Girdhari Lal B. Rohra v. Cit

B.L. Chhibber, AM

1.This appeal by the asseSqr Mumbai under section 263 6-9-1999 ap,' with the direcV,

2. The asp engaur, Dip' Revenue at the business and residential premises of the entire group called 'Bhajansons' group on 17-10-1997, during the course of which a number of books and other documents relating to the dairy farming business activities of the group were found and seized.

3. Pursuant to the above mentioned search and seizure proceedings, the assessing officer initiated block assessment proceedings in the case of different members of the Bhajanson's group, including the assessee. A notice under section 158BC of the Income Tax Act, calling for the block return was issued on 16-4-1998, in response to which the return was filed by the assessee, showing undisclosed income of Rs. 18,33,436. The block assessment order was passed on 6-9-1999 by estimating the undisclosed income of the group as a whole on the basis of various books and documents seized. The undisclosed income of the group as a whole was estimated, amongst various members of the group in the ratio of total turnover of 5 years upto the broken period of each member and the total turnover of 5 years upto the broken period of entire group. Hearing for the assessment had started from 5-7-1999 and the written submissions were made upto 18-8-1999. Submissions were made explaining various seized papers and replies to the queries raised by the assessing officer. Statement of Shri Shyamlal Rohra, the main spokesperson of the group was recorded at the time of search on 17-10-1997 (pp. 9 to 13 of the paper book). Further statement was given by the Shri Shyamlal B Rohra. before the Dy. Director of IT (Inv. ) under section 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, on 1-12-1997 (pp. 43 to 65 of the paper book). The assessment order was passed on 6-9-1999. Block assessment order in the case of the assessee was thus passed by considering the amount of Rs. 18,33,436 to represent the undisclosed income of the assessee. While passing the order, the learned assessing officer made the following observations :

"The issue developed in the search action is suppression of sale of milk by 1 litre per day per buffalo. Considering the other investments, loan transactions, receipts not proved, purchases of jewellery, etc., along with the suppression of milk, the Bhajansons Group of cases has, in totality, declared undisclosed income to the tune of Rs. 2,12,20,079 under section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act .............

The facts relating to search and seizure and consequential investigation are recorded in the file of Shri Shyamlal B. Rohra, who is the chief spokesman of the family and copy of his order is attached to this order as annexure. After considering the entire records of M/s Bhaj . ansons Group, including all its members, the generation of unaccounted income and consequential unaccounted investments, the total undisclosed income is arrived at Rs. 2,25,00,000 and the same was distributed in the hands of other family member who are actively business associates as it is distinct from the income tax records, where they established their independent identity, as they are filing their returns for more than 10 years.

The assessee accepted the assessment and did not prefer any appeal against the same.

4. Later on, the CIT assumed jurisdiction under section 263 of the Income Tax Act and issued successive show-cause notices in this regard dated 29-11-2001 and 13-3-2002. After hearing the assessee, the CIT came to the conclusion that all the seized documents had not been properly examined by the assessing officer during the course of block assessment proceedings; that the assessing officer had not conducted proper enquiries with regard to all the seized documents and accordingly, the order passed by the assessing officer, was erroneous in as much as it was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. Relying upon the observations at p. 8201 of Vol. V. 5th Edn. of the IT Law by Chaturvedi & Pithisaria (reproduced in para 31 of the impugned order), he set aside the order passed by the assessing officer with the following observations in para 35 in the case of Shri Shyamlal Rohra, in whose case a detailed order has been written and the same has been followed in the case of other family members, including the assessee :

"In the result, the assessment is set aside under section 263 of the Income Tax Act to be framed afresh in accordance with the provisions of the law keeping in view the directions contained in the order."

