TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (8) TMI 1019
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....S/250/2023-24/1053147822(1), dated 24/5/2023 for the AY 2019-20 arising out of the orders passed u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) and ITBA/APL/S/250/2023-24/1053278674(1), dated 29/05/2023 for the AY 2020-21 arising out of the order passed u/s. 143(3)) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. Since the core issues as well as most of the grounds raised by the assessee in all these appeals are identical, therefore for the sake of convenience, all these appeals are clubbed, heard together and disposed off in this consolidated order. Appeal wise adjudication is given in the following paragraphs of this order. 2. Firstly, we shall take up the ITA No. 172/Viz/2023 (AY 2012-13) as lead appeal as the outcome of this appeal will have the same bearing on the other appeals of the assessee as the core issues involved in the other appeals are identical to that of the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2012-13. ITA No. 172/Viz/2023 (AY: 2012-13) 3. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam dated 23/05/2023 arising out of the order passed u/s. 153A r.w.s 143(3) of the Act. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee (M....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....) considering the submissions made by the assessee, confirmed the addition made by the Ld. AO. Further, with respect to the time limit prescribed u/s. 153B of the Act, the assessee made various submissions before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. Assessee's Representative in his written submissions before the Ld. CIT(A) stated that the search was commenced on 28/1/2020 and closed on 31/1/2020 as temporarily concluded. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Prohibitory Order (PO) was placed on certain loose sheets placed in the wooden almirah by passing the order u/s. 132(3) of the Act. Subsequently, the Prohibitory Order was lifted on 6/8/2020 by drawing another Panchnama on 6/8/2020 which revealed that the proceedings were closed without seizure of any documents, including the loose sheets placed in wooden almirah. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded before the Ld. CIT(A) that since no seizure was made on 6/8/2020, it is not a valid Panchnama and accordingly the limitation period for passing of the assessment order commences from the date of the original Panchnama dated 31/1/2020. In support of his argument, the Ld. AR relied on various case laws as discussed in the order of the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CI....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mstances prescribed in section is invalid in law. (b) The prohibitory order u/s. 132(3) was lifted beyond 60 days which is against the provisions of section 132(8A) and consequently, the Panchnama drawn on 6/8/2020 for lifting the same has no recognition in law. (c) The prohibitory order u/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the beneficial CBDT Circular which is binding on the field authorities as per the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court and consequently, the Panchnama drawn on 6/8/2020 for lifting the said order has no recognition in law. (d) There was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 and such a Panchnama drawn without any seizure does not represent a cvalidPanchnama for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. (e) The prohibitory order passed u/s. 132(3) on 31/1/2020 is invalid in law as the documents placed under restraint by the said prohibitory order have not culminated into any undisclosed income in the assessment order. 5. On the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in considering the certificate obtained u/s. 65B in respect of the seized pendrive (vide Annexure A/PSS/CORP/18) as a legally v....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... business premises of the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that as per section 132(3) of the Act, wherein it is not practicable to seize the materials can only be placed under Prohibitory Order. The Ld. AR further submitted that the search team identified only certain loose sheets which are not impracticable to seize on the date of search. Further, the Ld. AR also while referring to the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 placed in Page-20 of Paper Book-4, referred to Sl.No.5 of the Panchnama wherein it was stated that no document was found and seized. The Ld. AR therefore vehemently argued that since there are no seizures on the date of Panchnama, ie., on 6/8/2020, it cannot be considered as a valid Panchnama for the purpose of limitation prescribed u/s. 153B of the Act. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that the original Panchnama should only be considered for the purpose of limitation and accordingly the assessment order should have been passed on or before 30/09/2021, being the extended period, whereas it was passed on 31/3/2022. The Ld. AR further submitted that since there are no seizures in the second Panchnama, it is drawn only for extending the limitation period for passing the asse....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ome Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP). 10. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR, the Ld. DR submitted that the Board Circular referred to by the Ld. AR is not a Circular but it is only a Board Instruction issued for administrative convenience. The Ld. DR further submitted that the case laws relied on by the Ld. AR refers only about the Circular and not about the Instruction. 11. With respect to Ground No.4(c) of the Grounds of Appeal, wherein it was contended by Ld AR that the Prohibitory Order u/s. 132(3) was not lifted within 30 days as mandated in the CBDT Circular and therefore as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White & White Mineral (P.) Ltd, the Panchnama drawn on 6/8/2020 for lifting the said PO has no recognition in the eyes of law.The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) The judgment of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pr. CIT, Central-3 vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd., in ITA No. 290/2016, dated 4thJuly, 2017 [This judgment involves 13 cases including that of the Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products]; (ii) Commissioner of Income Tax vs. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd reported in [2010....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....a dated 6/8/2020 is placed in the Paper Book, Page-20. On perusal of the Panchnama, we find that no books of account and documents were seized on 6/8/2020. It is also stated that the search commenced on 6/8/2020 on 11.00 AM and closed on 6/8/2020 at 02.00 PM. Further, we also find from the Panchnama where the parties offered for their personal search before the commencement of the search, was declined by the search party. Therefore, effectively no search was conducted on 6/8/2020 as per the Panchnama, dated 6/8/2020. In the absence of any seizure on 6/8/2020 by the search party it can only be considered for the purpose of removal of the restraint order and not as continuation of the search proceedings under the same authorization. For the sake of brevity we extract below section 132(3) of the Act: "Sec. 132(3): The authorised officer may, where it is not practicable to seize any such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, for reasons other than those mentioned in the second proviso to sub-section (1), serve an order on the owner or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t when it concluded that the Panchnama dated 3-1-2001 was merely a release order and could not extend the period of limitation." 18. Further, the Hon'ble Kerala High Court in the case of Dr. C. Balarishnan Nair vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [1999] 103 Taxmann 242 (Ker.) held as follows: "As per Panchnama, seven items, books of account and other valuable articles were seized. These articles which were available on 27-10-1995 were put in an almirah and sealed since scrutiny could not be completed during the search and investigation and a prohibitory order under section 132 was served on the petitioners. Section 132(3) empowers the authorised officer to pass an order on the owner that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with the articles and books of account, etc., except with the previous permission of the officer. But this can be served only if it is not practicable to seize any such books of account, other documents, etc. It was not stated as to why the books of account, documents, etc., were not practicable to be seized on 27-10-1995 and in the absence of any satisfactory explanation as to why the books of account, pass book and the documents were not ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on, had no locus standi in the matter. Moreover, the Panchnama made on that date had many defects as admitted by the department itself. Thus, no fault could be found with the impugned order of the Tribunal. The impugned assessment indeed was barred by limitation and also invalid." 21. Respectfully following the above judicial pronouncements, we are of the considered view that the Prohibitory Order passed by the search party u/s. 132(3) by placing certain loose sheets cannot be considered as impracticable for seizure which requires a restraint order u/s. 132(3) of the Act. Hence, the period of limitation for the purpose of passing the assessment order commences from 31/1/2020 and should have been completed on or before 31/3/2021 which was further extended by Taxation and Other Laws Amendment (TOLA) to 30th September, 2021. Therefore, in the present case, the assessment order ought to have been passed on or before 30/09/2021 wherein it was passed on 31/3/2022. 22. Additionally, the reliance placed by the Ld. AR with respect to the release of the restraint order by relying on the Board Instruction dated 3/7/2002 wherein the Instruction relating to search and seizure work should be....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....r should not be given effect to. The circulars would go to the assistance of the assessees. It is settled law that the circulars cannot impose any burden on the taxpayer. But, by the issue of a circular, the rigour of the law can be relaxed by giving administrative relief. Apart from the fact that such circulars are binding on the officers of the department, even if the circulars are relied on for the first time in the High Court during the course of hearing, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit afforded by the circulars. The Court is bound to take note of the circular. These propositions are well settled by a series of decisions of the Supreme Court as well as the High Courts............" 24. Further, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Catholic Syrian Bank Ltd vs. Commissioner of Income Tax reported in [2012] 343 ITR 270 (SC) held as follows: "18. Now, we shall proceed to examine the effect of the circulars which are in force and are issued by the Central Board of Direct Taxes (for short, 'the Board') in exercise of the power vested in it under Section 119 of the Act. Circulars can be issued by the Board to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to en....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....inding on the department. We, therefore, respectfully following the judicial pronouncements, find force in the argument of the Ld. AR that even though section 132(8A) grants a time limit of 60 days for removing the restraint order, the limit specified by the CBDT, Instruction dated 3/7/2002 for a period of one month is binding on the Ld. Revenue Authorities. Accordingly, in the instant case, the period of limitation for removal of Prohibitory Order expires on 1/3/2020. The argument of the Ld. DR that it is only an Instruction and not a Circular could not be accepted due to the fact that the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court have categorically held that the Authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, Instructions and Directions of the Board. The Act has empowered the Board u/s. 119 to issue Instructions to the subordinate Authorities. Section 119(1) of the Act is reproduced herein below for reference: "Sec. 119. (1) The Board may, from time to time, issue such orders, instructions and directions to other income-tax authorities as it may deem fit for the proper administration of this Act, and such authorities and all other persons....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct." 30. Similar view was also taken by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd reported in [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) in para 6 of its order by relying on the decision of the Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal [2009] 308 ITR 168 which is as follows: "5. In CIT v. S.K. Katyal[2009] 308 ITR 168 a Division Bench of this Court observed as under:- "17. This discussion leads us to the question - Was the Panchnama of 3-1-2001, of the type mentioned in the said Explanation 2(a)? From the facts narrated above, it is clear that the Panchnama of 3-1-2001, itself reveals that nothing was seized on that date. Nor was anything "found" on that date. In fact, no search was conducted. The jewellery that was put in the cash box of the almirah had already been searched, found, inventorised and valued by the DVO on 17-11-2000, itself. Nothing remained to be searched thereafter. And, in fact, no further search was conducted after 17-11-2000. Obviously, nothing else could be found. All that was done on 3-1-2001, in the presence of the witnesses (Panchs), was that the seals were removed from the cash box and the almirah and the k....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the revenue as to what transpired from 31-10-2000 to 23-12-2000 so as to enable us to take a different view than what the Tribunal has taken. In these circumstances we feel that the ratio of this Court in Sarb Consulate Marine Products (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) squarely applies to the facts and circumstances obtaining in the present case. The Tribunal has followed the said decision and we find that there is no error in the Tribunal's order. No substantial question of law arises for our consideration. These appeals are dismissed." 32. Further, the Hon'ble Bombay High Court has also taken the same view in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) at para 10 of its judgment held as under: "10..............Thus, the Tribunal had rightly held that the proceedings, on 26-10-1996, could not be considered as part of the execution of the search proceedings which concluded on 20- 10-1996. Indeed, by simply stating in the Panchnama that the search is temporarily suspended, the authorised officer cannot keep the search proceedings in operation by passing a restraint order under section 132(3). Reliance placed by the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evenue by observing as under: "Mere revocation of prohibitory order whether relevant for reckoning limitation 1-2-2010 : Their Lordships S. H. KAPADIA and SWATANTER KUMAR JJ. dismissed the Department's special leave petition against the judgment dated May 15, 2009 of the Rajasthan High Court in ITA No. 25 of 2009, whereby it held that after revoking the prohibitory order dated December 21, 2002, there was nothing to show that any fresh prohibitory order was passed and the Panchnama dated December 21, 2002 did not show that the search remained incomplete or was continued to be completed on any subsequent dates in close proximity or continuity and since on January 3, 2003 nothing was done except merely preparing Panchnama, the assessment was rightly held barred by time reckoning from the earlier Panchnama : CIT v. WHITE AND WHITE MINERAL (P) LTD. : S. L. P. (C) No. 4356 of 2010. 35. Per contra, the Ld. CIT-DR relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Anil Minda vs. CIT reported in Anil Minda Vs CIT [2023] 148 taxmann.com 407 to state that the lastly drawn Panchnama in the case of the assessee should considered for reckoning the period of limitation. Countering ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....da implicitly affirms the reasoning followed by various High Courts in rendering the decision that the last Panchnama which does not involve seizure does not qualify to be considered as the last Panchnama for the purpose of determining the limitation of time for completion of search assessments. It is therefore submitted that the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of Anil Minda does not overrule the said decisions of various High Courts relied upon by the appellant in this written submission but actually renders support to the reasoning adopted in the said decisions. The relevant paragraph of the decision of Apex court in Anil Mind case is extracted here "In the present case, the first authorization was issued on 13.03.2001 which ultimately and finally concluded and/or culminated into Panchnama on 11.04.2001. However, in between there was one another authorization dated 26.03.2001 with respect to one locker and the same as executed on 26.03.2001 itself and Panchnama for the same was drawn on 26.03.2001. However, Panchnama drawn with respect to authorization dated 13.03.2001 was lastly drawn on 11.04.2001. As observed and held by this Court in the case of VLS Fina....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e Mineral (P.) Ltd [SLP(C) No. 4356 of 2010] (supra).Therefore, we have no hesitation to come to the conclusion that the Assessment Order passed on 31/3/2022 by the Ld. Assessing Officer is a time barred assessment. The Assessing Officer ought to have been passed the assessment order or before 30/09/2021 whereas it was passed on 31/3/2022. Thus, considering the above facts and circumstances of the case, we hereby allow the Grounds No. 4(a) to 4(e) of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13. 37. With respect to Ground No.5, regarding the violation of section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, the Ld. AR submitted that the primary evidence from wherein the data was copied on the Pen Drive was not identified. The Ld. AR referred to the Digital Evidence Investigation Manual issued by the CBDT which clearly indicates the procedure for obtaining the Certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. The Ld. AR further submitted that the Certificate obtained u/s. 65B of the Act is not in accordance with the procedures laid down in section 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act. The Ld. AR also submitted that the four conditions prescribed in sub-section (2) of section 65B of the Indian Evidence A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce Act there are several references to documents and records and entries in books of account and their recognition as evidence. By way of the THE SECOND SCHEDULE to the Information Technology Act Amendments to the Indian Evidence Act have been brought in so as to, incorporate reference to Electronic Records along with the document giving recognition to the electronic records as evidence. Further, special provisions as to evidence relating to electronic record have been inserted in the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the form of section 65A & 65B, after section 65. These provisions are very important. They govern the integrity of the electronic record as evidence, as well as, the process for creating electronic record. Importantly, they impart faithful output of computer the same evidentiary value as original without further proof or production of original. Accordingly, while handling any digital evidence, the procedure has to be in consonance of these provisions." 40. Further, we find that section 65B(2) of the Indian Evidence Act clearly specifies the following conditions with respect to obtaining of Digital Evidence both for primary and secondary evidences. The relevant extract ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... involved in the production of that electronic record as may be appropriate for the purpose of showing that the electronic record was produced by a computer; (c) dealing with any of the matters to which the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) relate, and purporting to be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device or the management of the relevant activities (whichever is appropriate) shall be evidence of any matter stated in the certificate; and for the purposes of this sub38 section it shall be sufficient for a matter to be stated to the best of the knowledge and belief of the person stating it." 41. We find from the written submissions of the Ld. AR that the provisions of section 65B(2)(d) as extracted above was not followed by the Revenue. The Revenue failed to identify the primary system giving particulars of the device involved in the production of the data was produced by a computer. 42. Further, we have also considered the cases referred to by the Ld. AR. In the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai reported in [2021] 129 taxmann.com 126 (Mad.)the Hon'ble Madras High Court h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the ordinary course of the said activity. 15. Under section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act, if it is desired to give a statement in any proceedings pertaining to an electronic record, it is permissible provided the following conditions are satisfied: (a) There must be a certificate which identifies the electronic record containing the statement; (b) The certificate must describe the manner in which the electronic record was produced; (c) The certificate must furnish the particulars of the device involved in the production of that record; (d) The certificate must deal with the applicable conditions mentioned under section 65B(2) of the Evidence Act; and (e) The certificate must be signed by a person occupying a responsible official position in relation to the operation of the relevant device. 16. It is further clarified that the person need only to state in the certificate that the same is to the best of his knowledge and belief. Most importantly, such a certificate must accompany the electronic record like computer printout, Compact Disc (CD), Video Compact Disc (VCD), pen drive, etc., pertaining to which a statement is sought to be given in evidence, when the same is p....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nal..." make it clear that once the deeming fiction is given effect by the fulfilment of the conditions mentioned in the Section, the "deemed document" now becomes admissible in evidence without further proof or production of the original as evidence of any contents of the original, or of any fact stated therein of which direct evidence would be admissible. 31. The non-obstante clause in sub-section (1) makes it clear that when it comes to information contained in an electronic record, admissibility and proof thereof must follow the drill of Section 65B, which is a special provision in this behalf - Sections 62 to 65 being irrelevant for this purpose. However, Section 65B(1) clearly differentiates between the "original" document - which would be the original "electronic record" contained in the "computer" in which the original information is first stored - and the computer output containing such information, which then may be treated as evidence of the contents of the "original" document. All this necessarily shows that Section 65B differentiates between the original information contained in the "computer" itself and copies made therefrom - the former being primary evidence, and ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....upra) and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) as well as on perusal of the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered we that the four conditions stipulated in section 65B(2) ie., (a) to (d) along with section 65B(4) were not followed while obtaining the Certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act 1872 in the case of the assessee which are to be followed mandatorily. Therefore, we have no hesitation to hold that this Certificate is not a valid Certificate as prescribed under the Indian Evidence Act 1872 and hence cannot be enforced. Therefore, the Certificate obtained in the case of the assessee cannot be regarded as a legally valid certificate u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act and the same has no recognition in the eyes of law. The information contained in the seized pendrive is could not be considered as admissible evidence as per the provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that such inadmissible seized material is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee on 31/3/2022 is not a valid assessme....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....debit entries without narration in the seized material to the extent of 40% of such expenditure only without providing any justified for limiting the deduction to the said extent instead of allowing the entire expenditure any by disregarding the provisions of section 132(4A) that deem that the contents of the seized material are true." 53. On the above grounds, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee has purchased tobacco from grey market by cash which was already included in the purchases while admitting the gross profit during the filing of return of income. The Ld. AR admitted that this grey market purchases are shown in the books of accounts under different creditors instead of the original creditors. Therefore the Ld. AR pleaded that the Ld. CIT(A) has estimated a profit of 20% on unaccounted purchases is not valid as the assessee has declared the profit while filing the return of income is after considering the entire purchases. The Ld. AR therefore also submitted that various High Courts as relied by the Ld. CIT (A) has estimated the profit at 12.5% on the bogus purchases and therefore prayed that the profit may be restricted to 12.5%. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted that the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No. 5 & 6 of the assessee's appeal also. Accordingly, these grounds need no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 59. In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2014-15 is allowed. ITA No. 175/Viz/2023 AY: 2015-16 60. In this appeal, the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. Grounds No.1, 5 & 6 are general in nature and they need no separate adjudication. 61. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2015-16 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2015-16 vide Grounds No. 2 & 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 & 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 & 3 for the AY 2015-16 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 62. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee is as under: "4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Y 2016-17) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 69. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee reads as under: "5. On the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 6,10,91,854/- made towards negative cash balance in the unaccounted cash book though the same was due to lack of accuracy in the dates mentioned in the said cash book and when there is no possibility of cash expenditure being incurred in an unaccounted cash book without the availability of cash." 70. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that while adjudicating the legal issues raised by the assessee vide Grounds No.2 & 3, based on our decision with respect to Grounds No. 4 & 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2012-13, we have allowed the grounds in favour of the assessee and set-aside the assessment order and therefore, this ground raised by the assessee needs no separate adjudication. 71. In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2016-17 is allowed. ITA No.177/Viz/2023 (AY: 2017-18) 72. In this appeal the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. Grounds No. 1, 5 & 6 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....-19 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 79. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: "4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Revenue." 80. This ground raised by the assessee is identical to that of the Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2013-14. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, our decision given therein (AY 2013-14) applies mutatis mutandis to the Ground No. 4 of the this appeal (AY 2018-19) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 81. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the AY 2018-19 is allowed. ITA No. 179/Viz/2023 (AY: 2019-20) 82. In this appeal, the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. Grounds No. 1, 5 & 6....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2020-21 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 89. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: "4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Revenue." 90. This ground raised by the assessee is identical to that of the Ground No. 5 of the assessee's appeal for the AY 2013-14. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, our decision given therein (AY 2013-14) applies mutatis mutandis to the Ground No. 4 of the this appeal (AY 2020-21) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 91. Ground No.5 raised by the assessee reads as under: "On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the contention of the appellant that the assessment is void ab ....