S.P. Goyal v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax

Per Behari Lal, Accountant Member - This appeal has been directed against the order of the CIT(A), Central-IV, Mumbai, dated 5-7-1999 for the assessment year 1993-94. The only ground of appeal is regarding the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and on appeal, confirmed by the learned CIT(A).

2. The assessee is an individual and during the year under consideration, he had shown total income of Rs. 34,270 under the head ‘Other sources’. The assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act on 27-3-1996 wherein the total income was determined at Rs. 79,17,040. The Assessing Officer had made the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of unexplained credits pertaining to consignment sales. On appeal, the order of the Assessing Officer was set aside by the CIT(A) vide his order dated 14-8-1996 with the following specific directions :

(i)A finding of fact has to be given with reference to the total consignment value of Rs. 88,45,624 involved in 6 debit notes as to whether the same had been imported by Canon Steel Pvt. Ltd., and if so, how the same had been accounted for and disposed of.

(ii)The claim of the assessee that he had sold goods worth Rs. 78.82 lakhs in small bits in cash and also needed to be properly authenticated.

(iii)The assessee should be given opportunity of being heard in respect of seized page 37 of Annexure A-4.

(iv)The assessee’s claim that the jewellery said to have been purchased from undisclosed sources had disclosed in the wealth-tax return, needs verification and reconciliation.

3. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer passed the order on 30-3-1999 wherein addition of Rs. 60 lakhs had been made under the head ‘Income from other sources’. This addition was based on a document which was seized during the course of search conducted at the premises of the assessee in Delhi. Aggrieved by the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs, the assessee filed an appeal before the CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

4. Search and seizure operation were conducted at the premises of the assessee on 14-10-1993. During the course of search of the premises at Okhla in New Delhi, certain documents were seized. Page 37 of Annexure A-4 seized from Okhla, New Delhi contained an account of Shri S.P. Goyal. The seized paper has admittedly been written in the handwriting of the assessee. The said account had been written in a diary bearing the date 15-11-1992. On this paper, the following details had been written in the hand writing of the assessee.

During the course of original assessment proceedings, the assessee submitted his explanation as follows :

"This paper is definitely of my handwriting, but it is not actual but planning. It was agreed to withdraw Rs. 60 lakhs from firms/companies for my personal use and I was planning as to how to make use of this Rs. 60 lakhs. Nothing actual except paper planning which subsequently I have purchased the jewellery/silver utensils etc., against payment of consignment sales, account of M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd."

The Assessing Officer, however, did not accept the explanation of the assessee and had stated in his order that the page in question was a page of a diary of 15th November, 1992 and the same, therefore, might have been written on 15-11-1992. The entries pertains to the dates and periods prior to the date of writing. Therefore, the Assessing Officer contended that the same could not be considered as planning. He stated that the planning could not be made with retrospective effect but the same is generally made for future. He also stated that the account of the assessee was not in conformity with his regular books of account. The Assessing Officer also observed that the date on the receipt side was very specific i.e. 26-9-1992, on the expenses side also, the dates were specific i.e. 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992. Thus according to him, it could not be said that it was planning. The Assessing Officer also rejected the explanation of the assessee that the unaccounted cash of Rs. 60 lakhs and other amounts pertaining to 13-10-1992 which was not readable due to punching hole had been channellised through the consignment account.

5. During the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee filed the following explanation :

"This paper is nothing except planning and planning is linked with marriage of my daughter, Monika, through matrimonial consultants/agents. Keeping in view the trend in the society, I found that there was good proposals of status families but subject to marriage expenses one crore or more therefore I was planning on the paper during September/October 92. Keeping in view the ideas of various matrimonial consultants/agents I started purchasing more jewellery as well as property for Monika during the year 1993.

It will not be out of place to mention that the jewellery referred in the page was already in possession of my wife and myself and in HUF which I told the agents during the discussion. It will also not be out of place to mention that now-a-days to have good marriage proposals of status families, the consultants want offer of Rs. 1 crore or more. Since I was insisting to spend only Rs. 60 lakhs, I could not get suitable match for my daughter. Now, I have offered to spend more and explained that my daughter herself has assets much more than I offered earlier and assured them that the total expenditure on my part and the assets in my daughter’s possession would exceed Rs. 1 crore and therefore, I could get now a suitable match.

I once again state that this page is only a planning linked with the marriage proposal of my daughter. It has no link with any other material or with any person or actual facts.

It will also not be out of place to mention that in the paper you will find that there is no balance or total, nothing is squared up or tallied and the ‘zeros’ is further evidence of my intention of planning to add in the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs. The jewellery and other things shown are only as explained above."

6. The Assessing Officer rejected the explanation filed by the assessee. According to him, the date written against Rs. 60 lakhs cash is 26-9-1992 which means that on this date, Shri S.P. Goyal was in possession of Rs. 60 lakhs in the form of cash. He has also stated that the significance of date against Rs. 60 lakhs is highlighted when it is seen along with records on the right hand side of the paper where the assessee has recorded the dates starting from 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992. According to him, this is the period of expenses on silver utensils, gold ornaments, miscellaneous expenses and diamonds. Thus, the Assessing Officer observed that the arguments put forward by the assessee regarding the marriage of his daughter were false and were aimed at to reduce the importance of the seized paper. The Assessing Officer has further stated that the expenses side of the paper shows that against gold ornaments, the assessee has written a specific figure of 5009 gm., at Rs. 20,03,500 which comes to Rs. 4,000 per 10 gm. Further, the miscellaneous expenses had been written as Rs. 50,800. According to him, the specific items and numbers of items valuing at Rs. 8,50,000 prove that the seized paper is a record of facts and events that had happened on the date of recording. Thus, the Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee was in possession of Rs. 60 lakhs as on 26-9-1992 which remains unexplained.

7. The learned CIT(A) supported the findings of the Assessing Officer and has stated that Shri S.P. Goyal was in the possession of Rs. 60 lakhs and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 31,21,400 from 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992. The learned CIT(A) has further stated that the assessee had not been able to prove that Rs. 60 lakhs were available with him as on 26-9-1992 and the same represented amounts withdrawn by him from disclosed sources of income. The learned CIT(A) has also stated that the assessee was also purchasing jewellery in the form of gold and diamond jewellery and silver articles from known sources of income in anticipation of his daughter’s marriage. The learned CIT(A) referred to the decision of the Calcutta High Court in the case of Debi Burman v. CIT 1994 Tax LR 452, 456 wherein it has been held that the onus clearly lies on the assessee to prove that the entries ostensively showing receipt of on-money in cash are not real receipts. She has further stated that the contention of the assessee that the Department must prove the existence of cash and the fact that jewellery was purchased before making any addition on the basis of the recordings in the diary is not tenable. According to her, the recordings admittedly in the handwriting of the assessee are sufficient as evidence needing no corroboration. She stated that it was open to the assessee to prove that the account represented a disclosed account. Thus, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer in his assessment order.

8. During the course of hearing, the learned counsel for the assessee contended that the said scramblings on piece of paper did not represent any actual happening of any transaction. According to him, the paper had absolutely no link with actual facts and could not be treated as evidence for the purpose of making the addition to the income of the assessee. The learned counsel contended that the provisions of section 68 and section 69 could not be applied to the case of the assessee as the Assessing Officer had not proved that the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs was actually spent by the assessee or introduced this amount in his books of account. He also argued that the Assessing Officer has not proved the fact of possession of the amount by the assessee. Therefore, his compelling the assessee to explain the source of non-existent assets was improper, unjust and illegal. The learned counsel further argued that the assessee wanted to withdraw Rs. 60 lakhs from firms/companies for his personal use and he was planning on this seized paper as to how to make use of this amount. According to him, there was nothing actual except paper planning which subsequently, the assessee had purchased the jewellery/silver utensils etc. against payment of consignment sales in the account of M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. Regarding the consignment sales of M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd., he explained that the balance sheet was not finalised as proper entries of consignment sales were not recorded and there was difference in physical verification of stock. Due to disturbances/disputes of the partners, proper attention on the account of consignment sales was not passed on to the concerned Accountant, though the said information from Mumbai was already with the company at Ludhiana. He further stated that in the Mumbai account of the assessee, all entries were duly incorporated as per books of account and such books of account were produced before the Assessing Officer. He also explained that the goods which were sent to the assessee by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. were kept and dealt through M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation and the said file pertaining to such goods was a part of seized records. The learned counsel contended that the sales bills/memos and names of the buyers were produced before the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings. Thus, the goods received by the assessee were evident from the records of M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation and the same were sold as per the books of the assessee. Thus according to the learned counsel, the assessee was expecting cash of Rs. 60 lakhs sometime back in the month of September 1992, but later on instead of cash, the assessee was sent goods for sales, mostly imported by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. The learned counsel also pointed out that no such jewellery or amount mentioned on the seized paper had been found during the course of search operation in the residence of the assessee. All the cash, jewellery, stock etc., found at the time of action under section 132 of the Act was fully explained and the same also tallied with the records of the IT Department. He thus contended that there was no excess found or remained explained by the assessee, therefore, the question of any further doubt on the basis of such a piece of paper which was without any interlink or without having any name of any person from whom cash was received or from whom any jewellery had been purchased would not have arisen. He also reiterated that the submissions made by the assessee before the Assessing Officer during the course of reassessment proceedings regarding the matrimonial proposal of the assessee’s daughter and contended that the seized paper was nothing except planning and that planning was linked with the marriage of the assessee’s daughter. The learned counsel also pointed out that the Department did not record any statement of the assessee regarding the seized paper, during the course of search. The Department also could not find out any explained investments during the course of search. He also contended that the Department also could not find out the cash in the premises of the assessee during the course of search. He also pointed out that the Department also could not find out any unexplained assets in the premises of the assessee during the course of search action. The learned counsel placed his reliance on the following court cases :

(i) Umacharan Shah & Bros. v. CIT [1959] 37 ITR 271 (SC)

(ii) Pushkar Narain Sarraf v. CIT [1990] 183 ITR 388¹ (All.)

(iii) Ashwani Kumar v. ITO [1991] 39 ITD 183 (Delhi)

(iv) S.K. Gupta v. Dy. CIT [1999] 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532

(v) Atul Kumar Jain v. Dy. CIT [1999] 64 TTJ (Delhi) 786

(vi) Chander Mohan Mehta v. Asstt. CIT [1999] 65 TTJ (Pune) 327

(vii) Kishanchand Sobhrajmal v. Asstt. CIT [1992] 41 ITD 97 (Jp.)

(viii) CBI v. V.C. Shukla [1998] 3 SCC 410

(ix) Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2001] 70 TTJ (Ahd.) 122²

The learned DR fully supported the findings of the authorities below and contended that the addition made is justified. He made reference to pages 2 & 3 of the paper book filed by the assessee which pertains to the letter written by the Assessing Officer calling for explanation of the assessee regarding the stock issued by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd., and the names of the parties to whom the stock was sold. According to him, the assessee did not file any information in response to this letter. He contended that the explanation filed by the assessee regarding the goods imported by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd., was false. He further pointed out that the explanation filed by the assessee regarding the marriage of his daughter at the time of reassessment proceedings was contradictory to his explanation filed during the course of original assessment proceedings. According to him, there was no mention of the marriage of his daughter in the explanation filed regarding the seized paper during the course of the original assessment but the explanation filed during the course of reassessment proceedings pertain to the marriage of his daughter. Therefore, he contended that the explanation filed during the course of reassessment proceedings was contradictory to the explanation filed during the course of original assessment. The learned DR reiterated the findings of the Assessing Officer that the planning for expenses cannot be retrospective. Hence according to him, the explanation filed by the assessee is without any substance and does not prove that the assessee was actually planning for the marriage of his daughter.

9. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the parties. We have also gone through the various documents produced before us during the course of hearing. The addition of Rs. 60 lakhs is based on a document seized during the course of search operation at the premises of the assessee in New Delhi. The assessee contended that the addition made on the basis of the seized paper is not justified. According to the Department, page No. 37 of Annexure A-4 seized from Okhla, New Delhi reveals the fact that it contained an account of the assessee. The assessee admitted during the course of search that the paper was written by him. Therefore, there is no dispute regarding the ownership of the seized paper and the writing on the same paper. The assessee explained that the said account appeared on a diary bearing the date 15-11-1992. The various details on this paper had been written by the assessee himself. The assessee explained that the amount mentioned on the said paper were not actual but planning for the marriage of his daughter. He also explained that Rs. 60 lakhs were to be withdrawn from firms/companies for his personal use and he was planning as to how to make use of Rs. 60 lakhs. He also stated that he purchased the jewellery/silver utensils etc., against payment of consignment as well as in the account of M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer has made the addition mainly on the basis that a specific date had been written against the figure of Rs. 60 lakhs. Therefore, he was of the view that the assessee was in possession of Rs. 60 lakhs on the said date. Similarly, he concluded that on the right hand side, the assessee had recorded the dates starting from 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992 which was actually the period for expenses on silver utensils and gold ornaments etc. The figures were specific, therefore, the Assess- ing Officer concluded that whatever was mentioned on the paper was a record of facts and events which happened on the date of recording such figures. The main point for consideration before us is, therefore, whether an addition can be made on the basis of the seized paper which admittedly had been written by the assessee himself. It is also an admitted fact that the Department did not record any statement of the assessee regarding this paper during the course of search. The explanation of the assessee was called for only during the course of regular assessment proceedings. The assessee filed explanation that the paper was nothing except planning and that planning was linked with the marriage of his daughter, Monika. He stated that during September/October 1992, he was planning on this paper keeping in view the ideas of various matrimonial consultants/agents. He also explained that he started purchasing more jewellery as well as property for Monika during the year 1993. He explained that the jewellery referred in the page was already in possession of his wife, himself and the HUF. Thus the assessee filed the explanation regarding the seized paper. The Department rejected the explanation given by the assessee and made the addition on the presumption that the assessee was having undisclosed cash of Rs. 60 lakhs on 26-9-1992.

10. The basis of addition is a seized paper on which cash of Rs. 60 lakhs and other jewellery items have been mentioned. There appears to be some substance in the explanation of the assessee. The assessee was planning to arrange the funds for the marriage of his daughter. He wanted to withdraw Rs. 60 lakhs from firms/companies for his personal use and he was planning as to how to make use of this amount of Rs. 60 lakhs for the marriage of his daughter. Subsequently, the assessee purchased jewellery/silver utensils etc., against payment of consignment sales in the account of M/s Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. The arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee regarding the consignment sales are also quite convincing. He explained that the balance sheet was not finalised as proper entries of consignment sales were not recorded and there was differences in physical verification of stock due to disturbances/disputes of partners, proper information on account of consignment sales was not passed on to the concerned Accountant though the said information from Mumbai was already with the Company at Ludhiana. He explained that in the Mumbai account of the assessee, all entries were duly incorporated as per books of account and such books of account were also produced before the Assessing Officer. The goods were actually sent to the assessee by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd., and were kept and dealt through M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation and the said file pertaining to such goods was a part of seized records. Sale Bills/Memos and names of the buyers were produced before the Assessing Officer. Thus, it was clearly established that the consignment sales were actually received by the assessee and the same were also sold as per the books of the assessee. The contention of the assessee had been accepted in the reassessment proceedings by the Assessing Officer on the basis that during the course of assessment of the assessee for the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer accepted the consignment sales as correct on the basis of the records of M/s Shivganga Warehousing Corporation. Thus, the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of unexplained credits pertaining to consignment sales made in the original assessment was not made in the reassessment on the basis of the evidence in the form of records of M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation. Thus, there was sufficient force in the arguments of the learned counsel for the assessee that the assessee was expecting cash of Rs. 60 lakhs sometimes in the months of Septem-ber/October 1992, later on instead of cash, the assessee was sent goods for sales mostly imported by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. The department also could not find any jewellery during the course of search proceedings which had been mentioned in the seized paper. The jewellery found during the course of search was fully explained and the same also tallied with the records of the Department. Therefore, notings on the seized paper do not indicate the actual transactions. The paper in question does not indicate that any transaction had ever been taken place or the cash was available with the assessee because it does not contain any informa- tion as to what was the nature of the transactions. The Department did not bring any evidence on record to corroborate to the allegation that the assessee had entered into any transaction or the assessee was actually in possession of Rs. 60 lakhs. The Department also could not lay its hand on any evidence regarding the investment of Rs. 60 lakhs in any assets or in sales of any property or goods for Rs. 60 lakhs out of the books. The Department also did not brought on records any corroborative evidence to show that the assessee was actually possessing Rs. 60 lakhs cash on 26- 9-1992. The Department could neither found this cash during the course of search proceedings nor any evidence supporting the contention that the assessee was actually in possession of the cash. Therefore, unless there is a corroborative evidence to show that the cash was actually available with the assessee on 26-9-1992, no amount can be added in the hands of the assessee. The Department had made the addition only on the basis that the diary had been written on 15-11-1992 but the entries pertains to the earlier period to the date of writing. Therefore, according to the Department, it cannot be called a planning. According to the Department, the planning is never made with retrospective effect but the same is made only for the future. The contention raised by the Depart- ment has no basis whatsoever. The assessee might have written this diary even on 26-9-1992 and also during the relevant period 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992 but the Department had not given any reference to such dates and even the assessee had not been questioned regarding his writing the diary during the course of earlier period. He might be planning for the marriage of his daughter with effect from 26-9-1992 and the estimated amount of Rs. 60 lakhs and other items pertaining to jewellery might have been carried forward from the earlier dates. It cannot be said that the planning was restricted only to one date which might have been continued from 26-9-1992. The fact remains that the Department could not find out any corroborative evidence during the course of search to support their contention that the assessee was having cash of Rs. 60 lakhs on 26-9-1992. The search party even did not record any statement of the assessee during the course of search regarding the writings on the paper. The Assessing Officer even did not examine the books of account of M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation during the course of assessment to find out whether the consignment goods sold by the assessee were routed through them. It was only during the course of assessment proceedings for the assessment year 1994-95, the Assessing Officer found on the basis of the records of M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation that the consignment sales were correctly made and therefore, he deleted the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 in the reassessment proceedings made in the original assessment for the assessment year 1993-94.

11. The addition in this case has been made mainly on the basis of suspicion which cannot take the place of proof. There was no material on record on the basis of which the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) can come to the conclusion that the entries made in the paper was not a planning for the marriage of the daughter of the assessee. Allahabad High Court in the case of Pushkar Narain Sarraf (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the assessee has laid down that "Section 132(4A) does not override the provisions of section 68. The presumption arising under sub-section 4A of section 132 of the IT Act, 1961 applies only in relation to the provisional adjudication which is contemplated under sub-section 5 of section 132. Section 132(5) provides for estimation of undisclosed income or the calculation of the amount of tax on the income so estimated and the determination of the amount of interest payable or the amount of penalty imposable in a summary manner. For this limited purpose, the Legislature has provided under section 132(4A) that the books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles seized from the possession of the assessee shall be presumed to belong to the assessee if they are found in the possession or control of the assessee in the course of the search. A similar presumption may also be made as to the correctness of the contents of the books of account so seized. So also the signature and every other part of the books of account may be assumed to be in the handwriting of the person by whom it is purported to have been written. This presumption cannot, however, have the effect of excluding section 68 when regular assessment is made in regard to the income of the person from whose possession those books of account were seized under section 132. It does not obviate the necessity to establish by independent evidence the genuineness of cash credits." In the case of S.K. Gupta (supra), the Delhi Bench of ITAT held that presumptions arising under section 132(4A) is available to revenue only for the limited purpose of search and seizure and cannot override the provisions of section 69. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Sukhla (supra) relied upon by the learned counsel held that "Entries in the books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Entries even if relevant are only corroborative evidence. Independence evidence as to the trustworthiness of those entries are necessary to fasten the liability". Relying on the aforesaid case of the Supreme Court, the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) held that "It is a settled preposition as held by various judicial authorities that regours of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to Income-tax proceedings. However, the principles contained in Evidence Act incorporated from rules of natural justice forming part of the common law would naturally be applicable to Income-tax proceedings. It is amply clear that the loose papers and documents cannot possible be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business. Such evidence would therefore be outside the purview of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. Therefore, the revenue would not be justified in resting its case on the loose papers and documents found from the residence of the third party even if such documents contained narration of transactions with the assessee company." The Department could not bring on record any independent evidence to prove that the assessee was having cash of Rs. 60 lakhs available on 26-9-1992. Entries on the seized paper were relevant only for corroborative evidence. The Department should have brought on record some independent evidence as to the trustworthiness of the entries necessary to fasten liability on the assessee. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case and the various cases mentioned above, we are of the considered opinion that the addition made of Rs. 60 lakhs by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT(A) is not justified. The addition made is, therefore, deleted and the order of the learned CIT(A) is reversed.

12. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

Per Shri M.A. Bakshi, Vice-President - On going through the order proposed by my learned brother, I am unable to persuade myself to agree to the proposed view. It is a search and seizure case. In the original assessment, the Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of consignment sales. An addition of Rs. 60 lakhs was also found to be warranted on the basis of the entries made in a diary. However, since the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of the alleged consignment sales was more than the amount of Rs. 60 lakhs on account of the entries in the diary, the Assessing Officer made only one addition of Rs. 78,82,775. The assessee had filed an appeal with the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and the latter set aside the order of the Assessing Officer giving specific direction for reconsideration of the issue. These directions are contained in the second para of the order proposed by my learned brother which for the sake of ready reference are quoted as under :—

"(i)A finding of fact has to be given with reference to the total consignment value of Rs. 88,45,624 involved in 6 debit notes as to whether the same had been imported by Canon Steel Pvt. Ltd. and if so, how the same had been accounted for and disposed of.

(ii)The claim of the assessee that he had sold goods worth Rs. 78.82 lakhs in small bits in cash and also needed to be properly authenticated.

(iii)The assessee should be given opportunity of being heard in respect of seized page 37 of Annexure A-4.

(iv)The assessee’s claim that the jewellery said to have been purchased from undisclosed sources had disclosed in the wealth-tax return, needs verification and reconciliation."

2. While making the fresh assessment, the Assessing Officer has failed to record specific finding relating to some of the directions of the CIT (Appeals). As is clear from the directions quoted above the CIT (Appeals) had given specific directions to the Assessing Officer to verify as to how M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. had disposed of the goods. The assessee claimed that M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. had transported goods from Ludhiana to Bombay and the same were sold by him on consignment basis. It has been recorded by the Assessing Officer in the assessment order that the assessee has expressed his inability to file the GRs in respect of transportation of goods from Ludhiana to Bombay. It has been mentioned by the CIT(A) that there was evidence about the import of goods by M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd., but he has totally ignored the directions of the CIT (Appeals) relating to GR Nos. for transportation of goods. The Assessing Officer has accepted the transfer of goods from Ludhiana to Bombay merely on the basis that in assessment year 1994-95, the consignment sales have been accepted by the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has conveniently ignored the fact that on the date of search, no entry was found in the books of M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. relating to the consignment of goods and transportation through M/s. Shivganga Warehousing Corporation. Though the Assessing Officer has not made any addition in respect of the consignment sales, yet, the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs which is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal is connected with the claim of the assessee relating to the consignment sales. It is, therefore, necessary to consider this aspect of the matter. Moreover, my learned brother has referred to the findings of the Assessing Officer and gave his approval to the said findings I, not being satisfied, record my dissent and hold that the Assessing Officer has not proceeded to make the fresh assessment order in the spirit of the directions of the CIT (Appeals). I am, therefore, unable to subscribe to the view of my learned brother in regard to the manner of assessment made by the Assessing Officer.

3. Now, coming to the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs which is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal, it is to be noted that the addition has been made on the basis of the entries found in the diary belonging to the assessee seized during the course of search. The CIT (Appeals) has confirmed the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs. My learned brother has proposed to delete the addition on the basis of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla ( supra). In my considered view, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) is relating to a criminal appeal involving interpretation of section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. The principle laid down by Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court that entries in the books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability is with reference to section 34 of the Evidence Act, 1872. As held by Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Sun Engg. Works (P.) Ltd. [1992] 198 ITR 297¹, the decision of the court has to be read in the context in which it has been rendered. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforementioned case is not applicable to the income-tax proceedings in view of the specific provision of the Act viz. section 68 of the Act which provides that if there are credit entries in the books of account of the assessee and the assessee is unable to give satisfactory explanation regarding the source of such credit, the Assessing Officer is empowered to treat the same as the income of the assessee. Therefore, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) is inapplicable to the facts of this case. The aforementioned decision is admittedly applicable in regard to the principle as to whether the diary or note books constitute "books of account". My learned brother has relied upon the decision of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal in the case of Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) where it has been held that the seized loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business to warrant invoking of provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act. This decision is also inapplicable to the facts of this case. It is pertinent to note that the foundation for the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs is the entries made in a diary and not the loose papers. The issue as to whether diary can be construed as "books of account" is now well-settled by the decision of the case of V.C. Shukla (supra). Since Their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court have held that the entries made in a diary shall be construed as entries made in the books of account, I am of the firm view that provisions of section 68 are clearly attracted in respect of the entries made in the diary. Applying the provisions of section 68, the burden is upon the assessee to explain the entries in the diary to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer has not been satisfied with the explanation given by the assessee. The CIT (Appeals) has also not been convinced with the explanation of the assessee relating to the entries in the diary. In these circumstances, the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer is justified in the light of the provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act.

4. Reference may also be made to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal v. CIT [1988] 172 ITR 250 ² where Their Lordships have held that when a person is found in possession of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner was on that person. The finding recorded by my learned brother that the Department has been unable to establish by any evidence that the assessee had received a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs is not based on sound principle of law as the Department is not required to establish the same by any evidence. As already pointed out, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) "that the entries made in the books of account should be corroborated by any other evidence" is not applicable to the income-tax proceedings in view of the specific provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act. I, therefore, hold that in the absence of any satisfactory explanation about the nature of the entries made in the diary found during the course of search, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs and that the CIT (Appeals) was also justified in upholding the same. There is thus no merit in the appeal of the assessee. The appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

REFERENCE UNDER section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Per Shri Behari Lal, Accountant Member - In view of the difference of opinion between the two Members, the following points of difference are referred to the Hon’ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 255 of the I.T. Act for nominating the Third Member :—

"(i)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs on the basis of the entries made in the loose paper of the diary found during the course of search ?

(ii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Department was justified in making the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs on the basis of one seized paper particularly when the search party did not put any question on such seized paper during the course of search and rejecting the explanation of the assessee without any corroborative evidence brought on record ?

(iii)Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal can go back and decide an issue which had reached finality and which issue was not agitated by any of the parties to the appeal ?"

REFERENCE UNDER section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

Per Shri M.A. Bakshi, Vice President - In view of the difference of opinion between the two Members, the following point of difference is referred to the Hon’ble President, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal under section 255 of the I.T. Act for nominating the Third Member:—

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs on the basis of the entries made in the diary found during the course of search ?"

THIRD MEMBER ORDER

Per Shri V. Dongzathang, President - The following point of difference was referred to me under section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 :

"Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Assessing Officer was justified in making the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs on the basis of the entries made in the diary found during the course of search ?"

2. The assessee is an individual. Its previous year is the year ending on 31-3-1993. The return of income was filed declaring total income of Rs. 34,270. The Assessing Officer however, completed the assessment on a total income of Rs. 79,17,040. The Assessing Officer in this case made an addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of unexplained credits claimed to be pertaining to consignment sales. The assessee claimed to have sold the goods of M/s. Canon Steel Pvt. Ltd. where he is a Director on consignment basis. These goods have been shown as given by M/s. Canon Steel Pvt. Ltd. to the assessee by way of 6 debit notes which have been claimed to be sold by the assessee on cash basis to various person at Bhivandi, Thane and Bombay. The total value of the goods at Rs. 85,45,627.04 has been claimed to be sold by the assessee in cash to various parties for Rs. 78,82,774.50, thereby incurring a loss of Rs. 6,62,852.54. The assessee also claimed to have incurred total expenditure of Rs. 96,534. The Assessing Officer found that the balance of the sale realisation has not been forwarded to the consigner but the same has been adjusted by way of journal entry for Rs. 77,60,000 which has been passed on 31-3-1993 and which has the effect of reducing the share application money account of the assessee by the said amount. The Assessing Officer examined the claim of the assessee regarding sale of consignment in cash. The Assessing Officer eventually rejected the sale of consignment sales as no evidence in support of the consignment sales was produced. He, therefore, treated the entire amount of Rs. 78,82,775 as unexplained cash credits under section 68 and added the same to the total income of the assessee. Penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) was also initiated for this addition.

3. In the course of the search operation carried out at Okhla in New Delhi on 14-10-1993, certain documents were seized. A perusal of page 37 of Annexure A-4 seized from Okhla in New Delhi shows the following details in the handwriting of the assessee :

The assessee was confronted with these details. The assessee admitted that the entries in the paper were in his handwriting. However, it was claimed that the actual writings were in the nature of planning to withdraw Rs. 60 lacs from the firms/companies for personal use. He was making a plan to buy jewellery, silver utensils etc. against payment of consignment sales, account M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer however, did not accept the claim. According to him, the paper in question is a page of diary of 15th November, 1992. That shows that it was written on 15-11-1992. The entries pertain to dates and period prior to the date of writing on 15-11-1992. Therefore, the same cannot be quoted as planning and planning cannot be made with retrospective effect but for the future. According to him the date of receipt of the amount and the expenses were of definite dates and, therefore, the same cannot be said to be of planning. He, therefore, held that the sum of Rs. 60 lacs and other amount pertaining to entries of 13-10-1992 which was not legible due to punching hole have been intended to be channellised through the consignment account which stands rejected. He, therefore, rejected the explanation. However, keeping in view the fact that the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 has been already made in case of the assessee no separate addition was made on this point.

4. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the CIT (Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) set aside the order of the Assessing Officer with the following specific directions :

"(i)A finding of fact has to be given with reference to the total consignment value of Rs. 88,45,624 involved in 6 debit notes as to whether the same had been imported by Canon Steel Pvt. Ltd. and if so, how the same had been accounted for and disposed of.

(ii)The claim of the assessee that he had sold goods worth Rs. 79.82 lakhs in small bits in cash and also needed to be properly authenticated.

(iii)The assessee should be given opportunity of being heard in respect of seized page 37 of Annexure A-4.

(iv)The assessee’s claim that the jewellery said to have been purchased from undisclosed sources had disclosed in the wealth-tax return, needs verification and reconciliation."

5. In the reassessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer recorded a finding that the consignment sales claimed by the assessee was proved. He accordingly deleted the addition of Rs. 78,82,775 on account of unexplained credits pertaining to consignment sales added in the original assessment. However, he did not accept the explanation in regard to the entries in the loose paper found at the time of the search on 14-10-1993 the details of entries at page No. 37 of A-4 have already been extracted earlier. The reasons given by the Assessing Officer for rejecting the explanations of the assessee have been extracted by the learned CIT(Appeals) in the impugned order. It has also been duly reproduced by the learned Accountant Member in the order at para 6.

6. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee took up the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals). The learned CIT(Appeals) also upheld the order of the Assessing Officer and further supported the findings of the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee was in possession of Rs. 60 lacs and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 31,21,400 in between 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992 i.e., much before the alleged consignment sale of the goods in cash. The assessee was not in a position to prove that this amount was available with him on 26-9-1992 which represented the amount withdrawn by him from known and disclosed sources of income. Having admitted that the said paper was in his own handwriting and such document being found from his own premises, the onus was on him to prove that the entries showing receipt of own money in cash are not real receipts. The learned CIT (Appeals) also fully concurred with the view taken by the Assessing Officer that the entries made on 26-9-1992, that if one is planning to spent an amount in the future, one does not write expenses from 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992. One could not give the details of jewellery in terms of specific weight and in odd numbers. The learned CIT (Appeals), therefore, held that the only conclusion which can be drawn is that as on 26-9-1992 the assessee was in possession of Rs. 60 lakhs and he had incurred an expenditure of Rs. 31,21,400 from 26-9-1992 to 25-10-1992 as recorded in the paper. It is also held by the learned CIT(A) that the Department was not required to prove the existence of cash particularly when the entries in the diary were admittedly in his own handwriting which is sufficient evidence to prove that the entries and the amounts mentioned therein belong to him. He accordingly upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

7. In the appeal before the Tribunal, both the parties reiterated the same arguments placed before the CIT (Appeals). After re-evaluating the evidences in the light of the arguments before it, the Accountant Member was of the view that the addition was made merely on suspicion without substance. According to him, the assessee was not confronted with the said entries at the time of the search. When the regular assessment was taken up, the explanation of the assessee was called for and the assessee continued to explain the said entries as mere planning for the purpose of marriage of his daughter. It was explained that the jewellery referred in the page was already in possession of his wife, himself and the HUF. The assessee, therefore, planned to arrange funds for marriage of his daughter and wanted to withdraw Rs. 60 lakhs from the firms/companies for this purpose and for which those entries were made. The assessee claimed to have made consignment sales in cash for the purpose of buying the jewellery/silver utensils etc. At the original assessment, the Assessing Officer did not accept the explanations and added back the entire amount as cash credit amounting to Rs. 78,82,775. However, on proper appreciation of the facts in the reassessment proceedings, the contentions of the assessee regarding consignment sales also were accepted and the addition on this account was deleted.

8. With regard to the purchase of jewellery, it was submitted that the jewellery found during the course of the search was fully explained and the same tallied with the records of the department. The notings on the seized paper did not indicate any actual transactions. There was no evidence of investment in jewellery over and above the jewellery found during the course of the search. There was also no evidence regarding investment of Rs. 60 lakhs in any asset or in sales of any property or goods. The Department did not bring on record any corroborative evidence to show that the assessee was actually in possession of Rs. 60 lacs in cash on 26-9-1992. Therefore, the addition made on the basis of the entries by itself is not sufficient to prove the possession of a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs on the said date. The learned Accountant Member, further found that the provisions of section 132(4A) does not override the provisions of section 68 and the presumption arising under sub-section (4A) of section 132 of the Act applies only for the purpose of provisional adjudication which is contemplated under sub-section (5) of section 132 of the Act. Reliance was placed by him on the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of S.K. Gupta 63 TTJ (Delhi) 532. Reliance also was placed on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Sukhla (supra) for the proposition that entries in the books of account shall not alone be sufficient evidence to charge any person with liability. Entries found if relevant are only corroborative evidence. Reference was also made to the decision of the Ahmedabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) wherein it was held that it is a settled proposition as held by various judicial authorities that rigours of the rules of evidence contained in the Evidence Act were not applicable to income-tax proceedings. Having regard to the above ratio, he held that the revenue would not be justified in resting its case on the loose papers and documents found from the residence of the third party even if such documents contained narration of transactions with the assessee. The Department could not being on record any independent evidence to prove that the assessee was having cash of Rs. 60 lakhs available on 26-9-1992. He, therefore, held that the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the CIT (Appeals) is not justified.

9. On the other hand, the learned Vice-President, who is the Judicial Member could not agree to the above view primarily because the Assessing Officer, according to him failed to record specific finding relating to some of the directions of the CIT (Appeals). According to him the Assessing Officer did not verify as to how M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. had disposed of the goods. The learned Judicial Member further held that the Assessing Officer did not make any addition in respect of the consignment sales though the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs which is the subject matter of dispute in this appeal is connected with the claim of the assessee relating to the consignment sales. He, therefore, could not reconcile himself to the findings of the Assessing Officer and to approve the said finding which prompted him to make the dissenting note.

10. The learned Judicial Member also held that the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) relied upon by the learned Accountant Member is not applicable to the income-tax proceedings in view of the specific provisions of the Act namely section 68 of the Act which specifically provides that if there are credit entries in the books of account of the assessee and the assessee is unable to give satisfactory explanation regarding the source of such credit, the Assessing Officer is empowered to treat the same as the income of the assessee. In view of this, the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra) cannot be resorted to. The learned Judicial Member further expressed doubt regarding the nature of the loose paper found which the Accountant Member held that loose papers and documents cannot possibly be construed as books of account regularly kept in the course of business to warrant invoking of provisions of section 68 of the I.T. Act. According to him the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Prarthana Construction (P.) Ltd. (supra) would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. The foundation for the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs in this case is the entries made in a diary and not the loose papers. The issue as to whether the diary can be construed as books of account is now well settled by the decision of the case of V.C. Shukla ( supra). Since their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that the entries made in a diary shall be considered as entries made in the books of account, he was of the view that the provisions of section 68 are clearly attracted in respect of the entries made in the diary. He, therefore, held that the addition of Rs. 60 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer is justified in the light of the provisions of section 68 of the Act. The Judicial Member, further cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal (supra) for the proposition that when a person is found in possession of anything the onus of proving that he was not its owner was on that person. Having regard to the above facts, he held that no corroborative evidence would be necessary in view of the specific provisions of section 68 of the Act as the entries made in the diary found during the course of the search is sufficient to make an addition to the said amount.

11. On this difference of opinion, the above point of difference was referred to me for my decision.

12. At the time of hearing before me Shri J.L. Girdhar, learned Commissioner (D.R.) appeared for the revenue and Shri Prakash Jotwani, learned counsel appeared for the assessee. They were heard at length. On careful consideration of the rival submissions in the light of the dissenting orders and the evidences on record, I am of the view that the findings given by the learned Accountant Member is reasonable on the facts of the case. A search and seizure operation was conducted at the premises of the assessee on 14-10-1993. During the course of search of the premises at Okhala in New Delhi, certain documents were seized, consisting of 10 loose sheets. Out of this, one sheet of paper was marked page 37 of Annexure A-4 which contained certain handwritings by the assessee. The said handwriting was on the loose diary sheet of November, 1992 and a sum of Rs. 60 lakhs has been entered as cash against 26-9-1992. Certain expenses also were noted in the form of silver utensils, gold ornaments and misc. expenses etc. The Assessing Officer called for the explanation and it was submitted that the same was in the nature of planning for purchase of gold ornaments and silver utensils etc. for the marriage of his daughter. The amount was stated to be in anticipation of consignment sales to be made by him of the goods of M/s. Canon Steels Pvt. Ltd. The Assessing Officer did not accept the explanations and treated the entire amount of Rs. 60 lakhs as undisclosed income of the assessee which was confirmed by the learned CIT (Appeals). The first point of difference is whether these loose sheets of paper torn out of diary for 1992 can be construed as books for the purpose of section 68 of the I.T. Act. In this regard, both the Members of the Bench extensively relied on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of V.C. Shukla (supra). The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is in connection with section 34 of the Evidence Act. In any case, this issue will not detain us as the Hon’ble Supreme Court itself made absolutely clear as to what are books and what are not books at paragraph 18 of the judgment as follows :

"18. ‘Book’ ordinarily means a collection of sheets of paper or other material, blank, written, or printed, fastened or bound together so as to form a material whole. Loose sheets or scraps of paper cannot be termed as ‘book’ for they can be easily detached and replaced. In dealing with the word ‘book’ appearing in section 34 in Mukundram v. Dayaram AIR 1914 Nag. 44 : 10 Nag. (44) a decision on which both sides have placed reliance, the Court observed :

‘In its ordinary sense it signifies a collection of sheets of paper bound together in a manner which cannot be disturbed or altered except by tearing apart. The binding is of a kind which is not intended to be movable in the sense of being undone and put together again. A collection of papers in a portfolio, or clip, or strung together on a piece of twine which is intended to be untied at will, would not, in ordinary English, be called a book....I think the term ‘book’ in section 34 aforesaid may properly be taken to signify, ordinarily, a collection of sheets of paper bound together with the intention that such binding shall be permanent and the papers used collectively in one volume. It is easier however to say what is not a book for the purposes of section 34, and I have no hesitation in holding that unbound sheets of paper, in whatever quantity, though filled up with one continuous account, are not a book of account within the purview of section 34.’

We must observe that the aforesaid approach is in accord with good reasoning and we are in full agreement with it. Applying the above tests it must be held that the two spiral notebooks (MR 68/91 and MR 71/91) and the two spiral pads (MR 69/91 and MR 70/91) are ‘books’ within the meaning of section 34, but not the loose sheets of papers contained in the two files (MRs 71/91 and 73/91)."

If the loose paper seized in the premises of the assessee is examined in the light of the above ratio, it is quite clear that these loose papers cannot be termed as books of an assessee maintained for any previous year. The loose papers appear to be part of a 1992 diary. However, these loose papers consist of pages torn out from March, April, November and December. There is no closing balances nor opening balances and there is no reconciliation of these entries. Therefore, it cannot be termed as books maintained by the assessee during the previous year.

13. Secondly, the assessee has been explaining that the entries at page 37 are in the nature of planning. The loose paper is torn out of 15 November, 1992. The entry of the date is 26-9-1992. As on the year ending on 31-3-1992, the assessee filed the wealth-tax return for the assessment year 1992-93 in which there is absolutely no investment in gold and jewellery. However, if the balance sheet for assessment year ending on 31-3-1993 is seen, it is revealed that the assessee purchased and declared jewellery consisting of gold, silver and diamond jewellery at Rs. 46,61,720. It is further seen that in the year ending on 31-3-1994, the assessee declared jewellery consisting of the same items at Rs. 1,08,95,995. The Assessing Officer did not point out anywhere that this jewellery consisting of gold, silver and diamond jewellery were purchased from outside the books. The books of account tallied with the items found at the time of search on 14-10-1993. In such a case, the contention of the assessee that the entries made on 26-9-1992 was in the nature of planning is more probable. The Assessing Officer did not give any concrete proof to reject the explanation offered by the assessee.

14. The Hon’ble Vice-President (Judicial Member) expressed his doubt about the acceptance of the findings given by the Assessing Officer in regard to the consignment sales. However, that issue has been concluded and it is no more a point for discussion or debate at the stage of second appeal. Mere doubt about that finding will not change the facts that the sales were genuine. The Tribunal can only proceed on the basis and give a specific finding in regard to the entry of 26-9-1992 at page 37 of Annexure A-4. The learned Accountant Member fully analysed and found that there was no supporting evidence to hold that the entry represent hard cash. He could not find any evidence to show that the assessee invested in any movable or immovable property. On the basis of these findings, he held that the addition was on mere suspicion without any corroborative evidence. This finding is in order.

15. Lastly, the Hon’ble Vice-President (Judicial Member) also cited the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Chuharmal (supra) for the proposition that when a person is found in possession of anything, the onus of proving that he was not its owner was on that person. The above ratio will not have application to the facts of the present case. In the case of Chuharmal (supra ), the possession was in regard to valuable articles in the form of wrist watches of foreign make. The ownership of such valuable articles have to be definitely proved and if the person in whose possession the said valuable article was found claimed that the same did not belong to him, the onus of proving that he was not its owner was on that person. In the present case here it is a mere loose sheet in which the assessee confirmed that the entry was in his own handwriting. The loose paper in itself has got no intrinsic value. It does not represent negotiable instrument which can be exchanged for a sum of Rs. 60 lacs. Therefore, the above decision does not have direct applicable to the facts of the present case. When it is a mere entry on a loose sheet of paper and if the assessee claims that it was only a planning, not supported by actual cash, then there has to be circumstantial evidences to support that this entry really represent cash of Rs. 60 lacs. There is no such evidence found by the revenue in the form of extra cash, jewellery or investment outside the books. In such a case, the explanation offered by the assessee cannot be rejected. In that view of the matter, I concur with the view taken by the learned Accountant Member.

16. In view of the above findings, I do not consider it necessary to go into the various decisions cited before me.

17. The matter will now go before the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.

ORDER UNDER section 255(4) of the Income-tax Act, 1961

1. The Hon’ble President sitting as Third Member, by his opinion dated March 7, 2002, has agreed with the view taken by the Accountant Member that the addition made of Rs. 60 lakhs by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by the learned CIT(A) was not justified. In conformity with the opinion of the majority, this issue stands decided in favour of the assessee.

158/298