M/s US Technologies International Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner ...Respondent(s) of Income Tax

M/s US Technologies  International Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner      ...Respondent(s) of Income Tax 

Landmark Cases of India / सुप्रीम कोर्ट के ऐतिहासिक फैसले



REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
Civil Appeal No.  7934 of 2011
M/s US Technologies         ...Appellant(s)
International Pvt. Ltd.
Versus
The Commissioner      ...Respondent(s)
of Income Tax
With 
Civil Appeal Nos. 1258­1260 of 2019
J U D G M E N T
M.R. SHAH, J.
1. Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by
the  High Court  of Kerala  at  Ernakulam  in
Page 1 of 31
confirming the levy of interest/penalty under
Section 271C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the Act) on failure
of the respective assessees to deposit the tax
deducted   at   source   (TDS)   (or   belated
remittance   of   the   TDS),   the   respective
assessees have preferred the present appeals.
CIVIL APPEAL NO. 7934/2011
2. The   facts   leading   the   present   appeal   in   a
nutshell are as under: ­
2.1 From   01.04.2002   to   February,   2003,   the
appellant – assessee, engaged in a software
development   business   at   Techno   Park,
Trivandrum   which   employed   about   700
employees, deducted tax at source (TDS) in
respect of salaries, contract payments, etc.,
totalling   Rs.   1,10,41,898/­   for   the
Page 2 of 31
assessment year (AY) 2003­04. In March, the
assessee remitted part of the TDS being Rs.
38,94,687/­ and balance of Rs. 71,47,211/­
was remitted later. Thus, the period of delay
ranged   from   05   days   to   10   months.   On
10.03.2003, a survey was conducted by the
Revenue at assessee’s premises and it was
noted that TDS was not deposited within the
prescribed dates under Income Tax Rules (IT
Rules).   On   02.06.2003,   Income   Tax   Officer
(ITO) vide order under Section 201(1A) of the
Act,   1961   levied   penal   interest   of   Rs.
4,97,920/­   for   the   period   of   delay   in
remittance   of   TDS.   On   09.10.2003,   the
Additional   Commissioner   of   Income   Tax
issued a show cause notice proposing to levy
penalty under Section 271C of the amount
equal to TDS. That the assessee replied to the
Page 3 of 31
said   show   cause   notice   vide   reply   dated
28.10.2003.   That   on   06.11.2003,   another
order   under   Section   201(1A)   was   passed
levying the penal interest of Rs. 22,015/­. On
10.11.2003, the Additional Commissioner of
Income Tax (ACIT) vide order under Section
271C levied a penalty of Rs. 1,10,41,898/­
equivalent to the amount of TDS deducted for
AY   2003­04.   That   order   of   Additional   CIT
levying the penalty under Section 271C came
to  be confirmed by the High  Court  by the
impugned   judgment   and   order.   The   High
Court vide impugned judgment and order has
dismissed   the   appeal   preferred   by   the
assessee   by   holding   that   failure   to
deduct/remit the TDS would attract penalty
under Section 271C of the Act, 1961. 
Page 4 of 31
2.2 Feeling   aggrieved   and   dissatisfied   with   the
levy of interest/penalty under Section 271C
of   the   Income   Tax   Act,   1961   on   late
remittance of TDS is the subject matter of
preferred appeal(s).
CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 1258­1260/2019
3. The facts leading to the present appeals in a
nutshell are under: ­ 
3.1 By  order(s)  dated  26.09.2013,  the   ACIT  by
way   of   orders   under   Section   271C   levied
penalty   equivalent   to   the   amount   of   TDS
deducted   for   AYs   2010­11,   2011­12   and
2012­13   on   the   ground   that   there   was   no
good   and   sufficient   reason   for   not   levying
penalty.     
3.2 The   CIT   (Appeals)   dismissed   the   assessees’
appeals. By common order dated 01.06.2016,
Page 5 of 31
the   Income   Tax   Appellate   Tribunal   (ITAT)
allowed   the   assessees’   appeals   by   holding
that   imposition   of   penalty   under   Section
271C was unjustified and reasonable causes
were established by the assessee for remitting
the TDS belatedly. By the impugned common
judgment   and   order   the   High   Court   has
allowed the Revenue’s appeals relying upon
its   earlier   judgment   (which   is   the   subject
matter   of   Civil   Appeal   No.   7934/2011   as
above).   The   impugned   judgment   and   order
passed   by   the   High   Court   is   the   subject
matter of present appeals being Civil Appeals
Nos. 1258­1260/2019. 
      
4. Shri Arijit Prasad and Shri C.N. Sreekumar,
learned Senior Advocates have appeared on
behalf of the respective assessees and Shri
Balbir Singh, learned ASG  assisted by Ms.
Page 6 of 31
Monica   Benjamin,   learned   counsel   has
appeared on behalf of the Revenue. 
5. Shri   Arijit   Prasad,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing on behalf of the assessee in Civil
Appeal   No.   7934/2011   has   vehemently
submitted   that   in   the   facts   and
circumstances of the case, the levy of penalty
under Section 271C of the Act, 1961 is not
justifiable at all. It is submitted that in the
facts   and   circumstances   of   the   case   there
shall   not   be   any   penalty   leviable   under
Section 271C of the Act, 1961.   
5.1 It is further submitted by Shri Arijit Prasad,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the assessee that here is the case of late
remittance of the TDS and not a case of nondeduction of TDS at all. It is submitted that
therefore, at the most, the assessee shall be
Page 7 of 31
liable to pay the penal interest leviable under
Section   201(1A)   of   the   Act,   1961.   It   is
submitted that however, there shall not be
any levy of penalty under Section 271C of the
Act, 1961 on mere late remittance of the TDS
though deducted. 
5.2 It is further submitted by Shri Arijit Prasad,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of the assessee that Section 271C would be
applicable only in case of non­deduction of
whole or any part of the tax [Section 271C(1)
(a)]. It is submitted that Section 271C(1)(a)
shall be applicable in case of non­deduction
of whole or any part of the tax as required by
or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB. It is
submitted that in the present case Section
271C(1)(b)   shall   not   be   applicable.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore   taking   into
Page 8 of 31
consideration the words employed in Section
271C(1)(a), there shall be levy of penalty of a
sum equal to the amount of tax in case of
failure on the part of the concerned person
who fails to deduct the whole or any part of
the tax as required by or under the provisions
of Chapter XVIIB. It is submitted that in case
of belated remittance of the TDS, there shall
not   be   any   levy   of   interest   under   Section
271C of the Act, 1961. 
5.3 It   is   submitted   that   as   per   the   cardinal
principle of law, a penal provision is required
to   be   construed   strictly   and   literally   and
nothing is to be added in the Section and the
penalty provisions are required to be read as
they are. 
5.4 It   is   submitted   that   so   far   as   the   belated
remittance   of   the   TDS   is   concerned,   the
Page 9 of 31
Statute   provides   for   penal   interest   under
Section   201(1A)   of   the   Act,   1961.   It   is
submitted that the penal interest levied under
Section 201(1A) is compensatory in nature. It
is   submitted   that   therefore,   when   the
Parliament   thought   it   fit   to   levy   the   penal
interest on late remittance of the TDS for the
belated period, there shall not be any levy of
the penalty under Section 271C for belated
remittance of the TDS. 
5.5 It is submitted that if the stand taken by the
Revenue   and   the   views   taken   by   the   High
Court that even on belated remittance of the
TDS   there   shall   be   penalty   levied   under
Section 271C of the Act, is accepted, in that
case   it   would   tantamount   to   adding
something more than which is not provided in
the Section. It is submitted that words used
Page 10 of 31
in Section 271C are “fails to deduct the whole
or any part of the tax.” It is submitted that it
does not speak “fails to deduct and remitted
belatedly.” 
5.6 Shri   Arijit   Prasad,   learned   Senior   Advocate
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   assessee   has
drawn our attention to Section 276B of the
Act, 1961. It is submitted that as per Section
276B of the Act “if a person fails to pay to
the credit  of the  Central  Government  the
tax deducted at source by him as required
by   or   under   the   provisions   of   Chapter
XVIIB, he shall be liable to  be prosecuted
and   shall   be   punishable   with   rigorous
imprisonment   for  a  term  which   shall  not
be less than three months but which may
extend to seven years and with fine.” It is
Page 11 of 31
submitted that therefore, Section 276B talks
about  “fails   to   pay,”  the words which are
missing   in   Section   271C   of   the   Act.   It   is
submitted   that   therefore,   wherever,   the
Parliament   wanted   to   provide   for   the
consequences  on   non­payment  of   the   TDS,
the same is provided like Section 276B of the
Act. It is submitted that therefore, thus the
words in Section 271C and Section 276B are
different and distinct. 
5.7 It is further submitted by Shri Arijit Prasad,
learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf
of   the   assessee   that   even   otherwise,   the
impugned judgment and order passed by the
High Court has been subsequently overruled
by the Full Bench of the Kerala High Court in
the   case   of  Lakshadweep   Development
Page 12 of 31
Corporation   Ltd.   Vs.   Additional
Commissioner   of   Income   Tax   (TDS)   and
Anr. (2019) 411 ITR 213 (FB). 
5.8 It   is   further   submitted   by   learned   counsel
appearing   on   behalf   of   the   respective
assessees   in   respective   appeals   that   even
otherwise in exercise of powers under Section
273B,  no   penalty  shall  be  imposed on  the
person or the assessee, for any failure, if he
proves that there was a reasonable cause for
the   said   failure.   Reliance   is   placed   on   the
decision of this Court in the case of CIT Vs.
Bank of Nova Scotia (2016) 15 SCC 81. 
5.9 It   is   submitted   that   in   the   case   of   Civil
Appeals Nos. 1258­60/2019, the ITAT found
in favour of the assessee that there was a
reasonable   cause   for   the   assessee   for   the
Page 13 of 31
failure   to   remit   the   TDS   belatedly.   It   is
submitted that once the ITAT found the case
falling under Section 273B, the same was not
required   to   be   interfered   with  by   the   High
Court   as   the   same   cannot   be   said   to   a
substantial question of law. 
5.10 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to
allow the present appeals and to hold that for
late remittance of the TDS, there shall not be
any penalty leviable under Section 271C of
the Act, 1961. 
6. All these appeals are vehemently opposed by
Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG assisted by
Ms.   Monica   Benjamin,   learned   counsel,
appearing on behalf of the Revenue.
6.1 Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG appearing on
behalf   of   the   Revenue   has   vehemently
submitted that Section 271C of the Act has
Page 14 of 31
been   inserted   in   the   year   1987.   It   is
submitted   that   the   object   and   purpose   of
inserting Section 271C is to levy the penalty
for   failure   to   deduct   tax   at   source.   It   is
submitted   that   under   the   old   provision   of
Chapter   XXI   of   the   Income   Tax   Act,   no
penalty was provided for failure to deduct tax
at   source   though,   this   default,   however,
attracted prosecution under the provisions of
Section 276B, which prescribed punishment
for failure to deduct tax at source or after
deducting failure to  remit  the same to  the
Government   and   therefore,   Section   271C
came   to   be   inserted   to   provide   for   levy   of
penalty for failure to deduct tax at source. It
is submitted that therefore, in a case where
though   the   assessee   has   deducted   the   tax
(TDS), but does not remit the same to the
Page 15 of 31
Government and/or belatedly remits the TDS
after deducting, such an assessee is liable to
pay the penalty under Section 271C of the
Act.  
6.2 It   is   submitted   that   any   other   view   will
frustrate the object and purpose of insertion
of Section 271C of the Act. Then, Shri Balbir
Singh,   learned   ASG   has   taken   us   to   the
CBDT   Circular   No.   551   dated   23.01.1998,
explaining the amendment and insertion of
Section 271C. It is submitted that the object
and   purpose   of   insertion   of   Section   271C
seems   to   be   that   over   and   above   the
prosecution,   the   person   who   has   deducted
tax at source but not remitted the same to
the Government shall also be liable to pay
penalty and that is why Section 271C has
been inserted. 
Page 16 of 31
6.3 Making the above submissions, it is prayed to
dismiss the present appeals. 
7. Heard learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the respective parties at length. 
7.1 The   short   question   which   is   posed   for   the
consideration   of   this   Court   is   in   case   of
belated remittance of the TDS after deducting
the TDS whether such an assessee is liable to
pay penalty under Section 271C of the Act,
1961? 
