Amendment to section 269SS of the Income Tax Act, 1961 wef 1.6.2015 vis a vis penalty u/s 271D of the Act in respect of specified transactions
When there exists a reasonable cause with the assessee and bonafide belief for accepting the payment in cash on sale of Agriculture Land on or after 1.6.2015 and he proves to the satisfaction of the Authorities that the fault was only technical and venial in nature then no penalty u/s 271D is to be imposed on the assessee. This article quotes some important judgements which can be of benefit to the readers whether professional themselves or people at large those who are suffering from rigors of this penal provision and there existed no intention to evade the taxes. Assessee is not known to the law specially newly inserted amendment wef 1.6.2015. Every one is not supposed to know every law. Intention is proved bad when a person knows the law but made violation of the law. When a person is not known to the law and he made violation of the law the violation happened shall be technical and venial in nature. In these circumstances the various judgements are in there in defence of the assessee and are presented in the form of an article as under.
The assessee is an individual and he received cash amount of Rs. 9650000.00 on sale of Agriculture land at Village XXXXXXXXX during the FYr. 2017-18. There existed a reasonable cause for the assessee to accept the sales consideration in cash and hence penalty under section 271D is not leviable. The assessee was prevented by reasonable or sufficient cause for complying with the provisions of section 269SS. Legislative intention behind introduction of this section, the penalty under section 271D is not leviable when the transaction are genuine and no tax evasion has been examined during the course of assessments proceedings u/s 143(3) of the Act. There was no animus to defile the provisions of law. The assessee proves the bonafide beyond the shadow of doubt. Once bonafide is proved. there remains is only procedural default which is of a venial nature. Reasonable cause means genuine belief based on reasonable grounds. The assessee was at the verge of death. Assesseee wanted to sale the land by this way or that way. When buyer wanted to make payment in cash assessee had not denied as he was not aware of the newly inserted law wef 1.6.2015. The circumstances under which the sales consideration was received in cash were not disputed The assessee felt that the delay in receipt of payment may defeat the purpose. The purpose was not tax evasion. The assessee was not well and buyer wanted to make the payment in cash the assessee accepted the offer to receive the payment in cash. He did not want to defer the issue. He was not in a position to resist buyer to make the payment through banking channel as earlier there was sale purchase of lands in cash all around. The background of the assessee is belonging to village and he is not an educated person. He was not aware of the new law. As earlier he used to purchase the property in cash in the same way he sold the land in cash. Assessee was thinking, speaking, or acting according to the dictates of reasons. No one told him not to accept the payment in cash. Registering authority never told the assessee not to receive the payment in cash. Registry was made in cash. If registrar is not known to the law and tax advisor is also not known to the law then how an uneducated person can be expected to know the law. It is prescribed under section 273B of the Act that penalty is not to be imposed on the assessee if he proves that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the provision.
A list of reasonable causes with the assessee and assessee was prevented by sufficient cause not to comply with the provision of law in strict compliance.
(a) The education of the assessee. The assessee is not an educated person. His nature of business is sale purchase of Agriculture lands and earning Agriculture income. He was not aware of the newly inserted law wef 1.6.2015. Not at all he was aware of the amendment. Earlier every sale and purchase of the lands were sold and purchased in cash to the maximum. Assessee could have accepted the payment through cheques but he was not aware of the law. He is law abiding citizen. He is regulary filing his ITR but truly, fairly he was not aware of the law. No one in the vicinity told assessee about the newly inserted law. Registrar never told assessee about the new law. The income tax consultant never told assessee about the law. He is not at all upto date on news papers and news channel. No information was with the assessee when he accepted the payment in cash.
(b) Health of the assessee. The assessee was got operated in the month of July 2017 and liver and kidney transplants were made on the assessee. He was not in hope to recover from the these severe surgery and acute ill health. He wanted to sold the land as earlier as possible. When seller desired to make the payment in cash for a sum of Rs. 9650000.00 he had not resisted to buyer for payment through cheques as he wanted to finalise the deal. He was not in hope to survive. Cash was needed in the family for his care in the family and for further purchase of the land in cash. He was not aware of the law. He used to make sales and purchase of Agricultural lands in cash earlier to this transaction. This made him to accept the offer in cash. He accepted to receive the payment in cash.
