Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

125 ITR 713Supreme Court of India1980#46 most cited

What is Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT authority for?

An assessee is entitled to be confronted with evidence used against them and to an opportunity for cross-examination, especially when that evidence is from a third party or a retracted statement. Failure to provide such an opportunity violates the principles of natural justice.

962

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2013 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT · 125 ITR 713 · natural justice · cross-examination · evidence · third party statement · retracted statement · opportunity to rebut · assessment proceedings

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 148Section 132(4)Section 69C

Issues it is cited on

section 158bbsection 292cretracted statementdumb documentssection 132(4a)on-moneyloose papersdocuments seizedlive linksection 34section 69bsection 292

Judgments citing Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT

Mark Foods, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-28(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by assessee are allowed

ITA 4102/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Addl. CIT
Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 153CSection 68

…t u/s 143(3) read with section 147, without providing any opportunity of cross examination of the witnesses relied upon by the Assessing Officer and thus violating the law laid down by Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT (1980) 125 ITR 713 and Andaman Timber Industries v. Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006.) 9. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned CIT (A) has erred in not condoning the delay in filing the appeal thereby violating the principles of natural Justice. 10. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, t…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6281/MUM/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Therefore AO and Ld. CIT(A) merely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No 6279/Mum/2024 for the A.Y 2007-0…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6280/MUM/2024[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Therefore AO and Ld. CIT(A) merely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No 6279/Mum/2024 for the A.Y 2007-0…

Indravadan Hanjarimal Jain, Mumbai vs. Circle 42(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 6279/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Apr 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankar

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…the assessee. Therefore AO and Ld. CIT(A) merely cannot treat the genuine transactions as in genuine on the basis of suspicious and surmises as held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Omkar Sahay Mohd Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC), Kishan Chand Chellaram Vs. CIT, 125 ITR 713 (SC) and Umacharan Shah & Bros, 37 ITR 271 (SC). Hence in these circumstances no additions are warranted. Therefore considering the overall factual and legal position we direct the AO to delete the addition. ITA Nos. 6280 & 6281/Mum/2024 10. As the facts and circumstances in these appeals are identical to ITA No 6279/Mum/2024 for the A.Y 2007-0…

Income Tax Officer, Jamnagar vs. Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta, Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 750/RJT/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot02 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am. & Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 750 /Rjt/ 2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) The Ito, Jamnagar Vs. Nilesh Bipinchandra Mehta Prop. Of B. J. Industries Tej Prakash Society, P. N. Marg Jamnagar 361001, Gujarat India स्थायी लेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaqpm8295H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 02/04/2025 आदेश / Order Per Dinesh Mohan Sinha, Jm: Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [(In Short “Nfac/Ld. Cit(A)”] Vide Order Dated 21.08.2024, Which In Turn Assessment Order Passed By Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department / Assessing Officer Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act"). 1

For Appellant: Shri Chetan Agarwal, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…is own transactions. It is claimed that no liability should be fastened on him without any supporting evidence. The appellant also relied on various case judgements:- (a) Dhakeswari Cotton Mills Ltd. Vs. CIT 26 ITR 775 (SC) (b) Krishna Chand Chela Ram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) (c) Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CIT (2015) 62 Taxmann.com 3 (SC) (d) Ayubkhan Noorkhan Pathan Vs. State of Mharashtra & Ors. (Civil Appeal No. 7728 of 2012 dated 08/11/2012) (e) Khem Chand Vs. Union of India (AIR 1958 SC 300) (1) Amitabh Bansal Vs. ITO Ward-46(4), [2019] 102 taxmann.com 229 (g) CIT Vs. Indrajit Singh Suri [2013] 33 taxmann…

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Amr India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 535/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

…see, the additions cannot be sustained. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) and Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). Therefore, she submitted that additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of depreciation should be deleted. 24. The Learned CIT-DR MS. M. Narmada, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Assessing Officer submitted that the Assessing Officer has brought-out clear facts in light of statement recorded from Shri Kewal…

ACIT, Central Circle - 2(2), Hyderabad vs. Amr India Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, Cross Objection No

ITA 534/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Respondent: MS. M. Narmada, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)

…see, the additions cannot be sustained. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata-II [2015] 62 taxmann.com 3 (SC) and Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC). Therefore, she submitted that additions made by the Assessing Officer towards disallowance of depreciation should be deleted. 24. The Learned CIT-DR MS. M. Narmada, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Assessing Officer submitted that the Assessing Officer has brought-out clear facts in light of statement recorded from Shri Kewal…

DCIT, Central Circle-2(1), Hyd, Hyderabad vs. Aliya Nasser Aziz (Late) L/R Nasser Aziz, B'Lore, Bangalore

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 486/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ross-examination. In absence of satisfactory fulfilment of principles of natural justice, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 123 ITR 713 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, although, as per the MOU dated 02.03.2005, the agreement is for purchase of 18750 sq.ft of land, but, as per the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 the extent of land purchased was 12006 sq.ft only, because there is a dispute on extent of the land and finally after survey and measu…

Nasser Aziz An, B'Lore, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 374/HYD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ross-examination. In absence of satisfactory fulfilment of principles of natural justice, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 123 ITR 713 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, although, as per the MOU dated 02.03.2005, the agreement is for purchase of 18750 sq.ft of land, but, as per the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 the extent of land purchased was 12006 sq.ft only, because there is a dispute on extent of the land and finally after survey and measu…

Nasser Aziz An, B'Lore, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3, Hyderabad

In the result, ITA.No.486/Hyd

ITA 373/HYD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Mar 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: CA K C DevdasFor Respondent: Shri B Bala Krishna, CIT-DR
Section 127Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153A

…ross-examination. In absence of satisfactory fulfilment of principles of natural justice, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. In this regard, he relied on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram vs. CIT 123 ITR 713 (SC). Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, although, as per the MOU dated 02.03.2005, the agreement is for purchase of 18750 sq.ft of land, but, as per the registered sale deed dated 24.05.2006 the extent of land purchased was 12006 sq.ft only, because there is a dispute on extent of the land and finally after survey and measu…

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 147

…ection 139 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, affidavits are b) valid only when made voluntarily and before an authorized officer. 6.3. Evidentiary Value of Affidavits: As clarified by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kishan Chand Chellaram v. a) CIT [(1980) 125 ITR 713 (SC)], an affidavit is not conclusive evidence. It is subject to corroboration, cross-examination, and independent verification. The Supreme Court has also ruled that "an affidavit cannot be treated as b) substantive evidence unless the opposite party is given an opportunity to cross- examine the deponent." 6.4. Points on the Affidavit Filed by…

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 411/NAG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…o required the assessee to go through the entire gamut of reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under S. 148 quashed. 7. (1980) 125 ITR 713 (Supreme Court of India) 12 Shri Nandkumar Khatumal Harchandani ITA no.410/Nag./2019 A.Y. 2014–15 KishinchandChellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources-Chargeability-T, an employee of Madras office of assessee making a telegraphic transfer of an amount of Rs. 107350 to N, an employee of assessee Bombay Office-On…

ACIT-Central Circle -2(1), Nagpur vs. Shri Nandkumar Khattumal Harchandani, Nagpur

ITA 410/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur25 Feb 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Manoj G. MoryaniFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 10(38)Section 68

…o required the assessee to go through the entire gamut of reassessment proceedings-Neither the reasons in the initial notice nor the communication providing reasons remotely indicate independent application of mind by AO-Notice under S. 148 quashed. 7. (1980) 125 ITR 713 (Supreme Court of India) Kishinchand Chellaram –Vs.- Commissioner of Income Tax Income from undisclosed sources-Chargeability-T, an employee of Madras office of assessee making a telegraphic transfer of an amount of Rs. 107350 to N, an employee of assessee Bombay Office-On enquiry made by ITO from Madras bank, manager of bank informing ITO that t…

ACIT-24(1), Mumbai, Piramal Chamber vs. Arvind Shantilal Shah, Andheri West

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

ITA 5903/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjeeassessment Year : 2015-16 Acit-24(1), Arvind Shantilal Shah, 6Th Floor, 206, Krishna Chs Ltd., Piramal Chamber, Vs. 212/6 Cross Road, Parel, Mumbai Mumbai Pan : Aapps5253A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR
Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2015-16 ACIT-24(1), Arvind Shantilal Shah, 6th Floor, 206, Krishna CHS Ltd., Piramal Chamber, vs. 212/6 Cross Road, Parel, Mumbai Mumbai PAN : AAPPS5253A (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : NONE For Revenue : Shri Ram Krishn Kedia, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 10-02-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 10-02-2025 O R D E R PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The Revenue has filed this appeal challenging the order dt.25-09-2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of In…

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bilaspur vs. Ms Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd., Bilaspur

ITA 430/RPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 430/Rpr/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. L. Anuragi, CIT-DR
Section 115JSection 132Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

…information surfaced during the Search action on a 3rd party, Ld. AR placed his reliance on following judgments: 24 DCIT, Bilaspur Vs. M/s Mayura Saria Pvt. Ltd.  PCIT Vs. Oriental Power Cables Ltd. (143 taxmann.com 371 SC)  Kishinchand Chellaram Vs. CIT (125 ITR 713 SC)  Andaman Timber Industries Vs. CCE (281 ITR 241 SC) 13. After the aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that the issue raised by the assessee before the First Appellate Authority has been elaborately deliberated upon and considering the facts of the case Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues appreciating the facts of the case in co…

Satelite Trade Impex Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Circle 5(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands

ITA 912/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon'Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon'Ble Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 139Section 142Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 250

…ame and without disproving the same the AO cannot treat the transactions as in genuine merely on the basis of ‘suspicion and surmises' as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under: 1. Omkar Sahay Mohemmad Sail 37 ITR 151 (SC) 2. Kishanchand Chelaram Vs. CIT 125 ITR 713 (SC) 3. Umacharan Shaw & Bros.37 ITR 271 at page 272 (SC) 18. Hence, in our considered view the additions under such a circumstances are not sustainable. Further the Ld AO relied on the third party statements and stated that it is a mere accommodation entry and treated the genuine purchases as ingenuine in our view the addition based merely on st…

Rajendra Mohanlal Agrawal, Jalna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jalna

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 514/PUN/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Jan 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil PathakFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Desai, Addl CIT-DR
Section 131Section 133(6)Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

…sing Officer never supplied the copies of statements of the various parties from whom he has obtained such statements and which is the basis for making huge addition. In this regard, he relied on the following decisions: i) Kishanchand Chelaram vs CIT, (1980) 125 ITR 713 ii) Andaman Timber Industries vs. CCE 281 CTR 214 (SC) 8. He submitted that given an opportunity, the assessee is in a position to substantiate his case by producing the evidence to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer regarding the genuineness of such cash received from the various parties which was robbed. He further submitted that there…

The Modern Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 432/AHD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…sis of statement of one party, the Hon'ble apex court held that cross examination is a sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine the hostile witness. In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cross-examination is a must where Assessing Officer relies only upon the statement of a third party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Central Excise, Civil Appeal 4228 of 2006 order dated 02-09-2015 has held that if there was no material with the department on the basis of…

The United Builders Corporation, Ahmedabad vs. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3465/AHD/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…sis of statement of one party, the Hon'ble apex court held that cross examination is a sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine the hostile witness. In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cross-examination is a must where Assessing Officer relies only upon the statement of a third party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Central Excise, Civil Appeal 4228 of 2006 order dated 02-09-2015 has held that if there was no material with the department on the basis of…

Modern Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 3464/AHD/2016[2013-14 (Q-4)]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jan 2025

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 153CSection 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)

…sis of statement of one party, the Hon'ble apex court held that cross examination is a sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and assessee should be given an opportunity to cross examine the hostile witness. In the case of Kishanchand Chelaram vs. CIT 125 ITR 713, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that cross-examination is a must where Assessing Officer relies only upon the statement of a third party. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber Industries vs. Central Excise, Civil Appeal 4228 of 2006 order dated 02-09-2015 has held that if there was no material with the department on the basis of…