Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3)(8), Surat V. M/s. Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co., Surat

ITA 3/SRT/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0585 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-10-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2022
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 02-01-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Bad and doubtful debts; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 131; 132; 271(1)(c); 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 143(2); 142(2A); 72; 13; 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRIPAWAN SINGH, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM आयकर अपीलसं./IT(SS)A Nos.01/SRT/2020 & ITA No.03/SRT/2020 (िनधाŊरणवषŊ / Assessment Years: (2011-12 & 2014-15) (Virtual Court Hearing) Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(3)(8), Surat, Room No. 407, 4 th Floor, Income Tax Office, Anavil Business Centre, Adajan-Hajira Road, Surat-395009 Vs. M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 5/750, Vandana Building, Nr. Taratia Hanuman Street, Haripura, Bhavaniwad, Surat-395003 ̾थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AADFP 1968 P (Assessee ) (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vartik Chokshi, C.A Respondent by : Shri H.P.Meena– CIT-DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ Date of Hearing : 30/08/2022 घोषणाकीतारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 17/10/2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Captioned two appeals filed by the Revenue, pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 and 2014-15, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), Surat, [in short “Ld. CIT(A)”] all dated 17.10.2019, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’), all dated 30.03.2016. 2. Since, the issues involved in both the appeals are common and identical except variation of amounts; therefore, both appeals have been clubbed and heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order. For the sake of convenience, the grounds as well as the facts narrated in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2020, for assessment 2011-12 have been taken into consideration for deciding both the Revenue’s appeals en masse. Page | 2 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in “lead” case (in IT(SS)A No.01/SRT/2020, for assessment year 2011-12, are reproduced below: “(i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.14,22,92,519/- on account of unaccounted income. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case properly, the notings in seized material decoded and deciphered by the assessing officer and more specifically the deliberate and complete failure on the part of the assessee to explain the content of the documents before Assessing Officer. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding commission income @ 0.50% as commission or khep charges on the total amount noted and treating it as already offered in undisclosed income without any plausible reasons do so. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-4, Surat may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer’s order may be restored.” 4. The grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in (IT(SS)A No.03 /SRT/2020, for assessment year 2014-15, are reproduced below: (i) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition amounting to Rs.20,39,80,040/- on account of unaccounted income. (ii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has not appreciated the facts of the case properly, the notings in seized material decoded and deciphered by the assessing officer and more specifically the deliberate and complete failure on the part of the assessee to explain the content of the documents before Assessing Officer. (iii) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding commission income @ 0.50% as commission or khep charges on the total amount noted and treating it as already offered in undisclosed income without any plausible reasons do so. (iv) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer on protective basis amounting to Rs.29,81,300/- on account of cash seized without analysing the actual effect of ROI filed in the case of Shri Rajendra Ramdas Patel for A.Y 2014-15 wherein the income offered to tax on account of disclosure u/s 132(4) has been reduced by claiming set off of unallowable bad debt and Page | 3 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. thereby substantially reducing incidence of tax on the income disclosed u/s 132(4) of the Act. (v) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A), Surat ought to have upheld the order of the Assessing Officer. It is, therefore, prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Surat may be set-aside and that of the Assessing Officer’s order may be restored. (vi) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Law, the assessee craves its right to add, alter, amend, deleted, any of the ground or grounds of appeal. 5. Grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue in both these appeals are similar and identical therefore we shall adjudicate them together except ground No. (iv) raised by the Revenue in (IT(SS)A No.03/SRT/2020, for assessment year 2014-15. 6. Succinct facts are that assessee-firm engaged in money courier services, known as “Angadia system” which is old practice of transferring money. The assessee-firm filed its return of income for assessment year 2011-12 on 26.09.2011 declaring total income at Rs.12,22,410/-. Subsequently a search u/s 132 of the Act was caried out at the business premises of assessee at Kolkata Branch office by Investigation Wing Kolkata on 27.03.2014. During the course of search proceedings, certain loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure- PSR/1 to PSR/3 of pancnama dated 27.03.2014. The Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 153A(a) on 23.09.2015. In response to the said notice the assessee furnished the return of income on 08.10.2015 declaring total income of Rs.12,22,410/-. In order to make assessment, notice under section 143(2) & u/s 142(1) of the Act along with questionnaire was issued dated 21.12.2015 calling certain details and also requested to explain the page wise contents of the seized materials. 7. In response to the notices issued u/s153A and 142(1) of the Act, the assessee has attended and filed details and other documents before the Assessing Officer. The assessing officer noticed from the Form No.3CD of Audit Report that the assessee firm was engaged in the business of Angadia Business i.e. Courier agent. During the course of search proceedings, certain loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure- PSR/1 to PSR/3 of Panchnama dated 27.03.2014. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee vide letter dated Page | 4 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 8.01.2016 requested to provide copies of seized materials. Accordingly, copy of all the seized materials were provided to the assessee on 29.01,2016. The assessing officer noted that assessee has not submitted any explanation of seized materials; therefore, to understand the content of seized materials, summons u/s.131 of the Act was issued to the assessee on 18.02.2016. In response to same Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel, one of the partner of the assessee firm appeared and his statement was recorded on oath 01.3.2016. In his statement, he was specifically asked to explain the content of the materials seized during the course of search at the branch office of M/s. Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. at Kolkata. However, Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel denied to have any knowledge about the search proceedings. Further, in answer to question No. 10, he expressed his inability to explain the contents of seized documents and stated the same can be explained by the other partner of the firm, whose statement was recorded during search. Therefore, he was asked to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, whose statement was recorded by the ADIT (Inv), Unit- Ill (1), Kolkata on 22.04.2014. However, it was stated by Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel, that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas is not well and admitted in hospital at Ahmedabad. Hence, the assessee has failed to produce its partner Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and, all the contents/entries of the materials seized during the course of search proceedings remained unexplained. It has been further communicated by the authorized representative, that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas has still not recovered from his illness and hence not able to attend the assessment proceedings. 8. Therefore, a show cause notice was issued on 28.03.2016 by Assessing Officer, seeking final reply of assessee. The relevant portion of the show- cause notice is reproduced as under: "2. A. search and seizure action was carried out at Kolkata branch office of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas &Co, by Investigation wing Kolkata on 27.03.2014. The search warrant was executed in the name of S.R. Courier and M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co on 27.03.2014 and Punchanama was drawn. During the course of search proceedings certain loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure-PSR/1 to PSR/3 of Panchnama dated 27.03.2014, Page | 5 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 3. Statement u/s 132(4) of Shri Upeshbhai Raman lal Patel, Fund Manager of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co was recorded during the course of search proceedings on 27.03.2014. In answer to question No.4, he has stated that he was fund manager of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. since last 14 years and also admitted that he had been working in Kolkata Branch of the firm since years Further, he also stated that M/s.Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. is popularly known as S.R.Courier. In answer to question No.5, he also admitted that the amount of' Rs.29,81,300/- which was found from the above business premise was unaccounted and undisclosed in the books of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. The cash seized from the premises was belonging to firm. As the seized document were recovered from the premises belonging to firm, they also belong, to M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 4. Statement of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, one of the partner of the assessee firm was recorded on oath u/s131 on 22.04.2014. He has stated that he is a partner of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co which is engaged in the money courier. Vide answer to question No.4, he specifically stated that their business was also known as "Angadia System" which is old practice of transferring money, prevalent mostly in Gujarat, Maharashtra and across North India. He has further stated that his firm has branches across the country including this branch at Kolkata. The PAN of the firm is AADFP1968P. The search warrant was executed in the name of S.R.Courier and Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co on 27.03.2014. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of execution of warrant on 27.3.2014 and subsequently during the course of recording of statement of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, neither Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel nor Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas raised any objection to execution of warrant in the name of firm M/s.Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 6. Reference is invited to the loose paper files which were found and seized as per Annexure-PSR/1 to PSR/3 during the course of search proceedings at the business premises, the entries recorded in the seized documents are very complex. They contain voluminous coded details i.e. name and amount to be decoded and deciphered. The contents of the impounded materials, which summarized as under: Sr.No F.Y. A.Y. Amount 1 2010-11 2011-12 142292519 6.1 The amounts of money mentioned in the seized material are coded. However, after making final enquiry in the same type of business, it is found that the amounts are mentioned after removing last three digits, say an amount of Rs.1,00,000 is written as Rs. 100. 6.2 Since, you failed to appear before the undersigned to explain the content of these documents, I am constrained to apply the prevalent practice applied in this type of business to decode the amounts. 7. Therefore, you are requested to explain with supporting evidence that why the above amount of Rs.14,22,92,519/-for A.Y. 2011-12 should not be treated as unexplained receipt in the respective assessment years and all the above amounts Page | 6 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. summarized year-wise, which was written in the above seized materials should not be added to your total income. 8. Your case is fixed for hearing on 30.03.2016 at 11.30 a.m. You are o submit your explanation, if any, in the matter. In case of failure to comply to this show cause, assessment will be completed on the -material available on record. " 9. In response to the show cause notice, the assessee submitted its reply vide letter dated 30.03.2016, the relevant portion is reproduced as under: “Vide above referred to show cause notice Your Goodself required assessee to show cause as to why Rs.14,22,92,519/- for A.Y.2011-12, Rs.97,76,100/- for AY. 2012-13 and Rs.20,39,80,040/-for A.Y.2014-15 should not be treated as unexplained receipt in the respective assessment years and added to assessee's total income for reasons stated vide above refereed to letter. In this regard it is submitted as under: 1. In para 2 of the above referred to letter it is stated that the search warrant was executed in the name of S.R.Courier and M/s. Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co on 27/03/2014 at Kolkata. It is further stated that during the search proceedings certain loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure PSR/1 to PSR/3. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee has already produced before Your Goodself copy of the partnership deed, its visiting card, its books of accounts in support of the fact that the assessee is/was not having any branch or office at Kolkata. Moreover not a single piece of evidence was found which even suggests that the assessee firm was having its branch office at the above address. During the course of the assessment proceedings, Your Goodself has recorded statement of partner Dashratbhai Hargovanbhai Patel on 01.03.2016 wherein he had categorically stated that the assessee firm is/was not having any branch or office in Kolkata. The most important fact in this case is that in case of Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas also notice u/s 153A of the Act, dated 20/10/2015 is issued by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2), Ahmedabad, in respect of the same search and for same assessment years. (Copy of the notice is enclosed herewith). This clearly shows that Income tax department also believes / accepts the (a) search was in the case of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, (b) cash found during the course of search belonged / owned by him (c) the material found during the course of search belonged to him and on that basis proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, were initiated in his case. Under the circumstances the assessee firm vehemently objects that proceeding in the case of the assessee firm are void-ab-initio, unlawful and required to be dropped as there cannot be proceedings u/s 153A of the Act, in the case of the assessee firm when the same proceedings ale going on in the case of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas. 2. Vide para 3 of the above referred to letter it is stated that as per answer to question no 4 of the statement u/s 132(4) of Shri Upeshbhai Ramlal Patel, funds Page | 7 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. manager of Somabhai Ramdas & Co. recorded on 27/03/2014, Shri Upeshbhai Ram/al Patel stated that he was the fund manager of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. for last 14 years and also admitted that he has been working in Kolkata branch of the firm for the last 4 years. He also stated that M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas and Co. is popularly known as S.R. Courier. Vide answer to question no 5 he also admitted that amount of Rs.29,81,300/-found from the said premises was unaccounted and undisclosed in the books of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. As the seized documents were recovered from the premise belonging to firm, they also belong to firm. In this regard it is submitted that Shri Upeshbhai Ramlal Patel is not an employee of the assessee firm. In support of the same the assessee firm had produced the books of accounts and the particulars relating to salaries paid to employees. It is found that the assessee has / had no employee namely Upeshbhai Ramlal Patel on its payroll. The amount of Rs.29,81,300/- also does not belong to the assessee firm. In the above referred to letter the observation made by Your Goodself that he stated that the amount of Rs.29,81,300/- which was found from the above premise was unaccounted and undisclosed in the books of M/s Patel Somqdas Ramdas & Co. is factually incorrect and the words "In the books of Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co." are substituted in place of Nature". He never said that it is unaccounted for and in the books of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. for the sake of convenience answer no 5 is reproduced below: "A. 5. The amount of Rs.29,81,300/- (Rupees Twenty Nine Lakhs Eighty One Thousand Three Hundred) only found from the business premise today is unaccounted for and undisclosed in nature. I do not have any books of accounts. Therefore, I have no objection to the seizure of the same. " Regarding this cash found Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas categorically stated vide answer to question no 8 recorded stated that the said cash belonged to him and is unaccounted. He also disclosed an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- inclusive of the amount seized. The relevant question and answer of the statement recorded on 22.04.2014 is reproduced below; "Q.9. Do you want to add, alter or modify the above statement? A. 9. Yes, I would like to voluntarily disclose Rs. 50 lakhs inclusive of the amount seized from my premise as additional income for taxation over & above my last returned income. " Thus the observation by Your Goodself that the seized material is belonging to the firm is not on the basis of the facts of the case and the statements recorded during the course of the search. Regarding the observation that as the seized documents recovered from the premises of the firm, also belonged to the firm, it is submitted that the assessee has proved beyond doubt that the said premises were not office or branch of the assessee firm, hence the question that the seized documents belong to assessee firm does not arise at the first place. In addition to that it is submitted that the Page | 8 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. person in whose custody the said loose papers were found was not able to explain the same then how can the assessee firm be expected to explain the same? The relevant question and answer from the statement of Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel is reproduced below: "A. 6 Sir I cannot explain the contents in the seized documents" It is worth noting that authorized investigation officers did not ask a single word regarding the seized documents to Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, while recording his statement. Since the cash found from the searched premises and transaction carried on therefrom is accepted as to him by Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas the explanation regarding the seized papers should be called from him. He has filed his return of income showing therein the seized cash and the profit earned from the operation of the said office. 