9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 872X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lusion and for taking a decision. In the event of passing an order of assessment or reassessment, then the writ petitioner is entitled to prefer an appeal contemplated under the provisions of the Act. Based on the preliminary informations gathered by the AO, the notice issued for the purpose of reopening of the assessment would not provide a cause of action for filing of the present writ petition and this Court has no hesitation in holding that the writ petition is not only premature, even on merits the writ petitioner has failed to establish any acceptable reason to grant the relief, as such, sought for. This being the principles to be followed, the writ petitioner has miserably failed to establish any legally acceptable ground for the purpose of interfering with the actions initiated by the respondent by invoking the provisions of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Thus, there is no infirmity as such, in respect of the initiation of the proceedings for reopening of the assessment under the Act and the writ petition is devoid of merits. The respondent is empowered to proceed further in accordance with law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. - W.P. No.44311 of 2016 And ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... is value has been received in excess has not been disclosed in the return of income; (e) The high value of share premium with respect to South Asia Entertainment Holdings Limited, is not a genuine transaction details of which was not fully disclosed by the Assessee; (f) Thus, there is a failure on the part of the Assessee to disclose fully and truy all the material facts necessary for assessment, for the AY 2009-2010; (g) The above transaction is not a genuine transaction and is required to be assessed to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 5. In response to the reasonings furnished by the respondent for reopening of the assessments, the writ petitioner submitted the following objections on 22.11.2016:- (a) The receipt of share application money, on a higher premium, from South Asia Entertainment Holding Limited, a foreign investment regulated through SEBI, RBI, Registrar of Companies and the Ministry of Finance Approvals, is a fact, which is available in the Financials submitted during the course of scrutiny assessment, on the basis of which the questionnaire was issued and finally the assessment was completed after satisfying about the correctness and ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eving that any income has escaped assessment which has to be brought to tax under Section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, and consequently to issue a notice under Section 148 of the Act; (f) It was also objected that the issuance of the notice under Section 148 of the Act, is prima facie illegal for the fact that the alleged reasons recorded for reopening the assessment were communicated after the end of six years i.e., after 31.3.2016. 6. Without considering the objections submitted by the writ petitioner, the respondent rejected the same through their order dated 16.12.2016 on the following grounds:- (a) The Assessee did not inform the details of share premium in the return of income filed and hence the Assessee failed to disclose fully and truly all the material facts necessary for its assessment; (b) There is no change of opinion, relying on certain decisions; (c) Stated that the Apex Court decision in the case of Lovely Exports , is not applicable to the facts of the case. 7. The writ petitioner contended that the Assessing Officer in his reasons recorded for reopening of the assessment states that there was no disclosure of fully and truly all material fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ring the relevant point of time in respect of the returns filed by the writ petitioner for the respective assessment years, namely, 2009-2010, 2010-2011 and 2011-2012. Forming second opinion in respect of the closed assessments are impermissible under the Act. 11. On a perusal of the rejection order issued by the respondent, it is unambiguous that the opinion formed by the respondent is nothing but the reappraisal of the fact which were already disclosed and assessed by the Assessing Officer deuring the relevant point of time. The writ petitioner-Company explained the nature of transactions and issue of shares and other details. No sale happened actually. Transfer of shares with reference to the Companies Act, 1956 is permissible and therefore, such a transaction can never be construed as a new material or a suppressed material, so as to reopen the closed assessment under Section 148 of the Act. All these particulars in relation to the issuance of shares were communicated along with the returns filed by the writ petitioner. The working sheets valuation and other details were also furnished. It is relevant to cite that the foreign investment promotion board, Reserve Bank of India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Hon'ble Supreme Court of India by citing the judgment of Calcutta Discount Limited Company vs. Income Tax Officer, Companies District I, Calcutta [(1961) 41 ITR 191 (SC)] , set aside the cases and remanded the matters back to the High Court. It is further observed that each case shall be examined on its own merits keeping in view the scope of judicial review while entertaining such matters, as laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in various judgments. The Supreme Court further observed that we are conscious of the fact that the High Court has referred to the judgment of this Court in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Chhabil Dass Agarwal [(2013) ITR 357 (SC)] . We find that the principle laid down in the said case does not apply to these cases. Relying on the observations, the learned Senior Counsel is of an opinion that the present writ petition is also to be decided on merits and the same cannot be dismissed merely on the ground of maintainability as raised by the respondent that the writ petitioners are having alternate remedy under the provisions of the Act. 16. A mere suspicion in respect of certain transactions cannot constitute a cause of action for the res ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uently, one of the conditions precedent for removing the bar against taking action after the said four year period remains unfulfilled. In our recent decision in Wel Intertrade (P.) Ltd. s we had agreed with the view taken by the Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of Duli Chand Singhania that, in the absence of an allegation in the reasons recorded that the escapement of income had occurred by reason of failure on the part of the assessee to disclose fully and truly all material facts necessary for his assessment, any action taken by the Assessing Officer under section 147 beyond the four year period would be wholly without jurisdiction. Reiterating our viewpoint, we hold that the notice dated 29-3-2004 under section 148 based on the recorded reasons as supplied to the petitioner as well as the consequent order dated 2-3-2005 are without jurisdiction as no action under section 147 could be taken beyond the four year period in the circumstances narrated above. 24. .. .. .. .. .. .. This means that a notice under section 148, in the present case, could not, in any event, have been issued after six years from the end of the assessment year 1998-99, i.e., after 31-3-20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e set out. However, something therein which is critical to the formation of the belief must be referred to. Otherwise the link goes missing. 24. The reopening of assessment under Section 147 is a potent power not to be lightly exercised. It certainly cannot be invoked casually or mechanically. The heart of the provision is the formation of belief by the AO that income has escaped assessment. The reasons so recorded have to be based on some tangible material and that should be evident from reading the reasons. It cannot be supplied subsequently either during the proceedings when objections to the reopening are considered or even during the assessment proceedings that follow. This is the bare minimum mandatory requirement of the first part of Section 147 (1) of the Act. 26. The first part of Section 147 (1) of the Act requires the AO to have reasons to believe that any income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment. It is thus formation of reason to believe that is subject matter of examination. The AO being a quasi judicial authority is expected to arrive at a subjective satisfaction independently on an objective criteria. While the report of the Investigation Wing migh ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nge of opinion as an in-built test to check abuse of power by the Assessing Officer. Hence, after 1st April, 1989, Assessing Officer has power to re-open, provided there is tangible material to come to the conclusion that there is escapement of income from assessment. Reasons must have a live link with the formation of the belief. Our view gets support from the changes made to Section 147 of the Act, as quoted hereinabove. Under the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act, 1987, Parliament not only deleted the words reason to believe but also inserted the word opinion in Section 147 of the Act. However, on receipt of representations from the Companies against omission of the words reason to believe , Parliament re-introduced the said expression and deleted the word opinion on the ground that it would vest arbitrary powers in the Assessing Officer. We quote hereinbelow the relevant portion of Circular No.549 dated 31st October, 1989, which reads as follows: 7.2 Amendment made by the Amending Act, 1989, to reintroduce the expression `reason to believe' in Section 147.--A number of representations were received against the omission of the words `reason to believe' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Assessing Officer proposes or wants to take a different view. 24. Further in paragraphs 12, 13 and 14, the power to review by the Assessing Officer has been stated as under:- 12. The said observations have been rightly held to be contrary to the Full Bench decision of the Delhi High Court in Kelvinator of India Limited (supra) in Eicher Limited (supra). The said decision in Eicher Limited (supra) makes reference to the decision of KLM Royal Dutch Airlines vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax [2007] 292 ITR 49 (Delhi). KLM Royal case (supra) deals with some other issues on which we do not express or make any observation approving or disapproving. Some of these aspects have been considered and explained in other decisions in light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Jhaveri Stock Brokers Pvt. Ltd. (supra). 13. It is, therefore, clear from the aforesaid position that: (1) Reassessment proceedings can be validly initiated in case return of income is processed under Section 143(1) and no scrutiny assessment is undertaken. In such cases there is no change of opinion; (2) Reassessment proceedings will be invalid in case the assessment ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gard, reliance is placed on the judgment of the Allahabad High Court in the case of DOKI Nandan Singhania vs. CIT [190 ITR 289], Zigma Commodity P Ltd vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkatta [46 Taxmann.com 339], Dr.Nedunchezhian vs. CIT [279 ITR 342 (Madras)], CIT vs. Chhabil Das Agarwal [357 ITR 357 SC] and that of Kone Elevators India Ltd [35 Taxmann.com 102 (Madras)] . 28. It is contended that the information provided by the CBI would fall under the category of new information based on which the Assessing Officer has reason to believe and formed his opinion. It is pertinent to state that in case of Mrs.Rama Sinha vs. CIT [(2003) 130 Taxman 139 (P H)] has held that the reassessment proceedeings cannot be questioned since the Assessing Officer initiated the reassessment proceedings on the basis of the definite information received from the CBI about the Assessee. Further, in the case of Balram Jagar vs. CIT [(2002) 120 Taxman 464 (P H)] , it was held that the question whether the petitioner could held liable for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any other contemporaneous Statute could not have any bearing on his liability to be taxed under the Act and the Compete ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... basis of the final outcome of the reassessment proceeding on that item could not be proper. [See Sri Krishna P. Ltd vs. CIT [221 ITR 538 (SC)] and in the case of Central Province Manganese Ore Co. Ltd vs. ITO [191 ITR 662] , which support the stand of the Department. 