Appeal Details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5200 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-09-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
C
Assessment Year
2009-2010
Appeal Filed On
08-09-2017
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI B R BASKARAN , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO S. 1816 TO 1818/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS, BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE, 21 ST WARD, HOSPET 583 201. PAN: ABHFS 8469H VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2[1], BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 1789 & 1790/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2[1], BENGALURU. VS. SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS, HOSPET 583 201. PAN: ABHFS 8469H APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 1814, 1813 & 1815/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2008 - 09 TO 2010 - 11 SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARATRANSPORT, BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE, 21 ST WARD, HOSPET 583 201. PAN: ABHFS 8469H VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2[1], BENGALURU. APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 2 OF 25 ITA NO. 1791/BANG/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2[1], BENGALURU. VS. SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TRANSPORT, HOSPET 583 201. PAN: ABHFS 8469H APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEES BY : SHRI V. SRINIVASAN, ADVOCATE RE VEN UE BY : SHRI PRADEEP KUMAR, CIT(DR)(ITAT), BENGALURU. DATE OF HEARING : 28 .0 9 .2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30 .0 9 .2020 O R D E R PER BENCH ITA NOS.1816 TO 1818/BANG/2017 ARE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, WH ILE ITA NOS. 1789 & 1790/BANG/2017 ARE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE REVEN UE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. ALL THESE APPE ALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE 3 ORDERS, ALL DATED 27.6.2017 OF THE CI T(APPEALS)-XI, BENGALURU FOR AYS 2008-09 TO 2010-11. THESE APPEALS RELATE T O THE ASSESSEE M/S.SREE LAKSHMI VENKATESWARA MINERALS. WE SHALL C OLLECTIVELY REFER TO THESE APPEALS AS THE FIRST SET OF APPEALS. SIMILARLY, ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1815/BANG/2017 ARE APPE ALS BY THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 TO 2010-11, WH ILE ITA NO.1791/BANG/2017 IS A CROSS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. ALL THESE APPEALS ARE DIR ECTED AGAINST THE 3 ORDERS, ALL DATED 27.6.2017 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-XI, BENGALURU. THESE APPEALS RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE M/S.SREE LAKSHMI VEN KATESWARA ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 3 OF 25 TRANSPORTS. WE SHALL COLLECTIVELY REFER TO THESE A PPEALS AS THE SECOND SET OF APPEALS. 2. COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS AND ARISES OUT OF IDENTICAL FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES. WE THEREFORE DE EM IT FIT AND CONVENIENT TO PASS A COMMON ORDER. ITA NOS.1816 TO 1818 AND 1789 & 1790/BANG/2017 3. WE SHALL FIRST TAKE UP FOR CONSIDERATION THE FIR ST SET OF APPEALS PERTAINING TO ASSESSEE SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MI NERALS, HOSPET. THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE BUSINESS OF TH E FIRM WAS TRADING IN IRON ORE. THE PARTNERS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM WERE MR. K. MAHESH KUMAR, MR. K. KUMAR, MR. K. SADASHIVA & MR. I. YERRISWAMY. 4. THERE WAS A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION CONDUCTED ON 25.11.2010 U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] IN THE CA SE OF K. MAHESH KUMAR, WHO HAPPENS TO BE ONE OF THE PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FI RM. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT SUBJECTED TO SEARCH U/S. 132 OF TH E ACT, PROCEEDINGS CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH IN THE CASE OF K. MAHESH KUMAR WAS INITIATED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THE CASE OF K. MAHESH KUMAR WHO WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEE , SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS, WERE CENTRALIZED AND THE DC IT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(1), BANGALORE WAS THE OFFICER WHO ULTIMATELY CONC LUDED THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS A S WELL AS THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE REQUIREMENT TO INVOKE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT IS THAT IF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ART ICLE OR THING OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND IN A SEARCH U/S. 132 AND THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTH ER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 4 OF 25 BELONGS TO, OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS FOUND RELATE TO, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHO WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH U/S. 153A OF THE ACT, THEN THOSE ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED SHOULD BE HANDED OVER TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON AND THAT AO WILL PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF T HE ACT. THE 2 ND CONDITION FOR PROCEEDING U/S. 153C IS THAT THE ASSE TS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED SHOULD HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETER MINATION OF TOTAL INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DO CUMENTS SHOULD BE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE PART NERSHIP FIRM AND THE AO OF K. MAHESH KUMAR WHO WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARCH, WAS ONE AND THE SAME. THE AO RECORDED THE FOLLOWING SATISFACTION B EFORE PROCEEDING TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT:- NAME OF THE ASSESSEE : M/S. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWA RA MINERALS, ADDRESS : 21ST WARD, BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE, OPP: LUCKY TYRES HOSPET PIN: 583 201 P.A.N : ABHF58469H ASST. YEAR : 2010-11 18-11-2011 : A SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS INITIATED ON 25-10-2010 IN THE CASE OF SRI. K. MAHESH AT VIDYANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE, HOSPET. THE CASE HAS SINCE THEN BEEN CENTRALIZED WITH THI S CIRCLE VIDE ORDER OF THE CIT(C) VIDE F. NO.24/CIT-(C)/2011-12 DATED 22-0 7-2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS THE FOLLOW ING INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS C H BELONG TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSE E FIRM WERE SEIZED. A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/3 - PAGES: 1 TO 93 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/4 - PAGES: 1 TO 90 ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 5 OF 25 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/5 - PAGES: 1 TO 27 AND 28 TO 29 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/6 - PAGES: 1 TO 97 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/7 - PAGES: 1 TO 97 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/9 - PAGES: 1 TO 98 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/10 - PAGES: 1 TO 58 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/11 - PAGES: 1 TO 42 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/12 - PAGES: 2 TO 101 A/KM/VIDYANAGAR/13 - PAGES: 1 TO 94 I AM SATISFIED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C REQU IRED TO BE INITIATED IN THIS CASE. HENCE, THE NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE IT AC T 1961 DATED 18-11- 2011 IS ISSUED CALLING FOR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ABOVE ASST. YEAR. SD/- DCIT-CC-2(2) 7. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C DATED 18.11.2011. IN THE COURSE OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PARTICIPATE IN THE PROCEEDINGS A ND THEREFORE THE AO PROCEEDED TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER DETAILS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE GROSS RECEIPTS AND EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT FOR AYS 2008-09 TO 2010-11 WERE AS FOLLOWS:- AY GROSS RECEIPTS EXPENSES CLAIMED 2008 - 09 3,13,25,578 39,75,60,876 2009 - 10 7,26,95,976 5,59,40,723 2010 - 1 1 48,86,94,442 3,06,82,078 8. THE AO DISALLOWED 20% OF THE EXPENSES FOR THE RE ASON THAT THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES WERE NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 6 OF 25 9. THE AO ALSO NOTICED THAT FOR AY 2008-09 TOTAL CR EDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS RS.3,84,24,996 COMPRISING CASH CREDIT O F RS.60,10,500 AND CHEQUE CREDIT OF RS.3,24,17,496. 10. THE AO NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SH OWN GROSS RECEIPTS FROM BUSINESS OF RS.3,13,25,578. DIFFERENCE OF SUM OF RS.3,84,24,996 AND GROSS RECEIPTS FROM BUSINESS OF RS.3,13,25,578 WHIC H WAS A SUM OF RS.71,02,418 WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BUSINESS RE CEIPTS AND ADDED TO TOTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE. THIS ADDITION WAS, HOWEV ER, MADE ON A PROTECTIVE BASIS AND THE AO HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR DOING SO:- 6. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING A SUM OF RS.3,13,2 578/- W HICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS GROSS RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE AS STA TED ABOVE BEING THE PART OF THESE CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT, TH E REMAINING AMOUNT OF(RS 3,84,27,996- RS 3,13,25,578); RS.71,02 ,418/- IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS AND THE SA ME IS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. M/S VENKATESHWARA MINERALS IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN WHICH MR KARAPUDI MAHESH IS A KEY PERSON. DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF MR MAHESH ON 25-10-201 0, MR MAHESH HAD ADMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 28-03-2011 TO TAL TURN OVER OF RS 204 CRORES IN HIS HANDS ,WHICH IS NOT DISCLOS ED TO TAX, THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS FOR ASST. YEAR 2008-0 9 IN THE CASE OF M/S VENKATESHWARA MINERALS OF RS 71,02,418/- SHA LL BE PROTECTIVELY ADDED IN THE CASE OF M/S VENKATESHWARA MINERALS. THE SAME AMOUNT SHALL BE SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED IN T HE HANDS OF MR MAHESH. THE DIGITAL DATA SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF MR MAHESH, ANNEXED AS 'PAYMEN T DETAILS.XLS', 'SHA RECEIVED AMOUNT 01.02.2010.XLS C LEARLY RECORDS THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY MR MAHESH FOR THE PERIOD 1 0-11-2009 TO 31-072010. MOREOVER IN THE LETTER DATED 28-03-2011 , MR MAHESH HAS OWNED UP TO HAVING DONE BUSINESS OF TRAN SPORTATION AND TRADING OF IRON ORE IN HIS VARIOUS CONCERNS. ON E SUCH CONCERN HE HAS MENTIONES IS M/S LAKSHMI VENKATESHWERA MINER ALS. HENCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED IN THE HAND S OF MR MAHESH FOR ASST.YEAR 2008-09 ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 7 OF 25 11. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN AYS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 ALSO AND THE QUANTUM OF ADDITION MADE IN THE AY 2009-10 AND THE REASON FOR DOING SO WERE AS FOLLOWS:- 5. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING A SUM OF RS.7,26,95,976 WH ICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS GROSS RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN, THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF (RS.17,03,42,265 RS.7,26,95,9 76) = RS.9,76,46,289 IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS R ECEIPTS AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE M/S VENKATESHWARA MINERALS IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN WHICH MR KARAPUDI MAHESH IS A KEY PERSON. DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF MR-MAHESH ON 25-10-201 0, MR MAHESH HAD ADMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 28-03-2011 TO TAL TURN OVER OF RS 204 CRORES IN HIS HANDS, WHICH IS NOT DISCLOS ED TO TAX. THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS FOR A.Y 2009-10 IN TH E CASE OF M/S VENKATESHWARA MINERALS OF RS9,76,46,289/- SHALL BE PROTECTIVELY ADDED IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINE RALS. 6. THE SAME AMOUNT SHALL BE SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED IN THE HANDS OF MR MAHESH. THE DIGITAL DATA SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF MR MAHESH, ANNEXED AS 'PAYMEN T BETAILS.XLS', 'SHA RECEIVED AMOUNT 01.02.2010.XLS C LEARLY RECORDS THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY MR MAHESH FOR THE PERIOD 1 0-11-2009 TO 31-072010. MOREOVER IN THE LETTER DATED 28-03-2011 , MR MAHESH HAS OWNED UP TO HAVING DONE BUSINESS OF TRAN SPORTATION AND TRADING OF IRON ORE IN HIS VARIOUS CONCERNS. ON E SUCH CONCERN HE HAS MENTIONED IS M/S LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINER ALS. HENCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED IN THE HAND S OF MR MAHESH FOR A.Y 2009-10. 