3. Vide para 4 Your Goodself observed the recording of the statement of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas wherein he explained the modus operandi of angadia system. It is alleged that neither Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas nor Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel raised any objection to the execution of warrant in the name of firm M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. Explanation of modus operandi of the angadia system by partner Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas does not change the fact that operation at that office run by him and that the cash and loose paper seized from the said premises does not belong to the assessee firm. Regarding the observation that neither the employee Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel nor the partner Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas raised any objection to execution of warrant in the name of firm, it is submitted that they are laymen having no knowledge of accounting, taxation, Income Tax Act and particularly search proceeding. Not raising the objection on execution of warrant in name of the assessee firm will not change the fact that the assessee firm is not having branch or office at Kolkata. Moreover in response to notices u/s 153A of the Act, in his case, he has filed the returns income. In the return of income filed for 2014-15, he has shown the income of Rs.50,00,000/- which includes cash found and seized during the course of the search. Income tax department also believes, accepts the fact that (a)search was in the case of shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, (b) cash found during the cause of search belonged, owned by him (c) the material found during the course of search belonged to him, and on that basis initiates proceedings u/s 153A in his case. 4. Vide para 5 it is observed that statement of Shri Dashratbhai Hargovanbhai Patel was recorded on 1/03/2016. In his statement he any knowledge of the search proceedings. He also expressed his inability to explain the contents of the seized documents and stated that the same can be explained by Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas whose statement was recorded by ADIT (Investigation) Unit 3 (1) Kolkata on 22/04/2014. Shri Dashratbhai also stated that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas is admitted to hospital and will attend as early as possible. However till date he did not appear. In this regard it is submitted that Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas is admitted in the hospital as his kidneys have failed and is on dialysis. As per the latest information Page | 9 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. available with the assessee he is still admitted in the hospital. It is further submitted that the search action in this case took place on 27/03/2014. The notices u/s 153A of the Act, were issued in the month of November 2015. And the assessment proceedings started in the month of February 2016. The assessee firm was required to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas by the second week of March 2016. Recently only Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas fell seriously ill as his kidneys failed and he is on dialysis. Due to certain complications he went in coma and is on ventilator. Under these circumstances he could not attend office and therefore no adverse inference should be drawn in this regard. 5. Vide para 6 it is observed that entries recorded in the seized documents during the course of the search are very complex. They contain voluminous coded details that is names and amount to be decoded and deciphered. After making final inquiry in the same business it is found that the amounts are mentioned after removing last 3 digits i.e. an amount of Rs.1,00,000 is written as Rs.100. The details abstracted from the seized material is enclosed with the above referred to letter. It is further observed that since the assessee failed to appear to explain the contents of this documents, Your Goodself is constrained to apply the prevalent practice applied in this type of business to decode the amount and to make addition as referred to in para 7 of the letter in respect of the notings in seized material. In this regard it is submitted as under: a) At the outset it is submitted in para 1 above that the said premises from where the said materials were found and seized is not office/branch of the assessee firm and therefore the seize material cannot be presumed to be belonging to assessee firm. b) When Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas appeared before the investigation officers at the said premises and accept the ownership of the unaccounted cash of Rs.29,81,300 from the said premises and also offers, discloses an amount of Rs.50,00,000 including the said cash and covering the transactions carried on by him form that office, allegation that the loose paper found from the said premises does not belong to Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and to the assessee firm is not justified. It is worth noting that in the case of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas notices are issued u/s 153A of the Act and the proceedings in his case are in progress. He has already filed his return of income for 2014-15 showing undisclosed income of Rs.50,00,000/- owning the transactions carried out from the said premises. The assessee is not able to understand the stand taken by your goodself that the cash found from the said premises and the disclosure made by him in respect of the transactions done from the said office are belonging to him while the seized material from the said premises does not belong to him and it belongs to assessee firm. The assessee firm does not understand the logic of bifurcating the unaccounted cash found, disclosure as belonging to Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and seize material belonging to assessee firm. The most reasonable approach is to accept the fact that the cash found during the course of the search and disclosure made by Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas covers and is in respect of seize material found Page | 10 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. from the said premises. It is worth noting that in the case of assessee firm addition is proposed only in respect of the seized material. 6. Regarding observation that as the assessee failed to explain the seized material and your goodself is constrained to apply the prevalent practice in this type of business to decode the notings. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee firm never avoided any proceeding before your goodself. It filed all the details as and when required. The partner of the firm also presented himself for examination on oath. It is only due to serious illness as stated above Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas could not attend. In addition it is submitted that the best person to give the explanation of the seized material was the person 'hose custody the said seized material was found. The said seized was found from Shri Upeshbhai Roman la I Patel. During the course the authorized officials did not pursue to get the explanation of the erialfrom him. They were simply satisfied with his answer that "I cannot explain the contents of the seized material". The next best person to give the explanation regarding seize material was Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas who attended before the investigation officers owned seized cash, 'declared an amount of Rs.50,00,00 covering the seized cash and transactions from the said premises. He was not asked a Single question regarding the seized material. The next best person to explain the seized material is again Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas during the assessment proceedings u/s 153A of the Act. Instead of pursuing the explanation from the right person at the right time at right place your goodness is seeking the explanation from the partner of the assessee who never visited the said premises 1800 kms away from its working place and has never seen the said seized material before it was furnished by your gooself as late as in February 2016. In view of this inability of the assessee firm to explain the seized material should be accepted to serve the natural justice. 7. Regarding the proposal the decode the amounts by applying prevalent practice in the angadia business it is submitted that without prejudice to above the figures on the loose papers cannot be and should not be estimated assuming that they are noted after removing 3 zeros. There is no evidence even remote to presume that the said figures are coded. Has those figures been coded the authorized officers would have definitely decoded the same and would have taken a confession from the persons present at the time of the search and or appeared before them. The said figures could not be decoded, deciphered till 6 pm on 28/03/2016.This is evident from the fact that a show cause notice was issued to the assessee firm as to why the case of the assessee be not referred for special audit mainly and only for decoding deciphering and understanding properly the entries recorded in the seized material. The relevant portion of the said notice is reproduced: "6. I have gone through the seized documents and the statements recorded during the search and assessment proceedings. I am of the opinion that is a fit case for applying provisions of section 142(2A) of the Act, i.e. to direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an Accountant for following reasons: a) The entries recorded in the seized documents are very complex. They contain voluminous coded entails i.e. name, amount and dates which ' decoded, deciphered and properly understood. Page | 11 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. b) There are multiple transactions with possibility of duplications hence difficult to reach with a logical conclusion c) The assessee is in peculiar nature of the business i.e. transfer of money from one place to another. There is possibility of mixing of own money with the money of clients. It is not possible to ascertain at this stage and the assessee has also not explained it at all. From the above show cause notice it is evident that there was no basis/evidence with the department to decode, decipher the notings in said seized material till the late evening on 28/03/2016.ln absence of any such evidence confirmation the decoding of the figure by applying 3 zeros to the any figures in the notings is nothing but presumption assumption and is not justified. 8. Without prejudice to the above, Your Goodself by relying on the prevalent trade practice and custom in angadiya business is alleging that decoding of figures noted in seized material should be made by applying three zeros to the figures noted. In this regard it is submitted that even if accepted for the sake of argument that the said seized material belonged assessee and are relating to angadia business and in coded figures as a logical extension of the prevalent trade practice and custom in angadiya business it is also a fact that angadiyas act as courier and carriers of money on behalf of their customers and only charge a fixed commission varying from Rs. 100 to Rs. 200 per every Rs.1,00,000/-for the services rendered by it. The rate of commission can be verified from the regular books of account. Applying only one part of prevalent trade practice and custom in angadiya business to the assessee (to determine real figure of transaction) and ignoring the other/ later part to apply rate of commission prevalent in trade practice and custom in angadiya business to determine correct income is against the principles of natural justice. In view of above, without prejudice to earlier submission, applying the practice prevailing in the angadia business the addition if any is to be made in respect of the notings in seized material it should be calculated @ 100 to 200 per 100000. In this case subject to the accuracy of the details worked by your goodself addition should be arrived at by applying the rate of commission to figure work out. In this regard the assessee relies in the decision of Honourable ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case, of M/s Patel Somabhai Kanchanlal & Co. (ITA No. 842/Ahd/1984) "in case of courier i.e. angadia the provisions of section 68,69, & 132(4A) are not applicable in the same way as is applicable in respect of loans and deposits as courier service is akin to postal services. Once it is proved that the parcels were received during the ordinary course of angadia business, no addition can be made" In view of above your goodself is requested to not make addition as proposed in the show cause notice and oblige. " Page | 12 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 10. However, assessing officer rejected the contention of the assessee and observed that during the course of search proceedings certain loose papers were found and seized (as per Annexure- PSR/1 to PSR/3) and cash of Rs.29,81,300/- was found. The amount of cash of Rs 29,81,300/- has already been owned by one of the partners however no explanation about the content of seized material was given during the course of search or during the course of assessment proceedings. The document seized from the branch office belonged to the assessee and the responsibility to explain the content of seized document lies with the assessee. In response to summons u/s 131 Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel, one of the partners of the firm-appeared and his statement was recorded on oath on 01.3.2016. He was specifically asked to explain the content of the materials seized during the course of search at the branch office of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. at Kolkata. However, he expressed his inability to explain the contents of seized documents and stated the same can be explained by his partner whose statement was recorded during search. Therefore, he was asked to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, whose statement was recorded by the ADIT(Inv), Unit-HI(l), Kolkata on 22.04.2014 . However, it was stated by Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel, that he is not well and admitted in hospital at Ahmedabad. Hence, the assessee has failed to produce its partner Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and, therefore all the contents/entries of the materials seized during the course of search proceedings remained unexplained, hence assessing officer made addition of Rs.14,22,92,519/-. 11. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) who has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A) the Revenue is in appeal before us. 12. Learned DR for the Revenue pleads that during the search proceedings, cash of Rs. 29,81,300/- was found and seized, and statement u/s 132(4) of the I. T. Act of Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel, the fund manager of M/s Somabhai Ramdas Patel was recorded and he accepted that he was working for the firm for Page | 13 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. last 14 years and at Kolkata branch for last four years and stated that cash found and documents seized are of M/s Somabhai Ramdas Patel. Statement of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas was recorded u/s 131 of the I.T. Act wherein he accepted that the firm has branches across India including this branch at Kolkata. Learned DR further pointed out that during the course of search proceedings at Branch Office Kolkata, certain loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure- PSR/1 to PSR/3 of Panchnama dated 27.03.2014. The Statement u/s 132(4) of the I.T. Act, 1961 of Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel, the fund Manager of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. was recorded and he accepted that cash found at branch office at Kolkata is unaccounted and undisclosed in books of accounts of firm. Learned DR further pointed out that Assessee firm has not produced one partner Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel as One Partner Shri Dashrathbhai Hargovanbhai Patel denies to have any knowledge about search proceedings and expressed his inability to explain the contents of seized documents and stated that same can be explained by other partner of the firm but not produced the partner during assessment proceedings, therefore in these circumstances addition made by the assessing officer may be sustained. 13. On the other hand, Shri Vartik Chokshi, Learned Counsel for the assessee vehemently argued that Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel appeared before the Ld. ADIT (Inv.) Kolkata and owned up the cash found in searched premises. He admitted and offered Rs.50 Lacs as undisclosed income earned in his individual capacity from the activities carried out from that premises (including Rs.29,81,300/- cash found). The Ld. ADIT(Inv.) has not probed, further, nor has he questioned in detail on seized material etc, implying that, he was satisfied that Rs.50 Lacs declared adequately covers the undisclosed income earned from business activities carried on from the said premises in Kolkata including the notings found in incriminating seized material. The search action is minutely monitored by Addl. DIT (Inv.) and DIT(Inv.), hence absence of further enquiry, and absence of any consequent action u/s 132 etc, shows that the higher authorities in the Investigation Wing Kolkata were of same considered opinion and that is Page | 14 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. why ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. The ld Counsel further submitted that Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel filed Income Tax Return disclosing this income and Jurisdictional assessing officer at Ahmedabad has made assessment accordingly. So it is clear that cash found and seized material found in searched premises at Kolkata have been owned up and resultant income is offered to fax and assessed accordingly in hands of Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel. The assessing officer in his remand report vide para 5.2 and again in 5.5 has also given the same finding, Hence, assessee has paid the income tax on the unaccounted income and there is no further liability on the assessee to pay tax, therefore ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition. 14. The ld Counsel further argued that assessing officer has himself stated that assessee-firm is engaged in the business of 'angadia' or money courier services as evident from his interpretation of figures noted in seized material (ref para 6.1 show cause notice of Ld. assessing officer). Further the same finding is reiterated in para 4 and 5.4 of the remand report also. Even after holding that assessee firm is engaged in angadia business or money courier business, the Ld. assessing officer does not analyze the transactions in that light. On the contrary, he just adds up all the amounts noted after supplying 3 zeroes (000s) to them. Analysis of seized materials keeping in mind the business activity will lead to conclusion that the amounts noted in the incriminating seized material is the cash moved/transferred for earning commission or khep charges. So only the commission/khep charges at 0.50% (of Rs.15,00,000/-) on the total amount noted can be faxed. However, an amount of Rs.50 Lacs has already been offered as undisclosed income on the same and assessed as such. No effort was made by assessing officer to do a concerted investigation into modus operandi of firm as a whole to ascertain the total undisclosed income earned by firm by such activities in all its branches & HO. Hence there is no reason to further make any addition and therefore ld CIT(A) has rightly deleted the high pitched addition. This way, ld Counsel prays the Bench that ld CIT(A) has passed a reasoned and speaking order therefore, the same may be upheld. Page | 15 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 15. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. We note that assessee submitted before us the remand report under Rule 46A(1)/46A(3) of the Rules dated 01.10.2019, vide Page No.69 to 71 of assessee`s paper book. The Rejoinder to remand report dated 04.10.2019 is placed at paper book page nos. 72 to 79. The copy of statement of Rajendera kumar Ramdas, recorded on 22.04.2014, is placed vide paper book page no. 80 to 81. The assessee also submitted copy of acknowledgement receipt of Return of Income, computation of income, balance sheet, profit & loss account and capital account, vide paper book page nos. 161 to 168. We note that during the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) directed the assessing officer and wrote a letter to the assessing officer to examine the seized materials, reports of ADIT Investigation wing, assessment records and submissions/arguments of assessee and to give factual report. The said letter of ld CIT(A) is reproduced below: “2. Search in case of Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co., Kolkata was carried out on 27.03.2014 at 80 Cotton Street, 3 rd Floor, Kolkata 700007, popularly known as S.R. Courier. During search cash of Rs.29,81,300/- was found. No books of account were found, however, a few loose sheets were found & they were seized. The person present at the premises Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel stated he does not know anything regarding the impugned loose sheets. Subsequently, one of the partner of assessee firm, Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas appeared before the ADIT (Inv.) on 22.04.2014 and in his statement he admitted that impugned cash seized Rs.29,81,300/- is unaccounted & is earned in his personal capacity. He further offered Rs.50 Lacs inclusive of the above cash as additional income for taxation in his hands. No further questioning was done on this issue. (i) No question was asked to him regarding incriminating loose sheets found, (ii) No questions were asked to him on how the cash & additional income is disclosed in his hands, when the premises belongs to assessee firm, (iii) From the tone & tenor of statement it is clear that the IT Authority was satisfied with the owning up of cash by Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel & offer of additional income. (iv) No question was asked to him regarding connection of seized material with the additional income disclosed by him. Page | 16 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. Pursuant to this notice u/s 153A was issued in case of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, by his assessing officer, the CCIT, Circle-2(2), Ahmedabad and assessment was completed on 23.03.2016 assessing the income at Rs.68,21,820/-. From the assessment order it can be seen that the Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas filed ITR showing amount disclosed of Rs.50 Lacs against which he has claimed bad debts, showing returned income of Rs.31,21,428/-. The Ld. assessing officer has disallowed the bad debts and also made certain other additions to arrive at above assessed income. 4. Meanwhile in case of the assessee firm also notice u/s 153A was issued. In response to the same ITR was filed on 08.10.2015 showing same income as in original ITR. In response to showcause notice dated 28.03.2016, assessee filed reply dated 30.03.2016. The assessee in para 5 (a) claimed that the said premises from where the materials were found & seized is not office/branch of the assessee firm and therefore the seized material cannot be presumed to be belonging to assessee firm. The Ld. assessing officer discussed this in para 6.3. The Ld. assessing officer mentions that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas admitted that the firm has branches across the country including this branch at Kolkata. The Ld. assessing officer mentions that no explanation was offered regarding contents of seized material when the fact is, no question was asked to concern on seized material. Summons was issued to partner of assessee & Shri Dashrathbhai appeared on 01.03.2016 and stated that the seized materials can be explained by Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, whose statement was already recorded by ADIT (Inv.) Unit 3(1), Kolkata on 22.04.2014. Further, it is stated that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas was admitted to Hospital and is in ICU, so he could not appear before Ld. assessing officer. It transpires that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas was really sick and he passed away on 19.07.2016 due to renal failure & associated problems. 5. Perusal of seized material shows that, it does not contain any name, nor any description of the transaction it just has dates and some number to which another number is added or subtracted & resultant figure is arrived at, there is no description. The figure mentioned in one loose sheet are not carried forward to any other sheet. Some pages have two columns of numbers with dates, which can be presumed to be receipts & payments respectively. It can be seen that the Ld. assessing officer has just added all the figures appearing in all loose sheets without even analyzing them to ascertain the transaction & income element involved in notings. It is further seen that the Ld. assessing officer has added 3 digits or three zeros to the figures appearing in loose sheets by observing that "after making final enquiry in same type of business it is found that amounts are mentioned after removing last 3 digits, say an amount of Rs.1,00,000 is written as Rs.100..." (in Showcause notice issued by assessing officer Para 6.1). From this observation it is clear that Ld. assessing officer has concluded that assessee is in money courier or angadia business. The Ld. assessing officer in para no. 5 of assessment order states the assessee firm is engaged in Angadia Business. The Partners in their statements have specifically stated that the firm is engaged in business of money courier, popularly known as angadia which is old practice of delivery money for commission. The Ld. assessing officer has not rebutted these statements on the contrary the Ld assessing officer has relied fully on these Page | 17 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. statements in his show cause notice. The search warrant also mentioning the name as SR Couriers. It is clear from assessment order that the Ld. assessing officer has also treated the assessee as 'money courier' or angadia and the loose papers are related to business of the assessee firm. So the natural corollary for Ld. assessing officer should have been to treat the notings as business transactions of the assessee firm and estimate the income earned by assessee from the same. The Ld. assessing officer instead has totaled the amounts & added the entire amount as income of assessee, this displaying lack of consistency. 6. During assessment, the assessee filed copies of the typical records maintained in course of business. Assessee also made its without prejudice claim, that even if the impugned loose sheets are treated as pertaining to assessee, the amounts mentioned therein cannot be totaled up and added as income. The assessee is in business of money courier service, the amounts noted in alleged loose sheets are the moneys received from consigners and paid to consignees. The assessee only gets the charges it collects over the amounts moved by it. He claimed that couriers services or angadia's charged Rs.100-200 per Rs. 1 Lac moved by them. The Ld. assessing officer has not accepted this explanation, I have examined the same and I find typical records maintained by assessee in its business is totally different from loose sheets founds and seized at Kolkata premises and the Ld. assessing officer has missed this vital point. 7. It is seen that there was no questioning, over seized material by ADIT(Inv.), Kolkata either to Shri Rajendra or to employee Shri Upesh. It is seen from statement that the ADIT was satisfied that the cash found in the premises searched at Kolkata belongs to Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel has offered further 21 Lacs as additional income & same is accepted by Ld. ADIT, which implies that the income is earned in the business conducted at impugned premises, as indicated in the seized material. This also explains the action of ADIT in not proving the issue further or in not questioning further on seized material it stands to reason, that, the ADIT, Kolkata and higher officers Investigation Wing Kolkata did not feel that the seized material pertains to assessee, because had they thought so, they would have covered the Head Office in Surat & other places. After all, if a branch can have 3 Crs. of undisclosed income, what will be the total undisclosed income of the assessee firm as a whole. It only shows that the ADIT(Inv.) Kolkata and higher officers were of opinion that the cash & seized material belongs to Shri Rajendra Ramdas Patel & the disclosure made fairly covers the cash & seized material. 8. It is also seen that the Ld. assessing officer has merely added this figure as per seized material without making any effort to analyses or understand the nature of transactions recorded. If he had done so & consciously arrived at this decision the same would have been reflected in this action. If a branch of assessee can earned undisclosed income of Rs.36 Crores in 3 years, then what would be undisclosed income for the assessee as a whole, the Ld. assessing officer would have surely made some concerted enquires, investigation and possible actions u/s 133A. But Ld. assessing officer has not done so. This shows that Ld. assessing officer has not really comprehended the seized material. The assessment order also suffers from complete absence of any linkage or connection of assessed income to assets. The Ld. assessing officer before making addition of such big Page | 18 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. amounts ought to have made some efforts to find out, where the impugned undisclosed income is channelized. This is very much required to fortify & corroborate the estimation of income and also for recovering of tax demand. Collection of tax demand raised is the objective of assessment procedure, hence the above exercise is a pre-requisite before making addition of big amounts, otherwise this results in creation of hollow demands. 9. From the above facts & circumstances and the discussion made it is clear that (i) the cash & seized material is accepted by ADIT (Inv.) & Higher Officer in Investigation Wing to belong to Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel in his individual capacity and disclosure made by him covers the same, (ii) Even if the seized material is treated to pertain to business of assessee, then the income is to be estimated at Rs.200 per Rs. 1 Lacs noted in seized material (without pre-judice plea of assessee). 10. The Ld. assessing officer is directed to examine seized materials, reports of ADIT and Investigation wing Kolkata & assessment records and give factual findings regarding the facts, circumstances and arguments made in all the above paragraphs along with your comments. Your report may be furnished on or before 09.09.2019.” 16. Then after, ld CIT(A) received the remand report from the assessing officer, vide assessing officer letter no.SRT/ITO/Ward-2(3)(8)/PSR & Co/2019-20 dated 09.09.2019. Relevant portion of the remand report is reproduced below: “2. In this regard, your goodselfs has directed to examine seized materials reports of DIT (Investigation) Wing Kolkata & assessment records and give factual findings and legal arguments (if any) regarding the facts, circumstances and discussion made in all assessment order. 3. From the records, it is noticed that notice U/s 153A(a) of the I.T. Act were issued to the assessee by the then I.T.O. on 23.09.2015 for A.Y.2011-12 & 2012- 13. Thereafter, the case records of the assessee were transferred to Dy.CIT, Circle 2(3), Surat. The Id. DCIT, Circle 2(3), Surat has been completed the assessment after obtaining prior approval of the Joint CIT, Range 2(3), Surat vide approval letter No. IT/Range- 2(3)/SRT/Approval/153D/2015-16 both dated 30.03.2016 after Making additions as under: Asst. Year Returned Income Addition on account of Assessed Income 2011-12 12,22,410/- Unaccounted business transaction of Rs.14,22,92,519/- 14,35,14,925/- 2012-13 4,47,470/- Unaccounted businesses transaction of Rs.97,76,100/- 1,02,23,570/- 4. Assessee firm was engaged business of Angadia i.e. courier/carting agent. It transfers cash, valuables, articles, post etc. of the constituents from one branch to another as per the instruction of the constituent for which it receives commission/khep charges from the constituent for the service rendered to them. Page | 19 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 5. A search & seizure action was carried by Investigation Wing, Kolkata out on 27.03.2014 at Kolkata branch office of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co, Kolkata. The search warrant was executed in the name of ‘S.R. Courier' and M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co on 27.03.2014 and Panchnama was drawn. During the course of search proceedings certain loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure-PSR/1 to PSR/3 of Panchnama dated 27.03.2014. During the course of search proceedings, a statement on oath U/s 132(4) of Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel, Fund Manager of M/s. Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co was recorded on 27.03.2014. In answer to question No.4 he has stated that he was fund manager of the company since last 14 years and also stated that M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. is also known as S.R. Courier. 