{"id": "SC_2009_1357", "text": ["KAPADIA,J. Heard learned counsel on both sides.", "Leave granted.", "The short question which arises in the facts and circumstances of these appeals is: whether it was open to the Commissioner of Income Tax to rectify its own order under Section 154 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on the basis of the judgement of this Court later judgement in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Ors.", "vs Commissioner of Income Tax, reported in 1997 228 T.R.253? In short, in these appeals, we are concerned with the scope of Section 154 of the Act.", "The appellant is engaged in the business of manufacture of Potassium Chlorates.", "Its factory is located in the Union Territory of Pondicherry.", "The 2/- - 2 - appellant received power subsidy for two years, which it initially offered as revenue receipt in its Return of Income.", "In the petitions filed under Section 264 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for short, the Act, the assessee pleaded that the subsidy amount was a capital receipt, hence not liable to be taxed, and, accordingly, it sought revision of the assessment orders for Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1994-1995.", "In the revision petitions, appellant had pleaded that the subsidy amount was a capital receipt and, for that purpose, it relied upon the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs P.J. Chemicals Limited, reported in 1994 210 I.T.R.830.", "The revision petitions filed by the appellant under Section 264 of the Act stood allowed by the Commissioner of Income Tax by order dated April 30, 1997.", "Subsequent to the said order, on 19th September, 1997, this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) held that incentive subsidy admissible to Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited was a revenue receipt and, hence, it was liable to be taxed under Section 28 of the Act.", "This decision was based on a detailed examination of the Subsidy Scheme formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh.", "It stated that incentives would not be available unless and until production had commenced.", "In that matter, this Court found that incentives were given by refund of sales tax and by subsidy on power consumed for production.", "In short, on the facts and circumstances of that case, this 3/- - 3 - Court came to the conclusion that incentives were production incentives in the sense that the assessee was entitled to incentives only after entering into production.", "It was also clarified that the Scheme was not to make any payment directly or indirectly for setting up the industries.", "Following the judgement of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), delivered on 19th September, 1997, the Commissioner of Income Tax passed an order of rectification dated 30th March, 1998.", "The only ground on which rectification was sought to be made by the Commissioner of Income Tax was that Power Tariff Subsidy given to the appellant herein was admissible only after commencement of production.", "Consequently, according to the Commissioner of Income Tax, Power Tariff Subsidy constituted operational subsidies, they were not capital subsidies and, in the circumstances, applying the ratio of the judgement of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Commissioner of Income Tax sought to rectify its earlier order dated 30th April, 1997, by invoking Section 154 of the Act.", "Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant herein filed writ petitions before the Madras High Court, which took the view that, in view of the subsequent decision of this Court in the case of Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Department was entitled to invoke Section 154 of the Act and that the Commissioner was right in treating the receipt of subsidies as a 4/- - 4 - revenue receipt.", "This decision of the learned Single Judge has been affirmed by the Division Bench of the Madras High Court.", "Hence, these appeals by special leave.", "At the outset, we may state that, in these appeals, we are concerned with Assessment Years 1993-1994 and 1994- 1995.", "The short point involved in these appeals is, whether there existed a rectifiable mistake enabling the Department to invoke Section 154 of the Act? If one examines the Scheme of the Income Tax Act, as it stood at the material time, one finds a clear dichotomy between Section 154 and Section 147 of the Act.", "Section 154 deals with rectification of mistake.", "Section 154(1), inter alia, states that, with a view to rectify any mistake apparent from the record, an Income Tax Authority may amend any order passed by it under the provisions of the Act, whereas Section 147, inter alia, states that if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income charged to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of Sections 148 to 153, assess or re-assess such income which has escaped assessment and which comes to the notice of the Assessing Officer subsequently in the course of proceedings under the said Section.", "In the present case, the Department did not invoke Section 147 of the Act even when the matter was within the time limit prescribed.", "Be that as it may, in these appeals, we are concerned with the meaning of the words rectifiable mistake.", "5/- - 5 - On the facts of the present case, we are of the view that the present case involves change of opinion.", "In this connection, it must be noted that Government grants different types of subsidies to the entrepreneurs.", "The subsidy in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) was an incentive subsidy linked to production.", "In fact, in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra) at page 257, this Court categorically stated that the Scheme in hand was an incentive Scheme and it was not a Scheme for setting up the industries.", "In the said case, the salient features of the Scheme were examined and it was noticed that the Scheme formulated by the Government of Andhra Pradesh was admissible only after the commencement of production.", "In Income Tax matters, one has to examine the nature of the item in question, which would depend on the facts of each case.", "In the present case, we are concerned with power subsidy whereas in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited, reported in 2008 306 I.T.R.392, the subsidy given by the Government was for re-paying loans.", "Therefore, in each case, one as to examine the nature of subsidy.", "This exercise cannot be undertaken under Section 154 of the Act.", "There is one more reason why Section 154 in the present case was not invokable by the Department.", "Originally, the Commissioner of Income Tax, while passing orders under Section 264 of the Act on 30th April, 1997, had taken the view that the subsidy in question was a capital receipt not taxable under the Act.", "After the 6/- - 6 - judgement of this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited (supra), the Commissioner of Income Tax has taken the view that the subsidy in question was a revenue receipt.", "Therefore, in our view, the present case is a classic illustration of change of opinion.", "We may now deal with the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Limited vs Income Tax Officer, Calcutta Ors., reported in 1981 130 I.T.R. 710.", "In that case, the appellant- assessee derived profits from three industries, one of which qualified for special rebate under Part-I of Schedule-I to the Finance Act, 1965, for the Assessment Year 1966-1967.", "In granting this special rebate, the Income Tax Officer computed the profits attributable to that industry without deducting development rebate granted to the appellant.", "The Income Tax Officer sought to rectify the mistake under Section 154 of the Act by re- computing the profits by deducting the development rebate.", "The appellant filed a writ petition for setting aside the notice of rectification.", "It was held by the Calcutta High Court that since there was conflict of opinion on computation of profits of priority industry for granting tax relief which conflict was resolved by the Supreme Court later on for the subsequent Assessment Year 1967- 1968, such subsequent decision of the Supreme Court did not obliterate the conflict of opinion prior to it.", "It was held that, under Section 154 of the Act, rectification was not permissible on debatable issue.", "7/- - 7 - In Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Limited vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Ors., reported in 1988 174 I.T.R.579, the facts were as follows: the assessee claimed interest on advance tax paid by it in excess but beyond the due dates.", "The Income Tax Officer disallowed the claim of the assessee.", "The Commissioner of Income Tax upheld the claim of the assessee.", "Following the decision of a learned Single Judge of the Kerala High Court in A. Sethumadhavan vs Commissioner of Income Tax 1980 122 I.T.R.587, the Tribunal held that belated payments were not to be taken into account as advance tax for the purpose of Section 214 of the Income Tax Act, and, therefore, interest was not admissible for such belated payments.", "However, subsequently, a Division Bench of the same High Court in Santha section Shenoy vs Union of India 1982 135 I.T.R.39, reversed the decision of the learned Single Judge in A. Sethumadhavan (supra) and held that payment of tax made within the financial year, though not within specified dates, should be treated as advance tax and, consequently, the assessee was entitled to interest on excess tax paid.", "The assessee filed an application under Section 154 of the Act for rectification of the order of the Tribunal in view of the later decision in Santha section Shenoy (supra).", "On the facts of that case, the Kerala High Court came to the conclusion that the rectification contemplated under Section 154 must be a rectifiable mistake which is a mistake in the light of the law in force at the time when the order sought to be 8/- - 8 - rectified was passed.", "The Kerala High Court also examined the judgement of the Calcutta High Court in Jiyajeerao Cotton Mills Limited (supra) and held that the said decision was distinguishable.", "The High Court laid down a principle of law, which was applicable across the board, namely, payment of advance tax made within the financial year, though not within the specified dates, should be treated as advance tax and, therefore, the assessee was entitled to interest on excess tax paid.", "The judgement in Kil Kotagiri Tea and Coffee Estates Company Limited (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the present case, as stated above.", "Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Ors.", "(supra) was a case which dealt with production subsidy, Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited (supra) dealt with subsidy linked to loan re-payment whereas the present case deals with a subsidy for setting up an industry in the backward area.", "Therefore, in each case, one has to examine the nature of the subsidy.", "The judgement of this Court in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Ors.", "(supra) was on its own facts so also, the judgement of this Court in Ponni Sugars and Chemicals Limited (supra).", "The nature of the subsidies in each of the three cases is separate and distinct.", "There is no straight-jacket principle of distinguishing a capital receipt from a revenue receipt.", "It depends upon the circumstances of each case.", "As stated above, in Sahney Steel and Press Works Limited Ors.", "(supra), this Court has observed that the production incentive scheme is 9/- - 9 - different from the Scheme giving subsidy for setting up industries in backward areas.", "In the circumstances, the present case is an example of change of opinion.", "Therefore, the Department has erred in invoking Section 154 of the Act.", "Before concluding, we may state that in Deva Metal Powders (P) Limited vs Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, reported in 2008 (2) S.C.C.439, a Division Bench of this Court held that a rectifiable mistake must exist and the same must be apparent from the record.", "It must be a patent mistake, which is obvious and whose discovery is not dependant on elaborate arguments.", "To the same effect is the judgement of this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Calcutta vs A.S.C.U. Limited 2003 151 E.L.T. 481, wherein it has been held that a rectifiable mistake is a mistake which is obvious and not something which has to be established by a long drawn process of reasoning or where two opinions are possible.", "Decision on debatable point of law cannot be treated as mistake apparent from the record.", "For the afore-stated reasons, appellant-assessee succeeds, impugned judgement is set aside and, consequently, the appeals are allowed with no order as to costs.", "J. H. KAPADIA J. L. DATTU J. DEEPAK VERMA New Delhi, November 19, 2009."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Issue", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["None", "None", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
{"id": "KHC_KolHC_1980_69", "text": ["K. Basu, J. In this application the petitioner challenges three notices all dated the 17th October, 1978, and issued under Section 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act).", "The notices are in respect of the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, respectively.", "Although the main challenge is that the condition precedent for the applicability of Section 148 was not satisfied in the present case and it was pressed very strenuously and a large number of authorities were cited before me, the other point as to the limitation was also urged equally strenuously.", "Before I deal with the main challenge, I shall deal with the question of limitation.", "On the question of limitation, it was submitted that Section 153 of the Act provides the time-limit for the completion of assessments and reassessments.", "The issue of limitation, it was contended, is to be considered in the light of Section 153(2) of the Act.", "It was pointed out that separate time-limits for the completion of an assessment were provided for under Section 147(a) and under Section 147(b) of the Act.", "The submission on the question of limitation was on the basis that the proceedings, which were impugned in the present case, fell under Section 147(b) of the Act.", "This is because, although the point was not given up by Mr. Suhas Sen, appearing for the Revenue, he did not seriously try to justify the issue of the impugned notices under Section 147(a) of the Act.", "In other words, Mr. Sens main argument was an attempt to justify the issue of the notices under Section 147(b) of the Act, an argument with which I shall deal later on.", "On the question the following points were urged on both sides.", "What is the period of limitation for the completion of reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 147(b)/148 of the Act ? Whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147(b) were already barred by limitation as provided in Section 153(2)(b) of the Act, on or before 17th October, 1978, the date when the ITO issued notices under Section 142(1) of the Act? Where the reassessment proceedings cannot be completed because of the bar of limitation under Section 153(2)(b) of the Act, should this court go into the question of limitation or leave it to be considered by the ITO ? Has Section 153(2A)/153(3) any application in this case? Is there any ground or prayer regarding limitation ? With regard to the points (a) and (b) noted above, it was pointed out that no order for reassessment under Section 147(b) of the Act could be made after the expiry of-- four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, or (ii) one year from the date of service of the notices under Section 148, whichever is later.", "It was pointed out that in this case the impugned notices were admittedly served on or about the 22nd July, 1974.", "These notices relate to three assessment years, as I have already indicated, viz., 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73.", "Therefore, the four-year period expired on 31st March, 1975, 31st March, 1976, and 31st March, 1977, respectively.", "If the one-year period is to be counted from the date of service of the notice, that expired on 21st July, 1975.", "As such, it was pointed out 31st March, 1977, is in any event the last date for the completion of reassessment proceedings for the relevant years and any reassessment made after that date will be barred by limitation in view of Section 153(2)(b) of the Act.", "In the present case, the notice under Section 142(1) of the Act, asking for production of books of account and documents was issued only on 17th October, 1978, which shows that the reassessment proceedings under Section 147(b) of the Act had not been completed till then.", "Therefore, the reassessment proceedings in the present case is clearly barred by limitation.", "Therefore, it was submitted that the continuation of any further proceeding pursuant to the impugned notices was clearly illegal, unwarranted, without jurisdiction and void ab initio.", "Coming to the question, whether this court should go into the aspect of limitation in writ proceedings at this stage, reference was made to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of CIT v. Punam Chand Banthia 1978 112 ITR 727.", "In that case a notice issued under Section 148 of the Act and dated the 25th January, 1967, was challenged.", "The assessment was reopened for the assessment year 1962-63.", "The notice under Section 148 was issued on 25th January, 1967, which was within a period of four years from the assessment year 1962-63.", "As such, it was within the time prescribed under Section 149 of the Act.", "It seems that in the trial court the Department tried to