reassess such income or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.", "A reading of the said provisions show that the ITO can act under the said provisions only if he had reason to believe that some income of the assessee had escaped assessment by reason of an omission or failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment for that year.", "The question, therefore, in this case is whether, on the facts and circumstances of the case, it could be said that the assessee had omitted or failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for an assessment of tax for the year in question.", "In this case, the assessment year is 1958-59, with the accounting year ending on December 31, 1957.", "As shown above, all the four concerned machineries were installed between March, 1957, and December, 1957, that is, during the relevant accounting year.", "It is not disputed that the three machineries at items Numbers 2, 3, and 4 with which we are concerned, were not sold during that year or, in any event, at the time when the return was filed by the assessee, though they appear to have been sold in subsequent years.", "Under the circumstances, therefore, if the said machineries were sold in subsequent years, then at the date of filling the return the assessee could not be credited with the knowledge of the sales which were to take place in the future, so that he could be said to have failed or omitted to disclose truly and fully the facts about such future sales.", "In that view of the matter, the provisions of section 147(a) of the I.T. Act, 1961, were not attracted in this case, and the ITO could not have proceeded to reassess the assessee under the said provisions.", "It appears that if, however, the ITO desirous of the withdrawing the rebate granted under section 10(2)(vib)(ii) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, because of subsequent sales, the said Act had in such a case provided a specific remedy to the ITO under the subsequently added provisions of section 35(11) of the said Act.", "The development rebate granted to the newly installed machinery under section 10(2)(vib)(ii) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922, was withdrawable under newly added provisions of section 35(11) of the said Act, if the machinery to which the said provisions of section 10(2)(vib)(ii) were applicable was sold within ten years from the end of the year in which the machinery was installed.", "Under the provisions of section 35(11), the rebate already allowed was to be deemed to have been wrongly allowed and the ITO was given the power to recompute the total income of the assessee for the relevant year as if it were a rectification of a mistake apparent from the record, and the period of limitation of four years, for the rectification under section 35(11) was to be computed from the end of the year in which the transfer took place.", "However, that would be the case only if the said provisions were held applicable to the machineries installed before January 1, 1958, as in this case.", "In the view that we are taking on the first question, however, we do not think it necessary to express our opinion on the other question as to the application of cl.", "(i) of Expln.", "1 to section 10(2)(vib) to the machineries in this case.", "We, accordingly, answer the said two question as unde : Question Number : In the negative and in favour of the assessee.", "Question Number : Need not be answered.", "Revenue to pay costs to the assessee."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Issue", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Issue", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
{"id": "BHC_BomHC_1997_583", "text": ["V. Easwar, J.M. This first appeal arises out of an assessment made under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act falling under Chapter XIV-B thereof, on the assessee, which is a company engaged in liquor trade, pursuant to a search made under section 132 of the Act on 2-8-1995.", "Various grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal, but the first ground, which goes to the root of the matter, is that the undisclosed income for the block period could only be computed by setting off the loss incurred in any of the years falling in the block period against the profit for the other years.", "Arguments were addressed elaborately on this point and it was agreed by both sides that if the ground is to be accepted then there would be no need to decide the merits of the various additions made in the block assessment at this stage.", "Since we also felt so, we heard arguments only in respect of this ground.", "Various grounds have been taken in the memorandum of appeal, but the first ground, which goes to the root of the matter, is that the undisclosed income for the block period could only be computed by setting off the loss incurred in any of the years falling in the block period against the profit for the other years.", "Arguments were addressed elaborately on this point and it was agreed by both sides that if the ground is to be accepted then there would be no need to decide the merits of the various additions made in the block assessment at this stage.", "Since we also felt so, we heard arguments only in respect of this ground.", "The block period consists of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 (10 years) and the period from 1-4-1995 to 2-8-1995, the date of search.", "The details of the income returned, profit or loss assessed for the different previous years, etc.", "are as below : The block period consists of the assessment years 1986-87 to 1995-96 (10 years) and the period from 1-4-1995 to 2-8-1995, the date of search.", "The details of the income returned, profit or loss assessed for the different previous years, etc.", "are as below : Assessment Year Assessment Year Income returned Income returned Income assessed Income