ACIT, CHENNAI vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee’s appeals in ITA Nos. 1881, 1882, and 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys. 2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are allowed

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Hon’Ble Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos.1881, 1882 & 1883/Chny/2025 िनधा;रण वष; /Assessment Years: 2016-17, 2019-20 & 2022-23

prices are highly volatile. Timely lifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could result in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport operators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the assessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments through direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various stages. 11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,MADURAI vs. ADDITIONAL CIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD.,TUTICORIN vs. DCIT, CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S. STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., TUTICORIN

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

ACIT, CHENNAI vs. M/S STERLITE INDUSTRIES (INDIA) LTD., CHENNAI

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. Georgeआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.318 & 319/Mds/2008 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2004-05 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1020/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1665/Mds/2010 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2006-07

Transfer Pricing Officer, more particularly page 27 of his order, found that the assessee has failed to furnish information and documents regarding the expenses said to be incurred by providing management consultancy services to CMT and TCM. To ITA No.1020,1665 & 1386/Mds/10 ascertain the nature of service rendered by the assessee to CMT and TCM, the matter was remitted back

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT, NUNGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT, NUNAGAMBAKKAM vs. INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LIMITED, ANNA NAGAR

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

INTEGRATED SERVICE POINT LTD.,CHENNAI vs. ACIT, CC-2(4), CHENNAI

Accordingly, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.1881, 1882,\nand 1883/Chny/2025 for A.Ys.2016-17, 2019-20, and 2022-23 are\nallowed

prices are highly volatile. Timely\nlifting, transportation, storage, and export were critical, as delays could\nresult in substantial demurrage and dead freight costs. Since transport\noperators lacked adequate incentive to ensure timely delivery, the\nassessee assumed responsibility for resolving logistical impediments\nthrough direct intervention involving facilitation payments at various\nstages.\n11. Similar challenges were faced in the sourcing and supply

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. P.S.R.SILK SAREES INDIA PVT. LTD., COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

ACIT NON CORPORATE CIRCLE-2, COIMBATORE vs. PSR MARKETING COMPANY, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

ACIT, NCC-2, , COIMBATORE vs. PSR & SONS, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

ACIT CORPORATE CIRCLE 2, COIMBATORE vs. PSR SILK SAREES INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED, COIMBATORE

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 934/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1639/Chny/2019 & Co No: 77/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of P.S.R. Silk Sarees India Pvt Income-Tax, V. Ltd., Corporate Circle -2, No. 942, Psr House, Cross Cut No. 63-A, Race Course Road, Road, Gandhipuram, Coimbatore. Coimbatore – 641 012. [Pan: Aaecp-7548-M] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector) आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3257/Chny/2018 & Co No: 11/Chny/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Assistant Commissioner Of M/S. P.S.R. & Sons, Income-Tax, V. No. 942, Cross Cut Road, Corporate Circle -2, Gandhipuram, No. 67-A, Race Course Road, Coimbatore – 641 012. Coimbatore. [Pan: Aadfp-6903-E] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (Cross Objector)

price. From the above arguments of the assessee, it is undoubtedly clear that the assessee could not explain difference in stock in trade found during the course of survey with necessary evidences. The reasons given by the assessee to reconcile excess stock found during the course of survey is not bonafied and unacceptable. The ld. CIT(A), without appreciating

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made

DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, TUTICORIN vs. VVD & SONS (P) LIMITED, TUTICORIN

In the result, both the Cross Objections filed by the assessee are allowed and all the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2153, 2154 2155 & 2156/Chny/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17 & C.O. Nos. 132 & 133/Chny/2018 [In Ita Nos. 2153 & 2154/Chny/2018] The Deputy Commissioner Of Vs. M/S. Vvd & Sons (P) Limited, Income Tax, No. 182, Palayamkottai Road, Central Circle 2, Tuticorin 628 008. Madurai. [Pan:Aaacv8438J] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent/Cross Objector) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By Shri R. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit For : Shri M. Rajan, Cit ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By Shri R. Vijayaraghavan, Advocate : सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing 24.08.2023 : घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: These Four Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Common Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 19, Chennai, Dated 23.04.2018 Relevant To The Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Delayed By Three Days For Which, The Revenue Has Filed Affidavits For Condonation Of Delay, To Which 2

bogus purchase without even referring to the specific entries in the seized material and without explaining how the excess rate was arrived at. It appears that the assessing officer simply copied the appraisal report in the assessment order without application of independent mind and without even seeing the relevant seized material. I have gone through the discussion made