← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)(b)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)(b)1,252 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1)(b) is Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa (83 ITR 26), cited in 502 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b)

Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. State of Orissa
83 ITR 26 · 1972 · Supreme Court
502
citing judgments

An order imposing penalty for failure to carry out a statutory obligation results from quasi-criminal proceedings. Penalty is not ordinarily imposed unless the party acted deliberately in defiance of law, was guilty of contumacious or dishonest conduct, or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation.

CIT v. Hero Cycles (P.) Ltd.
228 ITR 463 · 1997 · Supreme Court
262
citing judgments

A point not examined on facts or in law cannot be treated as a mistake apparent on record for rectification purposes.

CIT v. K.G. Rukminiamma
331 ITR 211 · 2011 · High Court
104
citing judgments

For capital gains exemption under Sections 54 and 54F of the Income Tax Act (prior to the 2015 amendment), the expression "a residential house" includes multiple residential units and should not be construed in the singular, by applying Section 13 of the General Clauses Act.

Velu Palandar v. DCIT
83 ITR 683 · 1972 · High Court
94
citing judgments

The opportunity of hearing provided to an assessee must be real, effective, and realistic, not merely notional, and tax authorities are incumbent to decide cases on their merits after affording due opportunity.

Duggal & Co. v. CIT
220 ITR 456 · 1996 · High Court
84
citing judgments

An assessment order becomes erroneous and prejudicial to the revenue under Section 263 if the Assessing Officer fails to conduct a proper inquiry or investigation, even if the return appears prima facie correct. The Income-tax Officer has a duty to investigate and cannot remain passive.

Maria Fernandes Cheryl v. ITO
187 ITD 738 · 2021 · ITAT
58
citing judgments

The third proviso to Section 50C(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, which provides a tolerance band of 10% between the sale consideration and the stamp duty value, is retrospective. This curative and declaratory amendment applies from the date of the insertion of Section 50C.

Addl. CIT v. J.K. D'Costa
133 ITR 7 · 1982 · High Court
57
citing judgments

Debatable issues cannot be rectified under Section 154 of the Income-tax Act, as rectification is limited to mistakes apparent from the record.

Akhil Bhartiya Prathamik Shikshak Sangh Bhawan Trust v. ADIT
5 DTR 429 · High Court
50
citing judgments

To levy a penalty under section 271(1)(b), the Assessing Officer (AO) must record satisfaction in the assessment order. Mere initiation of penalty proceedings without such recorded satisfaction does not confer jurisdiction on the AO to levy the penalty.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)(b)

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Rameshwar Shaw, Howrah vs. ITO, 48(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing

ITA 841/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Anikesh Banerjeei.T.A. No. 841/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Rameshwar Shaw,....................................Appellant 12/5, Musalmanpara Lane, Banta, Howrah-711101 [Pan: Amaps0893D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-48(3), Kolkata, 3, Government Place (West), Kolkata-700001 Appearances By: Shri Debabrata Ghosh, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shrip.P. Barman, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 12, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 12, 2024

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

ITA No. 841/KOL/2023 (A.Y. 2013-2014) Rameshwar Shaw IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Staark Accessories Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, Circle 13(2)(2)

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2418/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalm/S. Staark Accessories Pvt. Ltd., A-20, Virwani Industrial Estate Goregaon East, Mumbai- 400063, Pan: Aatcs1816J ...... Appellant Vs. Acit-13(2) (2), Aayakar Bhavan, Maharishi Karve Road, Mumbai- 400020 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin S. Chhag, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Ld. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 250Section 44A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Prakash Amarlal Doulatani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal preferred by the assessee is allowed

ITA 970/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 970/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) Prakash Amarlal The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Ward -3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Doulatani Vs. 16/318, Satyagrah Chhavni, Near Bhavnirjar, Satellite Road, Ahmedabad - 380015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaspd3727B (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Vihar Soni, A.R. Assessee By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr Revenue By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 30/01/2024 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 31/01/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.10.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Arising Out Of The Order Dated 22.11.2018 Passed By The Ito, Ward-3(3)(4), Ahmedabad Under Section 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2011-12, Whereby & Wherunder The Addition Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of ‘On Money’ Has Been Confirmed.

For Appellant: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Coimbatore vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tiruppur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1394/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1393/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1392/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1391/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramuthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1390/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1389/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-2, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1388/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Eswaramurthy Prakash, Tirupur vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Tirupur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1387/CHNY/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manjunatha. Gआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1387, 1388, 1389 & 1390/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Yeshwanth Kumar, C.A &'For Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl. CIT
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

power only to impose of penalty of Rs. 10,000/- irrespective of number of notices issued by the A.O. We have gone through section 271(1)(b) of the Act and it is very clear that the assessee has failed to comply with the notice, the A.O has a power ... issuing notices in four instances. We find that the A.O has rightly imposed penalty in accordance with law i.e., as per Section 271(1)(b) of the Act and the same is confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). Hence, we find no reason to interfere with the order passed

Ritu Duggal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-29(1), Kolkata.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit Kundu, CIT, D/R
Section 221(1)Section 250Section 5

| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "यायपीठ, कोलकाता | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE

Abhyudaya Power Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 388/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Girish Agrawali.T.A. No. 388/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 Abhyudaya Power Pvt. Ltd.,…………………...Appellant 3/1, Dr. U.N. Brahmachari Street, Loudon Street, Kolkata-700017 [Pan: Aajca1599E] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,.................................Respondent Ward-7(1), Kolkata, Aayakar Bhawan, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata-700069

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(b)Section 68

Appeals) has called for a remand report. Thereafter the appeal was taken in faceless. Simultaneously ld. Assessing Officer has passed an order under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act by holding that assessee failed to appear in response to the notices issued under section 142(1

Surya Pratap Singh, Meerut vs. ITO Ward-2(5), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2064/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyasurya Pratap Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 2 (5), Ka – 138, Galaxy Ganga, Meerut. Ganga Nagar, Meerut (Uttar Pradesh).

For Appellant: Shri R.K. Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 54Section 54F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Surya Pratap Singh

Mewa Lal Singh, Bhopal vs. ITO 2(5), Bhopal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 330/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimewa Lal Singh Ito 2(5) Lig-06, A-Sector Sonagiri Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angps 1966A Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 16.01.2024

Section 144Section 234ASection 271(1)(b)

234B Rs. 52,118 and 234C Rs. 2097/- that is totally unsustainable in law. 4. That the initiation of penalties under section 271(1)(b) and (c) also unsustainable in law.” 7. Ld. AR of the assessee has submitted that the AO has made an addition of Rs. 5 lakhs

Sd Precision Tech P. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-4, Rohtak

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1399/DEL/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH: ‘H’: NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHALLA

Inderjit Singh Manchanda, Mumbai vs. CIT, Mumbai

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 2963/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B R Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Shri Sunny Kachhwaha
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 271F

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “SMC”, MUMBAI Before Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang, Hon’ble President & Shri

Chanda Sunil Meratwal, Surat vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Apppleals, Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 339/SRT/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat29 Dec 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.339/Srt/2023 Assessment Year: (2008-09) (Physical Hearing) Chanda Meratwal, Vs. The Ito, A-401, Surya Palace, City Light, Ward-2(2)(5), Surat – 395007. Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aubpm3794N (Appellant) (Respondent) None Appellant By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. Dr Respondent By Date Of Hearing 29/12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement 29/12/2023

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

assessee are as follows: “1. The Learned CIT(A) grossly erred on facts of case in confirming penalty of Rs.10000/- under section 271(1)(b) without verifying AO office that assessee has submitted rectification application dated 22.02.2016 stating that he has not received any so called notice from Assessing Officer ... record. 4. The ld. Sr. DR for the Revenue pointed out that this is the appeal filed by assessee against the order under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, wherein the Assessing Officer has imposed penalty to the tune of Rs.10,000/- on account of non-compliance of notices

Shri Kheraj Ram, Barmer vs. Dc Cen Cir01, Jodhpur

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

ITA 114/JODH/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur21 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

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

Section 142(1)(iii)Section 153ASection 250Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 44A

documents were not able to file before the ld. AO. The ld. AO initiated the penalty proceeding fornoncompliance of the documents under section 271(1)(b)/274 of the Act. Finally, the penalty was levied amount to Rs.10,000/- u/s 271(1)(b). Aggrieved assessee filed an appeal before