DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA V. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR

ITA 1369/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3754 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (International Taxation) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VARINDAR MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: GULSHAN AGARWAL CA DH RK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Search and seizure; Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Tangible material; Validity of assessment; Accommodation entries; Procedural lapse; Block assessment; Time period of passing order; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 147; 68; 148; 132; 139

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE -A, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKO ] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA CUKE VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., 69/331, V.T. ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAKCA1961F VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT IZR;K{KSI.K @ C.O. NO. 01, 02, 03/JP/2019 (ARISING OUT OF VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 1369, 1370, 1371/JP/2018) FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z @ ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., 69/331, V.T. ROAD, MANSAROVAR, JAIPUR, RAJASTHAN CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN/GIR NO.: AAKCA1961F IZR;K{KSID@ OBJECTOR IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SHRI VARINDAR MEHTA (CIT) FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIJAY GOYAL & SHRI GULSHAN AGARWAL (CA) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 26/02/2019 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24/05/2019 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. THESE ARE THREE SETS OF APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION S FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDERS OF THE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 2 LD. CIT(A)-2, UDAIPUR DATED 18/09/2018 FOR A.Y 2013 -14, 2014-15 & 2016-17 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE THE COMMON ISSUES ARE I NVOLVED, ALL THESE APPEALS AND CROSS OBJECTION WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 2. FOR THE PURPOSE OF PRESENT DISCUSSION, THE MATTE R RELATING TO A.Y 2013-14 IS TAKEN AS THE LEAD CASE WITH CONSENT OF BOTH THE PARTIES WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE TAKEN:- ITA NO. 1369/JP/2018 (GROUNDS OF REVENUES APPEAL): 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS. 1,40,69,990/- MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND UNSECURED L OANS ALLEGEDLY OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVING THAT BLIND RELIANCE WAS PLACED BY THE DDIT(INV.), KOLKATA ON T HE INVESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT PREVIOUSLY AND NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY T O ESTABLISH THE LENDER COMPANY AS A SHELL COMPANY WAS DONE BY THE D DIT(INV.). 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVING THAT NO STATEMENT OF ENTRY OPERATOR HAS BEEN QUOTED BY THE AO OR BY THE DDIT(INV.) ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 3 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION D ESPITE THE FACT THAT THE DIRECTOR OR PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE ALLEGED LENDER COMPANY WAS NEVER PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR EXAMINATI ON AND ALSO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEITHER EXPRESSED I TS INABILITY IN PRODUCING THE LENDER NOR PRODUCED THE LENDER FOR EX AMINATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION M ERELY BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED IN ASSESSMENT BY S HOWING HIS WILLINGNESS TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTOR OF LENDER/INVES TOR COMPANY WHEN THE DIRECTOR OR PRINCIPAL OFFICER OF THE LENDER/INV ESTOR COMPANY WAS NEVER PRODUCED. 6. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS BY OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE FASTENED UPON THE BURDEN TO PRO DUCE THE LENDER BEFORE THE AO AND IN NOT CONSIDERING THE DECISION O F THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN NAVODAYA CASTLES (P) LTD. VS. CIT( 2015) 56 TAXMANN.COM 18(SC) WHEN THERE WERE GENUINE CONCERNS OF THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. 7. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION B Y OBSERVING THAT THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION WAS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EVEN CONSIDERIN G THE FINANCIAL STATEMENT OF THE ALLEGED LENDER/INVESTOR. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 4 8. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED SHARE SUBSCRIBER M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD WAS NEITHER HAV ING ANY SUBSTANTIAL BUSINESS TURNOVER NOR HAVING ANY FUNDS OF ITS OWN FOR MAKING HUGE INVESTMENT IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ALSO FOR ADVANCING HUGE LOANS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 9. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION B Y CONCLUDING THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAVE BEEN DONE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL S AND THERE IS NO CASE OF ANY CASH DEPOSITION IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE I MMEDIATE INVESTOR/LENDER COMPANY. 10. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN OBSERVING THAT IT IS US UAL BUSINESS PRACTICE, WHILE MAKING LOANS/INVESTMENT TO PARTY, FUNDS ARE R EQUIRED TO BE ARRANGED BY THE LENDERS, AND THEREFORE, REFLECTION OF SUCH ENTRIES IN BANK STATEMENT DOES NOT LEAD TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE IN FERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. CO NO. 01/JP/2018 (GROUNDS OF ASSESSEES CROSS OBJE CTION): 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND PASSED WITHOUT REC ORDING THE LEGALLY REQUIRED SATISFACTIONS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 5 1961 IS BAD IN LAW, VOID-AB-INITIO, AND DESERVES TO BE ANNULLED AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT ABATED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH AND CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW SLPS ADMITTED I N VARIOUS CASES. THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AD DITIONS ARE TO BE ADJUDICATED ON MERITS AS PER RELEVANT GROUND OF APP EAL HENCE THE ISSUE REMAINS FOR ACADEMIC DISCUSSION ONLY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT DECLARING THE ASSESSMENT OR DER AS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. IT IS CONTENDED THAT THE LD. AO PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AGAINST THE DOCTRINE OF AUDIALTERMPARTEM VI OLATING THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OUGHT TO HELD AS BAD IN LAW AND DESERVES TO BE ANNULLED. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF CASE ARE THAT THE A SSESSEE COMPANY DERIVES ITS INCOME FROM BUSINESS OF FINANCIAL SERVI CES. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY E-FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U/S 1 39 ON 05.02.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT ON BHATIA/SHUBHAM GROUP KOTA ON 03.03.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS/PAPERS WERE SEIZED WHICH WAS CLAIMED BY T HE REVENUE AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS THEREAFTER CENTRALIZED, SATISFACTION NOTE WAS P REPARED AND NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 13.10.2017 WHICH WAS DULY SE RVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153C, THE A SSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 05.02.2014 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS. NIL. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED ON 0 3.11.2017. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 6 THAT FROM THE EXAMINATION OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMEN T AS WELL AS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IT IS SE EN THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2012-13 TO 2015-16, ASSESSEE COMPAN Y HAS RECEIVED HUGE SUMS IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, S PECIAL DEPOSIT, DEBENTURE ISSUING RECEIPTS AND UNSECURED LOANS FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. WHICH ON THE BASIS OF NATIONWIDE IN VESTIGATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND OTHER ENFORCEM ENT AGENCIES ARE WIDELY BELIEVED TO BE ENGAGED IN PERNICIOUS ACTIVIT Y OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WA S ACCORDINGLY ASKED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTI ONS OF UNSECURED LOAN, SHARE APPLICATION MONEY, SPECIAL DEPOSITS AND DEBENTURE ISSUING RECEIPTS FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. IN RESPONSE , THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER ALONG WITH THEIR BANK STATEMENT AND COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN OF INVESTOR COMPANY. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ALSO ASKED TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OR PRINCIPA L OFFICERS OF INVESTOR COMPANY FOR VERIFICATION AND ENQUIRY WAS ALSO GOT C ONDUCTED THROUGH THE KOLKATA INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE. AFTER CONSID ERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND OTHER INVESTIGATION CAR RIED OUT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFF ICER FOR REASONS STATED AT PARA 11 OF HIS ORDER HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY WITH THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,40,69,990/- TOWARDS UNSECURED LOAN AND SHARE APPLICATION MONEY FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. WAS BROUGHT TO TAX U/S 68 OF THE AC T AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R/W 143(3) DATED 29.12.2017 4. BEING AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTE R IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHO HAS SINCE DELETED THE ADD ITION ON MERIT. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 7 HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN LEGAL ISSUES RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE SAME WERE NOT ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE SLP ADMITTED IN CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, M/S ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS AS WELL AS CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON MERITS AND ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTI ON HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C READ WITH 143(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE FIRSTLY TO EXAMINE THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CRO SS OBJECTION. 5. IN GROUND NO. 1 OF ITS CROSS-OBJECTION, THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY HAS RAISED THE GROUND RELATING TO NON-RECORDING OF LEGA LLY REQUIRED SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER SO PASSED U/S 153C R/W 243(3) WITHOUT JURISDICTION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR. HENCE THE SAM E IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 6. IN GROUND NO. 2 OF ITS CROSS OBJECTION, THE ASS ESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND STATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R EAD WITH SECTION 143(3) DESERVE TO BE ANNULLED AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT ABATED AS ON THE DATE OF SEAR CH AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEGAL CONTENTIONS SO RAISED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE SLP ADMITTED IN VARIOUS CASES AND HOLDING THAT THE GROUNDS SO RAISE D ARE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 8 7. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COMPLE TED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REVIEWED WITHOUT HAVING INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW T HAT THERE CANNOT BE A REVIEW UNDER THE GARB OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U /S 153A/153C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ABSOLUTELY IN THE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN RESPEC T OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN COM PLETED UNLESS SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/INFORMATION COMES IN TH E POSSESSION/KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2013-14 W AS NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, AS SHOWN IN TABLE BELOW: ASSESSMENT YEAR DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1)/143(2) DATE OF SEARCH AT SHUBHAM GROUP DATE OF SATISFACTION NOTE 2013-14 05-02-2014 30-09-2014 03-03-2016 13-10-2017 THUS, THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 142(1)/143(2) OF IT ACT FOR AY 2013-14 HAS EXPIRED BEFORE THE SEARCH OVER SHUBHAM GROUP WHICH WAS HELD ON 03/03/2016. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2013-14 WAS DEEMED COMPLETED. AFT ER THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE ABOVE YEAR, THE DEPART MENT CARRIED OUT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS ON 03.03.2016 OVER SUBH AM GROUP AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL & L OAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. ARE NOT GENUINE/BOGUS. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 9 8. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NOTHING HAS BEEN MENTIONED IN SATISFACTION NOTE PREPARED FOR THE PURPOSE 153C AS REGARD UNSECURED LOAN AND SHARE CAPITAL FROM DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. THE LD AO HAS PREPARED SATISFACTION NOTE FOR THE PURPOSE OF INITI ATION OF PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ON 13-10-2017 AND FROM THE PER USAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, IT WOULD BE FOUND THAT NOTING HA S BEEN MENTION AGAINST THE SHARE CAPITAL AND LOAN FROM M/S DENIM D EVELOPERS LTD. THIS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FOU ND ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT UNSECURED LOAN AN D SHARE CAPITAL FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD WAS BOGUS. THE LD AO MADE THE ADDITION AGAINST SHARE CAPITAL AND UNSECURED LOAN T RAVELLING BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C/153A OF IT ACT. 9. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ON A CONSPECTUS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN VARIOUS DECISIONS, TH E LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: A. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT WILL HAVE TO BE MA NDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS F OR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEV ANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. B. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS LEGALLY REQUIRED TO ASSESS OR RE-ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PR ECEDING TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH. THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A PROVI DES THAT IF THE ASSESSMENT OR RE- ASSESSMENT OF ANY OF THE ASSESSME NT YEAR, FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS IS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF SEARCH, THEN THE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 10 SAME SHALL GET ABATED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, FOR THE AY 2013-14, THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING AND HAD ATTAINED FINALIT Y, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEA R WILL NOT GET ABATED. ONCE THAT IS SO, THE LEGAL POSITION IS THAT THE ADDITIONS OVER AND ABOVE THE ASSESSED INCOME CANNOT BE MADE DEHORS THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WHILE COMPLETI NG THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A/153C. THIS, INTER-ALIA, MEANS TH AT IF THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T MADE CAN BE REITERATED AND NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR OT HERWISE THE ADDITION CAN ONLY BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME DERIVED FROM MATERIAL/DOCUMENTS SEIZED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSME NT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT A SSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFORE MENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX Y EARS. IN OTHER WORDS, THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND T HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. D. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 1 53A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED I NCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT P RODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 11 10. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/INFORMATION/EVIDENCES WERE U NEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AMOUNTS OF SHARE CAPITAL AND UNSECURED LOAN IN QUESTION ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AO HAS FAILED TO RECORD ANY NEXUS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SEIZE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PERTAINING TO ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE RE HAS TO BE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RECOVERED DURING SEARCH QUA THE ASSESSEE IN EACH OF YEARS FOR PURPOSES OF FRAMING AN ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 153A. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL RECOVERED DURING THE SEARCH IMPUGNED ADDITIONS MADE DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT ARE WIT HOUT JURISDICTION. 11. IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER I DENTICAL FACTS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF M/S KOTA DAL MILL VS. DCIT, KOTA (ITA NO. 997 & OTHERS DATED 31.12.2018) HAS DECIDED THE MATTER IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND FINDING THEREIN EQUALLY APPLIES IN THE INSTANT CASE. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELH I HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT (CENTRAL) VS T.S PULSES PVT. LTD (ITA NO. 471/2017 DATED 09 TH AUGUST, 2017) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CA SE OF CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD (2015) 62 TAXMANN.COM 39 1 (DELHI) BESIDES VARIOUS OTHER DECISIONS. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. CIT DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE UNEX PLAINED CASH CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT INTRODUCED IN THE GARB OF UNSE CURED LOANS AND SHARE CAPITAL WHICH IN FACT IS THE RE-ROUTING OF TH E ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT HAS BEEN GATHERED FROM THE INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE THAT VARIOUS INVESTIGATIONS WERE CARRIE D OUT BY THE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 12 INVESTIGATION WING IN THE PAST WHICH REVEALED THAT THE DIRECTORS OF M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD ARE SIMPLY DUMMY DIRECTORS AND THIS COMPANY WAS MANAGED BY ENTRY OPERATORS AND IS A MERE SHELL COMPANY NOT HAVING ANY PHYSICAL PRESENCE AND PLACE OF BUSINESS EXCEPT HAVING A MAILING ADDRESS. SUCH INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED PRI OR TO THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C AND ACCORDINGLY, DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C, THE AO C ONDUCTED FURTHER ENQUIRY ALSO THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION WING ABOUT T HE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OF UNSECURED LOANS, AND SHARE CAPIT AL. THE ASSESSEE WAS DULY CONFRONTED WITH THE RESULTS OF ALL THESE E NQUIRIES AND INFORMATION SHARED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. IN T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES IT CANNOT BE A CASE OF ADDITION MADE WITHOUT ANY INCRI MINATING MATERIAL BUT THE AO WAS HAVING SUFFICIENT MATERIAL DISCLOSIN G THE UNDISCLOSED AND UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT INTRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GARB OF UNSECURED LOANS AND SHARE CAPITAL. ONCE THE INSURM OUNTABLE EVIDENCES UNEARTHED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING WHICH IS THE BA SIS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO DISCHA RGE ITS ONUS BY PRODUCING THE CONTRARY EVIDENCE OR BY PRODUCING ALL EGED CASH CREDITORS/SHAREHOLDERS FOR VERIFICATION. THE LD. C IT D/R HAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE IN VESTIGATION WING KOLKATA IS ALSO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DU RING THE SEARCH AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSING UNDISCLOSED INC OME. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT A CASE OF REASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER S ECTION 153C WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE AO EVEN CO NDUCTED FURTHER INVESTIGATION DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS THROUGH THE INVESTIGATION WING KOLKATA AND, THEREFORE, THE ADDI TION IS FULLY BASED ON THE EVIDENCE IN THE POSSESSION OF THE AO. AS PER T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE IT ACT, T HE AO HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF LAST SIX YEARS AND TOTAL INCOME REFERS TO THE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 13 SUM TOTAL OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF WHICH A PERSON IS ASSESSABLE. THE TOTAL INCOME WILL THEREFORE COVER NOT ONLY THE INCO ME EMANATING FROM THE DECLARED SOURCE OR ANY MATERIAL OMISSION BEFORE AO BUT FROM ALL SOURCES INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED ONES OR BASED ON UNPL ACED MATERIAL BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. CIT D/R HAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT THE DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF M/S. ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD. AS WELL AS KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) WERE CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS ADMITTED THE SLP FOR EXAM INATION OF THE ISSUE. HENCE THE ISSUE IS STILL PENDING ADJUDICATIO N BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT. HE HAS RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN PASSED U/S 153C R/W 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LE GAL POSITION IN THIS REGARD IS THAT ONCE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I S SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONG TO ANOTHER PERSON AN D THE SAID ASSETS/DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON U/S 153C HAS TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SECTION 153A REQUIRES THAT WHERE A SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS RELEVANT TO THE SIX PREVIOUS Y EARS PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED. BY VIRTUE OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMEN T PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH SHALL ABATE. IN THE CO NTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A HA S TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO RECEIVES THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS FROM THE AO ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 14 OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF SECOND P ROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS IT APPLIES TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PENDING ON THE DAT E ON WHICH THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE AO WOULD ABATE . IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE ABATED, THE AO WOULD HA VE THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT. HOW EVER, IN RESPECT OF CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS, THE AO WOULD ASSUME JURISDIC TION TO REASSESS PROVIDED THAT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE AO REPRESENT OR INDICATE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR POSSIBILITY OF A NY INCOME THAT MAY HAVE REMAINED UNDISCLOSED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEARS. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD E-FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 ON 05.02.2014 AND ADMITTEDLY, THE TI ME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS EXPIRED ON 03 .09.2014. SUBSEQUENTLY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ACTION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT ON BHATIA/SHUBHAM GROUP KOTA ON 03.03.2016, THE REAFTER SATISFACTION NOTE WAS PREPARED BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIR CLE, KOTA IN CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 13.10.2017 AND NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON THE SAME DATE BY THE SAME OFFICER IE, DC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA. GIVEN THAT THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE IS THE SAME, THE HANDING OVER OF SEIZED AS SETS/DOCUMENTS AND TAKING OVER THE SAME IS TAKEN AS COMPLIED WITH ON T HE DATE OF THE PREPARATION OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE. THEREFORE, W HAT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED IS WHETHER THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEAR WERE ABATED ON THE DATE OF THE PREPARATION OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE OR NOT AND WE FIND THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT AB ATED AS THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS ALREADY EXPIRED ON 3.9.2014 AND THE ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS STAND COMPLETED. IN S UCH A CASE, THE AO WOULD ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REASSESS THE INCOME PR OVIDED THAT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS REPRESENT OR INDICATE ANY UNDISCLO SED INCOME OR ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 15 POSSIBILITY OF ANY INCOME THAT MAY HAVE REMAINED UN DISCLOSED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN THIS REGARD, WE REFER TO THE SATISFACTION NOTE PREPARED BY DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA DATED 13 .10.2017 WHICH IS REPRODUCED VERBATIM AS UNDER: A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT ON BHATIA/ SHUBHAM GROUP KOTA ON 03.03.2016. DURING THE COURSE OF SEAR CH OPERATION, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS/PAPERS W ERE SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED, WHICH VALIDATED THE INFORMATION GATH ERED ON TAX EVASION AGAINST THE SHUBHAM GROUP KOTA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, PAGE NUMBER 239 TO 259 (ANNEXURE A-4) FOUND AND SEIZED FROM CHOUDHARY HOTEL PREMISE, NEAR AERODROME , CIRCLE KOTA WHICH IS A COPY OF SALE DEED OF LAND EXECUTED ON 15.04.2013 BY LATE ABDUL REHMAN IN FAVOUR OF M/S RESONANT WEAL TH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, WHEREIN CONSIDERATION OF RS. 400/- LACS IS REGISTERED. DURING THE SEARCH ACTION U/S 13 2 OF IT ACT ON SHUBHAM GROUP OF KOTA, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED VIDE PAGE NOS. 239 TO 259 OF ANNEXURE A-4 BY PARTY- 11 FROM CHOUDHARY HOTEL PREMISES. NEAR AERODROME CIRCLE, KO TA WHICH IS A COPY OF SALE DEED OF LAND EXECUTED ON 15.04.2013 BY LATE ABDUL REHMAN IN FAVOUR OF M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSU LTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, WHEREIN CONSIDERATION OF RS. 400/- LACS IS REGISTERED. THE ADIT (INV.) KOTA HAS ALSO CONCLUDED IN HIS APPR AISAL REPORT THAT AS PER INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM FIU-IND IN TH E NAME OF ABDUL REHMAN R/O 1634, IQBAL CHOWK/ HATHI CHOWK, SA KAT PURE, KOTA, AND IN THE COURSE OF ENQUIRY INITIATED IN RES PECT OF SUCH INFORMATION, STATEMENT OF SHRI VAZIRDUR REHMAN, LEG AL HEIR OF LATE ABDUL REHMAN WAS RECORDED U/S 131(1A) OF I.T. ACT, 1961 ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 16 ON 22.06.2015 & 16.11.2015, WHEREIN HE ADMITTED ON OATH THAT HIS FATHER HAD RECEIVED CASH OF RS. 535/- LACS OVER AND ABOVE THE REGISTERED CONSIDERATION OF RS 400/- LACS FROM M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED. DURING SEARCH ACTION, SHRI RAM J BHATIA, KEY PERSON OF SHUBHAM GROUP, WAS ASKED ABOUT SOURCE OF CASH PAYMENT OF RS . 535/-LACS MADE TO LATE ABDUL REHMAN. IN RESPONSE, HE HAS ADMI TTED TO HAVE MADE UN-ACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 535/LACS TO LATE ABDUL REHMAN AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION AS H IS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT AY. 2014-15. ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, STATEMENT OF LEGA L HEIR OF SELLER AND ADMISSION MADE BY SHRI RAM J BHATIA REGA RDING PAYMENT OF RS. 535 LACS IN CASH, THE CASE OF M/S RE SONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED IS REQUIRED TO BE COVER ED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE DOCU MENTS AVAILABLE, I AM HEREBY SATISFIED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 5,35,00,000/- BEING CASH PAID/ON MONEY PAYMENT ON P URCHASE OF LAND MADE BY THE ABOVE SAID CONCERN HAS NOT BEEN OF FERED AS INCOME BY THE SAID CONCERN. IT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND IS MADE IN CASH BY M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, AND THE SAME ARE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. LIKEWISE, M/S RESONANT WEALTH CON SULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED HAS PURCHASED OTHER IMMOVABLE PROPE RTIES IN PREVIOUS YEARS. ASSESSEE SHRI RAM J. BHATIA HAS ADM ITTED THAT HE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 17 MADE UN-ACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 535/- LACS TO LATE ABDUL REHMAN AND OFFERED THE SAME FOR TAXATION AS HIS ADD ITIONAL INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT A.Y. 2014-15. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE MOST LOGICAL AND LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE THAT M/S RESONANT W EALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED HAS MADE ON MONEY PAYME NTS FOR OTHER IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. SOME PROPERTIES HAVE BE EN GOT REGISTERED IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15. THEREFORE, AS SESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ATTACHED IN ANNE XURE- 'A' (COPY ENCLOSED). SIMILARLY, COPIES OF PAGE NUMBER 1 TO 7 (ANNEXURE A -2, PARTY NUMBER 11) WERE SEIZED WHICH IS DETAILS OF ADVANCES RECEIVED AGAINST FLATS BY M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PR IVATE LIMITED. THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN DETAILS FOR THE PERIOD BEGI NNING 1 ST APRIL 2015 TO 26 TH FEBRUARY 2016. HUGE AMOUNT DETAILS HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED WHICH REQUIRED FURTHER VERIFICATION. THO SE MAY RESULT IN UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C IS REQUIRED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2016-17. PAGE NUMBER 1 & 2 WERE SEIZED BY PARTY NUMBER 16 IN ANNEXURE A-5. THESE DOCUMENTS CARRIES DETAILS OF EXPENSES OF RS 7,080/- & RS. 18,880/- WHICH REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED FROM BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED. THESE TRANSACTIONS PERTAIN TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-1 6. THE DATE OF BIRTH OF COMPANY IS 01.02.2012 AS PER C BN PAN BASED QUERY- ITD. (COPY ENCLOSED) HENCE, M/S RESONA NT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED, BECOME LIABLE TO BE GO VERNED U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND HENCE NOTICE U /S 153C IS ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 18 REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED IN THIS CASE FOR A.YS 2012-13 , 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16 & NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR A.Y 2016-1 7. 14. ON PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, WE FIND TH AT IT TALKS ABOUT COPY OF SALE DEED DATED 15.04.2013 PERTAINING TO FI NANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 FOUND AND SEIZE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO PURCHASE OF LAND AND P AYMENT OF ON-MONEY AMOUNTING TO RS 5.35 CRORES BY THE ASSSESSEE COMPAN Y WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. THUS, THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT SUBHAM GROUP RELATE TO PURCHASE OF LAND AND PAYMENT OF ON-MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHE R, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN SEIZED RELATING TO ADVANCES AGA INST FLATS PERTAINING TO FINANCIAL YEAR 2015-16 RELEVANT TO AY 2016-17. THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, HOWEVER, RELATES TO UNSECURED LOAN AND SHARE APPLICATION MON EY RECEIVED FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD WHICH HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT AND IN RE SPECT OF WHICH THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD WHICH REMOTELY SUGGEST THAT AN Y DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THES E TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSES SEE COMPANY AND WERE DULY DISCLOSED AND AVAILABLE WITH THE AO. EVE N IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THERE IS NO FINDING THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BASED ON ANY DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN CASE OF SUBHAM GROUP. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE MAINLY BASED ON REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING KOLKATA WHICH HAS BEEN RE CEIVED ON 11.12.2017 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AND NON- PRODUCTION OF DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY. TH E SAID REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A RELEVANT EVIDENCE, HOWEVER THE SAME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCRIMINATING MATERI AL UNEARTHED ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 19 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER SECTI ON 132 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITIONS WHICH HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE AO IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS NO LINKAGE WITH THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSM ENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS NOT PENDING ON THE DAT E OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO AND, THEREFORE, WOULD NOT AB ATE BY VIRTUE OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND AS HE LD BY THE COURTS THAT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH B Y THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C ONLY ON TH E BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATING TO UNSECURED LOAN AND SHARE APPLICA TION TRANSACTION WITH M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD AND SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEIN G DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE ADDITIONS MADE WHILE PAS SING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R/W 143(3) DESERVE TO BE DELETED. 15. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY TH E CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN CASE OF M/S KOTA DAL MILL (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS CONSIDERED AND DISCUSSED AT LENGTH VARIOU S DECISIONS LAYING THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIM INATING MATERIAL, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSMENT HAS NOT GOT ABATED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN THE SAID DECISION, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE D ELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA 380 ITR 573 (DEL), ANO THER DECISION OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT VS. MEETA GUTGU TIA 395 ITR 526 AND ALSO THE DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN CASE O F JAI STEEL (INDIA) ACIT 259 CTR (RAJ.) 281. WE THEREFORE FIND THAT THO UGH THE SAID DECISION HAS BEEN RENDERED IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 15 3A, THE LEGAL PROPOSITION SO LAID DOWN SHALL EQUALLY APPLY IN CAS E OF ASSUMPTION OF ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 20 JURISDICTION AND THE SCOPE OF THE ADDITIONS MADE U/ S 153C OF THE ACT AND THUS SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY A S ALSO HELD BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PR. CIT (CENTRAL) VS T.S PULSES PVT. LTD (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER:- 2. THE CENTRAL QUESTION RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN T HIS APPEAL IS REGARDING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION AND THE SCOPE OF THE ADDITIONS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA THE ASSESSEE, THE APPLIC ABILITY OF THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (201 5) 380 ITR 573 IS NOT IN DOUBT. 16. THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD (2015) 62 TAXMANN.COM 391 (DELHI) SPECIFICALLY RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 153C SUPPORTS TH E CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 21. AS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, ONCE THE AO OF THE SEAR CHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED ASSETS/DOCUMENT S BELONG TO ANOTHER PERSON AND THE SAID ASSETS/DOCUMENTS HAVE B EEN TRANSFERRED TO THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE PRO CEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE OTHER PERS ON HAS TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 15 3A OF THE ACT. SECTION 153A REQUIRES THAT WHERE A SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE REQUIRING THE NOTICEE TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS RELEVANT TO THE SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED. AS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, BY VIRTUE OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTIO N 153A, THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INIT IATION OF ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 21 SEARCH ABATE. IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A HAS TO BE CONSTR UED AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO RECEIVES THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSE TS FROM THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF SECON D PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS IT APPLIES TO PROCEEDING S UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PENDIN G ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE AO WOULD ABATE. IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS WHICH H AVE ABATED, THE AO WOULD HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AND M AKE AN ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF CONCLUDED ASSESS MENTS, THE AO WOULD ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REASSESS PROVIDED T HAT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE AO REPRESENT OR IN DICATE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR POSSIBILITY OF ANY INCOME THA T MAY HAVE REMAINED UNDISCLOSED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEA RS. THIS COURT IN CIT V. KABUL CHAWLA [2015] 61 TAXMANN.COM 412 (DELHI) HAS HELD THAT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS COULD ONLY BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRI MINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF THE DOCUMENTS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL, THE AO DOES NOT HAVE ANY JURISDICTION TO INTERFERE IN C ONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS. THIS COURT HAD SUMMARIZED THE LEGAL PO SITION IN RESPECT OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS UNDER: '37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLA INED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT E MERGES IS AS UNDER: ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 22 I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR S IX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSME NTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS W ILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RE SPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY 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 OTHER WORDS TH ERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF TH E SIX AYS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A 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 MA TERIAL 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. OBVIOU SLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THI S SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSM ENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECT ION 153 A IS ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 23 RELATABLE TO ABATED PRO CEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE J URISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UND ER SECTION 153A MER GES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE R ECORD OF THE AO. 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 CO URSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME O R PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT P RODUCED OR NOT ALREA DY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINA L ASSESSMENT.' 22. THE AFORESAID PRINCIPLES WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICAB LE TO PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY PROVIDES THAT ONCE THE AO HAS RECEIVED 'MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUAB LE ARTICLES OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED' FROM THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON, HE WOULD PROCEED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE PERSON TO WHOM SUCH ASSETS/BOOKS BELO NG IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 23. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO AND, ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 24 THEREFORE, WOULD NOT ABATE BY VIRTUE OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. FURTHER, THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE RECKONED WITH RESPECT TO THE DATE O F RECORDING OF SATISFACTION NOTE THAT IS, 8TH SEPTEMBER, 2010 AND NOT THE DATE OF SEARCH. 24. AS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, A REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF THE SEA RCH UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONG ING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEING THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARC HED) TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSESSEE. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE AC T, WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AN D THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WOULD HAVE TO BE CO NSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACT ION. IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENTS/REASSESSMENTS COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTI ON 153C OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH REF ERENCE TO THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE DATE OF THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, I.E., 8 TH SEPTEMBER, 2010. IN THIS VIEW, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WOULD BE BEYON D THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REF ERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE REL EVANT SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD BE THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIO R TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH THE SEARCH ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 25 WAS CONDUCTED. IF THIS INTERPRETATION AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A PERSON SEARCHED, ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SIX PRE VIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENED BUT IN CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSON, WHO IS NO T SEARCHED BUT HIS ASSETS ARE SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS COULD BE REOPENED WOULD BE MU CH BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE DAT E OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS OF A PERSON, OTHER THAN TH E SEARCHED PERSON, TO THE AO WOULD BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE O F THE SEARCH. THIS, IN OUR VIEW, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF REC EIPT OF ASSETS AND DOCUMENTS BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE (OTHER THAN ONE SEARCHED) AS THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE . THE RATIONALE APPEARS TO BE THAT WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF A SEARCHED PERSON THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ASSUMES POSSES SION OF SEIZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS ON SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEE; THE SEIZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A SEARCHED PERSON COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE AO OF THAT PERSO N ONLY AFTER THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERS ON. THUS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN T HE ONE SEARCHED ASSUMES THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSET S WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 153A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-04 AND AY 2004-0 5 WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND TH E AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE' S INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 26 17. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRE TY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE DECISIONS REFERRED SUPRA, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WHILE P ASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C R/W 143(3) IS NOT SUSTAIN ABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS THUS ALLOWED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 18. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS AS AFORESAI D, THE GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION AND VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN IT HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON MERITS HAS BECOME INFRUCTIOUS AND ARE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. 19. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS A LLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1370/JP/2019 & CO NO. 2/JP/2019 20. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2014-15. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION BY THE LD CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON MERITS AND ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION HAS RAISED VARI OUS GROUNDS CHALLENGING LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER U/S 153C READ WITH 143(3) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSE E HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE FIRSTLY TO EXAMIN E THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIO N. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 27 21. IN GROUND NO. 1 OF ITS CROSS-OBJECTION, THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY HAS RAISED THE GROUND RELATING TO NON-RECORDING OF LEGA LLY REQUIRED SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ORDER SO PASSED U/S 153C R/W 243(3) WITHOUT JURISDICTION. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE SAID GROUND WAS NOT PRESSED BY THE LD. AR. HENCE THE SAM E IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 22. IN GROUND NO. 2 OF ITS CROSS OBJECTION, THE AS SESSEE HAS RAISED THE GROUND STATING THAT THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153C R EAD WITH SECTION 143(3) DESERVE TO BE ANNULLED AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT ABATED AS ON THE DATE OF SEAR CH AND NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LEGAL CONTENTIONS SO RAISED CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE SLP ADMITTED IN VARIOUS CASES AND HOLDING THAT THE GROUNDS SO RAISE D ARE ACADEMIC IN NATURE. 23. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE REVIEWED WITHOUT HAVING INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW T HAT THERE CANNOT BE A REVIEW UNDER THE GARB OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U /S 153A/153C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE ABSOLUTELY IN THE ABUSE OF THE PROCESS OF LAW, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT CANNOT BE APPLIED IN RESPEC T OF ASSESSMENT YEAR IN RESPECT OF WHICH ASSESSMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN COM PLETED UNLESS SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/INFORMATION COMES IN TH E POSSESSION/KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2014-15 W AS NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, AS SHOWN IN TABLE BELOW: ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 28 ASSESSMENT YEAR DATE OF FILING OF RETURN U/S 139(1) TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 142(1)/143 (2) DATE OF SEARCH AT SHUBHAM GROUP DATE OF SATISFACTION NOTE 2014-15 17-11-2014 30-09-2015 03-03-2016 13-10-2017 THUS, THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR ISSUE OF NOTIC E U/S 142(1)/143(2) OF IT ACT FOR AY 2014-15 HAS EXPIRED BEFORE THE SEARCH OVER SHUBHAM GROUP WHICH WAS HELD ON 03/03/2016. TH EREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2014-15 WAS DEEMED COMPLETED. AFT ER THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED FOR THE ABOVE YEAR, THE DEPART MENT CARRIED OUT SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS ON 03.03.2016 OVER SUBH AM GROUP AND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH SHOWS THAT THE SHARE CAPITAL & L OAN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. ARE NOT GENUINE/BOGUS OR THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID UNACCOUNTED MONEY FOR PURCHASE OF LAND OR DISALLOWANCE U/S 40A(3) CAN BE MADE. 24. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT FRO M THE PERUSAL OF THE SATISFACTION NOTE, IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THERE IS NOTHING WHICH HAS BEEN MENTIONED AGAINST THE SHARE CAPITAL, SPECIAL D EPOSITS AND DEBENTURE MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15. THIS CLEARLY ESTABLISHES THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT FOUND ANY I NCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT SHARE CAPITAL, SP ECIAL DEPOSIT, DEBENTURE MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD WAS BOGUS AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY MAKING THE A DDITION HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C/153A OF I.T. ACT. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT SEIZED ANY IN CRIMINATING DOCUMENT ON SEARCH OVER SHUBHAM GROUP TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 29 HAS PAID UNACCOUNTED MONEY FOR PURCHASES OF LAND FR OM SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN. REGARDING COPY OF THE SALE DEED FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF THE LAND EXECUTED ON 15.04.2013 BY LATE A BDUL RAHMAN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 4 CRORE IS MENTIONED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HA S ALREADY BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THERE IS NO DOCUMENT WHICH WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT ALLEGED U NACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 5,35,00,000/- AGAINST PURCHASE OF TH E LAND. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HEAVIL Y RELIED UPON THE STATEMENT OF WAZIDUR RAHMAN, LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHR I ABDUL RAHMAN THE SELLER OF THE LAND WHICH WAS RECORDED BY DEPARTMENT ON 22.06.2015 AND 16.11.2015 MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND STATE MENTS WERE NOT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH OVER SHUBHAM GROUP ON 3.0 3.2016 AND THEREFORE, CANNOT BE USED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS THE RESULT OF THE SEARCH. 25. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WAZIDUR RAHMAN HA S NO WHERE STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY H AS MADE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 5,35,00,000/- TO HIS LAT E FATHER SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 3, HE SAID THAT 12 BIGHA LAND WAS SOLD BY HIS FATHER TO SMT NAVNEET KAUR @ RS. 55,00, 000/- PER BIGHA AND THIS LAND WAS SOLD TO SHUBHAM GROUP. IN ANSWER TO Q UESTION NO. 6, HE STATED THAT OUT OF RS 6.60 CRORE, INVESTMENT OF RS. 3.62 CRORE WAS MADE IN PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURE LAND AND ADVANCE O F RS. 50,00,000/- WAS MADE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. HERE ALSO HE HAS NOT STATED THAT UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 5.35 CRORE WAS RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEE. IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 8 OF STATEMENT DATED 16-11-2 015, HE STATED THAT REGISTRY OF LAND WAS MADE IN NAME OF SMT CHARANJEET KAUR AS AGAINST NAME OF SMT NAVNEET KAUR STATED BY HIM IN HIS EARLI ER STATEMENT. IN ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 30 ANSWER NO. 9, HE STATED THAT HIS FATHER SOLD 17 BIG HA LAND AS AGAINST 12 BIGHA STATED BY HIM IN HIS EARLIER STATEMENT. THERE FORE, HE HAS NO WHERE STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S RESONANT WE ALTH CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD HAS PAID UNACCOUNTED MONEY TO HIS FATHER. THEREFORE, EVEN THE STATEMENT OF SHRI WAZIDUR RAHMAN CANNOT BE TERMED A S INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS MADE UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT OF RS. 5.35 CRORE TO SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN FOR PURCHASES OF LAND IN KOTA. 26. FURTHER RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON HONBLE DELHI HI GH COURT DECISION IN CASE OF CIT VS. HARJEEV AGGARWAL (2016) 290 CTR 263 FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF T HE ACT OF THE ACT DO NOT BY THEMSELVES CONSTITUTE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL . FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH CO URT IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI VS. BES T INFRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (2017) 397 ITR 82. FURTHER REGARD ING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S 40A(3), IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NO DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN SUPPORT OF ADDITION OF RS. 3,00,000/- MADE BY LD. AO BY APPLYING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCU MENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE I N THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME MAY THEREFORE BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 27. THE LD. DR IS HEARD WHO HAS REITERATED THE SUBM ISSION HAS MADE EARLIER IN THE CONTEXT OF A.Y 2013-14 IN RELATION T O TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY T HE LD DR THAT UNLIKE THE EARLIER YEAR, THE SATISFACTION NOTE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CLEARLY MENTIONED ABOVE THE SALE DEED EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 15.04.2013 BY VIRTUE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE LAND FROM LATE SHRI ABDU L RAHMAN AND ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 31 FURTHER BASED ON STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL HEIR OF SEL LER OF THE LAND, IT HAS BEEN CONFIRMED THAT THERE IS ON-MONEY PAYMENT OF RS . 5.35 CRORE BY THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT IS CLEARLY SEIZED OF THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT BY WAY OF THE SALE DEED AND ALSO THE STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL HEIR AND THE SA ME THUS FORM THE BASIS OF ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HE SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.11.2014 AND THE TIME LIMIT P RESCRIBED FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS EXPIRED ON 30.09. 2015. IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE AC T, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO REC EIVES THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS FROM THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PER SON WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE IS THE DATE OF PREPARATION OF SATISFAC TION NOTE WHICH IS 13.10.2017, AND ON THE SAID DATE, THE ASSESSMENT WA S NOT ABATED AS THE SAME ALREADY STOOD COMPLETED. THEREFORE, IN CAS E OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENT, THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BA SIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL/DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 153C R/W 143(3) OF THE ACT AS WE HAVE DIS CUSSED IN DETAIL IN CONTEXT OF AY 2013-14. 29. COMING TO THE SPECIFICS OF THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE AO, IT NEEDS TO BE EXAMINED WHETHER EACH OF SUCH ADDITIONS ARE B ASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. REGARDING ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF SHARE CAPITAL, SPECIAL DEPOSIT, DEBENTURE MONEY RECEIVED FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD AMOUNTING TO RS. 8.84 CRORE, THERE I S NOTHING ON RECORD ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 32 WHICH SUGGEST THAT ANY DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEI ZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE DULY RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WERE DULY DISC LOSED AND AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS NOT EVE N THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE BASIS ANY DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITIO N HAVE BEEN MADE MERELY BASIS THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING K OLKATA WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 11.12.2017 DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ON ACCOUNT OF NON-APPEARANCE OF THE DIRECTORS OF THE INVESTOR COMPANY. THE SAID REPORT OF THE INVESTIGAT ION WING MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A RELEVANT EVIDENCE, HOWEVER THE SAME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER SECTION 132 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, THE ADDITION WHICH HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO HAS NO L INKAGE WITH ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO AND WOULD NOT ABATE BY VIRTUE OF PROVISO TO SECTION 153A AND THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH RELATING TO SHARE CAPITAL, SPECIAL DEPOSIT, DEBENTURE MONEY REC EIVED FROM M/S DENIM DEVELOPERS LTD AND SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEING DU LY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE ASSSESSEE COMPANY, THE ADD ITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 68 IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 30. REGARDING COPY OF THE SALE DEED EXECUTED ON 15. 04.2013 BY LATE SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A C ONSIDERATION OF RS 4 CRORES AND WHICH HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH, AS PER SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AVAILABLE A T APB PAGE 101- 102 WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN STATED THAT THE DOCUMENTS A S PER EXHIBIT 4 ANNEXURE AS-04 PAGE NO 239-261 RELATES TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT AND ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 33 REGISTRY DOCUMENTS OF LAND WHICH WAS PURCHASED FROM ABDUL RAHMAN AND ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. EV EN AS PER THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT PARA 18 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE INVESTMENT OF RS 4 CRORES HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHICH HAS BEEN DECLARED BE FORE HIM. IT IS THEREFORE A CASE WHERE THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND FOR RS 4 CRORES AS PER THE SEIZED SALE DEED HAS BEEN DULY RE CORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE PREPARED FOR THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2013-14 WELL BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 3.03.2016 AND THE SAID FACT REMAIN UNDISPUTED BEFORE US. THEREFORE, THE COPY OF THE SA LE DEED FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION UNDE RTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL A S THE SAID TRANSACTION HAS ALREADY BEEN ADMITTED BY THE ASSESS EE AND DULY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WHICH IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. 31. REGARDING THE STATEMENT OF THE LEGAL HEIR NAMEL Y SHRI WAZIDUR RAHMAN WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE DEPARTMENT ON 22.0 6.2015 AND 16.11.2015, IT IS THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT I N THE SAID STATEMENT, SHRI WAZIDUR RAHMAN HAS STATED THAT THE LAND BELONG ED TO HIS LATE FATHER SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN WHO HAS SOLD 17 BIGHAS OF LAND ON 15.3.2013 TO SUBHAM GROUP @ RS 55 LACS PER BIGHA FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS 9.35 CRORES, HOWEVER THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ONLY RS 4 CRORES WAS SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS 5.35 CRORES WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, A GROUP CO MPANY OF SUBHAM GROUP IN CASH OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN ITS SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS CONTENDED THAT THERE ARE CONTR ADICTIONS IN THE TWO STATEMENTS OF SHRI WAZIDUR RAHMAN RECORDED BY T HE DEPARTMENT ON 22.6.2015 AND 16.11.2015, NOWHERE HE HAS STATED THA T THE ASSESSEE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 34 COMPANY HAS PAID RS 5.35 CRORES TO HIS LATE FATHER AND THE FACT THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND STATEMENTS WERE NOT IN CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH OV ER SHUBHAM GROUP ON 3.03.2016 CANNOT BE IGNORED AND THEREFORE, CANNO T BE USED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS THE RESULT OF THE S EARCH. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX AND WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DESERVE TO SUCCEED IN ITS CONTENT ION THAT THESE STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 131(IA) CANNOT BE HELD AS I NCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE SUBHAM GROUP AS WHAT HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS THE COPY OF THE SALE DEED FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND AS WE HAVE NOTED ABOVE, THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND AS PER STATED SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS 4 CRORES AS PER THE SAID SALE DEED HAS BEEN DULY RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND THUS THE SALE DEED THOUGH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE HE LD AS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT AS THE SAME STAND ALREADY DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. FURTHER, THESE TWO STATEME NTS WERE RECORDED U/S 131(IA) OF SHRI VAZIDUR RAHMAN, THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI ABDUL RAHMAN ON 22.6.2015 AND 16.11.2015 MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 3.03.2016 AND IN FACT, BASIS SUCH STATEMENT AND INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE SEARCH PROCEEDING S WERE INITIATED U/S 132 ON THE SUBHAM GROUP. THE SAME IS THE ADMITTED P OSITION OF THE REVENUE AS IS CLEAR FROM PARA 18 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHERE THE AO HAS HELD AS UNDER: 18. UNEXPLAINED PAYMENTS FOR LAND PURCHASE:- DURIN G SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF I.T. ACT ON SHUBHAM GROUP OF KOTA ON 03.03.2016, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED VID E PAGE NOS. 238 TO 235 OF ANNEXURE A-4 BY PARTY-11 FROM CHOUDHA RY HOTEL PREMISES, NEAR AERODROME CIRCLE, KOTA WHICH IS A CO PY OF SALE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 35 DEED OF LAND EXECUTED ON 15.04.2013 BY LATE ABDUL R EHMAN IN FAVOUR OF M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE L IMITED, WHEREIN CONSIDERATION OF RS. 400/- LACS IS REGISTER ED. ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS, AND STATEMENT OF LEGAL HEIR OF THE SELLER, IT IS CLEAR THAT PAYMENT OF RS. 535/- LACS WAS MADE IN CASH FOR ABOVE LAND PURCHASE TRANSACTIONS. ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS DECLARED TO HAVE PURCHASED THIS PROPERTY AT A CONSI DERATION OF RS. 4,00,00,000/-, PURCHASE CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN T HE PURCHASE DEED WHEREAS, SEARCH & SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS REVEALED THAT ACTUAL INVESTMENT IN THE SAID LAND WAS RS. 9,35,00,000/-. WHEN EXAMINED ON OATH U/S 131(1A) OF I.T.ACT, 1961 ON 22 .06.2015 & 16.11.2015, SHRI VAZIDUR RAHMAN REVEALED THAT THE A BOVE REFERRED LAND BELONGED TO HIS LATE FATHER ABDUL RAH MAN WHO HAD SOLD (17 BIGHAS OF LAND) ON 15.04.2013 TO SHUBHAM G ROUP @ RS. 55 LACS PER BIGHA FOR TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS. 93 5/- LACS, HOWEVER, THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF ONLY RS. 400/- L ACS WAS SHOWN IN THE REGISTERED SALE DEED AND THAT THE REMAINING AMOUNT WAS PAID BY M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIM ITED, A GROUP OF COMPANY OF SHUBHAM GROUP IN CASE OUTSIDE O F BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER REVEALED THAT HIS FATHER HAS AL READY EXPIRED ON 29.11.2013. THE SALE DEED FOR THE AFORESAID TRANSACTION HAD BEE N EXECUTED UNDER THE OWNERSHIP OF COMPANY M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE SHUBHAM GRO UP THROUGH ITS GROUP COMPANY M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY P RIVATE LIMITED HAS INVESTED UNACCOUNTED CASH TO THE TUNE O F RS. 5.35 ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 36 CRORES FOR ACQUISITION OF 17 BIGHAS OF LAND. BASED ON THIS INFORMATION, THE CASE WAS PROCESSED FURTHER AND A S EARCH & SEIZURE ACTION WAS CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IN THE CASES OF THE SHUBHAM GROUP OF KOTA ON 03.03.201 6. DURING SEARCH ACTION, SHRI RAM J BHATIA OF SHUBHAM GROUP H AS ALSO ADMITTED TO HAVE MADE PAYMENT OF ABOVE STATED AMOUN T OF RS. 535 LACS IN CASH FOR THE ACQUISITION OF LAND IN THE NAME OF THEIR COMPANY M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PRIVATE LIM ITED OUT OF HIS OWN UN-ACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2013-14 WHICH HE HAD VOLUNTARILY OFFERED FOR TAXATION AS HI S ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR AY 2014-15. THUS, THESE STATEMENTS OF SHRI VAZIRDUR REHMAN WERE IN FACT FORM PART OF THE INFORMATION IN POSSESSION OF THE DEPARTMENT MUCH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND HAVE FORMED THE BASIS ON WHICH T HE SEARCH ACTION WAS TAKEN ON THE SUBHAM GROUP ON 3.3.2016. THE SAID STATEMENTS MAY BE CONSIDERED AS A RELEVANT EVIDENCE, HOWEVER THE S AME CANNOT BE REGARDED AS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE UNDER SECTION 132 IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THESE STATEMENTS WERE IN THE NATURE OF INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND RECORDED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, EVEN WHERE THE REVENUE HAS TRIED TO ESTABLISH NEXUS OF THESE STATEMENTS WITH THE COPY OF SALE DEED FOR PURCHASE OF LAND FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE S ALE DEED CANNOT BE HELD AS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH AS THE TRANSACTION SO REPORTED IN THE SALE DEED AND TH E CONSIDERATION STATED THEREIN FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND HAS ALREADY BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREF ORE, UNLESS AND UNTIL SOME TANGIBLE MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH WHICH DEMONSTRATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON-MONEY FO R THE PURCHASE OF ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 37 LAND OVER AND ABOVE WHICH HAS BEEN RECORDED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E COMPANY GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSMENT STOOD COMPLETED AND NOT ABATED AS PER PROVISO TO SECTION 153A AS APPLICABLE FOR ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 32. IN LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIONS AND IN THE ENTIRE TY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO WHILE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C R/W 143(3) IS NOT SUS TAINABLE AND ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS HEREBY DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. GROUND NO. 2 OF ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS THUS ALLOWED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 33. SINCE WE HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS AS AFORESAI D, THE GROUND NO. 3 IN ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION AND THE GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN IT HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETION OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON MERITS HAS BECOME INFRUCTIOUS AND ARE NOT ADJUDICAT ED UPON. 34. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS A LLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 1371/JP/2019 & CO NO. 3/JP/2019 35. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE REVENUES APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2016-17. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE DELETION BY THE LD CIT(A) OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON MERITS AND ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS OBJECTION HAS RAISED VARI OUS GROUNDS CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) READ WITH 153(B)(1)(B) OF THE ACT. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 38 ITS CROSS OBJECTION, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE FIRSTLY TO EXAMINE THE SAID GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CRO SS OBJECTION. 36. IN GROUND NO. 2 OF THE ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTI ON, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PAS SED U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153B (1)(B) OF THE ACT ON THE GROUND T HAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED BY THE STATUTE. 37. IN THIS REGARD, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THIS IS T HE YEAR OF SEARCH AS THE DEPARTMENT CARRIED OUT SEARCH OPERATION ON SUBH AM GROUP ON 03.03.2016 AND THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGL Y DECIDED THE ISSUE CONSIDERING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A OF THE ACT, WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF I NCOME U/S 139(1) ON 25.08.2016. IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 143(2), THE NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE UPTO 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN WAS F ILED WHICH HAS EXPIRED ON 30.09.2017 HOWEVER THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) ACTUALL Y BEEN ISSUED ON 30.10.2017. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSMENT CARRIED OUT U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153B (1)(B) OF THE ACT BEING BARRED BY THE LIMITATION SUFFERED FROM THE PALPABLE INFIRMITY AND THUS VOID AB INITIO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE QUESTION OF LIMIT ATION IS A JURISDICTIONAL MATTER AND WHERE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED BEYO ND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION, THE PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE WITHOUT JURISD ICTION AND THEREFORE, ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO WOULD BE A NULLITY AND NON-EST IN THE EYE OF LAW. 38. IN SUPPORT, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA DECISION IN CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON [2010] 321 ITR ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 39 362/188 TAXMAN 113 (SC) WHEREIN AN IDENTICAL ISSUE REGARDING LIMITATION, MANDATORY NATURE OF THE PROVISION U/S 1 43(2) BEING APPLICABLE TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AROSE FO R CONSIDERATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION HAS SUBSEQUENT LY BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE VARIOUS HIGH COURTS SUCH AS HONBLE DELHI HIGH IN CASE OF INDUS TOWERS LTD. V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, C IRCLE-11(1) (2017) 82 TAXMANN.COM 430 (DELHI), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, VADODARA V . NEXUS SOFTWARE LTD (2017) 81 TAXMANN.COM 153 (GUJARAT), THE HONBL E HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN CASE OF PAI VINOD V. DEPUTY COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 164 (KARNATAKA), THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KERALA IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-11, CO CHIN VS. V.V. DEVASSY (2018) 89 TAXMANN.COM 22(KERALA), THE HONB LE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS IN CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CHENN AI VS. GITSONS ENGINEERING CO. (2015) 53 TAXMANN.COM 108 (MADRAS) AND THE HONBLE KOLKATA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX VS OBEROI HOTELS (P) LTD (2018) 96 TAXMANN.COM 104 (CA LCUTTA). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) HAD NOT BEEN ISSUED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT, ASSESSMENT MAD E U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153B (1)(B) BEING VOID AB INITIO WOULD BE NULL & VOID. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DESERVES TO BE QUASHED ON THE AFORESAID GROUND. 39. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEL LANT WAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 143(2) AFTER FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME AND THE APPELLANT DULY ATTENDED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN DULY COMPLIED WITH. REFERRING TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 40 IS NO SPECIFIC PROVISION WHICH REQUIRES THAT THE AS SESSMENT MADE U/S 153A HAS TO BE MADE AFTER ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 14 3(2) OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN CASE OF ASSTT. CIT V. HOTEL BLUE MOON RELIED UPON BY THE AR, IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTIO N 158BC AND THEREFORE, STAND DISTINGUISHABLE IN THE INSTANT CAS E. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY T HE LD AR WERE RENDERED IN CONTEXT OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 AND THE SAME ALSO STAND DISTINGUISHABLE. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS P LACED ON THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH ARE CONTAINED AT PARA 2.2.8 TO 2.2.12 OF HIS ORDER WHICH ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 2.2.8 IT IS ALSO TO BE NOTED THAT SECTION 153A PROVIDES FOR THE PROCEDURE FOR ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUI SITION. SUB SECTION (1) STARTS WITH NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE STATING THAT IT WAS NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTIONS 147, 148 AND 149, ET C. CLAUSE (A) THEREOF PROVIDES FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE PERSON SEARC HED UNDER SECTION 132 OR WHERE DOCUMENTS ETC ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132(A), TO FURNISH A RETURN OF INCOME. THIS CLAUSE NOWHERE PRE SCRIBES FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). 2.2.9 THE APPELLANT SOUGHT TO CONTEND THAT THE WORD S, SO FAR AS MAY BE APPLICABLE MADE IT MANDATORY FOR ISSUANCE OF NO TICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) SINCE THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A WAS TO BE TREATED AS ONE UNDER SECTION 139. THE WOR DS SO FAR AS MAY BE IN CLAUSE (A) OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153 A COULD NOT BE INTERPRETED THAT THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) WAS MANDATORY IN CASE OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A. THE USE OF THE WORDS, SO FAR AS MAY BE CANNOT BE STRETCHED TO TH E EXTENT OF MANDATORY ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2). AS IS NOTED, A SPECIFIC ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 41 NOTICE WAS REQUIRED TO BE ISSUED UNDER CLAUSE (A) O F SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A CALLING UPON THE PERSONS SEARCHED OR R EQUISITIONED TO FILE RETURN. THAT BEING SO, NO FURTHER NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 143(2) COULD BE CONTEMPLATED FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A. 2.2.10 NO SPECIFIC NOTICE WAS REQUIRED UNDER SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT WHEN THE NOTICE IN THE PRESENT CASE AS REQUIRED UND ER SECTION 153 (A)(1)(A) OF THE ACT WAS ALREADY GIVEN. MOREOVER, AS OBSERVED EARLIER, SEVERAL DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRES AND OTHER NOTICES U /S 142(1) & 143(2), ELEVEN TIMES TO BE SPECIFIC, WHICH ARE UNDISPUTED ONE, WERE ISSUED AS DETAILED ON PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO THE A SSESSEE BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. THESE NOTICES WERE SUFFIC IENT OPPORTUNITIES SO AS TO GIVE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE, ASKING HIM TO ATTEND THE OFFICE OF THE AO IN PERSON OR THROUGH A REPRESENTATIVE DULY A UTHORIZED IN WRITING OR PRODUCE OR CAUSE TO BE PRODUCED AT THE GIVEN TIM E ANY DOCUMENTS, ACCOUNTS, AND ANY OTHER EVIDENCE ON WHICH HE MAY RE LY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN FILED BY HIM. 2.2.11 THE RELIANCE IS PLACED ON RECENT DECISION B Y HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CASE OF ASHOK CHADDHA V/S ITO REPORTED IN 337 ITR FOR HOLDING THIS VIEW. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT WHEN TH E ISSUE OF REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) FOR AN A SSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE SCENAR IO OF POST AMENDMENT BY FINANCE ACT 2006 BEFORE HONBLE HIGH C OURT OF DELHI RECENTLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MADHYA BHARAT ENERG Y CORPN., ITA NO. 950/08 DECIDED ON 11/07/2011 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC PROVISION UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT, THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143 (2) C ANNOT BE HELD TO BE A MANDATORY REQUIREMENT. ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 42 2.2.12 IN VIEW OF ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ISSUE RAI SED IN GROUND NO. 1THAT THE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) DATED 29/12/2017 W ITHOUT ISSUE OF THE STATUTORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE INC OME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME AND AS SUCH HIS IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NOT GOOD IN LAW AND VOID AB-INITIO IS DISMISSED.' 40. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION IS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON SUBHAM GROUP B ASED ON THE SEARCH SO CONDUCTED, THE NOTICES U/S 153C WERE ISSU ED IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE EARLIER YEARS AND FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO SUCH NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) ON 25.08.2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 14,69,383/- (LOSS) AND THEREAFTER, THE NOTICE DATED 30.10.2017 WAS ISSUED U/S 143(2) TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THE VER Y FACT OF THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) ON 30.10.2017 HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE AND IS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH AT PARA 2.2 OF HIS ORDER HAS STATED AS UNDER:- 2.2 THE CHALLENGE OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS GROUND IS REGARDING THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ON TECHNICAL GROUND THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT IS BARRED BY LIMITATIO N, THEREFORE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING IS VOID-AB-INITIO RESU LTING WHOLE PROCEEDINGS BAD IN LAW. I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, SUBMISSION MADE BY APPLICANT AND DOCUMENTS SUBMITTE D IN THE FORM OF PAPER BOOK. ON EXAMINATION OF DOCUMENTS IT REVEALS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED BY THE AO ON 30.10.2017 WHICH IS VERIFIABLE FROM COPY OF NOTICE, DATE OF ISSUE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 43 OF NOTICE MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND NOT ING MADE IN ORDER SHEET. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT AND THE NORMAL TIME LIMIT FOR ISS UANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS WITHIN SIX MONTHS FROM CLOSE OF THE FINAN CIAL YEAR IN WHICH RETURN WAS FILED AND WHICH HAS THUS EXPIRED ON 30.0 9.2017. THE NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 30.10.20 17 WHICH ITSELF SHOWS THAT IT HAS BEEN ISSUED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION PERIOD AS PRESCRIBED U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WHICH IS REPRODUCE D AS UNDER:- (2) WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 , OR IN RESPONSE TO A NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE PRESCRIBED INCOME-TAX AUTH ORITY, AS THE CASE MAY BE, IF, CONSIDERS IT NECESSARY OR EXPEDIEN T TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDER-PAID THE T AX IN ANY MANNER, SHALL SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE A NOTICE REQUIR ING HIM, ON A DATE TO BE SPECIFIED THEREIN, EITHER TO ATTEND TH E OFFICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR TO PRODUCE, OR CAUSE TO BE PRO DUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANY EVIDENCE ON WHICH THE ASS ESSEE MAY RELY IN SUPPORT OF THE RETURN: PROVIDED THAT NO NOTICE UNDER THIS SUB-SECTION SHAL L BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED . 41. THE VERY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS THUS BEYOND THE LIMITATION PERIOD AND THEREFORE, THE CONSEQUENT ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUFFERS FROM THE IN HERENT JURISDICTIONAL INFIRMITY WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED OR EVEN CURED BY THE REVENUE AS LAID ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 44 DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN HOTEL BLUE MOO N (SUPRA) AND REITERATED BY VARIOUS HIGH COURTS AND REFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN TO DECISION OF HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF OBERIO HOTELS (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 3. THE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON H AS FIRST TO BE REFERRED TO SINCE SUCH JUDGMENT STILL HOLDS THE FIELD. IN COURSE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER RE PUDIATED THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT FAILED TO ISSUE AN Y NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PER IOD OF TIME, THE SUPREME COURT HELD, AT PARAGRAPH 15 OF THE JUDGMENT , INTER ALIA, AS FOLLOWS: '15. BUT SECTION 143(2) ITSELF BECOMES NECESSARY ONLY WHERE IT BECOMES NECESSARY TO CHECK THE RETURN, SO THAT WHERE BLOCK RETURN CONFORMS TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCO ME INFERRED BY THE AUTHORITIES, THERE IS NO REASON, WH Y THE AUTHORITIES SHOULD ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2 ). HOWEVER, IF AN ASSESSMENT IS TO BE COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 158 BC, NOTICE UND ER SECTION 143(2) SHOULD BE ISSUED WITHIN ONE YEAR FRO M THE DATE OF FILING OF BLOCK RETURN. OMISSION ON THE PAR T OF THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 43(2) CANNOT BE A PROCEDURAL IRREGULARITY AND THE SAME IS NOT CURABLE AND, THEREFORE, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTICE U NDER SECTION 143(2) CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH ' 4. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE DICTUM OF THE SUPREME COU RT IN HOTEL BLUE MOON IS THAT A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) IS MANDA TORY IF THE RETURN AS FILED IS NOT ACCEPTED AND AN ASSESSMENT O RDER IS TO BE MADE AT VARIANCE WITH THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSES SEE. IT IS ALSO ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 45 EVIDENT THAT THE ISSUE IS NOT LIMITED TO BLOCK ASSE SSMENT BUT WOULD APPLY TO EVERY CASE WHERE A NOTICE UNDER SECT ION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS NECESSARY. 9. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, PARTICULA RLY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE LAW LAID DOWN BY THE SUPREME COUR T IN HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA), IT IS INESCAPABLE THAT THE ISSUA NCE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IS MANDATORY IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SEEKS NOT TO ACCEPT ANY PART OF THE RETURN AS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE OR MAKE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTRARY T HERETO AND, EVEN IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SUCH NO TICE CANNOT BE DISPENSED WITH. 10. ONE OF THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE IS THAT IN COURSE OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ONCE A N OTICE IS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE I S MADE AWARE OF WHAT PART OF THE INCOME OR ON WHAT COUNT THE ASS ESSEE'S INCOME IS PERCEIVED TO HAVE ESCAPED ATTENTION. IT I S SUBMITTED THAT IN SUCH A SCENARIO, THE REQUIREMENT OF A NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) MAY BE SOMEWHAT DILUTED, IF NOT UNNECESSARY. APART FROM THE FACT THAT SUCH ARGUMENT CANNOT BE COUNTENANCED IN THE LIGHT OF THE DICTUM IN HOTEL BLUE MOON (SUPRA), IT IS EVI DENT THAT AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS CONSE QUENT UPON A HEARING AND THE PRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE ON SUCH POIN TS ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HARBOUR DOUBTS AND ARE IN DICATED IN HIS NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. SECTION 143 (3) OF THE ACT CONTEMPLATES AN ASSESSMENT UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER UPON MATERIAL BEING PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE ON GRO UNDS WHICH ARE INDICATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HIS NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT WHEREOF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY HAVE MISGIVINGS OR MAY DISAGREE WITH THE RETURN FIL ED BY THE ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 46 ASSESSEE. IMPLICIT IN THE WORDING OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS THE INDISPENSABILITY OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143( 2) THEREOF. 42. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILE D THE RETURN OF INCOME PURSUANT TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND T HEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN TH E INSTANT CASE. THE LD CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY PROCEEDED ON THE PRESUMPTION THA T RETURN HAS BEEN FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. EVEN IN SUCH CASES, WHERE THE RETURN IS FILED U/S 153A, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION O F HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF HOTEL BLUE MOON(SUPRA), ONCE THE A SSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTIC E U/S 143(2) WHERE HE WISHES TO MAKE THE ASSESSMENT AND NOT ACCEPT THE RE TURN AS SO FILED. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RET URN OF INCOME ON 25.08.2016 U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, RELATING TO YEAR OF SEARCH AND EVEN IF WE LOOK AT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153B OF THE ACT, THE S AID PROVISIONS PROVIDE RELAXATION SO FAR AS THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR P ASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS CONCERNED. HOWEVER, NO SUCH RELAXATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN TERMS OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS READ AS UNDER:- 153B. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 153 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL MAKE AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, (A ) IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN S IX ASSESSMENT YEARS [AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEAR S] REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A , WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWENTY- ONE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WH ICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORISATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 47 REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A WAS EXECUTED; (B ) IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT T O THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION IS MADE UNDER SECTION 132A , WITHIN A PERIOD OF TWENTY- ONE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE LAST OF THE AUTHORISATIONS FOR SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR FOR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A WAS EXECUTED: PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF OTHER PERSON REFERRED TO I N SECTION 153C , THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE THE PERIOD AS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OF THIS SUB-SECTION OR NINE MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINA NCIAL YEAR IN WHICH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZE D OR REQUISITIONED ARE HANDED OVER UNDER SECTION 153C TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, WHICHEVER IS LATER 43. FURTHER, EVEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292BB O F THE ACT DOES NOT SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AS IN THE PRESENT C ASE, THE VERY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) IS BEYOND THE PRESCRI BED PERIOD OF TIME WHEREAS THE SECTION 292BB TALKS ABOUT THE SITUATION S WHERE THE NOTICE HAS EITHER NOT BEEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE OR NOT BEEN SERVED IN TIME OR NOT HAVE BEEN SERVED IN A PROPER MANNER. HO WEVER, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE MATTER IS NOT ABOUT THE SERVICE O F THE NOTICE IN TIME TO THE ASSESSEE RATHER THE MATTER IS VERY ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED TIME PERIOD. THEREFORE , SECTION 292BB CANNOT COME TO THE RESCUE OF THE REVENUE IN THE PRE SENT CASE. IN THE ENTIRETY FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT SINCE THE NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN ISSU ED BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED LIMITATION PERIOD, THE ENTIRE PROCEEDING S SUFFER FROM THE JURISDICTIONAL INFIRMITY AND DESERVE TO BE SET ASID E. GROUND NO. 2 OF ITA 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & C.O. 01, 02, & 03/ JP/2019_ DCIT, JAIPUR VS. M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PV T. LTD., JAIPUR 48 ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS THUS ALLOWED IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. 44. SINCE WE HAVE SET-ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS AS AFORESAID, THE GROUND NO. 1 IN ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN IT HAS CHALLENGED THE DELETI ON OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON MERITS HAS BECOME INFRUCTIOUS AND ARE NOT ADJUDICATED UPON. 45. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES CROSS OBJECTION IS A LLOWED AND REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24/05/2019 SD/- SD/- FOT; IKWY JKO FOE FLAG ;KNO (VIJAY PAL RAO) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 24/05/2019 *GANESH KR. VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- M/S RESONANT WEALTH CONSULTANCY PVT. LTD., JAIPUR 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 1369, 1370 & 1371/JP/2018 & CO NO. 01,02 & 03/JP/2019) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR