1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. v. CIT

247 ITR 818Supreme Court of India2001#908 most cited

What is 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. v. CIT authority for?

Reassessment proceedings are not a change of opinion if the original assessment did not arrive at a positive or negative finding on the issue.

116

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,339 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kalyanji Mavji · Esskat Engineering Pvt. Ltd. v. CIT · ITO v. Purushottam Das Bangur · change of opinion · reassessment · original assessment · Section 147 · failure to fully and truly disclose

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 143(3)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 133A

Issues it is cited on

fresh tangible materialfirst proviso to section 147material facts necessary for assessmentbeyond four yearsmere change of opinionkelvinatorfull and true disclosurelive linkshort term capital gainssection 11(5)within four yearschange of opinion

Judgments citing 1. Kalyanji Mavji& Co. v. CIT

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2629/CHNY/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियकसद"यएवं "ीिड.एस. सु"दर"सह,लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner of C/o. S. Sridhar, v. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - II, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAEPT 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/…

K.Thanikachalam, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2628/CHNY/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri D.S. Sunder Singhआयकरअपीलसं./Ita Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner Of C/O. S. Sridhar, V. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - Ii, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1St Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [Pan: Aaept 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri Shiva Srinivas, Jcit सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2017 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 22.02.2017 आदेश आदेश /O R D E R आदेश आदेश Per D.S. Sunder Singh:

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCIT
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ,चे"ई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ीएन.आर.एस. गणेशन,"याियकसद"यएवं "ीिड.एस. सु"दर"सह,लेखासद"यकेसम" BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.2628 & 2629/Mds/2014 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years : 2008-09&2010-11 Shri K. Thanikachalam, The Asstt. Commissioner of C/o. S. Sridhar, v. Income Tax, Advocate, Business Circle - II, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Chennai. 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai – 600 020. [PAN: AAEPT 1404 B] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/…

M. Pallonji & Co. P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Jt, CIT RG 2(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1594/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Ramit Kocharassessment Year: 2004-05 M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Jcit, C/O- Taj Printing Works, Range-2(2), बनाम/ 46/A, Cawasji Patel Street, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Fort, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400001 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) Pan. No.Aaacm3525B

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 80I

…indicates that income chargeable to tax had escaped assessment,therefore, the ld. Assessing Officer was within his jurisdiction to reopen the assessment. The 8 M/s M. Pallonji & Co. Pvt. Ltd. Hon’ble Apex Court in Ess Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. (2001) 247 ITR 818 (SC) held that merely because the case of the assessee was correct in original assessment for the relevant assessment year, it does not preclude the ITO to reopen the assessment of an earlier year on the basis of finding of his fact that fresh material came to his knowledge. 2.5. Under section 147, as substituted with effect from 01/04/1989, the…

Vinod K.Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1736/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.22 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true disclosure of material facts. I have already reproduced…

Vinod K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 16(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for A

ITA 1264/MUM/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Dec 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Jason P. Boaz & Shri Sandeep Gosain

For Appellant: S/s. Saboo & Deepak S. ShahFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Mittal
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

…be said to have been arrived at during the course of original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion as held in the following judgements: 1. Kalyanji Mavji & Co. vs. CIT 102 ITR 287 (SC) 2. Esskay Engineering P. Ltd. vs. CIT 247 ITR 818 3. ITO vs. Purushottam Das Bangur & Anr. 224 ITR 362 (SC) In the light of the above discussion, the contention of the assessee that the present case is of change of opinion has to be rejected. 2.4.22 The second question arises for consideration is whether the appellant had made full and true disclosure of material facts. I have already reproduced…

M/S. Ellore Jewel Place, Bangalore vs. ITO-Ward-5(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee firm is

ITA 1646/BANG/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George Km/S. Ellore Jewel Palace, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 620, Avenue Road, Ward-2(2), Bengaluru Bengaluru – 560 002. Now: Ward-5(2)(1), Pan : Aaafe3111A Bengaluru

For Appellant: Shri. H. N. Kincha, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Saravanan B, Addl. CIT
Section 133ASection 14Section 143(1)Section 148

…ssee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative was arrived at during the course of the original assessment proceedings. Hence, there is no question of change of opinion. ALA Firm v. CIT (Mad) 102 ITR 622. Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd v. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818. Revathy C.P. Equipments ltd. v. DCIT & Ors (Mad) 241 ITR 856, EMA India Ltd v. ACIT (ALL) 30 DTR 82. Change of opinion comes to rescue of assessee only when assessing officer has taken on permissible views at the time of original proceedings. A wrong application of law cannot be held as permissible view and that can always be changed for appreci…

Abb India Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(Ltu), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1124/BANG/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S. Abb India Ltd. (Formerly Known As Abb Ltd.) 21 Floor, World Trade Centre, Brigade Gateway,No.26/01, Dr.Rajkumar Road Malleswaram West, Bangalore-560055. … Appellant Pan: Aaaca 3834 B Vs. Joint Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Ltu), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.Suryanarayana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Kumar, CIT(DR)
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…g the course of subsequent assessment proceedings. As held by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Multiscreeen Media (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India & another (324 ITR 54). Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ess Kay Engineering P.Ltd. vs. CIT (247 ITR 818) Phool Chand Bajrang Law & another vs. CIT(203 ITR 456) held that information obtained in subsequent assessment proceedings could lead to a belief that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment even though the transaction in question had been examined during the course of original assessment proceedings. Page 8 of 10 Reliance placed by the…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 4847/DEL/2009[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA Nos. 3549/Del /2009 & 4847/Del/2009 Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 The D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Landbase India Ltd Circle – 4(1) 25, Basant Lok New Delhi Community Centre, New Delhi PAN : AAACL 0053F CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/Del/2010 [A/o ITA No. 3549/Del /2009 & 4847/Del/2009] Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/s Landbase India Ltd Vs. The D.C.I.T. 25, Basant Lok Circle – 4(1) Community Centre New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACL 0053 F [Appellant]…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Landbase India Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, cross objections of the

ITA 3549/DEL/2009[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jun 2016AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Smt. Sulekha Verma, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ITA Nos. 3549/Del /2009 & 4847/Del/2009 Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 The D.C.I.T. Vs. M/s Landbase India Ltd Circle – 4(1) 25, Basant Lok New Delhi Community Centre, New Delhi PAN : AAACL 0053F CO No. 328/Del/2009 & 111/Del/2010 [A/o ITA No. 3549/Del /2009 & 4847/Del/2009] Assessment Years: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/s Landbase India Ltd Vs. The D.C.I.T. 25, Basant Lok Circle – 4(1) Community Centre New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACL 0053 F [Appellant]…

ITO 3(1)(4), Mumbai vs. Everlon Synthetics P.Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA N0

ITA 6965/MUM/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 6965/Mum/2013 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07) Income Tax Officer 3(1)(4), M/S Everlon Synthetics बनाम/ R. No. 666, Pvt. Ltd., V. Aayakar Bhawan,M.K. Road, 67, Regent Chambers, Mumbai – 400 020. 208 Nariman Point, Mumbai – 400 021 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan : Aaace0860H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) .. (""यथ" / Respondent)

Section 115JSection 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)

…invalid. 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in not following the judicial decisions in the cases viz. (1 )A.L.A. Firm Vs. CIT(Mad) 102 ITR 622. (2) Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. Vs. CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818. (3) Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors.(Mad) 241 ITR 856. (4) EMA India Ltd. Vs. ACIT(All) 30 DTR 82 wherein it has been held that when there is no discussion on the issue in the assessment order and no details were called for by the Assessing Officer or filed by the assessee on the issue, no finding either positive or negative was arri…

Fibres & Fabrics International P Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circel-11(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1352/BANG/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Feb 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Vijaypal Rao & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S.Fibres & Fabrics International Pvt. Ltd. No.21, E-1, 2Nd Phase, Peenya Industrial Area, Bangalore-560058. … Appellant Pan: Aaacf 6841 M Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income-Tax, Circle 11(3), Bangalore. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nageswar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)
Section 147Section 253Section 32(1)(ii)

…cipients of the commission payment. AO proceeded to make addition only by inferences drawn, this is very clear from the perusal of the assessment order, as extracted above. (ii) The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ess Ess Kay Engg. Co.(P) Ltd. Vs. CIT (247 ITR 818) and Phool Chand Bajrang Lal vs. ITO (203 ITR 456) held that information obtained in the subsequent assessment proceedings could lead to a belief that income chargeable to tax had escaped Page 26 of 37 assessment even though the transaction in question had been examined during the course of original assessment proceedings. This ratio was followed…

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Ltd, Mumbai vs. DDIT (It) 4(1), Mumbai

