TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 740X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ore adverting to the documents so referred in the satisfaction note and our analysis with regards to the same thereafter, it would be worthwhile to note that it is now a well settled proposition of law that seized documents must be incriminating and must relate to assessment year whose assessment are sought to be reopened u/s.153C. This principle has been settled in the case of Singhad Technical Education Society [ 2017 (8) TMI 1298 - SUPREME COURT] . Thus we hold that the concluded assessments cannot be interfered unless there is incriminating material discovered from the seized documents belonging or pertaining to the assessee, and further, no additions can be made where the assessments are framed u/s.153C for unabated year i.e. where no assessment is pending. The seized documents must at least clearly point out that there is some undisclosed income, which here in this case, as is discussed below, are not in the nature of incriminating material so as to warrant any addition - additions made by the Assessing Officer are beyond the scope of Section 153C r.w.s. 153A. - Decided in favour of assessee. - I.T.As. No.8045/DEL/2019, ITA No.8046/DEL/2019, ITA No.8783/DEL/2019 - - - Da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . 5. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in the case of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd:- 1. The order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income tax (A) in confirming the addition on substantive basis of s. 1,75,51,80,914/- is arbitrary, against law and facts on record. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C in the absence of incriminating material and in the absence of document belonging to appellant found during the course of search has wrongly been assumed, hence the impugned assessment order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A is illegal and unsustainable in law. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the assumption of jurisdiction u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A without handing over the documents seized during the course of search to the learned Assessing Officer of the appellant and framing of assessment without issue of notice u/s 143(2) is illegal and unsustainable in law. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the impugned order passed u/s 153C r.w.s. 153A of the Income Tax Act on the basis of borrowed satisfaction and without providing the reason to app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssee is in appeal for legal issue and Revenue is in appeal for merits). 2. The chronological sequence of events in the case of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. (DIPL) leading up to the instant matter, is as under: Sr. No. Particulars Date i) Date of search u/s 132 of the Act on Dorset group of cases but not on assessee. 06.12.2016 ii) Date of notice u/s 153A wrongly issued in the case of assessee, which was subsequently dropped on 27.07.2018. 13.12.2017 iii) Satisfaction Note Recorded on (at pages 367 to 370 of PB I). 24.09.2018 iv) Notice under section 153C issued on 25.09.2018 v) Date of filing of original return of income at ₹ 6, 11, 52, 690/- (the said return of income was final on the date of recording of satisfaction note and also on the date of search) 08.02.2016 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant (copy of satisfaction note is at pages 367 to 370 of PB - I) . 2.4 The documents found during the course of search which forms part of satisfaction note is being summarized and discussed as under :- a) Annexure A 1 Page nos. 7 to 32, 33 to 34 and 45 to 74 ( kindly see page 367 of PB I) , Annexure A 2 page no. 1 to 5 (kindly see page 368 of PB I) , Annexure A 2 page nos. 7 to 9, 17 to 22, 23 to 27, 47 to 87 (kindly see page 369 of PB I) , Annexure A 3 page nos. 1 to 10 (page no. 369 of PB I) , no reference of the said documents has been made in the assessment order nor any addition on the basis of these documents have been made in the assessment order passed under section 153C of the Act. Thus, with reference to the aforesaid documents, since no additions have been made by learned AO, as such, it is submitted that the same have not held to be incriminating, even by the learned AO himself in the impugned order of assessment. b) Page no. 7 to 35 of Annexure A 2 , found from OBC Bank Locker of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Bansal and Smt. Rekha Bansal being copy of Hon ble High Court order dated 05.05.2015 in the matter of amalgamation between M/s Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... returns of income prior to recording of satisfaction note. 2.6 That before adverting to the arguments with regards to documents being disclosed/ reflected in the books of accounts and duly disclosed prior to recording of satisfaction note or even on the date of search, the assessee appellant would seek to submit the chronological sequence of events, which led to the entering of the said agreements between the assessee appellant and various companies/entities of Dorset Group: a) That Kaba Holding AG (a Non resident company based in Switzerland) was an existing shareholder of Dorset Kaba Security Systems Pvt Ltd ( DKSSPL). b) That shareholding of Kaba Holding AG in Dorset Kaba Security Systems Pvt Ltd prior to 01/04/2014 was 49 %. c) The said Kaba Holding AG wanted to increase its holding in Dorset Kaba Security Systems Pvt Ltd from 49% to 74 % and as such invested a sum of ₹ 198 crore in Dorset Kaba Security Systems Pvt Ltd for allotment of such shares. d) That the amount so received of ₹ 198 crore from KABA Holdings AG was used by DKSSPL to acquire the business undertakings (hardware businesses) of M/s Dorset India Pvt Ltd., M/s Ma ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Pvt Ltd was only the appropriation. As it will be absurd to say that value of assets of ₹ 15.31 crore have been taken over for ₹ 34 crore ( Mars Industries Pvt Ltd), and the value of assets of ₹ 5 crore have been taken over for ₹ 156 crore ( Modtech Industries). l) As such, the value prescribed of ₹ 198 crore was the value of total business acquired and that is why, the real intent of entering into separate BTA s with Modtech Industries, Mars India Pvt. Ltd., and Dorset India Pvt Ltd dated 11/06/2014 was to bind all the parties and to perform act s in accordance with the agreements, as entering into agreement only with Dorset India Pvt Ltd may not have been binding on Modtech Industries and Mars Industries. m) In view of the above, amount received from Dorset Kaba Security Systems Pvt Ltd was offered to tax in the hands of Dorset India Pvt Ltd., as hardware business of Modtech Industries was actually acquired by Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. as per the Business Transfer Agreement dated 01.04.2014. Further, M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated into Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. as per the order of Hon ble Delhi High Court dated 05.05.2015 w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ts dated 11/06/2014 entered between all the aforesaid 4 entities is part of books of accounts of M/d DIPL and is not incriminating material and the said fact have also been admitted by the learned Assessing officer in the point no 6 of show cause notice dated 16/11/2018 issued during the course of assessment proceeding (kindly see pages 109 to 112 of PB I, relevant pages 110 to 111) . From the perusal of the above it may be observed that on the basis of business transfer agreement dated 11/06/2014 the original return of income have been filed by Dorset India Pvt. Ltd., as M/s Modtech Industries was taken over by M/s Mars India Pvt. Ltd. and further, M/s Mars India Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated in M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. and as such, the due disclosures were made by M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. The capital gains on slump sale on the basis of said agreements have been shown in the original return of income so filed by M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. (kindly see pages 247, 248 to 249, 278, 280, 326 of PB - I) . Dorset India Pvt. Ltd also e filed form no 3CEA (audit report relating to capital gain on slump sale) before Income Tax department and the said form no 3CEA is with referenc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... was filed much prior to the date of search and that is how, the same was also seized during the course of search ( said document is at page 116 to 145 of PB I) . The said fact of amalgamation and its effect in books of accounts, along with the return of income was duly disclosed prior to search proceedings (kindly see pages 246 305, 315, 318 and 324 of PB I). In view of the above, it is most humbly submitted that the amalgamation order by Hon ble High Court forms part of books of accounts of M/s DIPL and the original return of income have been filed by the appellant, duly disclosing the effect of the said agreement prior to the recording of satisfaction note or even the date of search and as such, the same cannot be termed as incriminating material . iv) Retirement cum constitution deed dated 28.09.2014 with regards to M/s Modtech Industries (actual date is 20/09/2014 as per the document found during search) The retirement cum constitution deed dated 20/09/2014 (deed dated 20/09/2014 is enclosed and forms part of paper book at page no 49 to 53 of PB I) is part of books of accounts and is not the incriminating material. From the perusal of t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urn of income incorporating the effect of the same had been filed prior to the date of recording of satisfaction note. 2.10 Further, it is submitted that the said arguments were specifically taken before learned CIT (A) wherein, judgments of Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT Central-2 Vs. Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. 86 Taxmann.com 84 (Delhi), CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 612, and by the Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education Society reported in 397 ITR 344 , were cited before learned CIT (A) (kindly see page 8 to 9 of CIT (A) s order). However, the learned CIT (A) vide order dated 21.08.2019 dismissed the said ground so raised by the assessee company (kindly see pages 89 to 93 of CIT (A) order) . However, while dismissing the said appeal, the learned CIT (A) has recorded a finding that Therefore, if such document have been used to make entry in books of accounts and the ROI is filed before the date of search, it does not necessarily mean that the material under consideration is not incriminating . It is not in doubt that the AO has stated that the documents under consideration (which pertained to, and also, info ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred. 19. We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. Before us, it was argued by the respondent that notice in respect of the Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was time barred. However, in view of our aforementioned findings, it is not necessary to enter into this controversy. b) Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Kabul Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573. 37. On a conspectus of Section 153A(1) of the Act, read with the provisos thereto, and in the light of the law explained in the aforementioned decisions, the legal position that emerges is as under: iv. Although Section 153 A does not say that additions should be strictly made on the basis of evidence found in the course of the search, or other po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs Sundaram IT Parks Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5166/Del/2018. h) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs M/s Five Vision Planners Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4460/Del/2014. i) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs M/s Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1152/2017. j) Order of ITAT Delhi M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 5580, 4409, 4410 and 5072/Del/2012. k) Order of ITAT Delhi ACIT vs Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 6569/Del/2016. 2.11 It is further submitted that the findings so recorded by learned CIT (A) rather supports the case of assessee company, as it is an admitted fact now, that the documents so seized and recorded in satisfaction note were duly recorded in books of accounts on the basis of which return of income was filed by the assessee and thus, cannot be termed as incriminating , as no undisclosed income was unearthed or could be inferred with respect to the seized documents. 2.12 From the perusal of the above, it may be observed that during the course of search no incriminating material has been found during the course of s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l Chawla reported in 380 ITR 573. iv) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs Jaypee Financial Services Ltd. reported in 280 Taxman 147. v) Judgment of the High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT Meeta Gutgutia reported in 395 ITR 526. vi) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs Moon Beverages Ltd. in ITA No. 115 to 118/Del/2018. vii) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of DCIT vs Sundaram IT Parks Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 5166/Del/2018. viii) Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of ACIT vs M/s Five Vision Planners Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 4460/Del/2014. ix) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of PCIT vs M/s Dreamcity Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. in ITA No. 1152/2017. x) Order of ITAT Delhi M/s TDI Infrastructure Ltd. vs DCIT in ITA No. 5580, 4409, 4410 and 5072/Del/2012. xi) Order of ITAT Delhi ACIT vs Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 6569/Del/2016. xii) Judgment of High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd. reported in 380 ITR 612 8. He further, submitted that that the said aforesaid legal argument was specifically taken before learned CIT (A), wherein, judgments of Hon ble Delhi High Cou ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f tax computation it is seen that capital gains has been worked out be deducting the net worth of the business undertaking (which includes huge value of Goodwill) from the sales consideration . Thus, even the learned AO admitted the fact that the said documents so forming part of satisfaction note have been disclosed and return of income incorporating the effect of the same had been filed prior to the date of recording of satisfaction note. 9. That Ld. CIT DR Sh. J.K. Mishra, placed heavy reliance on the order of AO and CIT (A) and argued that the documents so recorded in the satisfaction note had a bearing on total income of the assessee and thus, the same can be termed as incriminating. The learned CIT DR further, placed reliance on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of SSP Aviation vs DCIT reported in 346 ITR 177. 10. That the learned counsel of the assessee in rejoinder submitted that the reliance placed by learned CIT DR on the judgment of Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of SSP Aviation vs DCIT reported in 346 ITR 177, rather supports the case of the assessee and further, the same case has been duly considered by Hon ble jurisdictional h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r.t. documents seized in the case of Sh. Rajesh Kumar Bansal and Smt. Rekha Bansal, during search and seizure u/s 132 of the LT. Act, 1961, conducted on 13.01.2017, of their Locker No. 1537, Oriental Bank of Commerce, Hauz Khas, Delhi, and the said documents pertaining to, as also, information contained therein relating to M/s Dorset Industries Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. (already amalgamated with M/s Dorset Indian Pvt. Ltd.) Relevant part of the said satisfaction note is reproduced below:- ...Perusal of the documents seized from the Locker no 1537, Oriental Bank ofCqmmefce, Hauz Khas, Delhi, shows that out of the seized documents, documents from pages- 7 to 32,33 Io 44, 45 to74 o(Annexure A-I and pages I to 5, 7 to35, 39 to51, 53 54 o(Annexure A- 2 of the said seized Annexures- pertain to, as also, information contained therein relate to M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. and Mis Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. {a/reqdy amalgamated with M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd!. Particulars of documents pertaining to Mis Dorset India Pvl Ltd. Mis Mars Industries Pvt Ltd as per Annexure A-1 Page Numbers Brie/particulars of the document ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e case of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. I have also already recorded my satisfaction w.r.t. documents seized in the case of Sh. Takshay Bansal, during search and seizure u/s 132 of the l.T.Act, 1961, conducted on 13.01.2017, of his Locker No. 1945R 1810247 with the ICICI Bank, Defence Colony, Delhi, and the said documents pertaining to, as also, information contained therein relating to M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. (already amalgamated with M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd.). Relevant part of the said satisfaction note is reproduced below- ...Perusal of the documents seized from the Locker No. 1945R 1810247 with the ICICI Bank, Defence Colony, Delhi shows th_at out of the seized documents, dOc ments from pages-51 to 94, 95 to 1_55 of Annexure A-1, pages 7 to 9, 17 to 22, 23 to 27, 47 to 87 of Annexure A-2 and pages 1 to 10, 91 to 101 of Annexure A-3, of the said seized Annexures pertain to, as also, infonnation contained therein relate to Mis Dorset India pvt, Ltd. and M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. ( already amalgamated with Mis Dorset India Pvt. Ltd). Particulars of documents pertaining to Mis Dorset India Pvt. td. M/s Mars Industries ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... corded for initiation of proceedings under section l53C of the I.T.Act,196I, in the case of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. Perusal of the documents seized, as mentioned in the satisfaction recorded in the case of Sh.Rajesh Kumar Bansal and Smt. Rekha Bansal, as also, in the case of Sh, Takshay Bansal and referred to in this satisfaction note in the preceding paras, clearly show that contents of the said documents have a bearing on the determination of total income of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. including that of M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. (already amalgamated with M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd.) In view of the facts of the case and provisions of section l 53C read with section I53A. I am satisfied that notices u/s l 53C are required to be issued for the assessment years A.Ys 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 in the case of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. Accordingly, Notice u/s 153C of the LT. Act, 1961 is being issued in the case of of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. for the assessment years 2011-12, 2012- 13, 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 and 2016-17 for determination of total income of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. including that of M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. (a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred. ii) CIT vs RRJ Securities Ltd. (Delhi HC) reported in 380 ITR 612. Section 153 C only enables the Assessing Officer of a person other than the one searched, to investigate into the documents seized and/or the assets seized and ascertain that the same do not reflect any undisclosed income of the assessee (i.e., a person other than the one searched) for the relevant assessment years. If the seized money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized as handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee, are duly disclosed and reflected in the returns filed by the assessee, no further interference would be called for. Similarly, if the books of account/documents seized do not reflect any undisclosed income, the assessments already made cannot be interfered with. Merely because valuable articles and/or documents belonging to the assessee have been seized and handed over to the Assessing Officer of the assessee would not necessarily require the Assessing Officer to reopen the concluded ass ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cannot be interfered unless there is incriminating material discovered from the seized documents belonging to the assessee, and no additions can be made where the assessments are framed u/s.153C for unabated year. The seized documents must at least clearly point out that there is some undisclosed income, which here in this case, even for the sake of repetition, it is reiterated that none of the documents are in the nature of incriminating material so as to warrant any additions. v) ACIT vs Realtech Construction Pvt. Ltd. (ITAT Delhi) in ITA No. 6569/Del/2016. 16. The sequitur of the judgment of Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of RRJ Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) and Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. (supra) are that, if the documents belonging to the assessee are found from the possession of a person search u/s.132, that does not ipso facto mean that, concluded assessment of the assessee are necessarily to be reopened u/s.153C. If the documents seized have no relevance or bearing on any income of the assessee for the relevant Assessment Year which could not possibly reflect any undisclosed income, then provision of Section 153C cannot be resorted too. Here, in th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 5 of PB I) . We have gone through the paper book so filed by the assessee and we have found that the fact of amalgamation and its effect in books of accounts, along with the return of income was duly disclosed prior to search proceedings. The relevant pages of paper book in the case of M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. are page nos. 246, 305, 315, 318 and 324 of PB I. Thus, in view of the above we hold that the amalgamation order by Hon ble High Court forms part of books of accounts of M/s DIPL and the original return of income have been filed by the appellant, duly disclosing the effect of the said agreement prior to the recording of satisfaction note or even the date of search and as such, the same cannot be treated as incriminating material . b) Page no 39-51 of Annexure A-2 (locker at OBC) being copy of Business Transfer Agreement (BTA) dated 01.04.2014 between M/s Modtech Industries and M/s Mars Industries Pvt. Ltd. (kindly see pages 431 to 442 of PB - II). Our Analysis: The said document so seized by Revenue, is a business transfer agreement dated 01/04/2014 and is a t page nos. 431 to 442 of PB II. We have also noticed that, M/s Modtech Industrie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . Ltd. and further, M/s Mars India Pvt. Ltd. was amalgamated in M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. and the said disclosures were made by M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd in its financial statements. The capital gains on slump sale on the basis of aforesaid agreements have been shown in the original return of income so filed by M/s Dorset India Pvt. Ltd. (at pages 247, 248 to 249, 278, 280, 326 of PB - I) . Dorset India Pvt. Ltd also e filed form no 3CEA (audit report relating to capital gain on slump sale) before Income Tax department and the said form no 3CEA is with reference to slump sale on the basis of Business transfer agreements dated 11/06/2014 (at pages 253 and 255 of PB - I) . The said fact of amalgamation and business transfer was also disclosed in the balance sheet by M/s DIPL including Goodwill arising as a result of Merger of M/s Mars India Pvt. Ltd. (at pages 305, 315, 318 and 324 of PB I). Similarly, we have noticed that Page nos. 53 and 54 of Annexure A-2 (locker at ICICI) being copy of MOU made on 01.09.2014 and disclosure letters in reference to the purchase price consideration of the BTA executed between M/s Dorset Kaba Security Systems Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Mars I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... satisfaction under Section 153C to come to a conclusion that seized assets which belong to another person represent any undisclosed income. If the AO of a searched person is satisfied that an asset/documents seized belong to another person, he has a duty to forward the documents or the valuable assets seized to the AO of the person concerned; apart from doing so, the AO can do nothing more. 35. The AO of the person other than the one searched also, is not, at the stage of issuing notice under Section 153C/153A of the Act, required to conclude that the assets/documents handed over to him by the AO of the searched person represent or indicate any undisclosed income of the Assessee under his jurisdiction. As explained in SSP Aviation Ltd. ( supra ), Section 153C only enables the AO of a person other than the one searched, to investigate into the documents seized and/or the assets seized and ascertain that the same do not reflect any undisclosed income of the Assessee (i.e a person other than the one searched) for the relevant assessment years. If the seized money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing seized as handed over to the AO of the Assessee, are duly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nder Section 153C of the Act. 17. We have also gone through the order of assessment and also the order of learned CIT (A) in the impugned matters and find that nowhere, the documents so referred in the satisfaction note have been alleged to have been not disclosed in the returns of income filed prior to recording of satisfaction note, rather, on reading the order of learned CIT (A) we find that, he has rather accepted the fact that documents so referred in satisfaction note are duly disclosed in the returns of income. The relevant finding of CIT (A) is extracted as under: Para 9.9 Certainly, the action of recording satisfaction at the time of initiation of proceedings u/s 153C, is not a judicial exercise where the defense of the other party (the appellant) is called for and considered. Naturally, it is bound to have inherent subjectivity. Therefore, if such documents have been used to make entry in books of accounts and the ROI is filed before the date of search, it does not necessarily mean that the material under consideration is not incriminating . 18. That we also find that even during the assessment proceedings, the learned AO issued show cause notice dated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