32. The Assessee contends that foreign investments were brought into the country after obtaining various approval from the Government Agency. However, the CBI report suggest that the Assessee has used his personal influence and had obtained illegal gratification during the said process. Further, during the relevant time, when the writ petitioner was holding a key position in the Government of India and therefore, the transaction cannot be simply brushed aside sighting that it was approved in various stages by the Government. The writ petitioner can prove the same by availing this opportunity for due hearing during the scrutiny proceedings. The writ petitioner is entering into the shoes of the Assessing Officer and was citing method of investigations which should be carried out for forming a reason which is an entirely subjective position provided under the Statute. 33. The proceedings under the Income Tax ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Section 148 of the Act and after passing of the assessment order, the writ petitioner is having appellate remedy under the provisions of the Act. 37. Pursuant to the amendment made on 1.4.1989, there is a change in the provisions of the Income Tax Act and the original term reasons to be recorded in writing has been amended as has reason to believe . Thus, it is the subjective satisfaction of the Assessing Officer whether there is any reason to believe for the purpose of reopening the escaped assessment. The Assessing Officer, undoubtedly, has to record the reasons for reopening of the escaped assessment. However, the sufficiency of the materials available with the Assessing Officer cannot be questioned nor provide a cause of action for the writ petitioner to challenge the very notice by way of a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is an application of mind on the part of the Competent Authorities while recording the reasons as the provision warrants such an exercise. However, the same need not be communicated at the notice stage and the reasons were already communicated in respect of the writ petitioner at his request. Thus, the procedures c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 43(1) of the Act. 41. It is further contended that an Explanation 2(c)(1) to Section 147 of the Act, reads as under:- (c) where an assessment has been made, but-(i) income chargeable to tax has been underassessed ; or (ii) such income has been assessed at too low a rate ; or (iii) such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under this Act ; or (iv) excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. The above Explanation 2 also provides power to the Assessing Officer that income chargeable to tax has been underassessed or such income has been assessed at too low a rate or such income has been made the subject of excessive relief under the Act or excessive loss or depreciation allowance or any other allowance under this Act has been computed. 42. It is stated by the respondent that various circumstances are provided under the provisions of Section 147 for the reopening of the assessment. Thus, the provision does not restrict a particular circumstance or event, number of circumstances and the reasons are provided for reopening of the assessment in order to protect the revenue and to ensure that the Assessees ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... inal Court charge sheet that it is a fit case for reopening of the assessment. The sufficiency of the materials can never be questioned by the Assessee. Contrarily, it is the duty of the Assessee to establish his case before the Assessing Officer, so as to come to a conclusion and pass an order on merits and in accordance with law. Thus, the present writ petition is premature and is liable to be rejected. 46. In support of the arguments, the learned Additional Solicitor General of India, cited the following judgments:- In the case of Biswanath Bhattacharya vs. Union of India and Others [(2014) 4 SCC 392] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in paragraphs 13, 14 and 16, held as follows:- 13. Though Section 127 expressly provided for recording of reasons it did not expressly provide communicating the same to the assessee. Still, this Court held that such a communication is mandatory: (Ajantha Industries case [Ajantha Industries v. CBDT, (1976) 1 SCC 1001 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 127] , SCC p. 1005, paras 10-11) 10. The reason for recording of reasons in the order and making these reasons known to the assessee is to enable an opportunity to the assessee to approach the High Court und ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 523] . The appellant could have effectively convinced the respondents by producing the appropriate material that further steps in furtherance to the notice under Section 6 need not be taken. Apart from that, an order of forfeiture is an appealable order where the correctness of the decision under Section 7 to forfeit the properties could be examined. We do not see anything in the ratio of Ajantha Industries case [Ajantha Industries v. CBDT, (1976) 1 SCC 1001 : 1976 SCC (Tax) 127] which lays down a universal principle that whenever a statute requires some reasons to be recorded before initiating action, the reasons must necessarily be communicated. The Apex Court in paragraph 16 of the abovesaid judgment said that there is no express statutory requirement to communicate the reasons which led to the issuance of notice under Section 6 of the Act. Secondly, the reasons, though not initially supplied along with the notice dated 4-3-1977, were subsequently supplied thereby enabling the appellant to effectively meet the case of the respondents. This apart, the appellant could have effectively convinced the respondents by producing the appropriate material that further steps in fur ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tioner on the issue of receipt of ₹ 51,24,800 because at that stage it did not have sufficient evidence to corroborate the allegations. The question as to whether the petitioner could be held liable for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any other contemporaneous statute does not, in our opinion, have any bearing on his liability to be taxed under the 1961 Act and the competent authority constituted under that Act cannot be denuded of its jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's liability to pay tax in relation to the particular assessment year simply because in the criminal case charge has not been framed. The Hon'ble High Court of Punjab and Haryana, in the abovesaid judgment, dismissed the writ petition as premature on the ground that the question as to whether the petitioner could be held liable for an offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act or any other contemporaneous statute does not, in our opinion, have any bearing on his liability to be taxed under the 1961 Act and the competent authority constituted under that Act, cannot be denuded of its jurisdiction to determine the petitioner's liability to pay tax in relation to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 963 (SC)] , the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India, in paragraph-5, held as follows:- 5. .. .. .. .. ... .. However, we clarify that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order. In the abovesaid judgment, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has clarified that when a notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is issued, the proper course of action for the noticee is to file return and if he so desires, to seek reasons for issuing notices. The assessing officer is bound to furnish reasons within a reasonable time. On receipt of reasons, the noticee is entitled to file objections to issuance of notice and the assessing officer is bound to dispose of the same by passing a speaking order . 51. The Hon'ble Supreme Court reiterated the principles in GKN Driveshafts (India) Ltd' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... utiously and the reasons for reopening is also mandatory. In the absence of any substantial reason, the Assessing Officer cannot reopen the assessment which was closed long back. 55. The very object of the provision under the Income Tax Act is to ensure that the suppressed materials or facts and the new availability of materials to the Department are also to be dealt with for the purpose of taxation. In order to cover the loopholes in the Tax Regime, and to control and evasion of tax by the individuals, the provision of reopening of assessments are made and such provisions are to be certainly invoked by following the procedures contemplated under the Act. 56. Let us now look into the manner in which the initiations are done by the respondent in respect of the present writ petition. Undoubtedly, the writ petitioner filed the returns for the respective assessment years, within the time limit prescribed under Section 139 (1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It is an admitted fact that the impugned notices are issued within the period of six years as contemplated under Section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Thus, the notice was issued informing the Assessee to take note of the fact that th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . The Court cannot intervene on such initiations in a routine manner in the absence of any valid and acceptable legal grounds. Thus, the exercise of judicial review in such matters regarding the initiation of the proceedings are to be exercised cautiously. 61. Let us now meet the grounds raised on behalf of the writ petitioner that Section 147 requires that the reasons must be recorded in the notice and in the absence of any reasons communicated along with the notice under Section 148 of the Act, the entire proceedings become null and void. If such an interpretation is accepted by this Court, then one can presume that the authorities are bound to pass a final order at the notice stage itself. That is not the intention of the Statute. The intention of the Statute is that the authorities on receipt of new material facts or regarding any suppression of materials by the Assessee, is bound to initiate proceedings by invoking Sections 147 and 148 of the Act. 62. The amended phraseology of reason to believe must be interpreted that the Assessing Officer on receipt of any such new material or materials in relation to suppression of fact by the Assessee has made out a prima facie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment years 2008-2009 and 2009-2010. The respondent also furnished the reasons for reopening of the assessment on 8.5.2015. Thereafter, the Assessee must co-operate for the scrutiny and for completion of the reassessment process. 69. The writ petitioner, being a 'Company', is duty bound to respond to the notice to prove their innocence or otherwise. Contrarily, the writ petition is filed at the notice stage itself, and the same will hamper all further proceedings of the Department and such an idea if any developed can never be encouraged by the Courts. On receipt of the notice impugned in the present writ petition, rightly the writ petitioner had approached the respondent for furnishing the reasons. The respondent has also furnished the reasons and the letters. Thus, it is left open to the writ petitioner to defend their case in the manner known to law and allow the officials to scrutinise the assessments based on the new materials available and thereafter, take a decision and pass orders by following the procedures contemplated under the Act. 70. In view of the fact that the requirement under Section 147 of the Act i.e., the reason to believe, does no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me Tax Act, 1961 was issued to the Assessee for reopening the assessment. Such complex facts and circumstances are to be adjudicated by producing documents and by adducing evidences by the parties concerned. Such an exercise can never be done by the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Thus, entertaining a writ petition at the notice stage, must be sparingly and cautiously done. The High Courts must be restrained from entertaining such writ petitions when the very notice itself is under challenge. 