Yogita Badgujar, Thane V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1719/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5813 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2018
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 11-09-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHANDU DAS
• Keywords: Document seized; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 271(1)(c); 143(3); 153A; 27; 132

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1719 AND 1720/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 SMT. YOGITA BADGUJAR, 204, PASHUPATINATH C-02, B WING, MAHADEV SANKALP COMPLEX, GANDHARE VILLAGE, NEAR KHADAKPADA CHOWK, KALYAN (WEST), THANE 421 301. PAN : ANKPB5184H. . / APPELLANT V/S THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL 1, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE. REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDHANDU DAS. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING O UT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) 1, NA SHIK DT.22.08.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. ITA NO.171 9/PUN/ 2014 IS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) R .W.S. 153C AND ITA NO.1720/PUN/2014 IS AGAINST THE LEVY OF PENALTY U /S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 2. WE FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1719/PUN /2014 FOR A.Y. 2005-06. / DATE OF HEARING : 11.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 10.04.2019 2 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE RE-SELLER OF CLOTHS ON RETAIL BASIS. ASSESSEE FILED HER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ON 19.11.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.99,350/-. A SEARCH A ND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN SUYO JIT GROUP OF CASES ON 17.09.2010 AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR WAS ALSO SEARCHED U/S 132 OF THE A CT. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS BE LONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PREMISES. A CCORDINGLY, PROVISIONS OF SEC.132 OF THE ACT WERE INVOKED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 30.07.2012 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C OF T HE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.12.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INC OME OF RS.2,17,963/- WHICH INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,18,613/- O N ACCOUNT OF BANK INTEREST AND INTEREST ON SECURITIES. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRA MED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.28.03.2013 AND T HE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.77,17,960/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.22.08.2014 (IN APPEAL NO.NSK/CIT(A)-I/648/2013-14) DISMISS ED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, N ASHIK ERRED IN PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT GIVING PROPER O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. 3 THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE APPELLANT ORDER BE QUASHED AND THE FILE TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE LD.CIT(A) FOR D ECIDING THE MATTER AFRESH. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, N ASHIK ERRED IN NOT PROVIDING AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS ARE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS THAT THE APPELLANT ORDER BE QUASHED AND THE FILE TO BE RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(A) FOR DECI DING THE MATTER AFRESH. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, N ASHIK HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000/-. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE PRAYS . TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 75,00,000/-. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED IN NOT TRANSFER RING THE FILE FROM N ASHIK TO KALYAN EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NG IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WAS COMPLETED. HENCE THE APPELLATE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS T O BE QUASHED AND A FRESH HEARING FROM PROPER JURISDICTION MAY BE GIV EN. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT.25.09.2017 HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE EARNED IN INITIATING PROVISION U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED INCRIMINATING MATERIAL DO NOT BELONG TO ASSESSEE AND ALSO PROCEEDINGS ARE TIME BARRED. 5. WITH RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND, IT IS ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT IT IS A LEGAL GROUND WHICH GOES TO THE R OOT OF THE ISSUE AND THE SAME BE ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF H ONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER LIMITED VS. C IT REPORTED IN 229 ITR 383. LD.D.R. DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE A DDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON THE ISSUE OF AD MISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE BEING LEGAL IN NATURE AND IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX 4 COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER LTD., (SUPRA), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION. 7. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS W ITH RESPECT TO THE CHALLENGING THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 1 53C OF THE ACT, WE FIRST PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. 8. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE SEARCH AT THE RE SIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR U/S 132 OF TH E ACT TOOK PLACE ON 17.09.2010 WHEREIN IT WAS ALLEGED THAT CERTAIN INCR IMINATING DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED FROM S EARCHED PREMISES. HE POINTING TO THE COPY OF ORDER SHEET DT.30.07 .2012 WHICH WAS RECORDED BY THE AO FOR RECORDING THE SATISFACTION FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK POINTING TO THE AFORESAID DOCUMENT, HE SUBMITT ED THAT AO RECORDED SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO ASSESSEE I.E., OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SEC.153A OF THE ACT AND ACCORDINGLY THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WERE HANDEDOVER TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE ON 30.07.2012 I.E., IN A.Y. 201 3-14. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153A OF THE A CT, THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RE SPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE SINCE RECEIPT OF INFORMATION WAS IN A.Y. 2013- 14 AND THEREFORE THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WO ULD BE FROM A.Y. 2007-08 TO 2012-13. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE AO COULD NOT HAVE RESORTED TO THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) R.W.S 1 53C OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. HE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE 5 OF PCIT VS. SARWAR AGENCY PVT. LTD., REPORTED IN (2017) 39 7 ITR 400 AND THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE OF KEWAL KUMAR JAIN VS. ACIT (ITA NOS1381 TO 1383/PUN/2 016 ORDER DT.30.08.2016). HE ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF THE AFORESAID DECISION. LD.A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT WHILE DECIDING THE I SSUE, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SARWAR A GENCY PVT. LTD., (SUPRA). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PAS SED BY THE AO IS LIABLE TO BE SET ASIDE AS IT IS BEYOND THE PERIOD SPECIFIE D U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 9. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO A ND LD.CIT(A). LD.D.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THIS CASE, THE LD.CIT IN VIEW OF THE POWERS CONFERRED U/S 127 OF THE ACT HAD PAS SED ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT ON 25.03.2011. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THA T SINCE THE ORDER U/S 127 OF THE ACT HAS BEEN PASSED IN A.Y. 2011- 12, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT A ND IS NOT BARRED BY LIMITATION. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVIS ION OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT DOES NOT STIPULATE THE RECORDING OF S ATISFACTION. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE A O IS WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT. 10. LD.A.R. IN THE REJOINDER SUBMITTED THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC .153C(1) OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION OF THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE PROCEDURE MENTIONED IN SEC.15 3C OF THE ACT IS SPECIFIC. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.CIT U/S 127 OF THE ACT, THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ANANT KESHAV RAJEGAONKAR AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SE C.127 OF THE 6 ACT RELATES TO POWER TO TRANSFER CASES AND IN THE ABS ENCE OF ANY MENTION ABOUT SEC.127 OF THE ACT IN SEC.153C, THE SAME C ANNOT BE CONSIDERED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT GROUND THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C OF TH E ACT. THE FACT THAT THE SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARR IED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ANANT RAJEGAOKAR ON 17.09.2010 WHEREIN CERT AIN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IS NOT IN DISPUTE. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE AO OF THE SEAR CHED PERSON HANDED OVER THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE, TH E OTHER PERSON, TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE ON 30.07.2012 I.E. IN A.Y 2013-14. 12. THE INGREDIENTS TO BE SATISFIED TO ATTRACT SECTION 153 C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 ARE : (A) THE SATISFACTION NOTE HAS TO BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED, (B) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VA LUABLE ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, SHOULD BELONG TO OR SHOULD HAVE BELONGED TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON IN RE SPECT OF WHOM THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED, (C) THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR D OCUMENTS OR ASSETS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHOULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. FOR THE PURPOSE OF SECTION 153C, A SATISFACTION NOTE IS SINE QUA NON AND MUST BE PREPARED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BEFORE HE TRANSMITS THE RECORDS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO HAS JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 196 1 PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME OF THE OTHER 7 PERSON WOULD BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 153A. THE FIRST PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153C FURTHER STATES THAT, IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A(1) SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAV ING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. IN TERMS OF SECTION 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS T HE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSES SMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS C ONDUCTED. WHEN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SEEN IN THE LIGHT OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE IMPUGNED A SSESSMENT YEAR I.E., A.Y. 2006-07 FALLS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESS MENT YEARS FROM THE PERIOD FROM WHICH THE DOCUMENTS WERE HANDED OV ER TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS OUTS IDE THE SCOPE OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT AND THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO FR AME THE ASSESSMENT OF ASSESSEES INCOME FOR THAT YEAR. 13. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RRJ SECURITIES LTD (2016) 380 ITR 0612 (DELHI) WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT IN TER MS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, A REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HA S TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUME NTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEING THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED) TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSESSEE. THE R ELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HIGH COURT ARE AS UNDER: 8 24. AS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, IN TERMS OF PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, A REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH UNDE R THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE (BEIN G THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED) TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTIO N TO ASSESS THE SAID ASSESSEE. FURTHER PROCEEDINGS, BY VIRTUE OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, WOULD HAVE TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WOULD HAVE TO BE CO NSTRUED AS THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION. IT WOULD FOLLOW THAT THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS FOR WHICH ASSESSMENTS/REASSESS MENTS COULD BE MADE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WOULD ALSO HAVE TO BE CONSTRUED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSET S/DOCUMENTS TO THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE D ATE 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 ASSES SMENT YEAR 2003- 04 AND 2004-05 WOULD BE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX AS SESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE R EVENUE THAT THE RELEVANT SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD BE THE ASSESSME NT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR I N WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. IF THIS INTERPRETATION AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A P ERSON SEARCHED, ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECE DING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENED BUT IN CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSON, WHO IS NOT SEARCHED BUT HIS ASSETS ARE SEIZ ED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS COULD BE REOPENED WOULD BE MUCH BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS/DOCUMENTS OF A PERSON, OTHER THAN THE 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 SEC TION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF RECEIPT 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 W HEREAS IN THE CASE OF A SEARCHED PERSON THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ASSUMES POSSESSION 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 PERSON. THUS, THE DATE ON WH ICH THE AO OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED ASSUMES THE POSS ESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSETS WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR APPLYI NG THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. WE, THEREFORE, ACCEPT THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2003-04 AND A Y 2004-05 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. 14. AS FAR AS RELIANCE BY LD DR ON THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.1 27 OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD.A.R. T HAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.127 ARE WITH REFERENCE TO POWER TO TR ANSFER THE CASES AND IN THE ABSENCE OF MENTION ABOUT SEC.127 IN SEC.153A /153C, THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY JUDICIAL PRECEDENT TO SUPPORT ITS CONTENTION. IN SUCH A S ITUATION, WE 9 ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS BEYOND THE PERIOD AVAILABLE UNDER THE PROVISO TO SEC.153C READ WITH PROVISO TO SEC.153A AND HENCE THE AO HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE UP THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO. WE THUS ALLOW THE ADDITIONAL GROU ND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE WE HAVE SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT O RDER ITSELF THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS HAVE B EEN RENDERED ACADEMIC AND THEREFORE REQUIRE NO ADJUDICATION. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1719/PUN/2014 IS ALLOWED. 16. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO 1720/P UN/2014 FOR A.Y 2005-06. 16.1. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE WITH RESPECT TO CONFIRMING OF LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) ON THE ADDITIONS MAD E IN A.Y 2005-06. 17. SINCE WE HEREINABOVE WHILE DECIDING THE QUANTUM APPEA L IN ITA NO.1719/PUN/2014 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 HAVE SET ASIDE THE AS SESSMENT FRAMED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153C OF THE ACT, THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON SUCH ADDITIONS DO NOT SURVIVE. WE THEREFORE DELETE THE LEVY OF PENALTY. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1720/PUN.2014 IS ALLOWED. 10 19. TO SUM UP, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWE D. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 10 TH APRIL, 2019. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4 5. 6. THE CIT(APPEALS)-1, NASHIK. THE CIT, NASHIK. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.