DCIT, CC-II, Kolkata, Kolkata V. M/s. Ajanta Footcare (India) Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 297/KOL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 100223 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 9 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 23-02-2012
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D MALLIKARJUNA
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRI; R N BAJORIA SR COUNS EL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Question of law; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 133A; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI WASEEM AHMED , AM] I.T.A NO. 297/KOL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. AJANT A FOOTCARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. CENTRAL CIRCLE-II, KOLKATA. (PAN: AAECA6357A) ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 04.11.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.12.2015 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI D. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT, DR FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI R. N. BAJORIA, SR. COUNS EL & SHRI S. JHAJHARIA, ADVOCATE ORDER PER SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM: THIS APPEAL BY REVENUE IS ARISING OUT OF ORDER OF C IT(A), CENTRAL-III, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO.191/CC-II/CIT(A)C-III/08-09 DATED 30.12.2 011. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY ACIT, C.C-2, KOLKATA U/S. 144 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT , 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2007-08 VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.12.20 08. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL OF REVENUE IS AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY AO BY TREATING SEIZED DOCUMENT S BRI-20 AT PAGE 7 AS DUMB DOCUMENT AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASES AND INVESTMENTS AND ALSO UNDISCLOSED EXPENDITURE AND INVESTMENT AT RS.5,10,3 3,507/- AND RS.98,10,220/- RESPECTIVELY. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED FOLLOWI NG GROUND NOS. 1, 2 AND 3: 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT PG. NO. 7 OF BRI/20 IS A DUMB DOCUMENT . 2. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5.,10,33,507/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN DISCLOSED PURCHASES AND INVESTMENT IN STOCK. 3. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIONS OF RS.5,98,10,222/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCL OSED EXPENDITURE/INVESTMENT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE GROUP COMPANIES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 06.11.2006. SIMULTANEOUSLY, A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON THE BU SINESS PREMISES INCLUDING SHOW ROOMS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 06.11.2006. DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE 2 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 OPERATION FOLLOWING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE (THE SAME IS NOTED IN THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER AT PAGE 2): NAME AND ADDRESS BOOKS OF A/CS SEIZED 1 SUBRARA BANIK, 7/2B, BALLYGUNGE PARK, KOL-19 BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS/DOCUMENTS WITH ID MARKS SB/1 TO SB/3. 2 BANIK RUBBER INDUSTRIES, 79/2, AJC BOSE ROAD, KOL-14. BOOKS OF A/CS/DOCUMENTS WITH ID MARKS BRI/1 TO BRI/84; BRI/C-1/1 TO 28, BRI/C- 4/1 TO BRI/C-4/7;BRI/LT/SB-1; BRI/C-1 TO BRI/C-4; BRIC-2/1 TO BRI/C-2/2; BRI/C- 3/1 TO BRI/C-3/6; BRI/C-5/1 TO BRI/C-5/5; BRI/C-2, C-3, C-5. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT DOCUMENT BRI-20 WHICH CONTAINS A BUNCH OF LOOSE SHEETS FROM PAGES 1 TO 89 AND PARTICULARLY PAGE 7 CONTAINS DETAILS OF PURCHASE, PAYMENTS, SALES, RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES INCURRED IN VARIOUS SHOW ROOMS AND SHOW ROOM DECORATION. HE, IN VIEW OF THI S PAGE 7 OF BRI-20, REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS BUT NO EXPLANA TION WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE AO AFTER NOTING THE DETAILED FACTS MADE ADDITION OF SUPPRESSED PURCHASES AT RS.5,10,33,507/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: IT IS SEEN FROM THE ABOVE PAGE OF THE SEIZED DOCU MENT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A PURCHASE OF RS.7,77,35,924/55 DURING THE YEAR AGAIN ST WHICH IT MADE A PAYMENT OF RS.6,43,28,726/61. SIMILARLY, IT MADE A SALE OF RS .3,11,85,100/90 AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE COMPANY RECEIVED PAYMENT OF RS.2,63,58,743 /31. ON PERUSAL OF THE E-RETURN OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AY 2007-08, IT IS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A SALE OF RS.3,19,13,094/- AND PURCHASE O F RS.2,67,02,417/-. IT CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS GRO SSLY SUPPRESSED ITS PURCHASE, WHICH COMES TO RS.7,77,35,924/55 RS.2,67,02,417/- = RS. 5,10,33,507/55. SIMILARLY, FROM THE SAME DOCUMENTS, HE NOTED THAT T HERE IS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BUT NO EXPLANATION IS COMING FROM THE ASSESSEE AND SHE ADDED A SUM OF RS.98,10,220/- AS UNDER: UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND NO OTHER A LTERNATIVE BUT TO TREAT THE EXPENDITURE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AN D ADD THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITION COMES TO RS.6,84,768/- + RS.2,70,677/- + RS.1,82,851/- + RS.36,96,085/- + RS.7,00,000/- +1,50,000/- + RS.1,3 0,694/- + RS.2,95,145/- + RS.37,00,000/- = RS.98,10,220/-. AGGRIEVED AGAINST BOTH THE ADDITIONS, ASSESSEE PREF ERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, TWO REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND REJOINDER OF THE ASSESSEE, DELETED TH E ADDITION BY OBSERVING IN PARA 9.6 AS UNDER: 3 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 9.6. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION O F THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, BOTH THE REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO. AND THE REJOINDE R OF THE APPELLANT. THIS DOCUMENT APPEARS TO CONTAIN SOME ROUGH NOTINGS. IT IS UNDISP UTED FACT THAT IT DOES NOT INDICATE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER CONCERN. IN THE R EMAND REPORT THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN 'PAY', 'PUR', 'SALE' FIGURES HAVE BEEN JOTT ED DOWN BUT NEITHER ANY DATE NOR ANY YEAR TO WHICH THE DOCUMENT RELATES HAVE BEEN MENTIO NED SPECIFICALLY EXCEPT A SHORT MENTION OF '06-07' AGAINST ONE ROW OF 'PAY' AND 'PU R'. THE APPELLANT DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENT AND FURTHER CONTE NDED THAT THERE BEING NO MENTION OF SPECIFIC DATE OR SPECIFIC YEAR THE DOCUMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR ANY ADDITION. AFTER PERUSING THIS DOCUMENT AND ALL THE FACTS MATERIAL T O THE ISSUE I FIND THAT THIS IS ONLY A 'DUMB DOCUMENT' ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NO INTERPRETA TION CAN BE MADE TO ESTABLISH THE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH DOCUMENT AND THE PERIOD TO WHICH IT PERTAINS. THIS DOCUMENT HAS EVIDENTIARY VALUE ONLY IF IT CAN BE CORROBORATED BY ANY OTHER COGENT MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NO DEFINITE FINDING REGARDI NG STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS SPELT OUT ALTHOUGH GENERALIZED COMMENT WAS MADE REGARDING DISCREPANCY IN STOCK. IN THE REMAND REPORT THE AO. HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT THE FIGURES REGARDING PURCHASES, PAYMENT AND SALES COULD NOT BE LINKED WITH STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, NEITHER QUANTUM O F STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED AND WORKED OUT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. LATER TH E AO WAS REQUESTED TO EXAMINE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND CLARIFY WHETHER ANY STOCK DISC REPANCY WAS DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. HOWEVER, IN THE SECOND REMAND REP ORT ALSO NO SUCH STOCK DISCREPANCY WAS POINTED OUT. SECONDLY, THE AO WAS ALSO ASKED TO CLARIFY WHETHER ANY STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT WAS RECORDED REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF TH E SEIZED DOCUMENTS BRI/20 PAGE-7 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR POST SEARCH INVESTIG ATION. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS REMAINED SILENT ON THIS POINT. I FOUND THAT A STATEMENT OF S RI SUBRATA BANIK, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION ON 07.11.2006. IN THIS STATEMENT ALTHOUGH QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT SEVERAL SEIZED DOCUMENTS INCLUDING PAGE -9 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT BRI/20 , NO QUESTION WAS ASKED ABOUT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BRI/20 PAGE - 7 WHICH IMPLIES THAT THIS PAGE WAS NO T CONSIDERED IMPORTANT AT THAT POINT OF TIME. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IT IS CLEAR THAT NO COGENT MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OR POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION OR ASSESSME NT OR REMAND PROCEEDINGS TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN MAKING HUGE PURCH ASES IN EXCESS OF RS.5 CRORES OUTSIDE ITS REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. SIMILARLY NO COGENT MATERIAL HAS BEEN ADDUCED AT ANY POINT OF TIME TO SUGGEST THAT AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN SPENT ON SHOW-ROOM DECORATION OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. I HAVE ALREADY GIVEN A FINDING T HAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BRI/20 PAGE -7 IS A DUMB DOCUMENT. SINCE NO COGENT MATERIAL COULD BE ADDUCED BY THE AO. AT ANY POINT OF TIME TO CORROBORATE EITHER THE FACT OF OUT OF BOOK PURCHASES OR OUT OF BOOK EXPENSES ON SHOW-ROOMS, NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF JUST THIS S EIZED DOCUMENT IS JUSTIFIED. THEREFORE, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS.5,10,33,507/- AS UNDI SCLOSED PURCHASE AND RS.98,10,220/- AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED AND THE A O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE SAME. AGGRIEVED, NOW REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. BEFORE US LD. CIT, DR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 7 OF BRI-20, WHICH IS ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 85 AND STATED THAT THE COMPLETE DESCRIPTION OF