(c) No choice of the assessee. when deal for sale of land was finalized. Assessee made no choice of his own to receive the payment by cheques or by cash. It was the choice of the buyer of the land to make the payment in cash. It is not an easy task to make the sale of land at a good price. When deal was finalized and assessee was not well assessee accepted the offer of the buyer to accept cash. As he was confident that he shall not be making tax evasion. Every sale consideration shall be declared with the income tax department. He was confident in accepting the money in cash. And he thought it shall be easy to make further purchases of the agricultural lands in cash as in those days people were not aware of the newly inserted law and preferable they made the sales and purchases in cash and even pressurized to deal in cash.
(d) General market conditions to receive the payment in cash. Earlier to 1.6.2015 maximum agriculture lands rural or urban were sold and purchased in cash. Instances are numerous. Instances are with the assessee. There was not fear absolutely among the masses to make the payment in cash and receive the payment in cash. The same trend was followed by the assessee when he sold the land for a sum of Rs. 11650000.00. General awareness was not there for the change in law. Over the years people has come to know that law has changed.
(e) The land sold is agriculture land. The income of the assessee is Agricuture income. Mainly assessee is an agriculturist. the main source of income is agriculture income. He did some other business but main source is agriculture income. Assessee is a farmer just like. A farmer never thinks much for the technicalities. Not thinking much he accepted the payment in cash. He never desired not to keep the stream of justice clear and pure. Justice demands fairness. Fairness itself is a flexible, pragmatic and relative, concept, and not a rigid, ritualistic or sophisticated abstraction. The prime object of law is to secure justice to the people. In view of this the legislature took proper safeguard under section 273B of the Act and penalty is not to be imposed on the assessee if he proves that there existed a reasonable cause for not complying with the provision of section 269SS of the Act.
The true reason for enacting section 269SS of the Act was to counter the device of tax evasion, which enabled the tax payers to explain away unaccounted cash or unaccounted deposits. Prior to insertion of section 269SS of the Act, it was open to the assessee to explain the cash found in the course of searches representing loans taken from the deposits made by various persons.
The assessee relies on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Hindustan Steels Limited Vs State of Orissa where it is said that penalty should not be levied for mere technical offence.
Section 269SS of the Act which is introduced in the statute with a view to check the tax evasion and proliferation of black money by accepting the loan/deposit otherwise than an account payee cheques and further amended wef 1.6.2015 to have a check on the tax evasion. Genuine and bonafide transaction are not taken out of the sweep of the section. The view is supported by observations of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Attar Singh Gurmukh Singh Vs. ITO (1991)191 ITR 667 (SC). Identity of the person who made the payment in cash is given to the department.
CBDT’s Circular No. 387 and 345 also clarified that section 269SS were introduced with a view to countering the various devices adopted by the tax evaders for explaining their accounted cash found during the course of search or for introducing their unaccounted income in the form of loans and deposits and it was introduced for countering major economic evil of proliferation of black money, etc. In the instant case in hand, such facts do not appear as assessee was never a tax evader. or it never gave cooked up explanation before the Ld. AO, NFAC, New Delhi.
Therefore transaction of Rs. 9650000.00 was bonafide and was genuine transaction and was made during the course of the sale of agriculture land and there was not guilty intention or guilty mind on the part of the assessee at the time when this transaction was made, the penalty levied deserves to be cancelled. The genuineness of the transaction was not doubted by the AO at the time of making assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act and assessment was made at zero demand.
The contention of the assessee is that violation of the provision of section 269SS was an innocent mistake on his part on account of ignorance of the relevant provisions of law and it constituted a reasonable cause within the meaning of section 273B. Originally a plea as to the ignorance of law can not support the breach of the statutory provision. But the fact of such an innocent mistake due to ignorance of the relevant provisions, coupled with the fact that the transactions in question were genuine and bonafide transactions and were undertaken during the regular course of its business, will constitute a reasonable cause. The Supreme Court in the case of Motilal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. State of UP (1979) 118ITR 326 (SC) at 339 has observed that there is no presumption that every person knows the law. It is often said that every person is presumed to know the law but that is not a correct statement. There is no such maxim known to the law.
