Shri S.Sathyanarayanan, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2299/CHNY/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1133 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-03-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 24-12-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Rectification of order; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 148; 154

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE DR. O.K. NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT & SHRI S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.2293, 2298 & 2294, 2295 & 2299, 2296 & 2 300 AND 2297 & 2301/MDS/2012 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 03-04, 04-05, 05-06 AND 06-07 SHRI S. SATHYANARAYANAN, OLD. NO. 19, NEW NO. 45, DR. GIRIAPPA ROAD, T. NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN:ABCPS0844B] VS. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I (5), CHENNAI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) A PPELLAN T BY : SHRI S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GURU BASHYAM, JCIT DATE OF HEARING : 04.03.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.03.2013 ORDER PER S.S. GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS BATCH OF NINE APPEALS [EXCEPT I.T.A. NO. 2297 /MDS/2012] PERTAINING TO SAME ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST DI FFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -II, CHENNAI, ALL DATED 29.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 207/10-11/A.II FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03; ITA NO. 159/10- 11/A.II & ITA NO.171/10-11/A.II FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04; ITA NO. 160/10-11/A.II & ITA NO. 172/10-11/A.II FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2004-05; ITA NO. 161/10-11/A.II & ITA NO. 108/10-11/A.II FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND ITA NO. 220/10-11/A.II FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 RESPECTIVELY; CONFIRMING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 2 INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [IN SHORT THE ACT]. FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY, WE TAKE I.T.A. NO. 2298 & 2294/MDS/2012 AS THE LEAD CASES. I.T.A. NO. 2298 & 2294/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2003-04] 2. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS LEADING TO PENALTIES UNDER CHALLENGE UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IN I .T.A. NO. 2298/MDS/2012 ARE UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT; WHEREAS, IN I.T.A. NO. 2294/MDS/2012, THE PROCEEDINGS ARE UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 153C R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 3. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS T HAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT. IN ADDITION, THE AR REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE REITERAT ES THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED IN THE GROUNDS AND PRAYS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF T HE APPEAL. 4. PER CONTRA, THE REVENUE SUPPORTS THE ORDERS UND ER CHALLENGE AND CHOSES TO PLACE STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF TH E CIT(A) IN BOTH CASES. IN ADDITION TO THIS, IT QUOTES LATEST DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN CIT V. MAK DATA LTD. DATED 22.01.2013 IN ITA NO. 41 5/2012 AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE PENALTY. 5. FACTS COMMON TO BOTH CASES ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS AN INDIVIDUAL. ON 21.09.2005, THE DEPARTMENT HAD CONDUCTED SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEES FATHER SHRI K. SUNDARARAJ [BOTH ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER ARE DIR ECTORS OF AN ENTITY NAMELY M/S. S & S FOUNDATIONS PVT. LTD.] WHICH LED TO SEIZ URE OF CASH, BOOKS OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 3 ACCOUNTS AND DOCUMENTS. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING O FFICER ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT DATED 28.08.2006. IN RESPONSE, HE FILED HIS RETURN ON 26.03.2007 DISCL OSING TOAL INCOME OF ` .4,92,883/-. 6. IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT FINALIZED ON 31.12.200 7, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE TWO ADDITIONS I.E. ` .5,70,170/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED IT TO HAVE BEEN ARISEN FRO M AGRICULTURAL OPERATIONS, BUT HE COULD NOT LEAD ANY EVIDENCE. SIM ILARLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ANOTHER ADDITION OF ` .2.50 LAKHS QUA BANK DEPOSITS WITH INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SANTHOME BRANCH WHICH WAS ADMITTED B Y THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER COMPUTED TOTAL INCOME AS ` .13,13,053/- AND INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 7. AFTER FINALIZATION OF ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A REOPENING NOTICE DATED 26.03.2008 TO THE ASSESSEE O N THE GROUND THAT IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR, HE HAD MADE CASH DEPOSIT OF ` .11.00 LAKHS IN THE INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SANTHOME BRANCH. PER ASSESSING OFFICER, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD STAT ED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE AMOUNT FROM THE ENTITY NAMELY S & S FOUNDATIONS (P) LTD. (SUPRA), THE CASH BOOK OF THE SAID ENTITY DID NOT SHOW ANY SUCH PAYME NT. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT. IN PROCE EDINGS CONSEQUENCE THERETO, THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE GIVEN A WRI TTEN SUBMISSION ADMITTING THE AMOUNT AFORESAID ` .11.00 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. THEREAFTER, THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 4 ASSESSING OFFICER FINALIZED REASSESSMENT VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2008 AND MADE ADDITION OF ` .11.00 LAKHS. HE ALSO ISSUED ANOTHER PENALTY NOTICE . 8. IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS QUA SCRUTINY ASSESSMEN T (SUPRA), ASSESSEES ONLY SUBMISSION QUA UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WAS THAT SINCE HE COOPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PAID TAX, THE PEN ALTY NOTICE WAS LIABLE TO BE DROPPED. REGARDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME, HIS SUBM ISSION WAS THAT HIS APPEAL IN QUANTUM CASE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A ). VIDE PENALTY ORDER DATED 10.06.12008, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED A SSESSEES CONTENTIONS QUA ADDITION OF ` 2.5 LAKHS OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT BY HOLDING THAT HIS CONDUCT AMOUNTED TO CONCEALMENT LEADING TO FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THAT TOO, DELIBERATELY AND CONSCIOUSLY. QUA OTHER A DDITION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THE ASSESSING OFFICER KEPT THE PENALTY PROC EEDINGS IN ABEYANCE TILL THE DISPOSAL OF QUANTUM APPEAL BY THE CIT(A). ACCOR DINGLY, IN THE PENALTY ORDER DATED 10.06.2008, HE IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` .71,464/-. 9. IN THE SAME MANNER, IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IN FURTHERANCE TO THE REASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL, SINCE THERE WAS NO EXPL ANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY OF ` .5,26,104/- VIDE ORDER DATED 19.06.2009 QUA ADDITIONS ON AGRICULTURAL INCO ME [KEPT IN ABEYANCE] AND CASH DEPOSIT OF ` .11.00 LAKHS. 10. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED TWO DIFF ERENT APPEALS AGAINST PENALTY ORDER DATED 10.06.2008 AND 19.06.2009. WE N OTICE FROM CASE FILE OF I.T.A. NO. 2298/MDS/2012 THAT THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIR MED THE PENALTY QUA THE I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 5 ADDITION MADE IN THE SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER , IN THE APPEAL ARISING FROM PENALTY ORDER DATED 19.06.2009 (SUPRA), THE CI T(A) HAS ONLY UPHELD THE PENALTY RE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF ` .11.00 LAKHS AND ACCEPTED THE APPEAL IN PART. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED AND HAS PREFER RED BOTH APPEALS. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH PARTIES AND PERUSED ASSESSM ENT ORDERS, PENALTY ORDERS AND CIT(A)S ORDER IN BOTH CASES. AFTER THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN I.T.A. NO. 2294/MDS/2012 DELETING THE PENALTY QUA A GRICULTURAL INCOME (SUPRA), THE ONLY ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE CASES I S AS TO WHETHER THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES QUA UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF ` .2.50 LAKHS AND UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT OF ` .11.00 LAKHS. IT IS A TRITE PREPOSITION OF LAW THAT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROC EEDINGS ARE ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT AND THEY DO NOT STAND ON SAME FOOTING. IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE CONCERNED ASSESSEE CAN ALWAYS JUSTIFY HIS CONDU CT LEADING TO ADDITION BY TENDERING APPROPRIATE EXPLANATIONS WHICH HAS TO BE EXAMINED INDEPENDENTLY. IN BOTH THESE CASES, WE FIND THAT IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS REASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF SUFFERED THE ADDITIONS OF UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSITS OF ` .2.5 LAKHS AND ` .11.00 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY. IT ALSO TRANSPIRES THAT THEY PERTAIN TO AMOUNT DEPOSIT ED IN ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT IN INDIAN OVERSEAS BANK, SANTHOME BRANCH, C HENNAI. AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED UNDER SECTIO N 143(3) R.W.S. 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT VIDE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATE D 31.12.2007. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 6 THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED REASSESSME NT ORDER (SUPRA) DATED 24.12.2008. IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN ASSESSMENTS AS WE LL AS IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO EXPLANATION TENDERED BY TH E ASSESSEE AS HIS SUBMISSIONS ON BOTH OCCASIONS ARE THAT SINCE HE HAD COOPERATED IN THE ASSESSMENTS, THE PENALTY NOTICES ARE LIABLE TO BE D ROPPED. IN OUR VIEW AND MORE SO, IN VIEW OF THE LATEST DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN ITA NO. 415/2012 DATED 21.01.2013 TITLED AS CIT V. MAK DATA LTD., HOLDING AS UNDER: .. THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION IS STATUTO RILY CONSIDERED AS AMOUNTING TO CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. I N THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE RECEIPT OF THE MONEY, WHICH IS IN THE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE, AN ADVERSE INF ERENCE IS SOUGHT TO BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE FIRST PART OF CLAUSE (A) OF THE SAID EXPLANATION. THIS APPEARS TO BE SOMEWHAT IN TH E LINES OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT, THE PRINCIPLE BEHIND WHICH HAS BEEN EXTENDED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. WE ARE CONSTRAINED TO OBSERVE THAT SINCE THE ASSESS EE HAS OFFERED NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) HAS R IGHTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTIES UNDER CHALLENGE. THEREFORE, WE AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN BOTH CASES. I.T.A. NO. 2293/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2002-03] I.T.A. NOS. 2295 & 2299/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2004-05] I.T.A. NOS. 2296 & 2300/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2005-06] & I.T.A. NO. 2301/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] 12. IN THESE CASES, BOTH PARTIES AGREE THAT I.T.A. NOS. 2293, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300 & 2301/MDS/2012 PERTAIN TO PENALTIES CON FIRMED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153 A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT; WHEREAS, IN I.T.A. NO. 2299/MDS/2012, THE AS SESSMENTS HAVE BEEN COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 7 REPRESENTATIVES ALSO STATE THAT SINCE THERE IS NO E XPLANATIONS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ANY OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, THE FAC TS ARE SIMILAR TO THOSE IN I.T.A. NOS. 2298 & 2294/MDS/2012 (SUPRA) DECIDED HE REINABOVE. 13. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FAIR SUBMISSIONS ADVANC E BY BOTH PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH ALL CASE FILES. IN THESE CASES AS WELL , SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED ANY EXPLANATION IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, WE RELY IN THE CASE LAW OF CIT V. MAK DATA LTD. (SUPRA) AND CONFIRM THE ORD ERS UNDER CHALLENGE PASSED BY THE CIT(A). I.T.A. NO. 2297/MDS/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] 14. THIS ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-II, CHENNAI DA TED 29.10.2012 IN ITA NO. 182/10-11/A.II FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, IN PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 R.W.S. 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 [ IN SHORT THE ACT]. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF A PPEAL: 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) II, CHENNAI - 600 034 DATED 29.10.2012 IN I.T.A.NO.182/10-11 FO R THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR IS CONTRARY TO LAW, FACTS, AND IN T HE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE RE-AS SESSMENT FRAMED IN TERMS OF SECTION 147 R/W SECTION 144 OF THE ACT WIT HOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RE-ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS PASSED OUT OF TIME, INVALID, PASS ED WITHOUT JURISDICTION AND NOT SUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 4. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RE WAS NO TANGIBLE/FRESH MATERIALS JUSTIFYING THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 147 OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 8 THE ACT AND HENCE OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT TH E RE-ASSESSMENT FRAMED IN CONSEQUENCE THERETO WAS BAD IN LAW. 5. THE CIT (APPEALS) WENT WRONG IN RECORDING THE F INDINGS IN THIS REGARD IN PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WITHOUT ASSIGNING P ROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 6. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE DECISIONS CITED IN THE SAID PARA 6 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WERE NOT APPLICAB LE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDIT ION OF RS.16,58,549/- REPRESENTING THE NET CASH DEFICIT WHILE OVERLOOKING THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT IN THE COMPUTATION OF TAXABLE TOTAL INCOM E WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASONS AND JUSTIFICATION. 8. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT HAV ING NOT ANALYZED/CONSIDERED THE REVISED CASH FLOW STATEMENT , THE SUSTENANCE OF THE SAID ADDITION WITHOUT REASON IN PARA 7 OF THE IMPUG NED ORDER WAS WRONG, INCORRECT, UNJUSTIFIED, ERRONEOUS AND NOT SUSTAINAB LE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW. 9. THE CIT (APPEALS) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE RE WAS NO PROPER OPPORTUNITY GIVEN BEFORE PASSING THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND ANY ORDER PASSED IN VIOLATION OF THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE IS N ULLITY IN LAW. 16. REITERATING THE GROUNDS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE , THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY ARGUES THAT THE CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY CONFI RMED EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D PRAYS FOR RESTORATION OF ASSESSMENT BEFORE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. IN REPLY, THE REVENUE STRONGLY SUPPORTS THE CI T(A)S ORDER AND PRAYS FOR UPHOLDING THE SAME. 18. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS RETURN ON 31.10.2006 DISCLOS ING INCOME OF ` .1,46,100/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FINALIZED S CRUTINY ASSESSMENT IN ASSESSEES CASE ON 31.12.2007 AND ASSESSED TOTAL IN COME OF ` .46,52,062/-. THEREAFTER, A RECTIFICATION ORDER UNDER SECTION 154 OF THE ACT WAS PASSED I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 9 ON 18.08.2008 AND THE INCOME WAS RECOMPUTED TO ` .35,52,062/-. 19. ON 04.08.2008, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT ALREADY F INALIZED ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED TO HAVE INCURRED AN EX PENDITURE OF ` .1,16,23,601/- AGAINST AVAILABLE FINANCE OF ` .75,41,334/- AS PER THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT, CAUSING NET DEFICIT OF ` .16,58,549/- WHICH ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE IS STATED TO HAVE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS VIDE LETTER DATED 08.12.2009 AND 14.12. 2009. THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S AND FINALIZED REASSESSMENT ON 31.12.2009 MAKING ADDITION OF ` .16,58,549/-. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL, WHEREIN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) DEALING WITH THE SUBMISSION S ON MERITS. 20. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES, PERUSED THE REASSESS MENT ORDER AS WELL AS CIT(A)S ORDER. WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT NO MATERIA L HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE US BY THE ASSESSEE SO AS TO PROVE THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD. ALTHO UGH IN THE REASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTION THE PROCEEDING S AS UNDER SECTION 144 R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALSO PROVES THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS OFFERED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND HE HAD ALSO FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH WERE CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THEREFORE, IN SUBSISTENCE, IT IS NOT AN EX-PARTE ASSESSMENT ORDER . ACCORDINGLY, WE REJECT THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT OFFER ED OPPORTUNITY OF I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. I.T.A. NO NONO NOS SS S. .. .2 22 229 2929 293, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 3, 2298, 2294, 2295, 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301 2299, 2296, 2300, 2297 & 2301/M/ /M/ /M/ /M/12 1212 12 10 HEARING BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 21. SO FAR AS ARGUMENTS ON MERITS ARE CONCERNED, W E HAVE MAKE IT CLEAR APART FROM THE BALD ASSERTION RAISED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT THE FINDINGS OF T HE CIT(A) ON MERITS SUFFER FROM ANY MISREADING OF DOCUMENTS ON RECORD. THEREFO RE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) UNDER CHALLENGE. 22. TO SUM UP, ALL APPEALS IN I.T.A. NOS. 2293, 22 98 & 2294, 2295 & 2299, 2296 & 2300 AND 2297 & 2301/MDS/2012 ARE DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 18 TH OF MARCH, 2013 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (DR. O.K. NARAYANAN) VICE - PRESIDENT (S.S. GODARA) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 18.03.2013 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.