justify the reopening both under Section 147(a) as also under Section 147(b) of the Act.", "The notice was quashed by the trial court.", "On appeal, the Division Bench appears to have found that the notice in that case was issued under Section 147(b) of the Act.", "This is clear from an observation at p. 730 of the report, which is as follows : For the reasons aforesaid it appears to us that the notice was issued under Section 148 on the basis of the information received as mentioned hereinbefore under Section 147(1)(b) of the Act.", "At pp.", "730-31 the following passage occurs : In the instant case a notice was served on or about 25th January, 1967, under Section 148 of the Act.", "Thereafter, the Income-tax Officer served another notice bearing G.I. Number IV(1)/719-B E dated February 1, 1971, under Section 139 of the Act requiring the respondent to produce or cause to be produced at his office at Number 40, Strand Road, Calcutta 1, on 9th February, 1971, at 11.30 A.M. accounts and documents mentioned on the reverse of the notice, viz., books of account, bank pass book and other related papers.", "This notice was served about 4 years after the service of the notice under Section 148 of the Act and no assessment or reassessment or recomputation could be made under Section 147 where the assessment, reassessment or recomputation is to be made under clause (b) of that section after the expiry of one year from the date of service of the notice under Section 148.", "It appears that this has clearly been the case in the instant matter.", "For the reasons aforesaid the appellants could not proceed with the reassessment as they purported to do by virtue of the notice dated 1st February, 1971.", "For the reasons stated hereinabove, we are of the view that there is no merit in the appeal.", "The appeal must fail and is hereby dismissed.", "On the strength of the above decision, it was contended by Mr. Sukumar Bhattacharyya and Mr. Poddar, who followed him, that in the above case the Division Bench went into the question of limitation in a writ application and on the finding that the assessment proceedings proposed to be undertaken pursuant to a notice under Section 148 of the Act was barred by limitation, upheld the finding of the trial court and dismissed the appeal.", "Lastly, it was pointed out that specific grounds have been taken in the petition with regard to the point of limitation and grounds (A) and (C) were referred to in this connection.", "There are also specific prayers for certain directions with regard to the question of limitation.", "Mr. Suhas Sen, appearing for the Revenue and dealing with this aspect of limitation, contended, in the first place, that the scope of writ jurisdiction in revenue matters is very limited.", "There is an adequate alternative remedy provided by the Act itself.", "Moreover, the Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned the courts against exercising the writ jurisdiction in matters where the court has to make assumptions of facts which remain to be investigated by the Revenue authorities.", "Shivram Poddar v. ITO .", "It was contended that the question whether the reassessment proceedings initiated against a person are barred by limitation can and ought to be raised before the ITO.", "It cannot be raised in writ proceedings.", "My attention was drawn to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO 1961 43 ITR 387.", "In that case, it was held that the question whether the assessment proceedings initiated against a person are barred by limitation under Section 34(3) of the Indian I.T. Act, 1922 (which corresponds to Section 153 of the Act), can and ought to be raised by the assessee before the ITO.", "That is not a point which can be legitimately agitated in writ proceedings.", "My attention was also drawn to another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt 1965 55 ITR 415.", "At p. 418 the following passage occurs.", "Mr. Pathak for the appellant attempted to argue that the notice issued against the appellant is, on the face of it, invalid, because it is barred by time.", "We did not allow Mr. Pathak to develop this point, because we took the view that a plea of this kind must ordinarily be taken before respondent Number 1 himself.", "The jurisdiction conferred on the High Court under article 226 is not intended to supersede the jurisdiction and authority of the Income-tax Officers to deal with the merits of all the contentions that the assessees may raise before them, and so it would be entirely inappropriate to permit an assessee to move the High Court under article 226 and contend that a notice issued against him is barred by time.", "That is a matter which the income-tax authorities must consider on the merits in the light of the relevant evidence.", "With regard to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of section section Gadgil v. Lal and Company , where the Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the Bombay High Court and held that the notice under Section 34 of the old Act was barred by limitation, it was pointed out that the decision is clearly distinguishable from the present case.", "It was pointed out that jurisdiction under Section 34 of the old Act could only be assumed by issuing a valid notice under Section 34 after complying with all the conditions precedent provided under the Act.", "One of the conditions precedent is that the notice must be issued within the time-limit provided by the statute.", "In that case, the Supreme Court held that the ITO could not commence proceedings under Section 34 of the old Act oh the ground that the issue of the notice itself was beyond the prescribed time-limit.", "It was submitted that the fundamental distinction between Gadgils case and the present case is that the initial assumption of jurisdiction by issuing the notice under the Act is not invalid because the notices were admittedly issued within the time prescribed.", "What the petitioner in this case is challenging is not the assumption of jurisdiction but the exercise of jurisdiction on the ground that the conclusion of the assessment proceeding is barred by limitation.", "This question, it was pointed out by Mr. Sen, should be left to be decided by the ITO on the strength of the two Lalji Haridas cases mentioned above.", "Lastly, it was pointed out that the two decisions in Lalji Haridas v. ITO and Lalji Haridas v. R. H. Bhatt , mentioned above, are decisions of five learned judges of the Supreme Court and should prevail over the decision in Gadgils case , which is the judgment of three learned judges only.", "After giving my anxious consideration to the facts of the present case and on the authorities cited before me, I have come to the conclusion that the reassessment proceedings in the instant case are clearly barred by limitation.", "As already indicated, the last date for completion of the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices expired on 31st March, 1977.", "The notice dated the 17th October, 1978, cannot enlarge the period of limitation as it was issued beyond the period of four years from the last assessment year.", "Irrespective of the contention of Mr. Suhas Sen whether this question should be gone into by the writ court or should be left to the ITO, the stark fact remains that all the reassessment proceedings pursuant to the impugned notices are clearly barred by limitation.", "That being so, no other question really arises for consideration.", "Having regard to the elaborate arguments advanced from the Bar, I shall very briefly record the contentions on merits and refer to the authorities cited in support thereof.", "With regard to the merits of the question of reopening of the assessment before I deal with them it will be useful to set out the recorded reasons for the relevant assessment years, namely, 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, which were, by consent of parties, tendered and forms part of the records of this case.", "The recorded reasons by the ITO dated the 28th June, 1974, are as follows: The assessee started construction of his house properties at 106/E, Amherst Street, Calcutta-9, in April, 1968, and completed the same in July, 1971.", "This is a four-storeyed house property measuring about 950 sq.", "in each floor.", "The assessee claimed that the total cost of construction was only Rs. 61,000, vide O s (70-71) dated Aprils, 1973.", "This sum was explained by him to be gift received from his father and grandmother.", "No valuation report estimating cost of construction was filed nor any enquiry has been made from the ITO concerned who made the assessment up to 1972-73 assessment year, accepting the assessees cost of construction.", "To the best of my knowledge and estimate the total cost of construction incurred by the assessee is not less than Rs. 1 lakh only, in view of the total covered space and period of construction and with reference to the valuation report for wealth-tax purpose filed by the assessee.", "Secondly, all the gifts of Rs. 61,000 were not withdrawn from his bank account (which were initially deposited in the bank fixed deposit account).", "As such I have reason to believe that the assessee has unexplained investment to the extent of Rs. 60,000 (approximate), representing his income from undisclosed sources which escaped assessment for his failure to file the true return of income.", "Since the major construction was made during 1969-70 to 1971-72, this year I considered that the escaped income, Rs. 60,000, may be reassessed under Section 148/147(a) equally in three assessment years, i. e., 1970-71 and 1971-72, 1972-73.", "So issue notice u section 148 for 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73 assessment years at once.", "Inspector to enquire about the cost of construction only.", "Mr. Bhattacharyya, appearing for the petitioner, relied on a number of decisions in support of his contention that this reopening could be justified only under Section 147(b) and not under Section 147(a) of the Act.", "As I have already indicated Mr. Suhas Sen for the Revenue, without conceding the point, had only sought to justify the notice under Section 147(b) of the Act.", "I shall merely mention the cases on this point and not deal with them.", "Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on a decision of the Patna High Court in the case of Durga Sharan Udho Prasad v. CIT 1976 103 ITR 270.", "He also referred to the judgment of a Division Bench of this court in the case of ITO v. Selected Dalurband Coal Company P. Limited .", "He also referred to the case of ITO v. Madnani Engineering Works Limited , the case of Gemini Leather Stores v. ITO and the case of Ahmedabad Cotton Mfg.", "Company Limited v. Union of India 1914 95 ITR 639 (Guj).", "Since Mr. Sen for the Revenue really sought to justify the reopening of the assessment under Section 147(b) of the Act, I refrain from dealing with these authorities, mentioned above, in any detail.", "Mr. Bhattacharyya, for the assessee, sought to contend that this is merely a change of opinion on the part of the ITO and no fresh information.", "In support of this proposition Mr. Bhattacharyya relied on a decision in the case of Jamna Lal Kabra v. ITO 1968 69 ITR 461 (All).", "Reference was also made to a decision of the Patna High Court on the question of reasons recorded in the case of C. M. Rajgharia v. ITO 1975 98 ITR 486 (Pat).", "I do not see how this case is of any relevance to the present case.", "On the question of what is information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act, reference was also made to the decisions of this court in Ballarpur Paper and Straw Board Mills Limited v. CIT and in the case of Grindlays Bank Limited v. ITO .", "On the question of valuation report my attention was drawn to a decision of this court in the case of Murarka Paints and Varnish Works Limited v. ITO 1978 114 ITR 480.", "Mr. Suhas Sen, appearing for the Revenue, placed very strong reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Kalyanji Mavji Company v. CIT 1976 102 ITR 287.", "In that case it was held that Section 34(1)(b) of the old Act, which corresponds to Section 147(b) of the Act, would apply to the following categories of cases (headnote): Where the information is as to the true and correct state of the law derived from relevant judicial decisions Where in the original assessment the income liable to tax has escaped assessment due to oversight, inadvertence or a mistake committed by the Income-tax Officer Where the information is derived from an external source of any kind : such external source would include discovery of new and important matters or knowledge of fresh facts which were not present at the time of original assessment and Where the information may be obtained even from the record of the original assessment from an investigation of the materials on the record or the facts disclosed thereby or from other enquiry or research into facts or law.", "Mr. Sen sought to rely upon another decision of the Supreme Court in the case of R. K. Malhotra, ITO v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai 1977 109 ITR 537.", "In that case, it was held that the audit department was the proper machinery to scrutinise the assessments of ITOs and point out the errors, if any, in law, and that the intimation received by the ITO constituted information within the meaning of Section 147(b) in consequence of which the ITO could reopen the assessment.", "On the strength of these authorities of the Supreme Court, Mr. Sen sought to contend that a mistake in the original assessment could be an information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act.", "Mr. Poddar, who followed Mr. Bhattacharyya in reply, drew my attention to the recent decision of the Supreme Court, Indian and Eastern Newspaper Society v. CIT 1979 119 ITR 996.", "As will appear from page 1007 of the report, the Supreme Court, in the above case, held that its earlier decision in the case of R. K. Malhotra v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai and the decision in Kalyanji Mavji Company v. CIT , were wrongly decided.", "Mr. Bhattacharyya drew my attention to para.", "1004 of the report which is in the following terms: In the present case, an internal audit party of the income-tax department expressed the view that the receipts from the occupation of the conference hall and rooms did not attract Section 10 of the Act and that the assessment should have been made under Section 9.", "While Sections 9 and 10 can be described as law, the opinion of the audit party in regard to their application is not law.", "It is not a declaration by a body authorised to declare the law.", "That part alone of the note of an audit party which mentions the law which escaped the notice of the ITO constitutes information within the meaning of Section 147(b) the part which embodies the opinon of the audit party in regard to the application or interpretation of the law cannot be taken into account by the ITO.", "In every case, the ITO must determine for himself what is the effect and consequence of the law mentioned in the audit note and whether in consequence of the law which has now come to his notice he can reasonably believe that income has escaped assessment.", "The basis of his belief must be the law of which he has now become aware.", "The opinion rendered by the audit party in regard to the law cannot, for the purpose of such belief, add to or colour the significance of such law.", "In short, the true evaluation of the law in its bearing on the assessment must be made directly and solely by the ITO.", "In my view, this case is a clear authority for the proposition that an interpretation of the law by an audit party cannot be an information within the meaning of Section 147(b) of the Act.", "This case has expressly held that the two earlier decisions in the case of Kalyanji Mavji Company v. CIT and the case of R. K. Malhotra v. Kasturbhai Lalbhai , were wrongly decided.", "Mr. Suhas Sen for the Revenue submitted that these decisions of the Supreme Court did not stand in the way of his client because, in the instant case, the information on which the ITO has sought to act was not from any internal source but from an outside source, viz., the records of the wealth-tax proceedings of the petitioner.", "I am merely recording these contentions because, as I have already indicated, in view of my finding on the question of limitation, I do not feel it necessary to make any pronouncement on this aspect of the matter.", "Before I conclude, I may record that a large number of other authorities were cited mainly on behalf of the petitioner, which I do not consider it necessary to deal with.", "In the result, this application succeeds and the rule must be made absolute.", "There will be a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to forthwith recall, cancel and withdraw the three impugned notices dated July 12, 1974, for the assessment years 1970-71, 1971-72 and 1972-73, respectively, and to forbear from giving effect thereto in any manner whatsoever.", "There will be no order as to costs."