Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2024] 139 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9375 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
29-11-2024
Appeal Filed By
Department
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
DB
Next Hearing Date
09-09-2024
Assessment Year
2013-2014
Appeal Filed On
05-12-2022
Judgement Text
" \nIN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT \nBEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER \n \n \n \n \n \n AND \n SHRI DINESH MOHAN SINHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER \nआयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.292/RJT/2022 \n(Ǔनधा[रणवष[ /Assessment Years: (2021-22) \n \n \n \nM/s \nAhir \nSalt \nand \nAllied \nProducts Ltd., \nBBZ-S-60, \nZanda \nChowk, \nGandhidham-370 201 \n \nबनाम \nVs. \nDeputy Commissioner of Income \nTax,Central \nCircle-1, \n“Amruta \nEstate”, \n2nd \nFloor, \nM.G. \nRoad,Rajkot-360001 \nèथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA8202E \n(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) \n \n(Ĥ×यथȸ/Respondent) \n \nआयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.296-299/RJT/2022 \n(Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Years: (2011-12 to 2014-15) \nDeputy Commissioner of Income \nTax,Central \nCircle-1, \n“Amruta \nEstate”, \n2nd \nFloor, \nM.G. \nRoad,Rajkot-360001 \n \nबनाम \nVs. \nM/s \nAhir \nSalt \nand \nAllied \nProducts Ltd., \nBBZ-S-60, \nZanda \nChowk, \nGandhidham-370 201 \nèथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA8202E \n(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) \n \n(Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) \n \nआयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.302/RJT/2022 \n(Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Years: (2015-16) \nDeputy Commissioner of Income \nTax,Central \nCircle-1, \n“Amruta \nEstate”, \n2nd \nFloor, \nM.G. \nRoad,Rajkot-360001 \n \nबनाम \nVs. \nM/s \nAhir \nSalt \nand \nAllied \nProducts Ltd., \nBBZ-S-60, \nZanda \nChowk, \nGandhidham-370 201 \nèथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 8202 E \n(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) \n \n(Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) \n \nआयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.303-306/RJT/2022 \n(Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Years: (2018-19 to 2021-22) \nDeputy Commissioner of Income \nTax,Central \nCircle-1, \n“Amruta \nEstate”, \n2nd \nFloor, \nM.G. \nRoad,Rajkot-360001 \n \nबनाम \nVs. \nM/s \nAhir \nSalt \nand \nAllied \nProducts Ltd., \nBBZ-S-60, \nZanda \nChowk, \nGandhidham-370 201 \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 2 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nèथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 8202 E \n(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) \n \n(Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) \n \nआयकर(खोज-और-जÞती) अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.01-05/RJT/2022 \n(Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Years: (2011-12 to 2015-16) \nM/s \nAhir \nSalt \nand \nAllied \nProducts Ltd., \nBBZ-S-60, \nZanda \nChowk, \nGandhidham-370 201 \n \nबनाम \nVs. \nDeputy Commissioner of Income \nTax,Central \nCircle-1, \n“Amruta \nEstate”, \n2nd \nFloor, \nM.G. \nRoad,Rajkot-360001 \nèथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 8202 E \n(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) \n \n(Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) \n \nआयकर(खोज-और-जÞती) अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.08-10/RJT/2022 \n(Ǔनधा[रणवष[/Assessment Years: (2018-19 to 2020-21) \nM/s \nAhir \nSalt \nand \nAllied \nProducts Ltd., \nBBZ-S-60, \nZanda \nChowk, \nGandhidham-370 201 \n \nबनाम \nVs. \nDeputy Commissioner of Income \nTax,Central \nCircle-1, \n“Amruta \nEstate”, \n2nd \nFloor, \nM.G. \nRoad,Rajkot-360001 \nèथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AABCA 8202 E \n(अपीलाथȸ /Assessee) \n \n(Ĥ×यथȸ /Respondent) \n \n \nǓनधा[ǐरतीकȧओरसे /Assessee by \n \n:Shri S.N.Soparkar, Ld. Senior Advocate \nराजèवकȧओरसे /Revenue by \n \n \n:ShriShramdeep Sinha, CIT-DR \nसुनवाईकȧतारȣख/ Date of Hearing \n: 09/09/2024 \nघोषणाकȧतारȣख/Date of Pronouncement \n: 29/11/2024 \nआदेश/Order \nPER BENCH: \n \n \nThis is bunch of 18 appeals, consisting nine appeal filed by the \nrevenue and nine appeal filed by the single assessee, pertaining to \nassessment years(AYs) 2011-12to 2015-16 and AYs 2018-19 to 2021-22 \n(assessment year-wise), all appeals are directed against the separate orders \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 3 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\npassed by the Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-11, \nAhmedabad[for short ‘Ld. CIT(A)]’,all dated 30.09.2022, which in turn \narise, out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer \nunder section 153A/143(3)of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). \n \n2. Since, the issues involved in all the appeals are common and identical; \ntherefore, these appeals have been heard together and are being disposed of \nby this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well \nas the facts narrated in ITA No. 302/Rjt/2022 for the assessment year (AY) \n2015-16, have been taken into consideration for deciding the above appeals \nen masse. \n3. The assessment years involved in these appeals are for the period, A.Ys. \n2011-12 to 2020-21, where the assessing officer had passed the assessment \norder under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. In addition to that the \nassessing officer had passed order u/s143(3) of the Act for search year i.e. \nA.Y.2021-22, on 31.03.2022. Thus, assessing officer, had passed 11 \nassessment orders for A.Y.2011-12 to A.Y.2021-22 in the case of assessee-\ncompany. Appeals of the assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2016-17 \nand 2017-18, have been adjudicated by the Tribunal, vide Tribunal order, in \nIT(SS)A No. 06 and 07/Rjt/2022, order dated 12.06.2024.Therefore, now, \nappeals of the Assessee and Revenue, pertaining to following assessment \nyears, are to be adjudicated: \nSr. \nNo. \nAssessment \nyear \n1. \n2011-12 \n2. \n2012-13 \n3. \n2013-14 \n4. \n2014-15 \n5. \n2015-16 \n6. \n2018-19 \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 4 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n7. \n2019-20 \n8. \n2020-21 \n9. \n2021-22 \n \nIn the above nine assessment years, the assessee, as well as revenue both are \nin appeal before us. That is, the Assessee has filed nine appeals and Revenue \nhas also filed nine appeals. \n4. First, we shall take Revenue`s appeals in ITA No. 302 to 306/Rjt/2022 \nAssessment year 2015-16 & 2018-19 to AY 2021-22 and Assessee`s \nappeals in IT(SS) No. 5,8 to 10/Rjt/2022, for Assessment year 2015-\n16,and 2018-19 to A.Y. 2020-21 respectively, and ITA No. 292/Rjt/2022 \nfor Assessment year 2021-22. The concise and summarized grounds of \nthese five appeals of revenue and five appeals assessee, in these assessment \nyears, are reproduced below: \n“Department's Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that there were parallel books of accounts maintained \nby the assessee in tally software, which was found and impounded during the course of \nSearch, on which the AO has relied upon. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.2 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) erred in ignoring the fact that the seized data are quite disproportionate \nand not in synchronies manner and it was reported selectively in regular books of \naccount. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.3 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) fails to appreciate the facts of the case that the seized data reveals that no \naccounting principles nor Income-tax Provisions were followed in maintaining data. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.4 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw Id CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case, that one of the key person of the \ngroup concern-Shri Mihir Kangad in his statement recorded u/s 132(4), has agreed \nunaccounted transactions in the tally files, though complex but made on the instruction of \nmembers of the Neelkanth Group and correlation between the transaction recorded in \ntally file with independently verifiable third -party evidences proves that the entries \nrecorded in the evidences seized are correct and independently verifiable. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.6 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case, AO has duly investigated and \napplied his mind on the report of the DDIT, Investigation Wing and after satisfying \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 5 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nhimself made the assessment on the basis of cogent material and relevant evidence on \nrecord. \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAND \nAppellant's Ground No.2 - The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, \nAhmedabad [CIT(A)] erred on facts as also in law in rejecting appellants plea that no \naddition could have been made in the order passed u/s. 153A of the Act, in absence of \nthere being incriminating material found from the appellant. The order passed making \naddition without there being any incriminating materials may kindly be deleted. \nAppellant’s Grounds No. 3 – the leaned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not \nappreciating the fact that seized data / documents were found from the premises of third \nparty, therefore, addition on the basis of the said documents cannot be made in the \nhands of the appellant u/s 153A of the Act. The AO may kindly be directed to deleted the \naddition on this ground. \nDepartment’s Ground No. 5 – on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of income determined on account of \nproportion @ 3% of unaccounted sales of (i) Rs. 4,86,35,382/- for AY 2015-16 (ii) Rs. \n8,14,69,971/- for AY 2018-19 (iii) Rs. 8,43,66,335/- for AY. 2019-20 (iv) Rs. \n9,61,89,039/- out of total addition of Rs. 9,96,11,034/- for AY 2020-21 and (v) Rs. \n7,17,19,678/- out of total addition of Rs. 8,06,63,232/- for AY 2021-22. \nAND \nAppellant's Ground No.4 - The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not deleting on \nmerit, the addition of (i) Rs.4,86,35,3827- for AY.2015-16 (ii) Rs.8,14,69,971/- for \nAY.2018-19 (iii) Rs.8,43,66,335/- for AY.2019-20 and retaining addition (iv) \nRs.9,61,89,039/- out of total addition of Rs.9,96,11,0347- for AY 2020-21 and (v) \nRs.7,17,19,678/- out of total addition of Rs.8,06,63,232/- for AY 2021-22 made on the \nbasis of dumb data/documents stated to have been recovered from the premises of third \nparty. The Action of Id. CIT(A) in not deciding the ground of appeal on merit is \nunjustified. The AO may kindly be directed to delete the addition. \nDepartment's Ground No.7 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.8 - It is therefore, prayed that the order of Id. CIT(A) be set \naside and that of the AO be restored to the above extent. \n \nThese above grounds nos.7 and 8 of the Department are general in nature. \n \nAppellant's Additional grounds of appeals for AY 2015-16, are as under: \n \n1. Alternatively and without prejudice to grounds of appeals mentioned in Form 36, Ld. \nCIT(A) erred in law and on facts of case in not allowing carry forward of business loss,as \nper seized data and further in not allowing set- off the same in subsequent years against \nthe addition confirmed and enhanced by him. The AO may kindly be directed to allow \ncarry forward of loss and set off the same in subsequent years. \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 6 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n2. Alternatively, and without prejudice to grounds of appeals mentioned in Form 36, Ld. \nCIT(A) erred in law and on facts of case in treating the business profit as per seized data \nas unaccounted income and not giving credit of book profit declared in audited financial \nstatements. The AO may kindly be directed to allow credit of book profit against the \nbusiness profit as determined by Ld. CIT(A).\" \n \n5. The relevant material facts, as culled out from the material on record, are \nas follows. The assessee, before us, is a private limited company, carrying \nout business of Manufacturing and Trading of Salt, Logistics and \nTransportation and Liquid Cargo Storage Terminal. During the year under \nconsideration, the assessee filed its return of income u/s 139 of the Act, on \n27-09-2015, declaring income of Rs.1,16,57,370/-.On 10/11/2020, A search \nand seizure operation was conducted at the following premises of the \nassessee: \n-BBZ-S60, Zanda Chowk, Gandhidham, Kutch \n-Revenue survey no. 573, Terminal Office, Kandla Port, Kandla, Gandhidham \nThe premises of major stake holders of the assessee-company were also \ncovered during the search and seizure operation. The major stakeholders \ninclude, Kangad Family and Ahir Family. Further, the premises of Cashier \n(Shri Vijay Nagda) and Accountant (Shri Naran Maheswari) of the promoter \nfamily were also covered. Further, as the seized documents pertaining to the \nassessee-company were recovered during the same search operation and the \nassessee-company was also covered under the search operation, the \nassessment proceedings for year under consideration was initiated in the \ncase of the assessee-company. \n6. In response to the notice u/s 153A of the Act, the assessee has filed a \nreturn of income on 15-11-2021, with the same total income, as was reported \nin the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. Thereafter, notice \nu/s 143(2) of the Act was issued. Relevant information has been called for \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 7 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nu/s 142(1) of the Act and the response to the same filed by the assessee has \nbeen perused by the assessing officer. During the course of search, the \npremise of Shree Naran Babubhai Maheshwari was covered and a pen drive \nwas recovered. The pen drive contained digital data in the form of parallel \nbooks of account of various group concerns of the Neelkanth group which \nwas seized at following path in the pen drive- \n“Neelkanth Coal Mfg. Pvt Ltd \\ GSS-F.Y. 2017-18 WIP \\ GSS-F.Y. 2016-17 \nFinal\\DATA\\11617” \nWhen this tally folder was accessed, it is found to contain a company named \n“FOR CA STUDENT FROM 1-4-2010-31-3-2017”.Since, the Neelkanth \nGroup is a stake holder in the assessee-company, the unaccounted profit \nearned through the assessee-company was also entered in this tally file \nnamed “FOR CA STUDENT FROM 1-4-2010 to 31-3-2017”. Further, \nfrom another location of the same pen drive, data regarding unaccounted \ntransactions of the assessee-company in particular has also been found. The \npath is- \n\"KPPL Data Neelkanth Coal Mfg. Pvt Ltd \\ GSS-F.Y. 2017-18 WIP \n30.06.2015\\00001\" \n \nThis \"00001\" is a tally file named \"ASM\". This tally file contains \ntransactions from 31-03-2007 to 11-07-2015. Thus, the file covers \ntransactions of FY 2007-08 to 2014-15.On perusal of this journal entry, it \ncan be seen that the assessee has earned unaccounted profit of \nRs.4,03,94,715.50/- during FY 2010-11.On perusal of this journal entry, it \ncan be seen that the assessee has earned unaccounted profit of \nRs.10,05,31,257.32/- during FY 2011-12.On perusal of this journal entry, it \ncan be seen that the assessee has earned unaccounted profit of \nRs.15,70,52,643.35/- during FY 2012-13.On perusal of this journal entry, it \ncan be seen that the assessee has earned unaccounted profit of \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 8 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nRs.18,02,65,611.81/-during FY 2013-14.On perusal of this journal entry, \nit can be seen that the assessee has incurred a loss of Rs.37,06,400.83/- \non 01-04-2014 and of Rs.9,24,03,137.83/- on 31-03-2015, aggregate of \nRs.9,61,09,538.66/- during FY 2014-15.On comparative analysis of both \nthese files i.e. \"FOR CA STUDENT FROM 1-4-2010-31-3-2017\" which is \nprepared for all the group concerns of the Neelkanth Group and \"A SM\" \nwhich is prepared exclusively for the assessee-company, it is noted that the \nentries in both the files corresponds to each other which can be understood \nfrom the following illustrative example. From the above comparison it can \nbe seen that for FY 2012-13 the assessee- company has earned unaccounted \nprofit of Rs.15,70,52,643/-. The share of Neelkanth group in this profit is \n71%. Accordingly, Rs.11,15,07,377/- i.e. (71% of 157052643/-) is reflected \nin the books unaccounted books prepared for the Neelkanth Group.The file \n\"ASM\" covers complete data for FYs 2007-08 to 2014-15 and the file \"For \nCA students\" covers the relevant profit / loss entries from the assessee \ncompany for FYs 2012-13 to 2016-17. Reading both the files together, the \nunaccounted profit / loss of the assessee- company for FYs 2010-11 to 2016-\n17 can be worked out. Thus, the unaccounted profit earned, the assessee-\ncompany from FY 2010-11 to FY 2016-17 is Rs. 63,42,04,227/-. For the \nremaining period from FY 2017-18 to FY 2020-21, no such complete data \nwas recovered during the search. However, the loose cash flow sheets \nrecovered from the premise of Shri Vijay Nagda utilized to ascertain the \nunaccounted income of the Neelkanth Group by entering all the transactions \nseized in the loose sheets chronologically in the tally accounting software. \nFrom that data the quantum of unaccounted transactions happened between \nthe Neelkanth group and the assessee-company is culled out. Year-wise \nsummary is mentioned by the assessing officer in the assessment order. \nTherefore, the total quantum of the unaccounted transactions / income of the \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 9 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nassessee company from FY 2010-11 to FY 2020-21 is Rs.64,56,44,844/- \n[Rs.63,42,04,227 + Rs. 1,14,40,670]. \n7. As far as the genuineness of this tally data is concerned, it was noticed by \nthe assessing officer that the persons, companies, firms and parties recorded \nin the tally file do exist and have business or personal relations with \nNeelkanth group and, therefore, has live nexus with Neelkanth group. \nNames of such persons exist in phone books of Neelkanth group persons. \nThe vehicle numbers mentioned in the narrations are owned by related to \nassessee group, the events such as marriages and birthdays exist on recorded \ndates, the transactions are also identified to have actually taken place when \ncompared with independently verifiable third-party evidences such as \nRevenue Records, RTO Records, Bank Statements, Insurance Company \nRecords, Counterparties' Bills etc. The transactions are duly supported by \ncorresponding vouchers. Also, evidences of signed approval of such \ntransactions by Neelkanth group persons are found. The correlation between \nthe transactions recorded in tally file with independently verifiable third-\nparty evidences proves that the entries recorded in the seized tally data are \ntrue, correct and independently verifiable.Without prejudice to the above \nfactual confirmations regarding the authenticity of the seized tally data, the \nstatement of Shri Mihir Kangad is also relevant to understand the reliability \nof the data. The transactions in \"for CA Students from 01.04.2010 \n31.03.2017\" were confronted to Sh. Mihir Kangad (key person of the \nNeelkanth Group). Sh. Mihir Kangad admitted that the transactions in the \ntally files are genuine and have been made on instruction of members of the \nNeelkanth Group. The statement of Shri Mihir TejabhaiKangad were \nreproduced by the assessing officer in the assessment order. The assessing \nofficer also examine the various files seized during the search and seizure \naction, and assessing officer also analyzed the vouchers, Udar vouchers, \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 10 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\ngeneral vouchers, credit vouchers in the assessment order. The assessing \nofficer also examine the ledger account of interest and profit and loss \naccount, of various years. The assessing officer issued notice to the assessee, \nto explain various vouchers, ledger account and profit and loss account and \nentries there in the profit or account and other seized material. \n8. In response, the assessee submitted written submission before the \nassessing officer, which is reproduced by the assessing officer in para \nnumber 13 of the assessment order. The sum and substance, of the written \nsubmission of the assessee, was that there was no incrementing material, all \ntransactions were recorded by the assessee in its books of accounts and \nstatement of third-party should not be relied, without being provided an \nopportunity of cross examination to the assessee and documents found in the \nsearch proceedings were dump documents hence should not be relied on. \n9. However, the assessing officer, rejected the contention of the assessee and \nobserved that total quantum of the unaccounted transactions/income of the \nassessee company from Financial Year(FY) 2010-11 to FY 2021-21 is Rs. \n64,56,44,844/- [Rs. 63,42,04,227 + Rs. 1,14,40,617]. Considering that this \nquantum includes negative figures for some financial years, which if \nincluded, as it is can subsume the entire profit already reported by the \nassessee company in its ITR for that year and, further, considering that the \nfigures from FY 2017-18 onwards are not in continuous from but based on \nthe loose sheets recovered from the premise of Shri VjayNagda, which does \nnot cover all the transaction that may have happened form FY 2017-18 to \nFY 2020-21, it would be fair and in the interest of revenue, if this figure of \nRs. 64,56,44,897/- is divided among all the FYs from 2010-11 to 2021-21 in \nthe proportion of the turnover reported by the assessee-company in its \nregular books of accounts, and following additions were made by the \nassessing officer, in the following five assessment years: \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 11 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n2014-15 \n2015-16 \n48,02,03,039 \n8% \n4,86,35,382/- \n2017-18 \n2018-19 \n80,43,96,428 \n13% \n8,14,69,971/- \n2018-19 \n2019-20 \n83,29,93,778 \n13% \n8,43,66,335/- \n2019-20 \n2020-21 \n98,35,12,814 \n15% \n9,96,11,034/- \n2020-21 \n2021-22 \n79,64,31,070 \n12% \n8,06,63,232/- \n \n10. Aggrieved by the order of the assessing officer, the assessee carried the \nmatter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who has partly confirmed the \naddition made by assessing officer (AO), observing as follows: \n5.1 \nThe facts in brief are that the assessee is a private limited company \nengaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of salt, income from operation \nof liquid cargo storage tanks, income from logistics and transportation and rental \nincome from letting out of warehouses. Search was carried out at the business \npremises of the assessee on 10.11.2020. Proceedings u/s.153A were initiated and \nnotices for A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2020-21 was issued on 06.10.2021. Besides, the AO had \nissued notices u/s.153A on 30.03.2022 for A.Ys.2011-12 to A.Y.2014-15. On perusal \nof the assessment order, it reveals that search was also carried out at the premises \nof two other persons viz., Shri Naran B Maheshwari and Vijay Nagda. From the \nresidence of Shri Naran B Maheshwari, one pen drive was seized containing Tally \nData file titled as “FOR CA STUDENT FROM 1-4-2010 - 31-3-2017” and another \ntally data file named as \"A S M\". These files contained data of total profits for \ndifferent yeas and bifurcation of the same to interested parties. Apart from that, from \nthe residence of Shri Vijay Nagda, some vouchers of receipts and payments were \nseized. Based on such vouchers and loose papers, the AO in the assessment order \nhad made additions, for which the assessee is in appeal. \n \n \n“6.2.2 \nMoreover, during the course of search, statement of Shri Mihir Kangad \n(key person of the group) was recorded. In his statement, he had admitted that the \ntransactions in the tally files, though complex but made on the instructions of \nmembers of the Neelkanth group. The relevant part of his statement is forming part \nof the assessment order. The same is again reproduced hereunder. \n… \n \n6.2.3 \nFrom the above, it is clear that Shri Mihir Kangad had admitted the fact \nthat the contents of the pen drive found and seized from the possession of Shri Naran \nB Maheshwari are actual transactions that actually took place and these were \nrecorded at the directions of family members of the Neelkanth Group. Further, in \nthis regard, it is necessary to reproduce the para no. 11 of the assessment order \npassed by the AO, which is as under.- \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 12 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n \n\"11. \nSo far as the genuineness of this tally data is concerned, it is seen that the \npersons, companies, firms and parties recorded in the tally file do exist and have \nbusiness or personal relations with Neelkanth group and, therefore, has live nexus \nwith Neelkanth group. Names of such persons exist in phone books of Neelkanth \ngroup persons. Names of such persons exist in phone books of Neelkanth group \npersons. The vehicle numbers mentioned in the narrations are owned by/related to \nassessee group, the events such as marriages and birthdays exist on recorded dates, \nthe transactions are also identified to have actually taken place when compared with \nindependently verifiable third-party evidences such as Revenue Records, RTO \nRecords, Bank Statements, Insurance Company Records, Counterparties Bills etc. \nThe transactions are duly supported by corresponding vouchers. Also, evidences of \nsigned approval of such transactions by Neelkanth group persons are found. The \ncorrelation between the transactions recorded in tally file with independently \nverifiable third-partly evidences proves that the entries recorded in the seized tally \ndata are true, correct and independently verifiable.\" \n \nIn view of the above, the plea of the assessee that the contents found from the pen \ndrive during the course of search at Naran B Maheshwari are third party entries, \nis not acceptable and hence rejected. \n \n6.3The third plea of the assessee is that the materials were found from the \npossession of third parties and hence, proceedings u/s.153C is the right recourse \nand not proceedings u/s.153A. \n \n6.3.1This argument has been carefully perused. On perusal of the records, it is seen \nthat this argument was raised by the assessee before the AO and the AO has dealt on \nthis issue in the assessment order. The plea of the assessee is that since nothing \nincriminating was found from the possession of the assessee during search carried \nout at its premises, therefore the completed assessment cannot be disturbed. The \nassessee has also stated, since the so-called material was found from the possession \nof third party, therefore proceedings were supposed to be initiated u/s.153C. \nHowever, the statement of Mihir Kangad reproduced in the assessment order is of \nutmost importance. In the statement he has categorically admitted that, the entries \nwere made at the direction of the family members of the Neelkanth Group. This \nimplies that Shri Naran B Maheshwariand, Shri Vijay Nagda are connected with the \nassessee. The AO has given the clear finding in the assessment order that Shri Mihir \nT. Kangad (key person of the group) had admitted in his statement recorded u/s. \n132(4) of the Act dated 23.12.2020 that Shri Naran B. Maheshwari & Shri \nVijavNaqda was the accountant & cashier of the group respectively and were \nlooking after the financial affairs of the assessee also. Secondly, since search has \nbeen carried out at the premises of the assessee and its employees or connected \npersons, group concerns at the same time, then the AO is right in law in treating this \nas part of the material of the assessee and thus finalizing the assessment u/s 153A of \nthe I.T. Act. It is observed that search was carried out at various premises \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 13 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nsimultaneously and based upon evidences found from parties connected with \nassessee, addition was made. Thus, AO was justified in making addition while \npassing the assessment order u/s 153A of the Act. Hence, the plea of the assessee is \nrejected. \n \n6.4 \nThe Fourth plea of the assessee is that addition is made by AO which is \nnot based upon any incriminating material hence reliance is placed on decision of \nHon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT Vs Saumya Construction Pvt. Limited \nand other decisions. However, this contention of assessee cannot be accepted for the \nreason that during the course of search two types of digital evidences were found \nwhich prove that assessee has earned undisclosed profit on year to year basis. The \nassessee has merely argued that their directors have never admitted that such seized \npaper belongs to assessee company but merely based upon non admission of \ndirectors, it cannot be held that digital data found during the course of search is not \nincriminating in nature. While passing the assessment order, AO has that digital \ndata found during the course of search belong/pertains to assessee and entries of \nProfit/loss represent undisclosed income earned by assessee company. In this \nregard, it is important to refer the observation of the AO made in the para 11 of the \nassessment order (reproduced above in para 6.2.3 of this order). Further, it is also \nobserved that the assessee is unable to contravene such finding of AO in entire \nappellate proceedings. The AO has made additions based upon incriminating found \nduring the course of search hence such plea of assessee is rejected. \n \n \nCIT(A), Ahmedabad-11/11467/2014-15 for A.Y. 2015-16:- \n1. In grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. \n2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Assessee's case, the assessment \nproceeding initiated u/s. 153A of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio and \ntherefore, the order passed on the basis of such invalid initiation may kindly be \nquashed. \n3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Assessee's case, order passed u/s. \n153 of the Act determining the total income at Rs.6,02,92,752/- as against the \noriginally assessed income of Rs. 1,16,57,370/- is bad in law and deserves to be \nquashed. \n4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Assessee's case, the Assessing \nOfficer erred in making addition of Rs. 4,86,35,382/- on the alleged ground data and \nloose papers stated to have been recovered from the premises of third parties. The \naddition made by the AO without affording proper opportunity of being heard and \nallowing an opportunity of cross-examination is totally unjustified and deserves to \nbe deleted and may kindly be deleted. \n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in \ninitiating penalty proceedings u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act. \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 14 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer erred in \ncharging of interest u/s. 234A, 234B, 234C and 234D of the Act. \n7. The assessee craves to leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground of \nappeal either before or the time of hearing of the appeal. \nDecision \n37.The ground of appeal no. 1 is general in nature and Assessee has not filed any \nspecific submission during the course of appellate hearing hence these grounds are not \nadjudicated and are dismissed. \n38.The ground of appeal no. 2 relates to assessment proceedings initiated U/S.153A of \nthe Act is bad in law and void ab initio. It is observed that relevant pleas taken by the \nassessee in this ground is already dealt with while adjudicating relevant ground of \nappeal in A.Y.2011-12 at para no. 6 and considering the detailed findings made therein, \nthis ground of appeal is dismissed. \n39.The grounds of appeal no. 3 & 4 are interlinked hence dealt together, is against the \naction of the AO in making addition of Rs.4,86,35,382/-. \n39.1 \nThe Assessee has contended that the materials do not belong to the assessee, as \nthe same has been recovered from unconnected persons namely Shri Naran B. \nMaheshwari and Shri Vijay Nagda. The assessee stressed that during the search carried \nout at its business premises, no such incriminating documents or any other incriminating \ndata has been recovered supporting the disputed digital data recovered from the above-\nnamed persons. The assessee further contended that name as per disputed digital data \nseized is \"ASM\", which cannot be correlated with the assessee company. The assessee \nalso submitted the duly sworn affidavit of Shri Naran Maheshwari stating that he himself \nis not aware of such digital data and as such author or origin of such disputed data \nremained unidentified. In nutshell, the assessee contended that in absence of any \ncorroborative evidence or any nexus or live link in support of the digital data seized from \nthe possession of Shri Naran Maheshwari, no addition could have been made in its case. \nThe assessee relied upon various judicial pronouncements on applicability of section \n292C of the Act in support of its contention that addition in the hands of assessee could \nnot be sustained on the basis of data or documents found from third party and in absence \nof any other corroborative materials. \n39.2The above stated submission of the assessee is not convincing in view of the fact that \nthough Shri Naran Maheshwari and Shri Vijay Nagda may not be employees of the \nassessee but both of them are working under other business concerns of Neelkanth Group \nand the assessee company is part of the Neelkanth Group. It is important to mention here \nthat the AO has given the clear finding in the assessment order that Shri Mihir T. Kangad \n(key person of the group) had admitted in his statement recorded u/s.132(4) of the Act \ndated 23.12.2020 that Shri Naran B. Maheshwari & Shri Vijay Nagda was the \naccountant & cashier of the group respectively and were looking after the financial \naffairs of the assessee also. Therefore, it cannot be said that the impugned data has been \nseized from third party and there is no linkage of the assessee company with such data. \nFurther, assessee's plea that originator or author of data is not known has no relevance \nas the key personnel of the Neelkanth Group Shri Mihir Kangad in his statement \nrecorded on 24/12/2020 admitted that entries in the digital data is made by group \naccountant and cashier on the basis of directions issued by various family members and \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 15 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nmanagement persons. In this regard, it is important to refer the observation of the AO \nmade in the para 11 of the assessment order (reproduced above in para 6.2.3 of this \norder).So far as title of the digital data \"A S M\" is concerned, it appears that the same is \nabbreviation of \"Ahir Salt Mix\" and they are matching with accounting entry in tally file \n\"For CA Student\" in the account named as \"ASA Mix\". It is also seen that year-end \njournal entries of profit have been passed in tally file \"A S M\" with profit. Therefore, \nthere is purpose behind maintaining such tally files and thus, assessee's plea that the data \nis not related to them is rejected. \n39.3The assessee also objected the evidentiary value of the digital data seized by taking \nsupport of the provisions of Section 65B(4) of the Act. However, it seems that the key \npersonnel of group Shri Mihir Tejabhai Kangad in his statement recorded on 24/12/2020 \nhas admitted the content of digital data seized. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding \nthe genuineness of data recovered from the pen drive of Shri Naran B Maheshwari. \nTherefore, this plea of the assessee cannot be accepted. \n39.4The assessee also contended that profit entry and year-end entries of profit is by way \nof Journal and there is no evidence of actual earning of income. The assessee also stated \nthat there is no backend working related to how such profit has been derived. The AO did \nnot bring into any evidence as to what sales or purchase has been made, amount of such \nsales/purchase, quantity of sales / purchase, nature of activities and thus, in absence of \nsuch primary information, no credence should be given to the figure of profit represented \nby single journal entry. The assessee submitted that if the impugned figure of profit is \ntreated as unaccounted profit over and above the profit declared in audited books of \naccount, then all the financial ratios i.e., GP, NP, Production / yield shall give absurd \nand impractical result. The assessee stated that there is no possibility of earning such \nhuge profit in the existing investment in business and on this ground, the assessee stated \nthat the digital data seized is not correct, complete and authentic. \n39.5It is observed that seized material found during the course of search which is clearly \nestablished to be pertaining to the assessee, entries therein cannot be ignored. When the \nseized material found during the course of search and referred in Assessment Order itself \ndepicts the profit of the company on year-to-year basis, such profit is required to be \ntaxed. Now what the AO has in his possession is the digital data where earning of Profit \nand its journal is unambiguously written and, therefore, AO has taxed the same as \nincome. On perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that at the end of each year, \namount of profit or loss has been transferred to different accounts. The statement of \nMihir Kangad, key person of the group is also in tandem with the findings of the AO in \nthe assessment order to the effect that, the entries made therein were at the direction of \nthe members of the group. Hence, it cannot be said that entire data is vague or not \nrelated to the assessee company and thus, one should arrive at the logical conclusion on \nthe basis of information / data as well as broken period documents seized as above. The \nHon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mahavar Woolen Mills V/s CIT 111 Taxman \n568 has held as under: \n \n\"Section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Appeal to High Court -Assessment year \n1996-97 - Tribunal had come to factual conclusion that documents seized during \nsearch contained certain materials which were sufficient to come to conclusion \nabout cash payments having been made in addition to those made by cheques and \ndrafts and held that said payments would be liable to be assessed under section 69 - \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 16 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nOn appeal under section 260A, according to assessee, question whether seized \npapers could be construed as 'books of account' or 'document' for purpose of \nsection 158B(b) which defines 'undisclosed income', was required to be \nadjudicated - Whether issue raised by assessee in appeal could be said to involve \nany question of law, or a substantial question of law - Held, no - Whether it is \npossible to turn a mere question of fact into a question of law by seeking whether as \na matter of law authority came to a correct conclusion upon a matter of fact - Held, \nno.\" \nFurther, reliance is placed on ratio of decision of Hon'ble Ahmedabad ITAT in the \ncase of Shailash S Patel 97 taxman.com 570 wherein it is held as under: \n \n\"I. Section 68. read with section 148, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Cash credits \n(Immovable property) - Assessment year 2012-13 - In course of search conducted \nupon premises of one 'SBA' group, a Banakhat (agreement to sale) was found and \nseized which revealed that assessee agreed to purchase a land and also paid \nconsideration for same - But this transaction was not incorporated by assessee in its \nreturn of income -Further, assessee also failed to explain source of amount of \nconsideration paid to purchase said land - Accordingly, Assessing Officer reopened \nassessment and further passed reassessment order making additions in respect of \namount of sale consideration under section 68 - Assessee contended that he entered \ninto a Banakhat as a middleman and land was first acquired for sale consideration \nand thereafter arranged to be sold directly from owner to actual buyer to gain \ndifferential proceeds/commission - It was noted that assessee was in audacious \ndenial even on face of tangible documentary evidence towards payment of sale \nconsideration in cash as mentioned in Banakhat -Assessee had also not declared \nany commission income flowing from such banakhat, if any, as propounded - \nBanakhat executed was not shown to be eventually cancelled - Whether, on facts, \nimpugned additions made under section 68 was justified - Held, yes [Paras 13.1 and \n15] [In favour of revenue]\" \n \n \nOn this basis addition made by AO for AY 2015-16 onwards is discussed in \nsubsequent para. \n39.6On perusal of Assessment Order it is observed that AO has aggregated profit as \nshown in seized material and distributed such profit from A.Y.2011-12 to 2021-22 \nbased upon turnover shown in audited annual accounts. This method of Assessing \nOfficer is incorrect as he has distributed the profits of seized material in the year in \nwhich no incriminating material is found. When the seized material relied upon by \nAO itself depicts profit earned by assessee Company on year-to-year basis, \naddition is required to be made based upon noting mentioned in the seized \nmaterial. Considering such fact, method adopted by AO is not accepted and while \narriving at the quantum of undisclosed income to be taxed in the hands of assessee, \nprofit/loss as shown in seized tally data is considered. \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 17 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n39.7During the course of appellate proceedings, assessee has argued that when the \nnomenclature of the seized material itself contain the word \"Mix\", which itself \nsupports the contention of Assessee that profit/loss shown in seized material is \ninclusive of profit/loss shown in books of account. The assessee has contended that, \nAO has focused only on the Figure of the profit derived by passing the journal \nentries in the digital data. There is no backward working of sales or other items and \nthe AO has not considered the book results and the transactions as per the books. \nThe assessee submitted the details of year-wise turnover, Gross profit and net profit \netc. The assessee has contended that while computing undisclosed income, income \nshown in regular books of account need to be reduced and only net addition can be \nmade in the year in which there is profit. \n39.8On careful consideration of entire facts, it is observed that tally data found \nduring the course of search contain the word \"ASM\" which was considered as Ahir \nSalt Mix by AO. However, word \"Mix\" has never been interpreted by AO as data \ncontaining entries in regular books of account and unaccounted activity. The \nassessee has right from beginning has contended that digital data found during the \ncourse of search does not pertain it. Once the stand of assessee is that digital data \nfound during the course does not contain entries pertaining to its business, \nassessee's stand that profit/loss shown in seized tally data contain profit/loss of its \nregular business activity. The assessee cannot interpret the contents of the seized \nmaterial as per its own whims. When AO has established the fact that contents of the \nseized material pertains to assessee with relevant vouchers found during the course \nof search and same is corroborated with the statement Mr. Mihir Kangad (key \nperson of assessee group), assessee has first time taken such plea that profit/loss \nshown in seized material contains profit/loss shown in regular books of account at \nappeal stage and same cannot be accepted. The contention of assessee even cannot \nbe accepted mainly on following grounds. \n(i) The assessee has claimed that seized data found during the course of search is \nvague and incomplete. However, the seized data found during the course of search \nclearly reflects entries of distribution of profit amongst various partners/stake \nholders. If such data would not have been complete, no person would pass entries of \ndistribution of profit to partners account and balance of profit/loss would have been \ncarried forward on year to year basis. \n(ii)During the course of assessment proceedings or appellate proceedings, assessee \nhas not brought single evidence to prove that any of the entries containing in digital \ndata are already recorded in regular books of accounts. On the contrary, the AO has \nestablished that unaccounted cash payment vouchers found during the course of \nsearch are duly entered in such seized data. In this regard, it is important to \nreproduce the finding of the AO in para no. 12 of the assessment order, which is as \nunder:- \n\"The file contains records of 18427 transactions. The persons, companies, firms and \nparties recorded in this file do exist and have business or personal relations with \nNeelkanth group and therefore, live nexus with Neelkanth group, names of such \npersons exist in phonebooks of Neelkanth group persons, the mentioned vehicle \nnumbers are owned by/related to assesses group, the events such as marriages and \nbirthdays exist on recorded dates, the transaction are a/so identified to have actually \ntaken place when compared with independently verifiable third-party evidences such \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 18 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nas Revenue Records, RTO records, Bank Statements, Insurance Company Records, \nCounterparties' Bills etc. The transactions are dully supported by corresponding \nvouchers. The correlation between the transactions recorded in tally file with \nindependently verifiable third-party evidences proves that the entries recorded in the \nevidence seized are, true, correct and independently verifiable.” \n(ii)It is observed that on one side assessee is claiming that profit/loss shown in \nseized data includes profit/loss shown in regular books of account. However, \nassessee itself at para 2(v) has stated that total assets as per seized data (As on \n31.03.2011) is Rs.1,10,77,321 whereas actual assets as per audited annual accounts \nis Rs.13,18,65,361/-. If the seized data would have includes entries of both regular \nbooks of account and unaccounted transactions, assets appearing in the seized data \nwould have been higher than Rs.13,18,65,361/-. It is also observed that fixed assets \nas appearing in seized data as on 31/03/2011 is Rs.92,81,855.50/-whereas net block \nof assets as appearing in audited annual accounts is Rs.12,30,94,536.40/- which \nmeans that assets appearing in regular books of account are not appearing in seized \ntally balance sheet and fixed assets as appearing in seized balance sheet only \nreflects unaccounted payment made towards acquisition of such assets. The \ncontention of assessee is that profit for the year ending on 31/03/2011 as appearing \nin seized document is Rs 4,03,94,715.50/- is inclusive of profit of Rs.73,71,180.42/-\nshown in regular books of accounts but other entries of balance sheet does not \nreflect entries of regular books of account is evasive and without any evidence. For \nexample, it is pertinent to refer to following tabular chart reflecting fixed assets as \nappearing in balance sheet of regular books of account on year to year basis and \nfixed assets as appearing in seized documents which will prove that contention of \nassessee that seized data includes entries of regular books of account is incorrect. \n \nAssessment year \nFixed assets as per \nseized balance sheet \nFixed assets as per \nAudited annual accounts \n2011-12 \n92,81,856/- \n12,30,94,537/- \n2012-13 \n98,91,238/- \n14,67,45,214/- \n2013-14 \n93,35,463 \n16,36,06,239/- \n2014-15 \n96,04,193 \n18,09,81,072/- \n \n(iv) The assessee has contended that if unaccounted profit is added to book profit \nshown in regular books of account, keeping turnover of books as correct turnover, \nnet profit ratio would increase substantially which would not match industry norms. \nIt was stated that if turnover is worked out based upon profit shown in seized tally \ndata(considering average GP of 10%), the reworked turnover would show \nimaginary value as it does not correspond to assessee company's capacity to \nproduce such salt. However, this contention of assessee cannot be accepted as \nassessee has never matched any of the accounting entries with data in seized tally. \nWhen assessee is carrying out unaccounted activity, it is possibility that assessee \nwould have carrying out production activity at other premises or earned out of \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 19 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\ntrading or by outsourcing etc. The assessee has argued only on presumption which \ndoes not survive as seized data contain entries of profit/loss earned in each year and \nits distribution amongst the partners. \nConsidering these facts, the plea of the assessee regarding giving credit of the \naccounted income against the unaccounted income taken by the AO as per seized \ndocuments, is hereby rejected. \n39.9It is also observed that seized data for A.Y.2015-16 reflects loss of \nRs.9,61,09,539/-, Rs.5,37,440/- in A.Y.2018-19 and Rs.3,87,492/- in A.Y.2019-20. \nWhen seized documents itself reflects loss, no undisclosed income can be taxed in the \nhands of the assessee in such years. Even such loss cannot be set off against in \nsubsequent years as the assessee has not disclosed such loss in the regular return of \nincome. \n39.10. \nIn nutshell, the addition to the above extent is directed to be sustained and \nthe additions made by distributing the above profits as per seized materials over all \nthe years in the ratio of turnover of audited accounts is directed to be deleted. Based \nupon such observation, unaccounted profit in the case of assessee is determined as \nunder:- \n \n \n \n \nConsidering above facts, there would be enhancement of income in A.Y. 2016-\n17and A.Y.2017-18 as mentioned in chart herein above. The AO is directed to tax \nundisclosed income as per tabular chart herein above on year to year basis and in \nremaining years, relief would be provided accordingly. \n \n39.11 In view of the above discussion and factual matrix of the case, the AO is directed \nto delete the addition made for A.Y.2015-16. Thus, the ground of appeal no. 3 & 4 are \nallowed.” \nA.Y. \nAddition made in the \nassessment order \nAddition \nconfirmed \n \nRelief granted \n \n2015-16 \n4,86,35,382 \n-- \n4,86,35,382 \n2016-17 \n4,87,17,205 \n12,69,69,992 \n(-) 7,82,52,787 \n2017-18 \n7,00,80,129 \n12,50,99,546 \n(-) 5,50,19,417 \n2018-19 \n8,14,69,971 \n-- \n8,14,69,971 \n2019-20 \n8,43,66,335 \n-- \n8,43,66,335 \n2020-21 \n9,96,11,034 \n34,21,995 \n9,61,89,039 \n2021-22 \n8,06,63,232 \n89,43,554 \n7,17,19,678 \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 20 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n11. Aggrieved by the above findings of the learned CIT(A), the assessee, as \nwell as, revenue, are in appeal before us. \n12. Shri S.N.Soparkar, ( Senior Advocate), Learned Counsel for the \nassessee, argued before the Bench that no addition should be made without \nany incrementing material. Third-party evidence should not be relied, \nmoreover opportunity of cross examination was not provided to the assessee \nand documents found in search were dump documents, hence addition made \nby the assessing officer should be deleted. \n13. On the other hand, learned DR for the revenue, relied on the findings of \nthe assessing officer. Learned DR for the revenue, also relied on the findings \nof the order of the Tribunal, in the assessee`s own case in IT(SS)A No. 6 \nand 7/RJT/2022, vide order dated 12.06.2024, and also stated that additions \nmade by the assessing officer may be confirmed. \n14. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the \nsubmission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents \nfurnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case \nincluding the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on \nrecord. We find merit in the submissions of ld DR for the revenue and noted \nthat various issues raised by the assessee and revenue, were adjudicated by \nthe Tribunal, in assessee`s own case inT(SS)A No. 6 and 7/RJT/2022, vide \norder dated 12.06.2024, the findings of the Tribunal, are reproduced below: \n“52. We completely agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the data was very revealing/speaking, \napparently genuine and duly corroborated, and the addition in the impugned year was not based \non any extrapolation of data. \n53. Addressing first the contention of the Ld.Counsel with regard to the data being a mere entry \nuncorroborated with any other material IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 evidence, it is pertinent to \nfirst take note of the fact which has not been disputed before us, that the data in the pendrive \npertained to the assessee. The Ld.CIT(A) has rightly noted that the linkage of the pendrive and \nother material, found with the accountant and cashier of the group with the assessee, was \nestablished since the assessee was part/ connected to the group and these persons looked after \nfinancial affairs of the assessee. Also we have rejected assessees contention of having no \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 21 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nconnection with the adverse material since it was found at third party premises while dealing \nwith ground no 2 & 3 of the assessee above at para-25 to 31 of our order. \n54. Further the AO has recorded detailed and pertinent facts establishing the genuineness of the \ndata at para 11 of his order, where he found the persons, companies, firms and parties recorded \nin the tally file contained in the pendrive to exist, have business and personal relations with the \nNeelkanth group and the transactions recorded being independently verifiable with third party \nevidence. It is pertinent to reproduce his findings, which importantly have remained \nuncontroverted. \n\"11. As far as the genuineness of this tally data is concerned, it is seen that the persons, \ncompanies, firms and parties recorded in the tally file do exist and have business or personal \nrelations with Neelkanth group and, therefore, has live nexus with Neelkanth group. Names of \nsuch persons exist in phone books of Neelkanth group persons. The vehicle numbers mentioned in \nthe narrations are owned by / related to assessee group, the events such as marriages and \nbirthdays exist on recorded dates, the transactions are also identified to have actually taken place \nwhen compared with independently verifiable third-party evidences such as Revenue Records, \nRTO Records, Bank Statements, Insurance Company Records, Counterparties' Bills etc. The \ntransactions are duly supported by corresponding vouchers. Also, evidences of signed approval \nof such transactions by Neelkanth ,group persons are found. The correlation between the \ntransactions recorded in tally file with independently verifiable third-party evidences proves that \nthe entries recorded in the seized tally data are true, correct and independently verifiable. \n11.1 Without prejudice to the above factual confirmations regarding the authenticity of the seized \ntally data, the statement of Shri Mihir Kangad is also relevant to understand the reliability of the \ndata. The transactions in \"for IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 CA Students from 01.04.2010 - \n31.03.2017\" were confronted to Sh. Mihir Kangad (key person of the Neelkanth Group). Sh. \nMihir Kangad admitted that the transactions in the tally files are genuine and have been made on \ninstruction of members of the Neelkanth Group. The relevant excerpts from the statements of Shri \nMihir Kangad are as under ….. \n55. The AO also found all data in the tally folder of the pendrive to be generated from vouchers \nand bills, scanned copies of which were found in a separate file in the pendrive and even physical \ncopies were found at the premises of the cashier of the group when searched. In all 18,427 \ntransactions were so found recorded. These facts have also remained uncontroverted. The \ninference therefore from the same derived by the Revenue authorities that the transactions \nrecorded were genuine transactions is we hold correct. \n56. It is this data, which is found to be genuine and relating to actual transactions, which reveals \nclearly share of undisclosed profits of the Neelkanth group from the assessee in the folder \"FOR \nCA STUDENTS\". And this entry is corroborated with ledger account revealing profits earned by \nthe assessee and their allocation to different stakeholders contained in a tally file ASM. This is \nfurther IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 corroborated with balance sheets found of the assessee for \ndifferent years disclosing the said profits clearly. \n57. For clarity, reference is made to data relating to F.Y 2012-13 found in the pendrive. The tally \nfile FOR CA STUDENTS reveals share of Neelkanth group in undisclosed profits earned by \nassessee disclosed in the ledger PROFIT/ LOSS FROM AHIR SALT FOR F.Y 2012-13 to be \nRs.11,15,07,378/- (para 6.2 A O's order). \nFile \"ASM\" discloses the same amount of profit of Rs.11,15,07,378/- allocated to Neelkanth \ngroup for the year @ 71/% out of the total undisclosed profits of the assessee for the year of \nRs.15,70,52,643/-(para 7.1 A O's order). \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 22 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nThe balance sheet of the assessee named ASM found during search, disclosing unaccounted \nassets and liabilities for the year ending 31-03-2013 also reveals same profit of Rs.15,70,52,643/- \ndistributed/transferred during the year by the assessee \n58. Thus the digital record is not just a mere uncorroborated entry, as contended by the \nLd.Counsel for the assessee, but a speaking data revealing clearly profits earned by the assessee, \nduly corroborated with corresponding entry in the books of a stakeholder and also in the balance \nsheet of the assessee relating to the undisclosed business all found during search. It is, we hold, \nnot a case of one instance of entry found but an entire trail of recording of the same entry in other \nrecords also pertaining both to the assessee and other parties. \n59. We are in complete agreement, therefore, with the Ld.CIT(A) that the data cannot be said to \nbe vague, and dismissed as such as not sufficient for drawing any inference there from. On the \ncontrary a logical conclusion has to be derived there from. \n60. As per section 292C of the Act, books of accounts, documents, assets etc. found during \nsearch u/s 132 of the Act, are presumed to belong to the assessee and their contents presumed to \nbe true. Section 292C is reproduced hereunder: \nPresumption as to assets, books of account, etc. 292C. (1) Where any books of account, other \ndocuments, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the \npossession or control of any person in the course of a search under section 132 or survey under \nsection 133A, it may, in any proceeding under this Act, be presumed-- \n(i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable \narticle or thing belong or belongs to such person; \n(ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and \n(iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which \npurport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to \nhave been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's \nhandwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly \nstamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or \nattested. \n(2) Where any books of account, other documents or assets have been delivered to the \nrequisitioning officer in accordance with the provisions of section 132A, then, the provisions of \nsub-section (1) shall apply as if such books of account, other documents or assets which had been \ntaken into custody from the person referred to in clause (a) or clause (b) or clause (c), as the case \nmay be, of sub-section (1) of section 132A, had been found in the possession or control of that \nperson in the course of a search under section 132. \n61. It is for the assessee to rebut the presumption with cogent evidence. Meaning thereby that the \nonus is on the assessee to show that the books/documents do not belong to it nor are their \ncontents true. In the present case the presumption is that the digital record found during search \nbelongs to the assessee and its contents revealing undisclosed profits earned by the assessee are \ntrue. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee pleading that the speaking digital data found during search \nneeded to be corroborated with material evidence for concluding that they revealed undisclosed \nincome earned by the assessee, is clearly contrary to law. The onus is on the assessee to explain \nthe contents of the data found in its possession. It cannot be and is also not the case of the \nassessee that the data is a dumb IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 document. In the absence of any \nexplanation given by the assessee regarding the nature of the contents of the data, there is no \nquestion of shifting the onus on the Revenue to unearth further material evidence by way of any \nundisclosed assets etc. in which the profits were allegedly invested, to substantiate its case. \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 23 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n62. The contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee therefore that data found was a mere entry \nthat too uncorroborated, is found by us to be incorrect, and his contention therefore for deleting \nthe addition made of undisclosed profits in the hands of the assessees basis this data, needs to be \nrejected. \n63. The next contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that since specific entry of profit \nrelating to the impugned years was not found in the digital data, addition on the basis of \nextrapolation of data found of another related entity could not be done, also merits no \nconsideration. \n64. There is no doubt that the data reveals profits earned by the assessee for various years, \nthough not the impugned year. The data also reveals its distribution between all stakeholders in a \nfixed ratio/percentage for all years including the impugned year. Therefore the data when read in \nentirety reveals profits earned by the assessee distributed to its various stakeholders in a fixed \nratio. This is corroborated with corresponding entry of profit received by one of the stakeholders \nin its books maintained in the digital record. This record is found for several years. Therefore the \nfact of assessee earning profits year to year and distributing it to its stakeholders is clearly \nrevealed from the records/ data found. For the impugned year therefore when the data revealed \nclearly the share of the stakeholder alone, accounted for in its alleged books, it leads to the \nlogical IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022conclusion, that the said profits have arisen from profits \nearned by the assessee. The record of the stakeholder, Neelkanth enterprises, clearly revealing \nrecording of profits received from the assessee equivalent to its share of 71%, there was no \nanomaly in the Revenue authorities holding assessee to have made profits in the impugned year \ncalculated on the basis of that apportioned /distributed to its stakeholder. It is not case of \nextrapolation of data of the stakeholder to arrive at the profits earned by the assessee , but on the \ncontrary a case of deriving factum of profit earned by the assessee clearly revealed from the data \nof the stake holder. Therefore the contention of the Ld.Counsel for the assesse of the addition \nmade of undisclosed profits being based on extrapolation of data is found to be incorrect and his \nplea for deleting the addition therefore rejected. \n65. The next contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that without prejudice to \nhis arguments made on the merits of the addition made, the assessee be allowed set off of losses. \nHe pointed out that that in the data extracted from the pen-drive the assessee was noted to have \nearned loss in Asst. Year 2015-16 of Rs.9,61,09,539/- which has been held by the Ld.CIT(A) to be \nthe assessed income / loss of the assessee for the said year. \n66. His contention was that the set off of these losses be allowed to the assessee in the impugned \nimmediately successive years , A.Y 2016-17 and A.Y 2017-18. \n67. He contended that the Ld.CIT(A) had denied the set off of loss of A.Y 2015-16 amounting to \nRs. 9,61,09,539/- since they were not returned, against which the assessee was aggrieved. \n \n68. The ld.counsel for the assessee contended that it is settled law that the issue of claim of set off \nof brought forward loss is to be examined in the year in which the set off is so claimed. This \nregard, IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 we refer to the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case \nof CIT Vs. Manmohan Das (Deceased), (1966) 59 ITR 699(SC). He also referred to the decision \nof the ITAT, Mumbai Bench 'G' in the case of Gajendra Kumar T. Agarwal Vs. ITO, (2011) 11 \ntaxmann.com 231 (Mum). Reliance was also made to the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the \ncase of Anant Raj Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA No.5169/Del/2017 and others order dated 11.5.2020. The \nld.counsel for the assessee further stated that the benefit of set off of losses had been denied by \nthe ld.CIT(A) for the reason that the assessee had not disclosed such loss in the return of \nincome. He contended that the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kirit Dahyabhai Patel \nVs. ACIT, (2017) 80 taxmann.com 162 (Guj) has held that in view of the specific provision \nof section 153A of the Act return filed in response to the notice undersection 153A of the Act, is to \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 24 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nbe considered as return of income filed under section 139 of the Act. The ld.counsel for the \nassessee has also relied on the decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of HBN Dairies & \nAllied Ltd. Vs. ACIT, (2018) 96 taxmann.com 353 (Del- Trib)(TM) for the proposition that the \nassessee's claim of brought forward losses in search assessment was to be allowed. Copies of all \nthe orders were placed before us. \n69. We have heard both the parties. The assessee's contention is that the assessed loss of \nimmediately preceding year i.e. Asst.Year 2015-16 amounting to Rs.9,61,09,539/- be set off \nagainst the profits assessed for the impugned year amounting to Rs.12,69,69,992/- for Asst.Year \n20016-17 and Rs.12,50,99,546/- for Asst.Year 2017-18. We are not agreeable with the same. \nIt is an undisputed fact that the loss of the immediately preceding assessment year and the profits \nof the impugned assessment year were not returned to tax in the returns filed in IT(SS)A No.6 & \n7/RJT/2022 response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. These losses/profits are \nassessed income of the assessee on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. \nThe provision of law with regard to carry forward and set off of loss as contained \nin section1 39(3) of the Act is that only loss which are returned within the time allowed as \nper section 139(1) of the Act are allowed to be carried forward and set off against the income of \nthe succeeding years. There is no dispute with respect to the above provision of law. As far as \nreliance of the assessee to decisions laying down the proposition that the return filed in response \nto the notice under section 153A of the Act are to be treated as that filed under section 139(1) of \nthe Act (Kirit Dahyabhai Patel(supra),there is no denial or dispute with regard to the same also. \nBut the said decision is of no help to the assessee, because the assessee has not claimed the loss \nin the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act, as noted above before \nus. \nThus since the loss of the preceding year has not been returned to tax in the return filed in \nresponse to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the law does not allow benefit of set off of such losses \nagainst incomes of succeeding years. \nSuch a proposition as canvassed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee would result in honest \nassessees being placed in a disadvantageous position as compared to those who otherwise do not \ndisclose correct incomes but it is discovered during search proceedings. As per the provisions of \nlaw it is only losses disclosed in returns filed within prescribed time which are allowed the \nbenefit of being carried forward and set off against incomes of succeeding years. An honest \nassessee who otherwise discloses losses but not within IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 prescribed \ntime is therefore denied the benefit of carry forward and set off of the losses. \nIf the proposition canvassed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee is accepted then losses discovered \nduring search, not otherwise disclosed in returns filed are to be allowed benefit of carry forward \nand set off. In short an unscrupulous assesses whose undisclosed economic activities are \ndiscovered during search will be in a beneficial position with regards to set off and carry forward \nof losses as opposed to an honest assessee . This surely cannot be the intention of law. \nThe decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of HBN Dairies (supra) does not help the case \nof the assessee since in the said case losses claimed to be set off against profits were disclosed in \nthe return filed u/s 153A 0f the Act. \nAs for the other decisions relied upon by the ld.counsel for the assessee, they only lay down the \nproposition that the claim of set off of losses is to be examined in the year in which the set off is \nclaimed. How these decisions are of any assistance to the assessee's claim in the impugned year, \nwe fail to understand, considering the fact that even as per the provision of law, the assessee is \nnot eligible to claim the set off of losses since the losses were not returned in the return of income \nfiled in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. We, therefore, are in complete \nagreement with the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee is not entitled to any set off of loss brought \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 25 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nforward from the preceding years and these contentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee is \naccordingly dismissed. \n70. The last contention of the ld.counsel for the assessee before us was that the profits disclosed \nby the assessee in its return should be reduced from the alleged profits disclosed in the ledger \nfound in the IT(SS)A No.6 & 7/RJT/2022 PDF for determining the undisclosed profits of the \nassessee for the impugned years. His contention was that there is no basis with the department to \nhold that the entire profits, as disclosed in the ledger was undisclosed. Therefore, the benefit of \nprofits already disclosed by the assessee should be given to it. \n71. Ld.DR on the other hand relied on the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) rejecting this contention of \nthe assessee at para 39.8 (ii) and (iii)and(iv) as under:… \n \n72. We have considered the argument of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that profits already \ndisclosed by the assessee be reduced from the profits assessed on the basis of alleged \nincriminating material found during search, and noting the findings of the Ld.CIT(A) IT(SS)A \nNo.6 & 7/RJT/2022 while rejecting this plea of the assessee, which findings have remained \nuncontroverted before us, we find no merit in the plea of the assessee. \nThe Ld.CIT(A) has noted pertinent facts while rejecting this contention. He has noted that the \nassessee has not produced single evidence to show that the data found during search included \ntransactions accounted for by the assessee in its Books of accounts. On the contrary the \nLd.CIT(A) found that the data was found by the AO to be a recording of only unaccounted \ntransactions of the assessee reflected in vouchers and other documents found both physically with \nthe assessee and scanned copies found in the digital data. \n73. The Ld.CIT(A) also found that seized data revealing assets of the assessee were also found in \nthe form of Balance sheets of the assessee pertaining to different years which reflected clearly the \nunaccounted profits earned by the assessee. He noted that the assets reflected therein were far \nless than that as per Books of accounts of the assessee. \nThe above facts have remained uncontroverted before us. \n74. In view of the same, we completely agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the incriminating material \nreflected only the unaccounted profits of the assessee. There is no question therefore of reducing \nthe unaccounted profits added to the income of the assessee with the profits disclosed and \nreturned to tax by the assessee. \nThis contention/ground raised by the assessee is also dismissed. \n75. Ground No.4 & 5 and the additional grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. \n \n76. In effect, both the appeals are dismissed. As a consequence, the stay petitions filed by the \nassessee do not survive, and the same are also dismissed.” \n \n15. We agree with the above findings of the Tribunal, in assessee`s own \ncase-supra, (except the findings in relation to carry forward and set off of \nlosses,). Therefore, various grounds raised by the revenue, in these five \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 26 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nyears, are allowed to the extent indicated in assessee`s own case in IT(SS)A \nNo. 6 and 7/RJT/2022, vide order dated 12.06.2024, whereas, appeals of the \nassessee for these five years are dismissed. \n16. Now we shall adjudicate assessee`s Additional grounds of appeals for \nAY 2015-16, which are reproduced below for ready reference: \n \nAppellant's Additional grounds of appeals for AY 2015-16, are as under: \n \n1. Alternatively and without prejudice to grounds of appeals mentioned in Form 36, Ld. \nCIT(A) erred in law and on facts of case in not allowing carry forward of business loss,as \nper seized data and further in not allowing set- off the same in subsequent years against \nthe addition confirmed and enhanced by him. The AO may kindly be directed to allow \ncarry forward of loss and set off the same in subsequent years. \n \n2. Alternatively, and without prejudice to grounds of appeals mentioned in Form 36, Ld. \nCIT(A) erred in law and on facts of case in treating the business profit as per seized data \nas unaccounted income and not giving credit of book profit declared in audited financial \nstatements. The AO may kindly be directed to allow credit of book profit against the \nbusiness profit as determined by Ld. CIT(A).\" \n \n17. The above additional grounds raised by the assessee are covered, in \nfavour of assessee, by the miscellaneous application, vide MA No. 22 & 23-\nRjt-2024 (Ahir Salt & Allied Products Pvt. Ltd), wherein, the Tribunal has \nrectified the order in IT(SS)A No.6 and 7/RJT/2022, so far, the issue of \ncarry forward and set off of losses are concerned, observing as follows: \n“13.We have heard the rival contentions, perused the material on record and duly considered \nfacts of the case in the light of the applicable legal position. For the sake of clarity and also being \npertinent, we reproduce the relevant para No.69 of the order of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A Nos.6 & \n7/RJT/2022, order dated 12.06.2024, which is the disputed issue in these two miscellaneous \napplications. The para No.69 of the order of the Tribunal, reads as follows: \n“69. We have heard both the parties. The assessee’s contention is that the assessed loss of \nimmediately preceding year i.e. Asst.Year 2015-16 amounting to Rs.9,61,09,539/- be set off \nagainst the profits assessed for the impugned year amounting to Rs.12,69,69,992/- for \nAsst.Year 2016-17 and Rs.12,50,99,546/- for Asst.Year 2017-18. We are not agreeable with \nthe same. \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 27 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nIt is an undisputed fact that the loss of the immediately preceding assessment year and the \nprofits of the impugned assessment year were not returned to tax in the returns filed in \nresponse to the notice under section 153A of the Act. These losses/profits are assessed \nincome of the assessee on the basis of incriminating material found during the search. The \nprovision of law with regard to carry forward and set off of loss as contained in section \n139(3) of the Act is that only loss which are returned within the time allowed as per section \n139(1) of the Act are allowed to be carried forward and set off against the income of the \nsucceeding years. There is no dispute with respect to the above provision of law. As far as \nreliance of the assessee to decisions laying down the proposition that the return filed in \nresponse to the notice under section 153A of the Act are to be treated as that filed under \nsection 139(1) of the Act (Kirit Dahyabhai Patel(supra), there is no denial or dispute with \nregard to the same also. But the said decision is of no help to the assessee, because the \nassessee has not claimed the loss in the return filed in response to the notice under section \n153A of the Act, as noted above before us. \nThus, since the loss of the preceding year has not been returned to tax in the return filed in \nresponse to notice u/s 153A of the Act, the law does not allow benefit of set off of such losses \nagainst incomes of succeeding years. \nSuch a proposition as canvassed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee would result in honest \nassessees being placed in a disadvantageous position as compared to those who otherwise \ndo not disclose correct incomes but it is discovered during search proceedings. As per the \nprovisions of law it is only losses disclosed in returns filed within prescribed time which are \nallowed the benefit of being carried forward and set off against incomes of succeeding \nyears. An honest assessee who otherwise discloses losses but not within prescribed time is \ntherefore denied the benefit of carry forward and set off of the losses. \nIf the proposition canvassed by the Ld.Counsel for the assessee is accepted then losses \ndiscovered during search, not otherwise disclosed in returns filed are to be allowed benefit \nof carry forward and set off. In short, an unscrupulous assesses whose undisclosed \neconomic activities are discovered during search will be in a beneficial position with \nregards to set off and carry forward of losses as opposed to an honest assessee . This surely \ncannot be the intention of law. \nThe decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of HBN Dairies (supra) does not help the \ncase of the assessee since in the said case losses claimed to be set off against profits were \ndisclosed in the return filed u/s 153A of the Act. \nAs for the other decisions relied upon by the ld.counsel for the assessee, they only lay down \nthe proposition that the claim of set off of losses is to be examined in the year in which the \nset off is claimed. How these decisions are of any assistance to the assessee’s claim in the \nimpugned year, we fail to understand, considering the fact that even as per the provision of \nlaw, the assessee is not eligible to claim the set off of losses since the losses were not \nreturned in the return of income filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the \nAct. We, therefore, are in complete agreement with the ld.CIT(A) that the assessee is not \nentitled to any set off of loss brought forward from the preceding years and these \ncontentions of the ld.counsel for the assessee is accordingly dismissed.” \n \n14. We note that assessee’s contention before the Tribunal was that the assessed undisclosed loss \nof immediately preceding year, that is, assessment year 2015-16, amounting to Rs.9,61,09,539/- \nshould be set- off against the undisclosed income for the impugned year amounting to \nRs.12,69,69,992/-, for assessment year 2016-17 and Rs.12,50,99,546/- for assessment year 2017-\n18. The Tribunal has denied the benefit of set- off of losses on the plea that only loss which are \nreturned within the time allowed as per section 139(1) of the Act are allowed to be carried \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 28 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nforward and set off against the income of the succeeding years. Besides, the assessee has not \nclaimed the loss in the return filed in response to the notice under section 153A of the Act. \n15. We find that a search and seizure operation was conducted under section 132(1) of the Act, \non 10.11.2020. In this said search operation, the Revenue authorities, found certain documents \nand evidences, which the Revenue authorities considered them, as incrementing material. As per \nassessing officer, based on these incrementing material, there was undisclosed income in the \nhands of the assessee, as well as, there was undisclosed losses, as per these incrementing \nmaterial. The assessing officer, during the assessment proceedings, under section 153A read with \nsection 143(3) of the Act, considered only undisclosed income of the assessee, as per the \nincrementing material seized, however, did not consider undisclosed losses, as per the \nincrementing material seized. That is, assessing officer did not give the benefit of set- off of \nundisclosed losses, against the undisclosed income, fond during the search and seizure action. In \npara No.69 of the order of the Tribunal in IT(SS)A Nos.6 & 7/RJT/2022, order dated 12.06.2024 \n(supra), the Tribunal has also denied the benefit of set- off of losses, stating that assessee has not \nclaimed the losses in the return of income filed under section 153A of the Act, as noted above. \n16.We find that undisclosed income and undisclosed losses, both were not shown by the assessee, \nin the return of income, filed by the assessee, in response to notice under section 153A of the Act, \ntherefore, either the assessing officer should ignore both the items or should consider both the \nitems, to compute the tax liability of the assessee, as per seized material. The “Income” as well \nas “losses”, both were undisclosed, as seized material, however, the assessing officer has taken \ninto account to tax the undisclosed income and ignored the undisclosed losses, which is not \nacceptable. It is a common knowledge that seized material must be read as a whole, that is, every \npart of the seized material must be constructed within the four corners of the Act. When the \nundisclosed income has been taken from seized material, then why not the undisclosed losses \nshould not be taken from the seized material. Apple to Apple comparison is needed, which is \nrequired, as per the principle of equity and justice. No any seized material should be interpreted \nin isolation, if the assessing officer, takes the undisclosed income from seized material, then he \nhas to take into account the undisclosed losses from the same seized material, and benefit of set-\noff of losses, should be given to the assessee, on account of undisclosed losses, which the \nassessing officer has failed to do so. \n17. We are of the view that every part of the seized material, must be analyzed, within the four \ncorners of the Act, when the undisclosed income is considered by the assessing officer, based on \nthe seized material, then assessing officer ought to have considered, the undisclosed losses, based \non the same seized material.In fact, even if an assessee inadvertently failed to claim any \nlegitimate claim, the revenue has to correct it and due tax has to be collected. In this regard \nHon'ble Gujarat High Court in the case of S.R. Koshti vs. CIT 276 ITR 165 (Guj) has held that \n\"the authorities under Income Tax Act, 1961 are under an obligation to act in accordance with \nlaw. Tax can be collected only as provided under the Act. If an assessee under a mistake, \nmisconception or not being properly instructed is over assessed, the authorities under the Act \nare required to assist him and assure that only legitimate taxes due are collected\" \n18. In fact, in a situation like that of the assessee, number of appellate authorities have opined \nthat the revenue is expected to collect the legitimate revenue and had placed on record the \nCBDT's Circular No. 114 XL-35 of 1955, dated 11-4-1955, which read as under: \nAdministrative instructions for guidance of Income-tax Officers on matters pertaining to \nassessment \n1. The Board has issued instructions from time to time in regard to the attitude which the Officers \nof the Department should adopt in dealing with assessee in matters affecting their interests and \nconvenience. It appears that these instructions are not being uniformly followed, \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 29 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n2. Complaints are still being received that while Income-tax Officers are prompt in making \nassessments likely to result into demands and in effecting their recovery, they are lethargic and \nindifferent in granting refunds and giving reliefs due to assessee under the Act. Dilatoriness or \nindifference in dealing with refund claims (either under section 48 or due to appellate, revisional, \netc., orders) must be completely avoided so that the public may feel that the Government are \nactually prompt and careful in the matter of collecting taxes and granting refunds and giving \nreliefs. \n(3) Officers of the Department must not take advantage of ignorance of an assessee as to his \nrights. It is one of their duties to assist a taxpayer in every reasonable way, particularly in the \nmatter of claiming and securing reliefs and in this regard the Officers should take the initiative in \nguiding a taxpayer where proceedings or other particulars before them indicate that some refund \nor relief is due to him. This attitude would, in the long run, benefit the department for it would \ninspire confidence in him that he may be sure of getting a square deal from the department. \nAlthough, therefore, the responsibility for claiming refunds and reliefs rests with assessee on \nwhom it is imposed by law, officers should—(a) Draw their attention to any refunds or reliefs to \nwhich they appear to be clearly entitled but which they have omitted to claim for some reason or \nother; \n(b) Freely advise them when approached by them as to their rights and liabilities and as to the \nprocedure to be adopted for claiming refunds and reliefs. \n4. Public Relation Officers have been appointed at important centers, but by the very nature of \ntheir duties, their field of activity is bound to be limited. \n19. The Hon'ble Justice Khanna in the case of Simon Carves (105 ITR 12) (SC) has held that tax \nauthorities would not be acting properly and judiciously, if they exercise their power in the \nmanner most beneficial to the revenue and consequently most adverse to the assessee….” The \nvarious courts have held that if excess tax has been paid by the assessee, in advance, the \nAssessing Officer is bound to refund it under the general law and independently of Chapter XIX \nor any other provisions of the Act.[ OCM v/s CIT (138 ITR 689)]. A combined reading of the \nabove decisions of the Hon'ble Courts leads to a conclusion that, if an assessee is entitled to the \nbenefit or relief, then, he / she cannot be denied for the reasons that he /she failed to claim it. The \nHon'ble High Court of Madras in the case of Abhinitha Foundation Pvt. Ltd. (99 CCH 37) (Mad) \n(HC) has held that failure to advert to claim in original return or revised return could not \ndenude, appellate authorities of their power to consider the claim. The appellant authority \nincluding Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is empowered to entertain any claim which, \nwas not made by the appellant, in his /her/its return of income. \n20. As we have noted that any document has to be taken as a whole and the Assessing Officer \nshould not pick and \nchoose those parts of the impounded/seized material which suits him and \ntotally rejected those parts of \nthe same document which are in support of the assessee. \nTherefore, either the Assessing Officer should not rely on such impounded/seized material, at all, \nor if he uses these documents as evidences \nagainst the assessee, then he should read it as a \nwhole and also accept those parts of the documents which support the assessee. One Cannot be \npermitted to blow hot and cold in the same steam. ‘Head I win’ and ‘tail you lose’, approach is \nalien to the principles of justice. There cannot be approval and rejection in the same steam. To \nattempt to take advantage of one part and to reject the rest, is against the fine norms of \njurisprudence. If the assessing officer places reliance on the part of seized material and ignores \nanother part of seized material, then there would be certain breach in regard to this tenet of law. \nConsidering these facts, we are of the view that there is a mistake apparent from record in non-\nconsideration of these facts, and non-consideration of a decision of the Supreme Court, which \ncan be said to be a \"mistake apparent from the record\". Therefore, we direct the assessing officer \nto allow undisclosed loss of immediately preceding year, that is, assessment year 2015-16, \namounting to Rs.9,61,09,539/-, to be set- off against the undisclosed income for the impugned \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 30 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nyear amounting to Rs.12,69,69,992/-, for assessment year 2016-17 and Rs.12,50,99,546/- for \nassessment year 2017-18. \n21. In the result, miscellaneous application No.22/RJT/2024, is allowed. \n22. Since we have allowed the miscellaneous application No.22/RJT/2024, and facts and contents \nof miscellaneous application No.23/RJT/2024, are similar and identical as those of iscellaneous \napplication No.22/RJT/2024.Accordingly, our observations made in miscellaneous application \nNo.22/RJT/2024, shall apply mutatis mutandis to the aforesaid other miscellaneous application \nNo.23/RJT/2024. For the parity of reasons, we allow the abovementioned miscellaneous \napplication, in terms of directions noted in miscellaneous application No.22/RJT/2024. \n23. In the result, miscellaneous application No.23/RJT/2024, is allowed. \n24. In the combined result, both miscellaneous applications filed by the assessee are allowed.” \n \n18. In view of the above, additional grounds raised by the assessee, are \nallowed. \n19.Now, we shall adjudicate the appeals of Assessee and Revenue pertaining \nto assessment year 2011-12. \n20.Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in the appeal, for assessment \nyear 2011-12, in ITA No. 296/Rjt/2022, are as follows: \n1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A), fails to \nappreciate the facts that Finance Act 2017 amended section 153A of the Act \nenabling the AO to issue notices for 'relevant assessment years' i.e. four more \nyears over and above the six years already covered earlier in the Pre-amended \nsection. That selection of four more years was further subject to fulfillment of \nthree conditions (a), (b) & (c) as stipulated in newly inserted fourth proviso to \nsection 153A and all the three conditions stipulated in fourth proviso have been \nfulfilled. \n \n2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in \nignoring that there were parallel books of accounts maintained by the assessee \nin tally software, which was found and impounded during the course of Search, \non which the AO has relied upon. \n \n3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) fails to \nappreciate the facts of the case, that one of the key person of the group concern \nShri Mihir Kangad in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) and has agreed \nunaccounted transaction have become happened and admitted that the \ntransactions in the tally files, though complex but made on the instructions of \nmembers of the Neelkanth group and correlation between the transaction \nrecorded in tally file with independently verifiable third-party evidences proves \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 31 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nthat the entries recorded in the evidence seized are, true, correct and \nindependently verifiable. \n \n4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) erred \nin ignoring that Prior to amendment vide Finance Act, 2017, section 153A(1)(b) \nstipulated assessments for 6 (six) AYs immediately preceding the search AY. The \nassessment for the search AY was not covered in this period of six years as the \nsearch AY is taken up for scrutiny directly by issuing notice u/s 143(2) of the Act. \nHence, effectively 7 (seven) years were being pursued for assessment prior to \nFinance Act, 2017. \n \n5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld. CIT(A) has \nerred in deleting the addition of income determined on account of Proportion @ \n3% of unaccounted sales of Rs. 1,79,90,435/-. \n \n6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, AO has duly \ninvestigated and applied his mind on the report of the DDIT, Investigation wing \nand after satisfying himself made the assessment on the basis of cogent material \nand relevant evidence on record. \n \n7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) \nought to have upheld the order of the A.O. \n \n21. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee, for assessment year 2011-12,in \nIT(SS) No. 01/Rjt/2022, are as follows: \nThe grounds of appeal mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another. \n1.The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-11, Ahmedabad [CIT(A)] erred on \nfacts as also in law in rejecting assessee plea that no addition could have been made in \nthe order passed u/s 153A of the Act, in absence of there bring incriminating material \nfound form the assessee. The order passed making addition without there being any \nincriminating materials may kindly be deleted. \n2.The learned CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not appreciating that fact that the \nseized data / documents were found from the premises of third party, therefore cannot be \nmade in the hands of the assessee u/s 153A of the Act. The AO may kindly be directed to \ndeleted the addition on this ground. \n \n22.Learned Counsel for the assessee, argued that as per explanation 1 to \nproviso to section 153A of the Income Tax Act, the assessment year \n(AY)2011-12, is outside the block period of 10 assessment years, therefore, \nthe assessing officer ought not to have made assessment on the assessee for \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 32 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nthe assessment year 2011–12. The Learned Counsel stated that Ld. CIT(A) \nhas rightly quashed the assessment framed on the assessee, for assessment \nyear 2011–12, as it is outside, the block period of 10 years,as per \nexplanation 1 to proviso to section 153A of the Income Tax Act 1961, \ntherefore, order of the ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. \n23. On the other hand, learned CIT DR for the revenue, submitted that \nassessment year 2011–12, is a part of 10 years block-period, as per the \nprovisions of section 153A of the Act, hence, it should not be excluded and \nthe income which has escaped assessment for the assessment year 2011–12 \nshould be taxed in the hands of the assessee. \n24. We have heard the rival parties and have gone through the material \nplaced on record. We noticed that a search action was carried out on \n10.11.2020, on the assessee-company, which is relevant to A.Y.2021-22. As \nper explanation 1 to proviso to section 153A, the expression 'relevant \nassessment year' shall mean an assessment year preceding the assessment \nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition \nis made which falls beyond six assessment years but not later than ten \nassessment years from the end of the assessment year relevant to the \nprevious year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. Thus, \nthe period of ten years shall be from the end of the assessment year relevant \nto the previous year in which the search is conducted or requisition is made. \nIn other words, period of ten years has to be computed from end of relevant \nassessment year, i.e., from 31st March 2022. Hence, in the instant case, \n1stassessment year was, A.Y.2021-22 and 10th assessment-year is A.Y.2012-\n13. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A), has rightly observed that no proceedings can be \ninitiated u/s.153A or 153C beyond assessment year (A.Y.)2012-13 in the \nassessee`s case under consideration. The Ld CIT(A) also relied upon the \ndecision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A R Safiullah \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 33 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nvs. ACIT in WP No. 4327 of 2021 and WMP No. 3513, 3515 & 3516 of \n2021, wherein, the Hon'ble High Court has held as follows: \n“9. Explanation-I is clear as to the manner of computation of the ten assessment \nyears. It clearly and firmly fixes the starting point. It is the end of the assessment \nyear relevant to the previous year in which search is conducted or requisition is \nmade. There cannot be any doubt that since search was made in this case on \n10.04.2018, the assessment year is 2019-20. The end of the assessment year 2019-\n20 is 31.03.2020.The computation of ten years has to run backwards from the said \ndate i.e., 31.03.2020. The first year will of course be the search assessment year \nitself. In that event, the ten assessment years will be as follows: \n \n1st year \n2019-20 \n2nd year \n2018-19 \n3rd year \n2017-18 \n4th year \n2016-17 \n5th year \n2015-16 \n6th year \n2014-15 \n7th year \n2013-14 \n8th year \n2012-13 \n9th year \n2011-12 \n10th year \n2010-11 \n \nThe case on hand pertains to A. Y. 2009-10. It is obviously beyond the ten year outer \nceiling limit prescribed by the statute. The terminal point is the tenth year calculated \nfrom the end of the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search is \nconducted. The long arm of the law can go up to this terminal point and not one day \nbeyond. When the statute is clear and admits of no ambiguity, it has to be strictly \nconstrued and there is no scope for looking to the explanatory notes appended to \nstatute or circular issued by the department. \n10.In the case on hand, the statute has prescribed one mode of computing the six \nyears and another mode for computing the ten years. Section 153 A(1)(b) states that \nthe assessing officer shall assess or reassess the total income of six years \nimmediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which \nsearch is conducted. Applying this yardstick, the six years would go up to 2013-14. \nThe search assessment year, namely, 2019-20 has to be excluded. This is because \nthe statute talks of the six years preceding the search assessment year. But, while \ncomputing the ten assessment years, the starting point has to be the end of the \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 34 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nsearch assessment year. In other words, search assessment year has to be including \nin the latter case. It is not for me to fathom the wisdom of the parliament. I cannot \nassume that the amendment introduced by the Finance Act, 2017 intended to bring in \nfour more years over and above the six years already provided within the scope of \nthe provision. When the law has prescribed a particular length, it is not for the court \nto stretch it. Plasticity is the new mantra in neuroscience, thanks to the teachings of \nNorman Doidge. It implies that contrary to settled wisdom, even brain structure can \nbe changed. But not so when it comes to a provision in a taxing statute that is free of \nambiguity. Such a provision cannot be elastically construed.” \n \n25. Considering the decision of Hon'ble High court referred (supra), it is \nobserved that in the case of the assessee, a search action was carried out on \n10.11.2020 and therefore, according to Explanation 1 of proviso to section \n153A of the Act, the assessment year is 2021-22. The end of the assessment \n2021-22 is 31.03.2022.The computation of ten years has to run backwards \nfrom the said date i.e. 31.03.2022. The first year will of course be the search \nassessment year itself i.e. A.Y.2021-22. In that event, the ten assessment \nyears will be as under: \n1st year \n2021-22 \n2nd year \n2020-21 \n3rd year \n2019-20 \n4th year \n2018-19 \n5th year \n2017-18 \n6th year \n2016-17 \n7th year \n2015-16 \n8th year \n2014-15 \n9th year \n2013-14 \n10th year \n2012-13 \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 35 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n \nTherefore, Ld CIT(A)observed that entire issue raised by assessee regarding \nissuance of notice u/s 153A for A.Y. 2011-12 is valid or not is covered by \ndecision of Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of A R Safiullah referred \n(supra). The Hon'ble High court has interpreted Explanation 1 of proviso to \nsection 153A of the Act and observed that while computing ten years for the \npurpose of notice u/s 153A, search year would also be considered as one of \nthe years and previous nine years can be covered which means that the \nexplanation clearly shows that, the period of 10 years includes the search \nrelevant assessment year. The ld. CIT(A) also relied on the decision of ITAT \nChennai Bench in the cases of ACIT, Central Circle-1 (3) Chennai Vs. Shri \nV. Durai& other in ITA Nos. 56/Chny/2022 to No.58/Chny/2022, wherein it \nwas held that while computing ten assessment years, the starting point has to \nbe the end of the search assessment year. In view of the above factual \ndiscussion and legal matrix of the case and respectfully following the \ndecision of the Hon'ble Madras High Court and the decision of the Hon'ble \nITAT, Chennai, it is held that AO was not empowered to issue notice u/s \n153A for A.Y. 2011-12 as it was time barred assessment on the date of \nsearch. Considering such facts, assessment order passed by AO for A.Y. \n2011-12 was quashed by ld CIT(A) and consequent addition made in \nassessment order would not survive. We find that above conclusions arrived \nat by the CIT(A) are correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve \nand confirm the order of the CIT(A). \n26. In the result, appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No.296/RJT/2022 for \nassessment year 2011–12, is dismissed and assessee`s appeal in IT(SS)A \nNo.01/RJT/2022for assessment year 2011–12, is also dismissed. \n27. Now, we shall take, Revenue`s appeals ITA No. 297 to 299/Rjt/2022, for \nAssessment year 2012-13 to 2014-15 and corresponding cross appeals filed \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 36 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nby the assessee in IT(SS) No. 2 to 4/Rjt/2022,for Assessment year 2012-13 \nto 2014-15. The summarized and concise grounds raised by the revenue in \nappeals in ITA No. 297 to 299/Rjt/2022, and assessee`s appeals in IT(SS) \nNo. 2 to 4/Rjt/2022, are reproduce below: \n \n“Department's Ground No.1 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that prior to amendment, vide Finance Act,2017, \nsection 153A(1)(b) stipulated assessments for 6 (six) AYs immediately preceding the \nsearch AY. The assessment for the search AY was not covered in this period in six years \nas the search AY is taken up for scrutiny directly by issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act, \nHence, effectively 7 (seven) were being pursued for assessment prior to Finance \nAct,2017. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.2 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) fails to appreciate the facts that, Finance Act,2017 amended section 153A \nof the Act enabling the AO to issue notices for \"relevant assessment years\" i.e. four more \nyears over and above the six years already covered earlier in the pre-amended section. \nThis section of four more years was further subject to fulfillment of three conditions (a), \n(b), & (c) as stipulated in newly interested fourth proviso to section 153C and all the \nthree conditions stipulated in fourth proviso have been fulfilled. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.3 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) erred in ignoring that there were parallel books of accounts maintained \nby the assessee in tally software, which was found and impounded during the course of \nSearch, on which the AO has relied upon. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.4 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case, that one of the key person of the \ngroup concern Shri Mihir Kangad in his statement recorded u/s 132(4) and has agreed \nunaccounted transactions in the tally files, though complex but made on the instruction of \nmembers of the Neelkanth Group and correlation between the transaction recorded in \ntally file with independently verifiable third -party evidences proves that the entries \nrecorded in the evidences seized are correct and independently verifiable. \nDepartment's Ground No.6 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the facts of the case, AO has duly investigated and \napplied his mind on the report of the DDIT, Investigation Wing and after satisfying \nhimself made the assessment on the basis of cogent material and relevant evidence on \nrecord. \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAND \nAppellant's Ground No. 2 - The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-l1, \nAhmedabad [CIT(A)] erred on facts as also in law in rejecting appellants plea that no \naddition could have been made in the order passed u/s 153A of the Act, in absence of \nthere being incriminating material found from the appellant. The order passed making \naddition without there being any incriminating materials may kindly be deleted. \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 37 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nAppellant's Ground No.3 - The learned CIT(A)erred on facts as also in law in not \nappreciating the fact that the seized data / documents were found from the premises of \nthird party, therefore addition on the basis of the said document cannot be made in the \nhands of the appellant u/s 153A of the Act. The AO may kindly be directed to delete the \naddition on this ground. \n \nDepartment's Ground No.5 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of and in \nlaw, Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of income determined on account of \nproportion @ 3% of unaccounted sales of (i) Rs.2,88,97,919/- for AY.2012-13 (ii) \nRs.3,72,39,587/- for AY.2013-14 (iii) Rs.4,79,73,616/-for AY.2014-15 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nAND \nAppellant's Ground No.4- The Id. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in not deleting on \nmerit, the addition of (i) Rs.2,88,97,919/- for AY.2012-13 (ii) Rs.3,72,39,587/- for \nAY.2013-14 (iii) Rs.4,79,73,616/- for AY.2014-15 made on the basis of dumb \ndata/documents stated to have been recovered from the premises of third party. The \nAction of Id. CIT(A) in not deciding the ground of appeal on merit is unjustified. The AO \nmay kindly be directed to delete the addition. \n \nAppellant's Ground No.7 - On the facts and in the circumstances of the case of the case \nand in law, Id. CIT(A) ought to have upheld the order of the AO. \n \n Appellant's Ground No.8 - It is therefore, prayed that the order of Id. CIT(A) be set aside \nand that of the AO be restored to the above extent. \n \nThese ground nos. 7 and 8 above are general in nature. \n28. Learned Counsel for the assessee, at the outset submitted that in these, \nRevenue`s appeals in ITA No. 297 to 299/Rjt/2022, for Assessment year \n2012-13 to 2014-15 and corresponding cross appeals filed by the assessee in \nIT(SS) No. 2 to 4/Rjt/2022,for Assessment year 2012-13 to 2014-15, the \nadditions were deleted by the ld. CIT(A) based on the fact that value of the \nassets seized in these assessment years, were below Rs.50 lakhs, therefore, \nassessing officer, does not have power to make the assessment, under section \n153A of the Act. The ld Counsel pointed out that the asset found and its \naccretion from year to year is less than Rs.50 lacs and also aggregate value \nof such accretion is less than Rs.50 lacs. Therefore, since the asset found and \nits accretion over each year is less than Rs.50 lacs and also aggregate value \nof such accretion is less than Rs.50 lacs, the proceedings initiated by the AO \non the basis of Explanation to proviso to section 153A fails to satisfy the \nprovisions of law. The ld Counsel, therefore, relied on the findings of the \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 38 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nlearned CIT(A) and stated that order passed by the ld. CIT(A) may be \nupheld. \n29. On the other hand, ld. DR for the revenue, relied on the findings of the \nassessment order, passed by the assessing officer. \n30. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the relevant \nfinding given in the impugned order of ld CIT(A), we find merit in the \nsubmissions of ld Counsel for the assessee, and noticed that value of \nimmovable and movable assets, in the assessment years 2012–13, 2013–14 \nand 2014–15 or below Rs. 50 Lakhs. In this regards the findings of the ld. \nCIT(A) are reproduced below: \n“6.5The Fifth plea of the assessee is that in order to initiate proceedings u/s.153A for a period \nbeyond six years, there should be undisclosed income and it should be represented in the assets \nbased on tangible materials in excess of Rs.50 lacs. On this basis, assessee has claimed that in \nthe instant case, since no tangible asset has been found, the proceedings for the Assessment Years \n2011-12 to 2014-15 initiated u/s.153A of the Act is bad in law. \n6.5.1On perusal of the assessment order, it is seen that this issue was raised by the assessee in the \nassessment stage and the AO had rebutted the same passing the assessment order. The relevant \npara is reproduced as under: \nA.S.M. \n \nBalance Sheet \n \n1 – Apr – 2011 to 31- March - 2012 \n \n \nA. S. M. \n \nA. S. M. \nLiabilities \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nAssets \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nLoans (Liabilities) \n \n \nCapital \naccount \n \n7816565.08 \nCurrent Liabilities \n \n16579384.85 \nFixed assets \n \n9891238.30 \nCurrent assets \n \n1128418.53 \n \n \n \nProfit & Loss A/c \n \n \n \n \n \nOpening Balance \n \n \n \n \n \nCurrent Period \n100531257.92 \n \n \n \n \nLess transferred \n100531257.32 \n \n \n \n \nTotal \n \n17707803.38 \nTotal \n \n1707803.38 \n6.5.2 \nThe Assessee has contended that in order to invoke the extended period of limitation \nunder Section 153A of the Act, the AO should satisfy himself about the undisclosed income \nrepresented in form of an asset and Explanation 2 to section 153A defines assets as immovable \nproperty being land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in \nbank account. Itis observed that loose paper referred by AO for the purpose of invocation of \nSection 153A of the Act for AY 2011-12 to 2014-15, is balance sheet titled as \"ASM\", which was \nrecovered from the digital data. Such balance sheet contains figures under the grouping of \n\"Fixed Assets\", \"Current Assets \"and \"Capital\" and it is not known as to what items are included \nin such grouping. For invocation of extended period under 153A of the Act, undisclosed asset \nshould be in the nature of immovable property, shares & securities, loans & advances or \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 39 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\ndeposit in bank account. Therefore, without having any evidence regarding assessee's investment \nin any of such specified assets, the special provision invoked by the AO is not justified. It is also \nobserved that the assessee also pleaded that the so-called assets should have been acquired in the \nassessment year under consideration. However, from the impugned balance sheet extracted from \nthe digital data, it cannot be ascertained that the asset is acquired in the year under \nconsideration or the same has been brought forward as opening balance from the preceding year. \nThe assessee also took the plea that such asset should be real and in existence. Nowhere during \nthe course of search such asset has been identified and no question has been cast upon the \nassessee. This clearly proves that no such asset has been found. \n6.5.3 \nWhile passing the Assessment Order for AY 2011-12, the AO has referred to following \nseized material. \nA.S.M. \n \nBalance Sheet \n \n1 – Apr – 2010 to 31- March - 2011 \n \n \nA. S. M. \n \nA. S. M. \nLiabilities \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nAssets \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nCapital Account \n \n9497936.97 \nFixed Assets \n \n9281855.50 \nLoans (Liability) \n \n \nCurrent Assets \n \n1795486.32 \nCurrent Liabilities \n \n1579384.85 \n \n \n \nProfit & Loss A/c \n \n \n \n \n \nOpening Balance \n \n \n \n \n \nCurrent Period \n40394715.50 \n \n \n \n \nLess transferred \n40394715.50 \n \n \n \n \nTotal \n \n11077321.82 \nTotal \n \n11077321.82 \n6.5.4 \nIn this regard, it is important to mention here that the impugned seized tally file contain \nnoting from F.Y.2007-08 onwards. Therefore, balance under the head of Assets appearing the \nbalance sheet for F.Y.2010-11 (i.e. A.Y.2011-12) cannot be treated as investment made in the \nyear under consideration. For better clarity, it is necessary to reproduce the seized balance sheet \nfor the F.Y.2009-10 (i.e. A.Y.2010-11), which is as under:- \nA. S, M. \nBalance sheet \n1 – Apr – 2009 to 31 – Mar - 2010 \nLiabilities \nAs at 31. Mar. 2010 \nAssets \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nCapital Account \n \n1,33,88,520.97 \nFixed \nassets \n \n90,77,438.90 \nLoans ( Liability) \n \n \nCurrent \nAssets \n \n58,90,486.32 \nCurrent Liabilities \n \n15,79,384.85 \n \n \n \nProfit & Loss A/c \n \n \n \n \n \nOpening Balance \n \n \n \n \n \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 40 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nCurrent Period \n7,21,57,686.00 \n \n \n \n \nLess transferred \n7,21,57,686.00 \n \n \n \n \nTotal 1,49,67,905.82 \nTotal 1,49,67,905.82 \nOn perusal of the above, it is found that the total value of Asset for A.Y.2011-12 is Rs. \n1,10,77,322/- and total value of Assets for A.Y.2010-11 is Rs. 1,49,67,906/-. Thus, there is overall \nreduction of assets in seized tally balance sheet. It is observed that when value of assets for AY \n2011-12 is compared with value of assets for AY 2010-11, there is decrease in the value of assets \nto the extent of Rs.38,90,584/- (1,49,67,906/- less Rs.1,10,77,322/-). Hence, it is clear that no \ntangible asset exceeding Rs.50 lacs was found in A.Y.2011-12. \n6.5.5 \nSimilarly, it is necessary to reproduce the seized balance sheet as mentioned by the AO in \nthe assessment order for A.Y.2012-13, which is as under: \nA.S.M. \n \nBalance Sheet \n \n1 – Apr – 2011 to 31- March - 2012 \n \n \nA. S. M. \n \nA. S. M. \nLiabilities \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nAssets \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nLoans (Liabilities) \n \n \nCapital \naccount \n \n7816565.08 \nCurrent Liabilities \n \n16579384.85 \nFixed assets \n \n9891238.30 \nCurrent assets \n \n1128418.53 \n \n \n \nProfit & Loss A/c \n \n \n \n \n \nOpening Balance \n \n \n \n \n \nCurrent Period \n100531257.92 \n \n \n \n \nLess transferred \n100531257.32 \n \n \n \n \nTotal \n \n17707803.38 \nTotal \n \n1707803.38 \nOn perusal of the above, it is found that the total value of Asset for A.Y.2012-13 is Rs.98,91,238/- \nand total value of Assets for A.Y.2011-12 is Rs. 1,10,77,322/-. It is clearly seen that there is clear \nreference of asset, which has actually reduced from the previous year, and therefore, there is no \naccretion of asset during the year under consideration i.e. A.Y.2012-13. Therefore, if we take the \ndifference between value of Fixed Assets & Current Assets as appearing in the balance sheet of \nA.Y.2012-13 amounting to Rs.98,91,238/- and balance sheet for A.Y.2011-12 amounting to \nRs.1,10,77,322/-, then there is decrease in the value of assets to the extent of Rs.11,86, 084/-\n.Hence, it is clear that no asset exceeding Rs.50 lacs was found in A.Y.2012-13. \n6.5.6Similarly, it is also necessary to reproduce seized balance sheet as mentioned by the AO in \nthe assessment order for A.Y.2013-14, which is as under. \nA.S.M. \n \nBalance Sheet \n \n1 – Apr – 2012 to 31- March - 2013 \n \n \nA. S. M. \n \nA. S. M. \nLiabilities \nAs at 31. Mar. 2013 \nAssets \nAs at 31. Mar. 2011 \nCapital Account \n \n8449158.12 \nFixed Assets \n \n9335465.30 \nLoans \n(Liabilities) \n \n \nProfit & Loss \nA/c \n \n4172691.59 \nCurrent \nLiabilities \n \n1579384.85 \nOpening \nBalance \n \n \nCurrent assets \n \n3479611.92 \nCurrent Period \n152679951.7\n6 \n \n \n \n \nLess transferred \n157052643.3\n5 \n \nTotal \n \n13508154.89 \nTotal \n \n13508154.89 \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 41 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n \nOn perusal of the above, it is found that the total value of Asset for A.Y.2013-14 is Rs.93,35,463/- \nand total value of Assets for A.Y.2012-13 is Rs.98,91,238/-. Therefore, if we take the difference \nbetween value of Fixed Assets & Current Assets as appearing in the balance sheet of A.Y.2013-14 \namounting to Rs.93,35,463/- and balance sheet for A.Y.2012-13 amounting to Rs.98,91,238/-, \nthen there is decrease in the value of assets to the extent of Rs.5,55,775/-. Hence, it is clear that \nno asset exceeding Rs.50 lacs was found in A.Y.2013-14. \n6.5.7Further, it is also necessary to reproduce the seized balance sheet as mentioned by the AO \nin the assessment order for A.Y.2014-15, which is as under. \nA.S.M. \n \nBalance Sheet \n \n1 – Apr – 2013 to 31- March - 2014 \n \n \nA. S. M. \n \nA. S. M. \nLiabilities \nAs at 31. Mar. 2014 \nAssets \nAs at 31. Mar. 2014 \nCapital Account \n \n8123540.95 \nFixed Assets \n \n9604193.30 \nLoans \n(Liabilities) \n \n \nProfit & Loss A/c \n \n10310772.76 \nCurrent \nLiabilities \n \n1579384.85 Opening Balance \n4172691.59 \n \nCurrent assets \n \n10212040.2\n6 \nCurrent Period \n-\n174127530.6\n4 \n \n \n \n \nLess transferred \n180265611.8\n1 \n \nTotal \n \n19914966.0\n6 \nTotal \n \n1991466.06 \n \nOn perusal of the above, it is found that the total value of Asset for A.Y.2014-15 is Rs.96,04,193/- \nand total value of Assets for A.Y.2013-14 is Rs.93,35,463/-. Therefore, if we take the difference \nbetween value of Fixed Assets & Current Assets as appearing in the balance sheet of A.Y.2014-15 \namounting to Rs.96,04,193/- and balance sheet for A.Y.2013-14 amounting to Rs.93,35,463/-, \nthen there is an increase in the value of assets to the extent of Rs.2,68,730/-.Hence, it is clear \nthat no asset exceeding Rs.50 lacs was found in A.Y.2014-15. \n6.5.8Summary of incremental value in Assets as per seized data is as under: \n \n \n31.03.2010 31.03.2011 31.03.2012 \n31.03.201\n3 \n31.03.2014 \nFixed \nAssets \n90,77,440 \n92,81,856 \n98,91,238 \n93,35,463 96,04,193 \nIncrement\nal \n- \n2,04,416 \n6,09,383 \n5,55,775 2,68,730 \n \n \n \n \n \n \nCurrent \nAssets \n58,90,466 \n17,95,466 \n- \n- \n- \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 42 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nIncrement\nal \n- \n(-\n)40,95,000 \n(-)1 7,95,466 - \n- \n \n \n \n \n \n \nTotal \nAssets \n1,49,67,906 1,10,77,322 98,91,238 \n93,35,463 96,04,193 \nTotal \nIncrement\nal \n \n(-\n)38,90,584 \n(-)11,86,084 (-\n)5,55,775 \n2,68,730 \n \n6.5.9In view of the above, it is observed that the asset found and its accretion from year to year is \nless than Rs.50 lacs and also aggregate value of such accretion is less than Rs.50 lacs. \nTherefore, since the asset found and its accretion over each year is less than Rs.50 lacs and \nalso aggregate value of such accretion is less than Rs.50 lacs, the proceedings initiated by the \nAO on the basis of Explanation to proviso to section 153A fails to satisfy the provisions of law. \n6.5.10It is observed that Fourth Proviso to Section 153A(1) r.w Explanation - 1 issued by \nFinance Act, 2017, with effect from 1st April, 2017 which states that when search under Section \n132 is initiated on or after 1st April, 2017, notice for assessment or reassessment for assessment \nyears covered by Explanation (in present case AY 2011-12 to 2014-15) would only be issued \nwhen AO is in possession of books of account or other documents or evidence which reveal that \nincome represented in form of asset which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to \namount Rs. 50 lacs or more in relevant Assessment Year or in aggregate relevant Assessment \nYears. The expression 'asset' has been defined in Explanation-2 as including immovable property \nbeing land or building or both, shares and securities, loans and advances, deposits in bank \naccount. \n6.5.11 It is further observed that in the Finance Bill 2017, there is a discussion under the \nheading ‘Rationalization of provisions of the Income Declaration Scheme, 2016 and \nconsequential amendment to section 153A and 153C’. It is clarified there under that in order to \nprotect the interest of the revenue in cases where tangible evidence(s) are found during a search \nor seizure operation (including 132A cases) and the same is represented in the form of \nundisclosed investment in any asset, section 153A relating to search assessments should be \namended to provide that notice under the said section can be issued for an assessment year or \nyears beyond sixth assessment year already provided upto the tenth assessment year if the \nAssessing Officer has in his possession books of account or other documents or evidence which \nreveal that the income which has escaped assessment amounts to or is likely to amount to fifty \nlakh rupees or more in one year or in aggregate in the relevant four assessment years (falling \nbeyond sixth assessment year); such income escaping assessment is represented in the form of \nassets; and the income escaping assessment or part thereof relates to such year or years. \n6.5.12 The Central Board of Direct Taxes in circular no. 2/2018 dated 15.02.2018 has clarified \nabout the aforesaid amendment stating that notice under section 153A can be issued for an \nassessment year or years beyond the sixth assessment year upto the tenth assessment year where \ntangible evidence are found during search or seizure operation and the same is represented in the \nform of undisclosed investment in any asset. \n \n6.5.13 In light of the above discussion, it is observed that in present case, during the course of \nsearch tally data was found based upon which AO has made impugned additions in all the \nAssessment Years. Such seized balance sheet is already reproduced in Assessment Order. On \nperusal of such seized balance sheet, which is also discussed in preceding para, it is found that \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 43 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nthere is no accretion of assets appearing in balance sheet from AY 2011-12 to 2014-15 which is \nin excess of Rs.50 lacs. Even aggregate accretion in these four years is not in excess of Rs.50 lacs \nas provided in Fourth Proviso to Section 153A(1) of the Act. While dealing with this contention, \nAO has only considered assets as appearing in balance sheet at year end i.e. as on 31st March, \n2011 or 31st March, 2012 and onwards. The provision clearly requires AO to establish \nescapement of income in relevant Assessment Year which is represented by asset and such \nescaped assessment is for Rs.50 lacs or more in relevant Assessment Year or aggregate relevant \nAssessment Years. In the present case of Assessee, when assets appearing in seized material as \nappearing in balance sheet as relied upon by AO is considered from AY 2010-11 to 2014-15, \nthere is no increase in assets in excess of Rs.50 lacs in a single year or in aggregate four years \nwhich means that escapement of income representing such assets is not Rs.50 lacs or more as \nmentioned in Fourth Proviso. On perusal of Assessment Order, it is apparent that even during the \ncourse of search, no physical assets were found which were acquired by Assessee in relevant four \nyears which have value of Rs.50 lacs or more. Considering such facts, notice under Section \n153A issued by AO for four Assessment Years being AY 2011-12 to 2014-15 is beyond the \nscope of Section itself and void ab initio hence consequent Assessment Order passed by AO \ndeserves to be quashed. \n31. We have gone through the above findings of learned CIT(A), and \nnoticed that learn CIT has analyzed the balance sheet and the seized material \nin the assessment years, 2012–13 to assessment years 2014–15, and passed \nthe speaking order. We have also examined independently, the balance sheet \nand the seized material in the assessment years, 2012–13 to assessment years \n2014–15, and noticed that during the course of search, during the assessment \nyears, 2012–13 to assessment years 2014–15, no physical assets were found \nwhich were acquired by Assessee in relevant three years which have value \nof Rs.50 lacs or more. Considering such facts, notice under Section 153A \nissued by assessing officer for three Assessment Years being AY 2012-13 to \n2014-15 is beyond the scope of Section itself and void ab initio, hence \nconsequent Assessment Order passed by assessing officer were quashed by \nld CIT(A). We do not find any infirmity in the above order passed by the \nld.CIT(A). That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of Id. \nCIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on these addition is, \ntherefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue are dismissed. \nSince the assessee has also raised various grounds on merits, which need to \nbe dismissed, as there is no point to adjudicate the issue on merit, as the \nnotice under Section 153A issued by assessing officer for three Assessment \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 44 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\nYears being AY 2012-13 to 2014-15, is beyond the scope of Section itself \nand void ab initio, hence no adjudication on merit required, as the \nassessment order, itself is quashed, therefore, assessee under consideration \ngot full relief. Therefore, we dismiss the various grounds raised by the \nassessee, merit. \n32. In the result, grounds raised by the revenue in appeals in ITA No. 297 to \n299/Rjt/2022, are dismissed and grounds of assessee`s appeals in IT(SS) \nNo. 2 to 4/Rjt/2022, are also dismissed. \n33. In the combined result: \n(i).Revenue`s appeals in ITA No. 302 to 306/Rjt/2022 Assessment year \n2015-16 & 2018-19 to AY 2021-22 and Assessee`s appeals in IT(SS) No. 5, \n8 to 10/Rjt/2022, for Assessment year 2015-16, and 2018-19 to A.Y. 2020-\n21 respectively, and assessee`s appeal in ITA No. 292/Rjt/2022 for \nAssessment year 2021-22, in these five years, appeals of Revenue are \nallowed to the extent indicated in assessee`s own case -decision in IT(SS)A \nNo. 6 and 7/RJT/2022, vide order dated 12.06.2024, whereas, appeals of the \nassessee for these five years are dismissed. \n(ii).Assessee`s Additional grounds of appeals for AY 2015-16, in a relation \nto carry forward of losses and set off of losses, are allowed. \n(iii)Notice issued u/s 153A for A.Y. 2011-12 was time barred, therefore, \nassessment order passed by AO for A.Y. 2011-12 was quashed by ld CIT(A) \nand consequent addition made in assessment order would not survive, we \nconfirmed the findings of ld CIT(A), hence, appeal filed by the revenue \nraising grounds on merit, in ITA No.296/RJT/2022 for assessment year \n2011–12, is dismissed and assessee`s appeal raising grounds on merit, in \nIT(SS)A No.01/RJT/2022for assessment year 2011–12, is also dismissed. \n\n \n \n \n \n \nPage | 45 \nITA Nos.292, 296-299, 302-306/Rjt/2022&\nIT(SS)A Nos. 01-05 & 08-10/RJT/2022\n(iv). Revenue`s appeals ITA No. 297 to 299/Rjt/2022, for Assessment year \n2012-13 to 2014-15, are dismissed and corresponding cross appeals filed by \nthe assessee in IT(SS) No. 2 to 4/Rjt/2022,for Assessment year 2012-13 to \n2014-15, are also dismissed. (Reason:-no physical assets were found which \nwere acquired by Assessee in relevant three years which have value of Rs.50 \nlacs or more. Assessee got full relief, hence, grounds raised by the assessee, \non merit, become academic and infructuous). \nA copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s) \nOrder is pronounced on 29/11/2024 by placing the result on the Notice \nBoard. \n \n \n \n \n \nSd/- \nSd/- \n(DINESH MOHAN SINHA) \n \n \n \n (Dr. A.L. SAINI) \nÆयाियकसदÖय/ Judicial Member लेखा सदÖय/ Accountant Member \nTRUE COPY \nराजकोट /Rajkot \nǑदनांक/ Date: 29/11/2024 \nDKP Outsourcing Sr.P.S \n \nआदेश कì ÿितिलिप अúेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to : \n \nअपीलाथê/ The Assessee \n \nÿÂयथê/ The Respondent \n \nआयकर आयुĉ/ CIT \n \nआयकर आयुĉ (अपील)/ The CIT(A) \n \nिवभागीयÿितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, सूरत/ DR, ITAT, SURAT \n \nगाडªफाईल/ Guard File \n \n By order/आदेश से, \nसहायक पंजीकार \nआयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण, राजकोट \n \n \n"
Mehul