ITA 1625/MUM/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Jan 2016AY 2007-08
For Appellant: Shri Arvind Sonde-ARFor Respondent: Jasbir Chauhan-CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(1)Section 148Section 2Section 254(1)

…अिधकरण, ‘एल’ खंडपीठ आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई आयकर आयकर आयकर अपीलीय अपीलीय अिधकरण अिधकरण खंडपीठ खंडपीठ मुंबई मुंबई INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI “L” BENCH सव"ी सव"ी सव"ी राजे"" सव"ी राजे"" राजे"", लेखा राजे"" लेखा लेखा सद"य लेखा सद"य सद"य एवं सद"य एवं एवं राम लाल नेगी एवं राम लाल नेगी राम लाल नेगी, , , , "याियक सद"य राम लाल नेगी "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य "याियक सद"य Before S/Sh. Rajendra,Accountant Member & Ram Lal Negi,Judicial Member आयकर आयकर अपील अपील संसंसंसं/.ITA No.1625/Mum/2014,िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष"/Assessment Year-2007-08 आयकर आयकर अपील अपील िनधा"रण िनधा"रण वष" वष" Morgan St…

Prakash Fatandas Jassuja, Thane vs. ITO WD 3(2), Thane

The appeals of the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 4933/MUM/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jan 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh

Section 133ASection 147

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,‘एक-सद"य’ "यायपीठ,मुंबई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, ITA Nos.4933 to 4938/Mum/2015 Assessment Years: 2005-06 to 2010-11 Shir Prakash Fatandas Income Tax Officer, Jassuja, Ward-3(2), बनाम/ M/s Fatandas Mangumal, Room No.3, B Wing, Vs. Mahatma Phule Market, Ashar IT Park, Road Nr. Old Municipal Office, No.16Z, Wagle Estate, Bhaji Market, Thane, Maharashtra Thane(W)-400601 "नधा"रती / Assessee राज"व / Revenue P.A. No.AEVPJ3440E Shri Devendra Jain "नधा"रती क" ओर से / Assessee b…

M/S Bajpe Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, Mangalore vs. ITO, Mangalore

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year :2010-11 is allowed”

ITA 1028/BANG/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. Asha Vijayaraghavan & Shri Inturi Rama Raom/S Bajpe Vyavasaya Seva Sahakari Bank Niyamitha, D No.3-67, Bajpe, Mangalore. . Appellant Vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Mangalore. . Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suresh MuthukrishnanFor Respondent: Smt. Neera Malhotra, CIT
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

…ther sources’. The AO gathered information from Karnataka Bank and found that the actual interest earned on the FD’s is Rs.28,75,000/-. The AO analysed the objections of the appellant on reopening by relying on Ess Kay Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT (SC) 247 ITR 818 and Revathy CP Equipments Ltd. Vs. DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856. Accordingly, AO assessed the interest income of Rs.28,75,000/- and denied deduction u/s 80P on the same. 6. On appeal the CIT(A) observed that in the case of Tumkur Merchants Souharda Credit Co-op Ltd., Hon’ble Karnataka High Court analysed the case of M/s Totgars Co-op Sales S…

M/S New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 1023/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…of excess claim of deduction u/s. 80HHF of the Act. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of both the parties and various decisions in the cases of A.G. Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. ITO in W.P.(C)8031/2011, Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818, Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT(All) 30DTR 82, dismissed the assessee’s pleas raised on validity of re-assessment proceedings as per observations made in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the impugned order. The learned CIT(A) further considering the rival submissions and the facts of the case, also d…

New Delhi Television Ltd., New Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 5126/DEL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Sept 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: : Shri I.C. Sudhir & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.L. Meena, CIT/DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 80H

…of excess claim of deduction u/s. 80HHF of the Act. The learned CIT(A) after considering the submissions of both the parties and various decisions in the cases of A.G. Holdings (P) Ltd. vs. ITO in W.P.(C)8031/2011, Ess Kay Engineering Co. (P) Ltd. vs. CIT(SC) 247 ITR 818, Revathy C.P. Equipments Ltd. vs. DCIT & Ors. (Mad) 241 ITR 856 and EMA India Ltd. vs. ACIT(All) 30DTR 82, dismissed the assessee’s pleas raised on validity of re-assessment proceedings as per observations made in para 5.2 and 5.3 of the impugned order. The learned CIT(A) further considering the rival submissions and the facts of the case, also d…