9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (4) TMI 542X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ellers of the goods to the assessee returned back unserved then it will not be proper to draw inference that such creditors/sellers of the goods to the assessee are non-existent. AO must give an opportunity to the assessee to produce them or to provide new addresses on which enquiries should have been directed. When assessee fails to produce them coupled with non-service of the letters/notices, then it can be fairly inferred that the purchases/credits are not genuine and onus will shift back to the assessee to adduce evidence to prove his stand. Therefore, we are unable to accept the findings of AO that purchases made by the assessee are bogus merely because certain letters have come back unserved. We notice that the Circular No. 4 and Circular No. 08/2006 were not made effective retrospectively. Secondly, at the beginning of the assessment year, no such circular was in operation. The field was occupied by rule 6DD( f )( ii ) which allowed exemption to the assessee in case of purchases made directly from the producers of hides and skin without complying with any of the conditions mentioned in Circular No. 08/2006 which supplemented/clarified earlier Circular No. 4. The Circu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of credit standing in the balance sheet of the assessee is written off or waived. To that extent it can be said that liabilities are remitted by the creditors. Another condition common in both cessation and remission is that such liability must pass through trading account or Profit Loss Account in some earlier year, i.e., it should have been allowed as a deduction. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has not proved that liabilities had passed through Profit Loss Account/Trading account in earlier years. Presuming it to be so no case is made out that it is a remission or cessation. A liability could not be treated as a cessation if it was being merely carried forward for years. A non-genuine non-trading liability standing in the balance sheet can be taxed but u/s 68 if it came in the books in the current year. If such non-genuine non-trading liability came in the books in an earlier year than same cannot be taxed in the current year even u/s 68. A non-genuine trading liability can be considered in the current year if it is related to current year s trading/manufacturing or Profit loss account but not u/s 41(1) or u/s 68. It can be considered only u/s 28, i. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground cannot be considered beyond parameters laid down in the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. s case (supra) and, therefore, power of the Tribunal is confined and restricted by that decision to the extent that where investigation of facts are required no new ground/argument or subject-matter can be admitted for adjudication. Therefore, we reject the argument of the ld. D.R. that Tribunal should set aside the appeal to the file of AO to collect relevant facts to consider addition alternatively under a different head. As a result, we confirm the order of the ld. CIT(A) and dismiss the appeal filed by the revenue. - DR. O.P. SHUKLA AND D.C. AGRAWAL, JJ. Satbir Singh for the Appellant. Rakesh Garg for the Respondent. ORDER D.C. Agrawal, Accountant Member. - This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A)-I, Kanpur dated 17-11-2008. 2. Only two issues are involved in this appeal. One is about addition of Rs. 28,29,260 made under section 40A(3) and the other is of Rs. 1,03,53,805. 3. The facts of the case are that assessee is purchasing raw hides/skin from various persons who are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... )( ii ) is applicable as assessee has directly made the payments to these producers. Wherever raw material has been purchased from persons other than producers, it has been purchased from agents, which would be covered in the exception provided in rule 6DD( l ). The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and held that assessee has made payment to those persons who are not directly producers. Further, it has not produced any kasais before him for examination. Relying on CBDT Circular No. 8/06, dated 6-10-2006, the Assessing Officer held that payment made by the assessee for raw leather is not proved, there is violation of section 40A(3) and rule 6DD( f )( ii ) is not applicable. Further, according to him, the credit shown in the name of persons from whom raw materials were purchased was also not proved. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee produced a letter from one Shri Haji Sahid Qureshi who is Sabhasad, Nagar Palika, Hapur being letter dated 12-12-2006 wherein it is stated that several persons whose names were mentioned by the assessee as producers/suppliers of hides/skins work in groups. The Assessing Officer, however, d ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... section 40A(3). He further submitted that in respect of addition under section 41(1), the issue requires collection of facts because once parties are not traceable then it is deemed to be a remission. The ld. DR then prayed that matter should be restored to the file of Assessing Officer for re-examination of the issue. According to the ld. DR, the ld. CIT(A) has neither collected the facts nor gave remand to the Assessing Officer to make further verification. He then submitted that addition under section 41(1) should be considered as made under section 68 and, therefore, for applying the provisions of section 68, the matter should be restored to the file of the Assessing Officer. The ld. DR has submitted written submissions which are reproduced below for the sake of convenience : " (1) 40A(3) Rs. 28,29,960 : The Assessing Officer has made this addition after having carried out the verification of purchases as debited by the assessee in its profit and loss account. The Assessing Officer issued notices under section 133(6) in 57 cases. Out of these no replies were received in 23 cases. In 14 cases the letters were received unserved and only 20 persons filed their replies. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... duty to provide sufficient opportunity to the assessee and examine/get examined the issue thoroughly (the ground of lack of opportunity is mentioned in para 12 of CIT(A) order). 4. Further, the entire facts on record clearly show that it is a case of the purchases having remained unverified. Therefore, this was a clear case of invocation of the provisions of section 68 first. The Assessing Officer instead proceeded to make the addition under section 40(3) which is definitely going in the wrong direction and skipping the main issue. When this fact was there before the CIT(A) it was his duty to verify/get verified the entire issue and also invoke the correct provisions of law applicable to the facts of the case. Instead of doing this the CIT(A) has proceeded to discuss the provisions of section 40(3) and has given a negative finding. Therefore, the order of the CIT(A) deserves to be set aside. (2) Disallowance of Rs. 1,03,53,805 under section 41(1) 5. The Assessing Officer, in his order, has mentioned that notices under section 133(6) were issued to verify the genuineness of sundry/trade creditors but no reply was received from any of these parties and the assessee also faile ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... on I am relying upon the following decisions : ( i ) Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC); ( ii ) CIT v. ICE Suppliers Corpn. [1967] 64 ITR 195 (Punj.); ( iii ) Esthuri Aswathiah v. CIT [1967] 66 ITR 478 (SC); ( iv ) CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1967] 66 ITR 710 (SC); ( v ) CIT v. Nelliappan (S.) [1967] 66 ITR 722 (SC); ( vi ) CIT v. Mahalakshmi Textile Mills Ltd. [1974] 94 ITR 616 (Bom.); ( vii ) Dy. CIT v. Ansal Properties Industries Ltd. [2009] 116 ITD 253 (Delhi) ITAT Delhi Bench E ; ( viii ) CIT v. Indian Express (Madurai) (P.) Ltd. [1983] 140 ITR 705 (Mad.); ( ix ) CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.) (FB); ( x ) K. Assan Koya Sons v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 677 (Ker.); ( xi ) Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1991] 187 ITR 688 (SC); [[ ( xii ) Jute Corpn. of India Ltd. v. CIT [1992] 192 ITR 637 (All.); ( xiii ) CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC); ( xiv ) Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT/Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB); ( xv ) Ciba of India Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 202 ITR 1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... not verifiable. It may be noted that Assessing Officer has not rejected the books of account. He has only invoked the provisions of section 40A(3) which presupposes that purchases are genuine but payments have been made in cash in violation of rule 6DD, therefore, question of considering the addition on account of non-genuineness of purchases does not arise. The Assessing Officer has not made out a case for holding that purchases are not genuine because onus shifted back by the assessee to the Assessing Officer by way of insisting for giving opportunity to produce concerned persons is not discharged. In our considered view, where letters sent to the creditors/sellers of the goods to the assessee returned back unserved then it will not be proper to draw inference that such creditors/sellers of the goods to the assessee are non-existent. The Assessing Officer must give an opportunity to the assessee to produce them or to provide new addresses on which enquiries should have been directed. When assessee fails to produce them coupled with non-service of the letters/notices, then it can be fairly inferred that the purchases/credits are not genuine and onus will shift back to the assesse ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... made to the producer for the purchase of the produce of "animal husbandry (including hides and skins) . . ." under sub-clause ( ii ) of clause ( f ) of rule 6DD. 2. Representations have been received from certain quarters that some income-tax authorities are permitting payment of cash beyond rupees twenty thousand for the purchase of livestock and meat by considering them to be covered under the aforesaid sub-clause and at the same time some others are making disallowances. Divergent decisions are being attributed to ambiguity regarding the meaning of the expression "the produce of animal husbandry" used in sub-clause ( ii ) of clause ( f ) of rule 6DD. 3. The Board after examination of the issue are of the view that the expression "the produce of animal husbandry" used under rule 6DD( f )( ii ) would include "livestock and meat" and in a case where payment exceeding rupees twenty thousand is made to a producer of the products of animal husbandry (including livestock, meat, hides and skins) otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft for the purchase of such produce, no disallowance should be attracted under section 40A(3), read with rule 6DD ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... shall be available to the person referred to at para 3 above subject to furnishing of the following : ( i )A declaration from the person receiving the payment that he is a producer of meat; ( ii )A confirmation that the payment, otherwise than by an account payee cheque or account payee bank draft, was made on his insistence; and ( iii )A further confirmation from a veterinary doctor certifying that the person specified in the certificate is a producer of meat and that slaughtering was done under his supervision. (Sd.) Renu Jauhri, Director (ITA-II) [F. No. 225/106/2006-ITA-II] Originally the CBDT suggested that no disallowance should be made under section 40A(3) if payment exceeding rupees twenty thousand is made to a producer of the products of animal husbandry (including hides and