AI Insights
The case involves a series of legal proceedings concerning the block assessment of undisclosed income and unexplained investments attributed to Shri S.K. Jain under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Tribunal examined multiple grounds of appeal related to various additions made by the ACIT, which included amounts received from companies like M/s Gold Multifab Ltd. and M/s Vijay Remedies Ltd., shares found during the search, and professional charges related to market making activities. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by the fact that many of the documents and materials used for the additions were not in the possession of the assessee but were linked to other entities, and that the transactions often resulted in losses rather than profits.
Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 314710 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
CRN Number
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
07-05-2025
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
G
Assessment Year
misc
Judgement Text
" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A. No.2/DEL/2019 (Block Period : 01.04.1986 to 06.12.1996) Shri S.K. Jain, vs. ACIT, Circle 24 (1), House No.402, Sector 21C, New Delhi. Faridabad – 121 001 (Haryana). (PAN : ABBPJ4389B) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Advocate Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Shri Saksham Agarwal, Advocate Shri Shrey Jain, Advocate REVENUE BY : Ms. Jaya Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 25.02.2025 Date of Order : 07.05.2025 O R D E R PER S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ACIT, Circle 24 (1), New Delhi (hereinafter referred to ‘ACIT’) dated 27.12.2018 for the Block Period 01.04.1986 to 06.12.1996 under section 158BC(c)/254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short ‘the Act’) covering the Block period beginning from 06.12.1996. This is third round of proceeding. 2. Brief facts relating to the appeal are, originally, assessment order was passed u/s 158BC(c) dated 29.12.1997 which was set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 11.07.2006 for making it de novo. Fresh 2 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 assessment order was passed under section 158BC/254 vide order dated 21.12.2007 which was again set aside by the Tribunal vide its order dated 03.04.2017 for denovo assessment. Present assessment order u/s 158BC/254 dated 27.12.2018 has again been passed pursuant to the said order of the Tribunal dated 03.04.2017. These facts have also been mentioned in the present assessment order. 3. Before we go further, it is made clear that the first appeal against the present assessment order passed under section 158BC/254 lies before Tribunal as per the law then prevailing as the search took place on 6.12.1996 i.e. before 31.12.1996. 4. Assessee as per his statement recorded under section 132(4) recorded on the date of search 5.12.1996, is a Chartered Accountant and is director of M/s Suku Jain Associates Ltd. (SJAL in short). His wife Mrs. Sarla Jain was director in another company namely M/s Tender Leasing & Finance Ltd. (TLFL in short) beside Mr. Sandeep Ahuja. 5. Primarily, it was submitted before us that Assessee was not the director in TLFL though assessment order mentions that he was director in TLFL which has been contested by the Assessee. Further, it was heavily submitted that nothing has been shown in the assessment order to establish that the Assessee was director in TLFL. 6. Assessee has raised as many as 15 grounds of appeal in which ground no.2 contains sub grounds 2.1 to 2.62 which are in respect of various additions made in the impugned assessment order. Grounds of appeal raised by the Assessee read as under :- “1. That the appellant denies his very liabilities to be assessed under section 158BC at total undisclosed income of Rs.11,57,06,870/- and accordingly denies his liabilities to pay tax demanded there on. 3 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 2. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Ld ACIT has erred in law and on facts in making the following additions in the hands of the assessee, as alleged undisclosed Income, on account of: 2.1 Amounts of Rs. 84 lacs received from M/s Gold Multifab Limited/ Mr. Vivek Bhatia (MD) under MOU by Para 4 of the impugned assessment order. 2.2 Shares of Vijay Remedies Limited found during the search and that too at the valuation of Rs.3,10,42,500/- by Para 5.0 of the impugned assessment order. 2.3 Amounts of Rs.1,11,70,000/- received from M/s Vijay Remedies Limited under MOU by Para 5.1 of the impugned assessment order. 2.4 Professional charges - Rs.20,44,000/-, brokerage - Rs.4,03,042/- and interest - Rs. 11,67,397/- and Rs. 16,26,772 allegedly earned by the assessee in terms of MOU with M/s Lloyd Cements Limited by para 6.2 of the impugned assessment order. 2.5 Shares of Keshlata Cancer Hospital Limited and that too at the valuation of Rs.13,18,500/- by para 6.3 of the impugned assessment order. 2.6 Brokerage of Rs.4,25,766/- allegedly earned by the assessee in terms of MOU with M/s Keshlata Cancer Hospital Limited by para 6.31 of the impugned assessment order. 2.7 Interest of Rs.14,43,621/- allegedly claimed by the assessee from M/s Keshlata Cancer Hospital Limited as undisclosed income by para 6.32 of the impugned assessment order. 2.8 Shares of Lloyd Cements Limited amounting to Rs.48,58,000/- by para 6.21 of the impugned assessment order. 2.9 Alleged cash deposited of Rs.1,01,150/- in the bank account of the assessee by para 11 of the impugned assessment order. 2.10 Shares of SPS International Limited valued at Rs. 3,55,957/- by Para 6.41 of the impugned assessment order. 2.11 Shares of Suku Jain Associates Limited valued at Rs.64,92,000/- by Para 6.43 of the impugned assessment order, more so when amount paid on these shares was @ 2.50 per share. 2.12 Alleged Payments of Rs. 23 lacs to Shri Devender Gupta and M/s Sunglow Capital Services Ltd. as per document 26 by Para 7.1 of the impugned assessment order. 4 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 2.13 Alleged profit of Rs.4,55,938/- on transactions through Mr. Devender Gupta as per document 26 by Para 7.11 of the impugned assessment order. 2.14 Alleged purchase of shares allegedly amounting to Rs.38,95.000/- by the assessee by Para 7.2 of the impugned assessment order. 2.15 Alleged purchase of shares of Fine Agromatics Limited allegedly amounting to Rs.7,65,175/- by Para 7.3 of the impugned assessment order. 2.16 Alleged purchase of shares valued at Rs.3,88,000/-from Sh. Devender Gupta and Sh. S.C. Gupta by Para 7.31 of the impugned assessment order. 2.17 Amount of Rs.36,10,000/- allegedly received from Sh. S.C. Gupta by Para 7.4 of the impugned assessment order. 2.18 Amounts aggregating to Rs.13,90,000/- allegedly received from Mr. M.C. Jain, etc. by Para 7.5 of the impugned assessment order. 2.19 Alleged purchase of shares of various companies and that too at an amount of Rs. 98,34,000/- by Para 7.51 of the impugned assessment order. 2.20 Alleged purchase of shares through Kailash Associates and that too at an amount of Rs.17,74,200/- by Para 7.6 of the impugned assessment order. 2.21 Payments of Rs. 24 lacs received from Mr. Ohri, MD Fine Agromatics Ltd. by Para 7.7 of the impugned assessment order. 2.22 Alleged interest of Rs.83,930/- in the account of Multitech by Para 7.8 of the impugned assessment order. 2.23 Alleged receipts of Rs. 13 lacs from M/s Gold Multifab Limited by Para 7.8.1 of the impugned assessment order. 2.24 Amounts aggregating Rs.13,45,000/- paid to Sh. Devender Gupta (Rs.13,00,000) and Bonanza Portfolio Management Ltd.(Rs. 45,000) by Para 7.9 of the impugned assessment order. 2.25 Amount of Rs.1 lac allegedly paid to Rajiv by Para 7.10 of the impugned assessment order. 2.26 Alleged payment of Rs.14 lacs to Sh. Ashok Garg by Para 7.11 of the impugned assessment order. 2.27 Alleged payments of Rs. 23.5 lacs to Sh. Arvind Aggarwal by Para 7.11 of the impugned assessment order. 5 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 2.28 Alleged accommodation entry and income thereon amounting to Rs.27,47,775/- allegedly given to Sh. S.C. Gupta by Para 7.12 of the impugned assessment order. 2.29 Alleged payments of Rs.9,88,407/- made to Sh. S. P. Ahuja, Sh. H.R. Dua, SPS International Limited and Smt. Sarla Jain by Para 7.13 of the impugned assessment order. 2.30 Shares of Rs.14,485/- allegedly purchased and sold by Sh. Adesh Jain on assessee's behalf by Para 7.14 of the impugned assessment order. 2.31 Interest of Rs.2,33,705/- allegedly received accommodation on alleged accommodation entries by Para 7.16 of the impugned assessment order. 2.32 Income of Rs.10 lacs allegedly earned by assessee on alleged accommodation entries by Para 7.16 of the impugned assessment order and that too on adhoc basis. 2.32 Income of Rs.3,473/- allegedly earned by the assessee on alleged accommodation entries by Para 7.17 of the impugned assessment order. 2.34 Alleged payments of Rs.10,08,000/- allegedly mentioned on account of Ram Capital Ltd. by Para 7.18 of the impugned assessment order. 2.35 Alleged purchase of shares of Curefast Remedies Limited and that too valued at Rs.42,07,242/- by Para 8.1 of the impugned assessment order. 2.36 Bills of Rs.37,873/- relating to SPS International Limited by Para 8.2 of the impugned assessment order. 2.37 Alleged purchase of shares of M/s Curefast Remedies Ltd. and that too amounting to Rs.67,45,000/- by Para 8.3 of the impugned assessment order. 2.38 Alleged investment of Rs.8,37,500/- In shares by Para 8.4 of the impugned assessment order. 2.39 Alleged purchase of shares/debentures and that too at adhoc value of Rs.10 lac by Para 8.5 of the impugned assessment order. 2.40 Profits of Rs.3,10,670/- earned by clients on dealing of shares by Para 8.6 of the impugned assessment order. 2.41 Certain figures appearing on page 9 of document no. 27 taken at Rs.29,395/- as payments from undisclosed sources by Para 8.7 of the impugned assessment order. 2.42 Alleged acquisition of shares of Curefast Remedies Limited which were allegedly sold through Bindal Investments (S. C. Gupta) and that too at 6 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 the amounts of Rs.65,86,000/-, Rs.8,95,000 and Rs.41,95,000 by Para 8.8 of the impugned assessment order. 2.43 Alleged acquisition of shares of various companies allegedly sold through M. Agarwal and co. and Fair Deal Investments and that too at the amount of Rs.3,95,325/- by Para 8.9 of the impugned assessmen t order. 2.44 Alleged cash of Rs.90,000/- allegedly received from Sh. Ashok Mahajan by Para 8.10 of the impugned assessment order. 2.45 Alleged payment of cheque of Rs.2,75,000 to Mr. Anand Jain and receipt of cash of Rs.6,000 by Para 8.11 of the impugned assessment order. 2.46 Alleged acquisition of shares of Rs.6,70,664/- by Para 8.12 of the impugned assessment order. 2.47 Some alleged cash of Rs.4,20,000/- by Para 8.13 of the impugned assessment order. 2.48 Alleged payments of Rs.4,82,750/- to Devender Gupta by Para 8.14 of the impugned assessment order. 2.49 Some alleged cash of Rs.44,670/- by Para 8.15 of the impugned assessment order. 2.50 Alleged shares allegedly amounting to of Rs.8,74,500/- sold through Bindal Investments by Para 8.16 of the impugned assessment order. 2.51 Alleged transactions of shares by one Mr. S.C. Jain allegedly amounting to Rs.3,44,200/- by Para 8.17 of the impugned assessment order. 2.52 Alleged cash of Rs. 2 lacs received from Mr. S.C. Gupta by Para 8.17 of the impugned assessment order. 2.53 Alleged deposits aggregating Rs.1,14,83,000/- in Financial Year 1994- 95, 1995-96, 1996-97 in bank accounts of M/s S.S. Associates and M/s Dinesh Enterprises by para 2 of the impugned assessment order on protective basis. 2.54 Cash deposited of Rs.31,02,400/- in the bank account of M/s Dinesh Enterprises by para 11 of the impugned assessment order. 2.55 Alleged sale of shares of Rs.51,96,720/- by Dinesh Enterprises as per document 31 and that too in the hands of the assessee by para 9 of the impugned assessment order. 2.56 Alleged sale of shares of Rs.2,02,91,296/- by M/s S.S. Associates and M/s Dinesh Enterprises as per document 28 to 30 by para 10 of the impugned assessment order on protective basis. 7 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 2.57 Alleged investment of Rs.26 lacs (9 lacs + 9 lacs + 8 lacs) in shares of Tender Leasing and Finance Limited in names of assessee, his wife and M/s SPS International Limited as per document A - 5 by Para 6.42 of the impugned assessment order. 2.58 Alleged investment of Rs.18,57,075/- in shares of Fine Agromatics Limited on the basis of document no.40 and 43 by para 6.1 of the impugned assessment order. 2.59 Shares of various companies forming part of stock register of M/s Tender Leasing and Finance Limited (TLFL), allegedly purchased by M/s S. S. Associates and M/s Prime Investments, alleged benami concerns, and that too at the value of Rs.14,32,326/- by Para 6.4 of the impugned assessment order. 2.60 Alleged deposits of Rs.34,62,000/- in alleged Benami bank accounts by para 3 of the impugned assessment order. 2.61 Alleged payments of Rs.40,02,690/- made for purchase/renovation of property at sector 21 A, Faridabad by Para 7.15 of the impugned assessment order on protective basis. 2.62 Alleged payment of Rs.5,35,000/- made to Sh. H.R. Dua for purchase of property at Neelam Chowk by Para 7.15 of the impugned assessment order on protective basis. 3. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ACIT has erred in law and on facts in not assessing the loss incurred by the assessee as compiled on the basis of the seized documents. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the framing of assessment under section 158BC is bad in law and against the facts of the case as there was no assessment originally framed. 5. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, alleged search was void ab-initio, without jurisdiction qua the assessee and was not on the assessee, and all actions taken in pursuance there to are also bad in law. 6. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, Ld. ACIT has erred in law and on facts in making additions relying on statement of the assessee only in part and not considering the total business activity undertaken to find out the profit/ loss in the activity as evidenced by the seized documents themselves. 7. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the original order passed by Ld. Addl. CIT dated 29.12.1997 was bad in law passed without having proper jurisdiction, and accordingly the order passed by 8 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Ld. ACIT dated 27.12.2018 is also bad in law passed without having proper jurisdiction. 8. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the order passed Ld. ACIT is bad in law being passed without following principles of natural justice, without giving adequate opportunity of hearing, without considering the submissions made by the assessee, without confronting the material relied to the assessee and without affording an opportunity to cross examine the departments' witnesses. 9. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment framed is bad in law being made relying on material other than seized material, making additions based on the documents belonging to others, making duplicate additions, recording incorrect facts, based on irrelevant fact and surmises, without application of mind, and passed with a prejudicial and biased frame of mind. 10. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. ACIT has erred in law and on facts in framing the assessment that is anyhow bad in law being made without following the provisions of law, and misconstruing the law and against the facts and circumstances of the case. 11. That in any view of the matter and in any case, the assumption of jurisdiction and framing of assessment under section 158BC is bad in law and against the facts of the case being without jurisdiction. 12. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case the assessment framed is bad in law since the approval granted by Ld. Pr. CIT was mechanical and without application of mind and without giving any opportunity of hearing to assessee, hence, no approval in truth. 13. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. A.O. has erred in law and on facts in framing the assessment even though the assessment proceedings and the assessment order are barred by the limitation. 14. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case Ld. ACIT has erred in law and on facts in framing the assessment without giving effect to the directions of the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal correctly.” 7. At the time of hearing, it was submitted that the Grounds of appeal nos.1, 4, 10 & 15 are general and need no adjudication, further, No arguments were raised in respect of ground no 5, 7, 11, 12 & 13. Grounds of appeal no.3, 6, 8 & 9 are dealt in the grounds no.2.1. to 2.62. 9 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 8. At the time of hearing, learned counsel of the Assessee (Ld AR) argued that the additions made in the assessment order & covered by ground of appeal no. 2.1 to 2.62 could not be made on the grounds for which detailed synopsis was filed. A chart was also filed showing the nature of various additions made in the assessment order depicting as to why these additions could not be made and why these additions should be deleted. 9. First, it was inter alia submitted that many of the additions were based on the documents found from the possession and control of another company namely Tender Leasing & Finance Ltd. (In short ‘TLFL’) and further that such documents do not belong to the Assessee but relate to another company namely M/s Suku Jain Associates Ltd. (In short ‘SJAL) as may be seen from the seized documents themselves. In any case, these seized documents indicate that the transactions mentioned thereon have resulted ultimately loss and there was no question of any income to be brought to tax. This argument was raised by the Assessee in respect of the ground no. 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.6, 2.7, 2.12, 2.13, 2.21, 2.26, 2.27, 2.44 involving an aggregate amount addition to the tune of Rs. 3,44,17,139/-. These arguments were supported by the Assessee with reference to various pages of voluminous paper books filed and such page numbers are mentioned in the chart filed. 10. Second argument raised on behalf of the Assessee in respect of ground no. 2.2, 2.5, 2.8 aggregating amount of Rs. 3,72,81,000/- was that the additions covered by these grounds in respect of the shares of other companies found during the course of search did not belong to the Assessee but belonged to and owned by the other persons/entities and in any case such shares were found at the premises occupied by TLFL. In support of this argument, various pages of the paper book were relied upon which are mentioned in the chart and detailed synopsis. 10 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 11. Third argument of the Assessee was that additions covered by ground no. 2.9, 2.60 in respect of the deposits in the bank accounts aggregating to Rs. 35,63,150/- were not based on any seized material and hence were outside the scope of the assessment made under section 158BC(c). 12. Fourth argument of the Assessee covering ground no. 2.14 and involving an addition of Rs. 38,95,000/- in respect of shares found during the course of search belong to TLFL/SJAL and SPS International Ltd. (in short ‘SPS) did not belong to the Assessee and these shares were appearing in the books of accounts of the respective parties. 13. Fifth argument of the Assessee covering Ground No. 2.11 and involving an addition of Rs.64,92,000/- was in respect of shares of SJAL, which were already added in the SJAL in their regular assessment as unexplained share capital & when such addition has been made in the hands of SJAL in respect of these shares, there could be no justification for making addition again in the hands of anybody else including the Assessee. 14. Sixth argument of the Assessee covering Ground Nos. 2.16, 2.19, 2.20, 2.23, 2.24 in respect of total addition aggregating to Rs.1,46,41,200/- in respect of unexplained investment in the shares of M/s Loyd Cement Ltd. (LCL), M/s Fine Agro Matic Pvt. Ltd., M/s Beggry India, M/s SPS, M/s Gold Multi Feb Ltd. (GML) etc. are double and triple additions made elsewhere also. 15. Seventh argument of the Assessee in respect of Ground Nos. 2.17, 2.28, 2.29, 2.30, 2.33, 2.34, 2.38, 2.39, 2.41, 2.43, 2.45, 2.47 & 2.49, involving an aggregate amount of addition to the tune of Rs.1,17,41,729/- was that additions have been made based on the basis of non-speaking and dumb documents which could not be made. Ld AR supported his argument based upon various pages of the paper book as referred in the chart. 11 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 16. Eighth argument of the Assessee raised in respect of Ground Nos. 2.15, 2.35, 2.37, 2.40, 2.42, 2.46, 2.50, 2.51, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.61, 2.62, involving an aggregate addition of Rs.7,60,93,959/- was that additions in these grounds were on account of transactions made by M/s S.S. Associates and M/s Dinesh Enterprises, which were proprietorship concerns of the wife of the Assessee namely Mrs. Sarla Jain accepted as such in the assessment order of Mrs. Sarla Jain and thus these transactions were not of the Assessee and also that these transactions were the subject matter of additions in the hands of Mrs. Sarla Jain in her assessment order which was later on settled by her in VSV Scheme No. I. 17. Ninth argument of the Ld AR in respect to Ground Nos. 2.10, 2.18, 2.22, 2.25, 2.31, and 2.32, 2.36, 2.48, 2.52, aggregating to Rs.36,84,215/- was that these transactions were done by SJAL / TLFL / SPS and not by the Assessee and this argument was supported with reference to various pages of the paper book as referred in the chart. 18. Ld AR also filed detailed synopsis from page 1 to 249, in which he made detailed submissions in respect of each of the grounds with reference to various pages of the paper books more or less on the above lines. Assessee thus, submitted in view of the synopsis and the chart supported by the various pages of the paper books that additions made in the hands of the assessee deserve to be deleted. Chart filed on behalf of the Assessee and showing various additions is enclosed along with the order as annexure 1. 19. On the other hand, Ld. CIT DR filed her written submission which are reproduced as under:- “It is humbly submitted that the following submissions may please be taken on record. it is also submitted that references to Paper Books (PB) in these submissions are to paper Books filed by assessee (Vol I to XII) which contain 12 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 copies of seized material relied upon by the AO & also statement, submissions of assessee etc. 1. Brief Synopsis filed by assessee (page 1-2 therein): In these pages, assessee has argued that additions could not have been made based upon material which was not seized from possession and control of assessee and that transactions, on which additions were made pertained to other persons too and additions could not have been made in the hands of the assessee. 1.1 Department's submissions on page 1-2 of brief synopsis filed by assessee: Panchnama (placed at page-1-9 of Paper Book-PB- Vol I-filed by assessee) brings out that Warrant of authorization u/s 132 was in the name of the assessee to search the address-1636,sec 23A, Faridabad and that the assessee had signed the panchnama dated 06/12/1996 too. Statement u/s 132(4) of Smt. Radhamony dated 05/12/1996 (page 187, PB-Vol II), resident of the said premises, brings out that she was employee of the assessee, that the assessee had 'borrowed' the said premises few days ago and that documents seized there from were property of assessee and kept there by the assessee. In his statement u/s 132(4) dated 05/12/1996 (page 190-192, PB-Vol II), he admitted that he had kept shares and other documents at the searched premises and that the seized documents pertained to him, his wife and his companies/entities. In confessional statement dated 02/01/1997 filed by assessee before SEBI and copy marked to the DDIT(Inv.) (Page 209-229 of PB-Vol II), page 209 therein shows that the assessee had admitted that searched on the said premises (belonging to him and his employee) was conducted in his case, that he had provided justifications for the seized documents and he explained modus operandi of illegal (barred by SEBI) activity of 'market making' in various scrips (viz. Curefast Remedies Ltd, Gold Multifab Ltd etc.), shares and documents of which had been seized from the said premises. Thus, the above facts and multiple admissions by assessee himself bring out that search was conducted in his own case and he was liable u/s 292C to discharge burden of explaining the seized material. 1.2 In so far as the contention of the assessee that the searched premises were not his/his entities' address, reliance is hereby placed on Rule 112 of I.T. Rules 1962 and also on the decision in case of Zinzuwadia& Sons (2019) 108 taxmann.com 42 (Gujarat)- copy enclosed herewith- wherein the decision of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of MDLR Resorts P. Ltd (2013) 40 taxmann.com 365 (Delhi) has also been discussed to hold that address at which search u/s 132 could be conducted would be place or location where undisclosed assets/books etc could be located and it need not be registered/known address of the assessee. 13 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 1.3 Regarding another contention of assessee that transactions based upon which additions were made in the hands of assessee were between Suku Jain & Associates Ltd (SJAL) & other entities & hence, additions could not have been made in the hands of assessee-individual. On this issue, reference is hereby made to the submissions in preceding paras and also on page 219 of PB Vol II, part of confessional statement dated 02/01/1997 filed by the assessee before SEBI, wherein assessee admitted that he took over Tender Leasing and Finance Ltd (TLFL), appointed Sandeep Ahuja as its director/Vice-president and instructed him to Implement the MOUs signed by him, to carry out the activities of 'market making'. Page 220 of PB Vol II, part of confessional statement dated 02/01/1997 filed by the assessee before SEBI, shows that all applications for finance for such 'market making' activities were to be arranged by him (the assessee). Page 224 of PB Vol II, part of confessional statement dated 02/01/1997 filed by the assessee before SEBI, brings out that MOU for Llyod Cements was signed by him (the assessee). It is hereby submitted that the activities of 'market making' and related financing etc were carried out by the assessee and the entities controlled by him (Sandeep Ahuja, SJAL, TLFL etc.) were used by him merely to meet the objectives of such activities. 1.4 The assessee raised another contention that the searched premises were rented by TLFL from Sethu Nair (the owner), On this issue, it is hereby submitted that as mentioned in preceding paras of this submissions, Smt. Radhamony (wife of owner, Sethu Nair), resident of said premises (present therein at the time of search) and employee of assessee and the assessee himself admitted to have 'borrowed' the said premises just few days prior to search. Neither any agreement to rent between TLFL & Sethu Nair was found during search nor mentioned by assessee during his statements u/s 132 or subsequent submissions nor produced by assessee till 18/12/1997. No details of any rental payments were filed by assessee during search or subsequently neither had the owner been shown to offer such income. Thus, assessee kept silent about such rental agreement for more than a year after search. Even on 18/12/1997, assessee filed copy of so-called 'rental agreement' which was ante-dated 01/08/1997 on a plain paper, it was not registered, and affidavit of owner was also dated 18/12/1997. Thus, such scheme of 'rental agreement' was a concocted story by assessee to avold the consequences. The assessee has tried to shift the burden to other entities SJAL/TLFL etc though by his own admission, these entities and their directors were controlled by him. 14 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Thus, the above brings out that it was assessee who kept the documents in searched premises just a few days prior to search, the warrant was in his own name, and it was assessee who controlled the entities and transactions mentioned in seized material and additions were rightly made by the AO in his hands. 1.5 With respect to belated retractions/contradictory submissions filed by the assessee vis-a-vis his statements u/s 132(4) & 131, reliance is hereby placed upon decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court decision in case of Roshan Lal Sanchiti (2023) 150 taxmann.com 228 (SC)-Copy enclosed herewith. 2. Brief Synopsis filed by assessee (page 2-249 therein) and chart (pages 1-38) filed by the assessee categorizing the issues on which additions were made The assessee divided the impugned additions, on their merits, into 9 categories in a chart filed before Hon'ble Tribunal and assessee's submissions in brief synopsis & the said chart are dealt herein under. 2.1 Category-1: Claimed to be the additions based upon documents found from possession and control of TLFL and which relate to SJAL & others and not to assessee. As has been submitted in preceding paras, the warrant of authorization of premises (from which documents were seized) was in the name of the assessee, it was assessee who had kept these documents at the said premises, he admitted in his various statements/submissions not only before the Department but before SEBI too that activities of various entities (TLFL/SJAL etc.) were controlled by him. 2.1.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- (ground no. 2.1 of assessee), perusal of seized material relied upon by the AO in page 13-19 of his order, especially page 492 of PB Vol III, clearly show that cash and demand drafts of 84,00,000/- were received by assessee and there is no mention of any other entity being the recipient of such amounts. Assessee has tried to shift burden to TLFL by stating that in assessment order dated 31/03/2003, additions were made in hands of TLFL on account of investments in shares of Gold Multifab. On this issue, it may please be noted that in this assessment order, the additions regarding cash/DD of impugned sum has not been made in the hands of TLFL neither has the same been part of discussion in this assessment order of TLFL. Further reliance is placed upon order of the AO (pages 17-19 therein) wherein it has been brought out that assessee has tried to shift burden on SJAL/TLFL etc by offering contradictory and unsubstantiated submissions 15 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 without actually explaining as to how and where such receipts had been offered for taxation. 2.1.2 Regarding addition of Rs. 1,11,70,000/- (ground no. 2.3 of assessee) on account of Vijay Remedies Ltd (VRL), assessee has stated that additions had been made in the hands of TLFL in its assessment order dated 31/03/2003 on account of investment in shares of VRL. On this issue, it may please be noted that in this assessment order of TLFL, the additions regarding receipt of impugned sum has not been made in the hands of TLFL neither has the same been part of discussion in this assessment order of TLFL. This assessment order of TLFL discussed additions only on account of shares of VRL in the name of TLFL and not the impugned sum In fact, said sum of Rs. 1,11,70,000/- was clearly part of credit in 'statement of account mentioned in page 592 of PB Vol III and fact of TLFL being recipient of the impugned amount is not part of seized material. Despite repeated queries from AO, the assessee did not prove the source of the said sum and how it had been offered for taxation in the hands of any other entities. Further, in the impugned assessment order of assessee, page 25-26, the AO has not added back unaccounted expenses on account of VRL MOU, to avoid duplicity, as the AO had added back the receipts of Rs. 1,11,70,000/-. Thus, the AD added back only the unaccounted receipts and not both the expenses and receipts. 2.1.3 Regarding addition of Rs. 20,44,000/-, 4,03,042/- & Rs. 16,24,772/- (ground no. 2.4 of assessee) on account of professional charges/brokerage/interest on MOU of Lloyd Cements Ltd (LCL), assessee has stated that LCL stands as debtor in the balance sheet of SJAL which duly established the relationship between SJAL & LCL On this issue, it is submitted that AO (page 29-31) has relied upon various seized documents to bring out that the additions were made based upon professional charges mentioned in seized MOU, the brokerage @ 1.5% earned on quantity of shares traded by 4 of assessee's admitted benami entities (Vishnu Associates, Jai Bhawani enterprises, Rama & Co. & Saral Finvest) with respect to such MOU/shares of LCL & interest mentioned in seized documents. The AO has also brought out that neither the seized MOU mentioned name of SJAL as recipient nor the assessee could prove that the said sums had been taxed in the hands of SJAL or any other entity. 2.1.4 Regarding addition of Rs. 4,25,766/- & Rs. 14,43,621/- (ground no. 2. 6 & 2.7 of assessee) on account of brokerage/interest on MOU of Keshlata Cancer Hospital Ltd (KCHL), assessee has stated that various 16 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 letters exchanged between SIAL & KCHL show that it was SJAL who had entered Into MOU with KCHL & such income was of SJAL & not of assessee. On this issue, it is submitted that AO (page 34-35) has relied upon various seized documents to bring out that the additions of brokerage & interest were made based upon seized MOU & other documents. The AO has also brought out that the assessee could not prove that the said sums of brokerage and interest had been taxed in the hands of SJAL or any other entity. It is also submitted that as mentioned in initial paras of this submission, SJAL & other entities were controlled by assessee and there is nothing on record to show that additions on account of brokerage and interest were made/offered in the hands of SJAL/any other entity. 2.1.5 Regarding addition of Rs. 23,00,000/- (ground no. 2.12 of assessee) on account of payment made by assessee to Devinder Gupta &Sungold Capital Services Ltd, addition of Rs. 4,55,938/- (ground no. 2.13 of assessee) on account of profits on operations of Fine Agromatics& additions of Rs. 24,00,000/- (ground 2.21 of assessee) being cash received, assessee has stated that payments were made out of funds received from Mr. Ohri for market making operations of Fine Agromatics Ltd. which has been separately added by the AO in para 7.7 which is covered by ground no. 2.21 of assessee. On this Issue, it is submitted that AO has discussed both these additions at page 46-48 & 61 respectively, of the impugned assessment order. It has been brought out that assessee had suo-motu admitted seized documents to be in his own handwriting vide submissions dated 08/01/1997 (page 270-280 of PB vol II) retracted only on 19/12/1997, about 1 year after suo-motu admission. Specific reference is hereby made to seized documents (pages 1595-1596, 1603-1604 of PB Vol VI) and other documents relied upon by the AO. It is also submitted that before the AO, the assessee explained sources of such cash receipts of Rs. 24,00,000/- to be from Mr. Ohri but did not file evidence as to how and where had this cash of Rs. 24,00,000/- and profit of Rs. 4,55,938/- on transactions of Fine Agromatics had been offered to tax. Thus, the AO was correct in making additions of cash receipts of Rs. 24,00,000/- being unaccounted receipts and also profits (being 50% of profits of Rs. 9,11,875/- shared with Devinder Gupta). Regarding unaccounted payment of Rs. 23,00,000/- stated to be out of the said sum of Rs. 24,00,000/-, as has been discussed by the AO, the dates of such payments were not mentioned by the assessee & not correlated with cash receipts of Rs. 24,00,000/-. 2.1.6 Regarding addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- (ground no. 2.26 of assessee) and Rs. 23,50,000/- (ground no. 2.27 of assessee) on account of cash 17 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 payment made by assessee to Arvind Aggarwal, assessee has stated that payments were made to Ashok Garg by SJAL/TLFL out of funds received from VRL for market making operations of VRL. On this issue, it is submitted that AO has discussed both these additions at page 65 of the Impugned assessment order. Specific reference is hereby made to seized documents (pages 1607 & 1613 of PB Vol VI) wherein cash payments are mentioned but the sources are not explained neither the name of SJAL is mentioned. The assessee has not proved the sources nor has he been able to prove as to how and when were such unaccounted cash payments were offered/taxed in the hands of any other entity. 2.1.7 Regarding addition of Rs. 90,000/- (ground no. 2.44 of assessee) on account of cash receipts by assessee from Ashok Mahajan, assessee has stated that shares were sold for Rs. 1,38,000/- & purchased for Rs. 2,79,888/- resulting in loss of Rs. 1,41,888/-- On this issue, it is submitted that AO has discussed these additions at page 83- 84 of the impugned assessment order. Specific reference is hereby made to seized documents (pages 1721-1722 of PB Vol VI) wherein cash receipts are mentioned. The AO has also brought out that assessee admitted the cash receipts but claimed that these were on account of shares of HPML. Before Hon'ble ITAT also, assessee has tried to claim loss on total transactions mentioned in the seized pages but he has failed to substantiate the sources of cash of Rs. 90,000/-, Thus, when the AO has added only the cash payment of Rs. 90,000/- being from unexplained sources, the issue of granting benefit of claim of loss on cheque transactions does not arise. 3. Category-II: Claimed to be the additions on account of shares found from premises of TLFL and which belonged to TLFL& others and not to assessee. As has been submitted in preceding paras of this submission, the warrant of authorization of premises (from which documents were seized) was in the name of the assessee, it was assessee who had kept these documents at the said premises, he admitted in his various statements/submissions not only before the Department but before SEBI too that activities of various entities (TLFL/SJAL etc.) were controlled by him. It is also submitted hereby that the seized shares were in physical form and carried distinct numbers. Since, the same were kept at the searched premises by the assessee and he controlled other entities viz. SJAL/TLFL etc, burden was upon assessee to show as to how the shares carrying distinct numbers were accounted in balance sheets of other entities. The onus was upon assessee to produce confirmations from share-registrars and evidences from bank accounts etc. to prove that the impugned seized shares were in the 18 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 ownership of other entities and the sources of such acquisitions by other entitles were out of accounted funds, 3.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 3,10,42,500/- (ground no. 2.2 of assessee) on account of shares of Vijay Remedies Ltd (VRL), assessee has stated that additions have been made in hands of TLFL in its assessment order dated 31/03/2003 on account of investment in shares of VRL & that balance sheet of SJAL also shows that it held 3,30,000 shares of VRL as on 31/03/1996. On this issue, it is hereby submitted that AO has discussed these additions at page 21-24 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is seen that 31,04,250 shares of VRL were seized and face value of such shares @ Rs. 10/- per share was added in the hands of assessee. The claim of assessee is that in the hands of TLFL, additions were made on account of investment in shares of VRL in assessment order dated 31/03/2003. However, a perusal of such order (Page 261-262 of PB Vol II) shows that in the hands of TLFL, maximum shares of both VRL & Gold Multifabwere only 94,800 in numbers & AO had made additions of only Rs. 9,48,000 (being face value) in hands of TLFL on this account. in the absence of any other details, considering that half of such shares were of VRL, In the hands of TLFL, addition was made only for 47,400 shares of VRL Further, even by own admission of assessee & as per balance sheet of SJAL (Page 363, PB Vol II), only 3,30,000 shares of VRL were seen as on 31/03/1996. It is hereby submitted that as on date of search, the quantum of ownership of VRL shares in the hands of SIAL is not proved. To sum up, only 3,37,000 shares of VRL could be explained even in hands of SJAL & TLFL by such submissions of assessee. Hence, the sources of acquisition of balance seized shares of VRL, amounting to 27,26,850 (31,04,250 less 3,37,000) in numbers (Rs. 2,72,68,500/- face value) were not accounted in the hands of any entity. 3.2 Regarding addition of Rs. 13,80,500/- (ground no. 2.5 of assessee) on account of shares of Keshlata Cancer Hospitals Ltd (KCHL), assessee has stated that additions have been made in hands of TLFL in its assessment order dated 31/03/2003 on account of investment in shares of KCHL. On this issue, it is hereby submitted that AO has discussed these additions at page 33-35 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is seen that 131850 shares of KCHL were slezed and face value of such shares @ Rs. 10/- per share was added in the hands of assessee. Further, page 35 of the AO's order shows that during the search, assessee had admitted the shares to be kept as security by Dr. Keshav Agarwal, promoter of KCHL but assessee failed to file any evidence that Dr. Keshav Agarwal had handed over such shares to assessee. In fact, as in page 33-34 of AO's order, 19 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Dr. Kehshav Agarwal (by letter dated 09/12/1997) denied having given any such shares to assessee. The claim of the assessee before Hon'ble Tribunal that additions were made in hands of TLFL & hence, no additions should be made in his own hands is devoid of merits as assessee has been changing his own stance and has not discharged burden of proving ownership and sources of acquisition of such shares. 3.3 Regarding addition of Rs. 48,58,000/- (ground no. 2.8 of assessee) on account of partly paid shares of Llyod Cements Ltd (LCL) & addition of Rs. 3,88,000/- (ground no. 2.16 of assessee) on account of unexplained investments in shares of LCL, assessee has stated that copy of financials of SJAL shows that LCL was debtor to SJAL and also that double additions to the extent of Rs. 3,88,000/- were also made by the AO in para 7.31 (ground no. 2.16 of assessee). On this issue, it is hereby submitted that AO has discussed the additions on page 31-33 & 52-53 of the impugned assessment order. It has been brought out that 1943200 shares of LCL were seized which assessee explained to have purchased for MOU of market making of LCL and also claimed the same to be purchased by TLFL. However, as has been brought out by the AO at page 31-32 of his order, the shares were seized alongwith ledger accounts of benami entities of assessee (Vishnu Associates, Jai Bhawani Enterprises, Saral Finvest) wherein purchase/sale of shares of LCL was reflected. The assessee did not prove sources of acquisition of 1943200 seized shares by him or his benami entities. It is also submitted that during assessment proceedings, assessee claimed the shares belonged to TLFL and now he claims before this Hon'ble Tribunal that these were related to SJAL The burden with distinct number of physical shares along with relevant bank statements and confirmations from Registrar of shares has never been discharged by the assessee & the AO was justified in making the additions in the hands of the assessee. Further, the addition of Rs. 3,88,500/- (face value @Rs. 10/- per share) was made by the AO on account of grey market operations with Devinder Gupta in 343500 shares and S.C. Gupta for 2000 shares of LCL. Thus, such additions accounted for merely 345500 shares. Further, seized shares amounted to 1943200 in number and if the same had been partly paid as per assessee's own submissions, it has not been explained how were the same part of transactions of 345500 shares with Devinder Gupta & S.C. Gupta 20 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 It is also hereby submitted that assessee neither explained sources of purchase of shares nor were such shares reflected in balance sheet and/or offered/taxed in the hands of any other entity. 4. Category-III: Claimed to be the additions not based upon any seized material Under this category, assessee has opposed additions of Rs. 1,01,150/- (unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of assessee-ground no. 2.9 of assessee), Rs. 34,62,000/-(unexplained cash deposits in the bank account of benami entities of assessee-ground no. 2.60 of assessee). These additions have been discussed by the AO at page 92 & 9-13 of impugned assessment order. The claim of the assessee that since the bank statements of his benami concerns (Jal Bhawani Enterprises, Janak Associates, Balaji Investments, Rama & Co., Vishnu Associates, Prime Investments, Goodwill Investments, Balaji Finance, Vishal Manufactures), were not seized during the search, addition could not be made in the block assessment order is not acceptable due to following reasons: (i) Page 31-32 of the impugned assessment order brings out that ledger accounts of these entities were seized along with shares of LCL. Reference is also made to seized documents, page 1161-1178, 1183-1192, 1230-1260 of PB Vol V wherein ledger accounts of benami entities (Rama & Co., Vishnu Associates, Jai Bhawani Enterprise, Vishal Manufactures, Saral Finvest) dealing in shares of LCL were seized. (ii) Reference is also made to seized documents, page 871-877, of PB Vol IV wherein ledger accounts of benami entity, Jal Bhawani Enterprise, dealing in shares of Gold Multifab, Vijay Remedies Ltd & SPS International were seized. (iii) Reference is also made to seized documents, page 564-566 of PB Vol III wherein ledger accounts of benami entity, Janak Associates, dealing in shares of Vijay Remedies Ltd were seized. (iv) Reference is also made to seized documents, page 493 of PB Vol III wherein details of entries of benami entities (Vishnu Associates, Balaji Financial, Vishal Manufactures, Prime Investments), with respect to post-issue receipts in case of Gold Multifab were seized. (v) It was based upon such & other similar seized documents of the benami entities that the AO recorded statement of assessee u/s 131 dated 10/03/1997 wherein he admitted that these were his benami entitles (page 202-208 PB Vol II). (vi) The fact of assessee having received cash himself & demand Drafts (DDs) in benami entities in various transactions of Gold Multifab, Vijay 21 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Remedies etc as per seized material, has already been discussed in preceding paras of this submission. (vii) The claim of assessee that Prime Investments was not his benami entity but a firm in which Sandeep Ahuja was partner, has been refuted by the AO at page 13 of the Impugned order. The same has also been discussed in preceding paras of this submission that Sandeep Ahuja was appointed and controlled by assessee, by his own admission, to carry out Assessee's instructions related to market making activities. It was based upon such seized material that the AO conducted post- search inquiries to ascertain cash deposits in bank accounts of assessee and his benami entities, based upon the seized material of such entities, which led to additions on account of the impugned cash deposits. Reliance is hereby placed upon decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Mukundray K Shah (2007) 160 Taxman 276 (SC) (copy enclosed herewith), wherein in para 12 therein it has been held that if the undisclosed income was detected by the Department wholly and exclusively as a result of search and seizure action, then the information/facts discovered. during search action would constitute 'incriminating material' and the Department was correct in making additions in block assessments of search cases based upon subsequent/post-search investigation which emanated from seized material. In view of the above, it is hereby submitted that the Impugned additions on account of cash deposits in bank accounts of assessee and his benami entities were correctly made by the AO in the impugned assessment order & same may please be upheld. 5. Category-IV: Claimed to be the additions on account of seized shares belonging to TLFL/SPS appearing in their books of account and not belonging to assessee As has been submitted in preceding paras of this submission, the warrant of authorization of premises (from which documents were seized) was in the name of the assessee, it was assessee who had kept these documents at the said premises, he admitted in his various statements/submissions not only before the Department but before SEBI too that activities of various entities (TLFL/SJAL etc.) were controlled by him. 5.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 38,95,000/- (ground no. 2.14 of assessee) on account of unexplained investments in shares of SMC Global, Singhman, Baggry India and Skytone, assessee has stated that copy of financials of SJAL & TLFL shows that shares of these companies were recorded therein. It is hereby submitted that this issue has been discussed at page 48-50 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that assessee had 22 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 submitted before the AD vide letter dated 08/01/1997 that he had applied for public issue of these shares (mentioned in seized page 1590 of PB Vol VI) but he did not file evidences to prove sources of these shares. During second round of assessment Proceedings, assessee claimed that that these shares were financed by the brokers but AO found that names of brokers mentioned by assessee were not part of seized document. The AO in the impugned assessment order corrected errors that had crept in order in second round and accordingly made additions of Rs. 38,95,000/-. The assessee has not been able to reconcile the details of shares mentioned in seized material with balance sheets of TLFL/SJAL except stating that their books of account reflect shares of the entities mentioned in seized material. 6. Category-V: Claimed to be the additions on account of shares of SJAL which was added in hands of SJAL as unexplained share capital As has been submitted in preceding paras of this submission, the warrant of authorization of premises (from which documents were seized) was in the name of the assessee, it was assessee who had kept these documents at the said premises, he admitted in his various statements/submissions not only before the Department but before SEBI too that activities of various entities (TLFL/SJAL etc.) were controlled by him. 6.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 64,92,000/- (ground no. 2.11 of assessee) on account of shares of SJAL found during search, assessee has stated that the additions had been made in the hands of SJAL in assessment order dated 30/03/2000 u/s 143(3) for AY 1997-98 in first round and also in second round: It is hereby submitted that this issue has been discussed at page 45-46 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that 649200 shares of SJAL were seized but he claimed vide letter dated 18/12/1997 that 26000 shares were in the name of shareholders and were left with TLFL for selling in the market. However, he did not file evidences to prove such contentions neither he substantiated sources of acquisition of these shares both during 1\"& 2nd round of assessments. During the impugned 3d round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that that these shares were property of respective shareholders and were forfeited by the company SJAL. The assessee did not file any evidence regarding the ownership and forfeiture of these shares. Now, before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has claimed that these shares were assessed in hands of SIAL as share capital of Rs. 78,38,500/- (being share application money of Rs. 2.5/- per share on 3135300 shares) in both rounds of assessments dated 30/03/2000 & dated 28/12/2007 23 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 It is hereby submitted that assessee made contradictory submissions before the AO, first by saying that these were property of respective shareholders and were handed over by them to TLFL for selling in market and then claiming that these were forfeited by SJAL. In view of such facts and also assessee not able to prove forfeiture of seized shares alongwith distinct numbers of physical shares, the addition made by the AO was justified & may please be upheld. 7. Category-VI: Claimed to be the double additions made by the AO As has been submitted in preceding paras of this submission, the warrant of authorization of premises (from which documents were seized) was in the name of the assessee, it was assessee who had kept these documents at the said premises, he admitted in his various statements/submissions not only before the Department but before SEBI too that activities of various entities (TLFL/SJAL etc.) were controlled by him. Further, burden was upon assessee to explain the nature of transactions & sources therein as well as the manner in which same had been offered/taxed in the hands of assessee/other entities. 7.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 3,88,000/- (ground no. 2.16 of assessee) on account of unexplained investments in shares of Lloyd Cements Ltd, assessee has stated that the additions had been made by the AO in para 6.21 of his order which is covered by ground no.2.8 of assessee. It is hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 52-53 of the Impugned assessment order. Also, submissions on this issue have been made by the undersigned in preceding paras of this order while discussing ground no. 2.8 of assessee for Category-ll additions. 7.2 Regarding addition of Rs. 98,34,000/- (ground no. 2.19 of assessee), addition of Rs. 7,65,175/- (ground no. 2.15), addition of Rs. 18,57,075/- (ground no. 2.58 of assessee), addition of Rs. 17,74,200/- (ground no. 2.20 of the assessee) & addition of Rs. 26,00,000/-(ground no. 2.57 of assessee) on account of unexplained investments in shares of Fine Agromatics Ltd, Baggry India & SPS International, assessee has stated that double additions had been made by the AO on these issues. (a) It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 98,34,000/- (ground no. 2.19 of assessee) on account of shares of Fine Agromatics, SPS & Baggrys India has been dealt by the AO at page 55-59 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these were based upon seized document page 1590 & 1594 of PB Vol VI. Vide submissions dated 08/01/1997, assessee submitted that such shares were purchased on interest 24 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 basis but he did not file evidences for sources of such investments during 1\"& 2nd rounds of assessments. It has been specifically brought out by the AO at page 59 of the impugned assessment order that even in the impugned (3d round) assessment proceedings, assessee did not file evidences regarding sources of acquisitions and confirmation of brokers from whom the same were claimed to be purchased. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs.98,34,000/-. The name of M/s S.S. Associates (entity of wife Sarla Jain) is not mentioned in the relevant seized documents and thus, there was no double addition. In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate. (b) It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 7,65,175/-on account of shares of Fine Agromatics has been dealt by the AO at page 50-52 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1591 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that vide statement dated 11/12/1997 (supplied to assessee also by the AO), Mr. S.C. Gupta, the broker from whom assessee claimed to have received such shares, denied having loaned the shares of Fine Agromatics to assessee. Also, assessee submitted that such shares were purchased in grey market and rates were also mentioned in seized documents. Further, the seized document does not mention name of M/s SS Associates (entity of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were purchased as per the assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of Sarla Jain or M/s SS Associates & assessee had admitted to have purchased shares in grey market. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 7,65,175/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain. (c) It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 18,57,075/- on account of shares of Fine Agromatics has been dealt by the AO at page 28-29 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these purchases were made by M/s S.S. Associates, a benami entity of assessee. The additions were based upon seized document page 966-996 of PB Vol IV wherein bills of Kailash Associates in the name of M/s SS Associates were reflected regarding shares of Fine Agromatics Ltd. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt Saria Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s S.S. Associates had been held to be her benami 25 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the same, additions of Rs. 18,75,075/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. (d) It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 17,74,200/- on account of shares of SPS International has been dealt by the AO at page 59-61 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that shares of SPS International (as in seized documents) were admitted to be purchased by assessee through Kailash associates and the same has been tabulated at page 59-60 of the AO's order. During 1\" round of assessment, assessee did not prove sources of such acquisition of shares by filing details and distinct numbers of physical shares. In 2nd round of assessment, assessee claimed that he had planned to purchase these shares but did not actually purchase the same. In the 3d round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed seized document to be rough notings. Now, the assessee has not filed any new fact/submissions before Hon'ble Tribunal to discharge burden placed on him when the seized document clearly brings out dates and numbers of shares (as in page 59-60 of the AO's order). Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions. In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate. (e) It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of shares of TLFL has been dealt by the AO at page 44-45 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that as per seized material, Rs. 9 lakhs was invested each in the name of assessee and his wife Sarla Jain while Rs. 8 lakhs was invested in the name of SPS International. As per the AO, all these investments were made through M/s S.S. Associates, a benami entity of assessee. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s S.S. Associates had been held to be her benami entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been Issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the same, additions of Rs. 26,00,000/- may be decided on merits in the hands of assessee. 26 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 7.3 Regarding addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- (ground no. 2.23 of assessee) on account of unaccounted receipts by assessee from Gold Multifab Ltd (GML), assessee has stated that double additions had been made by the AO on this issue which is covered by ground no. 2.1 of assessee. It is hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 62-63 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document showed Rs. 5 lakhs in cash Rs. 2 lakhs in DD and again Rs. 6 lakhs. The assessee contended before the AO that this amount was advanced by GML for capital market operations, that part of addition of Rs. 84 lakhs (ground no. 2.1 of assessee) and that amount of Rs. 8 lakhs was appearing in the books of SJAL. The AO did not accept such contentions holding that name of Gold Multifab did not appear in books of SJAL for the said transaction. It is also hereby submitted that additions of Rs. 84 lakhs (ground no. 2.1 of assessee as discussed in preceding paras of this submission) were based upon seized document page 492 of PB Vol III wherein cash receipts of Rs. 21 lakhs, DD receipts of Rs. 61 lakhs and cheque receipts of Rs. 2 lakhs were mentioned on account of Gold Multifab Ltd (GML) on right hand side of the document while certain payment/expense transactions between February to April 1996 were mentioned on left hand side of the document. Addition of Rs. 13 lakhs (ground no. 2.13 of assessee) is based upon seized document, page 1598 of PB Vol VI, wherein cash receipts of Rs. 5 lakhs on 08/02/1996, DD receipts of Rs. 8 lakhs on 16/02/1996 & 24/02/1996 were mentioned on account of Gold Multifab Ltd (GML) on right hand side of the document while certain payment/expense/TDS/interest transactions in February 1996 were mentioned on left hand side of the document. It is hereby submitted that there is no apparent commonality between the two seized documents except that both pertain to Gold Multifab Ltd. Assessee has not been able to show as to how the impugned additions of Rs. 13,00,000/- resulted into double/duplicate additions. 7.4 Regarding addition of Rs. 13,45,000/- (ground no. 2.24 of assessee) on account of unaccounted payments made by assessee to Sh. Devinder Gupta & interest paid to Bonanza Portfolio Management Ltd, assessee has stated that double additions had been made by the AO on this issue which is covered by ground no. 2.12 of assessee. It is hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 63-64 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document showed details of share transactions of Fine Agromatics Ltd and Rs. 45,00/- cash was paid to Bonanza Portfolio Management Ltd while Rs. 13 lakhs cash was mentioned to have been paid to Devinder Gupta. The assessee contended before the AO that amount of Rs. 13 lakhs cash was part of addition of Rs.13 lakhs (ground no. 2.12 of assessee) and that amount of Rs. 45,000/- was 27 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 expense. The AO did not accept such contentions holding that sources of such cash payments were not explained by assessee. It is also hereby submitted that additions of Rs. 13 lakhs (ground no. 2.12 of assessee as discussed in preceding paras of this submission) were based upon seized documents (pages 1595-1596, 1603-1604 of PB Vol VI) and other documents referred by the AO. For these documents, the assessee explained sources of cash receipts of Rs. 24,00,000/- to be from Mr. Ohri but did not file evidence as to how and where had this cash of Rs. 24,00,000/- and profit of Rs. 4,55,938/- (being 50% of profits alongwith Devinder Gupta) on transactions of Fine Agromatics had been offered to tax. It is also submitted that impugned addition of Rs. 13,45,000/- has been made based upon seized document, pages 1599-1600 of PB Vol VI. Assessee has not been able to show as to how the impugned additions of Rs. 13,45,000/-resulted into double/duplicate additions & hence, the additions made by the AO may please be upheld. 8. Category-VII: Claimed to be the additions based upon dumb documents As has been submitted in preceding paras of this submission, the warrant of authorization of premises (from which documents were seized) was in the name of the assessee, it was assessee who had kept these documents at the said premises, he admitted in his various statements/submissions not only before the Department but before SEBI too that activities of various entities (TLFL/SJAL etc.) were controlled by him. Further, burden was upon assessee to explain the nature of transactions & sources therein as well as the manner in which same had been offered/taxed in the hands of assessee/other entities. 8.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 36,10,000/- (ground no. 2.17 of assessee) on account of unaccounted payments made by assessee to Sh. S C Gupta, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that on one hand assessee claims the seized document page 1593 of PB Vol VI to be dumb document while on the other hand, assessee states that the said transaction has been found recorded in books of SJAL as share application money (page 1661-1666 of PB Vol VI) and that additions have been made in the hands of SJAL on account of share capital in assessment order dated 30/03/2000 for AY 1997-98 u/s 143(3) in 1\" round & dated 28/12/2007 in 2nd round. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 53- 54 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document showed receipts of Rs. 36.1 lakhs from SC Gupta towards promoter's contribution in SJAL and returned back to him Rs. 0.8 lakhs. On page 53 of his order, AO has also brought out date wise transactions as per 28 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 seized document and that in letter dated 27/03/1997 and statement dated 11/12/1997, S C Gupta denied having entered into such transactions, Also, perusal of assessment orders dated 30/03/2000 & 28/12/2007 in case of SJAL shows that name of S C Gupta or any promoter is not reflected in the list of share applicants. Pages 1661-1666 of PB Vol VI relied upon by the assessee in present proceedings also do not reflect the said transactions. In view of the above, it is hereby submitted that impugned addition made by the AO was correct & may please be upheld. 8.2 Regarding addition of Rs. 27,47,775/- (ground no. 2.28 of assessee) on account of accommodation entry provided by assessee to Sh. S C Gupta, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that on one hand assessee claims the seized document page 1610 of PB Vol VI to be dumb document while on the other hand, assessee states, without prejudice, that additions can be made only to the extent of charges received on such entry. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 66 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1610 of PB Vol VI showed accommodation entry of Rs. 27 lakhs provided to SC Gupta. On page2381 of PB Vol X, assessee had filed explanation before AO that cheque was paid by the assessee from his bank account. However, the assessee has not been able to explain sources and entries in bank (if any) of such amount of Rs. 27 lakhs. Thus, the amount of Rs. 27 lakhs remained unexplained & rightly taxed by the AO. Further, the amount of unaccounted charges/commissions of Rs. 47,775/- as per seized document has been rightly taxed by the AO. 8.3 Regarding addition of Rs. 9,88,407/- (ground no. 2.29 of assessee) on account of unexplained payments to S P Ahuja, H R Dua, SPS, Sarla & unexplained cash receipts from Mr. Bhatia, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that on one hand assessee claims the seized document page 1612 of PB Vol VI to be dumb document while on the other hand, assessee states that addition of Rs. 4,10,000/- was covered in additions of Rs. 5,35,000/- made in the by the AO on page 68 (ground no. 2.61 of assessee) which relates to property transactions in the name of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 66- 67 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1612 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 9,88,407/- which were unaccounted. On the other hand, at page 68 of the 29 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 assessment order, AO made addition of Rs. 5,35,000/-(including amount of Rs. 4,10,000/- paid to HR Dua), based upon seized document, page 1622 of PB Vol VI. Thus, these additions of Rs. 9,88,407/- were correctly made by the AO & may please be upheld. 8.4 Regarding addition of Rs. 14,185/- (ground no. 2.30 of assessee) on account of purchase/sale of shares by one Adesh Jain on behalf of assessee, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 67- 68 of the Impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1619 of PB Vol VI showed date-wise, quantity-wise and amount-wise transactions of Rs. 14,185/- with the name of Adesh Jain. Thus, these additions of Rs. 14,185/- were correctly made by the AO in the absence of explanation by assessee & may please be upheld. 8.5 Regarding addition of Rs. 3,473/- (ground no. 2.33 of assessee) on account of accommodation entries provided by assessee to SS Jain and D M enterprises, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 72 of the Impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1624 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 3,473/-with date 27/04/1996 in the names of S S Jain and D M enterprises, which remained unaccounted. Thus, these additions of Rs. 3,473/- were correctly made by the AO & may please be upheld. 8.6 Regarding addition of Rs. 10,08,000/- (ground no. 2.34 of assessee) on account of payment made by assessee to Ram Capital Ltd, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. 30 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 73 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1626 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 10,08,000/- with date 17/04/1996 in the name of Ram Capital Ltd, which remained unaccounted. Thus, these additions of Rs. 10,08,000/- were correctly made by the AO. 8.7 Regarding addition of Rs. 8,37,500/- (ground no. 2.38 of assessee) on account of share purchased by assessee, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that on one hand assessee states it to be a dumb document and on the hand, assessee states, without prejudice, that only his share can be added in his hands. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 75- 76 of the Impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1699 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs.8,37,500/- which remained unaccounted and unexplained. Thus, these additions of Rs. 8,37,500/- were correctly made by the AO& may please be upheld. 8.8 Regarding addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- (ground no. 2.39 of assessee) on account of Investment made by assessee in shares and debenture, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document & addition was made only on estimate basis. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 77- 78 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1701-1702 & 1729 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 10,00,000/- with dates 11/09/1996 & 26/10/1994 with description of quantity of shares/debentures and the names of companies whose shares/debentures were held by/purchased by assessee on these dates. Sources of acquisition of such shares/debentures remained unexplained. The AO has made additions based upon estimates in the absence of any explanation from assessee. Thus, these additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- were correctly made by the AO& may please be upheld. 31 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 8.9 Regarding addition of Rs. 29,394/- (ground no. 2.41 of assessee) on account of unexplained payments made by assessee, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. Further, the assessee made vague submission that seized document also mentions name of Sandeep Ahuja and payment would have been made by him. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 79- 80 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1705 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 29,394/-with date 04/10/1994 with entry 'paid on 12/10/1994 to 5 8 Nair. Vague claim of the assessee that payments may have been made by Sandeep Ahuja is not substantiated by confirmation from him. Thus, these additions of Rs. 29,394/- were correctly made by the AO. 8.10 Regarding addition of Rs. 3,95,325/- (ground no. 2.43 of assessee) on account of shares sold by assessee through Fairdeal investment & M. Agarwal & Co., assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 81- 82 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1713, 1715 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 3,95,325/- with various dates 10/10/1994 etc alongwith quantities, amount and names of M.M Agarwal &Fairdeal investments. Thus, these additions of Rs. 3,95,325/- were correctly made by the AO& may please be upheld. 8.11 Regarding addition of Rs. 2,81,000/- (ground no. 2.45 of assessee) on account of cash payment made by assessee to Anand Jain, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 84- 85 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1726 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs. 2,81,000/- with date 24/10/1994 alongwith name of Anand Jain & 'cash' mentioned therein. Thus, these additions of Rs. 2,81,000/- were correctly made by the AO& may please be upheld. 32 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 8.12 Regarding addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- (ground no. 2.47 of assessee) on unexplained cash payment by assessee, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 87 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1738 of PB Vol VI showed impugned transactions of Rs.4,20,000/- with date 31/10/1994 alongwith names of D Gupta, DI, SS etc and entry of 'cash' mentioned therein. The assessee has submitted that same seized page also showed credit of Rs. 1,40,000/- and hence, only net debit of Rs.2,80,000/-can be added. It is hereby submitted that assessee explained neither the sources of cash receipts nor the purpose of cash payments. Thus, these additions of Rs.4,20,000/- were correctly made by the AO& may please be upheld. 8.13 Regarding addition of Rs. 44,670/- (ground no. 2.49 of assessee) on account of cash, assessee has stated that this was based upon dumb document. It is hereby submitted that the assessee has not been able to show as to how this was a dumb document when it was part of a diary regularly maintained by assessee in his own handwriting. It is also hereby submitted that this issue has been dealt by the AO at page 88 of the impugned assessment order wherein it is mentioned that seized document, page 1752 of PB Vol VI showed impugned cash transactions of Rs. 44,670/- with date 23/01/1994 mentioning 'delivery to Ashok Mahajan'. Thus, these additions of Rs. 44,670/- were correctly made by the AO& may please be upheld. 9. Category-VIII: Claimed to be the additions based upon transactions made by M/s SS Associates and M/s Dinesh Enterprises, admittedly the entities of wife, Smt. Sarla Jain While deciding the issues wherever assessee claims double additions in hands of wife, Smt. Sarla Jain and himself, it may please be kept in mind that even though Smt. Sarla Jain has made declaration which has been accepted VSVS- 2020 regarding her own assessment, since the documents relied upon by the AO in case of assessee were seized from searched premises of assessee who controlled various entities (TLFL/SJAL, Rama & Co. Etc.) and also noted down transactions of even M/s Dinesh Enterprise & M/s S.S. Associates (entities of his wife) in his own handwriting in his seized diary, burden was upon assessee to prove that transactions had been recorded/offered to tax in the hands of other entities/his wife. 33 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 9.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 7,65,175/- (ground no. 2.15 of assessee) on account of investment in shares of Fine Agromatics Ltd, assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose entity, M/s S. S. Associates had purchased the impugned shares. This issue has been discussed in earlier paras of this submissions along with issue of addition of Rs. 98,34,000/- (ground no. 2.19 of assessee) and addition of Rs. 18,57,075/- (ground no. 2.58 of assessee) on shares of Fine Agromatics etc., while discussing category-VI additions. (a) However, it is hereby submitted again that issue of addition of Rs.7,65,175/- on account of shares of Fine Agromatics has been dealt by the AO at page 50-52 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1591 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that vide statement dated 11/12/1997 (supplied to assessee also by the AO), Mr. S.C. Gupta, the broker from whom assessee claimed to have received such shares, denied having loaned the shares of Fine Agromatics to assessee. Also, assessee submitted that such shares were purchased in grey market and rates were also mentioned in seized documents. Further, the seized document does not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates (entity of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were purchased as per the Assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of Sarla Jain or M/s S.S. Associates & assessee had admitted to have purchased shares in grey market. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 7,65,175/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain. (b) It is also submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 18,57,075/- (ground no. 2.58 of assessee) on account of shares of Fine Agromatics has been dealt by the AO at page 28-29 of the Impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these purchases were made by M/s S.S. Associates, a benami entity of assessee. The additions were based upon seized document page 966- 996 of PB Vol IV wherein bills of Kailash Associates in the name of M/s S.S. Associates were reflected regarding shares of Fine Agromatics Ltd. It is also seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s S.S. Associates had been held to be her benami entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present 34 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the same, additions of Rs. 18,75,075/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. (c) It is also submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 98,34,000/- (ground no. 2.19 of assessee) on account of shares of Fine Agromatics, SPS &Baggrys India has been dealt by the AO at page 55-59 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these were based upon seized document, page 1590 & 1594 of PB Vol VI. Vide submissions dated 08/01/1997, assessee submitted that such shares were purchased on interest basis but he did not file evidences for sources of such investments during 1\"& 2nd rounds of assessments. It has been specifically brought out by the AO at page 59 of the Impugned assessment order that even in the impugned (3rd round) assessment proceedings, assessee did not file evidences regarding sources of acquisitions and confirmation of brokers from whom the same were claimed to be purchased. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 98,34,000/-. The name of M/s S.S. Associates (entity of wife Sarla Jain) is not mentioned in the relevant seized documents and thus, there was no double addition. In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate & hence, additions made by the AO in the hands of the assessee may please be upheld. 9.2 Regarding addition of Rs. 42,07,242/- (ground no. 2.35 of assessee) on account of purchase of shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd from M/s M. Agarwal, assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entities had purchased the impugned shares in their normal course of business. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 42,07,242/- on account of shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd has been dealt by the AO at page 73-74 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1695 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized documents contained details of consultancy charges and cost of purchase for Rs. 42,04,242/- upto 31/05/1994 & vide letter dated 08/01/1997, assessee claimed to have debited the amounts for shares purchased from M/s M. Agarwal & co. Being cost of shares and consultancy charges for 2 months but assessee did not file details of sources of such purchases in 1\"& 2nd round of assessment proceedings. In 3rd& impugned round of proceedings, assessee claimed that these transactions pertained to M/s Dinesh Enterprise but assessee failed to file details of sources and proof from books of M/s Dinesh Enterprise. 35 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Further, it is hereby submitted that the seized document does not mention name of M/s Dinesh Enterprise (entity of wife of assessee, Smt. Saria Jain, by whom said shares were purchased as per Assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of Sarla Jain or M/s Dinesh Enterprises & correlation of bank payments through Dinesh Enterprises have not been filed even till date. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 42,07,242/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain & the additions may please be upheld. 9.3 Regarding addition of Rs. 67,45,000/- (ground no. 2.37 of assessee) on account of purchase of shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd, assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entities had purchased the impugned shares in their normal course of business. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 67,45,000/- on account of shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd has been dealt by the AO at page 75 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1698 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized document contained details of purchase of 325000 shares of Curefast Remedies for Rs. 67,45,000/- on 08/10/1994. In the 1\" round of proceedings, assessee did not file any details but in 2 round, he claimed that these transactions pertained to M/s Dinesh Enterprise but assessee failed to file details of sources and proof from books of M/s Dinesh Enterprise. In the 3rd& impugned round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that shares of Curefast were purchased by M/s Dinesh Enterprise & sold by M/s SS Associates but assessee failed to file details of sources & receipts with proof from books of M/s Dinesh Enterprise & M/s S.S. Associates. Further, it is hereby submitted that the seized document does not mention name of M/s Dinesh Enterprise (entity of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom the said shares were purchased as per the Assessee's claim) or M/s 5.S. Associates (another entity of Smt Sarla Jain who is claimed to have sold the said shares). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of M/s Dinesh Enterprises and/or M/s 5.S. Associates & correlation of seized material with bank payments through Dinesh Enterprises and/or receipts through M/s S.S. Associates have not been filed even till date. 36 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 67,45,000/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Saria Jain. 9.4 Regarding addition of Rs.3,10,670/- (ground no. 2.40 of assessee) on account of cash receipts by assessee on issuing cheques & bills for purchase of shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd (CRL) from Smt. Shashi Kala, Smt. Meena Bhalla and Sh. Vinod Gupta, assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entities had purchased the impugned shares in their normal course of business. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 3,10,670/- on account of these transactions in shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd has been dealt by the AO at page 78-79 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1703-1704 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized documents contained details of transactions in shares of Curefast Remedies and mentioned profits in transactions as well as cash receipts totalling to Rs. 3,10,670 on 18/09/1994, 28/09/1994 & cash received on 30/09/1994. In the 1 & 2nd round of assessment proceedings, assessee did not file any details of persons with whom such transactions were made & how the same were accounted in his books. In the 3rd& impugned round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that shares of Curefast were purchased by M/s Dinesh Enterprise & were reflected in seized Document no. 31 but assessee failed to file details of accounted receipts with proof from books of M/s Dinesh Enterprise & AO also noted that said seized document no. 31 did not contain the details of impugned transactions. Further, it is hereby submitted that the seized documents do not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates or M/s Dinesh Enterprise (entities of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were transacted as per Assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of M/s Dinesh Enterprises or M/s S.S. Associates & correlation of bank payments/receipts through these entitles has not been filed even till date. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 3,10,670/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain. 9.5 Regarding addition of Rs.65,86,000/-, Rs. 8,95,000/-, Rs. 41,95,000/- (ground no. 2.42 of assessee) on account of shares of Curefast Remedies 37 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Ltd (CRL), assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entities had purchased the impugned shares in their normal course of business. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs.65,86,000/-, Rs. 8,95,000/-, Rs. 41,95,000/-on account of shares of Curefast Remedies Ltd (CRL) has been dealt by the AO at page 80-81 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1710 & 1719 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized documents contained details of sale transactions in shares of Curefast Remedies through Bindal Investments and also mentioned cash receipts totalling to Rs. 8,95,000 on 11/10/1994, 12/10/1994 etc. In the 1\" round of assessment proceedings, assessee did not file sources of acquisition of the said shares & how the same were accounted in his books. In the 2nd round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that receipts were mostly by cheques but did not file details sources of acquisition of the said shares & how the cash and cheques were accounted in his books In the 3rd& impugned round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that receipts were on account of sales by M/s S.S. Associates but assessee failed to file details of accounted receipts with proof from books of M/s S.S. Associates & AO also noted that sources of acquisition were also not proved. Further, it is hereby submitted that the seized documents do not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates or M/s Dinesh Enterprise (entities of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were transacted as per the Assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of M/s Dinesh Enterprises/S.S. Associates & correlation of bank payments/receipts through these entities has not been filed even till date. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 65,86,000/-, Rs. 8,95,000/- & Rs. 41,95,000/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain. 9.6 Regarding addition of Rs.6,70,664/- (ground no. 2.46 of assessee) on account of shares sold by assessee, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entity, M/s S.S. Associates had sold the impugned shares. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs.6,70,664/-on account of sale of shares has been dealt by the AO at page 85-87 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1727, 1735, 1743, 1746 & 1747 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized documents 38 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 contained details of sale transactions in shares of alongwith name of scrip, quantity, rate and amount. In the 1st& 2nd round of assessment proceedings, assessee did not file explanation. In the 3& impugned round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that these were rough jottings. It is hereby submitted that on one hand, in 3d round, assessee claimed these to be rough Jottings but failed to explain how the same were rough jottings when these were part of a diary maintained regularly by the assessee in his own handwriting. On the other hand, in present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee claims that the said transactions were recorded in books of M/s 5.5. Associates (entity of wife, Sarla Jain). It is hereby submitted that the seized documents do not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates (entity of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were sold as per Assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates & correlation of bank receipts through this entity has not been filed even till date. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 6,70,664/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain. 9.7 Regarding addition of Rs.8,74,500/- (ground no. 2.50 of assessee) on account of shares sold by assessee through Bindal Investment, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entity, M/s S.S. Associates had sold the impugned shares. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs.8,74,500/-on account of sale of shares has been dealt by the AO at page 89 of the impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1757 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized documents contained details of sale transactions in shares of through Bindal Investments. It is hereby submitted that the seized documents do not mention name of M/s 5.5 Associates (entity of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were sold as per Assessee's claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates &correlation of bank receipts through this entity has not been filed even till date. Thus, the AO was 39 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 correct in making these additions of Rs. 8,74,500/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain, 9.8 Regarding addition of Rs.3,44,200/- (ground no. 2.51 of assessee) on account of shares sold by assessee through Mr. SC Jain, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) whose proprietorship entities, M/s S.S. Associates& M/s Dinesh Enterprise had purchased the impugned shares. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs.3,44,200/-on account of sale of shares has been dealt by the AO at page 89-90 of the Impugned assessment order (based upon seized document page 1769 of PB Vol VI) wherein it has been brought out that the seized documents contained details of sale transactions in shares to S.C. Jain, In the 1st round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that these were transactions in shares of Hari Parvat Merri land Ltd but the assessee did not provide address of S.C. Jain and neither did the assessee provide details of sources of acquisition of such shares. In the 2nd& 3rd (impugned) round of assessment proceedings, assessee claimed that these were transactions of M/s S.S. Associates & recorded in books of that entity. It is hereby submitted that the seized documents do not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates or M/s Dinesh Enterprise (entities of wife of assessee, Smt. Sarla Jain, by whom said shares were sold as per assessee’s claim). In the present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not been able to show, with evidences, as to how additions were duplicate when the seized document does not mention name of M/s S.S. Associates/Dinesh enterprise & correlation of bank receipts/payments through these entities has not been filed even till date. Thus, the AO was correct in making these additions of Rs. 3,44,200/- in the hands of assessee and there was no double addition in hands of assessee and Smt. Sarla Jain. 9.9 Regarding addition of Rs.1,14,83,000/- (ground no. 2.53 of assessee) on account of cash deposits in bank accounts of M/s S.S. Associates and Dinesh Enterprise, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) under her proprietorship entities, M/s S.S. Associates& M/s Dinesh Enterprise. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 1,14,83,000/- on account of such cash deposits has been dealt by the AO at page 5-8 of the impugned assessment order. As per the AO, these unexplained cash deposits were made through M/s S.S. Associates & M/s Dinesh enterprise, entities of Assessee's 40 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 wife, Smt. Sarla Jain. The AO had made protective additions in hands of assessee and proposed substantive additions in hands of Smt. Sarla Jain. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s S.S. Associates & M/s Dinesh enterprise have been held to be her entities. and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS- 2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the above, protective additions of Rs. 1,14,83,000/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. 9.10 Regarding addition of Rs.31,02,400/- (ground no. 2.54 of assessee) on account of cash deposits in bank accounts of M/s Dinesh Enterprise, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) under her proprietorship entity M/s Dinesh Enterprise. it is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 31,02,400/- on account of such cash deposits has been dealt by the AO at page 92 of the impugned assessment order. As per the AO, these unexplained cash deposits were made through M/s Dinesh enterprise, entity of assessee's wife, Smt. Sarla Jain. The AO had made protective additions in hands of assessee and proposed substantive additions in hands of Smt. Saria Jain. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s Dinesh enterprise has been held to be her entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the above, protective additions of Rs. 31,02,400/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. 9.11 Regarding addition of Rs.51,96,720/- (ground no. 2.55 of assessee) on account of shares sold by M/s Dinesh Enterprise, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) under her proprietorship entity, M/s Dinesh Enterprise. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 51,96,720/- on account of such sale of shares has been dealt by the AO at page 90-91 of the impugned assessment order. The additions were based upon seized documents (pages 41 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 2006-2040 of PB Vol VII). As per the AO, these transactions were made through M/s Dinesh enterprise, benami entity of assessee. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s Dinesh enterprise has been held to be her entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the above, additions of Rs. 51,96,720/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. 9.12 Regarding addition of Rs. 2,02,91,296 /- (ground no. 2.56 of assessee) on account of shares sold by M/s SS Associates & M/s Dinesh Enterprise, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) under her proprietorship entities, M/s Dinesh Enterprise & M/s SS Associates. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 2,02,91,296/ on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 91-92 of the impugned assessment order. As per the AO, these transactions were made through M/s Dinesh enterprise & M/s S.S. Associates. The AO had made protective additions in hands of assessee and proposed substantive additions in hands of Smt. Sarla Jain. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s Dinesh enterprise & M/s S. S. Associates has been held to be her entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS- 2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the above, protective additions of Rs. 2,02,91,296/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. 9.13 Regarding addition of Rs.26,00,000/- (ground no. 2.57 of assessee) on account of unexplained investments made in cash in shares of TLFL, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) under her proprietorship entity, M/s S.S. Associates. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 26,00,000/- on account of shares of TLFL has been dealt by the AO at page 44-45 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that as per seized material, Rs. 9 lakhs was invested each in the name of assessee and his wife Sarla Jain 42 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 while Rs. 8 lakhs was invested in the name of SPS International. As per the AO, all these investments were made through M/s S.S. Associates, a benami entity of assessee. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s S.S. Associates had been held to be her benami entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been Issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the same, additions of Rs. 26,00,000/- may be decided on merits in the hands of assessee. 9.14 Regarding addition of Rs.16,68,426/- & Rs. 1,88,650/- (ground no. 2.58 of assessee) on account of sale of shares of Fine Agromatics Ltd, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) under her proprietorship entity, M/s S.S. Associates. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 16,68,426/- & Rs. 1,88,650/-on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 28-29 of the impugned assessment order. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 18,57,075/-on account of shares of Fine Agromatics has been dealt by the AO at page 28-29 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these purchases were made by M/s S.S. Associates, a benami entity of assessee. The additions were based upon seized document, page 966-996 of PB Vol IV, wherein bills of Kailash Associates in the name of M/s SS Associates were reflected regarding shares of Fine Agromatics Ltd. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s 5.5. Associates had been held to be her benami entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Saria Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the above, additions of Rs. 18,75,075/-may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. 9.15 Regarding addition of Rs.14,32,326 (ground no. 2.59 of assessee) on account of shares purchased by TLFL from M/s S.S. Associates and M/s Prime Investments, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) 43 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 under her proprietorship entity, M/s 5.5. Associates & that Prime Investments was not benami entity of assessee but partnership firm of Sandeep Ahuja. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 14,32,326/- on account of these transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 35-38 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these purchases/sales were made by M/s S.S. Associates & M/s prime Investments, benami entities of assessee. The additions were based upon seized document page 1455, 1453, 1452, 1449, 2448, 1445, 1443, 1447 & 1450 of PB Vol VI wherein transactions in the name of M/s SS Associates & M/s Prime Investments were reflected. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s S.S. Associates had been held to be her benami entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the same, additions of Rs. 2,23,000/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee on account of transactions being pertaining to M/s S.S. Associates as per the AO. Regarding balance additions of Rs. 12,09,326/- on account of M/s Prime Investments, it is hereby submitted that as per page 219 of PB Vol II, part of confessional statement dated 02/01/1997 filed by the assessee before SEBI, assessee admitted that he took over Tender Leasing and Finance Ltd (TLFL), appointed Sandeep Ahuja as its director/Vice-president and instructed him to implement the MOUs signed by him, to carry out the activities of 'market making'. The claim of assessee, that M/s Prime Investments was not benami entity of assessee, has been refuted by the AO at page 13 of the impugned order. The same has also been discussed in preceding paras of this submission that Sandeep Ahuja was appointed and controlled by assessee, by his own admission, to carry out assessee's instructions related to market making activities. Further, documents were found from premises of assessee and onus was upon him to prove that transactions were accounted. Thus, such claim of assessee is not acceptable and balance additions of Rs.12,09,326/-made in the hands of assessee may please be upheld. 9.16 Regarding addition of Rs.40,02,690/- & Rs.5,35,000/- (ground no. 2.61 & 2.62 of assessee) on account of property purchases at sector 21A & Neelam Chowk, the assessee has stated that this was double addition as it had also been made in the hands of Smt. Sarla Jain (wife of assessee). 44 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 40,02,690/- & Rs. 5,35,000/- on account of these transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 68-71 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that these additions were made in the hands of assessee on protective basis and in the hands of assessee on substantive basis. It is seen that in assessment order dated 28/12/2018 of Smt Sarla Jain (wife of assessee) for block period, M/s 5.S. Associates had been held to be her benami entity and additions have been made in her hands on substantive basis. Further, as has been submitted by the assessee during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, Sarla Jain had settled her income tax dues of this assessment order under VSVS 2020 and form-5 of VSVS-2020 has been Issued to her dated 28/12/2021 (page 2745 of PB Vol XII). Considering the same, protective additions of Rs. 40,02,690/- & Rs. 5,35,000/- may be decided for deletion in the hands of assessee. 10. Category-IX: Claimed to be the additions based upon transactions done by SJAL/TLFL/SPS & not by assessee While deciding the issues wherever assessee claims additions were based upon transactions undertaken by other entitles, it may please be kept in mind that the documents relied upon by the AO in case of assessee were seized from searched premises of assessee who controlled various entities (TLFL/SJAL, Rama & Co. Etc.) and also noted down transactions of In his own handwriting in his seized diary, burden was upon assessee to prove that transactions had been recorded/offered to tax in the hands of other entitles/his wife. 10.1 Regarding addition of Rs. 3,55,957/- (ground no. 2.10 of assessee) on account of 24100 shares of SPS International Ltd, assessee has stated that stock register (also seized) of TLFL showed 25000 shares of SPS as stock. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 3,55,957/- on account of shares of SPS has been dealt by the AO at page 38-44 of the impugned assessment order wherein it has been brought out that 309100 shares of SPS were seized and vide letter dated 18/12/1997, assessee stated that 285000 shares of SPS were reflected in books of TLFL and assessee filed copy of balance sheet of TLFL, confirmation from Beetel Financial and Computer Services P Ltd for 286900 shares standing in the name of TLFL alongwith distinctive number of such physical shares held by TLFL. The AO accepted contentions regarding 285000 shares held by TLFL but for balance 24100 shares (14100 shares claimed to be held by TLFL & 10000 claimed to be held by Sajjan Kumar Jain), AO did not accept submissions as assessee had failed to file evidences of ownership of physical shares along with source of acquisition. Thus, AO made addition of Rs. 3,55,957/- (@Rs.14,77 per share). 45 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 It is hereby submitted that even in present proceedings before Hon'ble Tribunal, assessee has not filed evidences of sources of acquisition of such shares/proof of ownership by any other entity. Thus, it is submitted that addition of Rs. 3,55,957/- made by the AO may please be sustained. 10.2 Regarding addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- (ground no. 2.18 of assessee) on account of cash received by assessee from M.C. Jain, Sh. Vinod and M/s ZEN/Esteem, assessee has not made any specific submissions. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 54-55 of the Impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 1594 of PB Vol VI. The AO has brought out that said seized document contained entry of dated 16/01/1996 regarding receipts of Rs. 13,90,000/- from M.C. Jain, Sh. Vinod and M/s ZEN/Esteem. Assessee claimed before AO that Rs. 10 lakhs was received on account of TLFL but did not file any details and evidences. Even during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not filed any evidences to show as to how and where such receipts were accounted. In view of the above, it is submitted that additions of Rs. 13,90,000/- made by the AO may please be upheld. 10.3 Regarding addition of Rs. 83,930/- (ground no. 2.22 of assessee) on account of interest received by assessee from Multitech Aids Pvt Ltd, assessee has stated that the said Interest was recorded in books of TLFL. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 83,930/-on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 62 of the impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 1598 of PB Vol VI. The assessee stated before the AO that said transactions were recorded in books of TLFL & concerned ledger of TLFL was part of seized documents (page 1670-171 of PB Vol VI). AO did not accept such contentions of assessee in the said pages 1670-1672, the said transactions of Multitech were not correlated. Even during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not filed any evidences to show as to how and where such receipts were correlated with ledger of TLFL. It is also seen that entries on seized page 1598 pertain to 07/02/1996 & 16/02/1996 while in ledger of TLFL (Page 1670-1671), interest of Rs. 2,11,982/- as on 31/03/1995 & Rs. 1,18,252/- as on 31/01/1996 is seen. Thus, there is no correlation between the impugned transactions of Rs. 83,930/- & ledger accounts of TLFL. 46 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 In view of the above, it is submitted that additions of Rs. 83,930/ made by the AO may please be upheld in the hands of assessee. 10.4 Regarding addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- (ground no. 2.25 of assessee) on account of cash payment by assessee to Mr. Rajiv, assessee has stated that payment was made by TLFL on behalf of Sajjan Jain for outstanding balance of Sajjan Jain in books of TLFL. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 64 of the Impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 1601 of PB Vol VI. The AO has brought out that said seized document contained entry dated 25/02/1996 regarding receipts of Rs. 1,00,000/- from Sajjan Jain and paid to Sh. Rajiv. Before the AO, assessee contended that this was old balance nothing to do with Sajjan Jain but part of Rs. 24 lakhs received from Mr. Ohri and utilized (alongwith Rs.13 lakhs paid to Devinder Gupta, Rs. 10 lakhs to Sunglow & Rs. 1 lakh to Sh. Rajiv). Assessee also cited seized page 1602 of PB Vol VI. AO did not accept such submissions of assessee holding that assessee had been changing its version and also that no correlation had been made between Rs. 24 lakhs received from Mr. Ohri and this amount of Rs. 1 lakh and also that no confirmation had been filed from any of the parties. Even during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not filed any evidences to show as to how and where such receipts were accounted by TLFL. In view of the above, it is submitted that additions of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by the AO may please be upheld. 10.5 Regarding addition of Rs. 2,33,705/-& Rs. 10,00,000/- (ground no. 2.31 & 2.32 of assessee) on account of accommodation entries provided by SJAL & TLFL & income earned by assessee on such entries, assessee has stated that out of these amounts, Rs. 2,33,705/-belongs to TLFL/SJAL as mentioned by AO himself & balance addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made on ad-hoc basis. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 2,33,705/- & 10,00,000/- on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 71-72 of the Impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 1623 of PB Vol VI. The AO has brought out that said seized document contained entry of dated 01/04/1995, 05/04/1995, 28/04/1995 & 07/08/1995 wherein cheques were Issued in the names of SJAL/TLFL and interest of Rs. 2,33,705/- had been 47 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 worked out. Also, entries of Rs. 3,91,968/-were also reflected in the name of various persons. Since the assessee had not explained entries with evidences, AO made additions of Rs. 2,33,705/ on account of interest mentioned in seized document and additions of Rs. 10,00,000/- on account of income earned on accommodation entries on estimated basis. Even during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not filed any evidences to show as to how and where such receipts (even to the extent of Rs. 2,33,705/- & 3,91,968/-as mentioned in seized document) were accounted. In view of the above, it is submitted that additions of Rs.2,33,705/- & Rs.10,00,000/- made by the AO may please be upheld. 10.6 Regarding addition of Rs. 37,873/- (ground no. 2.36 of assessee) on account of cash expenditure by assessee, assessee has stated that these payments were made by SPS & additions, if any, can be made in the hands of SPS. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 37,873/- on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 74 of the impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 1696 of PB Vol VI. The AO has brought out that the assessee stated vide letter dated 08/01/1997 that this was on account of bill of SPS paid in cash but he did not file details of how & where such payments were accounted. Even during present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has not filed any evidences to show as to how and where such cash payments were accounted. In view of the above, it is submitted that additions of Rs. 37,873/- made by the AO may please be upheld. 10.7 Regarding addition of Rs. 4,82,750/- (ground no. 2.48 of assessee) on account of Demand Draft (DD) paid by the assessee to Sh. Devinder Gupta, assessee has stated that it was received by SPS International Ltd from Hexa Decimal Computers P Ltd and recorded in books of SPS. It is hereby submitted that issue of addition of Rs. 4,82,750/- on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 87-88 of the impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 1745 of PB Vol VI. The AO has brought out that said seized document contained entry dated 09/11/1994 regarding Rs. 4,82,750/- returned to Sh. Devinder Gupta with details of receipts & DDs. Assessee claimed before AO that there was no DD paid to Devinder Gupta but it was a calculation of DD received by SPS. 48 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 During present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has relied upon its submissions before AO and also on ledger account of Hexadecimal Computers in books of SPS International (Page 1793 of PB Vol VI) wherein same amount of Rs. 4,82,750/- is seen as cheque received from Hexa Decimal Computers dated 10/11/1996, Since the amount and dates in ledger of SPS correlate with the submissions of the assessee, it is submitted that additions of Rs. 4,82,750/ made by the AO in hands of assessee may please be decided accordingly. 10.8 Regarding addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- (ground no. 2.52 of assessee) on account of cash received by assessee from Sh. S C Gupta, assessee has stated that seized page shows that name of SPS has been mentioned against the entry and hence, said transaction cannot be assessed in the hands of the assessee. It is hereby submitted that Issue of addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- on account of such transactions has been dealt by the AO at page 90 of the impugned assessment order. The addition was based upon seized document, page 170 of PB Vol VI. The AO has brought out that said seized document contained entries of cash receipts from S.C. Gupta dated 19/01/1995 & 24/01/1995. Assessee claimed before AO that the bill of such transaction was recorded in books of M/s S.S. Associates but the same was not substantiated by the assessee. During present proceedings before Hon'ble ITAT, assessee has merely mentioned that name of SPS was mentioned in seized documents against such entries. However, the name of SPS is mentioned only against one entry dated 19/01/1995, that too without any details of bills and also, the assessee has not explained with evidences as to how and where such receipts were accounted in books of SPS International. In view of the above, it is submitted that additions of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by the AO may please be upheld. 11. Other grounds of appeal: Since the assessee has not raised any specific contentions during oral arguments and written synopsis/submissions/chart before Hon'ble ITAT regarding other grounds of appeal (other than the grounds on merits of additions), the reliance is hereby placed on order of the AO for such other procedural/technical grounds regarding opportunity of hearing, principles of natural justice, mechanical approval by PCIT, assessment order barred by time etc. (viz. Ground no. 1, 4, 5, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 15 etc of assessee). It is hereby submitted that if Hon'ble Tribunal considers any such technical/procedural grounds, opportunity may please be granted to the Department to rebut the same”. 49 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 20. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have also considered the assessment order under appeal, detailed synopsis and chart filed on behalf of the assessee and the detailed synopsis filed on behalf of the revenue. We have taken ourselves through the pages of the paper books as referred and after due consideration of all these, we proceed to dispose the appeal as under: 21. First substantive Ground of appeal is Ground No. 2.1 which is relating to the addition of Rs.84,00,000/- made on the basis of document no. 36 found in the search on the ground that this amount was received by the Assessee from M/s Gold Multi Fab Ltd. (GML) / Sh. Vivek Bhatia which represents unexplained income of the Assessee. Discussion in this regard has been made by the Assessing officer (A.O.) at page 13-19 in para 4 of the assessment order by relying upon page 1-4 of MOU (Memorandum of Understanding), Page 8, page -13 of document no. 36. The submissions made by the Ld AR by way of Synopsis in respect of this ground are reproduced as under: 1. Document 36 (PB 468-504) was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee-Individual but was found from a company namely M/s Tender Leasing & Finance Ltd. (‘TLFL’ in short) from the premises 1636, Sector 23A Faridabad which is evident from the following: PB 1-9 (1& 9) is the copy of panchnama dated 5.12.96 showing that the premises 1636/23A Faridabad where from the said document no. 36 (PB 468- 504) was found & this premise was in occupation & control of TLFL. PB 84-85 is the copy of rent agreement dated 01.08.1996 for the premise 1636/23A Faridabad executed between the owner of the premises, Sh. Sethu Nair and M/s Tender Leasing & Finance Ltd. PB 86 is the copy of the affidavit of Sh. Sethu Nair, owner of the premise 1636, Sector 23, Faridabad deposing that property was given on rent to M/s TLFL. PB 193-194 is the copy of statement of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja director of M/s TLFL in which in response to question no. 4 (PB 193) he has stated interalia that Smt. Radhamony wife of Sh. Sethu Nair is employee of Assessee- Individual. PB 2563 is the copy of assessment order passed in the first round of assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee wherein Ld. AO has mentioned that search operation on 05.12.1996 was conducted on 1636/Section 23A Faridabad and no search was conducted on the residential and office premises of the Assessee-Individual. 50 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 PB 37 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 04.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the course of first round of assessment proceedings submitting that the premises where search was conducted belonged to Smt. Radhamony wife of Sh. Sethu Nair and has been let out to M/s TLFL. PB 45 is the copy of the assessee’s reply dated 10.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the course of first round of assessment proceedings wherein it was reiterated that NO search was conducted at the assessee’s premise but was conducted on the premise of Sh. Sethu Nair leased to M/s TLFL. PB 59-61 (59, 61) is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 18.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the course of first round of assessment proceedings submitting that no search was conducted in the premises of assessee individual but was conducted in the premises of Sh. Sethu Nair who has leased such premises to TLFL. In view of the above, it is submitted that since the document no. 36 (PB 468- 504) was found from the control and possession of M/s TLFL, how could the addition be made in the hands of the Assessee-individual and the presumption u/s 132(4A) and 292C would operate against M/s TLFL and not against the Assessee-Individual in any manner. 2. Document no. 36 (PB 468-504) found in the search of the premises occupied by M/s TLFL itself would show that it consisted of MOU (PB 501- 504) and other documents proving that the transactions were entered between M/s Suku Jain Associate Ltd (‘SJAL’ for short) & M/s Gold Multifab Ltd. (in short GML) and the money was received by SJAL from GML & hence, when the transaction was not entered into by the Assessee in his own individual capacity, how could the addition be made in the hands of the Assessee- individual? Assessee-Individual was the director in M/s SJAL which was engaged into Market Making activity in which the concerned company (M/s GML in this case) would pay to dummy entities of M/s SJAL for the purpose of buying its (GML’s) shares through stock exchange so that share price of the concerned company (M/s GML in this case) goes up in the stock market and in consideration, M/s SJAL was to be paid brokerage [Rs. 2,95,500/-(PB 485)] as per MOU (PB 501-504 in this case)] and professional charges [Rs. 8,00,000/- (PB 492) in this case]. PB 2390-2393 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 14.12.2007 filed before Ld. AO during the course of second round of assessment proceedings wherein entire modus-operandi of market making operations has been explained and it has been explained that the entire transaction was done by SJAL and TLFL. 51 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 PB 188-192 is the copy of statement of the Assessee-Individual recorded on the date of search i.e., on 05.12.1996 in which he admitted that he was director in M/s SJAL and that records pertaining to it are kept in that premise and that Mrs. Sarla Jain wife of Assessee-Individual was director in TLFL and records of TLFL was also kept. PB 501-504 is the copy of MOU which is a part of seized document no. 36. PB 202-208(202) is the statement of Assessee-Individual u/s 131 dated 10.03.1997 in which he has deposed that MOU (PB 501-504) was though shown between A & B but was initialed by the Assessee-Individual on behalf of SJAL and by Mr. Vivek Bhatia MD of M/s Gold Multifab Ltd on behalf of GML. It was also deposed by Assessee-Individual that the amounts mentioned in document was received from M/s GML. PB 67-68 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 18.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the first round of assessment proceedings wherein it was stated that the MOU in question was entered by and between Sh. Vivek Bhatia and SJAL and in pursuance to this MOU, money was paid by GML. PB 2357-2359 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 14.12.2007 filed before Ld. AO during the course of second round of assessment proceeding wherein it has been stated in detail that MOU was entered by SJAL with GML and money has been received from GML. PB 492 is the part of document no. 36 which by itself shows that amount of Rs. 84,00,000/- was received from GML against which shares of GML was purchased for market making operation. PB 127-137 (PB 127-129) is the copy of suit filed by SJAL against GML wherein it has been stated that SJAL was entrusted with the job of market making operation for the GML. PB 497 is the part of document no. 36 which shows that Rs. 84,00,000/- was received, against which expenses of 86,05,709/- was incurred. PB 827-861 (Page 102-136 of document 40 which is a part of seized documents) and PB 1016-1027 (Page 19-29 of seized document 40 which is a part of seized documents) are the various IPO (Initial Public Offer) allotment forms of GML in the names of different persons found in search itself from the premises of TLFL, as is evident from the panchnama enclosed at PB 1-9, which shows the involvement of TLFL/SJAL in the IPO of GML. PB 1001-1005 is the part of seized document 43 which shows that shares of GML received by brokers/other entities, sale by brokers/other entities which duly shows that market making operation were done in for GML. 52 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 PB 525-530 is the order of SEBI which mentions that GML transferred/gave Rs. 185.80L to 6 associates of SPS International Ltd. (A company in which the Assessee-individual was director and this company used to act as Registrar to the Public Issues) PB 505-523 are the copies of ledger accounts of 6 concerns mentioned in the SEBI Order which shows that they have received money on behalf of TLFL. Page 16 of the assessment order refers to letter of GML dated 05.12.1997 in which GML admits that payment of Rs. 1,00,000/- was made to M/s SPS international Ltd and payment of Rs. 1,12,075 (PB 293) was made to SJAL which would show the link between GML & SJAL. PB 492 is the copy of page 13 of document 36 (part of seized document) which mentions professional charges of Rs. 8,00,000/-. PB 485 is also the part of document no. 36 which matches with PB 492 and which supports that sale amount at PB 485 matches with the page no. at PB 492. This duly supports the fact that the money was received from GML by SJAL for purchase of its own shares for market making operations in consideration of which SJAL was to receive professional charges and brokerage. PB 486-491 is also the part of seized document no. 36 which shows that shares of GML were purchased in the names of various entities for market making operation. PB 493-497 is also the part of the seized document no. 36 which shows records the financials of the market making operations for GML. PB 261-262 is the copy of assessment order in the case of TLFL dated 31.03.2033 for block period where addition on account of unexplained investment in GML shares has been added to the income of TLFL which again shows that it was TLFL/SJAL which were engaged in transactions with GML. It is settled law that if seized material itself shows that the amount in question was received from M/s GML and that too for and on behalf of company SJAL, how can the contents of that very document be ignored/discarded and addition is made in the hands of the Assessee-Individual because first of all apparent is real and secondly, there is a presumption u/s 132(4A) and 292C that the contents of the seized material are true and correct. Reliance is placed on the following judicial decision: Computation of undisclosed income – No presumption can be drawn against the assessee under section 132(4A) in respect of papers recovered from a third party and no addition can be made on the basis thereof in the absence of corroborative evidence – JAI KUMAR JAIN VS. ASSTT. CIT 99 TTJ 744 (JP). 53 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1991-92-WHETHER PRESUMPTION U S132(4a) IS ONLY AGAINST PERSON WHOSE POSSESSION DOCUMENT IS FOUND &NOT AGAINST ANY OTHER PERSON –HELD YES- WHETHER PRESUMPTION U S132(4A) IS A REBUTTABLE PRESUMPTION AND NOT CONCLUSIVE, AND CANNOT BE APPLIED IN ABSENCE OF CORBORRATIVE EVIDENCE –HELD YES- STRAPTEX(INDIA)(P)LTD.V.DY.CIT(MUM)84ITD320. Presumption under section 132(4A) - Entries in seized documents and burden of proof – In the absence of the contrary evidence being brought on record that the books of account and the vouchers were not correct, the presumption available under s.132(4A) will be in favour of the assessee and the commission paid to the authorized dealers as recorded in the regular books of the assessee will be presumed to be correct and true – S.R.M.T. LTD. VS. DY.CIT 97 TTJ 580 (VISAKHA). Presumption as to seized documents—Can be raised in favour of assessee— Documents showing expenditure incurred on account of value additions to property—Failure by Assessing Officer to conduct enquiry or investigation regarding source of investment or genuineness of expenditure—Expenditure to extent supported by documents allowable—Presumption effective only to extent of documents seized—Income-tax Act 1961, ss. 37. 132. 132(4A)— CIT v. Damac Holdincs Pvt. Ltd. 401 ITR (Ker) 495 3. In any case, even the seized document i.e., page 13 of Document 36(PB 492) would itself shows that there was in fact no income whatsoever, as against the credit of Rs. 84,00,000/- expenses of 86,05,709/- was incurred which shows that the entire transaction with GML resulted in loss of Rs. 2,05,709/- and accordingly, no income can be charged in the hands of Assessee-Individual. PB 492 (page 13 of document 36 which is a part of seized material) would itself shows that against the credit of Rs. 84,00,000/- expenses of 86,05,709/- was incurred which shows that the entire transaction with GML resulted in loss of Rs. 2,05,709/-. PB 208 is the copy of statement of Assessee-Individual recorded on 10.03.1997 where it was deposed by him that the transaction with GML resulted in loss. PB 2344 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 18.12.2007 filed before Ld. AO during second round of assessment proceedings submitting that wherein it has been stated that transaction with GML resulted in loss only. It is settled law that part of the document cannot be accepted and part thereof rejected as per the Theory of approbate and reprobate: case law. 54 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Contents of the seized material ought to have been accepted and rejected in totality. There is no concept of approbate and reprobate in income tax proceeding on the part of Revenue, as held in the following judicial decisions:- ITO vs. Alok Mangal 35 CCH 58 (Del) Xander Advisors India Ltd. vs. ACIT 153 ITD 528(Del) Computation of undisclosed income vis-à-vis presumption under s. 132(4A)— Having once drawn the presumption that the contents of the documents (of the assessee) taken into possession during the search were true, the Revenue could not have consistently with that presumption, proceeded require the assessee to produce materials in support of the expenditure entries—Assessee was therefore entitled to deduction under s. 37(1)—CIT vs. Indeo Airways P. Ltd. 79 DTR 289 22. After considering the detailed submissions, we have gone through MOU which is at page 501-504 of the paper book and page 8 & 13 of document no. 36 which are enclosed at PB 497, 492. Entire Document No. 36 is placed at PB 468-504. There was search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act (‘Act’ in short) on 05.12.1996 and 06.12.1996 at premise 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad where the above referred document was found. Search warrant was in the name of the Assessee but the above premises no. 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad was owned by Mr. Sethu Nair which was taken on rent by TLFL. This premises did not belong to the Assessee but belonged/taken on rent by the company namely M/s Tender Leasing and Finance Ltd. in which wife of the Assessee Mrs. Sarla Jain was the director. This we find, is based on evidence that we discuss hereinafter. We find that statement of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja, Director of M/s TLFL was recorded during the course of search wherein, he admitted that he was director of TLFL and is there at the said premises in that capacity. This statement of Mr. Sandeep Ahuja is placed in the paper book as captured in the synopsis filed by the Assessee. Further, copy of rent agreement dated 01.08.1996 has been placed before the A.O. in respect of the said premise 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad between the owner of the premises 55 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Sh. Sethu Nair and on the other hand the tenant namely M/s TLFL. Copy of affidavit of the owner Sh. Sethu Nair was also placed before the A.O. in which it was deposed by him that the said property was given on rent by him to M/s TLFL. The plain reading of the assessment order would also show that neither the rent agreement has been found false or fabricated nor the affidavit of the owner Mr. Sethu Nair was found with any fault. Mr. Sethu Nair was not cross examined by the A.O. during assessment proceeding and therefore, there is no reason for us not to accept these evidence which establish that search was though on the assessee but the documents based upon which additions have been made were found from the possession and control of M/s TLFL since the premises under search were under occupation of TLFL. Consistent claim of the assessee through various letters filed from the beginning placed in the paper book also establish that repeated contentions were made by the assessee that the subject documents were not found from the possession and control of the assessee. These submissions are placed before us at PB 37, 45, 59-61 of the paper books. Therefore, when these documents were found from the premises which was in occupation, possession & control of TLFL and not from the possession, control of the Assessee, presumption u/s 292C would operate against M/s TLFL but certainly not against the Assessee. We also note that panchnama placed at PB 1-9 also mentions the ownership of place of search as ‘residence of Smt. Radha Moni w/o Sh Sethu Nair H. No. 1636/23A, Faridabad’. Ld. CIT(DR) in para 1.4 of her submissions has submitted that the rental agreement was a concocted story. We have not found such allegation or inference in the assessment order and Ld. CIT(DR) cannot make out a new case at this stage which was not even the case of assessing officer. Fact of the matter is that rental agreement was produced during the course of original 56 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 assessment proceedings and revenue was at liberty to get the veracity of the rent agreement verified which was not done. Therefore, it is not permissible at this stage to entertain such bald submissions of Ld. CIT(DR) as to the rental agreement. We have seen page 2563 of the paper book also which the assessment order is passed in the first round where it was mentioned clearly that search operation on 5.12.96 was not conducted at the residential and office premises of the Assessee. 23. There is one more reason as to why the addition could not be made which we explain hereinafter. We find that from the seized material document no. 36 which is at PB 468-504 and from the MOU at PB 501-504 read with the statement of the Assessee at the time of search on 5.12.1996 under section 132(4) enclosed at PB 188-192 and statement recorded on 10.3.1997 under section 131 placed before us in the PB 202-208 that the transactions mentioned therein were entered between SJAL and GML and money was received by SJAL from GML/Vivek Bhatia, MD. There is no ground for us to ignore the statement of the assessee recorded at the time of search and later on 10.3.97 under section 131. These statements were recorded on oath and carry strong evidentiary value. That being so, there could be no ground for the impugned addition to be made in the hands of the Assessee. Document No. 36 i.e. PB 468-504 particularly PB 485, 492, 501-504 read with the statements of the Assessee referred above would show that brokerage was to be paid of Rs. 2,95,500/-, professional charges of Rs. 8 lacs in consideration of the market making activity of the shares of GML to be undertaken by SJAL. Statement of the Assessee was recorded on the date of search itself which is placed at PB 188-192 of the paper book in which he admitted that the records at premises under search at 1636, sector 23A, Faridabad belonged to TLFL, and he was the director in SJAL and records of SJAL are kept there. We have seen the 57 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 statement of the Assessee recorded u/s 131 on 10.03.1997, which is at PB 202-208 in which the Assessee has deposed that MOU was on behalf of SJAL and on the other side, it was signed by Mr. Vivek Bhatia Managing Director of M/s GML. Consistent pleading to this effect has been made by the assessee during the successive assessment proceedings explaining that the transaction in question was between SJAL and TFLF and these submissions are at PB 67-68, PB 2390- 2393, 2357-2359. We further find that PB 492, which is part of document no. 36 itself shows that amount of Rs.84 lacs was received against which shares of GML were purchased while undertaking market making operations. Seized document would have to read as a whole and not on selective basis. We would discuss this aspect little later also. That being so there was no justification for making addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- in the hands of the Assessee on this ground also. 24. There is one more reason as to why the addition of Rs. 84,00,000/- could not be made under any circumstances. There is other evidence held in the paper book which also establish that based on document no. 36, no addition could be made in the hands of the Assessee. PB 127-129 is the copy of civil suit filed by SJAL against GML in the court stating that SJAL was entrusted with the job of market making operations for GML which also establish that the transaction was between SJAL & GML. We also find that at PB 261-262, copy of assessment order in the case TLFL which is dated 31.03.2003 for the block period has been filed which shows that there was addition made on account of unexplained investment in the shares of GML as income of TLFL, which also show that it was TLFL and SJAL which were engaged in the transactions with GML. Thus, there was no justification for any addition to be made in the hands of the Assessee in his individual capacity. 58 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 25. There is one more reason because of which the addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. This was that because seized document no. 36 page no. 13 enclosed at PB 492 and further at PB 497 would show that as against the credit of Rs. 84 lacs, there were expenses of Rs. 86,05,709/- which show that the entire transactions with GML resulted in a loss. Even Assessee in his statement recorded u/s 131 on 10.03.1997 which is available at PB 208 deposed that the transaction with GML in fact resulted in a loss. The submission as to the loss was made in assessee’s reply dated 18.12.2007 available at PB 2344 also. Seized document is required to be read as a whole and not in selective manner so as to suit the Revenue’s case. There can be no approbation and reprobation at the same time. Thus, there was no question or justification for making addition by taking only the receipts as income and not giving set off the expenses appearing on the seized material itself. In fact, various pages of the seized document no. 36 as referred in the synopsis of the Assessee would itself show that no addition could be made in the hands of the Assessee. Other evidence such as SEBI order at PB 525-530 as referred in the synopsis of the Assessee would also show that GML transferred the sum of Rs. 185.80 lacs to 6 associates of SPS International Ltd. Further, PB 505-523 placed in the paper book are the copies of the ledger accounts of 6 concerns as mentioned in the above referred SEBI order which also shows that they received the amount on behalf of TLFL. 26. It is also relevant to mention here at this juncture that a sum of Rs.13,00,000/-which is part of the said sum of Rs. 84 lacs, was also separately added which is covered under ground no. 2.23 and to that extent, there was double addition also. 27. Ld. CIT(DR) in her submissions has not refuted the factual submission of the Assessee that Mrs. Sarla Jain wife of Assessee was director in 59 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 TLFL and Assessee was director in SJAL. This was clear from the statement on oath of the Assessee recorded under section 132(4) on the date of search itself which is placed in the paper book at PB 188-192. Further Contention of Ld. CIT(DR) that Mrs. Radhamoney in her statement on 05.12.1996 has mentioned that assessee has ‘borrowed’ the said premise few days ago and that document seized therefore, were property of the assessee, is not factually correct. We have also gone through statement of Smt. Radhamoney placed at PB 187 which does not mention that assessee has ‘borrowed’ the premises and seizure of documents. No such term has been used by Smt. Radha Moni as mentioned by Ld. CIT(DR). Ld. CIT(DR) has referred to the statement of the Assessee recorded u/s 132(4) dated 05.12.1996 by referring only PB 190-192 and has submitted that Assessee purportedly admitted that he had kept shares and other documents at the searched premises and that the seized documents pertain to him, his wife and his companies/entities. We have gone through the complete statement of Assessee recorded on 05.12.1996 u/s 132(4) in which in response to question no. 3 and 4, the Assessee has clearly stated that shares and other records lying at 1636/23A Faridabad, pertain to SS Associates, Dinesh Enterprises proprietorship firms of his wife and belonged to TLFL, Tender Securities Pvt. Ltd., in which his wife Smt. Sarla Jain was the director. It was also stated by the Assessee in his statement that TLFL & SJAL had accepted the offer for making sale/purchase of shares of Vijay Remedies Ltd. (VRL), Lloyd Cements Ltd. (LCL), Keshlata Cancer Hospital Ltd. (KCHL) and all records such as MOU, correspondence, statement of accounts sent to these parties and other allied documents have been kept at this place i.e., 1636/ 23A Faridabad. It was further stated in this very statement by the Assessee that these shares were borrowed directly from 60 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 the promoters of these companies or on behalf of their promoters from the market. It was further stated by the Assessee in this very statement that shares of SPS International (SPS) have been purchased by TLFL in promoters’ quota and are duly reflected as investment in the balance sheet and belonged to TLFL. He further stated in the statement that other petty shares such as Fine Agromatics Ltd. (FAL) & Others belong to Suku Jain Associates as its investment and that the Assessee (he) can verify right now regarding ownership of above shares as well as investment from records and he does not have objection to the seizure of the same. Therefore, the complete statement of the Assessee u/s 132(4) recorded on 05.12.1996 on the date of search has not been referred and adverted to by Ld. CIT(DR) in her submissions. This statement being contemporaneous evidence in nature is important piece of evidence. 28. Ld. CIT(DR) in her submissions has referred confessional statement dated 02.01.1997 of the Assessee filed before SEBI and its copy to DDIT(Inv.). We have taken ourselves to PB 209-229 which is the confessional statement of the Assessee and it is seen that Assessee has stated that he has acted as consultant to Curefast Remedies Ltd. (CRL), Vijay Remedies Ltd. (VRL), FAL, LCL, KCHL, GML and other companies and that his role was restricted regarding market making operations and that 65000 shares of CRL had to be taken by SJAL. Similar things Assessee stated about VRL, FAL, LCL, KCHL, GML. This reinforces the conclusion that the activity of market making activity was done and the documents found in search were related to that activity. But these documents are required to be seen in totality having regard to the statements of the Assessee recorded on oath during search on 5.12.96 and thereafter on 10.3.97. Based on the entire appreciation of evidence, it is not possible to uphold the addition made in the hands of the Assessee. 61 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Reliance placed by Ld. CIT(DR) on the decision of Zinzuwadia & Sons (2019) 108 Taxmann.com 42 (Guj.) are on different facts and is not applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case, petitioner was a Partnership-firm and search took place at partner’s residence. Partner and partnership firm do not have separate identity as partnership firm is compendious name of the partners put together whereas in the instant case, evidence and contemporaneous statement clearly show that the seized document and shares found did not belong to the Assessee but to corporate entities. Similarly, reliance on the other decision of MDLR Resorts P. Ltd., (2013) 40 Taxmann.com 364 (Delhi) is also misplaced in as much as in that case panchnama did not contain specific names which was considered by the Court as lapse on the part of the revenue authorities. In the instant case, search warrant was in the name of the Assessee but premises searched was in the occupation and control of other entity namely, TLFL. Ld. CIT(DR) in para 1.3 of her submission has referred to the confessional letter of the Assessee dated 02.01.1997 to impress upon that market making activities on behalf of other companies was done by him. We have gone through the confessional letter dated 02.01.1997 and also we have gone through the statement of the Assessee u/s 132(4) recorded on 05.12.1996. A combined reading of the confessional letter dt. 2.1.97 and complete reading of both the statements dated 5.12.96 and 10.3.97 would show that market making activities was undertaken by the other entities i.e., SJAL/TLFL. 29. Ld.CIT(DR) supported the order of assessing officer not only in respect of this ground of appeal but in respect of all other grounds of appeal. Various pages of the seized document no. 36 and other evidence placed in the paper book and referred by Ld. Counsel for the Assessee and mentioned by us hereinabove could not be rebutted on behalf of Revenue 62 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 with the help of any cogent basis or evidence. Non-making of addition of Rs. 84 lacs in the hands of TLFL or in the hands of any other entity does not give any justification to make addition in the hands of the Assessee. We therefore reject the stand taken on behalf of Revenue. 30. Therefore, first of all document no. 36 was not found from the possession and control of the assessee and in any case amount of Rs. 84 lacs were not received by the Assessee in his individual capacity but was received by SJAL and in any case there was corresponding expenditure of Rs. 86,05,709/- which has been ignored by the A.O. and hence addition of Rs 84,00,000/- viewed from any angle could not be made in the hands of the Assessee and hence is deleted. Ground no. 2.1 is allowed. 31. With regard to Ground No. 2.2, relates to the addition of Rs.3,10,42,500/- made in the assessment order u/s 69 for the reason that on the date of search, 31,04,250 shares of a company namely M/s Vijay Remedies Ltd. (VRL) were found at the premises, the source of which was not explained. This issue was discussed in the assessment order in para 5 at page 21-24 and A.O. has relied upon page 36 of document no. A-36 available in the paper book at PB 469.In this regard, the synopsis filed on behalf of Revenue has been reproduced by us hereinabove and the Synopsis filed by the Assessee in respect of ground no. 2.2 is reproduced as under: “Impugned addition could not be made due to following reasons: 1. These shares were found from the premises occupied by M/s TLFL which is evident from the following: PB 1-9 (1& 9) is the copy of panchnama showing that the premises 1636/23A Faridabad where from the said document no. 36 (PB 468-504) was found. PB 84-85 is the copy of rent agreement dated 01.08.1996 for the premise 1636/23A Faridabad executed between the owner of the premises, Sh. Sethu Nair and M/s Tender Leasing & Finance Ltd. 63 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 PB 86 is the copy of the affidavit of Sh. Sethu Nair, owner of the premise 1636, Sector 23, Faridabad deposing that property was given on rent to M/s TLFL. PB 193-194 is the copy of statement of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja director of M/s TLFL in which in response to question no. 4 (PB 193) he has stated that Smt. Radhamony wife of Sh. Sethu Nair is employee of Assessee-Individual. PB 2563 is the copy of assessment order passed in the first round of assessment proceedings in the case of the assessee wherein Ld. AO has mentioned that search operation on 05.12.1996 was conducted on 1636/Section 23A Faridabad and no search was conducted on the residential and office premises of the Assessee-Individual. PB 37 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 04.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the course of first round of assessment proceedings submitting that the premises where search was conducted belonged to Smt. Radhamony wife of Sh. Sethu Nair and has been let out to M/s TLFL. PB 45 is the copy of the assessee’s reply dated 10.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the course of first round of assessment proceedings wherein it was reiterated that no search was conducted at the assessee’s premise but on the premise of Sh. Sethu Nair leased to M/s TLFL. PB 59-61 (59, 61) is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 18.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the course of first round of assessment proceedings submitting that no search was conducted in the premises of assessee individual but was conducted in the premises of Sh. Sethu Nair who has leased such premises to TLFL. In view of the above, it is submitted that since the shares were found from the control and possession of M/s TLFL, the presumption u/s 132(4A) and 292C would operate against M/s TLFL and not against the Assessee-Individual in any manner. 2. Following pleadings & evidences would prove that the shares of M/s VRL were held as security and did not belong even to M/s TLFL, much less to the Assessee-Individual. In fact, these shares belonged and owned by the promoters of M/s VRL and were in the name of the promoters of VRL. PB 194 is the copy of statement of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja recorded at the time of search 5.12.1996 wherein he has deposed that share certificates of M/s Vijay Remedies Ltd. are the property of the promoters of Vijay Remedies Ltd. PB 172 is the copy of letter dated 07.01.1998 sent by M/s TLFL to the AO for release of all the share of VRL found during the course of search. It further stated that shares of VRL forming part of panchnama belongs to TLFL and are 64 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 forming part of its stock and these shares have been received on behalf of VRL in compliance of MOU for market making the shares executed between SJAL and VRL. PB 638-642 is the MOU entered between SJAL and VRL for market making operations. Signatures on this MOU on behalf of B matches with the signature made on revised MOU revised with TLFL (PB 481-484) which clearly shows that these MOUs were executed by/for VRL. PB 484-481 (page 22-24 of document 36 which is a part of seized Material) is the copy of revised MOU showing that TLFL was engaged with VRL and received shares from promoter’s quota. PB 196 is the copy of the letter dated 16.01.1997 sent by Sandeep Ahuja, director of TLFL, to the AO stating that due to some dispute between VRL, a revised MOU was signed by him, on behalf of TLFL. PB 109 is the copy of notice of Delhi Stock Exchange dated 13.05.1996 stating that shares of VRL having distinctive nos. 4,62,901-21,79,000 allotted to promoters are non-transferable till 30.06.2021. PB 765 is the seized paper 23 of document no. 44 which is a part of the seized material would show that shares were held by TLFL as security. PB 1389 is part of document no. 42 which is a part of seized material which shows that total confirmed quantity of 37,38,000/- VRL shares has been mentioned and the TLFL is also mentioned in this page which clearly shows that these shares did not belong to the Assessee-Individual. PB 1395 part of document no. 42 which is a part of seized material which shows that quantity in hand of shares of VRL and since this paper was found from the control and possession of TLFL, these shares would be presumed to be belonging to TLFL only. PB 1001-1005 is the part of seized document 43 which shows that shares of VRL received by brokers/other entities, sale by brokers/other entities which duly shows that market making operation were done in for VRL. PB 1624 is the part of seized document no. 26 which shows notes the steps of market making operations for VRL. PB 172 is the copy of letter dated 07.01.1998 sent by M//s TLFL to the AO for release of all the share of VRL found during the course of search. It was further stating that shares of VRL forming part of panchnama belongs to TLFL and are forming part of its stock and these shares have been received on behalf of VRL in compliance of MOU for market making the shares executed between SJAL and VRL. 65 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 PB 17 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 15.10.1997 filed before the Ld. AO in the first round of proceedings submitting that the shares of M/s VRL found during the search were the shares of promoters quota shares belonging to the respective promoters of VRL and were simply lying in the stock of TLFL as security from VRL. These were given as security by the VRL. PB 71 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 18.12.1997 filed before Ld. AO during the first round of assessment proceedings wherein it has been stated that all the VRL shares up to and inclusive of distinctive no. 2179600 belonged to promoter’s quota category. 3. Following pleadings &evidences would prove that M/s SJAL was involved in market making of the shares for the VRL and these VRL shares were pursuant to the that only. PB 639-642 is the MOU entered between SJAL and VRL for market making operations. Signatures on this MOU on behalf of B matches with the signature made on revised MOU revised with TLFL (PB 481-484) which clearly shows that these MOUs were executed by/for VRL. PB 483-481 (page 22-24 of document 36 which is a part of seized Material) is the copy of revised MOU showing that TLFL was engaged with VRL and received shares from promoter’s quota. PB 196 is the copy of the letter dated 16.01.1997 sent by Sandeep Ahuja, director of TLFL, to the AO stating that due to some dispute between VRL a revised MOU was signed by him, on behalf of TLFL. PB 531-535 is the copy of pages 95-99 of document 37 which is a part of seized documents showing that shares of VRL were purchased by various dummy entities. PB 586 (part of document no. 37 which is a part of seized material) which shows that payment of Rs. 1,12,22,500/- was received from Vijay Remedies Ltd. PB 531-535 & 555-565 (page 95-91 & 65-73 of document no. 37 which is a part of seized material) being bills for purchase of shares showing that these were purchased by various dummy entities. PB 1621 is the copy of page no. 33 of document no. 26 which is a part of seized document which shows that money was received from VRL only and the share were applied by SJAL. PB 629-741 (page 47-162 of document no 44 which is a part of seized material) are the copies of various documents relating to IPO of VRL such as letters written to Delhi stock exchange by VRL, various IPO application, letters for withdrawal of IPO allotment application, various stock invest forms 66 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 etc. which shows that M/s TLFL/SJAL was involved in the IPO of VRL as these documents were found from the premises of TLFL. PB 815-826 (Page 137-148 of annexure 40 which is a part of seized material) are the various IPO allotment forms in the names of different persons found from the premises of TLFL which again show the involvement of TLFL/SJAL in the IPO of VRL. PB 862-868, 879-884 (page of annexure 40 which is a part of seized material) are the details share applications made by various person in IPO of VRL which again show the involvement of TLFL/SJAL in the IPO of VRL. PB 1005-1014 (page 31-40 of document 40 which is a part of seized material) is the copy of various acknowledgement slips of the allotment applications in the name of various investors in the IPO of VRL which again show the involvement of TLFL in the IPO of VRL. PB 634-636 (document 44 which is a part of seized material) are the copies of letters exchanged between SJAL and M/s VRL which would show the link between VRL & SJAL. PB 479 (part of seized document 36) records the shares of VRL received/bought from various promoters/broker and since this was found from the control and possession of TLFL as submitted above, it is to be presumed that it was TLFL who received/bought the shares of VRL. PB 287-295 is the copy of ledger accounts in the books of SJAL which shows that they have recorded various income for undertaking primary and secondary market operations from VRL (Vijay Remedies Ltd.) PB 2360 is the copy of assessee’s reply dated 14.12.2007 filed by assessee to Ld. AO explaining the MOU was entered into by SJAL with VRL and the entire transaction has been explained with reference to seized material.” 32. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that these shares under consideration were found in the premises bearing no. 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad where search took place on 5.12.1996, which we have held in Ground no. 2.1 that this premises was in the occupation and control of M/s TLFL and not in the control of the Assessee and because of this fact alone, addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. Be that as it may, the shares of VRL were not owned or belonged to the Assessee which is evident from the hosts of 67 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 evidence available in the paper book which have been detailed by the Assessee in his synopsis. We have also gone through the statement of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja director of TLFL recorded on 05.12.1996 which is available at PB 194 in which it was deposed by him that share certificates of VRL lying there are the property of promoter of VRL. We have reproduced the synopsis containing references of various pages of the paper book which would establish that these shares did not belong to the Assessee. PB 172 is the letter dated 7.1.98 from TLFL to the assessing officer owning these shares and requesting for the release thereof. In fact PB 765 is part of seized paper no. 23 of document no. 44 would establish that shares were held by TLFL as security. Similar is the reading of document no. 42 seized during the course of search on which VRL shares and TLFL are mentioned. In fact several pages of the paper book as referred in the synopsis of the Assessee were gone through and these go to establish that it was not the Assessee who had anything to do in his individual capacity. We have dealt with almost a similar issue in ground no. 2.1 and have recorded finding that the addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. In fact the arguments of Ld. CIT(DR) have also been dealt with by us comprehensively which are identical. Detailed factual submissions supported with the help of pages of the paper book filed by the Assessee could not be rebutted on behalf of the Revenue much less with the help of any cogent basis or material. Thus we reject the stand of the Revenue. Accordingly, the ground no. 2.2 is allowed. 33. With regard to the Ground No. 2.3 is the addition of Rs.1,11,70,000/- made in the assessment order on the basis of document no. 36 found during the course of search on the ground that document shows that the Assessee received an aggregate amount or Rs. 1,11,70,000/- from M/s Vijay Remedies Ltd. (VRL). In the assessment order at page 24-25, the 68 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 discussion has been made where in page no. 33-36, page no. 44, page no. 54-56, page no. 71-73, page 78-81 of document no. 37 have been relied on which have been enclosed in the paper book at PB 597-594, PB 586, 574-576, 555-559, 549-551. Document no. 36 is at PB 598. We have reproduced the detailed synopsis filed by the Assessee at para 30 above, whereas the synopsis filed on behalf of revenue has been extracted/reproduced by us at para 18 hereinabove in the earlier part of our order. 34. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. In fact the arguments of the Assessee are identical to the arguments raised in ground no. 2.1 to the effect that document no. 36-37 were not found from the Assessee but were found from the premise 1636, sector 23A, Faridabad which was in the occupation of TLFL and the documents itself would show that it was SJAL which received the amount from VRL in respect of the market making activity undertaken by SJAL and further that the seized document themselves would show further that there was in fact a loss of Rs.20,91,530/- & there was no income. Assessee made submission to the above effect by referring to the various pages of the paper book in his synopsis reproduced above which we have taken into account apart from the synopsis filed on behalf of Revenue. It is seen as we found in ground no. 2.1 that premise no. 1636, sector 23A, Faridabad was not in possession and control of the Assessee which was evident from whole hosts of evidence referred in the synopsis which we do not want to repeat for the sake of brevity. Similarly, we find going through the various pages of the paper book as referred in the synopsis that the amount of Rs.1,11,70,000/- was not received by the Assessee from VRL but it was the sum received by SJAL from VRL in respect of the market making activity. We have also taken ourselves through various pages of 69 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 the document no. 37 itself which shows that there were also total debits to the tune of Rs.1,32,61,550/- which have not been considered by the A.O. and in fact there was loss of Rs. 20,91,530/- and there was no income from the referred transaction. Therefore, the transaction in fact resulted into a loss. We have considered the submissions made on behalf of revenue also but we do not find any substance and factual contentions raised on behalf of the Assessee could not be rebutted. We have dealt this in ground no. 2.1 & 2.2 above also. Thus viewed from any angle there was no case for any addition in the hands of the Assessee and the addition made is hereby deleted and the ground no. 2.3 stands allowed. 35. With regard to the ground no. 2.4 involving an aggregate addition of Rs.20,44,000/-, Rs. 4,03,042/- and Rs.16,26,772/- as professional charges, as brokerage and as interest respectively earned by the Assessee in respect of MOU vide page no. 208-210 of document no. 38 with M/s Lloyd Cement Ltd. (LCL). Discussion has been made by the A.O. at page 29-31 of the assessment order and referred document are available at PB 1050-1052 and PB 1193 36. Argument of the Assessee in respect of these additions are also identical to one covered by ground no. 2.1 to the effect that document no. 38 based upon which this addition was made was not found from the possession and control of the assessee and further that the seized documents itself would show that these amounts were not the income of the Assessee but these may be the income SJAL as MOU was entered into between SJAL and LCL. Written submissions filed by Ld. CIT (DR) have been reproduced at para 18 hereinabove and synopsis of the Ld AR also which we have considered. 37. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have gone through the synopsis, and referenced pages of the paper book and 70 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 have also gone through the discussion made in the assessment order and submission filed by Ld. CIT DR. We find that the seized document based upon which the addition was made was not found from the possession and control of the assessee but was found from the premises 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad, which was in the possession and control of TLFL. We have already dealt this aspect of the matter in ground no. 2.1 and we do not want to discuss this elaborately once again. We further find from the seized material as referred in the synopsis of the Assessee that these documents did not name the Assessee, but there are enough evidence to establish that these documents were in respect of market making activity of LCL to be done by SJAL. For this reason also, the addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. We also find a chart placed at PB 2345 filed during assessment proceeding with letter dated 08.12.2007 which is placed at PB 2333 that in fact there was loss in the market making activity of shares of LCL. This chart and the submission made by the Assessee have not been negated by the revenue, much less with the help of any cogent material. Nothing new has been submitted on behalf of revenue except what is mentioned in the assessment order which has been effectively countered by learned counsel for the Assessee in his synopsis which we have referred above. Thus here also, we find that viewed from any angle the additions of Rs.20,44,000/- Rs. 4,03,042/-, Rs.16,26,772/- could not be made are hereby thus deleted and thus ground of appeal no. 2.4 is allowed. 38. With regard to the Ground No. 2.5 is in respect to addition of Rs.13,18,500/- on the ground that 1,31,800 shares of M/s Keshlata Cancer Hospital Pvt Ltd. (KCHL) were found during the course of search, the source of which was not explained. The discussion in this regard has been made by A.O. at page 33-35 of the assessment order. 71 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 39. Written submission filed by Revenue has been reproduced in the earlier part of the order which has been considered by us. The relevant detailed synopsis has been filed by the assessee also considered. 40. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We observed that this issue is identical to the issue involved in Ground No. 2.2 and we therefore delete this addition inter alia on the ground that first of all these shares were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee as these were found from the premises 1636, sector 23A, Faridabad which was in the occupation and control of TLFL as we have discussed in greater detail in our findings in Ground No. 2.1 based upon various evidences referred therein. We further find that these shares in fact did not belong to the Assessee which is evident from the statement of Sh. Sandeep Ahuja director of TLFL, copy of which is available at PB 94 in which he deposed at the time of search that share certificates of KCHL are the property of Dr. Keshav Agarwal promoter of KCHL. There is other evidence in the form of MOU, and other seized material as referred in the synopsis which establish that these shares did not belong to the Assessee the least. We have discussed and decided an identical issue in ground no. 2.2 and our findings therein are identical and are applicable here also. We have dealt with the contentions raised on behalf of revenue which is same as mentioned in the assessment order. We thus delete the addition and allow this ground of appeal no. 2.5. 41. With regard to the Ground no. 2.6 and 2.7 relate to the addition of Rs.4,25,766/- as brokerage and Rs. 14,43,621/- as interest earned by the Assessee in respect of MOU with KCHL as per the discussion made at page 34-35 of the assessment order. 72 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 42. Written submission of the revenue have been reproduced in earlier part of our order and the synopsis of the assessee, which has been considered by us. 43. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have gone through the entire material before us including synopsis filed on behalf of the assessee and the revenue and various pages of the seized material as referred in the assessment order and as referred in the synopsis and we find that these two additions also could not be made in the hands of the Assessee individual. This is for the reason that document No. 42 based upon which this addition has been made was found from the premise 1636, sector 23A, Faridabad which was in the control and occupation of M/s TLFL. Our finding is based upon elaborate discussion of identically found documents from the same premises as referred by us in ground no. 2.1 which have also been referred by the Assessee in his synopsis herein above. The second reason for us to hold that addition cannot be made in the hands of the Assessee is that the seized documents itself would show that MOU was executed between SJAL and KCHL and the entire transaction was between SJAL and KCHL and not with the Assessee. Detailed synopsis referring to various pages of the paper book has been gone through by us which clearly establish that these transactions were the results of the transaction between SJAL and KCHL and not that of Assessee. We also find from the chart available at PB 2345 filed before us by the Assessee with his letter dated 18.12.2007 available at PB 2333 that there was in fact loss in the entire transaction with KCHL. This chart or the submission made on behalf of the assessee have not been rebutted, much less in a cogent manner. Therefore, also for this reason, there was no justification for the additions made. Therefore, viewed from any angle the additions of Rs. 4,25,766/- and Rs.14,43,621/- 73 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 made in the assessment order as brokerage income and interest income in hands of the Assessee are deleted and grounds of appeal 2.6 & 2.7 are thus allowed. 44. With regard to the Ground no. 2.8is in regard to addition of Rs.48,58,000/- made vide discussion made at page 31-33 of the assessment order on the ground that during the course of search on 05.12.1996, Rs.19,43,200 partly paid-up shares (Rs. 2.50 paid up) of M/s Lloyd Cement Ltd. (LCL) were found, the source of which was not explained. Assessment order relies upon page 54-61 of document no. 38 which are available in the paper book at PB 1199–1206 and similarly blank shares transfer forms were also found during the course of search which are available at page 1207 to 1226 of paper book. Submission filed on behalf of Revenue has been reproduced by us in the early part of the order and the synopsis filed by the assessee which have been considered by us. We find that the present addition could not be made as these shares were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premise 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad which we have held in Ground No. 2.1 also, as the premise under the possession, control & occupation of TLFL. Second, these shares did not belong to the Assessee which is evident from various pages of Document No. 38 itself, found during the course of search which show that these shares were the subject matter of understanding between SJAL and LCL and were part of market making operations that SJAL undertook in the shares of LCL. This is evident from the various pages as referred in the synopsis to which we have taken ourselves through. In fact, identical issue we have dealt with in ground no. 2.2 and therefore our findings therein are relevant for the present grounds of appeal also and are relied upon. There is overwhelming evidence as referred in the above noted synopsis of the 74 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Assessee, in favour of the fact that these shares did not belong and were not owned by the Assessee. Therefore, there could be no question for making the addition of Rs.48,58,000/- in the hands of the Assessee and therefore we delete this addition in the hands of the Assessee and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.8. 45. With regard to Ground no.2.9, in respect of cash deposit in the bank account of the Assessee and in the bank account of concerns of the Assessee individual amounting to Rs.1,01,150/-. This addition has discussed by A.O. at page 92 and at page 9-13 of the assessment order. The only contention raised by the assessee is that this addition is not based on any material found during the course of search and therefore no addition could have been made in the assessment order passed u/s 158BC. 46. In this case as noted by us above, search took place on 05.12.1996. Plain reading of the assessment order would show that this addition was not based on any material found during the course of search. It is settled law that in the block assessment order u/s 158BC, addition could be made only on the basis of material found during the course of search. Reliance for this proposition is placed on the decision of Delhi High Court Pinaki Mishra 148 DTR 219 (Delhi). A plain reading of the assessment order would show that there was no seized material for making the impugned addition and hence the addition made stands deleted in respect of addition of Rs.1,01,150/ and we allow ground of appeal no. 2.9. 47. With regard to Ground no. 2.10 relates to addition of Rs.3,55,957/- made u/s 69 on the ground that 3,09,100 shares of M/s SPS International Ltd. (SPS) were found in search out of which 2,85,000 belongs to TLFL and balance 24,100 shares was unexplained investment of the Assessee. Discussion in this regard has been made in the assessment order at page 38-44. Submission filed on behalf of the revenue has been reproduced in 75 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 early part of our order and synopsis filed by the assessee which have been taken note of by us. 48. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that these shares first of all were not found from the possession and control of the assessee but were found from the premise 1636, Sector 23A, Faridabad which we have held in Ground No. 2.1 & 2.2 that the premise under occupation, possession and control of TLFL and hence for this reason also addition could not be made in the hands of the assessee. Even otherwise entire shares i.e. 3,09,100/-were owned by TLFL which is evident from the document no. A-10 available at PB 1444 and which is the stock register of TLFL which show that shares of SPS were appearing in the stock of TLFL. This is further clear from the letter dated 07.1.1998 filed by TLFL to the A.O. which is available at PB 172 in which TLFL made request to the assessing officer for release of entire 3,09,100 shares of SPS mentioning that 2,85,000 shares are part of the investment appearing in their Balance Sheet and balance 24,100 shares were purchased by them from the open market on behalf of their six clients. Name and address of six clients were also mentioned in this letter. It is seen that there is no worthwhile rebuttal to these cogent pieces of evidence. The reference to various pages of the paper book in the synopsis has been carefully gone through by us and we find that there was no unexplained investment as the entire shares of 3,09,100 were owned by and belonged to M/s TLFL. We could not be persuaded by the submissions made before us by revenue which is reiteration of the contentions raised in the assessment order. Hence, we do not have any hesitation in deleting the addition of Rs.3,55,957/- and thus ground no. 2.10 is allowed. 76 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 49. With regard to Ground Nos. 2.15, 2.35, 2.37, 2.40, 2.42, 2.46, 2.50, 2.51, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.61 and 2.62 involving aggregate addition of Rs. 7,60,93,959/-are in respect of various investments of various amounts. Case of the assessee in respect of these additions are that these are the transactions made by M/s SS Associates and M/s Dinesh Enterprises which was the proprietorship concern of Mrs. Sarla Jain wife of the Assessee and that these transactions and investment were not of the Assessee and that additions in respect of these transactions were already made in the hands of Mrs. Sarla Jain in her block assessment order which was later on settled by her under VSV Scheme No. 1. Out of the above additions one addition of Rs. 7,65,175/- covered by Ground no. 2.15 was double addition which was again added and is covered by ground No. 2.58 and 2.19. Copy of assessment order of Mrs. Sarla Jain, dated 28.12.2018 u/s 158BD / 254 were produced before us and we find that the purchase of shares of various companies were made by the proprietorship concern of Mrs. Sarla Jain in whose hands it was found that these shares were purchased and sold in the share business carried on by her in proprietorship concerns and gross profit addition was made in her hands. It is also seen by us that the demands raised in respect of these transactions/shares were settled by Mrs. Sarla Jain were settled by her under VSV Scheme No.1. Investment in properties covered by grounds were owned by Mrs. Sarla Jain addition in respect of which has been made in her hands in her block assessment order passed. These submissions of the assessee have not been refuted on behalf of the revenue with the help of any cogent basis or material or evidence. Therefore, for the abundant caution, we are inclined to remit this issue of verification on the aspect of settlement by the wife of the assessee in the VSV Scheme. If the same additions proposed in the hands of the assessee 77 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 are also made in the hands of the wife of the assessee Ms.Sarla Jain, then there is no need to make similar addition in the hands of the assessee. Accordingly, we decide to remit the above referred grounds 2.15, 2.35, 2.37, 2.40, 2.42, 2.46, 2.50, 2.51, 2.53, 2.54, 2.55, 2.56, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59, 2.61 and 2.62 to the file of AO to verify only the above aspects. In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose with the clear direction to the Assessing Officer to verify only the above aspects. 50. With regard to Ground No. 2.11, it relates to the addition of Rs.64,92,000/- made u/s 69 on the ground that, on the date of search i.e., 05.12.1996, 6,49,200/- shares of M/s Suku Jain Associates Ltd. (in short SJAL) were found and the source of the same was not explained.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 6.43 at page 45-46 of the assessment order. Submission filed by revenue reproduced by us hereinabove was considered. Synopsis was filed on behalf of the Assessee and was relied upon. It was pleaded by the Assessee that the Impugned addition could not be made in his hands. 51. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the issue is one identical to ground no. 2.1, 2.2 & ground no. 2.3. In our view, the contentions of the Assessee are well placed in as much as these shares were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises 2636 section 23A, Faridabad which was in the occupation of another entity namely TLFL. We have already dealt this in the ground no. 2.1, 2.2 and we thus hold that addition could not be made based on such shares found in search, in the hands of the Assessee. Moreover, these shares are the shares which were partly paid and which were forfeited by SJAL and regarding which addition stood made in the assessment order of SJAL the copy of which is placed 78 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 at PB 380-387. Thus, these shares neither belonged to the Assessee nor were owned by the Assessee and thus addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. Hence this addition is deleted and the ground of appeal 2.11 is allowed. 52. With regard to Ground No. 2.12, relates to an addition of Rs.23,00,000/- on the ground that as per page 15 of document 26 (PB 1603) Assessee- individual has paid Rs.13,00,000 to Mr. Devender Gupta and Rs.10,00,000/- to M/s Sunglow Capital Services Ltd., source of which has not been explained by the Assessee-Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7 at page 46-48 of the impugned assessment order. AO made the impugned addition on the basis of document no. 26 (PB 1587-1628) which was alleged by AO to be handwritten diary of Assessee-Individual. Before us, Ld AR filed detailed synopsis and relied upon the same. Ld. CIT(DR) too filed the submission. 53. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the issue is identical to one which we have discussed in ground no. 2.1 and on the basis of the reasoning discussed thereunder, it is held that the documents based on which the addition has been made were not found from the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied by a different entity namely TLFL. This finding is based on several evidence relied upon by the Assessee which we have discussed in our decision in ground no. 2.1. Further it is seen that seized documents relied upon in the assessment order by themselves show that these transactions were between SJAL and other persons/entities. There was no justification to impute these transactions with the Assessee in his individual capacity. Under these circumstances, the impugned addition could not be made in 79 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 the hands of the Assessee and thus is hereby deleted. We allow this ground of appeal no. 2.12. 54. With regard to Ground No. 2.13 relates to an addition of Rs. 4,55,938/- made by Ld. AO on the basis of page no. 16 (PB 1604), as alleged profit earned by the Assessee-Individual which has not be disclosed by him in his return of income.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.11 at page 47-48 of the impugned assessment order. Further, Ld. CIT(DR) filed submission in this regard and so was filed by learned counsel for the Assessee. 55. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this issue is identical to one discussed and decided by us in ground no. 2.1 and thus we hold on the basis of our findings in that ground that seized document based on which addition has been made was not found from the Assessee but was found from the premises occupied by other entity namely TLFL. Hence addition based on such seized document made in the hands of the Assessee could not be made. In any case, the documents found themselves speak that these documents otherwise also do not belong or relate to the Assessee in his individual capacity but were relating and belonging to SJAL. Thus, for this reason also, no addition could be made in the hands of the Assessee. We thus delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.13. 56. With regard to Ground No. 2.14 relates to an addition of Rs. 38,95,000/- made by AO as alleged unexplained investments in the shares of SMC Global of Rs.7,85,000/-, Singhman of Rs.13,10,000/-, Baggry India Ltd. of Rs.1,15,000/- and Skytone of Rs.1,22,500/-, details of which were found recorded on page 2 (PB 1590) of Document no. 26 of the seized material. This issue has been discussed by AO in paragraph 7.2 at page 80 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 48-50 of the assessment order. Submissions were filed from both the sides and were relied upon. 57. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the seized material found in search were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied by TLFL and hence there is no ground for invoking presumption under section 292C as to the contents of the seized documents against the Assessee. We have dealt this very issue in above grounds more particularly in ground no. 2.1 and we hold that based on the seized documents referred in the assessment order, present addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. Moreover, we also find that the seized documents themselves show that these transactions/shares etc do not belong to the Assessee but were owned by other companies such as SJAL, SPS etc. Therefore, when the seized documents themselves show and establish that these transactions do not pertain to the Assessee, more so in his individual capacity, there was no justification to make the present addition in the hands of the Assessee. We thus allow this ground of appeal no. 2.14 and delete the addition. 58. With regard to Ground No. 2.16, relates to an addition of Rs. 3,88,000/- made by Ld. AO on the basis of page 3 (PB 1591) (right side) of document no. 26 as purchase of in the shares of M/s Lloyd Cement Ltd (LCL) from SC Gupta for Rs. 3,000 and from Sh. Devinder Gupta for Rs. 3,85,000/- in cash from gray market by the Assessee-Individual from unexplained income. This issue has been discussed by AO in paragraph 7.31 at page 52-53 of the assessment order. We have noticed that Submissions were filed on behalf of the both the parties which were relied upon. 81 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 59. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the seized document based on which the addition was made was not found from the Assessee and in any case they themselves show that the transactions referred therein did not relate to the Assessee but related to other persons/entities. This has been brought out in above referred pages of the paper book. This issue is identical to one decided by us in ground no. 2.1 and for the reasons stated therein, we delete the addition and allow this ground of appeal no. 2.16. 60. With regard to Ground No. 2.17,relates to an addition of Rs. 36,10,000/- made by AO on the basis of page 5 (PB 1593) of seized document 26 as alleged payment received by Assessee-Individual from Mr. SC Gupta.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.4 at page 53-54 of the assessment order. Synopsis/submission were filed by both the sides. 61. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We concur with the Assessee that the seized documents based on which impugned addition was made was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied by TLFL and hence no addition could be made in the hands of the Assessee by assuming the seized documents belonging to the Assessee. We have also decided this facet of the argument in ground no. 2.1 and for the reasons stated therein, we hold this issue in favour of the Assessee. We however do not concur with the argument of the Assessee that the seized documents are dumb documents. Rather these documents refer and show that the transactions related to another entity namely SJAL in respect of the share application money raised by SJAL from the market which were partly paid up and which shares were later on forfeited by SJAL. Such addition in respect of such partly paid up share capital was made in the assessment order of SJAL also which we have discussed in earlier 82 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 grounds also by referring to the pages of the paper book where assessment order of SJAL is placed at PB 380-387. Thus, we find that for this reason also addition made in the hands of the Assessee could not be made and hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no.2.17. 62. With regard to Ground No. 2.18, relates to an addition of Rs. 13,90,000/- made by AO as undisclosed income of the Assessee-Individual based on page 6 of document no. 26 (PB 1594) as alleged cash received of Rs.10,00,000/- from Mr. M.C. Jain, Rs. 3,00,000/- from Sh. Vinod Anand in lieu of which cheque was issued and Rs. 90,000 from Zen/Esteem by the Assessee Individual. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.5 at page 54-55 of the assessment order. AO has relied on page no. 6 (PB 1594) and page no. 35 (PB 1623) of document no. 26. In this regard, Synopsis filed by the both the parties are placed before us. 63. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. First facet of the argument that addition cannot be made based on the seized material found from the premises under occupation and control of TLFL is identical to one which we have decided in ground no. 2.1 and hence we rest our decision which we have taken in that ground and hold that addition could not be made for the reasons stated therein. Even otherwise, we have seen the referred pages of the paper books as referred in the assessment order also and we find that the seized documents clearly show and establish that these transactions are not related to the Assessee but related to SJAL/TLFL. When seized documents proves that these transactions are not done by the Assessee in his individual capacity, there was no justification for the addition in the hands of the Assessee. Thus, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.18. 83 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 64. With regard to Ground No. 2.19, relates to an addition of Rs. 98,34,000/- made by AO u/s 69 as alleged unexplained investment made in various shares by the Assessee Individual as mentioned in page 6 (PB 1594) of seized document 26. This issue has been discussed by AO in paragraph 7.51 at page 55-59 of the assessment order. AO has stated that page 6 (PB 1594) of seized document 26 shows total shares of Rs. 1,58,53,445/- and since some of these shares also found recorded at page 2 (PB 1589) of seized document 26 of Rs. 60,19,445/- has already been added vide paragraph no. 6.21 and 7.2 of the impugned order, only the balance amount of Rs. 98,34,000/- (Rs. 1,58,53,445/- less Rs. 60,19,445/-) is added. Submissions were filed from the both the sides. 65. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We find that first of all these seized documents based on which the addition was made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee and were found from the premises occupied by TLFL and hence presumption under section 292 cannot operate against the Assessee and for this reason, addition could not be made. We have dealt this issue extensively in ground no. 2.1 and by relying upon our findings therein we delete this addition. Even otherwise, it is evident from the seized material as brought out in the above referred synopsis to which we have made reference also, that the transactions were related to other persons/entities and this transaction was on account of the fund raised. In any case it is also found that this addition has been made multiple times as brought out in the above referred chart. Thus viewed from any angle, we find that the addition made is not sustainable. Hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.19. 66. With regard to Ground No. 2.20, relates to an addition of Rs. 17,74,200/- made by AO on the basis of page 7 (PB 1595) of document no. 26 as 84 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 alleged unexplained investment in the 99,600 shares of SPS allegedly made by Assessee-Individual through M/s Kailash Associates.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.6 at page 59-61 of the assessment order. Submission filed by both parties have been reproduced hereinabove. 67. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that addition based on the seized documents could not be made in the hands of the Assessee for the reason that seized documents were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee. We have discussed and dealt this issue several times while disposing various grounds of appeal and more particularly in ground no. 2.1 and for the reasons stated therein we hold that addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee. It is also seen by us that this addition is made multiple times in the assessment order as clearly brought out in the above referred synopsis and hence, for that reason also, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.20. 68. With regard to Ground No. 2.21,relates to an addition of Rs. 24,00,000/- made by AO based on page 8 (PB 1596) of seized document no. 26 as alleged as alleged cash received by the Assessee – Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.7 at page 61 of the assessment order. Synopsis were filed from the both the sides. 69. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find as we found in ground no. 2.1 for the reasons stated therein that the seized documents based on which the addition was made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied by other entity namely TLFL and hence addition could not be made in the hands of the Assessee by invoking presumption under section 292C. Even otherwise, the seized documents themselves clearly 85 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 show that these transactions were not undertaken by the Assessee but were the transactions of other entities namely SJAL, TLFL and Fine Agromatics Ltd. (FAL). This has been brought out in the above referred synopsis also by referring to various pages of the paper book with which we concur after going through the documents/pages of the paper book. Thus, for this reason also, we hold that the addition could not be made. Hence, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.21. 70. With regard to Ground No. 2.22,relates to an addition of Rs. 83,930/- made by AO on the basis of the page no. 10 (PB 1598) of the seized document 26 as alleged interest received by the Assessee-Individual from M/s Multitech. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.8 at page 62 of the assessment order. Submissions were filed by both the parties. 71. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the seized documents were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied by TLFL as per our finding in ground no. 2.1 and hence addition made is hereby deleted on this ground alone based on our findings in ground no. 2.1. Even otherwise seized material shows that this is the interest received by TLFL which stood already recorded in their books of accounts. Such factum could not be displaced on behalf of the Revenue. Hence, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.22. 72. With regard to Ground no.2.23, relates to an addition of Rs. 13,00,000/- made by AO on the basis of page 10 (PB 1598) of document no. 26 as alleged unaccounted receipt of Assessee-Individual from M/s Gold Multifab Ltd. (GML).AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.81 at page 62-63 of the assessment order. Submissions were made by both the parties orally and also by placing in written form. 86 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 73. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We find that this addition is part of the addition covered by ground no. 2.1. First of all, seized documents based on which the addition was made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied by TLFL as found by us in ground no. 2.1 and thus for the reasons stated therein, the addition could not be made and hence deleted. In any case seized documents clearly show that these are the part of transactions between SJAL & GML. For this reason, also addition made in the hands of the Assessee is hereby deleted and for this we reiterate our findings contained in ground no. 2.1. For the above stated reasons, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.23. 74. With regard to Ground No. 2.24, relates to an addition of Rs. 13,45,000/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page no. 11 (PB 1599) & 12 (PB 1600) of seized document no. 26 as alleged unexplained cash payment of Rs. 13,00,000 to Sh. Devender Gupta and unexplained interest payment of Rs. 45,000/- to M/s Bonanza Portfolio Management made by Assessee-Individual. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.9 at page 63-64 of the impugned assessment order. Submissions were filed by both the sides. 75. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We hold that the seized material based on which addition was made was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises under occupation and control of another entity namely TLFL. Hence addition based on such seized material cannot be made by assuming these documents and transactions therein belonging to the Assessee. We have discussed this argument extensively in ground no. 2.1 which we refer and rely here also. In any case, the addition under consideration had been made in the assessment order multiple times as 87 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 brought out in the synopsis. In any case the seized documents’ notings themselves show that the transactions mentioned therein do not relate to the Assessee but were between SJAL/TLFL and other party. Hence viewed from any angle addition made could not be made and hence is deleted. We allow this ground of appeal no. 2.24. 76. With regard to Ground No. 2.25, relates to an addition of Rs. 1,00,000/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 13 of seized document no. 26 (PB 1601) as alleged unaccounted cash payment made by Assessee-Individual to one Mr. Rajiv. This issue has been discussed by AO in paragraph 7.10 at page 64 of the assessment order. Submissions have been filed from the sides. 77. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have gone through the submissions made and the entire material relevant and referred before us. Seized documents based on which addition was made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee. We have extensively dealt this facet of argument in ground no. 2.1 which we refer and rely. Also, the seized documents themselves show that the transaction mentioned does not relate to the Assessee. These documents further show that there was the source of the payment of the impugned sum. These have been captured in above synopsis to which we have taken ourselves through. We have decided the identical issues in earlier grounds. We thus delete the addition and allow this ground of appeal no. 2.25. 78. With regard to Ground No. 2.26,relates to an addition of Rs. 14,00,000/- made by AO on the basis of page 19 of seized document 26 (PB 1607) as alleged unexplained cash payment made by Assessee-Individual to one Sh. Ashok Garg. This issue has been discussed by AO in paragraph 7.11 at page 65 of the impugned assessment order. Submissions filed both the parties are placed before us. 88 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 79. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find first of all as found by us in ground no. 2.1 that the seized documents based on which addition was made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premise occupied by TLFL and hence on this score itself addition is liable to be deleted and hence deleted. In any case seized documents clearly show that the amount was given out of the amount received from VRL and hence for this reason also, when there is source of the payment, there is no question of any addition. In any case seized documents itself would show that these transactions were not undertaken by the Assessee but were transactions between SJAL/TLFL and VRL which we have discussed at greater length in ground no. 2.2 & 2.3. Thus, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.26. 80. With regard to Ground No. 2.27, relates to an addition of Rs.23,50,000/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page 25 of seized document no. 26 (PB 1613) as alleged unexplained cash payment made by Assessee-Individual to one Sh. Arvind Aggarwal. This issue has been discussed by AO in paragraph 7.11 at page 65 of the impugned assessment order. Submissions were made from the both the sides. 81. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that this issue is identical to ground no. 2.26 discussed and decided by us hereinabove. We by placing reliance on our findings therein allow this ground of appeal no. 2.27 and delete the addition for the said stated reasons. 82. With regard to Ground No. 2.28, relates to an addition of Rs. 27,47,775/- (Rs. 27,00,000 + Rs. 47,775/-) made by AO on the basis of page no. 22 of seized document 26 (PB 1610) as alleged accommodation entry of Rs.27,00,000/- provided by Assessee-Individual to Sh. SC Gupta and 89 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 charges for such accommodation entry of Rs. 47,775/-. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph no. 7.12 at page 66 of the impugned assessment order. Submission filed by both the parties are placed before us. 83. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We find that the seized documents based on which impugned addition has been made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises under occupation and control of another entity namely TLFL and hence there is no question of making addition by invoking presumption under section 292C. We rely on our findings given in ground no. 2.1 on this score. Also we find that Mr. S.C Gupta has denied to have given any cash to the Assessee as per the case of AO in the assessment order. There was thus no reason to make addition in the hands of the Assessee for this reason also. It was never admitted by the Assessee that he has given any accommodation entry. Rather it is seen that all that has been mentioned by the Assessee was that the amounts mentioned in the document were given by the companies whose names are mentioned therein. Thus, we find from all the sides that the addition made was unjustifiably made and hence is deleted and we allow the ground of appeal no. 2.28. 84. With regard to Ground No. 2.29, relates to an addition of Rs. 9,88,407/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 24 (PB 1612) of seized document 26 as alleged unexplained cash payment of Rs, 4,38,307 to S.P Ahuja, Rs.4,10,000/- to H.R. Dua, Rs. 5000 to SPS and Rs. 67,000 to Sarla and unexplained cash receipt of Rs. 68,100/- from one Mr. Bhatia. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.13 at page 66-67 of the impugned assessment order. Submissions made by both the parties were placed before us. 90 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 85. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that the seized documents based on which addition was made was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee but were found from the premises occupied and controlled by TLFL. We have given our thoughtful consideration on this point in ground no. 2.1 which we rely upon here also. In any case we find that the document based on which the addition has been made does not convey anything and is merely a dumb document. Thus viewed from this angle also, no addition could be made and hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.29. 86. With regard to Ground No. 2.30, relates to an addition of Rs.14,185/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page no. 31 (PB 1619) of seized document no. 26 as alleged purchase/sale of share by one Sh. Adesh Jain on behalf of Assessee-Individual and the source of purchase of such shares have not been explained by Assessee-Individual. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.14 at page 67-68 of the assessment order. Submission filed by both the parties have been reproduced by us hereinabove which has been taken into account. 87. The ground is identical to ground no. 2.29 discussed and decided herein above and for the same reasons, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.30. 88. With regard to Ground No.2.31 - 2.32, relate to an addition of Rs.2,33,705/- and Rs. 10,00,000/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 35 (PB 1623) of document no. 26 as alleged interest of Rs. 2,33,705/- worked out of cheques issued by SJAL and TLFL for providing accommodation entries and alleged income of Rs. 10,00,000/- that Assessee-Individual must have earned for providing accommodation entries worked out by Ld. AO on adhoc basis.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.16 at page 71-72 of the assessment order. Submission 91 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 filed on behalf of both the parties have been reproduced hereinabove and has been considered by us. 89. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find the issue raised as we found in ground no. 2.1,first of all the addition is based on the documents seized not from the possession and control of the Assessee but from the premises occupied and controlled by TLFL. We also find that transactions mentioned on these documents itself would show that these relate to SJAL/TLFL. Addition made of Rs.10,00,000/- is purely adhoc based on surmises. Thus, viewed from any angle addition made could not be made and hence is deleted and we allow the grounds of appeal no. 2.31 & 2.32. 90. With regard to Ground No. 2.33, relates to an addition of Rs. 3,473/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 36 (PB 1624) of document on 26 as alleged income earned by Assessee-Individual for providing alleged accommodation entry to Sh. SS Jain and M/s D.M. Enterprises.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 7.17 at page 72 of the impugned assessment order. Submission filed on behalf of both the parties and reproduced by us in earlier part of our order and considered the same. 91. In fact, we find that the issue is identical to one discussed and decided in ground no. 2.29 and hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.33. 92. With regard to Ground No. 2.34, relates to an addition of Rs. 10,80,000/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 38 (PB 1626) of seized document no. 26 as alleged payment to M/s Ram Capital Ltd. by treating the same as undisclosed income of the Assessee-Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph no. 7.18 at page 73 of the impugned assessment order. Submission filed by both the parties have been considered by us and reproduced in the earlier part of our order. 92 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 93. In fact, we find that the issue is identical to one discussed and decided in ground no. 2.29 and hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal 2.34. 94. Ground No. 2.36 relates to an addition of Rs. 37,873/- made by AO on the basis of page 4 (PB 1696) of seized document A-27 and assessee’s reply dated 08.01.1997 (PB 277) as alleged undisclosed income of Assessee-Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.2 at page 74-75 of the impugned assessment order. Submission filed on behalf of both the parties have been reproduced by us hereinabove and considered. 95. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. Our findings in ground no. 2.1 are relied upon in so far as the seizure of the documents is concerned and addition based on such seized documents is concerned. We rely on our findings in ground no. 2.1 to hold that seized documents based on which addition was made were not found from the possession and control of the Assessee. In any case, the documents themselves would show that the transaction related to other entity. If any addition could be made it could not be made in the hands of the Assessee and it could be made in the hands of the other entity namely SPS. Thus, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.36. 96. With regard to Ground No. 2.38, relates to an addition of Rs. 8,37,500/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 6 (PB 1699) of seized document no. A-27 as alleged shares of various company purchased by Assessee- Individual and his family members, source of which has not been explained by the Assessee-Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.4 at page 75-76 of the impugned assessment order. Submission filed by both the parties are reproduced in earlier part of the order and considered by us. 93 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 97. We find that this ground is identical to ground no. 2.29 and we rely on our findings in that ground and delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal. Additionally, we find that the transactions on the documents clearly show by themselves that transactions do not relate to the Assessee but relate to other persons/entities. For this reason also, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal 2.38. 98. With regard to Ground No. 2.39, relates to an addition of Rs. 10,00,000/- made by AO as alleged estimated investment in shares and debentures mentioned at page no. 7 (PB 1701-1702) and 21 (PB 1729) of seized document no. A-27, source of which has not been explained by the Assessee Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.5 at page 77-78 of the impugned assessment order. Written submission filed by both the parties have been considered. 99. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. The addition has been made based on the seized documents which were not found from the control and possession of the Assessee but were found from the premises controlled and occupied by some other entity namely TLFL. We have discussed this aspect in great detail in ground no. 2.1 and on that basis, we hold that the addition could not be made based on such seized documents in the hands of the Assessee by invoking presumption u/s 292C. Even otherwise we find that the seized document based on which addition has been made is non-speaking and is thus dumb document. It is not clear from the document as to who holds the shares and debentures and what is the purchase value of such securities and what is the date. Also, the addition has been made by the assessing officer on estimate basis which is not permissible in the block assessment proceeding. Thus, viewed from any direction and angle, the addition 94 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 could not be made and since made, we have not hesitation in deleting the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.39. 100. With regard to Ground No. 2.41, relates to an addition of Rs.29,395/- made by AO on the basis of page 9 (PB 1705) of seized document no. A- 27 as alleged unexplained cash payment made by Assessee- Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.7 at page 79-80 of the impugned assessment order. Written submission filed by both the parties have been reproduced by us hereinabove and considered the same. 101. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. After considering the entire material relevant for the disposal of the present ground of appeal, it is held by us that the seized document based on which addition has been made was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee. This facet has been discussed and decided by us in ground no. 2.1 and hence we hold that addition could not be made based on such document by relying on section 292C against the Assessee. Moreover, the documents themselves would show and establish that the transactions do not relate to the assessee but relate to some other persons such as Sandeep Ahuja or TLFL. Submission to this effect too was made in assessment proceeding which has not been met by the assessing officer. In fact, this seized document is struck off also and hence based on such struck off document, addition could not be made much less in the hands of the Assessee. Thus, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.41. 102. With regard to Ground no. 2.43, relates to an addition of Rs. 3,95,325/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page no. 13 (PB 1713) and 14 (PB 1715) of seized document no. A-27 as alleged shares sold by Assessee-Individual through M/s Fairdeal Investments and M/s M. Agarwal & Co, source of acquisition of which has not be explained by the 95 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Assessee-Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.9 at page 81-82 of the impugned assessment order. Written submission filed by both the parties have been considered. 103. We have considered the entire material before us for the adjudication of the present ground. It is seen that this ground is identical to ground no. 2.41. This seized document too was one which was in struck off stage and does not convey anything. Contents have been cut/crossed. Hence, we decide this ground of appeal in favour of the Assessee and delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.43. 104. With regards to Ground No. 2.44, relates to an addition of Rs. 90,000/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 17 (PB 1721) of the seized document no. 27 as alleged cash received by Assessee-Individual from Sh. Ashok Mahajan for sale of shares.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.10 at page 83-84 of the impugned assessment order. Submissions in written form by both the parties were considered by us. 105. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We have gone through the entire material relevant to the present ground of appeal. Our finding is identical to ground no. 2.1 in so far as the addition based on the seized document is concerned. We have recorded the finding that such document since was found from the premise occupied by TLFL, hence cannot be considered for making addition by invoking section 292C. In any case, the entire seized document would show that the transactions mentioned on this document have resulted into Loss and not any income. AO has considered only a portion of the seized documents which suited him. Document has to be read as a whole. Thus addition could not be made and since made is deleted and we allow this ground of appeal no. 2.44. 96 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 106. With regard to Ground No. 2.45, relates to an addition of Rs. 2,81,000/- made by AO on the basis of page no. 19 (PB 1726) of seized document no. A-27 as alleged payment of Rs. 2,75,000/- to Sh. Anand Jain as share of profit and receipt of cash of Rs. 6,000/-. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 8.11 at page 84-85 of the impugned assessment order. Written submission of both the parties has been reproduced above. 107. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that first of all addition could not be made based on such seized material which was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee. We have given reasons for this conclusion in ground no. 2.1 and we seek to rely on that. Further, the seized document does not even have name of the Assessee. Things mentioned on this document are non-speaking and do not convey any intelligible thing. It is also not clear as to what transaction is denoted on such document. Thus, in view of these facts we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.45. 108. With regard to Ground No. 2.47, relates to an addition of Rs. 4,20,000/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page no. 25 (PB 1738) of seized document no. A-27 as alleged cash paid by the Assessee Individual source of which has not been explained.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph no. 8.13 at page 87 of the impugned assessment order. Written submission filed by both the parties have been reproduced above and has been considered. 109. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that seized document based on which the addition has been made was found from the premises controlled and occupied by other entity namely TLFL and not from the possession and control of the Assessee. Hence the addition could not be made as presumption under section 292C does not operate against the Assessee. We have decided this issue in ground no. 97 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 2.1 also and our findings there are relied upon here also. Also, the seized document itself establishes that AO has picked up only credit and has ignored debits which are far more than the credits. Thus there was loss in relation to the transactions noted on this seized document. In fact this document does not convey anything against the Assessee. Hence for all these reasons, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.47. 110. With regard to Ground No. 2.48, relates to an addition of Rs. 4,82,750/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page no. 29 (PB 1745) of seized document no. A-27 made by Ld. AO as alleged DD paid by Assessee-Individual to Sh. Devender Gupta, source of which has not been explained by the Assessee-Individual. Written submission filed on behalf of both the parties have been reproduced hereinabove and has been considered. 111. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. We find that document based on which addition was made was not found from the possession and control of the Assessee. We have discussed this facet of argument in ground no. 2.1 and have held that it was found from the premises under occupation and control of TLFL. Thus, addition cannot be sustained for the reasons stated there in ground no. 2.1. Also, the seized documents itself establish that there is no name of the Assessee appearing. Rather documents show that DD was received by SPS from one M/s Hexa Decimal Computers P Ltd against services rendered by SPS. This submission was supported by copy of account of Hexa in the books of SPS and TDS was deducted contemporaneously. Bank account of SPS shows the credit of this amount received in their bank account. We have seen the statement of the Assessee. It has nowhere been admitted by him that the DD was made by him from his own sources. 98 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 Thus, there was no justification for making the addition which is hereby deleted and consequently we allow the ground of appeal no. 2.48. 112. With regard to Ground No. 2.49, relates to an addition of Rs. 44,670/- made by AO on the basis page no. 32 (PB 1752) of seized document no. A-27 as alleged unexplained cash of Assessee-Individual.AO has discussed this issue in paragraph no. 8.15 at page 88 of the impugned assessment order. Written submissions filed by both the parties have been reproduced hereinabove and has been considered. 113. Considered the rival submission and material placed on record. We have gone through the entire material relevant to the present ground of appeal. This ground is identical to several other grounds including ground no. 2.1 where we have held that seized document based on which the impugned addition was made was found from the premises under occupation and control of TLFL. Also, the seized document based on which addition was made is dumb document. It is non-speaking. It does not refer the name of the Assessee. It is not clear as to whether case represent cash received or cash paid. Submission of the Assessee has not been rebutted by the assessing officer with the help of any cogent basis. Hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.49. 114. With regard to Ground No. 2.52, relates to an addition of Rs. 2,00,000/- made by Assessing Officer on the basis of page 41 (right side) (PB 1770) of seized document no. A-27 as alleged unexplained cash received by the Assessee from Sh. SC Gupta. AO has also relied upon the statement of Sh. SC Gupta (PB 55-57).AO has discussed this issue at page 90 of the impugned assessment order. Written submissions filed by both the parties have been reproduced hereinabove and has been considered. 115. After considering the entire material germane to the present ground of appeal, we hold for the reasons mentioned in ground no. 2.1 that addition 99 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 could not be made. Also we find that the noting SPS on this document establishes that it does not relate to the Assessee in his individual capacity but relates to SPS. Thus from this standpoint also, addition made was bad on facts and in law and hence we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.52. 116. With regard to Ground No. 2.60, relates to an addition of Rs. 34,62,000/- made by Ld. AO as alleged unexplained cash deposited in the different benami concerns of Assessee Individual such as M/s Vishal Manufactures, M/s Balaji Finance, M/s Goodwill Investment, M/s Prime Investments, M/s Vishu Investments, M/s Rama & Co., M/s Janak Investments, M/s Jai Bawani Enterprises. AO has discussed this issue in paragraph 3 at page 9-13 of the impugned assessment order. Written arguments filed by both the parties have been reproduced hereinabove and has been considered. 117. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It is seen that this addition is not based on any seized material or incriminating material found during the course of search which was a condition precedent for making addition in the block assessment order as per the provision of section 158BB. Thus, the addition is deleted on this ground itself. In any case, Prime Investment is not individual’s proprietorship concern but it was partnership concern evident from the copy of the partnership deed enclose in the paper book page 1468-1470 which has not been negated by the assessing officer. This shows the mechanical approach of the assessing officer in making addition in the block assessment order which is not permissible in law. Thus, we delete the addition and allow the ground of appeal no. 2.60. 118. Before we part, we may mention that we have considered the oral submissions made before us by both the sides and have taken into account 100 IT(SS)A.No.2/DEL/2019 the written submission and synopsis filed by both the sides. We have dealt with the submission of learned CIT(DR) in ground no. 2.1 & 2.2 and since these are almost on the similar lines and since we have relied upon our findings in ground no. 2.1 & 2.2, we have not dealt them separately for each ground of appeal. Similarly, we have also not referred each page of the paper book mentioned in the synopsis filed on behalf of the Assessee but we have considered them while adjudicating each ground of appeal. 119. In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is partly allowed as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on this 7th day of May, 2025. Sd/- sd/- (YOGESH KUMAR U.S.) (S.RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 07.05.2025 TS Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(Appeals). 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI "
Other Referred Cases
Zinzuwadia & Sons vs. State, MDLR Resorts P. Ltd vs. State, S.R.M.T. LTD. VS. DY.CIT, CIT vs. Damac Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Mukundray K Shah vs. State, Roshan Lal Sanchiti vs. State, Xander Advisors India Ltd. vs. ACIT, S.R.M.T. LTD. VS. DY.CIT, CIT vs. Damac Holdings Pvt. Ltd.
Laws Referred To
Income Tax Act, 1961
1:1 Consultation on Startup Fundraising
₹5000
Tax Holiday Secrets for Startups
₹0
1:1 Consultation on Business Valuations
₹1
No Objection Letter for Use of Property – Partnership Firm
₹0
Form AOC-2 - Disclosure of Related Party Transaction
Mehul₹50
Finance Bill, 2026: Key GST Reforms that will Reshape Compliance and Cash Flows
Team Counselvise - February 03, 2026
When Global Talent Meets GST: The Huawei Secondment Ruling explained
Team Counselvise - March 09, 2026
Finance Bill, 2026: Key Direct Tax Amendments on Assessments and Appeals
Team Counselvise - February 06, 2026