5.1 Further, statement of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, one of the partner of the assessee firm was recorded U/s. 131 of the I.T. Act on 22.04.2014. In his statement he has stated that he is a partner of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co which is engaged in the business of money courier also known as "Angadia System" which was old practice of transferring money, prevalent mostly in Gujarat, Maharashtra and across North India and also confirmed that his firm has branches across the country including this branch at Kolkata. It is pertinent to mention here that at the time of execution of warrant on 27.03.2014 and subsequently during the course of statement of the partners, nobody raised any objection to execution of warrant in the name of firm M/s.Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 5.2 During the course of assessment proceedings, a statement of Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel, one of the partner of the firm was recorded u/s 131 on 01.03.2016, on being asked, to explain the content of the materials seized during the course of search at the branch office of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co., at Kolkata, he expressed his inability to explain the contents of the seized documents and stated that same can be explained by his partner whose statement was recorded during the search proceedings. Therefore, the assessing officer had asked to him to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, whose statement was recorded by ADIT(Inv.), Kolkata on 22.04.2014, when Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas appeared before the ADIT(Inv) Unit-Ill), Kolkata he had accepted the ownership of the unaccounted cash of Rs.29,81,300/- seized from the said premises and also offers, discloses an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- including the cash and covering the transactions carried on by him from that office. 5.3 However, Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel has stated that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas is not well and admitted at Hospital at Ahmedabad. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. A.O. found that that the assessee had failed to produce its partner Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and, all the contents/entries of the materials seized during the course of search proceedings remained unexplained. On the basis of findings of the abstract of the seized materials (loose sheets), the Assessing Officer had constrained to apply the prevalent practice applied in this type of business to decode the amounts of Rs. 14,22,92,519/- for A.Y.2011-12 and Rs.97,76,100/- for A.Y.2012-13 are treated as unexplained business receipts of the assessee firm, penalty proceedings u/s 271(l)(c) of the I.T. Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. Page | 20 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 5.4 The argument of the assessee that the seized material shows that, it does not contain any name, nor any description of the transaction it just has dates and some number to which another number is added or subtracted & resultant figure is arrived at the figure mentioned in one loose sheet are not carried forward to any other sheet, etc. In fact the loose sheets have code numbers, to understand and to identify the transaction in a coded manner, which the prevalent practice applied in this type of business to decode the noting. Factually, the onus upon the assessee firm that the documents seized from the branch office belonged to the assessee and the responsibility to explain the contents of seized documents/loose sheets lies upon the assessee firm. 5.5 As per the assessment order it is revealed from the part of the statement of Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel stated that during the course of search proceedings the authorised officers did not ask single word regarding the seized documents to Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas while recording his statement. Since the cash found from the searched premises and transaction carried on there from is owned by him. 6. The above mentioned facts and circumstances, during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. has not refused to accept the any submissions of the assessee, there is no such sufficient cause of the assessee (as per case records) for non-producing the required documents/evidences, and the A.O. had given sufficient opportunities during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, the assessing officer has correctly made additions for the both assessment years on account of unaccounted income. In view of the above facts and circumstance, the justification arrived by the Assessing Officer is reasonable and most judicious and therefore requires to be upheld. Therefore, your honour is kindly requested to dispose off the appeal on merits.” 17. Then after, ld CIT(A) forwarded the Copy of Remand report dated 09.09.2019 to the assessee for comments/rejoinder. The Reply on the remand report furnished by the assessee, is reproduced below: “1. With regard to the above subject, the Assessee states that it is in receipt of calling report under rule 46A(1)/46A(3) of the I.T. Rules dtd 23.08.2019 and remand report submitted by assessing officer dated 09.09.2019. In respect of the comments made in the remand report, Assessee in addition to its earlier submission made before your good honor, further submits as under which may kindly be considered. 2. Brief contentions made by Ld A.O. in his remand report along with assessee's rebuttal to assessing officer's comments are as under: 2.1. assessing officer's COMMENTS: Vide para no. 3 it is reported that notice u/s 153(A) of the I.T Act were issued to the assessee by the then I.T.O on 23/9/2015 for AY 2011-12 & 2012-13. This case was then transferred to Dy.CIT, Circle 2(3), Surat. The assessment has been completed after making addition as under: Page | 21 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. Asstt. Year Returned income Addition on account of Assessed income 2011-12 1222410 Unaccounted business transaction of Rs.14,22,92,519/- 14,35,14,925/- 2012-13 447470 Unaccounted business transaction of Rs.97,76,100/- 1,02,23,570/- ASSESSEE'S COMMENTS: These facts are correct and require no comments. 2.2 assessing officer’S COMMENTS - Vide para no 4 it is reported that the firm was engaged in the business of Angadia i.e. courier/carting agent. It transfers cash, valuables, articles, and post etc. from one branch to another for which it receives commission/khep charges from the constituent for the service rendered to them. ASSESSEE'S COMMENTS: This para relates to nature of business Activity carried on by the assessee. 2.3. assessing officer'S COMMENTS: Vide para no 5 it is reported that a search & seizure was carried by the investigation wing, Kolkata on 27/03/2014 at Kolkata branch office of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co, Kolkata. The search warrant was executed in the name of 'S.R Courier' and M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. During the course of search proceedings loose papers were found and seized as per Annexure-PSR/1 to Annexure PSR/3. A statement on oath u/s 132(4) of Shri Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel, fund manager of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co was recorded. In answer to question no 4 he stated that he was fund manager of the company since last 14 years and also stated that M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. is also known as S.R Courier. ASSESSEE'S COMMENTS: (i)The above comments/observation were made in the assessment order and are repeated in this report. In this regard it is submitted that the assessee contended that Upeshbhai Patel who was present at the premise at the time of search and whose statement was recorded, was not an employee of the assessee firm. In support of the same the assessee firm had produced its books of accounts and the particulars relating to salary paid to employees. It was found that the assessee had no employee namely Upeshbhai Ramanlal Patel in its payroll. Therefore his statement cannot be relied upon. (ii) Regarding the seized documents found from the premises of the firm, the assessee produced the copy of the partnership deed, its visiting card, its books of accounts in support of the fact that the assessee is/was not having any branch or office at Kolkata. As the assessee proved beyond doubt that the said premises was neither office nor branch of the assessee firm, the question that the seized documents belong to assessee firm does not arise at the first place. 2.4. assessing officer'S COMMENTS: Vide para no 5.1 it is reported that the statement of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, one of the partner of the assessee firm was recorded u/s 131 of the I.T Act on 22.04.2014. In his statement he stated that he is partner of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co which is engaged in the Page | 22 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. business of money courier/Angadia System prevalent mostly in Gujarat, Maharashtra and across North India and Kolkata. It was also noted that at the time of execution of warrant on 27/03/2014 and during the course of statement of partners nobody raised any objection to execution of warrant in the name of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. ASSESSEE’S COMMENTS: (i) The Assessing officer has discussed the business activity of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas. The only contention of the Assessing Officer is that no objection was raised by any person at the time of execution of warrant. The said observation was made in the assessment order and is repeated in this report. In this regard it is stated that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and Upendra Patel are laymen having no knowledge of accounting, taxation, Income Tax Act and particularly search proceeding and therefore did not raised the objection. However an execution of warrant in name of the assessee firm will not change the fact that the assessee firm is not having branch or office at Kolkata. (ii) Moreover, in response to notices u/s 153A in his case, he had filed the returns of income. In the return of income filed for 2014-15, he declared the income of Rs.50,00,000 relevant to the seized records and seized cash of Rs.29,81,300/- during the course of the search. 2.5. assessing officer's COMMENTS: Vide para no 5.2 it is reported that during the course of assessment a statement of Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel, one of the partner of the firm was recorded u/s 131 on 1.03.2016. He was asked to explain the contents of the materials seized during the course of search at the branch office of M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. at Kolkata, he expressed his inability to explain the same and stated that the same can be explained by his partner. Therefore, the assessing officer had asked to him to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, whose statement was recorded by ADIT (Inv) Unit-Ill (1), Kolkata on 22.04.2014, where he had accepted the ownership of the unaccounted cash of Rs 2981300/- seized from the said premises and also offers, discloses an amount of Rs 5000000 including the cash and covering the transactions carried on by him from that office. ASSESSEE'S COMMENTS: (i) The Assessing officer himself have accepted the fact that vide his statement Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas accepted the ownership of the unaccounted cash of Rs.29,81,300/- seized from S.R. Courier and also offered Rs.50,00,000/- including the cash and covered all the transaction carried by him from S.R. Courier. Even the Assessing officer of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas accepted the fact that (a) search was in the case of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, (b) cash found during the course of search belonged to & owned by him (c) the material found during the course of search belonged to him, and on that basis initiated proceedings, completed assessments, and assessed cash and seized documents U/s 153A in his case. The assessment of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas was completed accordingly assessing the cash found & unaccounted income of seized materials. Page | 23 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. (ii) No.2 of the calling report dtd 23.08.2019. Your Honour have observed and called report for the same. Perusal of the statement of Shri Rajendra Kumar Ramdas reveals that 1. No question was asked to him regarding incriminating loose sheets found (seized material) 2. No questions were asked to him regarding reason for disclosing the cash & additional income in his hands, when the premises is a branch of the assessee firm. 3. From the tone and tenor of statement it is clear that the ADIT(Inv) Kolkata was satisfied with the owning up of cash by Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel & his offer of additional income for tax 4. No question was asked by him regarding connection of seized material with the additional income disclosed by him " With regard to above, the Assessing officer simply avoided to make any comment/clarification in its remand report and made only following comments which is reproduced below. "Therefore the assessing officer had asked to him to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, whose statement was recorded by ADIT (Inv) Unit-Ill (1), Kolkata on 22.04.2014, where he had accepted the ownership of the uncounted cash of Rs.29,81,300/- seized from the said premises and also offers, discloses an amount of Rs 5000000 including the cash and covering the transactions carried on by him from that office". Thus once the transactions have been owned up by Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel and accepted by the assessing officer of the assessee as well as the assessing officer of Rajendra Ramdas Patel, the question of assessing the income on the basis of the same seized notings and seized cash in the case of the assessee is totally unjustified. 2.6. assessing officer's COMMENTS: Vide para no 5.3 it is reported that Shri Dashratbhai Hargovindbhai Patel has stated that Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas is not well and admitted at the Hospital in Ahmedabad. Under the facts and circumstances of the case, the ld. A.O found that the assessee has failed to produce its partner Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and all the contents/entries of the materials seized remains unexplained. On the basis of findings the assessing officer has constrained to decode the amounts of Rs.14,22,92,519 for AY 2011-12 and Rs.97,76,100 for AY.2012-13 according to prevalent practice applied in this type of business as unexplained business receipts of the assessee firm. Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T Act are separately initiated for furnishing inaccurate particulars and concealment of income. ASSESSEE'S COMMENTS: Page | 24 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. (i) In the first part of para 5.3 the assessing officer has reported that the assessee could not produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas and all the contains/entries remained unexplained. The said observation was made in the assessment order and is repeated in this report. In this regard it is once again stated that the assessee firm was required to produce Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas by the second week of March 2016. During that period only Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas fell seriously ill as his kidneys were failed and he was on dialysis. Gradually due to many complications he went in coma and was on ventilator. Thus, he could not attend due to serious illness and ultimately died on 19.07.2016. (ii) With the regards to the assessee's submission regarding the reasons for not presenting Shri Rajendra Ramdas Patel, Your Honour has called for report for the following vide letter dtd 23.08.2019. "The LD assessing officer did not make any effort to record the statement of Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas either by travelling to Ahmedabad himself or by issuing commission. It transpires that Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas passed away on 19/7/2016 so in effect the only person who could have explained the notings in the seized material was never asked any question about the same." Regarding the above observation, the Assessing officer did not offer any clarification/comments and just repeated the observation made during the course of assessment proceedings. In this regard it is submitted that the Assessing officer should have made some efforts to get the correct explanation of the seized material from the person who owned the seized material on oath. Here the Assessing officer has not given any reasons/clarification as to why the efforts as observed by Your Honour for getting the explanation for the seized material and to make a true and correct assessment was not made. The Assessing officer made addition in the case of the assessee in a casual manner by simply stating that the seized materials remains unexplained without making any efforts as said above which is not justified. (iii) In the second part of para 5.3 the assessing officer stated that according to prevalent practice he is constrained to decode the amounts of Rs.14,22,92,519 for AY 2011-12 and Rs.97,76,100 for AY.2012-13. In this regard it is stated that - The assessing officer has relied on the prevalent trade practice and custom in angadia business and decoded the figures noted in seized material by applying three zeros to the figures noted. In this regard it is submitted that at the same time he should have also accepted the fact that the angadia acts as courier and transfers money, valuables of the customers and charges a commission which varies from Rs.100 to Rs. 200 per every Rs.1,00,000/- for the services rendered. The income offered by Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas of Rs.50,00,000/- is in respect of such commission income from such Angadia service by the Kolkatta office searched by the department and the notings in seized material and seized cash. (iv) Without prejudice to above, it is most respectfully submitted that even if it is accepted that the said seized material belonged to assessee and are relating to Page | 25 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. angadia business and in coded figures, the addition of the total sum of the figures cannot be made. As a logical extension of the prevalent trade practice and custom in angadia business, the addition can only be made of commission earned from the transfer of money and valuables of the customers which varies from Rs.100 to Rs.200 per every Rs.1,00,000/- which is verifiable from the regular books of accounts. The assessing officer only applied the prevalent trade practice and custom in angadia business at the time of decoding the figures of seized records and on the very next moment he ignores the income which Angadia derives from the said business i.e. commission. Thus adding the entire sum of figures to determine income is unfair, unjust and against the principles of natural justice. (iii) Further Your Honour has vide para no 6 of letter dtd 23.08.2019 called for the report for the following. "During assessment the assessee filed copies of the typical records maintained in course of business. The assessee also claimed that if the impugned loose sheets are treated as pertaining to assessee the amounts mentioned therein cannot be totalled up and added as income. The amounts noted in the alleged loose sheets are the money received from consigners and money paid to consignees. The assessee only gets the charges it collects over the amounts moved by it. He claimed that courier services or angadias charge Rs.100-200 per Rs.1 lac moved by them. The LD assessing officer has not accepted this explanation, I have examined the same and I find typical records maintained by assessee in its business is totally different from loose sheets found and seized at Kolkata premises and the LD assessing officer has missed this vital point." However the Assessing officer has not offered any comments on the above observation and instead have just arrived to the conclusion that the addition must be upheld and is judicious. Regarding the observation that the assessing officer has decoded the figures according to the prevalent practice of Angadia business but ignored deriving the commission income from such business, the Assessing officer has no clarification/answer and therefore adding the entire amount as undisclosed income in the case of the assessee is not justified. assessing officer's COMMENTS: Vide para no 5.4 it is reported that the assesse argues that seized material shows that it does not contain any name, nor any description of the transaction it just has dates and some number to which another number is added or subtracted and resultant figure is arrived at the figure mentioned in one loose sheet are not carried forward to any other sheet etc. In fact the loose sheets have code numbers to understand and to identify the transaction in a coded manner. Which the prevalent practice applied in this type of business to decide the noting. Factually the onus upon the assessee firm that the documents seized from the branch office belonged to the assessee and the responsibility to explain the contents of seized documents/loose sheets lies upon the assessee ASSESSEE'S COMMENTS: (i) The contention of the assessee against the above observation is covered by para No.2.3 and 2.6 above and therefore to avoid duplication the same are not repeated here. Page | 26 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. (ii) Your Honour observed vide para no 7 of the letter dtd 23.08.2019 as under and called for report for the same. "It stands to reason that the ADIT, Kolkata and higher officers investigation wing Kolkata did not feel that the seized material pertains to assessee firm because if they had thought so they would have covered the head office in Surat and branches at other places. After all if a branch can have 36 crs of undisclosed income what will be the total undisclosed income of the assessee firm as a whole. It only shows that ADIT (Inv) Kolkata and higher officers in investigation wing were of opinion that the cash & seized material belongs to Shri Rajendra Ramdas Patel & the disclosure made fairly covers both the cash & the seized material." The Assessing officer failed to offer any clarification or comments in its report on the above observation. The assessee has already discharged its onus by proving beyond doubt that the seized documents did not belong to assessee firm and the said fact was also accepted by the investigation wing Kolkata and therefore no adverse action was taken by them. 2.8 Your Honour observed vide para no 9 of the letter dtd 23.08.2019 as under and called for report for the same from the Assessing officer. "From the above facts and circumstances and the discussion made it is clear that 1. The cash & seized material is accepted by ADIT (INV) & higher officer in investigation wing to belong to Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel in his individual capacity and disclosure made by him covers the same. 2. Even if the seized material is held to pertain to business of assessee then the income is to be estimated at Rs.200 per Rs.1 lac noted in seized material (without prejudice plea of assessee)" The Assessing officer failed to offer any explanation or comments in its report with reference to the above observation. In this regard it is further stated that once the seized material have been owned up by Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel and accepted by the investigation wing, the assessing officer of the assessee as well as the assessing officer of Rajendra Ramdas Patel then the question of estimating the commission income in the case of the assessee does not arise. Thus, addition made by assessing officer is not justified as (i) the seized material found during the course of search belonged to and owned by Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas who also declared an amount of Rs.50,00,000/- covering the seized cash found during the course of search and seized material i.e. the transactions he carried out from his Kolkata office, (ii) Income tax department accepted in his case the fact that (a) search was in the case of Shri Patel Rajendrakumar Ramdas, (b) cash found during the course of search belonged to & owned by him (c) the material found during the course of search belonged to him, and on that basis initiated proceedings, assessed cash u/s 153A in his case. In view of the above, Your Honour is most respectfully requested to delete the additions in all the three assessment years & obliged.” Page | 27 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. 18. Learned CIT(A), after taking into account the remand report and assessee`s submissions/reply on the remand report, observed that assessing officer has not been able to give any contrary findings on basis of cogent evidences, and the assessing officer has merely reiterated the observations made in assessment order in few places. Therefore, based on the remand report and assessee`s submissions, the ld CIT(A) reached on the following conclusions: (i) Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel (herein after RRP) appeared before the Ld. ADIT (lnv.) Kolkata and owned up the cash found in searched premises. He admitted & offered Rs.50 Lacs as undisclosed income earned in his individual capacity from the activities carried out from that premises (including Rs.29,81,300/- cash found). The Ld. ADIT(Inv.) has not probed, further, nor has he questioned in detail on seized material etc, implying that, he was satisfied that Rs.50 Lacs declared adequately covers the undisclosed income earned from business activities carried on from the said premises in Kolkata including the notings found in incriminating seized material. The search action is minutely monitored by Addl. DIT (Inv.) and DIT(Inv.), hence absence of further enquiry, and absence of any consequent action u/s 132 etc, shows that the higher authorities in the Investigation Wing Kolkata were of same considered opinion. (ii) Shri RRP filed ITR disclosing this income & Jurisdictional assessing officer at Ahmedabad has made assessment accordingly as discussed in para 3 of my letter dated 23.08.2019 supra. So it is clear that cash found & seized material found in searched premises at Kolkata have been owned up and resultant income is offered to tax and assessed accordingly in hands of Shri RRP as concluded in para 7 of my letter dated 23.08.2019 (supra). The Ld. assessing officer in his remand report vide para 5.2 and again in 5.5 has also given the same finding. (iii) The Ld. assessing officer of assessee firm gives finding that the assessee firm is engaged in business of 'angadia' or money courier services as evident from his interpretation of figures noted in seized material (ref para 6.1 show cause notice of Ld. assessing officer). The same is discussed in details in para 5 of my letter Page | 28 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. referred above. The finding is reiterated in para 4 & 5.4 of the remand report (supra). Even after holding that assessee firm is engaged in angadia business or money courier business, the Ld. assessing officer does not analyze the transactions in that light. On the contrary, he just adds up all the amounts noted after supplying 3 zeroes (OOOs) to them. Analysis of seized materials keeping in mind the business activity will lead to conclusion that the amounts noted in the incriminating seized material is the cash moved/transferred for earning commission or khep charges. So only the commission/khep charges at 0.50% (Rs.15,00,000/-) on the total amount noted can be faxed. However, an amount of Rs.50 Lacs has already been offered as undisclosed income on the same & assessed as such. Hence there is no reason to further make any addition. (iv) Though the Ld. assessing officer has made additions of such huge amount based on a few notings in loose sheets, found in alleged branch of assessee firm, no effort was made by him to do a concerted investigation info modus operandi of firm as a whole to ascertain the total undisclosed income earned by firm by such activities in all its branches & HO. It is further seen that Ld. assessing officer has not made any efforts to find out the assets/application of this big quantum of undisclosed income alleged to have been earned by a branch of the firm. This in my opinion denotes complete lack of conviction of the Ld. assessing officer, in his own analysis & interpretation of the incriminating seized materials. This view is further strengthened by fact that, though fax demand of Rs.9 Cr has been raised, demand recovered till date is nominal. (v) It can be seen that the show cause notice was issued to assessee by Ld. assessing officer on 28.03.2016, assessee's reply was obtained on 30.03.2016 & same day order was passed (30.03.2016). Hence, it appears that impugned addition is made due to inadequate understanding, lack of conviction and as a last minute hurried decision as a matter of abundant precaution. 19. Therefore, ld CIT(A) held that income arising from business activities carried out at the premises at Kolkata, subjected to search action u/s 132, has been Page | 29 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. owned up and offered to tax by Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel for relevant assessment years and this has been accepted by both Investigation -Wing & assessing officer at Ahmedabad. The assessing officer of assessee firm at Surat has deviated from this view, however, he has not given/placed on record any cogent evidences or given any discernible line of reasoning. There is no whisper in assessment order, as to the reason for not accepting the above view. Therefore, ld CIT(A) held that there is no reason to make any addition in hands of assessee- firm, as the addition in the hands of Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel (one of the partners of the assessee firm) was deleted. Accordingly, the impugned additions for assessment years 2011-12 and assessment year 2014-15 were deleted. That being so, we decline to interfere with the order of ld. CIT(A) in deleting the aforesaid additions. His order on this addition is, therefore, upheld and the grounds of appeal of the Revenue of both appeals, are dismissed. 20. In ground No. 4 in the Revenue`s appeal in (IT(SS)A No.03 /SRT/2020, for assessment year 2014-15, the main grievance of the revenue is that the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition made by the assessing officer on protective basis amounting to Rs.29,81,300/- on account of cash seized without analysing the actual effect of ROI filed in the case of Shri Rajendra Ramdas Patel for A.Y 2014-15 wherein the income offered to tax on account of disclosure u/s 132(4) has been reduced by claiming set off of unallowable bad debt and thereby substantially reducing incidence of tax on the income disclosed u/s 132(4) of the Act. 21. We have heard both the parties. In respect of ground No.4, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity. On the other hand, ld Counsel defended the order passed by the ld CIT(A). We note that during the appellate proceedings, the ld CIT(A) observed that assessing officer has made addition in respect of cash found during search action u/s 132 at the premises in Kolkata in the hands of assessee-firm on protective basis. The ld CIT(A) noted that when the cash found is owned up and Page | 30 IT(SS)A No.01& 3 /SRT/2020 A.Ys.11-12 & 14-15 M/s Patel Somabhai Ramdas & Co. offered by Shri Rajendrakumar Ramdas Patel in his Income Tax Return and also assessed accordingly by the Jurisdictional assessing officer in his hands. Hence based on this factual position, ld CIT(A) deleted the addition. The conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the ground raised by the Revenue. 22. In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed. A copy of the instant common order be placed in the respective case file(s). Order is pronounced on 17/10/2022 by placing the result on the Notice Board. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER स ू रत /Surat/िदनांक/ Date: 17/10/2022 Dkp Outsourcing Sr.P.S./SS Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. Pr.CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat