clr/1989/1989_3A_731.pdf

(2)— Lnjthiihdbk omission— Meaning ot Word*dnd phid.se* — IniustiUdhlc omission m section 4Ίι2) ol tic Usc^ment dndCollectionol Ia\es Id\\ IV~*> (Id\\ 4/7b> d.s amended b\ /j» 21/7S Id\dtion — Income Id\~ Deduction*— Onu*to *athl\ Couit th.u d deductionshouldhd\c bcai nude isubi on ta\paiei Con*titutiondlId>\ —Td\dtion—Con*tuuuon \rt 24 I— Cd.st*one\er\ peison the dun to iiibmit proper returns andkeep piopt.r audited accountsd.s pro\ idedinthe Income ld\ I estimation TdAdtion — Income fj\ — ld\pd\et e\peetcd toact indstiuglntnrward m tnna — DictumolIoidlomlm inInland Rewnuc Commissioner* 731 "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic

(1989)\. Westmister (Duke) II936JA.C. page 19disapproved. The respondent Commissioner decided to exercise his powers under sections 51 and59 of theAssessment andCollectionofTaxes Laws 19781979 and not to allow deductions in respect of wear and tear allowances 5 and any other allowances claimed for the years in question in respect of income tax by applicants undersection 12of ihc IncomeTax Laws 1961197S. The reasons given for such adecision may be summarised thus: 10 (

1. a)The Commissioner was not satisfied that applicants were keeping proper books of account.Several cheques had been drawn in favour of their DirectorRoushias Hadjichrisiodoulou. but insteadof debiting his personal account,the relevant sums were charged in theaccounts 15 as purchases. (
2. b)Similarly purchases were not included in purchases entered in the accounts, an indication the payments were made out of unrecorded sales. (
3. c)The cash shown in the balance sheet did not tally with the analytical cash book (ταμείο.)of theapplicants. (d)The conclusion that no proper books of accounts were kept by the 25 applicant company could be justified by the facts revealed from the examination ofthc affairs of its DirectorRoushias Hadjicrhistodotilou. who.although,did not have any other known source of incomeapart from hissalary from theapplicant company,hehadmany deposits in hisprivate bank accountsapart from theacquisition by himandby his 30 daughters (who were. also. Directorsof applicant company) of assets acquired at considerable cost paid by funds available out of the applicant's resources. (
4. e)Roushias Hadjichristodouiou andthecompany's accountantwere not 35 in a position to explain theaforesaid anomalies. This case concerns the assessment for income lax and special contributionsfor theyears of assessment 1977 and 197S(years of income 1976 and 1977, respectively). Fortheyear of income 1976. returns were 4 0 submitted on 1S/12/7S. whereas for the year of assessment 1978 (year of income 1977) assessments were raised on 10/10/78. Such assessment was 732 20 3 C.L R. "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic raised under sections 3 and 13

(3)ot the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law. I97S (Law 4/7S) 5 10 15 The Commissioner found that therehadbeen an unjustifiable delay in making the assessment and therefore demanded interest as from the 1st December ot each of theyears of assessment mquestion The Court did not accept the contention by the applicant Government that the Commissioner, in invoking the affair» ot his applicant's Director Roushias Hadjichnsiodoulou. had lilted the veil ol incorporation Though the vei! ot incorporation ol a company can be lifted lor the purposes ot taxation, this was not thecase Inthis case the aliairs of the Directorweic taken intoconsideration,onlv so lar as they wcic made on behalf andlor theCompany and in relation to its financial altairs In the light ol the aforesaid lacts and ot the principles, which suthcicntly appear in thehcrcinabo\e Headnotes theCourt decidedthat the sub judice decision was ieasonabl\ open to therespondent 20 Recourse dismissed No order as to COstS GLVCViclerrcd to 25 PGG Chit ν Republicand Anothei

(1965)1CLR 2ύ'λ Chrstidcs v. Republic

(1966)3CI.R. 712. 30 Makndes\ Republic(Minister ol hinance)

(1967)3 CIR Georghiades ν Republic(19S2) ?C LR

1. Man»h ν Republic(19SV 1C L.R 52 35 HddjiErddis and Another \ Republic(19S4) 3 CI R 601, Hadjichnstodoulou v.Republic(19S9) 1CLR
2. 40 Georgianides(I95S)23 C LR
3. Iladjmanniv Republic

(1966)3 CI .R 33S. 733 147. "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic

(1989)Rainbow v.Republic (19S4)3C.L.R. 846, Tryfonos v.Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. SS4, Inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke)[1936]A.C. at p. 19, 5 InlandRevenue Commissioner v.Burmah Oil Co. Ltd.[I982JS.T.C.30, Bank of Cyprus(Holdings) v.Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R. 1883, \Q Michaclidou v.Republic

(1985)3 C.L.R.

1. Recourse. Recourse against the assessment raised on applicants in respect of incometax andspecial contributionfor theyears of assessment 1977and
2. Μ Pelides, for theApplicants. 15 20 A. Evangelou, Senior Counsel of the Republic, for the Respondents. Cur. adv. vult. 25 STYLIANIDES, J. read the following judgment. The applicantsby thisrecoursechallengethevalidity ofthedecision of the Commissioner of Income Tax (the "Respondent")in relation to applicants' incometax andspecial contributionfor 30 theyears of assessment 1977and
3. The applicants are a private company of limited liability, incorporated on the 7th January,
4. Its authorized share capita! at all material times was £50,000.-, divided into 100 35 sharesof£500.-each,butpaidupat£200.each. Theshareswere heldby thefollowing persons:(a)Roushias HadjiChristodoulou (b)LoukiaPoyiadji .. 734 .. . 4 shares 33 » 40 3 C.L.R. "Roushias Ltd" v.Republic (c)Alexandria Appiou .. (d)MariaRoushia .. 5 Stylianides, J. 33 » 30 » The directors of the company were all theshareholders,who are residents of Akaki village,Nicosia. Applicants derived their income during the material years from farming andanimal breedingbusinesscarried on at Akaki. 10 They failed to submit their returns of income and accounts and their income tax liability was under investigation for some years prior to
5. 15 On 5th November, 1977.the Respondent issued a Notice of Assessment for the year of assessment 1977 (income 1976) to which objection was made on 25th November, 1977, by the taxpayers' accountant, on thesolegroundthat it wasexcessive. 20 The return andaccounts for theyear 1976weresubmittedby applicants' accountant on 18th December,
6. On 10th October, 1978,the Respondent issued to applicants a Notice of Assessment for the year of assessment 1978 on an 25 income of £11.000.-, less£2.645.- special contribution payable thereon, i.e.on net income of£8,355.-.on which £3,975.87 tax was payableon or before 1stDecember.
7. In relation to the objection for the year of assessment 1978, 30 disputesarose. RecourseNo.342/80wasfiledandultimatelythe Respondent accepted toconsidertheobjection ofthe applicants asmade intime andthe recourse thereupon was withdrawn. Applicants failed to submit provisional returns to declare 35 theirincomeforspecial contribution for anyquarter ofthe year 1977, as provided by Regulation 2 of the Special Contribution (Temporary Provisions) Regulations,
8. On 30th December, 1983, the Respondent issued to 40 applicants Notices of Assessment for Special Contribution for the four quarters of the year 1977, showing the income upon which revised assessments were made for the reasons stated in 735 Stylianides, J. '^Roushias Ltd"v.Republic

(1989)the accompanying letter, dated 29th December, 1983 (Appendix E). Objection wastaken bythe accountants of the applicants on 19thJanuary, 19S4. " 5 Applicants' accounts were examined and investigated in detail and scrutiny was made into the books, documents and bank accountssubmittedtotheRespondent. Respondent's staff. who were investigating the case of the present applicants and 10 that of theshareholder and director Roushias HjiChristodoulou. had several meetings with the said director and the company's auditors. Entries in the books of account, deposits and withdrawals from the cash and bank accounts of the company were under examination and explanations were expected to be 15 given. No agreement was reached. The Respondent determined the objections under section 20 20

(5)of the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Laws 19781979and exercised his powers under sections 51 and59 of the said Laws.Hedecidedtherebynot toallowasproper deductions against applicants' income the amounts of wear and tear allowances and any other allowance claimed as a deduction 25 under section 12of the Income Tax Laws 1961to I97S. This decision was communicated to the applicants bv letter, dated 22nd October.

1. The final Notices of Assessment for special contribution for 30 the four quarters of 1977were issued on 14th November.
2. Notices of Assessment for income tax were issued on 22nd October, checked and sent on 25th October.
3. 35 Fortheyear ofassessment 1977interest on thetaxattherate of6% asfrom 1stDecember. 1977.andinterest at99c on thetax for the year of assessment 197S.as from 1st December.
4. were demandedandmadepayable,on thegroundthat therewas a delay inthe making of theassessments duetothe unjustifiable 40 omission of the taxpayer. 736 3 C.L.R. 'Roushias Ltd" v. Republic Stylianides, J. The applicants contended that the sub judice decisions are faulty and invited the Court to annul them on the following grounds:5
5. The Respondent wrongly invoked his power under section 51 of Law 4/7S and exercised his discretion thereunder. He violated the rules of natural justice and failed to assess correctly the factual background; and 10
6. In relation to the interest, the delay in raising the assessments was due to the Respondent's fault and. therefore, the provisions of section 42

(2)are inapplicable in the circumstances and the factual situation of the present case. 15 It iswellsettled that arecourse againstadecision intaxcases isnot treated differently from any other recourse under Article 146oftheConstitution. Inarecourseagainstanassessment,the Court would not interfere with the sub judice decision of the 20 IncomeTax Authorities, ifit isof theopinion that such decision was reasonably and properly open to them on the basis of the correct facts and in the light of the correct application of the relevant legislation andprinciplesof law-(seeP.G.G.Clift and The Republic of Cyprus through (a) The Minister of 25 Finance, (b) The Commissioner of Income Tax

(1965)3 C.L.R. 2S5; Christos Christides and The Republic of Cyprus, through The Director of Inland Revenue Department of the Ministry of Finance

(1966)3C.L.R.732: Rallis Makhdes v.Republic (Minister of Finance)

(1967)3 30 C.L.R. 147: Georghiades v. Republic (19S2) 3 C.L.R. 659: Mangli v. Republic

(1983)3 C.L.R. 52: HadjiEraclis and Another v. Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R 604: Roushias Hadjichristodoulou v. The Republic of Cyprus, through the Commissioner of Income Tax

(1989)3C.L.R.692). 35 Itshould be stated that it is.also, awell established principle of Income Tax Law that, just as in a disputed case the onus to satisfy the Court as to liability to pay tax is on the taxing authority, so. where the taxpayer claims any exemption or 40 deduction from tax.theonusisonhimtosupport suchclaim for exemption ordeduction.Thisprincipleisveryclearly expressed inthefollowing passageof theJudgement oftheSupreme Court 737 Stylianides, J. "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic

(1989)inthecaseof ChartsGeorghallides

(1958)23C.L.R.249atp. 256:"One dealing with the fiscal legislation should carefully examinefirst, whetherthetaxpayer isclearlywithinthewords 5 oftheprovisionsbywhichheischargedwithtaxand,secondly, if he claims any exemption or deduction from tax - to which liabilityiseitheradmittedorestablished-whethersuchclaimis clearly supported by the relevant provision of the Law. In a disputedcasetheonustosatisfy theCourt astoliabilitytopay 10 taxisontheTaxAuthoritiesandtheonustosupportaclaimfor exemption ordeduction allowanceisonthetaxpayer." (Andreas Hadjiyianni and The Republic of Cyprus, through the Commissioner of Income Tax

