GAUTAM STEEL, MUMBAI V. ITO 22(2)(3), MUMBAI

CO 196/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4533 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 260A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI. J. SUDHAKAR REDDY (A.M.) AND SHRI. R.S . PADVEKAR (J.M.) ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001 INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(2), C-10, 2ND FLR., R.NO.204, PRATAYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 51. VS. M/S. GAUTAM STEEL A-1/6, JEEVAN NAGAR, MITHAGAR RD., MULUND (E), MUMBAI 400 081. PAN : AAAFG3699M (APPLICANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2000-2001 M/S. GAUTAM STEEL A-1/6, JEEVAN NAGAR, MITHAGAR RD., MULUND (E), MUMBAI 400 081. PAN : AAAFG3699M VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 23(2), C-10, 2ND FLR., R.NO.204, PRATAYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BKC, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI 51. (CROSS OBJECTOR) (RESPONDENT) APPLICANT BY : MR. MOHD. USMAN RESPONDENT BY : MR. PRAKASH PANDIT O R D E R PER R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL CHALLENGING THE I MPUGNED ORDER OF THE CIT(A), MUMBAI, DATED 30.01.2009 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2000-2001. THIS APPEAL IS ARISING OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961. 2. THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GR OUNDS, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 2 I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTIC E ISSUED U/S.147 WAS INVALID AND THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT MADE U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 AS VOID. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTIC E U/S.147 SUFFERED FOR THE WANT OF COMPLIANCE OF THE CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SAID SECTION. III) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND, ALTER, SUBSTITUTE OR MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUND OR ADD A FRESH GROUND AS AND WHEN FOUND NECESSARY EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 3.1 THE FACTS REVEAL FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF EXPORT ING OF STAINLESS STEEL UTENSILS AND CUTLERIES TO FOREIGN COUNTRIES FOR LAS T MORE THAN 15 YEARS. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-2001, THE ASSESSEE WAS 100 % EXPORT ORIENTED UNIT AND ALSO CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S.80HHC WHICH WAS EQUIVALENT TO THE GROSS INCOME OF RS.54,16,525/-. 3.2 THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 O F THE I.T. ACT BY THE DIRECTOR OF THE INVESTIGATION (H.Q.)- 3 IN THE CASE OF SHRI JAYANTILAL L SHAH AND HIS SONS NAMELY; SHRI PRADEEP J SHAH AND S HRI HITESH J SHAH. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT SHRI SHAH MADE A STATEMENT ON 26.02.2001 THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN BOGUS BILLS IN STAINLESS STEEL MARKET TO THE TUNE OF RS.24.00 C RORES FOR THE YEAR ENDED ON 31.03.2000 AND CHARGED A COMMISSION FOR THE SAME . THE D.D.I. (H.Q.)-3 PASSED SAID INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFORMATION, MORE PARTICULARLY RE LYING ON THE STATEMENT OF JAYANTILAL L. SHAH AND OTHERS AND ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSMENT U/S.158BC R.W.S. 158BD OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE BLOC K PERIOD 01.04.1991 TO 26.02.2001 ON 10.01.2002. 3.3. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ASSESSMENT U/S.1 58BD R.W.S.143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 28.01.2004 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 3 BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.2,04,55,604/-. THE SAID ASSESSME NT INCLUDED NOTHING BUT THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASED MADE FROM JAYANTILAL L SHAH AND OTHERS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHO DISMISSED THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND VIDE ORDER DATED 28.11.2005 THE TRIBUN AL ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON JURISDICTIONAL GROUND HOLD ING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ASSUMING JURISDICTION U/S.158BD OF THE I.T. ACT AND QUASHED THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT ADJUDICATE THE GROUNDS TAKEN ON ME RIT AS THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED ON JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE. 3.4 SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED T HE PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 AND ISSUED THE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S.148 OF TH E ACT ON 31.03.2007 FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. THE ASSESSEE INFORMED THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER THAT THE RETURN FILE FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01 ON 19.01.2001 MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN FILE IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SEC.148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE REASONS RECORDED FOR ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT. 3.5 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURNISHED REASONS TO THE ASSESSEE AND AS PER REASONS RECORDED, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ISSUE OF N ON-GENUINENESS WAS COVERED UNDER THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD U/S.158BD R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT AND, THE SAME WAS NOT CONSIDERED WHILE PRO CESSING THE RETURN FILED U/S.143(1) OF THE I.T. ACT FOR THE A.Y. 2000-01. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.95,40,410/- HAS BEEN SUP PRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE ASSESSEE FILED AN OBJECTION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE ITS LETTER DATED 12.09.2007 FOR ISSUING HIM A NOTICE U/S.148. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DISPOSE OFF HIS APPLICATION BY PASSING AN APPROPRIATE ORDER. THE ASSESSEE ALSO REQUESTED TH E ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE COPY OF THE SANCTION GIVEN BY THE ADDL. CIT(A) AS P ER PROVISION OF SECTION 151 OF THE I.T. ACT. IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSING OFFIC ER DID NOT GIVE REPLY TO THE ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 4 ASSESSEE BUT PROCEEDED WITH BY GIVING A QUESTIONER DATED 05.11.2007 TOGETHER WITH NOTICE U/S.143(7) OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED A LETTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 08.11.2007 A ND ALSO FILED COPY OF THE CORRESPONDENCE, IT HAD WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDE D WITH THE ASSESSMENT. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED WRIT PETITION IN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT GRANTED INTERIM STAY FOR THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTE R LONG DRAWN PROCESS OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUB MISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS EVIDENCE ON RECORD, MADE THE HI GH PITCHED ASSESSMENT BY MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.95,40,410/- TOWARDS AL LEGED UNAPPROVED PURCHASES U/S.69C OF THE I.T. ACT. THE ASSESSEE C HALLENGED THE AUTHORITY OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE A NOTICE U/S.148 BY TAKI NG CONTENTION THAT THE SAID NOTICE WAS INVALID AS IT WAS IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME ESCAPED FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT AND WHICH HAS A LREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING ASSESSMENT ORDER U/ S. 158BD R.W.S. 143 OF THE I.T. ACT AS PER THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF CHAPT ER XIV-B OF THE I.T. ACT. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT AS THE PROVISIONS U/S.14 7 ARE INITIATED ON THE SAME FACTS AND EVIDENCE WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PROCEEDING U/S.158BD OF THE I.T. ACT AND HENCE, THE PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE A.O. WAS BAD IN LAW. THE ASSESSEE FOUND FAVOUR WITH TH E LEARNED CIT(A) WHO WAS THE OPINION THAT A NOTICE U/S.148 HAS BEEN ISSUED B EYOND THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS AND REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON MATERIAL GATHERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO OTHER MATERIAL BEFORE THE A.O. TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) THE ASSESSEES CASE WAS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN CASE OF SMT. M IRA A. NAIK (221 CTR 147(B0M) PANJIM BENCH. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD T HAT THE NOTICE U/S.148 ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INVALID AND HE, CANCELLED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. . NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 5 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION OF THE PARTIE S AND ALSO PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FACTS ARE STATED DETAIL HERE IN A BOVE. IT IS NOT DISPUTED IN THIS CASE THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S.158BD WAS FRAMED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IN CONSEQUENT OF SEARCH AND SEIZER OPERATION U/S.13 2 OF THE ACT AGAINST JAYANTILAL SHAH & OTHERS. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED IN THIS CASE THAT THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS QUASHE D BY THE TRIBUNAL WHILE ORDER DATED 28.11.2005 AND THAT WAS NOT CHALL ENGED BY THE REVENUE. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCE EDING U/S.147 AND ISSUED THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.148. THE ARGUMENT S OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S.147 AND THE BASIS FOR THE SAME WAS THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH AGAINST SHRI JAYANTILAL SHAH AND THERE WAS NO OTHER MATERIAL BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE THE NOTICE U/S.148 TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEES CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY (PANJIM BENCH) IN THE CASE OF SMT. MIRA NAIK AND OTHERS (SUPRA). WE, THEREFORE, PLEADED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW MAY BE CONFIRMED. PER CONTR A THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPORTED THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR I SSUING NOTICE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S.148 OF THE I.T. ACT. 6. IN THE CASE OF SMT. MIRA A. NAIK (SUPRA) THERE W AS A SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF LATE ANANT NAIK AND HIS FAMILY U/S.132 OF THE ACT AND SOME ASSETS WERE SEIZED AND STATEMENTS WERE ALSO RECORDE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN THE CASE O F LATE ANANT NAIK WAS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCH VIDE ORDER DATE D 07.06.1999 THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE WAS ISSUED THE NOTICE U/S.1 48 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN THAT CASE THE OBJECTION WAS RAISED FOR ISSUING THE NOTIC E U/S.148 BY STATING THAT THE NOTICE DID NOT DISCLOSED ANY REASON OTHER THAN THE REASONS ON WHICH BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS MADE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE NOTICE U/S.148 BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION U/S.226 OF THE CONSTITUTION BE FORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY AT PANJIM (GOA). THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT ALLOWED THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HELD AS UNDER: ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 6 22. FOR THE PRESENT PETITION, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO CONSIDER AND DETERMINED OR DECIDE ANY LARGER ISSUES OR CONTR OVERSY. THE FACTUAL SITUATION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS UNDISP UTED. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS CULMINATED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT, WHICH BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS SUBJECT-MATT ER OF CHALLENGE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE PETITIONERS PERUSA L OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WOULD REVEAL THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS CALLED UPON TO DECIDE THE CONTENTIONS, WHICH HAVE BEEN RAISED I N PARA OF ONE OF ITS ORDERS. ONE OF THE CONTENTIONS RAISED WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT EXTENDS TO INCOME DISCLOSED IN REGULAR P ROCEEDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE TRIBUNAL HAS PE RMITTED AUTHORITIES TO MAKE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND THEREA FTER IN PAA 12 OF THE ORDER HAS GONE INTO THE DETAILS OF THE SE ARCH PROCEEDINGS. THEREAFTER, IT CONSIDERED THE LAW OR THE POINT AND SUBSEQUENTLY HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE SUS TAINED AND THE APPEAL CHALLENGING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE D ESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. REASONS ARE CONTAINED IN PARAS 12 TO 18 OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE SEARCH AND SEIZ URE PROCEEDINGS WERE COMMENTED UPON AND IT IS WORTHWHIL E NOTING THAT THE ORDERS WERE DELIVERED ON 7 TH JUNE 1999 AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DEPARTMENT CHALLENGED THEM UNDER 260A OF THE I.T. ACT BUT EVEN THAT CHALLENGE IN THIS COURT HAS FAILED. 23. IT IS ALSO NOT DISPUTED BEFORE US THAT THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT WAS CARRIED OUT AND THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS THE SUBJECT-MATTER OF THE PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, THE NOTICES WHICH MERELY STATE THAT THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT T HE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANYTHING MORE, CANNOT BE SAID TO BE SOMETHING WHICH WOULD ENABLE THE AUTHORITIES TO INVOLVE SEC.147 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE PECULIAR FACTS OF TH IS CASE. THE NOTICES ARE IDENTICAL AND NEITHER ANY DETAILS OF TH E INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX ARE DISCLOSED IN THE NOTICE NOR I T HAS BEEN SET OUT AS TO HOW THAT CAN BE TERMED AS HAVING ESCAPED ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE MEANING OF S.147. THE REASO NS ARE SUPPLIED ARE RECORDED IN AN ORDER SHEET FOR THE YEA RS IN QUESTION. THE REASONS IN THE ORDER-SHEETS AND THE SAME BEING SUPPLIED ONLY AFTER REMINDERS TO THE DEPARTMENT. THERE IS MUCH SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTIONS OF SHRI NADKARNI THAT THE SEARCH HAVING RESULTED IN BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND THE DEPARTMENT HAVING RESORTED TO S.158BA TO S.158BC OF THE I.T. ACT, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INCOME ESCAPED ASSE SSMENT. IN THESE PROCEEDINGS THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED AND TAXED AFTER IT WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MERELY BECAUSE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS NOT UPHELD BY THE AUTHORITIES UNDER THE I.T. ACT, IT CANNOT BE REASON ENOUGH IN THIS CASE TO INVOKE S.147OF THE SAME. THE INCOME HAS N OT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE ADMITTED FACTUAL POSITION. WE A RE OF THE VIEW THAT EVEN THE ORDER SHEET DOES NOT MEET THE RE QUIREMENT IN LAW. THE SAME MERELY SETS OUT THAT THE SEIZED MATE RIAL AND INQUIRIES WITH THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, REVEAL THAT THE INCOME AS PER PARTICULARS IS UNACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF THE SEIZURE. THEREFORE, THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE INCOME HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. THE REASONS CLEARL Y SHOW ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 7 THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCES TO ANY BLOCK ASSESSMENT OR THE PROCEEDINGS PURSUANT THERETO. 31. IN OUR VIEW, IT IS THE ATTEMPT OF THE DEPARTMEN T TO SOMEHOW OR THE OTHER REOPEN THE PROCEEDINGS AND MOR E PARTICULARLY THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHICH THEY COULD NOT SUCCESSFULLY SUPPORT AND SUSTAIN RIGHT UPTO THIS CO URT. THAT THIS IS THE ATTEMPTS WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE NOT ICES AND, THEREFORE, THE REASONS WHICH ARE RELIED UPON FAIL T O INDICATE ANY ESCAPEMENT OR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE OR SUPPRESSION OF ANY MATERIAL FACTS BY HIM. THEREFO RE, THEY DO NOT MEET THE REQUIRED SATISFACTION U/S.147 OF THE I .T. ACT. IN FACT, THIS IS AN INSTANCE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE BEFO RE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAO THAKUR NAR AYAN SINGH (SUPRA). 32. ON THIS GROUND ALONE, THE PETITION DESERVES TO BE ALLOWED. ANY LARGER ISSUE NEED NOT BE CONSIDERED. IN THE VIEW WE HAVE TAKEN ON MERITS, THE AMBIT AND SCOPE O F THE POWERS OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND RESORT TO S.147 THEREAFTER BEING IMPERMISSIBLE, IS A MATTER WHICH NEED NOT BE GONE INTO IN FURTHER DETAILS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ADMITTED FACTUA L POSITION. THE ARGUMENTS ON MALA FIDES AND BIAS ALSO NEED NOT BE A NSWERED IN THIS CASE FOR THE SAME REASON. 7. AS FAR AS PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED ON THE PERUS AL OF THE RECORD WE FIND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 147 ARE INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ADMITTEDLY T HE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WAS ALSO FRAMED WHICH WAS QUASHED BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS A LSO ON THE SAME EVIDENCE AND SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE COURSE OF SEARC H. NOTHING IS ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THERE WAS ANY THING MORE BEFORE THE A. O. FOR FORMATION FOR BELIEF AS CONTEMPLATED UNDER SEC.147 OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, LEGISLATURE SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THE PROCEDURE FOR DEALING WIT H THE CASE IN WHICH SEARCH AND SEIZER OPERATION IS CARRIED OUT U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT. IN OUR OPINION, THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THE CASE OF SMT. MIRA NAIK (SUPRA) ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE TO T HE ASSESSEES CASE. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW NO INTERFERE IS CALLED FOR IN T HE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND SAME IS ACCORDINGLY UPHELD. 8. SO FAR AS ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS CONCERNE D IT BECAME INFRACTUOS AS THE REVENUE APPEAL IS DISMISSED UPHOLDING THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AS ENTIRE ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS QUASHED. ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 8 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSES SEES CROSS OBJECTION IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS DAY OF 9 TH MARCH, 2010. SD/- (J. SUDHAKAR REDDY) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) MUMBAI, DATED 9 TH MARCH, 2010. JANHAVI/NEELAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIII, MUMB AI 4. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CITY-XIII, MUMBAI 5. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, BENCH B, MUMBAI //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI ITA NO.2308/MUM/2009 C.O. NO.196/MUM/2009 A.Y.: 2000-2001 9 DATE INITIALS 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 03-03-10 PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 04-03-10 PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/J M 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON PS 7. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK PS 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER