Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 864 (MP)

CIT v. M. S. Agrawal (HUF)

2008-07-14

DIPAK MISRA, K.S.CHAUHAN

body2008
ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. These appeals have been preferred by the revenue under Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), assailing the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short 'the Tribunal') whereby the Tribunal by common order has allowed the appeals preferred by the HUF and other members of the family by ascribing various reasons. In MAIT No. 4/2002, the assail is to the order passed by the Tribunal against IT(SS)A No. 55/Ind/1997 in respect of the assessee, namely, V.K. Agrawal. In MAIT No. 6/2002, the attack is to the order passed in IT(SS)A No. 47/Ind/1997 in respect of Smt. Manju Agrawal. In MAIT No. 5/2002, the sustainability of the order passed in IT(SS)A No. 51/Ind/97 in respect of M.S. Agrawal (Individual) is called in question. In MAIT No. 9/2002, the substantiality of the order passed in IT(SS)A No. 49/Ind/1997 in respect of Smt. Premwati Agrawal is the subject-matter of challenge. Be it noted, the Tribunal by common order had disposed of seven appeals. Five appeals have been preferred by the revenue and, therefore, the same shall be adverted to in this order. The order passed by the Tribunal in IT(SS)A No. 54/Ind/1997 and IT(SS)A No. 52/Ind/1997 are not under challenge. 2. Before we proceed to the substantial questions of law on the basis of which the appeals were admitted and which required to be recast as conceded to by the learned Counsel for the revenue as well as the learned Counsel for the assessee, we think it patent to deal with the factual matrix in each appeal so that a clear position would emerge. 3. In IT(SS)A No. 47/Ind/1997, the Tribunal dealt with the undisclosed income of Rs. 15,285 and Rs. 981 which was so treated because no returns were filed. The Tribunal relying on the decision rendered in CIT v. Smt. Kamlesh Daga 27 ITR 121 directed deletion of the addition. There was an addition of Rs. 1,48,000 in various years on account of the amount received from Manju Family Trust. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the revenue that the income of the trust in reality was the undisclosed income of the Agrawal family. There was an addition of Rs. 1,48,000 in various years on account of the amount received from Manju Family Trust. Before the Tribunal, it was contended by the revenue that the income of the trust in reality was the undisclosed income of the Agrawal family. The Tribunal taking note of the material expressed an opinion that the receipt from the trust was not disclosed by the assessee in her regular returns and the trust had filed the return and the agricultural income has been assessed accordingly. It also took note of the fact that the proceedings under Section 148 of the Act had been dropped and hence, it was not correct on the part of the revenue to assess the said receipt as undisclosed income. In the said appeal the Tribunal was also dealing with the addition of Rs. 2,25,000, being an amount of NRI gift receipt and commission thereon. The assessing officer found that the assessee and four other family members had received gift of Rs. 2 lacs from Dr. Vishwa Darshi Jaiswal. During the enquiry from the Enforcement Directorate, it transpired that Dr. Jaiswal had given gifts around Rs. 8 crores. The finding was recorded by the assessing officer that the gifts were not genuine. The Tribunal referred to the certificate issued by the American Express Bank indicating that the draft was issued by debiting the NRI account and in the assessment order of Dr. Jaiswal, there was no reference that these gifts were not genuine; that the gifts were duly disclosed by the assessees in their respective returns; that the income from interest earned was duly reflected in the computation of various years and hence, the revenue cannot be allowed to assess the same as undisclosed income under Chapter XIV-B in the absence of any evidence found during the search. It was also opined by the Tribunal that the department has always an opportunity to reopen the assessment under Section 148 of the Act but it cannot resort of Chapter XIV-B. Being of this view, it set aside the order of the assessing officer and directed deletion of the amount. 4. In IT(SS)A No. 49/Ind/1997, the controversy related to addition of Rs. 1,79,500 on account of amount received from Manju Family Trust in various years. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning ascribed in appeal No. IT(SS)A No. 47/Ind/1997 and directed deletion of the amount. 4. In IT(SS)A No. 49/Ind/1997, the controversy related to addition of Rs. 1,79,500 on account of amount received from Manju Family Trust in various years. The Tribunal adopted the reasoning ascribed in appeal No. IT(SS)A No. 47/Ind/1997 and directed deletion of the amount. The next aspect in the said appeal related to addition of Rs. 3,09,760 as undisclosed income on account of jewellery found with the assessee. The Tribunal addressed itself to the contentions before it and came to hold that the assessee had shown the gross weight of jewellery in the wealth-tax return and thereafter reduced 21 per cent for impurities and valued the net weight. The Tribunal accepted the said valuation and calculated the jewellery declared in the wealth-tax return. Thereafter, the Tribunal separately considered the jewellery belonging to Smt. Sujata Agrawal as well as the jewellery purchased by M.S. Agrawal from the State Bank of India. The Tribunal took note of the fact that Smt. Sujata Agrawal had left the country in 1979 but she was declaring her jewellery in her wealth-tax return. The Tribunal has opined that the wealth-tax return shows that she had left some jewellery in India and it is a common feature that the lady going abroad would leave some jewellery in her home country so that the same can be used at the time of her visit in India. It is difficult to believe that the lady had left all her jewellery in India and carried nothing abroad. Being of this view the Tribunal opined that she might have left 400 gms, jewellery in the country. As far as jewellery purchased by M.S. Agrawal (HUF) the Tribunal opined that it was bought from the bank. Evidence regarding the payment by withdrawing from M/s Universal Industries has also been brought on record. The jewellery was not declared in the wealth-tax return. The Tribunal did not concur with the assessing officer that the assessee could have disposed of his jewellery in various ways on the ground that once the jewellery has been purchased out of known sources, no prudent businessman would like to convert the money by selling such jewellery in black money. The department could have initiated steps for wealth-tax reassessment as well as penalty proceedings but it is not proper to treat the jewellery as undisclosed income. The department could have initiated steps for wealth-tax reassessment as well as penalty proceedings but it is not proper to treat the jewellery as undisclosed income. The Tribunal expressed the view that the total declared jewellery would come to 5551.051 gms (4885.052+400 gms. belonging to M.S. Agrawal, HUF). Thereafter, the Tribunal referred to the CBDT circular regarding search proceedings and deleted addition on account of unexplained jewellery. In the said appeal there was the addition of Rs. 90,600 which related to unexplained cash. During search proceedings the total cash found at various premises and lockers was Rs. 13,95,898. The Tribunal addressed at length to the factual matrix and came to hold that the cash received from the family trust having been reflected in the books of account maintained by the assessee found at the time of search cannot be treated as undisclosed. The Tribunal treated the whole of the cash receipt of Rs. 1,44,000 from the trust to be genuine. In respect of the sum of Rs. 1,00,200 which was claimed as pocket money of two children, the Tribunal allowed Rs. 50,000 and treated the balance to be undisclosed cash. As far as the cash belonging to Ajay Agrawal is concerned the Tribunal referred to the fact that an affidavit was filed before the assessing officer that initially the cash cannot be explained but later on, the same was explained with the support of documents which deserved acceptance. While coming to such conclusion, the Tribunal referred to the statement of said Ajay Agrawal before the A.D.I, who found nothing wrong with the statement of account of M/s Ajay Construction. Being of this view, the Tribunal treated the income not to be undisclosed. As far as the total cash of Rs. 90,600 of Smt. Premwati Agrawal is concerned, the same was found in her locker. The Tribunal has opined that she had received Rs. 51. 286 as cash in May, 1996, from family trust. Regard being had to the family status and other aspects, the Tribunal opined that there is justification in making addition of the same. With regard to the addition of cash of M.S. Agrawal, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the assessee had shown accumulation of Rs. 70,300 in his individual case and Rs. 1,84,714 in his HUF account. But the same has not been shown in the wealth-tax return. With regard to the addition of cash of M.S. Agrawal, the Tribunal took note of the fact that the assessee had shown accumulation of Rs. 70,300 in his individual case and Rs. 1,84,714 in his HUF account. But the same has not been shown in the wealth-tax return. The Tribunal took note of the