Section 273B provides that no penalty would be leviable if the person concerned proves that there was reasonable cause for the said failure. Clearly indicate that this provision give a discretion to the authorities to impose the penalty or not to impose the penalty. Such a discretion has to be exercised with wisdom and in a just and fair manner having regard to the entire relevant facts and materials existing on records. The authority competent to impose the penalty will be justified in refusing to impose penalty when there is a technical breach or venial violation of the provisions of the Act or where the breach flows from a bonafide belief like in the case of the assessee in hand.
The following case laws supports the case of the assessee.
Dr. Deepak Muchala VS ITO
Industrial enterprises Vs. Dy CIT (2000) 68TTJ ( Hyd) 373 :
There were compelling circumstances with the assessee as the assessee was constrained to violate the provisions of section 269SS, which could not be termed as intentional, had not in any way defeated or tented to defeat the objective of incorporation of section 269SS in the statute book, ie prevention of tax evasion, as there was no element of tax evasion in the instant case. This in this case, it was only a technical violation of the provisions of section 269SS. The assessee has sufficiently explained the circumstances under which it was constrained to go in for cash sales consideration of Agriculture Land. These explanations constituted reasonable cause as construed in section 273B of the Act, 1961.
In the memorandum explaining the provisions of the Finance Bill, 1984, it was explained as follows
“ Unaccounted cash found in the course of searches carried out by the IT department is often explained by tax payers as representing loans taken from or deposits made by various persons. Unaccounted income is also brought into the books of accounts in the form of such loans and deposits, and tax payers are also able to get confirmatory letters form such persons in support of their explanation. Legislative intention in bringing section 269SS was to avoid certain circumstances of tax evasion whereby huge transactions are made outside the books of accounts by way of cash. As far as the case of the assessee is concerned, there is no case against the assessee that these transactions had anything to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income.
Provision of section 269SS were brought in the statute book to counter the evasion of tax in certain cases, as clearly stated in the heading of chapter XX-B which reads “ requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract evasion of tax “
Like any other penalty, the operation of section 271D with reference to the violations of the provisions contained in section 269SS also is not automatic. Section 273B has provided a statutory fetter to the automatic application of section 271D if there existed a reasonable cause.
The AO has given a categorical finding in the assessment order that the assessee’s contention was found correct with reference to the details filed in respect of sales of agriculture land and deduction taken u/s 54B of the Act. It was clear that the assessee had no intention to conceal any particulars of sale transactions. The transaction is genuine and the payer and the payee are identifiable. The return of the assessee was accepted by the AO while making assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act. The assessee has relied on the decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Pati Ram Jain and Ors Vs. Union of India and Ors. (1997) 225 ITR 409 (MP ), There was a reasonable cause in accepting the cash as it is only a technical default committed under emergency or compelling circumstances as the money was required from to be deposited with the bank and for further payment as the cheques were to be issued by the buyer for the future date. The purpose of introducing section 269SS was to dampen the transaction in cash to introduce unaccounted transactions.
One more reasonable casuse with the assessee was he being an agriculturist, land sold is agriculture land and buyer of the land is also an agriculturist. He is having Agricuture Income for the last so many years. He has no bar in accepting cash on sale of agriculture land. There existed compelling circumstances for violation of section 269SS of the Act.
The issue is debatable and as such no penalty ought to have been levied on debatable issue. Levy of penalty is not justified and prayed to be cancelled.
The assessee has relied on the decision of Mrs. Rupali R. Desai Vs. Additional Commissioner of Income tax 9.09.2003 273 ITR 109 Mum (2004)
The assessee was required cash as he had to make the payment in cash for purchase of Agriculture land. One more reasoble cause with the assessee was humanitarian relief. When buyer wanted and desired to make the payment in cash the assessee accepted the offer on humanitarian relief.
The AO passed an assessment order but in this assessment order no satisfaction regarding initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271D of the Act was recorded. No opportunity was given to the assessee to explain his case and no cross examination with the seller was made by the assessing officer. The assessee relies on the judgement of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Sarita Singh.
In the case of Balaji Traders 303 ITR 312 ( Madras )
There is no revenue loss to exchequer,
Trasactions are genuine and not doubted.
Penalty was not sustainable.
In the case of CIT Vs. Maheshwari Nirmaan Udyog (2008) 302 ITR 201 ( Rajasthan ) It has been held that where a reasonable explanation is furnished, levy of penalty u/s 271D is not justified.
In ITO Vs. Prabhu Lal Sahu (2006) 99 TTJ ( Jd.) it was held that assessee was not aware of provisions of sections 269SS and 269T His counsel did not apprise him about the provisions, No penalty u/s 271D shall be attracted. The seller and buyer both are residing in rural areas and are ignorant of the relevant provisions of the law, it would constitute bonafide reasons for payment in cash. As held in ACIT Vs. Vinman Finance and Leasing Ltd. (2008) 306 ITR (AT) 377
Penalty u/s 271D for cash deposit with reasonable cause from identifiable agriculturist not justified as held in Pr. CIT Vs. Tehal Singh Khara and sons ( Punjab and Haryana High Court )
Penalty can not be levided on bonafide transaction with no intention to evade tax where default was of technical nature. As held in chemfert traders ( Bombay ) Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT (ITAT Mumbai ).
Satisfaction for initiation of penalty proceedings had to be recorded by the AO during the assessment proceedings. AO has not recorded such satisfaction for initiation of the penalty proceedings. He has not mentioned for the case to be referred to the Additional commissioner of Income tax in his assessment order. He has not initiated the penalty proceedings.On the date of initiation of penalty proceedings no proceeding was pending for the assessment year in question as on 10.01.2020.
As the amount of specified transaction was accepted by AO to be genuine, no penalty under the above section was warranted. The violation was only technical. The AO has not recorded his satisfaction for initiating the penalty proceedings. The penalty proceedings were not initiated during the assessment proceedings. There was reasonable cause and, therefore, no penalty could be imposed in view of the provisions of section 273B of the Act.
Circular No. 387 dt. 6. 7.1984. It was stated that circular of the board was binding on the Income tax Authorities and violation of the same by the assessing authority was uncalled for.
The text of the Finance Minister’s speech clearly indicates that genuine loans / deposits were not covered under section 269SS / 269T of the Act. The text clearly gives a message that no hardship should take place in the genuine cases. The penalty is always for the purpose of bending the assessee and not for breaking the assessee. Any penalty which tends to break the assessee is draconian in nature which can not be permitted by the courts.
The assessee was under a bonafide belief that there was no violation of any provisions of law. It was stated that the assessee a layman can not know every provision of law. The assessee is supposed to know the business only. There was no requirement of law that the every person knows the law. The reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble supreme court in the case of Moti Lal Padampat Sugar Mills Co. Ltd. vs state of UP (1979). The offence committed by the assessee was venial in nature and no penalties are imposable.
The assessee relies on the judgement in the case of Subhash Ganpat ro buty Vs. M K Dorlikar AIR 1975 Bom 244 “ Marginal notes to the sections of a statute and the title of its chapters can not take away the effect of the provisions contained in the Act.
Legislative intention in bringing section 269SS in the Income tax Act 1961 which reads “ requirement as to mode of acceptance, payment or repayment in certain cases to counteract, evasion of tax. Legilative intention in bringing section 269SS in the IT act was to avoid certain circumstances of tax evasion, whereby huge trasactions are made outside the books of accounts by way of cash. As far as the case of the assessee is concerned, there is no case against the assessee that these transactions had anything to do with evasion of tax or concealment of income. It may be a case of negligence but a negligent person does not have any intention or mensrea to purposely violate any provisions of law, so as to be visited with stringent punishment of heavy penalty.
Assessee further relies on the judgement VO Tractor Export Vs Tarapore and Co. (1969)3 SCC 562, 586 : (1969) 2 SCR 699 : AIR 1970 SC 1168 “
“ A statute not be construed as a theorem of Euclid but the statute must be construed with some imagination of the purpose which lies behind the statute. The doctrine of literal interpretation is not always the best method for ascertaining the intention of parliament. The better rule of interpretation is that a statute should be so construed as to prevent “ the mischief and advance the remedy according to the true intent of the makers of the statute “
No show cause notice and any other notice was issued by AO on 30.12.2019 for initiation of penalty proceedings.
