Neera Narang, V. DCIT, Circle-23(1),

ITSSA 526/DEL/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3832 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 14 year(s) 8 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-11-2003
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S RANA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Peak credit; Retrospective amendment; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 6; 132; 15

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: G NEW DELHI MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO. 526/DEL/2003 ( A.Y 1/4/1989 TO 17/12/1989) MRS. NEERA NARANG D-38, PANCHSHEEL ENCLAVE NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS ACIT CIRCLE-23(1) NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO. 549/DEL/2003 ( A.Y 1 /4/1989 TO 17/12/1999) ACIT CIRCLE-23(1) NEW DELHI (APPELLANT) VS MRS. NEERA NARANG C/O. P. N. MONGA ADVOCATE, 2 E/45, CONNAUGHT PLACE NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SH. SATISH AGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY SH. S. S. RANA, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH 01 THESE TWO APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE [ THE LD AO AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) 16-NEW DELHI [ THE LD CIT A ] DATED 1/9/2003 PASSED IN APPEAL OF ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO FOR BLOCK PERIOD A.Y 1/4/1989 TO 17/12/1989. 02 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: DATE OF HEARING 14.05.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 2 3 .07.2018 2 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 IT(SS)A NO. 526/DEL/2003 (ASSESSEES APPEAL CONCISE GROUNDS) 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO UNDER SECTION 158BC HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) . THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT NO NE OF THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN 132(1) OF THE INCOME TAX AC T HAVE BEEN COMPLIED WITH. THERE BEING NO AUTHORIZATION, THERE WAS VALID SEARCH CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 15 8BC WAS BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT THERE BEING NO AUTHORIZATION AND NO SEPARATE PANCHNAMA IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSME NT FRAMED BY THE AO -UNDER SECTION 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ILLEGAL. THE AUTHORIZATION AND THE SEARCH WAS PERSON SPECIFIC AN D NOT PLACE. IN ANY CASE THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS CLEARLY REVEAL, T HE IMPUGNED ACTION COULD ONLY BE UNDER SECTION 158BD AND NOT UNDER 158 BC OF THE ACT. THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO THEREFORE DESERVED T O BE QUASHED. 3. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ERRONEOUSLY UPHELD THE ACT ION OF THE AO DETERMINING THE ESTIMATED ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE L D.AO WHICH HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE AN ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WERE REQUIRED TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD ALONGW ITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE, WERE NOT TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY THE LD. AO OR BY LD. CIT(A), THE ADDITIONS MADE UPHOLDING THE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAVE BEEN WRONGLY UPHELD BY THE LD. CIT(A) BY RESORTING TO THE METHOD OF PEAK AMOUNT OF RS.200673 48/- WRONGLY HELD TO BE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN ANY C ASE EVEN THE ADDITION BY WAY OF PEAK IS EXCESSIVE . 5. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAVING FURNISHED THE EXPL ANATION AND THE MATERIAL REBUTTING THE CASE OF THE AO, EACH ONE OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE OF THE AO DESERVED TO BE DELETED. 6. THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WERE BASED ON WRONG FACTS AND ERRONEOUS APPRECIATION OF FACTUAL AND LEG AL POSITION. EACH ONE OF THE SAME THEREFORE DESERVED TO BE DELETED. S ECTION 69/69A HAD BEEN WRONGLY APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 7. THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED UNDER SECT ION 158BCWAS CLEARLY VIOLATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND THERE BEING NO 3 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 LEGAL APPROVAL UNDER SECTION 158BG OF THE ACT, THE APPROVAL BEING MECHANICAL AND-ASSESSMENT MADE DESERVED TO BE ANNU LLED. 8. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GONE WRONG IN CONFIRMING THE CHARGE OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 158BFA AND ALSO LEVY OF SURC HARGE WHICH IS INVALID IN THE EYES OF LAW. IT(SS)A NO. 549/DEL/2003 (REVENUES APPEAL) 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION OF RS.21002065/- TO RS.20067343/- THEREBY GIVING THE ASSESSEE A RELIEF OF RS.934722/ - BY ADMITTING FRESH EVIDENCE AND CALCULATING THE UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT ON PEAK INVESTMENT BASIS IGNORING THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, (I) THE ASSESSEE DID NOT POINT OUT ANY MISTAKE IN T HE PROJECT-WISE INVESTMENT AS DETERMINED BY A.O. (II) THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COME UP WITH THE PROPOSAL OF PEAK CREDITS. 03 THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL AND THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 13 2 OF THE ACT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17/12/1999. CONSEQUENT TO T HAT NOTICE U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE O N 5/7/2001, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 21/8/2001 DECLARING NIL INCOME. CONSEQUENT TO THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER P ASSED AN ORDER U/S 158BC OF THE ACT ON 31 ST DECEMBER, 2001 DETERMINING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR BLOCK PERIOD AT RS. 210,02 ,065/-. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER BEFORE THE CIT (A), W HICH WAS PARTLY ALLOWED, BUT WITH RESPECT TO THE UNDISCLOSED INVEST MENT AND UNDISCLOSED PROFIT, THE CIT (A) DETERMINED THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 200,67,343/- BASED ON PEAK A MOUNT FOR EACH YEAR. IN VIEW OF THIS, BOTH THE PARTIES ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 4 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 04 NOW, WE FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WH EREIN THE FIRST GROUND RAISED IS THAT THERE WAS NO WARRANT ISSUED I N THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO VALID SEA RCH AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT-FRAMED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WAS BAD IN LAW. THE GROUND NO. 2 IS ALSO CONNECTED THER ETO WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THERE B EING NO AUTHORIZATION AND NO SEPARATE PANCHNAMA IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DRAWN, THE ASSESSMENT-FRAMED U/S 158BC OF THE ACT WAS ILLEGAL. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT TH E SEARCH ACTION WAS INITIATED AGAINST M/S SONAL CONSTRUCTION AND TH E BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE FIRM AND AT THE RESIDENCE OF ITS PA RTNER SHRI V. K. NARANG ON 17/12/1999. MR. V. K. NARANG IS THE HUSB AND OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS O F PURCHASE, DEVELOPMENT AND SALE OF PROPERTY EITHER ON HER OWN OR JOINTLY WITH OTHER CO OWNERS. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THERE WA S NO SEARCH WARRANT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AND, THE REFORE THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S 158BC ARE VOID AND BAD IN LAW. THE LD. AR REFERRED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE AC T AND STATED THAT IN THE PRESENT CASE, NO SEARCH WARRANT EXISTS. THE LD. AR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN 359 ITR 532 AND SEVERAL OTHER TRIBUNAL DECISIONS. IT WAS ALSO H IS CONTENTION THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB DO NOT COME TO THE AID OF THE REVENUE AS IT WAS ENACTED ONLY W.E.F. THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2008- 09. WITH RESPECT TO NON ISSUANCE OF THE WARRANT HE ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF AMITA MEHRA VS. ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX, 395 IT T 185. 05 IN RESPONSE TO THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR REGARDING NON-ISSUANCE OF WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS ISSUE OF WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE WARRANT IN FORM NO. 35 U/S 132 OF THE ACT READ WITH RULE 112 (2)(1)(A) OF THE RULES WHICH IS ISSUED BY THE JOINT DIRECTOR OF 5 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 INV. , INCOME TAX. THE COPY OF SEARCH WARRANT WAS A LSO PLACED ON RECORD AND A COPY OF THE SAME WAS GIVEN TO THE LD. AR. 06 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND FIND THAT THE CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE SEARCH IS ILLEGAL AS THERE IS NO WARRANT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT HOLD WATER IN VIEW OF THE COPY OF THE WARRANT PROD UCED BY THE LD. DR. THE LD. AR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE SAME. IN VI EW OF THIS, THE CONTROVERSIES INVOLVED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 OF THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE DO NOT SURVIVE AND, THEREFORE, BOTH GROUND S ARE DISMISSED. 07 GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS WITH RESPECT TO ALL THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH ARE ALS O SEPARATELY CONTESTED. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE DISMISSED. 08 GROUND NO. 4 OF THE APPEAL IS WITH RESPECT TO THE A DDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRM BY THE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF PEAK CREDIT AMOUNTING TO RS. 200,67,343/-. THE ABO VE GROUND COVERS ALL THE ISSUES INVOLVED WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 210,02,065/-. THE FIRST ADDITION IS OF RS. 122,20 0/- IS ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED JEWELLERY WHICH WAS SEIZED DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ACCORDING TO THE PANCHNAMA AND THE AM OUNT DECLARED IN THE WEALTH TAX RETURN, IT WAS NOTED THA T 291 GRAMS JEWELLERY WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND, T HEREFORE, AN ADDITION OF RS. 122,200/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED JEWELLERY WAS MADE. 09 LD AO AN ADDITION OF RS. 21.52 LACS BASED ON PARA NO. 12 (WRONGLY MENTIONED BY THE A.O AS PARA NO. 13) WITH RESPECT T O PROPERTY AT J-1990 CR PARK, NEW DELHI THAT WAS DEVELOPED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 36.48 LAC S. OUT OF THE 6 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 ABOVE DECLARED INVESTMENT WAS RS. 13.96 AND, THERE FORE, ADDITION OF RS. 21.52 LACS WAS MADE AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMEN T. 10 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MADE AN ADDITION OF R S. 879,500/- BASED ON PARA NO. 11 OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE ORDER HOLDING THAT C-53, HEMKUNT COLONY, NEW DELHI TERRACE RIGHT TO TH E PROPERTY WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS GENERATE D PROFIT OF RS. 41,500/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 WHERE AS THE A CTUAL PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT RS. 18 LAKHS AN D, THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE IS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF MR. V. K. NARANG AND THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 . ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS. 8,79,500/- WAS MADE B Y THE AO . 11 FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 1,01,05900/- WAS MADE ON AC COUNT OF SEIZURE OF ANNEXURE A-14 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-9 7 WHERE THE ASSESSEE MADE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS. 106,31, 00/- AT FARIDABAD. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE COST IN BOOKS OF RS. 5,29,200/- IN RETURN OF ASSESSMENT YEAR 1996-97 AND , THEREFORE, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 101,05,900/- WAS ADDED UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 19 96-97. 12 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS. 76,87,243/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROPERTY AT X-14 HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI WHICH WAS PURCHASED BY SHRI V. K. NARANG IN THE JOINT NAME OF HIMSELF, THE ASSESSEE, M/S SONAL CONSTRUCTIONS AND ONE MR. S. S . SODHI. EACH OF THEM WAS HAVING 25% SHARE IN THE PROPERTY. THE A BOVE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED FOR A DECLARED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 3 2 LACS. HOWEVER, THE TOTAL COST WAS FOUND TO BE RS. 252,04, 518 AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND, THEREFORE, AS THE AMOUNT DECL ARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN TOTALITY OF RS. 93,85,000/- AND 10% SUP ERVISIONS CHARGES. CONSEQUENTLY TOTAL PROFIT OF RS. 192,69,94 2/- WAS DETERMINED AND 10% SUPERVISIONS CHARGES WAS HELD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF MR. V. K. NARANG OF RS. 1 92 69 941/- AS THE ASSESSEE HOLD 25% SHARE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY WHICH HAS SHO WN 7 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF RS. 17342948/- AND ONE FOURTH OF RS. 76,87,243/- IS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 13 SIMILARLY, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 158195180 WAS ALSO TAXED @ 25% IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 14 CONSEQUENTLY, TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 7687243/- WAS M ADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. THE ADDITION OF RS. 55202/ - WAS ALSO MADE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 IN VIEW OF ANNEXUR E A-14 WHICH SHOWS PERSONAL TRAVEL EXPENSES OF RS. 55202/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 15 CONSEQUENTLY, THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS. 21002065/- WAS MADE. THE ORDER U/S 158BC WAS PASSED ON 31/12/2001. 16 THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE SAME BEFORE THE LD CIT( A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BUT RECOMPUTED THE SAME TAKI NG PEAK CREDIT. HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MA DE ADDITION OF INCOME AS WELL AS APPLICATION OF THE INCOME ALSO AN D, THEREFORE, HE WORKED OUT THE PEAK ADDITION OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 210,02,065/- AND REDUCED IT BY RS. 9,34,722/-. HE W ORKED OUT THE TOTAL PECK CHARGEABLE TO TAX AT RS. 200,67,343/-. H E FURTHER UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED JEWE LLERY OF RS. 1,22,200 AS WELL AS UNACCOUNTED PERSONAL TRAVEL EXP ENSES OF RS. 55200/-. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAIN ST THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION BY THE LD CIT(A) OF RS. 20067343/- AND REVENUE FILED APPEAL AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION O F RS. 934722/-. 17 THE LD. AR WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 200, 67,343/-HAS SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT TO THE VARIOUS PROPERTIES VIDE PARA NO. 7 TO PARA NO. 18 OF HIS SU BMISSIONS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 7) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES, UNDISCLOSED PROFIT ON SAL E OF PROPERTIES ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH JOTTINGS ON SEIZED LOOSE PAPERS AS W ORKED OUT BY THE AO 8 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 IN ANNEXURE ATTACHED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 8) THE ADDITION OF RS. 85,66,743/- HAS BEEN MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 69A FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMEN T AS UNDER: (FOR THREE PROPERTIES WHICH WERE JOINTLY OWNED BY HER WI TH HER HUSBAND/ VIRENDER KUMAR NARANG (HUF.) I) REGARDING: ASOLA PROPERTY AMOUNTING RS. 37,32,363/ -. (REFER PARA 6 OF THE ANNEXURE ATTACHED TO THE ASSESSMENT O RDER). II) REGARDING: X-14, HAUZ KHAS, DELHI AMOUNTING RS. 39 ,54,880/- FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT (REFER PARA 3 OF ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). III) REGARDING: 53, HEMKUNTH COLONY, NEW DELHI AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 8.79,500/- (REFER PARA 11 OF THE ANNEXURE ATTACHED TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER). 9) THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SHEET OF PAP ER OF PROPERTY BEARING X-14, HAUZ KHAS, DELHI WAS PROPOSED BY THE AO EQUAL LY AT THE RATE OF 25% EACH IN THE HANDS OF ALL FOUR CO-OWNERS. IN PARA 3 OF ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAD STATED THAT 25% OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF RS. 43 ,35,737/- AND UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 39,54.880/- IN RESPEC T OF PROPERTY BEARING NUMBER AT X-14, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI IS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF FOUR CO-OWNERS INCLUDING MR. S.S. SODHI AND TO BE T AXED ACCORDINGLY. THE EXTRACT OF PARA 3 OF ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER IS BEING REPRODUCED AS UNDER FOR YOUR HONUR'S READY REFERENC E: QUOTE: X- 14. HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI, THIS PROPERTY WAS PURC HASED BY VIRENDER NARANG IN HIS OWN NAME, HIS WIFE NEERA NAR ANG, M/S SONAL 9 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 CONSTRUCTIONS, MR. S.S. SODHI (I.E. 25% SHARE EACH) IN THE ASSTT. YEAR 1997-98 FOR A DECLARED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 32 LACS FROM SH. R.L. SACHDEV, R/O REGENCY COURT, SOL-20, SUKMIL ROAD, BA NGKOK. THE TOTAL COST (READ WITH PARA-A) WORKS OUT TO BE RS. 2.52,04 .518/- OUT OF WHICH, DISCLOSED AS PER IT RETURN IS RS. 93.85.000/- 10% S UPERVISION CHARGES ARE WORKED OUT ON A TOTAL PROFIT OF RS. 1,92,69,942 /- HENCE, RS. 19,26,994/- IS HELD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF SH. VI RENDER NARANG. AS THE ASSESSE ONLY 25% SHAREHOLDER IN THE PROPERTY AS PER THE AGREEMENT, OUT OF UNDISCLOSED TOTAL NET PROFIT OF R S. 1,73,42,948/- L/4 ,H OF THE SHARE I.E. RS. 43,35,737/- IS ADDED EACH IN THE NAME OFSH. VIRENDER NARANG, NEERA NARANG, M/S SONAL CONS TRUCTIONS AND SH. S.S. SODHI AS THEIR UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SIMILAR LY, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF RS. 1,58,19,518/- IS TO BE TAXED @39, 54,880/- IN THE HANDS OF VIRENDER NARANG, NEERA NARANG, M/S SONAL C ONSTRUCTIONS AND SH. S.S. SODHI. 10) THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE ANY ADDITIO N OF L/4 ,H UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF MR. S.S. SODHI C ONTRARY TO WHAT IS STATED BY HIM IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPH. HENCE, ON THE SAME ANALOGY THE ADDITION WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE AS IT WAS NOT BASED ON ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE. 11) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,22,57,900/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF TWO PROPERTIES . I) FOR PROPERTY NUMBER J-1900, C.R. PARK DELHI AMOU NTING TO RS. 21,52,000/- JOINTLY OWNED WITH MR. VIRENDER KUMAR N ARANG (HUF) (REFER PARA 12 OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT OR DER INCORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PARA 13). THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 2 1.52,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN ABOVE PROPERTY OF HER SHA RE OF 50% BY TREATING 10 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 THE TOTAL COST OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 36.48 LAKHS A ND SUBTRACTING THEREFROM THE INCORRECT COST OF RS. 13.96 LAKHS. TH E ACTUAL COST INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND MR. VIRENDER KUMAR NARANG (HUF) WAS RS. 33.07 LAKHS WHICH FACT IS ON RECORD AND IS AS PER THE BAL ANCE SHEET FILED. THE ADDITION THUS, IF ANY, DESERVED TO BE FOR RS. 1.7 L AKHS INSTEAD OF RS. 21.52 LAKHS. II) IN LAND AT LAKARPUR, FARIDABAD AN ADDITION OF RS. L,01,05,900/-(REFER PARA 17 OF THE ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INC ORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS PARA 18, BASED ON ANNEXURE A 40 (PAGE NUMBER NOT REFERRED BY THE AO) REFER PAGE NUMBER 58 OF THE SEIZED PAPERS.) THE PERUSAL OF PAGE 58 OF PAPER BOOK WHICH IS PAGE 2 OF ANNEXURE A 40 NO SUCH FIGURE OF RS. 1,06,35,100/- IS EVIDENT. THE PAGE IS THE ROUGH JOTTINGS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH NO ADDITION DESERVES TO BE SUSTAINED. 12) THE JOTTINGS MADE ON LOOSE SEIZED PAPERS UNLES S CORROBORATED WITH EVIDENCE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT HAVE EVIDE NTIARY VALUE. I) REFER SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CBI VS V.C.S HUKLA (1998) SCC 41. II) REFER COMMON CAUSE (REGISTERED SOCIETY) AND OTH ERS VS. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS 394 ITR 220 (SC) 13) THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH JOTTIN GS ON LOOSE SEIZED PAPERS ON THE BASIS OF UNCORROBORATED AND UNVERIFIE D FIGURES EITHER FROM THE SELLERS OF THE PROPERTY, BUYERS OF THE PROPERTY OR THE CONTRACTORS OF THE PROPERTY IS UNSUSTAINABLE. REFER AMARJEET SINGH BAK SHI (HUF) VS. ACIT 263 ITR 75 (ITAT) T M (DEL). 14) THE APPELLANT HAD FURNISHED COMPLETE DETAILS OF REGISTERED DOCUMENTS FOR SALE PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES, THE EVID ENTIARY VALUE OF 11 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 WHICH CANNOT BE DISREGARDED IN THE ABSENCE OF CLINC HING EVIDENCE. REFER JUDGMENT OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) 261 ITR 664 (DEL) AND CIT VS. K.C. AGNES 26 ITR 354 (KE R) 15) THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER IS MORE OF GUESS WORK, UNCORROBORATED CONCLUSION WHICH HAS BEE N CONFIRMED LARGELY BY THE CIT (APPEALS) BY APPLYING PEAK INVES TMENT THEORY WHICH DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE SUSTAINED. REFER:- DHAKESHWARI COTTON MILLS LTD.VS. CIT (1954) 26 ITR 775 THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT FETTERED BY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS, AND HE IS CREDITED TO ACT ON MATERIA L WHICH MAY NOT BE ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE IN A COURT OF LAW, BUT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER IS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE A PURE QUESTION AND MAKE ASSESSMENT WITHOUT REFERENCE TO ANY EVIDENCE OR ANY MATERIAL AT ALL. THERE MUST BE SOMETHING MORE THAN MERE SUSPICI ON TO SUPPORT THE AMOUNT AND SECTION. 16) THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE THE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AN D THE ASSESSMENT IS BASED ON SUSPICION WHICH IS BAD IN LAW. REFER UM A CHARAN SHAH & BROS VS CIT 37 ITR 271. 17) IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE TO PROVE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME DELETION OF ADDITION IN A SEARCH CASE WAS HELD TO BE CORRECT (C IT VS. NARESH KUMAR AGGARWAL (2017) 397 ITR 355 (GUJ). 18) WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE FACT THAT THE ADDITIO N OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT (APPEALS) D ESERVES TO BE 12 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 DELETED, THE AO BE DIRECTED TO TREAT THE ADDITION I F ANY, SUSTAINED FOR UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE E LIGIBLE FOR SET OFF. THE DETAIL OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH DESERVED TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE IS AS UNDER: - 18 THE LD. ARS MAIN CONTENTION IS THAT THE PAPERS/DOC UMENTS FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEE ARE MERELY JOTTING AND DOES NOT H AVE ANY EVIDENTIARY VALUE. THE LD. ARS FURTHER CONTENTION IS THAT IN CERTAIN CASES, IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ONE-FOURTH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX ON CERTAIN PROPERTIES IN THE HANDS OF MR. S. S. SODHI. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS NOT CHARGED. THEREFORE, THE LD. ARS CONTENTION WAS THAT IF 25% IS NOT CHARGE IN THE HANDS OF MR. S. S. SODHI THEN THE 25% SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE MIGHT ALSO NOT BE CHARGED TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF TH E ASSESSEE. HE CONTESTED THE WHOLE ADDITION STATING THAT ASSESSE E DOES ALSO NOT HAVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF EXPLAINING THE PAPERS FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 19 THE LD. DR CONTESTED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND STATED THAT THE FULL ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED B Y THE CIT(A) AS THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIL TO GIVE ANY EXPLANATION OF TH E SEIZED PAPER. HE FURTHER STATED THAT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE , THE CIT (A) HAS COMPUTING THE PEAK INVESTMENT, WHICH IS NOT THE COR RECT METHOD OF COMPUTATION OF BLOCK INCOME. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE PEAK S. NO. ASSESSME NT YEAR ADDRESS OF PROPERTY PARA OF ANNEXURE TO THE ASST, ORDER AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT (RS.) 1 1992-93 J-1900, C.R. PARK 12 21,52,000/- 2 1996-97 LAKARPUR VILLAGE 17 1,01,05,900/- 3 1997-98 X-14, HAUZ KHAS, DELHI 3 39,54,880/- TOTAL 1.62.12,780/- 13 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 INVESTMENT WOULD ALLOW THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH IS PROHIBITED ACCORDING TO SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 20 WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTION A ND PURSUED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCH, CERTAIN LOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED BASED ON THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE CERTAIN ADDITION WHICH HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY CIT (A). THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFOR E US ARE SIMILAR TO THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US I N CASE OF M/S. SONAL CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT ITA NO. 518/DEL/2003 & 522/DEL/2003, WHICH IS ALSO EMANATING OUT OF THE SA ME SEARCH. VIDE OUR ORDER DATED 7/6/2018, THESE PROPERTIES HAV E BEEN DEALT WITH AND ALL THE ARGUMENTS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE I N THIS APPEAL ARE ALSO CONSIDERED. AFTER DISCUSSING THE WHOLE IS SUES AS WELL AS THE DIRECTION OF HONORABLE SUPREME COURT IN THAT CA SE, WE HAVE HELD AS UNDER :- 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND ALSO PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD CIT(A). WE HAVE ALSO METICULOUSLY READ THE ORDERS OF THE HO N'BLE HIGH COURT AND HON'BLE SUPREME COURT FOR FOLLOWING GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THEM TO DECIDE THE APPEAL. APP ARENTLY IN THIS CASE SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES V-38, PANCHSHEEL, NEW DELHI OF SHRI V. K. NARANG WHO IS ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE . THEREFORE, THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U /S 158BC OF THE ACT TO APPELLANT TO SUBMIT ITS RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1989 TO 17.12.1999 I.E. DATE OF THE SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE BY THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT EA RNED ON SOME OF THE PROPERTIES AND PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 31.12.2001 COMPUTING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS. 36937587/-. ON APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) THE ADDI TION WAS RESTRICTED AT RS. 26787137/- ON PEAK BASIS. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE BEFORE THE COORDINATE BENCH, WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 02.03.2007 DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD A SSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE REVENUE AGGR IEVED WITH THE ORDER OF THE COORDINATE BENCH PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHEREIN THE ORDER OF T HE COORDINATE BENCH WAS VACATED AND WHOLE ISSUE WAS SE T ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER TO MA KE A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THE ASSESSEE 14 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT BEFO RE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT WHEREIN, THE HON'BLE COURT WA S PLEASED TO SET ASIDE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE COORDINAT E BENCH FOR FRESH HEARING AND CONSIDERATION. THE HON'BLE SU PREME COURT ALSO MADE IT ABSOLUTELY CLEAR THAT IF AT THE TIME OF CONSIDERATION OF THE APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL FEELS THA T THE MATTER NEEDS CROSS EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN WITNESS A ND FURTHER EVIDENCE THEN THE MATTER MAY BE SENT BACK T O THE FILE OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. IN THE BACKDROP O F ABOVE FACTS, THE ABOVE APPEALS NEED TO BE DECIDED. THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTA L INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO THE FOUR PROPERTIES . THESE PROPERTIES AND THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED PAPER ARE EXPLAINED AS UNDER:- (I) IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. J-12, SAKET, N. DELH I IT WAS FOUND BY THE AO FROM THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH THAT THERE WAS UNDISCLOSED NET PROFIT OF RS. 40,21,600 WHICH WAS HELD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RELEVANT AND RS. 42.48,000 WAS HELD AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY BY THE APPELLANT CO. THE INFERENCE WAS DRAWN BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED IN ANNEXURE A-1 PAGE 21 AND 29 & WHICH HAVE ALSO BEEN MENTIONED IN ANNEXURE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREBY, ADDITION OF RS. 8269600/- FOR THIS PROPOSAL. (II) PROPERTY NO. C-40, ANAND NIKETAN, NEW DELHI IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT AN AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED BETWEEN THE APPELLANT WITH THE OWNER OF THE PROPERT Y WHEREIN THE OWNER WAS TO GET RS. 70 LACS AND FIRST FLOOR OF CONSTRUCTED PROPERTY IN THE A.Y. 96-97. TH E TOTAL COST WAS RS. 1,43,42,000/- AND OUT OF THE PRO FIT DERIVED, 10% SUPERVISION CHARGES AT RS. 14,87,100/- WAS TAXED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF SH. VIRENDER NARANG AND THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF RS. 1,33,74,900/- WAS HELD BY THE AO AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OUT OF WHICH RS. 48,39,000/- WAS HELD AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT FIRM. THEREBY ADDITION OF RS. 18213900/- WAS MADE. (III) PROPERTY NO. X-14, HAUZ KHAS, N. DELHI IS CO NCERNED; IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THIS PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY SH. VIRENDER NARANG IN FOUR NAMES JOINTLY WITH HIM, WIFE NEERA NARANG, M/S SONAL CONSTRUCTIONS, SH. S.S.SODHI (I.E. 25% SHARE EACH) IN THE A.Y. 97-98 FOR A DECLARED CONSIDERATION OF RS. 32 LACS FROM SH. R.L. SACHDEV, R/O REGENCY COURT, SOI- 20, SIKHMIT ROAD, BANGKOK. THE TOTAL COST WORKED OUT TO RS. 2,52,04,518/, THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING A LL THE MATERIAL, EVIDENCES AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND CONSIDERING TIRE REGULAR' BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO BE THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY AT RS. 15 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 1,92,69,942/- AND CALCULATED THE APPELLANTS SHARE O N THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY NO. X-14, HAUZ KHAS AT RS. 43,35,737/. (IV) IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY NO. D-16. PAMPOSH ENCLA VE. N. DELHI, THE AO NOTED THAT THE PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT AND DEVELOPED INTO A THREE STOREYED HOUSE IN THE A.Y. 97-98. THE AO ALTE R CONSIDERING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, COMPUTED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND UNDISCLOSED PROFIT IN RESPECT OF THE APPELLANT AT RS. 61,08,350/- 17. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT LD AO BASED ON HIS R EADING OF LOOSE PAPERS HAS FIXED UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WELL A S UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT BOTH WITH RESPECT TO THESE PROPOSALS. 18. NOW WE COME TO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COU RT WITH RESPECT TO SEVERAL OBSERVATIONS MADE THEREIN. A. THE PRESUMPTION U/S 292C OF THE ACT PERMITS THE LD AO TO INVOKE THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE CONTENTS OF THESE DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. THEREFORE, NOW THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SAY THAT THE DOCUMENTS ARE MERELY SCRIBBLES AND CANNOT BE USED TO DETERMINE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. B. THAT THE CORRELATION BETWEEN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AN D THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS SUFFICIENT FOR THE PURPOS E OF MAKING ADDITION. C. REGARDING DENIAL BY MR. NARANG OR NON EXAMINATION OF THE PARTNER BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT IT CANNOT BE STATED THAT NO RELIANCE CAN BE PLACED ON THEM FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADDITION. D. THE CORROBORATION OF THE MATERIAL FOUND IS NOT AN INVIOLABLE RULE. MANY A TIMES CORROBORATION IS DIFF ICULT TO OBTAIN. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT IF THE CALCULA TION AND THE COMPUTATION HAVE BEEN MADE IN SUCH A MANNER THEN ITS PROBATIVE VALUE AND GENUINENESS CANNOT BE DOUBTED, THE AO MAKE AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS IN ABSENCE OF CORROBORATION . E. THE DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE DISCOUNTED FOR THE FLIMSY REASONS. TO REBUT SUCH DOCUMENTS, STRONG EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL ARE REQUIRED. F. THE MERE PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENT DOES NOT INVALIDATE OR GIVE POWER TO DELETE THE ADDITION BUT THE PROPER COURSE WOULD BE TO REMAND THE MATTER TO CORRECT THE ERRORS PROVIDED THERE ARE NO LAPSES OF JURISDICTION . G. THE TRIBUNAL IS NOT EXPECTED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHI LE EXAMINING THE EVIDENCE, WHENEVER NECESSARY, IT SHOULD SCRATCH THE SURFACE PROBE DIPPER AND DRAW TH E 16 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 APPROPRIATE INFERENCE WHICH ACCORD WITH NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT AND PROBABILITIES. H. THE NON EXAMINATION OF MR. SODHI OR MR. NARANG DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR LACK OF OPPORTUNITY TO MR. NARANG TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. SODHI ARE ALL PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITIES WHICH CAN B E CURED BY REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE AO WHICH STEP THE COORDINATE BENCH OUGHT TO HAVE TAKEN. THE DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE PLACE OF MR. NARANG IS A VITAL PIECE OF EVIDENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FIRM. 19. HONORABLE HIGH COURT IN PARA NO 11 HAS HELD WHER E THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS FAULTED. WE HAVE CAREFULLY ANA LYZED THE WHOLE ISSUE AGAIN IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIO N OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HIGH COURT. 20. COMING TO THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED WE FOUND THAT RUPEE WISE ANALYSIS GIVEN IN THOSE PAPERS AND ANALYZED BY THE LD AO CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT DUMB DOCUMENTS AND EVEN WITHOUT CORROBORATION THEY CAN B E USED TO DETERMINE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. WE HAVE GIVEN THE DETAILED ANALYSIS OF EACH PROPERT Y IN EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER. 21. NOW COMING TO THE SPECIFIC ARGUMENT OF THE LD AUTHO RISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE LD AO HAS NOT EXAMINED THE PERSON SUCH AS MR. NARAG AND MR. SODHI DURING THE COURSE O F ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, IT IS THE CLAIM OF THE LD AR THAT MR. NARANG IS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROS S EXAMINE MR. S.S. SODHI. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED T HE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI VIRENDRA NARANG ON 17.12 .1999. WITH RESPECT TO THE SEIZED PAPERS HE WAS ASKED THE SPECIFIC QUESTION VIDE Q NO. 19 WHEREIN, THE DETAILS OF FIVE PROPERTIES WERE GIVEN AND THE ACCOUNT OF MR. SODHI WAS MENTIONED. SHRI NARANG REPLIED THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO GIVE REPLY OF THIS QUESTION PRESENTLY. WITH RESPECT TO Q NO. 20 THE OTHER PAPER TO THAT ANNEXURE TO PAGE NO. 28 WAS ALSO SHOWN TO WHICH HE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO EXPLAI N; TO OTHER LOOSE PAPER ALSO VIDE Q NO. 21 AND 22 HIS REP LY WAS SIMILAR. THEREFORE, DESPITE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY AV AILABLE TO MR. NARANG HE DID NOT EXPLAIN ANYTHING ABOUT THOSE PAPERS. ONLY WITH RESPECT TO Q NO. 22 SOME SMALL NOTE BOOK PREPARED ON MONTHLY BASIS WERE SHOWN TO HIM AND ONL Y FOR THAT DOCUMENT HE STATED THAT HE WILL EXPLAIN THE DE TAILS OF SUCH TRANSACTION LATER ON. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WIT H THAT PAPER IN THIS APPEAL. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND EVEN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND FURTHER, EVEN BEFORE US THE ASSESSEE DID NOT MAKE A NY ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN THOSE PAPERS. COMING TO THE STAT EMENT OF MR. SODHI RECORDED ON 31.08.2000 DURING THE COUR SE OF ASSESSMENT HE HAS SPECIFICALLY IN ANSWER TO Q NO. 8 STATED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE FIRM. MR. SODHI HAS STATED IN ANS TO SO MANY QUESTION THAT HE IS JUST A SLEEPING PARTNER AND HE DOES NOT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THE PRO FITS EARNED BY THE FIRM. HE FURTHER STATED THAT HE WAS M EDICALLY 17 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 NOT FIT. HE ALSO DENIED KNOWING MR. RK DHAWAN WHOSE NAME WAS MENTIONED IN THOSE PAPERS. THEREFORE, ON WHOLES OME READING OF THE STATEMENT OF MR. SODHI NO EXPLANATIO N WITH RESPECT TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WAS FORTHCOMING. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARENT THAT BOTH THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM DID NOT MAKE ANY ATTEMPT TO EXPLAIN T HOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. NARANG. IN V IEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF T HE LD ASSESSING OFFICER INFERRING THAT THOSE DOCUMENTS SH OW THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF THE LD AR THAT ALL THESE PROP ERTIES ARE PROPERLY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT EXAMINED THE PERSONS WHO HAVE PURCHASED FROM OR SOLD TO THESE PROPERTIES. THESE ARGUMENTS DESERVES TO BE REJECTED AT THE THRESHOLD ITSELF FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT THE DOCUMENT SHOWS THAT THE SALE, PURCHASE PRICE AND THE CONSTRUCTION EXPENDITURE SHO WN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT ARE FAR LESS THAN THE AMOUNT S HOWN IN A METHODICAL MANNER IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. FURTHE R, NO FRUITFUL PURPOSE WOULD HAVE BEEN SERVED BY CALLING INFORMATION OR EXAMINING THOSE PERSONS, WHO HAVE EI THER PAID OR RECEIVED UNACCOUNTED MONEY WITH RESPECT TO THE TRANSACTION OF THESE PROPERTIES. NATURALLY, THOSE P ARTIES WOULD HAVE CONFIRMED ONLY THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN FACT, IT SHOULD HAVE BE EN THE ASSESSEE WHO SHOULD HAVE PRODUCED THEM BEFORE THE L D ASSESSING OFFICER TO SHOW THAT THERE IS NO UNACCOUN TED TRANSACTIONS WITH THOSE PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED SUCH AN ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH OTHER STRONG EVIDENCES REBUTTING THE SEIZED PAPER. THEREFORE, NO FAULT OR IRREGULARITY CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN COMMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY NOT CALLING THE PURCHASER OR S ELLER OR EXAMINING THEM. WHAT IS TO BE DONE BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE ITS CASE, THE LD AO CANNOT BE ASKED TO DO SO. 23. NOW COMING TO THE STRONG OBJECTION OF THE REVENUE A GAINST THE SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER WE ARE GUIDED BY PARA NO. 21 OF T HE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT AS WELL AS PARA NO. 4 OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT H AS HELD THAT ONLY IF THE MATTER NEEDS CROSS EXAMINATIO N OF CERTAIN WITNESSES OR FURTHER EVIDENCES ARE REQUIRED , THAN ONLY TRIBUNAL IS ALLOWED TO SET ASIDE THE MATTER BA CK TO THE LD ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IT IS OUR BOUNDEN DUTY TO SEE WHETHER THERE IS ANY NEED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF CERTAIN WITNESSES OR FURNISHING OF FURTHER EVIDEN CE. HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION O F SECTION 292C OF THE ACT STRONG EVIDENCE ARE REQUIRED TO REB UT THE INFORMATION CONTAINED IN THOSE DOCUMENTS. THE APPEL LANT FIRM AND ITS PARTNERS MR. V.K. NARANG AND MR S.S. S ODHI CAN PLACE THAT STRONG EVIDENCE IN REBUTTAL. BOTH OF THE M, INITIALLY, MR NARANG DURING THE SEARCH AND LATER ON MR. SODHI DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAVE NOT G IVEN ANY EXPLANATION TO THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES. IN FACT 18 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 LOOKING TO THEIR STATEMENTS, IT IS APPARENT THAT TH EY HAVE TRIED TO DODGE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND AVO IDED IN SUBMITTING ANYTHING ON THOSE PAPERS. NEITHER BEFORE THE LD AO NOR BEFORE THE LD CIT (A) THOSE PERSONS APPEARED AND SUBMITTED THEIR VERSION OF THOSE PAPERS. IT SEEMS T HAT THEY WERE UNDER THE IMPRESSION THAT PRESUMPTION U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT DOES NOT EXTEND TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS AND THEREFORE HEAVY BURDEN LIED AT THAT TIME ON REV ENUE TO PROVE THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER. ACCORDING TO PR OVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (4A) OF SECTION 132, IT PROVIDES THA T THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHE R VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND IN THE POSSESSION O R CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTI ON 132 WILL BE PRESUMED TO BELONG TO THE SAID PERSON. IT I S FURTHER PROVIDED THAT IT WILL BE PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN HANDWRIT ING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY REASONABLY BE AS SUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSON'S HANDWRITING , AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTE D, THAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATT ESTED. BY THE FINANCE ACT 2007 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT F ROM 1/10/1975, A NEW SECTION 292C WAS INSERTED TO CLARI FY THOSE PRESUMPTIONS PROVIDED IN SUB-SECTION (4A) OF SECTIO N 132 CAN BE MADE IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT. SE CTION 292C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT PROVIDES FOR A REBUTTABL E PRESUMPTION WITH RESPECT TO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUA BLE ARTICLE OR THING FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 AS STATED IN CIRCULAR NO. 1/2009 DATED 27/3/2009. THEREFORE, ON THE CONJOINT READING OF ALL THE AMENDMENTS MADE IN TH IS SECTION IT IS OBVIOUS THAT SUCH PRESUMPTION PROVIDE D U/S 292 C OF THE ACT IS REBUTTABLE. THEREFORE, IT IS APPARE NT THAT SUCH AN OPPORTUNITY OF REBUTTAL WAS NOT AVAILABLE T O THE APPELLANT. SUCH FURTHER EVIDENCES NEEDS TO BE LEAD BY THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION AVAILABLE WITH TH E LD AO FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED PA PERS. HIGHER BURDEN NOW LIES ON THE ASSESSEE BY PRODUCING THE EVIDENCES. THE ONLY ROLE OF THE AO LEFT IS TO APPRE CIATE THOSE EVIDENCES, EXAMINE THEM AND PASS THE FRESH ASSESSME NT. 24. REPEATEDLY THE LD AR HAS HARPED UP ON GRANTING AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE MR S.S. SODHI TO T HE APPELLANT. IT IS REQUIRED TO BE APPRECIATED THAT MR S.S. SODHI IS ONE OF THE PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM, HE HAS ALSO DEALT WITH IN ALL SUCH PROPERTIES , THE SEIZED DOCU MENTS FOUND ALSO SHOWS THE DETAILS OF HIS PROFIT SHARING, IN HIS STATEMENT HE HAS NOT DENIED RECEIVING SUCH PROFITS , THEREFORE NOW THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE TO ASK I TS OWN PARTNER TO BE CROSS EXAMINED BY THE APPELLANT IS M ERELY AN 19 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 ATTEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE TO SCUTTLE THE VARIOUS ISSU ES. AS MR. S.S. SODHI IS THE PARTNER OF THE APPELLANT FIRM , IT IS THE DUTY OF THE APPELLANT FIRM TO PRODUCE MR S S SODHI AND MR V.K. NARANG BEFORE THE LD AO TO GIVE ANY EVIDENCES IN REBUTTING THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED. HENCE, WE DO NOT F IND ANY REASON TO DIRECT THE LD AO TO GRANT OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. S. S. SODHI. WE HAVE ON PERUSA L OF STATEMENT OF SHRI S. S. SODHI ARE ALSO NOT CONVINCE D THAT HE HAS STATED SOMETHING WHICH IS INCRIMINATING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE LD AO HAS NOT USED STATEMENT OF MR. S.S. SODHI FOR MAKING ADDITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOM E BUT SEIZED PAPERS FOUND FROM SHRI V.K. NARANG. 25. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD AR IS THAT PROVISION S OF SECTION 292C DOES NOT EXTEND TO CHARGEABILITY OF IN COME. WE AGREE WITH ABOVE VIEW BUT WE ALSO HURRIEDLY ADD THAT WHEN THE DOCUMENTS ARE SO EMPHATIC THAT THEY SPEAK LOUDER THAN THE REAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THAT THEY DO NOT SHOW THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALWAYS THE MAT TER OF FACTS THAT WHETHER THE DOCUMENT SHOWS THE INCOME OR NOT. IT DEPENDS ON THE NATURE OF DOCUMENT AND WHAT IT DE SCRIBES. THERE IS NO UNIVERSALLY APPLICABLE LAW EVEN PRONOUN CED THAT WHAT ARE THE DUMB DOCUMENTS AND WHAT ARE NOT. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, ON THE DOCUMENTS, HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS SAID IN SO MANY WORDS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS PRIMA FA CIE SHOWS THE INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 26. FURTHER, THE LD AR HAS RELIED ON SEVERAL DECISIONS COVERED IN THE PAPER BOOK. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED ALL OF THEM FOR DECIDING THE APPEAL, HOWEVER, WHEN IN THE CASE OF T HE APPELLANT THE MATTER HAS REACHED UP TO HON'BLE SUPR EME COURT , WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO DEVIATE FROM T HE GUIDANCE PROVIDED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ON THE SAME FACTS. 27. WITH RESPECT TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE THAT THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALLOWED THE ASSESSEE BENEFIT OF PEAK INVESTMENT , WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THAT. AS STATED EARLIER THE AS SESSEE HAS EARNED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN BLOCK PERIOD AND HAS A LSO MADE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THOSE PROPERTIES, TH EREFORE, NATURALLY THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING UNDISCLOSED INCOM E WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN INVESTED IN THOSE UNDISCLOSED INVES TMENT MADE BY THE FIRM. REVENUE COULD NOT SHOW US ANY EVI DENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE IS INVESTED SOMEWHERE ELSE. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO ANALYZED THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT (A) IN HIS ORDER WHERE THE PEAK INVESTMENT IS W ORKED OUT. WE HAVE OUR RESERVATION ABOUT THE WORKING OF T HE PEAK INVESTMENTS. IN FACT, THE AMOUNT OF INCOME I.E. EAR NED BY THE ASSESSEE CAN BE USED FOR APPLICATION FOR MAKING INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, IF THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNDISCLOSED PROFIT IN EARLIER YEARS THEN NATURALLY THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO SET OFF OF THE SALE W HILE WORKING OUT UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YE ARS. 20 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD CIT DR DOES NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE BECAUSE THE HON'BLE DELHI HIG H COURT WAS CONCERNED WITH A CASE OF THE ENTRY OPERATOR WHO COULD NOT EXPLAIN THAT WHO HAS GIVEN HIM THE CASE WHICH W ERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. SUCH ARE NOT THE FAC TS HERE. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THERE ARE CLEAR CUT DETAILS A VAILABLE THAT HERE THERE ARE KNOWN UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH CAN BE UTILIZED FOR THE PURPOSES OF SUBSEQUENT PURCHASE OF PROPERTIES. HENCE, THE RELIANCE PLACED UPON CIT VS. D.K. GARG (SUPRA) CANNOT BE USED TO DENY THE BENEFIT OF PEAK CREDIT TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, RELIANCE PLACED ON 34 TAXMANN.COM 5 IS ALSO PERTAINING TO THE CASH DEPOSI T. IN THAT CASE TOO THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS AND CASH WITHDRAWALS AND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE VAGUE AND UNSUBSTANTIATED. THE ASSESSEE ALSO COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE QUANTUM OF THE CASH DEPOSIT WITH RE SPECT TO THE PATTERN OF WITHDRAWAL. SAME IS ALSO DISTINGUISH ABLE ON THE FACTS. IN THE PRESENT CASE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED UNDISCLOSED PROFIT IN AY 1994-95 OF RS. 4021600/- W HICH HAS BEEN GRANTED AS SET OFF BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR AY 1996- 97. HOWEVER, LOOKING AT THE WHOLE STATEMENT PREPARE D BY HIM AT PARA NO. 9.6 IT IS APPARENT THAT UNDISCLOSED PROFIT EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 1997-98 REMAINED UNTA XED BY ADOPTING THE METHOD EMPLOYED BY THE LD CIT(A). BECAUSE IF THE PEAK IS TAXED WHICH IS THE PEAK BALA NCE FOR AY 1997-98 BUT THE INCOME EARNED OF UNDISCLOSED PRO FIT FOR AY 1997-98 CAN NO CASE BE SET OFF AGAINST THIS PEAK . THEREFORE, THE PEAK WORKED BY THE LD CIT(A) FOR AY 1997-98 OF RS. 26787137/- IS FURTHER REQUIRED TO BE INCREAS ED BY RS. 11.51 LAKHS, HENCE, THE PEAK WOULD BE RS. 27938137/ -. IN ANY CASE WE FIND ERROR IN THE COMPUTATION MADE BY T HE LD CIT(A) TO THAT EXTENT. IN VIEW OF THIS WE DO NOT FI ND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE IN THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) IN GRANTING BENEFIT OF SET OFF OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR UTILIZ ING IN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT OF THE COMPUTATION ERROR. 28. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS, WE SET ASIDE BOTH TH E APPEALS FOR BLOCK PERIOD BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD AO WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BY EXPLAINING THE CONTENTS OF THOS E PAPERS WITH STRONG, COGENT AND RELIABLE EVIDENCES. ASSESSE E MAY PRODUCE MR. V.K. NARANG AND M.R S. S. SODHI BEFORE THE LD AO TO GIVE REBUTTAL ABOUT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THE LD AO MAY EXAMINE THEM, IF PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE, AND ALSO APPRECIATE OTHER EVIDENCE SO PRODUCED BEFORE HIM, A ND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE LD AO MAY ALSO MAKE AN Y ENQUIRY HE DEEMS FIT BEFORE DECIDING THE ISSUE. 14. AS THE SEARCH IS COMMON SEARCH, DOCUMENTS FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF THAT SEARCH ARE ALSO SAME, THE MANNER OF MAKING AS SESSMENT BY THE LD AO IS 21 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 SAME, THE ORDER OF THE LD CIT (A) IS ALSO ON THE S IMILAR LINES, THEREFORE AS WE HAVE TAKEN A DECISION BASED ON THE DIRECTION OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT AS WELL AS VARIOUS OBSERVATION OF HONOURABLE HIGH C OURT IN THAT CASE WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE WHOLE ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF R S. 210002565/- IS REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A SIMILAR DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH AND EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS OF THOSE PAPERS WITH RELIAB LE AND CREDITABLE EVIDENCES. IF THE ASSESSEE FEELS SO, ASSESSEE MAY ALSO PRODUCE MR. V. K. NARANG AND MR. S. S. SODHI BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THEIR EXA MINATION. HOWEVER, WE MAKE IT VERY CLEAR THAT THEY ARE THE WITNESS OF THE ASSE SSEE AND NOT THE WITNESS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE MAY WITH RESPECT TO OTHER ADDITIONS ALSO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE, WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH HER TO DISPUTE THE CHARGEABILITY OF THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MAY GIVE PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE AND DECIDE T HE ISSUE AFRESH OF THE WHOLE ADDITION. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL SO PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE I S ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD JULY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) (PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 2307/2018 R.N* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT 22 IT(SS)A NO. 526 & 549/DEL/2003 ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI DATE OF DICTATION 14.05.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 14.05.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE OTHER MEMBER DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. PS/PS 2 4 . 07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FINAL ORDER IS UPLOADED ON THE WEBSITE OF ITAT 2 4 .07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 2 4 .07.2018 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER DATE OF DISPATCH OF THE ORDER