assessed Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1986-87 A. A. 1987-88 A. A. 1988-89 A. A. 1989-90 Loss 11,62,679 Loss 11,62,679 1990-91 85,360 85,360 1991-92 39,01,035 52,93,894 1992-93 Loss 5,36,62,350 6,18,60,079 1993-94 Loss 3,35,15,530 Loss 2,74,19,057 1994-95 Loss 1,81,42,420 Loss 1,39,09,732 1995-96 Loss 3,77,27,460 Loss 2,74,20,857 The assessing officer has raised a demand on the assessee on the basis of the income assessed in respect of the assessment years 1990-91, 1991-92 and 1992-93.", "The contention of the assessee is that the losses assessed in respect of the assessment year 1989-90, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96 are to be adjusted against the aforesaid income and if they are so adjusted, there would be a net loss of Rs. 26,72,992 for the block period and, therefore, there can be no tax demand.", "This, in short, is the first ground taken by the assessee and which calls for examination.", "The learned counsel for the assessee took us through the provisions of Chapter XIV-B and the Circular Number 717, dated 14-8-1995, issued by the CBDT (1995) 215 ITR (St) 70), explaining the special procedure for assessment in search cases.", "He highlighted the fact that in respect of search cases, the block period has been treated as one unit through it consists of ten previous years and the period up to the date of search, and contended that it is not permissible to tax only the income earned by the assessee during the block period without setting off the losses suffered during the same period.", "He drew attention to the provisions of section 158BB and pointed out that it provides for aggregation of the income or loss of each previous year comprised in the block period.", "Relying on the provisions of the Explanation (a) to section 158BB(1), he submitted that they made it clear that only brought forward losses of the past years under Chapter VI and unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) were to be excluded while aggregating the total income or loss of each previous years comprised in the block period but set off of the loss suffered in any of the previous year comprised in the block period against the income assessed in the other previous years comprised in the same block period was not prohibited, either expressly or by implication.", "He relied on sub-section (4) of section 158BB in support of this submission, which, according to him, made the position beyond doubt.", "He further contended that as per section 158BA(2), the tax is to be charged on the undisclosed income of the entire block period taking the same as one unit of assessment and it is not as if the losses in respect of any of the assessment years included in the block period have to be ignored.", "The learned counsel for the assessee took us through the provisions of Chapter XIV-B and the Circular Number 717, dated 14-8-1995, issued by the CBDT (1995) 215 ITR (St) 70), explaining the special procedure for assessment in search cases.", "He highlighted the fact that in respect of search cases, the block period has been treated as one unit through it consists of ten previous years and the period up to the date of search, and contended that it is not permissible to tax only the income earned by the assessee during the block period without setting off the losses suffered during the same period.", "He drew attention to the provisions of section 158BB and pointed out that it provides for aggregation of the income or loss of each previous year comprised in the block period.", "Relying on the provisions of the Explanation (a) to section 158BB(1), he submitted that they made it clear that only brought forward losses of the past years under Chapter VI and unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) were to be excluded while aggregating the total income or loss of each previous years comprised in the block period but set off of the loss suffered in any of the previous year comprised in the block period against the income assessed in the other previous years comprised in the same block period was not prohibited, either expressly or by implication.", "He relied on sub-section (4) of section 158BB in support of this submission, which, according to him, made the position beyond doubt.", "He further contended that as per section 158BA(2), the tax is to be charged on the undisclosed income of the entire block period taking the same as one unit of assessment and it is not as if the losses in respect of any of the assessment years included in the block period have to be ignored.", "Mr. Sudhir Chandra, the learned senior Departmental Representative, raised two main points.", "Mr. Sudhir Chandra, the learned senior Departmental Representative, raised two main points.", "He first asked the question whether it is at all possible to imagine that the object of the search and the provisions relating to the assessment of search cases could be to arrive at a net loss for the block period.", "He submitted that the whole exercise is to unearth the undisclosed income of the assessee and it would be paradoxical to make a search and then arrive at a net loss in the assessment.", "His second point was that in any event the losses cannot be set off in the manner claimed by the assessee because of the clear prohibition contained in clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 158BB.", "He relied on the observations at page 2 of the assessment order in this regard.", "Chapter XIV-B, consisting of sections 158B to 158BH, was inserted by the Finance Act, 1995, with effective from 1-7-1995.", "It provided for a special procedure for assessment of search cases, where search action has been initiated after 30-6-1995.", "Section 158BA(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Income Tax Act, in the case of an assessee in whose case action for search has been taken after 30-6-1995, then the assessing officer shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.", "Sub-section (2) provides for charging of tax in respect of the undisclosed income of the block period at the rate prescribed by section 113, uniformly irrespective of the year or years to which the income is referable and irrespective of the fact whether the regular assessment for that year or those years was pending or nor.", "Under sub-section (3), an assessee could prove that the income in question relates to a previous year which has not ended or to a previous year in respect of which the time to file a return under section 139(1) has not expired, and such income would be excluded from the block period.", "Section 158BB provides for the computation of the undisclosed income of the block period.", "The words undisclosed income and block period are defined in section 158B. Section 158BB, which provides for the computation of the undisclosed income of the block period, is reproduced below : Chapter XIV-B, consisting of sections 158B to 158BH, was inserted by the Finance Act, 1995, with effective from 1-7-1995.", "It provided for a special procedure for assessment of search cases, where search action has been initiated after 30-6-1995.", "Section 158BA(1) provides that notwithstanding anything contained in any other provisions of the Income Tax Act, in the case of an assessee in whose case action for search has been taken after 30-6-1995, then the assessing officer shall proceed to assess the undisclosed income in accordance with the provisions of this Chapter.", "Sub-section (2) provides for charging of tax in respect of the undisclosed income of the block period at the rate prescribed by section 113, uniformly irrespective of the year or years to which the income is referable and irrespective of the fact whether the regular assessment for that year or those years was pending or nor.", "Under sub-section (3), an assessee could prove that the income in question relates to a previous year which has not ended or to a previous year in respect of which the time to file a return under section 139(1) has not expired, and such income would be excluded from the block period.", "Section 158BB provides for the computation of the undisclosed income of the block period.", "The words undisclosed income and block period are defined in section 158B. Section 158BB, which provides for the computation of the undisclosed income of the block period, is reproduced below : 158BB(1) The undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous year falling within the block period computed, in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV, on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other materials or information as are available with assessing officer, as reduced by the aggregate of the total income, or as the case may be, as increased by the aggregate of the losses of such previous years, determined, (a) where assessments under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded, on the basis of such assessments (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or section 147 but assessments have not been made till the date of search or requisition, on the basis of the income disclosed in such returns (c) where the due date for filing a return of income has expired but no return of income has been filed, as nil (d) where the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 has not expired, on the basis of entries relating to such income or transactions as recorded in the books of account and other documents maintained in the normal course on or before the date of the search or requisition relating to such previous years (e) where any order of settlement has been made under sub-section (4) of section 245D, on the basis of such order (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment.", "ExplanationFor the purposes of determination of undisclosed income, (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken as the total income or loss computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV without giving effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 (b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called Provided that undisclosed income of the firm so determined shall not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the partners, whether on allocation or on account of enhancement Provided that undisclosed income of the firm so determined shall not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the partners, whether on allocation or on account of enhancement (c) assessment under section 143 includes determination of income under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1B) of section 143.", "In computing the undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of sections 68, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to financial year in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition.", "The burden of proving to the satisfaction of the assessing officer that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by the assessee before the commencement of search or of the requisition, as the case may be, shall be on the assessee.", "For the purpose of assessment under this chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments.", "The procedure for block assessment is prescribed in section 158BC.", "It states that the assessing officer shall determine the undisclosed income in the manner provided by section 158BB and in doing so, the provisions of section 142, sub-sections (2) and (3) of section 143 and section 144 shall, so far as may be, apply.", "It further states that on determination of the undisclosed income of the block period in accordance with this chapter, the assessing officer shall pass an order of assessment and determine the tax payable by the assessee on the basis of such assessment.", "Section 158BG, as it stood at the material time, states that an assessment under this chapter shall be made by an officer of the rank of Deputy Commissioner and that the same shall be approved by the Commissioner.", "Section 158BH clarifies that save as otherwise provided in this chapter, all other provisions of the Income Tax Act shall apply to an assessment made under the Chapter.", "In our opinion, there is no prohibition against the losses of some of the previous year comprised in the block period being set off against the income of the other years comprised in the block period.", "Even on first principles, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the revenue that the result of the computation of a particular period comprised in the block period has to be ignored, if such computation shows a loss.", "It would be the same thing as saying that in respect of a normal previous year consisting of a period of twelve months, the result of computation for the first period of six months would be ignored, if it shows a loss, and the income computed in respect of the rest of the six months only would be taken.", "Such an argument, if advanced in respect of an assessment of an assessee whose case is not covered by Chapter XIV-B, cannot be accepted, as it is a well accepted and recognised position that the computation must be made with reference to the whole period of twelve months comprised in the previous year and the tax is payable only if such computation shows a positive income.", "Losses incurred during the previous year cannot be ignored and this principle is in-built in the concept of an assessment under the Income Tax Act.", "The principle is that for the purpose of charging income-tax the various sources of income of an assessee have got to be aggregated and the results of each source for the entire previous year have to be reckoned and merely because the first few months of the previous year show a positive income and the rest of the period shows a negative income, the result of the later period cannot be ignored.", "The income-tax law does not permit this.", "In CIT v. National Syndicate (1961) 41 ITR 225 (SC), the Supreme Court held that if the profits or gains of a business for a particular year are to be taxed they must be computed for the whole year taking into account losses incurred during the same year (at p. 234).", "What is true of the assessment of an assessee who has not been brought under section 132 and in whose case Chapter XIV-B does not apply is also true in respect of an assessee who has been searched and whose assessment is to be made under XIV-B. There is no difference between the two types of cases so far as the application of the principle is concerned.", "In the former, the previous year is the period with reference to which the income is to be ascertained, as defined in section 3 of the Act in the latter, it is the block period with reference to which the income is to be ascertained, and the block period consists of previous year relevant to ten assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search took place and includes the further period up to the date of commencement of the search.", "But the undisclosed income is to be computed with reference to the entire block period and it is the total undisclosed income relating to the block period that is charged to income-tax under sub-section (2) of section 158BA.", "It follows that the results of the different previous years comprised in the block period will have to be aggregated in order to find out the total undisclosed income relating to the block period.", "In other words, the block period is to be treated as the previous year and so it follows that the losses suffered during certain parts or periods of the block period have to be set off or adjusted against the income earned during the remaining parts of periods thereof.", "In our opinion, there is no prohibition against the losses of some of the previous year comprised in the block period being set off against the income of the other years comprised in the block period.", "Even on first principles, it is not possible to countenance the argument of the revenue that the result of the computation of a particular period comprised in the block period has to be ignored, if such computation shows a loss.", "It would be the same thing as saying that in respect of a normal previous year consisting of a period of twelve months, the result of computation for the first period of six months would be ignored, if it shows a loss, and the income computed in respect of the rest of the six months only would be taken.", "Such an argument, if advanced in respect of an assessment of an assessee whose case is not covered by Chapter XIV-B, cannot be accepted, as it is a well accepted and recognised position that the computation must be made with reference to the whole period of twelve months comprised in the previous year and the tax is payable only if such computation shows a positive income.", "Losses incurred during the previous year cannot be ignored and this principle is in-built in the concept of an assessment under the Income Tax Act.", "The principle is that for the purpose of charging income-tax the various sources of income of an assessee have got to be aggregated and the results of each source for the entire previous year have to be reckoned and merely because the first few months of the previous year show a positive income and the rest of the period shows a negative income, the result of the later period cannot be ignored.", "The income-tax law does not permit this.", "In CIT v. National Syndicate (1961) 41 ITR 225 (SC), the Supreme Court held that if the profits or gains of a business for a particular year are to be taxed they must be computed for the whole year taking into account losses incurred during the same year (at p. 234).", "What is true of the assessment of an assessee who has not been brought under section 132 and in whose case Chapter XIV-B does not