Per Shri Satish Chandra, AM - The appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29-11-1996 of the ACIT, Circle 1(1), Indore, under section 158BC read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 for the block period 1987-88 to 20-11-1995.

2. The assessee has taken 17 grounds of appeal. In first three ground Nos. 1 to 3, the assessee has raised preliminary objections. Ground Nos. 4 to 14 challenged the assessment on merits. In ground No. 15, levy of surcharge @ 15 per cent on the demand raised has been challenged. Ground Nos. 16 and 17 are of general nature. The preliminary ground Nos. 1 to 3 read as under :

"1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer has erred in recording a finding that a search was conducted in the business premises of the assessee company which is contrary to the facts on records and such aversions of Assessing Officer are erroneous in law and to guard the assessment framed under section 158BC, which is not sustainable in law.

2. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in making an assessment under section 158BC and his reference to the Valuation Officer and District Valuation Officer is erroneous in law and contrary to the provisions of Chapter XIV-B of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

3. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in determining the alleged undisclosed income contrary to the provisions of section 158B(b) arbitrarily."

3. It is submitted by Shri H.C. Sarda, the learned counsel of the assessee that the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of construction and sale of residential and commercial buildings. The business premises of the assessee-company is situated at 380, Jawahar Marg, Indore. He submitted that no search had been conducted at the business premises of the assessee-company and as such the Assessing Officer is wrong in stating in para 1 of the order that search was conducted in the business premises of the company on 21-11-1995. Our attention was drawn to the Panchnama appearing at page 1 of the assessee’s compilation which clearly shows that warrant was issued in case of Shri Rameshwar R. Maheshwari and Smt. Lalitadevi and the place to be searched was G.F. Surya Appartments 2/5, South Tukoganj, Indore (MP). It was pointed put that Shri Rameshwar R. Maheshwari, is Director in Indore Constn. P. Ltd., the assessee. He, therefore, vehemently asserted that there was no search in the case of the assessee-company. He argued that the word ‘person’ is defined in sub-section 31 of section 2 of the Act. It would be seen therefrom that a company is a distinct and separate entity from that of an individual. Our attention was drawn to the statement of Shri Rameshwar R. Maheshwari recorded on 21-11-1995 i.e. on the date of search, copy of which appears at pp. 3-5 of the assessee’s paper book. In the question No. 2 thereof, the said Shri Maheshwari was asked about the source of his income. In reply thereto, he deposed that his profession is that of tax consultant ‘R.R.Maheshwari & Co., 380, Jawahar Marg’. In continuation, he deposed that he is director in Indore Constn. Pvt. Ltd. Jawahar Marg, whose business is construction work. Shri Sarda submitted that the search had taken place at ground floor Surya Apartments 2/5, South Tukoganj, Indore and not at 380, Jawahar Marg, Indore, which is the address of the assessee-company. Further, our attention was invited to question No. 5 . It was asked as to where the books of account relating to business are kept. In reply thereto, it was deposed by Shri Maheshwari that books relating to business are kept in office at 380, Jawahar Marg. Our attention was also invited to question No. 11, wherein Shri Maheshwari was asked whether he could produce the books of account relating to business for enquiry. In reply thereto, Shri Meheshwari stated in the affirmative that "‘yes’, it can be. Record is in office which I can produce before you here." Shri Sarda submitted that the records of the assessee-company were lying in the office at 380, Jawa