Smt. N.K. Vinayak, New Delhi V. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2460/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 246020114 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-03-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Salary income; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Source of fund; Cost of acquisition
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 131; 263; 63; 132

Judgement Text

ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 1 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH `A NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J.S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.2454/DEL/2012, 2455/D/12, 2456/D/12, 2457/ D/12 2458/D/12, 2459/D/12, 2460/D/12 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03 TO 2008-09 SMT. N.K. VINAYAK, VS COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, 66, LOK NAYAK APARTMENT, CENTRAL- II, NEW DELHI. SECTOR 9, ROHINI, NEW DELHI. I.T.A.NO.2447/DEL/2012, I.T.A.NO.2448/D/2012, 2449/ D/2012, 2450/D/12, 2451/D/12, 2452/D/12, 2453/D/12 ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-0 3 TO 2008-09 SHRI B.K. VINAYAK, VS COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, NEW DELHI. CENTRAL-II, NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI KAPIL GOEL RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A. MISHRA, C.I.T. D R PER BENCH THIS IS A GROUP OF APPEALS FILED BY BOTH ASSESSEES WHO ARE HUSBAND AND WIFE AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT- CENTRAL CIRCLE II, NEW D ELHI PASSED U/S 263 OF THE I T ACT, REVISING THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASS ED BY AO U/S 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3); HOLDING THEM TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PR EJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 2 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 REVENUE. BY AND LARGE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS ARE RAISED IN BOTH THE CASES OF HUSBAND AND WIFE: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE CIT IS BAD BOTH IN THE EYE OF LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THAT THE HONBLE CIT ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW I N HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO WERE CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTE REST OF REVENUE BY THE HONBLE CIT AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO. 3. THAT THE HONBLE CIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT CO NSIDERING THE DETAILS AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH SEIZED OF THE APPELLANT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 4. THAT THE HONBLE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO SO URCE OF PROFESSIONAL FEE RECEIVED HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT. 5. THAT THE HONBLE CIT HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERIN G THE INFORMATION/DETAIL PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT IN RES PECT OF OPENING CASH BALANCE AND HOLDING THAT THE LD. AO DU RING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT EXAMINED T HE OPENING CASH IN HAND. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE HONBLE CIT HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE LD. AO ER RONEOUSLY ACCEPTED ALL THE FDRS ETC. AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPE LLANT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT MAKING ANY VERIFICATION, EXAMINATION AND APPLICATIO N OF MIND. 7. THAT THE HONBLE CIT COMPLETELY ERRED ON FACTS A ND IN LAW IN HOLDING THAT INVESTIGATION, VERIFICATION AND EXAMIN ATION WERE NOT CONDUCTED BY THE LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 3 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE ORDER IS MADE IN HASTE AND THE HONBLE CIT ERRE D IN NOT PROVIDING THE APPELLANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEI NG HEARD. 9. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR ALTER ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL. 2. BRIEF FACTS IN THIS BEHALF ARE, SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( THE ACT) WERE CONDU CTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON BOTH THE APPEL LANTS ON 24.10.2007 IN CONNECTION WITH OTHER SEARCHES CONDUCTED ON ONE ERA GROUP TO WHICH THE APPELLANTS ARE CLAIMED TO HAVE RELATIONS. THE SEARC H WAS FOLLOWED BY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN TERMS OF SEC 153A READ WITH SECTION 143(3). 3. ALL THE RETURN OF INCOME U/S 153A, WERE FILED ON 14.10.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT IS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALL THE RELEVANT E XPLANATIONS AND DOCUMENTS AS REQUIRED BY THE LD. AO WERE DULY SUBMITTED. AFTER C ONSIDERING THE DITS APPRAISAL REPORT, DETAILED INVESTIGATION OF THE DOCUMENTS AN D EXPLANATIONS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, LD. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-8, NEW DELHI PAS SED THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS DATED 23.12.2009 AT THE RETURNED INCOME. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, SHOW CAUSE NOTICES WERE ISSUED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL-II UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 263 OF THE ACT, AS TO WHY ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 4 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. AO MAY NOT BE CONSIDERED AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, ON VARIOUS COUNTS MENTIONED AS UNDER: (I) IN RESPECT OF CASH OF CASH FOUND IN LOCKER AND AT RESIDENCE, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FURNISHED. IN THE BAN K ACCOUNTS THERE WERE NO CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWAL AND IN PNB A/C, TH ERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS; LD. AO HAS FAILED TO ENQUIRE THE SOURCE OF THESE DEPOSITS. (II) THE OPENING CASH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENT S. (III) QUA THE SOURCE OF BANK FDRS FOUND THE EXPLANATION O F RENEWAL OF EARLIER FDRS WAS UNACCEPTABLE AS NO INTEREST INCOME FROM FD RS WAS OFFERED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOMES. THE INTEREST HAS B EEN SHOWN IN THE RETURNS FILED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THUS T HE LD. AO HAS ACCEPTED THE FDRS WITHOUT ANY VERIFICATION. (IV) APROPOS INTEREST INCOME FROM BANKS, NO BREAKUP/DETA ILS HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. (V) THE LD. AO ACCEPTED ALL THE ASSETS, CASH, JEWE LRY, FDRS, ETC. ON AN EXPLANATION AS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSES, WITHOUT MAKIN G ANY VERIFICATION AND APPLICATION OF MIND. (VI) THE LD. AO FAILED TO EXAMINE AND VERIFY THE FACT TH AT, SMT. N.K. VINAYAK HAS NO SOURCE OF INCOME, IN THAT SITUATION ALL THE CASH, ASSETS AND ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 5 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 FDRS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION DID NOT BELONGED TO HER AND SHOULD HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI B K VINAYAK. 5. ASSESSEES REPLIED THAT ALL THESE ASPECTS WERE DU LY CONSIDERED BY LD. AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ALL TH E PROPER EXPLANATION ALONG WITH ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS/ EVIDENCES WERE FURNISH ED IN RESPECT OF SOURCES OF CASH FOUND, INTEREST INCOME, FDRS AND OTHER ASSETS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AS WELL ASSESSMENT. THE RETURNED INCOME IN 153A RETURN S WAS ACCEPTED BY AO AFTER DUE ENQUIRIES AND VERIFICATION, CONSEQUENTLY THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. 6. ACCORDING TO ASSESSEES, LD. CIT DID NOT PERUSE T HE RECORD CAREFULLY AND SUMMARILY REJECTED THE EXPLANATIONS AND DETAILS/DOC UMENTS FILED BY THEM IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES MENTIONED IN SHOW CAUSE NOTICES. VIDE ORDERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT DATED MARCH 28,2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 20 03-03 TO 2008-09 LD. CIT HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN QUESTION WERE ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE AS PROPER INVESTIGATION, VERIFI CATION AND EXAMINATION WERE NOT CONDUCTED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. AS A RESULT THE ASSESSMENTS WERE SET ASIDE AND RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE LD. AO FOR FRESH INVESTIGATIONS AND FRAMING THE ASSESSMENTS AFRESH. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 6 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 7. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEES ARE BEFORE US CHALLENGING TH E VALIDITY OF IMPUGNED ORDERS U/S 263. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI K APIL GOEL CONTENDS THAT THE LD.CITS FINAL NOTICES U/S 263 WERE DULY REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEES AS UNDER: IN REPLY TO THIS NOTICE, SHRI B K VINAYAK SUBMITTE D AS UNDER: 1 (A) I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE CASH FLOW STATEM ENT ALONG WITH THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FOR THE SAME FOR THE PERIOD F.Y. 2001-02 TO 2007-08, WHICH INCLUDES BANK STATEMENTS CONFIRMING MY WITHDRAWALS FROM BANKS MY DEPOSITS INTO THE BANK . . (B) HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES: I HAVE SUBMITTED VIDE LETTE R DATED, 26.10.2009 (COPY ENCLOSED) THAT I DO NOT DEEP DETAI LS OF DAILY EXPENSES, BUT CASH WITHDRAWS FROM BANKS AND POST OF FICE BROADLY COVERS IT RATHER I SAVE OUT OF IT. CASH STATEMENTS IN REGARD TO THAT ARE ALREADY SUBMITTED. THE FIXED EXPENSES LIKE ELEC TRICITY BILL, TELEPHONE BILL, FOREIGN TOUR EXPENSES ARE MET UP BY CHEQUES. I AM TEA TO TALLER AND TRY FOR MORE SAVINGS. ALSO I LIVE WITH MY WIFE WITH NO OTHER DEPENDENTS SO EXPENSES ARE VERY LIMIT ED. (C) THERE IS NO CASH DEPOSIT IN THE ACCOUNT WITH PU NJAB NOTIONAL BANK DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08 AND I AM ENCLOSING HER EWITH THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT FOR THE F.Y. 2007-08. HOWEVE R, THERE IS ONLY ONE CASH DEPOSIT OF RS. 10000/- ON 14.01.2003 AND THE SAME IS DULY REFLECTED IN DETAILS FURNISHED IN POINT 1 ( A) OF MY REPLY. I AM ALSO ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE BANK STATEMENTS FOR ALL THE YEARS OF ACCOUNT WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK WHICH SHOWS TH AT THERE HAS BEEN NO CASH DEPOSITS EXCEPTS RS. 10000/- AS ME NTIONED ABOVE. 2 (A) I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH DETAILS OF FIXED DEPO SITS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ALON G WITH SOURCES OF EACH FIXED DEPOSITS WITH SUPPORTING DOCU MENTS. IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT THE UNDER SIGNED HAS BEEN WORKING IN SENIOR POSITION IN GOVERNMENT OF IN DIAN AND THE PRIVATE ENTERPRISES AND HAVE SERVED FOR MORE THAN 5 0 YEARS AND ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 7 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 THE AMOUNT OF FDRS IS VERY NEGLIGIBLE IN VIEW OF T HE LENGTH AND POSITION OF SERVICE. (B) THAT INTEREST INCOME EARNED ON THESE FDRS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE RETURNS FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE N OTICES U/S 153A AS HAS BEEN RIGHTLY MENTIONED IN THE SHOW CASUSE NO TICE AND AS SUCH IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE IN THE O RDER PASSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. (C) I AM ALSO ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE DETAILS OF INT EREST INCOME OF RS. 2015144/- FROM BANKS DURING THE F.Y. 2007-08. I HOPE THE ABOVE DETAILS SHALL SERVE YOUR PURPOSE A ND REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 2 63 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 161 AND OBLIGE. IF YOUR GOODSELF RE QUIRE ANY OTHER DETAILS/CLARIFICATION, I SHALL BE EAGER TO PR OVIDE THE SAME TO YOU. ASSESSEE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT BEFORE ADIT INVESTI GATION, IN RESPONSE TO YOUR SUMMON U/S 131 (IA) OF INCOME TAX ACT 1964, AL L THE RELEVANT EXPLANATIONS WERE FILED FOR BOTH THE ASSESSES, SUMMARY THEREOF I S AS UNDER : EXPLANATION REGARDING CASH FOUND 1. CASH FOUND IN LOCKERS RS. 15 LAC 2. CASH FOUND IN RESIDENCE RS. 92,926 TOTAL 15,92,926 SOURCE 1. ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST PLOT AT GURGAON RS. 6 .25 LAC (COPY OF AGREEMENT ENCLOSED0 2. ADVANCE AGAINST COLLABORATION AGREEMENT, RS. 7 .00 LAC FOR DEVELOPMENT CONSTRUCTION AT GURGAON (COPY ENCLOSED) 3. WITHDRAWAL FORM BANK; BALANCE SAVINGS KEPT FOR EMERGENCY TREATMENT REQUIREMENTS AS MY WIFE IS CHRONIC PATIENT 15,92, 926 ANNEXURE A ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 8 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 1. MYSELF IS A SENIOR CITIZEN OF 70 YEARS OLD. RETI RED FROM P.S.U. (N.B.C.C. LTD.) IN 1996 AND THEREAFTER WORKED WITH ERA CONSTR UCTION TILL JULY 2006 AND THEREAFTER JOINED OMAXE LIMITED OCT. 2006 . 2. I AND MY WIFE LIVE AT 66, LOK NAYAK APARTMENTS I N SEC-9, ROHINI, DELHI. WE HAVE TWO SONS. ELDER ONE IS WORKING WITH SEIMENS LTD. AT GURGAON AND THE YOUNGER ONE IS IN U.S.A. MY MAIN SOURCE OF INCOME IS SALARY. 3. PRESENTLY EMPLOYED WITH OMAXE INFRASTRUCTURE PRI VATE LIMITED. KALKAJI, DELHI MY SOURCE OF INCOME IS FROM SALARY INTEREST O N INVESTMENTS. 4. COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE A.Y.S. FROM 2003-03 TO 2007-08 ARE ALREADY SUBMITTED AS DESIRED. MY PAN NO. IS ACCPV7041A LAST RETURN FILED WITH WARD 21 (I) AND EARLIER IN W ARD 46 (2) 5. DETAILS OF IMMOVABLE ASSETS:- 6. S.NO. SIZE AND COMPLETE ADDRESS OF PROPERTY COST OF ACQUISITION DATE OF ACQUISITION INCOME FROM PROPERTY IF ANY 1 66, LOKNAYAK APARTMENTS, SECTOR-9, ROHINI, DELHI (1400 SQ. FT. FLAT) RS. 2.13 LAC 1986 - 2. SARASWATIKUNJ CO- OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY, GURGAON (PLOT OF 502 SQ.YD.) RS. 10.54 LAC 1996 7. COMPLETE DETAILS OF SHARES IN DEMAT ACCOUNTS- NAME OF DEMAT ACCOUNT HOLDER DEMAT/AC NO. DETAILS OF SHARES NO. OF UNITS COST PRICE PER SHARE DATE OF ACQUISITION (I) BENGAL TEA 50 10 MARCH 98 NIRMALKANTA VINAYAK&BALRAM KRISHANVINAYAK IN302902 42884707 (II) CAIRN INDIA LTD. 245 160 DEC. 06 (III) ESSAR STEEL 45 10 DEC. 90 (IV) G.R. CABLES 100 10 FEB. 95 (V) GUJRAT INDUSTRIES 100 10 SEPT. 92 (VI) IDEA CELLULAR 172 75 FEB. 0 ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 9 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 (VII) IFCI 100 10 FEB. 94 (VIII) KIRLOSKAR FERR 100 10 MARCH 94 (IX) KOHINOOR FOODS 140 10 APRIL 94 (X)L & T. 150 75 MARCH 92 (XI) MOREPEN LAB. 500 10 AUG. 92 (XII) PARASNATH 20 300 OCT. 06 (XIII) POWER GRID 134 52 SEPT.07 (XIV) SBI 50 100 FEB 94 (XV) 60 75 MARCH 92 (AGAINST L&T) B.K. VINAYAK 10133966 OMAXE LTD. 902 310 JULY 07 8. A. SHARE CAPITAL AND APPLICATION MONEY NIL B. LOANS AND ADVANCES.- RS. 2.50 LAC PAID ON 08/09/2006 TO TRIVENT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT CO., AS ADVANCE FOR FLA T. PAYMENT MADE THROUGH CHEQUE FROM SAVING ACCOUNT 18473 WITH ICICI BANK. 9. LIABILITIES, LOANS AND ADVANCES. A. RS. 6.25 LAC ADVANCE RECEIVED IN NOV. 06 AGAIN ST SALE OF PLOT AT GURGAON. COPY OF AGREEMENT ALREADY AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPART MENT. B. RS. 7.00 LAC ADVANCE RECEIVED IN OCT. 07 AGAINST COLLABORATION AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT OF PLOT AT GURGAON. COPY OF AGREEMENT IS ENCLOSED. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 10 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 C. EXCEPT ABOVE, THERE IS NO FURTHER LIABILITY. D. AS REGARDS MOVEABLE PROPERTIES, THE ORIGINAL FDR ARE PHYSICALLY AVAILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT. THESE INVESTMENTS AR E MADE FROM PERSONAL AND SALARY SAVINGS AND HAVE BEEN REINVESTE D FROM TIME TO TIME ON MATURITY OF THE SAME. 10. COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS ARE ENCLOSED. FOR ENT RIES IN ACCOUNTS EXCEEDING. ONE LAC, A LIST IS ENCLOSED. IT IS FURTHER PLEADED THAT BASED ON ADIT REPORT AND APPRAISAL REPORT CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH AND DURING THE COURSE OF 153A ASSESSMENT, LD. AO RAISED VARIOUS QUERIES WHICH WERE REPLIED BY THE ASSESSE VIDE LETTER DTD. 26-10-2009 AS UNDER: 1. I AM NOT INVOLVED IN ANY BUSINESS ACTIVITY. I HA VE WORKED WITH ERA GROUP AS A REGULAR EMPLOYEE AND LEFT THE JOB THERE IN APRIL 2006. SINCE I AM NOT IN ANY BUSINESS AND HAVE WORKED AS S ALARIED EMPLOYEE, I DO NOT MAINTAIN ANY CAPITAL ACCOUNT OR BALANCE SHEET. RETURNS HAVE DULY BEEN FILED WITH THE INCOME TAX DE PARTMENT EVERY YEAR. HOWEVER RETURNS FOR THE YEAR 2002-03 ON WARDS UNDER SECTION 153 A AS ASKED FOR HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUBMIT TED TO YOUR OFFICE ON 12.10.2009. 2. FORM 16 IN SUPPORT OF SALARY INCOME IS ALREADY S UBMITTED ALONG WITH THE I.T. RETURNS FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS. 3. NO FORMAL AGREEMENT HAS BEEN SIGNED AND THE PROP ERTY IS SITUATED IN RURAL AREA (LAL DORA). 4. WE HAVE NOT MAINTAINED ANY ACCOUNT OF HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES. 5. THAT I DO NOT CONSTITUTE ANY HUF. THUS THE SAME MAY BE CONSIDERED AS NOT APPLICABLE. 6. LIST OF TRANSACTIONS ABOVE RS. ONE LAC IS ENCLOS ED. COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS/ PASSBOOK HAVE ALREADY BEEN PROVIDED TO LD. I.O. 7. DETAILS OF FOREIGN TRIPS MADE IN PERSONAL CAPACI TY TO USA ARE ENCLOSED. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 11 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 8. I DO NOT RUN ANY FIRM NOR INVOLVED AS DIRECTOR O N SHARE HOLDING PATTERN EXCEPT THAT I WAS WORKING WITH THE ERA GROU P AS SALARIED EMPLOYEE. I RESIGNED FROM ERA GROUP IN YEAR 2006. I DID NOT HOLD ANY SHARE HOLDING OR CAPITAL /LOAN WITH THAT ORGANI ZATION. 9. DETAILS OF PROPERTY ARE AS UNDER :- VALUE YEAR OF PURCHASE A) FLAT IN LOKNAYAK GROUP HOUSING SOCIETY ROHINI DELHI. RS. 2.00 LACS 1989 SELF OCCUPIED B) FLAT IN VILLAGE SULTANPURI, GURGAON MEHRAULIRAOD IN LAL DORA RURAL AREA RS. 3.00 LACS 1992 OCCUPIED IN FEB. 2001 10. THERE IS NO CAPITAL GRAIN OR LOSS ON ASSETS DUR ING THE YEAR UNDER ASSESSMENT. 11. I AM NOT ACTIVELY INVOLVED IN TRANSACTION OF SH ARES/MUTUAL FUNDS. 12. I HAVE NOT SHOWN ANY EXEMPT INCOME. HENCE IT MA Y BE TREATED AS NIL. 13. ADVANCE OF RS. 2.50 LAC PAID ON 08.09.2006 TO TRIVENI INFRASTRUCTURE AND DEVELOPMENT COMPANY AS BOOKING A MOUNT FOR FLAT. 14. INFORMATION MAY PLEASE BE TREATED AS NIL. 15. INFORMATION MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED AS NOT AP PLICABLE. 16. AS FAR AS MY KNOWLEDGE IS CONCERNED, NO MAJOR AMOUNT OF INTEREST IS RECEIVED IN THE I.T. REFUNDS. 17. I HAVE ALREADY RECONCILED AND ACCOUNTED FOR TH E TDS WHILE SUBMITTING MY TAXABLE INCOME IN THE INCOME TAX RETURNS. 18. I DO NOT HAVE ANY AGRICULTURE INCOME. 19. I AM NOT MEMBER OF ANY CLUB ETC. HENCE THE INF ORMATION MAY PLEASE BE CONSIDERED AS NOT APPLICABLE. 20. SYNDICATE BANK 3033 9891 4400 8320. BANK OF INDIA 5420 3430 0742 2001 ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 12 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 21. COMPLETE DETAIL OF FDRS AS PER LIST ALREADY AV AILABLE WITH THE DEPARTMENT ARE ENCLOSED. 22. I DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF MI NOR. THUS IT MAY BE TREATED AS NOT APPLICABLE. 23. ASSESSMENT ORDER NOT YET RECEIVED. 24. I DO NOT POSSESS ANY JEWELLERY/STREEDHAN EXCEPT ONE FINGER RING WHICH I GOT FROM MY IN LAWS. REST OF INFORMATION HAS BEEN MADE CLEAR IN THE STATEMENT OF MY SPOUSE. CASH RS. 92,026/- WAS FROM CASH WITHDRAWALS AND SAV INGS KEPT AT RESIDENCE TO MEET EMERGENT REQUIREMENT AS MY WIFE IS A CHRONIC PATIENT. RS. 3.00 LACS AMOUNT KEPT BY MY CO-BROTHER FOR TRE ATMENT. AS HE WAS SUFFERING FROM CANCER AND WAS UNDER TREATMENT AT GANGA RAM HOSPITAL AT DELHI AND HIS ONLY SON WAS AT BANGALORE. UNFORTUNATELY HE HAD EXPIRED LAST YEAR. RS. 7.00 LACS WAS ADVANCE RECEIVED AGAINST COLLABO RATION AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT AND CONSTRUCTION OF PLOT IN GURGAON. RS. 6.25 LAC ADVANCE AGAINST SALE OF PLOT. THE DEAL COULD NOT MATERIALIZE AS THE PARTY FAILED TO GET THE REGISTRATION OF PLOT DONE. IT IS STILL PENDING AS MEMBERS OF THE SOCIETY HAS AGAIN FILED WRIT IN PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT TO ENFO RCE REGISTRATION OF PLOTS AND THE CASE IS SUB JUDICE. FIXED DEPOSITS: TOTAL VALUE OF FDRS IS RS. 32.52 LACS INSTEAD OF R S. 33.77 LAC AS SHOWN BY DEPARTMENT. ALL FDRS HAVE BEEN GOT ISSUED FROM SAVINGS. SOME OF THESE FDRS ARE IN THE JOINT NAME WITH MY W IFE. THESE FDRS HAVE ORIGINATED SINCE THE YEAR 1991 ONWARDS AND HAV E BEEN RENEWED ON MATURITY FROM TIME TO TIME. TO THE EXTENT THE IN FORMATION COULD BE COLLECTED FROM DIFFERENT SOURCES, THE ORIGIN OF THE FDRS THEIR SUBSEQUENT RENEWALS AND FUNDING IS INDICATED IN THE STATEMENT ENCLOSED. IT MAY HOWEVER BE MENTIONED THAT THE UNDE RSIGNED HAS BEEN WORKING IN SENIOR POSITION IN GOVERNMENT OF INDIA A ND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES AND HAVE SERVED FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS. THUS THE VALUE OF ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 13 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 FDRS AND SAVING KEEPING IN VIEW OF LENGTH OF SERVI CE HAS A VERY NEGLIGIBLE IMPACT. THE ABOVE INFORMATION AS DESIRED IS SUBMITTED FOR Y OUR KIND CONSIDERATION. 8. THUS, APROPOS ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH RELATING TO THE HUSBAND SHRI B K VINAYAK, WERE DULY EXPLAINED BEFOR E ADIT; THEY WERE MENTIONED IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT; THEREAFTER THEY WERE FULLY EXPLAINED BEFORE LD AO DURING THE COURSE OF 153A ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON VARIOUS OCCASIONS. BESIDES THEY WERE FULLY EXPLAINED AGAIN BEFORE LD. CIT DURING THE COURSE OF 263 PROCEEDINGS HEARINGS IN RESPONSE TO POINTS RAISED I N SHOW CAUSE NOTICES AND PERSONAL QUERIES. 9. THE RECORD BEFORE LD. CIT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES T HAT ALL THE RELEVANT ISSUES WERE DULY INQUIRED, EXPLAINED AND LD. ADIT AND LD. AO, AFTER COMPLETING A DUE PROCESS OF INVESTIGATION AND ASSESSMENT U/S 153A PA SSED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER NEI THER SUFFER FROM ANY ERROR NOR THEY ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. LD . CIT IN THE NAME OF 263 POWER WANTS TO REVIEW THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE UNDER THE LAW. LD. CIT WANTS TO ADOPT ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW OVER THE E VIDENCE, QUANTIFICATION OF INCOME AND VIEWS ADOPTED BY LD. ASSESSING OFFICER I N DUE DISCHARGE OF HIS STATUTORY POWER OF ASSESSMENT. THE 263 PROCEEDINGS BEING FOR REVIEW OF A LAWFULLY ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 14 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 PASSED AND SUSTAINABLE ORDER CAN NEITHER BE TERMED AS ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 10. SIMILLARLY SMT. N V VINAYAK, WIFE OF THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED HER REPLY DTD. 10-2-2012 TO THE 263 PROCEEDINGS AS UNDER: 1. I AM ALSO ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE DETAILS OF INT EREST INCOME OF FROM BANKS DURING THE RELEVANT YEARS. 2. IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 11.11.2009 (COPY ENCL OSED) THAT I DO NOT HAVE ANY INDIVIDUAL BANK ACCOUNT AND THE DETAILS OF THE ACCOUNTS ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENTS HAS BEEN FILED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF MY HUSBANDS. 3. I AM ENCLOSING HEREWITH THE DETAILS OF FIXED DE POSITS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ALON G WITH SOURCES OF EACH FIXED DEPOSITS WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. 4. REGARDING CASH I.E. 13.25 LACS, I AM ENCLOSING THE SALE AGREEMENT SHOWING THAT THE AMOUNT OF 6.25 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN A.Y. 2007-08 AND 7 LACS IN A.Y. 2008-09. 5. AGREEMENT DATED 02.06.2007:- A) AS PER YOUR QUERY IT IS TRUE THAT AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED, BUT THE REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT FOR T RANSFER OF A PROPERTY IS NOT COMPULSORY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ALSO BEING AN OLD LADY IT IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO S O. IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTION THAT MOST OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY ARE NOT REGISTERED IN GENERAL. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 15 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 B) THE CASE OF REGISTRATION WAS PENDING IN THE DELHI H IGH COURT AND ALSO, I WAS TRYING FOR REGISTRATION OTHERWISE W ITH THE DEPARTMENT. THE CASE IS STILL PENDING IN THE COURT. THE COPY OF THE PETITION TO HIGH COURT IS ENCLOSED. 6. AGREEMENT DATED 17.10.2007:- A) AS PER YOUR QUERY IT IS TRUE THAT AGREEMENT HAS NOT BEEN REGISTERED, BUT THE REGISTRATION OF AGREEMENT FOR T RANSFER OF A PROPERTY IS NOT COMPULSORY AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ALSO BEING AN OLD LADY IS IT NOT POSSIBLE FOR ME TO DO SO. IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO MENTIONED THAT MOST OF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, FOR TRANSFER OF A PROPERTY ARE N OT REGISTERED IN GENERAL. C) AS REGARD TO YOUR QUERY THE SALE AGREEMENT FOR THE PLOT AT SARASWATIKUNJ WAS SIGNED BUT SINCE THE PARTY FAILED TO GET THE REGISTRATION DONE WITH THE HARYANA AUTHORITY THE AG REEMENT COULD NOT MATURED. AT THE REQUEST OF THE OTHER PARTY THAT THEY WOULD ENSURE THE REGISTRATION OF THE PLOT FROM THE HARYAN A GOVERNMENT, THE SECOND AGREEMENT ON COLLABORATION BASIS, FOR CO NSTRUCTION WAS SIGNED. 1. THE PARTIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER S NOTICE AND HAVE GIVEN THE STATEMENT ACCORDINGLY AND CONFIR MED THE TRANSACTIONS AS STATED BY US BECAUSE THAT IS THE RE ALITY ALSO. 2. I HAVE ALREADY SUBMITTED TO YOU VIDE LETTER DATED 1 1.11.09 THAT THE PLOT AT SARASWATI KUNJ, MEASURING 502 SQUARE YA RDS WAS PURCHASE BY ME IN 1996 OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF BUILT UP HOUS E AT KARNAL IN 1978-79. IT WAS FURTHER INFORMED THAT THE PLOT PURC HASED FROM CO- OPERATIVE SOCIETY WAS FALLEN UNDER DISPUTE WITH LOC AL AUTHORITIES AND MATTER IS PENDING BEFORE THE HIGH COURT OF HARYANA. IT BECOME DIFFICULT FOR ME TO OBTAIN CLEARANCE FOR THE CONSTR UCTION OF HOUSE OVER THE PLOT THATS WHY I DECIDED TO DISPOSE IT OFF. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 16 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 9. AS REGARD JEWELRY I HAVE ALREADY INFORMED YOU T HAT THE I GOT THAT IN MY MARRIAGE AND FOR THE VALUATION FOR THE SAKE OF W EALTH TAX, I AM ENCLOSING THE DETAILS OF VALUATION OF WEALTH FOR TH E A.Y. 2008-09. I HOPE THE ABOVE DETAILS SHALL SERVE YOUR PURPOSE AND REQUEST YOUR GOODSELF TO DROP THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF TH E INCOME TAX, 1961 AND OBLIGE. IF YOUR GOODSELF REQUIRE ANY OTHER DETAILS/ CLARIFICATION, I SHALL BE EAGER TO PROVIDE THE SAME TO YOU. 11. LD. COUNSEL THUS PLEADS THAT ALL THE RELEVANT M ATERIAL CONCERNING THESE ISSUES BEING ON SEARCH RECORD, APPRAISAL REPORT AND DULY C ONSIDERED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE IS NO CASE WHATSOEVER IN TERMS O F SEC 263 TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT TO AO FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. ASSESSEE HAVING DEMONSTRATED THAT EVERY THING HAVING BEEN DULY CONSIDERED, CIT WAS UNDER ST ATUTORY OBLIGATION TO CONSIDER THE EXPLANATION INSTEAD OF SUMMARILY REJECTING IT A ND SETTING ASIDE. 12. LD COUNSEL FURTHER CONTENDS THAT THE OBSERVATIO NS OF CIT ARE MISTAKEN AND MISPLACED IN AS MUCH AS: I. LD CIT- OBSERVATION THAT BANK STATEMENT WAS NOT PROVIDED TO LD AO IS CONTRARY TO RECORD AS THEY WERE SUPPLIED. A REFER ENCE CAN BE MADE TO PG. 6 POINT NO. 6 (B.K.VINAYAK PAPER BOOK); PAGE 22 POINT NO. 3 (B.K.VINAYAK PAPER BOOK); PAGE 32 (B.K.VINAYAK PAPER BOOK); POINT NO. 6 AT PA GE 4 OF N.K.VINAYAK PAPER BOOK) THUS, THE OBSERVATION IS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. THIS WAS ALSO RE-CLARIFIED IN OUR REPLY TO CIT DURING REVISION PROCEEDINGS AT PB PAGE S 25, 31,34,40,45 ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 17 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 A. LD CIT- AGAIN MADE FACTUALLY WRONG ALLEGATION THAT SOURCE OF FDR REMAINED UNVERIFIED IN AS MUCH AS DETAILED AND EXTE NSIVE INQUIRY IS DEMONSTRATED BY DETAILED SHOW CAUSE ISSUED BY LD AO DATED 14/10/2009 REPLIED ON 24/10/2009 AND 11/11/2009 (PA GES 3, 5,10 FOR ENQUIRY BEFORE LD AO: N.K.VINAYAK)& (PAGES 5,8,11 T O 13, 23 TO 28: B.K.VINAYAK PAPER BOOK ASSESSMENT STAGE REPLIES); B. LD CIT ALLEGATION THAT INTEREST INCOME IS NOT RECON CILED AND CHECKED IS AGAIN FACTUALLY INCORRECT, THIS CAN BE CLARIFIED BY A REFERENCE TO PAGE 2 AND (POINT NO. 17) AND ITS REPLY AT PAGE 5/POINT NO. 17 & PAGES 25, 31,34,40,45 (PAPER BOOK- N.K.VINAYAK-1) : II) THE OTHER ISSUES RAISED IN AFORESAID SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE ARE: A. CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS FROM JOINT LOCKER: RS. 13.25 LACS (PERTAINING TO ASSESSEE MRS. N.K.VI NAYAK), THIS ASPECT IS DULY EXAMINED BY AO AS IS EVIDENT FROM : I. REPLY FILED TO INVESTIGATING WING AT THE STAGE OF SECTION 131(1A) PROCEEDINGS ( POST SEARCH )PAGES 28 TO 32 PAPER BOOK (B.K.VINAYAK) AND SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK (N.K.VINAYAK) PAGES 1 TO 5; II. SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY LD AO PAGES 1 TO 3 OF PAPER BOOK (N.K.VINAYAK IST PAPER BOOK) III. REPLY FILED TO ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REFER PAGES 4 TO 14 N.K.VINAYAK IST PAPER BOOK) & PAGE 8 (PAPER BOOK -B.K.VINAYAK); EVIDENCE AT PAGES 16 & 17 OF PAPER BOOK AND PAGES 55 TO 57 OF N.K.VINAYAK IST PAPER BOOK; LAST PARA :PAGE 14 PAPER BOOK N.K.VINAYAK-1; ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 18 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 IV. LOCKER OPERATION PROOF AND AFFIDAVIT AT PAGES 6 TO 12 OF SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK N.K.VINAYAK V. LD CIT IN IMPUGNED ORDER AT PAGE 2 OF IMPUGNED ORDE R MADE CONTRARIOUS ALLEGATION THAT ASSESSEE FILED NO REPLY ON ABOVE ISSUE IN POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHERE AS FACTS STA TE OTHERWISE; VI. ON CONJECTURE AND SURMISES, ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS DOUBTED BY LD CIT WHEREAS LD AO & INVESTIGATION WING HAS DU LY APPLIED HIS MIND BY TAKING REPLY FROM ASSESSEE ON T HE ABOVE ISSUE; VII. IT IS NOT ALLEGED THAT CASH FOUND DURING SEARCH VI S A VIS APPELLANTS EXPLANATION GIVES RISE TO ANY UNEXPLAIN ED INCOME U/S 69A OF THE ACT, IN APPELLANTS HANDS, NEITHER I N SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S 263 NOR IN FINAL REVISION ORDER U/S 263 ; VIII. WHEREAS APPELLANT BEING HOUSE WIFE NOT ENGAGED IN A NY TRADE, GIVEN EXPLANATION VIS A VIS CASH FOUND, AS PER SC ORDER IN P.K.NOORJAHAN CASE 237 ITR 570 IS PLAUSIBLE AND DO NOT FALL FOR CORRECTION U/S 263 OF THE ACT; B. JEWELERY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDI NGS: I. ASSESSEE IS A SENIOR CITIZEN ; MARRIED IN YEAR 1963 ; II. TOTAL JEWELLERY WEIGHT 940 GRAMS ; III. CBDT INSTRUCTION NO. 1916 DATED 11.05.1994 SQUARELY COVERS THE PRESENT CASE ; REFER OUR REPLY TO LD AO DURING ASSESSMENT AT PAGE 5 & 13 PAPER BOOK PAPER BOOK -1 N.K.VINAYAK; IV. REFER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY LD AO PAGE 3 DURI NG ASSESSMENT OF OUR PAPER BOOK SHOWING DUE APPLICATIO N OF MIND BY LD AO; OUR REPLY AT PAGE 5 TO LD AO DURING ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS; ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 19 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 V. IT IS NOT WEALTH ESCAPING ASSESSMENT OR WE ALTH TAX REVISION; C. SOURCE OF FDRS I. LD CIT AGAIN MADE FACTUALLY WRONG ALLEGATION THAT S OURCE OF FDR REMAINED UNVERIFIED AT PAGE 2 OF ABOVE SHOW CAU SE NOTICE IN AS MUCH AS DETAILED AND EXTENSIVE INQUIRY IS MAD E AS EVIDENT FROM CURSORY LOOK TO DETAILED SHOW CAUSE ISSUED BY LD AO DATED 14/10/2009 REPLIED ON 24/10/2009 AND 11/11/20 09 II. PAGES 3, 5,10 FOR ENQUIRY BEFORE LD AO: N.K.VINAYAK ) & (PAGES 5,8,11 TO 13, 21, 23 TO 28: B.K.VINAYAK PAPE R BOOK AT ASSESSMENT STAGE PROPER REPLIES WERE FILED; III. ASSESSEES REPLY ON SUBJECT ISSUE GIVEN THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE IS NOT IS ANY BUSINESS AND SOURCE OF FUND IS HUSBANDS MONEY AND MATURITY OF EARLIER FDRS AS VERY WELL EXPLAINED IN REPLIES TO INVESTIGATION WING AT PAGES 28 TO 32 PAPER BOOK (B .K.VINAYAK) AND SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK (N.K.VINAYAK) PAGES 1 TO 5 IS SUPPORTED BY SC ORDER IN P.K.NOORJAHAN CASE 237 ITR PAGE 570; IV. REPLY DATED 12/11/2009 IN CASE OF B.K.VINAYAK TO LD AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AT PAGES 22 TO 27 OF PAPER BOOK IN B.K.VINAYAK CASE; IN THE CASE OF B.K.VINAYAK THREE ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED BY LD CIT IN SHOW CA USE DATED 11.01.2012 VIZ: I) SOURCE OF CASH OF RS. 417,926/-: A. WHICH IS THOROUGHLY ENQUIRED BY LD AO DURING ASSESS MENT AS VISIBLE FROM PAGES 6, 8, 22, 29, 30 OF PAPER BOOK (ALSO EXP LAINED TO INVESTIGATION WING IN POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS); B. LD CIT HIMSELF ADMITS THAT FULL CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS GIVEN DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS REPRODUCED AT PAGE 2/3 OF IM PUGNED REVISION ORDER, WHICH IS SUFFICIENT AS PER HONBLE DELHI HIG H COURT JUDGMENT ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 20 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 IN THE CASE OF DLF 350 ITR 555 THAT REVISION PROCEE DINGS CAN NOT BE INITIATED UNLESS IT IS HELD THAT LD AOS ORDER IS U NSUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW; C. ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT HE HAS BEEN IN SERVICE FOR MORE THAN 50 YEARS WITH GOVT. OF INDIA IN SENIOR POSITION AND PRIVATE ENTERPRISES; D. LD CIT DO NOT DISPUTE THE CAPACITY OF ASSESSEE TO P OSSESS THE MARGINAL CASH FROM AVAILABLE ACCUMULATED SAVINGS IN GIVEN FA CT SITUATION; E. ASSESSEES TWO SONS ONE IN SIEMENS AT GURGAON AND O NE IS USA AS STATED BEFORE INVESTIGATION WING DURING POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, CAN VERY WELL GIFT TO THEIR PARENTS THE MEAGER AMOUNT; F. FURTHER, IN CASE ON AN ISSUE TWO VIEWS ARE INHERENT LY POSSIBLE, IT OUST THE JURISDICTION OF CIT ON THAT ISSUE LIKE ONE HERE (CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4.17 LACS) RELIANCE IS PLACED ON HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN DLF JUDGMENT (SUPRA) & HONBLE AP HIGH COURT IN 354 IT R 35 G. ON THIS ISSUE, MAKING NO ADDITION OF RS 4.17 LACS C ASH FOUND DURING SEARCH BY LD AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, DO N OT MAKE THE ORDER OF LD AO UNSUSTAINABLE ON THAT COUNT ; II) SOURCE OF FDRS I. LD CIT- AGAIN MADE FACTUALLY WRONG ALLEGATION THAT SOURCE OF FDR REMAINED UNVERIFIED AT PAGE 2 OF ABOVE SHOW CAU SE NOTICE IN AS MUCH AS DETAILED AND EXTENSIVE INQUIRY IS MAD E AS EVIDENT FROM CURSORY LOOK TO DETAILED SHOW CAUSE ISSUED BY LD AO DATED 14/10/2009 REPLIED ON 24/10/2009 AND 11/11/20 09 ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 21 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 II. PAGES 3, 5,10 FOR ENQUIRY BEFORE LD AO: N.K.VINAYAK )& (PAGES 5,8,11 TO 13, 21, 23 TO 28: B.K.VINAYAK PAPER BOOK ASSESSMENT STAGE REPLIES; III. ASSESSEES REPLY ON SUBJECT ISSUE GIVEN THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE IS NOT IS ANY BUSINESS AND SOURCE OF FUND IS HUSBANDS MONEY AND MATURITY OF EARLIER FDRS AS VERY WELL EXPLAINED IN REPLIES TO INVESTIGATION WING AT PAGES PAGES 28 TO 32 PAPER B OOK (B.K.VINAYAK) AND SUPPLEMENTARY PAPER BOOK (N.K.VINAYAK) PAGES 1 TO 5 IS SUPPORTED BY SC ORDER IN P.K.NOORJA HAN CASE 237 ITR PAGE 570; IV. REPLY DATED 12/11/2009 IN CASE OF B.K.VINAYAK TO LD AO DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AT PAGES 22 TO 27 OF PAPER BOOK IN B.K.VINAYAK CASE; V. ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY SUBMITTED TO CIT U/S 263 THA T GIVEN THE LENGTH AND POSITION OF SERVICE AMOUNT OF FDRS IS N EGLIGIBLE WHICH EXPLANATION IS PLAUSIBLE TO BE ACCEPTED AND P ROVES APPLICATION OF MIND ON PART OF LD AO; VI. TOTAL FDR IN QUESTION IN ASSESSEES AND HER WIFE IS RS. 32.60 LACS WHICH IS COMMENSURATE TO TAX PROFILE AND 50 YE AR SERVICE TRACK OF ASSESSEE; III) IT IS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE THIRD ISSUE RAISED BY CIT U/S 263 IS BEYOND THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 263 OF T HE ACT AND HENCE DESERVES TO BE SET ASIDE ON THIS LIMITED COUN T ITSELF AS EVIDENT FROM CASE RECORDS BELOW (BEING CLAIM OF EXP ENSES AGAINST PROFESSIONAL INCOME). FURTHER THIS ISSUE DID NOT EM ANATE FROM ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT, ON THIS COUNT ALSO ORDER OF LD AO ON TH IS ISSUE DO NOT REQUIRE INTERFERENCE IN LIMITED JURISDICTION U/S 26 3 OF THE ACT . ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 22 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 (REFER RAJ HC JAI STEEL 259 CTR 281 & ALL CARGO SB ITAT ORDER 147 TTJ 513); IV) IT IS PLEADED THAT LD. CIT EXCEPT HOLDING THAT PROP ER MIND WAS NOT APPLIED BY AO. NOWHERE HAS GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO HOW THE ORDERS HAVE CAUSED ANY PREJUDICE TO REVENUE. WITHOU T SUCH FINDING ORDER OF REVISION IS BAD IN LAW. RELIANCE I N THIS BEHALF IS PLACED ON - S.S.I. LTD. VS DCIT 85 TTJ 1049 (PARA 50) HOLDING : A PROCEEDING UNDER S. 263 HAS A VERY LIMITED SCOPE AND CAN BE INVOKED ONLY UNDER SPECIAL CIRCUMSTANCE AND NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAUNCHING A ROVING ENQUIRY. ERROR IN ASSESSMENT RESULTING IN PREJUDICE TO REVENUE HAS TO BE DEMONSTRATED WHILE I NVOKING S. 263, WHICH IS CONSPICUOUS BY ITS ABSENCE IN THE ORD ER PASSED BY THE CIT UNDER S. 263. 13. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER RELIED ON FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: I. AP HIGH COURT IN SPECTRA SHARES AND SCRIPS (P) LTD. VS CIT 354 ITR 35 61. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ONLY TAKEN A POSSIBLE VIEW BUT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES THE ONLY VIEW POSSIBLE AND THEREFORE HIS ORDER COULD NOT HAVE BEE N TERMED AS ERRONEOUS OR PREJUDICIAL TO THE REVENUE WARRANTING EXERCISE OF REVISIONAL JURISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT BY THE R ESPONDENT. THE RESPONDENT HAD NO DIFFERENT OR NEW MATERIAL TO TAKE DIFFERENT VIEW FROM THE ONE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D THE REASONS GIVEN BY HIM TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AND S USTAIN THE REVISION ARE TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE. THE RESPONDENT I S NOT VESTED ANY POWER U/S.263 TO INITIATE PROCEEDINGS FOR REVIS ION IN EVERY CASE AND START RE-EXAMINATION AND FRESH ENQUIRIES I N MATTERS WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN CONCLUDED UNDER THE LAW. TH E TRIBUNAL IN OUR VIEW HAD GROSSLY ERRED IN AGREEING WITH THE ORDER OF THE RESPONDENT AND IN UPHOLDING IT ON GROU NDS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN FOUND IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE OF THE RESPONDENT, THAT TOO WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SEVERAL ISSU ES OF FACT AND LAW RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 23 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL. BOTH THE RESPONDENT AND THE TRIBUNAL HAVE BASED THEIR ORDERS ON PRECONCEIVED NOTIONS, CO NJUNCTURES AND SURMISES, MANIFESTLY MISREAD THE FACTS AND TWIS TED THEM TO JUSTIFY THEIR CONCLUSIONS. II. LALCHAND BHAGAT AMBICA RAM V. CIT (1959) 38 IT R 288 (SC), HELD AT PAGE 295 FOR THE [PROPOSITION: PARA 31: (A) THE COMMISSIONER CANNOT INITIATE PROCE EDINGS WITH A VIEW TO START FISHING AND ROVING INQUIRIES I N MATTERS OR ORDERS WHICH ARE ALREADY CONCLUDED; THAT THE DEPART MENT CANNOT BE PERMITTED TO BEGIN FRESH LITIGATION BECAU SE OF NEW VIEWS THEY ENTERTAIN ON FACTS OR NEW VERSIONS WHICH THEY PRESENT AS TO WHAT SHOULD BE THE INFERENCE OR PROPE R INFERENCE EITHER OF THE FACTS DISCLOSED OR THE WEIGHT OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE; THAT IF THIS IS PERMITTED, LITIGATION WOULD HAVE NO END EXCEPT WHEN LEGAL INGENUITY IS EXHAUSTED. (B) WHETHER THERE WAS APPLICATION OF MIND BEFORE AL LOWING THE EXPENDITURE IN QUESTION HAS TO BE SEEN; THAT IF THE RE WAS AN ENQUIRY, EVEN INADEQUATE THAT WOULD NOT BY ITSELF G IVE OCCASION TO THE COMMISSIONER TO PASS ORDERS UNDER SEC. 263 M ERELY BECAUSE HE HAS A DIFFERENT OPINION IN THE MATTER, T HAT IT IS ONLY IN CASES OF LACK OF INQUIRY THAT SUCH A COURSE OF A CTION WOULD BE OPEN; THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE BY THE INCOME T AX OFFICER CANNOT BE BRANDED AS ERRONEOUS BY THE COMMISSIONER SIMPLY BECAUSE, ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BE EN WRITTEN MORE ELABORATELY; THERE MUST BE SOME PRIMA FACIE MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE TAX WHICH WAS LAWFULLY EXIG IBLE HAS NOT BEEN IMPOSED OR THAT BY THE APPLICATION OF THE RELE VANT STATUTE ON AN INCORRECT OR INCOMPLETE INTERPRETATION, AS LE SSER TAX THAN WHAT WAS JUST, HAS BEEN IMPOSED. (C) THE POWER OF THE COMMISSIONER UNDER SEC. 263(1) IS NOT LIMITED ONLY TO THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS AVAILABLE BE FORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND, IN ORDER TO PROTECT THE INTE REST OF THE REVENUE, THE COMMISSIONER IS ENTITLED TO EXAMINE AN Y OTHER RECORDS WHICH ARE AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF EXAMINAT ION BY HIM ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 24 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 AND TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION EVEN THOSE EVENTS WH ICH AROSE SUBSEQUENT TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON: I. MALABAR INDUSTRIAL CORPN. 243 ITR83(SC) FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT REVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASES WHERE THE VIEW ADOPTED BY AO IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW AND CIT WANTS TO ADOPT ANO THER POSSIBLE VIEW. II. SUNBEAM AUTO 289 TAXMANN 436 (DEL) FOR THE PROP OSITION THAT REVISION CANNOT BE INVOKED IN CASES WHERE CIT IS OF THE VIEW THAT INADEQUATE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE BY AO. IT IS ONLY WH ERE NO ENQUIRY IS MADE, REVISION CAN BE EXCERCISED. III. VIKAS POLYMERS 194 TAXMANN 57(DEL) FOR THE PRO POSITION THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263, WHEN READ AS A COMP OSITE WHOLE, MAKE IT INCUMBENT UPON THE COMMISSIONER BEFORE EXER CISING REVISIONAL POWERS TO: ( I ) CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORD, AND ( II ) GIVE THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THER EAFTER, TO MAKE OR CAUSE TO BE MADE SUCH AN ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESS ARY. IT IS ONLY ON FULFILMENT OF THESE TWIN CONDITIONS THAT THE COMMIS SIONER MAY PASS AN ORDER EXERCISING HIS POWER OF REVISION. MINUTELY EX AMINED, THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTION ENVISAGE THAT THE COMMISS IONER MAY CALL FOR THE RECORDS AND IF HE PRIMA FACIE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS ERRONEOUS INSOF AR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY. A FTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MA KING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH ENQUIRY AS HE DEEMS NECESSARY. THE TWI N REQUIREMENT OF THE SECTION IS MANIFESTLY FOR A PURPOSE. MERE FACT THAT THE COMMISSIONER CONSIDERS ON EXAMINATION OF THE RECORD THAT THE ORDER ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 25 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY PASSED SO AS TO PREJUDICE THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, WILL NOT SUFFICE. THE ASSESSEE MUST BE CAL LED, HIS EXPLANATION SOUGHT FOR AND EXAMINED BY THE COMMISSIONER, AND TH EREAFTER, IF THE COMMISSIONER STILL FEELS THAT THE ORDER IS ERRONEOU S AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY PASS REVISIONAL ORDERS. IF, ON THE OTHER HAND, THE COMMISSIONER IS SATISFIED AFTER HEA RING THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDERS ARE NOT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, HE MAY CHOOSE NOT TO EXERCISE HIS POWER OF REVISION. THIS IS FOR THE REASON THAT IF A QUERY WAS RAISED DURING TH E COURSE OF SCRUTINY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH WAS ANSWERED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BUT NEITHER THE QUERY NOR THE AN SWER WAS REFLECTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THAT WOULD NOT, BY ITSELF, LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR INTERFERENCE AND REVISION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE COMMISSIONER HAD OBSERVED IN THE ORDER PASSED BY HIM THAT THE ASSESS EE HAD NOT FILED CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ON THE RECORD AT THE TIME OF ASSE SSMENT. ASSUMING IT TO BE SO, THAT DID NOT JUSTIFY THE CONCLUSION AR RIVED AT BY THE COMMISSIONER THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD SHIRKED HIS RESPONSIBILITY OF EXAMINING AND INVESTIGATING THE C ASE. MORE SO, IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT T HE CAPITAL INVESTMENT MADE BY THE PARTNERS, WHICH HAD BEEN CALLED INTO QU ESTION BY THE COMMISSIONER, WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENTS OF THE PARTNERS WHO WERE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND THE UNSE CURED LOAN TAKEN FROM CHIT FUND COMPANY WAS DULY REFLECTED IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER OF THE SAID CHIT FUND COMPANY WHICH WAS ALSO AN ASSESS EE. [PARA 18] 14. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE TRIBUNAL WAS CORR ECT, IN LAW, FOR HOLDING THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 HAD NOT RIGHTLY BEEN INVOKED IN THE INSTANT CASE. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 26 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 MAX INDIA LTD. 295 ITR 282 (SC) 15. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDS THAT, LOOKING UNDER THE LIGHT OF ALL THESE APPLICABLE LAWS CASE LAW FOLLOWING PROPOSITIO N EMERGE FROM THE ASSESSEES CASE: I) THERE WERE PROPER ENQUIRIES BY THE ADIT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER, BY LD AO DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. II) IT IS NOT A CASE OF LACK OF ENQUIRIES, WHICH I S EVIDENT FROM THE COPIOUS RECORD. III) IT IS NOT A CASE OF TAKING AN UNSUSTAINABLE V IEW, THE VIEW TAKEN BY LD. AO BASED ON HIS ENQUIRIES AND INVESTIGATION IS ONE OF THE POSSIBLE VIEW. IT CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED BY CIT BY ANOTHER POSSIBLE VIEW WHILE E XERCISING 263 JURISDICTION. IV) CIT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY OBJECTIVE FINDINGS THAT HOW THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, IN VIEW THEREOF THE REVISION PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW. V) AO HAVING DONE THE ENQUIRIES AS PER HIS UNDERST ANDING AND DISCRETION AS A QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITY, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT HE SHIRKED HIS RESPONSIBILITY AND DID NOT CARRY OUT THE ENQUIRIES. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 27 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 16. LOOKING FROM ALL THESE ANGLES AND PARA METERS, THE EXERCISE OF POWER U/S 263 QUA THE ISSUES RAISED IN 263 NOTICES IS BAD IN LAW. IT IS PLEADED THAT THE IMPUGNED 263 ORDERS PASSED BY LD CIT MAY BE SET ASI DE. 17. LD DR RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF CIT. IT IS CONTE NDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE HAS A SET PROTOCOL AND IF AO IS FOUND NOT TO HAVE ADHERED TO THE MINIMUM REQUIRED FOR ENSURING A FAIR ASSESSMENT, TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AND THEREFORE, PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES T OF REVENUE. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD AND CASE LAWS CITED BY BOTH THE PARTIES. FROM THE FACTS NARRATED ABOVE AND THE PAPER BOOKS FILED IT EMERGES THAT DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDING QUESTIONS, ENQUIRIES AND EXPLANATION ON THE RELEVAN T ISSUES WERE CALLED FOR BY THE LD AO AND WERE REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS TH ESE ARE NOT THE ASSESSMENTS WHERE THERE WAS NO ENQUIRY ON THE RELEVANT ASPECT. THE QUESTIONNAIRES, ORDER SHEET ENTRIES, ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIO NS MAKE IT QUITE CLEAR. THUS WE ARE UNABLE TO HOLD THAT ASSESSMENT ORDERS SUFFER FROM LACK OF ENQUIRIES. IN SUNBEAM AUTO CASE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT THOUGH REVISION CAN BE MADE IN A CASE WHEN THERE IS LACK OF ENQUIRY IN THE ORDER, HOWEVER, INADEQUATE INQUIRIES CANNOT BE A BASIS OF REVISION AS IT DEPENDS ON THE PERCEPTION OF THE OFFICER EXERCISING ASSESSMENT POW ERS. A MERE DEFERENCE IS ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 28 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 PERCEPTION OF CIT AND AO CANNOT MAKE THE ORDER ERRO NEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OR REVENUE. HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT I N THE RECENT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF DLF LTD. SQUARELY HELD THAT: IT IS NOT MERE PREJUDICE TO THE REVENUE, OR A MERE ERRONEOUS VIEW WHICH CAN BE REVISED UNDER SECTION 2 63. THERE SHOULD BE THE ADDED ELEMENT OF 'UNSUSTAINABILITY' I N THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH CLOTHES THE COMMISSION ER WITH JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE AND PROCEED TO MAKE AP PROPRIATE ORDERS. [PARA 10] 19. LOOKING AT THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS SUFFER FROM UNSUSTAINABILITY ALSO . 20. SINCE REASONABLE ENQUIRIES WERE MADE, ASSESSSEE WAS CALLED ON TO FILE THEIR EXPLANATION AND SUBMISSIONS ON RELEVANT ISSUE AND B ESIDES THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE SUSTAINABLE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THESE ARE C ASES OF ANY MANIFEST INADEQUATE INQUIRY OR IMPOSSIBLE VIEW OR UNSUSTAINABILITY. 21. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF LD. COUNS EL THAT CIT MUST IN DEMONSTRATIVE TERMS ESTABLISH AS TO WHAT PREJUDICE IS CAUSED TO THE REVENUE. IN THESE CASES INSTEAD OF ESTABLISHING THIS MANDATORY CONDITION LD. CIT HAS MERELY CHOSEN TO SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENTS BACK TO AO TO C ONDUCT FURTHER ENQUIRIES. ITAT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF - S.S.I. LTD (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSEE. ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 29 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09 22. IN VIEW OF THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES , ARGUMENTS AND CASE LAWS MENTIONED ABOVE WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE EXERCIS E OF JURISDICTION U/S 263 BY LD. CIT IN SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS PAS SED U/S 153A R/W SEC 143(3) IN THE CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE IS BAD IN LAW, HIS OR DERS ARE QUASHED. 23. IN THE RESULT ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.3.2014. SD/- SD/- (J.S. REDDY) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 28TH MARCH 2014 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR ITA 2454 TO 2460/D/12 30 & 2447 TO 2453/D/12 ASSTT.YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09