skins) in cash for the purchase of such produce. It was further clarified in the first Circular that exception will not be available on the payment for the purchase of, hides and skins from a person who is not proved to be the producer of these goods and is only a trader, broker or a middleman. Subsequently in the second Circular it was clarified as to who will be the producer of hides a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ill not have a retrospective effect. Our view is supported by the decision of Hon ble Bombay High Court in BASF (India) Ltd. v. W. Hasan, CIT [2006] 280 ITR 136 . It is held therein that Circulars which are in force during the relevant assessment years are the Circulars that have to be applied and subsequent Circulars either withdrawing or modifying the earlier Circulars have no application. A right to claim refund of tax deducted at source was given to the deductor by Circular No. 769, dated 6-8-1998. Later, it was sought to be withdrawn by issuing a Circular No. 790, dated 20-4-2000. It was held that Circular No. 790 had no retrospective effect. Thus, the right of a taxpayer to get his assessment done in accordance with earlier Circular cannot be prejudicially affected by subsequent Circular. Similar view was taken in CIT v. Geeva Films [1983] 141 ITR 632 (Ker.) and in CIT v. B.M. Edward, India Sea Foods [1979] 119 ITR 334 (Ker.) (FB). In Geeva Films case ( supra ), Hon ble Kerala High Court held that a Circular of the CBDT as stood at the beginning of the assessment year allowing an assessee 100 per cent amortization would be applicable and subsequent withdrawal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s of section 40A(3) and for getting benefit of rule 6DD( f )( ii ) in case of direct purchases from producers of hides and skin. Retrospective effect of these circulars is not permissible. Rule 6DD( f )( ii ) provided a benefit to the assessee without conditions attached with that Rule. Such conditions not originally provided in the rule create rigors to the assessee and restrict the scope of benefit. It is equivalent to legislation, though subordinate, therefore cannot be retrospective unless specifically provided in the statute or in the circulars. In addition to this, these two Circular also neutralized/withdrew the effect of rule 6DD( l ) which conferred benefit to the assessee if it made purchases from agents by making cash payments. For the sake of convenience we reproduce rule 6DD( l ) as under : "Rule 6DD: No disallowance under sub-section (3) of section 40A shall be made where any payment in a sum exceeding twenty thousand rupees is made otherwise than by a crossed cheque drawn on a bank or by a crossed bank draft in the cases and circumstances specified hereunder, namely : ****** ( l )where the payment is made by any person to his agent who is required to make p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the decisions of the Tribunal in the cases of Hind Industries Ltd. ( supra ) and Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills ( supra ). In this regard, we reproduce below the held part of the decision in the case of Sri Renukeswara Rice Mills ( supra ) : "Held, allowing the appeal in part, ( i ) that, in the present case, it had been ensured that the payee alone received the payment and the origin and conclusion of the transaction was traceable. Thus payment of the sum directly in the bank account of the payee fulfilled the criteria for ensuring the object of introduction of section 40A(3). This was not a direct payment to the payee but only to the credit of his bank account without the payee actually receiving the cash. Since the assessee had paid the sum to his agent who was the payee and who in his turn was required to make payment to the cultivator, indirectly, the assessee had paid for the purchase of agricultural produce to the cultivator through the agent. Clauses if and (1) of rule 6DD would take away the transaction from the clutches of section 40A(3). From the bills produced by the assessee to the Assessing Officer it was seen that the assessee apart from paying the price of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e had continued to show the admitted amount of Rs. 8,22,925 as liability in the balance-sheet. The undisputed fact was that it was a liability reflected in the balance-sheet. Once it was shown as liability by the assessee, the Commissioner was wrong in holding that it was assessable under section 41(1) of the Act. Unless and until there is a cessation of liability, section 41 is not applicable. ( ii ) CIT v. Emkay Glass Works [2007] 288 ITR 582 (All.). For the applicability of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the prerequisite condition is that an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any of the years in respect of an expenditure, loss or trading liability incurred by the assessee and subsequently during any previous year the assessee has received remission or obtained refund of the said amount. ( iii ) Narayanan Chettiary Industries v. ITO [2005] 277 ITR 426 (Mad.) Held, that section 41(1) creates a legal fiction and, hence, has to be strictly complied with if any addition to the income is sought to be made by the revenue. Unless an allowance or deduction had been made in an earlier year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading l ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee to write back the amount on the ground of limitation having expired, was not tantamount to cessation of liability and, therefore, the provisions of section 41(1) of the Act would not be attracted. ( viii ) CIT v. Chetan Chemicals (P.) Ltd. [2004] 267 ITR 770 (Guj.). On a reading of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, it is apparent that before the section can be invoked an allowance or a deduction must have been granted during the course of assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability which is incurred by the assessee, and subsequently during any previous year the assessee obtains, whether in cash or in any other manner, any amount in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation of such liability. In that case, either the amount obtained by the assessee or the value of the benefit accruing to the assessee can be deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession and can be brought to tax as income of the previous year in which such amount or benefit is obtained. Held, that it was an admitted position that there had been no allowance or deduction in any of the preceding years and, hence, th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (Mad.). A perusal of section 41(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, makes it clear that it treats as income what had been earlier allowed as deduction, if in the assessment year in question, the assessee receives some benefit by way of cessation or remission of liability. Section 41(1) would apply if two conditions are satisfied-( i ) that the amount must have been allowed as a deduction in some earlier year, and ( ii ) that during the assessment year in question the assessee must receive some benefit by way of a cessation or remission of liability. Miscellaneous receipts amounting to Rs. 2,39,470 received by the assessee-company by way of refund of sales tax was brought to tax for the assessment year 1972-73. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner held that the amount was not assessable under section 41(1) and this was upheld by the Tribunal. On a reference: Held, that the finding of the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, as confirmed by the Tribunal was that the excess sales tax collection was made in the years 1968 and 1969 and that the assessee s liability to refund it continued even though such refunds had not been made to its customers. In view of this, section 41(1) was no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ), the following points are to be kept in view: (1) in the course of assessment for an earlier year, allowance or deduction has been made in respect of trading liability incurred by the assessee; (2) subsequently, a benefit is obtained in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof during the year in which such event occurred; (3) in that situation the value of the benefit accruing to the assessee is deemed to be the profit and gains of business which otherwise would not be his income; (4) such value of the benefit is made chargeable to income-tax as the income of the previous year in which such benefit was obtained. 20. For the sake of convenience we reproduce section 41(1) as under : "41. (1) Where an allowance or deduction has been made in the assessment for any year in respect of loss, expenditure or trading liability incurred by the assessee (hereinafter referred to as the first-mentioned person) and subsequently during any previous year, ( a )the first-mentioned person has obtained, whether in cash or in any other manner whatsoever, any amount in respect of such loss or expenditure or some benefit in respect of such trading liability ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ined by the assessee in respect of such trading liability by way of remission or cessation thereof. ( iv )Such amount or benefit is obtained in a subsequent year. 21.2 When above conditions are satisfied then ( i )The amount so obtained by the assessee or the value of benefit so received by him is deemed to be the profits and gains of business or profession which otherwise would not have been his income. ( ii )Such amount or value of benefits would be chargeable as income of the previous year when such amount was obtained or benefit had accrued to him. ( iii )It is immaterial whether the business or the profession of the assessee was in continuation or not in the year of receipt of benefit by way of remission or cessation. ( iv )Such benefit or amount can be in cash or in kind or by way of book entries. ( v )The deeming fiction cannot be invoked for a receivable benefit. It should be shown by the revenue that benefit has been actually received. ( vi )Method of accounting is irrelevant. 21.3 Where an amount of loss or expenditure has not passed through the profit or loss account, i.e., it has not been allowed as a deduction and not reduced the chargeable inc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... act. However, the provision was specifically brought into effect prospectively with effect from 1-4-1997, only and did not have retrospective operation. Therefore, the present position is that where the assessee has not written off a trading liability in its books than the Assessing Officer cannot invoke section 41(1) merely because the liabilities standing in the books are old or they could not be proved to be genuine by the assessee. 21.7 A liability could not be treated as a cessation if it was being merely carried forward for years. A non-genuine non-trading liability standing in the balance sheet can be taxed but under section 68 if it came in the books in the current year. If such non-genuine non-trading liability came in the books in an earlier year than same cannot be taxed in the current year even under section 68. A non-genuine trading liability can be considered in the current year if it is related to current year s trading/manufacturing or Profit loss account but not under section 41(1) or under section 68. It can be considered only under section 28, i.e., it can be considered for disallowance while examining the claim of expenses or outgoings against revenue re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ddition under any other section other than 41(1) such as under section 68, we are of the view that Tribunal cannot travel beyond the scope and subject-matter of appeal before it. Neither the Assessing Officer had made the case that addition should be considered alternatively under section 68 nor the issue was before the ld. CIT(A). In our considered view, the conditions laid down for considering the addition under section 41(1) are different and those under section 68 are entirely different. The facts required to be investigated for applying the provisions of two sections are entirely different. Once investigations of facts are required, the argument of the ld. DR that applicability of section 68 should be considered in the alternative is not acceptable. 