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "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", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "Fact", "Statute", "Fact", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "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", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Issue", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2014_1227", "text": ["This Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenges the notice dated 26th March 2003 issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act).", "The impugned notice dated 26 th March 2003 seeks to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94.", "2 On 30th December 1993, the Petitioner have filed its Return of Income under Section 139(1) of the Act for the Assessment Year 1993-94, declaring total income of Rs.4.64 lakhs.", "This was subsequently revised to Rs.8 lakhs in a Revised Return of Income filed under Section 139(5) of the Act on 13th May, 1994.", "In October 1995, the Assessing Officer completed assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 1993-94.", "R.JOSHI 1 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw During assessment proceeding, specific query was made by the Assessing Officer with regard to the depreciation claimed by the Petitioner.", "The Petitioner filed details in respect of depreciation claimed.", "The Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order passed in October 1995 allowed the depreciation only to the extent of 25 in respect of three items where 100 depreciation was claimed.", "Besides, other issues were also considered by the Assessing Officer and the Petitioners income was determined at Rs.10.30 lakhs.", "3 On 1st August 1996, a search was conducted on the Petitioners premises under Section 132 of the Act.", "Consequent to a search, a notice dated 7th February 1997 was issued under Section 158BC of the Act, directing the Petitioner to file return of income for the block period 1st April 1986 to 1st August 1996, declaring its undisclosed income.", "The Petitioner duly complied with the directions and on 30 th September 1997, the Assessing Officer passed an order for the block period from 1 st April, 1986 to 1st August, 1996 i.e. Assessment Year 1987-88 to 1997-98.", "In the order dated 30th September 1997, in respect of Block Assessments additions were made by the Assessing Officer on account of excess rate of depreciation claimed by the Petitioner.", "4 Being aggrieved by the order dated 30th September, 1997, the Petitioner preferred an appeal to the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Tribunal).", "On 25th October 2002, the Tribunal allowed the Petitioners appeal for the block period 1st April,1986 to 1st August, 1996 (Assessment Year 1987-88 to 1997-98) and deleted the entire addition made on dis- allowance of depreciation by the Assessing Officer.", "R.JOSHI 2 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw 5 Consequent to the above order dated 25 th October, 2002, the Assessing Officer issued impugned notice dated 26th March, 2003 seeking to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94.", "6 In support of the impugned notice dated 26 th March, 2003, the Assessing Officer furnished to the Petitioner, the following recorded reasons :- M section SHREE KRISHNA PETRO YARNS LTD.", "ASSESSMENT YEAR 1993-94 Date: 26.03.03.", "A search seizure action u s 132 of the I. T. Act, 1961 was conducted on M section Shree Krishna Polyster Limited 01.08.1996.", "The assessee had filed nil return for the block period in response to notice u section 158BC.", "The block assessment in this case was completed on 30.09.1997 estimating the total undisclosed income of Rs.38,65,986/- for the block period in A. Y. 1993-94.", "Being aggrieved, the assessee went in first appeal before the Hon.", "ITAT against the above assessment order.", "The Hon. ITAT has given relief to the assessee relying on various judicial pronouncements viz. 1 CIT v section Vinod D. Ghodawat (163 CTR 432) (Bom).", "2 CIT v section Dr. M.K.E. Memon (112 Taxmen 96) (Bom).", "3 DCIT v section Shaw Wallace Company (248 ITR 81) (Cal.).", "4 CIT v section Rajendra Prasad Gupta (248 ITR 350)(Raj.).", "5 Bhagwat Prasad Kedia v section CIT (248 ITR 562) (Cal.).", "6 CIT v section Ravi Kant Jain (250 ITR 141) (Del.).", "7 Vrsihali Hotels Pvt Limitedv section ACIT (66 TTJ 693) (ITAT, Pune).", "8 Ravi Prakash Agarwal v section ACIT (67 TTJ 234) (ITAT, Delhi).", "The Hon. ITAT has also given a clear cut finding that: the rate at which depreciation is permissible on a particular asset is a matter to be considered in the regular assessment.", "Even if the assessee has claimed higher depreciation than what is permissible, the same can not be said to be undisclosed income for the purpose of the block assessment.", "R.JOSHI 3 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw Keeping in view the provisions of section 153(3)(ii) Explanation 2, it is proposed to re-open the assessment of the assessee for A. Y. 1993-94 u section 148 of the I. T. Act, 1961 as income of Rs.38,65,986/- for A. Y. 1993-94 has escaped assessment.", "In this regard, a letter dated 11.03.03 has been put up requesting CIT(C)-IIIs sanction u section 151.", "CIT(C)-III has accorded his approval for issuance of notice u section 148 vide letter dated 24.03.03.", "Accordingly, notice u section 148 is issued.", "7 The Petitioner by its letter dated 23 rd November, 2004, objected to the reasons recorded for issuing the impugned notice dated 26th March, 2003.", "The primary objections to re-opening of the assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94, were as under:- (a) the impugned notice is time barred (b) there was no failure to disclose true and complete facts necessary for assessment.", "Therefore, the re-opening of assessment beyond a period of four years from the end of the Assessment order is without jurisdiction and (c) there was no reason to believe that the income chargeable to tax has escaped the assessment inasmuch as the issue of depreciation was subject matter of consideration while passing the Assessment order under Section 143(3) of the Act.", "8 On 6th December 2004, the Assessing Officer by order rejected the Petitioners objections.", "The order dated 6 th December 2004 held that the impugned notice dated 26th March 2006 has been correctly issued in view of the finding recorded in the order of the Tribunal dated 25 th October 2002.", "R.JOSHI 4 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw 9 Mr. Pardiwala, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner in support of the Petition submits as under:- The impugned notice dated 26th March 2003 is time barred as it seeks to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94 under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act i.e. almost nine years from the end of the relevant assessment year.", "The impugned notice is in the face of and in defiance of the period of limitation provided in Section 149 of the Act The revenue seeks to extend the period of limitation provided under Section 149 of the Act on a perverse reading of the order dated 25 th October 2002 of the Tribunal in Block proceedings that it renders a finding which is being given effect to by the impugned notice dated 26th March 2003.", "It is submitted that there is no such finding in order dated 25th October 2002 of the Tribunal which extend the period of limitation by virtue of Section 150 of the Act and In any view of the matter, the impugned notice dated 26th March 2003 being beyond a period of four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year i.e. 1993-94 had to satisfy the conditions in the first proviso to Section 147 of the Act viz. a failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for the assessment.", "This not having been alleged in the impugned notice ( the reasons in support of the notice), it would fail to satisfy the jurisdictional requirement making the impugned notice bad in law.", "10 As against the above, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel R.JOSHI 5 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw appearing for the Respondent-Revenue in support of the impugned notice dated 26th March 2003 submits as under:- The impugned notice dated 26th March 2003 is within time as it has been issued to give effect to or in consequence of a finding recorded in the order dated 25th October 2002 of the Tribunal that the claim of the depreciation cannot be considered in Block assessment proceeding but only in a regular assessment.", "Thus, the period to issue notice for re-opening gets extended by a virtue of Section 150 of the Act and There was a failure on the part of the Petitioner to make true and full disclosure at the time of regular assessment proceeding leading to the Assessment order in October 1995 for the Assessment Year 1993-94.", "Thus, the condition precedent to issue the impugned notice was satisfied.", "In view of the above, it is submitted that the Petition be dismissed.", "11 It would be convenient to reproduce the relevant Sections of the Act which arises for our consideration in the context of the facts and the submission made before us.", "The relevant Sections are as under:- Income escaping assessment.", "Section 147:- If the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for any assessment year, he may, subject to the provisions of sections 148 to 153, assessee or reassess such income and also any other income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment and which comes to his notice subsequently in the course of the proceedings under this section, or recompute the loss or the depreciation allowance or any other allowance, as the case may be, for the assessment year concerned.", "R.JOSHI 6 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw Provided that where an assessment under sub-section (3) of section 143 or this section has been made for the relevant assessment year, no action shall be taken under this section after the expiry of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment for such assessment year by reason of the failure on the part of the assessee to make a return under Section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 or to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for assessment, for that assessment year.", "(emphasis supplied) Issue of notice where income has escaped assessment.", "Section 148 :- Before making the assessment, reassessment or recomputation under section 147 , the Assessing Officer shall serve on the assessee a notice requiring him to furnish within such period, as may be specified in the notice, a return of his income or the income of any other person in respect of which he is assessable under this Act during the previous year corresponding to the relevant assessment year, in the prescribed form and verified in the prescribed manner and setting forth such other particulars as may be prescribed and the provisions of this Act shall, so far as may be, apply accordingly as if such return were a return required to be furnished under section 139 Provided that Time limit for notice.", "Section 149 (1) No notice under Section148 shall be issued for the relevant assessment year-.", "(a) if four years have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year, unless the case falls under clause (b) (b) if four years, but not more than six years, have elapsed from the end of the relevant assessment year unless the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to one lakh rupees or more for that year.", "(c ) R.JOSHI 7 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw Provisions for cases where assessments is in pursuance of an order on appeal, etc.", "Section 150:-(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.", "(2) 12 The law with regard to re-opening of assessment is fairly settled.", "A re-opening of assessment can only be done if the Assessing Officer has reason to believe that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment on the basis of some tangible material.", "However, such re- opening of assessment is not in the nature of review and, therefore, such re-opening is not permissible on mere change of opinion.", "Moreover, in cases where re-opening of assessment is sought to be done beyond the period of four years from the end of the relevant assessment year, an additional requirement is to be satisfied viz: failure on the part of the assessee to truly and fully disclose all material facts for assessment.", "13 So far as limitation for issue of re-opening of assessment is concerned, Section 149 of the Act provides that the normal period for re- opening of assessment is four years from the end of the relevant Assessment Years.", "This period is extended to six years where the income which is likely to escape the assessment is Rs.1 lakh or more and to sixteen years, if it relates to income located outside India.", "Section 150 of the Act does away with the above bar of limitation, where the re-opening R.JOSHI 8 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw notice under Section 148 of the Act has been issued in consequence of or to give effect to a finding or directions contained in an order passed by an Appellate Authority.", "The aforesaid provisions only extend the period of limitation but otherwise there is no change in the conditions precedent to be satisfied under the Act to issue a re-opening notice under Sections 147 and 148 of the Act.", "Thus, there is no change otherwise in the substantive conditions to issue a re-opening notice under Section 148 of the Act.", "14 In this case, the impugned notice is issued after a period of almost nine years from the end of the relevant Assessment Years i.e. 1993- The reasons in support of the impugned notice as reproduced herein above, is the finding in the order of the Tribunal dated 25 th October 2002.", "We find that the order of the Tribunal dated 25 th October 2002 was dealing with appeal for block assessment i.e. 1 st April 1986 to 1st August 1996.", "The Tribunal by its order dated 25 th October 2002 while allowing the appeal of the Petitioner followed the decision of this Court in CIT v section Dr. M. K. E. Memon - to hold that the scope of the block assessment is only to assess the undisclosed income for the block period and not the total income or loss of the previous year, which exercise is to be carried out in a regular assessment under Section 143(3) of the Act.", "It was pointed out that the scope of regular assessment is to ensure that there is no undue payment of tax while block assessment is only to assess the undisclosed income.", "It was held that the question of rate of depreciation cannot be subject of examination in block assessment as otherwise, there would be no finality to the regular assessment already completed prior to the search.", "The following observations in order dated 25 th October, 2002 of the Tribunal, being relied upon by the Revenue as findings are as R.JOSHI 9 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw under:- The rate at which depreciation is permissible on a particular asset is a matter to be considered in the regular assessment.", "Even if the assessee has claimed higher depreciation than what is permissible, the same cannot be said to be undisclosed income for the purpose of block assessment.", "We may clarify here that we are not expressing any opinion about the rate of depreciation which is allowable on the assets under consideration.", "15 At this stage, Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue states that the revenue is relying upon the aforesaid finding alone to re-open the assessment for the Assessment Year 1993-94 by the impugned notice.", "Mr. Suresh Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the Revenue concedes that there are no directions in the order of the Tribunal dated 25th October 2002 being relied upon for the issue of impugned notice.", "However, it is submitted that the aforesaid finding in the order of Tribunal dated 25 th October, 2002 entitles the Assessing Officer to issue the impugned notice.", "16 Therefore, the issue for our examination is whether there is any finding in the order of the Tribunal dated 25 th October, 2002 which is being given effect to and or as consequence thereof, the impugned notice has been issued.", "It is only when the answer to the above question is in the affirmative i.e. there is a finding that the issue of impugned notice would be saved from the bar of limitation by virtue of Section 150(1) of the Act.", "17 The issue of what is a finding in an adjudicatory appellate order is no longer res integra.", "The Supreme Court while dealing with a provision similar to Section 150 of the Act found in Section 34(3) of the R.JOSHI 10 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw Income Tax Act, 1922 in ITO v section Murlidar B. Deo 52 ITR 335 has explained the meaning of finding thus:- 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 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 aforesaid meaning to the word finding was rendered in the following contextual facts:- Income Tax Office had issued a re-opening notice, seeking to re- open assessment for the Assessment Year 1949-50.", "Consequently, the Assessment Order was also passed.", "In appeal, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that addition of interest made for the Assessment Year 1949-50 was incorrect and if at all it had to be included in the Assessment Year 1948-49.", "It was consequent to the aforesaid order of the Appellate Authority that notice for re-opening were for 1948-49 on 5 th December 1957.", "The assessee therefore filed a Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground that the notice dated 5 th December 1957 seeking to re-open the assessment for Assessment Year 1948-49 is time barred under Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922.", "The revenue contended that the Appellate Authority in his order for the Assessment Year 1949-50 had given a finding that the interest is chargeable to tax for Assessment Year 1948-49.", "This was not accepted by the Supreme Court R.JOSHI 11 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw on the basis of the meaning of finding given by it i.e. it was not necessary for the disposal of the appeal for Assessment Year 1949-50 to give a finding that the income is chargeable to tax in Assessment Year1948-49.", "The Supreme Court also made the following further observations with regard to the words in consequence of or to give effect to which was in Section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 and even incorporated in Section 150 of the Act as under:- 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.", "The