As held in Mumbai bench of the Tribunal in the case of Karnatka Ginning and pressing factory Vs, Joint CIT (2001) 72 TTJ ( Mumbai) 307 : 2001) 77 ITD 478 ( Mumbai) at page No. 486 as observed as under
“ As regards the genuineness of the borrowing in the present case, there does not appear to be any doubt. The IT authorities have raised no doubt about the genuineness as is clear from the fact that no addition of the amounts from VE has been made by invoking section 68 of the Act. Apparently the AO was satisfied with the assessee’s explanation regarding the nature and source of the amount. Thus the transaction between the assessee and VE did not fall with in the mischief sought to be remedied by the section.
When there are two different observations on the issue – one which favours the assessee and the second which favours the revenue. But as has been held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in various cases, the view favourable to the assessee should be given preference.
Imposition of penalty in the given set of circumstances is not mandatory bus discretionary.
It is submitted that no penalty is otherwise levyable since the amount has already been surrendered as income and re-investment for purchase of agriculture land already made and deduction u/s 54B taken and accepted in the assessment order. In the case of the assessee in hand no show cause notice was issued to the AO for explaining the reasons for accepting cash sales consideration of agriculture land. He initiated penalty proceedings on his own and mentioned in the assessment order and no reference of Additional CIT was made. The show cause notice to be issued by AO is necessary at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s 271D rws 269SS. In the absence of show cause notice assessee could not explain his case before AO. The show cause notice was issued by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Range I when there was no case lying pending before AO.
As per circular No.9/DV/2016.Dt.26-04-2016.
Point No.4 The assessing officer has made no reference to the range head, regarding any violation of the provisions of section 269SS of the Act, as the case may be, in the course of assessment proceedings. The AO has referred the case to Range head after the completion of assessment not during the course of assessment proceedings. The assessment was completed on 28-11-2019 and case was referred to the range head on 30-11-2019 i.e., after the clear competition of the assessment and in the assessment order no reference to the range head has been made. This is not in accordance with law and there is violation of provision of the law as per circular No.9/DV/2016 Dt.26-04-2016.
The show cause notice Dt.18-05-2021 issued by NFAC clearly states the penalty proceedings initiated notice Dt.10-02-2020 being DIN 6610(1) has not been received by the assessee even till date only notice 02-01-2020 was received by the assessee for which he has replied on 22-01-2020 with the Range Head-I, xxxxxxxxx. The initiation of penalty imposed on the above basis is bad in law and sprits. Hence you are requested to delete the same.
After taking into consideration, the totality of circumstances, namely the bonafide belief of the assessee that the transactions were exempted from the requirements of section 269SS of the Act, there being no material to show that the transactions have been carried out with any intention to avoid or evade taxes, the assessee has been successful in showing that there was a reasonable cause for his failure to comply with the provisions of section 269SS of the Act. Assessee was under the bonafide belief that being an agriculturist and he can receive the payment in cash on sale of agriculture land. The assessee does not possess the necessary qualification as well as the provisions of the Income tax Act, that he has committed mistake under a bonafide belief. There was a wide spred belief, even if erroneous belief that the provisions of section 269SS did not apply to the sale of Agriculture Land. An Affidavit can be given to the effect that he was not aware of the law and no one told him about the law. The explanation of the assessee stands the preponderance of the probilities. The assessee has committed a lapse but there was a reasonable cause for committing that lapse.
Violation of principal of natural justice in the order.
The penalty order was passed by the Ld. JCIT, NFAC in violation of the principal of natural justice without granting to the assessee a fair, proper and meaningful opportunity to be hard by not providing him a draft order so that he may counter the objections of the Ld. JCIT. The Ld JCIT, NFAC has not gone through the reply filed by the assessee earlier to faceless which was duly uploaded on the portal.
Penalty order is arbitrary and bad in law.
The penalty order is arbitrary and bad in law. The ld JCIT sqarely rejected, without providing explanations, the various case laws from Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Courts.
No black money was generated through asessee on sale of agriculture land in cash.
