Dr.P.Ravichandran, CHENNAI V. ACIT, CHENNAI

ITA 2917/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4743 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 27-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUPRIYO PAL
• Assessee Lawyers: G BASKAR
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 153A

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, CHENNAI , . , # $ BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 2917, 2918, 2919,2920, 2921, 2922 & 2923/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 DR. P. RAVICHANDRAN, NO. 3, OLD NO. 2, SECOND LINK STREET, RAGHAVA REDDY COLONY, CHENNAI - 600 083. [PAN: AAHPR 0455M] VS . ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE IV(3), NO. 46, MAHATMA GANDHI ROAD, CHENNAI - 600 034. ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) & ' / APPELLANT BY : SHRI G. BASKAR, ADVOCATE *+& ' / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUPRIYO PAL, JCIT ' /DATE OF HEARING : 12.04.2017 ' /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.04.2017 /O R D E R PER G. PAVAN KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE COMMO N ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, APPEALS (CENTRAL)-I, IN ITA NO. 41 TO 45 & 47/2013-14 DATED 24.09.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 TO 2006-07 & 2008-09 AND ITA NO. 46/2013-14 DATED 24.09.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR :-2-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 2007-08 PASSED U/S. 271(1)(C) AND 250 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SINCE, THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN ALL THE APPEALS EXCEPT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09, WHERE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT WERE DEALT AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE TAKE UP THE ITA NO. 2917/MDS/2014 A ND FACTS NARRATED IN THE APPEAL. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: (A) THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A PPEALS), DATED 24.9.2014 IS ERRONEOUS, CONTRARY TO LAW AND L IABLE TO BE QUASHED IN FULL. (B) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1) (C) OF T HE ACT. HE OUGHT TO HAVE NOTED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS WERE THEMSELVES CON TRARY TO LAW BARRED BY LIMITED AND RE THUS LIABLE TO BE CANCELLE D IN FULL. (C) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOT NOTING THAT THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT HAD ITSELF BEEN BASED ON VARIOUS MATERIALS OBTAINED AND UTILIZED BEHIND THE APPELLAN T'S BACK. THE MATTERS RELIED UPON IN ASSESSMENT HAD NOT BEEN PUT TO THE A PPELLANT FOR RESPONSE. THIS VITIATES THE ASSESSMENT AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY THEREUPON IS ALSO CONSEQUENTLY VITIATED IN LAW AND ON FACTS. (D) IN ANY EVENT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A PPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS SU BSTANTIATED ALL ISSUES IN FULL AND HAS PRODUCED VARIOUS EVIDENCES B EFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AT THE TIME OF QUANTUM ASSESSMENT. THE LEVY OF PENALTY THUS OUGHT NOT TO HAVE BEEN UPHELD AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN DOING SO. :-3-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 (E) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FURTH ER ERRED IN NOT NOTING THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN COMP LETED ONLY BASED ON ESTIMATES. IN SO FAR AS THE ADDITIONS IN QUANTUM WERE WHOLLY BASED ON ESTIMATES AND NO CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHING OF IN ACCURATE FACTS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE PROVISIONS OF S.271 (1) (C) WOULD NOT BE APPLICABLE. (F) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) PROCE EDS ON THE MERE FACT THAT THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) IN QUANTUM HAS NOT BEEN CONTESTED. THIS CANNOT BE T HE BASIS OF PENALTY. THE PROVISIONS OF S.271 (1) (C) REQUIRE TH AT THE DEPARTMENT SUBSTANTIATE THE FACTUM OF CONCEALMENT OR FURNISHIN G OF INACCURATE FACTS BY AN ASSESSEE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THE PRESE NT CASE. THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT AND THEREAFTER PROCEEDINGS FOR REMAND BE FORE THE ASSESSMENT OFFICER IN THE COURSE OF QUANTUM APPELLA TE PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED ONLY ON ESTIMATES, ASSUMPTIONS AND P RESUMPTIONS. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF THE CONDITIONS OF S.271 (1) (C) BEING SATISFIED THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS WHOLLY CONTRARY TO LAW AND T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME. (G) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN INVOKING THE EXPLANATION I TO 271 (1) (C) IN SO FAR AS THE A SSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT INVOKE THE SAME. (H) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ERRED IN NOTING THAT NO EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT. I N FACT, IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE APPELLANT HAS FULLY EXPLAINED ALL THE ISS UES RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND THUS INVOKING EXPLANATION 1 IN S.271 (1) (C) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND FACT. (I) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) THUS ERRS IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE ESTIMATE OF I NCOME ALLEGEDLY :-4-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 EARNED BY WAY OF SURGERY AND INVESTED IN MOVABLE AN D IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES. (J) ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED AT THE TIM E OF PERSONAL HEARING. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSE E IS A DOCTOR AND SPECIALISED NEPHROLOGIST AND UTILIZING THE FACILITI ES AVAILABLE AT ST. THOMAS HOSPITAL FOR PRE AND POST TRANSPLANTATION TREATMENT S/CHECKUP FOR KIDNEY AND THE ASSESSEE IS SUPPORTED BY TWO DOCTORS. SINCE, N O PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF OPERATIONS C ONDUCTED BY THE DOCTOR, THE LD. AO BASED ON THE REPORT AND THE INFORMATION FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED OPERATIONS RECEIPTS AS INCOME FRO M PROFESSION. AFTER SURVEY OPERATIONS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS INITIATED PROC EEDINGS U/S. 153A OF THE ACT DATED 15.05.2008 AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 153A, 142(1 ) AND 143(2) OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED FROM TIME TO TI ME AND SUBMITTED THE DETAILS. THE LD. AO BASED ON THE EVIDENCE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS DEALT EXHAUSTIVELY AT PAGE 4 TO 10 OF THE ORDER AND WORKED OUT THE SUPPRESSED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS OF RS. 42,35,0 00/- AND PASSED ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE LD. AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOM E ON 23.10.2002 WITH TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,80,276/-AND IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S. 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME WITH TAXABLE INCOME OF RS. 3,20,280/- BUT IN :-5-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE LD. AO BASED ON TH E SWORN STATEMENTS AND THE MATERIAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 42,35,000/- AND ASSESSED THE I NCOME VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A N APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-COMPUTE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AFTER CONSIDERIN G THE ASSETS ACQUIRED DURING THE YEARS AND ALSO DEFICIENCY IN THE SOURCES OF ACQUIRING THE ASSETS. THE LD. CIT(A) CALLED FOR THE REMAND REPORT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DET ERMINED AT RS. 7,07,918/- AND THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE UNDISCLOSED IN COME IN ORDER DATED 23.09.2011. 4.1 IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, AN OPPORTUNITY WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LETTER DATED 18 .02.2013 EXPLAINING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED WITH THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DISCLOSED ALL THE MOVABLE AND IMMOV ABLE ASSETS WITH EVIDENCE AND THE ASSESSEE CAME FORWARD WITH GOOD IN TENTION AND CO-OPERATED WITH THE DEPARTMENT AND PRODUCED ALL THE RECORDS AN D PROOFS VOLUNTARILY AND FURTHER TO BUY PEACE WITH THE DEPARTMENT, THE ASSES SEE HAS ACCEPTED THE ADDITION AND PRAYED FOR DROPPING OF PENALTY PROCEED INGS. WHEREAS, THE LD. :-6-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PR OPER RECORDS AND PROFESSIONAL INCOME WAS NOT DISCLOSED WITH THE INCO ME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED ASSETS WITH SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOMES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION AND THE INCOME AND EXPENDITURE, THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN QUANTIFIED AND CONFIRMED. BUT THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME SUPPRESSING THE RECEIPTS AND THE LD. AO IS O F THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE INCOME AND LEVIED PENALT Y U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT RS. 2,27,536/- VIDE ORDER DATED 27.03.2013. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE CIT(A). IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. AR ARGUED THE GROUNDS AND MADE SUBMISSIONS REFERRED AT PARA 5 OF THE CIT(A) O RDER FROM PAGE 5 TO 7. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPRESSED THE INCOME AND PURCHASED THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND DISCUSSE D ELABORATELY ON THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE CIT(A) ORD ER AND NOT CONTESTED. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)( C) OF THE ACT AND THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE PENALTY PR OCEEDINGS AND THE EXPLANATIONS TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AND AL SO THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A). BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCLOSE INCOME EARNED FROM PROFESSION AND APPLI ED FOR PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE HIS CONTENTIONS WITH CO-GENT EVIDENCES. THE LD. CIT(A) IS OF THE OPINION THAT T HE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING :-7-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 OFFICER IN LEVYING PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE AC T IS JUSTIFIED AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY. 6. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE HAS FILED AN APPEAL WITH THE TRIBUNAL. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR ARGUED TH E GROUNDS AND MADE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO LD. AR FILED PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL WHICH READ AS UNDER: '1. THE PETITIONER HAS FILED THE ABOVE APPEALS AGA INST ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DA TED 24.09.2014 CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S.171 (1) (C) FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002- 03 TO 2007-08. 2. THE PETITIONER HAS RAISED GENERAL GROUNDS OF A PPEAL CHALLENGING THE LEGALITY OF THE PENALTY LEVIED. 3. THE PETITIONER HAS NOW BEEN ADVISED THAT SPECI FIC GROUNDS OF APPEAL MAY HAVE TO BE RAISED SPECIFICALLY CHALLENGI NG THE VALIDITY OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S. 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 4. THE PETITIONER HENCE PRAYS THAT THE HON'BLE TR IBUNAL BE PLEASED TO ADMIT THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS O F APPEAL AND THUS RENDER JUSTICE. THE PETITIONER FURTHER SUBMITS THAT NO INVESTIGATION OF FACTS IS NECESSARY AND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED ARE P URELY LEGAL ISSUES. ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL 1) THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OUGHT TO HAVE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE OUT T HE EXACT CHARGE IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE; THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS ILLEGAL AND THE CONSEQUENTIAL ORDER LEVYING PENALTY OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN QUASHED. 2) THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S.274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) BEING INVALID THE ENTIRE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE CANCEL LED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). :-8-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 THE LD. AR PRAYED FOR ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROU NDS WHERE THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DOES NOT MEN TION THE EXACT CHARGE FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FURNISH ING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBSTANTIATED HIS ARGUMENTS WITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND EXPLAINED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WITHOUT MAKING A CHARGE , WHETHER ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF INCOME OR FURNISHED IN ACCURATE PARTICULARS ON SUCH INCOME. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT VALID AS THE ASSESSING OFF ICER HAS NOT IDENTIFIED THE CHARGE AND FILED PAPER BOOK AND PRAYED FOR ADMISSIO N OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS AND DELETION OF PENALTY. CONTRA, THE LD. D R RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) VEHEMENTLY OBJECTED TO THE FILING OF ADD ITIONAL GROUNDS AS THEY WERE NOT RAISED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS OR BEFORE THE CIT(A). T HE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WITH THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS AND PRA YED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEAL. 7. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MATE RIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS CITED. THE SOLE CRUX OF THE DIS PUTED ISSUE RAISED ON THE VALIDITY OF LEVY OF PENALTY. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCE PTED THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS PRODUCED VA RIOUS EVIDENCES IN THE :-9-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 APPEAL AND THE ASSESSEE TO BUY PEACE WITH DEPARTMEN T HAS NOT CONTESTED THE QUANTUM APPEAL. AND FURTHER THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/ S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT SUSTAIN AS INCOME IS ON ESTIMATED BASIS. TH E LD. AR FILED THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ON CHARGE OF PENALTY AND WAS VEH EMENTLY OBJECTED BY THE REVENUE. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 1 O F THE PAPER BOOK, WHERE THE PENALTY NOTICE HAVE BEEN ISSUED BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WITHOUT STRIKING THE EXACT CHARGES. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON T HE ORDER OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF S. CHANDRASEKAR VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 386/2016, 148 DTR (KAR) 322 DATED 15.01.2017. THE HON'BLE HIGH C OURT HELD AT PARA 8 AND 9 AS UNDER: 'PENALTY UNDER S. 271 (1)(C)- VALIDITY-CONCEALMENT VIS-A-VIS FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS-NOTICE ISSUED IN PRINTED FORM MENTIONING YOU 'HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF Y OUR INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME' - NOTICE IS THUS NOT SPECIFIC-FURTHER, IN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, N OR THERE IS CLEAR INDICATION FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME ON APPLICATION OF MIND-IN ANY CASE AS THERE IS NO SPEC IFIC GROUND, HENCE THERE WOULD BE BREACH OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE AN D ULTIMATELY THE ORDER IMPOSING PENALTY EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO CANNOT BE SUST AINED- CIT VS. MUNINAGA REDDY (IT APPEAL NO. 5 OF 2014, DT. 21ST S EPT., 2016) AND CIT VS. MANJUNATHA COTTON & GINNING FACTORY (2013) 263 CTR (KAR) 153: (2013) 92 DTR (KAR) 111 : (2013) 359 ITR 565 (KAR) FOLLOWED CONCLUSION: WHEN IN THE IMPUGNED NOTICE, THERE IS NO CLEAR INDICATION ABOUT THE CONCEALMENT OF THE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, NOR THERE IS CLEAR INDICATION FOR FURNISHING OF INA CCURATE PARTICULARS OF THE INCOME, PENALTY UNDER S. 271(1 )(C) IS NOT SUST AINABLE. :-10-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 7.1 WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ADDITIONAL GROUN DS BEFORE US ALONG WITH THE PETITION FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ST ATING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 274 OF THE ACT FOR LEVY OF PENALTY IS NOT VALI D AND AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT STRUCK THE CHARGE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CON CEALED INCOME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS. FOR THESE REASON S, THE LD. AR RELIED ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS MANJUNATH COTTON AND GINNING MIL LS (2013) 359 ITR 565. SINCE THESE GROUNDS ARE RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RAISED BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR AO, WE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, REMIT THE ENTIRE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) FOR HIS CONSIDERATION AND WE ALSO MENTION THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD CONSIDER ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED BY THE LD. AR AND PROVIDE ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF H EARING BEFORE PASSING THE ORDER ON MERITS. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS OF THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA N O. 2917/MDS/2014 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 8. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEALS IN ITA NO. 2918/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, ITA NO. 2919/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, ITA NO. 2920/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2005-06, ITA NO. 2921/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, ITA NO. 2922/MDS/2014 FOR :-11-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH ARE IDENTICAL AND SIMILAR AND THEREFORE THESE APPEALS ARE ALSO REMITTED TO THE FILE OF CIT( A) FOR FRESH CONSIDERATION. 9. WHEREAS, IN ITA NO. 2923/MDS/2014 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2008-09, THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL IN THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS NOT DEALT ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF TH E ACT WHICH IS APPLICABLE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2007-08. THEREFORE, LD. AR EXPLAINED THAT NO PENALTY IS LIAB LE TO BE LEVIED U/S. 271AAA OF THE ACT. WHEREAS, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDI CATED THE DISPUTED ISSUE COMPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE A CT. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ADDITIONAL GROUND A ND RELIED ON CIT(A) ORDER AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSAL OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAL. 10. WE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE MAT ERIAL ON RECORD AND JUDICIAL DECISIONS. PRIMA FACIE, THE SEARCH TOOK P LACE ON 12.10.2007 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. THE LD. AR SUBSTANTIAT ED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT SHALL BE APPLICABLE ONLY FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THEREFORE PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED UNDER A NY OTHER PROVISIONS. WE ARE OF THE OPINION, THERE IS STRENGTH IN THE SUBMIS SIONS OF THE AR ON THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE. WE REMIT THE DISPUTED ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) AND TO CONSIDER THE FACTS AND APPLY THE :-12-: I.T.A. NO.2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 PROVISIONS OF LAW AND ADJUDICATE ON MERITS. ACCORD INGLY, THE ASSESSEE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 11. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 2917 TO 2923/MDS/2014 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 26TH DAY OF APRI L, 2017 AT CHENNAI. SD/- ( ) (CHANDRA POOJARI) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/- ( . ) (G. PAVAN KUMAR) /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI, 0 /DATED: 26TH APRIL, 2017. JPV ' *#23 43 /COPY TO: 1. &/ APPELLANT 2. *+& /RESPONDENT 3. 5 ( )/CIT(A) 4. 5 /CIT 5. 3 *## /DR 6. 9 /GF