DCIT, Bangalore V. M/s. B.J.N. Hotels Ltd., Bangalore

ITA 188/BANG/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 114 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9529 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: HARSHA PRAKASH
• Assessee Lawyers: SRINIVASAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 40A(3); 153A; 271D; 142(2A); 68; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI K.P.T. THANGAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.188 & 189/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BANGALORE. : APPELLANT VS. M/S. BJN HOTELS LTD., NO.4, LAUREL LANE, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE 560 025. : RESPONDENT CO NOS. 15 & 16/BANG/2009 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NOS.188 & 189/BANG/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2003-04 & 2004-05 M/S. BJN HOTELS LTD., NO.4, LAUREL LANE, RICHMOND TOWN, BANGALORE 560 025. : APPELLANT VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(3), BANGALORE. : RESPONDENT ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 2 OF 17 REVENUE BY : SHRI HARSHA PRAKASH ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SRINIVASAN O R D E R PER A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE ARE FOUR APPEALS (I) THE REVENUE PREFERRED TWO APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A)-VI, BANGALORE FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 04-05 DELETING THE PENALTIES LEVIED U/S 271D OF THE ACT AND (II) THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BJN HOTELS LTD FURNISHED ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS. 2. THE REVENUE HAS, IN ITS GROUNDS OF APPEAL FOR BO TH THE AYS IN DISPUTE, RAISED SIX IDENTICAL GROUNDS. ON A PERUSA L, GROUND NOS: 1, 2 AND 6 ARE GENERAL AND NOT SPECIFIC WHICH, IN OUR CONSIDER ED VIEW, DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE REMAINING GROUNDS ARE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, REFORMULATED IN A CONCISE MANNER, AS UNDER: (I) THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE PENALTIES AFTER GIVING A DECISION THAT THE PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED EVEN ON PR OTECTIVE BASIS TO GET AWAY FROM THE TANGLE OF LIMITATION TILL IT IS FINALIZED AS TO IN WHOSE HANDS THE CASH RECEIPT IS TO BE TAXED; (II) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONLY IN S UBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT, THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D GOES DIAME TRICALLY OPPOSITE ONCE THE CASH RECEIPTS ARE ADDED AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS AND, HENCE, NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D WERE INITIATED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF P.B.N ICHANI; (III) THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONCE THE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS CONFIRMED IN THE SUBSTA NTIVE ASSESSMENT, THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESS EES CASE GOES AND THUS THE CASH RECEIPTS BY IT FROM NICHANI ATTR ACTS THE PROVISIONS OF SS.269SS/271D. ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 3 OF 17 3. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN ITS CROSS OBJECTIONS FO R THE BOTH THE AYS IN DISPUTE, HAS RAISED FOUR IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF OB JECTIONS. ON A CURSORY PERUSAL, OBJECTION NOS:1 AND 4 BEING GENERAL DO NOT SURVIVE FOR ADJUDICATION. THE REMAINING TWO CROSS OBJECTIONS AR E AS UNDER: (I) THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D IS BAD IN LAW AS THE A SSESSEE HAD NOT COMMITTED ANY DEFAULT ACTIONABLE U/S 271D; (II) WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ADDL. CIT OUGHT TO HAVE APPR ECIATED THAT THERE WAS NO MATERIAL TO INFER THAT THE ASSESSEE CO MPANY HAD BORROWED LOAN IN CASH AND THAT THE PROVISIONS OF S. 271D WERE INAPPLICABLE . 4. AS SIMILAR ISSUES ARE INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEY ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OFF IN THIS COMMON ORDER, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 5. THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS BUSINESS IS OF RUNNING A HOTEL BY NAME MUSEUM INN IN BANGALORE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AL SO OWN AND RUN VARIOUS RESTAURANTS AT BANGALORE AND AT HYDERABAD. 6. THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS PREMISE WAS SUBJECTED TO ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 17/12/2004. SIMULTANEOUS SEARCHES HAV E ALSO TAKEN PLACED IN THE PREMISES OF P.B. NICHANI, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, VARIOUS BOOKS OF ACCOU NTS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS INDICATING UNDISCLOSED INCOME WERE SEIZED FROM VARIOUS PREMISES OF THE COMPANY. AFTER EXAMINING THE DOCUM ENTS AND THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE AO HAD CONCLUDED THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AYS UNDER DISPUTE U/S 153A R.W. S.143(3) OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 4 OF 17 6.1. SUBSEQUENTLY, PENAL PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED U/S 271D OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE COMPANY ON 22/2/08 ON THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS: 6.2. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2003-04 IN THE CASE OF P.B.NICHANI, MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMP ANY, THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS WERE MADE: (I) AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS A/BJN/11 CERTAIN LOANS HAVE BEEN TAKEN FROM SUNITA KARNA, AHUJA AND WADHWA IN CASH A MOUNTING IN ALL TO RS.16640000/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY. AS SHRI NICHANI COULD NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DETAILS OF BORROWINGS AND ALSO INVESTMENTS, OUT OF RS.166.4 LA KHS, RS.6590000/- RELATING TO AY 03-04 WAS ADDED AS UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT. THE SAID SUM WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED AS INCOME PROTECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; (II) LOANS TAKEN FROM ASHOK AHUJA, MANOJ, SANGHVI AND OT HERS IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.865834/- FOR THE PURPOSE OF BU SINESS OF ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IN THE ABSENCE OF DETAILS OF R ECEIPTS AND ALSO THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE HOTEL BUSINESS, TH E SAME WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDED AS INCOME PRO TECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; (III) CERTAIN AMOUNTS RECEIVED IN CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.1500000 FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND IN THE A BSENCE OF DETAILS OF RECEIPTS AND INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE HO TEL BUSINESS, THE SAME WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDED AS I NCOME PROTECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY; (IV) LIKEWISE A SUM OF RS.25 LAKHS RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FORTHCOMING, THE SAME WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDED AS INCOME PROTECTIVELY; (V) THUS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.1,14,55,834/- WAS HELD TO BE THE AMOUNTS OF NICHANI. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE ONLY UT ILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 6.3. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, ACC ORDING TO THE AO, HAD OBTAINED FUNDS FROM AND THROUGH ITS M.D. SHRI N ICHANI ON VARIOUS DATES DURING THE PERIOD UNDER DISPUTE. HOWEVER, THE RECE IPTS THROUGH CHEQUES ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 5 OF 17 WERE PROPERLY EXPLAINED AND THAT OF THE RECEIPTS B Y WAY OF CASH HAVE BEEN DENIED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, STATING THAT THEY W ERE ONLY ESTIMATES. 6.4. BRUSHING ASIDE THE SPIRITED OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS AT DEFAULT IN NOT RECEIVIN G THE LOAN(S) THROUGH CHEQUES OR DEMAND DRAFTS FROM THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS I N DEFAULT, INVITING PENALTY U/S 271D. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN I N THE ORDER U/S 271D R.W.S.269SS OF THE ACT, THE LD. ADDL. CIT HAD CONCL UDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.114558 34/- DURING THE FY 2002-03 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2003-04 IN CASH AND, THU S, CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF S.269SS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A S UM OF RS. 11455834/- WAS LEVIED FOR THE DEFAULT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.271D OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 . 6.5. SIMILARLY, FOR THE AY 2004-05 , THE AO IN THE CASE OF SHRI NICHANI HAD ADDED CASH CREDITS OF RS.10050000/- AND RS.152500 00/- , AGGREGATING TO RS.2.53 CRORES FOR THE IDENTICAL REASONS SET-OUT IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, HOLDING THAT THE SAID AM OUNTS WERE OF SHRI NICHANI AND THE SAME WERE ONLY UTILIZED BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. 6.6. AS IN LAST YEAR, REJECTING THE FORCEFUL OBJECT IONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS , THE AO HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS AT DEFAULT IN NOT RECEIVING THE LOAN(S) THROUGH CHEQUES OR DEMAND DRAFTS FROM THE M ANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WHICH ESTABLISHES THAT THE ASSESSEE COM PANY HAD DEFAULTED, ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 6 OF 17 INVITING THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF S. 271D. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN IN THE ORDER U/S 271D R.W.S.269SS OF THE ACT, THE LD. ADDL. CIT HAD CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED L OANS AGGREGATING TO RS.25300000/- DURING THE FY 2003-04 RELEVANT TO THE AY 2004-05 IN CASH AND, THUS, CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF S.269SS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, A SUM OF RS.25300000 /- WAS LEVIED FOR THE DEFAULT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.271D OF THE ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 7. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TOOK UP THE ISSU ES WITH THE CIT(A) FOR REDRESSAL. ARMED WITH JUDICIAL PRECEDENT S, THE LD.A R PLEADED BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE PENALTIES LEVIED WERE UN JUSTIFIED AND REQUIRE TO BE QUASHED. 7.1. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEE COM PANYS CONTENTIONS, THE LD.CIT(A) HAD OBSERVED THUS - 10 . THE ENTRIES HAD BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SRI P.B.NICHANI, MD OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY UNDER SECT ION 68 OF I.T.ACT AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AND PROTECTIVEL Y IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. IT IS A CLEAR POINT OF LAW THAT ONC E AN AMOUNT IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, IT CANNOT BE T REATED SIMULTANEOUSLY AS LOAN FROM OTHERS BECAUSE THAT WOU LD GO AGAINST THE PRINCIPLES OF HARMONIOUS INTERPRETATION. SECTI ON 68 COMES INTO PLAY WHEN THE SOURCE IS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED AND THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITOR IS NOT TRACEABLE AS WELL AND ALSO WHEN THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS DOUBTED AND TREATED AS NON-GENUIN E LEADING TO THE INEVITABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE CASH ACTUALLY BELONG S TO THE ASSESSEE. THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THAT SUCH WAS THE N ATURE OF ENTRIES IN SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND HAVE ADDED THEM IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT PROTECTIVELY AS ITS INCOME. SECTION 269S S OF INCOME-TAX ACT SPEAKS OF LOAN OR DEPOSITS THE SOURCES OF WHICH IS ACCOUNTED FOR AND THE LENDERS IDENTITY IS IDENTIFIABLE BUT R ESTRICTS RECEIPTS OF SUCH LOAN OTHERWISE THAN BY AN ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUE OR DRAFT IN EXCESS OF RS.20000/-. THUS, THE IMPLICATIONS OF S ECTION68 IN ONE HAND AND SECTION 40A(3) OR SECTION 269SS ON THE OTH ER-HAND ARE DIAMETICALLY (SIC) DIAMETRICALLY OPPOSITE TO EACH OTHER. THERE IS ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 7 OF 17 NO DISPUTE THAT THESE ENTRIES HAVE BEEN TREATED AS CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT PROTECTIVELY AND IN THE HAND S OF SRI P.B.NICHANI SUBSTANTIVELY AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A ). THEREFORE, I FIND STRENGTH IN THE ARGUMENT OF AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269SS IS NOT ATTRACTED AT ALL AND CONSEQUENT PENALTY LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271D IS BAD IN LAW. THEREFORE THIS GROUND IS ALLOWED AND PENALTY IS DEL ETED. 11. AS TO THE OBJECTION RAISED IN GROUND NO.3, THA T PROVISIONS OF SECTION 269 SS OF THE I.T.ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED SINC E THE ENTRIES IN SEIZED DOCUMENT DO NOT SHOW THE APPELLANT COMPANY A S BORROWER IN CASH, I FIND IT CORRECT BUT WITH A WORD OF PRECA UTION, I OBSERVE THAT IT DOES NEITHER SPEAK THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PAI D TO THE APPELLANT. THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE COMPANY. MD SRI P.B.NICHANI, OWNED UP THESE DOCUMENTS. HE D EPOSED THAT THE ENTRIES HAD BEEN MADE IN HIS HANDWRITING. HE A LSO STATED THAT THESE WERE RECEIVED FOR UTILIZATION FOR THE EXPANSI ON OF THE COMPANY. THEREFORE, IT WOULD ONLY BE HALF-TRUTH, IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT THE COMPANY IS NOT INVOLVED IN BORROWING THE C ASH AMOUNTS. HOWEVER, I OBSERVE THAT PENALTIES CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THE BASIS OF HALF-TRUTHS . 12. . (II) ONCE AN AMOUNT IS CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION AS CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT, THE SAM E AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS CASH LOAN FOR THE PURPOSE OF S ECTION 269SS FOR LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. AO HAS TO TAKE ONLY STAND BETWEEN THE TWO, I.E., TREAT SUCH AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CONCEALED INCOME AS CASH CREDITS OR AS UNEXPLAINED CASH LOANS VIOLATING TH E PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A (3)/269SS OF THE I.T.ACT. 8. AGITATED, THE REVENUE HAS COME UP WITH THE PR ESENT APPEALS. THE CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE WAS MAINLY REVOLVED ON TH E FOLLOWING POINTS: THE CIT(A) : (I) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE DELETED THE PENALTY AFTER GIVING A DECISION AT PARA 8 OF HIS ORDER THAT PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED EVEN ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TO GET AWAY FROM THE TANGLE OF LIMITATION TIL L IT IS FINALIZED AS TO IN WHOSE HANDS THE CASH RECEIPT IS GOING TO BE T AXED; (II) OUT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONLY IN THE CASE OF SU BSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT, THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D GOES DIAME TRICALLY ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 8 OF 17 OPPOSITE ONCE THE CASH RECEIPTS ARE ADDED AS UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDITS AND, HENCE, PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271D WE RE NOT INITIATED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI P.B.NICHANI; (III) OUT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT ONCE THE ADDITION OF U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IS CONFIRMED IN THE SUBSTANTIVE ASSESS MENT, THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE ASSESSEES CASE GOES A ND THUS THE CASH RECEIPTS BY IT FROM SHRI PB.NICHANI ATTRACTS T HE PROVISIONS OF S.269SS/271 D. 8.1. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. A R REITERATE D MORE OR LESS WHAT HAS BEEN CONTENDED BEFORE THE CIT (A). BUTTRESS HIS AR GUMENTS; HE DREW STRENGTH FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASES OF P.B.NICHANI AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS UNDER DISPUTE. 9. WE HAVE DULY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D ALSO CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT RECORDS. 9.1. THE CRUX OF THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IS THAT THE M ATERIALS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND ITS MANAGING DIRECTORS REVEAL THAT THERE WERE CASH TRANSACTIONS RUNNING INTO CRORES OF RUPEES DURING THE PREVIOUS YEARS RELEVANT TO THE AS SESSMENT YEARS IN DISPUTE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS WELL AS ITS M.D, THE AO, FOR THE REASONS SET-OUT IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT ORDERS, TREATED THE CASH CREDITS AS UNEX PLAINED AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, AGGREGA TING TO RS.1,14,55,834/- AND RS.2,53,00,000/- FOR THE AYS 2 003-04 AND 2004-05 RESPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 9 OF 17 9.2 CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDL. CIT, AFTER DUE CONSIDER ATION OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS SUBMISSIONS MADE DURING COURSE O F PENAL PROCEEDINGS, CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HA D ACCEPTED LOANS AMOUNTING TO RS.1.14 CRORES AND RS.2.53 CRORES FOR THE AYS UNDER DISPUTE RESPECTIVELY AND, THUS, CONTRAVENED THE PROVISIONS OF S.269SS OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, HE LEVIED THE PENALTIES OF THE EQUAL A MOUNTS OF CASH CREDITS FOR THE AYS 03-04 AND 04.05. 9.3. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS: 810 815/BAN G/08 DATED: 18.12.2008 FOR THE AYS 99-00 TO 04-05 IN THE CASE O F P.B. NICHANI, M.D. OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, HAS DEALT WITH THE VARIOUS IS SUES, AFTER EXTENSIVELY QUOTING THE LEGAL PRECEDENTS. THE RELEVANT PORTION S OF ITS FINDINGS WHICH ARE CRUCIAL TO DECIDE THE ISSUES ON HAND ARE EXTRAC TED AS UNDER: 42. GROUND NO.4 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.6590000/- AND RS.1005 0000/- FOR THE SAID YEARS AGGREGATING TO RS.16640000/-. THIS ADDI TION IS MADE BASED ON SEIZED MATERIAL A/BJN/11. THE AO HAS NOTE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT A BROWN COLOUR HANU REDDY REA LTY DIARY FOR THE YEAR 2003 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE ASSESSE ES CHAMBER AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. ON PAGE (2) OF THE SAID DIARY, CERTAIN NOTINGS SHOWING AMOUNTS AGAINST VARIOUS PARTIES TOTALING TO RS.1,66,40,000/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AND THIS RELATED TO CASH LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS PERSONS. THE AO REQUESTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE AMOUNT WA S TAKEN AS LOAN IN CASH. IT WAS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTINGS MADE IN THE DIARY DID NOT REPRESENT CASH LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THE FIGURES NOTED REPRESENTED ESTIMATED AND BUDGETED FIGURES OF FINANCE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD RAISE FROM THE FINANCIERS, WHOSE NAMES WERE MENTION ED IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS FOR PROJECTS OF BJN HOTELS LIMITED. THE AO REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OBSERVING THAT THE SEIZED MATERIAL CONT AINS TWO COLUMNS IN WHICH ONE COLUMN REPRESENTS LOANS TAKEN FROM THE FINANCIERS IN CHEQUES AND ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF BJN HOTELS LI MITED. THE SECOND COLUMN CONTAINING THE FIGURES TOTALING TO RS .16640000/- MENTIONED AGAINST THE SAME NAMES HAVE TO BE LOANS T AKEN IN CASH ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 10 OF 17 AND CANNOT REPRESENT THE ESTIMATES AND BUDGETED FIG URES. THE AO HELD THAT A PART OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS SHOWS VERI FIABLE TRANSACTION FROM THE SAID PARTIES SHOULD ALSO BE CORRECT. HE F URTHER REFERRED TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TOTALED THE AMOUNTS BORROWED BY CHEQUE AND THE AMOUNTS BORROWED BY CASH AND THAT NO PRUDENT PERSON WILL ADD BUDGETED FIGURES TO THE ACTUAL TO A RRIVE AT THE TOTAL LIABILITY. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO RELYING ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C R.W.S. 132(4A) OF THE AC T. . . 46. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE SEIZED MATERIALS. PAGE (2) OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL A/BJN/1 1 BASED ON WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE CONTAINS CERTAIN ABBREVI ATIONS, FIGURES AND DATES. THE ABBREVIATIONS ARE EXPLAINED TO REPR ESENT THE DATES ON WHICH LOANS WERE BORROWED BY THE BJN HOTELS LIMI TED AND THIS IS NOT DISPUTE. THEREAFTER, FIGURES ARE NOTED AGAI NST THE NAMES OF THE FINANCIERS IN TWO COLUMNS. THE FIGURES MENTION ED IN THE FIRST COLUMN ARE EXPLAINED TO REPRESENT LOANS BORROWED IN CHEQUE FROM THE FINANCIERS AND ACCOUNTED IN THE BOOKS OF BJN HO TELS LIMITED. THIS IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THEREON. WITH REGARD TO THE NOTINGS MADE IN THE SECOND COLUMN, TH E AO HAS TAKEN THE VIEW THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS LOANS BORROWED IN CASH, WHILE THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SAID NOTINGS REPRESENT BUDGETED FIGURES OF THE FINANCE THAT COULD BE RAISED FROM THESE PERS ONS. APART FROM THE AFORESAID NOTINGS THE SEIZED MATERIAL DOES NOT INDICATE WHETHER THE FIGURES MENTIONED UNDER THE SECOND COLUMN MENTI ONED AS K REPRESENT CASH LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE QU ESTION THAT HAS TO BE DECIDED IS WHETHER THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY T HE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTING REPRESENTED BUDGETED FIGURES IS BONA FID E OR NOT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO SUMMON THE FINANCIERS AND ASCERTAIN FROM THEM AS TO WHETHER ANY CASH LOANS WERE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PATNA IN THE CASE OF HANUMAN AGARWAL [151 ITR 150] HAS OBSERVED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 68 OF T HE ACT, WITH REGARD TO ADDITIONS MADE TOWARDS CASH CREDITS AS UN DER: SUSHIL KUMAR JHA J.- I AGREE TRANSACTION OR THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR TO PAY, THE ASSESSEE TO SUCCEED. 47. THE RATIO OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HON BLE PATNA HIGH COURT WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE U/S 68 OF THE AC T WOULD APPLY WITH EQUAL FORCE EVEN IN THE PRESENT CASE. WHEN TH E ASSESSEE HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AMOUNTS NOTED IN THE SEIZED MATE RIALS DID NOT ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 11 OF 17 REPRESENT LOANS BORROWED IN CASH AND THE NAMES OF T HE PERSONS FROM WHOM THE LOANS WERE ALLEGEDLY BORROWED IN CASH ARE KNOWN, THE AO WHEN REQUESTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ASCERTAIN THE FAC TS FROM THE SAID PERSONS, OUGHT TO HAVE EXAMINED THE FINANCIERS TO F IND OUT IF THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IS BONA FIDE O R NOT. THIS HAS NOT BEEN DONE. THE AO INSTEAD HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM MS. SHAHEEN REHMAN TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE HABIT OF BORROWING LOANS IN CASH TO SUPPORT HIS INFERENCE THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS RELATE TO LOANS BORROWED IN CASH. TO OUR MIND, THE READING OF THE STATEMENT OF MS. SH AHEEN REHMAN DOES NOT SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BORROWING LOANS IN CASH. HOWEVER, EVEN THE RELIANCE ON THE SAID STATEMENT IS MISPLACED, AS MS. SHAHEEN REHMAN HAS NOT BEEN EXAMINED ON THE BAS IS OF THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ON WHICH THE ADDITIO N HAS BEEN MADE BUT ON SOME OTHER SEIZED MATERIAL AND THERE CAN BE NO SUPPORT DERIVED BY THE AO FROM THE SAID STATEMENT. THAT LE AVES, ONLY THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO THAT A PART OF THE SEIZED MA TERIALS SHOW VERIFIABLE TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE THE OTHER PAR T MUST ALSO BE TRUE. WE WOULD HAVE ACCEPTED THE SAID CONTENTION I F THE NOTINGS MADE IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE SPEAKING IN THAT IT WAS MENTIONED IN THE NOTINGS THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE CASH LOANS. H OWEVER, THAT IS NOT THE CASE. THERE IS NO MENTION OF THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS. THE AO HAS RELIED ON THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERED THAT THE SA ME IS NOT TRUE. HOWEVER, THE REJECTION OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE IS NOT BY GATHERING MATERIALS AND EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE E XPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS FALSE. IT IS ONLY ON SURMISE. WE HAVE ALREADY OBSERVED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON PRESUMPTIONS IN RESPECT OF NOTINGS MADE IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL WITHOUT GATHERI NG ANY MATERIAL TO DISCREDIT THE EXPLANATION TENDERED BY THE ASSESS EE. FOLLOWING THE SAID CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY US WHILE DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.75.34 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS.65,90,000/- AND RS. 1,00,50,000/- THAT ARE MADE SIMILARLY ARE ERRONEOUS. THE SAME ARE DELETED .. 48. THERE IS A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUND NO.5 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A GRIEVANCE RELATING TO THE ADDITIONS OF RS. 1,06,00,000/- AND RS .46,50,000/- MADE BY THE AO BASED ON PAGE NO.56 AND 57 OF THE SA ME SEIZED MATERIAL A/BJN/11 CONSIDERING THE NOTINGS MADE AS U NEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE NOTINGS MADE IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS A/BJN/11 AT PAGE 56 AND 57, WE FIND THAT THE NOTINGS MADE THEREIN DO NOT SHOW THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS A NY LOANS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN CASH. NO MENTION IS MA DE WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF THE NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S AND THEREFORE, THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE NOT SPEAKING DOCUMENTS. AS HELD BY US WITH ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 12 OF 17 REGARD TO THE ADDITION OF RS.1,66,40,000/-, THE INF ERENCE DRAWN BY THE AO THAT THE NOTINGS REPRESENTS BORROWINGS OF TH E ASSESSEE IN CASH ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL AND ARE PURE LY ON PRESUMPTIONS. FOR THE ELABORATE REASONING GIVEN AB OVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE ARE NOT JUSTIFIED. THE SAME ARE HEREBY DELETED .. 49. THE NEXT GROUND RAISED IN THE ASSESSEE APP EAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,,65,834 52. FOLLOWING OUR CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO SIMILAR ADDITION OF RS.75.34 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03, WE HOLD THAT THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THIS ADDITIO N. THE ADDITION IS THEREFORE DELETED 53. THE NEXT ISSUE IN GROUND NO.6 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.15,00,000/- BASED ON PAGE NO.10 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A3/BJN/6 IN WHICH IT WAS SHOWN THAT RS.15,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED FROM PBN ON 24/04/2002 ................. 56. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND P ERUSED THE SEIZED MATERIALS ..... THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FUNDS OF BJN HOTELS WERE ENTRUSTE D TO HIM WAS GIVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND NOT BEFORE THE AO AND T HE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY CONSIDERED. WE THEREFORE FEEL THAT T HE ISSUE HAS TO BE EXAMINED BY AO AFRESH AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE SAME. THE AO WILL THEREAFTER DECIDE TH E ISSUE IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW.. 57. THE NEXT ISSUE IN GROUND NO.7 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2003-04 RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS WHICH IS A CASH LOAN TAKEN FROM MR.MAHESH KEWALRAMANI . 58. AFTER HEARING BOTH SIDES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT A/PBNR/10 CANNOT BE DESCRIBED AS DUMB DOCU MENTS MERELY BECAUSE SIGNATURE OF MR.MAHESH KEWALRAMANI W AS NOT PUT ON THE AGREEMENT. THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.292C OF TH E ACT SUPPORT THE STAND TAKEN BY THE AO AS COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE TR ANSACTIONS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED MATERIALS. THE ASSESSEE CO NTENDS THAT THE TRANSACTIONS HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS NOTED THAT THE ENTRY MADE IN THE DIARY OF MR.SHANKAR JAIN WITH REGARD TO THE SUM OF RS.15 LAKHS RECEIVED ON 15/04/2002 IS RELATE D TO THIS TRANSACTION. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT WE HAVE REM ANDED THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION, ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 13 OF 17 WE ARE INCLINED TO REMAND THIS ISSUE ALSO TO THE FI LE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AFRESH AFTER GIVING AN OPPORTUNIT Y TO THE ASSESSEE. AS THE AO CONSIDERS THE ADDITIONS OF RS.15 LAKHS AN D 25 LAKHS TO BE RELATED, HE SHALL CONSIDER BOTH ISSUES TOGETHER .. 10. LET US NOW ANALYZE THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE AD DL. CIT FOR THE AY 2003-04 : ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND T HAT (I) ON PARA 2.3, IT WAS STATED THAT SRI P.B.NICHANI HAD NOT EXPLAINED ABOUT THE DETAILS OF BORROWINGS AND ALSO THE INVEST MENTS MADE IN THE HOTEL BUSINESS. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OUT OF RS .166.4 LAKHS, A SUM OF RS.65.90 LAKHS RELATING TO AY 2003-04 WAS AD DED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE CASE OF SRI NICHANI. FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED , RS.65.90 WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLA INED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED AS INCOME PROTECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE; (II) ON PARA 2.4, FOR THE REASONS REFERRED SUPRA (I), RS .865834/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADDED AS INC OME PROTECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE; - SIMILARLY RS.15 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS FOR THE SAME REASONS WERE ADDED AS INCOME PROTECTIVELY IN THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE. 10.1. THUS, RS.6590000 + RS.865834 + 1500000 + 2500000 = RS.11455834/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH RECEI PTS IN THE HANDS OF NICHANI AND FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE SAME WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ACCORDING TO THE ADDL. CIT, THOUGH THE ABOVE AMOUNT S WERE OF SHRI NICHANI, THE SAME WERE ONLY UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSE E COMPANY. AS THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD ACCEPTED THE LOAN OF RS.1.14 C RORES IN CASH DURING THE AY IN DISPUTE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISION S OF S.269SS OF THE ACT, THE ADDL. CIT WENT AHEAD WITH THE LEVY OF PENALTY O F THE SAID AMOUNT FOR THE DEFAULT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF S.271D OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 14 OF 17 10.2. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITS DECISION IN THE CASE OF P.B.NICHANI REFERRED SUPRA, HAD DELETED RS.6590000 AND RS.865834 (PARAS: 47 & 52) AND REMITTED BACK THE ADDITIONS O F RS.15 LAKHS AND RS.25 LAKHS ON THE FILE OF THE AO TO DECIDE THE ISSUES AF RESH [PARAS: 56 AND 58]. 10.3. THUS, OUT OF THE ALLEGED CASH RECEIPTS OF RS.11455834/- BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FROM MR.NICHANI, RS.74,55,834/- H AS BEEN DELETED AND REMAINING ALLEGED CASH CREDITS OF RS.40 LAKHS HAS BEEN REMANDED BACK ON THE FILE OF THE AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. IN OTHER WORDS, RS.74.55 LAKHS HAS BEEN DELETED AND THE ISSUE OF REMAINING R S.40 LAKHS HAS NOT REACHED ITS FINALITY. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ADD L. CIT, LEVYING A PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED CASH RE CEIPTS OF RS.1.14 CRORES, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DOESNT HAVE ANY LEGAL SANC TITY. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ADDL. CIT IS, THEREFORE, CANCELLED. 11. SIMILARLY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004- 05, THE ADDL. CIT HAD LEVIED A PENALTY OF RS.2.53 CRORES FOR THE CONTRAVE NTION OF THE PROVISIONS OF S.269SS OF THE ACT. 11.1. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITS FINDING REFER RED SUPRA, HAS DELETED CASH RECEIPTS AGGREGATING TO RS.2.53 CRORES. FOR READY REFERENCE AND CLARITY, THE DETAILS OF THE FINDING OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL ARE SUMMARIZED AS UNDER: (I) RS.1,00,50,000 - THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN ELABORATE LY AND EXTENSIVELY DEALT WITH IN PARAS: 42 47; (II) RS.1,06,00,000 - DEALT WITH IN PARA 48 RS, 46,50,000 ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 15 OF 17 11.2. AS THE ENTIRE CASH RECEIPTS AGGREGATI NG TO RS.2.53 CRORES WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SRI NICHANI AS CASH RECEIP TS AND FOR THE REASONS SET OUT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE AD DL.CIT, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS CASH CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. 11.3. SINCE, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DE LETED THE SAID AMOUNTS IN ITS ORDER REFERRED SUPRA, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ADD L. CIT, LEVYING A PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGED CASH RE CEIPTS OF RS.2.53 CRORES, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DOESNT HAVE LEGS TO STAND. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ADDL. CIT REQUIRES TO BE QUASHED. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 12. BEFORE PARTING WITH, WE WOULD LIKE MENTION H ERE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAD CHALLENGED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED ON 27/4/2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS 2000-01 TO 05-06 WERE BARRED BY LIMITATION U/S 153B OF THE ACT. 12.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO EXTENSIVELY QUOTING THE RULING OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESHKUMAR V. DCIT [287 ITR 91] AND IN THE CASE OF C RAMAIAH REDDY 87 ITD 439 (BANG) (SB), THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS:493 TO 498(BANG)/20 08 DT:18/12/2008 FOR THE AYS 2001-02 TO 2005-06 IN THE ASSESSEE COMPANY S OWN CASE, HAS OBSERVED THUS 24. ..VIEWED FROM THIS ANGLE OF THE MATTER ALS O, THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED ON 27/4/2007 ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION, AS TH E AO OUGHT TO HAVE PASSED THE ORDERS BEFORE 26/3/2007 IN TERMS OF THE EXPLANATION U/S 153B OF THE ACT. WE ARE TAKING THIS VIEW BECAUSE THE DIRECTION GRANTED U/S 142(2A) OF THE ACT ON 31/7/2006 CANNOT BE WITHDRAWN UNILATERALLY BY THE AO AND FRES H DIRECTIONS BE ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME. ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 16 OF 17 CROSS OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY : 13. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RAISED IDENTIC AL CROSS OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271D OF THE ACT FOR B OTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER DISPUTE. 13.1. THE PENALTY ORDERS FOR BOTH THE AYS UNDER D ISPUTE HAVE SINCE BEEN DISPOSED OFF IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, IN OUR CONSIDERED V IEW, HAVE BECOME OBSOLETE AND THUS DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS . 14. IN THE RESULT, THE REVENUES APPEALS FOR 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ARE DISMISSED AND THE ASSESSEE COMPANYS CROSS OBJECTIONS FOR BOTH THE AYS ARE ALSO DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS . PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2009. SD/- SD/- (K.P.T. THANGAL ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY ) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BANGALORE, DATED, THE 31 ST AUGUST, 2009. DS/- ITA NOS.188 & 189/B/09 & CO NOS. 15 & 16/B/09 PAGE 17 OF 17 COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, BANGALORE. 6. GUARD FILE (1+1) BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, BANGALORE.