A.Swarna Lakshmi, Visakhapatnam V. THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, Vijayawada

ITA 207/VIZ/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6810 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: GURUSAMY
• Keywords: Revision of order; Depreciation; Deemed dividend; Revised return; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 131; 37; 6; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM . , . . , BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER . / I . T .A.NO. 2 07 TO 211 /VIZAG/ 201 4 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 5 - 0 6 TO 2007 - 08, 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 RESPECTIVELY ) A SWARNA LAKSHMI FLAT NO.6, MUKUND SUVASA APARTMENTS 3 RD LANE, DWARAKANAGAR VISAKHAPATNAM 530 016 DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE VIJAYAWADA PAN : ADBPA3951G ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI I KAMA SASTRY, AR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURUSAMY, DR / DATE OF HEARING : 2 0 .06.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 .08 .2017 / O R D E R PER D.S. SUNDER SINGH , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : ALL T H E S E APPEAL S ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. C OMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX , (CIT) ( CENTRAL ) , HYDERABAD 2 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI VIDE ORDER NO.CIT( C ) / 263 / 70/13 - 14 DATED 25 .0 3 .201 4 FOR THE A.Y S . 2005 - 06 TO 2007 - 08, 2009 - 10 & 2010 - 11 PASSED U/S 263 OF I.T.ACT . 2. IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AND THE ASSESSMENT S U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A WAS COMPLETED. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. CIT (C) HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 AND PASSED THE ORDERS SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMEN T ORDERS MADE U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF I.T.ACT TO REFRAME THE ASSESSMENTS AFTER MAKING THE FRESH E NQUIRIES. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(CENTRAL), THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO . 207 (A.Y.2005 - 06 ) 3. GROUND NOS. 1 & 5 ARE GENERAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4. GROUND NO. 2 IS RELATED TO THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 BY THE CIT DIRECTING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT. A CCORDING TO THE ASSESSEE THE DI RE C TION OF THE LD.CIT IS BEYOND THE SCOPE OF THE PROVISION OF SECT ION 153A OF I.T.ACT. 3 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI THIS GROUND IS COMMON FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS OF 2005 - 06 AND 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A AND T HE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION IS THAT THE ASSESSMENTS THAT WERE PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 153A WERE INVALID SINCE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE WITHOUT REFERRING TO ANY OF I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE L D.A.R FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DETAILS OF DATE OF FILING THE RETURNS, THE DUE DATE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT AS UNDER : A.Y DATE OF FILING DUE DATE FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE DATE OF ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) DATE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 152A R.W.S. 143(3) 2005 - 06 01.11.2005 31.03.2007 NO SCRUTINY 29.12.2011 2006 - 07 31.10.2006 31.03.2008 31.03.2008 29.12.2011 2007 - 08 31.10.2007 31.03.2009 30.12.2009 29.12.2011 5. THE LD.A.R ARGUED THAT THE SEARCH U/S 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 04/02/2010 AND BY THE TIME THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) H AS BEEN 4 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI EXPIRED IN THE CASE OF A.Y.2005 - 06 AND THE REGULAR ASSESSMEN TS WERE COMPLETED FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08. THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS AND THE UNABATED ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE TINKERED WITHOUT THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL , AS PER THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS . ONLY IN THE CASE OF ABATED ASSESSMENTS THE INCOME IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED BOTH AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IN THE CASE OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS THE REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY WITH THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE REASSESSMENT ORDE RS U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A WERE COMPLETED AND NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ISSUES THAT WERE TAKEN UP FOR REVISION WERE EXAMINED BY THE AO IN THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) AN D THE SAME WERE RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NOT RELATING TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. HENCE THE LD.A.R CONTENDED THAT THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 ARE BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE LD.A.R FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE ISSUES THAT WERE TAKEN UP BY THE CIT FOR REVISION WERE RELATED TO THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ANY OMISSION/COMMISSION SHOULD BE EXAMINED IN REGULAR PROCEEDINGS ASSESSMENTS BUT NOT IN SEARCH 5 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI ASSESSMENTS. A CCORDING TO THE L D.AR THE R EVISION U/S 263 IS BAD IN LAW AND TO BE SET ASIDE. 6. PER CONTRA THE LD.DR ARGUED THAT I N THIS CASE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF IT ACT AND THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) AND SUBSEQUENTLY WITHDRAWN THE APPEAL AND T HE ASSESSMENTS HAVE ATTAINED THE FINALITY. T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSMENTS PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S.153A ARE INVALID AND BAD IN LAW SHOULD BE CHALLENGED SEPARATELY IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT BUT NOT IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF I . T . ACT. THE PRESENT APPEAL JURISDICTION IS LIMITED TO WHETHER THE ORDERS PASSED U/S 263 ARE COVERED WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 263 OR NOT. THEREFORE THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO THE VALIDITY OF REVISION IS NOT AC CEPTABLE . CIT HAS TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 263 DATED 11.03.2014 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF TWO YEARS FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE ORDER U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153 A WAS PASSED . THEREFORE, THE CIT HAS RIGHTLY T AKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263. ACCORDING TO THE LD.DR THE ORDERS OF 263 REQUIRED TO BE UPHELD. 