words in consequence of or to give effect to do not create any difficulty, for they have to be collated with, and cannot enlarge, the scope of the finding or direction under the proviso.", "If the scope is limited as aforesaid, the said words also must be related to the scope of the findings and directions.", "18 Our attention was also invited to the decision of this Court in Lotus Investments Limited, v section G. Y. Wagh, Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Others - 2007 288 ITR 459.", "In this case, the Revenue had issued notice on 30th March 2006, seeking to re-open assessment for the Assessment Year 1988-89 to 1999-2000 i.e. beyond a period of six years from the end of the relevant Assessment Year.", "So far as the Assessment Years 1988-89 to 1999-2000 is concerned, the revenue relied upon the order of the CIT(A) dated 24 th December 2004 wherein it was observed as under:- The Assessing Officer is free to look into and consider these disallowances under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, in the relevant assessment years in terms of section 150(1) read with Explanation 2 of section 153 in respect of deletion of both amounts made in this order.", "R.JOSHI 12 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw The Assessing Officer relied upon the aforesaid observations to support the notices issued on the ground that there were finding directions given by the CIT(A).", "This Court followed the Apex Courts decision in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (supra) to hold that there was no finding given in the CIT(A) order.", "So far as directions were concerned, this Court followed the decision in Rajinder Nath v section CIT 120 ITR 14 to hold that the above observations were not directions to issue a notice but merely allowed the Assessing Officer to take a look into the issue and decide.", "This is different from directions.", "In view of the above, this Court held that the notice for re-opening are beyond the period provided under Section 149 of the Act and Section 150 of the Act would have no application as the CIT(A) had not given any finding and or directions to re-open the assessment.", "In any case, in the present case the revenue has pegged its case only on a finding in the order of the Tribunal dated 25October 2002 for the issue of the impugned notice.", "We are not concerned with the meaning and scope of the word directions in the present case.", "19 In view of the above and particularly the law laid down by the Apex Court in Murlidhar Bhagwan Das (supra), it is very clear that the Tribunal in its order dated 25 th October 2002 was concerned with an appeal from orders passed in block Assessment and held that the ambit scope for assessment for the block period under Chapter XIVB is only to assess the undisclosed income for the block period and not for the total income or loss suffered in the previous year which is subject matter of regular assessment.", "The only finding of the Tribunal in its order dated 25 th October 2002 is that the extent of claim for depreciation made by the R.JOSHI 13 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw assessee petitioner would not be a subject matter of enquiry in the block assessments.", "This is for the reason that the claim for higher depreciation cannot be said to be undisclosed income for the purpose of block assessment.", "The Tribunal had in its order dated 25 th October 2002 while dealing with order passed in a block assessment had no occasion to examine whether or not the depreciation as claimed was permissible.", "It may also be pointed out that the Tribunal in its order dated 25 th October 2002 has recorded a finding of fact that no material was found during the course of search to establish that the claim for depreciation made was incorrect.", "Therefore, we are of the view that there is no finding given by the Tribunal in the order dated 25th October 2002 which would enable the Assessing Officer to extend the period of limitation as provided under Section 150 of the Act for the purpose of issuing impugned notice in respect of Assessment Year 1993-94.", "On this ground alone, the impugned notice is not sustainable as it is clearly time barred.", "20 In any view of the matter, the reasons in support of the impugned notice as reproduced herein above, do not indicate even remotely that there has been any failure on the part of the Petitioner to disclose truly and fully all material facts necessary for the assessment.", "This itself is fatal to the impugned notice as all the other conditions precedent to issue of re-opening notice under Sections 147/148 of the Act have to be satisfied.", "This even in cases where Section 150 of the Act is invoked as Section 150 of the Act merely extends the period of limitation but does not absolve the revenue from satisfaction of other conditions.", "21 Moreover, during the assessment proceeding under Section 143(3) of the Act, the Assessing Officer called for details relating to the R.JOSHI 14 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 ::: wp-3314-2004.sxw assets available and the claim for depreciation.", "The Petitioner responded to the same and was subject matter of consideration by the Assessing Officer inasmuch as he disallowed the claim of 100 depreciation in respect of three items i.e. Semi Conductor, Comber Machine restricting it to 25.", "It would thus be seen that the Assessing Officer had applied his mind to the depreciation claimed by the Petitioner during regular assessment proceeding.", "Thus, the impugned notice is also not sustainable as being issued on mere change of opinion.", "22 In view of the aforesaid reasons, the impugned notice dated 26 March, 2003 is quashed and set aside and Petition is allowed.", "S.KULKARNI,J.) (M.S.SANKLECHA,J.) R.JOSHI 15 of 15 ::: Uploaded on - 21/08/2014 ::: Downloaded on - 02/08/2016 13:33:45 :::"], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "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"], "overall": ["Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None"]}
{"id": "SC_2007_389", "text": ["APPEAL NO. 2746 OF 2007 Arising out of S.L.P. (Civil) Number26831 of 2004 B. SINHA, J : Leave granted.", "The Appellant herein is an assessee under the Income Tax Act.", "It is an HUF.", "For the assessment year 1998-99, an income of Rs.30,80,030/- was declared by it, inter alia, showing a long term capital loss of Rs.34,12,000/- .", "The said capital loss was said to have arisen on account of sale of property being land and building known as Jekison Niwas, 220 Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai.", "Admittedly, the Appellant had 1/4th share therein.", "It entered into an agreement for sale of undivided 1/4th share in the said property for a sum of Rs.8 crores with one M s Layer Exports Pvt.", "Ltd For the purpose of valuation of the said property, one Shri U.D. Chande, a registered valuer, was appointed.", "On 01.04.1981, the value of the said 1/4th share in the property was determined at Rs. 2,52,00,000/-.", "In the said valuation report, it was stated that the purpose was valuation for computation of capital gains.", "The report was filed in the prescribed form.", "All the required particulars information were furnished.", "In the said report, description of the property, location thereof, whether situated in residential commercial mixed industrial area, and classification thereof were shown.", "As regard, proximity to civic amenities, it was stated that the plot is very close to Raj Bhawan.", "All other amenities except cinema were within 1 k.m. Means and proximity to surface communication by which the locality is served were also stated.", "All other requisite particulars, as specified, were stated.", "After noticing that the total development area of land is 4605 sq.", "yds with an F.S.I. of 1.33, it was stated I am informed that the land was reserved for a vegetable retail market before 1965.", "I am of the opinion that it is possible to get this reservation modified or waived and hence I consider the effect of this on the value of the property negligible.", "In any event there will be no loss of S.I. even if reservation is retained for the purpose of my valuation of share in the property.", "Based on the sales instances the prices given in Accommodation Times I am of the opinion and feel that the rate of the Residential Apartment in the area in 1981 would be in between Rs.2500 to Rs.3000/- per FT.", "I think that the lower value of Rs.2500 per S.FT.", "as fair and reasonable.", "This rate will be fair and reasonable for the share of property belonging to Late Mr. Natwarlal Shroff Late Mrs. Sonabai Shroff as the title of their holding is clear and Marketable.", "I am appointed to give value of the share of the property belonging to the Late Mrs. Sonabai Shroff i.e. 1/4th share of the property.", "As regards (valuation of) 1/4th share of Mr. Bhagwandas Dwarkadas Shroff and 1/4th share of Mr. Madhavdas Dwarkadas I am informed that there is suit pending in courts regarding title to the property and tenancy rights.", "Each of the other holders will fetch the reports of valuation for their respective shares separately.", "In 1981 the cost of construction may be taken at Rs.275/- per S.FT.", "Further, considering the Builders Profit Rs.700/- per S.Ft. and deducting both the value of cost of construction and the Builders profits from the above stated works out to Rs.1,525/- per S.FT of saleable area.", "Considering that it is a jointly owned property, I take it as fair and reasonable.", "As these rate the value of the share of the property belonging to late Mr. Natwarlal Shroff comes to - 16536.5 x 1525.00 Rs.2,52,18,165.05 Say Rs.2,50,00,000.00 .(I) Though the building itself is old and dilapidated, I consider the scrap value of it at Rs.50/- per S.FT.", "As the Built up area is 16000 S.FT., the scrap value of structure comes to Rs.8,00,000.00.", "The value of the share of Late Mr. Natwarlal Shroff of this scrap value is Rs,8,00,000.00.", "The value of the share of Late Mr. Natwarlal Shroff of this scrap value is Rs. 2,00,000.00 .(II) Therefore value of the property belonging to Late Mr. Nartwarlal Shroff works out to (I)(II).", "Rs.2,50,00,000.00Rs.2,00,000.00 Rs.2,52,00,000.00 I therefore value the share of the above property belonging to Late Mr. Natwarlal Shroff at Rs.2,52,00,000.00 (Rs. Two Crore Fifty Two Lakhs Only) as on 1/4/81 As regard existence of sale instances, however, although a sheet was said to have been attached thereto, no such thing was done.", "As against column 40, namely, if sale instances are not available or not relied upon, the basis of arriving at the land rate, it was stated : In addition to Sales Instances Accommodation Times are used.", "The Valuer in his report, inter alia, stated : When I inspected the premises I found the building in a dilapidated condition.", "In fact part of the building has collapsed.", "I am informed that in 1981 the building was in similar condition I am therefore inclined to consider only the scrap value of the building and the value of only land as the basis of my valuation.", "In the year 1997 by reason of a consent decree passed in Suit Number3845 of 1997, 1/4th undivided share in Jekison Niwas was sold and possession was transferred to M s Layer Export Pvt.", "Limited against final payment.", "The return filed by the Appellant on 30.09.1998 came up for scrutiny before the First Respondent, who in exercise of its power under Section 55A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, the Act) referred the matter for valuation of the said 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant as on 01.04.1981 to the District Valuation Officer whereupon the District Valuation Officer submitted a report dated 29.06.2000 wherein the 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant in the said property as on 01.04.1981 was determined at Rs.1,14,92,907, the basis whereof is said to be as under : Name of Property Land along with Bungalow known as Jekinson Niwas 220-Walkeshwar Road, Mumbai-400 006 Land Area as per records 5250 sq.", "4389.63 sq.", "Land rate adopted Rs.12842/- sq.", "(897/- x 1.33 x 10.764) Consideration of land component Rs.5,63,71,628 (A) Built-up Area existing as on 1-4.81 (Gr.", "I upper floor bungalow structures) 16,000 sq.", "Salvage Scrap value (16000 sq.", "ft Rs.100/- sq.", "ft.) as adopted by the Regd.", "Valuer Rs.16,00,000/- (B) Total consideration (A)(B) Rs.5,79,71,628/- 1/4th share of the above (6) consideration as Fair Market Value Rs.1,44,92,907/- Say Rs.144.93 lakhs For the aforementioned purpose the land rate was taken at Rs.897/- sq.", "on the basis of the following sale instances : Sl.", "No. Date of Sale Name of Property Consideration Area Rate 27.11.79 Land Survey Number 218 (Pt) Street Number25, 27, 27(A) at Narayan Dhabolkar Rd.", "Off N.S. Rd., Mumbai Rs.3,15,00,000/ 7114.08 sq.", "Rs.4428/- sq.", "mt. 19.10.82 Flat Number302, 3rd floor at Sanudeep CHS Limited Plot No.631 (Pt) at Altamount Road, Mumbai Rs.68,00,000/- 346.60 sq.", "Rs.1823/- sq.", "By comparing and considering the sale instances property with the subject property after taking into account size-shape, time-gap, location-situation and also the factors like physical, social legal and economical, the land FSI rate as on 1.4.81 is Rs.897 sq.", "ft is considered to be fair and reasonable.", "As regard the Registered Valuers Report, whereupon the Appellant relied upon, the District Valuation Officer commented : 8.0 Comments on Regd.", "Valuers report : The assessee have submitted Regd.", "Valuer Shri Uday D Chandes report dated 25.6.96 valuing the subject property 1/4th share as Rs.2,52,00,000/- as on 1.4.81.", "The Regd.", "Valuer has simply adopted the rates published in local paper (Accommodation Times).", "These rates cannot be considered as authentic.", "The valuer has not based his valuation on any actual sales instance.", "As such, the Regd.", "Valuers report cannot be accepted.", "The First Respondent having regard to the aforementioned valuation report of the District Valuation Officer passed an order of assessment on 08.08.2000 holding : The cost of acquisition as on 1.4.1981 is therefore, adopted at Rs.1,44,92,907/- as per the report of the Dist.", "Valuation Officer-II, Mumbai.", "Accordingly, the Long Term Capital Gain is worked out as under : Less: Cost of acquisition as on 1.4.81 as per the Dept.", "Valuers report as discussed is Rs. 1,44,92,907 Indexed cost 1,44,907 x 331 100 Rs.8,00,00,000 Rs.4,79,71,522 3,20,28,478 Less Expenses incurred in relation to sale of property : Solicitors fees : Rs.2,50,000 Brokerage : Rs.8,00,000 -------------- LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS Rs. 10,50,000 ------------------- Rs.3,09,78,478 The claim of the assessee for deduction of Rs.22,200/- being expenses incurred on account of fees paid to Uday Chande is not admissible as it cannot be said to be related to sale of property.", "Accordingly, the same is not allowed.", "Subject to the above remarks, the total income of the assessee is computed as under : Property Income : Rs As per statement 64,664 Long term Capital Gains : As discussed above 3,09,78,478 Income from Other Sources : Interest income as per Statement 30,31,364 --------------- TOTAL INCOME 3,40,59,506 Rounded off 3,40,59,510 Assessed accordingly.", "Give credit for prepaid taxes.", "Charge interest u s 234B and 234C. Initiate penalty proceedings u s 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "Issue demand notice and challan.", "Thus, in the said order, valuation of the land as made by the District Valuation Officer was adopted and on the basis thereof long term capital gain was determined to be Rs.3,09,78,478 by taking the valuation of the 1/4th undivided share of the Appellant as Rs.1,44,92,907 as on 01.04.1981.", "In view of the said order of assessment, a show cause notice under Section 274 read with Section 271 of the Act was served to which a reply was filed by the Appellant on or about 14.08.2000 claiming that there was no concealment of income as all the details of property were submitted along with the return of income and the difference in the matter of valuation of the 1/4th share of the appellant does not amount to concealment.", "It was stated therein : All the material facts in respect of the 1/4th share of the sale of property has been disclosed when the return was filed.", "It is the difference of opinion in respect of value of the property as of 1.4.1981 between the Registered Valuer and Divisional Valuation Officer with regard to value of the property as of 1.4.1981 does not amount to concealment.", "The Valuation Report by the Divisional Valuer of the department has been arrived at by using his best judgment and perception.", "The value determined by him as of 1.4.1981 has been on the basis of concepts and methods adopted by him, without taking into account the objections and suggestions made by the assessee.", "The difference between the value as determined by the Registered Valuer and Departments Divisional Valuation Officer does not change the basis character or the details of valuation, hence there is no concealment whatsoever.", "You are therefore requested to drop the penalty proceedings initiated u s 271(1)(c) and oblige.", "Our client for the sake of mental peace and in order to co-operate with the Department does not wish to go in to appeal and dispute the assessment done by you.", "He does not want to contest the assessment completed by you.", "He will pay the demand of Rs.94,97,657.00 as per the demand notice and will show you the Challan of having made the payment shortly.", "You are once against requested to decide the fate of penalty U s 271(1)(c) immediately as desired by the assessee, since I am leaving the country for good and intend to prefer an appeal against the order of Penalty if passed.", "The First Respondent, however, in his order dated 23.08.2000 