The presumptive value attached to Section 132(4A) is not limited to an order under Section 132(5). The burden of proving that the seized documents did not belong to the assessee rested on the assessee, who failed to discharge that burden. The Tribunal's finding was perverse and a question of law had arisen.

R. Gururajan, J.—These references are at the instance of the Revenue as well as at the instance of the assessee. The facts and law involved in all these references are interrelated and hence we have heard all the three references together. A common order is passed in this order disposing of all these three references. The two references at the instance of the Revenue are I. T. R. C. Nos. 39 and 40 of 1996.

Facts in I. T. R, C. No. 39 of 1996 :

2. This reference relates to the assessment in the case of P. R. Metrani, a Hindu undivided family (for short "the HUF") for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessment was initially concluded on September 17, 1984, in terms of Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act). The controversy relates to an income assessed for a sum of Rs. 19,95,117. A search was conducted by the Department in the residential premises of Metrani, viz., Ranganatha Nilaya, and during the search, documents were seized and based on the search documents two items were added, viz., Rs. 7,26,810 and Rs. 12,68,307, totalling to Rs. 19,95,117 as earned in business for the assessment year 1981-82. The assessing authority in the order dated September 17, 1984, referred to these additions by relying on PRMS 1 and 13. PRM 1 refers to a net profit of Rs. 7,26,810 from Bombay and Parel transactions and PRM 13 is based on other income, totalling Rs. 12,68,307 (Rs. 8,05,000 + Rs. 4,63,507). The assessing authority ordered a total income to the extent of Rs. 20,32,814 including Rs. 19,95,117. The Commissioner of Income Tax in terms of the power conferred on him under Section 263 of the Act interfered with the order dated September 17, 1984. He directed the assessing authority to pass a fresh order after giving an opportunity in the light of the documents seized in terms of the search and seizure carried out by the Department. Pursuant to the direction, the assessing authority issued a notice under the Act to Mr. P. R. Metrani, the karta of the Hindu undivided family in addition to issuing summons to the parties. The statements were recorded. An order dated June 30, 1987, under Section 143(3) of the Act was passed holding that in terms of the presumption granted to the Department under Section 132(4A) it was ordered that Rs. 4,30,131 (PRM 14) and Rs. 3,08,504 is assessable as unexplained expenditure. He revised the total income in his order dated June 30, 1987. Aggrieved by the order dated September 17, 1984, as initially concluded under Section 143(3) of the Act the assessee preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) in Appeal No. I. T. A. 123/CC of 1984-85. The assessing authority has included a sum of Rs. 19,95,117 based on PRM 1 and 13. The assessee contested these additions as well. The assessee also preferred another appeal being Appeal No. I. T. A. 34/CC of 1987-88, with regard to the addition of Rs. 3,08,504 in terms of the order dated June 30, 1987, passed by the Assessing Officer for the assessment year 1981-82. The Commissioner finalised the appeal I. T. A. No. 123/CC of 1984-85, by his order dated September 12, 1988. The Commissioner also disposed of the other Appeal No. I. T. A. 34/CC of 1987-88, vide his order dated September 19, 1988. The Commissioner upheld the addition of Rs. 19,95,117 in his order dated September 12, 1988. Further, he upheld the addition of Rs. 3,08,504 in his order dated September 19, 1988.

3. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (for short "the Tribunal").

4. The Commissioner also passed an order dated October 29, 1986, in exercise of his revisional power under Section 263 in relation to the assessment year 1981-82 towards the expenditure in terms of PRM 14. The assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against this order in I. T. A. No. 1285/Bang of 1986. The Tribunal dismissed this appeal vide its order dated October 18, 1993. The appeal in Appeal No. I. T. A. 41/Bang of 1989,