Sri.Pelexy K. Varghese, Muvattupuzha V. The DCIT, Cochin

ITA 276/COCH/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6267 (ITAT-COCHIN)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 10 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 10-04-2019
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR JHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T M SREEDHARAN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Capital asset; Depreciation; Document seized; Period of limitation; Onus to prove; Reason to believe; Documents seized; Revenue expenditure; Capital expenditure
• Section: 69C; 153A; 143(1); 68; 27; 132

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH, COCHIN BEFOR E S/ SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI , AM & GEORGE GEORGE K., J M I .T . A. NO S . 270 TO 27 6/COCH/ 201 6 ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 SHRI PELEXY K. VARGHESE, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMBU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. [PAN :ADOPV 2015D] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1 , ERNAKULAM. (ASSESSEE - APPELLANT) ( REVENUE - RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY SHRI T.M. SREEDHARAN, SR. ADV. AND SMT. DIVYA RAVINDRAN, ADV. REVENUE BY SHRI SUDHANSHU SHEKHAR JHA, CIT(DR) D ATE OF HEARING 10 / 0 4 / 201 9 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30 / 0 4 /201 9 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, AM: TH E SE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE. CIT (A) - IV, KOCHI DATED 30/03/2016 AND PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 1 3. 2. SINCE THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON, THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE LEGAL ISSUE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 2 LEGAL ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND GAVE PARTIAL RELIEF ON THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 3 . THE FIRST GROUND IN ITA NOS. 270 TO 274/COCH/201 6 IS WITH REGARD TO THE CONDITION REQUIRED FOR FRAM ING THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C OF THE ACT NOT BEING SATISFIED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11. 3. 1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEES BROTHER ELDHOSE VARGHESE ON 02/11/2011, BA SED ON THE WARRANT ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SHRI JOHN KURIAKOSE, THE BROTHER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSEE, WHERE CERTAIN DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED WHICH WERE ENUMERATED AS UNDER: (I) SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS CHN/11/22/RR/A - 3 IS A COPY OF PUR CHASE DEED ON A STAMP PAPERS OF RS.50,000/ - DATED 10/12/2007 FOR PURCHASE OF LANDED PROPERTY OF 1 ACRE 51 CENTS IN S. NOS.342/1 AND 340/3 AT VALAKAM, MUVATTAPUZHA BY MRS. SHAINY PELEXY, ASSESSEES WIFE. (II) SEIZED DOCUMENT MARKED AS CHN/11/22/RR/A - 6 IS A PURCHASE DEED ON STAMP PAPERS OF RS.30,000/ - DATED 03/07/2007 FOR PURCHASE OF 1 ACRE 101/4 CENTS AT KALLOORKAD BY THE ASSESSEE. 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A DATED 30/08/2012 BY VIRTUE OF 2 ND PROVISO TO SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT, AS INSERTED BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2012 W.E.F. 01/07/2012, WHICH READS AS UNDER: I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 3 THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY RULES MADE BY IT AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR ASSESSING OR REASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE ANY ASSESSMENT OR RE - ASSESSMENT HAS ABATED . 3.2 IN REPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE RETURNS OF INCOME ALREADY FILED BE TREATED AS THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 153C. THE RETURNS OF INCO ME FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN FILED AS BELOW: A.Y. DATE OF FILING 2006 - 07 31/03/2007 2007 - 08 29/02/2009 2008 - 09 29/02/2008 2009 - 10 30/09/2009 2010 - 11 16/09/2010 2011 - 12 07/03/2012 2012 - 13 18/09/2013 3.3 THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME RE TURNED AND THE INCOME ASSESSED ARE AS UNDER: A.Y. RETURNED INCOME(RS.) ASSESSED INCOME (RS.) 2006 - 07 92 , 274 2,87,980 2007 - 08 3,07,830 23,47,450 2008 - 09 1,35,460 44,66,120 2009 - 10 4,00,710 76,68,610 2010 - 11 7,6 9 ,907 43,55, 030 2011 - 12 78,06,250 3,58,86,650 2012 - 13 6, 0 9,810 40,62,000 3.4 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT REGULAR ASSESSMENTS FOR THESE YEARS HAVE ACQUI RED FINALITY AND WERE NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 4 ISSU ANC E OF NOTICE U/S. 153C TO THE ASSESSEE WAS I LLEGAL IN THE ABSENCE OF DETECTION OF ANY UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OR ASSETS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND T HE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C WERE ALSO ILLEGAL SINCE THE CONDITIONS FOR INITIATION OF ACTION U/S. 153 C WERE NOT SATISFIED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT P ROCEEDINGS U/S..153C IS INITIATED AGAINST A PERSON WHERE THE 'ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQU ISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESSEE OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A.' IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER S P ASSED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE ALSO DOES NOT REFER TO ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DISCOVERED OR AS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH EVIDENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ILLEGAL AND IS WITHOUT JU RISDICTION. 3.5 IN THIS CONNECTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE APPELLANT IS ALREADY AN ASSESSEE BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, THODUPUZHA IN PA NO.ADQPV2015D AND IS REGULARLY ASSESSED BY THAT OFFICER. THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 ARE AS UNDER : I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 5 ASST. YEAR DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN 2006 - 07 31.05.2007 2007 - 08 29.02.2009 2008 - 09 19.12.2008 2009 - 10 30.11.2009 2010 - 11 16.09.2010 2011 - 12 07.03.2012 2012 - 13 26.01.2014 3.6 IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT A S PER SEC. 143(2), WHERE A RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED U/S 139, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL, WHERE HE HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY CLAIM OF LOSS/EXEMPTION/DEDUCT I ON MADE, IN THE RETURN IS INADMISSIBLE, SERVE ON THE ASSESSEE NOT I CE U/S.143(2) , T O PRODUCE EVIDENCE OR PARTICULARS IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLA IM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT A S PER THE PROVISO TO CLAUSE - (II) OF SUB SEC.(2), NO NOTICE UNDER CL AUSE (II) SHALL BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE EXPIRY OF 6 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED - VIDE THE PROVISO ADDED WITH EFFECT FROM 01 .04 . 2008. PRIOR TO THE A B OVE SUBSTITUTION, THE PERIOD FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE WAS 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN IS FURNISHED. GOING BY THE ABOVE PROVISI ONS, THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/ S. 143(2) FOR THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT YEARS EXPIRED AS SHOWN BELOW: - A.Y FILING OF RETURN ONE YEAR FROM END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN I S FILED SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FIN. YEAR 2006 - 07 31.5.2 007 31.5.2008 - 2007 - 08 29.02.2008 29.02.200 9 - 2008 - 09 19.12.2008 - 30.09.2009 I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 6 2009 - 10 16.09.2009 - 30.09.2009 2010 - 11 16.09.2010 - 30.09.2011 3.7 IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT I N ALL THE ABOVE 5 YEARS, THE RETURN S OF INCOME HA D AC QUIRED FINALITY AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, NAMELY, 0 2.11.2011 BY PASSAGE OF TIME FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2). THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13 WERE COMPLETED IN THE NORMAL COURSE AFTER THE SEARCH ON 0 2.11.2011, BUT T HE PROVISIONS OF SEC.153C CANNOT BE APPL IED TO THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR THESE YEARS CAN BE COMPLETED ONLY IN THE NORMAL COURSE AND THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE SEPARATELY CHALLENGED ON DIFFER ENT GROUNDS. 3.8 SINCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME PRIOR TO THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH HAD A CQUIRED FINALITY BY WAY OF ACCEPTANCE OF RETURN S U/S 143(1) AND SINCE THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION FOR ISSU ANCE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) HAD EXPIRED, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO PENDING ASSESSMENTS WHICH WOULD ABATE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. AS A CONSEQUENCE THEREOF, AS PER THE SECOND PROVISO TO SEC.153A, SUCH ASSESSMENTS SHALL NOT ABATE. IN OTHER WORDS, IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT N O ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT BY RECOURSE TO SEC.153A. I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 7 3.9 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR 2006 - 07 AND REMAINING YEARS, THE LD. AR SUBM ITTED THAT THE DOCUMENTS MARKED AS CHN/11/22/RR - A1 TO CHN/11/22/RR - A6 RELATE D TO PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY VALUED AT RS.5,00,000/ - BY THE ASSESSEE'S WIFE SMT. SHINY PELEXY ON 10.12.2007 AND ANOTHER PROPERTY FOR RS.1,00,000 / - BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10.12.2007. SUCH REGISTERED DOCUMENTS FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CANNOT BY ANY STRETCH OF IMAGINATION, BE REGARDED AS DOCUMENTS DISCLOSING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IN ORDER TO CONFER JURISDICTION TO INVOKE SEC.153C. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD RECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT SUCH DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO A PE RSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. IN THAT EVENT, SUCH DOCUMENTS, ASSETS ETC . SEIZED OR REQUISITION SHALL BE HA NDE D OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSO N AND ISSUE NOTICES ETC. HOWEVER, IN ASSESSEES CASE, NONE OF THESE STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS WERE SATISFIED. 3.9.1 FOR THE LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT ONLY PENDING ASSESSMENTS WOULD ABATE U/S 153A, APART FROM THE STATUTORY PROVISION CONTAINED IN SEC.153A , THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASE LAW : (I) LMJ INTERNATIONAL LTD . V S. DEPUTY CIT (2008) 119 TTJ (KOL.) 214 ( II) MEGHMANI ORGANICS LTD. V S. D CIT (2010) 129 TTJ (AHD.) 255. (III) GURUPREMA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI V S. ACIT ( ITAT MUMBAI BENCH IN I.T.A. NOS.255 TO 257(MUM.)/2010 IN PAGE AT PARAGRAPH - 15, THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AS UNDER; - 'IN VIEW OF THESE DECISIONS OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCHES, WE HAVE TO NECESSARILY HOLD THAT ONLY THE ASSESSMENTS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMPLET ION SHALL ABATE AND THAT UNDER SEC.153A , THE ISSUES DECIDED N THE ASSESSMENT CANNOT BE RECONSIDERED AND RE - ADJUDICATED, I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 8 UNLESS THERE IS SOME FRESH MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN RELATION TO SUCH POINTS. AS IN THIS CASE, THE UNDISPUTED FACT I S THAT, THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED IN THE SEARCH, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH. THOUGH ON THE LEGAL ISSUE, WE HAVE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSES, AS T HE CASE WAS HEARD AT LENGTH ON MERITS WE ADJUDICATE THE SAME'. THUS IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FRESH ASSESSMENT MADE BY RECOURSE TO SEC.153C ARE ILLEGAL WITH RESPECT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 AND THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE ALSO NOT BASED ON ANY MATERIALS WHATSOEVER FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE ADDITIONS ARE MADE ON ASSUMPTIONS AND SURMISES. 3.9.2 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THER E HAS BEEN A DIRECT LINKAGE BETWEEN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED, AND THE TRAN SACTIONS/INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132, IN THE PREMISES OF SRI ELDHOSE VARGHESE . THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE JURISDICTIONAL ASSESSING OF FICER AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE RECORDED HIS SUGGESTION THAT THE DOCUMENTS BELONGED TO T H E PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE C ASE S WERE CENTRALISED FOR THOROUGH ANALYSIS AND CONSOLIDATED INVESTIGATION, WITH ONE OFFICER, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE IT ACT AND TH E CHANGE IN JURISDICTION HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PAST. RATHER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153C HAVE BEEN RE PLIED BY THE ASSESSEE REQUEST ING THAT THE RE TURNS ALREADY FILED BE TREATED AS TO HAVE BEEN FILED IN RESPONSE I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 9 TO THE NOTICES U/S 153C. AS REGARDS THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DRAWN BEFORE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT WAS CONCERNED, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE SAME HA D CLEARLY BEEN MENTIONE D IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEREBY THE NATURE OF THE DOCUMENT SEIZED HA D BEEN ENUMERATED AND THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 153C HA D ALSO BEEN MENTIONED. REGARDING TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) , THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT T HERE IS NOTH ING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH SUGGESTS OF ANY OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED THE SUPPRESSION OF INCOME, WHICH APPEAR ED IN THE SWORN STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH ON 02.11.2011, THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS CHN/11/22/RR/A - (1) TO CHN/11/22/RR - A6 ARE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO PURCHASE AND SALE OF PLOT, WHERE A PROFIT OF RS.5,00,000/ - WAS EARNED DURING THE A.Y 2008 - 09, WHICH WERE NOT SHOWN IN THE RETURN. FURTHER, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.14, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE AGREE D THAT THERE HAPPENED SOME MISTAKES EARLIER,' WILL FILE RETURNS SHOWING HIGHER INCOME OF THE LAST TWO YEARS AND CORRECT INCOME WILL BE SHOWN IN MY RETURN IN FUTURE IS ASSURED.' FOR THE A .Y 2011 - 12, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RETURNED AN INCOME OF RS.78,06,250/ - , WHICH IN ITSELF WAS AN EVIDENCE SUGGESTING NON DISCLOSURE OF CORRECT AND TRUE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. FOR THE A.YS 2007 - 08 AND 2008 - 09, THERE HAVE BEEN APPARENT SUPPRESSIO N OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.13,59,170/ - AND RS.4,61,554/ - , WHICH COULD BE BROUGHT OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON RECORD ONLY BY COMPARING FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE ENTITY AWARDING CONTRACT TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE HAVE BEEN DIRECT LINKAGE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING A.Y 2007 - 08 AND ONWARDS. I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 10 3.9.3 IN THE BACK GROUND OF THE FACTUAL DETAILS IN THE FORM OF ADMISSION IN THE SWORN STATEMENT BY THE APPELLANT, THE SEIZED MATERIALS SHOWING UNRECORDED BUSINESS TRANSAC TIONS IN LAND AND THE PROFIT NOT DISCLOSED, AS WELL AS THE SUPPRESSION OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS GATHERED FROM THE INFORMATION SUBMITTED BY THE ENTITY AWARDING CONTRACT TO THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) JUSTIFIED THE CORRECTNESS OF ISSUING THE NOTICES U/S 153C BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE OBJECTIONS RAISED ON THE LEGALITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED WITH THE NOTICE U/S 153C WERE REJECTED . 3.9.4 AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 3.9.5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE NOT PENDING. CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ELDHOSE VARGHESE ON 02 /11/2011, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND WHICH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INVOKED. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AR, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE RETURNS PRIOR THE DATE OF SEARCH AN D THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE REACHED FINALITY EITHER DUE TO THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RETURNS U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT OR ON ACCOUNT OF PERIOD OF LIMITATION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT , THEREFORE, NO ASSESSMENT COULD BE FRAMED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR. THE ASSESSMENT I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 11 OR RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT ARISES ONLY WHEN SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED AND CONDUCTED. THEREFORE, SUCH ASSESSMENT HAS A VITAL LINK WITH THE INITIATION AND CONDUCT OF SE ARCH. READING OF SECTION 153C R.W.S. 153A MAKES IT CLEAR THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN A SEARCH U/S. 132 OR REQUISITIONED U/S. 132A, BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PE RSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SETION 153A . IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE LD. DR IS NOT ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH SO AS TO IMITATE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THERE IS NO INCRIM INATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT FRAME ASSESSMENT U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153 A OF THE ACT. 3.9.6 THIS ISSUE CAME UP FOR CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OIF CIT VS. PROMY KURIAKOSE (386 ITR 597) (KER.) WHEREIN IT WAS HELD AS UNDER: 10. A COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 153A AND 153C REVEAL THAT JURISDICTION U NDER SECTION 153C CAN BE INVOKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ONLY WHEN MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS ARE SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED AND IT IS FOUND THAT THE SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED ARTICLES BELONGS, OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A. IN SUCH A CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL HAND OVER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAVING JURISDICTION OVER I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 12 SUCH OTHER PERSON. THEREUPON, IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON BY ISSUING NOTICE AND COMPLETE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS AS THE CASE MAY BE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH SECTION 153 A. THEREFORE, THE FUNDAMENTAL JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT FOR INVOKING THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 153C IS THE SEIZURE OR REQUISITIONING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS WHICH BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A. OT HERWISE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO JURISDICTION AT ALL TO PROCEED UNDER SECTION 153C. THEREFORE, THE CONCLUSION OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SEARCH MATERIAL, PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C CANNOT BE INITIATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHICH FI NDING IS CONSISTENT WITH THE PRECEDENTS REFERRED TO BY THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF, DOES NOT SPELL OUT ANY ILLEGALITY. 