purported to be in exercise of its power under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act, held : The assessee, it would appear, has not filed an appeal against the order under Section 143(3) of the Act and hence the conclusions drawn as regards the computation of total income in this case are final.", "By no stretch of imagination a property in a posh locality like Walkeshwar, Mumbai would have resulted in loss after substitution of indexed cost of acquisition.", "The intention of assessee in obtaining the valuation report is obviously viewed in the context of assessee having returned loss under the head Capital GainsIn the circumstances, the assessee is considered to have furnished inaccurate particulars of income in respect of the amount added under the head capital gains.", "The amount of tax sought to be evaded is worked out as per clause (a) to Explanation 4 to Sec.", "271(1)(c) of the Act at 20 of Rs.3,43,90,478 i.e. Rs.68,78,095.", "Accordingly, a minimum penalty of Rs.68,78,095 is levied under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "The Appellant preferred an appeal thereagainst before the Commissioner contending : There is no concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of such income nor there is deemed income to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed.", "The said appeal was, however, dismissed by the Commissioner of Income Tax by an order dated 13.11.2000 holding : To summarize differences between two reports cannot be attributed universally to a single reason i.e. difference of opinion.", "I have already stated in case a report is incorrect for any reason the assessee is expected not to rely upon it because he cannot shift the burden of concealment u s 271(1)(c) to any other person who might have helped him in the matter of preparation of the return and drawing the statement of income.", "It was further held : This is very strange way of valuing the land after first arriving at the value of the building and deducting therefrom the value of the superstructure instead of directly calculating value of land with reference to sales instances.", "Secondly I find that the basis adopted by the Registered Valuer to rely upon a newspaper is totally unacceptable and does not conform to the accepted principles of valuation.", "As such the report is therefore unacceptable and at clear variance with the accepted principles of valuation.", "It is totally incorrect and wrong, if not outrageous.", "I find the Departmental Valuers report is based on specific sales instances and computation of land value which constituted the major portion of the report is based on direct sales instances of land.", "It is not a circuitous method as adopted by the Registered Valuer.", "The Appellant preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the said order.", "He also affirmed an affidavit stating that he had honestly relied on the professional advice of the Registered Valuer and the Chartered Accountant and had not approached the Valuer for the purpose of obtaining the report at any specified value in order to avoid paying taxes.", "The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, however, dismissed the said appeal and confirmed the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax by an order dated 10.08.2001, holding : It was also frankly admitted that the words sales instances mentioned against Col. 40 of the report were incorrectly mentioned.", "It was further held : We are afraid that the above arguments cannot be accepted what is enjoined upon the assessee is a duty to make a correct and complete disclosure of his income and not only of the material facts such as disclosure of the details of the property and factum of sale thereof as in the assessees case.", "As stated earlier the assessee disclosed long term capital loss of Rs.34,12,000/- and claimed carry forward thereof to the subsequent year as against taxable long term capital gain of Rs.3,09,78,428/- .", "The disclosure made of the particulars of income in the return under the head capital gain by the assessee is certainly incorrect for which the impugned penalty is exigible.", "The assessee cannot take shelter under a report of a registered valuer which is found by the revenue authorities to have been prepared without due regard to the accepted principles of valuation It was also held : Acceptance by the assessee of the value of his share of property as on 1.4.1981 estimated in the DVOs report for computation of capital gains is an important factor to be noticed.", "In the case before us, the difference in the valuation between the registered valuer and the DVO arose on account of incorrect application of the principles of valuation or non adherence thereto by the registered valuer as against the valuation made by the DVO as per accepted norms of valuation which valucation has been accepted by the assessee.", "As stated earlier, perusal of the orders of the revenue authorities will make it abundantly clear that the impugned penalty has been levied upon the assessee for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income under the main clause of sec.271(1)(c).", "Indisputably, the Appellant deposited a sum of Rs.68,78,095/- towards penalty.", "An appeal preferred by him before the High Court in terms of Section 260A of the Act was dismissed in limine, stating : We are not persuaded by the submission of the learned counsel for the assessee.", "The revenue authorities as well as the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal have concurrently held that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars.", "This finding is based on the aspect that the valuation report submitted by the assessee did not reflect the correct cost of acquisition.", "What is the market value of the property as on 01.04.1981 is an aspect of the fact and the value furnished by the assessee was held to be factually incorrect.", "If the computation of the long term capital gains by the assessee was found to be wrong obviously, the finding of the revenue authorities and the Tribunal that the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars cannot be faulted Mr. Anil B. Dewan, the learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, would contend that the First Respondent in the order of assessment, did not record his satisfaction that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars which were conditions precedent for initiating penalty proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "The show cause notice also was issued in a standard form without deleting therefrom inappropriate words and paragraphs and it showed total non-application of mind on the part of the Assessing Officer.", "It was contended that the penalty proceeding had been initiated on all possible grounds although in the order of assessment the only ground taken was the alleged furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income.", "The Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal while passing the impugned orders having failed to record any finding in their respective orders that there had been any conscious act on the part of the Appellant in furnishing the inaccurate particulars with intention to evade tax, the penalty orders are vitiated in law.", "The assessee having furnished all material facts and furthermore having appointed a registered valuer recognized for the purpose of valuation of property specifically under the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, cannot be said to have the requisite mens rea which is the sine qua non for imposition of penalty.", "It was argued that whereas the registered valuer relied upon the figures mentioned in the Accommodation Times, the Departmental Valuation Officer relied upon two sale instances, one of the year 1979 (rate approximately Rs.500/- per sq.", "ft.) and another of the year 1982 (rate Rs.1,823/- per sq.", "ft.) and arrived at a figure of Rs.897/- per sq.", "without any objective basis.", "Valuation being based on estimate and, thus, being a matter of opinion can always vary.", "The Appellant having availed the services of an expert, could not have gone into the correctness thereof as has been observed by the Commissioner of Income Tax in his impugned order.", "In view of the fact that the explanation offered by the assessee was bona fide, no penalty proceeding could have been initiated.", "Mr. Gopal Subramanium, the learned Additional Solicitor General appearing on behalf of the Respondents, on the other hand, would take us through the legal history of the provision of section 271(1)(c) of the Act and furthermore draw our attention to the fact that neither the sheet showing the sale instances had been annexed with the return nor the particulars thereof had been furnished and even no copy of the Accommodation Times had been annexed, wherefrom it could be inferred that deliberate attempt had been made on the part of the Appellant in providing inaccurate particulars.", "It was submitted that the show cause notice issued by the authority will have to be read with the order of assessment and so read it would appear that the notice was issued upon due application of mind.", "It was submitted that the factors governing concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars overlap with each other and as such it may not be possible for the authority while issuing notice to specify whether it is a concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.", "Existence of mens rea is no longer an essential element for initiating the penalty proceeding having regard to the amendments made in the Act.", "Before adverting to the rival contentions, we may notice the legal history of the provisions of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "In the Income Tax Act, 1922, the provision for penalty was provided in Section 28(1)(c) which dealt with the matter relating to imposition of penalty in the following terms Penalty for concealment of income or improper distribution of profits.", "(1) If the Income Tax Officer, the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or the Appellate Tribunal in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income Interpreting the said provision some of the High Courts were of the opinion that the burden of proof and the onus lay upon the department to establish that the assessee was guilty of concealment of the particulars of income and even if the assessee had given a false explanation, the same by itself would not prove that the receipt necessarily constituted income of the assessee.", "However, some High Courts opined differently, holding that the penalty proceeding is included in the expression assessment and the true nature of penalty had been held to be additional tax.", "The said question came up for consideration before this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax, West Bengal vs Anwar Ali (1970) 2 SCC 185, wherein it was held : The section is penal in the sense that its consequences are intended to be an effective deterrent which will put a stop to practices which the Legislature considers to be against the public interest.", "It is significant that in C.A. Abraham case this court was not called upon to determine whether penalty proceedings were penal or of quasi-penal nature and the observations made with regard to penalty being an additional tax were made in a different context and for a different purpose.", "It appears to have been taken as settled by now in the sales tax law that an order imposing penalty is the result of a quasi- criminal proceedings: (Hindustan Steel Limited v. State of Orissa7).", "In England also it has never been doubted that such proceedings are penal in character Fattorini (Thomas) (Lancashire) Limited v. Inland Revenue Commissioner In Commissioner of Income Tax, Ahmedabad v. Gokuldas Harivallabhas, 34 ITR 98, as regard onus of proof, it was opined : That the assessee has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income and, therefore, the Department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee.", "As regard the question as to whether a finding given in the order of assessment that particular receipt is income after rejecting the explanation given by the assessee as false, would prima facie be sufficient for establishing in proceedings under Section 28 that the disputed amount was the assessees income, it was observed : 6It must be remembered that the proceedings under Section 28 are of a penal nature and the burden is on the Department to prove that a particular amount is a revenue receipt.", "It would be perfectly legitimate to say that the mere fact that the explanation of the assessee is false does not necessarily give rise to the inference that the disputed amount represents income.", "It cannot be said that the finding given in the assessment proceedings for determining or computing the tax is conclusive.", "However, it is good evidence.", "Before penalty can be imposed the entirety of circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars.", "Vaidialingam, J. followed the said dicta in Commissioner of Income Tax v. M s Khoday Eswarsa Sons (1971) 3 SCC 555, in the following terms : From the above it is clear that penalty proceedings being penal in character, the Department must establish that the receipt of the amount in dispute constitutes income of the assessee.", "Apart from the falsity of the explanation given by the assessee, the Department must have before it before levying penalty cogent material or evidence from which it could be inferred that the assessee has consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars in respect of the same and that the disputed amount is a revenue receipt.", "No doubt the original assessment proceedings, for computing the tax may be a good item of evidence in the penalty proceedings but the penalty cannot be levied solely on the basis of the reasons given in the original order of assessment.", "When the law stood thus, the new Income Tax Act in 1961 was enacted wherein Section 271(1)(c) was couched in the following language : Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.", "(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) (b) (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or deliberately furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - (i) (ii) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition any tax payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than twenty per cent, but which shall not exceed one and a half times the amount of the tax, if any, which would have been avoided if the income as returned by such person had been accepted as the correct income.", "An amendment thereto was carried out in the year 1964, where by and whereunder the word deliberately occurring in clause (c) of Section 271 (1) was omitted and an explanation was inserted thereto as a result whereof the said provision reads thus : Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.", "(1) If the Income-tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) (b) (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income.", "Explanation.- Where the total income returned by any person is less than eighty per cent of the total income (hereinafter in this Explanation referred to as the correct income) as assessed under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 (reduced by the expenditure incurred bona fide by him for the purpose of making or earning any income included in the total income but which has been disallowed as a deduction), such person shall, unless he proves that the failure to return the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or willful neglect on his part, be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income for the purposes of clause ( c) of this sub- section.", "While the things stood thus, the Government of India appointed a Committee of Experts headed by Justice Wanchoo, the former Chief Justice of India, and in his report, it was observed : 2.75.", "Several persons who appeared before us urged the need for deleting the Explanation to clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for various reasons.", "The primary objection against this Explanation is that it is being invoked indiscriminately and penalty proceedings are initiated in all cases where the income shown in the return is less than eighty per cent of the assessed income.", "This Explanation was introduced in order to cast on the assessee the burden of proving that the omission to disclose true income did not proceed from any fraud, or gross or willful neglect.", "A similar Explanation was also introduced in the Wealth-tax Tact, 1957.", "This was sequel to the recommendation made by the Direct Taxes Administration Enquiry Committee (1958-59), based on a similar provision in the United Kingdom law.", "We understand that in a number of cases that came up on appeal, the appellate authorities were not inclined to uphold the penalties imposed on the basis of this Explanation, since they were of the view that the Department will still under obligation to prove the concealment.", "The difference between the assessed income and the returned income can be due to a variety of reasons some technical, like estimate of gross profit and others purely arithmetical and in our opinion, it would not be correct to initiate proceedings in every case where the difference exceeds twenty per cent.", "In the United Kingdom itself, the provision on which this Explanation was based has not been dropped.", "In any event, if past experience is any indication, we feel that the Explanation has failed to serve any useful purpose.", "On the other hand, it has resulted in unwarranted harassment to the taxpayers, and too much of paper work caused by indiscriminate initiation of penalty proceedings and consequent appeals.", "We recommend that Explanation to clause (c) of sub- section (1) of section 271 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and also Explanation I to clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 18 of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957, may be deleted.", "While we are of the view that penalties should not be draconian, we also strongly feel that those who are tempted to resort to concealment of income should not be allowed to get away with tenuous legal interpretations.", "We would recommend the following changes in the Income Tax Act in this regard : Presumption of concealment where explanation found false Several officers of the Department invited our attention to the Supreme Courts decision in the case of Commissioner of Income-tax, West Bengal v. Anwar Ali (76 ITR 696).", "It has been held by the Court that penalty for concealment of income cannot be imposed merely because the explanation given by an assessee is found to be false.", "While this decision was given in the context of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 28 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1922, it is not reasonably certain that it would not apply to penalties under the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "We would, therefore, recommend as a measure of abundant caution, that an Explanation to sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, may be inserted to clarify that where a taxpayers explanation in respect of any receipt, deposit, outgoing or investment is found to be false, the amount represented by such receipt, etc., shall be deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished within the meaning of clause (c) of sub-section (1) of section 271 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.", "In the year 1975 by reason of Section 61 of the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1975, Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was deleted and four Explanations were inserted with effect from 01.04.1976.", "Section 271(c) reads as follows : Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.", "(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person (a) (b) (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - Explanation 1.- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, or (A) such persons failed to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Income Tax Officer or the appellate Assistant Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section, be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed : Provided that nothing contained in this explanation shall apply to a case referred to in Clause (B) in respect of any amount added or disallowed as a result of the rejection of any explanation offered by such person, if such explanation is bona fide and all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him.", "Explanation 2.", "Explanation 3.", "Explanation 4.", "For the purpose of clause (iii) of this sub- section, the expression the amount of tax sought to be evaded.", "(a) in any case where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished exceeds the total income assessed means the tax that would have been chargeable on the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished had such income been the total income (b) in any case to which Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed (c) in any other case, means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished.", "The provision which is relevant for the purpose of this case, namely, Assessment year 1998-99, reads as under : Failure to furnish returns, comply with notices, concealment of income, etc.", "(1) If the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner in the course of any proceedings under this Act, is satisfied that any person - (a) omitted (b) (c) has concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he may direct that such person shall pay by way of penalty, - omitted (i) in the cases referred to in clause (c), in addition to tax, if any, payable by him, a sum which shall not be less than , but which shall not exceed three times, the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of the concealment of particulars of his income or the furnishing of inaccurate particulars of such income.", "Explanation 1.- Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income of any person under this Act, - (A) such person fails to offer an explanation or offers an explanation which is found by the Assessing Officer or the Commissioner (Appeals) or the Commissioner to be false, or (B) such person offers an explanation which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide and that all the facts relating to the same and material to the computation of his total income have been disclosed by him, then, the amount added or disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this sub-section be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed.", "Explanation 2.", "Explanation 3.", "Explanation 4.- For the purposes of clause (iii) of this sub-section, the expression the amount of tax sought to be evaded,- (a) in any case where the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished has the effect of reducing the loss declared in the return or converting that loss into income, means the tax that would have been chargeable on the income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished had such income been the total income (b) in any case to which Explanation 3 applies, means the tax on the total income assessed (c) in any other case, means the difference between the tax on the total income assessed and the tax that would have been chargeable had such total income been reduced by the amount of income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished.", "Explanation 1, therefore, is applicable to the facts of the case.", "The correctness of the orders passed by the Assessing Officer, Commissioner of Income Tax as also the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal must be judged in the aforementioned context.", "We have noticed hereinbefore that the main contention raised on behalf of the revenue justifying the levy of penalty against the Appellant, inter alia, is that although as against Item Number38 of the report, a sheet was purported to have been attached but in fact the same had not been done and furthermore no land rate was adopted for valuation and as against Item No.40 in addition to the Accommodation Times, which was a local newspaper, no other sale instance was taken, and even a copy thereof had not been furnished nor the sale instances had been mentioned.", "The explanation of the assessee was that in the instant case, Explanation to Section 271(1)(c) was never invoked.", "Section 271(1)(c) of the Act is in two parts.", "Whereas the first part refers to concealment of income, the second part refers to furnishing of inaccurate particulars thereof.", "In the instant case, the penalty has been levied upon the Appellant under the second part of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "One of the questions which arises for consideration is as to whether Explanation 1 is applicable in respect of both the parts or in respect of the first part only.", "Let us also assume that later part of clause (c) of Section 271(1) did not invite any investigation into whether it was done deliberately or willfully or not but let us leave final consideration of this nicety of application thereof in a more appropriate case and apply the element of deliberation in the fact of the present case.", "However, according to the assessee the omission to annex the sheet as mentioned against column Number 38 as also to enclose a copy of the Accommodation Times was a clerical error and no significance could have been attached thereto inasmuch no sale instance was relied upon by the Valuer and, thus, by reason thereof no inaccurate particulars thereof can be said to have been furnished.", "It is not a case where the Appellant is alleged to have concealed the income as the authorities proceeded on the basis that the penalty was to be levied upon the Appellant only on the ground of furnishing inaccurate particulars.", "We are not oblivious that some decisions point out that the principles of Mens Rea may have application only in certain categories of cases Some of which are:: In Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 QB 918, it was suggested that Mens Rea is an essential ingredient in every offence except in three cases Cases not criminal in any real sense but which in the public interest are prohibited under a penalty, e.g. Revenue Acts ii) Public Nuisances iii) Cases criminal in form but which are really only a summary mode of enforcing a civil right.", "In 85, Corpus Juris Secundum, Paragraph 1023, it is stated : A penalty imposed for a tax delinquency is a civil obligation, remedial and coercive in its nature, and is for different from the penalty for a crime or a fine or forfeiture provided as punishment for the violation of criminal or penal laws.", "In Director of Enforcement v. MCT M Corp. Pvt.", "Limited (1996) 2 SCC 471 it was suggested that what applies to tax delinquency equally holds good for the blame worthy conduct for the contravention of the provision of FERA.", "In Addl.", "CIT v. Dargapandarinath Taljayya and Company (1977) 107 ITR 850, it was suggested that Section 271(1)(a) does not take in mens rea which forms part of Section 276 C which creates offence of willful failure.", "This was the view taken in Gujarat Travancore Agency v. CIT (1989) 177 ITR 455 (SC) In Lim Chin Aik v. The Queen (1963) Appeal Cases 160, notices that where public welfare offences are concerned, there was a presumption of strict liability and the presumption of mens rea was displaced.", "In Ummali Umma v. Inspecting Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 64 ITR 669 (Kerala), it was stated : I cannot say that the penalty imposed under Section 28 of the repealed Act or under Section 371 of the Act was or is imposed on the basis that it was or is an offence.", "For the offence punishment was or is prescribed such as imprisonment, fine or both.", "The imposition of penalty on the basis of an act or omission by an assessee is not because the act or omission constitutes an offence, but because that act or omission would constitute an attempt at evasion.", "Therefore, penalty is exacted not because an act or omission is an offence but because it is an attempt at evasion of tax on the part of the assessee.", "Stallybrass in (1936) The Law Quarterly Review at page 66 suggests that : In the case of modern statutory offences the maxim has no general application and the statutes are to be regarded as themselves prescribing the mental element which is a pre-requisite to a conviction.", "The learned author suggests that much of the confusion can be avoided if reference to mens rea in modern statutory offences is avoided.", "Thus, it appears that there is distinct line of authorities which clearly lay down that in considering a question of penalty, mens rea is not a relevant consideration.", "Even assuming that when the statute says that one is liable for penalty if one furnishes inaccurate particulars, it may or may not by itself be held to be enough if the particulars furnished are found to be inaccurate is anything more needed but the question would still be as to whether reliance placed on some valuation of an approved valuer and, therefore, the furnishing of inaccurate particulars was not deliberate, meaning thereby that an element of mens rea is needed before penalty can be imposed, would have received serious consideration in the light of a large number of decisions of this Court.", "The question, however, in a case of this nature, would be whether it was a fit case where discretionary jurisdiction was properly exercised or not.", "The legal history of Section 271(1)(c) of the Act traced from the 1922 Act prima facie shows that explanations were applicable to both the parts.", "However, each case must be considered on its own facts.", "The role of explanation having regard to the principle of statutory interpretation must be borne in mind before interpreting the aforementioned provisions.", "Clause (c) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 categorically states that the penalty would be leviable if the assessee conceals the particulars of his income or furnishes inaccurate particulars thereof.", "By reason of such concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars alone, the assessee does not ipso facto become liable for penalty.", "Imposition of penalty is not automatic.", "Levy of penalty not only is discretionary in nature but such discretion is required to be exercised on the part of the Assessing Officer keeping the relevant factors in mind.", "Some of those factors apart from being inherent in the nature of penalty proceedings as has been noticed in some of the decisions of this Court, inheres on the face of the statutory provisions.", "Penalty proceedings are not to be initiated, as has been noticed by the Wanchoo Committee, only to harass the assessee.", "The approach of the assessing officer in this behalf must be fair and objective.", "Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 271 again provides for a discretionary jurisdiction upon the assessing authority inasmuch as the amount of penalty may not be less than the amount of tax sought to be evaded by reason of such concealment of particulars of his income, but it may not exceed three times thereof.", "The factors which are material for the purpose of computation of total income as is sought to be emphasized in Explanation-1, refer to computation of income on the part of the assessee which is directly relatable to : (a) failure to offer an explanation and or offering an explanation which is false and (b) which he is not able to substantiate and fails to prove that such explanation is bona fide.", "Only in the event the factors enumerated in clauses (A) and (B) of Explanation-1 are satisfied and a finding in this behalf is arrived at by the Assessing Officer, the legal fiction created thereunder would be attracted.", "For the purpose of invoking Clause (iii) of sub-section (1) of Section 271, the expression amount of tax sought to be evaded is set out in Explanation 4.", "This sub-clause would be attracted when a finding is arrived at that some amount of tax was sought to be evaded by the assessee as envisaged by Clause (a) thereof.", "Explanation appended to Section 271 (1)(c) is an exception to the general rule.", "It raises a legal fiction by reason whereof a presumption is raised against an assessee as a result whereof the burden of proof shifts from the department to the assessee.", "Legal fiction, however, as is well-known must be given its full effect when the conditions precedent therefor are satisfied and not otherwise.", "Ashok Leyland Limited v. State of T.N. and Another, (2004) 3 SCC 1 What would be the scope of such explanation has been considered by this Court in section Sundaram Pillai, etc.", "v. V.R. Pattabiraman AIR 1985 SC 582 wherein object of the explanation is stated in the following terms : Thus, from a conspectus of the authorities referred to above, it is manifest that the object of an Explanation to a statutory provision is (a) to explain the meaning and intendment of the Act itself, (b) where there is any obscurity or vagueness in the main enactment, to clarify the same so as to make it consistent with the dominant object which it seems to subserve, (c) to provide an additional support to the dominant object of the Act in order to make it meaningful and purposeful, (d) an Explanation cannot in any way interfere with or change the enactment or any part thereof but where some gap is left which is relevant for the purpose of the Explanation, in order to suppress the mischief and advance the object of the Act it can help or assist the Court in interpreting the true purport and intendment of the enactment, and (e) it cannot, however, take away a statutory right with which any person under a statute has been clothed or set at naught the working of an Act by becoming an hindrance in the interpretation of the same.", "See also Swedish Match AB and Another v. Securities Exchange Board of India and Another, (2004) 11 SCC 641 If the ingredients contained in the main provisions as also the explanation appended thereto are to be given effect to, despite deletion of the word deliberate, it may not be of much significance.", "The expression conceal is of great importance.", "According to Law Lexicon, the word conceal means: to hide or keep secret.", "The word conceal is concelare which implies to hide.", "It means to hide or withdraw from observation to cover or keep from sight to prevent the discovery of to withhold knowledge of.", "The offence of concealment is, thus, a direct attempt to hide an item of income or a portion thereof from the knowledge of the income tax authorities.", "In Websters Dictionary, inaccurate has been defined as: not accurate, not exact or correct not according to truth erroneous as an inaccurate statement, copy or transcript.", "It signifies a deliberate act or omission on the part of the assessee.", "Such deliberate act must be either for the purpose of concealment of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars.", "The term inaccurate particulars is not defined.", "Furnishing of an assessment of value of the property may not by itself be furnishing of inaccurate particulars.", "Even if the explanations are taken recourse to, a finding has to be arrived at having regard to clause (a) of Explanation 1 that the Assessing Officer is required to arrive at a finding that the explanation offered by an assessee, in the event he offers one, was false.", "He must be found to have failed to prove that such explanation is not only not bona fide but all the facts relating to the same and material to the income were not disclosed by him.", "Thus, apart from his explanation being not bona fide, it should have been found as of