apply is also true in respect of an assessee who has been searched and whose assessment is to be made under XIV-B. There is no difference between the two types of cases so far as the application of the principle is concerned.", "In the former, the previous year is the period with reference to which the income is to be ascertained, as defined in section 3 of the Act in the latter, it is the block period with reference to which the income is to be ascertained, and the block period consists of previous year relevant to ten assessment years preceding the previous year in which the search took place and includes the further period up to the date of commencement of the search.", "But the undisclosed income is to be computed with reference to the entire block period and it is the total undisclosed income relating to the block period that is charged to income-tax under sub-section (2) of section 158BA.", "It follows that the results of the different previous years comprised in the block period will have to be aggregated in order to find out the total undisclosed income relating to the block period.", "In other words, the block period is to be treated as the previous year and so it follows that the losses suffered during certain parts or periods of the block period have to be set off or adjusted against the income earned during the remaining parts of periods thereof.", "We now proceed to examine whether the principle of aggregation has been given effect to in Chapter XIV-B and if so, to what extent.", "Section 158BB, which we have extracted earlier, gives effect to the principle of aggregation.", "To paraphrase sub-section (1), it says that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period.", "The undisclosed income is to be computed in accordance with Chapter IV of the Act (sections 14 to 59).", "Explanation (a) says further undisclosed income (sic), the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken as the total income or loss computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI, without giving effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2).", "Reading sub section (1) in conjunction with clause (a) of the Explanation, it is clear that while aggregating the results of the different previous years falling within the block period, the losses have also to be taken into account.", "It may very well happen that while determining the result of a particular previous year falling within the block period on the basis of the evidence found as a result of the search of the documents or such other materials as are available with the assessing officer, he may find that the computation of the income as per Chapter IV (sections 14, to 59) yields a negative result, i.e., a loss.", "The possibility of this position has been taken into account by clause (a) of the Explanation.", "It is significant that having done so, the Explanation does not further say that if the computation results in a loss it should be ignored.", "On the contrary, it proceeds to say that the loss for that previous year shall be considered for aggregation.", "It further clarifies that only the brought forward losses under Chapter VI and the unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) cannot be adjusted against the income of a previous year while resorting to aggregation.", "Mr. Sudhir Chandra says that clause (a) of the Explanation prohibits, set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation, and, therefore, the assessees claim is untenable.", "We do not think so.", "Sub-section (1) mandates the computation of the undisclosed income of the block period to be the aggregate of the total income of the previous year falling within the block period computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV on the basis of the evidence and materials found at the time of the search.", "As already seen, such computation may yield in a negative income (i.e., loss) for a particular previous year.", "That is why Explanation (a) says that such losses are also to be aggregated while determining the aggregate undisclosed income.", "One reason for excluding the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation from being set off against the undisclosed income computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV may be to get over the decision of the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC), wherein it has been held that section 72, which deals with the carry forward and set off of business loss, has a direct impact upon the computation of the income under the head profits and gains business or profession.", "It has been clearly held that it is not possible to accept the view that section 72 has no bearing on, or is unconnected with, the computation of the total income of an assessee under the above head.", "Relying on this decision, an assessee whose case is covered by the provisions of Chapter XIV-B may attempt to reduce the undisclosed income by seeking to set off the past business losses, which have been determined in the regular assessments made earlier for the years falling within the block period and which have been permitted to be carried forward to the future years.", "We now proceed to examine whether the principle of aggregation has been given effect to in Chapter XIV-B and if so, to what extent.", "Section 158BB, which we have extracted earlier, gives effect to the principle of aggregation.", "To paraphrase sub-section (1), it says that the undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period.", "The undisclosed income is to be computed in accordance with Chapter IV of the Act (sections 14 to 59).", "Explanation (a) says further undisclosed income (sic), the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken as the total income or loss computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VI, without giving effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2).", "Reading sub section (1) in conjunction with clause (a) of the Explanation, it is clear that while aggregating the results of the different previous years falling within the block period, the losses have also to be taken into account.", "It may very well happen that while determining the result of a particular previous year falling within the block period on the basis of the evidence found as a result of the search of the documents or such other materials as are available with the assessing officer, he may find that the computation of the income as per Chapter IV (sections 14, to 59) yields a negative result, i.e., a loss.", "The possibility of this position has been taken into account by clause (a) of the Explanation.", "It is significant that having done so, the Explanation does not further say that if the computation results in a loss it should be ignored.", "On the contrary, it proceeds to say that the loss for that previous year shall be considered for aggregation.", "It further clarifies that only the brought forward losses under Chapter VI and the unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) cannot be adjusted against the income of a previous year while resorting to aggregation.", "Mr. Sudhir Chandra says that clause (a) of the Explanation prohibits, set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation, and, therefore, the assessees claim is untenable.", "We do not think so.", "Sub-section (1) mandates the computation of the undisclosed income of the block period to be the aggregate of the total income of the previous year falling within the block period computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV on the basis of the evidence and materials found at the time of the search.", "As already seen, such computation may yield in a negative income (i.e., loss) for a particular previous year.", "That is why Explanation (a) says that such losses are also to be aggregated while determining the aggregate undisclosed income.", "One reason for excluding the brought forward losses and unabsorbed depreciation from being set off against the undisclosed income computed in accordance with the provisions of Chapter IV may be to get over the decision of the Supreme Court in Cambay Electric Supply Industrial Company v. CIT (1978) 113 ITR 84 (SC), wherein it has been held that section 72, which deals with the carry forward and set off of business loss, has a direct impact upon the computation of the income under the head profits and gains business or profession.", "It has been clearly held that it is not possible to accept the view that section 72 has no bearing on, or is unconnected with, the computation of the total income of an assessee under the above head.", "Relying on this decision, an assessee whose case is covered by the provisions of Chapter XIV-B may attempt to reduce the undisclosed income by seeking to set off the past business losses, which have been determined in the regular assessments made earlier for the years falling within the block period and which have been permitted to be carried forward to the future years.", "The legislature might have thought that such an attempt cannot be allowed to succeed and that the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B would have to be made untrammelled by what happened in the earlier regular assessments.", "The other reason why the brought forward losses under Chapter VI are excluded is because the block assessment is confined only to the determination of the undisclosed income of the block period, whereas losses to be carried forward to future years may have been determined in the regular assessments made prior to the date of search under the normal provisions of the Act and in the very nature of things such losses, determined and allowed to be carried forward, have no place in the context of a block assessment framed after the search.", "The two streams of assessment are kept apart and one is not projected into the other.", "The position is made clear beyond any doubt in sub-section (4) of section 158BB.", "It says that losses brought forward from the earlier years under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under section 32(2) will not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under Chapter XIV-B, but will be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments.", "Thus, reading clause (a) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) in harmony with the said sub-section and sub-section (4), we are of the opinion that the prohibition against setting off the losses against the undisclosed income of the block period applies only to losses under Chapter VI (section 72) and unabsorbed depreciation determined and permitted to be carried forward in regular assessments and does not apply to adjustment of the loss computed in respect of a particular previous year falling within the block period against the income computed in respect of the other years falling within the block period.", "Such adjustment or set off, in fact, cannot be considered to fall under the category of brought forward losses under Chapter VI at all.", "In this respect, we are of the view that both clause (a) of the Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 158BB and sub-section (4) thereof convey the same idea.", "We are fortified in this by the view expressed by the Board in its circular cited supra at p. 98 of ((1995) 215 ITR (St.)) 90 to the effect that where in the regular assessment proceedings set off of loss or unabsorbed depreciation has been allowed in the regular assessment proceedings, the same shall be ignored for determining the undisclosed income for the block period.", "Thus the object of the provisions appears to be to ensure that the assessee does not walk away with double set off of the brought forward losses under Chapter VI, once in the regular assessments and again in the block assessment.", "Nothing more can be read into the provisions.", "It may be recalled that Mr. Sudhir Chandra had argued that section 158BB(1)(c) proved the assessees claim untenable.", "The argument cannot be given effect to.", "The clause does not speak of a return claiming loss.", "It only says that in a case where the due date for filing a return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed, there will be no reduction of any amount for determining the undisclosed income.", "If the assessee has already filed a return showing positive income in respect of a previous year or years falling within the block period the income declared in such return or returns will be reduced from the aggregate undisclosed income, where assessments on such return or returns have not been made till the date of search.", "This is provided in clause (b).", "Clause (c) says where no such return has been filed before the due date, no reduction will be possible.", "The provisions are intended to eliminate double taxation of the same income.", "Similarly double allowance of the same loss is also avoided by these provisions.", "Clause (c) does not admit of the argument advanced by Mr. Sudir Chandra to the effect that the returns for the assessment years 1989-90, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, for which losses have been computed in the block assessment, not having been filed till the date of search, the losses computed for those years cannot be set off against the income computed in respect of the other years falling within the block period.", "It may be recalled that Mr. Sudhir Chandra had argued that section 158BB(1)(c) proved the assessees claim untenable.", "The argument cannot be given effect to.", "The clause does not speak of a return claiming loss.", "It only says that in a case where the due date for filing a return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed, there will be no reduction of any amount for determining the undisclosed income.", "If the assessee has already filed a return showing positive income in respect of a previous year or years falling within the block period the income declared in such return or returns will be reduced from the aggregate undisclosed income, where assessments on such return or returns have not been made till the date of search.", "This is provided in clause (b).", "Clause (c) says where no such return has been filed before the due date, no reduction will be possible.", "The provisions are intended to eliminate double taxation of the same income.", "Similarly double allowance of the same loss is also avoided by these provisions.", "Clause (c) does not admit of the argument advanced by Mr. Sudir Chandra to the effect that the returns for the assessment years 1989-90, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, for which losses have been computed in the block assessment, not having been filed till the date of search, the losses computed for those years cannot be set off against the income computed in respect of the other years falling within the block period.", "The answer to Mr. Sudhir Chandras poser whether the combersome exercise of a search is undertaken merely to compute the assessees losses for being set off against the undisclosed income is that section 158BB itself accepts the possibility of such a situation by referring to the computation of a loss in respect of a previous year falling within the block period, on the basis of the evidence or materials found during the search and as per the provisions of Chapter IV.", "That apart, one of the objects of a search is to obtain evidence regarding the true income of an assessee and if such evidence points to a loss, the computation being made under the statute itself, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the loss is to be set off, howsoever reluctant one may be to do so.", "The answer to Mr. Sudhir Chandras poser whether the combersome exercise of a search is undertaken merely to compute the assessees losses for being set off against the undisclosed income is that section 158BB itself accepts the possibility of such a situation by referring to the computation of a loss in respect of a previous year falling within the block period, on the basis of the evidence or materials found during the search and as per the provisions of Chapter IV.", "That apart, one of the objects of a search is to obtain evidence regarding the true income of an assessee and if such evidence points to a loss, the computation being made under the statute itself, there can be no escape from the conclusion that the loss is to be set off, howsoever reluctant one may be to do so.", "To sum up, we hold that for the reasons stated above, the assessees claim is accepted and the losses for the assessment year 1989-90, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, as computed in the block assessment, are directed to be set off against the undisclosed income computed in respect of the other previous years falling within the block period.", "To sum up, we hold that for the reasons stated above, the assessees claim is accepted and the losses for the assessment year 1989-90, 1993-94, 1994-95 and 1995-96, as computed in the block assessment, are directed to be set off against the undisclosed income computed in respect of the other previous years falling within the block period.", "As already stated in the beginning of this order, we have not heard arguments on the merits of the other grounds taken by the assessee.", "The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent indicated above.", "As already stated in the beginning of this order, we have not heard arguments on the merits of the other grounds taken by the assessee.", "The appeal is therefore allowed to the extent indicated above."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "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", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}