M/S. PATEL AMBALAL HARGOVANDAS & CO.,,SURAT vs. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, SURAT

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. The ld CIT(A) observed that during the course of statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, the assessee though gave the entire details about the investment in the house property at Surat but he did not make any submissions relating to the paper found. As per the assessing officer, the total amount of unexplained expenditure for six assessment years from AY.2011-12 to 2016-17 comes to Rs.2,82,16,000/- by adding three zeros to the figures found on the incriminating paper. The residence of the assessee was subjected to Search. In the Search, all the vouchers, and bills relating to the construction of the house property at Surat were found. However, there were no other evidences relating to expenditure or investment especially to the tune of Rs.2.82 Crores., were found. If the A.O's estimation that three zeros have to be added to the figures on the paper, there should have been some evidences in the form of bills, vouchers, investments etc. found in the residential premises. But there were no such evidences including that of jewellery. There is no jewellery also found during the course of Search.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We note that when the assessing officer did not make substantive addition in the hands of any other person and only one sided protective addition was made in the hands of the assessee under consideration, it means assessing officer did not find out the real owner, therefore only protective addition in the hands of the assessee does not sustain in the eye of law particularly when assessee clearly stated that documents/evidences do not belong to him, then burden shifts on the assessing officer to find out the real owner in whose hand the substantive addition can be made.

Under the Income Tax Act though there is no such word as substantive addition/assessment or protective addition/ assessment, however, the courts have held that in case where it appears to the income tax authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant year or for that matter documents/loose papers have been found and it is not clear to whom it pertains or it is not clear who has received that income and prima-facie it appears that the income or/and documents/loose papers pertains to either A or B or by both together and thus it will be open to the relevant income tax authority to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B. Under the law, it is open for the department to make assessments on two person of the same income where there is some ambiguity as to the liability to charge or to make an addition on the basis of incriminating documents or loose papers or other material or other income in respect where of A says, it pertains to B and B says it pertains to A but in that case, to safeguard the interest of the revenue, the Assessing Officer has liberty to pass order on protective basis or on substantive basis in one hand and IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. vise-versa. It is only to protect the interest of the revenue as, if the action is not taken in the case of A who says that it pertains to B and addition is made in the case of B and later on, on the basis of evidence it is found that it pertained to A and if no action is taken in the case of A, then possibly the assessment or the proceedings may get time barred. Therefore, to avoid such eventualities, the revenue has authority and right to make protective assessment as well as substantive assessment in another case, however, with the rider that ultimately and finally, the income/transaction/addition, if at all would be in the hands of A or B but it cannot be sustained in both the hands.

In the assessee`s case under consideration, the assessing officer has not been able to bring on record the exact nature of transactions as per the images in the mobile phone. Noting corroborative relating to this data was found during the course of search in the premises of the employer firm, where there was a search u/s 132 of the Act. Even the data found in the mobile phone is not clear as to whether it relates to purchase/sales receipts/payments/investments /deposits/borrowings etc. Nothing is known about the ownership of the data and therefore, an addition cannot be made on the basis of such dumb data found in the mobile phone. Accordingly, the protective addition made in the hands of the assessee of Rs.10,74,15,724/- has been deleted by the ld CIT(A).

We note that on identical and similar facts, the Coordinate Bench of ITAT Delhi in the case of G.K. Consultants Limited, order dated 27.06.2014 held that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be any protective assessment/addition without a substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition. The findings of the Coordinate Bench are reproduced below:

Coming to the legal proposition and citations relied by the assessee, we observe that in the case of CIT vs R.N. Thippa Shetty (supra), speaking for High Court of Karnataka, their lordships held that if the very basis on which reopening was ordered did not exist, then there was no question for reopening of the case on the basis of withdrawn/retracted statement. The relevant observations of Hon’ble High Court read as under:- “It is further pertinent to mention here that once the statements said to have been recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act were withdrawn, then there existed no material on record to warrant reopening of the case against the assessee u/s 148 of the Act. If the very basis on which reopening was ordered did not exist, there was no question for reopening of the case. This material aspect of the matter has not been considered by the AO, who proceeded to direct reopening of the case, without there being any legally admissible evidence available on record. Thus the very issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act is found to be illegal and absolutely without jurisdiction.”

In the case of Suresh K. Jajo vs ACIT, ITAT, Mumbai reiterated the same legal proposition and held as under:- “In the present case, the observations of the AO while completing assessment for asstt. Year 2001-02 cannot be said to be an expression of his intention to make a protective assessment of the capital gain as long term capital gain. It is an assessment pure and simple. Firstly, the words used by the AO do not express his intention that the long-term capital gain is being brought to tax by way of protective assessment. Secondly, there is no substantive IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. assessment already made treating the capital gain as short term capital gain. Therefore, there can be no protective assessment. Thirdly, there has been a demand (without any limitation that it should not have been recovered) raised pursuant to the above assessment which also shows that the said assessment is not a protective assessment.”

In the present case, from the reasons recorded by the AO as reproduced hereinabove, we observe that the AO went on to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of the Act on the basis of retracted statement of Shri Subhash Gupta without making any further inquiry and investigation. From bare reading of reasons recorded, we also observe that the AO went on to reopen the assessment with a genuine intention to make protective addition pertaining to the accommodation entries alleged to be provided by the appellant company and at the same time, we notice that on a specific query from the Bench, ld. DR was unable to show us that there was a substantive assessment/addition either in the case of Shri Subodh Gupta or in the case of anybody else on the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act.

In view of above, we clearly hold that the AO had to initiate reassessment proceedings u/s 147 and 148 of the Act only on the basis of retracted statement of Shri Subodh Gupta, CA without making any further inquiry or investigation. We also hold that the AO proceeded to reopen the assessment of the assessee company for making protective assessment/addition but no substantive assessment existed on the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act neither in the case of Shri Subodh Gupta nor in the case of any body else.

Ld. Counsel of the assessee placing reliance on the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of CIT vs Dhingra Metal Works (2010) 328 ITR 384 (Delhi) and submitted that even on the basis of the statement made by the assessee during the course of survey, the AO could not have made addition as the said statement cannot be said to be conclusive and it is open to the person who has made the admission in the statement to show that the same is incorrect. Ld. Counsel of the assessee further submitted that in the present case, the statement of Shri Subodh Gupta was recorded in his individual capacity and not as a director of the assessee company which was also retracted only after four days on 4.11.2003, therefore, the AO was not justified in assuming jurisdiction for initiation of proceedings u/s 147 and in issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.

The counsel of the assessee has also placed reliance on another decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Delhi in the case of Signature Hotel vs ITO (2011) 338 ITR 51 (Del) and submitted that the AO must have “reason to believe” that an income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment and it is mandatory for the AO that the “reason to believe” are required to be recorded by the AO and if the belief is not bona fide or based on vague, irrelevant and non-specific information, then the same cannot be regarded as material evidence which prima facie establishes escapement of income, more so, when the AO did not apply his own mind to the information to arrive at the belief as to whether or not any income had escaped assessment, then initiation of proceeding and notice IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. u/s 147 and 148 of the Act deserves to be quashed. Ld. Counsel of the assessee has drawn our attention towards reasons recorded by the AO and submitted that the AO has proceeded to make protective assessment without any substantial assessment on the basis of retracted statement of Shri Saurabh Gupta recorded during the course of survey without making any further investigation and inquiry and without applying his own mind to the material and evidence available before him at the time of recording reasons and assuming jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act for issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act.

Ld. DR replied that the AO proceeded to initiate proceeding of reopening of assessment u/s 147 of the Act and for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act on cogent and justified basis because Shri Subodh Gupta, CA who was also a director in the assessee company made a statement that he provided accommodation entries to the various entities through an assessee and other companies managed and controlled by him, therefore, the AO rightly assumed jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act for issuing notice u/s 148 of the Act.

On careful consideration of above contention, we are of the view that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be any protective assessment/addition without a substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition. In the present case, the AO proceeded to make protective assessment by way of reopening of assessment of the assessee appellant company without being a substantive assessment on the date of assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act which is not permissible as per decision of ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M.P. Ramachandaran vs DCIT (supra) and Suresh K Jajo vs ACIT (supra).”

On this issue the ld Counsel for the assessee relied upon the decision of Mumbai E Bench in the case of Suresh K. jajoo Vs. ACIT [2010] 39 SOT 514 (Mum)and argued that the Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal relying on another decision of ITAT in the case of M.P.Ramachandran vs D.CIT [IT Appeal No.587 (Mum) of 2005] has laid down the following principles :- “ 23. Before us, both the learned counsel for the assessee and the learned D.R. have relied on the decision of Mumbai Bench of the ITAT in the case of M.P.Ramachandran v. Dy.CIT [IT Appeal No.587(Mum) of 2005]. In the aforesaid case, facts were that in assessment under section 143(3) for assessment year 1997-98 was completed on 25-2- 2000. On 3-22-2000, there was a search and consequent there to, notice under section 148 dated 26-3-2003 was issued to the assessee. Consequent to the search, block assessment order was framed on 30-11-2008 in which, sum of Rs.5.27 crores was held to be expenditure not related to the business of the assessee and considered as undisclosed income for the block period. In the reassessment proceedings under section 148, very same amount was added on a protective basis. When the Assessing Officer made aforesaid addition in the reassessment proceedings under section 148, he noticed that the order of the Assessing Officer in the block assessment making the addition has already deleted by learned CIT(A). The appeal of the revenue before the Tribunal was pending. The Assessing Officer while making addition in the reassessment proceedings under section 148 had observed that the addition IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. was being made on protective measure. It is in the aforesaid background of fact, question of validity of initiation of reassessment proceedings had come up for consideration before the Tribunal.

The Tribunal firstly explained the concept of Protective assessment, which was judicially recognized in the case of Lalji Haridas v. ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387. The Hon’ble Supreme Court held that where it appears to the income-tax authorities that certain income has been received doing the relevant assessment year; but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie, it appears that income may have been received either by the A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant income-tax authority to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B. The Supreme Court, however, observed that in the proceedings taken against the one or the other, an exhaustive enquiry should be made and the question as to who is liable to pay the tax in question should be determined after hearing objections and that the proceedings against the other person may also continue and be concluded but until proceedings against the one has been finally determined, no assessment order should be passed. A final determination had, therefore, to be made in one of the proceedings.

We have heard the rival contentions and gone through the facts and circumstances of the case. We find that the issue raised by the ld. Sr.Advocate has been answered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Lalji Haridas vs ITO [1961] 43 ITR 387 which reads as under :- “The main argument which is urged by Mr.Nambiar in support of this appeal is that respondent No.1, the Income-tax Officer, who has issued the impugned notice, has no jurisdiction to assess the appellant for the income in question, because he contends that even according to respondent No.,1 the said proposed assessment would be in the nature of a precautionary or protective assessment, and Mr.Nambiar’s case is that this concept of a precautionary or protective assessment is not recognised by the Act and as such any attempt to levy such assessment would be illegal. In support of this argument Mr.Nambiar strongly relied on the finding recorded against the appellant’s brother, Lalji, in the ex parte assessment order which had originally been passed against him. It is no doubt true that the said ex parte order had held that Lalji was liable to pay the tax on the amount of income in question; but the said order has been subsequently set aside, and, as we have already seen, fresh proceedings against Lalji have been commenced at Jamnagar. Mr. Nambiar also relied on the admission made by the respondent in his statement of the case before this court, and he contended that the respondent himself seems to concede that the assessment proposed to be made against the appellant is no more than precautionary. It is true that paragraph 3 of the statement avers that “steps are being taken against the appellant for taxation of income in his hands only as a precautionary measure against the eventuality of its being finally held that the income is not liable to be taxed in his brother’s hands”, and it was added that “the appellant’s contention that such a procedure is not warranted under the Act is entirely untenable”; but in appreciating the effect of this statement it would be necessary to consider the other relevant statements made by the respondent in IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. his statement of the case. In paragraph 4, for instance, it is added that until the question of liability to pay tax in respect of the income in question is finally determined it may not be possible to safely predicate that it is the income of one and not of the other, and the respondent’s case appears to be that in such circumstances protective assessments have to be made so that the income may not escape taxation altogether. In other words, the respondent’s case clearly is that the notices issued against the two brothers by their respective Income-tax Officers are intended to determine who is responsible to pay tax for the income in question; now though Mr.Nambiar wanted to argue that protective or precautionary assessment of tax is not justified by any of the provisions of the Act he did not seriously contest the position that at the initial stage it would be open to the income-tax authorities to determine by proper proceedings who is in fact responsible for the payment of tax, and that is all that is being done at the present stage. In cases where it appears to the income-tax authorities that certain income has been received during the relevant assessment year but it is not clear who has received that income and prima facie it appears that the income may have been received either by A or B or by both together, it would be open to the relevant income-tax authorities to determine the said question by taking appropriate proceedings both against A and B. That being so, we do not think that Mr.Nambiar would be justified in resisting the enquiry which is proposed to be held by respondent No.1 in pursuance of the impugned notice issued by him against the appellant. Under these circumstances we do not propose to deal with the point of law sought to be raised by Mr.Nambiar. We would, however, like to add one direction in fairness to the appellants. The proceedings taken against both the appellants should continue and should be dealt with expeditiously having regard to the fact that the matter is fairly old. In the proceedings taken against Lalji the Income-tax Officer should make an exhaustive enquiry and determine the question as to whether Lalji is liable to pay the tax on the income in question. All objections which Lalji may have to raise against his alleged liability would undoubtedly have to be considered in the said proceedings. Proceedings against Chhotalal may also be taken by the Income- tax Officer and continued and concluded, but until the proceedings against Lalji are finally determined no assessment order should be passed in the proceedings taken against Chhotalal. If in the proceedings taken against Lalji it is finally decided that it is Lalji who is responsible to pay tax for the income in question it may not become necessary to make any order against Chhotalal. If , however, in the said proceedings Lalji is not held to pay tax or it is found that Lalji is liable to pay tax along with Chhotalal it may become necessary to pass appropriate orders against Chhotalal. When we suggested to the learned counsel that we propose to make an order on these lines they all agreed that this would be a fair and reasonable order to make in the present proceedings.”

In view of the factual position that the revenue has not initiated any substantive assessment or no addition has been made on substantive basis in any other hand, there is no question of any protective assessment in the present case from the reasons recorded by the AO as reproduced herein above. We are of the view that the AO has initiated re-assessment proceedings u/s 147/148 of the Act on the basis of the statement of one of the directors of the assessee company that the transactions in the hands of the other parties are not accounted for and this IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. may be the income of the assessee. The revenue could not bring on record anything against the other parties or who are the other parties against whom substantive addition is to be made. There is no substantive addition made in any of the hand till date as conceded by the ld. Sr.DR before us now. In view of the above we are very clear that the re-assessment proceedings initiated u/s 147/148 of the Act is invalid and hence quashed. The protective additions made by the A.O. are also quashed accordingly.

No other ground on merits was argued by either of the sides and hence we need not adjudicate those issues on merits. Accordingly these appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the revenue’s appeals are dismissed.

