Sh. Srichand Dembla, UDAIPUR V. DCIT, UDAIPUR

ITA 316/JODH/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 70213 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 05-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGALCIT
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Principle of natural justice; Block assessment; Revised return
• Section: 153A; 139(5); 147; 148; 132; 10; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL: JODHPUR BENCH : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO. 314 TO 317/JODH/2011 (A.YS. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2007-08) SHRI SRICHAND DEMBLA VS THE DCIT, 6, DURGA NURSERY ROAD, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, UDAIPUR. UDAIPUR. PAN NO. ABWPD07336F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI AMIT KOTHARI. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL-CIT- DR. DATE OF HEARING : 05/09/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23/09/2013. O R D E R PER HARI OM MARATHA, J.M. : THE ABOVE CAPTIONED FOUR APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE F OR A.YS. 2002- 03, 2004-05, 2005-06 AND 2007-08 ARE AGAINST TWO SE PARATE ORDERS. THE APPEAL FOR A.YS. 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE R EDIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR DATE D 23/06/2011 AND THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. IN ITA NO. 317/JODH/2011 IS DIR ECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE SAME CIT(A), DATED 23/06/2011. FOR THE SAKE OF 2 CONGRUENCE, BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE ALL THESE APPEA LS, WHICH WERE HEARD TOGETHER, ARE BEING DECIDED BY THIS COMMON OR DER. 2. THE FACTS, IN NUTSELL, COMMON TO ALL THESE APPEA LS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL / BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE MEMBER A ND CONCERN OF THE DHARMPAL DEMBLA GROUP, ON 20/09/2007. CONSEQUENT UP ON THIS SEARCH ACTION U/S 153A WAS INITIATED AND NOTICES DATED 01/ 05/2008 WERE SENT TO THIS ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE COMPLIED WITH THE NO TICES AND FILED RETURN SHOWING THE SAME INCOME AS RETURNED BY HIM I N THE ROI FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE F ILED REVISED ROI ON 21/08/2009 IN WHICH MAINLY THE GIFT(S) RECEIVED FRO M VARIOUS PARTIES WERE SURRENDERED. SIMILAR ACTION WAS TAKEN BY SHRI DHARAMPAL DEMBLA, THE CONTROLLING PERSON OF THIS GROUP. HE ALSO REVIS ED HIS ROI AND MADE SIMILAR SURRENDERS. HOWEVER, THE A.O. DID NOT CONSI DER THE REVISED RETURNS AND MADE ADDITION. THIS MATTER TRAVELLED UP TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL. 2.1 IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE ALSO THE A.O. MADE SEPA RATE ADDITIONS BY IGNORING THE REVISED RETURN SO FILED. THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) BY RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS. WE ARE EXTRACTING GROUNDS RAISED IN A.Y. 2002-03 IN ITA NO. 314/JODH/ 2011, WHICH WILL 3 GIVE A WIDER VIEW OF THE GROUNDS AS WELL. THE GROUN DS RAISED ARE AS UNDER :- 1. THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A IS PATENTLY VOID AB INITIO. THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO DECIDE THE QUESTION RELATING TO VAL IDITY OF SEARCH, WHICH IS NECESSARY FOR ASCERTAINING AS TO W HETHER SECTION 153A CAN BE VALIDLY INVOKED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PROCEEDINGS OF SEARCH AND CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A MAY KINDLY BE HELD TO BE PATENTLY INVALID AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AN D THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO U/S 153A ARE PATENTLY VO ID AND ARE CLEARLY CONTRARY TO PROVISIONS OF LAW,' CONTRAR Y TO FACTS, MATERIAL AND EVIDENCE EXISTING ON RECORDS AND ARE A LSO CONTRARY TO ALL CANNONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THAT, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ANNU LLED THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDERS. 4. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCE PTED THE FACT THAT THE REVISED RETURN SUBMITTED BY THE ASSES SEE WAS A VALID RETURN. 5. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANTS CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCE PTED THE 4 CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ALLEGED ADMISSI ON FETCHED DURING SEARCH UNDER MENTAL STRESS AND COERC ION IS PATENTLY INVALID AND CANNOT FORM THE BASIS OF ANY A DDITION IN THE DECLARED INCOME. 6. THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APP ELLANT'S CASE THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 5,00,000/-, WHICH DOES NOT REPRESENT ANY INCOME LIABLE TO TAX BUT MERELY REPRESENTS VOLUNTARY GIFTS, WHICH WERE NOT LIABLE TO TAX IN THE RELEVANT YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION. 7. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT THE ARBITRARY ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE BAS ED ON BASELESS PRESUMPTIONS, WRONG SUSPICIONS AND IRRELEV ANT MATERIAL AND ARE PATENTLY WRONG AND MOST UNJUSTIFIE D. 8. THAT UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE APPELLANT'S CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELE TED THE ENTIRE ADDITION AND DISALLOWANCES MADE IN THE DECLA RED INCOME. 9. THE APPROVAL GRANTED BY THE ADDL.CIT WAS WITHO UT ANY OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 10. THE INTEREST CHARGED UNDER VARIOUS PROVISIONS O F INCOME TAX ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND BAD ON FACTS. 11. THE APPELLANT PRAY FOR SUITABLE COSTS . 5 2.2 WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE CAREFU LLY PERUSED THE ENTIRE RECORD. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY CHALLENGING AC TION BY THE A.O. U/S 153A, I.E. GROUNDS NO. 1, 2 AND 3 IN THIS APPEAL AR E NOT PRESSED. SO, THE GROUND NO. 1, 2 AND 3 STAND DISMISSED. 2.3 GROUND NO. 4 TO 8 ARE IN RESPECT OF SURRENDER M ADE IN REVISED RETURN. ACCORDING TO LD. A.R. IN THIS GROUP IN OTHE R ASSESSEES CASES, UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AP PELLATE TRIBUNAL HAS ACCEPTED THE REVISED RETURN AS VALID. HE ARGUED THAT THE REVISED RETURN IN THIS ASSESSEES CASE HAVE TO BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER DATED 12 TH DECEMBER, 2012 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 324 TO 327/JU/2011 AND IN ITA NOS. 327 TO 329/JU/2011. CO PIES OF THESE ORDERS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR OUR PERUSAL. 2.4 THE LD. D.R. COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE ABOVE SUB MISSIONS BUT HE HAS STILL RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES B ELOW. 2.5 WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE, WHICH IS COMMON IN ALL THESE YEARS, REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF REVISED RETURN STANDS COVERED BY THE ABOVE TRIBUNAL ORDER. FOR READY REFE RENCE, WE INCORPORATE THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPHS OF THE ABOVE O RDER :- 6 2. IT WAS ARGUED BY THE LD. A.R. THAT A REVISED RETURN CAN BE FILED EVEN AFTER FILING A RETURN IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE RECEIVED U/S 153A, AS AGAINST WHICH, THE CASE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT SUCH A RETURN CANNOT BE REVISED AT ALL AS IT IS NOT SO PERMITTED UNDER LAW. 3. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS IN THIS REGARD. TO FIND AN ANSWER TO THIS TICKLISH ISSUE, WE HAVE TO REFER TO PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WHICH READS AS UNDER: 153A. NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139 , SECTION 147 , SECTION 148 , SECTION 149 , SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 , IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SECTION 132A AFTER THE 31ST DAY OF MAY, 2003, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL (A) ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (B), IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANNER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY 7 BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 ; (B) ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE : PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN THIS SECTION PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A , AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE. EXPLANATION.FOR THE REMOVAL OF DOUBTS, IT IS HEREBY DECLARED THAT, (I) SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS SECTION, SECTION 153B AND SECTION 153C , ALL 8 OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL APPLY TO THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER THIS SECTION; (II) IN AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MADE IN RESPECT OF AN ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER THIS SECTION, THE TAX SHALL BE CHARGEABLE AT THE RATE OR RATES AS APPLICABLE TO SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR. 4. AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM CLAUSE (A) OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SUCH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT. A SIMPLE AND PLAIN READING OF THIS PROVISION CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION WHICH ARE APPLICABLE IN CASE A RETURN OF IN COME IS FILED U/S 149 WOULD BE APPLICABLE TO A RETURN FILED . THE SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139 UNDER WHICH A RETURN FILED U/S 