7.2 The   question   which   is   also   posed   for   the
consideration   of   this   Court   is   what   is   the
meaning   and   scope   of   the   words   “fails   to
deduct” occurring in Section 271C(1)(a) and
whether   an   assessee   who   caused   delay   in
remittance of TDS deducted by him, can be
said a person who “fails to deduct TDS”?
Page 17 of 31
7.3 In order to appreciate the rival contentions
and to answer the aforesaid questions, it is
necessary   to   have   analysis   of   Statutory
provisions. 
7.4 The relevant provisions are as under: ­ 
“Section 201(1A) of the Act
Without prejudice to the provisions of
sub­section   (1),   if   any   such   person,
principal   officer   or   company   as   is
referred to in that sub­section does not
deduct the whole or any part of the tax
or after deducting fails to pay the tax
as required by or under this Act, he or
it shall be liable to pay simple interest,
(i) at one per cent for every month or
part of a month on the amount of such
tax from the date on which such tax
was  deductible to the date on which
such tax is deducted; and
(ii)   at   one   and   one­half   per   cent   for
every month or part of a month on the
amount of such tax from the date on
which  such  tax  was  deducted  to the
date   on   which   such   tax   is   actually
paid, and such interest shall be paid
before   furnishing   the   statement   in
accordance with the provisions of subsection (3) of Section 200:]
Section 271C of the Act
271­C. Penalty for failure to deduct tax
at source. (1) If any person fails to—
Page 18 of 31
(a) deduct the whole or any part of the
tax   as   required   by   or   under   the
provisions of Chapter XVII­B; or
(b) pay the whole or any part of the tax
as required by or under,—
(i) sub­section (2) of Section 115­O; or
(ii) the second proviso to Section 194­B;
then,   such   person   shall   be   liable   to
pay, by way of penalty, a sum equal to
the amount of tax which such person
failed to deduct or pay as aforesaid.]
(2) Any penalty imposable under subsection   (1)   shall   be   imposed   by   the
Joint Commissioner.
Section 273B of the Act
273­B.  Penalty  not  to  be   imposed  in
certain   cases.—Notwithstanding
anything contained in the provisions of
clause (b) of sub­section (1) of Section
271, Section 271­A 4203[Section 271­
AA],   Section   271­B 4204[Section   271­
BA], 4205[Section   271­
BB, 4206[Section 271­C, Section 271­
CA],   Section   271­D,   Section   271­
E, 4207[Section   271­F,] 4208[Section
271­FA 4209[, 4210[Section   271­FAB,
Section 271­FB, Section 271­G, Section
271­GA, 4211[Section   271­
GB,]]] 4212[Section   271­
H,] 4213[Section   271­I,] 4214[Section
271­J,] clause (c) or clause (d) of subsection (1) or sub­section (2) of Section
272­A, sub­section (1) of Section 272­
AA]   or 4215[Section   272­B
or] 4216[sub­section (1) or sub­section
(1­A) of Section 272­BB] or sub­section
(1) of Section 272­BBB or] clause (b) of
sub­section (1) or clause (b) or clause
(c) of sub­section (2) of Section 273, no
Page 19 of 31
penalty   shall   be   imposable   on   the
person   or   the   assessee,   as   the   case
may be, for any failure referred to in
the   said   provisions   if   he   proves   that
there was reasonable cause for the said
failure.
Section 276B of the Act
276­B. Failure to pay tax to the credit
of Central Government under Chapter
XII­D  or XVII­B.—If  a  person  fails  to
pay   to   the   credit   of   the   Central
Government,—
(a) the tax deducted at source by him
as required by or under the provisions
of Chapter XVII­B; or
(b) the tax payable by him, as required
by or under,—
(i) sub­section (2) of Section 115­O; or
(ii) the second proviso to Section 194­B,
he   shall  be   punishable   with  rigorous
imprisonment   for  a   term which   shall
not   be   less   than   three   months   but
which may extend to seven years and
with fine.”
7.5 At the outset, it is required to be noted that
all these cases are with respect to the belated
remittance of the TDS though deducted by
the assessee and therefore, Section 271C(1)(a)
shall be applicable. At the cost of repetition, it
is   observed   that   it   is   a   case   of   belated
Page 20 of 31
remittance of the TDS though deducted by
the assessee and not a case of non­deduction
of TDS at all. 
7.6 As per Section 271C(1)(a), if any person fails
to deduct the whole or any part of the tax as
required   by   or   under   the   provisions   of
Chapter XVIIB then such a person shall be
liable to pay by way of penalty a sum equal to
the amount of tax which such person failed to
deduct or pay as aforesaid. So far as failure to
pay   the   whole   or   any   part   of   the   tax   is
concerned, the same would be with respect to
Section 271C(1)(b) which is not the case here.
Therefore,   Section   271C(1)(a)   shall   be
applicable in case of a failure on the part of
the concerned person/assessee to  “deduct”
the whole of any part of the tax as required by
Page 21 of 31
or under the provisions of Chapter XVIIB. The
words   used   in   Section   271C(1)(a)   are   very
clear and the relevant words used are “fails to
deduct.”   It   does   not   speak   about   belated
remittance of the TDS. As per settled position
of law, the penal provisions are required to be
construed   strictly   and   literally.   As   per   the
cardinal principle of interpretation of statute
and   more   particularly,  the   penal  provision,
the penal provisions are required to be read
as they are. Nothing is to be added or nothing
is   to   be   taken   out   of   the   penal   provision.
Therefore, on plain reading of Section 271C of
the   Act,   1961,   there   shall   not   be   penalty
leviable   on   belated   remittance   of   the   TDS
after the same is deducted by the assessee.
Section 271C of the Income Tax Act is quite
categoric. Its scope and extent of application
Page 22 of 31
is   discernible   from   the   provision   itself,   in
unambiguous   terms.   When   the   nondeduction of the whole or any part of the tax,
as   required   by   or   under   the   various
instances/provisions of Chapter XVIIB would
invite penalty under Clause 271C(1)(a); only a
limited   text,   involving   sub­section   (2)   of
Section   115O   or   covered   by   the   second
proviso   to   Section   194B   alone   would
constitute an instance where penalty can be
imposed in terms of Section 271C(1)(b) of the
Act, namely, on non­payment. It is not for the
Court   to   read   something   more   into   it,
contrary to the intent and legislative wisdom. 
7.7 At this stage, it is required to be noted that
wherever the Parliament wanted to have the
consequences of non­payment and/or belated
remittance/payment   of   the   TDS,   the
Page 23 of 31
Parliament/Legislature   has   provided   the
same   like   in   Section   201(1A)   and   Section
276B of the Act. 
7.8 Section 201(1A) provides that in case a tax
has been deducted at source but the same is
subsequently   remitted   may   be   belatedly   or
after some days, such a person is liable to
pay the interest as provided under Section
201(1A) of the Act. The levy of interest under
Section   201(1A)   thus   can   be   said   to   be
compensatory   in   nature   on   belated
remittance   of   the   TDS   after   deducting   the
same.   Therefore,   consequences   of   nonpayment/belated remittance/payment of the
TDS are specifically provided under Section
201(1A).
7.9 Similarly,   Section   276B   talks   about   the
prosecution on failure to pay the TDS after
Page 24 of 31
deducting   the   same.   At   this   stage,   it   is
required to be noted that Section 271C has
been amended subsequently in the year 1997
providing Sections 271C(1)(a) and 271C(1)(b).
As   observed   hereinabove,   fails   to   pay   the
whole or any part of the tax would be falling
under Section 271C(1)(b) and the word used
between 271C(1)(a) and 271C(1)(b) is “or”. At
this   stage,   it   is   required   to   be   noted   that
Section 276B provides for prosecution in case
of failure to “pay” tax to the credit of Central
Government.   The   word   “pay”   is   missing   in
Section 271C(1)(a). 
8. Now so far as the reliance placed upon the
CBDT’s Circular No. 551 dated 23.01.1998 by
learned ASG is concerned, at the outset, it is
required to be noted that the said circular as
such favours the assessee. Circular No. 551
Page 25 of 31
deals   with   the   circumstances   under   which
Section 271C was introduced in the Statute,
for   levy   of   penalty. Paragraph   16.5   of   the
above Circular reads as follows:
“16.5:   Insertion   of   a   new   section
271C to provide for levy of penalty
for failure to deduct tax at sourceunder the old provisions of Chapter
XXI   of   the   Income   Tax   Act   no
penalty was provided for failure to
deduct tax at source. This default,
however,   attracted   prosecution
under   the   provisions   of   Section
276B, which prescribed punishment
for failure to deduct tax at source or
after   deducting   failure   to   pay   the
same   to   the   Government.   It   was
decided   that   the   first   part   of   the
default, i.e., failure to deduct tax at
source should be made liable to levy
of penalty, while the second part of
the default, i.e., failure to pay the
tax   deducted   at   source   to   the
Government which is a more serious
offence, should continue to attract
prosecution.   The   Amending   Act,
1987 has accordingly inserted a new
Section   271C   to   provide   for
imposition of penalty on any person
who fails to deduct tax at source as
required   under   the   provisions   of
Chapter   XVIIB   of   the   Act.   The
penalty   is   of   a   sum   equal   to   the
Page 26 of 31
amount   of   tax   which   should   have
been deducted at source.
On fair reading of said CBDT’s circular, it
talks about the levy of penalty on failure to
deduct tax at source. It also takes note of the
fact that if there is any delay in remitting the
tax, it will attract payment of interest under
Section 201(1A) of the Act and because of the
gravity of the mischief involved, it may involve
prosecution   proceedings   as   well,   under
Section   276B   of   the   Act.   If   there   is   any
omission to deduct the tax at source, it may
lead to loss of Revenue and hence remedial
measures   have   been   provided   by
incorporating the provision to ensure that tax
liability to the said extent would stand shifted
to the shoulders of the party who failed to
effect deduction, in the form of penalty. On
Page 27 of 31
deduction of tax, if there is delay in remitting
the amount to Revenue, it has to be satisfied
with   interest   as   payable   under
Section 201(1A) of   the   Act,   besides   the
liability to face the prosecution proceedings, if
launched in appropriate cases, in  terms of
Section 276B of the Act. 
Even the CBDT has taken note of the fact
that no penalty is envisaged under Section
271C   of   the   Income   Tax   Act   for   nondeduction TDS and no penalty is envisaged
under   Section   271C   for   belated
remittance/payment/deposit of the TDS. 
8.1 Even otherwise, the words “fails to deduct”
occurring   in   Section   271C(1)(a)   cannot   be
read   into   “failure   to   deposit/pay   the   tax
deducted.”
Page 28 of 31
8.2 Therefore,  on   true interpretation   of  Section
271C, there shall not be any penalty leviable
under   Section   271C   on   mere   delay   in
remittance   of   the   TDS   after   deducting   the
same by the concerned assessee. As observed
hereinabove,   the   consequences   on   nonpayment/belated   remittance   of   the   TDS
would be under Section 201(1A) and Section
276B of the Act, 1961.
9. In view of the above in all these cases as the
respective assessees remitted the TDS though
belatedly and it is not case of non­deduction
of the TDS at all they are no liable to pay the
penalty   under   Section   271C   of   the   Income
Tax   Act.   Therefore,   any   question   on
Page 29 of 31
applicability of Section 273B of the Act is not
required to be considered any further. 
10. In   view   of   the   above   and   for   the   reasons
stated   above,   all   these   appeals   succeed.
Impugned judgment(s) and order(s) passed by
the High Court are hereby quashed and set
aside   and   the   question   of   law   on
interpretation of Section 271C of the Income
Tax   Act   is   answered   in   favour   of   the
assessee(s) and against the Revenue and it is
specifically observed and held that on mere
belated remitting the TDS after deducting the
same by the concerned person/assessee, no
penalty shall be leviable under Section 271C
Page 30 of 31
of the Income Tax Act. Present appeals are
accordingly allowed. No costs.  
………………………………….J.
[M.R. SHAH]
………………………………….J.
[C.T. RAVIKUMAR]
NEW DELHI;
APRIL 10, 2023
Page 31 of 31

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

भारतीय संविधान से संबंधित 100 महत्वपूर्ण प्रश्न उतर

100 Questions on Indian Constitution for UPSC 2020 Pre Exam

Atal Pension Yojana-(APY Chart) | अटल पेंशन योजना