(1966)3C.L.R. 15 338.) Learned counsel for theapplicants submittedthat theactof the Respondent to invoke his power under section 51 ofLaw 4/78 was not made to promote the aims of the Law. The 20 Respondent failed to drawthedistinction between theactsand omissions of the applicants -a company with a different legal entity -from thoseofitsdirectorRoushias HadjiChristodoulou. No opportunity was given to the company to check the correctness and findings of the Respondent with regard to 25 discrepanciesintheaccounts,bankaccounts,purchases,etc.,of thecompanyand,thus,theruleofnaturaljustice-audialteram partem-wasviolated.Theyfailedtoassesscorrectlythefactual background, by failing to take into account that Mr. HadjiChristodoulou is of limited education and is not in a 30 position to keep accurate books. The manner in which the company'sbookswerekeptwasdisregarded.Theyfailedtogive dueregard oraccept theexplanation of HadjiChristodoulou in relation to the discovered vouchers for expenses, totalling £2,683.-, which could not be traced in thebooks and,also,the 35 cheques totalling £3,219.-, which, according to the applicants, were money paid to suppliers who didnot accept cheques,as their sales were on cash basis. Finally he submitted that the company waskeepingproperbooksandrecords. 40 Thecomplaint isconcentrated insubstanceandeffect onthe disallowance under section 51 of the deductions, which were 738 3 C.L.R. "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic Stylianides, J. claimed. Therelevant part of theletter of 22nd October, 1985, containing thedecision reads:5 10 15 20 25 "Ι.Οι λογαριασμοί πουυποβάλατεγιατο έτος 1973 μέχρι 1975 έγινανδεκτοί. 2.Όσον αςχ)ρά τους λογαριασμούς των ετών 1976, και 1977 καιτηνυποβληθείσαένστασηγιατοέτος 1976κα­ θώς καιτην εκπρόθεσμη ένσταση σας γιατο έτος 1977 πουέγινε δεκτήκατόπινπουαποσύρατετηνυπ'αριθμό 342/80 προσφυγήσας,σας πληροφορώότικατόπινλε­ πτομερούς εξετάσεως των βιβλίων και αρχείων της εταιρείας σας,διεπιστώθηότι(α) εκδόθησαναριθμός επιταγώνεπ' ονόματι τουδιευ­ θυντή της εταιρείας κου Ρουσιά Χ"Χριστοδούλου καιαντίναχρεωθεί οτρεχούμενος λογαριασμόςτου κου Χ"Χριστοδούλου, εχρεώθησαν οι Αγορές και δεν υπήρχαντα σχετικά τιμολόγια αγοράς πουνα δικαιολογούν την τοιαύτηχρέωση. Τασχετικάπο­ σά είναι £1.500 για το έτος 1976 και £1,719για το έτος 1977. (β)Στον ισολογισμό της 31.12.76 τα μετρητά στοΤαμείο της εταιρείαςήτανμειωμένα κατά£400 ενώ το ποσό που εμφαίνετο στο Αναλυτικό Ταμείο της εταιρείαςκατάτην31.12.76ήταν κατά£400πιο ψη­ λό,γι' αυτόπροσετέθη στον υποβληθένταπροσδιο­ ρισμό φορολογητέου εισοδήματος τοποσό αυτό. 30 35 (γ)Τοέτος 1976 και 1977 διεπιστώθηότι έγιναναγορές £275 και £2,408 επ'ονόματι της εταιρείας,πουδεν καταχωρήθηκανστουςενλόγω λογαριασμούς. Τού­ το υποδηλοί ότι επληρώθησαν από πωλήσεις που δενκαταχωρήθηκαν στους λογαριασμούς. Έχοντας υπόψη τις ανωτέρω σοβαρές παραλείψεις σας στηντήρησητωνλογαριασμώντωνπιοπάνωετώνκαθώςκαι το μεγάλο παραλειφθένεισόδημαπουπροέκυψεκατόπιντης 40 κεφαλαιουχικής εξέτασης του διευθυντή της εταιρείας κου ΡουσιάΧ"Χριστοδούλου, απεφάσισα ναμηεπιτρέψω τιςκε­ φαλαιουχικές εκπτώσεις πουζητήθηκανγια την εταιρείαγια 739 Stylianides, J. '"Roushias Ltd" v. Republic

(1989)τα έτηαυτά.βάσει τουάρθρου51 των Περί Βεβαιώσεως και ΕισπράξεωςΦόρωνΝόμωντου 197S έως