EXPENSES RELATING TO SHOW ROOM DECORATION, ELECTRIC, FURNITU RE, GENERATOR EXPENSES ETC. ARE GIVEN FOR FY 2006-07 AND ALSO PURCHASES AND PAYMENTS MADE AGA INST THE SAME AS WELL AS SALES AND RECEIPT OF PAYMENTS FOR FY 2006-07 IS GIVEN. ACCORD ING TO HIM, CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DESCRIBED THE SAME AS DUMB DOCUMENT . ACCORDING TO HIM, THIS IS VERY MUCH QUALITATIVE AND IT CANNOT BE CALLED AS DUMB DOCUMENT. HENCE, H E REQUESTED THE BENCH TO RECONSIDER THE SAME AND UPHOLD THE ORDER OF AO. 4 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 7 OF BRI-20, WHICH IS GIVEN AT PAGE 85 OF ASSESSEE S PAPER BOOK AND STATED THAT THE SHEET CONTAINS CERTAIN FIGURES WHICH HAVE BEEN JOTTED BUT IT NEITHER GIVES ANY DATES NOR GIVES ANY YEAR TO WHICH IT IS RELATED EXCEPT A SHORT MENTION OF 06-07 AGAINST ONE PARTICULAR ITEM AND IT DOES NOT INDICATE EITHER THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE E OR ANYBODY. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL, IT APPEARS THAT FIGURE JOTTED THERE MAY HAVE BEEN F OR SEVERAL ACCOUNTING YEARS REPRESENTING 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND IF SALES AND PURCH ASES OF ALL THESE THREE YEARS AND THE ITEMIZED PURCHASES ARE TAKEN TOGETHER, IT WILL BE S EEN THAT PURCHASES AND SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE MUCH MORE THAN THE FIGURES APPEARING AT PAGE 7 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL, THERE ARE NO S PECIFIC DATES OR SPECIFIC YEAR AND HENCE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH L OOSE SHEETS OR LOOSE PAPERS, IT IS NOTHING BUT DUMB DOCUMENT . FOR THIS, HE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND AL SO RELIED ON CERTAIN JUDGMENTS, WHICH WE WILL DEAL WITH IN TH E LATER PART OF THIS ORDER. 7. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. BEFORE US IT WAS EXPLAINED BY LD. COUNSEL SH. BAJORIA THAT ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF PG-7 OF BRI/20 WHICH COMPRISES OF L OOSE SHEETS OF PAGES 1-89. HE REFERRED TO RELEVANT LOOSE PAGE-7 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDI TION HAS BEEN MADE IS ENCLOSED IN ASSESSEES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE 85. FROM THE PERUSAL OF WHICH IT WILL BE SEEN THAT IN THIS SHEET CERTAIN FIGURES HAVE BEEN JOTTED BUT IT NEITH ER GIVES ANY DATE NOR GIVES ANY YEAR TO WHICH IT IS RELATED EXCEPT A SHORT MENTION OF 06-07 AGAINST ONE PARTICULAR ITEM AND IT DOES NOT INDICATE EITHER THE NAME OF ASSESSEE OR ANYBODY ELSE. IT APPEARS THAT THE FIGURES JOTTED THERE MAY HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL ACCOUNTING YEARS 20 04-05, 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RES PECTIVELY. IF SALES AND PURCHASES OF ALL THESE THREE ITEMS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER IT WILL BE SEEN THAT THE PURCHASES AND SALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MUCH MORE TH AN THE FIGURES APPEARING AT PAGE-Z OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. BUT ASSESSEE HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH PAPER SEIZED. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THERE BEING NO SPECIFIC DATE OR SPECIFIC YEAR NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH LOOSE SHEET OR A LOOSE SHEET OF PAPER. AS REGARDS STOCK FOUND IN THE SURVEY, THAT T HE ENTIRE STOCK WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND AO HAVING NOT SPECIFICALLY P OINTED OUT AS TO HOW MUCH UNACCOUNTED/UN-DISCLOSED STOCK WAS FOUND DURING SUR VEY, NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STOCK ARISES IN COURSE O F SURVEY. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER 5 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 AUTHORITIES AS WELL BEFORE US FILED FACTUAL NOTES, WHICH ARE RELEVANT FOR ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE AND ARE BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- (A) AS WILL APPEAR FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR SEVERA L YEARS FILED WITH APPEAL FOR EARLIER YEARS DURING THE NONE OF THE EARLIER YEARS THE PURCHASE OF YOUR PETITIONER HAD EXCEEDED RS. 2. 5 CRORES AND HENCE IT CAN BE APPREC IATED BY YOUR HONOUR THAT PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2007 RELEVANT T O THE A.Y 2007-08 COULD NOT SUDDENLY JUMP TO RS.7,77,35,925/- WHICH WILL APPEAR TO BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY. (B) AS WILL APPEAR FROM THE AUDITED ACCOUNTS FOR SEVERA L YEARS FILED WITH APPEAL FOR EARLIER YEARS DURING THE NONE OF THE EARLIER YEARS THE PURCHASE OF YOUR PETITIONER HAD EXCEEDED RS. 2. 5 CRORES AND HENCE IT CAN BE APPREC IATED BY YOUR HONOUR THAT PURCHASE DURING THE YEAR ENDED 31.3.2007 RELEVANT T O THE A.Y 2007-08 COULD NOT SUDDENLY JUMP TO RS.7,77,35,925/- WHICH WILL APPEAR TO BE AN IMPOSSIBILITY. (C) EVEN DURING COURSE OF SEARCH AND OR SURVEY NO INDIS CRIMINATING PAPERS OR ANY OTHER EVIDENCES PROVING ANY PURCHASES OR SALES OUTSIDE TH E BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND. (D) YOUR PETITIONER MAINTAINED DAY-TO-DAY STOCK REGISTE R AND THE STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY HAVING TALLIED WITH THE STOCK AS PER BOOKS, NO ADDITION HAD AT ALL BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH EXCESS STOCK FOUND ON SURVEY. (E) AS WILL APPEAR FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER EVEN THE A . O WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED EXC ESS STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY EXCEPT MAKING A GENERAL AND CASUAL REFERENCE TO THE SURVEY. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE A.O REGARDING UNACCOUNTED STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT, IT WILL BE APPRECIATED BY YOUR HONOUR THAT SUCH UNACCO UNTED STOCK WORKS OUT TO ABOUT RS. 4.5 CRORES OR NEAR ABOUT THE SAME TO GIVE AN UN ACCOUNTED PURCHASES OF RS. 5.10 CRORES AND IF THIS PRESUMPTION IS ACCEPTED THEN IT HAS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ENTIRE SALE OUT OF SUCH ACCOUNTED PURCHASE OF RS. 5.10 CRO RES AROSE BETWEEN THE DATE OF SURVEY TO 31.3.2007 AND YOUR HONOUR WILL AGREE THAT THIS IS WHOLLY AN UNACCEPTABLE AND UNBELIEVABLE PROPOSITION AND AS SUCH THE A.0 HA S REFERRED CASUALLY TO SURVEY ONLY TO PREJUDICE THE CASE OF YOUR PETITIONER WITHO UT HAVING ANY RELEVANCE TO THE ADDITIONS MADE. (F) MOREOVER AS STATED ABOVE SUCH LOOSE SHEET NEITHER C ONTAINED ANY DATE OR ANY NAME OR ANY YEAR NOR ANY SIGNATURE EXCEPT 06-07 AT A PAR TICULAR PLACE. EVEN THE A. O HAS NOT PROVED THAT SUCH SEIZED PAPER WAS IN THE HANDWR ITING OF ANY EMPLOYEES OF YOUR PETITIONER-COMPANY OR ANY OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE PE TITIONER-COMPANY. HENCE SUCH LOOSE SHEET GIVING NO DATE OR YEAR ETC. CANNOT BE A GROUND FOR MAKING ADDITION. (G) MOREOVER THIS IS TO SUBMIT THAT YOUR PETITIONER DEA LS IN CERTAIN SPECIFIED TYPES OF GOODS ALL OF WHICH CONTAINS THE BRAND NAME OF YOUR PETITIONER-COMPANY AND ALL SUCH GOODS ARE PURCHASED BY OUTSOURCING FROM CERTAIN SPE CIFIC PARTIES FOR WHICH THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM SUCH P URCHASES WERE BEING MADE ARE AVAILABLE. THE A. A NEVER MADE ANY ATTEMPT TO VERIF Y FROM SUCH PERSONS FROM WHOM GOODS HAVE BEEN PURCHASED BY YOUR PETITIONER BY OUT SOURCING AS TO WHETHER THERE WAS ANY PURCHASE BY YOUR PETITIONER FROM THEM OTHER THAN ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HENCE ALSO THE ACTION OF THE A.O IS WHOLLY BAD, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIFIED AND UNCALLED FOR. (H) MOREOVER, ALL THE PURCHASES MADE BY YOUR PETITIONER -COMPANY BEING FULLY SUPPORTED, VOUCHED AND VERIFIABLE AND THE A. O HAVING NOT ESTA BLISHED OR PROVED BY ANY CLINCHING EVIDENCES REGARDING ANY PURCHASE OTHER TH AN ACCOUNTED FOR AND HENCE QUESTION OF ANY SUCH ADDITION DOES NOT STAND TO TES T OF LAW AND EVEN ON FACTS AND HENCE THE ADDITION IS WHOLLY BAD, ILLEGAL, UNJUSTIF IED AND UNCALLED FOR. 8. FROM THE ABOVE FACTUAL ASPECT WE FIND THAT THE A O FAILED TO PIN POINT THE VALUE OF ANY STOCK FOUND DURING SURVEY AS UNACCOUNTED OR UN- DISCLOSED AND NO CORRELATION WAS MADE WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE-7 OF BRI/20. WE FURTHER FIND THAT AO HAS GIVEN HIS REMAND REPORT IN THIS REGARDS AS UNDER:- 6 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 ADDITION OF RS. 6,08,43,727/- I.E. ( RS.51033507/- + RS.9810220/-) HAS BEEN MADE AS PER DISCUSSION IN PARAGRAPH 5.4 ON THE BASIS OF PAGE-7 OF BRI/20 . ON A PERUSAL OF PAGE-7 OF BRI/20 IT IS SEEN THAT CERTAIN 'PAY ', 'PUR ', 'SAL E' FIGURES HAVE BEEN JOTTED DOWN BUT NEITHER ANY DATE NOR ANY YEAR TO WHICH THE DOCUMENT RELATES HAVE BEEN MENTIONED SPECIFICALLY. THERE IS A SHORT MENTION OF '06-07' AGAINST ONE ROW OF 'P AY' AND 'PUR' BUT IT DOES NOT INDICATE THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY. FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. COUNSEL SH. BAJORIA THAT THE FIGURES JOTTED DOWN MIGHT HAVE BEEN FOR SEVERAL ACCOUNTING YEARS 2004-05, 2005- 06 AND 2006-07 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY, HE NCE THIS CANNOT APPLIED TO THIS YEAR CLEARLY. WE FIND FROM THIS DOCUMENT THAT IF SALES A ND PURCHASES OF ALL THESE 3 ITEMS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER, THE CONSOLIDATED PURCHASES AND S ALES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WOULD BE MUCH MORE THAN THE FIGURES APPEARING AT PA GE NO. 7 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT BRI/20. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DENIED THE OWNERSHIP OF SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENT AND FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THERE BEING NO MENTION OF SPECIFIC D ATES OR SPECIFIC YEARS THIS DOCUMENT CANNOT BE RELIED UPON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION. AS R EGARDS OBSERVATION OF THE A.O. REGARDING STOCK, IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE A.O. DID NOT SPECIFICALLY POINT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO HOW MUCH UN-ACCOUNTED/UN-DIS CLOSED STOCK WAS FOUND DURING SURVEY. 9. WE FIND THAT SUCH ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON TH E BASIS OF PG-7 OF BRI/20 WHICH COMPRISES OF LOOSE SHEETS OF PAGES 1-89. COPY OF RE LEVANT LOOSE SHEET-7 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IS ENCLOSED IN ASSESSE ES PAPER BOOK AT PAGE-85. FROM THE PERUSAL OF WHICH, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THIS SHEET CER TAIN FIGURES HAVE BEEN JOTTED BUT IT NEITHER GIVES ANY DATE NOR GIVES ANY YEAR TO WHICH IT IS RE LATED EXCEPT A SHORT MENTION OF 06-07 AGAINST ONE PARTICULAR ITEM AND IT DOES NOT INDICAT E ANY NAME WHICH PROVES OWNERSHIP. AS REGARDS STOCK FOUND IN THE SURVEY, THE ENTIRE STOCK WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN DULY ACCOUNTED FOR AND AO HAVING NOT SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT AS T O HOW MUCH UNACCOUNTED/UN-DISCLOSED STOCK WAS FOUND DURING SURVEY NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STOCK ARISES IN COURSE OF SURVEY. 