Joseph Prince, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2739/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90518 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-06-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-06-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KRISHNAMURTHY IRS
• Assessee Lawyers: S SRIDHAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, CHENNAI , . ! , ' #$ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NOS.2739, 2740, & 2741/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07, 2007-2008, 2008--2009) JOSEPH PRINCE, NO.94, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017. [PAN: AACPA 8739N] ( %& /APPELLANT) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(5) CHENNAI. ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A. NOS.2742, 2743 & 2744/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2008-09, 2011-12) SHEEBA PRINCE, NO.94, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN:ABEPS3314G] ( %& /APPELLANT) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(5) CHENNAI. ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) ./ I.T.A. NOS.2745, 2746, 2747, 2748 & 2749/MDS/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08, 2008 - 09, 2011-2012) I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 2 -: PRINCESON JOSE NO.94, G.N. CHETTY ROAD, T.NAGAR, CHENNAI 600 017 [PAN: AACPP 9440M] ( %& /APPELLANT) VS THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE I(5) CHENNAI. ( '(%& /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. S. SRIDHAR, ADVOCATE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, IRS, CIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 10.06.2015 !' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.06.2015 ) / O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE APPEALS FILED BY THREE DIFFEREN T ASSESSEES ARE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, CHENNAI FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE ISS UES IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON IN NATURE, THESE APPEALS ARE COM BINED, HEARD TOGETHER, AND DISPOSED OF BY A COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THESE APPEALS IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHEN IT WAS NOT PROVIDED IN U/S.153A OF THE ACT AND THAT THERE WAS NO INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 3 -: FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ISSUE IS SQUARE LY COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD 137 ITD 287 (MUM) (SB). 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THERE WAS SEAR CH ACTION IN THESE GROUP ON 2.11.2010 AND CONSEQUENT TO THIS, SE ARCH NOTICE U/S.153A WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEES AND THE ASSESS MENTS WERE FRAMED. FOR BETTER UNDERSTANDING, WE HEREIN NARRATE THE BASIS OF ADDITION HEREIN BELOW:- JOSEPH PRINCE ITA NO.2739/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN : 1,01,972/- ADD: INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS DISCUSSED : 4,79, 301/- ------------- GROSS TOTAL INCOME : 5,81,273/- ------------- ITA NO.2740/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN : 18,01,604/- ADD: UNEXPLAINED CASH DEPOSIT AS DISCUSSED ABOVE : 2,30,000/- DEPRECIATION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE : 1,87,068/- SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN (AS DISCUSSED ABOVE) : 9, 65,007/- DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) : 24,588/- ------------------------- GROSS TOTAL INCOME : 32,08,267/- LESS: DEDUCTION U/C VIA AS CLAIMED : 1,00,000/- ------------------------- TOTAL INCOME : 31,08,267/- ------------------------- I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 4 -: ITA NO.2741/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 GROSS TOTAL INCOME AS PER RETURN 41,88,425 ADD UNPROVED AN UNEXPLAINED GIFTS 66,195 DISALLOWANCE OF DEPRECIATION 3,34,647 UNEXLAINED CASH CREDIT 14,793 4,15,635 ASSESSED INCOME 46,04,060 LESS DEDUCTION UNDER CHAPTER VIA 1,00,000 TAXABLE INCOME ------------ 45,04,060 ----------- SHEEBA PRINCE ITA NO.2742/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED) 93,49,490 ADD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES (CLAIMED TO BE AGRICULTURAL INCOME) 1,72,000 TOTAL INCOME ------------- 95,21,490 INCOME TAX THEREON 28,30,447 LESS REBATE U/S.88C 5,000 INCOME TAX PAYABLE ------------- 28,25,447 ------------ ITA NO.2743/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008- 09 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED U/S153A) 1,23,55,470 ADD ADDITION U/S.68 AS DISCUSSED AB O VE 68,000 ADD UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 30,000 TOTAL INCOME ---------------- 1,24,53,470 --------------- ITA NO.2744/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 TOTAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE 1,34,69,681 ADDITION U/S.69A 10,63,043 TOTAL INCOME ----------------- 1,45,32,724 ----------------- I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 5 -: PRINCESON JOSE ITA NO.2745/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-0 6 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED) 90,52,420 ADD INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES (AS DISCUSSED) 5,30,000 TOTAL INCOME -------------- 95,82,420 -------------- ITA NO.2746/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED) 2,02,97,344 ADD INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES (AS DISCUSSED) 46,000 TOTAL INCOME --------------- 2,03,43,344 --------------- ITA NO.2747/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-0 8 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED) 5,49,10,923 ADD DISALLOWANCE MADE IN ORDER U/S.143(3) 1,50,717 ADD INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE (AS DISCUSSED) 29,600 TOTAL INCOME --------------- 5,50,91,240 -------------- ITA NO.2748/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-0 9 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED) 2,06,37,269 ADD INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE (AS DISCUSSED) 70,301 70,000 TOTAL INCOME --------------- 2,07,77,570 --------------- I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 6 -: ITA NO.2749/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-1 2 TOTAL INCOME (AS RETURNED) 2,14,48,066 ADD UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS DISCUSSED ABOVE 20,000 TOTAL INCOME ---------------- 2,14,68,066 --------------- ACCORDING TO THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEES ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE ONLY ON THE BASI S OF PARTICULARS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR ORIGINAL RETURN S OF INCOME WHICH WERE FILED BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO BEFORE DATE OF SEARCH AND THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO SUGGEST ADDITIONS. FURTHER, H E SUBMITTED THAT CERTAIN ADDITIONS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 & 200 8-09 WERE MADE IN THE CASE OF JOSEPH PRINCE ON THE REASON THAT CO NSENT WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT, DEPOSIT INTO BANK ACCOUNT AND SHORT TERM CAPITAL GA IN AND DISALLOWANCE U/S.40A(3) OF THE ACT AND THESE ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. EVEN IF THE ASSESSEE AGREED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT, THES E ADDITIONS CANNOT BE LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEES RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MARIAM AYSHA VS. CIT 104 ITR 381 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT CONSENT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT GIVE JURIS DICTION TO ASSESSING I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 7 -: OFFICER AND THE TAXING AUTHORITIES CAN ACT ONLY IF THERE IS POWER UNDER THE STATUTE TO DO SO. HE FURTHER RELIED ON THE ORDE R OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN ITA NOS.559,560, 561, 562, 563 & 564/MDS/2 014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF A.R. MURUGADOSS VIDE ORDER DATED 16.06.2014 , WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT IN CASE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND ON ACCOUNT OF SE ARCH OR REQUISITION, THE QUESTION OF RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE CONCLUDED ASSE SSMENT DOES NOT ARISE, AND THE RE-ASSESSMENT OF THE CONCLUDED ASSES SMENT IS PERMITTED IN ASSESSMENT U/S.153A ONLY IF INCRIMINATING MATERI AL ARE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR ASSESSEE FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH IN ITA NOS.1065, 1066 AND 1067/MDS/2014 AND OTHERS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 TO 2005-06 IN THE CASE OF RM.K. VISWANATHA PILLAI & SONS AND OTHERS VIDE ORDER DATED 05.02.2015 FOR THE ABOV E PROPOSITIONS. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE ORDER OF SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD . 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WERE EXCESS CASH AND JEWEL LERY FOUND AND THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THIS COUNT ALSO IN CERTAIN ASSESSMENT YEARS AND RE-ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF SEARC H ACTION WHEN IT I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 8 -: CAME TO NOTICE THAT CERTAIN CREDITS AND INVESTMENT S ARE NOT PROPERLY EXPLAINED. 5. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. THERE ARE CERTAIN ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION WHICH WAS AVAILABLE WITH T HE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES IN THE FORM OF EARLIER RETURNS OF INCOM E AND FINANCIAL STATEMENT ATTACHED THEREOF. IN OUR OPINION, ADDI TIONS COULD BE MADE IN THE CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS (ASSESSMENT YE ARS WHICH WERE NOT ABATED) ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OF FICER DID NOT FOUND ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WARRANTING ADDITION. BE ING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE AD DITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IF ANY FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, REGARDING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DISCLOSED BY SHEEBA PRINCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12, IF T HE SAID CASH BELONGS TO HER FAMILY MEMBERS, ADDITION CANNOT BE M ADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE (SHEENA PRINCE) IF IT IS DISCLOSED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RETURN OF INCOME. REGARDING JEWELLERY, WE MAKE IT C LEAR THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED JEWELLERY IN THE REG ULAR RETURN OF INCOME, IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION IN ASS ESSMENT COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT. ACCORD INGLY, WE DIRECT THE I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 9 -: ASSESSING OFFICER TO PASS FRESH ORDER IN THE LIGHT OF THE ORDER OF THE SPECIAL BENCH IN THE CASE OF ALL CARGO GLOBAL LOGISTICS LTD (CITED SUPRA ). WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS, ALL THESE APPEALS FILE D BY THE ASSESSEES ARE REMITTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING COURS E OF SEARCH ACTION IN THESE CASES. THUS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 6. COMING TO THE ITA NO.2745/MDS/2014, THE ISSUE IN TH IS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.271(1) (C) OF TH E ACT. 7. THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE DIRECTOR OF M/S. PRINCE GEM & JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERV ED THAT THE ASSESSEES TWO MINOR SONS I.E ANTONY PRINCE AND JOS EPH PRINCE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS BY CASH OF I2,65,000/- EACH FROM ONE MR. T.P. JOSEPH BUT WHEN ASKED TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GIFTS WIT H SUPPORTING EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF GIFT DE EDS DEVOID OF ADDRESS OF THE DONOR. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE AGREED FOR THE ADDITION OF I5,30,000/- SUBJECT TO NOT TO INITIATE PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT, THE SAME WAS ADDED TO ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AND PENALTY PROCEE DINGS U/S.271(1) I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 10 -: (C) OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AND LEVIED PENALTY OF I1,61,733/-. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 8. ON APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) CONFIRMED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSE E FAILED TO OFFER SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WITH REGARD TO THE GIFTS AMOUNTING TO I5,30,000/- SUPPOSED TO HAVE BEE N RECEIVED FROM ONE MR. T.P. JOSEPH. IT WAS ALSO SEEN THAT THE ASS ESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER ARE BASED ON FACTS AND SOUND LOGIC. DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FAILED TO SUBSTANTIAT E WITH ANY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFTS. IN VI EW OF THE ABOVE, THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED IN LEV YING THE PENALTY OF I1,61,733/- U/S.271(1) (C) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1) (C), IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX OR COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), IN THE COU RSE OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE ACT, IS SATISFIED THAT ANY PE RSON HAS EITHER CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR (II) FUR NISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME, HE MAY, IN ADDITION TO THE TAX, IF ANY PAYABLE, DIRECT THAT SUCH PERSON SHALL PAY BY WAY O F PENALTY A SUM I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 11 -: WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN, BUT WHICH SHALL NOT E XCEED THREE TIMES, THE AMOUNT OF TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED BY REASON OF CONCEALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME OR THE FURNISHING OF INAC CURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME. THE EXPLANATIONS OF 271(1)(C) HAVE BE EN HELD TO BE AN INTEGRAL PART OF THE ABOVE SECTION. WHILE CONSIDERI NG AN APPEAL AGAINST AN ORDER MADE U/S. 271(1)(C), WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE EXAMINED IS THE RECORD WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSING PENALTY HAD BEFORE HIM AND IF THAT RECORD CAN SUSTAIN THE FINDING THAT THE RE HAS BEEN CONCEALMENT, THAT WOULD BE SUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN TH E PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED THE INCOME AT I93,02,420/- (I NCLUDING AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF I2,50,000/-). HOWEVER, DUR ING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITIO NS TO THE TUNE OF I5,30,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF I93,02,420/- WHILE DOING SO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FUR NISH THE FRESH CONFIRMATION FROM THE DONOR AND TO PROVE IDENTITY A ND CAPACITY F THE DONOR. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED IDENTITY AND CA PACITY OF THE DONOR WITH ANY COGENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. AS PER THE EXPLANATION 1 CONTAINED IN SECTION 271(1) (C) WHICH IS SELF-CONTAINED IN THE SENSE THAT IT TREATS EVERY DIFFERENCE BETWEEN T HE REPORTED AND THE ASSESSED INCOME AS CONCEALED INCOME. BUT, AT THE S AME TIME, IT PROVIDES THE CRITERIA WHERE PENALTY WOULD BE WARRA NTED. PENALTY WAS I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 12 -: LEVIABLE FOR CONCEALMENT, WHERE AN ASSESSEE FAILS T O OFFER ANY EXPLANATION FOR THE DIFFERENCE OR OFFERS AN EXPLANA TION, WHICH WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE. IN THESE CASES, PENALTY CAN BE TREATED AS MANDATORY. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US . 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD. IN THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE SAID TO HAVE RECEIVED CASH OF I5,30,000/- AS GIFT IN THE NAME OF MINOR SO NS (I.E I2,65,000/- EACH FROM HIS SONS JOSEPH PRINCE AND ANTONY PRINC E). THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO PROPERLY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE. THE AS SESSING OFFICER STATED THAT THE GIFT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE FROM A PERSON WHO IS A CLOSE RELATIVE TO HIM. ACCORDING TO THE A SSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED A GIFT DEED ON THE STAMP PAPER OF I2 0/- WHICH WAS PURCHASED ON 27.05.2006 AND THIS DOCUMENT DOES NOT HAVE COMPLETE ADDRESS OF THE DONOR AND THE GIFT WHICH WAS ISSUED IN THE FORM OF CASH ONLY. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT HE RECEIVED THE GIFT FROM SHRI. T.P. JOSEPH WHO IS HIS CLOSE RELATIVE. AFTER VERIFYING ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. BEING SO, IN OUR OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE MADE U/S.153A OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND LEVYING OF PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF SOME RECORD WHICH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PROPER. BEING SO, I.T.A.NOS. 2739 TO 2749/MDS/2014 :- 13 -: IN OUR OPINION LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED CON SEQUENT TO ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE PENALTY IS DELETED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEES IN ITA NOS.2739, 2740, 2741, 2742, 2743, 2744, 2746, 2747, 2748, 274 9/MDS/2014 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND ITA NO. 2745/MDS/2014 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 25 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2015, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . ! ) V. DURGA RAO ' / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ /CHENNAI. %& /DATED:25.06.2015. KV &' () *) /COPY TO: 1. + APPELLANT 2. / RESPONDENT 3. , ( )/CIT(A) 4. , /CIT 5. )-. / /DR 6. .0 1 /GF.