Per K.P.T. Thangal, J.M. - This appeal by the assessee is for the block period 1-4-1985 to 20-1-1996. When the matter was taken up for hearing, we found that the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee were running into more than 20 pages. Hence, we requested the assessee to file a concise grounds of appeal, which has been placed on record, and we are proceeding to decide the points involved in this appeal on the basis of this concise grounds of appeal which, according to the assessee, will take care of the entire dispute. The first ground is that the order of the Assessing Officer is opposed to law and contrary to the facts inasmuch as he has ignored all the principles of natural justice (i.e., grounds 1(a) to 1(c) of the original grounds of appeal). The next ground is also a part of the above ground and is connected with the legality of the search (i.e., grounds 2(a) to 2(d) of the original grounds of appeal).

2. This appeal came up for hearing many times before the Bench and finally it was taken up for hearing on 20-2-2003. Since the assessee could not complete the submission, the case was adjourned to 24-2-2003. It was heard again on 24-2-03 and 25-2-03 and on this occasion, the departmental representative submitted that he would require the presence of the Assessing Officer while making the submissions and sought adjournment to 3rd week of April, 2003 since the Assessing Officer would be busy with time-barring assessment. On the basis of the above request, the Bench directed the assessee’s counsel to file the written submission and supply a copy thereof to the departmental representative in advance, and the departmental representative was directed to file the reply before the next hearing date and the matter was adjourned to 22-4-03. The Bench did not function on that day. The matter was again posted to 19-5-03. When the matter was taken up for hearing on 19-5-03, a request for adjournment by the Department was placed before us, which reads as under :

"Since no one else is conversant with the case, please forward the enclosed written submission of the Departmental Representative before the Hon., Members, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ Bench for favour of their orders."

Except this letter, nobody was present on behalf of the Department before us. Hence, we rejected the request observing as under:

"The case is treated as closed. The Department may file the reply if desire so on or before 18th June, 2003 and after getting the copies the assessee if so desire a rejoinder within a week of getting the reply."

There was no oral argument advanced before us by the Department. Hence, we proceed to decide the issue on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee, which are concisely submitted in the form of written submissions, and the reply filed by the Revenue in its paper book.

3. The assessee is an officer of the Indian Administrative Service. At the time of search and seizure, he was Chairman-cum-Managing Director of Tamilnadu Minerals Ltd. (for short TAMIN), a Tamilnadu Undertaking which is engaged in mining and export of granites. He hails from a village near Trichi, namely, Arasangudi. Prior to the present posting, he was Additional Collector of Salem District, District Collector of Periyar, District Managing Director of SIPCOT and Additional Secretary to the Government of Tamilnadu. The assessee was a basket-ball player of repute, having represented the Indian Team. At the time of search, the assessee was said to be the Chief patron of the Tamilnadu Basket-ball Association (for short TNBA).

4. Assessee’s mother, late Dr. Dharmambal Namasivayam, was the first woman graduate in medicines and surgery in Trichi. She served in many capacities and at various stations of Tamilnadu and retired as a Civil Surgeon. Assessee’s father, late Namasivayam, passed away in 1991 and subsequently his mother also in July 1996. Assessee has two sons, A.D. Senthureswaran and A.D. Suguvaneswaran. Shri Senthureswaran is a bank officer an