3.9.7 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 HAD ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED OR THE TIME LIMIT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENTS HAS LAPSED AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN UNEARTH ED DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI ELDHOSE VARGHESE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 153C CANNOT BE FRAMED IN THE CASE OF TH E PRESENT ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11 ARE BAD IN LAW. THUS, WE SQUASH THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2010 - 11. 3.9.8 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSMENTS ARE PENDING FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENTS U/S. 153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. THUS, WE UPHOLD THE JURISDICTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011 - 12 AND 2012 - 13. I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 13 3.9.9 . SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE LEGAL ISSUE OF THE ASSESSEE, WE REFRAIN FROM GOING INTO OTHER GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 270 TO 274/COCH/2016 ARE ALL OWED. 4 . COMING TO THE FIRST GROUND IN ITA NOS. 275&276 /COCH/2016, IT IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION MADE TO INCOME U/S. 69C OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SHORTAGE . 4 .1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011 - 12, THE ASSESSEE HAD RE CEIVED AMOUNTS FROM THE FOLLOWING RELATIVES: AMOUNT FROM K.P. VARGHESE (FATHER) RS. 20,00,000.00 AMOUNT FROM SOSAMMA VARGHESE (MOTHER) RS. 20,00,000.00 AMOUNT FROM SHINY PELEXY) (WIFE) RS. 30,00, 000.00 AMOUNT FROM ANNIE BINU (SISTER) RS. 20,00,000.00 AMOUNT FROM BINUMON VARGHESE RS. 20,00,000.00 (BROTHER - IN - LAW) TOTAL RS.1,10,00,000.00 THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER ADDED RS.1,10,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS FROM RELATIVES AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF R.1,15,00,000/ - OUT OF WHICH RS. 5 LAKHS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4.2 ON APPEAL, THE CIT( A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO CONSIDER A SUM OF RS.25,00,000/ - AS EXPLAINED AND TO RE - DRAW THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. 4 .3 AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WITH REGARD TO LOAN OF RS. 20 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM THE FATHER OF THE ASS ESSEE, SHRI K.O. VARGHESE, IT WAS STATED I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 14 THAT HIS FATHER WAS A RETIRED CO - OP EMPLOYEE. AS REGARDS THE LOAN OF RS.20 LAKHS FROM SMT. SOSAMMA VARGHESE, THE MOTHER OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED THAT SHE WAS A HOUSEWIFE AND DEALS IN PINEAPPLE. IN RESPECT OF LOAN FROM SHRI ELDHOSE VARGHESE, ASSESSEES BROTHER AT RS.5 LAKHS , IT WAS STATED THAT HE IS THE MANAGING PARTNER OF M /S. WHITELINE M ARKETING ASSOCIATES. WITH REGARD TO LOAN OF RS.30 LAKHS FROM SMT. SHINY PELEXY, WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED THAT S HE WAS AN ADVOCATE. WITH RESPECT TO LOAN OF RS.20 LAKHS FROM ANNIE BINU, SISTER OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS STATED THAT SHE WAS A STAFF NURSE AT UK. REGARDING LOAN FROM SHRI BINUMON VARGHESE, BROTHER - IN - LAW OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.20 LAKHS , IT WAS STATED THAT OUT OF THE LOAN OF RS.20 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS.2.65 LAKHS AS MONEY FROM THE NRE ACCOUNT OF SHRI BINUMON VARGHESE, AND BALANCE SUM OF RS.17.35 LAKHS AS CASH ON VARIOUS DATES. IT WAS ALSO STATED THAT OUT OF THE CASH RECEIVED, RS. 2 LAKHS WAS REC EIVED DIRECTLY FROM SHRI BINUMON VARGHESE AND THE BALANCE OF RS.15.35 LAKHS ON VARIOUS DATES FROM HIS FATHER SHRI V.V. VARGHESE ON BEHALF OF HIM. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES HAD FILED RETURNS OF INCOME AND ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS. 4.4 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE AMOUNT S RECEIVED FROM HIS FATHER, MOTHER, WIFE, SISTER AND BROTHER - IN - LAW ARE SUPPORTED BY CONFIRMATION LETTERS. HOWEVER, THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED ONLY CONFIRMATION LETTER S WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY CO RROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO THE ASSESSEE TO S UBSTANTIATE THE CA PACITY O F I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 15 THESE PERS ONS TO ADVANCE THE ABOVE AMOUNTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS GROUND OF APPEALS IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURP O SES. 5 . THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NOS. 275 / COCH/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE WRITTEN OFF FROM TOOLS AND EQUIPMENTS AT RS.28,460/ - . 5 .1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD WRITTEN OFF PETTY TOOLS AND EQUIPMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.28,460/ - . ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THIS PRACTICE IS NOT AS PER THE PREVAILING PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND CANNOT BE ALLO WED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED THE PETTY TOOLS AND EQUIPMENT WRITTEN OFF AT RS.28,460/ - TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5 .2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE ON PETTY T OOLS AND EQUIPMENTS. WE FIND THAT THE EXPENDITURE TOWARDS TOOLS AND EQUIPMENTS ARE INCURRED FOR CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OPERATION OF THE ASSESSEE AS A CONTRACTOR AND HENCE, IT IS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. BEING SO, WE ARE INCLINED TO ALLOW T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 6 . TH E NEXT COMMON GROUND IN ITA NOS. 275/COCH/2016 AND 276/COCH/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON CAPITALIZATION OF SCAFFOLDINGS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.2,87,652/ - . I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 16 6 .1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SCAFFOLD SYSTEMS FOR RS.17,59,648/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE SCAFFOLD SYSTEMS ARE CAPITAL ASSETS IN NATURE GIVING THE ASSESSEE ENDURING BENEFIT OVER A PERIOD OF TIME AND THEREFORE, THE SAID EXPENSES OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CAPITALIZED ON WHICH DEPRECIATION IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AT 15%. SINCE THE EXPENSES ON SCAFFOLDING SYSTEM WAS DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN 27/10/2011 AND 10/01/2012 WHICH IS FOR LESS THAN 180 DAYS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALLOWED DEPRECIATION AT 7.5 % AT RS.1,31,975/ - . 6 .2 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE DETAILS REGARDING NATURE OF SCAFFOLDINGS, BILLS FOR PURCHASES OF SUCH SCAFFOLDINGS AND THE ANNUAL REQUIREMENT OF SUCH SCAFFOLDINGS VIS - - VIS THE QUANTUM OF THE CONTRACT WORK. HENCE, THE CIT(A) C ONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ON THIS GROUND FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6 .3 AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SCAFFOLDINGS ARE ONLY ROLLING STO CK AND REPLACEMENTS OF OLD AND WORN OUT MATERIAL DUE TO REPEATED USE BY FRESH PURCHASES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SCAFFOLDINGS ARE NOT A FIXED ASSET AND THE REPLACEMENT COST IS ADMISSIBLE AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE. 6 .4 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER O F THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 17 6 .5 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF CONTRACT WORK. THESE MATERIALS ARE PURCHASED ON REGULAR BASIS AND THE LIFE OF THESE MATERIALS IS SHORT AND WORN OUT BY 3 TO 4 Y EARS. HENCE, IT CANNOT BE CAL LED A CAPITAL EXPENDITURE. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS TO BE TREATED AS REVENUE EXPENDITURE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. THIS GROUND OF APPEALS IS ALLOWED. 7 . THE NEXT COMMON GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO ADHOC DISALLOWANCE OF OTH ER EXPENSES OF RS.3,00,000/ - FOR AY 2011 - 12 AND RS. 5,00,000/ - FOR AY 2012 - 13. 7 .1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADHOC DISALLOWANCE BECAUSE THE PURCHASES WERE NOT SUPPORTED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVI DENCES. EVEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) , THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED SUCH DOCUMENTS. THE ONLY EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE ADHOC AND HENCE, ARBITRARY AND NOT ACCEPTABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ON THIS GROUND FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 7 .2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THESE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON AD HOC BASIS AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED THE REQUISITE EVIDENCES. T HE ASSESSEE IS A CONTRACTOR AND IT IS VERY DIFFICULT TO GET 100% VOUCHERS AND RECEIPTS FOR THE EXPENSES. TAKING A LENIENT VIEW, WE RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.2 LAKHS FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 18 8. GROUND NO. 9 IN ITA NO. 275/COCH/2016 WHICH RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF RS.4,11,460/ - WITHOUT RESTRICTING THE ALLOWANCE TO A PART THEREOF WAS NOT PRESSED AND HENCE, IT IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 9 . THE NEXT GROUND IS WITH REGARD TO DIS ALLOWANCE OF LOAN CREDIT FOR A.Y. 2011 - 12 AT RS.3,50,000/ - AND RS.1,00,000/ - FROM SHRI SALIM JACOB AND RS.7,79,000/ - FROM P.K. KURIAKOSE FOR AY 2012 - 13. 9 .1 THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN UNSECURED LOANS AS FOLLOWS: AY 2011 - 12 (I) P.K. KURIAKOSE RS.2,00,000/ - (II) SHIBU K. SCARIA RS.1,50,000/ - RS.3,50,000/ - AY 2012 - 13 (I) SALIM JACOB RS.1,00,000/ - (II) P.K. KURI AKOSE RS.7,79,000 / - RS.8,79,000/ - 9 .2 THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE BURDEN OF PROOF CAST ON THE ASSESSEE FOR EXPLAINING THE CASH IN HIS ACCOUNT AS ENVISAGED U/S. 68 OF THE ACT WAS NOT DISCHARG ED. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE ABOVE PERSONS SHOWING THEIR IDENTITY, CAPACITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS . THEREFORE, HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,50,000/ - U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012 - 13, THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEI V ED I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 19 R S .1,00,000/ - FROM MR. SA LIM JACOB. SINCE T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCHARGED THE B URDEN OF PROOF CAST ON HIM U/S. 68 OF THE ACT , THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM OF RS.1,00,000/ - IN THE NAME OF SH RI SALIM JACOB IS AN UNSECURED LOAN WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ACCORDINGLY, HE ADDED RS.1,00,000/ - TO THE INCO M E OF THE ASSESSEE. 9 .3 ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THE GEN UINENESS OF THE SUCH CREDITS. HENCE, HE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS . 9 .4. AGAINST THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE SECOND ADDITION OF RS.7,79,000/ - IS THE R EDUCED BALANCE IN THE ACCOUNT OF MR. KURIAKOSE AS ON 31/03/2012. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM MR. KURIAKOSE WAS BY WAY OF DEPOSIT OF RS. 8 LAKHS IN THE FEDERAL BANK LTD. AGAINST WHICH A PAYMENT BY CHEQUE TO KURIAKOSE FROM THE S A ME ACCOUNT WAS R E DUCED AND THE NET BALANCE WAS RS.7,79,000/ - . SINCE THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS A RE B ANK TRA N SACTIONS AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME AS CASH CREDITS. 9 .5 THE LD. DR RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE L OWER AUTHORITIES. 9 .6 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUB MISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD . AR IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER S FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES , HOWEVER, THEY WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND PRA YED THAT I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 20 ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY MAY BE GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUE MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. WE FIND M ERIT IN TH E PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, WE REMIT THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER TO EX A MINE THE PART I ES ONCE AGAIN SO AS TO PROVE T HE IDENTITY, CAPACITY, C REDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF T HE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. THUS, THIS GROUND OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 0 . THE NEXT GROUND IN ITA NOS. 275/ C O CH/2016 AND 275/COCH/2016 IS WITH REGARD TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, B & C OF THE ACT WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL AND MANDATORY IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. THIS GROUND OF APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE DISMISSED. THUS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 275&276/COCH/2016 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSE E IN I TA NOS. 270 - 274 ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 275 & 276/COCH/2016 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 30 TH APRIL , 2019 SD/ - SD/ - (GEORGE GEORGE K.) (CHANDRA POOJARI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PLACE: KOCHI DATED: 30 TH APRIL , 2019 GJ COPY TO: I.T.A. NOS.270 TO 276/COCH/2016 21 1 . SHR I PELEXY K. VARGHESE, KOCHUKUDIYIL HOUSE, MEKKADAMBU P.O., MUVATTUPUZHA. 2. THE DE P UTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1 , ERNAKULAM. 3 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (AP P EALS) - IV , KO CHI. 4. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, KO CHI. 5 . D. R., I.T.A.T., C OCHIN BENCH, COCHIN. 6 . GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) I.T.A.T., COCHIN