( 1 ) IN Special Civil Application No. 3605 of 2004 while issuing notice the court directed that the said petition shall be heard with Tax Appeal Nos. 539 of 2003 and 90 of 2004. Accordingly all these matters, which are interconnected, have been heard together and are taken up for final disposal with the consent of the learned Advocates for the respective parties. TAX APPEAL No. 539 OF 2003.

( 2 ) THE appellant is the assessee who has challenged the order of the Tribunal dated 10/7/2003 by proposing the following questions of law stated to arise out of ITA No. 3910/ahd/2002 for assessment year 1997-98 :" (i) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that the amount of Rs. 67. 75 lacs placed as deposit with L. T. Shroff Group is unexplained investment of the appellant and the same is not covered by the disclosure made by the appellant under VDIS ? (ii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that under VDIS 1997, along with the disclosure, the declarant has to show the basis on which yearwise figures of income was arrived at together with the manner in which the income was bifurcated on the basis of ultimate investments existing as on the cut off date ? (iii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT was perverse in as much as the ITAT has failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented from sufficient cause and could not have produced the passbook issued by the L. T Shroff Group at any stage prior to the set aside first appellate proceedings ? (iv) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the ITAT was perverse in as much as it has not properly appreciated the evidences already placed on record and insisted on some hypothetical and hiper technical evidences to be placed on record ? (v) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that CIT (A) can make fresh addition on all together different ground and reasoning after deleting the additions made by the assessing officer? (vi) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in holding that the enhancement of income made by CIT (A) is legal and within his jurisdiction in spite of the fact that the same has been on entirely different grounds which have not been even considered by the Respondent and which has resulted into assessing an altogether new source of income in the hands of the appellant ? (vii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the order of ITAT was null, void and illegal as the order passed by the Respondent has been held to be illegal, without jurisdiction, null, void and non-est and therefore no addition can be sustained based on the said order or in any subsequent proceeding emanating from the same ? (viii) Whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case the ITAT was right in law in not appreciating the alternate claim of the appellant that if the amount of Rs. 67. 75 lacs is not recovered from L. T. Shroff Group, the same may be allowed as trading loss ?"

( 3 ) HEARD Mr. S. N. Soparkar, learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant and Mr. M. R. Bhatt, learned Senior Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-revenue. ADMIT. The following substantial question of law arises for consideration :"whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the order of the Tribunal can be said to be perverse when the Tribunal has failed to appreciate that the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from producing the passbook issued by L. T. Shroff Group at any stage prior to the appellate proceedings in the second round after assessment order was set aside in the first round ?"

( 4 ) THE assessment year is 1997-98 and the relevant previous year is 31/3/1997. The assessee was assessed on total income of Rs. 67. 75 lacs by treating deposit of Rs. 67. 75 lacs with L. T. Shroff Gr