PER BENCH This is a group of 11 appeals out of which seven are filed by the assessee and four appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate orders of CIT(A).

2. In this group of cases, various issues have been raised by the assessee and Revenue. However, at the outset Ld. Counsel for the assessee stressed that two preliminary issues i.e. lack of opportunity at the level of Assessing Officer and during remand proceedings as well as the issue regarding non-admission of whole additional evidence needs to be addressed before adjudicating other issues. 2

3. The hearing in this case was conducted from 23.12.2013 to 16.9.2014. The hearing prolonged for such a long period because Ld. Counsel for the assessee made certain submissions with respect to the issue how opportunity was not granted and even an affidavit was filed to this effect. The Bench in turn confronted the ld DR with his representations as well as affidavit and other documents filed by him. On each occasion time was sought either by assessee or Revenue to bring in more material particularly by the Department to take clarifications from the Assessing Officer. In these circumstances, ultimately we have decided to adjudicate only the issue of lack of opportunity and non-admission of additional evidence for which reasons would become evident from the following paras:-

4. Brief facts of the case are that assessee trust is running various educational institutions. A search was conducted in the premises of the assessee on 14.7.2008 and certain incriminating documents were found. It seems that most of the books of accounts and documents found during the search were seized and assessee wrote various letters for obtaining the copies of those documents. Later on, a show cause notice dated 28.9.2010 was issued asking the assessee that in view of the complexity in the accounts why special audit should not be conducted. A detailed reply was filed on 11.10.2010. The Assessing Officer sought approval of the Commissioner, Income Tax for conducting Special Audit vide letter dated 14.10.2010 and approval was granted on 11.11.2010. Ultimately, Special Audit Report was given to the assessee on

13.5.2011 which was filed by assessee on the same date with Assessing Officer. The return of income was filed on 1.04.2011 and thereafter notice u/s 143(2) was issued on

20.4.2011 fixing the case for 29.4.2011. Ultimately assessment was completed on 12 th July 2011.

5. Before the ld CIT(A), it was mainly submitted that assessment has been completed within a period of less than 70 days. Further, 165 assessments were to be completed in this group within the short span of this time and it was not physically possible to file all the details. Therefore, a request was made for admission of additional evidence. 3

6. The ld CIT(A) after examining these issues observed that the assessee cannot adduce additional evidence unless it is proved that assessee falls within the exceptions provided under Rule 46A of the Income Tax Rules, 1962. According to her, various opportunities had already been granted by the Assessing Officer, therefore, request for admission of additional evidence was not maintainable. However, still she admitted certain documents as additional evidence but it is not clarified which documents were admitted. The Additional evidence admitted was sent for verification in the remand proceedings. It seems that Assessing Officer constituted a committee for verification of additional evidence and a report was prepared. However, this report was not forwarded to the ld CIT(A). It has been claimed before us by the Revenue that this report should be treated as draft report and secondly Assessing Officer did not have the authority to constitute a committee for verification of the documents and therefore this is not valid report. All the documents were verified again and second remand report was sent to the CIT(A).

7. Before us it has been alleged that no opportunity was granted to the assessee during the second remand verification and therefore that report cannot be treated as valid. During the first remand report thousands of papers were verified by the team constituted by the Assessing Officer and that remand report was also favourable to the assessee which has been illegally withdrawn by the Department. The ld CIT(A) ultimately finalized her order on the basis of second remand report

8. Further the Ld. counsel for the assessee referred to the combined paper book to show the complete sequence of events. He pointed out to various dates and submitted that how ultimately the documents were supplied to the assessee only on 26.8.2010 and thereafter the proposal for Special Audit was initiated. In this background the assessee could not have possibly filed the return in the absence of documents i.e. why return could be filed only on 1.4.2011. The notice u/s 143(2) was issued only on

20.4.2011 calling for attendance on 29.4.2011. Thus, effectively the hearing started from 29.4.2011. The Special Audit Report was made available to assessee as well as the Assessing Officer only on 13.5.2011, therefore, practically in less than 70 days it 4 was not possible to meet each and every query raised by the Assessing Officer in 165 cases and assessee could not give proper replies regarding some of the issues.

9. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also filed copies of order sheets of assessment proceedings and pointed out that perusal of the same would clearly show that seized material was never confronted to the assessee and no queries were ever raised. In fact first show cause notice was issued only on 16.6.2011 and assessments have been completed on 12.7.2011. This clearly shows that hardly less than 70 days were provided for assessment proceedings involving 1000s of documents and it was practically not possible to scrutinize the same. Even for assessee it was not possible in such a short span to reply in 165 cases which were involved in this search. Thus clearly the Assessing Officer has not provided adequate opportunity to the assessee. 10 In the above background the assessee filed additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A) and the Ld. CIT(A) without appreciating the facts of the case declined to admit the additional evidence. Though some of the additional evidences were admitted for which details have not been discussed in the impugned order. 11 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee further contended that whatever additional evidence was admitted was sent for verification in remand proceedings. The Assessing Officer constituted a committee of his officials and during remand proceedings the assessee was called upon and thousands of pages were filed during such remand proceedings. Ultimately a remand report was prepared. For assessment year 2003-04 to 2005-06 the papers were filed on 9.3.2012 and remand report was prepared on

4.12.2012 which makes it clear that various documents were examined. For assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 various additional evidences were furnished before the Ld. CIT(A) in July 2012 for which first remand report was prepared on

8.4.2013 after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. Some how or other revenue did not forward this report to the Ld. CIT(A) and second report was prepared without giving any opportunity. At this juncture the Bench has asked the assessee to file an affidavit showing that no opportunity was granted during second remand report and the revenue was also directed to furnish proper reply against such affidavit. The affidavit has been filed to this effect. It was contended that it was not possible to 5 prepare second remand report without giving an opportunity to the assessee. In this regard he referred to the second remand report (copy placed at page 221 to 232 of paper book for assessment year 2003-04). As an example Ld. Counsel for the assessee particularly invited our attention to page 227 of paper book in which while discussing the addition on account of donations received by the assessee it is mentioned that the assessee has provided the names and addresses of the persons who have made such donations towards building fund. It is mentioned that no confirmation letter or PANs for such persons was given. The Assessing Officer has also commented in remand report that firstly additional evidence is not admissible and secondly he has quoted the observations of the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings. It was contended that if addresses were available with the Assessing Officer during remand proceedings then Assessing Officer could have easily called those persons and make enquiries, Second remand report has been made almost after four months from the first remand report. Alternatively the Assessing Officer could have asked the assessee to file confirmations etc. or produce some of the donors. Since no opportunity was given and therefore this exercise was not done. In these circumstances second report cannot be used by the revenue to make addition which are not substantiated at all without providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. 12 Certain other issues cropped up during hearing. For example an addition has been made for assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 on account of certain disallowances u/s 40(a)(ia). The Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that the issues have been decided against the assessee in the absence of proper explanation which could not be given in the absence of proper opportunity. Had such opportunity been given the assessee could have argued the cases in detail. For example against the disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia), Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal in case of Mahatama Gandhi Save V DCIT, ITA No. 4138/Mum/2011 (copy of order filed) has clearly held that the disallowance such as disallowance u/s 40(a)()ia) cannot be made in case of entities which are exempt u/s 11 because such disallowances would have no meaning because even if the income is enhanced the same would remain exempt. Such type of argument can be made only if proper opportunity is granted. 6 13 The Ld. Counsel for the assessee summarized that in view of the above submissions various appeals need to be remanded back because proper opportunity has not been granted and the LD. CIT(A) has wrongly declined to admit all the additional evidence. 14 Before we discuss the contentions of the department we may like to point out that during hearing it almost became clear that in short span of about 70 days, it was not practical to complete the assessment proceedings that too in case of search involving 165 cases involved 1000s of documents. However, a question cropped up that if the case was remanded just on account of lack of opportunity the assessee may file various evidences which are not available even during hearing before us. Therefore to put a full stop we have suggested that the Ld. Counsel for the assessee may file whatever additional evidences which are required to be filed and which are available presently before us, so that we can consider the same. In response to this the assessee has filed following paper books: Assessment year Particulars 2003-04 Two paper books containing 454 pages 2004-05 Three paper books containi9ng 800 pages 2005-06 Three paper books containing 1115 pages 2006-07 Two paper books containing 609 pages 2007-08 One paper book containing 383 pages 2008-09 Three paper books containing 1268 pages 2009-10 Three paper books containing 1174 pages It was not practical to go through each and every documents of the individual paper book of additional evidence. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee was further directed to file summarized chart of the papers pertaining to various additions. This was also complied and Annexure D containing summarized details of this additional evidence was filed along with letter dated 15.9.2014. In this background following contentions were made in respect of admission of additional evidence. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee contended that above noted papers are available with the assessee and these are required to be admitted because they go to the root of the matter. In 7 response to our query that the assessee has to put some full stop on admission of additional evidence, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee pointed out that for example an addition of Rs. 83,18,819/- has been made on account of donations towards Corps Fund in the absence of proper detail in assessment year 2003-04. He submitted that presently the assessee has filed additional evidence in the form of confirmation from 294 persons totaling to Rs. 28,25,402/- at page 2-333 of additional evidence paper book. He agreed to the proposition that the balance of additional evidence would not be allowed to be presented before the Assessing Officer if the matter is set aside. He again reiterated that all these evidences go to the root of each and every addition, therefore such additional evidence is required to be admitted and he made a prayer for admission of such additional evidence. He further relied on the following decisions: CIT V. Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (PH) CIT V. Suretech Hospital and Research Centre Ltd., 293 ITR 53 (Bom) Smt. Prabhavati S. Shah V. CIT, 231 ITR 1 (Bom) CIT V. Parimal Kanti Chanda, 291 ITR 77 (Gau) CIT V. Text Hundred India Pvt. Ltd., 351 ITR 57 ( Deletion) Hans Fashion V DCIT (Chandigarh Bench of the Tribunal)----- 15 On the basis of above submissions and additional evidence received during hearing, the revenue was directed to submit full details and replies on the following issues- (i) Detail of photocopies given to the assessee of the seized material along with receipts of the assessee and chart showing the date of request and supply of such information. (ii) Similar detail as above requested by the assessee from Investigation Wing (iii) Whether there is any bar in the Law for constitution of committee for remand verification and why first remand report was withdrawn (iv) Whether any opportunity was granted to the assessee during second remand proceedings and particular reply to the affidavit filed by the assessee. Why the noting sheets are not in the hand writing of the Assessing Officer and computerized order sheets have been prepared which is against the normal practice (v) Status of the registration of 12AA and whether the same is genuine (vi) When the first remand report was not accepted by the Addl CIT whether any action was taken against the employees who prepared such report (vii) Copies of the folders of both the remand reports were directed to be produced. It seems that the CIT,Ld. D.R for the revenue has raised above queries as well as other concerns with officers and Commissioner of the Central Circle from whom she has 8 received very little reply and whatever has been received has been furnished before us and or enclosed with her written submissions. Now let us consider the submissions of the Ld. CIT D.R for the revenue in this background. 16 The Ld. CIT, D.R for the revenue submitted that additional evidence filed now is voluminous containing more than 5000 pages and it is not possible for her to go through the same in a short time. Therefore sufficient time should be given or otherwise such evidence should not be admitted. She also submitted that she has gone though Volume I of the additional evidence for assessment year 2003-04 and made certain observations like there was no date mentioned in the signature. Sl No. of the receipt are not running numbers. In many cases addresses are not complete or PAN is not given. Therefore in the absence of full number of evidence, these documents may not be admitted. In any case if the additional evidence is admitted same is required to be referred to the Assessing Officer for his examination. 17 She submitted that the assessee has not cooperated in the assessment proceedings before the Assessing Officer or appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) despite sufficient opportunity given by these authorities. Whereas before the Tribunal direction was given by the Bench only on 20 th Aug 2014 to furnish the additional evidence to put a full stop to the gathering of additional evidence and the assessee has been able to file more than 5000 pages within a short span of 25 days. This also shows that the assessee was not cooperating in the proceedings before the authorities below. In any case the assessee has not given reasons which stopped it from furnishing additional evidence before the Assessing Officer or the LD. CIT(A). In this regard she referred to the decision of Honble Allahabad High Court in case of Ram Prasad Sharma V. CIT, 119 ITR 867 (All) wherein it was held that if sufficient opportunity was given by the Assessing Officer and if no evidence is filed then the assessee is prevented from filing such evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). She also referred to the decision of Honble Delhi High Court in case of Manish Buildwell, 245 ITR 397 wherein it was held that genuineness of the documents has to be examined before admitting additional evidence. She also relied on the following decisions for various aspects of admission or information of additional evidence: 9 CIT V. Ranjit Kumar Choudhury, 288 ITR 179 (Gau) Bimal Kumar Anant Kumar V CIT, 288 ITR 278 (All) CIT V. Jaipur Udyog Ltd. 227 ITR 345 (Raj) CIT V. Valimohmed Ahmedbhai, 134 ITR 214 (Gau) CIT V. Mukta Metal Works, 336 ITR 555 (PH) Velji Deoraj & Co. V. CIT, 68 ITR 708 (Bom) Kalra Glue Factory V. Sales Tax Tribunal and others, 167 ITR 498 (S.C) CIT V. Motilal Hirabhai Spg. And Wvg Co. Ltd., 113 ITR 173 (Guj) CIT V. Gani Bhai Wahab Bhai, 232 ITR 900 (M.P) 18 Further the Ld. CIT-D.R for the revenue referred to various letters written by her to the officers from the department. On various issues raised by the Bench which have been summarized by us in para 15 of this order. She submitted that the Assessing Officer has informed her vide letter dated 1.8.2014 that the assessee had acknowledged the receipts of various documents whenever they were supplied and no further correspondence was available in this regard with the office of the Assessing Officer. In respect of issue regarding constitution of committee by the Assessing Officer, the Ld CIT-D.R for the revenue submitted that the reply given by the Addl CIT states that the Inspector, Shri S.K. Sehgal and Shri Rahul Kumar did not have the authority and expertise to make the comments on the assessment order. These two persons did not know the facts and did not have the authority to verify and comment on the facts submitted by the assessee in the remand report. She has quoted some portions of the letters received from Addl CIT in respect of these remand reports in her written submissions which have been considered by us. In respect of status of registration she referred to the letter dated 8.9.2014 through which the CIT, Central Circle, Gurgaon has informed that final opportunity has been given to the assessee to justify the continuation of registration. 19 She further submitted that the assessee did not cooperate with the assessment proceedings and the appeal proceedings. The assessee did not file return of income in response to the notice issued u/s 153A on 16.2.2009 and in fact penalty proceedings u/s 271F were initiated and penalty was ultimately imposed vide order dated 2.9.2009 10 for non filing of return. The assessee had taken long time to file the return on 1.4.2011. Most of the documents were supplied by Sept 2009 and this shows that the assessee has simply adopted non-cooperative attitude. 20 The Ld. CIT-D.R also submitted that part of the additional evidence was admitted by the Ld. CIT(A) and therefore it is wrong to say that first appellate authority has not admitted the additional evidence. The assessee was not able to satisfy the conditions of Rule 46A showing why the assessee could not supply additional evidence before the Assessing Officer. Coming to the specific contention for assessment year 2003-04 in respect of pages 227 - 228 that the Assessing Officer should have verified these things, she pointed out that the assessee had submitted only the names and addresses of the donors and the onus was on the assessee to prove such donations. She also submitted that the assessee is a very big group and has advantage of services of various Advocates and C.As and therefore it was not difficult for the assessee to prepare all documentation even for 165 cases before the Assessing Officer. She also referred to few documents and pointed out how the additional evidence was not full proof. 21 We have considered the rival submissions carefully. Before we proceed to adjudicate the two issues regarding non providing of opportunity leading to question of admission of additional evidence, we would like to observe that in this case the conduct of the revenue as well as the assessee has not been outstanding. It seems that the assessee did not want to cooperate fully but at the same time the revenue has also tried to linger on the mater on one pretext or the other. We have already noted in this case that hearing continued from 23.12.2013 to 16.9.2014 and we had raised various questions to the revenue. It seems that the Ld. CIT-D.R collected information from Assessing Officer and other officers as desired by the Bench but very little information was forthcoming and very cryptic replies were given to her. These letters have been enclosed along with written submissions. We can only appreciate the efforts made by the 11 Ld. CIT-D.R, Smt.Jyoti Kumari but the conduct of the officers of Central circle leaves much to be desired. 22 In this case search was conduced on 15.7.2008 and various documents were found and seized. Even the hard disk of accounts were seized. The assessee made first request on 13.8.2008 for obtaining copies of various documents. The contents of letter dated 13.8.2008 which is available at page 1 of the Combined Paper Book are as under:

The Addl Director of Investigation Dated: 13.8.2008 Income Tax Panchkula Sub: Release of documents impounded u/s 133A of the Income Tax Act during search operation on our premises on 15.7.2008 Dear Sir, It is respectfully submitted that during the course of search operations conducted on our premises on 15.7.2008, various documents, files, books of account, hard disk and other related papers were impounded by the search team from different premises. W e have to finalize our accounts and file our Income Tax Returns by 30 t h Sept 2008 and are to maintain further day to day accounts, which is not possible without the relevant record. Moreover we a re to give statement relating to the seized documents which can be given only after seeing the documents. W e therefore request you to kindly provide us the copies of books of account and other related records seized during the search operation at the earliest. Kindly do the needful. Thanking you, Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Roshan Lal Jindal)

Thereafter another request was made on 15.4.2009 for supply of photocopies of various documents. Next request was made on 13.8.2009, 15.3.2010, 16.8.2010 and 26.8.2010. We have specifically asked the revenue to show which documents were supplied and which documents were still not supplied on the first date. It seems that the Ld. CIT-D.R had specifically written letters to the concerned officers for obtaining this information and in this regard we would like to reproduce first letter written by DCIT, ITAT on 13.5.2014 which is as under: No. CIT/ITAT/2014-15/80 Dated: 13.05.2014 To, The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, 12 Central Circle-I, Chandigarh Sir, Sub: ITA Nos. 1054 to 1057/Chd/2013 in the case of Swami Devi Dayal Hightech Education Academy A.Ys. 2003-04 to 2009-10- Regarding In reference to the above case fixed for hearing before the Honble ITAT, Chandigarh on

13.05.2014 the assessee has taken up plea that during the assessment proceedings, despite several written requests, he was not provided the photocopies of seized documents in time so as to effectively represent his case before the Assessing Officer and other superior authorities. In this regard, the Honble Bench has desired a date wise tabulation chart depicting as to on what date such requests were made and consequently which of documents were supplied to the assessee (alongwith date wise proof of such receipts). Similar data, if any, pertaining to the documents requested and received by the assessee from Investigation Wing is also to be incorporated in the said table. You are further requested to send the assessment records in above case for A.Y. 2003-04 to A.Y. 2009-10. The next date of hearing in the said appeal is 16 th & 17 th June, 2014. You are requested to sent your comments / reply on or before 31.05.2014. Please treat it as MOST URGENT. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (AKHILESH GUPTA) Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, ITAT, Chandigarh To this letter two replies have been made by the DCIT which are as under: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA INCOME TA DEPARTMENT Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I, Room No. 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh F.No. DCIT/CC-I/CHD/2014-15/1122 Dated: 01/08/2014 To The Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (ITAT), Sector-17 E, Chandigarh Sir, Sub: ITA Nos. 1054 to 1057/Chd./2013 in the case of M/s. Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech. Education Academy Asst. Years 2003-04 to 2009-10- Regarding- Kindly refer to your office letter F.No. CIT/ITAT/2014-15/80 dated 13.05.2014 on the subject cited above. In this regard, upon perusal of assessment record, it is found that the assessee has acknowledged receipt of photocopies of documents during the month of June and July, 2009 vide its letter dated 31.08.2009 received in this office on 01.09.2009. The assessee further submitted that it had not received complete photocopies (copy enclosed). But no further correspondence is on the record with respect to providing photocopies of seized documents. But upon perusal of the assessment orders, it is found that a scanned letter written by Sh. Roshan Lal Jindal addressed to the ADIT(Inv.)-III, Chandigarh is part of assessment order itself, in which he has acknowledged the receipt of seized material on 13.09.2008 (copy enclosed). 13 As desired, the assessment records in this case are enclosed herewith as given below: Sr. No. Name of the Assessee A.Y. Pages Contained

1. M/s. Swami Devil Dayal Hi-Tech. Education Academy, Vill. Golpura, The, Barwala, Distt. Panchkula 2003-04 N-6 C-395

2. --do-- 2004-05 N-6 C-484 3 --do-- 2005-06 N-6 C-607 4 --do-- 2006-07 N-7 C-409 5 --do-- 2008-09 N-6 C-535 6 --do-- 2009-10 N-5 C-433 Further, the information pertaining to correspondence between the assessee and the Investigation Wing, if any, may be sought directly from the Investigation Wing. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. Raman Garg) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- I , Chandigar Encl: (As above Asstt. Record in Six Vol.) We have also perused the order sheets during assessment proceedings which reads as under: 14 15 16 17 Perusal of above submissions and letlter of DCIT Central Circle and order sheets during assessment proceedings show that order sheet has been drafted on computer which itself is very unusual. Normally order sheets are written in the personal handwriting of the Assessing Officer, we wonder whether order sheet has been written on dates mentioned in the order sheet or they have been generated on a particular date. Further perusal of the order sheet would show that there is no reference to receipt of letter for supply of documents and no details are incorporated whether the documents were really supplied or not Therefore only assumption possible is that statement of the assessee are correct and complete documents have not been supplied till the end of August, 2010. Thereafter a show cause notice for conducting of special audit was issued on 28.9.2010 which the assessee objected vide letter dated 11.10.2010. The Assessing Officer rejected the same and approval of the Commissioner for conducting of special audit was sought on 14.10.2010. Approval was given by the Commissioner on 11.11.2010. Audit was completed on 13.5.2011 and Audit Report was submitted to the Assessing Officer on 13.5.2011. Return of income has been filed on 1.4.2011. Therefore once the documents were not provided till the end of August 2010 and a proposal for special audit was initiated only towards end of 2010 the assessee can not file return unless and until complete documents are available. 23 Perusal of above order sheets also show that for the first time notice u/s 142(1) has been issued on 28.9.2010 along with the detailed questionnaire (a copy of questionnaire was never brought to our knowledge). It was stated before us that only one show cause notice was issued on 16.6.2011. After filing of return a notice u/s 143(2) has been issued on 20.4.2011 but it becomes clear that no questionnaire was issued on this date. Thereafter another notice u/s 142(1) along with 18 questionnaire was issued fixing the hearing for 4.5.2011 on 21.4.2011. Therefore for practical purposes it can be said that if effective hearing started on 4.5.2011 and the assessment has been completed on

12.7.2011. This clearly shows that less than 70 days were available with the Assessing Officer for completion of 165 assessments. Perusal of the order sheets further shows that nowhere it is discussed that what were the replies already filed by the assessee and what are the points on which balance of information was still required to be filed by the assessee which is the normal practice. All this clearly show that the assessee was not provided adequate opportunity and was not confronted with particular query. 24 In the above situation the assessee had no alternative but to file additional evidence before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) basically observed that it has not been proved that the assessee did not have sufficient opportunity to file all these evidences before the Assessing Officer, therefore additional evidence was not required to be admitted. However, some of the additional evidences were admitted. She also observed that assessment has been finalized largely on the basis of special audit report. After discussing this issue in detail following observations have been made:

In other words, it is to be noted that the request of the assessee for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of IT Rules, 1962 is not being acceded to in toto, has never held that sufficient opportunity was afforded to the assessee during assessment proceedings.

We have perused the impugned order but we did not find any reasons which have been given by the Ld. CIT(A) to admit some portion of the additional evidence and ignore other portion. Even it is not discussed which evidence has been admitted and which evidence is not admitted. This is very strange because legal principles on admission of additional evidence are very clear and if additional evidence is admitted or rejected, the same has to be supported by giving specific reasons. Wherever additional evidence was admitted by the Ld. CIT(A), was referred for 19 verification in the remand proceedings to the Assessing Officer. Remand report was ultimately submitted for assessment year 2003-04 to 2005-06 on 4.12.2012. For assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 first remand report was prepared on 8.4.2013. This report was withdrawn. Same seems to be partly in favour of the assessee. We have raised specific query why this report was not accepted. In reply given by the DCIT, Central Circle, Chandigarh to the Ld. CIT-D.R vide letter dated 19.8.2014 this issue has been dealt in para 3 & 4 which are as under:

Secondly it is being reiterated that eh first remand report was just a draft report and no cognizance may be taken of the same. The Addl CIT gave directions for preparation of remand report under his letter F. No. Addl.CIT/Central/Chd/2013-14/170 dated 24.4.2013 (copy enclosed which his self explanatory. Final remand reports dated 26.7.2013 were prepared after considering all the replies filed by the assessee and submitted. Further the second remand reports were finalized after considering the replies submitted by the assessee (including paper books) and there did not arise any need to call the assessee.

Another explanation given vide letter dated 2.7.2014 by DCIT, Central Circle, Chandigarh to Addl CIT which reads as under: GOVERNMENT OF INDIA INCOME TA DEPARTMENT Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle-I, Room No. 2, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector 17-E, Chandigarh No. DCIT/CC-I/CHD/2014-15/950 Dated: 02/07/2014 To The Addl. Commissioner of Income Tax, Range Central, Chandigarh Sir, Sub: ITA No. 1126 to 1128/Chd/2013 in the case of M/s Swami Devi Dayal Hi-Tech Education Academy, Panchkula-regarding Kindly refer to the subject cited above. In this regard, it is submitted that the assessments were framed in the cases of the above mentioned assessee after getting a special audit done and after through perusal of seized records. The assessee was given repeated opportunities vide various show cause letters/questionnaires for providing the evidence and the assessment were accordingly framed. Against the orders of the AO, the assessee filed appeals before CIT(A) who asked for a remand report from the AO on the additions made in assessment orders. In this background, draft remand reports were prepared by a committee comprising of Inspector and Sr. TA., But those remand reports had certain flaws and were not forwarded. The remand reports were made in haste as the then AO was busy in time barring matters till 31.03.2014 and thereafter she proceeded on maternity leave. The committee, which was formed consisting of one Inspector namely Sh. S.K. Sehgal and Sr. TA namely Sh. Rahul Kumar, did not know the facts of the whole case. It is respectfully submitted that the assessment orders were framed by DCIT and therefore in Inspector/Sr. TA did not have authority and expertise to comment. It was the sole responsibility of the Assessing officer to have prepared the reports. On merits the reports suffered from various inconsistencies / in congruencies which are detailed below: 20 a) Most of the contentions raised by the assessee during the proceedings before the CIT(A) seem merely an afterthought. For instance in A.Y. 2006-07, an additions of Rs. 11,73,250/- was made on account of capitation fees as undisclosed income of the society. A thorough show cause was issued to the assessee in this regard during the assessment proceedings. But in the remand report prepared by the committee, the contention of the assessee was found to be correct up to the extent of Rs. 9,70,575/- despite the fact that the assessee failed to reconcile the same with the additions proposed in show cause. b) Similarly in the same A.Y. 2006-07, addition of Rs. 78,61,000/- was made on account of unrecorded amounts received from students over and above the fee amount fixed by the society. The committee in its reports found entries worth Rs. 54,18,000/- as correct. A thorough show cause was given to the assessee on this issue during the assessment proceedings to which the assessee submitted that the loose documents found in the search were just the waste papers. But before the CIT(A), the assessee suddenly comes with an explanation by furnishing various charts. The assessee has taken two very different stands and his contentions seem unreliable. Hence, no relief can be given to the assessee as proposed in the remand report prepared by the committee. These instances are merely indicative in nature. There are similar discrepancies in the remand reports prepared by the committee in different assessment years as the committee had not gone into details of the seized materials/documents/appraisal reports. Since the Assessing officer had to go on maternity leave and there was pressure on her to submit the reports, she merely forwarded the reports of the committee to the Addl. CIT(C). It is kindly brought to the knowledge that this report was never approved by the range head on merits and returned to the AO for reconsideration and was also directed to examine the issues raised in the report. After doing through verification, again a remand report was submitted with Additional CIT, Range Office. This report of the so called committee was only internal and if at all, it is in the possession of the assessee, it is unlawful and action should be taken against them as how have they laid hands on such internal report. Because of the very fact that the assessee have quoted the reports of so called committee before Honble ITAT, it appears that there might be some nexus between the committee and the assessee. Though there is no such evidence before the department on the nexus but preponderance of probability and sequence of events suggest such possibilities. Having said the above, we are of the firm view that no cognizance ought to be taken on report prepared by non competent, non well versed committee and it is requested that the submission of the assessee before Honble ITAT regarding report of the committee received not be given any credence. It is requested that remand reports dated dated 26.07.2013 may be treated as final reports. Further as per provisions of the Income Tax Law, no such committee can be formed. Moreover as per record, no prior approval of the range head was taken before forming such a committee. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (Dr. Raman Garg) Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Central Circle- I , Chandigarh Perusal of above clearly show that no answer has been given to the query whether there is any bar in the Act for constitution of a committee. Day in day out we come across cases where revenue consistently conduct various queries through the Inspectors. There is no bar in the Act for delegation of powers during assessment or remand proceedings for verification of various documents. For example one of the addition is made on account of total fees received from the students, which according to the Assessing Officer has not been credited or remains 21 unreported. We also called for books of account and verified only two entries on account of unrecorded fees in case of Ravinder Kataria and Akshay where we have found that fee was split into various heads like tuition fee and postal fees. 25 For example in case of Akshay Kumar a sum of Rs. 36,000/- was found to be credited in cash book on 14.7.2005 under the head hostel charges received vide CR No. 5281. Similarly further a sum of Rs. 3500 was found credited on the same date vide CR No. 5282 to hostel security account. In case of Ravinder Kataria following credits have been made as under: Date CR No Accounting head Amount

23.7.2005 163 Tuition fee Rs. 4100

8.8.2005 201 Tuition fee Rs. 2000 Development charges Rs. 500 Eligibility fee Rs. 1150 Examination fee Rs. 450 Student fee Rs. 1500 Tuition fee Rs. 23900 Total Rs. 33650 From above it becomes clear that an amount received from a particular student was credited under various heads and the revenue has not bothered to verify the same and made additions on account of unrecorded receipts. In response to our query whether a opportunity was given in respect of remand reports furnished for assessment year 2003-04 to 2005-06, it is simply stated that all the information was duly verified. These evidences were submitted before the LD. CIT(A) on 9.3.2012 and the remand reports have been ultimately furnished o the LD. CIT(A) on 4.12.2012, therefore these documents were lying with the Assessing 22 Officer office for nine months but no opportunity was given to the assessee to reconcile the amount and officers have looked only to one account and concluded that balance amount is not recorded in the books and addition has been made either under the head capitation fees for the amount which was not credited or under the head unrecorded fees. In our opinion, unless the amounts are looked under the various heads for which separate ledger accounts are maintained the revenue may come to a wrong conclusion that whole of the amount has not been credited. Therefore it was necessary to call the assessee and confront it with whatever doubts the officer was entertaining so that the assessee could have given clarification which would enable the revenue to give to just conclusion. 26 As far as assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 are concerned, the submissions were made before the Ld. CIT(A) on July 2012 and the first remand report was prepared on 8.4.2013 that is almost after eight months. Since these reports were partially in favour of the assessee, they were withdrawn and the same were stated before us to be draft report but no basis has been given by the Addl CIT. In this connection copy of the letter dated 24.4.2013 written by Addl CIT to DCIT reads as under: F No. Addl CIT/Central/Chd/2013-14/170 Dt. 24.4.2013 To The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle I Chandigarh Sub: Remand report in the case of M/s Swami Devi Dyal Hi Tech Education Academy, Village Golpura, Barwala Submission of report on Application under Rule 46A and written submissions Assessment year 2006-07 to 2009-10 regarding The remand reports as submitted by the Assessing Officer are returned with following remarks:

Remand reports have been prepared in haste, without proper application of mind. Remand reports are heavily biased in favour of the assessee and the result of the assessment orders have been totally placed with. It is intriguing to note as to why the Assessing Officer has relied upon reports of Inspector Shri S.K. Sehgal and Sr. T.A. Shri Rahul Kumar.

In view of the above remarks and glaring inconsistencies, you are directed to put up fresh remand reports taking into account the assessment orders, seized documents 23 and submission made by the assessee. The fresh remand reports incorporating the charges should be submitted by 3.5.2013. Sd/- (Rajeev Kumar) Addl Commissioner of Income Tax Range (Central) Chandigarh Above does not show any reason why these reports were rejected. Further if such remand reports were prepared in haste and without proper application of mind, we fail to understand why no disciplinary action was taken against such erring staff members. Though in our opinion, there is no bar on delegation of power for verification of documents in assessment proceedings or remand proceedings. But if the committee was illegally constituted the Revenue should have shown us how such committee was illegal. Even if it is assumed whatever is stated is correct then while making second report the revenue should have called the assessee and ask for various explanations on various documents filed which ran into thousands of pages. The Ld. CIT-D.R had submitted that proper opportunity was given. We reproduce the contents of written submissions in this regard which are as under:

Assessee in his brief synopsis of additional evidence has stated that for assessment year 2003-04 page 227 & 228 of paper book Assessing Officer should have made the verification. Assessee failed to realize that despite several opportunity assessee had only submitted the names and addresses of the donors only before Assessing Officer and Special Auditor and Assessing Officer has sent the remand report only after considering the submissions of assessee and also the onus is on the assessee to prove the identities, genuineness of transaction and creditworthiness of the donors and not on the department. Regarding paper book page 229 non availability of bills it is submitted assessee had taken the CDs and he could have explained the entries. He also failed to realize that no bills were found during the course of search. Regarding paper book page 231 at 2003-04 assessee fails to realize that Assessing Officer had asked for confirmation of the sundry creditors recorded in the books which has not been submitted and, therefore onus has not been discharged by the assessee.

Now if the assessee has filed name and address of the person and his PAN, confirmations in respect of donations same maybe accepted as such and in case revenue has any doubt then the Assessing Officer should have called the assessee and asked it to produce further papers or produce the donors but the evidence cannot be rejected simply saying that full proof evidence was not filed. It is only the Assessing Officer who can say what other evidences were relevant and then ask assessee to file 24 and/or clarify the same. Therefore it becomes clear that whatever additional evidence was filed, ,has not been properly examined because assessee wassnever called to explain and/or clarify the documents. 27 Both the parties before us have relied on various case laws dealing with various facets of admission of additional evidence. We have perused these judgments carefully and principle remains same and therefore we are not discussing these judgments in detail. We would like to refer to the decision of Honble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in case of CIT V. Mukta Metal (supra). In that case while dealing with Q No. 5 which related to admission of additional evidence and the Honble Court observed lat para 15 as under:

As regards Q No. 5 relating to the additional evidence we are of the opinion that the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was a relevant material and so was the affidavit dated Dec 27,2004 of the searched person. The additional evidence was necessary for just decision of the matter. At best, the deponent could be produced for cross-examination. The additional evidence can be allowed in the interest of justice if the same is authentic and necessary for the decision of eh issue raised before the Tribunal. In the facts and circumstances the Tribunal was not justified in declining to consider the additional evidence comprising the opinion of the laboratory of the Government examiner and also the affidavit of the author of the diary, though the documents had a direct bearing on the issue. The question is answered accordingly in favour of the Revenue.

From above it becomes clear that if the additional evidence is authenticated and necessary for the decision then same is required to be admitted. 28 Recently this issue came up for consideration of the Honble Supreme Court in case of Tek Ram (Dead Through LRS) V CIT, 357 ITR 133 (S.C). In that case some additional evidence was submitted before the Honble Supreme Court. Honble Court at para 4 & 5 observed as under:

4 In our opinion, the documents which the appellants have now filed before this court are of some relevance and those documents should be looked into by the High Court before it comes to a conclusion whether the appeal requires to be allowed or to be rejected. 5 Taking that view of the matter, we set aside the order passed by the Honble High Court and remand the matter back to the Honble High Court for fresh disposal of ITA No. 109 of 2005, after accepting the documents tha were/may be filed by the appellants.

25 Thus if the evidence is relevant and goes to the root of the matter even if same is filed before the Honble Supreme Court , same was directed to be admitted and the matter was remanded. 29 However, evidence can be admitted only if same is found to be authentic. The ld CIT-D.R has shown her inability to verify the same because additional evidence was running into more than 5000 pages. In our opinion, even we cannot verify the same. For example list of 294 persons along with receipts, confirmations and PANs and identity proof in the form of Driving License or other documents have been filed for donations. Now it is almost impossible for the Tribunal to say whether such documents are authenticated or not That is why generally the evidences always are referred back to the Assessing authority for verification but such evidences cannot be simply brushed aside. 30 As observed earlier and in the interest of justice there has to be some full stop on admission of the additional evidence and that is why we have suggested to the Ld. Counsel for the assessee to file whatever additional evidence is available which has been filed before us through following papers: Assessment year Particulars 2003-04 Two paper books containing 454 pages 2004-05 Three paper books containi9ng 800 pages 2005-06 Three paper books containing 1115 pages 2006-07 Two paper books containing 609 pages 2007-08 One paper book containing 383 pages 2008-09 Three paper books containing 1268 pages 2009-10 Three paper books containing 1174 pages This would serve some purpose. For example in case of addition on account of donation towards Corps Fund was made for Rs. 83,18,819/- for assessment year 2003-04 but the additional evidence has been filed even before us only for Rs. 28,25,402/-. Therefore in our opinion, the assessee cannot be allowed to file more 26 evidences before the Assessing Officer and at the same time the evidence which has been filed before us needs to be examined. 31 In the above background, in our opinion, the additional evidence filed before us needs to be admitted and therefore we admit the same. We also admit all the additional evidences filed before Ld. CIT(A) which was only partially admitted by her. Since this additional evidence needs verification, therefore we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit all the appeals to the file of Assessing Officer for reexamination of the issues after pursuing the same in the light of additional evidence which has been admitted by us. The Assessing Officer should also give sufficient opportunity to the assessee to explain various issues. For example regarding addition on account of Section 40(a)(ia) for non deduction of tax, it was submitted that Mumbai Bench of the Tribunal has taken a view in case of Mahatama Gandhi Sewa V. DCIT(supra) that no addition cannot be made u/s 40(a)(ia) in case of a trust is exempt u/s 11. The Assessing officer should not allow assessee to file any other evidence except filed before us or the Ld. CIT(A). However, the assessee should be allowed to file documents explaing the evidence already filed before us. Looking at the earlier approach of the Revenue we specifically direct the Assessing Officer to conduct the proceedings in time bound fashion and record all the proceedings properly after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee. The assessee is also directed to cooperate in the set aside proceedings. 32 In the result, all the appeals of the revenue and the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 07.11.2014 Sd/- sd/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (T.R.SOOD) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated : 07.11.2014 RKK Copy to: The Appellant/The Respondent/The CIT/The CIT(A)/The DR