In the result the appeals of the assessee are allowed and the appeals of the revenue are dismissed”

From the above cited precedents it is abundantly clear that there may be a substantive assessment without any protective assessment but there cannot be any protective assessment/addition without a substantive assessment/addition, meaning thereby there has to be some substantive assessment/addition first which enables the AO to make a protective assessment/addition. Besides, we have gone through the above findings of ld CIT(A) and noted that there is no infirmity in the conclusion reached by ld CIT(A).Thus, the conclusions arrived at by the CIT(A) are, therefore, correct and admit no interference by us. We, approve and confirm the order of the CIT(A) and dismiss the grounds of appeal raised by the Revenue.

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Now, we shall take assessee’s appeal, in (M/s Patel Ambalal Hargovandas & Co.), wherein the grounds of appeal

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted written submission before the Bench, which is reproduced below: “Assessee is engaged in the business of Angadiya (Courier Service). A search u/s.132 of the Act carried out on 12.04.2019 at Surat office of the assessee and jewellery/other valuables to the tune of Rs.5,70,162/- was found & seized. In the case of assessee assessment U/s. 143(3) of the Act was completed vide order dtd. 30.09.2021. In the assessment order assessing officer made addition of Rs.5,70,612/- of jewellery/valuables belonging to various constituents received during ordinary course of courier/angadia business. Against the said addition assessee filed the appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the said addition of Rs.5,70,612/- which is not justified and therefore assessee is filing this appeal before Your Honour. In this regard it is most respectfully submitted before Your Honours that addition of Rs.5,70,612/- made by assessing officer is not justified for the following: Assessee firm is doing business of Angadia i.e. courier/carting agent. It transfers cash, valuables, articles, post etc. of the constituents from one branch to another as per the instruction of the constituents for which it receives commission/khep charges from the constituent for the services rendered to them. During the regular course of its angadia business assessee received valuables like gold, diamond, silver ornaments etc. to be transferred from one branch to another as per the instruction of the constituents. On the date of search on 12.04.2019 at Surat office, 46 packets of diamond, jewellery etc. valuing from Rs.30,11,650/- to Rs.3,860/- belonging to different constituents were found which were to be delivered at other branches as per instruction of senders. At the time of receipt of said valuables assessee firm issued acknowledgement receipts to the constituents & all the entries of valuables were duly noted in Bharatia (Daily Sheet). During the course of search assessee also provided to Authorized Officers of Income- Tax department the phone numbers & name of those persons. Authorized Officers obtained the valuation report of said valuables from the Government approved valuer. In the valuation report description of item, name of sender- receiver along with their address/phone numbers & weight of jewelry & their value are mentioned. In short during the course of search itself, concerned DDIT - officers were fully satisfied that jewelry found from the assessee were belonging to constituents received during ordinary course of angadia business and was in possession of assessee firm only for the limited & specific purpose of transferring the same from one station to another as per the instruction of senders/receivers. During the search itself, out of 46 constituents, 44 constituents presented themselves before Authorized officer & claimed their ownership of the valuables by giving supporting documents like their ID card, bills of valuable IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. etc. After verification of valuables 38 items were handed over to respective constituents and 8 packets of valuables were seized, valuing total Rs.5,70,612/- as per the Govt. approved valuer's report obtained by the Authorized Officers. For the remaining 8 items 6 persons presented themselves before the Authorized Officers claiming the ownership of the valuables. For 8 packets of valuables which were seized during search, statements of 6 parties were recorded on oath as listed below by which said 6 parties confirmed and claimed their ownership of valuables for their respective packets. Sr Description of Items claimed to Value as Their Ownership No. the article be belonging to per confirmed by the valuation constituents vide their report of Statement recorded on oath Govt. during search on (date) Approved Valuer 1 AsperJF-1/1 ABHAY R GANDHI 2,41,700 14.04.2019 2 AsperJF-2/31 RAJNIKANT C SHAH 1,27,010 14.04.2019 3 AsperJF-2/32 RAJNIKANT C SHAH 1,34,160 14.04.2019 4 As per JF-2/39 DILIP A SHAH 33,020 14.04.2019 5 As per JF-2/42 RAJUBHAI 13,002 - M.KANKOTIYA 6 As per JF-2/43 NAVINBHAI M 7,130 - 7 As per JF-2/44 MANUBHAI K. 10,280 15.04.2019 PATEL 8 As per JF-2/46 MANUBHAI K. 3,860 15.04.2019 PATEL 5,70,162 Total Value of Seized Article/Items Thus out of total seizure of 8 packets of total value of Rs.5,70,162/- constituents of 6 packets of total value of Rs.5,50,030/- were confirmed their ownership of packets. Even during the course of assessment by providing following evidences as described below, assessee proved beyond doubt that said packets of valuables were received during ordinary course of angadia business & for delivering the same to other branches as per their instruction.

Names of sender & receivers.

Their contact numbers.

Copies of Receipts issued to them (mentioning therein name of sender and receiver) at the time of receipt of the valuables at Surat to be delivered at other branch as per the instruction of sender constituent. In view of the above detail submitted during the course of the search and recording of statements of constituents by Authorized officers, it is proved beyond doubt that the possession of the said valuables in the hands of assessee as courier i.e. Bailee only for the limited purpose of making delivery as per the instructions of the constituents at other branches and not as an owner. However without considering the above facts assessing officer made addition on wrong facts and only highlighting the primary, general statement of partner recorded during the search proceedings regarding question that if in any circumstances constituents would not present to claim ownership of valuables found during search, then said valuables would be considered as of assessee firm, partner has answered IT(SS)A.49 & 86/SRT/2022 & ITA.185/SRT/2022 Ashish K. Koshiya, Rasikbhai N. Patel & Patel A. Hargovandas & Co. “accepted”. Here it is worth noting that as explained & mentioned in above table that out of total eight packets of valuables owners of six packets presented themselves before authorized officer gave the statements on oath. However though the Authorized officers accepted the fact that valuables were in possession of assessee as courier and not owned by the assessee firm, the valuables were seized as they were not satisfied with the explanation submitted by the constituents regarding the source of values in their hands. Thus, Addition made of Rs.5,70,162/- for the valuables is not justified as (1) valuables were received by the assessee firm for limited purpose of transferring the same as per the instruction of constituents during ordinary course of its business as courier and was in possession of the same as Bailee & (2)during the course of search all the valuables were verified as belonging to various constituents by the Investigation wing by recording statements of constituents and (3) found that assessee firm was in possession of the said valuables as courier only, same were fully explained (4) considering legal judgments mentioned above by jurisdictional ITAT bench on similar facts. In view of the above, Your Honours are most respectfully requested to delete the addition of Rs.5,70,162/- and oblige.”

On the other hand, the Ld. DR for the Revenue has primarily reiterated the stand taken by the Assessing Officer, which we have already noted in our earlier para and is not being repeated for the sake of brevity.

We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We find merit in the submission of ld Counsel, as he pointed out that addition made of Rs.5,70,162/- for the valuables is not justified as (1) valuables were received by the assessee firm for limited purpose of transferring the same as per the instruction of constituents during ordinary course of its business as courier and was in possession of the same as Bailee, (2)during the course of search all the valuables were verified as belonging to various constituents by the Investigation wing by recording. We note that Coordinate Bench of ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of M/s Patel Somabhai Kanchanlal & Co., in ITAT No.842/Ahd/1984), an angadia firm, wherein it was observed as follows: “In case of Courier i.e.angadia the provisions of section 68, 69 and 132(4A) are not applicable in the same way as is applicable in respect of loans and deposits as courier service is akin to postal services. Once it is proved that the parcels were received during the ordinary course of angadia business and the claimant also claimed the ownership of the same, no addition can be made”

In the results, appeal filed by Revenue (in IT(SS)A Nos. 49/SRT/2022 and 86/SRT/2022) are dismissed, whereas the appeal filed by the Assessee (in ) is allowed.