DCIT, Madurai V. Susee Motors Finance, Vellore

ITA 2386/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 238621714 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 20-08-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 22-09-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S BHARAT
• Assessee Lawyers: T VASUDEVAN
• Keywords: Peak credit; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , . !' , # $ % [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NOS.2103 TO 2108/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2006-07 M/S SUSEE MOTOR FINANCE NO.271 (OLD NO.98/1), CHITTOOR HIGH ROAD VELLORE 632 007 VS . THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III MADURAI [PAN AAPFS 9766 G] ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A.NOS.2386 TO 2391/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2001-02 TO 2006-07 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE III MADURAI VS. M/S SUSEE MOTOR FINANCE NO.271 (OLD NO.98/1), CHITTOOR HIGH ROAD VELLORE 632 007 ( &' / APPELLANT) ( ()&' /RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI T. VASUDE VAN, ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S. BHARAT, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 20 - 0 8 - 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09 - 10 - 2015 / O R D E R PER N.R.S.GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER BOTH ASSESSEE AND REVENUE FILED APPEALS AGAINST T HE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-T AX (APPEALS)-I, ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 2 -: MADURAI, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2006-07. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERATION IN ALL THE APPEALS, WE HEARD THEM TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON O RDER. 2. IN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS, THE MAIN GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS ASSES SMENT ORDER U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 3. SHRI T. VASUDEVAN, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUB MITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF THE PART NERS OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND SHRI S. MAN IVANNAN ON 4.7.2006. THE LD. COUNSEL CLARIFIED THAT NO SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, ASSESSMEN T WAS FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER S, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF IN COME IN THE REGULAR COURSE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2006-07. IN FACT, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR ASSES SMENT YEAR 2004-05 EXPIRED ON 9.10.2006. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NO TICE U/S 143(2) HAS ALSO EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03 AND 2003-04. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THA T FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, RETURN OF INCOME WAS IN FACT FILED ON 10.10.2005 AND THE TIME LIMIT AVAILABLE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS UPTO 30.9.2006. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO THE TIME LIMIT WAS ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 3 -: AVAILABLE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2). ACCORDIN G TO THE LD. COUNSEL, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05, THE TI ME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF SEARC H, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT PENDING. IN OTHER W ORDS, BY OPERATION OF LAW, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TERMINATED, THEREFORE, IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, NO PRO CEEDINGS CAN BE INITIATED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESS EE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05. 4. COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. REFERRING T O THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE LD. COUN SEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT FOUND THAT THE DEPOSI TS ARE EITHER BOGUS OR NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY F OLLOWED HIS ORDER FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE LD. COUNSEL POINTE D OUT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENTS SAID TO BE RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION BY T HE ADDL. DIRECTOR OF INCOME-TAX. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, NO OPPOR TUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS FROM WHO M STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AND THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS WERE ALSO NOT ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 4 -: FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHE R CLARIFIED THAT ALL THE DEPOSITS ARE CARRIED FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER ASSES SMENT YEARS WHICH WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMENT IN THE RETURNS OF I NCOME FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE. ONCE IT WAS DISCLOSED TO THE DEPART MENT IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL, TH E DEPOSITS WERE CARRIED FORWARD IN THE SUBSEQUENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THAT CANNOT BE A REASON FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNS EL FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A SUM OF ` 50 LAKHS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO NEED FOR MAKING ANY FURTHER ADDITION. 5. ON THE CONTRARY, SHRI S. BHARAT, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND SHRI S. M ANIVANNAN, CERTAIN INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND. ACCORDING TO T HE LD. DR, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP-FIRM ENGAGED ITSELF IN TH E BUSINESS OF MONEY LENDING ON HYPOTHECATION OF TWO AND THREE WHEELERS. A SURVEY OPERATION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF TH E ASSESSEE U/S 133A OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERA TION, A COMPUTER PRINTED STATEMENT CONTAINING NAMES OF ABOUT 600 DEP OSITORS AND AMOUNT DUE TO THEM AS ON 30.6.2006 WAS FOUND AND IT WAS IMPOUNDED. THE FULL ADDRESSES AND DETAILS OF THE D EPOSITORS COULD NOT BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LOWER AUTH ORITIES. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A SU M OF ` 50 LAKHS ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 5 -: WITH REGARD TO NON-GENUINE DEPOSITS. IN ADDITION T O THAT, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED A SUM OF ` 5 LAKHS TOWARDS INTEREST PERTAINING TO THESE DEPOSITS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. DR, SINCE THE COMPUTERIZED STATEMENT OF THE DEPOSITORS WAS FOUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RIGHTLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION U/S 153C O F THE ACT. 6. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EITHER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THERE WAS A SE ARCH IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM SH RI S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND SHRI S. MANIVANNAN ON 4.7.2006. ADMITTEDLY, NO SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. I N FACT, A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED U/S 133A OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE-FIRM. THERE IS NO REFERENCE EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R OR IN THE CIT(A)S ORDER ABOUT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND SHRI S. MA NIVANNAN. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS OF INCO ME IN THE REGULAR COURSE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN FACT, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME O N 10.10.2001. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03, 2003-0 4, 2004-05, 2005- 06 AND 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOM E ON 4.10.2002, 25.09.2003, 7.12.2004, 10.10.2005 AND 31.10.2006 RE SPECTIVELY. ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 6 -: 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SE CTION 153C OF THE ACT. SECTION 153C PROVIDES FOR ASSESSM ENT OF INCOME ON THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION, ANY MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON, THEN THE MATERIAL FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR PROC EEDING TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME U/S 153A OF THE ACT. IN THE CA SE BEFORE US, THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF PARTNERS OF ASSESSEE-FIRM, SHRI S. SOUNDARARAJAN AND SHRI S. MA NIVANNAN, THEREFORE, THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM BEING AN INDEPENDEN T ENTITY, IS A PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO NECESSARILY INITIATE PROCEEDINGS U/ S 153C OF THE ACT IN CASE ANY MATERIAL RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE-FIRM IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. 8. NOW THE REVENUE CLAIMS THAT A LIST OF DEPOSITORS WA S FOUND IN THE COMPUTER PRINTED SHEET. THE CONTENTION OF T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS THAT ALL THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITORS WERE FILED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES IN THE COURSE OF FILING REGULAR R ETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE CO PIES OF THE RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE BAL ANCE SHEETS WHICH WERE FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME. IN THE BALANCE SHEET ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 7 -: WHICH WAS FILED ALONGWITH THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCLOSED THE DETAILS OF RELATIVE DEPOSITS AND THE DEPOSITS SEPARATELY. IN OTHER WORDS, THE DEPOSITS RECEIVED FROM CLOSE RE LATIVES ARE DISCLOSED SEPARATELY AND OTHER THAN THE CLOSE RELATIVES ARE A LSO DISCLOSED SEPARATELY. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE HAS FULL KNOWLE DGE ABOUT THE DEPOSITS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. HENCE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT TH E COMPUTER STATEMENT SAID TO BE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERAT ION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE A NEW M ATERIAL. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE REVENUE THAT ANY MATERIAL RELATING TO RECEIPT OF DEPOSIT WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF THE PARTNERS DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ADMITTEDLY, DURING SURVEY OPERATION, TH E COMPUTER PRINTED LIST OF DEPOSITORS WAS FOUND. THEREFORE, THIS TRIB UNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING T HE SURVEY OPERATION CANNOT BE MADE USE OF WHILE COMPUTING BLOCK ASSESSM ENT CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT. 9. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 153A OF THE ACT CLEARL Y SAYS THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT SHALL BE FRAMED FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT. THIS SECTION FURTHER CLARIFIES THAT THE PENDING ASS ESSMENT SHALL ABATE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS A COMPOSITE O RDER FOR ALL INCOMES ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 8 -: INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. AS DISCUSSED EARLIER, FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2004-05, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) EXPIRED ON 30.9.2005. SIMILARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002- 03 AND 2003-04 ALSO TIME LIMIT EXPIRED ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH O PERATION ON 4.7.2006. THEREFORE, BY OPERATION OF LAW, THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02, 2002-03, 2003-04 AND 2004-05 ARE TERMINATED. IN OTHER WORDS, NO ASSESSMENT IS PENDIN G FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S 153C ONLY ON T HE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05. 10. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. WHAT WAS AVAILABLE WIT H THE REVENUE IS THE COMPUTER STATEMENT OF DEPOSITORS WHICH WAS FOUN D DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT. EV EN ASSUMING THAT THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPER ATION CAN BE A BASIS FOR MAKING A BLOCK ASSESSMENT, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS WERE VERY MUC H BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR COURSE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFOR E, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER MATERIAL WITH REGARD TO NON-GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS, ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 9 -: THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 200 4-05 CANNOT BE REOPENED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THIS T RIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN THE ABSE NCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES A RE SET ASIDE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05. 11. NOW COMING TO THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE ASSESSEE FLED THE RETURN OF INCOME ON 10.10.2005 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06 IS AVAILABLE UPTO 30.9.2006. IN FACT, THE SEARCH OPERA TION WAS CONDUCTED ON 4.7.2006. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE DUE DATE FOR FILING RETURN OF INCOME HAS NOT EXPIRED AND THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME AFTER THE SEARCH ON 31.10.2006. THEREFORE, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ARE PENDING, HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 153C ARE VALID FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006 -07. 12. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE ADDITION FOR THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN THE BALANC E SHEET THE ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 10 -: DEPOSITS OF ` 1,41,67,695/-. OUT OF THIS, ` 17,56,932/- PERTAINS TO DEPOSITS FROM RELATIVES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMPLY MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF HIS FINDING RECORDED FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001- 02. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, REFERRING TO THE S TATEMENT SAID TO BE RECORDED FROM EIGHT PERSONS BY THE ADDL. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME-TAX DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, FOUND THAT T HE DEPOSITS WERE NON-GENUINE. IT IS WELL SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE NOT EMPOWERE D TO RECORD ANY SWORN STATEMENT. THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION CANNOT BE PLACED RELIANC E IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. REFERRING TO ANOTHER 28 DE POSITS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE LETTERS SENT TO THE 28 DEPOSITORS WERE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH POSTAL ENDORSEMENT NO SUCH ADDRESSEES. IT IS NOT KNOWN WHETHER THE DEPOSITS MADE BY 8 PERS ONS WHO DENIED DEPOSITS WERE CONTINUING FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2 005-06 AND 2006- 07. IF THE FRESH DEPOSITS WERE RECEIVED FOR THE AS SESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THEN THERE MAY BE A JUSTIFICAT ION FOR MAKING ADDITION. FURTHER MORE, THE DEPOSITS WERE ACCEPTED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS FURNIS HED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPOSITS SAID TO BE MADE BY 8 PERSON S WERE DISCLOSED TO THE REVENUE IN THE COURSE OF FILING REGULAR RET URN OF INCOME. THE ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 11 -: TIME LIMIT FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) EXPIR ED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH OPERATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL, THE GENUINENESS OF SUCH DE POSITS CANNOT BE EXAMINED FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN OTHER WORD S, THE GENUINENESS OF THE DEPOSITS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 CANNOT BE EXAMINED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SINCE THE AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE, EVEN ASSUMING THAT THE DEPOSITS ARE NOT GENUINE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THAT CAN NOT BE A REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 AND 2006-07, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED I N FOLLOWING HIS OBSERVATION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. THE A SSESSING OFFICER IS EXPECTED TO MAKE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2005- 06 AND 2006-07. ADMITTEDLY, THE DEPOSITS WERE RECE IVED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE SAME WERE CARRIED FORWARD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07 AND THE ASSE SSEE HAS ALSO OFFERED A SUM OF ` 55 LAKHS IN RESPECT OF FRESH DEPOSITS RECEIVED DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THIS TRI BUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO FURTHER ADDITION IS REQU IRED IN RESPECT OF SUCH DEPOSITS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. THE CIT(A) COMPUTED THE PEAK DEPOSIT BY COMPUTING THE D IFFERENCE BETWEEN THE EARLIER DEPOSITS AND THE CURRENT DEPOSI TS. FOR ASSESSMENT ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 12 -: YEAR 2005-06 THE PEAK CREDIT COMPUTED BY THE CIT(A) IS NIL. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION FOR THE ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 13. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, THE CIT(A) COMPUTED THE PEAK CREDIT AT NIL. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER SAYS THAT A SUM OF `50 LAKHS WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED DEPOSITS. THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO SET OFF THE PEAK CREDIT OF ` 40,74,441/- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. SINCE THIS TRIBUNAL FIND THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY BLOCK A SSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THE I NCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE SET OFF. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALL ED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 ALSO. 14. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE ARE UNABLE TO U PHOLD THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE APPEALS OF THE A SSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. 15. NOW COMING TO THE REVENUES APPEALS, IN VIEW OF OUR ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05, THERE CANN OT BE ANY BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT SINCE NO PROCEEDING S WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 13 -: COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE, THE REVENUE S APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 ARE DISMISSED. 16. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, THE ONLY ISS UE IS WITH REGARD TO PART OF THE ADDITION DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DEPO SITS MADE IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE CONTINUING FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 ALSO. THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02 HAS BEEN TERMINATED BY OPERATION OF LAW, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 CANNOT BE REOPENED AT THIS STAGE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS F ILED ALL THE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH REACHED FINALITY, THE SAME CANNOT BE REOPENED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER MATE RIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ONCE THE DEPOSITS WERE FOUND TO BE GENUINE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 , SUCH DEPOSITS CANNOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 -06 AND 2006-07. THEREFORE, THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPIN ION THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE APPEALS OF T HE REVENUE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STA ND ALLOWED AND THAT OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. ITA NOS.2103/14 ETC. :- 14 -: ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 9 TH OCTOBER, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . !' ) (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( . . . ) ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / CHENNAI ! / DATED: 9 TH OCTOBER, 2015 RD !' # $% &% / COPY TO: 1 . '( / APPELLANT 3. ) () / CIT(A) 5. %+, # - / DR 2. #.'( / RESPONDENT 4. ) / CIT 6. ,/ 0 / GF