Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram v. CIT

83 ITR 508High Court1972#2208 most cited

What is Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram v. CIT authority for?

The principle of natural justice, specifically the right to be heard (audi alteram partem), must be strictly followed in quasi-judicial proceedings. An assessment order is invalid if the assessee is denied the opportunity to cross-examine third parties whose statements or evidence form the basis for additions.

53

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 292,668 Indian tax judgments — from 2010 to 2025.

Also referred to as

Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram · 83 ITR 508 · natural justice · audi alteram partem · cross-examination right · third party evidence · assessment validity · Section 143(3) · Section 250 · Section 68 · genuineness of transactions

Sections most often in play

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68Section 133ASection 139

Issues it is cited on

tangible materialunexplained expenditureaccommodation entrysection 133agenuineness of the transactionlong term capital gainsection 133(6)first appealsection 131unexplained cash creditsection 10section 139

Judgments citing Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram v. CIT

NEERAJ KUMAR SETHI,DELHI vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC)

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

ITA 9/ASR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar26 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kalia, C.A
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…0-43 (ii) CCE v. ITC Ltd (1995) 2 SCC 38(SC) (iii) CIT v. Panna Devi Saraogi (1970) 78 ITR 728 (Cal) (iv) Smt. Ritu Devi v. CIT (2004) 141 Taxman 559 (Mad) (v) M. Mohd. Ishaq v. CIT (1995) 27 ITR 510, 513 (Punj) (vi) Ponkunnam Traders v. Addl. ITO (1972) 83 ITR 508 (Ker) (vii) Addl. ITO Ponkunnam Traders (1976) 102 ITR 366 (Ker) (viii) State of Kerala v. Shaduli Grocery Dealer (K.T.) AIR 1977 SC 1627 18. The Ld. AR rested his arguments praying for deletion of the additions both on facts and law. 19. The Ld. DR, relied on the order of the Ld. CIT (A), and referring to the jurisdictional High court in the…

DCIT, SWARGATE PUNE vs. GRIHUM HOUSING FINANCE LIMITED, PUNE

In the result, the Cross Objection filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1883/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20

For Appellant: S/Shri Nikhil Mutha and Abhilash HiranFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde
Section 143(1)Section 2(91)Section 36(1)(va)

…. vs. DCIT vide ITA No.1620/Bang/2017 order dated 26.06.2020 (j) DCIT vs. Microland Limited vide ITA No.1154/Bang/2024, order dated 15.01.2025 12. Referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders vs. Addl.ITO (1972) 83 ITR 508 (Ker), he submitted that the Hon’ble High Court in the said decision has considered whether failure to confirm to principles of natural justice of audi alteram partem would make a judicial or quasi-judicial order void. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also drew the attention of the Bench to the Notification No.3/2012 [(F.No.142/27/2011-SO(TPL)] SO…

VEENAPANI INVESTMENTS PRIVATE LIMITED,MUMBAI vs. ITO 13(3)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 193/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Girish Agrawalito 13(3)(1), Veenapani Investments Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limted, Mumbai.400020. Flat No. 302, B–Wing, Garden Court Co–Op Society Ltd, Amrutwani Road, Bhayender (W), Mumbai-401101. Pan/Gir No. Aaccv1684Q (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “F” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITO 13(3)(1), Veenapani Investments Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Private Limted, Mumbai.400020. Flat no. 302, B–Wing, Garden Court Co–Op Society Ltd, Amrutwani Road, Bhayender (W), Mumbai-401101. PAN/GIR No. AACCV1684Q (अपीलाथ"/Applicant) (""यथ"/Respondent) Assessee by Ms.Ridhisha Jain and Shri.Karan Jain.AR Revenue by Ms.Rajeshwari Menon. Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 30.05.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement 25.07.2024 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: “ The asse…

THE INCOME-TAX OFFICER -41(2)(2), MUMBAI vs. MR JAIPRAKASH DHIRAJLAL BARBHAYA, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 475/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble & Ms Kavitha Rajagopal, Hon’Bleincome Tax Officer – 41(2)(2) V. Jaiprakash Dhirajlal Barbhaya 301, Mahavir Apartment Room No. 636, 6Th Floor Nahur Road, Sarvodaya Nagar Kautilya Bhavan Mumbai – 400080 Bandra Kurla Complex Bandra(E), Mumbai - 400051 Pan: Agppb9599J (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

RAGHAV SOFTECH PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ITO WARD - 20(4), NEW DELHI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7127/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Raghav Softech Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ito Vardhman Grand Plaza, Manglam Ward-20(4) Place, Sector-3, Rohini, New Delhi New Delhi Aaecr2527G Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2022