10. SIMILARLY, THE ADDITION OF RS.98,10,220/- HAS B EEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF SAME SEIZED PAPER COMPRISING OF RS. 684768/- + RS.270677 /- + RS.182851/- + RS.3696085/- + RS.700000/- + RS.150000/-+ RS.130694/- + RS.295145/ - + RS/3700000/-. IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SAID SEIZED PAPE R INDICATED THE AMOUNTS BUT NOT ANY YEAR OR ANY DATE TO WHICH IF RELATES AND IN ABSENCE OF WHICH IT IS WHOLLY IMPOSSIBLE TO RECONCILE THE SAME AND IN ANY CASE AS STATED ABOVE IN DETAIL, HERE BEING NO DATE OR YEAR IN RESPECT OF ANY SUCH AMOUNT, IT WAS WHOLLY WRONG ON THE PART OF THE AO TO HAVE ASSUMED / 7 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 PRESUMED THAT IT RELATED TO YEAR ENDED 31.03.2007 R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. IT IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT BRI/20 , PAGE NO. 7 DO NOT SPECIFICALLY MENTION THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OR THE DAT ES TO WHICH THE FIGURES MARKED AS CERTAIN 'PAY', 'PUR ', 'SALE' E. T. C. RELATE. IT I S ALSO A FACT ON RECORD THAT WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, NO DEFINITE FINDING REGARDING STO CK DISCREPANCY DETECTED IN COURSE OF THE SURVEYS HAS BEEN SPELT OUT IN THE ORDER. THE FI GURES REGARDING PURCHASES (MENTIONED AS 'PUR '), PAYMENT (MENTIONED AS 'PAY') AND SALES COU LD NOT BE LINKED WITH STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED IN COURSE OF SURVEY, NEITHER Q UANTUM OF STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED AND WORK OUT OF SUCH DETECTION WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HERE ALSO, THE AO HAVING FAILED TO PIN POINT THE VALUE OF ANY STOCK F OUND DURING SURVEY AS UNACCOUNTED OR UN-DISCLOSED, IT WAS ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. 11. WE FIND FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL FROM THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO, WHO HAS SIMPLY MENTIONED THAT THE RELEVANT DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SEIZED FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSEE IS OBLIGED TO EXPL AIN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PROPERLY. FURTHER, THE AO IN ITS REMAND REPORT HAS MENTIONED THAT NO CLEAR CUT EXPLANATION HAS BEEN FURNISHED. IN THIS CONNECTION THE CIT(A) SOUGHT CER TAIN CLARIFICATIONS FROM THE AO RELATING TO THE REMAND REPORT FURNISHED BY HIM. TO PUT THE M ATTER IN PROPER PERSPECTIVE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF CIT(A)S LETTER DATED 13.12.201 1 IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'IN THIS CASE YOU HAVE SUBMITTED A REMAND REPORT DA TED 29.03.2011. GROUND NO. 3 (V) OF THE APPEAL RELATES TO ADDITIONS OF RS.5,10,32,507/- AND RS.98,10,222/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PURCHASE AND UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE MADE IN SHOW R OOM RESPECTIVELY. THESE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF A SEIZED PAPER BRI/2 0 PAGE-7. IN YOUR REMAND REPORT YOU HAVE STATED THAT THE FIGURES REGARDING PURCHASE, PA YMENT AND SALES COULD NOT BE LINKED WITH STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY. NEITHER QUANTUM OF STOCK DISCREPANCY DETECTED AND WORKED OUT WAS DISCUSSED IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER. IN THIS CONNECTION YOU ARE REQUESTED TO CLARIFY AFTER EXAMINING THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS WHETHER ANY STOCK DISCREPANCY WAS DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. YOU ARE A LSO REQUESTED TO STATE WHETHER ANY STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING STOCK FOUND DU RING THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS RECORDED. FURTHER, YOU ARE REQUESTED TO STATE WHETHER ANY STA TEMENT OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN RECORDED REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS BRI/20 PAGE-7 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION. COPIES OF RELEVANT STATEMENTS AND STOCK INVENTORY MAY PLEASE BE ENCLOSED. ' THE A.O. VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 2L.12.2011 RESPONDED TO THIS LETTER BY MORE OR LESS REITERATING THE FACTS STATED IN THE EARLIER REMAND REPORT DATED 29.3.201L. HOWEVER, HE REMAINED SILENT ABOUT MY QUERY AS TO WHETHER ANY ST ATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECORDED REGARDING THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS BRI/20 PAGE-7 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH INVES TIGATION WHICH LEADS ME TO PRESUME THAT NO SUCH STATEMENT WAS RECORDED REGARDING THE CONTEN TS OF THIS SEIZED DOCUMENT. IN VIEW OF 8 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, NOW WE WILL GO THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. 12. THE FIRST CASE LAW REFERRED BY LD. COUNSEL OF ITAT, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CASE OF GYANKUMAR AGARWAL (IND.) VS. ACIT (2013) 30 TAXM AN.COM 114 (HYD) WHEREIN IT IS EXPLAINED THAT HOW TO READ THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AN D WHAT IS DUMB DOCUMENT. FOR THIS, IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT DRAW INFERENCE ON THE BASIS O F SUSPICION, CONJECTURE AND SURMISE. SUSPICION, HOWEVER STRONG CANNOT TAKE PLACE OF MATE RIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. THE AO SHOULD ACT IN A JUDICIAL MANNER, PROCEED WITH JUDICIAL SPIRIT AND SHOULD COME TO A JUDICIAL CONCLUSION. THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ACT FAIRLY AS A REASONABLE PERSON AND NOT ARBITRARILY AND CAPRICIOUSLY. ASSESSMENT MADE SHOUL D HAVE ADEQUATE MATERIAL AND IT SHOULD STAND ON ITS OWN LEGS. THE AO WITHOUT EXAMINING ANY PARTY, WHO HAS TAKEN THE LOAN FROM THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT TH E ASSESSEE LENDS MONEY. THE BASIS FOR ADDITION IS ONLY NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS. THESE NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS ARE UNSIGNED DOCUMENTS. THE AO HAS NOT ESTABLISHED NEXUS BETWEEN THE NOTE B OOK/LOOSE SLIPS AND BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO NARRATION REGARDING THE ADDRE SS OF THE PARTIES, THE EXACT AMOUNT OF LOAN, PERIOD OF ADVANCE, RATE OF INTEREST AND INSTA LMENTS DUE. ALSO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE FOR REPAYMENT OF MONEY TOWARDS THE LOAN. THERE IS NO VA LID SEIZED MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACTUALLY MADE AN A DVANCE OF THAT AMOUNT I.E. RS. 2,55,50,000. THE NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS MARKED A/GAR /05 FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS A DUMB DOCUMENT HAVING NO EVIDENTIARY VAL UE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. IF THERE IS CIRC UMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF PROMISSORY NOTES, LOAN AGREEMENT AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES OR BANK ENTRIES, THE ADDITION IS TO BE MADE ON THAT BASIS TO THE EXTENT OF MATERI AL AVAILABLE. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO EXPLAIN THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AS THERE IS NO EV IDENCE OTHER THAN NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS CARRYING ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL A/GAR/05. IN OUR OPINION, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS O F DUMB DOCUMENTS/NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED ON MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. NOTING ON THE NOTE BOOK/DIARY/LOO SE SHEETS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUPPORTED/CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE AND ALSO I NCLUDE THE STATEMENT OF A PERSON WHO ADMITTEDLY IS A PARTY TO THE NOTING AND STATEMENT F ROM ALL THE PERSONS WHOSE NAMES ARE THERE ON THE NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS AND THEIR STATEM ENTS TO BE RECORDED AND THEN SUCH STATEMENT UNDOUBTEDLY SHOULD BE CONFRONTED TO THE A SSESSEE AND HE HAS TO BE ALLOWED TO CROSS-EXAMINE THE PARTIES. IN THE PRESENT CASE, UND OUBTEDLY NO STATEMENT FROM THE PARTIES WHOSE NAMES WERE FOUND IN THE NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS HAS BEEN RECORDED AND AS SUCH THERE IS NO QUESTION OF CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THEM AND ENT IRE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF UNCORROBORATED WRITINGS IN THE LOOS E PAPERS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS NOT POSSIBLE. THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD IS N OT SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT THE REVENUE'S CASE THAT HUGE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS HAS BEEN CARR IED ON BY THE ASSESSEE OUTSIDE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS IS THE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT AND WE ARE CONCERNED ONLY WITH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND WE HAVE TO CONSIDER ONLY MAT ERIAL AND EVIDENCE DETECTED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. IT MEANS THAT IF AN EXAMINATION O F THE MATERIAL ALREADY ON RECORD BEFORE SEARCH OR IF AS A RESULT OF SOME EXTERNAL INFORMATI ON OR SOME OTHER SOURCES OTHER THAN A SEARCH, IT IS FOUND THAT SOME INCOME HAD ESCAPED AS SESSMENT THEN IT IS OPEN FOR THE AO TO RESORT TO A REGULAR ASSESSMENT INCLUDING REOPENING OF A COMPLETED ASSESSMENT IF SO ADVISED. BUT HE CANNOT DRAG THESE ITEMS INTO THE BL OCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ENVISAGED UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE IT ACT. IN OUR OPINION E VIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AS A RESULT OF SEARCH IS TO BE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF D ETERMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE EVIDENCE, IF ANY, RELIED ON BY TH E AO FOR THE PURPOSE OF DETERMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS TO BE PUT BEFORE THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS COMMENTS BEFORE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT. MORE SO, IF THE AO WANTS TO RELY ON THE STATEMENT 9 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 OF ANY THIRD PARTY THE SAME IS REQUIRED TO BE FURNI SHED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IF THE ASSESSEE WANTS TO CROSS-EXAMINE ANY OF THE PARTIES WHOSE STA TEMENT WAS RELIED ON BY THE AO THE SAME IS TO BE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE PRES ENT CASE THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING GRIEVANCE FOR NOT PROVIDING THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMININ G THE PARTIES WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RELIED ON BY THE AO WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT . THE CIRCUMSTANCES SURROUNDING THE CASE ARE NOT STRONG ENOUGH TO JUSTIFY THE REJECTION OF ASSESSEE'S PLEA ASKING THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATION. IN VIEW OF THIS, WE SET ASIDE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER AND REMAND BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO. WE DIRECT TH E AO TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS- EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES AS REQUIRED BY THE ASSES SEE AND THEREAFTER IF THERE IS ANY SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE OTHER THAN THE UNSUBSTANTIATED NOTE BOOK/LOOSE SLIPS MARKED AS DOCUMENT A/GAR/5 OR IF THIS DOCUMENT (VIZ., A/GAR/0 5) IS SUBSTANTIATED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING U NDISCLOSED INCOME, THEN THE AO SHALL COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW DETE RMINING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME COVERING THIS BLOCK PERIOD IN ADDITION TO THE OTHER UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNCONTESTED BEFORE US. IT IS NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE EVIDENCE TO BE C ONSIDERED BY THE AO FOR THIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS ALL THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD FOUND AS R ESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AND RELATABLE TO SUCH EVIDENCE. 13. THE NEXT CASE LAW OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF CIT VS. S. M. AGARWAL (2007) 162 TAXMAN 3 (DEL) WHEREIN CERTAIN D OCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS TREATED BY HONBLE HIGH COURT AS DUMB DOCUMENT BY OBSERVING IN PARA 11 TO 15 AS UNDER: 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PLAC ED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF SMT. SARLA AGGARWAL, DAUGHTER OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ARRI VING AT THE CONCLUSION, THAT THE ENTRIES BELONG TO THE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS ST ATEMENT MADE BY SMT. SARLA GUPTA CANNOT BE SAID TO BE RELEVANT OR ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS-EXAMINE HER AND EVEN FROM THE STATEMENT, NO CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN THAT THE ENTRIES MADE ON THE RELEVANT PAGE BELONGS TO THE ASSESSEE AND REPRESENTS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT IS ALSO AN AD MITTED FACT THAT THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT RECORDED AT ANY STAGE DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ONLY CONCLUSION WHICH CAN BE DRAWN ABOUT THE NATURE AND CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT IS THAT IT IS A DUMB DOCUMENT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRY OF NOTI NGS OR FIGURE ETC. IN THIS DOCUMENT, IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THIS REPRESENTS THE UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. IT IS WELL-SETTLED THAT THE ONLY PERSON COMPETENT TO GIVE EVIDENCE ON THE TRUTHFULNESS OF THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT IS THE WRITER THEREOF. SO, UNLESS AND UNTIL THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT ARE PROVED AGAINST A PERSON, THE POSSESSIO N OF THE DOCUMENT OR HAND WRITING OF THAT PERSON, ON SUCH DOCUMENT BY ITSELF CANNOT PROV E THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT. THESE ARE THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY BOTH THE AUTHO RITIES, I.E., COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL. 13. IN MAHAVIR WOOLLEN MILLS CASE (SUPRA) DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, CERTAIN SLIPS WERE FOUND, WHICH, THE A SSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED, CONTAINED DETAILS OF PAYMENT BEYOND THOSE WHICH WERE MADE BY CHEQUES AND DRAFTS AND WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEES S TAND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE DOCUMENTS WERE 'DUMB DOCUMENTS' WHICH DID NOT CONTA IN FULL DETAILS ABOUT THE DATES OF PAYMENT AND ITS CONTENTS WERE NOT CORROBORATED BY A NY MATERIAL AND COULD NOT BE RELIED UPON AND MADE THE BASIS OF ADDITION. THE TRIBUNAL C ONSIDERED THIS ASPECT AND OBSERVED THAT ON COMPARISON OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND LEDG ER ACCOUNTS OF THE PARTIES, THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS COULD NOT BE REGARDED AS 'DUMB DOCUMENTS' . 14. WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL, THE COURT HELD: '. . .THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAD COME TO A CERTAIN FACTU AL CONCLUSION ABOUT THE NATURE OF THE PAPERS SEIZED. ON THE QUESTION WHETHER THE DOCUMENT S DID OR DID NOT CONTAIN THE PARTICULARS, THE TRIBUNAL OBSERVED THAT THEY DID CO NTAIN CERTAIN MATERIALS WHICH WERE 10 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 SUFFICIENT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION ABOUT CASH PAYME NTS HAVING BEEN MADE IN ADDITION TO THOSE MADE BY CHEQUES AND DRAFTS. THE CONCLUSION WA S ESSENTIALLY FACTUAL. NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AROSE FROM ITS ORDER.' (P. 298) 15. SIMILARLY, IN THE PRESENT CASE AS ALREADY HELD ABO VE, THE DOCUMENTS RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE ASSESSEE ARE DUMB DOC UMENTS AND THERE ARE CONCURRENT FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) AN D THE TRIBUNAL TO THIS EFFECT. SINCE THE CONCLUSIONS ARE ESSENTIALLY FACTUAL, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION. 14. FURTHER HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. JAI PAL AGGARWAL (2012) 28 TAXMAN.COM 269 (DEL) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE ISSUE OF DUMB DOCUMENT BY OBSERVING IN PARA 9 AS UNDER: 9. ON APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL EXAMINED THE SEIZED DOCUMEN T AND FOUND THAT THE FIGURES DID NOT CO-RELATE WITH ANY DATE OR DETAILS NOR WAS THE DOCU MENT SIGNED. IT ALSO REFERRED TO THE DETAILS OF THE FIXED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS GIVEN IN PAGE 10 OF A NNEXURE A4, WHICH WAS THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, AND NOTED THAT EXCEPT FOR MENTIONING THE FIGURE OF RS. 27,50,000/-, NO DETAILS FOR THE SAID FIGURE WERE GIVEN. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF THE FIXED DEPOSITS WITH KARNATAKA BANK, THE SEIZED PAPER SHOWED THAT THE SOURCE FOR THE SAM E WAS THE MATURITY PROCEEDS OF EARLIER FIXED DEPOSITS. THE TRIBUNAL ULTIMATELY CANCELLED T HE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: '65. ON GOING THROUGH PAGE 463 OF THE PAPERBOOK, WH ICH IS COPY OF PAGE 10 OF ANNEXURE A- 4, IT IS FOUND THAT ON THESE DOCUMENTS, SOME FIGURE HAS BEEN NOTED. FROM THE NOTING ON THIS PAPER, THE DETAILS OF FDRS CANNOT BE DETECTED. THE ASSESSEE HAS DENIED THIS TO BE IN HIS HANDWRITING. THE ENTRIES DO NOT CORRELATE ANY DATE OR THE SIGNATURES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COLLECT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE FROM BANKS OR PO ST OFFICE TO CORRELATE INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OTHER FDRS EXCEPT THE FDRS OF RS. 1 2,25,000/-, THE SOURCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN DULY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 66. KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND ALSO AFT ER TAKING TO ACCOUNT THE NATURE OF ENTRY ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH IS TO BE TREATED AS DUMB DOCUMENT, THE ADDITION OF RS. 27,50,000/- CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN TH IS VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE ADDITION IS DELETED AND THE GROUND IS ALLOWED.' IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL SAW THE SEIZED PA PER AS A 'DUMB DOCUMENT' WHICH MEANT THAT NOTHING COULD BE UNDERSTOOD FROM IT. THE DOCUM ENT, ACCORDING TO THE TRIBUNAL, MERELY NOTED A FIGURE OF RS. 27,50,000/- WITHOUT ANY DETAI LS WHEREAS DETAILS OF OTHER FIXED DEPOSITS MADE WITH KARNATAKA BANK WERE GIVEN INCLUDING THE I NTEREST FIGURE. THE TRIBUNAL ALSO FELT DIFFICULTY IN GATHERING THE DETAILS OF FIXED DEPOSI TS FOR RS. 27,50,000/- FROM THE SEIZED PAPER; THERE WAS NO DATE OR SIGNATURE THEREIN. ON THESE FA CTS THE TRIBUNAL HAS DRAWN THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ADDITION IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS. WE ARE UNAB LE TO SAY THAT THE INFERENCE IS UNREASONABLE OR IS OF SUCH NATURE THAT NO PERSON, P ROPERLY INSTRUCTED ON FACTS AND LAW, WOULD HAVE COME TO. THE TRIBUNAL HAS PROPERLY TAKEN NOTE OF THE EVIDENCE; IT HAS NOT IGNORED ANY RELEVANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE. ITS CONCLUSION CANN OT THEREFORE BE SAID TO BE PERVERSE. WE THEREFORE, ANSWER THE QUESTION (C) IN THE NEGATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED AND ALSO THE PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT PAG E NO. 7 OF BRI-20 IS A DUMB DOCUMENT AND PARTICULARLY ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY SHRI SUBRATA BANIK WAS DEPOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 07.11.2006 B UT NO QUESTION ABOUT THIS DOCUMENT WAS ASKED, WHICH IMPLIES THAT THIS PAGE WAS NOT CON SIDERED AS IMPORTANT AND EVEN AFTER 11 ITA NO.297/K/2012 AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) P. LTD. AY 2007-08 SEARCH NO QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT THE NARRATIONS OR ENTRIES. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE CONFIRM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND BOTH THE ISSUES OF REVENUES APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISS ED. 16. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.12. 2015 SD/- SD/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 04TH DECEMBER, 2015 JD. SR. P.S COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT DCIT, C.C.II, KOLKATA. . 2 RESPONDENT M/S. AJANTA FOOTCARE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. , 79/2, A. J. C. BOSE ROAD, KOLKATA-14. 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .