Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 247 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN 448/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT:
HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT.
BY ADVS. P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682 013
BY ADVS. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.255/2019, 259/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-2-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 255 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER ITA 450/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT:
HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD. CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682 013 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-3-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 259 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 449/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD. CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI-682013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-4-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 256 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 451/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH
APPELLANT:
HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PVT. LTD CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX KOCHI-682013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-5-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 260 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 452/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT:
HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PVT. LIMITED CHUNGAM. FEROKE CALICUT.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682013 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-6-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 258 OF 2019 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 453/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT:
HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI-682013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-7-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 10 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 447/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD TIMBERS MAKKARPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM - 676 507.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682 013.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-8-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 3 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 446/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT:
HILLWOOD TIMBERS MAKKARPARAMBU, MALAPPURAM-676507.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI- 682013.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-9-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 13 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 290/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD FURNITURE PVT.LTD CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631 REP. BY M/D. V. SHAREEF.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682 013 BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-10-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 4 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 285/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD. CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT - 673 631
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, KOCHI CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682 013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX
THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-11-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 8 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 288/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL, COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD FURNITURE PVT. LTD. CHUNGAM FEROKE CALICUT 673 631. M/D. V.S JAREEF.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI 682 013.
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-12-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 11 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 289/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD FURNITURE PVT. LTD CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT - 673 631
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI - 682 013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-13-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 12 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 287/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD FURNITURE PVT LTD CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682 013
BY ADVS.SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) SRI.JOSE JOSEPH, SC, FOR INCOME TAX THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-14-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE S.V.BHATTI & THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BASANT BALAJI THURSDAY, THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER 2022 / 21ST ASWINA, 1944 ITA NO. 16 OF 2020 AGAINST THE ORDER IN ITA 286/COCH/2018 OF I.T.A.TRIBUNAL,COCHIN BENCH APPELLANT/APPELLANT/APPELLANT/ASSESSEE:
HILLWOOD FURNITURE P LTD. CHUNGAM, FEROKE, CALICUT-673 631, REPRESENTED BY MANAGING DIRECTOR, V.SHAREEF.
BY ADVS.P.RAGHUNATH SRI.PREMJIT NAGENDRAN
RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/RESPONDENT/REVENUE:
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOCHI-682 013. BY ADV. SRI.P.K.RAVINDRANATHA MENON (SR.) THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 13.10.2022, ALONG WITH ITA.247/2019 AND CONNECTED CASES, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-15-
JUDGMENT [ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020]
S.V. Bhatti, J.
We have heard Sri P Raghunathan, learned Counsel for the appellants, and Sri P K Ravindranatha Menon, learned Senior Counsel for the respondent.
M/s.Hillwood Imports and Exports Pvt. Ltd.; Hillwood Furniture Pvt. Ltd; Hillwood Timbers/Assessees, and the Commissioner of Income Tax/Revenue are the parties in the batch of appeals being disposed of by this common judgment. For convenience, the parties are referred to as the assessee and the Revenue.
2.1 The appellants/assessees are umbrella business entities doing business under the management of one V Shareef.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-16-
On 04.12.2013, the Revenue carried out a search in the business premises of the assessees and the residence of Managing Director Sri V Shareef. On 14.07.2014, the Revenue conducted a survey at the premises of one Riyaz, who was an employee working with the assessee. The Deputy Commissioner, Central Circle-II, Kozhikode, by notice dated 29.02.2016, has taken up block assessment against the assesses. On 18.03.2016 the assesses filed reply to the pre-assessment notice dated 29.02.2016. On 29.03.2016 the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – II, completed the assessment for the block period stated in each one of the assessment orders. The assessee carried the matter in appeal, at the first instance, before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), and the appellate authority modified the assessment orders on the estimation of turnover etc and granted substantial relief to the assesses. The assesses filed
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-17-
second appeals before the Tribunal challenging the assessment order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 29.03.2016, and the order of the Commissioner dated 19.07.2018, particularly on the alleged manner and mode of the survey dated 14.07.2014 under Section 133A of the Act as illegal. The evidentiary value of documents alleged to have been impounded from the house of Riyaz is in breach of Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act, and applying the data alleged to have been retrieved from the three pen drives from Riyaz is impermissible. The Tribunal rejected the request of the assessee to place on record the opinion of an expert on Hash Value Report generation and rejected the two principal grounds raised, namely, under Section 133A of the Act and Sections 65A and 65B of the Evidence Act. The Tribunal, by its common order dated 05.03.2019, dismissed the appeals filed by the assessees. Hence, the appeals under
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-18-
Section 260A of the Act.
The learned Counsel appearing for parties state that the circumstances leading to the block assessment, and the grounds of challenge are substantially identical in all the appeals. Hence, reference to the circumstances in one appeal would be sufficient for disposing of all the appeals. The appeals, though, are admitted on a few substantial questions of law, Adv. P Ragunathan formulated the following three substantial questions of law for decision in all the appeals. Question no.1: Whether the appellate Tribunal should not have found that the survey conducted on 14.7.2014 at the residential house of Sri Riyaz violated the provisions of Section 133A of the Income Tax Act? Question No.2: Whether the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error of law when it dismissed the application for permission to raise additional ground - based on the provisions of Sections 65A and 65B read with Section 93 and the Second Schedule of the IT Act. Question No.3: Whether the generation of Hash Value
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-19-
Report in the presence of the assessee would mean that the contents of the pen drives were accessed in the presence of the assessee?
ITA No.247/2019 has been treated as the representative appeal for disposing of connected appeals. I.T.A. No.247/2019
Hillwood Imports and Exports Pvt. Ltd./assessee is the appellant. The orders which are challenged before the statutory authorities are stated as follows: Sl. No. Preassessment notice Assessment Order Order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) Order of Tribunal ITA No. 1 AAACH8959A/2 015-16 dated 29.02.2016 Order dated 29.03.2016 for the Assessment Year 2008-09 ITA No.127 to 132/C/CIT(A)- III/2016-17 dated 19.07.2018 ITA Nos.448 /Coch/2018 247/ 2019
The assessee and its sister concerns are dealers doing business in timber. On 04.12.2013 search of the business premises of the assessee and the residence of its Managing Director along with
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-20-
the business premises of the sister concerns, was carried out. A few documents were recovered, and the statement of Managing Director V Shareef was recorded. On 14.07.2014, the Revenue conducted a survey of the premises of one Riyaz, an employee of the assessee’s company. The relationship or standing of Riyaz vis-à-vis is disputed by the assessee, however having regard to the findings of fact recorded by all the authorities, this Court proceeds on the basis of findings recorded in this behalf. The Department impounded a few account statements, and three pen drives from the custody of the said Riyaz. On 29.02.2016 pre- assessment notice for the Assessment Year 2008-09 to 2013-14 was served on the assessee. On 18.03.2016, the assessee filed the reply, and on 29.03.2016, the assessment was completed by determining the total income for assessment at Rs.7,31,36,150/. The assessee filed appeal, and by order dated 19.07.2018, the
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-21-
appeal was allowed in-part, and the estimation of turnover was modified. By effect order dated 25.10.2018, the income assessed to tax is determined as Rs.1,98,95,740/-. The Tribunal in Tax Appeal No.448/Coch/2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee.
4.1 We find it convenient to examine the substantial questions of law in the same way the arguments are advanced by the learned Counsel appearing for the parties. 5. Substantial question Nos.2 and 3: (2) Whether the Appellate Tribunal did not commit an error of law when it dismissed the application for permission to raise additional ground based on the provisions of Section 65A and 65B read with Section 93 and Second Schedule of the IT Act? (3) Whether the generation of Hash Value Report in the presence of the assessee would mean that the contents of the pen drives were accessed in the presence of the assessee?
5.1 Adv P Ragunathan argues that the Tribunal committed a jurisdictional error, both in law and fact, by dismissing the application filed to raise additional grounds under Sections 65A
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-22-
and 65B of the Evidence Act read with the Second Schedule of the IT Act. Sections 65A and 65B are the provisions dealing with the admissibility of electronic records as evidence. Section 65B deals with the accessibility of electronic records. The assessment orders are based on the data retrieved from the three pen drives recovered from Riyaz, who, according to the assessee, is a former employee of the business concerns. The Department got the pen drives examined by an expert and data was recovered. The Department has relied upon the contents of the record electronically generated. Therefore, strict compliance with the conditions laid down in Section 65B is necessary. The Supreme Court in Anvar P V v. P K Basheer1 held that if the electronic record is being used as evidence, the conditions mentioned under Section 65B (4) are strictly complied with. The Hash Value Report
1 (2014) 10 SCC 473
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-23-
and accepting the said Hash Value Report as correct by the Tribunal and the Commissioner is illegal and untenable. 5.2 He further contends that there is nothing on record to suggest that the very pen drives, assuming without admitting, having a few details of the assessee, are the pen drives recovered from Riyaz. The Hash Value Report was generated on 22/23.07.2014. Therefore, the estimation now arrived at on the suppressed turnover etc is not based on any evidence. Therefore, in this background, the assessee was advised to place on record an expert opinion on the Hash Value Report dated 23.07.2014 and permit the assessee to raise additional grounds. The Tribunal ought to have allowed the assessee to raise additional grounds and bring on record expert opinion. The rejection of both requests has prejudiced the case of the assessee, and the notional value, without there being a semblance of evidence, has been
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-24-
assessed by the Revenue. He invites our attention to Anvar P V v. P K Basheer (supra) and M/s. P A Kuriakose Jewellers v. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax2 in support of the above arguments.
5.3 According to the assessee, the Department, for the first time, during the pendency of the appeals before the Tribunal, has come up with a case that the Hash Value Report was generated on 22/23.07.2014 when the pen drives were opened by expert. The assessee, to find out whether the data now relied on by the Department is secured in accordance with the procedure prescribed in this behalf, has obtained the report of Sri Vinod Bhattathiripad, who opined that generation of Hash Value at the time of opening the pen drive is meaningless unless the Hash Value at the time of the seizure of the pen drive had been recorded. The shutting out of an expert’s opinion is illegal.
2 Order dated 24.05.2018 in ITA 459/Coch/2010 and connected cases
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-25-
Therefore, according to learned Counsel Mr Ragunathan, the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction to determine the correctness of orders under appeal before it. Firstly, prays for setting aside the orders under appeal as based on no evidence. Secondly, he argues that the findings recorded by the Tribunal on these two issues be set aside and the matter remitted to Tribunal for a decision afresh.
Sri P K R Menon, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondent, argues that the substantial question nos. 2 and 3 ought not to be appreciated by this Court in isolation of the circumstances preceding the pre-assessment notice. He invites our attention to the pre-assessment notice and contends that the block assessment refers to books of account seized in the search conducted on 04.12.2013 and the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act of the Managing Director and other
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-26-
employees of the assessee’s business undertakings. The pre- assessment notice specifically calls upon the assessee to give a reply on the details of business transactions recovered from the premises of Riyaz. The details/materials collected, both in the search and the survey, were counter-checked with the parties noted in the evidence gathered by the Department. The confirmation statements of the parties referred to in the material recovered during and in the course of the search and survey constitute the basis for the pre-assessment notice. 6.1 Therefore, it is incorrect to argue that the three pen drives recovered from Riyaz and the electronically generated copies from these pen drives alone constituted the basis for arriving at either the suppression of income or suppression of turnover by the assessee. The notice, since contains all the details of the assessee, as a belated effort, by referring to the
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-27-
statement made by the Department during the pendency of the appeal before the Tribunal, introduced additional grounds/evidence. He states that the Revenue does not contend that the Tribunal lacks jurisdiction to entertain an additional ground or allow additional material to come on record. But the jurisdiction is exercised after appreciating the circumstances of the case and the available discretion is judiciously exercised. He invites our attention to the chronology of dates and events and argues that the additional grounds and additional materials are nothing but ex post facto attempts by the assessee to challenge the revised order of assessment passed by the Assessing Officer.
