JUDGMENT : K.S. Jhaveri, J. 1. By way of these appeals under section 260A of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the revenue has challenged the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad (hereinafter referred to as "the Tribunal") dated 15.2.2008 whereby the Tribunal has partly allowed the appeals preferred by the assessee by reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 2. While admitting the appeals, this court has framed the following substantial questions of law: "(1) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation of the closing stock in contravention to the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT v. British Paints (I) Ltd. reported in 188 ITR 44 (SC)? (2) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the undisclosed income on account of undisclosed investment in show room despite the irrefutable evidence found during search in that regard? (3) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in law in deleting the addition of unaccounted income/assets prior to April, 1999 despite the clear finding that without the said investment the subsequent income and investment could not have been generated?" 3. Learned counsel Mr. Parikh appearing for the revenue has submitted that issue No. 1 is required to be reframed and it should be reframed up to closing stocks. Hence issue No. 1 is reframed as under: "Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation of closing stocks?" 4. The facts of the case are that a search under section 132 of the Income-tax Act was carried out in the residential as well as business premises of the assessee on 27.6.2000. During the course of search, various evidences were found indicating unaccounted sales of gold and diamond ornament, unaccounted investment in stock, unaccounted investment in shop. The assessee filed return of income by declaring total undisclosed income at Rs. 90,25,750/-. The block assessment was completed on 28.6.2002 on a total undisclosed income of Rs. 1,60,24,214/- by the Assessing Officer. During the course of search, various evidences were found indicating unaccounted sales of gold and diamond ornament, unaccounted investment in stock, unaccounted investment in shop. The assessee filed return of income by declaring total undisclosed income at Rs. 90,25,750/-. The block assessment was completed on 28.6.2002 on a total undisclosed income of Rs. 1,60,24,214/- by the Assessing Officer. Being aggrieved by the said order of block assessment, the assessee preferred appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who confirmed most of the additions made by the Assessing Officer. On further appeal, the Tribunal reversed the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 15.2.2008. 5. The learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has taken us through the order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has committed error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer holding that it is in excess of unaccounted investment in stock of gold ornaments disclosed by the assessee while submitting the return for the block period. The Assessing Officer has worked out the rate of gold per gram at Rs. 430/- which has been confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). However, the Tribunal, in appeal, reduced the rate to Rs. 400/- per gram. The relevant observations of the Tribunal at paragraph Nos. 18 to 21 are extracted below: "Ground No. 5 and 6 relate to the addition made in respect of investment made in stock. The facts relating to these grounds are that during the course of search pages 15, 16 and 17 of Annexure-A-12 were seized, which were computer print outs, copies of which are available at pages 19 to 21 of the assessee's paper book. The date on the top of these pages was 25.6.2000. The A.O. on the basis of these computer print outs made out the stock details of both the concerns as on 15.6.2000 as under:- As per Size Paper As per Book Ladla Gold 16056.29 3543.029 gms Ladla jewelers-1 12627.31 20417.770 gms Ladla jewellers-2 22415.600 ……….. 51099.2 23960.799 gms Thus, he was of the opinion that the assessee was having excess unaccounted stock of gold ornaments weighing 27138.401 gms. which was valued by the Departmental Valuer at Rs. 1,08,55,360/-. The A.O. even noted that the Departmental Valuer has not correctly worked out the value of the gold ornaments. The Departmental Valuer has valued the gold ornaments @ Rs. 400/- per gram for 22 carat ornaments. which was valued by the Departmental Valuer at Rs. 1,08,55,360/-. The A.O. even noted that the Departmental Valuer has not correctly worked out the value of the gold ornaments. The Departmental Valuer has valued the gold ornaments @ Rs. 400/- per gram for 22 carat ornaments. On the basis of the books he was of the opinion that the assessee has incurred labour charges in making the ornaments @ Rs. 30/- per gram and accordingly he revalued the gold ornaments @ Rs. 430/- per gram. This rage according to him was also confirmed as per Annexure-A-19, A-10 per gram. Thus, he worked out the value of the unaccounted stock at Rs. 1,16,69,512/- (27138.4 x 430) against the investment in stock admitted by the assessee and the HUF in the block return amounting to Rs. 97,47,550/-, ignoring the explanation of the assessee that the computer print outs were used on trial basis and were the loose sheets and did not give the correct position of the stock. 19. The assessee went in appeal before the CIT(A). Before the CIT(A) the assessee pointed out that the excess stock found during the course of search was 25597.138 grams valued at Rs. 1,03,42,496/-. In respect of cash there was deficit of Rs. 5,94,973/- and accordingly, the balance stock of Rs. 97,47,550/- was disclosed by the assessee. It was pointed out that at the time of search, the excess stock of 25591.538 grams was found in excess and the disclosure was made accordingly. In respect of balance stock it was submitted that the money/sale proceeds were invested in the unaccounted investment in renovation of shop and other assets disclosed in the block return. The Departmental Registered Valuer valued the stock at the rate of Rs. 400/- per gram, which cannot be disturbed by the A.O. The jewellery was also by depositing the value of the seized jewellery in the PD A/c at the same rate. The AO even did not give the credit for the deficit cash against the excess stock worked out by him. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO so far as the quantity of the excess stock at 47138.4 grams as well as the rate applied by the AO @ Rs. 430/- per gram is concerned but allowed the relief to the assessee for a sum of Rs. 5,97,973/- in respect of cash deficit found as on 27.5.2000. The CIT(A) confirmed the action of the AO so far as the quantity of the excess stock at 47138.4 grams as well as the rate applied by the AO @ Rs. 430/- per gram is concerned but allowed the relief to the assessee for a sum of Rs. 5,97,973/- in respect of cash deficit found as on 27.5.2000. The learned AR reiterated the submissions made before the AO and pointed out that these are computer print outs and do not represent the exact position of the stock as on the date of the search. The exact stock was taken as on the date of the search. The exact stock was taken as on the date of search by the search team and noted at 25597.538 grams valued at Rs. 1,03,42,496/-. After availing of the cash deficit credit of Rs. 5,97,973/-, the assessee has disclosed both in individual capacity and HUF capacity a sum of Rs. 97,47,500/- - Rs. 72,29,750/- in the hands of individual and Rs. 25,17,800/- in the hands of HUF. The assessee was following the cost or market value, whichever is less method for valuing the closing stock consistently. The Registered Valuer as deputed by the Department has valued the stock at the time of search at the rate of Rs. 400/- per gram. The labour charges have never been considered to be the part of the market value while determining the market value. This view has been taken by the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of O.P. Jewellers v. ITO 71 TTJ 208. 20. The learned DR, on the other hand, contended that the computer print outs represent the actual stock. The labour charges is to form part of the value and therefore, the order of the CIT(A) be confirmed. 21. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record along with the seized papers available at pages 19 to 21 of the assessee's paper book. From the perusal of these seized papers, we noted that on the top of each table date 25.6.2000 is mentioned, while the nomenclature clearly states the closing stock as on 15.6.2000. The reasons for mentioning the date 25.6.2000 were not explained. Even the Revenue has admitted that as on the date of the search the excess stock found was 25597.538 grams when compared with the books of accounts. The reasons for mentioning the date 25.6.2000 were not explained. Even the Revenue has admitted that as on the date of the search the excess stock found was 25597.538 grams when compared with the books of accounts. The computer print outs since have the two different dates i.e. 25.6.2000 and 15.6.2000, therefore, the natural inference one can draw these print outs do not represent the actual stock as on the date of the search. We are, therefore, of the view that unaccounted excess stock as on the date of the search was only 25597.538 grams. This is an undisputed fact that the assessee was valuing the closing stock at lower of the average cost or market price. Consistently the market price was being determined on the basis of the value of gold contents. This view is also duly supported by the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of O.P. Jewellers v. ITO 71 TTJ 208 in which it was held that:-- 'The valuation was got made on the date of search from the approved valuer. The AVO has estimated the market value of these said ornaments and while doing so the value has to be put only for the gold contents and it is only gold contents which carry market value and if offered for sale in the open market the same would not fetch any making charges apart from the value of the gold content.' The valuer appointed by the Department at the time of search has valued the excess stock without labour charges at the rate of Rs. 400/- per gram. This supports the practice being prevalent in this business. No contrary decision was brought to our knowledge by the learned DR. We are, therefore, of the view that the CIT(A) was not correct in law in confirming the action of the AO valuing the excess stock of jewellery found during the course of search at the rate of Rs. 430/-. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and delete the addition made by the AO in excess of the unaccounted investment in stock of gold ornaments disclosed by the assessee while submitting the block return. Thus, ground Nos. 5 and 6 are allowed." 6. 430/-. We, therefore, set aside the order of the CIT(A) on this issue and delete the addition made by the AO in excess of the unaccounted investment in stock of gold ornaments disclosed by the assessee while submitting the block return. Thus, ground Nos. 5 and 6 are allowed." 6. So far as issue No. 2 regarding undisclosed investment in show room is concerned, the learned counsel for the appellant-revenue has taken us to the order of the Tribunal at paragraph Nos. 30 and 31 which are extracted below and contended that the Tribunal has committed serious error in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer. "We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record. We have firstly gone through Annexure-A1 and we find that it contains various details in respect of expenses and the payments made to various parties. Since the assessee has also not denied that this does not contain the details in respect of expenses incurred on renovation, the AO has worked out the total of the amount in Annexure-A1 Rs. 3,39,400/-. The assessee has already submitted the reconciliation before the AO and accordingly he deducted a sum of Rs. 8,60,000/-. The total expenses were worked out by the AO at Rs. 25,34,299/-. We also find that the assessee has already incurred the expenditure on the renovation recorded in the books of account up to the date of search amounting to Rs. 13,25,756/-. The AO has given the credit only for a sum of Rs. 5,78,715/- ignoring the expenditure being booked under the different heads and incurred till the date of the search. The assessee has submitted the copy of the ledger account along with the details which were neither accepted by the AO nor by the CIT(A) without giving any reason. In our opinion, the whole expenditure is related to the renovation in whatever head they are debited in the books are to be taken to the expenditure duly recorded and cannot be regarded to be the part of the undisclosed investments. We accordingly direct the AO to give credit to the assessee for a sum of Rs. 13,25,756/- instead of Rs. 5,78,715/-. We have gone through copies of seized materials Annexure-A-3, A-5 and A-14. We accordingly direct the AO to give credit to the assessee for a sum of Rs. 13,25,756/- instead of Rs. 5,78,715/-. We have gone through copies of seized materials Annexure-A-3, A-5 and A-14. Annexure-A3 contains two pages and from the perusal of these pages it is apparently clear that these pages contain the details of measurement. These pages nowhere mention the amount of Rs. 1,20,000/- as has been worked out by the AO. Annexure A-5 also nowhere states the amount spent by the assessee on the renovation. This gives details under the nomenclature, Sr. No. Gross Weight, Rupees, Date and Ct. (carat), making price etc. From the perusal of these pages one cannot infer that these represent the expenditure incurred for the renovation of the shop. The only inference can be drawn that it contains the details relating to the jewellery and the dealings with various Goldsmiths in some place on the top, item, name is given such as tops, pendent set, nose pins. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 4,71,200/- on the basis of this Annexure cannot be sustained. From the perusal of Annexure-A 14, we noted that it contains the bills and vouchers relating to the construction materials and it does not represent the details of the expenditure. Therefore, one can conclude on that basis that these vouchers would have already been included and merely that the assessee's counsel has not taken this argument, we cannot ignore the description of the true nature of the seized document. The Tribunal is a final fact finding authority and has to render justice. Therefore, we delete the addition to that extent. If these additions are deleted, there remains only an expenditure of Rs. 12,08,543/- but since the assessee has already surrendered in the block return the sum of Rs. 14,31,000/- which is much more than the undisclosed investments in the renovation, therefore, in our opinion, no addition can be sustained on this account. Thus, the order of the CIT(A) and that of the AO are set aside and the addition sustained on account of renovation of the ship is deleted." 7. As regards issue No. 3, the learned counsel for the revenue has taken us through paragraph Nos. 36 and 37 of the order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in deleting the addition of unaccounted income. As regards issue No. 3, the learned counsel for the revenue has taken us through paragraph Nos. 36 and 37 of the order of the Tribunal and contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in deleting the addition of unaccounted income. He has contended that the Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed the issue in details. However, the Tribunal while reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) without considering the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Assessing Officer, has given its finding in paragraph Nos. 36 and 37 which are extracted below: "36. Ground No. 10 is consequential in nature and the learned AR pointed out that the assessee has declared the income as per the block return at Rs. 1,15,43,550/- by both the assessees, viz., individual and HUF. The CIT (A0 determined the unaccounted income at Rs. 1,06,37,479/- on the basis of unaccounted ales by adopting a GP rate of 15.64% and also made the addition of Rs. 72,71,921/- due to the unaccounted investments due to the excess stock as on 14.6.98 and thus the total unaccounted income was determined at Rs. 1,79,98,400/-. The undisclosed investments although were determined by the CIT(A) at Rs. 1,44,85,003/- as per para 5.6, the income being more i.e. 1,79,09,400/- and assessee has disclosed Rs. 1,15,43,550/-, therefore, the addition of Rs. 63,64,850/- in toto was confirmed in the case of both the assessee, individual and HUF and was allocated as under: Shri Mahesh K. Ladla – Individual Rs. 50,24,387/- Shri Mahesh K. Ladla – HUF Rs. 13,41,463/- Thus, the addition of Rs. 5024,387/- was based merely on estimate. No material was found to support this income. This undisclosed assets and the expenditure to the extent found were only Rs. 1,15,43,550/- out of which Rs. 90,25,750/- were returned by the assessee in the hands of individual and Rs. 25,17,800/- were returned in the hands of the HUF. The income whatever may be earned by the assessee will either be invested or will be spent. The AO has estimated various investments and expenditure which has been challenged and argued separately. To the extent this Tribunal confirmed the addition for the undisclosed investments or expenditure, the addition be sustained and the rest be deleted. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below. 37. The AO has estimated various investments and expenditure which has been challenged and argued separately. To the extent this Tribunal confirmed the addition for the undisclosed investments or expenditure, the addition be sustained and the rest be deleted. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the authorities below. 37. We have carefully considered the rival submissions and perused the material on record along with the order of the tax authorities. We have already dealt with various additions made by the authorities below by way of investments in the assets as well as undisclosed expenditure. Various additions sustained by us over and above the income disclosed by the assessee in individual and HUF capacity amounting to Rs. 1,15,43,550/- are summarized as under: Undisclosed investments in shop as per Ground No. 4 -- Rs. 37,900 Total investments and income in the hands of both the assessees to the extent confirmed by us including the undisclosed income returned by the assessee comes to Rs. 1,15,81,450/- and the source earning this income is the unrecorded sales made by the assessee which are found in the computer print outs amounting to Rs. 6,80,14,573/- and which has separately been dealt with by us in ground Nos. 1 to 3 which will give a GP at the rate of 17.03%. We accordingly reduce the total addition in the case of the assessee at Rs. 37,900/- as has been sustained as per ground No. 4. Thus, this ground is partly allowed." 8. In view of above, the learned counsel for the revenue has contended that the Tribunal has committed an error in reversing the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and therefore, the order of the Tribunal is required to be interfered with. 9. Learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar for the assessee has taken us through section158BB of the Income-tax Act which is extracted below: "158BB. 9. Learned senior advocate Mr. Soparkar for the assessee has taken us through section158BB of the Income-tax Act which is extracted below: "158BB. (1) The undisclosed income of the block period shall be the aggregate of the total income of the previous years falling within the block period computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act, on the basis of evidence found as a result of search or requisition of books of account or other documents and such other materials or information as are available with the Assessing Officer and relatable to such evidence, as reduced by the aggregate of the total income, or as the case may be, as increased by the aggregate of the losses of such previous years, determined:- "(a) where assessments under section 143 or section 144 or section 147 have been concluded prior to the date of commencement of the search or the date of requisition, on the basis of such assessments; (b) where returns of income have been filed under section 139 or in response to a notice issued under sub-section (1) of section 142 or section 148 but assessments have not been made till the date of search or requisition, on the basis of the income disclosed in such returns; (c) where the due date for filing a return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed,-- (A) on the basis of entries as recorded in the books of account and other documents maintained in the normal course on or before the date of search or requisition where such entries result in computation of loss for any previous year falling in the block period; or (B) on the basis of entries as recorded in the books of account and other documents maintained in the normal course on or before the date of the search or requisition where such income does not exceed the maximum amount not chargeable to tax for any previous year falling in the block period; (ca) where the due date for filing a return of income has expired, but no return of income has been filed, as nil, in cases not falling under clause (c); (d) where the previous year has not ended or the date of filing the return of income under sub-section (1) of section 139 has not expired, on the basis of entries relating to such income or transactions as recorded in the books of account and other documents maintained in the normal course on or before the date of the search or requisition relating to such previous years; (e) where any order of settlement has been made under sub-section (4) of section 245D, on the basis of such order; (f) where an assessment of undisclosed income had been made earlier under clause (c) of section 158BC, on the basis of such assessment. Explanation - For the purposes of determination of undisclosed income:-- (a) the total income or loss of each previous year shall, for the purpose of aggregation, be taken as the total income or loss computed in accordance with the provisions of this Act without giving effect to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32; Provided that in computing deductions under Chapter VI-A for the purposes of said aggregation, effect shall be given to set off of brought forward losses under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32; (b) of a firm, returned income and total income assessed for each of the previous years falling within the block period shall be the income determined before allowing deduction of salary, interest, commission, bonus or remuneration by whatever name called to any partner not being a working partner; Provided that undisclosed income of the firm so determined shall not be chargeable to tax in the hands of the partners, whether on allocation or on account of enhancement; (c) assessment under section 143 includes determination of income under sub-section (1) of sub-section (1B) of section 143. (2) In computing the undisclosed income of the block period, the provisions of sections 68, 69, 69A, 69B and 69C shall, so far as may be, apply and references to 'financial year' in those sections shall be construed as references to the relevant previous year falling in the block period including the previous year ending with the date of search or of the requisition." (3) The burden of proving to the satisfaction of the Assessing Officer that any undisclosed income had already been disclosed in any return of income filed by the assessee before the commencement of search or of the requisition, as the case may be, shall be on the assessee. (4) For the purpose of assessment under this Chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments." 10. (4) For the purpose of assessment under this Chapter, losses brought forward from the previous year under Chapter VI or unabsorbed depreciation under sub-section (2) of section 32 shall not be set off against the undisclosed income determined in the block assessment under this Chapter, but may be carried forward for being set off in the regular assessments." 10. He has relying upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of P.R. Metrani v. Commissioner of Income-tax (2006) 287 ITR 209 (SC) contended that the view taken by the Tribunal is just and proper. He has relied on paragraph Nos. 18 to 26 of the said judgment which are extracted below: "18. Section 132 is a Code in itself. It provides for the conditions upon which and the circumstances in which the warrants of authorization can be issued. Sub-section (2) authorizes the authorized officer to requisition the services of any police officer or of any officer of the Central Government or of both to assist him for all or any of the purposes for which the search is conducted. Under sub-section (4) the authorized officer can during the course of search or seizure examine on oath any person who is found to be in possession or control of any books of account, documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing and any statement made by such persons during such examination may thereafter be used in evidence in any proceeding under the Act. Sub-sections (4A) and 5 are set out in detail as it existed at the relevant time. Sub-sections (4A) and 5 are set out in detail as it existed at the relevant time. "(4A) Where any books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing are or is found in the possession or control of any person in the course of a search, it may be presumed- (i) that such books of account, other documents, money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing belong or belongs to such person; (ii) that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true; and (iii) that the signature and every other part of such books of account and other documents which purport to be in the handwriting of any particular person or which may reasonably be assumed to have been signed by, or to be in the handwriting of, any particular person, are in that person's handwriting, and in the case of a document stamped, executed or attested, that it was duly stamped and executed or attested by the person by whom it purports to have been so executed or attested." "(5) Where any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing (hereafter in this section and in sections 132A and 132B referred to as the assets) is seized under sub-section (1) or sub-section (1A), the Assessing Officer, after affording a reasonable opportunity to the person concerned of being heard and making such enquiry as may be prescribed, shall, within one hundred and twenty days of the seizure, make an order, with the previous approval of the Deputy Commissioner],-- (i) estimating the undisclosed income (including the income from the undisclosed property) in a summary manner to the best of his judgment on the basis of such materials as are available with him; (ii) calculating the amount of tax on the income so estimated in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act; (iia) determining the amount of interest payable and the amount of penalty imposable in accordance with the provisions of the Indian Income-tax Act, 1922 (11 of 1922), or this Act, as if the order had been the order of regular assessment; (iii) specifying the amount that will be required to satisfy any existing liability under this Act and any one or more of the Acts specified in clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 230A in respect of which such person is in default or is deemed to be in default, and retain in his custody such assets/or part thereof as are in his opinion sufficient to satisfy the aggregate of the amounts referred to in clauses (ii), [(iia)] and (iii) and forthwith release the remaining portion, if any, of the assets to the person from whose custody they were seized: Provided that if, after taking into account the materials available with him, the Assessing Officer is of the view that it is not possible to ascertain to which particular previous year or years such income or any part thereof relates, he may calculate the tax on such income or part, as the case may be, as if such income or part were the total income chargeable to tax at the rates in force in the financial year in which the assets were seized and may also determine the interest or penalty, if any, payable or imposable accordingly: Provided further that where a person has paid or made satisfactory arrangements for payment of all the amounts referred to in clauses (ii), (iia) and (iii) or any part thereof, the Assessing Officer may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, release the assets or such part thereof as he may deem fit in the circumstances of the case. 19. Sub-section (6) provides that assets retained under sub-section (5) may be dealt with in accordance with the provisions of Section 132B. Sub-section (7) provides that if the assessing officer is satisfied that the seized assets or any part thereof were held by such person for or on behalf of other person, the assessing officer may proceed under sub-section (5) against such other person and the provisions of Section 132 shall apply to such other persons as well. Sub-section (8) provides that the books of account or other documents seized under sub-section (1) and (1A) shall not be retained by the authorized officer for a period exceeding 180 days from the date of the seizure without recording reasons for retaining the same in writing and taking approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner for such retention. Chief Commissioner is mandated not to authorize the retention of books of account and other documents under the proviso to sub-section (8) and not to retain the books of account and other items for a period exceeding 30 days after all the proceedings under the Act in respect of the years for which the books of account, other documents, money, bullions, jewellery or other valuable articles or things are relevant. Under sub-section (9) the persons from whose custody the books of account and other documents are seized is entitled to make notes thereof and take extracts there from in the presence of the authorized officer. Sub-sections (9) and (10) are of the same nature. Sub-section (11) provides that if any person objects for any reason to an order made under sub-section (5), he can within 30 days of the date of such order make an application to the Chief Commissioner stating the reasons therein for such objections and requesting for appropriate relief in the matter. Further, sub-section provides for applicability of Code of Criminal Procedure and making of rules by the board in search or seizure etc. 20. The section considered as a whole, shows that it has its own procedure for the search, seizure, determination of the point in dispute, quantum to be retained and also the quantum of the tax and interest on the undisclosed income. 20. The section considered as a whole, shows that it has its own procedure for the search, seizure, determination of the point in dispute, quantum to be retained and also the quantum of the tax and interest on the undisclosed income. Under sub-section (11) as it existed till 31.5.2002, the person aggrieved has been given the right to file an application (in place of appeal) objecting to the order passed under sub-section (5) and request for appropriate relief in the matter. It has all the fortifications of a code. This provision exists in complete isolation of the other provisions of the Act. It has the trappings of small code in itself. 21. The proceedings under Section 132(5) as it existed till 31.5.2002 are of a quasi-judicial nature as it provided affording of reasonable opportunity to the person concerned of being heard and pass an order after making an enquiry as might be prescribed. Enquiries under sub-section 132(5) is to enable the assessing officer to determine the tax liability of the assessee in a summary manner and determine the undisclosed income in relation to the money, bullion, jewellery etc. seized under Section 132 and retain the assets seized till the regular assessment is framed. The order passed under Section 132 (5) is for the purpose of retaining the assets seized and it is subject to the framing of the regular assessment. Whatever portion of the money or other articles seized is explained in a satisfactory and reasonable manner by the person from whom the same was seized, are returned to him and the rest are to be retained. As stated earlier, no appeal lies against the order passed under Section 132, only an application lies to the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner as permitted by Section 132(11). Search and seizure under Section 132 is a serious invasion into the privacy of a citizen, therefore, it has to be construed strictly. Sub-section (4A) was inserted by Taxation Law (Amendment) Act, 1975 with effect from 1.10.1075 to permit a presumption to be raised in the circumstances mentioned therein. Before the insertion of sub-section (4A) the onus of proving that the books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery etc. found in possession or control of a person in the course of a search belonged to that person was on the Income Tax Department. Before the insertion of sub-section (4A) the onus of proving that the books of account, other documents, money bullion, jewellery etc. found in possession or control of a person in the course of a search belonged to that person was on the Income Tax Department. Sub-section (4A) enables an assessing authority to raise a rebut table presumption that such books of account, money, bullion etc. belonged to such person; that the contents of such books of account and other documents are true, and, that the signatures and every other part of such books of account and other documents are signed by such person or are in the handwriting of that particular person. 23. Raising of such presumption has been enacted by the Legislature to enable the assessing authority to make a provisional adjudication within the time frame prescribed under Section 132. Otherwise it may not be possible to do so. The object of introduction of Section 132 is to prevent the evasion of tax, i.e. to unearth the hidden or undisclosed income or property and bring it to assessment. It is not merely an information of undisclosed income but also to seize money, bullion etc. representing the undisclosed income and to retain them for the purposes of realization of taxes, penalties etc. Search and seizure is a serious invasion in the privacy of the person. Section 132 which is a complete code by itself provides that the money, bullion or the books of account etc. should not be retained unnecessarily and that the provisional assessment made under Section 132 for the purpose of retention of the books is passed within a specified time in accordance with law. It provides that the books of account, money and bullion which are not required are not retained unnecessarily thereby causing harassment to the person concerned. In order to see that the assessment order is framed within the time frame provided under Section 132, legislature provided for a rebut table presumption to be raised against the person from whose possession and control the books of account, money, bullions etc. are seized so that the order can be passed within the time frame provided under Section 132. 24. A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact. are seized so that the order can be passed within the time frame provided under Section 132. 24. A presumption is an inference of fact drawn from other known or proved facts. It is a rule of law under which courts are authorized to draw a particular inference from a particular fact. It is of three types, (i) "may presume", (ii) "shall presume" and (iii) "conclusive proof". "May presume" leaves it to the discretion of the Court to make the presumption according to the circumstances of the case. "Shall presume" leaves no option with the Court not to make the presumption. The Court is bound to take the fact as proved until evidence is given to disprove it. In this sense such presumption is also rebut table. "Conclusive proof" gives an artificial probative effect by the law to certain facts. No evidence is allowed to be produced with a view to combating that effect. In this sense, this is irrebuttable presumption. 25. The words in sub-section (4) are "may be presumed". The presumption under sub-section (4A) therefore, is a rebut table presumption. The finding recorded by the High Court in the impugned judgment that the presumption under sub-section (4A) is a irrebuttable presumption in so far as it relates to the passing of an order under sub-section (5) of Section 132 and rebut table presumption for the purpose of framing a regular assessment is not correct. There is nothing either in Section 132 or any other provisions of the Act which could warrant such an inference or finding. 26. Presumption under sub-section (4A) would not be available for the purpose of framing a regular assessment. There is nothing either in Section 132 or any other provision of the Act to indicate that the presumption provided under Section 132 which is a self contained code for search and seizure and retention of books etc. can be raised for the purposes of framing of the regular assessment as well. Wherever the legislature intended the presumption to continue, it has provided so. Reference may made to Section 278D of the Act which provides that where during the course of any search under Section 132, any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or any books of account etc. Wherever the legislature intended the presumption to continue, it has provided so. Reference may made to Section 278D of the Act which provides that where during the course of any search under Section 132, any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable articles or things or any books of account etc. are tendered by the prosecution in evidence against the person concerned, then the provisions of sub-section (4A) of Section 132 shall, so far as may be, apply in relation to such assets or books of account or other documents. This clearly spells out the intention of legislature that wherever the legislature intended to continue the presumption under sub-section (4A) of Section 132, it has provided so. It has not been provided that the presumption available under Section 132 (4A) would be available for framing the regular assessment under Section143 as well." 11. He has contended that the adjustments which are made in the calculation are just and proper. He has further contended that the first issue which has been raised in this appeal that the Tribunal has in contravention to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of CIT v. British Paints (I) Ltd. 188 ITR (44) (SC) directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation of closing stock, has no relevance and force since we have reframed the issue. So far as the third issue is concerned, he has contended that the same has been wrongly misconceived by the Department. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. Coming to the first issue that whether the Tribunal was right in directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation of the closing stock, as rightly pointed out by the learned senior counsel Mr. Soparkar that the Tribunal has discussed the issue in detail in paragraph No. 21 of its order and after taking into consideration the evidence on record and on the basis of actual valuation of stock which was given by the valuer appointed by the Department, has rightly given the benefit to the assessee. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at paragraph No. 21 of the order is extracted herein below: "The valuer appointed by the Department at the time of search has valued the excess stock without labour charges at the rate of Rs. 400/- per gram. This supports the practice being prevalent in this business." 13. The relevant observation of the Tribunal at paragraph No. 21 of the order is extracted herein below: "The valuer appointed by the Department at the time of search has valued the excess stock without labour charges at the rate of Rs. 400/- per gram. This supports the practice being prevalent in this business." 13. The Tribunal has, therefore, not committed any error in accepting the contention of the assessee and directing the Assessing Officer to adopt the valuation of the closing stock. Therefore, the first issue we decide in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 14. So far as the second issue is concerned, the Tribunal after considering all the documents viz. Annexure-A-1, A-3, A-5, A-11 and A-14, has on page No. 45 of the appeal, calculated the stock and cash as per the books of account of the assessee as under:- Stock Cash LG = 6703.100 LJ = 20491.825 LJ = 119845 LG = 163170 Diamond + Gold 283015 956312 1239327/- 15. In view of above, in our view, the Tribunal has not committed any error in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed investment in show room. Therefore, we decide the issue No. 2 in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. 16. So far as issue No. 3 is concerned, this issue is not germane from the record and the same has been wrongly misconceived by the Department. Taking into consideration the detailed discussion made by the Tribunal in paragraph Nos. 36 and 37 of the order, this issue has been misconceived by the Department and hence we answer the same in favour of the assessee and against the revenue. In the result, the appeals are dismissed.