Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Chhindwara, Chhindwara V. Shree Gopal Paliwal, Chhindwara

MA 13/JAB/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4167 (ITAT-JABALPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 26-05-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 23-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Audit objection; Tax effect; Right to appeal; Tax effect
• Section: 147; 143(3); 268A; 254(2); 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH, JABALPUR (through web-based video conferencing platform) BEFORE SHRI SANJAY ARORA, HON‘BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER M.A. Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (Arising out of ITA Nos. 67 & 68/JAB/2019) (Asst. Years : 2009-10 & 2010-11) Assessee by : Shri G.N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Department by : Shri S.K. Halder, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 11/03/2022 Date of pronouncement : 27/05/2022 O R D E R Per Bench: This is a set of two Miscellaneous Applications (MAs) by the Revenue directed against the common order under section 254(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( ̳the Act‘, hereinafter) dated 10/12/2019 in respect of the assessee‘s assessments u/s. 147 read with section 143(3) of the Act dated 07/03/2016 (for Assessment Year (AY 2009-10)) and 11/08/2017 (for AY 2010-11). 2.1 The Tribunal, vide the impugned order, dismissed the Revenue‘s captioned appeals, filed on 21/8/2019, as not maintainable u/s. 268A of the Act inasmuch as the tax effect is below Rs. 50 lakhs each, i.e., the threshold monetary limit as specified per the extant Board Instruction issued u/s. 268A(1) of the Act, which it Asstt. CIT, Circle Chhindwara, Chhindwara. vs. Gopal Paliwal, Prop. Gopal Oil Industries, Tar Bazar, Pandhurna Chhindwara (Applicant) [PAN: AEWPP 7249E] (Respondent) MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 2 | P a g e does from time to time for the purpose of regulating the filing of appeals, applications for references, etc. by the Revenue, regard of which is to be had by the Court or the Tribunal hearing the said appeal or reference. The applicable Board Instruction is 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, read with Instruction 17/2019, dated 08/08/2019, enhancing the monetary limits specified in the former (for the maintainability of the Revenue‘s appeals or references before different appellate forums), which, thus, is the principal Instruction in force, so that both are to be read together for the purpose of considering the applicability or otherwise of sec. 268A to the instant appeals by the Revenue. 2.2 The relevant part of the Tribunal‘s order reads as under:- ―2. We have heard both the parties. Admittedly, the tax effect in both the Departmental appeals is below Rs. 50 lakhs. Vide Circular No. 17/2019 dated 08/08/2019, issued u/s. 268A of the Act, it has been directed by CBDT that in case the tax effect does not exceed Rs. 50 lakhs, the appeal before the Tribunal may not be pressed/withdrawn. Since in both the Departmental appeals the tax effect is below Rs.50 lakhs therefore, both the appeals of the Revenue are not maintainable and are liable to be dismissed. 3. Learned D.R., however, contended that in these cases audit objection was accepted. However, the orders of the AO u/s. 147/148 do not contain any such mention. Therefore, nothing is borne out from the record so as to prove the contention raised by learned D.R. The Departmental appeals shall have to be decided on the basis of material available on record. In view of the above, it is clear that both the Department appeals are filed in violation of Board‘s circular therefore, both the appeals are not maintainable and are dismissed as such.‖ 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 The Revenue per its‘ instant petitions agitates the impugned order (IO) on the ground that its‘ appeals are saved by Clause 10(c) of the Board Instruction (BI) 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018, which excludes the Revenue‘s appeals filed on acceptance of the Revenue Audit Objection/s (RAO/s), i.e., despite low tax effect. In view thereof, it claims that the same stand wrongly dismissed by the Tribunal u/s. 268A(4), praying for their restoration for being heard on merits. This contention, as afore-noted, was also taken by the Revenue at the time of hearing of its‘ instant appeals, but did not find acceptance by the Tribunal as there was MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 3 | P a g e nothing borne out of record to prove or exhibit the contention raised, so that the Revenue‘s appeals were to be necessarily decided on the basis of the material on record. At this stage, we may advert to s. 268A, which reads as under: ̳268A. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue orders, instructions or directions to other income-tax authorities, fixing such monetary limits as it may deem fit, for the purpose of regulating filing of appeal or application for reference by any income-tax authority under the provisions of this Chapter. (2) Where, in pursuance of the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), an income-tax authority has not filed any appeal or application for reference on any issue in the case of an assessee for any assessment year, it shall not preclude such authority from filing an appeal or application for reference on the same issue in the case of— (a) the same assessee for any other assessment year; or (b) any other assessee for the same or any other assessment year. (3) Notwithstanding that no appeal or application for reference has been filed by an income-tax authority pursuant to the orders or instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1), it shall not be lawful for an assessee, being a party in any appeal or reference, to contend that the income-tax authority has acquiesced in the decision on the disputed issue by not filing an appeal or application for reference in any case. (4) The Appellate Tribunal or Court, hearing such appeal or reference, shall have regard to the orders, instructions or directions issued under sub-section (1) and the circumstances under which such appeal or application for reference was filed or not filed in respect of any case. (5) Every order, instruction or direction which has been issued by the Board fixing monetary limits for filing an appeal or application for reference shall be deemed to have been issued under sub-section (1) and the provisions of sub-sections (2), (3) and (4) shall apply accordingly.‘ The law, therefore, obliges the appellate forum, as the Tribunal, hearing the Revenue‘s appeal under the Act to have regard of the Boards‘ Instructions, etc. issued u/s. 268A(1) as well as of the circumstance/s under which the same has been filed or, as the case may be, not filed in respect of any case. The relevant part of Board Instruction 03/2018 reads as under:- MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 4 | P a g e ̳10. Adverse judgment relating to the following issues should be contested on merits notwithstanding that the tax effect entailed is less than the monetary limits specified in para 3 above, or there is no tax effect: (a) ................................, or (b) ................................, or (c) where a Revenue Audit objection in the case has been accepted by the Department, or (d).................................‘ A perusal of the appellate record shows that para 2 of that the Authorization Memo (AM) dated 07/08/2019 u/s. 253(2) accompanying the memorandum of appeal (MoA) for both the years, identically worded, reads as under: ―2. Under section 253(2) of the Act, I, therefore, direct the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-Chhindwara, to file an appeal before the Appellate Tribunal against the order of the above authority, further appeal is being filed as the case falls under exceptional of para 10 ( c) of Board Instruction No. 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018.‖ Further still, a communication by the Asst. Commissioner of Income-tax, Circle, Chhindwara to Jt./Addl. CIT (DR), ITAT, Jabalpur, dated 06/11/2019, furnished in response to the latters‘ office letter dated 24/10/2019 (copy on record), lists (in tabular form) eight appeals pending (before the Tribunal), along with their assessment year and tax-effect, which stand filed despite their tax-effect being lower than that specified in the Board Instruction 03/2018. The instant appeals find mention at serial nos. 2 & 3 of the said Table. For all these appeals, except that noted at serial # 1, the comments in the remarks column state of the case/s having been filed as the same falls under exceptional clause as per para 10 of the Board Circular dated 20/08/2018 as Revenue Audit Objection was accepted. The appeal at serial #1 is suggested to be not pressed and withdrawn in view of the Board Instruction 17/2019, dated 08/08/2019. On this being conveyed by the Bench during hearing to Shri Purohit, the ld. counsel for the assessee, reading out para 2 of the AM, reproduced hereinabove, he would object. His objection was two-fold: (i) that inasmuch as copy of these documents was not supplied by the Revenue to the assessee, the same cannot form part of the Tribunal‘s MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 5 | P a g e record and, therefore, no cognizance of the same could be taken by the Tribunal while considering the instant petitions; the scope of section 254(2) being limited to a mistake apparent from record. It would be a different matter, he would add, if the fact of the appeals being filed on acceptance of the RAO was stated in the Grounds of Appeal, forming part of the Memorandum of Appeal (MoA) itself. (ii) the second objection raised by him was with reference to the decision in CIT vs. Reliance Telecom Ltd. (in Civil Appeal Nos. 7110 & 7111/2021, dated 03/12/2021), reading paras 3.2, 6 & 7 thereof. On that basis, it was submitted that it was not open for the Tribunal, in rectification proceedings, to recall its‘ earlier order, and that a finding, right or wrong, cannot be reviewed; the Tribunal having no power to review it‘s order. 3.2 The Revenue‘s case is that there has been an omission on the part of the Tribunal while considering its‘ instant appeals to have regard to the fact, expressly brought forth and conveyed to the Tribunal, that the same were covered under exceptional Cl.10 (c) of the Board Instruction 03/2018, dated 11/07/2018 and, that, therefore, the same stand wrongly dismissed as being in violation of the said Board Instruction (BI) and, thus, not maintainable. Now, by own admission, or as a corollary to his objection of the AM u/s. 253(2) being not liable to be considered as the same, was not provided thereto, the assessee would have no case where the circumstance/s, of which regard is to be had by the Tribunal while hearing the Revenue‘s appeal, of it having been filed on acceptance of a RAO or, simply put, in pursuance to the exceptional clause 10(c) of the Board Instruction 03/2018, was to be communicated by the Revenue to the Tribunal per the Grounds of Appeal (forming part of MoA) inasmuch as copy of the same is also provided to the assessee, and would therefore form part of the Tribunal‘s record and, thus, liable to be taken cognizance of by it in the appellate proceedings. The argument is flawed, and for more than one reason. There is, firstly, no requirement in law for the Revenue to have filed the said or any other relevant document with the assessee, but with the Tribunal, with a view to demonstrate the competence of the appeal being (or having been) filed therewith. Two, the law obliges the Tribunal to have regard to MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 6 | P a g e the Board‘s Instructions and the circumstances attending the filing or, as the case may be, non-filing of its‘ appeals, references before it. And which it is to, irrespective of whether the said document stands filed by the Revenue with the assessee-respondent or not. Surely, the assessee has every right to be supplied with a copy of the audit objection, or to verify facts, or otherwise take any objection to the Revenue‘s plea, but that is a different matter altogether, and what we are seized herewith is the maintainability of the Revenue‘s plea, supported by the statutory order u/s. 253(2) and other relevant documents filed with the Tribunal, in the absence of the same having been filed by it with the assessee- respondent. If the said order, forming part of the Revenue’s appeal memo, is not a part of the Tribunal’s record, what we wonder is? Would that further, i.e., by extension, mean that the AM u/s. 253(2), filed by the Revenue along with it’s MoA/s, is to be ignored? Again, would it imply that the same, even though not required by law to, supplied by the Revenue to the assessee, or had been so directed by the Tribunal, as also the letter dated 06/11/2019, filed on 04/12/2019, and thus available on its‘ file at the time of hearing of the appeals on 10/12/2019, the Revenue’s appeals would become maintainable? The right to appeal is a statutory right. Its‘ non-exercise by a litigant, is thus to be strictly construed, i.e., in strict adherence to the terms of its‘ non-exercise, even as explained in Anurag Srivastava (in ITA Nos. 03-07/Jab/2020, dated 07/9/2020). The Ground/s of Appeal (GoA) is toward a cause of action, i.e., the specific point/s on which a litigant is aggrieved by the impugned order. There is, thus, no reason or basis to clarify the basis of filing the appeal in the GoA, as being contended by the assessee. There is further no prescribed manner in which the Revenue is to communicate the fact of it‘s appeal or reference having been filed despite low tax-effect due to it being saved by an exception/s to the general instruction specifying the monetary limit, to an appellate authority hearing it‘s appeal. No fault can thus be said to lie at the door of the Revenue in communicating this fact to the Tribunal through the AM, a statutory document forming part of the appeal MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 7 | P a g e papers. Rather, inasmuch as it impinges directly on the competence of the appeal being filed, it‘s inclusion under AM, which, by definition, provides the necessary authorization to the authority filing the appeal for and on behalf of the Revenue, can only be regarded as apt and proper. In any case of the matter, the same is a circumstance attending the filing or, as the case may be, not filing an appeal by the Revenue, of which the Tribunal is to by law have regard. That being the case and, as explained hereinbefore, there being no prescribed format for communicating the exception attending a particular case, even a mention thereof, i.e., that the Revenue‘s appeal being heard is excepted by a Board Instruction, etc., by the ld. DR should suffice inasmuch as thereby the Tribunal is put to notice. Of course, it would act thereon only on being satisfied about the veracity of the claim/s being advanced. Why, as explained in Anurag Srivastava & Ors. (supra), the threshold monetary limits u/s.268A(1) being revised (enhanced) from time to time, it may well be that an appeal was not covered by the extant monetary limit at the time of it‘s filing, and there was therefore no mention of this fact, or of it being otherwise excepted, in the AM, while it stands so covered at the time of its‘ hearing! Now could that, by any stretch of imagination, be regarded as a debility, invalidating the said appeal for being pressed or prosecuted on account of low tax-effect where filed in consequence to the acceptance of a RAO, or otherwise excepted under any of the saving clauses/provisions. It would be facile and naive, if not ludicrous, to so suggest. 3.3 The assessee, by seeking to constrict the scope of the word ―record‖, as mentioned at para 3 of the impugned order, is, in our view, only trying to inject a controversy where none exists. There is nothing to suggest that the Tribunal considered the noting on the AM accompanying the appeal memo, or noticed the correspondence afore-referred (between the DR and the field officer) with regard to the filing of the instant appeals, on it‘s file, and yet declined to regard it or take cognizance thereof as it did not consider it as a part of it‘s record. We say so as it would be a different matter if it had said so, clearly exhibiting absence of MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 8 | P a g e omission on it‘s part in considering the relevant material on it‘s file, and to the import of which it had therefore applied it‘s mind. It is in such a case that it could be said that the Tribunal‘s decision, even if wrong, could not be subject to review under rectification proceedings. In its absence, it would be presumptuous to so suggest; there being no whisper of any of the documents referred above, including the statutory order u/s. 253(2) (which bears reference to the exceptional clause as integral part thereof), in the impugned order. The contention raised is without basis on facts or in law. To us, it is no more than a case of a patent mistake, apparent from record, of an omission to notice and, consequently, have regard of the materials available with it by the Tribunal and, further, which besides being relevant from the stand-point of the issue at hand, i.e., the maintainability of the instant appeals u/s. 268A, it was obliged to have regard to. The Revenue, on it’s part, was required to bring forth the relevant Board Instruction where-under its’ appeals stand filed, which also thus becomes the circumstance for their filing, in fact, bringing the same to the notice of the Tribunal, and which it did, mentioning also the relevant clause of the said Instruction. 3.4 Coming to the second argument, i.e., that the Tribunal cannot, in rectification proceedings, recall it‘s order u/s. 254(2) proceedings. The same is, again, as well as the decision relied upon in support, misplaced. The appeal/s under reference was dismissed by the Tribunal for want of the requisite competence, i.e., on account of low tax-effect, in complete disregard of the express statement in the authorisation memo/s u/s. 253(2) to the effect that despite having a low tax-effect, it was saved under the exceptional clause 10(c) of the BI 03/2018, explaining thus the basis for it‘s filing. The only consequence and, rather, concomitant of the Tribunal, in the rectification proceedings, finding it to have made a mistake in not having regard thereto is to recall the impugned order for deciding the Revenue‘s appeal/s on it‘s merits after allowing reasonable MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 9 | P a g e opportunity of hearing to the parties, i.e., to pass an order/s u/s. 254(1). In the facts of Reliance Telecom Ltd. (supra), on the other hand, the Tribunal had passed a detailed order u/s. 254(1), i.e., on an earlier occasion. It was this order which was recalled in the proceedings u/s. 254(2) by delving into the merits of the case and, thus, reviewing it‘s order, impermissible u/s. 254(2). It was under these circumstances that it was explained by the Apex Court that it was improper for the Tribunal to recall it‘s earlier order in rectification proceedings. As explained in CIT v. Sun Engineering Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297 (SC), after a review of the precedents in the matter, that it is neither desirable nor permissible to pick out a word or sentence from the judgement of the Supreme Court divorced from the context of the question under consideration and treat it to be the complete law declared by the court. The assessee‘s plea, thus, is without any substance and, accordingly, not accepted. In sum 4. The only issue that arises in the given admitted set of facts and circumstances of the case, is as to whether the Tribunal holding, per the impugned order, that there is nothing on record to prove the Revenue‘s contention, is correct or not. A perusal of the appeal folder/s reveals a clear mention of the exceptional clause under which the instant appeal/s stands preferred, filed along with the appeal papers, as indeed the communications between the ld. Departmental Representative and the field officer confirming this position, again duly furnished to the Tribunal prior to the date of hearing of the appeal/s. There being no reference to these documents, admittedly relevant, in the impugned order, reproduced in it‘s operative part hereinbefore, there has clearly been an omission on the part of the Tribunal in not noticing the same, much less have regard thereto, incumbent on it under law. The assessee‘s principal objection concerns the disregarding of the same by the Tribunal inasmuch as the same, having not been supplied to the assessee, could not form part of it‘s record. We, for the several reasons afore-stated, find MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 10 | P a g e the said argument misconceived. The argument presumes the non-consideration of the said material by the Tribunal in the first instance for this reason, even as there is no whisper of the same in it‘s order. That is, is wholly presumptuous. It further presumes that the Tribunal, though conscious of the said material, yet chose not to direct either the Revenue or it‘s Registry to supply a copy thereof to the assessee, as in that case, forming part of it‘s record, it would be obliged to take cognizance thereof. That is, acts in a partisan manner. Rather, where so, i.e., the material was not admitted by the Tribunal on this ground, the same ought to form part of it‘s order, which only would qualify the same as a judicial order inasmuch as the same has to be, by definition, a speaking order. On merits, to even suggest that the AM u/s. 253(2), which forms part of the appeal papers, is not a part of the Tribunal’s record, is, to our mind, perverse. There is no requirement in law for the Revenue to have filed the same with the assessee – who could though seek a copy of the same, nor any prescribed manner for communicating the same. Rather, inasmuch as the same concerns the legal competence for filing an appeal, mention thereof in and as part of the authorization memo u/s. 253(2), authorising the filing of an appeal with the Tribunal, which forms part of the appeal memo and, thus, part of the Tribunal‘s record, it‘s mention therein is most appropriate. As further observed, it may be that the circumstance requiring the statement of the criteria leading to the filing of an appeal may arise subsequent to the filing of the appeal, so that even non- mention thereof may not, by itself, be conclusive of the matter. Section 114(e) of the Indian Evidence Act specifically attributes a presumption of regularity and proper performance to all official and judicial acts, so that the same, unless rebutted with materials, shall hold. Ignoring the attendant circumstance, besides being in clear violation of the clear mandate of law (s. 268A(4)), itself constituting a mistake, liable for rectification, which extends to both mistakes of fact and law, could only be at the peril of causing a serious prejudice to the appellant, negating it‘s right of appeal. It is trite law that no Court or Tribunal MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 11 | P a g e could by it‘s action or, as the case may be, non-action, cause prejudice to any of the party before it, which, where so, is to be regarded as mistaken, liable for rectification u/s. 254(2), even as explained by the Apex Court in Honda Siel Power Products Ltd. v. CIT [2007] 295 ITR 466(SC). For us, it is therefore no more than a simple case a bona fide omission by the Tribunal in, while adjudicating the matter, failing to take note of the compelling documents on it‘s record in support of the contention of the ld. DR – nothing more, and nothing less, and which therefore warrants being addressed by taking due notice of the said documents, all forming part of the appeal papers themselves (inasmuch as the communication between the Departmental officers is only toward and in substantiation of the eligibility note at para 2 of the AM, which is to accompany an appeal by the Revenue. The argument advanced – which has been considered in all it‘s different facets, serving, to our mind, only to obfuscate the issue. The second argument, i.e., of an order, though mistaken, yet cannot be recalled inasmuch as scope of the instant proceedings is limited to making to amendments in respect of mistake/s apparent from record, the same glosses over the fact that the impugned order is not an order on merits, but an in limine dismissal of the appeal/s under reference for want of competence on technical, albeit mandatory, grounds. That a judgment is to be read as a whole, and it is the principle of law enunciated, it‘s ratio decidendi, that is binding, is trite law. The said argument is wholly misplaced and, if anything, itself mistaken. Before parting with this order, we cannot help observing the assessee‘s conduct in the matter. The Bench had in the instant proceedings on an earlier occasion, in response to Sh. Purohit‘s contention as to the assessee having not been supplied a copy of authorization memo by the Revenue, directed for the same to be provided to the assessee inasmuch as the same were relevant toward the maintainability of the Revenue‘s appeal u/s. 268A, as well as copy of the Revenue‘s Audit Objection, also called for by the Bench during hearing. Further instructions were also passed for the assessee to make arrangements for collecting MA Nos. 13 & 14/JAB/2020 (A.Y. 2009-10 & 2010-11) Asst. CIT v. Gopal Paliwal 12 | P a g e copy thereof from the Registry. This is borne out by order sheet entries dated 11/9/2020, 18/9/2020 and 25/9/2020. The assessee, however, did not take the copy thereof. As it transpires, this was as that would defeat the assessee‘s case. We have, however, at our end, confirmed that the Revenue Audit Objections are in respect of the grounds assumed by the Revenue per it‘s instant appeals, validating it‘s assertions, which we have done for our satisfaction as indeed in discharge of the obligation cast on the Tribunal u/s. 268A(4). We, in view of the foregoing, reject the assessee‘s contentions, and admit and decide the instant MAs by it in favour of the Revenue inasmuch as its‘ instant appeals were wrongly dismissed u/s. 268A(1) r/w s. 268A(4) of the Act. The same are, therefore, recalled for a decision on merits. The Registry is directed to fix the appeals for hearing in the normal course. We decide accordingly. 5. In the result, Revenue‘s instant Miscellaneous Applications are allowed. Order Pronounced in open Court on this 27 th day of May, 2022 Sd/- sd/- (Manomohan Das) (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Accountant Member Dated: May 27, 2022 vr/- Copy to: 1. The Appellant - ACIT, Circle, Nagpur Road, Chhindwara 480 001. 2. The Revenue – Shri Gopal Paliwal, Prop. Gopal Oil Industries, Tar Bazar, Pandhurna, Chhindwara - 480 334. 3. The Principal CI T-1, Jabalpur (MP) 4. The CI T( Appeals)-1, Jabalpur (MP) 5. The Sr . DR , Jabalpur. 6. Guard File. By order (VUKKEM RAMBABU) Sr. Private Secretary, ITAT, Jabalpur.