M/s. Uikam Investment & Finance Pvt. Ltd., Uttar Pradesh V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITSSA 10/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2537 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2016
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 15-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N C SWAIN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE : SHRI I.C. SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT (SS) A NO. 10/DEL./2013 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1986 TO 11.07.1996 M/S. UIKAM INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD., VS. A.C.I.T., CENTRAL CIRCLE 23, E - 10, SECTOR - 15, NOIDA, U.P. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AAACU1596L) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. V.K. BINDAL, C.A. RESPONDENT BY : SH. N.C. SWAIN, CIT/DR DATE OF HEARING : 26.08.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 0 7 .10.2016 ORDER PER L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 23, NEW DELHI DATED 28.03.2013 U/S. 158BC/254 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1986 TO 11.07.1996 ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS PASSING A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER US 158BC/ 254 AFTER 31/12/11 IN PURSUANCE TO THE DIRECTIONS OF THE IT AT ORDER WHICH IS BARRED BY LIMITATION STATED AS 153(2A) OF THE ACT. THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AFTER LIMITATION SHOULD BE CANCELLED. 2. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 54,47,150/ - ON THE BASIS OF S EIZED MATERIAL IGNORING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD. THUS THE ADDITION SO MADE SHOULD BE DELETED. ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 2 3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/ - FOR THE INVESTMENT MADE IN THE SHARE CAPITAL OF PAT LIPUTRA CREDIT & SECURITIES LTD. IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BY MR. ANIL SANGHI AND DULY CONFIRMED BY HIM. THUS THE ADDITION SO MADE IGNORING THE FACTS AND EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD SHOULD BE DELETED . 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS COMPLETED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 20.09.1996 BASED ON SEARCH WARRANT DATED 11.07.2096, COMPRISING OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE SEARCH , TOTAL SEIZURE OF RS.3,30,30,527/ - WAS MADE AND AFTER GIVING NOTICE U/S. 158BC OF THE IT ACT, ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED AT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.5,89,81,923/ - U/S. 158BC (C) OF THE ACT ON 29.10.1997. IN APPEAL BEFORE ITAT, THE SAID ASSESSMENT WAS HELD TO BE INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2006, AS NO SEARCH WARRANT WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ITAT. THE REVENUE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND PRODUCED THE REQUISITE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION AND, THEREFORE, THE HIGH COURT VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 31.10.2007 RESTORED THE APPEAL TO THE ITAT FOR DECISION AFRESH. THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 30.04.2008 AGAIN QUASHED THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HOLDING THAT THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION SIGNED BY THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME - TAX WAS WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY. AGAIN THE DEPARTMENT WENT BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 30.11.2009 RESTORED THE MATTER TO ITAT HOLDING THAT THE WARRA NT SIGNED BY ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 3 ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX WAS NOT INVALID IN VIEW OF AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT . THEREAFTER, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 10.01.2011 RESTORED THE MATTER BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE SAME IN VIEW OF THE OBS ERVATIONS MADE BY TRIBUNAL IN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE S GROUP COMPANY M/S. PATILPUTRA CREDITS AND SECURITIES LTD. DECIDED VIDE ORDER DATED 17.03.2006. IT IS AFTER THE SERIES OF PROCEEDINGS, MENTIONED ABOVE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT AFTER CONSIDERING VARIOUS OBSERVATIONS OF TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN ORDER DATED 17.03.2006 OF M/S. PATILPUTRA CREDITS AND SECURITIES LTD. 3. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.54,47,150/ - FOR A.Y. 1997 - 98 ON THE BASIS OF FOLLOWING ENTRIES FOUN D MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE A - 13 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. ANIL SANGHI , A COMMON DIRECTOR IN VARIOUS COMPANIES OF THE GROUP, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 01.11.1996 : PARTICULARS AMOUNT DEPOSIT IN COL. NO. 1 40,88,000/ - DD FOR COIMBATORE 7,78,115/ - DD FOR ROC BOMBAY 1,87,000/ - SUSPENSE A/C 3,94,035/ - THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ABOVE ENTRIES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT MR. ANIL SANGHI WAS THE PERSON WHO WAS MANAGING THE AFFAIRS OF ALL THE GROUP COMPANIES AND RS.40,88,000/ - (DEPOSIT IN C - 1) WAS ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 4 TRANSFERRED BY HIM TO PUBLIC ISSUE ACCOUNT OF PATILPUT R A CREDIT AND SECURITIES LTD. (PCSL) ON 12.03.96 THROUGH CHEQUES. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SH. ANIL SANGHI TRANSFERRED THE ABOVE AMOUNT TO PCSL AND PLANNED TO RECORD THE TRANSACTION O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THAT IS WHY THE SAID AMOUNT WAS MENTIONED THERE. SIMILARLY THE PAYMENT OF RS.4,78,115/ - WRONGLY WRITTEN AS 7,78,115/ - , HAS ALSO BEEN MADE BY MR. ANIL SANGHI THROUGH DD OBTAINED FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND GIVEN TO PRAKASH CH AND , THE SOURCE OF WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED IN HIS HANDS. HENCE, NO FURTHER ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE - COMPANY. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT SIMILARLY RS.1,87,000/ - WAS PAID BY ANIL SANGHI THROUGH DD OBTAINED FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT TOWARDS PAYME NT OF ROC FEE . NO AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. RS.1,57,000/ - WAS ALSO PAID BY ANIL SANGHI ON BEHALF OF M/S. KANDLA PETRO CHEMICALS CORPN. LTD. WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN ADDED IN THE CASE OF KANDLA PETRO CHEMICALS, HENCE, THE SAME CANNOT BE AGAIN ADDE D IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN SUSPENSE ACCOUNT REPRESENTS THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY ANIL SANGHI AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED BY THE REPLY OF ASSESSEE AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.54,47,150/ - OBSERVING AS UNDER : THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND NOT ACCEPTABLE. ON GOING THROUGH THE SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ANIL SANGHI ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 5 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 1 - 11 - 96 THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WERE FOUND AT PAGE 88 OF ANNEXURE A - 13. TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,31,59,150 TOTAL DEPOSITS IN BANK 4,77,12,000 DEPOSIT IN C - L 40,88,000 D.D. FOR COIMBTORE 7,78,115 D.D. FOR ROC BOMBAY 1,87,000 SUSPENSE A/C 3,94,035 TOTAL UTILIZATION OF FUND 1,55,06,283 BALANCE IN BANK 3,36,72,206 . 7.1 THIS WAS THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31.05.96 AS PER ANNEXURE A - 13. ON COMPARING THE ABOVE ENTRIES WITH THE BANK A/CS OF THE ASSESSEE CO., IT WAS SEE N THAT TOTAL RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESSEE TILL THAT DATE WERE ONLY RS. 4,77,12,000/ - . THE SOURCE OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 54,47,150/ - WAS REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE NOTICE DATED 17.10.97. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO REQUIRED TO EXPLA IN THE UTILIZATION OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT WHICH AS PER ANNEXURE A - 13 WAS AS FOLLOWS: - DEPOSIT IN C - L 40,88,000 D.D. FOR COIMBATORE 7,78,115 D.D. FOR ROC BOMBAY 1,87,000 7.2 THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 12.11.2012 SUBMITTED THE REPLY. REPLY FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. SECTION 132 (4A) OF THE I.T. ACT STATES THAT WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, DOCUMENTS ETC. ARE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. ANNEXUR E A - 13 AFORE MENTIONED WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ANIL SANGHI AND THE ENTRIES LISTED ABOVE ARE CLEARLY GIVEN UNDER THE NAME OF ASSESSEE COMPANY. 7.3 THE ONLY CONCLUSION IN SUCH A CASE CAN BE THAT THESE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO NONE OTHER TH AN THE ASSESSEE, MORE SO BECAUSE MANY OF THEM TALLY WITH THE BANK ACCOUNTS ETC. OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ENTRIES THAT DO NOT TALLY ARE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH AS TO HOW THE ENTRIES OF RS. ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 6 54,47,150/ - BEING RECEIPTS OVER AND ABOVE RS. 4,77,12,000/ - IN ITS BANK A/CS AS WELL AS THEIR UTILIZATION BY WAY OF PAYMENT TO COIMBATORE, DEPOSIT IN CO. NO. 1 ETC DO NOT RELATE TO IT BUT TO OTHER COMPANIES. IN THE CASE OF M/S. PATLIPUTRA I NTERNATIONAL TRADING LTD. WHERE SIMILAR ENTRY APPEARED, THE MEANING OF C - 1 HAS BEEN CONSTRUED TO BE M/S. ANNIE INVESTMENT & FINANCE (P) LTD. WHEREAS C - 1 IS NOW BEING TAKEN TO MEAN M/S. PATILPUTRA CREDIT SECURITIES LTD. EVEN THE FIGURES FOR SOME PAYMENTS LIKE DEPOSIT IN C - 1, DD FOR COIMBATORE ARE BEING CHANGED AS PER THE ASSESSEE S CONVENIENCES. UNDER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES RS.54,47,150/ - IS BEING TAKEN AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 97 - 98. 5. REGARDING THE SECOND ISSUE, IT WAS SUBMITTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MR. ANIL SANGHI INVESTED RS.3,00,000/ - IN THE NAME OF APPELLANT, IN THE SHARES OF M/S. PATILPUTRA CREDIT & SECURITIES LTD. OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.27,64,93,670/ - . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE I NVESTMENT OF RS.3,00,000/ - WAS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF ANIL SANGHI AMOUNTING TO RS.10,79,94,439/ - IN PATLIPUTRA CREDIT AND SECURITIES LTD. AND THIS FACT STOOD ACCEPTED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28.12.2007. MR. ANIL SANGHI ALSO CONFIRMED T HIS FACT. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY MR. ANIL SANGHI OUT OF HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND WAS DECLARED AS PART OF HIS INVESTMENT IN HIS PERSONAL BALANCE SHEET, THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID SHARES WAS NOT DECLARED BY ASSESSE E IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY NEVER INVESTED ANY OF ITS FUNDS IN THOSE SHARES. . IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS THE UTILIZATION OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF MR. ANIL SANGHI , WHICH WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION AND THEREFO RE, THE ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 7 SAME CANNOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO REJECTED THIS EXPLANATION FOR THE REASON THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST PATLIPUTRA CREDITS AND SECURITIES LTD. OR AGAINST ANIL SANGHI. HE, THEREFORE, ADDE D THIS SUM TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED HAS CHALLENGED THIS BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE US BY MEANS OF THIS APPEAL . 6. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE US WITH THE REQUEST THAT THE SAME BEING LEGAL IN NATURE, BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION : THE ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN MAKING AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THE ANNEXURE A - 13 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. ANIL SANGHI DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CONDUCTED ON HI M ON 01.11.1996 WITHOUT RECORDING ANY SATISFACTION U/S. 158BD OF THE ACT AS THE SEARCH ON THE APPELLANT WAS COMPLETED ON 20.09.1996 AND THE SAID SEIZED ANNEXURE DID NOT RELATE TO THE MATERIAL SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE WITHOUT COMPL YING WITH THE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS OF THE LAW SHOULD BE DELETED. 7. THE LD. DR OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND BECAUSE NO SUCH ISSUE WAS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITY OR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN EARLIER ROUNDS OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 8 8. KEEPING IN VIEW THE NATURE OF ADDITIONAL GROUND, BEING PURELY LEGAL, AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC CO. LTD. VS. CIT, 229 ITR 383 (SC), RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE OBSERVE THAT SUCH LEGAL GROUNDS CAN BE TAKEN AT A NY STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS. WE, THEREFORE, ADM IT THIS GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION AND WE FIRST TAKE UP THIS LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE INVOLVED IN THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND FOR ADJUDICATION . 9. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE BLOCK PERIOD FOR WHICH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN MADE COMMENCES IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE FROM 01.04.1986 AND COMES TO END ON THE DATE OF SURVEY COMPLETED ON ASSESSEE, I.E., 20.09.1996. THEREFORE, IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, ONLY THOS E MATERIALS COULD BE UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSE SSEE WHICH WERE FOUND OR SEIZED UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS UTILIZED ANNEXURE - A - 13 WHICH WAS SEIZED ON A DIFFERENT SEARCH COMPLETED ON THE RESIDENCE OF SH. ANIL SANGHI ON 01.11.1996 WHICH DOES NOT FALL IN THE BLO CK PERIOD OF ASSESSEE, I.E., 01.04.1986 TO 20.09.1996. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY MATERIAL, DETECTED FROM THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF BLOCK PERIOD, IS UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS TO FOLLOW THE PRESCRIBED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, WHICH THE AO FAILED TO DO. THEREFORE, WITHOUT RESORTING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 9 DIRECTLY UTILIZING THE MATERIAL DETECTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF BLOCK THAT TOO IN THE SEARCH C OMPLETED AT THE RESIDENCE OF SH. ANIL SANGHI. THEREFORE, ADDITIONS, WHATSOEVER, MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE A - 13 ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AT ALL. 10. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ADDITIONS, WHATSOEVER, MADE IN THE INSTANT CASE ARE BASED ON ANNEXURE A - 13 SEIZED. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SAID ANNEXURE WAS SEIZED IN THE SEARCH COMPLETED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SH. ANIL SANGHI ON 01.11.1996 . IT IS FURTHER BORN OUT ON RECORD THAT THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE STOOD COMPLETED ON 20.09.1996. THE BLOCK PERIOD IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE WAS THEREFORE, UPTO 20.09. 1996 , WHICH CANNOT BE STRETCHED UPTO 01.11.1996 . WE , THEREFORE, FIND THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, ONLY THOSE MATERIALS COULD BE UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE FOUND OR SEIZED UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH. WE FURTHER FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION O F ASSESSEE THAT IF ANY MATERIAL, DETECTED FROM THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED, SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF BLOCK PERIOD, IS UTILIZED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THE AO ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 10 HAS TO FOLLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD, WHICH THE AO FAILED TO DO IN THE PRESEN T CASE. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BD READ AS UNDER : 158BD. WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS WERE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A , THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED UNDER SECTION 158BC AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS CHAPTER SHALL APPLY ACCORDINGLY . A BARE READING OF ABOVE PROVISIONS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING HAS TO RECORD A SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT THA T ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETECTED AT A PARTICULAR PREMISES UNDER SEARCH, BELONGS TO ANY PERSON, OTHER THAN THE PERSON WITH RESPECT TO WHOM SEARCH WAS MADE UNDER SECTI ON 132 . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE RECORD NOWHERE SHOWS EXISTENCE OF ANY SUCH SATISFACTION. THEREFORE, THIS BEING A LEGAL FLAW, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTLY UTILIZING THE MATERIAL DETECTED SUBSEQUENT TO THE END OF BLOCK PERIOD OF ASSESSEE , THAT TOO I N THE SEARCH COMPLETED AT THE RESIDENCE OF SH. ANIL SANGHI AND HENCE, ADDITIONS, WHATSOEVER, MADE ON THE BASIS OF ANNEXURE A - 13 ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE AT ALL IN THE INSTANT CASE. WE, THEREFORE, DELETE THE ADDITIONS AND QUASH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AS INVALID ON THIS LEGAL ASPECT OF THE CASE. ITA NO. 10/DEL./2013 11 12. SINCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT STANDS QUASHED ON THE ABOVE LEGAL GROUND AS STATED ABOVE, WE NEED NOT TO ENTER INTO THE MERITS OF ADDITIONS ON OTHER GROUNDS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 7 .10.2016 . SD/ - SD/ - ( I.C. SUDHIR ) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 0 7 .10.2016 *AKS/ - COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHE S, NEW DELHI