The ITO, Mandsaur V. Shri Rameshwar Malpani, Mandsaur

ITA 254/IND/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2009] 115 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0099 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-08-2009
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 25-08-2009
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: APARNA KARAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S S DESH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Tax effect; Reason to believe; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 143(2); 148

Judgement Text

PAGE 1 OF 10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM AND SHRI M.L.GUSIA, AM ITA NO.254 TO 257/IND/2009 AYS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 ITO, MANDSAUR APPELLANT V/S. RAMESHWAR MALPANI, SADAR BAZAR, SANJEET, DISTT. MANDSAUR (PAN AJIPM 5231A) RESPONDENT DEPARTMENT BY SMT. APARNA KARAN, ADDL. CIT, DR ASSESSEE BY SHRI S.S. DESHPANDE, CA ORDER PER SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JM THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT A RE AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-UJJAIN DATED 25.3.2009 FOR THE ABOVE AYS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES OF BOTH TH E PARTIES AND GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. 3. IN ALL THE APPEALS, REVENUE CHALLENGED THE CANCE LLATION OF THE REASSESSMENTS U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT AND STATED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE WERE NO VALID REASONS FOR ISSUIN G NOTICE U/S 148 WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS THAT PROMISSORY NOTES PERTAI NING TO RELEVANT AY AND NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF A/C WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT AND FURTHER THERE IS A ESCAPEMEN T OF INCOME FOR THE PAGE 2 OF 10 RELEVANT AY. IN AY 2002-03 AND 2003-04, IT IS ALSO STATED THAT TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IN THE REASONS RECORDED SHOULD BE APPRECIATED UNDER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 292B OF THE IT ACT. THUS, IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE CANCELLATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE IN ISS UE. 4. BRIEFLY, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT IN THIS CASE SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE IT ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 7.10.2003. DURING THE COU RSE OF SURVEY, NUMBER OF HUNDIES/PROMISSORY NOTES WERE FOUND. THE ASSESSEE S URRENDERED AN INCOME OF RS.75,60,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME INVESTED IN HUNDIES/PROPERTY/UNACCOUNTED CASH AT THE TIME OF SU RVEY. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY THIS WAS DISCLOSED A S INCOME FOR AY 2004-05. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED RETURN OF INCOME SHOWING TO TAL INCOME OF RS.76,23,680/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.2,00, 000/- FOR THE AY 2004-05 HONORING HIS WORDS IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH. THE AS SESSMENT FOR AY 2004-05 WAS COMPLETED ON 13.12.2006 ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.8 8,18,990/-. HOWEVER, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR AYS 2000-01 TO 2 003-04 BY ISSUING NOTICES U/S 148 SUBSEQUENTLY AND ASSESSED THE INCOM E U/S 143(3)/147 ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE PROMISSORY NOTES AS STATED ABOVE. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDIN GS U/S 148 WERE VOID AB INITIO BECAUSE THERE WAS NO REASON TO BELIEVE OF AN Y ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME BEFORE LD. CIT(A). THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE PR OCEEDINGS ARE RECORDED SUBSEQUENT TO ISSUE OF NOTICE. NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS ISSUED, WHICH IS A MUST FOR ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3). MOREOVER THE INVEST MENT/INCOME FOR WHICH PAGE 3 OF 10 CASES WERE REOPENED WAS ALREADY SUBJECTED TO TAX IN AY 2004-05. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER APPEAL ARE DOUBLE TAXATION WH ICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS ARE REPRODUCED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN TO UNDERSTAN D BY SURVEY TEAM THAT IF SURRENDER AS DIRECTED BY THE TEAM AS INCOME FOR THE AY 2004-05 IS DONE AND ADVANCE TAX IS PAID, NO ACTION FOR EARLIER YEARS WI LL BE TAKEN AND ASSESSEE WILL BE SPARE FROM TAX, INTEREST, PENALTY AND PROSECUTIO N AS WELL IN RESPECT OF EARLIER YEARS. ON ACCOUNT OF VOLUME OF PROMISSORY N OTES SEIZED BY THE SURVEY PARTY, IT WAS NOT FEASIBLE TO PREPARE INVENTORY THE RE, THEREFORE, SURVEY TEAM DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO SURRENDER INCOME IN THE AY 2004-05 IN A SUM OF RS.75,60,000/- (INVESTMENT IN PROMISSORY NOTES RS.6 5 LAKHS, INVESTMENT IN IMMOVABLE PROPERTY RS.10 LAKHS AND CASH FOUND RS.60 ,000/-). THE ASSESSEE ON THE ASSURANCE GIVEN BY THE SURVEY TEAM BONA-FIDE LY SURRENDERED THE ABOVE INCOME AND PAID THE TAXES ALSO IN THE AY 2004-05 IN CLUDING THE SURRENDER ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN PROMISSORY NOTES. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE REAFTER IS ILLEGAL. THERE ARE MISTAKES IN RECORDING THE REASONS AND THERE IS NO E SCAPEMENT OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN PROMISSORY NOTES BEC AUSE THE SAME WERE ALREADY TAXED IN THE AY 2004-05 AND SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 13.12.2006. THE A SSESSEE RELIED UPON SEVERAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF THE CONTENTION TO S HOW THAT THERE WAS NO PAGE 4 OF 10 ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME AS NOTED BY THE AO IN THE AY U NDER APPEALS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS BEEN S ERVED OR ISSUED BEFORE MAKING THE REASSESSMENTS, THEREFORE, ALL THE REASSE SSMENT ORDERS ARE ILLEGAL AND UNJUST. SEVERAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF CONTENT ION WERE ALSO RELIED UPON BEFORE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS ALSO EXPLAINED THAT SINCE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROMISSORY NOTES HAVE ALRE ADY BEEN TAXED IN THE AY 2004-05 BY THE AO, THEREFORE, SIMILAR ADDITIONS IN THE AYS UNDER APPEALS WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E ASSESSEE AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD NOTED THAT IT IS A MATTER OF FA CT THAT ASSESSEE SURRENDERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.75,60,000/- IN AY 2004-05 AND PAID TAXES ALSO BASED UPON SAME HUNDIES/PROMISSORY NOTES FOR WHICH THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE AYS UNDER APPEALS I.E. 2000-01 TO 2003-04. THE AO ACCEPTED THE SURRENDER OF THE SAME INCOME ON THE SA ME PROMISSORY NOTES IN AY 2004-05 AND ASSESSED THE INCOME U/S 143(3) OF TH E IT ACT. LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE NOTED AO WAS NOT HAVING ANY NEW FACT OR M ATERIAL IN HIS POSSESSION EXCEPT FOR WHAT ALREADY ON RECORD. HE HAS ALSO NOTE D THAT THERE ARE OTHER DEFECTS IN RECORDING THE REASONS U/S 148 WHICH WOUL D SHOW THAT NOTICES U/S 148 WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO RECORDING OF REASONS U/S 1 48. LD. CIT(A) ALSO NOTED THAT NOTICE U/S 143(2) WAS NOT ISSUED WHICH IS NECE SSARY REQUIREMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENTS. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALS O ACCEPTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SUBJECTED TO DOUBLE TAXATION FOR THE SAME INCOME. LD. CIT(A) NOTED PAGE 5 OF 10 SEVERAL DECISIONS IN SUPPORT OF HIS FINDINGS THAT T HERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE THAT INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMEN T, NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAVE BEEN ISSUED OR SERVED UPON ASSESSEE AND THAT D OUBLE TAXATION IS NOT PROVIDED IN THE ACT. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE F INDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WELL AS T HE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE, IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE REASSESSMENTS IN AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AS WELL AS LAW. THERE WAS NO VALID REASON TO BELIEVE FOR REASSESSMENT. THE NON ISSUANC E OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS FURTHER VITIATED THE ASSESSME NTS. ON MERIT AGAIN THE ASSESSMENTS CAN NOT BE UPHELD ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE TAXATION. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSME NTS MADE U/S 143/147 UNDER APPEAL FOR AYRS. 2000-01 TO 2003-04 ARE CANCELLED. 6. LD. DR RELIED UPON ORDER OF THE AO AND REFERRED TO PB/25 WHICH IS THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE RECORDED ON THE DATE OF THE S URVEY IN WHICH ENTIRE PROMISSORY NOTES FOUND IN SURVEY WERE PUT TO THE AS SESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO MAKE THE SURRENDER OF RS.65 LAKHS ON ACCO UNT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE IN THE ENTIRE PROMISSORY NOTES. OTH ER SURRENDER WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOTED ABOVE. LD. DR HOW EVER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROMISSORY NOTES/HUNDIES BELONG TO THE AYS UNDER AP PEALS, THEREFORE, AO WAS PAGE 6 OF 10 JUSTIFIED IN REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS BECAUSE THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAVE ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN THE AY UNDER APPEALS. LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT MERELY BECAUSE ENTIRE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PROMISSORY NOTES HAVE BEEN SURRENDERED IN AY 2004-0 5 WOULD NOT DEBAR THE AO FROM REOPENING THE ASSESSMENTS UNDER APPEALS. LD . DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE TYPOGRAPHICAL MISTAKES IN RECORDING REASO NS WHICH ARE NOT SIGNIFICANT, THEREFORE, SUCH MISTAKES SHOULD HAVE B EEN IGNORED. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT INCOME HAS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE REL EVANT AY. 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE REIT ERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT TH E SURRENDER OF INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ENTIRE PROMISSORY NOTES FOUND IN SURVEY HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE AY 2004-05 AND THE SURVEY TEAM AL SO RECORDED STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE IN THAT REGARD. SINCE SAME INCOME ON AC COUNT OF PROMISSORY NOTES FOUND IN SURVEY HAVE ALREADY BY ASSESSED IN THE AY 2004-05, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO CASE OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE PRECEDING AYS. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT BELIEF OF THE AO IS NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIAL BECAUSE THE SAME MATERIAL IS ALREADY CONSIDERED AND ASSESSED IN THE AY 2004-0 5. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS APART FROM CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT ALSO CHALLENGED T HE LEGALITY AND VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT NO MANDATORY NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAVE BEEN ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSE E BEFORE COMPLETION OF REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERI OD AS PER LAW. FURTHER PAGE 7 OF 10 REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE CHALLENGED ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME IN THE AY UNDER APPEALS WHICH IS AL READY TAXED IN THE AY 2004-05. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE REASONS ARE RE CORDED AFTER THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. H E HAS RELIED UPON DECISION OF THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF LAXMIP ATH SINGHANIA VS. CIT, 72 ITR 291 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD THAT IT IS A FUNDAMENT AL RULE OF LAW OF TAXATION THAT UNLESS OTHERWISE EXPRESSLY PROVIDED, INCOME CA NNOT BE TAXED TWICE. HE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. CHELLAPPAN & OTHERS, 281 ITR 444 IN WHICH IT WAS HE LD REASSESSMENT FAILURE TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN PRESCRIBE D PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS. SUBSEQUENT NOTICE AND REASSESSMENT NOT VALID. HE H AS ALSO RELIED UPON DECISION OF RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHIV RATAN SONI, 279 ITR 261 IN WHICH IT WAS HELD NOTE-SHEET SHOWING RE ASONS NOT RECORDED BEFORE ISSUE OF NOTICE REASSESSMENT INVALID. LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASS ESSEE WERE CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN DETAILS ON PERUSAL OF THE FACTS A ND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS ARE VITIATED FOR NON- ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND THAT ON MERIT, THE RE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE UPHELD ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE TAXATION. HE HAS SUBMIT TED THAT THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, ALL THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED PAGE 8 OF 10 BECAUSE THE SAME FINDINGS ARE SUFFICIENT TO CANCEL THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE ADDITIONS. 8. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NO SPECIFIC GROUNDS ARE RA ISED TO CHALLENGE THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, MATTER MAY BE REMANDED TO THE LD. CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIA L AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AS PER DECISION OF HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M. CHELLAPPAN & OTHERS (SUPRA), WHEN THERE IS A FAILUR E TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD, SUBSEQUENT NOTICE AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT VALID. IN THIS CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT NOTICES U/S 148 HAVE BEEN ISSUED AFTER 1 ST OCTOBER 2005, THEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION TO SEC. 148(1), PROVISO WOULD NOT APPLY WHEREBY IT IS PROVIDED THAT NOTHING CONTAINED IN THE FIRST & SECOND PROVISO TO SEC. 148 (1) SHALL APPLY TO ANY RETURN WHICH HAS BEEN FURNISHED ON OR AFTER FIRST DAY OF O CTOBER 2005 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE SERVED UNDER THIS SECTION. THE ASSESSEE CHAL LENGED THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ON T HE REASONS THAT NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAVE BEEN ISSUED WHICH IS MANDATORY FOR THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT. THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE A SPECIFIC FINDING THAT THE NOT ICE U/S 143(2) WERE NOT ISSUED WHICH IS MANDATORY REQUIREMENT FOR ASSESSMEN T AND ACCORDINGLY HELD THAT THE NON-ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAS FURT HER VITIATED THE ASSESSMENTS. THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) H AVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT IN ALL THE ABOVE DEPARTME NTAL APPEALS. IT IS ALSO PAGE 9 OF 10 ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN PROMISSORY NOTES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY HAVE ALREADY BEEN SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY 2004-05 AND T HE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERING THE ENTIRE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME FACTS AND SURRENDER OF INCOME HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE AY 2004-05 PRIOR TO THE ISSUANCE OF THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE IT ACT IN THE AYS UNDER APPEALS. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTME NT IN THE PROMISSORY NOTES ASSESSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS BY THE AO HAV E ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED AND SUBJECTED TO TAX IN THE AY 2004-05 VIDE ORDER D ATED 13.12.2006 U/S 143(3) OF THE IT ACT. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE A DDITIONS ON MERIT ON THE REASONS THAT DOUBLE TAXATION OF THE SAME INCOME IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN THE LAW. THE LD. CIT(A) ON MERITS ACCEPTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE UPHELD ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE TAXATION. THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE ALSO CANCELLED ON ACCOUNT OF ABOVE FINDINGS WHICH HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE DEPART MENT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, IT IS CLEAR TH AT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) REMAINED UNCHALLENGED ON ACCOUNT OF NON-ISSU E AND SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE TAXATION. THERE FORE, THE CANCELLATION OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS ON THESE TWO REASONS REMAIN ED UNCHALLENGED AND FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BECOME FINAL. THE D EPARTMENTAL APPEALS, THEREFORE, ON THE GROUND OF APPEALS NOW RAISED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL, THUS, WOULD NOT YIELD ANY RESULT AND ULTIMATELY, THE REAS SESSMENT ORDERS REMAINED PAGE 10 OF 10 CANCELLED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE IS, THEREFO RE, JUSTIFIED IN CONTENDING THAT THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS WOULD NOT BE MAINTAIN ABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM. WE AGREE WITH SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT WOULD BE UNNECES SARY TO DECIDE THE GROUND OF APPEAL NOW RAISED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHA LLENGING THE CANCELLATION OF THE REASSESSMENT ORDERS AS PER SUBMISSION OF THE LD. DR THAT INCOME IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE RELEVANT AYS UNDER APPEALS. WE M AY ALSO ADD HERE THAT ONCE INCOME IS ASSESSED BY THE AO IN AY 2004-05 ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE ENTIRE PROMISSORY NOTES FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY AND SURRENDER IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO ON THIS ISSUE, THER E WOULD BE NO REASON LEFT FOR THE AO TO NOTE THAT THE SAID INCOME ESCAPED FOR ASSESSMENT WHICH IS ALREADY TAXED. WE MAY FURTHER NOTE THAT IN AY 2000- 01 & 2001-02, THE TAX EFFECTS IN THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE BELOW RS.2 LAKHS. THEREFORE, DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS WOULD NOT BE MAINTAINABLE BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 11. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, WE DO NOT FIN D ANY MERIT IN ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. SAME ARE, ACCORDINGLY, DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2009. SD/- SD/- ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28.8.2009 {VYAS}