Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT

222 ITR 691High Court1996#927 most cited

What is Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT authority for?

A penalty under Section 271B for failure to get accounts audited cannot be levied if a penalty under Section 271A has already been imposed for non-maintenance of books of account.

114

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

Surajmal Parsuram Todi · penalty section 271A · penalty section 271B · simultaneous penalties · non-maintenance of books · failure to get accounts audited · deletion of penalty · 222 ITR 691 · Gauhati High Court

Sections most often in play

Section 271BSection 44ABSection 271ASection 44AASection 148Section 144Section 2(12A)Section 250

Issues it is cited on

failure to get accounts auditedbooks or books of accountsection 28(1)penalty under section 271bsection 2(12a)section 44aasection 271bsection 271adeletion of penaltysection 44asection 44absection 18

Judgments citing Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT

Haresh Ghashyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2906/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…has relied on a catena of the decisions in support of his claim, which are mentioned here under: 1. CIT vs. S K Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) 2. CIT, Bareilly vs. Bisauli Tractors [2007] 165 Taxman (All) 3. CIT vs. Surajmal Parsuram Todi [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) 4. Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. ITO (in ITA No. 6696 & 6645/Del/2014) 11. It is a settled proposition of law that once the penalty has been levied u/s. 271A of the Act for non maintenance of books of accounts, then penalty u/s. 271B of the Act cannot be levied. The co-ordinate bench in the case of Varadagovind Parthasarthy Iyer (through the…

Haresh Ghanshyamdas Makhija, Ulhasnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2904/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Ms. Manisha GhindFor Respondent: Shri P D Chougule
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…has relied on a catena of the decisions in support of his claim, which are mentioned here under: 1. CIT vs. S K Gupta and Co. [2010] 322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) 2. CIT, Bareilly vs. Bisauli Tractors [2007] 165 Taxman (All) 3. CIT vs. Surajmal Parsuram Todi [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) 4. Nirmal Kumar Jain vs. ITO (in ITA No. 6696 & 6645/Del/2014) 11. It is a settled proposition of law that once the penalty has been levied u/s. 271A of the Act for non maintenance of books of accounts, then penalty u/s. 271B of the Act cannot be levied. The co-ordinate bench in the case of Varadagovind Parthasarthy Iyer (through the…

Manphool Singh, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 748/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: The Appeal Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Dev Arora (CA)For Respondent: Sh. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)
Section 143(2)Section 271B

…rst complied with provisions of section 44AA; where assessee was not maintaining any books of account, no penalty under section 271B was to be imposed upon him for violation of provision of section 44AB” • In the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) Hon’ble Gauhati High Court (D.P.B. Page 1-2) held as under. “Maintenance of accounts as envisaged under s. 44AA and on failure to do so the assessee shall be guilty and liable to be penalised under s. 271A. Even after maintenance of books of account the obligation of the assessee does not come to an end. He is required to do something more…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur (Rajasthan) vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur (Rajasthan)

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

ITA 281/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…oks of account were maintained by the assessee. Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether any pnalty can be imposed u/s 271B for not getting the books of account audited. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in SuraiMal Parasuram Todi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau.), has held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of account u/s 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisaul…

Uma Mandal, Jaipur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

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

ITA 280/JPR/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Sept 2023AY 2010-2011

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA. Nos. 280 & 281/JP/2023 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Years : 2010-11 Uma Mandal 754, Lodho Ka Maohalla M. D. Road, Ward No. 34, Jaipur cuke Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Jaipur LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: APSPM 2419 L vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : None jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a lquokbZ dh rkjh[

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 271ASection 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…oks of account were maintained by the assessee. Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether any pnalty can be imposed u/s 271B for not getting the books of account audited. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in SuraiMal Parasuram Todi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau.), has held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of account u/s 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisaul…

Varadagovind Parthasarthy Iyer (Through Legal Heir Arvind Iyer), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(2)(5), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1716/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Aug 2023AY 2015-16
Section 271Section 271ASection 271BSection 44A

…sions of the Hon’ble High Court:- 3 Varadagovind Parthasarthy Iyer (Through legal Heir Arvind Iyer) 1. CIT vs SK. Gupta and Co. [2010]322 ITR 86 (Allahabad) 2. CIT, Bareilly vs. Bisauli Tractors [2007] 165 Taxman (All) 3. CIT vs Surajmal Parsuram Todi [1996] 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) 5. On the other hand, ld. DR submitted that turnover was more than Rs.1 Crore and assessee was required to get the accounts audited. 6. After considering the relevant facts placed on record and also the orders passed by the authorities below, we find that the penalty has been levied u/s. 271B for violation of Section 44AB, i.e., failure…

Ekam Wines, Bathinda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (1), Bathinda

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 161/ASR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Jul 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Sudhir Sehgal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Priyanka Singla, Sr. DR
Section 271ASection 271BSection 3Section 44A

…v. ITO 44AA may arise but the provisions of section 44AB do not get violated in a case where the accounts have not been maintained at all and, therefore, penal provisions of section 271B would not apply. • Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT as reported in (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gauhati) Maintenance of accounts is envisaged under section 44AA and on failure to do so the assessee shall liable to be penalized under section 271A. Even after maintenance of books of account the obligation of the assessee does not come to an end. He is required to do something more, i.e., by getting the books of account audited by an account…

Shri Anil Omprakash Mishra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 314/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat03 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Shri Anil Om Prakash Mishra, I.T.O., A-281, Shubham Bunglows, Sachin, Ward-1(2)(1), Vs. Surat-394230. Surat. Pan No. Ajnpm 7661 F Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271BSection 44A

…ch of the Tribunal in Marahaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar Vs ACIT in ITA No. 1136/Bang/2022 order dated 30/03/2023 by following the decision of Hon'ble Guwahati High Court in 4 Sh. Anil Omprakash Mishra Vs ITO Surajmal Parsuram Todi Vs CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) and Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors (supra) held that provisions of Section 44AB do not get violated in case where accounts have not been maintained at all. The ld. AR of the assessee submits that he has placed on record copy of decision of Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT Vs. Bisauli Tractors (supra). 7. On the other ha…

Dummi Shivaraj Deepak, Davangerre vs. Incometax Officer, Ward-1, Davangere

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

ITA 74/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: Ms.Sunaina Bhatia & Sri.Ravishankar S.V. AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Matta Padma, Addl.CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

…the time of filing of the return. Therefore, imposition of penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act is bad in law. In this context, the learned AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT reported in (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT v. Bisauli Tractors reported in (2008) 299 ITR 219 (All.). The learned AR further submitted that there is reasonable cause as mandated u/s 273B of the I.T.Act, since the assessee was under the bonafide belief that only the gross commission is to be considered as turnove…

Maranaikana Halli Jayashella Shetty Pradeepkumar, Mysore vs. The ACIT, Circle - 1(1) & Tps, Mysore

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

ITA 1136/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Bangalore30 Mar 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Sri.Gudimella VP Pavan Kumar, JCIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 271BSection 4Section 44A

…estion of getting the books of account audited u/s 44AB of the I.T.Act. Therefore, imposition of penalty for non-furnishing of audit report u/s 271B does not arise. The Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi v. CIT reported in (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau) had held that when the assessee is liable to pay penalty u/s 271A of the I.T.Act, penalty u/s 271B of the I.T.Act cannot be levied for non- furnishing of audit report. The relevant finding of the Hon’ble Gauhati High Court, reads as follows:- “We have gone through the provisions of Sections 44AA, 44AB, 271A and 271B of the Act. Maintenance…

Bhawani Shankar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(1) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 43/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Mar 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 271BSection 44A

…ns we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs”. We also rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT 222 ITR 691 where it was held by the court that “We have gone through the provisions of sections 44AA, 44AB, 271A and 271B of the Act. Maintenance of accounts is envisaged under section 44AA and on failure to do so the assessee shall be guilty and liable to be penalised under section 271A. Even after maintenance of books of account the obligation of the asse…

Rakesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 330/JPR/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Mar 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 217BSection 271B

…ons we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs”. We also rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT 222 ITR 691 where it was held by the court that “We have gone through the provisions of sections 44AA, 44AB, 271A and 271B of the Act. Maintenance of accounts is envisaged under section 44AA and on failure to do so the assessee shall be guilty and liable to be penalised under section 271A. Even after maintenance of books of account the obligation of the asse…

Lokesh Kumar Sharma, Jaipur vs. ITO WD-4(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 278/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Ms Suhani Meharwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms Monisha Choudhary (JCIT)
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271B

…oks of account were maintained by the assessee. Under such circumstances, a question arises as to whether any pnalty can be imposed u/s 271B for not getting the books of account audited. The Hon'ble Gauhati High Court in Suraj Mal ParasuramTodi vs. CIT (1996) 222 ITR 691 (Gau.), has held that where no books of account are maintained, penalty should be imposed for non- maintenance of books of account u/s 271A and no penalty can be imposed u/s 271B for violation of section 44AB requiring ITA Nos.6696 & 6645/Del/2014 audit of accounts. Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Allahabad High Court in CIT vs. Bisaul…

Mr. Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 247/JPR/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vishal Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Monisha Choudhary, JCIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

…ions we answer the question referred to us in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. There will be no order as to costs”. We also rely upon the judgement of Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in case of SurajmalParsuramTodi vs. CIT 222 ITR 691 where it was held by the court that “We have gone through the provisions of sections 44AA, 44AB, 271A and 271B of the Act. Maintenance of accounts is envisaged under 13 Shri Manoj Kumar Gour, Jaipur. section 44AA and on failure to do so the assessee shall be guilty and liable to be penalised under section 271A. Even after maintenance of books of…

Smt. Sharmila S. Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1), Chennai

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 446/CHNY/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

…ad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has 71 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act be levied. The Hon’ble Gau…

Smt. Sharmila S. Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1), Chennai

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 445/CHNY/2020[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

…ad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has 71 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act be levied. The Hon’ble Gau…

Smt. Sharmila S. Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1), Chennai

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 444/CHNY/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

…ad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has 71 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act be levied. The Hon’ble Gau…

Smt. Sharmila S. Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1), Chennai

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 443/CHNY/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

…ad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has 71 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act be levied. The Hon’ble Gau…

Smt. Sharmila S. Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1), Chennai

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 442/CHNY/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

…ad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has 71 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act be levied. The Hon’ble Gau…

Smt. Sharmila S. Jain, Chennai vs. DCIT, CC - 2 (1), Chennai

2400/CHNY/2019

ITA 441/CHNY/2020[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai20 May 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Dr. M.L. Meena

Section 153ASection 271A

…ad High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Gupta & Co., (2010) 322 ITR 86, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Bharat Construction Co. vs. ITO, (1999) 153 CTR 414 and Hon’ble Gauhati High Court in the case of Surajmal Parsuram Todi vs. CIT, (1996) 222 ITR 691 has 71 I.T.A. Nos.2357 to 2363, 2389 to 2402 & 2587 to 2598/Chny/2019 & 429 to 446/Chny/2020 categorically held that once books of account are not maintained and consequently penalty u/s.271A of the Act is levied and confirmed, no penalty u/s.271B of the Act for failure to get the accounts audited u/s.44AB of the Act be levied. The Hon’ble Gau…