1. Ενόψει των ανωτέρω,οι λογαριασμοί των ετών 1976και 1977τροποποιούνταιωςεξής:1976 £ 1977 £ Φορολογητέο εισόδημασύμφωνα μετους υποβληθέντες προσδιορισμούς 1.213 2,105 Πλέον:- Ι.Παοαλειφθέν εισόδημαωςανωτέρω 1,900 1,719 5,684 2.435 2.Κεφαλαιουχικές εκπτώσεις μη επιτρεπόμενες 10 15 £8.797 £6.259 20 Μείον επιπρόσθετηέκτακτη εισφοράΑναθεωοηΟέν φοοολογητέο εισόδημα:- — 867 £S,797 £5,392 25 Απόστελλα) φορολογίες κατόπινενστάσεως για τα φο­ ρολογικά έτη 1977 και 1978 (έτη εισοδήματος 1976 και 1977) καθίός και φορολογίες κατόπιν ενστάσεως για την 30 έκτακτηεισφοράγια τις τριμηνίες 1/77 μέχρι 4/77 καιεάν θεωρείτε ότι αόικείσθε με την πιο πάνω απόφαση μου. μπορείτε ναπροσφύγετε στο Ανώτατο Δικαστήριο της Δη­ μοκρατίαςμέσασε75 μέρεςαπότηνημερομηνίατωνειδο­ ποιήσεων." 35 Section 51 reads:"
2. Deductions from theamount of theobject of thetax allowableundertheprovisionsof theLaw wherebythetax is 40 imposed may notbemadefor thepurposesof this Lawunless proper accounts, to the satisfaction of the Director, and a 740 3 C.L.R. 5 "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic Stylianides, J. computation showing the assessable object of the tax prepared by an independent practising accountant approved by the Minister of Finance as in section 26.are produced to the Director, and a finding by the Director that any such accounts or computations are unsatisfactory shall not be a ground ofobjection undertheprovisionsofsubsection

(2)of section 20." This section was judicially considered in a number of cases, 10 including Rainbow v. Republic

(1984)3 C.L.R. 846 and Tryfonos v.Republic

(1984)3C.L.R.8S4. Section 51 of Law4/78confers power on the Commissioner - Director to reject a claim for deduction, notwithstanding its 15 apparent nature, in the absence of reliable audited accounts. Income tax constitutes one of the main sources of revenue of modern states. The state, in order to function properly, to achieve its objectives and carry out its social duties and responsibilities, depends on the correct assessment and 20 collection oftax. The provision intheConstitution Article24.1 - that "every person is bound to contribute according to his means towards the public burdens", casts on every person the dutytosubmitproper returns andkeepproper auditedaccounts as provided inthe IncomeTax Legislation. Ifthetaxpayer fails 25 to perform his duty, the economic planning and the control which the state has to exercise are adversely affected to the detriment of the society. The taxpayer is expected to make a full disclosure of his 30 income and assets and keep proper records of his full financial affairs, if his claims for deductions are to be accepted by the Income Tax Authorities. Conduct conducive to tax avoidance isnot permissible. 35 The dictum of Lord Tomlin in inland Revenue Commissioners v. Westminster (Duke) [1936]A.C.at p. 19, that: "Every man is entitled if he can to order his affairs so as that the tax attaching under the appropriate Acts is less than it otherwisewouldbe"wasadversely commented upon in Inland 40 Revenue Commissioner v. Burmah Oil Co. Ltd. [1982] S.T.C. 30, at p. 32, where Lord Diplock said that every man should conduct his business transactions in a straightforward 741 Stylianides,J. "Roushias Ltd"v.Republic

(1989)way and the Court will not recognize asvalid and effective the methods of ordering one'saffairs sothat thetax beless. The power conferred on the Director is discretionary. It must be exercised solely for the purpose of the Law and the 5 exerciseofsuchdiscretionary powershouldbereasonableinthe circumstances of each particular case. In the present case the acts and omissions of Roushias HadjiChristodoulou were taken into consideration, only so far 10 as they were made ori behalf and for the company and in relation to the financial affairs of the Company, Ifind no merit in the allegation that the basic principle of the separate personality of a registered company was violated. The veil of incorporation may in some cases andespecially for purpose of 15 taxation be lifted, but this is not the case (Bank of Cyprus (Holdings) v.Republic

(1985)3C.L.R. 1883). In the present case the Respondent exercised his discretion under section 51for the following reasons:- 20 "(a)He was not satisfied that Applicant company was keeping proper booksof account for the years 1976and

1. In 1976 several cheques representing the sum of £1,500, and also inthe year 1977for the sum of £1,719, 25 were drawn in favour of its director Roushias HadjiChristodoulou and instead of debiting his personal account by way of drawings the said sums were charged intheaccounts aspurchases. Theseentrieshadthe effect of reducing its income by the respective amounts. 30 Similarlyin 1976and 1977purchases amounting to£275 and£2,408,respectively, were not included in purchases entered in the company's accounts, indicating that the payments were made out of unrecorded sales. Another falsification effected in the accounts submitted to 35 Respondent wasthe reduction of thecash existinginthe books asat 31.12.1976bythe amount of£
2. (b)That no proper books of accounts were kept by the company is also justified by the facts revealed from the 40 examination of the affairs of its director Roushias HadjiChristodoulou. Although he did not have any other 742 3 C.L.R. 5 10 15 20 "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic Stylianides, J. knownsourceof incomeapartform theremuneration/salary paidtohim by Applicant company,hehadmany deposits in hisprivate bank accountsapart from theacquisition by himandby hisdaughters (directorsof Applicant company) of assets of considerable cost which were paid by funds available to Mr. Roushias HjiChristodoulou, out of the income andfunds of thecompany's resources. (c)Mr. Roushias HadjiChristodoulou and the company's accountant were not in a/position to explain the above anomalies noted in thebooks of thecompany and/orthe funds available to thecompany's director." The Respondent took into consideration rightly Mr. HadjiChristodoulou's secret accounts in view of the fact that there was evidence before the Respondent that certain cheques were drawn in favour of Mr. HjiChristodoulou and. instead of debiting his personal account, these sums were charged in the accounts as purchases. The purported explanation was wholly unsatisfactory. The consideration of the objections and the investigation into this case was protracted and the applicants were given apple opportunities to place their case before the Respondent and give reasonable explanations for the discrepancies in relation totheirfinancial affairs. 25 In all the circumstances of this case, it was reasonably open to the Respondent to arrive at the sub judice decision; the applicants failed to discharge the burden cast on them to persuade theCourt to interfere with thechallenged decision. 30 The decision for the imposition of interest was based on section 42

(2)of The Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law, 1978 (Law No.4/78),as amendedby Law 23/78,which reads as, follows: 35 40 "42.-

(2)Οσάκιςηκαθυστέρησις ειςτηνδιενέργειανβε­ βαιώσεως οφείλεται εις αδικαιολόγητονπαράλειψιντου φορολογουμένου, καταβάλλεται τόκος προς εννέα τοις εκατόν ετησίως απότης πρώτης ημέρας τουΔεκεμβρίου, του έτους εις το οποίον αναφέρεται η βεβαίωσις, ανεξαρ­ τήτως του έτους εν τω οποίωόντως εγένετο ητοιαύτηβεβαίωσις." 743 Stylianides. J. "Roushias Ltd" v. Republic

(1989)("42. -

(2)Whenever thedelay inmaking anassessment is dueto ataxpayer's unjustifiable omission,interest attherate of ninepercentumperannum shall be payable from the first day of Decemberof theyear to which theassessment relates. irrespective of the year inwhichsuchassessment was actually made.") 5 The proviso to sub-section

(2)of section 42 reads:"Provided that the interest payable with regard to any 10 year of assessment preceding the year of assessment beginning on the 1st January, 1978.shall be at therate of six per centum per annum." I examined this section in Michaelidou v.Republic

(1985)15 3 C.L.R. 1836 and recently in Roushias HadjiChristodoulou (supra). The omission must be unjustifiable and it must be the cause of thedelay in making an assessment. 20 The decision of theRespondent states clearly that there was a delay in making the assessment, due to the unjustifiable omission of theapplicants. Fortheyear of income 1976,returns were submitted on 18th December. 1978. but Notices of 25 Assessment were issued by the Respondent on 5th November, 1977, under section 13

(3)of the Taxes (Quantifying and Recovery) Laws 1963 and 1969. Assessment was raised for the year of assessment 1978,on 10th October, 197S,undersections 3 and 13

(3)of the Assessment and Collection of Taxes Law. 30 1978 (Law No.4/78). Section 13

(3)provides:' Ί 3 . -

(3)Where a person has not delivered a returnand the Directoris of theopinionthat such person is liable topay tax imposed ontheobject of thetax hemay.accordingtothe 35 best of his judgment, determine the object of the tax and assess such person according to the nature andextent of his business: Provided that such assessment shall notaffect any liability 40 otherwise incurred by such person by reason of his refusal. failure, or neglect to deliver areturn." 744 3 C.L.R. ''Roushias Ltd" v. Republic Stylianides. J. In all the circumstances of the case, as recounted herein above, the sub judice decision in relation to interest was reasonably open to the Respondent. 5 Forthe foregoing reasons,this recourse fails. No order as to costs. Recourse dismissed. No orderas tocosts. 745