5. Shri S.K. Tulsiyan, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the order passed by the learned CIT, under section 263 of the Act is wrong, invalid, illegal and bad in law. He submitted that the learned CIT erred in holding that the assessing officer, while passing the block assessment order, had not examined the seized documents, necessary for completing the block assessment and had not conducted proper enquiries in that regard, although the block assessment had actually been completed after due and proper examination of all the relevant seized documents and relevant materials. He submitted that during the course of assessment proceedings, the representative of the assessee appeared on various dates before the assessing officer like on 5-7-1999, 6-7-1999, 7-7-1999, 9-7-1999, 14-7-1999, 16-7-1999, 19-7-1999 and finally on 18-8-1999 and made discussions with the assessing officer with regard to the various details submitted by the assessee group on different dates. He submitted that the following details worked out on the basis of various seized books and documents were submitted by the assessee group before the assessing officer on various dates:

(1) Letter dated 16-7-1999, submitting explanations pertaining to the papers/materials seized from Chinchoti and Pelhar Farms (copy of the letter along with the details finds place at pp. 145 to 156 of the paper book).

(2) Letter dated 19-7-1999, submitting explanations pertaining to the papers/materials seized from the residence of Shri Shyamlal D Rohra, Shri Girdharilal Rohra, Shri Gopaldas Rohra and Shri Narayandas Rohra and also from Bhajanlal Dairy Farm (at pp. 157 to 166 of the paper book).

(3) Letter dated 23-7-1999, showing details pertaining to suppression of production of milk, working of unaccounted purchases of fodder and grass and also working of unaccounted expenses incurred at farm by the manager (pp. 14 to 42 of the paper book).

(4) Letter dated 27-7-1999, showing unaccounted sale of by-products, cheese, fatua along with the profit & loss a/c showing undisclosed income earned from production of milk for the year ended on 31-3-1997, a chart showing the net profit earned from financial year 1993-94 upto the broken period and also complete working of unaccounted sales of by products i.e., cheese and fatua as appearing in Annexs. A-38, A-41, A-42 & A -2/1 (at pp. 83 to 93 of the paper book).

(5) Letter dated 28-7-1999, showing fund flow statement relating to undisclosed income offered for each year, explanations pertaining to certain seized papers and also, basis for distribution of undisclosed income in the hands of individuals/HUFs belonging to the group (at pp. 167 to 178 of the paper book).

(6) Letter dated 17-8-1999, showing comparison of computer data with the entries in the regular books (at pp. 98 to 141 of the paper book).

6. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that on 30-7-1999 and 2-8-1999, the assessing officer recorded statements under section 131 of the Act, of Shri Shyamlal B Rohra and Shri Shailesh Vora and on the basis of the above details submitted by the assessee on various occasions and after examining the seized materials in detail, the assessing officer completed the block assessments in different cases on 6-9-1999. He submitted that mountain load of books and other documents/materials were seized by the search party without trying to discern whether all these papers would ultimately be necessary for completing the assessment. In almost all cases of search, it is the common experience of both the departmental officers as well as the assessee that major portion of the seized materials are either irrelevant, immaterial or duplication of other papers already seized. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that exactly the same had happened in this particular case. But so far as the assessee is concerned, he furnished the full details of all the papers and documents seized, explaining the subjects contained therein. He submitted that the assessee duly submitted before the assessing officer the duplicateness of many of the seized papers and documents pertaining to the same subject, viz., suppression of production of milk. Some of these papers relate to different periods and short listing was done not only by the assessee but even by the assessing officer himself by taking into consideration those materials which contain the details of production of milk as well as of the by-products in a most explicit manner for the maximum period possible. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, there was nothing on record to show that the assessing officer left out of consideration, any important seized material, documents or books. Pointing out to the order of the learned CIT, he submitted that even the CIT has not exactly said so in his impugned revisionary order, but merely states in a very vague manner that the assessing officer had not considered all the materials.

7. To the observations of the learned CIT in respect of suppression of production at Pelhar and Bapane Farms determined on the basis of A-1 and A-3 relating to Chinchoti Farms (para 21 at p. 8 of the CIT's order), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that actually Chinchoti Farm is much larger where in 1387 buffaloes were found at the time of search whereas, at the Pelhar and Bapane Farms, only 405 and 275 buffaloes respectively were found. The Chinchoti farm involves 10 proprietary concerns whereas the Pelhar and Bapane farm involved and 2 proprietary farms respectively. However, in these farms, there was nothing to indicate production or sale of unaccounted milk. It was in the fitness of things that the suppression of milk production was determined in a larger manner by referring to the documents of Chinchoti Farm. The learned counsel for the assessee, therefore, concluded that no prejudice was caused to the Revenue by not relying upon the referred documents of the aforesaid two farms.

8. Referring to the observations of the learned CIT, that even there were much variation as per A-1 and A-3 documents as considered by the assessing officer (para 21, p. 8 of the CIT's order), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that wide variations were very much noted in the seized documents and that is why an averaging processing was resorted to. Accordingly, the Tables shown by the CIT at p. 8 of his order clearly show that in respect of some of the entries, the suppressed production of milk would work out at figures much lower than 1.06 litre as considered by the assessing officer. For example, so far as Annex. A-3 is concerned, corresponding to 1387 number of buffaloes, suppression of milk is shown on 16-10-1997 at 962 Itrs. only. Again, corresponding to 1405 number of buffaloes, suppression of milk is shown on 4-10-1997 at 1316 ltrs. only. The resultant figures in both these cases would work out at less than 1 Itr. per buffaloe. For Annex. A-1 also, on 21-10-1997, suppression of milk is shown at 1316 Itrs. As against the total number of buffaloes of 1364, the result per buffaloes thus being less than 1 ltr., whereas the assessing officer estimated the suppression of 1 ltr., per buffaloes and accordingly, he submitted that no prejudice was caused to the revenue.

9. Regarding the reliance placed by the learned CIT, on the statement of Shri P.K. Vyas, Manager (para 21, p. 8 bottom portion of the CIT's order), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that at the time of search, Shri Shyamlal Rohra and Shri P.K. Vyas had stated things in an estimated manner. Shri Vyas had wrongly stated the number of buffaloes to be 1400, whereas the actual number was 1387 only. In the same way, the estimated suppression of 1350 Itrs. of milk had been stated whereas Shri Shyamlal Rohra estimated the same at 1300 ltrs. He pointed out that there is also not much of difference in these two estimated figures, and in any case, the average figure on the basis of seized documents has been taken into consideration, which was correct and cannot militate against facts.

10. Referring to the explanation furnished by the assessee in the statement of Shri Shyamlal B Rohra, recorded on I-12-1997 and 2-12-1997, relating to A-11, on the basis of which the learned CIT has concluded that the assessing officer was required to conduct certain further enquiries regarding the real purchase price of buffaloes (para 23, p. 9 of the impugned order), the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that it is comparatively an insignificant matter, because in the block assessment, the income from suppression of production of milk and of by-products have been taken into consideration and unaccounted income for assessee group has been computed on that basis. He further pointed out that it was explained before the CIT, that A-11 merely contains notings about the condition of newly purchased buffaloes and does not contain any information about purchase price of buffaloes.

11. The learned counsel for the assessee took us through para 26, pp. 9 and 10 of CIT's order where regarding expenses claimed at 92.9 per cent, the CIT has stated as to how this percentage had been arrived at. The CIT mentions that the working of the same is provided in the assessee's letter dated 23-7-1999, relating to unaccounted purchases of fodder and other expenses on the basis of the documents seized from Chinchoti Farm. He also mentioned that similar documents being A-31 to A-36, A-44, A-46, A-47, A-1/7 and A-1/8 were not examined and the learned CIT finally concluded that the unaccounted expenses should have been verified. In this connection, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the CIT himself mentions that the working was provided in the letter of the assessee dated 23-7-1999, on the basis of details of unaccounted purchase of fodder and other expenses recorded in the seized documents. He merely mentioned that certain other documents of marginal nature were not examined. Accordingly, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the learned CIT was not sure as to the importance of those documents and again whether really those documents had been examined or not. The CIT did not come out with any definite assertion that the unaccounted expenses were not worked out properly with reference to the documents. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that full details and explanations regarding A-31 to A-36, A-44, A-46, A-47, A-1/7 and A-1/8 were duly furnished before the assessing officer (pp. 149, 150 and 155 of the paper book). He explained that these papers show quantitative details of fodder, cattle feed stock etc., and do not have much relevance to monetary transactions. He further submitted that in any case, the assessing officer further disallowed 1/3rd out of the claim of unaccounted expenses as made by the assessee. Accordingly, no prejudice is caused to the revenue.

12. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the same logi lies to the CIT's remarks about the. lack of proper examination in respect of certain other materials like A-11 containing details of buffaloes purchased and seized from Chinchoti Farm. As regards the CIT's remarks that the information gathered during the survey conducted at Shyam Dairy, Zhaveri Bazar and Dudh Sagar, Khar, needed further examination (para 27 at p. 10 of the impugned order), the learned CIT's comment on this issue is extremely vague. According to the learned counsel for the assessee, there is nothing on record to show that these surveys led to any independent discovery of undisclosed income. The learned CIT also did not mention anything about such potentiality of the survey. It was explained before the CIT in the assessee's second letter dated 13-3-2002 (p. 212 of the paper book) that Shyam Dairy, Zhaveri Bazar is merely a retail shop wherein milk is purchased mostly from outsiders and furthermore this business was carried out by a separate entity viz., Bhajansons Dairy Farm, a partnership firm. Similarly it was explained that Mohan Bihari Diary is a separate assessee totally unconnected with the assessee group. It was further explained that Dudh Sagar, Khar was also merely one of the customers of the assessee, having no connection with the group. He, therefore, concluded that the CIT's remarks are not supported by any cogent reason and are mere probings in the dark. Similarly, the learned counsel for the assessee took us step by step to the remarks, observations and conclusions by the CIT in different orders and submitted that the CIT was doing so many fishing enquiries and was endeavouring to find faults: with the orders of the assessing officer, which were based on proper examination of seized materials and other information on record.

13. On the legal side, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that the reliance placed on the CIT on the observations of the learned authors Chaturvedi & Pithisaria (supra) is misplaced. The observations are based on two judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (1968) 67 ITR 84 (SC) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (1973) .88 ITR 323 (SC). But the ratio laid down in these cases is not applicable to the case of the assessee, because in the case of the assessee, the assessing officer had properly scrutinized the seized documents and had made proper enquiries before determining the income in the block assessment order. He further submitted that the order of the CIT is not tenable in view of the following judgments/decisions (1) CIT v. Executors of the Estate of late H.H. Rajkuverba Dowager Maharani Saheb of Gonda (1978) 115 ITR 301 (Kar) (2) Jagadhri Electric Supply & Industrial Co. v. CIT (1987) 166 ITR 14 3 (P&H) (3) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (2000) 243 ITR 83 (SC) (4) CIT v. Trustees Anupam Charitable Trust (1987) 167 ITR 129 (Raj) (5) CIT v. Goya) Private Family Specific Trust (1988) 171 ITR 698 (All) (6) CIT v. Sakthi Charities (2000) 160 CTR (Mad) 107 (7) CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (1993) 203 ITR 108 (Bom) (8) CIT v. Dr. B.A. Rajakrishnan (1997) 226 ITR 323 (Ker) (9) Ashok Kumar Parasramka v. Asstt. CIT (1998) 65 ITD 1 (Cal) (10) Samrat Beer Bar v. Asstt. CIT (2000) 75 ITD 19 (Pune)(TM) (11) Jamnadas T Mehta v. Income Tax Officer (2002) 81 ITD 103 (Pune)(TM) (12) Order of Tribunal, Mumbai F Bench in the case of Hiran Developers & Ors. in IT(SS)A Nos. 27 to 31/Mum/2000, dated 16-10-2001.

14. The learned counsel for the assessee concluded that the assessing officer had conducted all possible inquiries within the time constraint available with him by examining the seized books of accounts and the learned CIT, even if he be not satisfied with the results of the enquiries of the assessing officer, cannot substitute his own opinion about certain perceived enquiries, which could also have been conducted. He prayed that the revisionary order passed by the CIT, under section 263 which is based on sarmises, guesswork and possibilities alone, be (sic).

15. Shn T.K. Shah, the learned Departmental Representative strongly supported the order of the learned CIT. He took us through the relevant paragraphs of the order of the learned CIT and pointed out that the learned assessing officer had not perused the entire seized material and had also failed in conducting necessary enquiries. Accordingly, the learned CIT is justified in invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act. He relied upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (supra) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (supra).

16. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the facts on record, It is now well-settled position of law that in order to assume jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act, the CIT must satisfy himself prima facie that the order of the assessing officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interests of revenue. Such satisfaction must be based on the material on record. The assumption of jurisdiction under S. 263 cannot be made in a casual and arbitrary manner and if there is no material on record to satisfy prima facie that the aforesaid two conditions are present then the provision of section 263 cannot be invoked. In this connection, reference may be made to the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (supra). The relevant portion is reproduced below:

"There must be material available on record called for by the CIT to satisfy him prima facie that the aforesaid two requisites are present, If not he has no authority to initiate proceedings for revision. Exercise of power of suo motu revision under such circumstances will amount to arbitrary exercise of power. It is well-settled that when exercise of statutory power is dependent upon the existence of certain objective facts, the authority before exercising such material (sic) must have materials on record to satisfy it in that regard. It is an important decision and the same cannot be based on the whims or caprice of the revising authority. There must be materials available from the records called for by the CIT,"

The Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkata Krishna Rice Co. v. CIT (1987) 163 ITR 129 (Mad) has held that when an order of assessment of the Income Tax Officer is in accordance with law, it cannot be held to be erroneous in law and consequently it cannot be prejudicial to the interests of the revenue and hence the action of the CIT in such a case cannot be justified. The CIT cannot indirectly do what is barred from doing under the Act.

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. v. CIT (supra) has observed at p. 88 as follows

"The phrase 'prejudicial to the interests of the revenue' has to be used in conjunction with an erroneous order passed by the assessing officer. Every loss of revenue as a consequence of an order of the assessing officer cannot be treated as prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. For example, when an Income Tax Officer adopted one of the courses permissible in law and it has resulted in loss of revenue; or where two views are possible and the Income Tax Officer has taken one view with which the CIT does not agree, it cannot be treated as an erroneous order prejudicial to the interests of the revenue, unless the view taken by the Income Tax Officer is unsustainable in law."

The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above judgment have disproved the observations of the Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkata Krishna Rice Co. v. CIT (supra) and have referred to CIT v. Gabriel India Ltd. (supra) and have impliedly approved the observations of the Bombay High Court in the aforesaid judgment.

17. It is equally well established that where the assessing officer fails to make necessary enquiries, which he is required to make and decides the issue without making such enquiries, then the order of the assessing officer will be erroneous in law. Reference can be made to the decisions of Supreme Court in the case of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (supra) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (supra).

18. The basis of the impugned order of the learned CIT is that while passing the block assessment order, the assessing officer had not examined the seized materials, necessary for completing the block assessment and had not conducted proper enquiries in that regard. From the facts of the case and from the detailed contentions of the learned counsel for the assessee, reproduced in paras 5 to 12 above, it is proved beyond any shade of doubt that the assessment had actually been completed after due and proper examination of all the relevant documents and the relevant materials. During the course of assessment proceedings, the representative of the assessee appeared on various dates before the assessing officer like 5-7-1999, 6-7-1999, 7-7-1999, 9-7-1999, 14-7-1999, 16-7-1999, 19-7-1999, and finally on 18-8-1999 and made discussions with the assessing officer with regard to the various details submitted by the assessee group on different dates. Details worked out on the basis of various seized books and documents, submitted by the assessee group before the assessing officer have been detailed in para 5 (supra). It is also noticed that the learned assessing officer also perused the statements recorded under section 131 of the Act of Shri Shyamlal B. Rohra and Shri Shailesh Vora on 30-7-1999 and 2-8-1999 and on the basis of the details submitted by the assessee on various occasions and after examining the seized materials in detail, the assessing officer completed the block assessments in different cases on 6-9-1999. Here was a case where a massive search and seizure operation had been carried out and large loads of books and other documents/materials were seized by the search party. Thereafter, the assessee furnished full details of the papers and details seized, explaining the subjects contained therein. The assessee submitted before the assessing officer the duplicateness of many of the seized papers and documents pertaining to the same subject, viz., suppression of production of milk. Some of these papers relate to different periods and short listing was done not only by the assessee but even by the assessing officer himself by taking into consideration those materials which contain the details of production of milk as well as of the by-products in a most explicit manner for the maximum period possible.

19. Accordingly, we hold that there was nothing on record to show that the assessing officer left out of consideration, any important seized material, documents or books. In fact, all the points raised by the learned CIT in the impugned order have been controverted by the learned counsel for the assessee as per his detailed submission which we have summarized in paras 7 to 12 (supra). That being the position, the learned CIT, under section 263, had no jurisdiction to substitute his own discretion in place of that of the assessing officer. In this behalf, the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabriel India Ltd. (supra) is very relevant. The CIT cannot indirectly do what is barred from doing under the Act. Following observations of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Gabliel India Ltd. (supra) are very relevant :

"This is because the Income Tax Officer has exercised the quasi-judicial power vested in him in accordance with law and arrived at a conclusion and such a conclusion cannot be termed to be erroneous simply because the CIT does not feel satisfied with the conclusion. It may be said in such a case that in the opinion of the CIT the order in question is prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. But that by itself would not be enough to vest the CIT with the power of suo motu revision because the first requirement, namely, that the order is erroneous, is absent."

In the said case, earlier the Bombay High Court had held that

"If an Income Tax Officer acting in accordance with law makes certain assessment, the same cannot be branded as erroneous by the CIT simply because according to him the order should have been written more elaborately. This section does not visualize a case of substitution of the judgment of the CIT for that of the Income Tax Officer who passed the order, unless the decision is held to be erroneous."

20. While passing the order under section 263 of the Act, it is expected that the CIT should be prima facie satisfied about the erroneous nature of the assessment which has caused prejudice to the revenue. Beyond stating that no further enquiries are made, there should be some material which must be pointed out to show how lack of an enquiry has caused prejudice to the revenue. This has not been done by the CIT in the present case. Reference in this behalf may be made to the decision of Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal, in the case of N.S. Ichhopani v. Assistant Commissioner (1995) 55 ITD 88 (Chd), where the Bench has observed as under :

"Setting aside an assessment is no ordinary matter. In fact, in tax laws, as in other laws, certainty and finality are the prerequisites of a good tax administration. The orders of the subordinate authorities should, therefore, not be cancelled or set aside on mere whims and fancies; there must be very compelling reasons for interference by the learned CIT under section 263."

In fact, in the present case, the learned assessing officer made the necessary enquiries which were possible in the time constraint and the voluminous nature of seized material and hence, the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Rampyari Devi Saraogi v. CIT (supra) and Smt. Tara Devi Aggarwal v. CIT (supra) relied upon by the learned Departmental Representative does not apply to the facts of the present case.

21. Further, the CIT has to come to a definite conclusion that the order passed by the assessing officer was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue CIT v. Kanda Rice Mills (1989) 178 ITR 446 (P&H); CIT v. Chawla Trunk Home (1983) 139 ITR 182 (P&H); CIT v. Goyal Private Family Specific Trust (supra). We find that while passing the impugned order, the CIT was not on sure ground, and he has merely stated in a very vague manner that the assessing officer has not considered all the materials. At para 8 of the impugned order he states that in view of the above observations,

"it appears necessary that all the seized documents relating to suppression of wealth should be examined for the assessment purpose"

(emphasis, italicised in print, supplied). The above remarks of the CIT clearly indicate that he had no material to come to a firm decision that the order of the assessing officer was erroneous and was prejudicial to the interests of the revenue. In fact, there is nothing on record to show that actually some of these seized documents had not actually been examined. If the learned CIT wanted to come to the conclusion that some important documents had not actually been examined, he should have come out at least with an apparent case that examination of such documents would have led to greater amounts of revenue.

22. In the light of the above discussion, we hold that no case has been made out by the learned CIT for invoking the jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act on the facts and in the circumstances of the present case. We accordingly quash his order.

23. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.