COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - V vs. JETHIBEN K PATEL DISCRETIONARY TRUST,

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1294 of 2010 With R/TAX APPEAL NO. 1386 of 2010

FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:

HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA

and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

========================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the Constitution of India or any order made thereunder ? ========================================================== COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - V Versus JETHIBEN K PATEL DISCRETIONARY TRUST, ========================================================== Appearance: MR MR BHATT, SR COUNSEL WITH MRS MAUNA M BHATT(174) for the Appellant(s) No. 1 MR SN SOPARKAR, SR COUNSEL WITH MR BS SOPARKAR WITH MRS SWATI SOPARKAR(870) for the Opponent(s) No. 1 ========================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE J.B.PARDIWALA and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA

Date : 25/02/2020 Page 1 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT

ORAL JUDGMENT (PER : HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BHARGAV D. KARIA) 1. Tax Appeal no.1386 of 2010 is admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 17th April 2012: (A) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting the addition of undisclosed income of Rs.51,72,44,000/­ made in respect of capital gain on sale of warrants, even though the same was evidenced by materials/documents found during the search. (B) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting the disallowance of Rs.2,16,00,849/­ made on account of interest expenses which were not genuine. (C) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting disallowance of Rs.25,75,968/­ made on account of capital loss. (D) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting the interest charged under Section 158BFA(1) of the Income Tax Act. 2. Tax Appeal no.1294 of 2010 is admitted on the following substantial questions of law vide order dated 17th April 2012: (A) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting   the   addition   of   undisclosed   income   of   Rs.1,78,49,895/­   being undisclosed   income   out   of   book   settlement   of   interest   income   without appreciation of the fact that seized material found clearly indicated that Page 2 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT the assessee had received interest by book settlement entries. (B) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting the addition of Rs.1,78,49,895/­ following the Tribunal’s decision in the case of Nirav Discretionary Family Trust and Harsiddh Specific Family Trust in IT (SS) Nos.63 and 68/Ahd/2006 without considering the fact that the facts of the cases relied upon were different from the facts of one involved in the present case. (C) Whether the Tribunal below committed substantial error of law in deleting the Assessing Officer to charge interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act from the date when copy of the seized papers were allowed to the assessee   trust   without   appreciating   the   fact   that   simple   supply   of photocopies of seized material had no bearing on the chargeability of its interest. 3. The Tax Appeal no.1386 of 2010 is filed at the instance of revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act, 1961”) against the order dated 20th November 2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short ‘the Tribunal’) in IT (SS) A No.63/Ahd/2006 for block assessment from 1st  February 1995 to 27th September 2001 in case of the respondent herein along with IT(SS)A No.68/Ahd/2006 in case of Nirav Discretionary Family Trust.  Whereas the Tax Appeal no.1294 of 2010 is filed by the revenue and is directed against the order passed by the Tribunal in IT(SS) A 64/Ahd/2006 in case of Jethiben K. Patel.  The Tribunal has followed the order passed in IT (SS) A 63/Ahd/2006 and IT(SS) No.68/Ahd/2006 in deleting the addition of undisclosed income in the hands of Jethiben K. Patel.  Hence, both these appeals were heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. Page 3 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT 4. So far as question C in Tax Appeal no.1386 of 2006 is concerned, the same is covered by the decision of this Court in case of Naman Associates in Tax Appeal No.1180 of 2006 wherein it is held that capital loss is not a contrived loss as claimed by the assessee.  Therefore, the   assessee  is  entitled  to  the   capital  loss  claimed  in  the  return of income.  It is held as under :­ “17. Having   considered   the   submissions   made   by   the   learned advocates   for   the   respective   parties   and   having   perused   the   impugned orders passed by the Assessing Officer, CIT(A) and the Tribunal, we are of the   opinion   that   the   Tribunal   has   arrived   at   finding   of   fact   after considering the material evidence on record so as to hold that the assessee is entitled to the claim of the contrived losses suffered by it.  The Tribunal has also rightly considered the fact that in the assessment under the block period only the undisclosed income, which is found from the seized material can only be considered for the addition as in the total income of the assessee.   In the facts of the case, the assessee has already disclosed the losses by making necessary entries in the books of accounts and therefore, the   assessing   officer   and   CIT(A)   were   not   justified   in   disallowing   the contrived losses claimed by the assessee.  The Tribunal has also taken into consideration the factual aspect of the matter that the sale bills were issued by the brokers, the payments were made by cheque by the respective buyer of the shares and such transactions are duly reflected in the books of accounts.  In such circumstances, it cannot be said that the Tribunal has committed any error in holding that the assessee is entitled to claim the contrived losses in the total income for the respective year by the respective assessee.” Following the same, question C is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 5. With regard to questions A and B in Tax Appeal No.1386 of 2010, the brief facts are as under :­ [A] Addition of undisclosed income of Rs.51,72,44,000/­, Capital Gain on sale of warrants :­ Page 4 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT “(i) A   search   was   carried   out   in   the   case   of   Nirma   Group   on 27/09/2001. On the basis of incriminating documents seized during the course of search, the Assessing Officer was satisfied that some of the seized materials has direct link with the undisclosed income of the different  entities  of Nirma Group including Harsiddh  Specific Family Trust (the assessee). Therefore, action u/s. 158B r.w.s. 155BC was initiated in the case of the assessee. After considering the various notings on the seized documents, the Assessing Officer concluded that sale of warrants of Nirma Group had actually affected in the year 2000   and   after   considering   the   date   of   purchase,   the   Assessing Officer, accordingly calculated the capital gain of Rs.51,72,44,000/­ as undisclosed income of the assessee. (ii) In appeal, the   CIT(A) confirmed the order of the Assessing Officer on this issue holding that the Assessing Officer had given valid reasons in the assessment order for taxing the undisclosed income from sale of warrants. (iii) Against the assessee’s   appeal, the Appellate Tribunal deleted the addition made on account undisclosed income considering that the book entries were found in the different entities and held that the transfer reflected in the seized material were proposed transactions and the payments made were in the nature of advance only.” 6. Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned senior advocate assisted by Mrs. Mauna Bhatt, senior standing counsel, vehemently submitted that as per the seized material at page no.299 Annexure­A/5, it is not in dispute that it refers to“sold  7,00,000” and therefore there was no ambiguity that the warrants under consideration were  sold and  it was not only Page 5 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT proposed sale. 7. It was submitted that it is also not in dispute that till 30th April 2000, cumulative payment at Rs.800 per warrant were received for all the 11 Lac warrants.  It was submitted that both the Assessing Officer and   CIT(A)   held   that   the   evidence   and   documents   referred   by   the assessee after 20th  July 2000 cannot be relied upon because after this date, both the parties actively collaborated to change complexion of transaction so as to avoid tax and it is evident that before 20th July 2000, the intention of the parties was different.  In such circumstances, it was submitted that the facts of payments received upto that date conclusively proves that the real nature of the transaction was one of the actual sale and not the proposed sale. 8. With regard to disallowance of interest expenses debited by the assessee trust, it was submitted that the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer both have rightly held that the amount received by the assessee trust was not advanced but it was a consideration for actual sales of the 6 Lac warrants and therefore, the said issue cannot be consequential to the first issue with regard to the capital gains. 9. On   the   other   hand,   Mr.   S.   N.   Soparkar,   learned   senior advocate assisted by Mr. B. S. Soparkar, learned advocate vehemently opposed the contentions raised on behalf of the revenue. 10. Learned   senior   advocate   referred   to   the   documents compiled in all paper­book to point­out from the seized papers that reference to Annexure­A/5 only states  that  there was a proposal to 7,00,000 share warrants. However, there is no conclusive proof to show that there was an actual delivery of the share warrants by the assessee. Page 6 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT It was further submitted that the assessee has calculated interest  at the rate of 12% p.a. and has also deducted the TDS from such interest calculated on the amount received by the assessee on 24th February 2000 and   amount   was   repaid   on   16th  May   2000   and   the   TDS   was   also deposited by the assessee.  Similarly, the amount received on 13th April 2000 and 16th May 2000 by the assessee was also returned with interest after deducting the TDS.  The principal amount was repaid on 20th July 2000 and the net interest amount was paid by the assessee on 24th October 2000.  IT was submitted that these dates and transactions took place  prior to  the   date  of search  on 27th  September  2001.    It  was therefore, submitted that there was no intention on the part of the assessee for not disclosing any capital gain or any transaction so as to not to offer the amount of capital gain if any earned by the assessee. 11. It   was   submitted   that   the   Assessing   Officer   made   the addition only on the basis of the assumption by relying upon the seized material without there being any corresponding entries in the books of accounts   in   the   bank   statements.     It   was   pointed   out   that   on   the contrary, all the entries relating to the amount received by the assessee and   repayment   thereof   with   interest   are   reflected   in   the   books   of accounts and the payment was made through banking channel.  It was therefore, submitted that the addition made on the basis of the notings made   in   the   seized   papers   without   there   being   any   supportive   or corroborative material is rightly deleted by the Tribunal. 12. Learned advocate for the petitioner assessee also submitted that the assessee remains the owner of the 7,00,000 share warrants, which was subsequently converted into shares and are being reflected as shares. Page 7 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT 13. Having   heard   the   learned   advocates   for   the   respective parties and having gone through the material on record, the Tribunal has considered the issue in detail on the basis of the records produced before it as under :­ “9. We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We have also perused the case record in both the appeal, i.e. block assessment orders, the orders of CIT(A) and paper books filed by the assessee. The paper book filed by the assessee-trust Nirav Discretionary Family Trust (NDFT in short) consisting pages 1 to 191 and Ld. CIT DR also filed copy of some seized papers consisting pages 1 to 5. The Ld. CIT DR has also filed copies of show cause notice dated 20-05-2004, 31- 05-2004 In the case of Harsiddh Specific Family Trust (HSFT in short) and similar papers also filed by Ld. CIT DR and paper book by the HSFT consisting pages 1-205. 10. We find that in both the appeal in the case of HSFT and NDFT are almost exactly identical but these are independent entity and have no inter- connection and inter se. We have sourced the facts and details from the HSFT and NDFT as well as other relevant facts sourced from the argument of both the sides and the case records filed before us. Both the assessee-trusts were the owner of warrants of Nirma Ltd. and were intending to sell 7 and 4 lacs warrants, TIFL was in touch with the assessee-trust as broker and in the beginning of year 2000, the assessee-trust expressed interest in selling the warrants and TIFIL also expressed interest in buying the warrants at a negotiable price in big lots for themselves as well as on behalf of clients. In turn Shri Kausik K Patel advised both the assessee and accordingly had discussed of its expectation on the price, quantity and term of payment etc. Accordingly, Mr. K.K. Patel took the matter with the TIFIL on behalf of both the assessee-trust. The buyer through TIFIL established their intention of going through with the transaction and started making payments even though the transactions were not confirmed. Accordingly, HSFT received a sum of Rs.56 crores towards proposed sales of its 7 lacs warrants and further payment of Rs.35 crores was also received on 16-05-2000. Both the assessee were willing to sell the warrants @ Rs.1,000/- but the buyers were willing to buy the warrants @ Rs.800/- per warrant. Accordingly, the sale transaction did not materialize as per the claim of the assessee-trust. As per the claim of the NDFT and actually sold to TIFIL on 30-04-2000 @ Rs.800/- per warrant and physically delivered 1 lac shares vide letter dtd.14-04-2000. The assessee-trust, i.e. NDFT and declared long term capital gains sale of 1 lac warrants in the return of income for the assessment year 2001-02. It was the claim of the assessee that by record date 15-04-2000, that the warrants could not be transferred in the name of TIFIL and NDFT made payment of Rs.50 per warrant on behalf of TIFIL and in turn TIFIL reimbursed the whole amount back. After conversion of warrants and allotment of shares on 20-06- 2000 1 lac shares were received by NDFT on behalf of TIFIL and subsequent Page 8 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT delivered to TIFIL. The claim of the assessee was that the amounts received from the buyers were advance and interest free but the deal of balance warrants and the amount was utilized by both the assessee-trust. In that eventuality both the assessee-trust agreed that interest @ 13% would be paid to the intending buyer for the period for which the funds were utilized by both the assessee- trust. The assessee-trust has narrated the details of payment as under:- Amount received Chitrakoot Computers Pvt. Ltd. Cheque No. Name of the Bank 23.02.00 2,80,00,000/- 491775 Global Trust Bank Ltd. 13.04.00 53,20,00,000/- 592559 16.05.00 3,50,00,000/- 592569 Total 59,50,00,000/- Amount repaid on 20/07/00 59,50,00,000/- 183529 The KCCB Ltd. Interest paid (Net of TDS) * 1,62,67,060/- 166549 The KCCB Ltd. TDS paid 45,88,145/- Gross Interest 2,08,55,205/- * Cheque amount of Rs.1,62,69,060/- includes Rs.2,000/- for bank charges. It was the claim of the assessee-trusts that they have repaid the advances received from the prospective buyers along with interest after deducting TDS. We find that the Assessing Officer on the basis of loose papers and noting therein found during the course of search came to the conclusion that both the assessee-trust had actually sold its 7 lac and 4 lacs warrants and the amount received as advance was the sale consideration. We further find that after search on 27-09-2001, 25-01-2002 and 29-01-2002 the Assessing Officer recorded the statement of Shri Jatiin Sarvaiya u/s 131 of the Act. ” 14. Thereafter, the Tribunal has referred to the statement of Shri Rahul Devi recorded during the course of search under Section 132(4) of the Act on 27th September 2001 and in reply to question no.39 decided that as far as his information, loan transaction took place with Chitrakoot Computers Pvt. Ltd., and thereafter also as explained, the Page 9 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT transaction in his statement dated 22nd  November 2001 wherein also in reply   to   question   nos.17   and  19   and  question   nos.22   to   25   of   the statement dated 23rd November 2001, it was stated by Mr. Rahul Devi that there transaction was only with regard to 1,00,000 warrants of Nirma Ltd., by Nirav Specific Family Trust to Try International Finance Ltd., on 13th April 2000 and no other sale or warrants had taken place and there was only loan transaction by the assessee trust.  The Tribunal has also considered the statement of Shri Rahul Devi with regard to the payment calculation of the interest made in the seized paper by Shri Rahul Devi in his statement before the Assessing Officer to clarify the issue of non­conclusion of proposed sale of warrants and return of the advance money by the assessee trust to the respective parties together with interest after deducting the TDS. 15. The Tribunal thereafter, considering the submissions made on behalf of the revenue held as under :­ “15. We find from the above facts that apart from the documents placed before us by the Ld. CIT DR found during the course of search, the relevant page i.e. page-23, 24, 86 and back side of 108 of Annexure-A/5 & A/1produced by the assessee in the Paper Book and the corresponding pages are 136, 137, 140, & 144 read as under:- SHRI KAUSHAL D.W.A. P.F.I.C.L BREAK-UP OF WARRANTS NO TRANSFER TRANSFEREE NO. OF WARRANTS 1. JALPA NOSSHATRO SEFTWAU (P) Ltd. 7 lakh P 2. JALPA HARSIDDH CITIES HOT " 56,00,00,000

2,80,00,000 53,20,00,000 7 lakh 4 TD 3. NIRAj Gold fish Computers (P) Ltd. 7 lakh + p 4. NIRAV Rekha Sarviya 12,00,00,000 1.50 lakh 3 TD - 60,00,000 Page 10 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT 11,40,00,000 5. NIFAV Mita Doshi " 1.50 lakh 4 6. NIRAV Triurph International 8,00,00,000 40,00,000 ----------------- 9,60,00,000 4.00 lakh India Limited ---------------------------------- TOTAL 5.00 lakh We propose to complete items no 4/5/6 and any one of 1//3. We could do item 3 to complete 'NIRAV' transaction for go perused. Page-24 Shri M.pbhani 7/3/000 With reference to your inquiry as to receipt as his 5.60 crores into Harsiddh and Rs.4.40 crores into Nirav on 24--2000 please note the names from whom these deposits are received:- All deposits are non interest bearing as informed by Shri Kaushikbhai. (1) Harsiddh Main Rs. in crores. (a) Nakshatia Software (P) Ltd. Rs.2.80 addition. R/5 (b) Chitrakoot Software (P) Ltd. Rs.2.80 ad 13/4 (2) Nirav Discretionary Family Trust. Goldfish Computers (P) Ltd. Rs.2.80 ints. h/s. Rekha Sarvauiya Rs.0.60 ing. Menal Ints. Rs.0.60 ins. Trimph International Ltd. India Ltd. Rs.0.40 ad. 13/4 Page-86 Interest paid to Triumph 5.2.2000 Nakshare 280.00 14/5/2000 81 days1% 745644 24.2.2000 Goldfish to Nirav Chihatlot 23/2/2000 to 80.00 19/7 148 13% 1475945 To Harsiddh 13/4/22000 530.00 19/7 98 13% 185.68986 Page 11 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT 16/5/2000 350.00 19/7 65 13% 8,10,274 Rekha to Nirav 23/ /2000 60.00 19/7 148 13% 3,16,274 13/4/2000 1140.00 19/7 98 13% 34,94,068 11/5/2000 75.00 19/7 65 13% 1,73,631 Mita to 23/7/2000 60.00 19/7 148 13% 3,16,274 Nirav 13/4/2000 1140.00 19/7 98 13% 39,79,068 6/5/2000 75.00 19/7 65 13% 1,73,631 ---------------- 3,12,84,439 ---------------- Interest Received from Triumph Jelwban 13/4/2000 60,51,63,727.90 To Triumph Rvd, 20/7/2000 61,02,13,626.00 ------------------------------- 50,49,898.10 Vyaj Badla 50,49,898.10 (13% equivalent or Amt. lent for 98 days : 2,11,22,701) Losses NCWL 20/12/2000 1,04,45991.75 NCZCL 20/12/2000 1,07,25,653.16 2,05,71,644.91 Amt. Reed. For 1,00000 sh. 23/2 40 loss 13/4 7G loss 16/5 50 loss Back side of page 108 Possible calculation you arrived at Amt. given for trading (1) 12,73,000 shares X 140.18 Rate in excess of 1000/- 17,48,49,140 (2) 88,00,00,000/- - 13/4

- 10,00,00,000/- Reed on 3/ 78,00,00,000 - 17,48,49,140 diff in excess of 1000 60,51,50,860 Bal. Amt. given for trading 60,51,63,727=80 ===================== ---------------------------------- Interest paid 3,12,84,439 Loss 2,05,71,645 5,18,56,084 From the above documents and the arguments of both side, it is gathered that these transactions noted on seized pages 23, 24, 33, 87, 88, 108 and back Page 12 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT side of page 108 of Annexure-A/1 seized from the premises of Shri Rahul V Devi and slip attach to page-35 of Annexure-A/5 from the premises of Nirma Management Services Pvt. Ltd., on 11-10-2001 and noting on page-29 of Annexure-A/5 seized in the name of Nirma Management Services Pvt. Ltd., it is clearly observed by us that particularly on page-23 it is written as, " we propose to complete item N.4,5, 6 and any one of 1/2/3. We could do item 3 to complete "Nirav" transaction for if perused". We feel that these are not concluded transactions and it is merely a proposal a sale the warrants of Nirma Limited as mentioned in the page. We further went into slip attached to page-35 of Annexure-A/5 and found that it was in respect of keeping the transfer deeds ready for warrants to be sold in case of transaction getting through. We find that this is normal communication of documents for the transactions to be entered. We find that In the case of NDFT except for 1 lac warrants, the transactions could not be completed which has been substantiated by evidences like copies of Demat a/c, confirmation of financial accounts by respective parties etc. Various seized papers, seized from the residence of Shri Rahul Devi clearly indicating that the amounts received from Rekha Sarvaiya and Meeta Doshi were advanced towards in the books of account have been conveniently ignored by the lower authorities. The identical payments scheduled by different parties having mediator "Triumph" has been explained by Mr. Jatiin Sarvaiya, Department's witness in very clear and unambiguous way by his statement taken u/s.131 of the Act on 25-01- 2002 and 29- 01-2002 which also has been ignored by the lower authorities.” 16. With regard to the deleting the disallowance of the interest expenses claimed by the assessee trust, the Tribunal has rightly held that as the main ground with regard to the addition on account of the capital gains has been decided in favour of the assessee trust, wherein it is held that the payment received from other parties by the assessee trust are loans and advances and therefore, the interest payment by the assessee trust to this parties are required to be allowed. Page 13 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT 17. On perusal of the findings of fact arrived at by the Tribunal on the basis of the material on record, we do not find the same either to be perverse or contrary to records by considering irrelevant factors or ignoring the relevant factors.  In such circumstances, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal with  regard to the questions A and B.  The questions, therefore, are answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 18. With regard to the question D, the Tribunal has remanded the  matter back to  the  Assessing Officer to calculate interest  under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act, 1961 from the date when the copies of the seized papers were provided to the assessee trust.  This Court in Tax Appeal No.719 of 2009 has also rejected the Tax Appeal of the assessee by order dated 22nd  June 2010 on such issue when the Tribunal has remitted  the  matter  back to  the  Assessing Officer  to consider  as to whether the delay in filing the block return was on account of default on the part of the assessee and to penalize him by charging interest under Section 158BFA(1) to the extent assessee was responsible for delay. 19. We are, therefore, of the opinion that it cannot be stated that the Tribunal has committed any error so as to warrant interference. 20. Similarly, the Madras High Court in case of  K. Balan v. Deputy   Commissioner   of   Income­Tax,   Central   Circle­II(2),   Chennai reported in [2018] 93 taxmann.com 452 (Madras) has also considered such issue holding that interest under Section 158BFA(1) could not be levied upon assessee for the period of delay in filing return caused due to delay in obtaining copies of seized material from the department as under:­ Page 14 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT “14. On a reading of statutory provision one gets an impression that no such plea is entertainable and limitation does not stop and continues to run upon  issuing  notice  under section  158BC.  However,  cannot  ignore  the principles of natural justice, which will have to be read into the provision, as assessee without being supplied with the necessary documents, which were seized during the course of search, would not be in a position to file a proper return. Law does not compel a person to perform that which is impossible. Admittedly, the delay in not filing the return after the notice dated 20.07.1998 is not attributable to the assessee. Nowhere, the Revenue has taken a stand that the request made by the assessee for supply of seized documents was either unreasonable or uncalled for. Later, the department has furnished the photostat copies of the seized documents. Therefore, the period   during   which   the   assessee   was   waiting   for   the   copies   of   the documents, which were seized, has to be necessarily excluded and if this is excluded, the period between 1998 to 22.06.1999 has to be necessarily excluded. This reasoning is supported by the decision of the High Court of Karnataka in CIT v. B. Nagendra Baliga [2014] 47 taxmann.com 331/363 ITR 410 and the decision of the High Court of Delhi in CIT v. Mesco Airlines   Ltd.   [2012]   20   taxmann.com   549/206   Taxman   91   (Mag.)/ [2010] 327 ITR 554.” 21. In view of above, we are of the opinion that the tribunal has rightly remanded the matter back to the Assessing Officer for calculation of the interest payable by the assessee under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act to find out the date when the copies of seized material was allowed to the assessee trust and to charge interest under Section 158BFA(1) of the Act, 1961 from that date.  Question D is answered in favour of the assessee and against the revenue as the Tribunal has not deleted the interest entirely but remitted the matter back to the Assessing Officer for calculation purpose as stated hereinabove. 22. With regard to the question C in Tax Appeal no.1294 of 2010, the same is to be answered as per question D in Tax Appeal No.1386 of 2010. 23. With regard to the questions A and B in Tax Appeal no.1294 Page 15 of 16

C/TAXAP/1294/2010 JUDGMENT of 2010, the Tribunal has held that both the sides have agreed that the issue stands covered by the order passed in the case of the assessee in Tax Appeal no.1386 of 2010.  The Tribunal has observed as under :­ “The Ld. Counsel of the assessee and the Ld. CIT D.R. fairly agreed that the facts are exactly identical in this case also what was in IT(SS)A No.63 and 68/Ahd/2006 which has been argued.   We find that the issue being exactly identical and we have already decided in favour   of   the   assessee   vide   Tribunal’s   order   in   IT(SS)A   No.63   & 68/Ahd/2016   in   para­15   and   16   dated   20th  November   2009   for which we have already passed one order as under :­” 24. Thus, the Tribunal has followed the order passed in Tax Appeal no.63 of  2006 and Tax Appeal no.68 of 2006.  Accordingly, in absence of  any  independent  finding  of  the  Tribunal,  we  are  of  the opinion that the Tribunal has followed the decision in case of the Tax Appeal no.63 of  2006 and Tax Appealno.68 of 2006 and as questions A and B are similar to that of questions A and B of Tax Appeal no.1386 of 2010, the same are decided accordingly by answering the same in favour of the assessee and against the revenue following the reasons given by the Tribunal. 25. In the result, the appeals fail and are accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs. (J. B. PARDIWALA, J) (BHARGAV D. KARIA, J) AMAR RATHOD Page 16 of 16