fact that he has not disclosed all the facts which was material to the computation of his income.", "The explanation, having regard to the decisions of this Court, must be preceded by a finding as to how and in what manner he furnished the particulars of his income.", "It is beyond any doubt or dispute that for the said purpose the Income Tax Officer must arrive at a satisfaction in this behalf.", "See Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ram Commercial Enterprises Limited, 246 ITR 568 and Diwan Enterprises v. Commissioner of Income Tax, 246 ITR 571 It is furthermore of some significance that the Commissioner in its order dated 30.11.2000 made a terse comment that the assessee cannot shift the burden of concealment to any other person, meaning thereby, the registered valuer.", "He, furthermore, made a comment that the registered valuer had adopted a strange way of valuing although no reason, far less than sufficient or cogent reason, has been assigned in support thereof.", "The said comments were unwarranted.", "Primary burden of proof, therefore, is on the revenue.", "The statute requires satisfaction on the part of the assessing officer.", "He is required to arrive at a satisfaction so as to show that there is primary evidence to establish that the assessee had concealed the amount or furnished inaccurate particulars and this onus is to be discharged by the department.", "See D.M. Manasvi v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gujarat,-II (1973) 3 SCC 207 While considering as to whether the assessee has been able to discharge his burden, the assessing officer should not begin with the presumption that he is guilty.", "Once the primary burden of proof is discharged, the secondary burden of proof would shift on the assessee because the proceeding under Section 271(1)(c) is of penal nature in the sense that its consequences are intended to be an effective deterrent which will put a stop to practices which the Parliament considers to be against the public interest and, therefore, it was for the department to establish that the assessee shall be guilty of the particulars of income.", "See Anwar Ali (supra) and M s Khoday Eswarsa (supra).", "The order imposing penalty is quasi-criminal in nature and, thus, burden lies on the department to establish that the assessee had concealed his income.", "Since burden of proof in penalty proceedings varies from that in the assessment proceeding, a finding in an assessment proceeding that a particular receipt is income cannot automatically be adopted, though a finding in the assessment proceeding constitute good evidence in the penalty proceeding.", "In the penalty proceedings, thus, the authorities must consider the matter afresh as the question has to be considered from a different angle.", "See Anantharam Veerasinghaiah Company v. C.I.T., Andhra Pradesh, 1980 Supp SCC 13.", "The Appellant herein in the penalty proceedings had produced relevant particulars to show that they were materials in support of the report, although a part of which was not annexed with the report.", "Before, thus, a penalty can be imposed, the entirety of the circumstances must reasonably point to the conclusion that the disputed amount represented income and that the assessee had consciously concealed the particulars of his income or had furnished inaccurate particulars thereof.", "We have noticed hereinbefore that the quantum of penalty has been increased from time to time under the 1922 Act.", "Maximum penalty which could be imposed was only 20 of the tax sought to be evaded whereas, in terms of the provisions as it stands now, the penalty can be imposed to the extent of three times of the tax sought to be evaded.", "It is now a well-settled principle of law that more stringent the law, more strict construction thereof would be necessary.", "Even when the burden is required to be discharged by an assessee, it would not be as heavy as the prosecution.", "See P.N. Krishna Lal and Others v. Govt.", "of Kerala and Another, 1995 Supp (2) SCC 187 It is one thing to say that the valuation based on a newspaper is totally unacceptable, but it is another thing to say that by reason of the return, the assessee furnished inaccurate particulars.", "The question which was inter alia required to be posed was whether the method adopted by the registered valuer was wholly unknown to law or was contrary to all modes of valuation.", "Whether the particulars sought to have been concealed were necessary for the purpose of arriving at a correct valuation or otherwise misleading? Whether the method of valuation adopted by the registered valuer resulted in a grossly unfair valuation which could not have been done by any reasonable person? Was the methodology adopted totally wrong? The methods of valuation, as we know, may be different.", "A registered valuer is supposed to know as to which method or mode should be adopted for the purpose of valuing particular land or a building having regard to a large number of factors involved therein.", "The tax on capital gains does not envisage that the valuation given must be true and exact market value.", "Even the market value of a property may be found to be different having regard to the locale thereof.", "There was no direct sale instance.", "The sale instances relied upon by the District Valuer were of 1979 and 1982.", "In Union of India v. Pramod Gupta (Dead) By LRs.", "and Others (2005) 12 SCC 1, this Court observed: While determining the amount of compensation payable in respect of the lands acquired by the State, the market value therefor indisputably has to be ascertained.", "There exist different modes therefor.", "The best method, as is well known, would be the amount which a willing purchaser would pay to the owner of the land.", "In absence of any direct evidence, the court, however, may take recourse to various other known methods.", "Evidences admissible therefor inter alia would be judgments and awards passed in respect of acquisitions of lands made in the same village and or neighbouring villages.", "Such a judgment and award, in the absence of any other evidence like the deed of sale, report of the expert and other relevant evidence would have only evidentiary value.", "It was further observed: We have earlier noticed that one of the modes of computing the market value may be based on a judgment or award in respect of acquisition of similar land, subject of course to such increase or decrease thereupon as may be applicable having regard to the accepted principles laid down therefor and as may be found applicable.", "This Court therein noticed a large number of decisions where different principles of arriving at a market value have been noticed but it has also been noticed that even while determining market value under the Land Acquisition Act, some guess-work may be inevitable.", "It is furthermore interesting to note that this Court in D.M. Manasvi (supra) categorically opined that it would be the satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer in the course of the assessment proceedings regarding the concealment of income which would constitute the basis of foundation of the proceedings for levy of penalty.", "It was furthermore observed : It may also be observed that what is contemplated by Sections 271 and 274 of the Act is that there should be, prima facie, satisfaction of the Income Tax Officer or the Appellate Assistant Commissioner in respect of the matters mentioned in sub-section (1) before he hears the assessee or gives him an opportunity of being heard.", "The final conclusion on the point as to whether the requirements of clauses (a), (b) and (c) of Section 271(1) have been satisfied would be reached only after the assessee has been heard or has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard.", "It may be true that the legislature has attempted to shift the burden from revenue to the assessee.", "It may further be correct that different views have been expressed as regard construction of statutes in the light of the changing legislative scenario, but the tenor of a penal proceeding remains the same.", "At this juncture, we may examine the question as to the effect of the amendments carried out in Section 271(c) of the Act and for the said purpose we may notice a few decisions of this Court.", "In Sadhu Singh vs District Board (1969) RCR 156 while upholding the notification of exemption granted in favour of the District Board, before this Court a distinction was sought to be made that whereas in the Madras Act which was applicable in the case of P.J. Irani vs State of Madras (1962) 2 SCR 169, the expression used was unreasonable eviction of tenants in the Punjab Act, the expression used was eviction of tenants.", "But this Court found no distinction between the two Acts as one of the objects of the Acts was eviction of unreasonable tenants and the expression unreasonable thus was held to be read in the title of the Rent Act.", "It is interesting to note that this Court in The Workmen of M s Firestone Tyre Rubber Company of India P. Limited v. The Management and Others AIR 1973 SC 1227, despite insertion of Section 11A in the Industrial Disputes Act, 1947 by reason of the Industrial Disputes (Amendment) Act, 1971, held : At the time of introducing Section 11-A in the Act, the legislature must have been aware of the several principles laid down in the various decisions of this Court referred to above.", "The object is stated to be that the Tribunal should have power in cases, where necessary, to set aside the order of discharge or dismissal and direct reinstatement or award any lesser punishment The omission of the word deliberate, thus, may or may not be of much significance but what is material is its application.", "Section 271(1)(c) remains a penal statute.", "Rule of strict construction shall apply thereto.", "Ingredients of imposing penalty remains the same.", "The purpose of the legislature that it is meant to be deterrent to tax evasion is evidenced by the increase in the quantum of penalty, from 20 under the 1922 Act to 300 in 1985.", "Concealment of income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars are different.", "Both concealment and furnishing inaccurate particulars refer to deliberate act on the part of the assessee.", "A mere omission or negligence would not constitute a deliberate act of suppressio veri or suggestio falsi.", "Although it may not be very accurate or apt but suppressio veri would amount to concealment, suggestio falsi would amount to furnishing of inaccurate particulars.", "The authorities did not arrive at a finding that the consideration amount fixed for the sale of property was wholly inadequate.", "The authorities also do not show that what are the inaccurate particulars furnished by the Appellant.", "They also do not state that what should have been the accepted principles of valuation.", "We, therefore, do not accept the submissions of the learned Additional Solicitor General that concealment or furnishing of inaccurate particulars would overlap each other, the same would not mean that they do not represent different concepts.", "Had they not been so, the Parliament would not have used the different terminologies.", "We have noticed hereinbefore that even the Wanchoo Committee laid emphasis on the fact that explanation appended to Sub-section (1) of Section 271 should be inserted to clarify that where a tax payers explanation in respect of any receipt, deposit, outgoing or investment is found to be false, the amount represented by such receipt, etc.", "shall be deemed to be income in respect of which particulars have been concealed or inaccurate particulars have been furnished.", "What was, therefore, necessary to be found out in respect whereof the assessing officer was required to arrive at a satisfaction was falsity in furnishing of explanation by the assessee.", "Explanation 1, therefore, categorically states that such explanation must either be false or not otherwise substantiated.", "Even in explanation 4, the expression evaded finds place.", "In Commissioner of Income Tax v. Mussadilal Ram Bharose (1987) 2 SCC 39, this Court while holding that the onus would lie on the assessee to discharge the same, in the case, the difference between the income returned and income assessed was less than 80, meaning thereby, a rebuttal presumption arose against the assessee, opined : It is clear that if the Income Tax Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner were satisfied that the assessee had concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars of such income, he can direct that such person should pay by a penalty the amount indicated in sub-clause (ii) of clause (c) of Section 271(1) of the Act.", "Before the amendment, difficulty arose and it is not necessary to trace the history, under the law as stood prior to the amendment of 1964, the onus was on the revenue to prove that the assessee had furnished inaccurate particulars or had concealed the income.", "Difficulties were found to prove the positive element required for concealment under the law prior to amendment this positive element had to be established by the revenue.", "To obviate that difficulty the Explanation was added.", "The effect of the Explanation was that where the total income returned by any person was less than 80 per cent of the total income assessed, the onus was on such person to prove that the failure to file the correct income did not arise from any fraud or any gross or wilful neglect on his part and unless he did so, he should be deemed to have concealed the particulars of his income or furnished inaccurate particulars, for the purpose of Section 271(1).", "The position is that the moment the stipulated difference was there, the onus that it was not the failure of the assessee or fraud of the assessee or neglect of the assessee that caused the difference shifted on the assessee but it has to be borne in mind that though the onus shifted, the onus that was shifted was rebuttable.", "If in an appropriate case the Tribunal or the fact-finding body was satisfied by the evidence on the record and inference drawn from the record that the assessee was not guilty of fraud or any gross or wilful neglect and if the revenue had not adduced any further evidence then in such a case the assessee cannot come within the mischief of the section and suffer the imposition of penalty.", "That is the effect of the provision.", "The said decision was followed in Commissioner of Income Tax, Madras v. K.R. Sadayappan (1990) 4 SCC 1.", "In the proceedings under the Income Tax Act, there would be cases and cases of imposition of tax capital gains being only one of them.", "It is not disputed that the registered valuers are appointed in terms of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act, 1957.", "Sections 16A thereof provides for reference to Valuation Officer.", "In terms of sub-section (2) of Section 16A, the Valuation Officer may serve a notice upon the assessee.", "Sub-section (4) thereof empowers the Valuation Officer to serve a notice on the assessee intimating the value which he proposes to estimate and giving the assessee an opportunity to state when he is of the opinion that the value of the asset is higher than the value declare in the return made by him.", "The Valuation Officer in terms of Wealth Tax Act, therefore, is conferred with a statutory power.", "Section 34AB occurring in Chapter VIIB of the Act provides for registration of valuers.", "For the purpose of such a registration, the valuer must possess the qualifications prescribed in that behalf.", "Certain conditions are also imposed in terms of the Act while registering such valuation.", "Rule 8A lays down the qualifications of registered valuers.", "Rule 13 of the said rules provides that a registered valuer can be deregistered if the circumstances so warrant.", "It is in the aforementioned premise, provisions of the Act, the imposition of tax relating to capital gain are required to be taken into consideration.", "Section 48 of the Act, inter alia, provides that the income chargeable under the head capital gains shall be computed by deducting full value of the consideration received or accruing as a result of transfer of capital assets the following amounts, namely, the cost of the acquisition of the assets and cost of any improvement thereto.", "The second proviso appended to the said section provides for indexed cost.", "Such methodology for valuing the property for the purpose of capital gains by way index cost is taken recourse to having regard to the rate of inflation in mind.", "Explanations (iii) and (v) of the second proviso appended thereto also play an important role which are as under : indexed cost of acquisition means an amount which bears to the cost of acquisition the same proportion as Cost Inflation Index for the year in which the asset is transferred bears to the Cost Inflation Index for the first year in which the asset was held by the assessee or for the year beginning on the 1st day of April, 1981, whichever is later Cost Inflation Index, in relation to a previous year, means such Index as the Central Government may, having regard to seventy-five per cent of average rise in the Consumer Price Index for urban non-manual employees for the immediately preceding previous year to such previous year, by notification in the Official Gazette, specify, in this behalf.", "Yet again Section 55(2)(b) refers to any other capital asset in the following terms : (b) in relation to any other capital asset,-- where the capital asset became the property of the assessee before the 1st day of April, 1981, means the cost of acquisition of the asset to the assessee or the fair market value of the asset on the 1st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee where the capital asset became the property of the assessee by any of the modes specified in sub-section(1) of section 49, and the capital asset became the property of the previous owner before the1st day of April, 1981, means the cost of the capital asset to the previous owner or the fair market value of the asset on the 1st day of April, 1981, at the option of the assessee where the capital asset became the property of the assessee on the distribution of the capital assets of a company on its liquidation and the assessee has been assessed to income-tax under the head Capital gains in respect of that asset under section 46, means the fair market value of the asset on the date of distribution: Section 55A of the Act provides for reference to Valuation Officer.", "A bare perusal of the said provision will clearly go to show that the reference to a Valuation Officer is optional.", "The said provision is for the purpose of making an estimate.", "Such reference is made, if in the opinion of the Assessing Officer the value of the assets as claimed by the assessee in accordance with the estimate made by a registered valuer is less than its fair market value.", "Clause (b) of Section 55A refers to any other case which goes to show that the assessee had two options, namely, to get the value of the assets prepared through index value or take any other known mode of valuation.", "The assessee could get the valuation done through any other mode of index value, or the assessee could have engaged any other valuer other than a registered valuer also.", "In the instant case, the assessee had chosen to obtain the opinion of a registered valuer.", "The registered valuer has arrived its opinion on certain basis.", "He while making the valuation report, disclosed all the particulars.", "He disclosed that he had chosen to the index value method.", "He did not rely upon any sale instance.", "He might have referred to the valuation of the property as mentioned in a local newspaper.", "But it is not in dispute that he did not furnish any inaccurate particulars.", "It is true that he has not enclosed the sheet showing sale instance but nothing turns out thereupon as he had not relied upon any sale instances.", "There can be a genuine difference of opinion between two experts.", "The District Valuer, as noticed hereinbefore, having regard to the sale instances of 1979 wherein the value of the land was fixed at Rs.500/- per sq.", "ft., took notice of the fact that the valuation in terms of another sale instance of 19.10.1982 wherein the land was valued at about Rs. 1823/- per sq.", "A valuation was to be arrived at on 01.04.1981.", "He picked up a figure of Rs.897/- per sq.", "No reason had been assigned in support thereof.", "No other or further sale instances had been given.", "We do not know as to whether any other sale instances were available.", "He merely stated that such valuation had been arrived at after taking into account the time size-shape, time gap, location-situation and also the factors like physical, social, legal and economical.", "Some other officer could have picked up holes in the said report.", "On the other hand, the opinion of the registered valuer, as would appear from the report, was that he had taken into consideration the value of the shop as Rs.1525/- per sq.", "A duty may be enjoined on the assessee to make a correct disclosure of income but if such disclosure is based on the opinion of an expert, who is otherwise also a registered valuer having been appointed in terms of a statutory scheme, only because his opinion is not accepted or some other expert gives another opinion, the same by itself may not be sufficient for arriving at a conclusion that the assessee has furnished inaccurate particulars.", "It is of some significance that in the standard proforma used by the Assessing Officer in issuing a notice despite the fact that the same postulates that inappropriate words and paragraphs were to be deleted, but the same had not been done.", "Thus, the Assessing Officer himself was not sure as to whether he had proceeded on the basis that the assessee had concealed his income or he had furnished inaccurate particulars.", "Even before us, the learned Additional Solicitor General while placing the order of assessment laid emphasis that he had dealt with both the situations.", "The impugned order, therefore, suffers from non-application of mind.", "It was also bound to comply with the principles of natural justice.", "See Malabar Industrial Company Limited v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kerala State, (2000) 2 SCC 718 We have, however, noticed hereinbefore that the Income Tax Officer had merely held that the assessee is guilty of furnishing of inaccurate particulars and not of concealment of income which finding was arrived at also by the Commissioner of Income Tax and the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.", "In K.C. Builders and Another v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (2004) 2 SCC 731, this Court formulated the following questions for consideration :.", "On the above pleadings and facts and circumstances of the case, the following questions of law arise for consideration by this Court: Whether a penalty imposed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act and prosecution under Section 276-C of the Income Tax Act are simultaneous? Whether the criminal prosecution gets quashed automatically when the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal which is the final court on the facts comes to the conclusion that there is no concealment of income, since no offence survives under the Income Tax Act thereafter? Whether the High Court was justified in dismissing the criminal revision petition vide its impugned order ignoring the settled law as laid down by this Court that the finding of the Appellate Tribunal was conclusive and the prosecution cannot be sustained since the penalty after having been cancelled by the complainant following the Income Tax Appellate Tribunals order no offence survives under the Income Tax Act and thus the quashing of the prosecution is automatic? Whether the finding of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal is binding upon the criminal court in view of the fact that the Chief Commissioner and the assessing officer who initiated the prosecution under Section 276- C(1) had no right to overrule the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal? More so when the Income Tax Officer giving the effect to the order cancelled the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(c)? Whether the High Courts order is liable to be set aside in view of the errors apparent on record? In K.C. Builders (supra), this Court noticed the dictionary meaning of the explanation and held : The respondent assessing authority treated the difference between the income as per original return and revised income as concealed income.", "The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax levied penalties under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) for all the aforesaid four assessment years.", "Accordingly, penalty proceedings were initiated.", "The first appeal against the order of penalties levied for concealment of income against the appellants were confirmed by the CIT (Appeals).", "As per the directions of the Chief Commissioner of Income Tax, four complaints were filed in the Court of the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Egmore, Chennai for offences under Sections 276-C(2), 277 and 278-B of the Act and Sections 120-B, 34, 193, 196 and 420 of the Indian Penal Code.", "The learned Additional Solicitor General, however, submitted that although on the facts of the case the decision rendered is correct but the view of the court that unless there is some evidence to show or some circumstances found from which it can be gathered that the omission was attributable or the part of the assessee to conceal his income so as to evade income tax thereon may not correct.", "As at present advised, we do not intend to go into the said question as in the facts and circumstances of the case, there are enough material to show that the action on the part of the appellant may not be said to be such which would attract the penal provision under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.", "For the reasons aforementioned, the impugned judgment cannot be sustained.", "It is set aside accordingly.", "The appeal is allowed.", "However, in the facts and circumstances of this case, there shall be no order as to costs."], "expert_1": {"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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "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"], "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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"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", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "None", "None", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "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"], "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", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Dissent", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "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"], "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"], "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", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "Issue", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "Statute", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "Fact", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "RulingByLowerCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentPetitioner", "Statute", "Statute", "Fact", "Issue", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Statute", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "RulingByPresentCourt", "Fact", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "ArgumentRespondent", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}
{"id": "BHC_BomHC_2007_1278", "text": ["I. Rebello, J. A notice was served on the petitioners by Respondent Number1 under Section 148 of the Income-tax Act, hereinafter referred to as the Act, in which it is stated that he has reason to believe that the petitioners income chargeable to tax for the assessment year 2001-02 had escaped assessment within the meaning of Section 147 of the Act.", "On 1st May, 2003 an assessment order was passed under Section 143 of the Act determining the total income at Rs. 12,36,393/- after allowing deduction under Section 80IB(10) of the Act.", "By the communication dated 11th April, 2007 the petitioners Chartered Accountant sought the reasons recorded for re-opening the assessment.", "By communication dated 12th April, 2007 the reasons were made available.", "The respondent Number1 found that the assessee the petitioner herein had not correctly disclosed the actual assets of the plot used for construction and hence he was not entitled for deduction under Section 80IB(10).", "It was noted that the information regarding the actual size of the plot used for the construction of Giri Shikhar and Giri Centre was only available in the valuation report and hence the case is covered under Explanation 2 (c) (iv) of Section 147 of the Act.", "The petitioner filed his reply and also filed his returns.", "By the present petition it is the petitioners case that all the information was available before the Assessing Officer and consequently no income has escaped assessment.", "Scrutiny assessment cannot be reopened beyond 4 years and mere change of opinion does not constitute reasons to believe.", "Learned Counsel has drawn our attention to the judgment of the Supreme Court in Commissioner of Income-tax v. Corporation Bank Limited 254 ITR 202, judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in ICICI Bank Limited v. K.J. Rao and Anr.", "268 ITR 203 (Bom.), Judgment of this Court in Bhogwati Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax and Ors.", "269 ITR 186 and the Judgment of the Supreme Court in Genmini Leather Stores v. Income-tax Officer, B-Ward, Agra and Ors.", "100 ITR 2.(S.C.).", "On the other hand on behalf of the Revenue the learned Counsel points out that the Appellant did not disclose the real size of the plot and merely because the information was contained in annexures by itself cannot be said to be disclosure of information.", "It is further submitted that formation of opinion by the Assessment Officer has to be considered on the touch stone whether there was reasonable belief that income had escaped assessment and for that purpose reliance is placed on the judgment of the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Limited v. Income-tax Officer and Ors.", "236 ITR 34 (S.C.).", "From the material on record it would be clear that prima facie to claim benefit under Section 81-IB on the relevant date one of the requirements is that the size of the plot of land is a minimum of one acre.", "The petitioners in the declaration filed under Section 80IB(10) whilst claiming deduction had set out as under- The size of the plot of land is 4074.90 sq.", "meter i.e. it is higher than one Acre.", "The approved plan is attached herewith showing the size of the plot of land.", "It is no doubt true that in so far as the plan annexed and the valuation report an existing building was shown and another a proposed building.", "In the valuation of property done by Doshi Company, all that was set out is total F.S.I. area after deduction and the valuation.", "Pursuant to the notice by the A.O. by communication of February, 10, 2003 the information as set out therein was set out.", "The question is whether because some of the information was contained in to the annexures and also in respect of the statement recorded whether it can be said that there were no reasons to believe for the notice being issued.", "One of the questions asked was as under:- Question Number5: What activities were going on of construction in Andheri and since what period.", "Answer: One plot of land was purchased in the year 1961-62 in J.B. Nagar, Andheri (W), admeasuring 3645 sq.", "yards and another plot of land was purchased later on after few years, admeasuring about 900 sq.", "yards.", "Some part of the plot was exchanged with the neighbour to make it one piece of land.", "One building was constructed on a portion of land in the year 1965-66.", "The flats of the building were given to the various parties.", "In the year 1996-97 we started developing the balance plot and started constructing residential building of sale of flats on ownership basis.", "Considering the tests laid down by the Supreme Court in Raymond Woollen Mills Limited (supra) the question is whether the Assessing Officer had prima facie reason to believe that the income had escaped assessment.", "We have earlier noted explanation 2(c)(iv) of Section 147.", "In our opinion as there was no true disclosure of the exact size of the plot when the new construction commenced it prima facie cannot be said that there were no reasons to believe.", "The information was in the annexures and consequently the explanation 2(c)(iv) of Section 147 of the Act will apply.", "The various judgments relied upon on behalf of the petitioner assessee are distinguishable in as much as either there was no failure to disclose the full and true relevant information and or it was merely a change of opinion.", "The question is whether the petitioners considering the size of the plot and part of it having already been developed could claim the benefit under Section 80-IB(10) of the I.T. Act.", "The issue as to whether the size of the plot of land has to be considered at the time the new construction is being put up or whether the building already constructed including various deductions like R.G. Area, set back had to be considered in computing the size of the plot is an issue which we do not propose to answer at this stage in the exercise of our extra ordinary jurisdiction.", "The petitioner to invoke the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court must also make out a case that no part of the relevant material had been kept out from the Assessing Officer and or that it would not be unreasonable for the Assessing Officer to draw inference from the annexures produced.", "In the instant case we find that there was no true and full disclosure by the petitioner and consequently we find no merit in this petition, which is accordingly dismissed.", "Rule discharged.", "Learned Counsel for the petitioner seeks stay of the order.", "It is not a fit case for grant of stay.", "Hence application for stay is rejected."], "expert_1": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "PrecedentNotReliedUpon", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_2": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"], "secondary": ["None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None", "None"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "None", "None", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "None", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "None", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "expert_3": {"primary": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "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"], "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"], "overall": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "PrecedentReliedUpon", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}, "labels": ["Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentPetitioner", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "ArgumentRespondent", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Issue", "Fact", "None", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Fact", "Issue", "Statute", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "Issue", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RatioOfTheDecision", "RulingByPresentCourt", "ArgumentPetitioner", "RulingByPresentCourt", "RulingByPresentCourt"]}