provisions of the Wealth Tax Act and treated the cash amounting Rs. 50,000 each in individual as well as HUF status to be justified and the balance to be treated as undisclosed income. Thereafter, the Tribunal addressed itself to the cash withdrawal of Shri V.K. Agrawal from M/s Universal Industries to record a conclusion that amount of Rs. 1 lac was withdrawn on 4-6-1996, for Birsingh Project account. No evidence was produced by the revenue that V.K. Agrawal had claimed the said expenditure from the firm. The Tribunal took note of the fact that there had been gap of three months from the date of this withdrawal and search. Regard being had to the same, the Tribunal held that Rs. 75,000 cash was explained and balance of Rs. 25.000 was treated to be unexplained cash. As perceivable, it has worked out the total cash which was not allowed and opined that unexplained cash is Rs. 2,51,224. Thus, the Tribunal allowed the appeal in part. 5. In IT(SS)A No. 50/Ind/1997, there was addition of Rs. 2 lacs from NRI gifts and Rs. 1,07,508 for undisclosed jewellery. Applying the reasoning of the earlier appeals, the Tribunal directed deletion of the said addition. There was an addition of Rs. 8 lacs on account of investment in house property. During the search, it was noticed that the assessee was constructing a house which was nearing completion and a sum of Rs. 30,04,335 had been declared by the assessee. As the amount was inadequate, a reference was made to the Valuation Officer. The difference in the two values came to Rs. 8,00,045 and the assessee was asked to explain the same. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer and he directed addition of the same. The Tribunal, on analysis of the material brought on record, came to hold that no two experts would reach the same estimate. 8,00,045 and the assessee was asked to explain the same. The explanation offered by the assessee was not accepted by the assessing officer and he directed addition of the same. The Tribunal, on analysis of the material brought on record, came to hold that no two experts would reach the same estimate. The Tribunal also noted that the documents did not reveal that the difference of amount between the materials lying at the site for which payment has been made later on and other expenses incurred by the assessee after the date of search is very low. As the difference between the two is less than 10 per cent because of difference of opinion of two Valuation Officers and the assessee as well as denial of supervision charges of 10 per cent the addition is not justified. Being of this view, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. 6. In IT(SS)A No. 51/Ind/1997, the question that emerged pertained to NRI gifts amounting of Rs. 2 lacs and a cash of Rs. 1 lac found in the locker and the addition of Rs. 1,62,000 on account of the power of attorney found at the premises of the assessee and the addition of Rs. 1,808 being miscellaneous gifts. As far as the NRI gifts are concerned, the Tribunal accepted the plea of the assessee. As far as Rs. 1,62,000 on account of the power of attorney is concerned the Tribunal observed that the assessee had offered explanation that general power of attorney was given by Sanjay Gupta because of difference with his brothers and friendly relations with the assessee's family. The assessee had also brought on record that the property was given as collateral security to Andhra Bank which had given a loan on 9-11-1993, whereas the general power of attorney was executed on 10-11-1995, which meant that Sanjay Gupta had raised a loan much before the execution of the general power of attorney in favour of the assessee. The Tribunal further opined that search was conducted in the premises of Sanjay Gupta and no cash, valuables or any other documentary evidence was found which indicates the sale of property by Sanjay Gupta to the assessee. In the assessment order, no assertion or reference was made. The Tribunal further opined that search was conducted in the premises of Sanjay Gupta and no cash, valuables or any other documentary evidence was found which indicates the sale of property by Sanjay Gupta to the assessee. In the assessment order, no assertion or reference was made. Admittedly, the stand of the assessee that the general power of attorney was given because of friendly relations of Sanjay Gupta with the assessee and no purchase of property was made was accepted. 7. Appeal IT(SS)A No. 55/Ind/1997 pertains of Rs. 2,31,000 on account of amount received from family trust and some amount relating to NRI gifts. The Tribunal, applying similar logic as has been applied in other appeals, directed deletion of the amount. There was also addition of Rs. 3,61,168 on account of jewellery. The Tribunal directed deletion of the sum on the reasonings in other appeals. There was addition of Rs. 7,08,445 as undisclosed income on account of cash found in the premises and locker of the family. The Tribunal affirmed the addition of Rs. 2,51,224 and directed deletion of the rest. In the said appeal, there was addition of Rs. 3,89,000 instead of Rs. 3,32,080 as disclosed by the assessee on account of the valuation of the stock. It was contended before the Tribunal that valuation of the stock was declared on the basis of cost whereas the assessing officer has taken into consideration the amount of excise duty which cannot be considered as a part of the cost unless the same is paid to the excise department. The Tribunal noticed that no material was available regarding the amount of excise duty included by the assessing officer. Being of this view, the Tribunal set aside the order of the assessing officer and directed valuation of the stock on the basis of actual cost and accordingly, it allowed the appeal in part. 8. Be it noted the appeals were admitted on various substantial questions of law but in the course of hearing, Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior Counsel for the revenue, and Mr. G.N. Purohit, learned senior Counsel for the assessee, fairly conceded that the substantial questions required to be recast. 8. Be it noted the appeals were admitted on various substantial questions of law but in the course of hearing, Mr. Rohit Arya, learned senior Counsel for the revenue, and Mr. G.N. Purohit, learned senior Counsel for the assessee, fairly conceded that the substantial questions required to be recast. Accordingly, we recast the substantial questions of law which are as under: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances the Tribunal is justified in expressing the opinion that the assessee could not have been proceeded under Chapter XIV-B of the Act but under Section 148 of the Act? (ii) Whether the Tribunal is justified in accepting the stand and stance of the assessee that the gifts made by the donor who is the NRI would not assume the character of undisclosed income and hence, liable to be assessed as block assessment? (iii) Whether the Tribunal in the obtaining factual matrix is justified in deleting the addition pertaining to the explained jewellery, though the explanation was absolutely unsatisfactory and was not disclosed earlier? 9. Mr Rohit Arya, learned senior Counsel, criticizing the order of the Tribunal, has submitted that the Tribunal has narrowly construed the provisions under Section 158B(b) occurring in Chapter XIV-B of the Act though the definition of undisclosed income has to be understood in a broad manner and not in a restricted sense. Submission of learned senior Counsel is that even if the income is reflected in the return but the same related to the interest component, and that by itself would not take away the rigour of undisclosed income. 10. Mr. G.N. Purohit, learned senior Counsel appearing for the assessees, submitted that the conclusion of the Tribunal to the effect that the revenue could have taken recourse to Section 148 cannot be found fault with inasmuch as the assessing officer had not ascribed any reason for proceeding under Chapter XIV-B and further nothing has been discovered during search and seizure to have any kind of link or nexus with the transaction. Learned Counsel further submitted that in most of the cases there are findings of fact and hence, there is no perversity in such finding and hence, no substantial question of law emanates from them. It is contended by him that the Tribunal has correctly relied on the circular of CBDT and hence, no fault can be found with the same. Learned Counsel further submitted that in most of the cases there are findings of fact and hence, there is no perversity in such finding and hence, no substantial question of law emanates from them. It is contended by him that the Tribunal has correctly relied on the circular of CBDT and hence, no fault can be found with the same. It is urged by him that the tax impact in respect of two years is considerably less for which the revenue should not have filed the appeals. 11. On a perusal of the order passed by the Tribunal and the authorities below, there is no dispute that the search under Section 132 of the Act took place on 29-8-1996, and it was finally concluded on 2-9-1996. The Tribunal has not accepted the submission of the revenue that there was undisclosed income and the revenue was within its authority to proceed against the assessee under Chapter XIV-B of the Act. In this context, it is apposite to refer to certain citations in the field. 12. In CIT v. [2003] 263 ITR 77 (MP), this court after referring to Section 158BB, has opined that the evidence must have been there during the search and only thereafter, the question of gathering any material information would arise based on the search enquiry. The Division Bench took note of the fact that during the search in the premises of the assessee nothing was found with regard to investment in the house in question and that was the dispute in the said case. The revenue had pressed the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer but the court did not accept the same in view of the statutory provisions and the law laid down in the case of CIT v. [2001] 247 ITR 448(Bom) . 13. The revenue had pressed the valuation report of the Departmental Valuation Officer but the court did not accept the same in view of the statutory provisions and the law laid down in the case of CIT v. [2001] 247 ITR 448(Bom) . 13. In Smt Harbans Kaur Bhatia v. [2005] 274 ITR 298 (MP), the Bench referred to the definition of 'undisclosed income' and the provisions contained in Section 158BA(3) and eventually expressed the view as under: Conjoint reading of the aforesaid two Sections would, thus, make it manifestly clear that, in order to take any income or transaction out of the clutches of the block period, it is for the assessee to prove to the satisfaction of the assessing officer that a particular income/transaction had already stood recorded in the books of account/documents in the normal course of business by the assessee prior to the date of search or their requisition. What is therefore, material is its disclosure in the books of account and secondly, such disclosure should be prior to the date of search in point of time. In such circumstances, if an assessee has not filed his/her regular return under Section 139(1), even then it would not make much difference because the assessee has already taken care to disclose the income/transaction in his/her books of account (on) the date it was required to be entered in accordance with the accountancy system. It is, as already mentioned supra, subject to the condition that entry must be made prior to the date of search and not subsequent to it. The object underlined in Sub-section (3) is very clear. If the intention of the assessee is to pay normal rate of tax, he would disclose all the income/transaction in his/her books of account. But if his/her intention is to evade the tax on it, it is only when he/she is subjected to search operation, he/she would make entry in his/her books subsequent to date of search to avoid higher rate of tax at 60 per cent. Such entry, i.e., an entry made subsequent to the date of search is of (no) consequence. It is for this reason that the words used in Section 158B(b) "would not have been disclosed" are very significant. This clearly has a nexus with the intention of the assessee in dealing with his/her property. 14. In Dr. Such entry, i.e., an entry made subsequent to the date of search is of (no) consequence. It is for this reason that the words used in Section 158B(b) "would not have been disclosed" are very significant. This clearly has a nexus with the intention of the assessee in dealing with his/her property. 14. In Dr. Brijesh Lahoti v. [2006] 282 ITR 349 (MP) the question arose with regard to the concept of 'undisclosed income' and the Bench analyzed the anatomy of Sections 158B and 158BA and other provisions and opined as under: 10. We agree with Mr. Chaphekar, learned senior Counsel for the appellant, that where the assessee discloses his income to the Department before the date of search in some manner or the other, it may be difficult to hold that such income is to be treated as undisclosed income for the purpose of assessment in accordance with Chapter XIV-B of the Act. 15. In CIT v. [2006] 283 ITR 326 (Delhi), a Division Bench has expressed the view as under: 8. We are of the view that there is no error in the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as by the Tribunal. In fact, it has been held by the Rajasthan High Court in CIT v. that in Chapter XIV-B of the Act, special provisions for assessment in search cases have been given and if any amount of income has not been taxed and during the course of search, if some undisclosed income is found on the basis of the material seized, that should be treated as undisclosed income as per the scheme of special assessment under Chapter XIV-B." In the said case, no incriminating material was found in the course of search and, therefore, the Bench held that the assessing officer could not take resort to the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Act what was said to be the undisclosed or concealed income of the assessee. 16. In CIT v. the Rajasthan High Court held as under: Admittedly, Rs. 41,400 had never been offered for tax and it was never shown as income of the assessee, the entries of these deposits were found in the regular cash books maintained by the assessee. 16. In CIT v. the Rajasthan High Court held as under: Admittedly, Rs. 41,400 had never been offered for tax and it was never shown as income of the assessee, the entries of these deposits were found in the regular cash books maintained by the assessee. When the entries were found in the books of the assessee, the assessee could not explain the genuineness of the deposits, this amount was never disclosed, it is an undisclosed income of the assessee. The Tribunal has committed an error in holding that as the entries were found in the regular books of account, therefore, it cannot be treated as undisclosed income. 17. In Bhagwati Prasad Kedia v. [2001] 248 ITR 562 (Cal), the Bench, after referring to certain decisions, opined that there is distinction between block assessment and regular assessment. The Bench proceeded to state that the assessing officer while dealing with regular assessment is free to examine the veracity of the return as well as the claims made by the assessee with regard to exemption and/or deduction. Those can be considered under Section 143(3) of the said Act of 1961, whereas the third income being "the undisclosed income" is taxed by way of block assessment resulting in search and seizure. Such block assessment is made under Section 158BA. The logic behind the two different modes of assessment, according to us, is that concealment of income and claiming deduction or exemption of taxes in respect of a disclosed income cannot be treated at par. The former is an offence which goes to the root of the matter and the other is on the basis of the causes shown by the assessee where the assessing officer is free to accept the justification shown or reject the same. The said two types of cases cannot be treated at par. Thereafter, the Bench came to express the opinion that the assessing officer was not entitled to question the said loan in block assessment which is a subject-matter of regular assessment. 18. In CIT v. Ravi Kant Jain (2001) 250 ITR 141 , the Delhi High Court speaking through Arijit Pasayat C.J. (as his Lordship then was), held that block assessment under Chapter XIV-B of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not intended to be a substitute for regular assessment. Its scope and ambit is limited in that sense to materials unearthed during search. Its scope and ambit is limited in that sense to materials unearthed during search. It is in addition to the regular assessment already done or to be done. The assessment for the block period can only be done on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or documents and such other material information as are available with the assessing officer. Evidence found as a result of search is clearly relatable to Sections 132 and 132A. 19. In CIT v. [2008] 296 ITR 619 (Delhi) , the Bench has expressed the view as under: Under the provisions of Chapter XIV-B only such of the aforesaid categories of income, which has been found as a result of search can alone be the subject-matter of an assessment under this Chapter. The definition specifies that where an assessee has claimed any expenses or addition, which is found to be false, the same can only by regarded as an undisclosed income for the purpose of this chapter. 20. In CIT v. Chandra Chemoux (2003) 298 ITR 98 (Raj), it has been held that under the provisions of Section 158BB of the Act, the addition can be made only when evidence is available as a result of search or requisition of books of account, documents and other material, however, addition cannot be made on the basis of inferences. 21. In CIT v. [2008] 298 ITR 274(Mad) , it has been held that what is contemplated under Section 158BB is that the undisclosed income shall be computed only in accordance with the provisions of the Act on the basis of evidence found as a result of search and such other material or information which are related to such material. If the material seized does not, in any way, connect the assessee indicating that the assessee had any undisclosed income it may not be proper to proceed against the assessee under Section 158BD read with Sections 158BC and 143(3) of the Act without any basis whatsoever. 22. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight under what circumstances the concept of block assessment is attracted. It is one thing to say that the definition of 'undisclosed income' should be given a broader and wider meaning and it is another thing to say under what circumstances the said provisions could be resorted to. 23. 22. We have referred to the aforesaid decisions only to highlight under what circumstances the concept of block assessment is attracted. It is one thing to say that the definition of 'undisclosed income' should be given a broader and wider meaning and it is another thing to say under what circumstances the said provisions could be resorted to. 23. In the case at hand, the assessing officer has not connected any undisclosed income with anything that has come in search and seizure. The assessing officer has himself recorded with regard to the gifts made by Dr. Jaiswal that the assessee had denied of having made any compensatory payments. He has also found that the statements recorded of Dr. Jaiswal were not clear and he has not specifically mentioned anything about the gifts made to the assessee. The assessing officer has proceeded with regard to the onus on the assessee to prove the genuineness of the transaction and on that basis, he has held it to be non-genuine. But the fact remains that how no nexus has been established with any document or evidence collected during search and seizure with regard to the gift made. There is no finding as to how the gifts are not genuine except stating about the onus. Be that as it may, in the absence of any document during search or seizure, it is difficult to accept the submission of the learned Counsel for the revenue that the conclusion arrived at by the Tribunal to the effect that the proceedings could not have been Initiated under Chapter XIV-B is erroneous or perverse. 24. At this juncture, we are obliged to refer to the instructions which relate to guidelines for seizure of jewellery and ornaments in the course of search. The said guidelines pertain to search and seizure under Section 132 of the Act. It provides that in the case of a wealth-tax assessee, gold jewellery and ornaments found in excess of the gross weight declared in the wealth-tax returns only need be seized, the officer having regard to the status of the family and the custom and practices of the community to which the family belongs and other circumstances of the case. The Tribunal has aptly referred to the circular and recorded a finding. The same being in the realm of fact, we do not perceive any substantial question of law. 25. The Tribunal has aptly referred to the circular and recorded a finding. The same being in the realm of fact, we do not perceive any substantial question of law. 25. Learned Counsel for the assessees, Mr. G.N. Purohit, has referred to the circular (Instruction No. 5 of 2008-Ed.) issued by the Board on 15-5-2008 (2008) 217 CTR (St) 1, to highlight the fact that to prefer an appeal under Section 260A of the Act, Rs. 4 lacs is the mandatory limit. Learned senior Counsel has submitted that this court in MAIT No. 23/2005 (CIT v. Shri Ram Krishan Nand Kishore Saraf) has placed reliance on the decision rendered in CIT v. [2005] 276 ITR 519 (Bom) wherein the Bombay High Court has held as under: This court can very well take judicial notice of the fact that by passage of time money value has gone down, the cost of litigation expenses has gone up, the assessees on the file of the departments have increased; consequently, the burden on the department has also increased to a tremendous extent. The corridors of the superior courts are choked with huge pendency of cases. In this view of the matter, the Board has rightly taken a decision not to file references if the tax effect is less than Rs. 2 lakhs. The same policy for old matters need to be adopted by the department. In our view, the Board's Circular dated 27-3-2000, is very much applicable even to the old references which are still undecided. The department is not justified in proceeding with the old references having negligible tax effect." This court had followed the same view. We have referred to the same as in some of the appeals the tax impact is less than Rs. 4 lacs. We have also referred to the same for the sake of completeness. 26. Judged from all angles, we find that the finding of the Tribunal that the revenue could not have proceeded under Chapter XIV-B of the Act and could have proceeded under Section of the Act cannot be found fault with. That apart, from the search and seizure of jewellery, the finding of the Tribunal being in the realm of fact does not warrant any interference. That apart, from the search and seizure of jewellery, the finding of the Tribunal being in the realm of fact does not warrant any interference. Similarly, the analysis made by the Tribunal as regards other spectrums, as is evincible from the analysis of the order of the Tribunal which we have referred to while dealing with the findings, are also in the realm of facts and hence, there is no justification to interfere. 27. Consequently, the appeals being sans substance, stand dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.