24. In this regard we may refer to the authorities cited by Ld. D.R. More or less they support the proposition that the Tribunal cannot travel beyond the subject-matter of appeal. In brief these authorities lay down following principles : 24.1 In Hukumchand Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1967] 63 ITR 232 (SC) it is held that the word "thereon" in section 33(4) restricts the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to the subject-matter of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gated. The plea of set-off did not require any fresh facts. As a pure question of law, or a plea which could be considered on the evidence already on record, the Tribunal was under a statutory obligation to entertain the plea and decide the same, no matter at what stage it was taken. 24.6 In CIT v. Cellulose Products of India Ltd. [1985] 151 ITR 499 (Guj.) (FB), it was held that the scope of an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal extends to the subject-matter of the appeal before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and if the question sought to be raised for the first time before the Tribunal is a question which concerns the subject-matter of the appeal which was before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner, then such question would be permissible. What the subject-matter of the appeal is, has, therefore, to be decided first. It may be that the same claim or relief is sought to be sustained on a different approach or by presenting a different aspect. So far as the assessee is concerned, it is the relief that he seeks to obtain that is material to him. . . . It is not necessary that the question should be specifically raised before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner as ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t only to entertain the plea but also to decide the same after providing sufficient opportunity of being heard to the other side. 24.9 In CIT v. Assam Travels Shipping Service [1993] 199 ITR 1 (SC), it was held that the expression "such orders thereon as it thinks fit" in section 254(1) was wide enough to include the power of remand to the authority competent to make the requisite order in accordance with law, even though the Tribunal could not have made an order enhancing the penalty. 24.10 In Ahmedabad Electricity Co. Ltd. v. CIT and Godavari Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT [1993] 199 ITR 351 (Bom.) (FB), it was held that the basic purpose of an appeal in an income-tax matter is to ascertain the correct tax liability of the assessee in accordance with law. Therefore, at both the stages, either before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner or before the Appellate Tribunal, the appellate authority can consider the proceedings before it and the material on record before it for the purpose of determining the correct tax liability of the assessee. The appellate authorities, of course, cannot travel beyond the proceedings and examine new sources of income. For this purpose ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eon as it thinks fit" in section 254(1). Thus, there is no restriction in regard to the nature of orders that the Tribunal can pass. The only restriction on the powers of the Tribunal can be inferred from the expression "thereon" which indicates that, while passing orders, it should confine itself to the subject-matter of the appeal and should not go beyond it. That is the only limitation on the power of the Tribunal. Where the Tribunal turns down the claims of the assessee for deduction of a particular amount by way of revenue expenditure and holds it to be a capital expenditure, it is the duty of the Tribunal, even without an alternative submission, to pass necessary consequential orders suo motu to give such further directions in the matter as the situation may warrant. 24.12 In CIT v. Late Begum Noor Banu Alladin [1993] 204 ITR 166 (AP) (FB), it was held that the subject-matter of appeal before the Tribunal cannot be anything different from the subject-matter before the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and necessarily it should be something which arises out of the determination made by the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. However, there is no taboo against raising a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in appeal as it was not investigated by the authorities below and full facts on such new subject have not come on record and the parties concerned did not get opportunity to meet out the case against them. The word "thereon" used in section 254(1) restricts the power of Tribunal to adjudicate on the subject-matter of appeal brought before it by the parties to the dispute either by way of appeal or cross-objections. Thus, in the present case, where provisions of section 41(1) fail to rope in the assessee, the noose cannot be tightened at the Tribunal stage by invoking section 68 as it deals with a new source of income being deemed income different from the deemed income described under section 41(1). Both the sections create legal fictions which are different in scope and subject-matter. Both have to be strictly construed and applied. One cannot be replaced by another. None of the two is an extension of the other. They are neither supplementary nor alternative to each other. They can be invoked independent of each other if conditions for invoking them and as laid down in the respective provision are satisfied. The field of operation for the two is different. Section 41(1) is invoked ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
