CIT v. Kabul Chawla

380 ITR 573High Court2016#3 most cited

What is CIT v. Kabul Chawla authority for?

In a search assessment under Section 153A, additions can only be made for completed or non-abated assessment years if incriminating material relevant to those years is found during the search, although notice under Section 153A(1) is mandatorily issued for six assessment years preceding the search.

3,235

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,154 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Kabul Chawla · Kabul Chawla · section 153A · section 132 · incriminating material · search assessment · non-abated years · scope of assessment · additions · undisclosed income

Also reported as

61 Taxmann.com 412234 Taxmann 300281 CTR 45

Sections most often in play

Section 153ASection 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153CSection 132ASection 143(2)
Read the full judgment

Issues it is cited on

section 158bcstatement under section 132(4)section 132asection 158bblock periodsection 132(1)section 153a(1)section 158section 153bsearch assessmentpanchnamaincriminating material

Judgments citing CIT v. Kabul Chawla

Hazorilal & Sons Jewellers P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 4060/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-4060/Del/2014 (A.Y 2007-08) I.T.A .No.-4061/Del/2014 (A.Y 2008-09) I.T.A .No.-4062/Del/2014 (A.Y 2009-10)

Section 153CSection 271(1)(c)

…assessment were routine assessment and has not been made in pursuance of any material found consequently these type of additions cannot be made in assessment made under u/s 153C/153A. The Ld. AR relied the under mentioned decisions: KABUL CHAWLA V CIT (2016) 380 ITR 573 (DEL) All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd V DCIT (2012) 18 ITR(TRIB) 106 (Mum)(SB). JAI STEEL INDIA v ACIT 259 CTR (RAJ) 281. 13. The Ld. AR further submitted that in the present case two very short dates were given by the CIT(A). Appellant forwarded the notice of hearing to its regular counsel on 12/05/2014 who duly attended the hearing requesting…

Mrs. Shashi Puri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2001-02 and 2004-05 stands allowed

ITA 991/DEL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…ng Officer is based on documents already on record being balance sheet, profit and loss account and the return of income filed by assessee. He placed his reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla, reported in (2016) 380 ITR 573. He submitted that under such circumstances, Assessing Officer was without any jurisdiction to make additions under section 153A of the Act and the assessment so made is bad in law. 8. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of E.N.Gopa Kumar vs. CIT, reported in (2016) 75 Taxmann.com 215. Ld. DR…

Mrs. Shashi Puri, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2001-02 and 2004-05 stands allowed

ITA 990/DEL/2012[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: Sh. V.K. Aggarwal, ARFor Respondent: Sh. S. S. Rana, CIT DR
Section 132Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…ng Officer is based on documents already on record being balance sheet, profit and loss account and the return of income filed by assessee. He placed his reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT Vs Kabul Chawla, reported in (2016) 380 ITR 573. He submitted that under such circumstances, Assessing Officer was without any jurisdiction to make additions under section 153A of the Act and the assessment so made is bad in law. 8. On the contrary, Ld. DR relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Kerela High Court in the case of E.N.Gopa Kumar vs. CIT, reported in (2016) 75 Taxmann.com 215. Ld. DR…

M/S. Best City Developers India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2743/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…68 of the I.T. Act Rs.24600000/- (ii) Addition on account of unexplained expenditure 69C of the IT Act Rs.553500/- 4. The same is sustained by the learned CIT(A). He stated that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla – [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. – [2016] 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) have taken the view that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition u/s 153A can be made. That, as per Revenue, pages 70 to 74 of Annexure A-1 is the incriminating document which gives the details of transfer of shares by the initial allottees to the promoter group co…

M/S. Best Infrastructure (India) Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 2739/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Feb 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singhshri Kuldip Singh Shri Kuldip Singh

Section 153ASection 68Section 69C

…68 of the I.T. Act Rs.24600000/- (ii) Addition on account of unexplained expenditure 69C of the IT Act Rs.553500/- 4. The same is sustained by the learned CIT(A). He stated that Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla – [2016] 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) and CIT Vs. RRJ Securities Ltd. – [2016] 380 ITR 612 (Delhi) have taken the view that in the absence of incriminating material, no addition u/s 153A can be made. That, as per Revenue, pages 70 to 74 of Annexure A-1 is the incriminating document which gives the details of transfer of shares by the initial allottees to the promoter group co…

Hanspro. Com P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. Pr CIT Cen 7, Mumbai

ITA 3573/MUM/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Shri Ashwani Taneja ()

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 263

…ell settled in this regard by the judgement of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics 374 ITR 645 (Bom) and judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Gurvindersingh Bawa vs DCIT 386 ITR 483 (Del) and CIT vs Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 (Del). 4. Under these circumstances, when the AO himself did not have the jurisdiction to examine the said loan, then how the Ld. Principal CIT can take a view that non examination of loan by the AO made the assessment order as erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue. It is noted by us that the legal position has also been clarified…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -1 New Delhi vs. Jaipuria Infrastructure P. Ltd

ITA/797/2016HC Delhi30 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed." 4. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident that the reason which prevented the ITAT was the ratio in Commissioner of Income tax (Central) III Vs. Kabul Chawla /2016/ 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), where it was categorically ruled that assessments cannot be arbitrarily made without any relevance or nexus with the seized materials and in the absence ITA Nos. 775 & 797 of2016 Page 3 of 4 b of seized materials additions based upon existing materials are unjustified. This Court finds no infirmity with the application of the Kabul Ch…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) -1 vs. Jaipuria Infrastructure P. Ltd

ITA/775/2016HC Delhi30 Jan 2017

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAJMI WAZIRI

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153Section 153A

…. Consequently, both the appeals filed by the assessee are hereby allowed." 4. This Court has considered the submissions. It is evident that the reason which prevented the ITAT was the ratio in Commissioner of Income tax (Central) III Vs. Kabul Chawla /2016/ 380 ITR 573 (Delhi), where it was categorically ruled that assessments cannot be arbitrarily made without any relevance or nexus with the seized materials and in the absence ITA Nos. 775 & 797 of2016 Page 3 of 4 b of seized materials additions based upon existing materials are unjustified. This Court finds no infirmity with the application of the Kabul Ch…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Tirupati Infra Project Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

ITA 2472/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiacit, Tirupati Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, Central Circle-09, Vs. Plot-D, Distt. Centre, Paschim New Delhi Vihar, New Delhi Pan: Aadct5825H (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No. 07/Del/2015 (Assessment Year: 2008-09) Tirupati Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd, Plot- Acit, D, Distt. Centre, Paschim Vihar, Vs. Central Circle-09, New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aadct5825H (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Sh. Sandeep Jain, CIT DRFor Respondent: Sh. PC Yadav, Adv
Section 153A

…He therefore stated that there is no incriminating material found during the course of assessment proceedings and hence no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee. He relied upon the order of Hon'ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573(Del). He further referred to the Page 5 of 29 decision to the case of Kureel Paper Mills reported in 388 ITR 571 of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court. 9. The ld DR objecting to the submission of the assessee that no incriminating material was found during the course of search. Firstly stated that there is no requirement of any incriminating material f…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. M/S T.S. Pulses Pvt. Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the Assessee’s Cross Objection stands allowed and Revenue’s Appeal is dismissed

ITA 5196/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: Sh. Gautam Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. S.S. Rana, CIT(DR)
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 14ASection 153CSection 2Section 35DSection 36(1)(iii)

…essment passed u/s. 153C/143(3) of the I.T. Act, 1961 on 22.12.2011, is squarely covered in favor of the assessee by the decision dated 28.8.2015 of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court passed in the case Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Kabul Chawla reported (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del.) wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that if the additions are made, but not based on any incriminating material found during search operation, then these additions are not sustainable in the eyes of law. He further stated in the present case the AO has made the addition in dispute in a proceeding under section 153C, without there be…

Baba Global Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 1085/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.K. Saini & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate and Shri Ashish Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri T.M. Shiva Kumar, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153ASection 92C

…subsidiaries but the appeal for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2008-09 have already been decided in favour of the assessee by deleting the addition by following the decision rendered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in case of CIT (Central) vs. Kabul Chawla – (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del.). 9 ITA Nos.1085/Del./2015 13. However, on the other hand, ld. DR in order to repel the argument addressed by ld. AR contended that since the assessee has not filed the Form 3CEB during the first round of assessment proceedings, the assessee company is barred from raising plea of non-availability of incriminating materials; that ground…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-2 vs. M/S Mahagun Realtors Pvt. Ltd. Represented by Mahagun India Pvt.Ltd

Appeal is allowed

ITA/685/2016HC Delhi21 Dec 2016

Bench: The Itat To The Same Effect. In Other Words, The Parties (Assessee & The Revenue) Are Ad Idem To The Question That For Assessment Years 2006-07, The Question Of Absence Of Materials Had Not Been Urged. In The Circumstances, The Impugned Order So Far As It Relates Assessment Years 2006-2007 Passed In Ita 3664/Del/2012 Is Hereby Set Aside. The Matter Shall Be Considered Afresh Upon The Materials Available On The Record & Having Regard To The Contentions Of The Parties In Respect Of The Grounds Urged In The Said Appeal.

Section 153A

…MI WAZIRI O R D E R % 21.12.2016 The question of law framed in this case is as follows: - “Did the Tribunal fall into error in holding that the block period assessment was unsustainable for the reasons spelt out in CIT v. Kabul Chawla 380 ITR 573 given the facts and circumstances of the present case.” The Tribunal set aside the assessment under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 based upon its analysis of the facts that no material was seized or discerned in the course of search and seizure proceedings. The Revenue urges that the records itself indicates that for the…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. M/S. Bluemoon Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 58/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. S.K. Gupta, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Jain, CIT/DR
Section 131Section 153ASection 153A(1)Section 3Section 68

…eived any accommodation entry in the form of share application money. Therefore, in view of various decisions relied before the ld. CIT(A) as well as before us including the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT(Central) vs. Kabul Chawla, 380 ITR 573 (Delhi) wherein it has been held that in the search cases, additions can be made only on the basis of incriminating material found in the course of search, the additions so made by AO have rightly been deleted by the ld. CIT(A). It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer has collected the information about share application money from the…

DCIT Cen Cir 8(1), Mumbai vs. Indra Gaggar, Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 808/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Rajendra & Shri C.N. Prasadआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.808, 1295, 1294, 1296 & 809/M/2015 आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं आयकर अपील सं (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Dcit Cen Cir 8(1), Smt. Indra Gaggar, R.No.656, 6Th Floor, 41-42, 4Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan, Gaurav Extension, M.K. Road, Film City Road., बनाम/Vs. बनाम बनाम बनाम Mumbai – 400 020 Gokuldham, Goregaon (East), Mumbai – 400 063 Pan: Afxpg3889B (अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ%/Appellant) ("&यथ% "&यथ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% अपीलाथ% "&यथ% "&यथ% Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.R. Revenue By : Shri P. Ghosh, D.R. सुनवाई क' तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 15.11.2016 सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख सुनवाई क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 30.11.2016 घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख घोषणा क' तारीख आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench:

For Appellant: Shri Anuj Kisnadwala, A.RFor Respondent: Shri P. Ghosh, D.R
Section 132Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 27Section 31Section 68

…e made in an assessment made under section 153A or 153C of the Act only on the basis of material found during the course of the search. 1. All Cargo Global Logistics [374 ITR 645 (Bom)] 2. CIT v. Gurinder Singh Bawa [386 ITR 483 (Bom)] 3. CIT v. Kabul Chawla [380 ITR 573 (Del)] 4. Narpat Mehta v. ACIT CC 4(1), Mumbai in ITA Nos.2151 and 2153/Mum/2015 for A.Ys. 2005-06 and 2008-09 dated 30.09.2016 The Revenue could not bring on record any incriminating material suggesting for above addition. Therefore respectfully following the jurisdictional High Court decision in the case of All Cargo Global Logistics [374 ITR 6…

Sri. DCIT Cen Cir-22, Mumbai vs. Shripal S. Morakhia, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby

ITA 1546/MUM/2008[2000-2001]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Nov 2016AY 2000-2001
For Appellant: Shri Hiro RaiFor Respondent: Shri B.Pruseth CIT-DR
Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 41(1)

…x Vs. Continental Warehousing Corporation (Nhava Sheva) Ltd. and All Cargo Global Logistics Ltd. and Bombay High Court in case of CIT Vs. Murli Agro Products Ltd. (ITA No.36 of 2009) and 259 CTR 281 (Raj.) in case titled as Jai Steel (India) Vs. Asst. CIT and 380 ITR 573 (Del) in case titled as CIT Vs. Kabul Chawla. However, on the other hand the learned representative of the department has refuted the said contentions. It is not in dispute that the assessee has filed his return of income on 31.10.2000 declaring total income to the tune of Rs.3,82,76,438/-. The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the Act on 27.02.…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 3 vs. Dma Investment Pvt. Ltd

ITA/767/2016HC Delhi04 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 143Section 153Section 260A

…$~16 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 767/2016 + ITA 768/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Mohit Kumar Gupta and Ms. Monika Ghai, Advs. versus DMA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing counsel for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R % 04.11.2016 C.M.Appl.No.40897 in ITA No. 767/2016 C.M.Appl.No.40897 in ITA No. 767/2016 For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 45 d…

Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)- 3 vs. Dma Investment Pvt. Ltd

ITA/768/2016HC Delhi04 Nov 2016

Bench: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT,HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA

Section 143Section 153Section 260A

…$~16 & 17 * IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI + ITA 767/2016 + ITA 768/2016 PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)- 3 ..... Appellant Through: Mr.Mohit Kumar Gupta and Ms. Monika Ghai, Advs. versus DMA INVESTMENT PVT. LTD. ..... Respondent Through: Mr. Zoheb Hossain, Sr.Standing counsel for Revenue. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. RAVINDRA BHAT HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE DEEPA SHARMA O R D E R % 04.11.2016 C.M.Appl.No.40897 in ITA No. 767/2016 C.M.Appl.No.40897 in ITA No. 767/2016 For the reasons stated in the applications, the delay of 45 d…

Balaji Universal Tradelink P.Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cen Cir 40, Mumbai

The appeals of the assessee are allowed and that of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2183/MUM/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Oct 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri Sanjay Arora

Section 132(3)Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 153A

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, मुंबई "यायपीठ, बी, मुंबई । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES “B”, MUMBAI "ी जो"ग"दर "संह, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी संजय अरोड़ा, लेखा सद"य, के सम" Before Shri Joginder Singh, Judicial Member, and Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountant Member ITA NO.2183/Mum/ 2013 Assessment Years:2004-05 M/s Balalji Universal vs DCIT, Tradelink Pvt. Ltd., Central Circle-40, C-71/75, 7th Floor, Room No.653, 6th Floor, Mittal Tower, Aayakar Bhavan Nariman Point, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400021 Mumbai-400020 ("नधा"रती /Assessee) (राज"व /Revenue) PAN. No.AABCL0236H ITA NOs.2184 to 2186/Mum/2013 Assessment Years:2005-0…

Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4675/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Oct 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri I.C. Sudhirshri Pradip Kumar Kedia

Section 132Section 139Section 69B

…criminating material was found during the course of search. The Ld. AR asserted that the issue is squarely covered in favour of the assessee by the decision of the jurisdictional High Court passed in the case of CIT (Central)-III vs. Kabul Chawla, reported in 380 ITR 573 (Del), wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that if the additions are made, but, not based on any incriminating material found as a result of search operations, then, such additions are not sustainable in the eyes of law. The Ld. AR further stated that the impugned additions / disallowances have no relation with any incriminating material foun…

ACIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Vikas Gutgutia, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and that of

ITA 858/DEL/2014[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Oct 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Balwan Chauhan, CIT, DR
Section 132Section 153A

…ition that no addition could have been made in the given circumstances in the absence of any incriminating material qua these purchases from the Mandi vendors, the ld. AR relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in CIT vs. Kabul Chawla (2016) 380 ITR 573 (Del). In the opposition, the ld. DR relied on the impugned order. 6. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the relevant material on record. The Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Kabul Chawla (supra) has held that no addition can be made to the income already assessed if no incriminating material is found during the search.…