The Ld JCIT erred in law and in facts and circumstances of the case by not considering that no black money was generated in the cash transactions of the assessee. The central board of direct taxes (CBDT) released a circular No. 19/2015 on 27.05.2015 titled explanatory notes to the provisions of the Finance Act 2015 in which this amendment was explained with the preamble. In order to curb generation of black money in cash in immovable trasactions. The CBDT circular clearly states that the purpose of the amendment to section 269SS was to curb black money. This was the real object and purpose of the enactment of amendment to section 269SS and the interpretation of this amendment must fall in line with the advancement of that object and purpose.. The object and purpose was not to strike at honest and bonafide transactions. The fact that the cash transactions of the assessee did not generate any black money has been established during the assessment proceedings and this section 269SS is not applicable in this case. In the land mark judgement on 4.9.1981 by Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K P Vergese Vs ITO 131 ITR 597, The Apex court concluded that the statute must be read applicable only to cases where apart from the first condition mentioned in the statute itself being established, the object and purpose as stated in the circular must also be satisfied as a necessary and distinct second condition.
No penalty to be imposed in case of bonafide belief coupled with genuineness of transdactions and absence of any loss to exchequer.
The ld JCIT erred in law and facts and circumstances of the case by not considering the bonafide belief coupled with genuineness of transactions and absence of loss to the revenue constitutes grounds for reasonable cause under section 273B and this precludes penalty under section 271D
Being a non financial person, the assessee being incognizant of this nascent amendment to section 269SS, the cash receipts were accepted under banafide belief and not deliberately in conscious disregard of the law. The cash transactions were genuine, duly recorded in the sale deeds as sales consideration and registrered before the sub registrar. There was no loss to the exchequer, no prejudice was done to the revenue all sales consideration was declared during the course of assessment u/s 143(3) of the act. There arose no capital gains tax as assessee claimed deduction u/s 54B of the act. The assessment was made at zero tax liability. In the Choudhary Co. Bhujiawala 89TTJ NULL 357, the Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court made the following observation.
Bona fide belief coupled with the fact that all transactions have been accepted by the department as genuine constitute a reasonable cause rendering the said default on the part of the assessee as merely of a technical or venial in nature and no penalty in such case can be levied under section 271D in view of section 273B
No penalty to be imposed in case of bonafide belief coupled with genuineness of transactions and absence of any loss to exchequer.
In the Sudarshan Auto and General Finance Vs. Commissioner of Income tax case (1998) 60 TTJ Del 567, The Hon’ble Delhi High Court made the following observation.
It will depend on the nature of the default. If it is merely a technical or venial breach, no penalty would be imposable because the levy of penalty under any statutory provision necessarily implies existence of some guilty intention on the part of the defaulter or non compliance the assessee has defrauded the revenue or has caused any loss to the revenue. There are some of the factors which will have to be seriously considered before considering the fact as to whether the ignorance on the part of the assessee and his consultant can constitute a valid excuse or a reasonable cause for the purpose of section 273B
Rural background of buyers and seller.
Assessee i.e. seller is not educated, an agriculturist, a simple, thoroughly belonging to rural background. on the other side buyer is also an agriculturist and also belonged to rural background.The background history of both seller and buyer is attached with paper book.
Direct bank deposit by buyers for a sum of Rs. 2000000.00
The fact that sales consideration of Rs. 20 Lakhs out of Rs. 1 crore 16 lakhs 50 thousand was paid vide cheques for some later dates. Cash was received by the assessee on the date of the registry. This emphasizes the bonafide of the assessee.
Without prejudice to the above submissions and grounds, the assessee submits that that the penalty imposed is unjustifiably harsh and the same may please be deleted.
DISCLAIMER
This document has been prepared for academic use only to share with fellow professionals and all concerned the scope of Section 269SS and 271D of the Income Tax Act, 1961 with special reference to existence of reasonable cause u/s 273B. Though every effort has been made to avoid errors or omissions in this document yet any error or omission may creep in. Therefore, it is notified that I shall not be responsible for any damage or loss to any one, of any kind, in any manner there from. I shall also not be liable or responsible for any loss or damage to any one in any manner due to difference of opinion or interpretation in respect of the text. On the contrary it is suggested that to avoid any doubt the user should cross check the contents of this update with the related texts and judgements referred herein.
Author Bio