73. Undoubtedly, the legal principles settled in this regard that the writ petition can be entertained if the notice has been issued by an incompetent authority having no jurisdiction or if the allegation of mala fides are raised or if the same is in violation of any Statutory Rules in force. Even in the case of raising an allegation of mala fides, the authorities against whom such an allegation is raised to be impleaded as party respondent in his personal capacity. In the event of not establishing any such legal ground, no writ proceedings can be entertained against a notice in a routine manner and the judicial review in this regard is certainly limited. 74 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... arate concept and it is included within the meaning of the assessment under Section 2(8) of the Act. Thus, an assessment and reassessment are part and parcel of the procedures and therefore, there cannot be any doubt in respect of the power of reassessment provided under the Act. 78. The Income Tax Department may not be aware of the income of the individual Assessees. They are assessing the tax based on the returns filed by the respective Assessees. Thus, the very concept of assessment is that the Officer who is scrutinising the returns did not aware of the income of an individual. For this reason only Act provides adequate power to deal with the cases, where there is evasion or suppression or otherwise by the Assessees. The very source of assessment is the returns filed by the Assessee concerned. Only after the filing of the returns, the Department of Income Tax came to understand that the income of the person concerned. Thus, the reassessment may arise on several occasions and on several grounds. The Income Tax Department may receive informations from many other sources. The Income Tax Department may get some external materials as well as from various other sources. It i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e reasons recorded before the initiation of the reopening of the assessment alone need not be a ground for reassessment. Even after reopening of the assessment if any materials or informations are received by the Assessing Officer that also shall be included part and parcel of the proceedings and sufficient explanations shall be called for from the Assessee and accordingly a reassessment order can be passed. Thus, two circumstances arise after the conclusion of the assessment. Firstly, if the assessment is finalised, the reopening in respect of the escaped assessments can be made if any new materials or suppression of materials are identified. On such reopening of the assessment and during the course of the proceedings, if the Assessing Officer noticed any other materials or informations in respect of escaped assessment and the same also can be treated as part and parcel of the reassessment proceedings which is reopened. 82. On going through the said ingredients of the Section 147, this Court has no hesitation to conclude that the Assessing Officer has got wider power in respect of covering the escaped assessments for the purpose of reopening the assessment. The proviso to Secti ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction 147 of the Act, for reopening of the escaped assessments can never be restricted by imposing certain conditions on the Assessing Officer. 88. Even in case of certain procedural lapses, this Court is of an opinion that such procedural lapses can be taken advantage of by the Assessee only if it causes prejudice to the proceedings, if any. Such procedural lapses not causing any prejudice to the rights of the Assessee during the course of the proceedings of the reassessment, then the Assessee cannot file a writ petition, seeking quashing of the entire proceedings. Such writ petitions also cannot be entertained in view of the fact that such procedural lapses or omissions or commissions have not caused any prejudice to the interest of the Assessee nor resulted in denial of fair procedure and opportunity to the Assessee. 89. In the present writ petition, this Court is of an opinion that undoubtedly notice was issued based on the reasons recorded by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 of the Act. However, the reasons arrived had not been communicated to the writ petitioner. But the writ petitioner requested the reasons to be furnished. Responding to the letter sent by th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... very provision stating that the Assessing Officer should record the reasons does not mean that the same should be communicated along with the notice itself. The provision is incorporated in order to ensure that the Assessing Officers act with responsibility and make sure that they are reopening the assessment only based on some reasons and the materials available on record. Such provisions provided to avoid the arbitrariness on the part of the Assessing Officer cannot be taken advantage by the Assessee by contemplating the procedures that the reasons so recorded by the Assessing Officer should be communicated to the Assessee along with the notice issued under Section 148(1) of the Act. Such a proposition cannot be appreciated and that is not the intention of the Act itself. Thus, the very arguments advanced in this regard by the writ petitioner deserves no merit consideration. 93. In case of M/S. Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs Income-Tax Officer And Another [1993 203 ITR 456] , it has been held as follows:- One of the purposes of Section 147, appears to us to be, to ensure that a party cannot get away by wilfully making a false or untrue statement at the time of original ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