Section 147Section 148Section 69

…Bhagwanjibhai Mrambhai v CST (1961) 12 STC 502 (MP); Aswini Kumar Dutt v. CTO, 61 CWN 950 (Cal). It is worth noting that this obligation is not diluted even where the material relates to the file of the assessee himself (Ponkunnam Traders v. Add!. ITO (1972) 83 ITR 508 (Ker). 26 27. In the case of CIT Vs. Eastern Commercial Enterprise, (194) 27 27 27 210 ITR 103, 110-11 (Cal). It was observed that it is trite law that cross-examination is the sine qua non of due process of taking evidence and no adverse inference can be drawn against a party unless the party is put on notice of the case maple out against him. H…

KAMLESH M. KANUNGO,MUMBAI vs. DY CIT, CC-1(4), MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 139/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Nov 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar SinghFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ITO WARD -32(1)(1), MUMBAI vs. HINA ARVIND SHAH, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 161/MUM/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya, Hon'Ble & Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Hoshang Booman Irani
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ITO 22(1)(6), MUMBAI vs. BROADCASTING SERVICES , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1312/MUM/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Sept 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay J. Sethi
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ACIT- CIRCLE- 9(3)(2), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. M/S. GALA PHARMA PVT. LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 6007/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Anil ThakkarFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

INCOME TAX OFFICER-28 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. GANESH ENGINEERING WORKSHOP , MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5773/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jul 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ACIT 13 (3)(1) MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. WELD TECH ENGINEERS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED `, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6027/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri T.S. Khalsa
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

DY CIT-9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S APEX SOFTCELL (INDIA) PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6272/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

DY CIT-9(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S APEX SOFTCELL (INDIA) PVT LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 6271/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

AAS MOHAMMED KHAN,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 26(1) (1), MUMBAI, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5985/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Brajendra Kumar
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ITO-20(20)(3), MUMBAI, MUMBAI vs. SHRI KAMRULLA REHATULLA KHAN, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5737/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gurbinder Sign
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

SHRI NILESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4(2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 294/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s wherein Hon’ble Courts have held that order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is bad in law: a. Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT 71 DTR 33 b. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 d. Ponkunnam Traders 83 ITR 508 e. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & others 26 ITR 001 f. C. B. Gautam vs CIT 199 ITR 530 g. Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 IT Thus it would be seen that there was clear and gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 24.1 In Para No.3.8 of the assessment order it has been stated that letters were issued to various persons who…

PRITESH JAIN HUF,INDORE vs. ITO 4 (2), INDORE

In the result Ground No.2 of the assessee’s

ITA 293/IND/2020[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Apr 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Manish Borad & Hon’Ble Madhumita Royassessment Year 2014-15

Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 68

…s wherein Hon’ble Courts have held that order passed in violation of principle of natural justice is bad in law: a. Smt. Sunita Dhadda vs DCIT 71 DTR 33 b. Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills 26 ITR 775 c. Lalchand Bhagat Ambikaram vs CIT 37 ITR 288 d. Ponkunnam Traders 83 ITR 508 e. Suraj Mall Mohta & Co. vs A.V. Visvanatha Sastri & others 26 ITR 001 f. C. B. Gautam vs CIT 199 ITR 530 g. Sarupchand Hukamchand 13 IT Thus it would be seen that there was clear and gross violation of the principle of natural justice. 24.1 In Para No.3.8 of the assessment order it has been stated that letters were issued to various persons who…

ITO 32 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. EMPEE ENGINEERING CORPORATION, MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6798/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

ITO 32 (1)(5), MUMBAI vs. EMPEE ENGINEERING CORPORATION , MUMBAI

In the result, appeals of the revenue are dismissed

ITA 6797/MUM/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Menon
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

INCOME TAX OFFICER,12(1)(2), MUMBAI vs. M/S. AUTONUM CONTROLS PRIVATE LIMITED, MUMBAI

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 5660/MUM/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Mar 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Michael Jerald
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

…ned. The Ld CIT(A) has also appreciated the contentions of the assessee that he was not provided with an opportunity to cross examine the sellers, which is required to be given as per the decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of Ponkunnam Traders (83 ITR 508 & 102 ITR 366). Accordingly, the Ld CIT(A) has deleted the impugned addition. On a careful perusal of the decision rendered by Ld CIT(A) would show that the first appellate authority has analysed the issue in all angles and applied the ratio laid down by the High Courts and Tribunals in deciding this issue. Hence, we do not find any reason to inte…

Showing 1–20 of 53 · Page 1 of 3