12. FOR THE AY 2010-11, THE ADDITION MADE WAS FOR T HE FOLLOWING REASONS:- 5, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING A SUM OF PS 48,86,94,442 W HICH HAS BEEN SHOWN AS GROSS RECEIPTS BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS, THE REMAINING AMOUNT OF RS.97,96,95,105 (RS.146,83,89,5 44 48,86,94,442) IS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RE CEIPTS AND THE SAME IS ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E. ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 8 OF 25 LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS IS A PARTNERSHIP F IRM IN WHICH MR KARAPUDI MAHESH IS A KEY PERSON, BURIN9 TH E COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION IN THE CASE OF MR MAHESH ON 25-10-201 0, MR MAHESH HAD ADMITTED VIDE LETTER DATED 28-03-2011 TO TAL TURN OVER OF RS 204 CRORES IN HIS HANDS ,WHICH IS NOT DISCLOS ED TO TAX, THE UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS FOR A.Y 2009-10 IN TH E CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS OF RS,97,96,95,105/- SHALL BE PROTECTIVELY ADDED IN THE CASE OF M/S LAKSHMI VENKA TESHWARA MINERALS. 6. THE SAME AMOUNT SHALL BE SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED IN THE HANDS OF MR MAHESH. THE DIGITAL DATA-SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF MR MAHESH, ANNEXED AS 'PAYMEN T BETAILS.XLS`, 'SHA RECEIVED AMOUNT 01.02.2010.XLS C LEARLY RECORDS THE TRANSACTIONS DONE BY MR MAHESH FOR THE PERIOD 1 0-11-2009 TO 31-07-2010. MOREOVER IN THE LETTER DATED 28-03-2011 , MR MAHESH HAS OWNED UP TO HAVING DONE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTAT ION AND TRADING OF IRON ORE IN HIS VARIOUS CONCERNS. ONE SU CH CONCERN HE HAS MENTIONES IS M/S LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS . HENCE THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS SUBSTANTIVELY ADDED IN THE HAND S OF MR MAHESH FOR AY 2010-11. 13. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ADDITION, THE ASSESS EE PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(APPEALS). AS FAR AS ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE FOR THE 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCER NED, THE FIRST SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH SO AS TO WARRANT AN E NQUIRY INTO THE QUANTUM OF EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE P&L ACCO UNT. IT WAS THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE THAT IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL HAVING NOT BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEA RCH, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF E XPENSES @ 20% WAS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 14. THE CIT(APPEALS), HOWEVER, UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE AS TO WHETHER, ADDITION CAN BE MADE ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 9 OF 25 IN AN ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT IN THE ABSENC E OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL PERTAINING TO THE SAID ADDITION. 15. AS FAR AS PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF K. MAHESH KUMA R ARE CONCERNED, THE CIT(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING THAT ADDITION MADE PROTECTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF K. MAHESH KUMAR WAS CONFIRMED IN THE H ANDS OF K. MAHESH KUMAR ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. THE CIT(APPEALS) THERE FORE DELETED THE ADDITION ON PROTECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF ASSESS EE. 16. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(APPEALS) IN S USTAINING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES MADE BY THE AO THE ASSESSE E HAS PREFERRED THE APPEALS AND AGGRIEVED BY HIS ORDER IN DELETING THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME , THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE AND THE LD. DR. 18. THE FIRST SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO BEFORE PROCEEDING T O INVOKE THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS NOT IN A CCORDANCE WITH LAW AND THEREFORE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IS ITSELF NOT IN ORDER AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE 3 YEARS ARE LIABLE TO BE ANNULLED AS BAD IN LAW. THE RELEVANT GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WHICH ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE CASES ARE A S FOLLOWS:- 1. THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN SO FAR A S THEY ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT, ARE OPPOSED TO LAW, EQUITY, WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE, PROBABILITIES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 10 OF 25 2. THE LEARNED CIT[A] IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT ENTITLED TO CHALLENGE THE VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT THAT WA S RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FILED UNDER THE FAC TS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 2.1 THE LEARNED CIT [A] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED T HAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED BY THE LEARNED A.O. U/S. 143[3] RWS 153C OF THE ACT, DATED 31/03/2013 WAS BAD IN LAW FO R WANT OF REQUISITE JURISDICTION SINCE THERE WAS NO MATERIALS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH THAT BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT TO ASSUME JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER P ASSED OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CANCELLED. 2.2 THE LEARNED CIT[A] OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED A ND EXAMINED THE SATISFACTION RECORDED FOR TAKING ACTIO N U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WHEN THE SAME WAS SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGED I N THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE APPELLAN T INSTEAD OF REJECTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GR OUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS UNDER THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT 'S CASE. 19. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTEN TION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. SUPER MALLS P. LTD. IN CIVIL APPEAL NO.2006 & 2007 OF 2020 DATED 5.3.2020 WHEREIN THE VALIDITY OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WAS UPHELD. HE, HOWEVER, POINTED OUT THAT THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A O IN THAT CASE WAS AS FOLLOWS:- NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE : M/S. SUPER MALLS (P.) LTD. SECTOR 12, HUDA, KARNAL REGD. OFFICE AT 51, TRANSPORT CENTRE PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI. PAN : AAICS2163F STATUS : COMPANY ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 11 OF 25 REASONS/SATISFACTION NOTE FOR TAKING UP THE CASE OF M/S. SUPER MALLS (P.) LTD. SECTOR-12, HUDA, KARNAL REGD. OFFIC E AT 51, TRANSPORT CENTRE, PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI UNDER SEC TION 153C OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. THE JURISDICTION OF THIS CASE HAS BEEN ASSIGNED TO THIS OFFICE U/S 127 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 BY THE WORTHY COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME TAX-III NEW DELHI VIDE ORDER F. NO. CITIII/DELHI/CENTRALIZATION/1012-1312455 DATED 15-1 -2013. BY VIRTUE OF THE AUTHORIZATION OF THE DIRECTOR OF I NCOME-TAX (INVESTIGATION), CHANDIGARH, A SEARCH & SEIZURE OPE RATION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 8/9-4-2010 AT THE RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS PREMISES OF SH. TEJWANT SINGH & SH. VED PARKASH BHARTI GROUP OF CASES, KARNAL, PANIPAT & DE LHI AND A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT, 1961 WAS ALSO CARRIE D OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. SUPER MALL (P.) LTD. KARN AL & NEW DELHI. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 8/9-4-2010 AT RESIDENCE OF SH. VED PARKASH BHARTI WHO IS A DIRECTOR IN THE ASS ESSEE COMPANY M/S. SUPER MALL (P.) LTD., PEN DRIVES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE-3 FROM VEHICLE NO. HR 06 N-0 063 PARKED IN FRONT OF THE RESIDENCE OF SH. VED PARKASH BHARTI . SOME DOCUMENTS AS PER ANNEXURE A-1 WERE SEIZED AFTER TAK ING PRINT OUT OF THE ABOVE SAID PEN DRIVES. THESE DOCUMENTS CONTA IN THE DETAILS OF CASH RECEIPT ON SALE OF SHOP/OFFICES AT M/S. SUP ER MALL, KARNAL ALSO BESIDE OTHER CONCERNS. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE REQ UIRED FOR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. DURING THE STATEMENT OF SH. VED PARKASH BHARTI AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, HE HAS ALSO STATED TH AT THESE DOCUMENTS PERTAIN TO HIM AND M/S. SUPER MALL (P.) L TD., KARNAL IN WHICH HE IS DIRECTOR. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION 91 OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, I AM SATISFIED THAT THE DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE RESIDEN CE OF SH. VED PARKASH BHARTI BELONGS TO A PERSON I.E. SUPER MALL (P.) LTD., OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED IN SECTION 153A. ACCORDING LY, IT IS DIRECTED TO ISSUE SUCH PERSON (M/S. SUPER MALL (P.) LTD.) NOTICE AND ASSESS AND REASSESS INCOME IN ACCORDANCE WITH T HE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. DATED: 22-2-2013 SD/- (VED PARKASH KALIA)' ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 12 OF 25 20. IT WAS HIS SUBMISSION THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSES SEE, THERE IS NO SUCH APPLICATION OF MIND AS TO WHAT IS THE MATERIAL BASE D ON WHICH THE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE S EARCH OF K. MAHESH KUMAR BELONGED TO ASSESSEE OR AS TO HOW SUCH MATERI AL WERE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. HIS SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE SATISFACTIO N NOTE MUST SPEAK ON HOW SUCH A SATISFACTION WAS ARRIVED AT BY THE AO. ACCORDING TO HIM, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO D OES NOT CONFIRM TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF A VALID SATISFACTION FOR INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. HE THEN DREW OUR ATTENTION TO A D ECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY, 397 ITR 344 (SC) WHEREIN THE PRINCIPLE FOR PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT WERE LAID DOWN AS FOLLOWS:- THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND BY GIVING A REASON THAT IT WAS A JURISDICTIO NAL ISSUE TAKEN UP ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY ON THE RECORD AND, THEREFORE, COULD BE RAISED. IN THIS BEHALF, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ITAT THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED HAD TO PERT AIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND IT IS AN UNDISPUTE D FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED DID NOT ESTABLISH A NY CO- RELATION, DOCUMENT-WISE, WITH THESE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE AC T IS ESSENTIAL FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THAT PROVISION, IT B ECOMES A JURISDICTIONAL FACT. WE FIND THIS REASONING TO BE L OGICAL AND VALID, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 1 53C OF THE ACT. PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT REVEALS THAT THE IT AT HAD SCANNED THROUGH THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE MATER IAL WHICH WAS DISCLOSED THEREIN WAS CULLED OUT AND IT SHOWED THAT THE SAME BELONGS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 OR THEREAFTER. A FTER TAKING NOTE OF THE MATERIAL IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER, THE PO SITION THAT EMERGES THEREFROM IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 10. IT WAS S PECIFICALLY RECORDED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT POINT OUT TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THE HIGH COU RT HAS ALSO GIVEN ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 13 OF 25 ITS IMPRIMATUR TO THE AFORESAID APPROACH OF THE TRI BUNAL. THAT APART, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RES PONDENT, ARGUED THAT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WAS EVEN TIME BARRED. WE, THUS, FIND THAT THE ITAT RIGHTLY PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND TO BE RAISED AND CORRECTLY DEALT WITH THE SAME GROUND ON MERITS AS WELL. ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMING THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY BLEMISH. 21. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE VERY INITIATION OF P ROCEEDINGS U/S.153C WITHOUT RECORDING PROPER SATISFACTION AS CONTEMPLAT ED IN LAW, WILL MAKE THE ENTIRE PROCEEDINGS VOID AB INITIO AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR ALL THE THREE AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 SHOULD BE ANNULLED. 22. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSION, THE SECOND SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE AO IN ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF K. MAHESH KUMAR WHICH PERTA INED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, HE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT IN RESPECT OF THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THE DOCUMENTS THAT W ERE FOUND BELONGED TO MR. K. MAHESH KUMAR AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. OUR A TTENTION WAS ALSO DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO MR.K. MAHESH KUMAR WERE FOUND AND MR.K.MAHESH KUMAR ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED IN COME IN HIS HANDS AND THAT DISCLOSURE OR ADMISSION HAD NOT NEXUS OR C ONNECTION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO A DE CISION OF THE BANGALORE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF YUNUS ZIA V. DCIT, ITA NOS.126 TO 130/BANG/2013 FOR AYS 2003-04 TO 2007-08 48,86,94,442, ORDER DATED 20.3.2020 WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HAS AFTER ANALYSIS O F THE LEGAL POSITION COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT AN ADDITION U/S. 153A O F THE ACT CANNOT BE MADE DE HORS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEAR CH. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN TH E CONTEXT OF SECTION ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 14 OF 25 153A WILL APPLY WITH GREATER FORCE IN ASSESSMENT U/ S. 153C OF THE ACT, WHICH IS THE RELEVANT PROVISION UNDER WHICH ASSESSM ENT WAS MADE FROM WHICH ASSESSMENT THE PRESENT APPEAL ARISES. 23. IN THIS REGARD, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE THAT ASSESSMENTS WERE FOR AYS 2008-09 TO 201 0-11 WERE ALREADY COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE AO CANNOT MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OR ADDITION WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL. IN THIS REGARD IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 15 3C(1) OF THE ACT, THE DATE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WILL BE THE D ATE ON WHICH THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HANDS OVER THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON. IT IS UNDISPUTED THAT IT WAS ONLY ON 18.11 .2011 SUCH HANDING OVER TOOK PLACE AND THEREFORE THAT DATED I.E., 18.11.201 1 HAS TO BE REGARDED AS THE DATE OF SEARCH IN TERMS OF 1 ST PROVISO OF SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT DATES WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FOR AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 HAVING ALREADY BEEN COMPL ETED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE I.E., PRIOR T O 18.11.2011 ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AY DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) REMARKS 2008-09 07.10.2008 20.9.2009 NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED. 2009-10 05.12.2009 30.9.2010 NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED. 2010-11 13.10.2010 30.9.2011 NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) I SSUED. 24. IT WAS THUS CONTENDED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE THAT SINCE PURSUANT TO THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR THE 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT HAS ALREADY BEEN ISSUED BY THE AO AND SINCE NO FURTHER PROCEEDINGS BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143( 2) WITHIN THE TIME CONTEMPLATED BY LAW WAS ISSUED, THOSE ASSESSMENTS B ECOME FINAL AND CAN ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 15 OF 25 BE DISTURBED ONLY IF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUN D IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HE HIGHLIGHTED THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ADDITIONS MAD E IN ALL THE THREE AYS HAVE NO RELEVANCE WHATSOEVER TO ANY MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH ARE ALLEGED TO BE RELATING TO THE ASSE SSEE. SINCE THE ADDITIONS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN MADE WITHOUT ANY RE FERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH, BOTH THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO DESERVES TO BE DELETED. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY HIM THAT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON A PRO TECTIVE BASIS, THE SAID ADDITION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY THE CIT(A). 25. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF CIT(APPEALS) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ORDER OF T HE AO IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO THAT WAS DELETED BY THE CIT (A). 26. WE HAVE GIVEN A CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C(1) READS AS FOLLOWS:- 153C. (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SEC TION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECT ION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT, (A) ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABL E ARTICLE OR THING, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, BELONGS TO; OR (B) ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED, PERTAINS OR PERTAIN TO, OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINE D THEREIN, RELATES TO, A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTI ON 153A, THEN, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS, SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURI SDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EA CH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR RE ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFI ED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIO NED HAVE A ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 16 OF 25 BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE AND FOR THE RELEVA NT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SEC TION 153A : THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT, SHOWN IN BOL D LETTER AND UNDERLINED AS GIVEN ABOVE WERE SUBSTITUTED BY THE FINANCE (NO. 2) ACT, 2014 W.E.F 1.10.2014 FOR THE FOLLOWING WORDS AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST E ACH OF SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A 27. THE ASSESSMENTS IN THE PRESENT CASE RELATE TO THE PERIOD PRIOR TO THE AMENDMENT REFERRED TO ABOVE. THE AFORESAID AME NDMENT HAS BEEN HELD TO BE CLARIFICATORY IN NATURE AND THEREFORE HA S TO BE HELD AS APPLICABLE RETROSPECTIVELY FROM THE INCEPTION OF SEC.153C OF T HE ACT IN THE STATUE, BY THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL HI-TECH INDUSTRIES VS. DCIT IT(SS)A.NOS.84-86/KOL/2011 (AY 04-05, 05-06 & 06-07) ORDER DATED 24.9.2014. IN THE AFORESAID DECISION THE HONBLE K OLKATA BENCH OF ITAT, AFTER CONSIDERING THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SEC.153 C OF THE ACT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014, HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 153C OF THE ACT AS AMENDED BY FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2014 THOUGH IS MADE APPLICABLE ON AND FROM 1.10.2014, IS ALSO RELEVANT FOR EARLIER ASSESS MENT YEARS AS IT CURES THE INFIRMITIES OF THE PREVIOUS LEGISLATION AND ALSO MA KES THE PROVISIONS WORKABLE BY AVOIDING ABSURD CONSEQUENCES. ACCORDIN GLY, SUCH PROVISION IS TO BE GIVEN RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION AND IS ALSO APP LICABLE TO PENDING PROCEEDINGS. IN PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE A PERSON WHO WAS SUBJECTED TO A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT COULD NOT BE INITIA TED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. EVEN IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHATSOEVER ARE FO UND IN THE COURSE OF A ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 17 OF 25 SEARCH RELATING TO SOME OTHER PERSON, IN TERMS OF S EC.153-C OF THE ACT, PRIOR TO ITS AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014 W.E.F. 1- 10-2014, THE AO HAS TO PROCEED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.153C OF THE ACT FOR MAK ING AN ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR THE PERIODS REFERRED TO IN SEC.153A OF T HE ACT. THIS WOULD CAUSE UNDUE HARDSHIP. TAKE FOR INSTANCE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF A PERSON A COPY OF SALE DEED OF SOME OTHER PERSON IS FOUND WHICH DO ES NOT PER SE INDICATE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND BASED ON WHICH ON ADVERS E INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN, THE AO, HOWEVER, HAS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT I N THE CASE OF THE OTHER PERSON U/S.153C OF THE ACT FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT Y EARS REFERRED TO IN SEC.153A OF THE ACT, EVEN IF NO INCRIMINATING MATER IAL WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS CREATED HARDSHIP AND THIS W AS THE REASON WHY THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT WERE AMENDED BY T HE FINANCE ACT, 2014. WITH THE AMENDMENT BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2014, THE AO OF THE OTHER PERSON AFTER RECEIVING THE MATERIAL FROM THE AO OF THE SEA RCHED PERSON HAS TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT BASED ON THE MATERIAL SO RECEIVED BY HIM WHICH HAS A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE OTH ER PERSON. THIS IS CLEAR FROM THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF THE LAW WHICH READS THUS: AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST E ACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CO NDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A : THE KOLKATTA BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL HI-TECH INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) DEALT WITH THE PURPOSE BEHIND THE AFORESAID AMENDM ENT AND AS TO WHY IT SHOULD HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE. THE CONDITI ON PRECEDENT FOR ASSESSING ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 18 OF 25 OR REASSESSING INCOME U/S.153C IS THAT THE AO HAS T O BE SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAS A BEARI NG ON DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON I.E., IT SHOULD BE INCRIMINATING IN NATURE. 28. WE ARE IN RESPECTFUL AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW E XPRESSED BY THE ITAT KOLKATA BENCH IN THE CASE OF TRISHUL HI-TECH ( SUPRA). WE MAY ALSO ADD THAT IT IS SETTLED RULE OF CONSTRUCTION THAT EV ERY STATUTE IS PRIMA FACIE PROSPECTIVE UNLESS IT IS EXPRESSLY OR BY NECESSARY IMPLICATION MADE TO HAVE RETROSPECTIVE OPERATION. ORDINARILY THE COURTS ARE REQUIRED TO GATHER THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE OVERT LANGUAG E OF THE PROVISION AS TO WHETHER IT HAS BEEN MADE PROSPECTIVE OR RETROSPECTI VE, AND IF RETROSPECTIVE, THEN FROM WHICH DATE. WHAT HAPPENS SOMETIMES IS THA T THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION, AS ORIGINALLY ENACTED OR LATER AMENDED, FAILS TO CLARIFY THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, IF SUBSEQUENTLY SOME AMENDMENT IS CARRIED OUT TO CLARIFY THE REAL INTENT , SUCH AMENDMENT HAPPENS TO BE RETROSPECTIVE FROM THE DATE THE EARLI ER PROVISION WAS MADE EFFECTIVE. SUCH CLARIFICATORY OR EXPLANATORY AMENDM ENT IS DECLARATORY. AS THE LATER AMENDMENT CLARIFIES THE REAL INTENT AND D ECLARES THE POSITION AS WAS ORIGINALLY INTENDED, IT TAKES RETROACTIVE EFFEC T FROM THE DATE THE ORIGINAL PROVISION WAS MADE EFFECTIVE. NORMALLY SUCH CLARIFI CATORY AMENDMENT IS MADE RETROSPECTIVELY EFFECTIVE FROM THE EARLIER DAT E. IT MAY SO HAPPEN THAT SOMETIMES THE CLARIFICATORY OR EXPLANATORY PROVISIO N INTRODUCED LATER TO DEPICT THE REAL INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS NOT SPECIFICALLY MADE RETROSPECTIVE BY THE STATUTE. NOTWITHSTANDING THE F ACT THAT SUCH AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION HAS BEEN GIVEN PROSPEC TIVE EFFECT, NONETHELESS THE JUDICIAL OR QUASI-JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES, ON A CH ALLENGE MADE TO IT, CAN JUSTIFIABLY HOLD SUCH AMENDMENT TO BE RETROSPECTIVE . THE JUSTIFICATION BEHIND GIVING RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT TO SUCH AMENDMEN T IS TO APPLY THE REAL INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE FROM THE DATE SUCH PRO VISION WAS INITIALLY INTRODUCED. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE WHILE INTRODUCING THE PROVISION IS ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 19 OF 25 GATHERED, INTER ALIA , FROM THE FINANCE BILL, MEMORANDUM EXPLAINING THE PROVISION OF THE FINANCE BILL. ANY AMENDMENT TO THE SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION WHICH IS AIMED AT CLARIFYING THE EXISTING POSITION OR REMOVING UNINTENDED CONSEQUENCES TO MAKE THE PROVISION WORKABLE HAS TO BE TREATED AS RETROSPECTIVE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE AME NDMENT HAS BEEN GIVEN EFFECT PROSPECTIVELY. THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES, IF APP LIED TO THE AMENDMENT TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT BY THE FINANC E ACT, 2014, CAN LEAD TO ONLY ONE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID AMENDMENT IS CLAR IFICATORY AND THEREFORE SHOULD BE HELD TO BE RETROSPECTIVE IN OPERATION. 29. A PLAIN READING OF THE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, WOULD SHOW THAT THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ARRIVE A T A SATISFACTION THAT THE SEIZED ASSETS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONG S TO OR RELATES TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WAS SUBJECTED TO SEARC H. FOR ARRIVING AT SUCH A SATISFACTION, IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE AO TO PRIMA FACIE SPELL OUT THE NATURE OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND HOW IT BELONGS TO OR RELATE S TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA IN THE C ASE OF IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK, 385 ITR 346 [KAR ] THE ISSUE FOR CONSIDERATION AND ADJUDICATION WAS WHETHER THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN HOLDING THAT IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO RECORD A SATISFACTION TO THE EFFECT TH AT SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. WHILE DECIDING THIS ISSUE, THE HIGH COURT CAME TO THE CONCLUSION AT PARA 50 THEREOF, TH AT THE DETECTION OF SEIZED MATERIAL LEADING TO AN INFERENCE OF UNDISCLO SED INCOME IS A SINE QUA NON FOR INVOCATION OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE COURT CAME TO THE ABOVE CONCLUSION AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASES OF MANISH MAHES HWARI VS. ACIT (289 ITR 341) AND CIT VS. CALCUTTA KNITWEARS (2014) 362 ITR 673 AND OTHER JUDGMENTS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT AND O THER HONBLE HIGH COURTS AND CBDT, CIRCULAR NO.24/2015 DATED 31.12.2015 . ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 20 OF 25 THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO TOOK THE VIEW THAT THE AO IS EXPECTED TO SPELL OUT AS TO HOW THE DOCUMENTS WERE INCRIMINATING IN N ATURE AND PRIMA FACIE REPRESENT UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, WE A LSO FIND THAT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT, THE AO HAS NOT PROCEEDED TO MAKE ANY ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL REFERRED TO IN THE SATISFACTION N OTE. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE HAS MADE ADDITIONS WHICH ARE NOT BASED ON ANY SEIZE D MATERIAL WHICH PERTAINS TO ASSESSEE. SUCH A COURSE IS NOT PERMISS IBLE U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AS LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNA TAKA IN THE CASE OF IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK (SUPRA) . THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA) ALSO SUPPORTS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONS MADE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 30. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSMENT IN ALL THE THR EE AYS 2008-09 TO 2010-11 HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED PRIOR TO THE DA TE OF SEARCH IN THE SENSE THAT THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACC EPTED AND NO ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS FRAMED WITHIN THE TIME CONTEMPLATED IN LAW. THE PROCEEDINGS FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE NOT PENDING AND DID NOT ABATED BY VIRTUE OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC.153A(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH PROVIDES THAT ANY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ANY OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SET OUT IN SEC.153A (1) OF THE ACT , WHICH IS PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT , SUCH ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WOULD ABATE AND THE AO WILL MAKE ONE AS SESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AS WELL A S MATERIALS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN COMPLETED AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT WILL HO WEVER CONTINUE TO REMAIN VALID. THUS THE FORMER PROCEEDINGS ARE REFERRED TO AS ABATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE LATTER PROCEEDINGS ARE REFERRE D TO AS UNABATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 21 OF 25 31. THEREFORE THE SCOPE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT OF TOT AL INCOME U/S.153C OF THE ACT IN AN UNABATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IS LIMITED AND CAN BE ONLY OF ASSESSING INCOME THAT IS NOT DISCLOSED WHIC H IS DETECTED OR WHICH EMANATES FROM MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARC H OF SOME OTHER PERSON AND WHICH RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRI MINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ADDITIONS AR E LIABLE TO BE DELETED. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 ARE CONCERNED, THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE NOT ON TH E BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE SEARCH OF K.MAH ESH KUMAR WHICH RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THE SAID ADDITION CAN ALSO NOT BE SUSTAINED AS IT IS CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR PROTECTIVELY ASSESSING THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSTANTIVELY IN THE HANDS OF K.MAHESH KUMAR. THER E IS NO MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE INCOME DECLARED BY K.MAHESH KUMAR IS EITHER HIS INCOME OR THAT OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE FACT THAT K.MAHESH KUMAR WAS A PARTNER IN THE ASSESSEE FIRM IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE I NCOME DECLARED BY K.MAHESH KUMAR IN HIS HANDS WAS EITHER HIS INCOME O R THE INCOME OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN WHICH HE WAS A PARTNER. THE DE CLARATION OF INCOME BY K.MAHESH KUMAR IS IN HIS HANDS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN HIS CAPACITY AS PARTNER. EVEN GOING BY THE THEO RY OF THE AO THAT THERE ARE DIFFERENCES IN THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WHICH HAVE TO BE REGARDED AS UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS RECEIPTS, SUCH DIF FERENCES IN THE CREDITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT FOUND AS A RESULT OF SE ARCH IN THE CASE OF K.MAHESH KUMAR. AS WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED ASSESS MENT U/S.153C OF THE ACT HAS TO BE BASED ON MATERIAL FOUND IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WHICH ARE RELATE TO OR BELONG TO ASSESSEE. 32. SINCE THE ADDITIONS ARE DELETED ON MERITS, WE D O NOT WISH TO ADDRESS THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE A SSESSEE THAT THE ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 22 OF 25 CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT HAVE NOT BEEN SATISFIED IN THE PRESENT CASES AND THEREFORE T HE ASSESSMENT IS LIABLE TO ANNULLED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE CONCLUSION, WE D ONT DEEM IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE IN THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED, WHILE THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1815 AND 1791/BANG/2017 33. WE SHALL NOT TAKE UP THE SECOND SET OF APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE, SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA TRANSPORT, IN THESE CASES IS ALSO A PARTNERSHIP FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORT. MR.K.MA HESH KUMAR IS A PARTNER IN THIS PARTNERSHIP FIRM ALSO. THE TWO ADDITIONS M ADE IN THE HANDS OF THIS ASSESSEE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE TWO ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE VIZ., SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS V IZ., DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AND PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED B USINESS INCOME WITH SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN THE HANDS MR.K.MAHESH KUMAR . THE ASSESSEE IN THESE SET OF APPEALS HAS CHALLENGED THE DISALLOWAN CE OF EXPENSES @ 20% MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(APPEALS). THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED GROUNDS WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF INIT IATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND THE VALIDITY OF ADDITIONS MADE THEREIN DE HORS MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT RELATE TO THE AS SESSEE. THESE GROUNDS ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS RAISED IN THE CASE OF SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS. 34. AS FAR AS THE ASSESSMENT IN THESE SET OF APPEAL S ARE CONCERNED, THE ORDER OF THE AO MAKES A REFERENCE TO THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF K. MAHESH KUMAR ON 25.10.2020. THE SATISFACTION NOTE RECORDE D BY THE AO FOR PROCEEDING TO FRAME AN ASSESSMENT AGAINST THE ASSES SEE IS IDENTICAL FOR ALL THE THREE AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 AND IT READS THUS: ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 23 OF 25 NAME OF THE ASSESSEE : M/S. LAKSHMI VENKATESHWA RA TRANSPORT ADDRESS : 21ST WARD, BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE, OPP: LUCKY TYRES HOSPET PIN: 583 201 P.A.N : ABHF58469H ASST. YEAR : 2008-09 18-11-2011: A SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS INITIATED ON 25-10-2010 IN THE CASE OF SRI. K. MAHESH AT VIDYANAGAR, BELLARY ROAD CIRCLE, HOSPET. THE CASE HAS SINCE THEN BEEN CENTRALIZED WITH THI S CIRCLE VIDE ORDER OF THE CIT(C) VIDE F. NO.24/CIT-(C)/2011 -12 DATED 22-07- 2011. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS THE FOLLOWI NG INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WHICH BELONG TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEE FIRM WERE SEIZED. 1.A/DP/10 - PAGES 34, 35 AND 36 I AM SATISFIED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C REQUI RED TO BE INITIATED IN THIS CASE. HENCE, THE NOTICE U/S. 153C OF THE IT ACT 1961 DATED 18-11-2011 IS ISSUED CALLING FOR RETURN OF IN COME FOR THE ABOVE ASST. YEAR. DCIT-CC-2(2) 35. IT IS FURTHER SEEN FROM THE SATISFACTION NOTE F ILED BEFORE US THAT THE REFERENCE IS TO A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF ONE DADA PE ER. THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL ON 18.11.2011 WHICH IS THE SAME DATE AS IN THE FIRST SET OF CASES I.E., THE CASE OF OTHER ASSESSEE , SRI LAKSHMI VENKATESHWARA MINERALS. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT REFERR ED TO AS DOCUMENT A/DP/10 PAGES 34 TO 36. THEREFORE, THERE IS A CONT RADICTION IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SATISFACTION NOTE WITH REGARD TO THE PERSON SEARCHED. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REFERS TO SEARCH IN THE CASE O F K.MAHESH KUMAR. BE THAT AS IT MAY. AS FAR AS THIS ASSESSEE IS CONC ERNED, ALL THE ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 24 OF 25 ASSESSMENTS FOR 3 ASSESSMENT YEARS BECAME FINAL PRI OR TO THE DATE OF HANDING OVER THE ASSESSEES DOCUMENTS I.E., 18.11.2 011. RELEVANT DATES IN THIS REGARD ARE AS FOLLOWS:- AY DATE OF FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 143(2) REMARKS 2008- 09 NO RETURN FILED. HOWEVER, THE TIME LIMIT FOR PASSIN G AN ORDER OF ASSESSMENT IN TERMS OF SECTION 153C(1) I.E.,2 YEARS FROM THE END OF RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR EXPIRED ON 31.3.2011 AND THEREFORE ANY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR THIS AY HAS TO BE BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. 2009- 10 13.09.2009 30.9.2010 NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED. 2010- 11 05.10.2010 30.9.2011 NO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) ISSUED. 36. THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE PARTIES ARE IDENT ICAL TO THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED IN THE FIRST SET OF APPEALS. WE HAVE ALREADY EXAMINED THE LEGAL POSITION WITH REGARD TO VALIDITY OF INITI ATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT DE HORS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEAR CH WHICH BELONG OR RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY , NO SUCH INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE ADDITIO NS MADE BY THE AO WHICH HAS NEXUS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2 008-09 TO 2010-11 WERE ALREADY COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE THE SCOPE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL INCOME U/S.153C OF THE ACT IS LIMITED AND CAN BE ONLY OF A SSESSING INCOME THAT IS NOT DISCLOSED WHICH IS DETECTED OR WHICH EMANATES F ROM MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OF SOME OTHER PERSON AND WHICH RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF DISALLOWAN CE OF EXPENSES ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ADDITIONS ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. AS FAR AS THE ADDITION MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS FOR AY 2008-09 TO 2010-11 ARE CONC ERNED, THE SAID ITA NOS. 1813 TO 1818 & 1789 TO 1791/BANG/2017 PAGE 25 OF 25 ADDITION WAS MADE NOT ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE SEARCH OF K.MAHESH KUMAR WHICH RELATE TO THE AS SESSEE AND THEREFORE THE SAID ADDITION CAN ALSO NOT BE SUSTAINED AS IT I S CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C OF THE ACT. 37. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C ALSO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, THESE ADDITIONS IN SO FAR AS THE ASSES SEES APPEALS ARE CONCERNED ARE DELETED AND IN SO FAR AS THE REVENUE S APPEAL IS CONCERNED, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED, WHILE THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 38. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSES ARE ALLOWED, WHILE THE APPEALS BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2020. SD/- SD/- ( B R BASKARAN ) ( N V VASUDEVAN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT BANGALORE, DATED, THE 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2020. / DESAI S MURTHY / COPY TO: 1. ASSESSEES 2. REVENUE 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.
Mehul