ORDER
S.R. Chauhan, Judicial Member
1. ITA Nos. 6592 & 6593/Mum/1991 are appeals by assessee for Assessment years 1982-83 & 1983-84 respectively and are directed against the common order of CIT (A), Mumbai dated 26.06.1991.
2. We have heard the arguments of both the sides and have also perused the records.
3. First we take up assessee’s appeal No. 6592/Mum/1991 being for A.Y. 1982-83. Ground No. 1 disputes the disallowance of Rs. 13,766/- Under Section 40A(8) of I.T. Act. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the relevant statutory provisions of Section 40A(8) of the I.T. Act, 1965, as it existed at the relevant time, is as under:
“(8) Where the assessee, being a company (other than a banking company or a financial company), incurs any expenditure by way of interest in respect of any deposit received by it, 15% of such expenditure shall not be allowed as a deduction.
Explanation.– In this sub-section,–
(a) “Banking Company” means a company to which the Banking Regulation Act, 1949 (10 of 1949), applies and includes any bank or banking institution referred to in Section 51 of that Act.
(b) “deposit” means any deposit of money with, and includes any money borrowed by a company, but does not include any amount received by the company.
(i) ………
(ii) ……….
(iii) ……….
(iv) ………
(v) from any other company;
(vi) ……….
……….”
4. He has contended that 15% expenditure was to be disallowed Under Section. 40A(8) but as per Explanation (b)(v) the same is not to be disallowed if it is a deposit received from any other company. He has referred to the details on Page 1 of Paper bock and contended that under the heading (I) at Sr. No. 2, the deposits were from three companies mentioned at Sr. No. (a), (b) & (c) aggregating to Rs. 40,235/-, and the assessee is claiming that 15% disallowance should not be made out of this interest in as much as this interest/expenditure has been incurred by assessee on deposits received from other companies; and as regards other expenditure, he has not agitated/contested the disallowance. The ld. DR has not raised any material contrary arguments. As such, considering the rival contentions, the relevant material on record and also the legal position enumerating from the statutory provisions, we direct the Assessing officer not to make the disallowance of 15% Under Section. 40A(8) of the I.T. Act out of the interest payment/expenditure of Rs. 40,235/-. We modify the impugned orders of authorities below and direct the Assessing officer accordingly.
5. Ground No. 2 disputes the disallowance of Rs. 1,93,942/- being legal and professional fees incurred by assessee to defend criminal proceedings initiated by CBI. The ld. AR of assessee has referred to Page 3 of Assessing officer’s assessment order and contended that the assessee has entered into an agreement with one American concern namely C.F. Braun & Co. for the supply of technical services in connection with the setting up of Ammonia plants, for which the said American company had submitted proposals to the Govt. of India. He has contended that the proposal did not materialize and the contract was allotted by the Govt. to some other concern. He has contended that the CBI, Delhi initiated proceedings against certain persons allegedly to have been involved in the leakage of some classified and secret documents under Official Secret Acts and Prevention of Corruption Act. He has contended that the residence of Regional Manager, Delhi as also the office were searched, certain files and correspondence were seized by CBI and the Manager was put under arrest; it was apprehended that the Chairman of the company may also be arrested and so the application for his anticipatory bail before Supreme Court, which was rejected and so he surrendered and then he was released on bail. He has contended that the details of expenses revealed that the same were incurred on journey to Delhi and back, hotel expenses and fees paid to lawyers. He has contended that this legal proceedings had a reason in relation to the transaction arising from the agreement entered into by the assessee company with the American company in the proposed setting up of Ammonia plant and thus there was close connection between the business interest of the assessee and the said criminal proceedings initiated by CBI. He has contended that the assessee has to incur these expenses to defend the Chairman and Regional Manager and to save the reputation of the assessee company.
6. Ld. AR of assessee has contended that Explanation to Section 37(1) has, no doubt, been brought into statute book retrospectively with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962, yet under the said Explanation to Section 37(1), it is only the expenditure incurred for any purposes “which is an offence or which is prohibited by law” is to be deemed to have not been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and this is in respect of such expenditure that the deduction is not allowable. He has contended that in the instant case, the criminal allegation is still pending and the charges have not been framed, so it cannot be said that the said expenditure was incurred for any purpose, which is an offence or which is prohibited by law and so the said expenditure does not deserve to be disallowed Under Section 37(1) read with Explanation thereto. He has also contended that the assessee is a Public Ltd. Co. and so the expenditure incurred to defend its staff/employee/director cannot be treated to be personal in nature. He has relied on the following decisions:
1) 99 ITR 567 (Guj.)
2) 60 ITR 732 ( P & H )
3) 18 ITR 857 (Mumbai)
4) 91 ITR 544 (SC)
5) 256 ITR 230 (Guj.)
6) 155 ITR 413 (Mum)
7. He has also referred to the extract of noting in connection with the seizure of records by CBI as placed on page 10 of Paper book.
8. As against the above, the ld. DR has referred to Para 4.4 on Page 7 of ld. CIT(A)’s order contending that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. H. Hirjee reported in 23 ITR 427 in disallowing the aforesaid expenses. Ld. DR has also relied on 100 ITR 59 (Allahabad). He has contended that in the instant case, the aforesaid expenditure incurred by assessee is not wholly and exclusively for the business purpose of the assessee and so the same cannot be allowed. Supporting the orders of authorities below, he has contended that the said expenditure has rightly been disallowed by Assessing officer and the disallowance was confirmed by ld. CIT(A) and the same is justified particularly in view of Explanation to Section 37(1) which was inserted vide amendment with retrospective effect from 01.04.1962.
9. We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record as also the cited decisions. In 99 ITR 567 (Guj.), the assessee, a Pvt. Ltd. Co. had entered into partnership through its Managing Director. A criminal prosecution was launched against the firm and its partners. It was held that the expenses incurred by company in defending one of its employees, the assessee would be protecting its own business interest and the expenditure can be said to be wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee.
10. In 60 ITR 732 (P & H) it has been held that the expenditure incurred to defend assessee’s employee against criminal prosecution with regard to a transaction carried out in the ordinary course of business will be business expenditure and allowable as deduction.
11. In 18 ITR 557 (Bom.) the assessee was a Pvt. Ltd. Co. in which Director had a controlling interest. The assessee was a trading company. The assessee’s director and manager were prosecuted for offences under the Hoarding and Profiteering Prevention Ordinance and Defence of India Rules. The expenses incurred in successfully defending them were held to have been incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business and were an allowable deduction Under Section 10(2)(xv) of the I.T. Act, 1922.
12. In 155 ITR 413 (Bom.) it has been held that where the assessee is an individual or a firm and incurs expenditure in defending the assessee owner or a partner, it incurs the expenditure not wholly and exclusively for its business. It has also been held that where an assessee incurs expenditure for defending one of its employees, the assessee is protecting its business interests and the expenditure could be said to be wholly and exclusively incurred for the purposes of its business.
13. In 256 ITR 230 (Guj.) assessee company was an agent of State Govt. for procurement, storage and distribution of edible oil. There was an allegation of illegality and irregularities against officers of assessee company. The Govt. appointed a commission to enquire into an allegation. The Hon’ble Gujarat High Court held that the expenditure incurred by assessee company for engaging advocate to assist commission in ascertaining facts is an expenditure incurred for protecting or safeguarding goodwill of company and so is the expenditure wholly and exclusively incurred for the purpose of business and is allowable Under Section. 37(1).
14. In 23 ITR 427 assessee was carrying on business as selling agent of a company was prosecuted under Section 13 of Hoarding and Profiteering Ordinance on a charge of selling goods at prices higher than were reasonable in contravention of the legal provisions. The prosecution ended in acquittal and the assessee claimed deduction of expenses spent in defending the case from the business profits Under Section. 10(2)(xv) of I.T. Act, 1922. The Hon’ble. Supreme Court held as under:
“that in the circumstances of the case the sum spent in defending the criminal proceeding was not an expenditure laid out or expended wholly and exclusively for the purpose of the business and it was therefore not an allowable deduction under Section 10(2)(xv).
The deductibility of such expenses under Section 10(2)(xv) must depend on the nature and purpose of the legal proceeding in relation to the business whose profits are under computation and cannot be affected by the final outcome of that proceeding.”
15. In 100 ITR 59 (Allah.) the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court, considering the provisions of Section 10(2)(xv) of I.T. Act, 1922, held that “All that has to be seen is whether the transaction in respect of which proceedings were taken arose out of and was incidental to the assessee’s business and where expenditure was bonafide incurred wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business. It cannot be laid down as a general rule that where the assessee himself is prosecuted, the expenses in defending him cannot be allowed as a deduction because of the presence of the element of punishment, which the assessee tries to avoid and where an employee is prosecuted, there being no such element, expenses in defending him are being allowable”. It has also been held that the decisive factor in such cases is not as to who is prosecuted, the assessee or its employees, but what is the intention and motive of the assessee in incurring the expenses. It is also been held that the fact that the assessee incurs expenses on the defence of its employees is no doubt a relevant circumstance to show that the object of assessee in incurring expenses was to save its business reputation and property but that circumstance is not conclusive.
16. Except 256 ITR 236 & 155 ITR 413(Mum), rest all the decisions cited/discussed above are on the provisions of Section 10(2)(xv) of I.T. Act, 1922, which has existed at the relevant time stood as under:-
10(2)(xv) “Any expenditure of not being allowance of the nature described in any of Clauses (i) to (xiv) inclusive, & not being in the nature of capital expenditure or personal expenses of the assessee laid down or expended wholly and exclusively for such business, profession or occasion.”
17. It is in respect of the above statutory provision that the above cited decisions have been rendered. Obvious as it is, a provision similar to that contained in Explanation to Section 37(1) did not exist at the relevant time when the above mentioned decisions were rendered. The said Explanation to Section 37(1) is as under:
“For the removal of doubts, it is hereby declared that any expenditure incurred by an assessee for any purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law shall not be deemed to have been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and no deduction or allowance shall be made in respect of such expenditure.”
18. The decision reported in 155 ITR 413 (Bom) is on the provision of Section 37(1), no doubt, yet the same was rendered on 24.08.1984 by which time the insertion of the aforesaid Explanation to Section 37(1) had not yet taken place. The said Explanation could obviously not be considered and has not been considered in this decision.
19. In 256 ITR 230 (Guj.) the decision is rendered on the provision of Section 37(1) of the I.T. Act, 1961, no doubt, but therein also, the provision of Explanation to Section 37(1) has not been considered, the same probably having not been necessitated. In that case, the fact-situation was that the officers and Directors of assessee-company, against whom allegations had been leveled, had also engaged their advocates to represent their respective case before the commission. It is not less worth noting that in that case, the commission had ultimately found that the officers and the concern director had acted in good faith and that the dealings of the assessee company was just and proper. It was in the above fact-situation that the Hon’ble High Court observed as under:
“Thus for the purpose of protection of the business goodwill of the assessee and to ascertain whether the officers and the director of the company had acted in a proper manner, the expenditure incurred by the assessee-company for engaging an advocate should be treated as business expenditure and, therefore, it should be allowed as business expenditure under the provisions of Section 37(1) of the Act. Looking to the circumstances in which the advocate was engaged, it cannot be said that the expenditure incurred was not wholly and exclusively for the purpose of business of the assessee.”
20. It may also be relevant to consider the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Maddi Venkataraman & Co. (P) Ltd. v. CIT 229 ITR 534, which though is on Section 37(1) no doubt, but certain observations therein have relevant bearing on the issue in hand. It has been observed therein that the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that one can carry on his trade without violating the law. In fact, Section 37 of I.T. Act, 1961, presumes that the trade will be carried on lawfully. The Hon’ble Court held that the expenses incurred in transactions carried out in violation of provisions of FERA are not deductible. The Hon’ble Court also observed that it would be against public policy to allow benefit of deduction under one statute, of any expenditure incurred in violation of provisions of another statute or any penalty imposed under another statute. It was also observed in that case that “If the deductions claimed by the assessee were allowed, the penal provisions of FERA would become meaningless. It is also to be borne in mind that evasion of law cannot be a trade pursuit”.
21. In the aforesaid case, the Hon’ble Supreme Court also considered 41 ITR 350(SC) in the case of Haji Aziz and Abdul Shakoor Bros. v. CIT. In that case (41 ITR 350) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:
“Expenses which are permitted as deductions are such as are made for the purpose of carrying on the business i.e. to enable a person to carry on and earn profit in that business. It is not enough that the disbursements are made in the course of or arise out of or are concerned with or made out of the profits of the business but they must also be for the purpose of earning the profits of the business. They cannot be deducted if they fall on the assessee in some character other than that of a trader. An expenditure is not deductible unless it is a commercial loss in trade and a penalty imposed for breach of the law during the course of trade cannot be described as such. If a sum is paid by an assessee conducting his business, because in conducting it he has acted in a manner which has rendered him liable to penalty for an infraction of the law, it cannot be claimed as a deductible expense, as it cannot be called a commercial loss incurred in carrying on his business. Infraction of the law is not a normal incident of business.
22. In the instant case, the facts, as ascertainable from material on record, are that the expenditure was incurred for defending the Regional Manager, Delhi and Chairman of the assessee company from criminal proceeding/prosecution for alleged leakage of some classified and secret documents under the Official Secrets Act & Prevention of Corruption Act. No further/specific details of CBI’s allegations against the Regional Manager, Delhi and Chairman of the assessee company, are available on record. On the basis of whatever are revealations from material on record, we are of the view that the criminal proceeding/prosecution, initiated by CBI against the Chairman of assessee company and the Regional Manager, Delhi, were for alleged leakage of some classified and secret documents under the Officials Secrets Act and Prevention of Corruption Act. The criminal act, as complained of above, does not seem to be for the purpose of carrying on assessee’s business, nor does the same seem to be incidental thereto. It has clearly been propounded by Hon’ble Supreme Court in 229 ITR 534 that trade/business has to be carried on without violating the law. Incurring of expenditure for defending an employee from criminal proceeding/prosecution for activities which are violative of or in contravention of the provisions of law tantamounts to incurring of expenditure for a purpose which is an offence or which is prohibited by law; and under explanation to Section 37(1) of I.T. Act, the same shall be deemed to have not been incurred for the purpose of business or profession and in turn no deduction in respect of such an expenditure will be allowable. As has been held by the Hon’ble Apex Court in 41 ITR 350 (SC) infraction of law is not a normal incidence of business.
23. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the legal position, we hold the aforesaid expenditure to be hit by the exclusionary mischief spelled out by Explanation to Section 37(1) and in turn to be not allowable as deduction Under Section 37(1); We, therefore, find no fault with the orders of authorities below, impugned herein, in disallowing the above expenditure. Accordingly, we decline to interfere with the same.
24. Ground No. 3 disputes the ld. CIT(A)’s impugned order in not directing the DCIT to allow deduction Under Section 80MM at Rs. 4,06,017/- as claimed by assessee. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the Assessing officer has wrongly computed the assessee’s net profit from consulting fees services by applying net profit rate of 4.3% as against 40.2%. He has contended that the assessee has not been maintaining separate accounts for consulting services/consulting fees for determining eligible profits for deduction Under Section. 80MM, but Section 80MM does not so require referring to Page 13 of Paper book. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that the basis of assessee’s determining net profit is actually working and not just an estimate. He has contended that the average rate per man hour has been worked out as reflected on Page 14 of Paper book, wherein all expenses actually incurred and debited to P & L A/c. have been taken Rs. 91,95,004/- and the same has been divided by total man hours which 31.97 and rounded off to Rs. 32 per man hour. He has contended that the total man hours spent is taken and the details of which are available on record and the same have also been furnished before the Tribunal. He has contended that the certificates of total man hours used have also been furnished on record and the said certificates have been given by competent and technical experts being Joint Chief Technical Executive. He has accordingly contended that thus no estimation element is involved and there is actual calculation based on facts. He has contended that the details of man hour is given on page 31 of Paper book, segregation of man hours is given on Page 32 of Paper book and employee-wise break up of man hours have also been furnished. He has contended that the assessee’s working being based on calculation of facts, the net profit eligible for deduction.
25. As against this, the ld. DR has contended that the ld. AR has relied on certificates regarding man hours as placed on pages 16 to 30 and 31 to 37 of Paper book, but these papers were not produced before Assessing officer and before CIT(A) and so the same should not be considered here. Referring to Para 5.5 of Page 10 of ld. CIT(A)’s order, he has contended that the ld. CIT(A) has held the expenditure on estimation. He has supported the orders of authorities below.
26. In rejoinder, the ld. AR of assessee has contended that the papers being certificates regarding use of man hours etc. could not be furnished before Assessing officer/CIT(A) for A.Y. 1982-83 only, but the same were duly furnished in respect of A.Y. 1983-84, before Assessing officer as well as CIT(A). He has contended that despite furnishing of papers pertaining to use of man hours for A.Y. 1983-84, the authorities below still did not grant any relief to the assessee and took the same view of the matter as was taken by them for A.Y. 1982-83. He has accordingly contended that therefore even if the assessee has furnished those papers for A.Y. 1982-83 before the authorities below, they would have taken the same view as has been shown for A.Y. 1983-84. Regarding additional evidence, the ld. AR of assessee has cited 179 ITR 231 (P & H).
27. We have considered the rival contentions as also the relevant material on record. However, in 179 ITR 231, there is no decision/ruling on additional evidence on page 231. Considering the contentions raised before us together with the relevant material on record, we find that the assessee’s working of net profit from consultancy services fees is not on the basis of estimate, but the same is rather on the basis of actual working/calculation taking the facts and figures into account. Considering the fact that the additional evidence by way of certificates of man hours used and other details were furnished before Assessing officer for A.Y. 1983-84, and the same were not furnished for A.Y. 1982-83 before Assessing officer and have been furnished now before the Tribunal, we consider it just and proper to admit the same on record particularly in view of the fact that the same are essentially needed for rendering effective and substantive justice in the matter. However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we do not consider it just and proper to set aside the whole matter pertaining to this issue to the authorities below, but the material being available on record and the same having been considered by us, we hold in principle that the working/calculation of net profit from fees of consultation services to be quite justified but for proper examining and verification of the facts and figures given in the working/calculation by assessee, we send the matter to Assessing officer for the said limited purpose and direct the Assessing officer to amend/vary the figures, if need be, after verification/examination of the working furnished by assessee and allow deduction Under Section 80MM accordingly keeping in view the observations made by us above.
28. Ground No. 4 disputes the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 1,604/-contributed by assessee towards expenditure on Pooja and other occasion at various sites, where profits of the assessee were in progress. The ld. AR of assessee has contended that these are expenses incurred normally for running the business activities smoothly and so the same should be allowed as business expenditure. He has relied on 142 ITR 509 (Allah.) in the case of Brijramm Das and Sons v. CIT and an order of ‘C’ Bench of ITAT, Mumbai rendered in the case of M/s. Metazinc Pvt. Ltd. for A.Y. 1982-83 (Page 40 & 41 of Paper book).
29. As against this, the ld. DR has relied on the orders of authorities below and has cited 119 ITR 387 (Bom.) Kolhapur Sugar Mills Ltd. v. CIT.
30. We have considered the rival contentions, relevant material on record as also the cited decision. In 142 ITR 509 (Allah.), assessee had incurred some expenditure on Ganesh Pooja on the opening of account books and claimed deduction in respect of the same as business expenditure. The Hon’ble Allahabad High Court held that Ganesh Pooja expenses were incurred by Hindu traders in a customary way at the time of mahurat or opening of their accounts book on the auspicious occasion of Diwali and are to be treated as expenditure laid down wholly and exclusively for the purpose of assessee’s business and are allowable Under Section. 37(1).
31. In the order of ‘C’ Bench of ITAT, Mumbai in ITA No. 7011 & 7060/Bom/1983 for A.Y. 1982-83 (Page 40 and 41 PB), the Tribunal allowed pooja expenses treating the same as customary business expenses and necessary to be done for the welfare of the employees and as such allowable Under Section 37(1) of I.T. Act.
32. In 119 ITR 387 (Bom.), the assessee carried on the business of manufacture and sale of sugar and incurred an expenditure of Rs. 5,902/-and Rs. 6,996/ on Satyanarayan Maha Pooja in A.Y. 1957-58 and 1958-59 respectively and claimed the same as allowable deduction Under Section 10(2)(xv) of the I.T. Act, 1922 in respective A.Ys. The ITO and AAC rejected the assessee’s claim holding that the expenses could not be recorded as incurred wholly and exclusively for the business of assessee Under Section 10(2)(xv) and that the same was not dictated by business consideration. The assessee contended that the amounts were spent over food and entertainment on labourers working in assessee’s own sugar factory and farm and also other labourers, who were working outside under cane growers and the expenses were incurred on the last day of working season on which day the pooja was celebrated and the labourers were fed on the occasion to see that they were happy and also to induce them to continue to work in assessee’s company in the next season. The Tribunal held that the assessee had separately claimed labour welfare expenses and the expenses over food and entertainment to labourer on the occasion of pooja were not included in that account in Balance sheet because the assessee did not consider them as labour welfare expenses. The Tribunal held that the said expenses were not necessary for assessee’s business and upheld the disallowance. The Tribunal’s conclusion was upheld by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court.
33. We may note that the above mentioned judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court (119 ITR 387) is distinguishable on facts in as much as in the cited case huge amounts of about Rs. 6,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- respectively in A.Y. 1957-58 and 1958-59 were incurred on food provided to the labourers of the factory as also to the labourers working outside the factory under cane growers, the last day of working season, on which day the pooja was celebrated and the same were not included in labour welfare expenses and that separate amount had been claimed under the head labour welfare expenses. In the circumstance, the Tribunal has held the said expenses to be not necessary, nor incurred in the carrying on of assessee’s business. It was not a case of a reasonably small amount having been contributed to Pooja expenses but the amounts spent were not only huge but the expenditure was on providing food to labourers on the last day of the working season, though expenditure was in the name of pooja and that was not included in the labour welfare expenses under which head separate/other amount of expenditure stood claimed. However, such is not the fact-situation in the case in hand. In the instant case, the facts are different in as much as only a small amount of Rs. 1,604/-has been contributed towards expenditure on Pooja and other amount in A.Y. 1982-83. As such, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case as also the decisions cited by ld. AR of assessee as discussed above, we are of the view that a small contribution towards pooja expenses made run the business of the factory smoothly may appropriately be allowed. We, therefore, delete this disallowance.
34. In the result, the assessee’s appeal No. 6592/Mum/1991 is allowed in part as indicated above.
35. Now we take up ITA No. 6593/Mum/1991 being for A.Y. 1983-84. Ground No. 1 disputes the disallowance of expenditure of Rs. 5,933/- for contribution towards expenditure on pooja and other occasions. The two rival representatives have relied on their same contentions as raised by them on similar issue raised in A.Y. 1982-83 discussed above.
36. We have considered the rival contentions as also the facts of the case. In A.Y. 1982-83, a small amount of Rs. 1,600/- was claimed as contribution towards expenditure on pooja and other occasions, which we have held above as allowable Under Section 37(1). However, in A.Y. 1983-84 this expenditure is of Rs. 5,933/-. Considering all the facts and circumstances of the case, we hold an expenditure of Rs. 1,933/- to be allowable and thereby we restrict the disallowance to Rs. 3,000/- under this head. We order accordingly.
37. Ground No. 2 disputes the disallowance of Rs. 19,208/- being legal and professional fees incurred by assessee to defend criminal proceedings initiated by CBI. The two rival representatives have relied on their contentions as raised by them on similar issue in AY. 1982-83. The facts being identical, we follow our own decision rendered above and in turn, we uphold this disallowance.
38. Ground No. 3 and 4 disputes the ld. CIT(A)’s impugned order in directing the DCIT to allow deduction Under Section 80MM at Rs. 98,741/- as claimed by assessee. The two rival representatives have relied on their same contentions as raised by them on similar issue in A.Y. 1982-83 discussed above. The facts being identical, we follow our decision rendered above on similar issue contained in Ground No. 3 raised in A.Y. 1982-83 and hold and direct the Assessing officer accordingly.
39. Ground No. 5 and 6 are general.
40. In the result, assessee’s appeal no. 6593/Mum/91 is allowed in part as indicated above.