“human probabilities”

Brij Lata Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1639/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Brij Lata Gupta………….…………….………………………………………………....….……..Appellant Fe-249, Salt Lake City Sector-Iii Kolkata – 700 106 [Pan : Adopg 5085 E] Income Tax Officer, Ward 34(1), Kolkata…………………..……………………....………..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sankar Halder, Addl. Cit, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 8Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 24Th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

order relied upon “circumstantial 2 I.T.A. No. 1639/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Smt. Brij Lata Gupta evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

ITO, Ward - 32(4), Kolkata vs. M/S. Stuti Welfare Trust, Kolkata

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A T Varkey, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A No. 1508/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ito, Ward-32(4), Kolkata -Vs- M/S Stuti Welfare Trust [Pan: Aacts 8163 Q ] (Appellant) (Respondent)

obtained 3 4 M/s Stuti Welfare Trust A.Yr. 2014-15 by the assessee , though from the open market, appears to be unrealistic and beyond human probabilities. Accordingly he held that the LTCG claimed as exempt in the sum of Rs 95,20,445/- as bogus and added the same

DCIT, Cir-10(1), Kolkata vs. M/S Maa Amba Towers Ltd., Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2012-13

further quoted during the course of hearing that the relevant evidence submitted during the course of assessment has to be considered as per the human probabilities by removing all blinkers. Our attention is thereafter invited to the relevant nuances of such share subscription routing involving multiple layers to plough back

Premlata Agarwal, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward - 2(4), Siliguri

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Premlata Agarwal……………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant Neelam Agarwal C/O. Subash Agarwal & Associates Siddha Gibson 1, Gibson Lane Suite-213 2Nd Floor Kolkata – 700 069 [Pan : Accpa 8188 P] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(4), Siliguri…..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 21/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of First Financial Services Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Smt. Sabita Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Sabita Gupta………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant 132, Cotton Street 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Aczpg 5987 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(2), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 21/02/2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited & M/S. Ncl Research & Financial Services Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Neeraj Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 44(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Neeraj Gupta……………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant 132, Cotton Street 1St Floor Kolkata – 700 007 [Pan : Adapg 0346 E] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-44(1), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Saurav Kumar, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 25Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th, 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 28Th February, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Unno Industries Limited & M/S. Ncl Research & Financial Services Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Sunil Kumar Ladha, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 36(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Nikhil Patel, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(4), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Kusum Lata Agrawal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 51(2), Delhi, Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Balram Gupta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 10(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2013-14

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Smt. Alka Changoiwala, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Santosh Choraria, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Santosh Choraria………………...……………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant 408, Marshall House Flat-413 25, Strand Road Kolkata – 700 001 [Pan : Acdpc 1830 F] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-36(3), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.M. Surana, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 10, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 12Th February, 2018, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Essar India Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and 2 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Santosh Choraria “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases where detailed finding were given are listed below

Kamala Devi Mohta, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 45(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Kamala Debi Mohta………………..…………...........…………..………………………………..….…….........Appellant Flat-1A Floors Castlake District 74, Maulana Abul Kalam Azad Road Phoolbagan Kolkata – 700 054 [Pan : Adqpm 9713 M] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-45(3), Kolkata..……………………………………………..…..............Respondent Appearances By: Shri S.L. Kocchar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri P.K. Mondal, Addl. Cit, D/R. Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 24Th, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 5Th , 2018 Order Per J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am :- This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 13, Kolkata, (Hereinafter The ‘Ld. Cit(A)’), Dt. 30Th November, 2017, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter The ‘Act’), Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S. Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

appeal and the ld. CIT(A), had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Sonal Bajaj, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Harish Kumar Jain, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(3), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Harish Kumar Jain -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-34(3), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acspj 6317 R) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri A.K. Tibrewal, Fca & Shri Amit Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 24.05.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to ITA No.1404/Kol/2018 Harish Kumar Jain A.Y.2014-15 ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases where detailed finding were given are listed below

Smt. Bina Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 34(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Bina Agarwal -Versus- I.T.O., Ward-34(1), Kolkata Kolkata (Pan: Acgpa 6318 K) (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant: Shri Subash Agarwal, Advocate For The Respondent: Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.10.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.10.2018 Order Per J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax-(A)-10, Kolkata Dated 25.04.2018 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The ‘Act ‘) Relating To A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Sole Issue That Arises For My Adjudication Is Whether The Assessing Officer Was Right In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee That He Had Earned Long Term Capital Gains On Purchase & Sale Of The Shares Of M/S Kailash Auto Finance Ltd. The Ao Based On A General Report & Modus Operandi Adopted Generally In These Cases & On General Observations Has Concluded That The Assessee Has Claimed Bogus Long Term Capital Gain. He Made An Addition Of The Entire Sale Proceeds Of The Shares As Income & Rejected The Claim Of Exemption Made U/S 10(38) Of The Act. The Evidence Produced By The Assessee In Support Of The Genuineness Of The Transaction Was Rejected.

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to ITA No.1403/Kol/2018 Smt. Bina Agarwal A.Y.2014-15 ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases where detailed finding were given are listed below

Suman Saraf, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 36(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2014-15

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No

Jignesh Desai, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 35(2), Kolkata

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] Assessment Year : 2009-10

Kolkata, had upheld the addition. The ld. CIT(A) has in his order relied upon “circumstantial evidence” and “human probabilities” to uphold the findings of the AO. He also relied on the so called “rules of suspicious transaction”. No direct material was found to controvert the evidence filed ... cases this bench of the Tribunal has consistently held that decision in all such cases should be based on evidence and not on generalisation, human probabilities, suspicion, conjectures and surmises. We have in all cases deleted such additions. Some of the cases were detailed finding which are listed below :- Sl.No