139(1) PRESCRIBES THE PROCEDURE OF REVISED RETU RN OF INCOME AND IN THAT MEANING OF THIS PROVISION AS WE HAVE READ ABOVE, THERE IS NO REASON WHY SUB-SECTION (5) OF SECTION 139 WOULD NOT APPLY TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT. MOREOVER, THE OPENING SENTENCE OF THIS SECTION CLEARLY MANDATES THAT IT OVER-RIDES THE PROVISION O F SECTIONS 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 AND SECTION 153 OF THE ACT. IN SO FAR AS ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUIS ITION UNDER HIS NEW PROVISION IS CONCERNED. IT WAS ARGUE D BY THE LD COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SHRI AMIT KOTHARI THAT SECOND 9 PROVISO TO SECTION 158BC(A), AS IT WAS APPLICABLE I N BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDERS SPECIFICALLY DEBARS FILING OF A R EVISED RETURN. HE, THEREFORE, ARGUED THAT WHEN THERE IS N O SUCH PROVISO ADDED TO THIS NEW PROCEDURE IN SECTION 153A , THEN IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT ONLY BY READING THE OTHE R PROVISIONS INTO THE REVISING OF RETURN PROVISIONS W OULD NOT DEFEAT THE MAIN PROVISION AS STATED ABOVE. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D.R. SHRI SUBASH CHAN DRA HAS SUPPORTED THE REASON GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) TH AT LEGISLATORS HAVE KNOWINGLY USED SECTION 139 INSTEAD OF SECTION 139(1) WHEREUNDER, IN FACT, THE RETURN OF I NCOMES ARE FILED. ACCORDING TO HIM, A RETURN IN RESPONSE TO SECTION 153A CANNOT BE CONSIDERED TO BE RETURN FILED U/S 13 9(1) AND ONLY SUCH RETURN AS IS FILED U/S 139(1) CAN BE REVISED AND NOT OTHERWISE. HE FURTHER ARGUED THAT AS PER S ECTION 139(5), IF ANY PERSON AS FURNISHED A RETURN U/S 139 (1) OR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 142(1), HE MAY FURNISH A REV ISED RETURN BEFORE EXPIRY OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF TH E RELEVANT A.Y. OR BEFORE COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT, WHICHEVER IS EARLIER. IN THIS SCENARIO, HE HAS ARG UED THAT EVEN IF IT IS PRESUMED THAT RETURN FILED U/S 153A C AN BE REVISED, THEN HOW THE OTHER PART OF SECTION 139(5) CAN BE MADE OPERATIVE, AS THE ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE RELEVANT A.Y. HAD ALREADY EXPIRED LONG BACK. WE HA VE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ISSUE UND ER CONSIDERATION AND HAVE FOUND THAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A(I)(A) CLEARLY MANDATES THAT RETURN FURNISHED U /S 153A 10 IS TO BE TREATED AS RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139 OF THE ACT AND A WORD SHALL HAS BEEN USED THEREIN WHICH MANDATES IT A COMPULSORY PROVISION . THE LD. A.R. HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF LD. CIT VS. HOTEL BLUE MOON [2010] 321 ITR 362 [SC]. IN THIS CASE, AN ALLIED ISSUE RE GARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 158BC(B), WHICH SPECIFICAL LY REFERS TO SOME OF THE PROVISION OF THE ACT AND THUS ARE R EQUIRED TO BE FOLLOWED BY THE A.O. WHILE COMPLETING AS U/S CHAPTER XIVB OF THE ACT. DEALING WITH CONTENTIOUS ISSUE THAT CHAPTER XIV WOULD NOT APPLY IN SUCH CASES, IT WOULD HAVE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED THE SAME. THEREFORE, IN CASE THE A.O. DID NOT WANT TO ACCEPT THE RETURN FILED IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 158BC, HE WAS REQUI RED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WITHIN THE TIME PRESCRIBED IN PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT. THIS DECISION INDIRECTLY HELPS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IN AS MUCH AS THAT WHEN SOMETHING IS SPECIFICALLY MANDATE D BY THE ACT, THAT HAS TO BE GIVEN MEANING TO AND APPLY IN A GIVEN SITUATION. IN ANY CASE, WHERE SOME OF THE SE CTIONS ARE SPECIFICALLY EXCLUDED, THEY WILL NOT APPLY IN T HAT SITUATION. BUT WHEN A CERTAIN SECTION IS NECESSARI LY MADE APPLICABLE TO A SITUATION, BUT IT IS NOT EXCLUDED A NYWHERE ELSE, IN RELATION TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A , THEN IN THAT CASE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE CONTEN TION OF THE LD. A.R. IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT. A FURTHER DEC ISION OF THE ITAT, CHENNAI BENCH RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CAVINCARE P LTD REPORTED IN [2009] 120 ITD 126, COP Y ON 11 RECORD, SUPPORTS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS DECISION IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PROVISION OF SECTION 139(5) IS P ARTY A SUBSTANTIVE PROVISION AND PARTLY A PROCEDURAL PROVI SION. THEREFORE, THE RIGHT VESTED IN THE ASSESSEE BY VIRT UE OF SECTION 139(5) HAS TO BE ACCEPTED BY RETURN FILED U /S 148 ALSO. IT HAS FURTHER BEEN HELD IN THIS DECISION TH AT ALTHOUGH AN ASSESSEE CAN REVISE A RETURN U/S 148, R EVISION HAS TO BE RESTRICTED ONLY FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE RE VENUE AND IT CANNOT BE REVISED TO CLAIM HIGHER RELIEF THAN TH AT ALLOWED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN OUR CONSIDE RED OPINION, WHEN THE ASSESSEES HAVE REVISED THEIR RETU RNS, WHICH WERE ADMITTED BY THE HEAD OF THEIR FAMILIES, WHO WERE SEARCHED, THEN, IN THAT CASE, IT WILL BE IN TH E BENEFIT OF THE REVENUE ONLY. THEREFORE, THE SUBSTANTIVE RI GHT OF SECTION 139(5) CAN BE EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSEES. IN THIS DECISION, IT HAS BEEN FURTHER HELD THAT MERE RESTRI CTING THE TIME LIMIT PRESCRIBED U/S 139(5) TO REVISE ORIGINAL RETURN AND IF A REVISED RETURN IS FILED BEFORE FILING THE RETURN U/S 148, IT WOULD OBVIOUSLY HAVE THE EFFECT OF REVISING ORIGINAL RETURN FILED U/S 139. HOWEVER, IF A RETURN IS FILE D PURSUANT TO A NOTICE U/S 148, AND THE TIME LIMIT U/S 139(5) IS NOT OVER, REVISED RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SUBSEQUE NT TO FILING OF RETURN U/S 148 WILL HAVE EFFECT OF REVISI NG RETURN FILED U/S 148 OF THE ACT AND NOT ORIGINAL RETURN, W HICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THUS, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, BENEFIT OF SECTION 139(5) HAS TO BE EXTENDED TO A RETURN FI LED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 12 6. WITH THE ABOVE OBSERVATION, WE RESTORE ALL THESE APPEALS TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WITH THE DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE REVISED RETURNS FILED BY THESE APPELLA NTS AND THEREAFTER FRAME THEIR ASSESSMENTS IN THE LIGHT OF OUR ABOVE AFOREMENTIONED OBSERVATIONS. ACCORDINGLY, AL L THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 3. ACCORDINGLY, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE TRIBU NAL ORDER WE ALLOW GROUND NOS. 4 TO 8 AND ORDER DELETION OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNTS IN ALL THE YEARS. 3.1 GROUND NO. 9 AND 10 WERE NOT ARGUED UPON AND HE NCE STAND DISMISSED. 3.2 GROUND NO. 11 IS FORMAL IN NATURE AND DO NOT RE QUIRE ANY SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. 4 IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN ITA NO. 317/JOD H/2011 THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED ONE MORE GROUND, OTHER THAN TH E GROUND STATED ABOVE. THE GROUND NO. (8) IN THIS YEAR READS AS UND ER :- 8. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ADDI TION OF RS. 6,31,675/ MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSE D 13 INVESTMENT IN PIECE OF LAND. THE AFORESAID ADDITIO N IS PATENTLY VOID AND ARE CLEARLY CONTRARY TO THE PROVI SION S OF LAW, CONTRARY TO ALL CANNONS OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 4.1 THE FACTS OF THIS GROUND ARE THAT AS PER THE A. O., THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER SHRI VISHAL DEMBLA HAD PURCHASED A RESIDENTIAL PLOT AT SHOBHAGPURA, UDAIPUR. HOWEVER, THIS PLOT WAS FOUND REGISTERED IN THE SALE DEED DATED 25/05/2006 IN THE NAME OF SHRI VISH AL DEMBLA. THIS ASSESSEE SAYS HE HAS NO RELATION WITH THIS PLOT AND DID NOT MAKE ANY INVESTMENT IN THE SAME. SHRI VISHAL DEMBLA STATES T HAT HALF OF THE INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THIS ASSESSEE. WHILE HEARING THIS ISSUE WE COULD NOT MAKE OUT THE FACT CLEARLY. BOTH PARTIES C ONCURRED THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE WINNOWED AFRESH BY THE A.O. WE A RE ALSO OF THE SAME VIEW. WE THINK IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE IN THE GIVEN FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE A.O. WE DO ACCORDINGLY,. THE A.O. SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE DE N OVO AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE POSSIBLE ANGLES AS PRODUCED BY THE PARTIES BEFORE HIM. GROUND NO. (8) OF THIS APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL P URPOSES. 14 5. THE LEGAL ISSUES RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS STAND DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. THE FORMAL ISSUES ARE DECIDED IN THE SIMIL AR MANNER. THE ISSUES) ON MERIT RELATING TO ACCEPTANCE OF THE REVI SED RETURNS IN ALL THE YEARS ARE ALLOWED. 6. IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS IN ITA NO. 314, 315 AN D 316/JODH/2011 FOR A.YS. 2002-03, 2004-05 AND 2005-06 ARE PARTLY A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO. 317/JOD H/2011 FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013. SD/- SD/- [N.K. SAINI] [HARI OM MARATHA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2013. VL/ COPY TO : 1. THE APPELLANT BY ORDER 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, JODHPUR