6 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI 7 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THE ADDITION IS PERTAINING TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 AND THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2005. THE LD. C IT HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CLOSING CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 WAS RS.77,681/ - . WHEREAS, THE OPENING CAPITAL BALANCE WAS TAKEN AT RS.13,952/ - AS ON 01.04.2005 AND THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE AND H ENCE, THE LD.CIT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REEXAMI NE THE ISSUE AND MAKE THE E NQUIRIES AND COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT. 7 .1. DURING THE APPEAL, THE LD. AR REFERRED THE PAPER BOOK PAGE NO .30 WHICH IS THE CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005. AS PER THE BALANCE SHEET, THE CAPITAL BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2005 WAS RS.7,76,810/ - . THE ASSESSEE ALSO ENCLOSED THE ACCOUNT COPY OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF T HE CAPITAL ACCOUNT WHICH SHOWS THE OPENING BALANCE OF RS.776810/ - AS ON 01.04,200 5 A ND THERE WAS NO DIFFERENCE . THEREFORE, THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT HAS COMMITTED AN ERROR WHILE EXAMING THE CAPITAL ACCOUNTS. 7 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI 7 .2. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING THE LD.DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE FACTS FURNISHED BY THE LD.AR AND WE DO NOT FIND ANY DIFFERENCE AS OBSERVED BY THE LD.CIT IN HIS ORDER PASSED U/S 263. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.208, 209 (A.YS.2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08) 8 . THE CASE FOR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 WERE TAKEN UP FOR REVISION U/S 263 IN RESPECT OF EXPENDITURE UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE AMOUNTING TO RS.21,98,678/ - AND RS.34,64,552/ - RESPECTIVELY . O N VERIFICATION OF THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES, THE L D. CIT OBSERV ED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE CAPITAL IN NATURE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXAMINE THE ISSUE WITH REGARD TO THE NATURE OF EXPENSES. HENCE THE CIT HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO REDO THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 TREATING THE EXPENSES AS CAPITA L EXPENDITURE AND ALLOW THE DEPRECIATION. 9. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. REFERRING TO THE PAPER BOOK, PAGE N O.5 6 , THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE EXPENSES WERE VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE TIME OF ORIGIN AL ASSESSMENT AND MADE THE ESTIMATED DISALLOW ANCE OF SOME OF THE 8 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI EXPENSES DEBITED UNDER THE HEAD REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE . THEREFORE, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT ACTION THE U/S 263 IS NOT POSSIBLE IN RESPECT OF THE EXPENDITURE WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TAKEN A CONSCIOUS DECISION . 10 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR CONTENDED THAT PRIMA FACIE, THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT DOES NOT FIT INTO THE CURRENT REPAIRS U/S 30 OF I.T.ACT. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION WAS RELATED TO THE BODY BUILDING OF TRACTOR , PURCHASE OF STEEL FRAME FOR BUS TRAILS AND CRANES , MODELING BLOCKS ETC., PRIMA FACIE, THE E XPENDITURE WAS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL EXPENDITURE WHICH IS NOT ALLOWABLE U/S 30, 31 OR 37 OF I.T.ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PASSED U/S 143(3) HAS NOT EXAMINED THIS ASPECT, THEREFORE, THERE WAS AN ERROR WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REV ENUE AND THE CIT HAS RIGHTLY TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 OF I.T.ACT. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. PRIMA FACIE, THE EXPENDITURE WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSM ENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 ARE UNABATED AND COMPLETED. THE 9 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN NOT BE INFERRED WITH THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A. REASSESSMENT U/S 153A IS POSSIBLE IN UNABATED ASSESSMENTS O NLY WITH THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FO UND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IF NO NEW MATERIAL IS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH REVISION U/S 263 IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES MADE IN THE REGULAR BOOS OF ACCOUNTS. FOR ANY OMISSION OR COMMISSION RESULTING UNDER ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN REGULAR ASSESSMENTS BUT NOT IN SEARCH ASSESSMENTS. THIS VIEW IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT,DELHI TRIBUNAL IN M AHESH KUMAR GUPTA VS.C OMMISSIONER OF I N COME T AX , REPORTED IN 47CCH 0190 . THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE DECISION CITED SUPRA IN CONNECTION WITH THE TAXABILITY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND HELD AS UNDER: THE CLAUSE (IV) ABOVE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. IN CLAUSE (V), THE SAME IS REITERATED BY HOLDING IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. IN CLAUSE (VI I), IT IS STATED COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT C AN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. IN CLAUSE (VII), IT IS STATED COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL U NEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 10 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI THUS, IN PRESENT CASE THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND DOES NOT ARISE FROM THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL UNEARTHED AT THE RELEVANT TIME. THUS IT IS BEYOND ASSESSING OFFICERS PO WER TO ADDRESS THE SAID ISSUE IN PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE CIT WAS WRONG IN DIRECTING THE EXAMINATION OF TAXABILITY OF DEEMED DIVIDEND UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT WHILE PASSING ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A ITSELF HAS NOT UNEARTHED THE SAID ISSUE. THUS, THE CIT DO NOT HAVE POWER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT TO GIVE ITS OWN OPINION WHEN THERE IS NO NEW MATERIAL UN EARTHED. THE ISSUE TAKEN UP BY THE CIT WAS NOT WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT THE INCEPTION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS . 11.1. THEREFORE WE HOLD THAT IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF SEARCH ASSESSMENTS W ITHOUT REFERRING TO THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IN THE CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE UNABATED AND THERE IS NO INCRIMAINATING MATERIAL. HENCE WE SET A SIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD.CIT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.200 6 - 0 7 AND 2007 - 08 . ITA NO.210, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 1 2 . FOR THE A.Y.2009 - 10, THE LD.CIT OBSERVED THAT THE N ET PROFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER P&L A/C WAS RS.47,68,552/ - AND THE ASSESSSEE HA S OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.17.00 LAKHS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND THE AGGREGATE INCOME SHOULD BE RS.64,68,552/ - AND THE ASSESSEE NEITHER OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TO TAX NOR THE AO MADE THE 11 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI ADDITION TO RETURNED INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT COMPL ETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A . HENCE THE LD.CIT(A) TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION AND HELD THAT NON ADMISSION OF INCOME AS DECLARED U/S 132(A) AND NOT MAKING THE ADDITION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTS TO ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY ISSUED THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AND PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 15 3 A DIRECTING THE AO TO REEXAMINE THE ISSUE AND DECIDE THE MATTER AFTER MAKING THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES. 12.1. DURING THE APPEAL HEARING, THE LD.AR STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME ADMITTING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.27,42,475/ - (WRONGLY MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE AT RS.29,35,282/ - ) AND ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.17.00 LAKHS DURING THE SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AT RS.45,06,025/ - WHICH IS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME ADMITTED . THE LD.AR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT MISUNDERSTOOD THE ISSUE AND TAKEN UP THE CASE FOR REVISION. REFERRING TO PAPER BOOK PAGE NO.14, QUESTION N O.13 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 ON 19.03.2010 STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL INCO ME OF RS.17.00 LAKHS AND FILED THE REVISED RETURN 12 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI ACCORDINGLY. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 R.W.S. 153A. 12.2. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT. THE DR DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FACT REGA RDING THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE REVISED RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) AND WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD.CIT AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.211, ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 1 3 . THE REASON FOR TAKING UP THE CASE FOR REVISION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.35 LAKHS AS PER THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION. THE LD.CIT WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.35 LAKHS DURING THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION WHICH WAS NOT DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH. THE LD.CIT SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A WITH A DIRECTION TO REEXAMINE THE ISSUE. THE LD. AR HAS REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 ON 19.03.2010 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS A GREED TO FILE THE 13 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.35 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 BUT NO ADMISSION WAS GIVEN FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME . AS PER THE DECLARATION, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REVISED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.35.09 LAKHS. REFERRING TO PAGE N O.150 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD.AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FIL ED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR RS.35,09,661/ - AND ARGUED THAT THERE WAS NO ERROR IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 153A . LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AN D HENCE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 REQUIRED TO BE SET ASIDE. 1 4 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD.DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT. 1 5 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 131 ON 19.03.2010 THE ASSESSEE HAS ADMITTED THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.35 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 - 11 BUT NO ADMISSION WAS GIVEN FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME AND ACCORDINGLY FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. NO OTHER INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL WAS PLACED BEFORE US BY THE LD.DR EVIDENCING ANY OTHER ADDITIONAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO ERROR WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE FOR TAKING UP THE CASE FOR REVISION U/S 263 , 14 ITA NO S 2 07 - 211 /VIZ/201 4 AND SP NOS.16029/VIZ/2016 S MT A SWARNALAKSHMI AND ACCORDINGLY , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 AND ALLOW THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 1 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. T HE ABOVE ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH AUG 20 17 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . ) ( . . ) (V. DURGA RAO) ( D.S. SUNDER SINGH ) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /VISAKHAPATNAM /DATED : 09 .0 8 .2017 L. RAMA, SPS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : - 1. / THE APPELLANT SMT . A.SWARNA LAKSHMI, FLAT NO.6, MUKUND SUVASA APARTMENTS, 3 RD LANE, DWARAKANAGAR, VISAKHAPATNAM - 530 016 2 . / THE RESPONDENT DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , VIJAYAWADA 3 . / THE CIT (CENTRAL), 7 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 4 . ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS) 5 . , , / DR, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM 6 . / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM