Jain Infra Projects Ltd., Kolkata V. ACIT, CC-IV, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 1237/KOL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4196 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-09-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PINAKI MUKHERJEE
• Assessee Lawyers: AMIT KUMAR
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Peak credit; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132; 154; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAI NI, AM ./ ITA NO.1237/KOL/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-2009) JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD., 39, SHAKESPEARE SARAI, KOLKATA-700017 VS. ACIT, CC-IV, PODDAR COURT, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700001 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AACCB 9831 F ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) AND ./ ITA NO.1244/KOL/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-2009) MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 39, SHAKESPEARE SARAI, KOLKATA-700017 VS. ACIT, CC-IV, KOLKATA PODDAR COURT, 18, RABINDRA SARANI, KOLKATA-700001 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. :AAIHM9669P ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KUMAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY : SHRI PINAKI MUKHERJEE, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 10/11/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30/11/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PE RTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN ORD ER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), CENTRAL-1, KO LKATA IN APPEAL NO.73/CC-IV/CIT(A), C-1/10-11 & NO.75/CC-IV/CIT(A) , C-1/10-11, DATED 02.08.2011 AND 01.07.2011, WHICH IN TURN ARISE OUT OF ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION. 143(3) OF THE INCOME ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 2 TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHORT THE ACT), DATED 31.03.200 8 AND 31.12.2009, RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE S AME ASSESSEE GROUP, SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR, COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED , THEREFORE, THESE HAVE BEEN CLUBBED AND HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLID ATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. WE TAKE ITA NO.1244/KOL/2011 AS A LEAD CASE. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE QUA THE ASSESSEE ARE THA T A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE I.T.ACT, 1961, WAS CARRIED OUT ON 18.3.2008 AT THE RESIDENCE OF MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON 18.3.2008 AT THE OFFICE OF THE GROUP COMPANIES, JAI N INFRA PROJECTS LTD. THE ASSESSEE GROUP IS MAINLY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINES S ACTIVITY OF INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT AND TRADING ETC. THE GRO UP HAS ALSO INVESTED HUGE MONEY IN LAND AND PROPERTIES AND RAISED SHARE CAPITAL THROUGH ACCOMMODATION TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LE TTER DATED 19.2.2009 BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER STATING THAT SOME OF THE ASSETS AND DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF THE GROUP WHIC H ARE OUTSIDE THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE GROUP CONCERNS BEL ONGS TO IT. IN THE SAID LETTER, THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME MADE U/S.132(4) OF OF THE ACT, OF RS. 8.75 C RORES WAS ON BEHALF OF ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 3 THE ASSESSEE. THE AO WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S.14 3(3) OBSERVED THE FOLLOWINGS :- CASH LOAN:- IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVING IDENTIFICATION MARK GB/8, GB/23, GB/13, GB/14 AND GB/15, THERE ARE NOTING OF CASH LO AN RECEIVED DURING THE-F.Y-2006-07 AND F.Y.2007-08. THERE IS RE PETITION OF THE NOTING IN THE VARIOUS SEIZED DOCUMENTS. DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING ASSESSEE FILED A CHART SHOWING UNSECURED LOAN RECEIVED AND PAID AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS. ASSESSEE'S SUBMIS SION IS REPRODUCED BELOW: AS SUBMITTED ABOVE, FOR THE LOAN ENTRIES, MLS MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) HAS APPLIED PEAK THEORY AND OFFERED THE PEAK BALANCE OF RS.4,91,500,000/-- AS INCOME IN THE A.Y 2007-08 & 2008-09. PLEASE FIND ENCLOSED HEREWITH THE WORKING OF PEAK B ALANCE. IN THE F Y2006-07 THE PEAK BALANCE WAS RS.40, 00,000/- AND IN THE F. Y. 2007-08 THE PEAK BALANCE WAS RS.4,91,50,000/-. SINC E THE PEAK BALANCE OF RS.40,00,000/- WAS OFFERED TO TAX IN THE A.Y.2007-08, THE INCREASE IN PEAK BALANCE OF RS. 4,51,50,000/- H AS BEEN OFFERED IN THE A.Y 2008-09. THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS RECEIPT AND UTILIZED FOR CERTAIN APPLICATION OF FUND. IN ITS SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSEE FURTHER DISCLOSED A DDITIONAL INCOME IN ADDITION TO THE INCOME OF RS.8.75 CR DISCLOSED O N 19-03-2008 U/S 132(4). THE DETAILS OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOMES I NCLUDING INCOME DISCLOSED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE AS UNDE R: - ASST. YEAR AMOUNT 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 21,00,000/- 10,50,000/- 21,00,000/- 24,50,000/- 5,00,000/- 3,93,00,000/- 4,40,10,000/- 9,15,10,000/- AND THE ADDITIONAL INCOME BY THE FOLLOWING:- M/S. BENGAL CONSTRUCTION CO. ASST. YEAR 2005-06 19,57,900/- M/S. JAIN INFRAPROJECTS LTD. ASST. YEAR 2007-08 5,96,176/- ASST. YEAR 2008-09 12,89,608/- 18,85,784/- ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 4 THE ADDITIONAL DISCLOSURE MADE IN CASE OF M/S BENGA L CONSTRUCTION CO. AND M/S JAIN INFRAPROJECTS LTD. ARE BEING CONSI DERED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE E ALSO FILED DETAILS & PARTICULARS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENC ES WHICH ARE EXAMINED VIS-A-VIS SEIZED DOCUMENTS. AS DISCUSSED A BOVE, ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.51,5 0,000/- FOR THE ASST. YEAR 2008-09 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN COMPUTED AS BELOW :- UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER SEIZED DOCUMENTS, AS DISC USSED INCOME DISCLOSED ULS.132( 4) 4,00,00, 000/- ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS 51,50,000/- TOTAL INCOME 4,51,50,000/- PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA INITIATED SEPARATELY . ASSESSED U/S.143(3). CHARGE INTEREST U/S.234A U/S.234B & U/S .234C. THE ABOVE ORDER IS PASSED WITH PRIOR APPROVAL OF ADDL. CIT-R-I-CENTRAL, KOLKATA, U/S.153D THEREFORE, BASED ON THE QUANTUM ADDITION OF RS.51,5 0,000/-, THE AO INITIATED THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271AAA OF THE ACT. THE AO PASSED THE PENALTY ORDER U/S.271AAA OF THE ACT ON 29.06.20 10 OBSERVING THE FOLLOWINGS :- DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING C ONCEALED INCOME. WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE S AME, IT HAD NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE BUT TO ADMIT THAT IT HAD INDEE D CONCEALED ITS PARTICULARS OF INCOME AND IN THE DUE COURSE OF TIME CAME OUT WITH A CORRECT CALCULATION OF ITS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.51,50,000/- I N RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) BUT OFFERED THE SAME WHEN CONFRON TED WITH THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. MOREOVER THE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITI ONAL INCOME WAS BASED ON SEIZED DOCUMENTS GB/8, GB-13, GB-14 AN D GB-15. THE MERE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CORRECTLY QUANT IFIED ITS CONCEALED INCOME, WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DE PARTMENT, HAS NO CORRELATION WITH THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CONCEALED ITS INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSSESSEE ARE HELD AS NOT REASONABLE. SO, I AM SATISFIED THAT THIS IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE I.T. AC T 1961. HENCE, I DIRECT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALT Y U/S 271AAA OF THE I.T.ACT 1961 A SUM OF RS. 5,15,000/-. ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 5 4. AGGRIEVED FROM THE ORDER OF LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, BY OBSERVING THE FOLLOWIN GS :- 4. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF T HE LD A.R. SECTION 271 AAA READS AS UNDER - 271AAA. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTAND ING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRE CT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 O N OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WA Y OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM COMP UTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SP ECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPL Y IF THE ASSESSEE.- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECI FIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY , IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION IT IS A PPARENT THAT PENALTY WILL NOT BE LIVABLE ONLY IF ALL THE CONDITI ON LAID DOWN IN SUBSECTION (2) OF SECTION 271 AAA IS SATISFIED. IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 51,50,000/- ONLY DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. AS PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ABOVE UND ISCLOSED INCOME IS BASED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT HAS BEEN FURTHER OPINED THAT ADMISSION WAS MADE ONLY AFTER BEING CONFRONTED WITH THE INCRIMINATING SEIZED DOCUMENT. IT IS FURTHER NOTED THAT EVEN AFTER ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME THE TAX AND INTEREST THEREON WAS NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. AS PER ASSESS MENT ORDER THERE IS A DEMAND OF RS.44,76,679/-. MOREOVER, THE DEMAND CREATED ON THE ADDITIONAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME VIDE O RDER DATED 31.12.2009, WAS ALSO NOT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE WITHI N THE STATUARY TIME LIMIT. 4.1 CONSIDERING ABOVE AND THE PROVISION OF SECTION 271 AAA, THAT NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PRO VISIONS OF THIS ACT, WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY B Y WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM , A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME OF THE SPECIFIED ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 6 PREVIOUS YEAR. THE ONLY EXCEPTION WILL BE THOSE ASS ESSEE WHO SATISFY AND QUALIFY THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN SEC TION 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT. HENCE TAKING ALL THE FACTS INTO CONSIDERAT ION, I AM OF THE OPINION, THAT IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE E XCEPTION CONDITIONS ARE NOT FULLY SATISFIED. ACCORDINGLY, IT IS HELD THAT THE A.O HAS RIGHTLY IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS. 5,15,000/- UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY THE A.O IS CONFIRMED. 5. NOT BEING SATISFIED WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G GROUNDS OF APPEAL:- GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1237/KOL/2011 :- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S.271AAA OF THE I.TAX ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.1,28,961/- @10% ON THE AM OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS.12,89,608/-. THE PENALTY SO LEVIED IS WRONG AND NEED TO BE DELETED. GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1244/KOL/2011 :- 1. THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S.271AAA OF THE I.TAX ACT AMOUNTING TO RS.5,15,000/- @10% ON THE AM OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE MADE OF RS.51,50,000/-. THE PENALTY SO LEVIED IS WRONG AND NEED TO BE DELETED. 5.1. LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT PEN ALTY U/S.271AAA CANNOT BE LEVIED IF THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE UNDISCL OSED INCOME AND SATISFIED THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN VERIFIED/ADMITTED. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS OFFERED BEFORE THE AO, THE PEAK AMOUNT IN THE BANK STATEMENT AT RS.51,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID TAX ALSO ON THE PEAK AMOUNT SO OFFERED. THE AO WHILE LEVYING PENALT Y U/S.271AAA DID NOT RECORD THE SATISFACTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. TH E ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT HIMSELF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PAID THE INCOME TAX THEREON. FROM T HE PLAIN READING OF SECTION 271AAA, IT IS APPARENT THAT PENALTY WILL NO T BE LEVIED IF ALL THE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN UNDER SUB-SECTION 2 OF SECTIO N 271AAA IS SATISFIED. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITI ONS OF SUB-SECTION 2 OF ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 7 SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT. LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF MANO J KUMAR JAIN AND HIS ASSOCIATES ON 18.03.2008. IN THE COURSE OF SAID SEA RCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, KARTA OF THE ASSE SSEE MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS.8.75 CRORES U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DTD.19.02.2009 CLAIMING THAT SOME OF THE ASS ETS AND DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION AT THE VARIOUS PREMISES OF THE GROUP BELONGS TO IT. IN THE SAID LETTER, MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED TH AT THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME MADE U/S.132(4) OF THE I.TAX ACT ON 19.03.08 BY HIM OF RS.8.75 CRORES WAS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS.8.75 CRORE U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOM E TAX ACT ON 19/03/2008 ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE BREAKUP O F THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE I. T.A CT IS AS UNDER:- ASST. YEAR AMOUNT 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 21,00,000/- 10,50,000/- 21,00,000/- 24,50,000/- 5,00,000/- 3,93,00,000/- 4,00,00,000/- 8,75,00,000/- FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSES SEE OFFERED THE SAID INCOME OF 4,00,00000/- VOLUNTARILY BY FILING THE RE TURN U/S 139 ON 31/03/2009. DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE U/ S 132(4) OF THE I. TAX ACT WAS PURELY VOLUNTARY TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE DEP ARTMENT AND TO BUY PEACE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 8 THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED GB/8,GB/23, GB/1 3, GB/14 & GB/15 THERE IS NOTING OF CASH LOANS RECEIVED IN THE F.Y 0 6-07 & 07-08. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED PEAK THEORY AND OFFERED RS.40,00,0 00/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND RS.4,51,50,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REQUESTED TO TREAT T HE INCOME OF RS.4 CRORE OFFERED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 AS RS.4,5 1,50,000/-. THE SAID AMOUNT IS INCREASE IN PEAK BALANCE OF LOAN RECEIVED AND TREATED AS OWN MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE AND END THE LITI GATION. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AT THE SAI D REVISED INCOME OF RS.4,51,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE PAID THE TAX INCLUDI NG INTEREST THERE ON. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT WAS RECORDED AND THE ISSUE BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITIONA L INCOME WAS DISCLOSED WAS NOT CONFRONTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFI CER TO MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE. DISCLOSURE OF AD DITIONAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PURELY VOLUNTARY TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT & TO BUY PEACE. SO IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANT BE S AID THAT DEPARTMENT DETECTED THE SAID INCOME BY VIRTUE OF SEARCH. ASST. YEAR AMOUNT 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 21,00,000/- 10,50,000/- 21,00,000/- 24,50,000/- 5,00,000/- 3,93,00,000/- 4,40,10,000/- 8,75,00,000/- FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, THE ASSES SEE OFFERED THE SAID ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 9 INCOME OF 4,00,00000/- VOLUNTARILY BY FILING THE RE TURN U/S 139 ON 31/03/2009. DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE U/ S 132(4) OF THE I. TAX ACT WAS PURELY VOLUNTARY TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE DEP ARTMENT AND TO BUY PEACE. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED GB/8,GB/23, GB/1 3, GB/14 & GB/15 THERE IS NOTING OF CASH LOANS RECEIVED IN THE F.Y 0 6-07 & 07-08. THE ASSESSEE APPLIED PEAK THEORY AND OFFERED RS.40,00,0 00/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND RS.4,51,50,000/- IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REQUESTED TO TREAT T HE INCOME OF RS.4 CRORE OFFERED IN THE RETURN FILED U/S 139 AS RS.4,5 1,50,000/-. THE SAID AMOUNT IS INCREASE IN PEAK BALANCE OF LOAN RECEIVED AND TREATED AS OWN MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE AND END THE LITI GATION. THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED U/S 143(3) AT THE SAI D REVISED INCOME OF RS.4,51,50,000/-. THE ASSESSEE PAID THE TAX INCLUDI NG INTEREST THERE ON. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, STATEMENT IS 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS RECORDED AND THE ISSUE BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITIONA L INCOME WAS DISCLOSED WAS NOT CONFRONTED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFI CER TO MR. MANOJ KUMAR JAIN, KARTA OF THE ASSESSEE. DISCLOSURE OF AD DITIONAL INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PURELY VOLUNTARY TO CO-OPERATE WITH THE DEPARTMENT & TO BUY PEACE. SO IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANT BE S AID THAT DEPARTMENT DETECTED THE SAID INCOME BY VIRTUE OF SEARCH. ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 10 REGARDING THE OUTSTANDING DEMAND OF RS.44,76,679/- RAISED AS PER ORDER U/S.143(3) FOR THE AY 2008-09, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER AND DEMAND NOTICE IT WAS FOUND THAT THE AO HAS NOT ADJUSTED THE SEIZED CASH OF 15,00,000/- AND IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT TH ERE WAS MISTAKE IN CALCULATION OF INTEREST U/S.234B. A RECTIFICATION PETITION U/S 154 DATED 08.03.2010 WAS FILED IN RESPECT AND THE ASSESSEE AL SO PAID THE BALANCE TAX OF RS.24,93,675/- ON 26.02.2010. COPY OF THE RE CTIFICATION PETITION DATED 08.03.2010 ALONG WITH THE COPY OF THE CHALLAN IS PRODUCED. THEREFORE, AS PER THE ASSESSEE THERE IS NO DEMAND B EFORE PASSING OF THE PENALTY ORDER, HENCE PENALTY U/S 271AAA MAY NOT BE LEVIED. THE LD. AR ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS:- I) ITA NO.1430/PN/2013, ITAT PUNE BENCH, (DCIT VS. M/S TAPADIA & KASLIWAL ASSOCIATES) ORDER DATED 12.08.2015 :- 15. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE, ALTHOUGH THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.40,99,998/- BEFORE FILING OF THE RE TURN OF INCOME, HOWEVER, THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE DEMAND OF RS.49, 64,700/- RAISED BY THE AO FOR A.Y. 2010-11 VIDE ORDER DATED 29-12-2 011 PASSED U/S.143(3) HAS BEEN PAID ON 22-03-2012 WHICH IS MUC H BEFORE 28- 06- 2012, I.E., THE DATE OF PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/ S.271AAA FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISION OF THE KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF PI ONEER MARBLES AND INTERIORS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THAT NO PE NALTY U/S.271AAA IS LEVIABLE IN THE INSTANT CASE. ACCORDINGLY, THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) IS UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DI SMISSED. II) ITA NO.1773 & 1774/KOL/2012, ITAT KOLKATA, (SRI NARESH CHANDRA AGRAWALLA VS. ACIT) ORDER DATED 20.08.2015 :- IT IS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE LD. AO HAD STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPTION BUT TO ACCEPT THE TRUTH AND COME FORWARD WITH THE DISCLOSURE AND HENCE CONCLUDED THA T BUT FOR THE SEARCH THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE COME FORWARD WIT H THE OFFER OF ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 11 UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ON THAT GROUND LEVY OF PENAL TY IS JUSTIFIED. WE FIND THAT IF THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AO IS TO B E APPRECIATED, THEN THE VERY PURPOSE OF PROVIDING IMMUNITY U/S 271AAA(2 ) OF THE ACT GETS DEFEATED. THE LEGISLATURE IN ITS WISDOM HAD PR OVIDED FOR GRANTING IMMUNITY FROM LEVY OF PENALTY IN CERTAIN C IRCUMSTANCES AS CONTEMPLATED IN 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT. THE LEVY OF P ENALTY U/S 271AAA CANNOT BE MADE AUTOMATIC PURSUANT TO THE SEA RCH. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COU RT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF MAK DATA P.LTD VS CIT REPORTED IN 358 ITR 5 93(SC) IS ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AS IN THE CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE IMMUNITY CLAUSE PROVIDED IN 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT HAD NOT BEEN DISCU SSED. WE ALSO HOLD THAT THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSEE HAD TO DISCLOSE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME BECAUSE OF THE SEARCH IS ALSO NO T IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD IS PLA CED ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS SAS PHARMACEUTICALS 335 ITR 259 (DELHI). THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER :- 14. WE MAY, FIRST OF ALL, REJECT THE CONTENTION O F THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE REVENUE RELYING UPON THE EXPRESSION IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT OCCURRING IN SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT AND CONTENDIN G THAT EVEN DURING SURVEY WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSES SEE HAD CONCEALED THE PARTICULAR OF HIS INCOME, IT WOULD AM OUNT CONCEALMENT IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS. THE W ORDS IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS ACT ARE PR EFACED BY THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO OR THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX (APPEALS). WHEN THE SURVEY IS CONDUCTED BY A SU RVEY TEAM, THE QUESTION OF SATISFACTION OF AO OR THE COM MISSIONER (APPEALS) OR THE COMMISSIONER DOES NOT ARISE. WE HA VE TO KEEP IN MIND THAT IT IS THE AO WHO INITIATED THE PE NALTY PROCEEDINGS AND DIRECTED THE PAYMENT OF PENALTY. HE HAD NOT RECORDED ANY SATISFACTION DURING THE COURSE OF SURV EY. DECISION TO INITIATE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WAS TAKEN WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS, THUS, OBVIOUS THAT THE EXPRESSION IN THE COURSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER T HIS ACT CANNOT HAVE THE REFERENCE TO SURVEY PROCEEDINGS, IN THIS CASE. 15. IT NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THAT CONCEALMENT OF PART ICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR OF IN COME BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN FILED B Y IT. THERE IS SUFFICIENT INDICATION OF THIS IN THE JUDGMENT OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MOHAN DAS HASSA NAND (1983) 141 ITR 203 (DEL) AND IN RELIANCE PETROPRODUCTS PVT. LTD. ( SUPRA), THE SUPREME COURT HAS CLINCHED THIS ASPECT, VIZ., T HE ASSESSEE CAN FURNISH THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME IN H IS RETURN AND EVERYTHING WOULD DEPEND UPON THE INCOME TAX RET URN FILED BY THE ASSESSES. THIS VIEW GETS SUPPORTED BY ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 12 EXPLANATION 4 AS WELL AS 5 AND 5A OF SECTION 271 OF THE ACT AS CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPOND ENT. 16. NO DOUBT, THE DISCREPANCIES WERE FOUND DURING T HE SURVEY. THIS HAS YIELDED INCOME FROM THE ASSESSEE I N THE FORM OF AMOUNT SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. PRESENT LY, WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH THE ASSESSMENT OF INCOME, BU T THE MOOT QUESTION IS TO WHETHER THIS WOULD ATTRACT PENA LTY UPON THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. OBVIOUSLY, NO PENALTY CAN BE IMPOSED UNLESS TH E CONDITIONS STIPULATED IN THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE DU LY AND UNAMBIGUOUSLY SATISFIED. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS EXP OSED DURING SURVEY, MAY BE, IT WOULD HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THE INCOME BUT FOR THE SAID SURVEY. HOWEVER, THERE CANN OT BE ANY PENALTY ONLY ON SURMISES, CONJECTURES AND POSSI BILITIES. SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED ST RICTLY. UNLESS IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY A CONCEAL MENT OF NON- DISCLOSURE OF THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, PENALTY CA NNOT BE IMPOSED. THERE IS NO SUCH CONCEALMENT OR NON-DISCLO SURE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A COMPLETE DISCLOSURE IN THE INCOME TAX RETURN AND OFFERED THE SURRENDERED AMOUNT FOR T HE PURPOSE OF TAX. 17. WE, THUS, ANSWER THE QUESTIONS AS FORMULATED AB OVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE FIND ING NO FAULT WITH THE DECISIONS OF THE COMMISSIONER (APPEA LS) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. AS A RESULT, THIS APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. IT IS SEEN THAT EVEN THOUGH THE INCOME OF RS.27,88, 222/- WAS NOT OFFERED BY HIM IN THE REGULAR RETURN FILED BY THE A SSESSEE ON 31.03.2009 FOR A.Y.2008-09, IT IS OF NO CONSEQUENCE AS IN TERMS OF 153A OF THE ACT, IT BECOMES A PENDING PROCEEDING, W HICH GETS ABATED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT ULTIMATELY WHAT IS RELEVANT IS ONLY THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO 153A OF THE ACT WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY CONSI DERED THE INCOME DISCLOSED U/S 132(4) AND ULTIMATELY THE RETU RNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AO AND HENCE THERE IS NO C ONCEALMENT ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN U/S 153A OF THE ACT . SIMILARLY THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT IN THE RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 2009-10, BEING THE YEAR OF SEARCH, THERE WAS NO DISCREPANCY IN THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME OFFERED VIS--VIS 132(4) STATEMENT AND ULTIMATELY T HE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD.AO FOR A.Y.2009-10 AL SO. HENCE THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT FOR THIS YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AN D IN VIEW OF THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS RELIED UPON, WE HOLD THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD CUMULATIVELY SATISFIED THE THREE CONDITIONS CONTEMP LATED IN SECTION 271AAA(2) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY IS ELIGIBLE FO R IMMUNITY FROM LEVY OF PENALTY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 13 III) ITA NO.1326/KOL/2011, (DCIT VS. PIONEER MARBLE S & INTERIORS PVT. LTD.) ORDER DATED 17.02.2012 :- 7. WE FIND THAT UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 271 AAA , THERE IS A COMPLETE PARADIGM SHIFT SO FAR AS PENALTY IN RESPEC T OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME UNEARTHED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OPERATION CA RRIED OUT ON OR AFTER 1ST JUNE 2007 IS CONCERNED. UNLIKE IN THE CAS E OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), SECTION 271 AAA, WITHOUT A NY REFERENCE TO FINDINGS OR PRESUMPTIONS OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME O R THE FINDINGS OR PRESUMPTIONS OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICU LARS, PROVIDES THAT IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE CASES WHERE SEARCH INITIATED AFTER 1ST JUNE 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS TO P AY A PENALTY @ 10% OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME. SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 271 AAA, HOWEVER, RELAXES THE RIGOUR OF THIS PENALTY PROVISI ON IN A SITUATION IN WHICH (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEME NT UNDER SECTION 132(4), ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIA TES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (I II) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME . WHILE PAYMENT OF TAXES, ALONG WITH INTEREST, BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING THE IMMUNI TY UNDER SECTION 271AAA(2), THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT SET OUT FOR SUCH PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE A TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF TAX AND INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN SET OUT BY THE STATUTE, IT CANNOT INDEED BE OP EN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO READ SUCH A TIME LIMIT INTO TH E SCHEME OF THE SECTION OR TO INFER ONE. THERE IS THUS NO LEGALLY S USTAINABLE BASIS FOR THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN A SITUAT ION IN WHICH DUE TAX AND INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL BEFORE F ILING OF THE RELEVANT INCOME TAX RETURN, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBL E FOR IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 271 AAA(2). 8. WHILE DEALING WITH EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271( 1)(C), WHICH IS BROADLY ON THE SAME LINES, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COU RT, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAHENDRA C SHAH (299 ITR 305) HAS OBSERVE D THAT, THERE IS NO PRESCRIPTION ABOUT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE TAX HAD TO BE PAID QUA THE AMOUNT OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. WE MUST, HOWEVER, POINT OUT THAT EVEN AFTER MAKING THESE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD TO TREAT THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS A S OUTER LIMIT FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF TAX AND INTEREST BUT THAT WAS BEC AUSE OF THE PECULIAR NATURE OF PENALTY PROVISIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD THE SATISFA CTION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT SELF SOMETHIN G WHICH IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UND ER SECTION 271 AAA. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD HELD THAT HOWEVER, THE O UTER LIMIT HAS TO BE THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS ARE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE OPE NING PORTION OF SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO RECORD ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 14 SATISFACTION IN THE COURSE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, AND THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE AS REGARDS THE CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. SECTI ON 271 AAA, AS THE STATUTE UNAMBIGUOUSLY PROVIDES, DOES NOT REQUIR E ANY SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ARRIVED AT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND, THEREFORE, THE OUTER LIMIT OF PAYMENT BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREIN ENTIRE TAX AND INTEREST HAS BEEN DULY PAID WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDE R SECTION 156 AND WELL BEFORE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLU DED, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT BE DENIED THE IMMUNITY UNDER SEC TION 271AAA(2) ONLY BECAUSE ENTIRE TAX, ALONG WITH INTER EST, WAS NOT PAID BEFORE FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN OR, FOR THA T PURPOSE, BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 10. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE APPROVE THE C ONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE I N THE MATTER. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUN CED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 17T H DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012. 5.2. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE HAS P RIMARILY REITERATED THE STAND TAKEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) AND AO, WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY NOTED IN OUR EARLIER PARAS AND IS NOT BEING REPEATED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY. 5.3. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS MERIT I N THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, AS THE PROPOSITION CANVASSED BY THE LD. A R FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE SUPPORTED BY THE JUDGMENTS OF HONBLE ITAT (SUP RA) AND THE FACTS NARRATED BY HIM ABOVE. THE LD. AR POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PEAK CREDIT IN THE BANK DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID THE INTEREST AND TAX THEREON. LD. AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE A O DID NOT RECORD THE SATISFACTION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S U/S.271AAA AS THE STATUTE UNAMBIGUOUSLY PROVIDES, DOES NOT REQUIRE AN Y SUBJECTIVE ITA NO.1237/11 JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD. ITA NO.1244/11 MANOJ KUMAR JAIN & SONS (HUF) 15 SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ARRIVED AT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE EN TIRE TAX AND INTEREST THEREON HAS DULY BEEN PAID WELL WITHIN THE TIME LIM IT FOR PAYMENT OF NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156. BASED ON THE ABOVE CIT ED FACTUAL POSITION AND THE CASE LAWS CITED BY LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COMPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT, AND, HENCE, THE PENALTY MAY NOT BE LEVIED. ACCORDIN GLY, WE DELETE THE PENALTY. 11. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1244/KOL/2011 AND ITA NO.1237/KOL/2011 ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30/ 11/2016. SD/ - (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) S D/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; ! DATED 30/11/2016 ' $%& /PRAKASH MISHRA , 0 . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) % & , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT-JAIN INFRA PROJECTS LTD(ITA NO.1244/K OL/2011) MANO J KUMAR JAIN(ITA NO.1237/KOL/2011) 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- ACIT-CC-IV, KOLKATA 3. 1 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 1 / CIT 5. 23 4 0056 , 56 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 4 78 / GUARD FILE. 2 0 //TRUE COPY//