D C I T (Central)-2, Indore V. M/s. Jaideep Ispat & Alloy (P) Ltd., INDORE

ITSSA 261/Ind/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5054 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2019
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Business income; Transfer pricing; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; International transaction; Question of law; Corroborative evidences; Arm length price; Retraction; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 132; 69C; 92C; 139; 143(3); 92D; 133A; 153A; 143(1); 251; 143(2); 139(1); 48; 153; 145(3); 153C; 92CA

Judgement Text

आयकर अपील य अ धकरण, इंदौर यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIALMEMBER AND SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VIRTUAL HEARING IT(SS)A No.261 to 266/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2010-11 to 2015-16 DCIT Central-2, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M/s Jaideep Ispat & Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AABCJ4896R ITA No.22 &23/Ind/2021 Assessment Year:2014-15& 2015-16 ACIT Central-2, Indore बनाम/ Vs. M/s Jaideep Ispat & Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No.AABCJ4896R IT(SS)A No.268 to 271/Ind/2019 Assessment Year:2013-14 to 2016-17 M/s Jaideep Ispat & Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore बनाम/ Vs. DCIT Central-2, Indore (Appellant) (Respondent ) P.A. No. AABCJ4896R Revenue by Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 2 Assessee by Shri C.P. Rawka, CA Date of Hearing: 05.01.2022 Date of Pronouncement: 08 .03.2022 आदेश / O R D E R PER BENCH: The above departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2016-17 are filed against the consolidated order of the learned CIT(A)-III, Indore [in short learned CIT(A)] passed on 30.9.2019 arising out of the consolidated assessment order of the DCIT, Central-2, Indore passed on 29.12.2017 u/s 153A/143(3) of the I.T. Act whereas departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16 are filed against the consolidated order of the learned CIT(A)-III, Indore [in short learned CIT(A)] passed on 17.9.2020 in the consolidated assessment order of the DCIT, Central-2, Indore passed on 17.12.2018 u/s 153A/143(3) of the I.T. Act Departmental appeals bearing ITA Nos. 261,262,263 & 264/Ind/2019) A.Y. 2010-11, 2011-12, 2012-13 & 2013-14: 2. For the above assessment years, the department has filed appeals on the following grounds: AY. 2010-11 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.15,19,87,876/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales based on incriminating documents seized in group cases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- made by the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 3 Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure of gold incentive. AY. 2011-12 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,42,22,400/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales based on incriminating documents seized in group cases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure of gold incentive. AY. 2012-13 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,12,45,056/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales based on incriminating documents seized in group cases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure of gold incentive. AY. 2013-14 1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.13,70,11,485/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales based on incriminating documents seized in group cases. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unexplained expenditure of gold incentive. 3. First issue in the departmental appeals relates to addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer (in short “Ld.AO”) on account of unaccounted sales. Brief facts as culled out from the records are that a search and seizure operation was carried out in M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 4 Moira Group of cases on 17.06.2015 and Gaurav Sanghvi, alleged key person of the group. During the course of search, various loose papers/dairy were found and seized from the premises of Mr. Sanghvi. The Assessing Officer at para no.13.1 of the assessment order made discussion and alleged that modus operandi adopted by the assessee co. generated income by way of sales out of books of accounts. The related statements were said to be given by Shri Gaurav Sanghvi confirming the modus operandi. Also some evidences were said to be gathered by the ld. AO in the form of envelops, bilties, etc. which were completely disowned by the assessee company. The Assessing Officer also mentioned about some dummy companies and transporters which were being alleged to be used by assessee co. for executing the cash sales. Ld. Assessing Officer further noted that Mr. V.A. Thomas, who was accountant and handled cash of the group concerns, made all the payments to various suppliers and the payments from the buyers are also being received by him and during search operation, it was found that there were several coded messages in the mobile of V.A. Thomas. Thus, the ld. AO connected V.A. Thomas to the case and decoded certain things from his mobile in relation to the modus operandi as stated above. The Assessing Officer interpreted the figures of the seized documents in terms of the quantity and price of the TMT Bars. A major part was also decoded in terms of the incentive given against the sales to various dealers. Further on the basis of the seized documents the Assessing Officer concluded that the information relates to 11 months which were then spread over by the Assessing Officer for the period April 2013 to April 2015 (cumulative period comes to 25 months i.e. three financial years).The total quantity worked out as unaccounted was 65033 MT of which monthly average was taken as 6500 MT per month (65033/10). For arriving at the figure of rate of steel, actual bills were considered by AO and average rate for each year was calculated by the Revenue. After that the total unaccounted sales were extrapolated for the seven years on the basis of above M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 5 mentioned figures as mentioned at page 68-70 of the assessment order. The total unaccounted sales arrived by the AO was then divided between Jaideep Ispat & Alloy Pvt. Ltd. and Rathi Iron & steel Industries Ltd. in the ratio of 2.62:1, which was based on their actual production and same is mentioned on page 68 para 14.23 & page 70 para 14.25 of the assessment order. Thereafter, the ‘Ld.AO’ rejected the books and applied the Gross Profit Rate by invoking the provisions of section 145(3) of the Act. On the total figure of sales so arrived, Gross Profit Rate was then applied which was taken as the actual GP rates from the regular books of accounts as mentioned in the page 71 para 14.26 of the assessment order. Accordingly, the ‘Ld.AO’ made additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 deleted the additions on the ground that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions on account of undisclosed sales on the basis of some incriminating material pertaining to some other Assessment Years found during the course of the search proceedings. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14. 4. Before us, the ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14. 5. Per contra, the learned Counsel for the assesse, for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14, relied on the finding of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and submitted that the date of search and seizure operation was 17.6.2015 and assessment Years 2010- 11 to 2013-14 are non-abated and completed assessments and in view of the plethora of decisions of various Hon'ble Courts, the additions made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 in absence of incriminating material are invalid. Learned Counsel for the assessee further submitted that despite clear cut denial on the ownership of seized documents from the premises of Gaurav Kumar Sanghvi, the department has taken M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 6 the instances on thrusting the same on us as Gaurav Kumar Sanghavi was nor on the board of the company neither he was an employee of the company because the assessee company’s association with Gaurav Kumar Sanghavi was limited to stray incidence of consultation and whenever his services were required as a consultant, he was requested to render the same and raise a bill on the assessee company and as such, the total payment of Shri Sanghavi did not exceed Rs. 1 Lakh in any year. Thus, the assessee company cannot assign the task of sales to a person who has no interest in the assessee company in any manner. Learned Counsel for the assessee (in short ‘Ld.AR’) also submitted that the assessee’s business process particularly the manufacturing and removal of goods is subject to Central Excise Rules and Regulations and the central excise authority keeps a vigilant watch on the in and out movement of goods and therefore there can be no scope of removal of goods without the knowledge of the central excise authorities. Moreover, the industry of the company has the machinery of clear specification about the permissible production and therefore, there was no scope of production over and above100% capacity of the unit. Ld.AR submitted that the Revenue Authorities did not appreciate the aspect of the consumption of power vis-à-vis the production of finished goods and alsono documents evidencing unaccounted sales was recovered pertaining to AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14and this fact was appreciated by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who deleted the addition relying on plethora of decisions laying down the ratio that no addition could be made in the search case unless there is incriminating material pertaining to the Assessment year concerned. Thus, he prayed that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be sustained on the subject issue so far as the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 are concerned. 6. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that search and seizure operation was carried out on 17.6.2015, thus, the assessment years M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 7 2010-11 to 2013-14 are non-abated and completed assessments as no incriminating documents relating to the assessment years 2010- 11 to 2013-14 were found during the course of search operation. We find that the learned CIT(A) decided this issue as under: “ 6.14 Another important issue raised through these grounds has been that the AO has estimated the sales and income in the assessment years 2010-11 to 2013-14 without having found and seized incriminating material relevant to these periods. The appellant has also filed detailed and separate submission on this issue applicable to all these assessment years. It has further been stated that assessments in the cases from the A.Y. 2011-12 and 2012-13 were completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 before initiation of search. No assessment proceeding in these years were abated. It has been observed that during survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 conducted in appellant’s premises on 21/08/2019, no reference to any incriminating documents found and impounded have been given in the assessment order. No discrepancies are stated to have been noticed in the production record, stock of raw material and finished goods during survey. Similarly, during the course of search proceedings conducted from 17/06/2015 to 21/06/2015, no serious infirmities have been brought on record that the appellant during the period as referred above had resorted to overproduction and sales of out of books of account. No discrepancies in maintenance of production, stock and sales record were found and brought on record. It is seen that A.Y. 2011-12 and A.Y. 2012-13 have been completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and in case of A.Y. 2010- 11 and 2013-14 the time limit for issue of notices u/s 143(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 have been elapsed before initiation of search. It has further been observed that the authorized officer and AO have not brought on record even a single piece of evidence of excess production/stock/finished good and un- account sales outside the books of account during the period relevant to these assessment years. There is no evidence of generation of unaccounted income and undisclosed assets during the period relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2013-14. The addition of Rs.15,19,87,876/- (A.Y. 2010-11), Rs.7,42,22,400/- (A.Y. 2011-12), Rs.13,12,45,056/-(A.Y. 2012-13) and Rs.13,70,11,485/- (A.Y. 2013-14) have been found made solely on the strength of incriminating documents pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15 to 2015-16. These incriminating M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 8 documents have been found discussed and interpreted appropriately in various pages of assessment order. The findings of AO on the veracity of these documents shall be considered while adjudicating the issue of unaccounted sales and income during assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17. 6.15 However, it is found that the addition made during the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2013-14 have not been found based on incriminating documents evidencing sales out of books of account. During the course of appeal proceedings, I had tried to ascertain from the AO if any document relevant to suppression of sale during this period was found and seized. But, no such documents have been found seized and brought on record. It has been found that the figures of unaccounted sales in these assessment years have been arrived at by the AO through the theory of extrapolation resulting in to considerable amount of guess work and presumption. The AO has not rejected books of account in these assessment years without specifically pointing out the defects in books or any other factors like sales out of books of account. No discrepancy in production, purchase and sale, inventories and any other transaction have been pointed out and brought on record. The defects and infirmities found in books and sale/purchase noticed in other assessment years i.e. 2014-15 to 2016-17 cannot be made basis of rejecting the books for the period relevant to assessment years from 2010-11 to 2013-14. Further, it is also observed that the AO has tried to justify the theory of extrapolation on the strength of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. HM Esufall HM Abdulali 1973 AIR 2266, 1973 SCR (3) 1005 (SC) without appreciating the fact that in the said decisions, hon’ble Supreme Court had approved Intra-assessment year extrapolation. Hon’ble Apex Court has never said that the incriminating documents indicating unaccounted sale for particular period/dates falling in a particular year could be extrapolated to arrive at the unaccounted sale figures of another assessment year. In the case law cited supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that sale record of 19 days can be sufficient basis for the AO to determine the sale of entire year in the absence of anything contrary brought on record by the assessee. The AO has also not brought on record any piece of statement of directors or any other responsible persons recorded on the issue of unrecorded sales during the course of search. There is no evidence brought on record to prove that the appellant had been making out of books during the period M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 9 relevant to these assessment year. I have also perused the disclosure letter dated 09/07/2015 filed by the directors before DDIT (Inv.)-I, Indore. In this letter, the disclosure of Rs.20.20 crores has been found made by the appellant company and associates through directors on account of and to cover the discrepancies and lapses during the period falling within the ambit of section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as well as assessment years 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17. Though the disclosure has not been acted upon by the appellant, yet it is found that no specific surrenders during the period relevant to A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2013-14 have been made by the appellant company. No further inquiries and examination of the issue have been found carried out by the investigation wing and the AO. The issue of disclosure shall be dealt with while adjudicating, the grounds for the A.Y. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2016-17. In my considered opinion, with the advent of section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the entire scenario has under gone drastic change. It has been laid down by various judicial authorities, that while invoking section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the completed assessment cannot be revisited unless there is incriminating material pertaining to said assessment year found and seized during the search. It has been clearly held by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) ITR 0573 (Delhi) that in the absence of incriminating material, completed assessments can be re-iterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. In this decision, the word ‘assess’ in section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 has been construed as attributable to abated proceedings and the word “re-assess” to completed assessment proceedings. The relevant part of finding in the decision of Hon’ble High Court in the case cited supra is reproduced as under:- “On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: i. Once a search takes place under Section 132 of the Act, notice under Section 153 A (1) will have to be mandatorily issued to the person searched requiring him to file returns for six AYs immediately preceding the previous year relevant to the AY in which the search takes place. ii. Assessments and reassessments pending on the date of the search shall abate. The total income for such AYs will have to be computed by the AOs as a fresh exercise. iii. The AO will exercise normal assessment powers in respect of the six years previous to the relevant AY in which the search takes place. The AO has the power to assess and reassess the 'total income' of the aforementioned six years in separate assessment orders for each of the six years. In other words there will be only one assessment order in respect of M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 10 each of the six AYs "in which both the disclosed and the undisclosed income would be brought to tax". iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other post-search material or information available with the AO which can be related to the evidence found, it does not mean that the assessment "can be arbitrary or made without any relevance or nexus with the seized material. Obviously an assessment has to be made under this Section only on the basis of seized material." v. In absence of any incriminating material, the completed assessment can be reiterated and the abated assessment or reassessment can be made. The word 'assess' in Section 153 A is relatable to abated proceedings (i.e. those pending on the date of search) and the word 'reassess' to completed assessment proceedings. vi. Insofar as pending assessments are concerned, the jurisdiction to make the original assessment and the assessment under Section 153A merges into one. Only one assessment shall be made separately for each AY on the basis of the findings of the search and any other material existing or brought on the record of the AO. vii. Completed assessments can be interfered with by the AO while making the assessment under Section 153 A only on the basis of some incriminating material unearthed during the course of search or requisition of documents or undisclosed income or property discovered in the course of search which were not produced or not already disclosed or made known in the course of original assessment.” 6.16 Hon’ble jurisdictional ITAT, Indore Bench, Indore relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court and other similar judgment of judicial authorities, has held in the case of DCIT vsKalani Brothers Pvt. Ltd. (2016) 27 ITJ 286 (Indore ITAT) and Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. vs. ACIT (2016) 28 ITJ 47 (Indore ITAT) that the additions can be made in the assessment years completed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 only on the basis of incriminating material found and seized during the course of search. In a recent decision of co-ordinate bench of jurisdictional ITAT, Indore, in the case of M/s Sainath Colonizer, Bhopal vs. ACIT (Central-II) (2019) 35 ITJ 77 (Trib.-Indore), it has clearly been laid down that in all those assessments years which have been completed u/s 143(3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 or 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 where time limit for issuing notice has already elapsed before initiation of search u/s 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the additions cannot be made without the incriminating found during the course of search. Hon’ble Bench had an occasion to discuss the decisions of various High Courts in favour of the department and also in favour of the assessee. Finally, on the strength of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd., (2016) 27 ITJ 151 (SC), it has been concluded that availability of M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 11 incriminating material in the unabated and completed assessment is pre-requisite for making additions. The impugned assessment years i.e. A.Y. 2010-11 to A.Y. 2013-14 are squarely covered by the said decision. 6.17 Further, reliance can be placed on followed recent judgment coordinate bench of ITAT, Indore. i. DCIT vs. MCS Trading Company Pvt. Ltd. (2019) 35 ITJ 92 (Trib.-Indore); ii. Shri Om Prakash Gupta and others vs. ACIT (2019) 35 ITJ 81 (Trib.-Indore). 6.18 Further, the judgment of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla cited supra, has been followed by “A” bench of Delhi ITAT in the case of AnuragDalmia vs. DCIT (2018) 52 CCH 0106 (Del-Trib.). Hon’ble Bench has clearly laid down that unabated assessments which are completed u/s 143(3) and u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and reached its finality can be interfered only on the strength of incriminating material found for the said assessment year during search. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court has been applied by a number of High Courts and Tribunal as under:- “1. Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj.); 2. CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park Pvt. Ltd. 385 ITR 346 (Kar); 3. CIT vs. Gurinder Singh Bawa reported in 386 ITR 483; 4. Hon’bledelhi High Court in Pr. CIT vs. MeetaGutgutia; 5. Karnataka High Court in the case of CIT vs. IBC Knowledge Park P. Ltd.; 6. Pr. CIT-9 vs. Ram AvtarVerma, Hon’ble Delhi High Court; 7. Deputy CIT, Central Circle-2(2), Kolkata vs. M/s Rashmi Float Glass Ltd. Hon’ble ITAT, Kolkata; 8. Pr. CIT vs. Kurele Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd. the order of Hon’ble Delhi High Court; 9. Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in case of CIT vs. M/s SKS Ispat and Power Limited, (2017) 398 ITR 0584 (Bom.); 10. Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai in the case of Anil P. Khimnani vs. DCIT; 11. All Cargo Glolbal Logistics Ltd. vs. DCIT 137 ITD 287 (ITAT Mumbai Special Bench); 12. CIT vs. Anil Kumar Bhatia 211 taxman 453 (Delhi); 13. Gurinder Singh Bawa vs. DCIT 150 ITD 040 (Mum.); 14. AtulBarotvs. DCIT 44 Taxman.com 167 (Mum.); M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 12 15. CIT vs. Singhgad Technical Education Society (2017) 397 ITR 344 (SC); 16. Pr. CIT vs. VikasGutgutia (2017) 396 ITR 691 (Del.); 17. Pr. CIT &Ors.Vs.MeetaGutgutiaProp.Ferns ‘N’ Petals and Ors. S (2017) 295 CIT 0466 (Del.): (2017) 152 DTR 0153 (Del.): (2017) 395 ITR 0526 (Delhi : (2017) 248 Taxman 0384 (Delhi). SLP of department also rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court (2018) 102 CCH 0038 ISCC ; 18. Pr. CIT vs. Ms. Lata Jain (2016) 384 ITR 0543 (Delhi), delhi High Court; 19. CIT vs. Deepak Kumar Agrawal (2017), (2017) 299 CTR 0062 (Bom): (2017) 158 DTR 0100 (Bom): (2017) 398 ITR 0586 (Bom.): (2017) 251 Taxman 0022 (Bombay); 20. Pr. CIT vs. Saumya Construction Pvt. Ltd. 387 ITR 529 (Guj.).” 6.19 The theory of extrapolation of sales figures of one financial year to other financial year is purely on the presumption. Had the presumption being realistic and scientific, nothing would have prevented AO to extrapolate the sales figures for entire F.Y. 2015-16 instead of restricting, the same till the date of search. Moreover, if the inter financial year extrapolation of sales is considered logical and realistic, the AO will have to maintain the same presumption in the all the assessments subsequent to A.Y. 2016-17 i.e. after the search year in the absence of any drastic change having taken place in production pattern and business module of the appellant company. But, this is not permissible in law. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Installment Supply Pvt. Ltd. AIR 1961 SC 53 and RadhaswamiSatsang 193 ITR 321 (SC) has held that res-judicata is not applicable in tax matters. The decision taken in one year cannot be carried forward and applied for subsequent year. 6.20 In view of the above discussion, in my considered opinion, the AO has not been found justified in making additions on account of unaccounted sales on the basis of some incriminating material pertaining to some other assessment years found during the course of search proceedings. The same has not been found sustainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the additions of Rs.15,19,87,876/- (A.Y. 2010-11), Rs.7,42,22,400/- (A.Y. 2011-12), Rs.13,12,45,056/-(A.Y. 2012-13) and Rs.13,70,11,485/- (A.Y. 2013-14) made by the AO are directed to be deleted. ” M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 13 7. On consideration of above, we find that the date of search and seizure operation was 17.6.2015, thus, the assessment years 2010- 11 to 2013-14 are non-abated and completed assessments and the Assessing Officer made the additions even when nothing incriminating was found during the course of search from the premises of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14. We find that the learned CIT(A) examined the records and noted that the Revenue failed to bring on record even a single piece of evidence of excess production/stock/finished good and unaccounted sales outside the books of accounts for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14. Even before us, learned CIT-DR could not controvert above facts by bringing any contrary material on record. Therefore, in light of the findings of the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT v. Kabul Chawla, (2016) 2 ITJ Online 869 (Delhi) : (2016) 380 ITR 573 : (2015) 281 CTR 45 : (2015) 234 Taxman 300 and also decision of Pr. CIT v. Meeta Gutgutia, (2020) 8 ITJ Online 273 (Delhi) : (2017) 395 ITR 526, we are of the considered view that proceedings initiated u/s 153A of the Act for the A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 being non-abated and completed assessments deserve to be quashed since no incriminating material was found during the course of search thereby warranting initiation of proceedings u/s 153A of the Act for these years. We, therefore, confirm the findings of Ld. CIT(A) for the Assessment Year 2010-11 to 2013-14 on this ground and hold that proceedings initiated in the case of the assessee for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2013-14 are without jurisdiction and consequently, assessments framed for these years u/s 153A of the I.T. Act were invalid and additions made by Ld.AO during AY 2010-11 to AY 2013-14 are bad in law. Accordingly, ground no.1 commonly raised in the departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 are dismissed. 8. Second and last issue raised in the departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 relates to deletion of M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 14 additions made on account of unexplained expenditure of gold incentive. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had deleted the additions on the ground that no incriminating document pertaining to the subject Assessment Year was found during the course of search. The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has followed the above principal as discussed in the preceding paras. On consideration of these facts and since we have already confirmed the findings of the learned CIT(A) holding the assessments u/s 153A of the I.T. Act as invalid for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 being non-abated and completed assessments, the second ground raised in the departmental appeals commonly for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 also stands dismissed. Assessee’s appeals bearing ITA Nos. 269, 270 & 271/Ind/2019) A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17: The Assessee has filed the appeal on the following grounds (ITA No. 269,270,271/Ind/2019): A.Y. 2014-15 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 7,99,53,677/- as net profit unaccounted sales without considering the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 64,76,306/- as unexplained expenditure in gold and cash incentive u/s 69C without considering the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 66,91,665/- on account of interest on unsecured loans without considering the facts of the case. A.Y. 2015-16 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 15 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 10,29,95,287/- as net profit unaccounted sales without considering the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 57,10,509/- as unexplained expenditure in gold and cash incentive u/s 69C without considering the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 19,82,758/- on account of cash sales without considering the facts of the case. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 42,46,027/- on account of interest on unsecured loans without considering the facts of the case. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and did not decide the issue raised for interest of Rs. 1,77,12,000/- on account of advances surrendered and credited in books of accounts for the AY 2015-16 under appeal. The said issue was specifically raised by Assessee during the course of hearing and in written submission as well. That without prejudice to above for such estimation of interest, no any incriminating document was found during the course of search. A.Y. 2016-17 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 10,29,95,287/- as net profit unaccounted sales without considering the facts of the case. 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 15,21,450/- as unexplained expenditure in gold and cash incentive u/s 69C without considering the facts of the case. 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 63,000/- on account of unexplained expenditure without considering the facts of the case. 4. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 61,481/- on account of interest on unsecured loans without considering the facts of the case. 5. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and did not decide the issue raised for interest of Rs. 1,77,12,000/- on account of advances surrendered and credited in books of accounts for the AY 2015-16 under appeal. The said issue was specifically raised by Assessee during the course of hearing and in written submission as well. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 16 6. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 35,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash seized from third party without considering the facts of the case. Departmental appeals bearing ITA Nos. 265&266/Ind/2019 A.Y. 2014-15&2015-16: The department has filed the appeal on the following grounds (ITA No. 265&266/Ind/2019): A.Y. 2014-15 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 7,99,53,677/-out of total addition of R. 16,63,03,650/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the unrecorded income by adopting the net profit @4% of unaccounted sales rather than Gross Profit. A.Y. 2015-16 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in restricting the addition to Rs. 10,29,95,287/-out of total addition of R. 15,44,92,931/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of unaccounted sales. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the unrecorded income by adopting the net profit @4% of unaccounted sales rather than Gross Profit. Ground No.1 raised by assessee and Ground Nos.1 & 2 raised by Revenue on the issue of Addition on account of unaccounted cash sales/application of net Profit rate Assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2014-15 to AY 2016-17 & Department’s Appeal for A.Y. 2014-15&2015-16 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 17 9. Facts, with regard to the ground no.1 raised in the assessee’s appeals for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 and ground nos.1 & 2 raised in the departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2014-15 & 2015-16, as culled out from the records are that that a search and seizure operation was carried out on Moira Group of cases on 17.06.2015 and Gaurav Sanghvi, alleged key person was also covered. During the course of search, various loose papers/dairy were found and seized from the premises of Mr. Sanghvi. The Assessing Officer at para no.13.1 of the assessment order made discussion and alleged that modus operandi is adopted by the assessee co. to generate income by way of sales out of books of accounts. The related statements were said to be given by Gaurav Sanghvi confirming the modus operandi. Also some evidences were said to be gathered by the AO in the form of envelops, bilties, etc. which were completely disowned by the assessee company. The Assessing Officer also mentioned about some dummy companies and transporters which were being alleged to be used by assessee co. for executing the cash sales. In addition to this, the AO has also connected Mr. V.A. Thomas to the case and decoded certain things from his mobile in relation to the modus operandi as stated above. The Assessing Officer interpreted the figures of the seized documents in terms of the quantity and price of the TMT Bars. A major part was also decoded in terms of the incentive given against the sales to various dealers. Further on the basis of the seized documents the Assessing Officer concluded that the information relates to 11 months which were then spread over by the Assessing Officer for the period April 2013 to April 2015 (cumulative period comes to 25 months i.e. three financial years). The total quantity worked out as unaccounted was 65033 MT of which monthly average was taken as 6500 MT per month (65033/10). For arriving at the figure of rate of steel, actual bills were considered by AO and average rate for each year was calculated by the Revenue. After that the total unaccounted sales were extrapolated for the seven years on the basis of above mentioned figures as mentioned at page 68-70 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 18 of the assessment order. The total unaccounted sales arrived by the AO was then divided between Jaideep Ispat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd. and Rathi Iron & steel Industries Ltd.as mentioned on the page 68 para 14.23 & page 70 para 14.25 of the assessment order. The same is summarized as under: Month FY Quantity Rate Value Yearly Total April 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 May 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 June 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 July 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 August 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 September 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 October 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 November 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 December 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 January 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 February 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 March 09-10 4700 26,655 12,52,78,500 1,50,33,42,000 April 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 May 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 June 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 July 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 August 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 September 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 October 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 November 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 December 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 January 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 February 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 March 10-11 4700 32,900 15,46,30,000 18,55,56,000 April 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 May 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 June 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 July 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 August 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 September 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 October 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 November 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 December 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 January 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 February 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 March 11-12 4700 40,400 18,98,80,000 2,27,85,60,000 April 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 May 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 19 June 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 July 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 August 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 September 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 October 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 November 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 December 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 January 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 February 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 March 12-13 6500 34,100 22,16,50,000 2,65,98,00,000 April 13-14 6500 35,175 22,86,37,500 May 13-14 6500 35,175 22,86,37,500 June 13-14 6455.142 35,175 22,70,59,620 July 13-14 5415.181 35,175 19,04,78,992 August 13-14 6554.22 35,175 23,05,44,689 September 13-14 6906.100 35,175 24,29,22,068 October 13-14 5889.815 35,175 20,71,74,243 November 13-14 6440.300 35,175 22,65,37,553 December 13-14 8273.530 35,175 29,10,21,418 January 13-14 6500 35,175 22,86,37,500 February 13-14 6500 35,175 22,86,37,500 March 13-14 6500 35,175 22,86,37,500 2,75,89,26,080 April 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 May 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 June 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 July 14-15 6224.700 45,800 28,50,91,260 August 14-15 6854.520 45,800 31,39,37,016 September 14-15 6019.310 45,800 27,56,84,398 October 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 November 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 December 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 January 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 February 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 March 14-15 6500 45,800 29,77,00,000 3,55,40,12,674 April 15-16 12341.170 32,750 40,41,73,318 May 15-16 6500 32,750 21,28,75,000 June 15-16 3250 32,750 10,64,37,500 72,34,85,818 Total 425323.99 15,33,36,86,572 The total sale was then bifurcated by the Ld.AO between Jaideep Ispat & Alloys Pvt. Ltd. and Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. in the ratio of 2.62:1, which was based on their actual production. The same is summarized as under: - M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 20 F.Y. Yearly Sales Unaccounted Sales by RISIL Unaccounted Sales by JIAPL 09-10 1503342000 0 1503342000 10-11 1855560000 0 1855560000 11-12 2278560000 0 2278560000 12-13 2659800000 7327774900 1927025100 13-14 2758926080 760084135 1998841945 14-15 3554012674 979130491.7 2574882182 15-16 723485818 199320342.9 524165475.1 Total 15,33,36,86,572 2,67,13,09,870 12,66,23,76,702 Thereafter, Ld.AO rejected the books and applied the Gross Profit Rate by invoking the section 145(3) of the Act. On the total figure of sales arrived, Gross Profit Rate was then applied which was taken as the actual GP rates from the regular books of accounts as mentioned in the page 71 para 14.26 of the assessment order. Accordingly, Ld. AO made additions. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 deleted the additions on the ground that the Assessing Officer was not justified in making additions on account of undisclosed sales on the basis of some incriminating material pertaining to some other Assessment Years found during the course of the search proceedings. However, for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the learned CIT(A) partly confirmed the additions holding that in these years, incriminating documents pertained to the assessee co. and applied 4% Net Profit rate on the sales. Being aggrieved, the assessee and Revenue are in appeals before this Tribunal. 10. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee reiterated the submissions made before Revenue Authorities and submitted that despite clear cut denial on the ownership of seized documents from the premises of Gaurav Kumar Sanghvi, the department has taken the instances on thrusting the same on the assessee co. as Gaurav Kumar Sanghavi was nor on the board of the company neither he was on the roll of company because the assessee company’s M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 21 association with Gaurav Kumar Sanghavi was limited to stray incidence of consultation and whenever his services were required as a consultant, he was requested to render the same and raise a bill on the assessee company and as such, the total payment to him did not exceed Rs. 1 Lakh in any year. Thus, the assessee company cannot assign the task of sales to a person who has no interest in the assessee company in any manner. Ld.AR also submitted that the assessee’s business process particularly the manufacturing process , receiving of raw material and removal of goods is subject to Central excise Rules and Regulations and the central excise authority keeps a vigilant watch on the above processes, therefore, there can be no scope of removal of goods without the knowledge of the central excise authorities. Moreover, the industry of the company has the machinery of clear specification and on the question of permissible production, there is no scope of production over and above100% capacity of the unit. Learned Counsel for the assessee also contended that the Revenue Authorities did not appreciate the aspect of the consumption of power vis-à-vis the production of finished goods. Ld.AR further submitted that no document evidencing unaccounted sales was recovered which was appreciated by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) who deleted the additions for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 relying plethora of judgments that no addition could be made in the search case unless there is incriminating material pertaining to the Assessment year concerned. But, for the Assessment Years, 2014- 15 to 2016-17, the learned CIT(A) did not appreciate the factual aspects of the case and partly confirmed the additions applying 4% net profit rate unjustifiably. Alternatively, Ld.AR submitted that ld. CIT(A) was not justified in applying 4% Net Profit rate (In short NP rate) because if the assessee company would have made cash sales then definitely some cash expenditures (direct & indirect both) would also have been incurred in connection to them. Therefore, the rate which is to be applied shall be Net Profit Rate and not Gross Profit Rate. The net profit rate applied and the expenses claimed by M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 22 the assessee were genuine and were only related to the sales recorded in the books. The unrecorded sales would definitely have been made on the cost of unrecorded expenses which are ought to be deducted from the sales and for which the application of Net Profit Rate is realistic and logical. If the unrecorded sales, though not accepted by assessee, are to be added to the income, then the respective percentage of expense deduction shall also be granted. Therefore, the application of Net Profit Rate is very much genuine and realistic. Thus, Ld.AR submitted that alleged documents for sales outside the books for A.Y. 2016-17 was for 1 month only and average rate of Net Profit for whole year was @2.64% which cannot be applied being relating to one month sale rather Net Profit rate on average basis was to be applied for average of Last 4 years i.e. A.Y. 2012-13 to A.Y. 2015-16 and thus order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016- 17 was not justified. 11. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that learned CIT(A) was justified in confirming the additions as the same were based on incriminating material pertaining to the assessee co. 12. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that some documents were seized from the possession of Gaurav Kumar Sanghvi which were deciphered as unaccounted sales of the assessee by the Ld. AO working out the sales for the period mentioned in the documents and later extrapolated the said sales for the whole year. The Appellate order on the subject of unaccounted sales is based on the assessment order on the subject matter which in turn is report of the investigation Wing. 12.1 Before us, the Ld.AR explained that this report was created by the Investigation Wing adopting high handed tactics of coercion, threat and duress to cover up the failure of the search. The M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 23 Investigation Wing recorded statements of various persons including some employees of the assessee, unrelated outsiders and concocted a story of unrecorded sales. It carried out search in the premises of Gaurav Sanghvi, who happened to be consultant for few matters of the company and was never entrusted any task of executing sales on behalf of and for the assessee company or its sister concerns. During the course of search in his premises he was made to confess that the documents related to the assesse co. This confession was clearly a product of coercion as the Assessing Officer/ CIT(A) termed Gaurav as Marketing Director but had Gaurav Sanghvi been Marketing Director, he would have been on the board of the company or on its payroll. However, we find that the ld. CIT(A) has examined the various documents found and seized from the residential premises of Gaurav Kumar Sanghvi and thereafter, the ld. CIT(A) found that Mr. Sanghvi was not an unconnected person as he was looking after the marketing part of the company. 12.2 Further, we find that the assessee, during survey on 21.8.2014, made surrender of Rs.14.76 crores and Shri Gaurav Sanghvi made a surrender of Rs.9 lacs and Rs.5 lacs for the A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016-17. The ld.AO on the basis of these documents found the details of unaccounted sales for 16 months. However, ld. CIT(A) examined the record and found that the details were pertaining to 14 months only. Considering these facts, we are of the view that the ld. CIT(A) rightly held that there was no infirmity in the action of the ld. Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of accounts and making the estimates in the impugned assessment years i.e. 2014-15 to 2016-17. However, we observe that ld. CIT(A) also noted that the AO has made additions on account of incentives in the form of gold and cash to various dealers as unexplained expenditure and these expenses have been found recorded in the same incriminating documents from where the AO had detailed the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 24 unrecorded sales for the period between April, 2013 to April, 2015. Therefore, the AO should have considered and reduced these expenses from the income calculated on the impugned unrecorded sales as the same documents cannot be interpreted by the AO in a different manner. If, the income has been drawn from the said documents the AO was bound to consider expenses also. Similarly, there may be a number of other expenses like commission, salaries and other overhead expenses which must have been incurred by the assessee while effecting sales out of books. Therefore, in order to arrive at real taxable income, the application of gross profit rate cannot be considered as reasonable and realistic. Ld. CIT(A) further noted that average net profit rate as calculated by the assessee as per the chart appended cannot be considered reasonable in view of discussion and for the reasons that most of the expenses related to purchase of raw material, manufacturing and establishment expenses must have been already claimed by the assessee in the regular books of account. Thus, ld. CIT(A) applied 4% NP rate on the sales calculated. The relevant part of the order of ld. CIT(A) is reproduced hereunder: “6.21 Now, coming to the additions made in the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 on account of estimation of sales on the basis of various incriminating material found and seized during the period relevant to these assessment years. The details of estimates of sales and income calculated is tabulated as under:- Assessment Year Yearly Sales Unaccounted Sales by Rathi Unaccounted Sales by Jaideep GP rate of Rathi(%) GP rate of Jaideep (%) GP of Rathi GP of Jaideep 14-15 2758926080 760084135 1998841945 3.44 8.32 26146894.25 166303649.8 15-16 3554012674 979130491.7 2574882182 3 6 29373914.75 154492930.9 16-17 723485818 199320342.9 524165475.1 3 6 5979610.286 31449928.51 TOTAL 15333686572 2671309870 12662376702 80259456.72 846713326.1 6.22 It is observed that the AO has estimated sales and income on the basis of various documents found and seized from the residential premises of ShriGaurav Kumar Sanghvi, the close associate of the company. The appellant had been consistently stating through various written M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 25 submissions that Mr. Sanghvi was not associated and authorized person for maintaining record and giving statement as such every time tried to disown the incriminating material related to “out of books sales” found and seized from the premises of Mr. Sanghvi during the course of search proceedings. I have discussed in detail at para nos. 6.10 & 6.11of this orderand on the basis of the facts and corroborative evidences, it was concluded that Mr. Sanghvi was a close associate, looking after the marketing part of company during the relevant period. It has further been found that entire incriminating documents found and seized from his possession pertained to the appellant company which has also been proved from various documentary and circumstantial evidences. The documents seized from the residence of Mr. Sanghvi included documents (diary) seized as BS-1 detailing the quantity sold out of books of account and incentives given to various dealers in the form of gold. Similarly, another document seized as LPS-2 detailing not only the quantity of sale and gold incentives, but also the additional cash payments to various “exclusive dealers”. These incriminating documents have been found discussed and reproduced at page nos. 51 to 62 of the assessment order. Further, the AO has undertaken detailed discussion on the description of entries, pages and the period to which these pertained at page nos. 62 to 68 of the assessment order. Finally, it was brought out by the AO that these incriminating documents contained the details of unaccounted sales and payments in the form of cash and gold incentives to various normal and exclusive dealers. On the basis of these documents, the AO found the details of unaccounted sales for 16 months, but on careful verification of documents and assessment order, it was found that the details were pertaining to 14 months only. However, the sale of 18034 MT made by “exclusive dealer” has been shown against months of June, July and August in F.Y. 2013-14 which has been found to be in addition to the details of same months for normal dealers. In this way, the number of months gets reduced to 14, but the quantity sold remains the same at 130387.888 MT as per the figures tabulated as under:- Page No. Months FY Type Amount Qty (In MT) 9-10 June 13-14 Sales 6455.142 July 13-14 Sales 5415.181 August 13-14 Sales 6554.220 12-14, 18-20, 21-23 July 14-15 Sales 6224.700 August 14-15 Sales 6854.520 September 14-15 Sales 6019.310 32-35 Jan, Feb & Mar 14-15 Sales 34979.80 37-38 Jun, Jul, Aug 13-14 Incentive @100 per Ton to Exclusive dealers as well 16,11,406 18034.10 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 26 as Sales detail 54-56, 57-59 September 13-14 Sales 6906.100 October 13-14 Sales 5889.815 November 13-14 Sales 6440.300 December 13-14 Sales 8273.530 72-75 April 15-16 Sales 12341.17 Total 130387.888 6.23 During the course of appeal proceedings, the counsel of the appellant was given an opportunity to explain and file documentary evidences contrary to the finding of the AO. The counsel of the appellant could not file any further reply except relying on the submissions filed and reproduced in pre-pages of the order. The submissions of appellant have been dealt with appropriately in the assessment order and appeal proceedings. In view of above discussion, the existence of incriminating material showing unaccounted sales for as many as 14 months has been found spread over a period from April, 2013 to April, 2015. This has further been corroborated with evidences gathered during pre-search and post search inquiries which have also been found discussed by AO in reasonable details at page nos. 39 to 46 of the assessment order. Inquiries from truck driver of M/s Shree Sai Transport revealed that the appellant company has been raising bills in the name of dummy concern, “M/s Naman Shree Corporation”. A survey was conducted in M/s Shree Sai Transport and the statement recorded of proprietor revealed that he was unaware about M/s Naman Shree Corporation. The AO has also brought out in the assessment order that during search operation the mobile of Shri V.A. Thomas, the accountant of company was checked and various codes of cash transactions were found in messages confirming the fact of transactions outside the books of accounts. Moreover, the counsel of the appellant, during the course of appeal proceedings has failed to controvert the findings of AO based on the findings of incriminating material seized and inquiries made during search operations. 6.24 In view of above discussion, there remains no doubt that the appellant has been making substantial sales out of books of account during the period between April, 2013 to April, 2015 falling in three financial years relevant to A.Y. 2014-15 to 2016-17. The books of account of appellant for the these assessment years have been duly found rejected by the AO u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 after affording an opportunity vide letter 16/11/2017 and also after taking in to consideration the submissions of appellant dated 22/12/2017 and 28/12/2017 as discussed in detail at page nos. 71 to 82 of the assessment order. I do not find any infirmity in the action of AO in rejecting the books of account u/s 145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 27 making estimates of turnover in the impugned assessment years. There has not been separate and specific ground raised by the appellant on this issue as can be seen from the various grounds of appeals reproduced in this order. 6.25 Further, the action of AO in estimating the turnover and profits were examined in the light of existing incriminating documents, facts and circumstances of the case. The AO has estimated the turnover and gross profit as per following chart in the assessment order. A.Y. Unaccounted Sales GP rate of JIAPL (in %) Gross Profit(in Rs.) Unaccounted income which is added to total income 2014-15 1998841945 8.32 166303649.8 166303650 2015-16 2574882182 6 154492930.9 154492931 2016-17 524165475.1 6 31449928.51 31449928 TOTAL 12662376702 84,67,13,326.1 84,67,13,326 6.26 The basis of estimating turnover has been discussed in detail at page nos. 67 to 71 of the assessment order. The same was again confronted to the appellant during course of appeal proceedings. The counsel of appellant appearing on behalf of company has not been in position to find out any infirmity in estimating the turnover except disputing the rate of TMT bar applied in the F.Y. 2014-15 relevant to A.Y. 2015-16. The objections through letter dated 26/08/2019 were filed on 25/09/2019 which were provided to the AO on same date for her verification. 6.27 The AO during the course of appeal proceedings on 27/09/2019, had produced the record containing page nos. 48 and 49 of LPS-3. It was found that the sales recorded during the F.Y. 2014-15 were recorded at the rates ranging between Rs.44,800/- to Rs.46,800/- in accordance with rates found in above pages of LPS-3. These documents were shown to the counsel who was satisfied after confirming the same. Apart from this solitary objection, no infirmity has been pointed out by the appellant in working of monthly unaccounted quantity of iron & steel products TMT bars sold and the rates applied as per incriminating documents for arriving at the turnover in these assessment years. However, the appellant, through submissions and during the course of appeal proceedings has vehemently contested the application of theory of extrapolation as applied by the AO in accordance with the decision Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/s H.M. Esufali HM Abdulali (1973) AIR 2266 (SC). It has been contended that the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court was distinguishable from the facts of present case. It was contended that in that case, the assessee was trader. In the above case, the estimate was made on the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 28 basis of incriminating material found from the premises of assessee whereas in the instant case, the estimates have been made relying on the documents seized from third party. Further, it was submitted that in the said judgment, the department casted doubt on sales of assessee whereas in the present case, no variance has been found by the AO in sales of appellant company. I do not find the contention of appellant tenable as in manufacturing units, the possibility of “outside books” trading can be more than trading as the traders have to depend more on other to make supplies of the goods. Similarly, in the case of appellant, as discussed in detail above, the incriminating documents have been proved beyond doubt to be belonging to appellant. It does not make any difference if the same are found and seized from the residence of associate person or appellant. It is also improper on the part of appellant to say that sales were not doubted, in the case of appellant, in fact, the incriminating material seized recorded the sales outside books of account during all the assessment years from A.Y. 2014-15 to A.Y. 2016-17 which have been corroborated by many other circumstantial evidences. 6.28 Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of HM Esufali HM Abudlali as cited supra has held in clear terms that it is not possible for AO (STO) to find out precisely the turnover suppressed. But, so long as the estimate made by him is not arbitrary and has nexus with the facts discovered, the same cannot be questioned. The Hon’ble High Court of M.P., in this case was not found correct in holding that the assessing authority was not having material before it to prove exact turnover. Further, Hon’ble Apex Court has held that duty was cast on the assessee to prove the circumstances to show that the sales for the period during 01/09/1960 to 19/09/1960, outside the books of account were due to some exceptional circumstances. Therefore, reversing the decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court, the Apex Court had confirmed the action of AO (STO) in estimating the turnover for entire period under consideration on the basis of unrecorded sales for only 19 days during the relevant period. The operative part of above decision is reproduced hereunder:- “Now coming to the facts of this case, it is necessary to remember that at the initial stage, e assessee denied that the bill book seized was his bill book and the entries therein related to his dealings. He asserted that he had nothing to do with the bill book in question and the entries therein do not relate to his dealings. But, at a later stage, he conceded that that bill book was his and the entries therein related to his dealings. It is now proved as well as admitted that his dealings outside his accounts during a period of 19 days were of the value of Rs. 31,171.28. From this circumstance, it was open to the STO to infer that the assessee had large- scale dealings outside his accounts. The assessee has neither pleaded nor established any justifiable reason for not entering in his accounts the dealings noted in the bill book seized. It is obvious that he was maintaining false accounts to evade payment of sales tax. In such a M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 29 situation, it was not possible for the STO to find out precisely the turnover suppressed. He could only make an estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the material before him. So long as the estimate made by him is not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the same cannot be questioned. In the very nature of things the estimate made may be an over- estimate or an under estimate. But, that is no ground for interfering with his “best judgment”. It is true that the basis adopted by the assessing authority must have material before it to prove the exact turnover suppressed. It that is true there is no question of best judgment" assessment. The assessee cannot be permitted to take advantage of his own illegal acts. It was his duty to place all facts truthfully before the assessing authority. If he fails to do his duty, he cannot -be allowed to call upon the assessing authority to prove conclusively what turnover he had suppressed. That fact must be within his personal knowledge. Hence, the burden of proving that fact is on him. No circumstance has been placed before the assessing authority to show that the assessee's dealings during 1st Sept., 1960, to 19th Sept., 1960, outside his accounts were due to some exceptional circumstance or that they were proportionately more than his dealings outside his accounts during the remaining periods. The assessing authority could not have been in possession of any correct measure to find out the escaped turnover during the periods 1st Nov., 1959, to 31st Aug., 1960, and 20th Sept., 1960, to 20th Oct., 1960. he task of the assessing authority in finding out the escaped turnover was by no means easy. In estimating any escaped turnover, it is inevitable that there is some guess-work. The assessing authority while making the "best judgment" assessment, no doubt, should arrive at its conclusion without any bias and on rational basis. That authority should not be vindictive or capricious. If the estimate made by the assessing authority is a bona fide estimate and is based on a rational basis, the fact that there is no good proof in support of that estimate is immaterial. Prima facie, the assessing authority is the best Judge of the situation. It is his "best judgment" and not of anyone else. The High Court could not substitute its "best judgment" for that of the assessing authority.- In the case of " best judgment" assessments, the Courts will have to first see whether the accounts maintained by the assessee were rightly rejected as unreliable. If they come to the conclusion that they were rightly rejected, the next question that arises for consideration is whether the basis adopted in estimating the turnover has reasonable nexus with the estimate made. If the basis adopted is held to be a relevant basis even though the Courts may think that it is not the most appropriate basis, the estimate made by the assessing authority cannot be disturbed. In the present case, there is no dispute that the assessee's accounts were rightly discarded. We do not agree with the High Court that it is the duty of the assessing authority to adduce proof in support of its estimate. The basis adopted by the STO was a relevant one whether it was the most appropriate or not. Hence the High Court was not justified in interfering with the same.” M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 30 6.29 During the course of appeal proceedings, the counsel of the appellant has further argued that the incriminating material found and seized in one month or months cannot be applied in remaining months during the F.Y. In my considered opinion, this contention of appellant has not been found in consonance with the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court cited supra. In that case, sales found for 19 days were extrapolated in all the 12 months of relevant year and the turnover was worked out. In the instant case, the sales record of 14 months spread over three F.Yrs. i.e. F.Y. 2013-14, F.Y. 2014-15 and F.Y. 2015-16 were found and seized. Therefore, the case of appellant is on stronger footing for the purpose of extrapolation within the financial years. Moreover, in F.Y. 2013-14 and 2014-15, the record of unaccounted sales have been continuously for June, July, August, September, October, November and December (2013-14) and January, February, March (2014-15) leaving no scope to presume that stock of more than one month was sold in one month. It clearly shows that the pattern is continuous and uninterrupted from one month to another. In view of above factual matrix, the application of theory of extrapolation and estimating of the sales for entire financial years on the basis of these monthly records have been found more logical and scientific. Therefore, the action of AO in extrapolating and estimating the sales/turnover on the above basis in the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is hereby upheld. 6.30 Regarding application of G.P. rates on the estimated sales on the basis of GPR shown by the appellant in respective assessment years, the counsel of appellant has vehemently contested that application of GPR has been unreasonable, unrealistic and unscientific. Instead, it was pleaded that, the AO should have applied the net profit rate in order to arrive at real taxable income. 6.31 The appellant has also filed separate detailed submission on the issue vide letter dated 20/08/2019 received on 27/08/2019. The detailed working of net profit and comparative cases have also been filed. The most relevant paras are reproduced hereunder:- “The learned Assessing officer has used gross profit rates on alleged unaccounted sales. The working of the learned Assessing officer (kindly refer Page No. 80 of the Assessment order) is appended as below: Assessment Year Sales estimated outside the books Gross Profit Rate (in %) Addition (based on G.P. Rate) 2014-15 1,99,88,41,945 8.32 16,63,03,650 2015-16 2,57,48,82,182 6.00 15,44,92,931 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 31 2016-17 52,41,65,475 6.00 3,14,49,929 The learned Assessing officer has erred in applying gross profit ratio instead of net profit ratio. This is so because learned Assessing officer has treated some documents which were discovered from the premises of third party i.e. ShriGauravSanghvi as evidences of incentive paid to various dealers. The alleged incentive paid to various dealers stands to be other expense. It is submitted that the learned Assessing officer has made additions on account of alleged incentives paid. However, she did not allow deductions of these incentives to the assessee. Other expenses attributable to the revenue generated, if any, from the alleged unrecorded sales cannot be ruled out, considering the business exigency in this line of business like sales commission, other expenses, etc. It is illogical and unjustified to apply Gross Profit Ratio instead of Net Profit Ratio. The learned Assessing officer has contradicted herself by not using the net profit rates. On one side, the learned Assessing officer has applied the gross profit rates and on the other hand the learned Assessing officer has made addition on account of incentives. Since, the authorised officer of search has found some documents which the assessing officer treated incriminating in respect of incentive paid to dealers, the benefit of such expenses is ought to be allowed to assessee. The use of gross profit rates is completely irrational because the net profit rate stands to be a sensible basis of addition. The relief of other expenses incurred by the assessee, should be considered while making addition. The table depicting the net profit is appended below: JaideepIspat& Alloys Pvt. Ltd. Particulars A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 F.Y. 2011-12 F.Y. 2012-13 F.Y. 2013-14 F.Y. 2014-15 Sales 3,33,41,94,515 3,61,35,33,152 4,18,37,61,964 4,44,00,98,607 Net Profit (before considerations) 5,84,42,371 6,80,00,538 8,04,56,180 17,31,53,224 Less: Surrendered Income - - - 14,76,00,000 Less: Other Income 94,99,931 8,19,991 1,76,44,232 1,30,52,325 Net Profit 4,89,42,440 6,71,80,547 6,28,11,948 1,25,00,899 Net Profit Rate 1.47% 1.86% 1.50% 0.28% Average Net Profit Rate 1.28% Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. Particulars A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 F.Y. 2011-12 F.Y. 2012-13 F.Y. 2013-14 F.Y. 2014-15 Sales 75,08,49,318 2,06,91,95,184 2,17,31,96,440 1,80,41,85,042 Net Profit (before considerations) 52,63,856 1,75,08,591 2,49,92,074 (2,09,71,465) Less: Other Income 17,94,564 13,56,165 12,55,026 9,36,484 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 32 Net Profit 34,69,292 1,61,52,426 2,37,37,048 (2,19,07,949 ) Net Profit Rate 0.46% 0.78% 1.09% -1.21% Average Net Profit Rate 0.28% Consolidated Financial of JaideepIspat& Alloys Pvt. Ltd. &Rathi Iron & Steel Industries Ltd. Particulars A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 F.Y. 2011-12 F.Y. 2012-13 F.Y. 2013-14 F.Y. 2014-15 Sales 4,08,50,43,833 5,68,27,28,336 6,35,69,58,404 6,24,42,83,649 Net Profit (before considerations) 6,37,06,227 8,55,09,129 10,54,48,254 15,21,81,759 Less: Surrendered Income - - - 14,76,00,000 Less: Other Income 1,12,94,495 21,76,156 1,88,99,258 1,39,88,809 Net Profit 5,24,11,732 8,33,32,973 8,65,48,996 (94,07,050) Net Profit Rate 1.28% 1.47% 1.36% -0.15% Average Net Profit Rate 0.99% From the aforesaid working, it is clear that the net profit rate of 0.99% on margin basis and on yearly basis same is ranging between 1.28% to 1.47%. The nature of business run by the assesse is such that neither the gross profit nor the net profit could be consistent or static. Market conditions play a pivotal role in this regard. Such conditions some time compel the assessee to disposs off the goods below the cost price resulting into substantial loss. This aspect is verifiable from the business results for the period relevant to A.Y. 2015-16 during which the assessee suffered loss to the tune of Rs. 94,07,050/-.” 6.32 Further, the appellant has brought to my notice that other parties in similar business like M/s Anant Steel Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Shivangi Rolling Mills Pvt. Ltd. have shown NPR ranging between -030% to 0.54% during the relevant period. During the course of appeal proceedings, the appellant was required to file the trading account for the assessment year 2016-17 also. It has been observed from the trading results in the said assessment year that the net profit rate was shown much higher than other years. Therefore, the trading account of the appellant for five years was recast as under:- Particulars A.Y. 2012-13 A.Y. 2013-14 A.Y. 2014-15 A.Y. 2015-16 A.Y. 2016-17 F.Y. 2011-12 F.Y. 2012-13 F.Y. 2013-14 F.Y. 2014-15 F.Y. 2015-16 Sales 3,33,41,94,515 3,61,35,33,152 4,18,37,61,964 4,44,00,98,607 6,00,64,28,591 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 33 Net Profit (before considerations) 5,84,42,371 6,80,00,538 8,04,56,180 17,31,53,224 17,29,16,472 Less: Surrendered Income - - - 14,76,00,000 - Less: Other Income 94,99,931 8,19,991 1,76,44,232 1,30,52,325 1,42,40,237 Net Profit 4,89,42,440 6,71,80,547 6,28,11,948 1,25,00,899 15,86,76,235 Net Profit Rate 1.47% 1.86% 1.50% 0.28% 2.64% Average Net Profit Rate 1.55% 6.33 It is observed that the NPR in the A.Y. 2015-16 has been lowest at 0.28% which may be due to the facts that the appellant had surrendered an amount of Rs.14.76 crores in a survey u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, in order to adjust a part of surrendered income, the NPR must have been kept low knowingly. If the average NPR of A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17 is applied on total sales of Rs.444 crores, net profit would have been Rs.7.89 crores after reducing an amount of Rs.1.30 crores on account of other income as against Rs.1.25 crores shown by the appellant. In view of above analysis, application of average NPR cannot be considered as realistic method. 6.34 I have carefully gone the written submission as reproduced above and also observed that the AO has made additions on account of incentives in the form of gold and cash to various dealers as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961. These expenses have been found recorded in the same incriminating documents viz BS-1, LPS-1, LPS-2 and LPS-3 from where the AO had detailed the unrecorded sales for the period between April, 2013 to April, 2015. Therefore, the AO should have considered and reduced these expenses from the income calculated on the impugned unrecorded sales. I fully agree with the contention of the appellant that the same documents cannot be interpreted by the AO in a different manner. If, the income has been drawn from the said documents the AO is bound to consider expenses also. Similarly, there may be a number of other expenses like commission, salaries and other overhead expenses which must have been incurred by the appellant while effecting sales out of books. Therefore, in order to arrive at real taxable income, the application of gross profit rate cannot be considered as reasonable and realistic. Nor the average net profit rate as calculated by the appellant as per the chart appended above shall be considered reasonable in view of above discussion and for the reasons that the most of the expenses related to purchase of raw material, manufacturing, establishment expenses must M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 34 have been already claimed by the appellant in the regular books of account. Moreover, the counsel of the appellant has not filed any details of such expenses which could have been set off against the profits drawn by application of rates. Further, the various case-laws cited by the appellant in support of this ground have been found distinguishable on the facts of present case. 6.35 In view of above discussion, keeping in view the facts and circumstances as narrated above, in the interest of natural justice, it shall be reasonable to apply NPR of 4% on the sales as calculated above. It will neither be GPR of 6% nor average NPR of 1.55% as worked out by appellant. It will be almost an average figure of both GPR and NPR. The NPR of 4% shall take care of higher taxable income realized by avoiding various local government taxes and other avoidable expenses and it will also take care of extrapolating resorted by the AO in major parts of financial years and various other overheads which the appellant is required to incur in these types of transactions. Therefore, after taking in to account, the reasons and basis adopted by the AO, the submissions filed by the appellant and considering the totality of facts and circumstances, I consider it reasonable to apply net profit of 4% on impugned sales worked out by the AO for A.Yrs. 2014-15 to 2016-17. The detail is as under:- A.Y. Unaccounted Sales Profit rate applied Unaccounted income which is confirmed 2014-15 1,99,88,41,945/- 4% 7,99,53,677/- 2015-16 2,57,48,82,182/- 4% 10,29,95,287/- 2016-17 52,41,65,475/- 4% 2,09,66,619/- TOTAL 5,09,78,89,602/- 20,39,15,583/- 6.36 In this way, in the manner as specific above, the taxable income of Rs.7,99,53,677/- (A.Y.2014-15), Rs.10,29,95,287/- (2015-16) and Rs.2,09,66,619/- (A.Y. 2016-17) are worked out and the additions to those extent are hereby confirmed. The appellant shall get relief of Rs.8,63,49,973/- (A.Y. 2014-15), Rs.5,14,97,644/- (A.Y. 2015-16) and Rs.1,04,83,309/- (A.Y. 2016-17). The above amounts of confirmed additions shall be in accordance with the surrender of Rs.20.20 crores made by the appellant and associates vide letter dated 09/07/2015 which is duly reproduced by the AO at page no. 83 of the assessment order. The appellant while filing ROI in compliance to notice u/s 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 had not given effect to the disclosure by including the surrendered income in the ROI. No reasons have been found given before the AO during assessment proceedings. During appeal proceedings also, the appellant was required to explain as why the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 35 surrendered income during search was not included in the ROI, but the appellant has not filed any cogent reasons on the issue. Therefore, I fully agree with the findings of AO that surrendered income for A.Yrs. 2015-16 and 2016-17 was required to be taxed. 6.37 However, separate addition has not been sustained on this account. The same shall be considered as included in the various additions sustained in this appeal order. In view of above discussion, finally, the additions made in the A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2013-14 are deleted and additions made in the A.Yrs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 are hereby partly confirmed.Accordingly, the grounds of appeal for A.Yrs. 2010-11 to 2013- 14 are allowed and grounds for A.Yrs. 2014-15 to 2016-17 are partly allowed. ” 13. We further find that learned counsel for the assessee explained that the plant is designed for production of a specific quantity of goods and there is no scope of production over and above the quantity more than the capacity of the plant as the production process in the assessee’s plant requires consumption of power which is related to the goods produced. Thus, over utilization of power is always subject to check by the electricity agency and the ld. Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint even a single case of over drawl of power registered against the assessee. We also find that alternatively, learned Counsel for the assessee explained, objecting the computation part as well as extrapolation that sales is always loaded with the expenditure on account of direct expenses and indirect expenses, therefore, gross profit could never be income earned or received by a trader. Thus, application of gross profit was unjustified. We find force in the contention of the learned Counsel for the assessee because the Revenue had conducted survey u/s 133A in September 2014 during which all the goods available including raw material and finished goods were inventoried and tallied with regular books of accounts as well as RG 4 register. No discrepancy was found during the said operation. Subsequently, during the course of search in June 2015 also all the goods found in the premises were tallied with the regular books of accounts M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 36 resulting into no discrepancies. Had the assessee been adopting practice of unaccounted sales, extra stock of finished goods would have been found in the premises to the extent of large quantity considering the allegation of unaccounted sales of large quantity. 14. On consideration of above facts, we find force in the alternative submission of the learned counsel for the assessee because the sales worked out by the Assessing Officer could not be extrapolated for the whole year on the basis of material detected for a short period. The findings of the Central Excise Authority could not be brushed aside because the capacity of a plant as well as the aspect of consumption of power was not ignorable. We find that the approach of Assessing Officer for extrapolating the sales figures was not accepted by Ld. CIT(A) being unrealistic in nature as is evident from the page 83 para 6.34 of the appellate order wherein the Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the contention of assessee and formed an opinion that “the AO should have considered and reduced these expenses from the income calculated on the impugned unrecorded sales. I fully agree with the contention of the appellant that the same documents cannot be interpreted by the AO in a different manner. If, the income has been drawn from the said documents the AO is bound to consider expenses also. Similarly, there may be a number of other expenses like commission, salaries and other overhead expenses which must have been incurred by the appellant while effecting sales out of books. Therefore, in order to arrive at real taxable income, the application of gross profit rate cannot be considered as reasonable and realistic.” 15. On consideration of above, we find that the Learned Assessing Officer worked out unaccounted sales by extrapolating the sales worked out from seized documents for a very brief period and the Ld. CIT(A) deleted the additions on this ground in AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13 and AY 2013-14 holding that documents found in a particular year cannot affect in other years. However, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the Assessing Officer’s action of extrapolation in M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 37 the year in which incriminating documents pertained. But, we find that while doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the statute of taxation of income has been enacted with the basic object of taxing real income and not any abstract or hypothetical income. The aspect of ‘real income’ being very vital cannot be ignored as no person should be subjected to tax on the income which has not been earned, received or accrued and in the instant case, we find that the income taxed by extrapolation neither accrued, earned or received. As regards analogy of the period/year for the purpose of extrapolation, we find that the Ld. CIT(A) has taken double standard on the question of period for extrapolation. In fact, year is a part of period and period is a part of year and extrapolation cannot be done in other year; it should not be done in other period within the year itself. It has to be worked out for the period for which incriminating documents are found as if we go through assessment procedure for search cases provided as per section 153A to section 153D and it clarifies that the underlined principles laid down in Chapter XIV B have been incorporated in the new scheme of assessment of search cases. The fundamental aspects of assessment in Chapter XIV B happen to be the ‘undisclosed income’ which shows that the income which has not been disclosed emanates from incriminating documents, undisclosed cash, money, bullion, jewellery and nothing else. We find that that the case-law relied upon by Ld. Assessing Officer in the assessment order for extrapolating the sales figures to all the assessment years are clearly distinguished by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in the appellate order Page 67 at para 6.15, which is reproduced hereunder: “Further it is also observed that the AO has tried to justify the theory of extrapolation on the strength of decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Sales Tax vs. HM Esufall HM Abdulali 1973 AIR 2266, 1973 SCR (3) 1005 (SC) without appreciating the fact that in the said decisions, Hon’ble Supreme Court had approved Intra-assessment year extrapolation. Hon’ble Apex Court has never said that the incriminating documents M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 38 indicating unaccounted sale for particular period/dates falling in a particular year could be extrapolated to arrive at the unaccounted sale figures of another assessment year. In the case law cited supra, Hon’ble Supreme Court had held that sale record of 19 days can be sufficient basis for the AO to determine the sale of entire year in the absence of anything contrary brought on record by the assessee. The AO has also not brought on record any piece of statement of directors or any other responsible persons recorded on the issue of unrecorded sales during the course of search. There is no evidence brought on record to prove that the appellant had been making out of books during the period relevant to these assessment years.” Thus, we are of the view that the ld. Assessing Officer unwarrantedly assumed that the asssessee might have incurred out of book sales for the remaining months for which no incriminating document was found. We find that ld. CIT(A) did not appreciate the fact that the assessee co. is subjected to excise under the Central Excise Authorities (who are responsible for collecting excise duty on production/sales) and after due verification, the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain dropped the proceedings regarding unaccounted sales by way of clandestine removal of goods as is evident from the relevant order passed by the Hon’ble Principal Commissioner, CGST & Central Excise, Ujjain filed before us. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer could not telescope the loose papers found for particular month and made addition in subsequent months. The sale out of the books depends on various factors like market position, buyers and availability of raw material. Therefore, it is not necessary that the assessee was engaged in the sale out of the books for whole of the time. Also, no evidence was brought on record to establish that the same practice had been followed by the assessee at all time, and hence the extrapolation cannot be made for the other period i.e. for the other months of A.Y. 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. Thus, the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 39 computation of sales on the basis of incriminating documents is summarized as under- in the ratio of 2.62:1 A.Y. Quantity (in MT) Rate (in Rs.) Sales (in Rs.) Jaideep Rathi 2014-15 45,934.288 35,175 1,61,57,38,580 1,16,94,01,956 44,63,36,624 2015-16 19,098.53 45,800 87,47,12,674 63,30,79,339 24,16,33,335 2016-17 12,341.17 32,750 40,41,73,318 29,25,23,230 11,16,50,088 Total 77,373.988 2,89,46,24,572 2,09,50,04,525 79,96,20,047 In view of the above, we are of the view that the real essence of the matter was skipped to be taken into consideration because if the assessee company would have made cash sales then definitely some cash expenditures (direct & indirect both) would also have been incurred in connection to them. Therefore, the rate which is to be applied shall be Net Profit Rate and not Gross Profit Rate. But Ld. CIT(A) did not consider this view completely and stated that “now the average net profit rate as calculated by the appellant as per the chart appended above shall be considered reasonable in view of above discussion and for the reasons that the most of the expenses related to purchase of raw material, manufacturing, establishment expenses must have been already claimed by the appellant in the regular books of account.” Considering the factual aspects of the present matter in the light of the above discussion, we are of the view that it is a misconstrued notion of the Ld. CIT(A) that most of the expenses must have been already claimed by the assessee because if this was done then the financial ratios of assessee company would have been affected badly and the financial position would have looked pathetic. It is obvious that giving half of the effect to any transaction; i.e. considering only expenses and not income; would result into an absurd view of the company’s financial statements, which no company or organisation will want to happen. No company will prefer to lower down its profit rate and deteriorate its position in front of its shareholders and market M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 40 unnecessarily. Therefore, the net profit rate applied and the expenses claimed by the assessee were genuine and were only related to the sales recorded in the books. The unrecorded sales would definitely have been made on the cost of unrecorded expenses which are ought to be deducted from the sales and for which the application of Net Profit Rate is realistic and logical. Therefore, if the unrecorded sales are to be added to the income, then the respective percentage of expense deduction shall also be granted. Therefore, the application of Net Profit Rate is genuine and realistic. The net profit rate for different years is reproduced hereunder: - A.Y. 2012-13 = 1.47% A.Y. 2013-14 = 1.86% A.Y. 2014-15 = 1.50% Average Net Profit Rate = 1.55% A.Y. 2015-16 = 0.28% A.Y. 2016-17 = 2.64% In view of the above facts, we are of the view that this factual aspect was completely overlooked by Ld. CIT(A) while forming the opinion of applying net profit rate of 4%, though the term used by ld. CIT(A) was “net profit rate” only and inspite of using the term “net profit rate”, Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate all the facts related to net profit rate and concluded with an unrealistic rate of 4% instead of average rate of 1.55%.The ld. Assessing Officer is directed to give the effect by applying 1.55% net profit rate for the assessment years 2014-15 to 2016-17 on the unrecorded sales of Rs.2,09,50,04,525/- spread over AY 2014-15 to AY 2016-17 (details given hereinabove) appearing in the seized document. Therefore, we set aside the orders of the Revenue Authorities on the subject issues and partly allow ground no.1 commonly raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 whereas ground nos.1 & 2 raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2014-15&2015-16 are dismissed. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 41 Ground No.2 raised by the assessee: Addition on account of Unaccounted Expenditure of Gold Incentive raised by assessee(Rs. 64,76,306/- for A.Y. 2014-15, Rs. 57,10,509/- for 2015-16 &Rs. 15,21,450/- for 2016-17): 15. Ground no.2 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is related to additions made by the Ld. AO on account of unaccounted expenditure in gold and cash incentives u/s 69C of the I.T. Act by estimating production and sales thereof and applying a ratio of 1 gram gold per 10 MT sales. The Assessing Officer worked out total unaccounted expenditure at Rs.5,25,21,000/- for the Assessment Years 210- 11 to 2016-17 on the basis of incriminating documents seized as BALANCE-SHEET-1, LPS-2 and LPS-3 as discussed in the assessment order at page nos.85 to 90. The Assessing Officer worked out the unaccounted and unexplained expenditure on account of gold and cash incentives in the same method and manner by extrapolating the figures for Assessment Years 2014- 15 to 2016-17 on the basis of the alleged incriminating documents and bifurcated the amount of unaccounted incentives between the assessee and Rathi Ispat and Steel Industries Ltd. in the ratio of 2.62:1 and accordingly the Assessing Officer made additions totalling to Rs.4,49,94,055/- for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2016-17. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) deleted the additions for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013- 14 on the ground that in these years, no incriminating material was found. However, for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016- 17, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition holding that for these years, the incriminating material was found and as such, the Assessing Officer was justified in extrapolating the amount of sales and unaccounted expenditure. Being aggrieved, the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 42 assessee is before this Tribunal for the Assessment Years 2014- 15 to 2016-17. 16. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) as well as Ld. AO erred in blindly relying upon the documents and diaries seized during the course of search which appear to contain some rough work, best known to the writer of the document only, therefore, no addition could be made on the basis of such documents. Moreover, no independent enquiry was conducted by AO to substantiate the opinion of the Investigation Wing who recommended addition on this ground. Further, without prejudice to the above, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that since the Ld. CIT(A) applied NP rate, therefore all the expenses are deemed to be accounted for out of those alleged unaccounted cash sales and no any separate treatment is required to be given to any other expense or income. Further, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that Ld. AO has contradicted herself by one side applying the gross profit rates and on the other hand making additions on account of incentives. Since the authorised officer of search has found some documents which the AO treated incriminating in respect of incentive paid to dealers, the benefit of such expenses is ought to be allowed to assessee and thus, the separate additions on account of gold incentives and any other expenses is required to be deleted to ultimately give effect to the net profit rate which is to be applied on unaccounted cash sales. 19. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the Revenue Authorities and submitted that for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17, the incriminating material was found, therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly confirmed the additions. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 43 20. We have heard rival contentions and considered the material available on record. We find that the estimate was specifically objected to AO by the assessee. The learned AO made the additions on account of gold incentive on the basis of the documents seized from the third party (i.e. from the premises of Gaurav Sanghvi) and summed up all the figures printed upon it. From perusal of the said documents, we find that they appear to contain some rough work/jottings suggesting no concluding idea and as such, no addition could be made on the basis of such documents as per ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Common Cause vs UOI (Sahara Diaries)in W.P. No.505 of 2015, order dated 11.1.2017wherein it is held that the loose papers, diaries etc. do not constitute to be a valid incriminating material for charging an accused and in the instant case, we find that the authorised officer of search proceedings discovered some loose paper sheets and other documents from the premises of Gaurav Sanghvi which appear to be rough sheets as they do not constitute to be part of books of accounts. Even they do not form to be a formal document and the Assessing Officer failed to establish the assessee’s indulgence in any such activity of awarding incentive. Moreover, no independent enquiry was conducted by AO to substantiate the opinion of the Investigation Wing who recommended addition on this ground despite the fact that the assessee disowned the same explaining that the documents under reference have no link and relation with the assessee co. in any manner. Therefore, we are of the view that no cognizance of these documents can be taken in the case of the assessee. Further, since the Net Profit Rate has been applied on the cash sales by the learned CIT(A), all the expenses are deemed to be accounted for out of those unaccounted cash sales and no any separate treatment was required to be given to any other expense or income because if there is consideration of unaccounted cash sales then there shall be consideration of proportionate expenses out of it and for which net profit rate was M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 44 applied, therefore, the Revenue Authorities should have considered the fact that the addition of an expense of any nature will temper the effect given by applying net profit rate, which would in turn increase the rate of net profit which would give an unreasonable and incorrect effect to the ultimate figure of net profit & net profit rate. We find that the Ld. AO has contradicted herself by one side applying the gross profit rates and on the other hand making additions on account of incentives and thus, we are of the view that since the authorised officer of search found some documents which the AO treated incriminating in respect of incentive paid to dealers, the benefit of such expenses is ought to be allowed to the assessee and therefore, the separate additions on account of gold incentives and any other expenses are deleted. Moreover, in view of our findings recorded while deciding issue no.1 above, we do not find any merit in the action of the Assessing Officer and learned CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Revenue on this issue. Thus, ground no.2 commonly raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 is allowed. Ground No.3raised by the assessee: -(A.Y. 2015-16) Addition on account of Cash Sales of Rs. 19,82,758/- 21. Facts with regard to ground no.3 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-16 are that the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 19,82,758/- towards unaccounted cash sales made to Amaltas Education Welfare Society and not accounted for in the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer noted that various bills raised against Amaltas Education Welfare Society and other parties on various dates had been found to be paid in cash and the same was verified by the Investigation wing from the books of accounts of the assessee and not found recorded. The Assessing Officer also discussed as how such transactions were effected by showing the bills outstanding and by receiving M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 45 the cash immediately on sale. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the ld. Assessing Officer. Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 22. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the sales were already incorporated in books of accounts and the same were also submitted before Ld. CIT(A). But, the Revenue Authorities did not appreciate the same. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 23. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the Ld. AO made an addition of Rs. 19,82,758/- on account of unaccounted cash sales to Amaltas Education Welfare Society which was then confirmed by Ld. CIT(A). However, we find that the sales which the AO has earmarked were already incorporated in books of accounts and the copy of the ledger Amaltas Education Welfare Society was also submitted before Ld. CIT(A). But, the Ld. CIT(A) overlooked the same provided by assessee. Further, we find that the assessee explained that no excess cash was found in assessee’s premises. We find force in the contention of the assessee in view of the fact that if there had been any activity of unaccounted cash sales then there would have been presence of unaccounted cash to the tune of the addition made by Ld. Assessing Officer and the assessee cannot be held responsible for that Amaltas Education Welfare Society failed to respond to the interrogations of the Ld. AO. However, the learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the same in true spirit. Therefore, we do not find any reason to confirm the order of learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs.19,82,758/-. Thus, ground no.3 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is allowed. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 46 Ground no.3 raised by the assessee:(A.Y. 2016-17) Addition on account of unexplained expenditure of Rs.63,000/- 24. Facts, with regard to ground no.3 raised by the assessee, are that the Ld. AO made the addition on account of alleged Incentive paid by the assessee company to the tune of Rs. 63,000/-on the basis of seized documents LPS-1 as Mr. Gaurav Kumar Sanghvi stated that these were envelops of cash incentives as per scheme of the co. which were not accounted for. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer on the ground that Mr. Gaurav Kumar Sanghvi was very much associated and connected with the assessee co. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 25. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the addition is justified as the Revenue blindly directed faith on the vague and ambiguous statements of Shri Gaurav Sanghvi despite the fact that the assessee disowned any of the claims of Shri Gaurav Sanghvi. He was a third party to the assessee company and has no indulgence in the subject matter of Incentive. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR relied upon the order of the Revenue Authorities. 26. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that the opportunity to cross-examine Gaurav Sanghvi was not provided. This is clear infringement of natural justice to the assessee in view of the settled ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Courts. On consideration of above, we do not find any reason to confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) on this point. Thus, we delete the addition of Rs.63,000/-. Accordingly, ground no.3 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 47 Ground No.3 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 raised by the assessee and Ground no.4 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17 raised by the Assessee - Additions on account of Notional Interest on Unaccounted Loans (Rs. 66,91,665/- for A.Y. 2014-15, Rs. 42,46,027/- for 2015-16 &Rs. 61,481/- for 2016-17): 27. Facts as culled out from the record of the Revenue Authorities are that interest was debited on account of interest paid on the unsecured loans outstanding as on beginning of the Financial Year. However, the same was disallowed by the AO holding that the unsecured loans were found fictitious in the AY 2012-13. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) agreed to the view of the AO and confirmed the disallowances. Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 28. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that while framing the assessment for the AY 2012-13 the Ld. AO did not act judiciously as the ld. Assessing Officer overlooked the evidences in support of genuineness of the credits as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors and acted under a misconceived notion that the creditors were only the paper companies without bringing any corroborative material on record. Further, the unsecured loans under reference have been repaid in the subsequent periods. Per contra, the ld. CIT-DR defended the actions of the Revenue Authorities. 29. We have considered rival contentions and gone through the material available on record. We find that interest was debited on account of interest paid on the unsecured loans outstanding as on beginning of the financial year and this interest was disallowed by the AO holding that the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 48 unsecured loans were found fictitious in the AY 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) confirmed the view of the Assessing Officer. We find that while framing the assessment for the AY 2012-13, the assessee had furnished evidences in support of genuineness of the credits as well as the identity and creditworthiness of the creditors. However, the Ld. AO acted under a notion that the creditors were only the paper companies. Learned counsel for the assessee explained before us that no material was brought on record evidencing fictitiousness of the credits as the ld. Assessing Officer overlooked that all the creditors are companies duly registered under the Company law. They are assessed to tax by the Income Tax Department. Thus, the identity of the companies could not be doubted. The funds flew through banking channels. It is evident from the bank statements of both the parties which prove the genuineness. Further, the Balance Sheet reflects healthy conditions of all the creditors, which prove the creditworthiness. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to assess the unsecured loan deviating from the factual matrix and therefore, the assessee has agitated this issue before the Ld. CIT(A) and the relevant appeal is pending for disposal. Learned counsel for the assessee also explained that the interest under reference has been paid within the relevant financial year itself after deducting tax under section 194A. The tax so deducted has been duly credited to Central Government account and the respective creditors have taken credit of the tax so deducted. It is noteworthy that the unsecured loans under reference have been repaid in the subsequent periods. Had the credit been fictitious the assessee would have carried forward the balances from years to years. Considering the above facts and in the interest of justice, we are of the view that the present issue is premature and consequential in nature because as intimated by the learned counsel for the assessee, the appeal related to the principle amount is already pending M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 49 before the ld. CIT(A) bearing IT No. 10124/16-17 and the decision by the ld. CIT(A) in this appeal will affect the outcome of this issue. Therefore, this issue is remanded back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer who shall, after the decision of ld. CIT(A) on this issue, give effect to the order of the ld. CIT(A). Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the revenue authorities on this issue. Thus, Ground No.3 for the Assessment Year 2014-15 raised by the assessee and Ground no.4 for the Assessment Year 2015-16 & 2016-17 raised by the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee-Interest of Rs. 1,77,12,000/- on account of Advances (A.Y. 2015-16 & 2016- 17): 30. Facts, in brief, are that the survey operations u/s 133A were conducted in assessee’s premises on 21.08.2014 where no incriminating document was unearthed during the course of survey. However, the assessee voluntarily offered Rs. 14.76 crores and duly incorporated the surrendered amount in books of accounts during the Assessment year 2015-16. However, the ld. Assessing Officer treated the same as loan advanced to various parties and made additions on account of interest @ 12% of Rs. 1,77,12,000/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) but the learned CIT(A) overlooked the issue and no finding was recorded by the learned CIT(A). Thus, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 31. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that charging of income-tax on notional income is improper because the ld. Assessing Officer simply presumed that that the assessee might have earned interest @ 12% on Rs. 14.76 crores without finding any corroborative evidence on record. Further, no excess cash was found by the Authorised M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 50 Officer of search. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR defended the action of the Revenue Authorities. 32. We have heard rival contentions and perused the records placed before us. We find that during the survey operations u/s 133A at assessee’s premises on 21.08.2014, no incriminating document was found and moreso, no discrepancy was noticed in production records and stock of raw materials and finished goods during the course of survey after thorough verification of production records and drawl of inventory of material and finished goods. Despite, the assessee voluntarily offered Rs. 14.76 crores and duly incorporated the surrendered amount in books of accounts during the Assessment year 2015-16 but the Ld. Assessing Officer without having any basis or material on record treated the same as loan advanced to various parties and made additions on account of hypothetical interest @ 12% of Rs. 1,77,12,000/- in A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17. In our understanding the income tax is charged on real income and not on notional income unless otherwise specifically provided for and the Ld. Assessing Officer on presumption basis noted that that the assessee might have earned interest @ 12% on Rs. 14.76 crores. Ld.AO failed to consider the fact that there was no incriminating evidence found during the course of search which establish that the assessee has actually been recipient of such interest income. Thus, since there was no corroborative evidence found against the assessee, the additions on this account for both the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 were unjustified. Further, we also find that Authorised Officer of search failed to find any excess cash and had there been any interest income there would have been presence of any asset which could act as vindicating factor of Interest Income. But learned CIT(A) failed to appreciate the above facts and ignored the details filed by the assessee also annexed before us at page 156 of the paper book (B) in form of Annexure-6 where the assessee had given a M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 51 detailed submission before Ld. CIT(A). In view of these facts, since the ld. Assessing Officer failed to pinpoint any incriminating evidence found during the course of search which establish that the assessee has actually been recipient of such interest income and in absence of any corroborative evidence brought on record on this point, we do not find any reason to confirm the action of the Revenue. Accordingly, ground no.5 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17 stands allowed. Ground No.6 raised by the assessee (A.Y. 2016-17): Rs. 35,00,000/- on account of unaccounted cash seized 33. Facts, in brief, are that the present ground relates to addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of cash of Rs.35,00,000/- seized from alleged Hawala agent, M/s J.K. Enterprises of Rajkot. Shri Vivek Kumar Gupta and Shri Sanjay Jain were present when the search in the premises of above firm was carried out and Revenue Authorities noted that Mr. Vivek Gupta was found managing all the hawala related affairs of the concern at Indore as in his statement, he informed that he had been helping businessmen of Indore in transferring cash “in” and “out” against their unaccounted sales and purchases. In the statement given to search party, both the above mentioned persons stated that they had also handled the unaccounted cash of Moira Group for the above stated purpose as per the relevant extract of the statements at page nos. 102 to 105 of the assessment order. The Revenue Authorities further noted that it was stated by them that out of the cash of Rs.63,37,800/- found at the time of search conducted at their premises, an amount of Rs.35,00,000/- was belonging to Moira Group company and the same was received from Shri Vinod Nimadia, who happened to be a saria dalal for Moira Group. The amount was stated to have M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 52 been received from him on 16/06/2015. It was found lying with them as none from Moira Group had come for collecting the amount. One Mr. Rachit Yadav, an employee of Shri Vinod Nimadia also accepted that Mr. Nimadia was working as dalal for Moira Group companies. Therefore, the Assessing Officer made the addition of Rs.35 lacs. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that the source of this cash was not explained by the assessee. Being aggrieved, the assessee is before this Tribunal. 34. Before us, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that no incriminating document was found during the course of search operations from said persons/concern and they are unknown identities to the company but the search party might have subjected these persons to unimaginable amount of coercion and pressure, therefore, the legal sanctity of such statements is apparently questionable. Learned CIT(A) did not comment specifically on the reasons submitted by assessee company in the support of its contentions. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee company has already offered an income of Rs.1 crore during A.Y. 2016-17 which is covered in the computation of Income of the relevant year. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR defended the action of the Revenue Authorities. 35. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the Assessing Officer made addition on account of cash of Rs.35,00,000/- seized from alleged Hawala agent, M/s J.K. Enterprises of Rajkot. Ld.AR contended that no incriminating document was found during the course of search operations from said persons/concern and they are unknown identities to the company. Alternatively, learned Counsel for the assessee also contended that the assessee company has already offered an income of Rs.1 crore during A.Y. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 53 2016-17 which is covered in the computation of Income of the relevant year. We find that before the learned CIT(A), the assessee filed its submission which reads as under: “A search operation was conducted on premises of an unknown person/ concern (alleged to be a Hawala Agent) located at LG-34, Prem Trade Centre, Maharani Road, Indore. The statements of Shri Sanjay Jain and ShriVivek Gupta (who were supposedly employees of the said person/ concern) have been recorded under oath. The learned Assessing officer placed her credence on statements of these employees without even sanctioning a lease of natural justice to the assessee and made addition of Rs. 35,00,000/-. Firstly, no incriminating material was found during the course of search operations from said person/ concern. This action calls for relevance to the judgements cited supra, i.e.PCIT v. Sunrise Finlease (P.) Ltd. (2018) andCIT vs. Veerprabhu Marketing Ltd. [2016]. Secondly, the assessee company does not hold to be in any relation with the said person/ concern or its employees. They are unknown identities to the company. No opportunity to cross examine the said persons; Shri Sanjay Jain and ShriVivek Gupta was provided to the assessee. It is further stated that these individual may be subjected to unimaginable amount of coercion and pressure from the investigation officials and authorised officers. The legal sanctity of such statements is widely questionable. This situation calls for applicability of ratio led down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in case of SunitaDhadda (supra). The addition is not warranted by any strong evidence. Thus the addition deserves to be deleted.” However, learned CIT(A) confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer observing as under: “........in my considered opinion, the assesseefailed to controvert the findings of AO that the cash of Rs.35 lacs found and seized from the premises of ShriVivek Kumar Gupta and Shri Sanjay Jain, the hawala agents at Prem Trade Centre, Maharani Road, Indore, actually belonged to the assesseeco. Since, the source of this cash was never explained, the same has been found rightly added in the income of the assesseecompany for the A.Y. 2016-17. The addition is therefore confirmed......” M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 54 36. On consideration of above facts, we find that a search operation was conducted on premises of an unknown person/concern alleged to be a Hawala Agent located at LG-34, Prem Trade Centre, Maharani Road, Indore. The statements of Shri Sanjay Jain and Shri Vivek Gupta (who were supposedly employees of the said person/concern) had been recorded under oath. The learned Assessing Officer placed her credence on statements of these employees without providing opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee and made addition of Rs. 35,00,000/-. We find that search proceedings at third person’s place were connected with the assessee company merely on the basis of a statement ignoring the fact that no incriminating document was found during the course of search operations from the said persons/concern. Further, learned Counsel for the assessee contended that the assessee company does not hold to be in any relation with the said persons/concern or its employees because they were unknown identities to the assessee company. We find force in the contention of the Ld.AR because no opportunity to cross-examine the said persons Shri Sanjay Jain and Shri Vivek Gupta was provided to the assessee which was violation of principle of natural justice to the assessee in view of the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case Andaman Timber Industries 281 CTR 214 (SC)because it is a settled law that any material collected at the back of assessee or statement recorded at the back of assessee cannot be used as evidence against the assessee, unless the same is confronted to the assessee during assessment proceedings and right of cross- examination has to be granted to assessee to such statements. Thus, these statements recorded at the back of the assessee which were adverse in nature to the interest of assessee cannot be relied upon against the assessee and no addition could be made on that basis. The decisions relied upon by the Learned Counsel for the assessee before the learned CIT(A) also apply to M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 55 the facts and circumstances of the case. But, the Ld. CIT(A) did not comment specifically on the reasons submitted by assessee company in the support of its contentions and the observations given by Ld. CIT(A) lacked the specific remarks that why the assessee’s explanation was non-satisfactory and insufficient. We also find that the assessee company had already offered an income of Rs. 1 crore during A.Y. 2016-17 covering in the computation of Income of the relevant year and as such, this amount would cover all such miscellaneous amounts after giving set off of Rs. 35 Lakhs out of the said income offered. The same has not been rebutted by the A.O. through any evidence or material on record. No independent enquiry has been made against these documentary evidences. Therefore, such documentary evidences clearly support the explanation of assessee that genuine offer was made by the assessee company. Considering the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case and that there is no adverse material available on record against the assessee so as to make the impugned addition of Rs.35 lakhs and that no opportunity of cross-examination was provided to the assessee violating the principle of natural justice, we are of the view that addition of Rs.35 lakhs was uncalled for as there was no material on record with the Department to justify the addition of Rs.35lacs .Hence, we do not find any reason to confirm the order of the learned CIT(A) on this point. Thus, we delete the addition of Rs.35 lacs and the same is set aside. Accordingly, ground no.6 raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2016-17 is allowed. Therefore, assessee’s appeals bearing ITA Nos. 269, 270 & 271/Ind/2019 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 to 2016-17 are allowed whereas Departmental appeals bearing ITA Nos. 265 & 266/Ind/2019 for the Assessment Years 2014-15 &2015-16 are dismissed. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 56 Assessee’s appeal for the A.Y. 2013-14 37. The assessee has raised the following grounds in IT(SS)A No. 268/Ind/2019: 1. That the Learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the addition made by Assessing Officer by treating Rs. 3,14,00,000/- as bogus share capital without considering the facts of the case. 2. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 93,55,075/- on account of interest on unsecured loans without considering the facts of the case. 3. That the learned CIT(A) erred in law and facts of the case and confirmed the disallowance made by Assessing Officer of Rs. 1,32,000/- on account of interest on unaccounted unsecured loans from ShriPrithviraj and ShriRajendraChouhan without considering the facts of the case. 38. We find that while deciding the ground nos.1 & 2 of departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 above, we have already held the assessments for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2013-14 as invalid being non-abated and completed. Therefore, grounds raised in the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 stand allowed. However, both the parties have advanced arguments on the grounds raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on merits too, therefore, discussing in brief, we are deciding these grounds for the Assessment Year 2013-14 on merits. 39 So far as ground no.l with regard to the addition of Rs. 3,14,00,000/- made by the ld. Assessing Officer as unexplained share capital is concerned, we find that the Balance sheets of the assessee as well as the relevant grouping of Share Application and Share capital show that the amount under reference has not been M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 57 received in the books during the subject year rather it is way back in the financial year relevant to the Assessment year 2011-12during which subscribers had contributed share application money which was outstanding in the books up till the subject year during which the shares had been allotted to the subscribers. We find that no funds were introduced during the subject year under this head. The details of Share Application Money and balance sheet for the Assessment Year A.Y. 2011-12 was submitted before Ld. CIT(A) as also filed before us at page no. 103 of paper book. We find that the return for the Assessment Year 2011-12 was filed within the statutory time provided in section 139(1) i.e. on or before 30/09/2011. The case was processed u/s 143(1) and assessment was completed u/s 143(3). Search and seizure operation was carried out in the assessee premises in June 2015 and not a single document relating to the issue of Share Application money was found during the course of search which established that there was nothing before the Ld. AO to assess the said Share Application money, therefore, the Ld. AO was not justified in acquiring jurisdiction to examine this issue afresh. From the perusal of the original assessment order dated 13.03.2014 and the copy of ledger of Share Application Money in the books of assessee filed before us as Annexure-2, we find that share application money amounting to Rs. 3.14 crores were received in A.Y. 2011-12 and the said year was thoroughly assessed by DCIT-1(1), Indore. Both of these documents were submitted before Ld. AO as well as before Ld. CIT(A) but the same were overlooked by them as no comments were given on this by either of them rather the focus was shifted by them to the factors related to section 68 of the Act i.e. identity, genuineness & creditworthiness. However, we are of the view that Revenue Authorities failed to appreciate the fact that these factors are secondary when once the assessment is completed and no incriminating document was found in this respect. Further, learned CIT(A) ignored a detailed reply which is also filed before us at page 104 of the paper book. The same was ignored by the Ld. CIT(A) in M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 58 totality as no comments were made on them and instead a negative opinion was formed in this regard for upholding the addition made by AO. In view of these facts, since share application money amounting to Rs. 3.14 crores were received in A.Y. 2011-12 and the said year was thoroughly assessed by DCIT-1(1), Indore, we do not find any reason to sustain the order of the learned CIT(A) on merit. Accordingly, even on merit, the Revenue has no case. Accordingly, ground no.1 is allowed on merits too. 40. Ground no.2raised by the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14 relates to the addition made by the Assessing Officer on account of notional interest on unaccounted loans. The facts, in brief, are that interest amounting to Rs. 93,55,075/- was debited on account of interest paid on the unsecured loans outstanding as on beginning of the financial year. This interest was disallowed by the AO holding that the unsecured loans were found fictitious in the AY 2012-13. The Ld. CIT(A) agreed with the view of the AO and confirmed the disallowance. 41. We find the interest under reference was paid within the relevant financial year itself after deducting tax under section 194A. The tax so deducted was duly credited to Central Government account and the respective creditors have taken credit of the tax so deducted. Further, it is also a fact that the unsecured loans under reference were repaid in the subsequent periods. Details of repayment of loans under reference were submitted before AO as well as Ld. CIT(A) in the shape of copy of unsecured loan account and a chart depicting date-wise payment of respective creditors with mode of payment. Further, we find that this point has already been considered by us at Para 27 to 29 of this order. Therefore, following the same reasoning, we set aside the orders of Revenue Authorities and accordingly, this ground is remanded to the file of the AO who shall decide this issue after the decision of the ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2012-13. Thus, this ground no. 2 for the assessment year 2013-14 is allowed for statistical purposes only. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 59 42. Ground no.3 raised by the assessee relates to the addition of Rs. 1,32,000/- made by the AO on the strength of some material i.e. alleged cash loan of Rs.11 lacs received from Shri Rajendra Kumar Chauhan and Shri Prathviraj Chauhan as found in the hard-drive. Learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition. 43. Before us, the learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that without bringing any corroborative evidence on record, the Assessing Officer made the addition and learned CIT(A) ignoring this fact confirmed the addition. Per contra, ld. CIT-DR relied upon the orders of the Revenue Authorities. 44. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that in the books of assessee, neither there is any such loan from Shri Rajendra Chouhan and Shri Prithviraj Chouhan nor the assessee has claimed any deduction on account of interest as assessed and the hard-drive was also not opened in the presence of the assessee or its representative and the ld. Assessing Officer even failed to provide a transcript of the content of the hard-drive under reference and made the addition on presumption. Therefore, we do not find any reason to sustain the orders of the Revenue Authorities on this issue. Accordingly, we delete the addition of Rs.1,32,000/- on merit and, accordingly, allow ground no.3 of the appeal of the assessee for the Assessment Year 2013-14. Thus, assessee’s appeal i.e. IT(SS)A No.268/Ind/2019 for the Assessment Year 2013-14 is allowed. Departmental appeals for the Assessment Years 2014-15 and 2015- 16 bearing ITA No.22 & 23/Ind/2021 The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeals: - A.Y. 2014-15 (ITA No. 22/Ind/21): M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 60 “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.2,84,04,890/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus inflation of purchases among group concerns which is based on TPO’s order u/s 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” A.Y. 2015-16 (ITA No. 23/Ind/21): “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.61,44,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of undisclosed interest income on cash loans. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of income surrendered u/s 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on the basis of incriminating documents seized during search. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,52,87,098/- made by the Assessing Officer on account of bogus inflation of purchases among group concerns which is based on TPO’s order u/s 92CA(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.” 45. Facts, in brief, are that the assessee is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing and trading of steel ingots. The assessee company filed original returns of income, declaring return of income as follows: A.Y. Date of Filing Return of Income Returned Income as per ITR u/s. 139 Date of filing of Return against notice u/s 153A Income declared in Return u/s 153A 2014- 15 03/09/2014 1,01,30,200/- 15/04/2017 1,01,30,200/- 2015- 16 24/03/2017 5,57,20,410/- 24/03/2017 5,57,20,410/- Search and seizure operation was carried out in group cases of Moira Steel which incepted on 17/06/2015 and ended on M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 61 21/06/2015.The case was centralized vide order dated 16/09/2015 passed u/s 127 of the Act by Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Bhopal. The learned Assessing Officer initiated proceedings u/s. 153A for A.Y. 2014-15 & 2015-16. The assessee company complied with all the notices and letters during the entire proceedings and filed elaborate submission explaining all issues. However, the Assessing officer proceeded to make additions as reflected in the appended table: A.Y. Particulars of Additions Amount Reference to Assessment Order 2014- 15 Addition on account of Bogus Inflation of Purchases 2,84,04,890 Page 4 - 31 Addition on account of Unexplained Cash Expenditure u/s 69C 32,09,453 Page 31 - 38 2015- 16 Addition on account of Bogus Inflation of Purchases 1,52,87,098 Page 4 - 31 Addition on account of Unaccounted Cash Loan and Undisclosed Interest 4,00,000 Page 38 – 40 Addition on account of Undisclosed Interest 61,44,000 Page 38 – 40 Addition on account of Income Surrendered 5,00,00,000 Page 40 - 42 46. Being aggrieved, the assessee went into appeals before ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – III, Bhopal who decided the appeals vide order dated 17/09/2020 in the following manner: A.Y. Particulars of additions Amount Decision of CIT(A) Relevant page in appellate order 2014- 15 Addition on account of Bogus Inflation of 2,84,04,890 Addition Deleted Page 17 - 25 M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 62 Purchases Addition on account of Unexplained Cash Expenditure u/s 69C 32,09,453 Addition Sustained Page 25 - 36 2015- 16 Addition on account of Bogus Inflation of Purchases 1,52,87,098 Addition Deleted Page 17 - 25 Addition on account of Unaccounted Cash Loan and Undisclosed Interest 4,00,000 Addition Sustained Page 27 - 29 Addition on account of Undisclosed Interest 61,44,000 Addition Deleted Page 27 - 29 Addition on account of Income Surrendered 5,00,00,000 Addition Deleted Page 29 - 35 47. Aggrieved with the deletion of additions as above, the Revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal. 48. So far as the ground no.1 and ground no.3 raised for the Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16 with regard to additions on account of alleged bogus Inflation of purchases at Rs.2,84,04,890/- & Rs.1,52,87,098/-, respectively, are concerned, the facts, in brief, are that during the course of assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee entered into specific domestic transactions, from parties covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act, within the meaning of section 92CA of the Act and therefore, case of the assessee was referred to Transfer Pricing Officer-1, Ahmadabad. The TPO-2, Ahmedabad passed order u/s 92CA(3) for AY 2014-15 & 2015-16 on 12.10.2018. The relevant extract of orders is also reproduced at page no 5 to 30 of the assessment order. The AO after considering the orders of the TPO noted that as per order u/s 92CA(3) of the I.T. Act, the TPO determined the Arm length price in respect of domestic transaction and held that excess price paid u/s 92CA comes to Rs.2,84,04,890/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and Rs.1,52,87,098/- for the Assessment Year M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 63 2015-16. Thus, the ld. Assessing Officer added the adjustment made by the TPO u/s 92CA on account of excess payment to associated persons amounting to Rs.2,84,04,890/- for the Assessment Year 2014-15 and Rs.1,52,87,098/- for the Assessment Year 2015-16 to the income of the assessee co. Being aggrieved, the assessee approached the learned CIT(A). Learned CIT(A) noted that the assessee had entered into specific domestic transactions in the nature of remuneration to directors, purchase of raw material and payment for job work, commission and interest paid to directors. Learned CIT(A) discussed the provisions of sec. 92BA of the Act in respect of ‘specified domestic transactions’ in the light of the relevant judicial pronouncements and deleted the additions under consideration. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeals before this Tribunal. 50. Before us, ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A). 51. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that the assessee company entered into certain transactions with the parties covered u/s 40A(2)(b) of the Act for which the case was transferred to the Transfer Pricing Officer for computation of Arm’s Length Price. The Ld. TPO then determined the ALP through a different method and made the upward adjustments to the prices which were transacted by the assessee company. We find that the provisions of Section 92CA (3) read as under: 92CA. (3) On the date specified in the notice under sub-section (2), or as soon thereafter as may be, after hearing such evidence as the assessee may produce. including any information or documents referred to in sub section (3) of section 92D and after considering such evidence as the Transfer Pricing Officer may require on any specified points and after taking into account all relevant materials which he has gathered, the Transfer Pricing Officer shall, by order in writing, determine the arm's length price in relation to the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 64 international transaction or specified domestic transaction in accordance with sub-section (3) of section 92C and send a copy of his order to the Assessing Officer and to the assessee. 52. From the bare reading of the above provision, we find that the Transfer Pricing Officer shall determine the arm's length price in relation to the "Specified Domestic Transaction". In the instant case, the assessee being an Indian company, made certain payments in the nature of remuneration to its directors, purchase of raw materials and payments for job work to its associated enterprises, commission and interest paid to directors and the definition of "Specified Domestic Transaction" has been elaborately discussed under provisions of sec. 92BA of the Act which read as under: - 92BA. For the purposes of this section and sections 92, 92C, 92D and 92E, "specified domestic transaction" in case of an assessee means any of the following transactions, not being an international transaction, namely:- (i) [***] (ii) any transaction referred to in section BOA; (iii) any transfer of goods or services referred to in sub- section (8) of section 80-IA; (iv) any business transacted between the assessee and other person as referred to in sub-section (JO) of section 80-IA; (v) any transaction, referred to in any other section under Chapter VI-A or section J OAA, to which provisions of sub-section (8) or sub-section(10) of section 80-IA are applicable; or Following clause (va) shall be inserted after clause (v) of section 92BA by the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 2019, w.e.f. 1-4- 2020: (va) any business transacted between the persons referred to in sub section (4) of section 115BAB; (vi) any other transaction as may be prescribed, and where the aggregate of such transactions entered into by the assessee in the previous year exceeds a sum of twenty crore rupees. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 65 53. We find that in the instant case, assessee had entered into specified domestic transaction only and no international transactions were entered, therefore, the assessee was governed by provisions of Section 92BA (i) only. We find that while the matter was pending before the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, the Finance Act of 2017 was passed, which omitted clause (i) of Section 92BA, with effect from 1 April 2017. Thus, learned Counsel for the assessee argued that since the Finance Act, 2017 omitted Section 92BA(i), the impugned transaction would not fall under the definition of a 'specified domestic transaction' and would accordingly be outside the purview of transfer pricing provisions and therefore, pursuant to the amendment, Section 92BA (i) should be deemed to not be on the statute since the beginning. It was also contended that where a provision is omitted it should be deemed to have never been part of the statute at any point of time. Effect of omission is different from repeal. We find that the similar issue on identical arguments have already been taken into consideration by Indore Bench in case of Swastik Coal Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Pr. CIT-2 Indore (ITA No.486/Ind/2018) wherein it has been held as under: “It is contended by the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that assessee had entered into 'specified domestic transactions' but not in international transactions. Thus, the transaction would be governed by the provisions of section 92BA (1) of the Act. It is further pointed out that the provisions of section 92BA (1) of the Act has been omitted w.e.f. 1.4.2017. It is vehemently argued that the impact of omission of this provision would be that it has to be construed that such provision was never on the statute book He contended that it is a settled principle that where provision is omitted, it should be deemed to have never been part of the statute at any point of time. The reliance is placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of General Finance Company Vs. ACIT (2002) 124 Taxman 432 (SC). There is merit into this contention as the Hon'ble Apex court has referred to the Judgments by the Hon'ble constitutional bench M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 66 of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Kolhapur Cane Sugar Works Limited Vs. UOJ (2000) (2) SCC 536. The Hon'ble Apex court in General Finance Company Vs. ACIT (supra) after considering the submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the revenue in that case held as under: ''8. Though we find the submissions of the learned counsel to be forceful, we are constrained to follow the two decisions of the Constitution Benches of this Court in RayalaCorpn. (P) Ltd.'s case (supra) and Kolhapur Canesugar Works Ltd.'s case (supra). This view has held that field for over three decades and reiterated even as late as two years ago. Non-compliance with section 269SS attracted prosecution as well as penalty. Omission of the provision regarding prosecution will not affect the levy of penalty. The advantage arising out of application of the ratio of the two decisions resulting in prosecution in cases of non-compliance with section 269SS is only transactional affecting a few cases arising prior to 1.4.1989. Such cases may be few and far between. Hence, we find this is not an appropriate case for reference to the larger Bench. 9. Net result of this discussion is that the view taken by the High Court is not consistent with what has been stated by this Court in the two decisions aforesaid and the principle underlying section was saving the right to initiate proceedings for liabilities incurred during the currency of the Act will not apply to omission of a provision in an Act but only to repeal, omission being different from repeal as held in the aforesaid decisions. Jn the Act, section 276DD stood omitted from the Act but not repealed and, hence, a prosecution could not have been launched or continued by invoking section 6 after its omission. " 7. This submission was also made before the Ld. Pr. CIT by the assessee. However, the Ld. CIT rejected the submissions by observing as under:- 8. We find that the above view of the Ld. Pr. CIT is not correct. In view of the aforesaid discussion, moreover, the coordinate bench has also examined the issue in the case of Texport M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 67 Overseas Pvt. Ltd. in IT(TP)A No.1722/Bang/2017. Admittedly, in this case, the order has been revised purely on the basis that the assessing officer has not referred to determine the arm's length price to the TPO. Since the provision itself stood omitted at the time when the order was passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, under these undisputed facts in the light of the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of General Finance Company (supra) as well as the order of the coordinate bench rendered in the case of Texport Overseas Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the impugned order cannot be sustained, hence is hereby quashed. The order impugned is thus quashed and the grounds raised in the appeal are allowed.” 54. In view of the above, we are of the view that once the said provision was omitted w.e.f. 01.04.2017, the reference made by the AO to TPO was bad in law as the AO has not followed the mandate of law as per the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of General Finance Company vs ACIT (2002) 124 Taxman 432 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court while adjudicating the issue of omission of section from the statute held that section 276DD was omitted from the Act but not repealed, hence, a prosecution could not have been launched by invoking provisions of section 6 after its omission which means that the provisions of a section when omitted cannot be invoked. 55. Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of CITvs M/S Ge Thermometrics India (I.T.A. No.424/2009), on the similar issue has held as under : “4. During the course of arguments, learned counsel for both parties bring to our notice the judgment of this Court rendered in I.T.A.NO.87612008 C/W l.T.A.N0.87712008 ON 25.11.2014 in the case of COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND ANOTHER vs. MIS. GE THERMOMETRJCS INDIA (P) LIMITED and submit that this Court having considered a M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 68 similar question has in similar circumstances, affirmed the order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Perusal of the aforesaid judgment makes it clear that this Court, after considering the substantial question of law raised with regard to the correctness of the view taken by the Tribunal to the effect that in view of the omission of sub- Section (9) in Section 1OB with effect from 01.04.2004 should it be understood that the said section never existed in the statute book and therefore, the benefit claimed by the assessee under Section 1OB should be allowed, has held in paragraph 8 after referring to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of KOLHAPUR CANESUGAR WORKS LTD., vs. UNION OF INDIA - AIR 2000 SC 811 as under: ''Admittedly, in the instant case, there is no saving clause or provision introduced by way of an amendment while omitting sub section (9) of Section 1OB. Therefore, once the aforesaid section is omitted from the statute book, the result is it had never been passed and be considered as a law that never exists and therefore, when the assessment orders were passed in 2006, the Assessing Officer was not justified in taking note of a provision which was not in the statute book and denying benefit to the assessee. The whole object of such omission is to extend the benefit under Section 1OB of the Act irrespective of the fact whether during the period to which they are entitled to the benefit, the ownership continues with the original assessee or it is transferred to another person. Benefit is to the undertaking and not to the person who is running the business. We do not see any merit in these appeals. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed". 6. As the aforesaid judgment is applicable in all force to the facts and circumstances of the present case, following the said judgment, this appeal is also dismissed.” M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 69 56. On consideration of above in the light of the judicial pronouncements (supra), we hold that the Learned CIT(A) rightly noted that the assessee had entered into specific domestic transactions in the nature of remuneration to directors, purchase of raw material and payment for job work, commission and interest paid to directors and thereafter, discussing the provisions of sec. 92BA of the Act in respect of ‘specified domestic transactions’ in the light of the relevant judicial pronouncements and rightly deleted the additions under consideration. Thus, we do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue. Therefore, we confirm the findings of the learned CIT(A). Accordingly, ground no.1 and ground no.3 raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2014-15 & 2015-16, respectively, are dismissed. 57. Ground no.1 raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.61,44,000/- on account of undisclosed interest income. Facts as noted by the Revenue Authorities are that during the course of search, two LPSs 28 & 29 were found and seized which contained details of cash loans advanced by the assessee. LPS-28 contained details of cash loan given by M/s Bharti Ingot Pvt. Ltd to various parties. Shri Pawan Singhania, Director of the assessee co., in his statement admitted that the sum of Rs.5.12 crores represented unaccounted cash loans and was not incorporated in books of accounts. The AO during the course of assessment proceedings observed that the assesseewhile filing return of income u/s 153A had incorporated income of Rs. 5,08,00,000/- under the head ‘income from other sources’ and paid due taxes, however, the balance amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- was not shown in return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the AO made addition of balance amount to the income of the assessee. The AO further presumed that the assessee could have earned interest @ 12% on the said cash loans and made further addition of Rs. 61,44,000/- to the income of the assessee in M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 70 AY 2015-16 under consideration. Being aggrieved, the assessee went into appeal before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) deleted the addition on the ground that addition was made simply on presumption as nothing was brought on record to prove that the assessee earned interest on the said cash loans and the onus of proof was on the department to prove that the assessee had earned interest on cash loans. Being aggrieved, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. 58. Before us, ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A). 59. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find that during the year under consideration, the assessee gave cash loans to various parties on which no interest income was booked. However, the Ld. Assessing Officer made the addition on account of interest received on cash loans at Rs. 61,44,000/- @ 12% on Rs.5,12,00,000/- on presumption basis without bringing any cogent material on record in support of making the addition. Ld.AR contended that as no interest accrued to the assessee co., the income was not offered as is evident from the fact that the Revenue could not bring any evidence on record in this regard. We find force in the contention of the Ld.AR considering the fact that when it has not received the interest income, the hypothetical income should have not been taxed because there cannot be any presumption that since the assessee has given cash loans, it should receive the interest also. Therefore, the contention of Ld. Assessing Officer that the assessee has concealed income of interest is on wrong presumption. We find that it is an undisputed fact that nothing was brought on record to prove that the assessee earned interest on the said cash loans and it is also not the case that the beneficiaries have admitted that they had paid interest @ 12% to the assessee against the receipt of cash loans, therefore, there does not exist even a single iota of evidence M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 71 to establish that the assessee had actually earned interest on cash loans @ 12%. Considering these facts, we are of the view that onus is on the Revenue to prove that the assessee had actually earned interest on cash loans and that too, @ 12%. But, the ld. Assessing Officer failed to discharge his onus and simply on guess work, presumption and suspicion, addition in this regard was been made. Our view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: 1. Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Umacharan Saha& Bros Co. v/s CIT 37 ITR 21 (SC) held that suspicion, however, strong cannot take place of proof. 2. Hon’ble Supreme court in the case of K P Varghese v/s ITO (1981) 131 ITR 597(SC) held that assessee must be shown to have received more than what is disclosed by him as consideration. 3. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 (SC) held that although strict rules of evidence Act do not apply to income tax proceedings, assessment cannot be made on the basis of imagination and guess work. 4. Apex court in the case of DhirajLal Girdharilal v/s CIT (1954) 26 ITR 736 (SC). 60. On consideration of above, we are of the view that burden of proof lies upon him which affirms not upon him who denies and the ratio laid down in the above judicial pronouncements is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case as the ld. Assessing Officer was required to bring some tangible and positive material on record to prove that assessee had actually received interest on cash loans. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) rightly deleted the addition considering the facts and relevant judicial pronouncements. Thus, we confirm the findings of learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground no.1 raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2015- M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 72 16 stands dismissed. 61. Ground no.2 raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is with regard to deletion of addition of Rs.5 crores made by the Assessing Officer on account of income surrendered. Facts as noted by the Revenue Authorities are that during the course of search, vide statement, the assessee admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 6.08 Crores and during the course of assessment proceedings, in reply, submitted year wise bifurcation of surrendered income i.e. AY 2015-16 Rs. 5,08,00,000/- and AY 2016-17 Rs. 1,00,00,000/-. The AO further observed that the assessee had shown income of Rs.1,00,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 in return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act, however, the surrendered income of Rs. 5,08,00,000/- for AY 2015-16 was not shown in return filed u/s 153A of the Act. Therefore, the AO made addition of Rs. 5,00,00,000/- to the income of the assessee being amount surrendered during the course of search. Being aggrieved, the assessee went into appeal before the learned CIT(A) and learned CIT(A) in view of the facts, submissions and relevant decisions came to the conclusion that the AO was not justified in making double addition of Rs.5,00,00,000/- as unaccounted income based on disclosure made during the search which was on account of cash loans and the surrender made on account of cash loans of Rs. 5.08 crores had already been shown in return of income filed u/s 153A of the Act. Further, learned CIT(A) also observed that no specific reference was made by the AO to any incriminating material found during the course of search suggesting earning of such unaccounted income apart from LPS-28. Therefore, following the decision of ITAT, Indore in the case of Sudeep Maheshwari and other judicial precedents, the addition made by the AO amounting to Rs.5,00,00,000/- was deleted by the learned CIT(A). Thus, the Revenue is in appeal before this Tribunal. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 73 62. Before us, ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer whereas the learned Counsel for the assessee relied upon the order of the learned CIT(A). 63. We have heard rival contentions and perused the material available on record. We find thatthe assessee had surrendered a total amount of Rs.6,08,00,000/- during the search and the assessee year-wise bifurcated the surrendered income i.e. Rs.5,08,00,000/- for AY 2015-16 and Rs.1,00,00,000/- for AY 2016-17 which was incorporated in the books of accounts in the respective years and were also offered for taxation in return of income u/s 153A under the head ‘Other Sources’. We find that the copies of ledger account indicating the above-mentioned surrender amount incorporated in the books and returns for the above years indicating the same offered for taxation were submitted before Ld. AO as well as before Ld. CIT(A). Therefore, it is clear that the surrendered income was duly accounted for, offered in the return of income and also the taxes due were paid. Thus, the same were not required to be added again to the total income of the assessee. Further, the ld. Assessing Officer giving reference to the statement of the assessee made addition for undisclosed income. However, no specific reference was made to any incriminating material having its bearing on the surrendered income. Ld. Assessing Officer failed to consider the fact that the voluntary surrender was made on account of cash loans as mentioned on LPS-28 found and seized during search and the surrendered amount was shown in the return of income filed u/s 153A on 24.03.2017 offering a sum of Rs. 5.08 crores to tax under the head income from ‘Other Sources’. But, the ld. Assessing Officer relied only upon the statement of the assessee without bringing any incriminating document on record. The ld. AO totally failed to bring on record any positive evidence having nexus with the assessee or business transaction carried out by the assessee or pointing out assessee’s connection with the seized document in name or otherwise. Thus, we are of the view that the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 74 addition made by the A.O was not on the basis of the incriminating material found during the course of search but only on the basis of statement of assessee only against which the assessee had also disclosed the surrendered amount in return of income which was on account of cash loans. Further, we find that the surrendered amount pertains to cash loans, which was already added by the ld. Assessing Officer at Rs.4,00,000/- being the difference between Rs.5,12,00,000/- and Rs.5,08,00,000/-, therefore, the same amount was not required to be added twice to the total income of the assessee. The said surrendered amount on account of cash loans was already accepted by the AO vide para 8 of the assessment order. Even in post search enquiries, no irregularity was pointed out by the ld. Assessing Officer. Thus, the addition was unjustified in view of the facts narrated above. Our view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: - 64. ITAT Indore in the case of ACIT VS. Sudeep Maheshwari (ITA No 524/Ind/2013 dated 13.02.2019) held as under:- “6. It is the case of the assessee that during the course of search & seizure, no incriminating material or undisclosed income or investments were found. It is stated that the assessee was under mental pressure and tired. Therefore, to buy peace of mind, he accepted and declared Rs.3 crores in personal name. It is also stated that the case laws as relied by the A.O. are not applicable on the facts of the present case. The assessee has relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court rendered in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd. 91 ITR 18 (SC), wherein the Hon'ble Court has held that admission cannot be said that it is conclusive. Retraction from admission was permissible in law and it was open to the person who made the admission to show that it was incorrect. However, reliance is placed on the judgement of the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court rendered in the case of CIT Vs. ChandrakumarJethmalKochar (2015) 55 Taxmann.com 292 (Gujarat), wherein it has been held that merely on the basis of admission that few benami concerns were being run by assessee, assessee could not be basis for making the assessee liable for tax M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 75 and the assessee retracted from such admission and revenue could not furnish any corroborative evidence in support of such evidence. It was further urged by the assessee that admission should be based upon certain corroborative evidences. In the absence of corroborative evidences, the admission is merely a hollow statement. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the rival contentions of the parties. It is undisputed fact that the statement recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act has a better evidentiary value but it is also a settled position of law that the addition cannot be sustained merely on the basis of the statement. There has to be some material corroborating the contents of the statement. In the case in hand, revenue could not point out as what was the material before the A.O., which supported the contents of the statement. In the absence of such material, coupled with the fact that it is recorded by the Ld. CIT(A) that the assessee himself had surrendered a sum of Rs.69,59,000/- and Rs.75,00,000/- in A.Y. 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The A.O. failed to co-relate the disclosures made in the statement with the incriminating material gathered during the search. Therefore, no inference is called for in the finding of the Ld. CIT(A) and is hereby affirmed. Ground raised by the revenue is dismissed.” 65. Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Kailashben Mangarlal Chokshi vs. CIT - (2008) 14 DTR 257 (Guj.) held that merely on the basis of admission, the assessee could not have been subject to additions, unless and until some corroborative evidence is found in support of such admission. 66. Hon'ble Jharkhand High Court Shree Ganesh Trading Co. V/s Commissioner of Income-tax, Tax Case No.8 of 1999 order dated 03.01.2013 held as under: - “4. We considered the submissions of the learned counsel for theparties and perused the reasons given in the impugned orders as well as reasons given in the case of KailashbenManharlalChokshi (supra). M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 76 5. It appears from the statement of facts that there was a search in the business premises of the petitioner’s firm as well as in the residential premises of its partner, ShriSheo Kumar Kejriwal, on 24th September, 1987. During the course of search, the statement of ShriSheo Kumar Kejriwal had been recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and in the statement, he stated that he was partner in the Ganesh Trading Company, i.e. the present assessee-firm in his individual status and that he surrendered Rs. 20 lacs for the assessment year 1988-89 as income, on which tax would be paid. He further stated that other partners would agree to the same; otherwise it would be his personal liability. However, in the returns filed after search, the income of Rs. 20 lacs surrendered by ShriSheo Kumar Kejriwal was not declared by the assessee-firm. On being asked to explain the reason for not showing the surrendered amount in the returns, it was submitted by the assessee that declaration made by the partner was misconceived and divorced from real facts. It was contended that the declaration was made after persuasion, which, according to the learned counsel for the assessee, ShriBinodPoddar, in fact, was because of coercion exerted by the search officers. In explanation, it was submitted that the firm or the individual had no undisclosed income. The assessee’s said retraction was not accepted by any of the authorities below on the ground that the statement given by the assessee appears to be voluntarily given statement disclosing undisclosed income of Rs. 20 lacs. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, ShriBinodPoddar, the Assessing Officer had full jurisdiction to proceed for further enquiry and could have collected evidence in support of alleged admission of undisclosed income of the assessee. 6. We are of the considered opinion that statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is evidence but its reliability depends upon the facts of the case and particularly surrounding circumstances. Drawing inference from the facts is a question of law. Here in this case, all the authorities below have merely reached to the conclusion of one conclusion merely on the M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 77 basis of assumption resulting into fastening of the liability upon the assessee. The statement on oath of the assessee is a piece of evidence as per section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act and when there is incriminating admission against himself, then it is required to be examined with due care and caution. In the judgment of KailashbenManharlalChokshi (supra), the Division Bench of Gujarat High Court has considered the issue in the facts of that case and found the explanation given by the assessee to be more convincing and that was not considered by the authorities below. Here in this case also, no specific reason has been given for rejection of the assessee’s contention by which the assessee has retracted from his admission. None of the authorities gave any reason as to why Assessing Officer did not proceed further to enquire into the undisclosed income as admitted by the assessee in his statement under section 134(2) in fact situation where during the course of search, there was no recovery of assets or cash by the Department. This fact also has not been taken care of and considered by any of the authorities that in a case where there was search operation, no assets or cash was recovered from the assessee, in that situation what had prompted the assessee to make declaration of undisclosed income of Rs. 20 lacs. Mere reading of statement of assessee is not the assessment of evidentiary value of the evidence when such statement is self- incriminating. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that in the present case, a wrong inference had been drawn by the authorities below in holding that there was undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 20 lacs. 7. In view of the above reasons, without answering the question about retrospective operation of the proviso to section 134(4), we are holding that the authorities below have committed error of law in drawing inference from the materials placed on record, i.e. admission of the assessee coupled with its retraction by the assessee. The Revenue may now proceed accordingly”. M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 78 67. Further, ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of M/s Ultimate Builders vs ACIT Central-II, Bhopal ITA No 134/Ind/2019 dated 09.08.2019 held that the statement given by the assessee was without any specific reference to any incriminating material therefore, addition on account of undisclosed income offered in statement was deleted. 68.Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT vs Jaya Lakshmi Ammal (2017) 390 ITR 189 (Mad.) held as under: “we are of the considered view that, for deciding any issue, against the assessee, the authorities under the IT Act, 1961 have to consider, as to whether there is any corroborative material evidence. If there is no corroborating documentary evidence, then statement recorded under s. 132(4) of the IT Act, 1961, alone should not be the basis, for arriving at any adverse decision against the assessee. If the authorities under the IT Act, 1961, have to be conferred with the power, to be exercised, solely on the basis of a statement, then it may lead to an arbitrary exercise of such power. An order of assessment entails civil consequences. Therefore, under Judicial review, courts have to exercise due care and caution that no man is condemned, due to erroneous or arbitrary exercise of authority conferred.” The court further held that “if the assessee makes a statement under s. 132(4) of the Act, and if there are any incriminating documents found in his possession, then the case is different. On the contra, if mere statement made under s. 132(4) of the Act, without any corroborative material, has to be given credence, than it would lead to disastrous results. Considering the nature of the order of assessment, in the instant case characterised as undisclosed and on the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that mere statement without there being any corroborative evidence, M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 79 should not be treated as conclusive evidence against the maker of the statement.” 70. Jurisdictional ITAT, Indore Bench in the case of ACIT Vs. Shri Yogesh Kumar Hotwani 30 ITJ 353/380 (Ind-Trib) held that no addition can be made merely based on statement u/s.132(4) without linking to the seized books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things. In this case at para 18 of the order, the Tribunal held as under: “We also find that disclosure was not made by the assessee hence it is not binding on him. We also rely on the decision in the case of CIT v. Chandra Kumar JethmalKochar, (2015) 230 Taxman 78 (Guj), Asstt. CIT v. Kunwarjeet Finance Pvt. Limited, (2015) 61 Taxmann.com 52 (Ahm.-Trib.), CIT v. Jagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar, (2015) 61 taxmann.com 173 (Raj), wherein it was held that when addition of disclosure made by the assessee in statement recorded u/s 132(4), it cannot be sustained despite retraction, when Revenue could not furnish any positive evidence in support of such addition. Therefore, we are unable to uphold the findings of the AO and inclined to agree with Ld. CIT(A). Further, the Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court in the case ofJagdish Narayan Ratan Kumar (supra) has held that statement made during search must be correlated with records, which are found and if there is no ambiguity, explanation given by the assessee should be taken into consideration before making assessment. Thus, based on these decisions, we are of the opinion that the addition made by merely based on statement u/s 132(4) without linking to the seized books of accounts, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery, other valuable articles or things is not sustainable in law.” 71. On consideration of above in the light of the judicial M/s. JaideepIspat& Alloy Pvt. Ltd., Indore 80 pronouncements (supra), we are of the view that the observation of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is proper and after due consideration of all the facts and circumstances, and hence the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue deserves not to be interfered with. Thus, we confirm the findings of learned CIT(A) on this issue. Accordingly, ground no.2 raised by the Revenue for the Assessment Year 2015-16 stands dismissed. Accordingly, both the appeals filed by the Revenue for the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2016-17 are dismissed. 72. In the result, the departmental appeals bearing IT(SS)A Nos.261 to 266/Ind/2019 for the Assessment Years 2010-11 to 2015-16 and ITA Nos.22 & 23/Ind/2021 for AY 2014-15 and AY 2015-16 are dismissed whereas assessee’s appeals bearing IT(SS)A Nos.268/Ind/2019 is allowed and IT(SS)A no. 269 to 271/Ind/2019 are partly allowed for statistical purposes. The order pronounced as per Rule 34 of ITAT Rules, 1963 on 08.03.2022. Sd/- Sd/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (MANISH BORAD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER दनांक /Dated : 08.03 .2022 !vyas! Copy to: The Appellant/Respondent/CIT concerned/ CIT(A) concerned/ DR, ITAT, Indore/Guard file. By Order, Sr. Private Secretary, I.T.A.T., Indore