The substantial questions considered by this Court will have to be examined in the light of what is clearly borne out by the record on the controversy surrounding the pen drives and the generation of data from the pen drives. Therefore, it is very
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-28-
much required to appreciate the case of respective parties as follows: Pre-assessment notice dated 29.02.2016 refers to the recovery of actual details of the business transactions with various third parties recovered from the premises under the control one Riyaz, as noted above, an employee of the assessee, and the controversy is whether the employee was in service or resigned when the survey was carried out on 14.07.2014. The pre-assessment notice refers to documents recovered and impounded on both the occasions. The entry-to-entry matching of the details from all the sources was undertaken in the presence of Sri A P Vinodkumar and one Hakim during the course of the assessment proceedings. The statements of Hakkim, Beeran, Krishnaprasad, Riyaz were handed over to A.P Vinodkumar the authorized representative of the assessee.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-29-
7.1 The authenticity of data or business transactions in the pen drives, whether they pertain to the business transactions of the assessee firm, and the loose sheets recovered from the house of Riyaz are taken note of and handed to the assessee. The manner in which the turnover has been suppressed and income from the business is suppressed was put to the assessee. The assessee filed reply dated 18.03.2016. For our present purpose, it is sufficient to note that, among other objections, the principal objection of the assessee, either on the material or pen drives retrieved from Riyaz, is that the survey was conducted at the residence of Riyaz and conducting the survey at the residence under Section 133A of the Act is unauthorized. On the pen drives, the objection raised by the assessee is that the material and pen drive must be eschewed and alternatively, there is no evidence on record to show that the alleged data, projected in the notice
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-30-
and furnished to the assessee, are available in the pen drives alleged to have been impounded. The assessment order has referred to the documents recovered or impounded on both occasions and considered in the background of the statements recorded from the persons who seized the material. The assessment order refers to item-wise examination. 8. The assessment order in paragraphs 12 and 12.2 considered the data in the pen drives. Paragraphs 13 and 14 refer to the business transactions and preparation of accounts supported by the sworn statement of Hakkim, Beeran, and Krishnaprasad. A bare reading of the assessment order concludes the controversy on the consideration by the primary authority, hence, we find it useful to excerpt para 14: “14 As regards the authenticity of the data contained in the pendrive seized from the possession of Shri Riyaz,, one of the assessee's employee, the following facts are pertinent. 14.2 Shri Riyaz M is an employee whose employee status was
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-31-
acknowledged by the following staff the assessee namely Shri Hakkim K, Shri Beeran E K, Shri Krishnaprasad KT. These key staff of the assessee has also acknowledged that the documents and the pendrive impounded from the premises under the control of Shri M Riyaz pertain to the business transactions entered into by the assessee with various parties. During the survey operations at the premises of Shri Riyas M certain documents (HW/R/13, HW/R/04, HW/R/07, HW/R/18, HW/R/17, HW/R/19) pertaining to the business transactions entered into by the assessee were recovered. These documents were prepared by Shri E K Beeran and Shri K T Krishnaprasad who had acknowledged the same in the statements recorded from them. It was seen that the day books entries in the software recovered from the pendrive is exactly matching with the impounded materials as mentioned above. It was also seen that in a survey u/s 133A conducted in the corporate office on 24-07-2014 certain loose sheets were impounded (HSSA -1) which were exactly similar to the loose sheets impounded and marked as HW/R/13, HW/R/04, HW/R/07, HW/R/18, HW/R/17, HW/R/19. All of the above clearly point towards authenticity of the data contained in the pendrive seized from the possession of Shri Riyaz,, one of the assessee's employee.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-32-
14.3 Certain documents were recovered and impounded on 14/07/2014, during the course of survey u/s133A,from the premises under the control of Shri M Riyaz, who is an employee of the assessee company. These documents were pertaining to the business transactions entered into by the assessee with various parties. In this regard, of particular relevance is the following material HW/R/05 (impounded on 14/07/2014 from secret location where Shri Riyaz was present). The loose sheets 15 to 17 therein relate to the transaction with a party by name Murali, Irinjalakkuda. In this regard CHN/13 14/S&S/18/HW(1)- 1 recovered from the assessee's premise on the day of search action u/s 132 on 04-12-2013 is related. The business transactions recorded in both the seized materials relate to the same party Murali, Irinjalakuda. The ledger account of the above party in the books of account in support of the assessee's ROI has also recorded all the transactions as appearing in the seized and impounded materials. 14.4 The MD of the company has acknowledged (Refer Q&A 5 of statement u/s 131(1) recorded on 04-08-2014) that the documents and the pendrive impounded from the TAX premises under the control of Shri M Riyaz pertain to the business transactions entered into by the assessee with various parties.”
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-33-
8.1 The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) adverting to the objections on placing reliance on the data available in the pen drive, read as follows: “5.4. I have gone through the assessment order and submission of the appellant. On 04.12.2013 a search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of the appellant company, other group concerns and directors of the companies. During the course of search, voluminous documents were found and seized evidencing that the appellant company as well as other group concerns were engaged in systematic suppression of sales and thereby profits. Details of these documents seized and contents of these documents have been elaborated by the AO in the assessment order. During the post search investigation, the Investigation Wing received information that the books of accounts are also maintained at a different premise, which was under the control of Shri Riyaz, who is an employee of Mr. Shareef, the controller of Hillwood Group. A survey u/s. 133A was carried out on 14.07.2014 at the said premises of Shri Riyaz M. and books of accounts belonging to Hillwood Group was found and impounded. During the course of survey 3 pen drives containing data of Hillwood Group was also found and these were also impounded. The contents of the pen drives were
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-34-
subjected to forensic imaging and a copy of the contents were provided to Shri Shareef and his Authorized Representative also. The vendor of the software used was Identified as Shri Jacob A. J. and his statement was also taken, Mr. Jacob stated that the software was a complete accounting package and was sold to Hillwood Group. There is no dispute about the fact that data contained therein in the pen drives found and impounded belonged to the Hillwood Group and the same were also compared to the documents found and seized during the course of search. Since the data found in the pen drives have been supplied to the appellant i.e. Mr. Shareef, it cannot be said that the principle of natural justice have not been adhered to. The AO has compared the data from the pen drive to the seized documents and also the books of account maintained by the appellant in regular course of business. Nothing adverse can be Inferred from the fact that the pen drive was impounded in a survey seven to 8 months after the search was initiated in the Group. Once an information has been received, the officers of the Department are duty bound to conduct inquiries through and according to various provisions available in the Act. Thus, on the basis of fact of this case, it is seen that: a) Ground of Appeal No.2 is factually incorrect as the assessment has been completed by the AO on the basis of data and evidences
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-35-
found during the course of search and the data found to be contained in the said Pen Drive. Ground of Appeal No. 2 is dismissed accordingly. b) On the basis of discussion above, it is clear that neither the search nor the survey conducted subsequently are bad-in-law, as there has been no legal or procedural infirmity in carrying out the same. There is no dispute that the data contained in the said Pen Drive belonged to the Appellant Ground of Appeal No. 3 of the appellant is dismissed accordingly. c) Ground of Appeal No.4 also cannot be allowed as it is proved beyond doubt that the data contained in the Pen Drive belonged to the Appellant and its group concerns and the AO has correctly used such data in computing the income of the appellant. This ground of appeal of the appellant is dismissed. d) Grounds of Appeal Nos. 5, 6 and 7 relate to Principle of Natural justice and use of data contained in the Pen Drives. It has already been discussed earlier that there is no dispute about the fact that the data contained in the said pen drives belonged to the appellant group and copy of the data was provided to the appellant before finalization of the assessment. The appellant has objected that Mr. Riyaz was not made available for cross- examination by the Department. In this regard, it is an important fact that the statement of Riyaz has not been used to
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-36-
compute the income of the appellant, but it is the date contained in the pen drive has been used for assessment. Since the statement of Mr. Riyaz has not been used against the appellant, there is no question of giving an opportunity of cross- examination of Mr. Riyaz to the appellant arises. The data in the Pen Drive has been used against the appellant and, therefore, a copy of the same was given to the assessee. Mr. Riyaz is an employee of Mr. Shareef and it is an undisputed admitted fact that data contained in the Pen Drive found during the course of survey at the premises of Mr. Riyaz belonged to the assessee. I do not seen any violation of Principle of Natural Justice in the facts of this case: Since the above data belonged to the appellant, the AO has correctly used them for the purpose of assessment. Grounds of Appeal Nos. 5, 6 and 7 are thus dismissed.”
The assessee, therefore, cannot be allowed to state that the Department, for the first time, has come up with an expert examination of data in the pen drives, the generation of Hash Value, and reliance on materials unconnected to the assessee. It is in this background; the Tribunal recorded the
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-37-
following findings; “8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. Now the question for us to consider is whether the additional grounds of appeals can be raised before the Tribunal which does not arise out of the order of the CIT(A). The law is very well settled, the power of Tribunal is not confined to deal only with issues arising out of the order of the CIT(A) or, for that purpose out of the order passed by the Assessing Officer. In the case of National Thermal Power Corporation Ltd. vs. CIT 229 ITR 383), the Supreme Court observed that the power of the Tribunal is not confined to dealing with the issue which is arising out of the order of the authorities below. As long as the issue is relating to framing of correct assessment for the relevant assessment year, and particularly, when the relevant facts can be ascertained from the material already on record, it is open to the assessee and the Department to raise that issue provided the issue was raised as bona fide and the same should have been raised for good reasons. In our opinion, the Tribunal has the power to admit the additional ground of appeal which may not arise out the order of the lower authorities. There is no dispute or controversy about the power of the Tribunal to admit the additional ground of appeal. However, whether, in a particular situation the Tribunal should exercise such powers or not, would
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-38-
essentially depend upon the facts of such a case and as there cannot be any, and there is o straitjacket formula of universal application to decide the question of admission of additional ground or criteria for admission thereof, which operates de hors the peculiarities of a fact situation. As long as the issue is related to the correct determination of tax liability of the assessee in a particular assessment year and availability of relevant facts found from the material already on record, it is open to the assessee and department to raise that issue provided that the issue so raised is bona fide and the same could not have been raised on an earlier occasion for good and sufficient reasons. The limitations are that there are no new facts which required to be investigated by the said admission of additional ground and there should be good and sufficient reasons for not raising the issue on an earlier occasion by the assessee/department. The assessee has to demonstrate the existence of good and sufficient reasons for not raising the additional ground in the earlier proceedings of the lower authorities. The additional grounds have to be taken up before the Tribunal on account of bona fide reasons which are stated to be true and correct reasons by the assessee. On this fact, in our humble opinion, the assessees' cases fail. We find from the reasons given by the assessees that the assessees have given reasons for raising the additional ground
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-39-
before us as follows: "I am filing herewith additional grounds in respect of these assessment years which may be considered and adjudicated in the appeal proceedings. The omission to file this grounds may be condoned and the grounds may be considered in the appeal proceedings." 8.1 In our opinion, there should be good and sufficient reasons for raising the additional ground by the assesses before the Tribunal. The discretion given to the Tribunal to consider the additional ground is not an arbitrary one circumscribed by the Limitation Act. The discretion vested with the Tribunal to do so is to be exercised in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of each case. Normally, a question of fact is not to be allowed to be raised for the first time as it may prejudice to other side. If such a question is raised at the earliest opportunity, the other side can lead evidence, which it may not be able to do if such a question is raised for the first time before the Tribunal. In view of this, the plea to admit the additional ground could not be allowed to be raised for the first time before this Tribunal. 8.2 In the present case, the assessees have failed to explain the reason for not raising the additional ground on earlier occasion and also the reason given by the assessees is that only omission to raise the additional ground and they have not given
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-40-
any reason for such omission. Therefore, it is evident that the assessees adopted callous approach which demonstrated utter indifference in the matter. In such a situation, sufficient cause does not exist to raise the additional ground on earlier occasion which remains unexplained. In our opinion, there is complete negligence on the part of the assessees and complete absence of due diligence to pursue the matter in question. It cannot be said that the case of the assessees falls under the category which is beyond the control of the assessee. As discussed earlier, the assessee has failed to show "sufficient cause" for not raising the additional ground within the period of limitation without explaining the delay till the date of hearing of these appeals. In other words, the whole period of delay is not at all explained as held in the case of Ramlal and others v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd., [AIR 1962 SC 361] wherein it was held that it is not the case of the assessee whether the assessee exercised due diligence so as to file legal remedy. As discussed earlier, the assesses have not given sufficient cause for raising the additional ground before us in these cases. Hence, it cannot be admitted. xxx
xxx
xxx 12. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the record. In our opinion, the Tribunal has discretion to receive and adjudicate additional evidence even if it is not an arbitrary one
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-41-
but it is a judicial one circumscribed by the limitation specified under Rule 29 of the Act. The Tribunal has the power to allow additional evidence if it requires such evidence to enable to pass orders, i.e. to say, when it finds that there is any lacunae or defect which is to be filled up so as to render justice. The Tribunal has the power to allow additional evidence also if it requires such evidence for any other substantial cause, i.e. to say, even in cases where the Tribunal finds that it is able to pass orders on the state of the record as it is, it may still allow additional evidence to be brought on record if it considers that in the interest of justice something which was obscure, should be filled up so that it can adjudicate the issue in a more specific manner. Such requirement in either case must be of the Tribunal and it will not arise ordinarily unless some inherent lacunae or defect becomes apparent on examination of the evidence and, therefore, the legitimate occasion to exercise discretion under Rule 29 is not before the appeal is heard but when on examination of the evidence, some lacunae or defect becomes apparent, such defect or lacunae may be pointed out by the party or the party may move the Tribunal to supply the defect and the Tribunal may itself act suo motu in the matter. So, discretion vested with the Tribunal has to be exercised in the interest of justice in the facts and circumstances of the case and not
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-42-
mechanically. However, it cannot be allowed if such evidence is raised for the first time before the Tribunal which may prejudice other party. The right to produce additional evidence fetters with restriction. Therefore, one has to establish why the assessee could not produce such evidence before the lower authorities. Therefore, admission of additional evidence depends upon the explanation given by the assessee for admission of such evidence. The assessee has to prove the bona fide reason of not producing such evidence on earlier occasion and it has to establish that such evidence was not available on earlier occasion and he has to produce such evidence, necessary to be admitted by the Tribunal for the first time so as to render justice. 12.1 In the present case, the assessee had produced expert opinion of cyber expert with regard to generation of hash value report. The cyber expert is an outside agency. It is an opinion only and it cannot bind the Assessing Officer. This was procured by the assessee on 15/06/2019 after long period of filing the appeal before this Tribunal on 23/10/2018. The assessee was not able to discharge its bona fides in procuring that expert opinion. In our opinion, the assessee wants to derive benefit indirectly which cannot be done directly for which the Tribunal cannot be party. Further, the assessee herein, by way of additional evidence wants to change the complex and character of the case
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-43-
as originally brought out, which is not permissible at this stage. The assessee must prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. The sufficient cause in procuring the expert opinion from the cyber expert within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. In our opinion, in the present case, there is no sufficient cause to procure such cyber expert opinion after such a long period after survey in this case. The seeker of justice must come with clean hands and should prove that there was no negligence whether in action or want of bona fides. We find that in the affidavit, the assesses were not able to understand the significance of the hash value report. There was delay in procuring the expert opinion and it was procured with such a delay so as to delay the proceedings under the Act. More so, the affidavits filed by the assesses herein were Self serving documents so as to derive undue benefit. We are not convinced with the reason explained by the assessee in obtaining the cyber expert opinion after such a long period. Even if it is admitted as additional evidence, that cannot bind the Assessing Officer. The apprehension of the assesses is that the Department has tampered with the pen drives. In our opinion, pen drives were impounded by the Department during the course of survey
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-44-
u/s. 133A on 14/07/2014 in the office of Mr. Riyaz and the inventory report was prepared on 14/07/2014 and after such a long period of delay, the assessee is making this allegation that the pen drives are tampered which cannot be appreciated. The hash value report was generated on 22/07/2014 and 23/07/2014 which was duly witnessed by two local punchas and countersigned by the assesses as well as the forensic expert which means that the assesses were well aware of the generation of hash value report and the same was done in their presence. Hence, the additional evidence at this stage cannot be admitted as there was no sufficient cause in procuring such additional evidence. More so, if the assessees have doubted the integrity of the income tax officer concerned stating that they have tampered or manipulated the pen drives, in such circumstances, the assessees ought to have reported the matter to the higher authorities concerned so as to take appropriate action against the erred officer. Accordingly, the additional evidence is not admitted and these issues in all the appeals of the assesses are dismissed.”
Alternatively, the Tribunal also recorded that the Department followed clear procedure and retrieved the Hash Value Report
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-45-
which was duly acknowledged by the assessee.
In the above analysis, we have to examine whether the assessee was compelled to raise additional ground or bring on record additional material because of a disclosure made by the Department during the pendency of the appeal. It is axiomatic that the Tribunal, as a final authority on a finding of fact, is clothed by the Act to allow raising additional ground or bringing on record additional evidence. The case does not present a question for our decision on the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in this behalf. But the question is whether additional ground/additional evidence is necessitated on account of a new stand taken by the Revenue or not. In the preceding paragraphs, we have, by taking note of the controversy, either stated the gist of the issue in this behalf or excerpted the portions on which the issues were decided. The assessees are not correct in laying the
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-46-
foundation by referring to what is stated by the Department in the Tribunal or before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The order of assessment is not based either on the pen drives or the details contained in the pen drive, as rightly contended by the Revenue. 10.1 Recapitulation of circumstances set out in assessment notices till order of the Tribunal would reveal, as a matter of fact, that the assessee has been put on notice of all the inputs taken note of by the Revenue for carrying out block assessment. Therefore, the reasons stated for introducing additional evidence are definitely an afterthought and to challenge the order of assessment on new grounds. Therefore, in our considered view, the situation emerging from the narrative that the assessee has full knowledge of the material relied on by the Revenue was put to the assessee, who filed the reply resulting in
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-47-
order of assessment. Therefore, the question for consideration is whether the Tribunal exercised the discretion or jurisdiction correctly or not. To answer the question, reference to Tribunal’s findings is sufficient to conclude that no error of jurisdiction had occasioned. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the Tribunal. 11. We conclude that the jurisdiction has been rightly considered and decided by the Tribunal, and no substantial question arises. Hence, questions are answered against the assessee and in favour of the Revenue. 12. Question no.1: Whether the appellate Tribunal should not have found that the survey conducted on 14.7.2014 at the residential house of Sri Riyaz violated the provisions of Section 133A of the Income Tax Act?
