Dy. CIT, Hyderabad V. Shri K.Harischandra Prasad, Vijayawada

ITA 1131/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6515 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 12-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B KURMI NAIDU
• Assessee Lawyers: M CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 132; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES B : HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1221/H/2013 2003 - 04 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD, VIJAYAWADA PAN ABHPL3789M 1166/H/2013 2004 - 05 1167/H/2013 2005 - 06 1168/H/2013 2006 - 07 CROSS OBJECTION NO. ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 70/H/2013 1221/H/2013 2003-04 MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD, VIJAYAWADA PAN ABHPL3789M DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. 60/H/2013 1166/H/2013 2004-05 61/H/2013 1167/H/2013 2005-06 62/H/2013 1168/H/2013 2006-07 ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1161/H/2013 2005 - 06 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. MR. TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU, VIJAYAWADA PANAASPT3145K 1162/H/2013 2006 - 07 CROSS OBJECTION NO. ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 57/H/2013 1162/H/2013 2006-07 MR. TUMMALA SRI RAM BABU, VIJAYAWADA PAN AASPT3145K DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1170/H/2013 2003 - 04 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. MR. LINGAM RAVINDRA RAO, VIJAYAWADA PANAAMPL1674R 1171/H/2013 2004 - 05 1172/H/2013 2005 - 06 1173/H/2013 2006 - 07 2 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA CROSS OBJECTION NO. ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 64/H/2013 1170/H/2013 2003-04 MR. LINGAM RAVINDRA RAO, VIJAYAWADA PAN AAMPL1674R DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. 65/H/2013 1171/H/2013 2004-05 66/H/2013 1172/H/2013 2005-06 67/H/2013 1173/H/2013 2006-07 ITA.NO. A.Y. APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1130/H/2013 2004 - 05 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. MR. K. HARISCHANDRA PRASAD, VIJAYAWADA. PAN AHOPK5865E 1131/H/2013 2006 - 07 CROSS OBJECTION NO. ARISING OUT OF ITA.NO. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR RESPONDENT 56/H/2013 1130/H/2013 2004-05 MR. K. HARISCHANDRA PRASAD, VIJAYAWADA. PAN AHOPK5865E DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, HYDERABAD. 72/H/2013 1131/H/2013 2006-07 FOR REVENUE : MR. B. KURMI NAIDU FOR ASSESSEE : MR. M. CHANDRAMOULESWARA RAO DATE OF HEARING : 12.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 3 1 .05.2016 ORDER PER BENCH : THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07. THE ASSESSEES HAVE AL SO FILED THEIR CROSS OBJECTIONS TO THE ABOVE APPEALS. SINCE, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS, TH E APPEALS ARE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED O F BY THIS COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA ITA.NO.1221/HYD/2013 REVENUE APPEAL A.Y. 2003-0 4: 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL, DERIVING INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND SA LARY. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECT ION 132 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE GROUP CASES OF AMR CONSTRUCTIONS ON 16.12.2008. CONSEQUENT TO THE FIND ING OF INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF SAID COMPANY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WERE ALSO CONDUCTED IN THE CASE O F MR. LINGAM TULASI PRASAD AND OTHERS IN JANUARY, 2009. THEREAFTER, NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.06.2009 CALLING FOR TH E RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2008-09. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RET URN OF INCOME ON 31.07.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,47,798. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SERVED WITH THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 143(2)/142(1) OF THE ACT, REQ UIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS/INFORMATION ETC. HOWEV ER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY INFORMATION AS CALLED FOR NOR WAS THERE ANY RESPONSE FROM HIM. THEREFORE, THE A.O . PROCEEDED TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 MAKING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF (1) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST CLAIMED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS AND (2) UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE CAPIT AL ACCOUNT. 4 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA 2.1. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A) WHO DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.6,62,998 AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT CONFIRME D THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE CAPITAL ACCO UNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,90,000. AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE ADDITIONS CON FIRMED BY THE CIT(A). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETT ER DATED 11 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 HAS FILED REVISED FORM-36A AND HAS ALSO FILED THE MODIFIED CROSS-OBJECTION NO.3 CHALLE NGING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A O F THE ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ON RECORD AND NO FRESH FACTS NEED TO BE VERIFIED FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS GROUND. IT IS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT THIS GROUND GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND IS A LEGA L GROUND AND THEREFORE, SHOULD BE ADMITTED AND ADJUDICATED B Y THIS TRIBUNAL. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE PLACED R ELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN T HE CASE OF NTPC REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383 (SC) WHEREIN T HE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY R AISE A LEGAL GROUND AT ANY STAGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS INCL UDING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AND THE TRIBUNAL IS EMPOW ERED TO ADMIT AND ADJUDICATE SUCH GROUND, IF AND WHEN IT IS RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA 4. THE LD. D.R. HOWEVER, OPPOSED ADMISSION OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE H AD NOT RAISED SUCH GROUND EITHER BEFORE THE A.O. WHO H AS INITIATED THE PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND THEREFORE, THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE CHALLENGED AT THIS STAGE. 5. HAVING REGARD TO THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT GROUND NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 11.11.2014 IS A LEGAL GR OUND AND THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE ALL ON RECORD. THEREFORE , RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC (CITED SUPRA), WE ADMIT THE MODIFIED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 AND PROCEED TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS UNDER. 5.1. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND WE FIND THAT THERE I S NO RECORDING BY THE A.O. THAT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERI AL HAS BEEN FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ARE NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH BUT ARE BASED ON THE RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE THAT WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE INCOME RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE OR ON THE BASIS OF THE BOO KS OF 6 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, IT IS ALSO THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURNS FO R ALL THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND SINCE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING AND HAD NOT ABATED, AND THAT FOR A LL THE YEARS, TIME FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 3(2) OF THE ACT HAD ALSO LAPSED, THE ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE MADE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : (I) CIT VS. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS REPORTED IN 374 ITR 645 (BOM.) (II) M/S. IDEAL APPLIANCES CO. PVT. LTD., VS. DCIT, MUMBAI IN ITA.NO.173/MUM/2015 AND OTHERS DATED 31.12.2015. (III) SREE EDUCATIONAL SOCIETY VS. ACIT IN ITA.NO.111 TO 117/HYD/2014 DATED 11.03.2016. (IV) CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA IN ITA.NO.707/2014 DATED 28.8.15. 6. THE LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE A.O. IS EMPOWERED TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON THE BAS IS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE BEFORE HIM AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENTS. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CONTENTION, HE HAS PLACED RELIANCE UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD., (2015) 64 7 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA TAXMANN.COM 34 (SC); (2) CIT VS. RAJKUMAR (2014) 367 ITR 517 AND GOPAL LAL BHADRUKA 346 ITR 106 (A.P.). 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS ARE ALL DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS AND THEREFORE, ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF T HE CASE BEFORE US. 8. WE FIND THAT FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURNS OF INCOME AND TH E STATUTORY TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT HAD ALSO LAPSED BEFORE THE DATE O F SEARCH AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING AND HENCE, NOT ABATED. 8.1. LET US FIRST EXAMINE THE APPLICABILITY OF TH E DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D.R. IN THE CASE O F THE CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION (NHAVA SHAVA) LTD., (CITED SUPRA), THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ONLY GRANTED SLP AGAINST THE RULING OF THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURTS FINDING THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE I N RESPECT OF ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE BECOME FINAL IF N O INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING SEARCH OR DU RING 153A PROCEEDINGS. IT IS SEEN THAT THE HONBLE APEX COURT HAS NOT STAYED OR SUSPENDED THE OPERATION OF THE DE CISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AND THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE HIGH COURTS DECISION CANNO T BE FOLLOWED. IN THE CASE OF RAJ KUMAR ARORA (CITED SUP RA), THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT WAS CONSIDERING TH E CASE WHERE IN ADDITION TO THE MATERIAL FOUND AND SE IZED 8 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE A.O. HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF ALSO GIFTS IN RESPECT OF WHICH NO INCRI MINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND IT WAS IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE A.O. HAS THE POWER TO RE-ASSESS THE RETURNS OF THE ASSESSEE NOT ONLY FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME , WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION BUT ALS O WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL THAT WAS AVAILABLE AT T HE TIME OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE OF GOPAL LA L BHADRUKA (CITED SUPRA), THE QUESTION BEFORE THE HON BLE HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER, FOR THE PURPOSE OF COMPUTIN G INCOME UNDER SECTION 153A/153C OF THE ACT, THE A.O. IS REQUIRED TO CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY TO THE MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND IT WAS IN ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION THAT THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THE A.O. CAN TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION MATE RIAL OTHER THAN WHAT WAS AVAILABLE DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION FOR MAKING AN ASSESSMENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ABOVE DECISIONS ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM ASSESSEES CASE ON FACTS. 8.2. AS REGARDS THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTIC (CITED SUPRA), IS WITH REGARD TO THE CORRECTNESS OF THE DE CISION OF THE SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF AL L CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTIC REPORTED IN (2012) 18 ITR (TRIBU.) 106 (MUM.) (SB) AND THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS 9 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS FOUNDED ON SEARCH AND IF THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH, THEN THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HO LDING THAT THE POWER UNDER SECTION 153A BEING NOT EXPECTE D TO BE EXERCISED ROUTINELY, SHOULD BE EXERCISED IF THE SEARCH REVEALED ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE HONBLE DE LHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA IN ITA.NO.707/2014 AND OTHERS DATED 28.08.2015 HAS SUMMARIZED THE LEGAL POSITION ON THE ISSUE AS UNDER : SUMMARY OF THE LEGAL POSITION: 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT; , READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER : I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ; NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX A.YS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE A Y IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH A YS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE A.O. WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT A.Y. IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN 10 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX A.YS. ''IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH A Y ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE A.O. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED 11 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. CONCLUSION 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN A YS, 2002-0~ 2005-06 AND 2006-07. ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITIONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. 39. THE QUESTION FRAMED BY THE COURT IS ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 8.3. THUS, IN THE ABOVE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHERE ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT PENDING, THERE CANNOT BE ANY ABATEMENT OF THE ASSESSMENTS AND HENCE, THE A.O. HA S NO POWER TO BRING TO TAX ANY INCOME ON THE BASIS OF TH E MATERIAL OR RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE FACTS OF THE CASE BEFORE US ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF THE CASES IN THESE DECISION S AND THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE JUDGMEN TS, THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED. ACCORDINGLY, GRO UND NO.3 OF THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR ALL THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07. SINCE GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED, OTHER GROUNDS ON THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIO NS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) HAVE BECOME ACADEMIC AND HENCE, NEED NO ADJUDICATION. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND N O.3 IS ALLOWED AND THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE A.YS. 2003-0 4 TO 12 ITA.NOS.1221/HYD/2013 ETC., BATCH MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD AND OTHERS, VIJAYAWADA 2006-07 ARE HEREBY QUASHED. SINCE THE ASSESSMENTS A RE QUASHED, THE REVENUE APPEALS ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, REVENUE APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. 10. TO SUM-UP, REVENUE APPEALS FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS OBJECTIO NS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.YS. 2003-04 TO 2006-07 ARE P ARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31.05. 2016. SD/- SD/- (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI) ACOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 31 ST MAY, 2016 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-3, 8 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 2. MR. LINGAM TULSI PRASAD, 64-9-2, SBH COMPLEX, PATAMATA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 3. MR. TUMMALA SRIRAM BABU, 64-9-2, SBH COMPLEX, PATAMATA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 4. MR. LINGAM RAVINDRA RAO, 64-9-2, SBH COMPLEX, PATAMATA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 5. MR. K. HARISCHANDRA PRASAD, 64-9-2, SBH COMPLEX, PATAMATA LANKA, VIJAYAWADA. 6. CIT(A)-V, HYDERABAD. 7. CIT-(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD. 8. D.R. ITAT B BENCH, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABA D. 9. GUARD FILE.