← All Phrases

“Section 271(1)”

Section References (mined)Section 271Section 271(1)5,698 judgments

The decision most relied on for Section 271(1) is CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory (359 ITR 565), cited in 2,590 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on Section 271(1)

CIT v. Manjunatha Cotton & Ginning Factory
359 ITR 565 · 2013 · High Court
2,590
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty proceedings are initiated for concealment of income or for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. This non-specification vitiates the penalty proceedings.

CIT v. Reliance Petroproducts Pvt. Ltd.
322 ITR 158 · 2010 · Supreme Court
2,228
citing judgments

Penalty under Section 271(1)(c) for furnishing inaccurate particulars or concealment of income is not automatically leviable if the assessee has made a full disclosure of all particulars and the addition or disallowance arises from a difference of opinion.

Godrej & Boyce Mfg. Co. Ltd. v. DCIT
328 ITR 81 · 2010 · High Court
1,183
citing judgments

Rule 8D, for computing disallowance under Section 14A for expenses related to exempt income, applies from Assessment Year 2008-09 onwards; for prior years, a reasonable disallowance must be made. The disallowance under Section 14A cannot exceed the actual exempt income earned.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 248 · 2016 · Supreme Court
953
citing judgments

A notice issued under Section 274 read with Section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify whether penalty proceedings are for concealment of particulars of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. Such lack of specificity vitiates the penalty proceedings.

Ashok Pai v. CIT
292 ITR 11 · 2007 · Supreme Court
812
citing judgments

“Concealment of particulars of income” and “furnishing inaccurate particulars of income” are two distinct offences under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act. A penalty cannot be levied under one limb if the show cause notice or basis for penalty specifies the other, as this constitutes a complete variance in the reasons for assuming jurisdiction.

CIT v. SSA’s Emerald Meadows
73 Taxmann.com 241 · 2016 · High Court
791
citing judgments

A penalty notice under section 271(1)(c) read with section 274 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if it fails to specify whether the penalty is for concealment of income or for furnishing incorrect particulars of income.

CIT v. Jet Airways (I) Ltd.
331 ITR 236 · 2011 · High Court
694
citing judgments

The Assessing Officer loses jurisdiction and the entire reassessment becomes invalid if no addition is made in respect of the income that formed the basis of the reopening. Explanation 3 to Section 147 does not permit assessing other escaped income unless an addition is made for the original income forming the reason to believe.

Mr. Mohd. Farhan A. Shaikh v. ACIT
434 ITR 1 · 2021 · High Court
672
citing judgments

A penalty notice issued under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) is invalid if it fails to specify the exact charge by not striking off the irrelevant limb (concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars of income). Such an omnibus or vague notice renders the penalty proceedings bad in law, and any penalty imposed on its basis is liable to be quashed.

Judgments citing Section 271(1)

Hem Singh Bharana, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned penalty stand deleted

ITA 3509/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi all dated 27.10.2023, pertain to Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 under Sections 250 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues ... Officer is satisfied that the assessee has not been able to present any reasonable cause so as to escape from the rigours of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and therefore a penalty of Rs 10,000/- is imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1

Hem Singh Bharana, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned penalty stand deleted

ITA 3501/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi all dated 27.10.2023, pertain to Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 under Sections 250 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues ... Officer is satisfied that the assessee has not been able to present any reasonable cause so as to escape from the rigours of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and therefore a penalty of Rs 10,000/- is imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1

Hem Singh Bharana, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned penalty stand deleted

ITA 3496/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi all dated 27.10.2023, pertain to Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 under Sections 250 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues ... Officer is satisfied that the assessee has not been able to present any reasonable cause so as to escape from the rigours of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and therefore a penalty of Rs 10,000/- is imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1

Hem Singh Bharana, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned penalty stand deleted

ITA 3485/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi all dated 27.10.2023, pertain to Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 under Sections 250 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues ... Officer is satisfied that the assessee has not been able to present any reasonable cause so as to escape from the rigours of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and therefore a penalty of Rs 10,000/- is imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1

Hem Singh Bharana, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29, New Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned penalty stand deleted

ITA 3484/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi all dated 27.10.2023, pertain to Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 under Sections 250 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues ... Officer is satisfied that the assessee has not been able to present any reasonable cause so as to escape from the rigours of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and therefore a penalty of Rs 10,000/- is imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1

Hem Singh Bharana, Delhi vs. ACIT, Central Circle-29 New Delhi, Delhi

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and the impugned penalty stand deleted

ITA 3428/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. S. Pannu & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Ms. Chinu Bhasin, CAFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax (Appeals)-31, New Delhi all dated 27.10.2023, pertain to Assessment Years 2015-16 to 2020-21 under Sections 250 read with section 271(1)(b) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as 'the Act'). Since, the appeals relate to the same assessee and involve common issues ... Officer is satisfied that the assessee has not been able to present any reasonable cause so as to escape from the rigours of section 271(1)(b) of the Act and therefore a penalty of Rs 10,000/- is imposed for non compliance of notice u/s 142(1

Mukesh Khurana, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 4710/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT-DR
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271ASection 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘E’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NAVEEN

Rama Garg, Sehore vs. DCIT-3(1), Bhopal

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/IND/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani(Assessment Year: 2012-13 Smt. Rama Garg, Dcit-3(1), Gadhi Chok, Bhopal Chota Bazar, Vs. Nasrullaganj, Sehore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Abcpg1140J Assessee By Shri R.K. Mangal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 26.06.2024

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

assessee is not mala fide but the same falls in the ambit of bona fide claim and explanation. The explanation-1 to Section 271(1)(c) of the Act read as under: Explanation 1:Where in respect of any facts material to the computation of the total income ... disallowed in computing the total income of such person as a result thereof shall, for the purposes of clause (c) of this Section 271(1), be deemed to represent the income in respect of which particulars have been 8 Smt. Rama Garg concealed. In the case in hand though

System A D Solution India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

ITA 1337/MUM/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal PunmiyaFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the Assessee against the Penalty Order, dated 28/03/2018, passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) 3. The Assessee has raised following ground of appeal: “1 ... total receipts. The taxable income of the Appellant was assessed at INR 87,93,386/-. The Assessing Officer also initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income. 4.1. Meanwhile, in the quantum appeal preferred by the Appellant, the Commissioner of Income

Rita Hemchand Gandhi, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Office. Int Tax Ward 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4839/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicialmember & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh S. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR
Section 142Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

concealment of particulars of income nor furnishing of any inaccurate particulars of income. 7. Ld. Assessing Officer referred to Explanation 1 to Section 271(1)(c) and Explanation 3 to hold that assessee has concealed her 5 Rita Hemchand Gandhi, AY 2015-16 income. According to him, discrepancy in respect ... From paragraph 5.2 of the penalty order, we note that the Assessing Officer himself has observed that as per section 271(1)(c), if 7 Rita Hemchand Gandhi, AY 2015-16 the Assessing Officer in course of any proceedings under the aforesaid Act, is satisfied that any person has concealed

Raj Sarathy Jagdish, Thane vs. ITO Ward 3 (2), Thane

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

ITA 3850/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Gagan Goyalraj Sarathy Jagdish C/001, Ignis Building Lodha Splendora, Ghodbunder Road, Thane 400 607 Pan: Agppj8217K ..... Appellant Vs. Ito Ward 3(2)/Nfac Ashar It Park, Wagle Estate Thane- 400 604 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri R. R. Makwana, Ld. DR
Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 69ASection 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL

Suresh Chand Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3666/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee, there would not have any discloser on additional income by the assessee. Accordingly, he issued the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act and served on the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee are not found to be satisfactory and not voluntary ... Appeal) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 5,75,673/- as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT, Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3665/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee, there would not have any discloser on additional income by the assessee. Accordingly, he issued the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act and served on the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee are not found to be satisfactory and not voluntary ... Appeal) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 5,75,673/- as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That

Amit Bansal, Haryana vs. ACIT Central Circle-16, Delhi

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

ITA 3664/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUDHIR PAREEK (Judicial Member)

Section 153ASection 271(1)(c)Section 274

assessee, there would not have any discloser on additional income by the assessee. Accordingly, he issued the show cause notice u/s 274 r.w. section 271(1)(c) of the Act and served on the assessee. The submissions made by the assessee are not found to be satisfactory and not voluntary ... Appeal) has erred both on facts and in law in levying penalty amounting to Rs. 5,75,673/- as per the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. In this regard all of his observation is wrong and against the facts and law. 3. That

Rio Tinto India Pvt. Ltd., Haryana vs. ACIT Circle 19(1), Delhi

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

ITA 2021/DEL/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2011-12
Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 254Section 92C

deduction of lease rental as revenue expenditure. 3. That the learned AO erred in facts and law in initiating the penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The above grounds are independent and without prejudice to each other. The Appellant craves to leave to add, withdraw, amend

Ajay Kumar Nirwan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Kanpur

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 121/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

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

been passed in a summary manner, stating “I find it a fit case for imposing penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as it is an act of concealment of the particulars of his income and furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income ... order explaining how he came to the conclusion that this case was a fit case for imposition of penalty under the provisions of section 271(1)(c) of the IT Act. Moreover, the order of learned CIT(A) has also been passed ex-parte qua the assessee. The learned

Thunga Ramadoss Naidu Harikrishiniah, Chennai vs. DCIT Central Circle -2(2), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1581/CHNY/2023[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jun 2024AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1581/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2001-02 V. Shri Thunga Ramadoss Naidu- The Dy. Commissioner – Harikrishniah, Of Income Tax, No.55, 4Th Flat, Door No.4, Central Circle-2(2), Gajapathi Street, Shenoy Nagar, Chennai. Chennai-600 030. [Pan: Aaaph 6730 N] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.S.LakshminarayananFor Respondent: Dr.D.Praveen, JCIT
Section 143(3)Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

furnished inaccurate particulars of such income. Omission to record his satisfaction about assessee having committed the faults as given in clause (c) of section 271(1) of the Act, vitiates the penalty levied on assessee dated 30.09.2004. Therefore assessee succeeds and the penalty levied

Uttamchand Hastimal Jain, Vijayapura vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1and 2, Tps, Vijayapur

ITA 567/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavuttamchand Hastimal Jain The Income Tax Officer Prop. Of Sumatinath Traders Ward - 1 & 2 (Tps) Kirana Bazar Vs. Aayakar Bhavan Vijayapura 586101 Near All India Raido Pan – Addpj2783P Athani Road, Vijayapura 586104 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Neha Sahay, Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 24.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024 O R D E R Per: Prakash Chand Yadav, J.M. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/2003-24/1061137028(1) Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Dated 19.02.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-05. 2. Facts Leading To The Filing Of Present Appeal Are, The Assessee Is An Individual Running A Kirana Shop In Vijayapura, Karnataka. For The Impugned Assessment Year He Has Filed His Return Of Income(Roi) Declaring An Income Of Rs 4,72,780/- On 31.10.2014. Thereafter, An Information, Revealing That Assessee Had Deposited An Amount Of Rs. 3,10,13,708/- In Its Bank Account With Shri Gurubasava Urban Credit Souharda Co-Op. Ltd, Surfaced With Department. Accordingly The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 2 Uttamchand Hastimal Jain 148 Of The Vide Notice Dated 31.03.2021. In Response To The 148 Notice The Assessee Filed A Revised Computation Of Income Declaring An Income Of Rs 21,68,535/-. While Concluding The Assessment The Ao Accepted The Revised Computation Without Any Demur. However, The Ao Simultaneously, Initiated Penalty Proceedings Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Act Alleging That Assessee Has Concealed His Income. Afterwards, The Ao Vide Its Order Dated 26.09.2022, Levied Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna N. Urala, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Neha Sahay, JCIT-DR
Section 2Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

While concluding the assessment the AO accepted the revised computation without any demur. However, the AO simultaneously, initiated penalty proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act alleging that assessee has concealed his income. Afterwards, the AO vide its order dated 26.09.2022, levied penalty u/s 271(1 ... Aggrieved with the order of the AO the assessee filed appeal before the Ld CIT(A) and contended that no penalty under Section 271(1)(c) is leviable as the AO has ultimately accepted the revised computation filed by assessee. Counsel of the assessee further pointed out that the additional

Astrazeneca Pharma India Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 284/BANG/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Sri Nikhil Tiwari, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, D.R
Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)

Income. Interest under section 234B 30. erred in charging interest under section 234B of the Act of INR 59,140,659. Penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act 31. erred in initiating penalty proceedings under section 274 read with section 271(1)(c) of the Act. The Appellant

Alfiya Ayazali Sayyad, Nagpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 206/NAG/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha
Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

facts and circumstances, the learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty levied by the learned AO of Rs.45,00,000/- under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. 2. Whether in the facts and circumstances, the learned AO erred. in not recording proper satisfaction in the show cause notice ... made. He further submitted that when the sales made by the assessee are accepted, the purchases cannot be doubted and hence penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act cannot be liveable. 8. The learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of the authorities below. 9. We have heard