12.1 Learned counsel for the assessee argues that Section 133A authorizes survey at the place of business and that too, the survey is undertaken during hours at which such place is open for the conduct of business and inspect such books of accounts or
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-48-
documents as the officer may require, may be available at such place. The emphasis is that the survey was conducted at the residence of Riyaz. The case of the assessee is that the said person resigned from the employment of the assessee. We take note of the finding of fact recorded by the Tribunal in this behalf that the assessee did not place any material to establish the explanation offered by the assessee. This takes us to the legal argument that the Department described a portion of Riyaz’s residence as an office, and the assessment order, on account of translation, described the residence as an office room in residence. The bottom line of the argument is that the survey cannot be conducted at the residence of Riyaz. Since a few attempts are made to camouflage the residence as an office, the material in whichever form cannot be relied on for determining the suppressed turnover or income by the assessee.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-49-
12.2 Senior Advocate Sri P K R Menon replying to the argument made on the non-applicability of Section 133A of the Act, reads Section 133A of the Act, and invites our attention to the explanation, which read thus: “Explanation. For the purposes of this sub-section, a place where a business or profession "[or activity for charitable purpose] is carried on shall also include any other place, whether any business or profession [or activity for charitable purpose] is carried on therein or not, in which the person carrying on the business or profession '[or activity for charitable purpose] states that any of his books of account or other documents or any part of his cash or stock or other valuable article or thing relating to his business or profession [or activity for charitable purpose] are or is kept.”
An explanation is appended to a Section to explain the meaning of words contained in the Section3. The explanation becomes
3 Sundaram Pillai v. Pattabiraman [(1985) 1 SCC 591]
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-50-
a part and parcel of the enactment 4. The meaning given to an ‘Explanation’ must depend upon its terms, and no theory of its purpose can be entertained unless it is to be inferred from the language used. The Explanation is introduced by Finance Act, 2017 with effect from 01.04.2017.
Keeping the said purpose of an explanation in our perspective, we have to interpret Section 133A (1). According to the explanation, a place (a) where a business or profession or activity for charitable purpose is carried on, (b) shall also include any other place where any business or profession and activity for charitable purpose is carried on or not. Therefore, explanation includes a place where any one of the three activities is carried on therein or not. Excluding residence by the construction now commended to this Court would completely take away from the
4 Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 661]
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-51-
scope of the survey of the Department a residence simpliciter. Such a meaning would defeat the language of Section 133A of IT Act. A few of the statements recorded at any point in time during the pendency of the proceedings on the description of the place are not conclusive in interpreting the applicability of Section 133A of the Act. Annexure A filed describes the place of the survey as follows: “Chelembra, Malappuram, Office room of Shri Riyas M @ Veliyaparambil House, Pulliparamba”. In our view, the ground raised under Section 133A is not sustainable. The question is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the assessee.
The three questions, on which submissions have been made since are answered against the assessee, I.T.A. No.247/2019 fails and is dismissed.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-52-
I.T.A. Nos: 255, 256, 258, 259, 260/2019; 3, 4, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, & 16/2020
The questions answered in I.T.A. No. 247/2019 are also the questions stated and adopted for other appeals as well. The questions are answered by following the view taken in I.T.A. No. 247/2019. Hence, appeals fail. Dismissed. No order as to costs.
Sd/- S.V.BHATTI JUDGE
Sd/- BASANT BALAJI JUDGE
jjj
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-53-
APPENDIX OF ITA 255/2019
PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DATED 14.7.2014 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DATED 14.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DATED 24.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DATED 4.8.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.2.2015 ISSUED BY AO ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN E NOTICE DATED 18.3.2016 ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2016 ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT A DATED 19.7.2018 IN ITA NOS 127 TO 132/C/CIT(A) 111/16-17 ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 15.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN H ORDER ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.5.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-54-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN K ON 30.5.2019 ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN DRIVE-1 (SANDISK-BLACK AND WHILE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN DRIVE-2 (SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HAS VALUE REPORT RE PEN DRIVE-3 (STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27.6.2019 TOP RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR VIOND BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.6.2019 ANNEXURE R RE.HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITS DATED 5.8.2019 IN ITA NOS 448 TO 453/COCH/2018/RE.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD ITA NOS 285 TO 290/COCH/2018LTD AND ITA NOS 446 AND 447 /COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD TIMBERS ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.7.2019 BEFORE ITAT
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-55-
APPENDIX OF ITA 259/2019
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DT 14-07-2014 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DT. 14-07-2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DT 24-07- 2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DT. 04-08- 2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT 29-02-2016 ISSUED BY AO ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN 'E' NOTICE DT 18-03-2016 ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 29-03-2016 ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT -A DT 19-07-2018 IN ITA NOS 127 TO 132/C/CIT(A) III/16-17 ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT 25-10- 2018 GIVING EFFECT TO (ANN 'H' ORDER ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT 15-5-2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL, EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-56-
ANN. 'K' ON 30-05-2019 ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF 'HASH VALUE REPORT' RE:PEN DRIVE -1 (SANDISK-BLACK & WHILE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE: PEN DRIVE - 2(SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE: PEN DRIVE 3(STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT 27-06-2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT 15-06-2019 ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DT 05-08-2019 IN ITA NOS 448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD, ITA NOS 285 TO 290/COCH/. 2018 RE HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) ;LTD AND ITA NOS 446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE HILLWOOD TIMBERS ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11-07-2019 BEFORE ITAT
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-57-
APPENDIX OF ITA 256/2019
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DATED 14.7.2014 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DATED 14.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DATED 24.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DATED 4.8.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.2.2015 ISSUED BY AO ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN-E NOTICE DATED 18.3.2016 ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2016 ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT -A DATED 19.7.2018 IN ITA NOS 127 TO 132/C/CIT(A) 111/16-17 ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN -H ORDER ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.5.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-58-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN- K ON 30.5.2019 ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE :PEN DRIVE-1 (SANDISK-BLACK AND WHILE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE:PEN DRIVE-2 (SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE: PEN DRIVE-3 (STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27.6.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.6.2019 ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DATED 5.8.2019 IN ITA NOS 448 TO 453/COCH/2018/RE.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD ITA NOS 285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD AND ITA NOS 446 AND 447 /COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD TIMBERS ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.7.2019 BEFORE ITAT
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-59-
APPENDIX OF ITA 260/2019
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDING OF SURVEY U/S 133A DT. 14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DT. 14.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DT. 24.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DT. 04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT. 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. E NOTICE DT. 18.03.2016 ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 29.03.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT A DT. 19.07.2018 IN ITS NOS 127 TO 132/C/CIT(A) /III/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN. H ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT. 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR. ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FIELD BY DEPARTMENT TO
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-60-
ANN.K. ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN DRIVE -1, (SAN DISK-BLACK AND WHILE). ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN DRIVE-2 (SANDISK CRUZER BLADE). ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN DRIVE -3, (STRONTIUM), ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT. 27.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT. 15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DT. 5.8.2019 IN ITA NOS 448 T 453 /COCH/2018 RE. HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) TD, ITA NOS. 285 O 290/COCH/2018 RE HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD, AND ITS NOS 446/AND 447/COCH/2018 RE. HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-61-
APPENDIX OF ITA 258/2019
APPELLANT'S ANNEXURES: ANN. A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DATED 14.7.2014. ANN.B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.RIYAZ DATED 14.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANN.C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.BEERAN DATED 24.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANN.D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.SHAREEF DATED 4.8.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANN.E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.2.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANN.F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN."E" NOTICE DATED 18.3.2016. ANN. G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2016. ANN. H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DATED 19.7.2018 IN ITA NOS.127 TO 132/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17. ANN.I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN."H" ORDER. ANN. J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.5.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANN. K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL.EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-62-
ANN. L PHOTOCOPY OF SCOUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN. "K" ON 30.5.2019. ANN. M PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE. PEN-DRIVE-1 (SANDISK - BLACK & WHILE). ANN. N PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE-2 (SANDISK -CRUZER BLADE) ANN. O PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE: PEN-DRIVE- 3(STRONTIUM) ANN. P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27.6.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANN. Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR.VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.6.2019. ANN. R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DATED 5.8.2019 IN ITA NOS.448 OF 453/COCH/2018 RE: HILLWOOD IMPORTS & EXPORTS (P) LTD., ITA NOS.285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE: HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD., AND ITA NOS.446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE: HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANN. S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.7.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-63-
APPENDIX OF ITA 10/2020
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DATED 14.7.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DATED 14.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DATED 24.7.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DATED 4.8.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.2.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. 'E' NOTICE DTED 18.3.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.3.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DATED 19.7.2018 IN ITA NOS. 119 TO 120/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN. 'H' ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.5.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-64-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN. 'K' ON 30.5.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF 'HASH VALUE REPORT' RE.PEN-DRIVE -1 (SANDISK - BLACK AND WHITE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF 'HASH VALUE REPORT' RE.PEN-DRIVE -2 (SANDISK - CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF 'HASH VALUE REPORT' RE.PEN-DRIVE -3 (STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27.6.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR. VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.6.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DTD 5.8.2019 IN ITA NOS. 448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD., ITA NOS. 285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD. AND ITA NOS. 446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.7.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-65-
APPENDIX OF ITA 3/2020
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DATED 14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.RIYAZ DATED 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.BEERAN DATED 24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DATED 04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN."E" NOTICE DATED 18.03.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016 ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DATED 19.07.2018 IN ITA NOS.119 TO 120/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN."H" ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL.EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-66-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN."K" ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE- 1(SANDISK-BLACK & WHILE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE- 2(SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE). ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT"RE:PEN-DRIVE- 3(STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 17.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR.VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DATED 05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS.448 TP 453/COCH/2018 RE:HILWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD., ITA NOS.285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD., AND ITA NOS.446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-67-
APPENDIX OF ITA 13/2020
APPELLANTS ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S. 133A DT. 14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. RIYAZ DT. 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. BEERAN DT. 24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. SHAREEF DT. 04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT. 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. E NOTICE DT. 18.03.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 29.03.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DT. 26.03.2018 IN ITA NOS. 121 TO 126/C/CIT(A) III/16-17 ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN. H ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT. 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR. ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-68-
ANN. K ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE: PEN DRIVE-1 (SANDISK-BLACK AND WHITE). ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE: PEN DRIVE- 2(SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE). ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HAS VALUE REPORT RE: PEN DRIVE -3 (STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT. 27.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR. VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT. 15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DT. 05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS. 448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE: HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD. ITA NOS. 285 T0 290/COCH/2018 RE" HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD, AND ITA NOS. 446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE: HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-69-
APPENDIX OF ITA 4/2020
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DT. 14.07.2014 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. RIYAZ DT. 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. BEERAN DT. 24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. SHAREEF DT.04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT. 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. E NOTICE DT.18.03.2016 ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 29.03.2016 ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DT. 26.032018 IN ITA NOS.121 TO 126/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17 ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN.H ORDER ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT.15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COURNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-70-
ANN.K ON 30.05.2019 ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE-1 (SANDISK-BLACK & WHITE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE- 2(SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:"PENDRIVE-3 (STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT.17.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR. VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT. 15.06.2019 ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDEROF ITAT DT.05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS.448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD IMPORTS & EXPORTS (P) lTD., ITA NOS.285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD., AND ITA NOS.446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD TIMBERS ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-71-
APPENDIX OF ITA 8/2020
PETITIONER ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DT. 14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DT. 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DT. 24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI . SHAREEF DT. 04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT. 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. E NOTICE DT. 18.03.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 29.03.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DT. 26.03.2018 IN ITA NOS, 121 TO 126/C/CIT(A)-111/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO (ANN. H ORDER . ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT. 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR. ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-72-
ANN.K. ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN DRIVE-1, (SANDISK-BLACK AND WHILE). ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN DRIVE -2, (SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE). ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN DRIVE 3 (STRONTIUM). ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT. 27.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT. 15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DT. 05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS 448 TO 453 /COCH/2018/RE. HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD., ITA NOS 285 TO 290 /COCH/2018 RE. HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD., AND ITA NOS. 446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE. HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-73-
APPENDIX OF ITA 11/2020
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES: ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S.133A DT.14.07.2014 ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. RIYAS DT. 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.BEERAN DT.24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.SHAREEF DT.04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT. 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANNEXURE E NOTICE DT. 18.03.2016 ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT. 29.03.2016 ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DT.26.03.2018 IN ITA NOS.121 TO 126/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17 ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANNEXURE H ORDER ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT. 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-74-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANNEXURE K ON 30.05.2019 ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE-1 (SANDISK-BLACK & WHITE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE-2 (SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE:PEN-DRIVE-3 (STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT. 17.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR.VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT. 15.06.2019 ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DT.05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS.448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD IMPORTS & EXPORTS (P) LTD., ITA NOS.285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD., AND ITA NOS.446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD TIMBERS ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-75-
APPENDIX OF ITA 12/2020
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DT.14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.RIYAZ DT.14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.BEERAN DT.24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI.SHEREEF DT.04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DT.29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN.3 NOTICE DT.18.03.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.29.03.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DT.26.03.2018 IN ITA NOS.121 TO 126/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DT.25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN H ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DT.15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR. ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-76-
ANN.K ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE: PEN DRIVE-1 [SCANDISK-BLACK & WHITE]. ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE: PEN DRIVE-2 [SCANDISK-CRUZER BLADE]. ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF "HASH VALUE REPORT" RE: PEN DRIVE-3 [STRONTIUM]. ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DT.17.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR.VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DT.15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DT.05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS.448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD IMPORTS & EXPORTS (P) LTD. ITA NOS.285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD. AND ITA NOS.446 TO 447/COCH/2018 RE:HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-77-
APPENDIX OF ITA 16/2020
APPELLANTS ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S. 133A DATED 14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI RIYAZ DATED 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI BEERAN DATED 24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI SHAREEF DATED 04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRNSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. E NOTICE DATED 18.03.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DATED 26.03.2018 IN ITA NOS 121 TO 126/C/CIT(A)III/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN H ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-78-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN. K ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN-DRIVE- 1(SANDISK-BLACK AND WHILE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN-DRIVE- 2(SANDISK-CRUZER BLADE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE PEN-DRIVE- 3(STRONTIUM) ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 17.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DR VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DATED 05.08.2019 IN ITA NOS. 448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE- HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P)LTD, ITA NOS 285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE HILLWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD AND ITA NOS.446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD TIMBERS, ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-79-
APPENDIX OF ITA 247/2019
APPELLANT’S ANNEXURES ANNEXURE A PHOTOCOPY OF PROCEEDINGS OF SURVEY U/S 133A DATED 14.07.2014. ANNEXURE B PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. RIYAS DATED 14.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE C PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. BEERAN DATED 24.07.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE D PHOTOCOPY OF STATEMENT OF SRI. SHAREEF, DATED 04.08.2014 WITH ENGLISH TRANSLATION. ANNEXURE E PHOTOCOPY OF PROPOSAL NOTICE DATED 29.02.2016 ISSUED BY AO. ANNEXURE F PHOTOCOPY OF REPLY TO ANN. E, NOTICE DATED 18.03.2016. ANNEXURE G PHOTOCOPY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 29.03.2016. ANNEXURE H PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF CIT-A DATED 19.07.2018 IN ITA NOS. 127 TO 132/C/CIT(A)-III/16-17. ANNEXURE I PHOTOCOPY OF REVISED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 25.10.2018 GIVING EFFECT TO ANN.H ORDER. ANNEXURE J PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO RAISE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS DATED 15.05.2019 FILED BEFORE ITAT. ANNEXURE K PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION TO PRODUCE ADDL. EVIDENCE AND AFFIDAVITS OF MD AND AR.
ITA Nos.247/2019, 255/2019, 259/2019, 256/2019, 260/2019, 258/2019, 10/2020, 3/2020, 13/2020, 4/2020, 8/2020, 11/2020, 12/2020, 16/2020
-80-
ANNEXURE L PHOTOCOPY OF COUNTER FILED BY DEPARTMENT TO ANN. K ON 30.05.2019. ANNEXURE M PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN-DRIVE-1 (SANDISK-BLACK AND WHITE) ANNEXURE N PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN-DRIVE- 2(SANDISK-BLADK AND WHITE) ANNEXURE O PHOTOCOPY OF HASH VALUE REPORT RE.PEN-DRIVE- 3(STRONTIUM). ANNEXURE P PHOTOCOPY OF APPLICATION DATED 27.06.2019 TO RECEIVE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ANNEXURE Q PHOTOCOPY OF FORENSIC FEEDBACK BY DE. VINOD BHATTATHIRIPAD DATED 15.06.2019. ANNEXURE R PHOTOCOPY OF COMMON ORDER OF ITAT DATED 448 TO 453/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD IMPORTS AND EXPORTS (P) LTD, ITA NOS.285 TO 290/COCH/2018 RE.HILWOOD FURNITURE (P) LTD., AND ITA NOS. 446 AND 447/COCH/2018 RE.HILLWOOD TIMBERS. ANNEXURE S PHOTOCOPY OF ADDITIONAL NOTES OF ARGUMENTS FILED ON 11.07.2019 BEFORE ITAT.