M/s. Ramprastha Builders Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3247/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8100 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 10-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 22-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R B MEENA
• Assessee Lawyers: SATYEN KUMAR
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 40A(3); 143(3); 153A; 234B; 132; 15

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 3244/DEL/2013 AY: 20 04-05 ITA NO. 3246/DEL/2013 AY: 20 06-07 ITA NO. 3247/DEL/2013 AY: 20 07-08 ITA NO. 3249/DEL/2013 AY: 20 08-09 M/SRAMPRASTHA BUIDLERS PVT. LTD., VS DCIT, B-23-25, KAILASH COLONY, CENTRAL CIR CLE-14, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN: AADCR3877N) (APPELLANT) (RESP ONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI SATYEN KUMAR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.B. MEENA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING: 10.02.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.04.2016 ORDER PER BENCH ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE . THE APPEALS ARE ON SIMILAR ISSUES AND WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF THROUGH THIS COMMON ORDER. T HE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY. SEARCH AND SEIZURE O PERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED THE ACT) WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.07.2009 IN THE RAMPRASTHA GROUP OF CASES. 2 SUBSEQUENTLY, NOTICES U/S 153A OF THE ACT WERE ISSU ED FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FI NALISED AFTER MAKING CERTAIN ADDITIONS. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITIONS IN FIRST APPEAL ON MERITS AS WELL AS TOOK THE LEGAL GROUND THAT SINCE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN SEIZED U/ S 132(1) OF THE ACT AND THE DOCUMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR MAKING ASSESSMENTS U/S 143(3)/153A OF THE ACT W ERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, NO A DDITION WAS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE IN THE ASSESSEES CASES FOR ALL THE FOUR YEARS. HOWEVER, THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISSED TH E ASSESSEES APPEALS ON THE LEGAL ISSUE AS WELL AS ON MERITS IN ALL THE FOUR YEARS AND NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US F OR THE IMPUGNED FOUR YEARS. 2. THE FACTS, IN BRIEF, FOR THE FOUR YEARS ARE AS U NDER:- I.T.A. NO. 3244/DEL/2013 2.1 THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 19.2.2013 BY T HE LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2004-05. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED ON 01.11.20 04 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.58,00,271/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A DATED 11.5.2010, THE RETURN WAS FILED ON 31.5. 2010 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN . DURING THE 3 YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF FLAT HOLDER STUDIO APARTMENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/- AND IN R ESPECT OF SHOPS IN IDCC AMOUNTING TO RS.27,960/- UNDER THE HE AD CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK THESE LIABILITIES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HIS OBS ERVATIONS ARE IN PAGE 2, PARA 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND ARE BEIN G REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE AS UNDER:- 3. DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AND INFORMATION FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING IT HAS COME TO MY NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEEHAS SHOWN THE FOLLOWI NG LIABILITIES UNDER THE HEADING CURRENT LIABILITIES 1 FLAT HOLDER STUDIO APARTMENTS RS 50,000 2 SHOPS IN IDC.C RS 27,960 THESE LIABILITIES ARE OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS FROM LAST MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION OF THESE LIABILITIES BUT IT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY, HENCE THESE LIABILITIES ARE TREATED AS NON-EXISTENT AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION 77,960/- I.T.A. 3246/DEL/2013 3. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 19.2.2013 BY TH E LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI AND THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR IS 2006-07. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED O N 28.11.2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,37,62,187/-. IN R ESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT DATED 11.5.2010, THE ASS ESSEE FILED THE 4 RETURN OF INCOME ON 31.5.2010 DECLARING THE SAME IN COME AS HAD BEEN ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT EARLIER I.E. RS .6,53,96,260/-. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF FLATS AT M5, GREATER KAILASH, AMOUNTING TO RS.2,01, 430/- UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ADDED BACK THESE LIABILITIES TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ORDER U/S 143(3)/153A OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AT PAGE 2 OF THE ORDER AND AR E BEING REPRODUCED FOR READY REFERENCE AS UNDER:- DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS AND INFORMATION FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING IT HAS COME TO MY NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE F OLLOWING LIABILITIES UNDER THE HEADING CURRENT LIABILITIES FLATS AT M5 GREATER KAILASH RS 2,01,430/- THESE LIABILITIES ARE OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS FROM LAST MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE. T HE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION OF THESE LIABILITIES BUT WAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH, HENCE THESE LIABILITIES ARE TREATED AS NON-EXISTENT AND ADDED BACK IN ASSESSEE INCOME ADDITION RS 2,01,430/- 5 I.T.A. 3247/DEL/2013 4. THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED ON 19.2.2013 BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI AND THE RELEVANT ASSESSMEN T YEAR IS 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ITS ORIGINAL RETUR N OF INCOME ON 31.10.2007 AT A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,06,67,773/-. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE RETURN WAS FIEL D ON 31.5.2010 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31 ST OCTOBER, 2007. DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION , THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LIABILITIES AMOUNTING TO RS.400, 400/- IN RESPECT OF LAND AT ALAKNANDA, D-BLOCK WHICH WAS ADD ED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 3 OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AS UNDER:- 3 DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF HOOKS OF ACC OUNTS AND INFORMATION FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING IT HAS COME TO MY NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE FOLLOW ING LIABILITIES UNDER THE HEADING CURRENT LIABILITIES 1 FOR LAND ALAKNANDA D-BLOCK RS 4,00,400/- THESE LIABILITIES ARE OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS FROM LAST MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE. THE AS SESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND CONFIRMAT ION OF THESE LIABILITIES BUT IT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH. HENCE THESE LIABILITIES ARE TREATED AS NON-EXISTENT AND ADDED BACK IN THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ADDITION RS 4,00,400/- 6 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO DISALLOWED A SUM OF RS.50,400/- UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) OF THE ACT. I.T.A. 3249/DEL/2013 5. THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL HAS BEEN PASSED ON 19.2 .2013 BY THE LD. CIT(A)-XXXIII, NEW DELHI AND THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR IS 2008-09. THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILE D ON 30.09.2008 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,64,01, 801/-. THE RETURN IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS FILED ON 31.5.2010 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME. DURING THE RELEVANT ASS ESSMENT YEAR, ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF EXPENS E FOR KAMLA MARKET AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,35,146/- AND PROJECT M-84 A AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,59,341 UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT L IABILITIES. BOTH THESE AMOUNTS WERE ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PAGE 2 OF HIS ORDER AS UNDER:- DURING THE COURSE OF EXAMINATION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS AND INFORMATION FILED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING IT HAS COME TO MY NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE FOLLOWING LI ABILITIES UNDER THE HEADING CURRENT LIABILITIES 1 FOR EXPENSES KAMLA MARKET RS. 3,35,146/- 2 PROJECT M-84A 5,59,341/- THESE LIABILITIES ARE OUTSTANDING IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNTS FROM LAST MANY YEARS WITHOUT ANY INCREASE OR DECREASE. THE ASSESSE E WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE COMPLETE DETAILS AND CONFIRMATION OF THESE LIAB ILITIES BUT IT HAS FAILED TO COMPLY WITH, HENCE THESE LIABILITIES ARE TREATED AS NON-EXISTENT AND ADDED BACK IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 ADDITION RS 8,94,487/- 6. IN ALL THESE FOUR APPEALS, IT WAS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE IMPUGNED AD DITIONS WERE MADE WITHOUT HAVING ANY REFERENCE TO ANY INCRIMINAT ING DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THIS PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AU THORITY AND NOW IN THE APPEALS BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKE N NUMEROUS GROUNDS BUT GROUND NO.2 IS COMMON TO ALL THE APPEAL S AND IS GERMANE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF THE ENTIRE CONTROVERSY AND IS BEING TAKEN UP BY US FOR CONSIDERATION FIRST. GROUND NO. 2 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 READS AS UNDER:- 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE 2.1 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.77,960/- IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT HAS BEEN SEIZED U/S 132(1) OF THE ACT AND THE DOCUMENTS RELIED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR MAKIN G ADDITION IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE A CT, WERE DULY ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CONT ENTIONS OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CHALLENGING THE GENUINENESS O F THE LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF FLAT HOLDER STUDIO APARTM ENTS AMOUNTING TO RS.50,000/- AND SHOPS IN IDC.C AMOUNTING TO RS.27,960/- SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD CURRENT LIABILITIES WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND UPHOLDING ADDITION OF THE AMO UNT RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRECEDING YEARS AR BITRARILY. 8 THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING T HE GROUND THAT ADDITION OF RS.27,960/- HAD ALREADY BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE A.Y.200 6-07 PRIOR TO SEARCH ON THE APPELLANT AND HENCE ADDITION OF TH E SAME AMOUNT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS DOUBLE ADDITION. THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT WITHOUT GIVING REASONABL E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE APPELLANT. THAT THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR LEVYING OF INTE REST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE GROUND NO.2.5, INTEREST U/ S 234A AND 234B OF THE ACT HAS BEEN WRONGLY CALCULATED AS THE STAR TING DATE FOR CALCULATION SHOULD HAVE BEEN THE DATE OF I NTIMATION ORDER U/S 143(1) OF THE ACT. THE CREDIT FOR THE TAX PAID HAS BEEN GIVEN ONLY FOR RS.20,80,847/- AGAINST RS.22,23,805/- PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO, ALTER, A MEND, MODIFY, SUBSTITUTE, DELETE AND/OR RESCIND ALL OR AN Y OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON/OR BEFORE THE FINAL HEARING. THAT THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER & CIT(APPE ALS) ARE NOT BASED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE & AS PER LAW AND HEN CE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(APPEALS) ARE TOTALLY ILLEGAL A ND NOT BASED ON BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS. BEFORE US, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE DEPARTMENT THAT THE ADDITIONS IN ALL TH E FOUR YEARS HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL FOUND 9 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS . IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT AS PER THE SEC OND PROVISION OF SECTION 153A ONLY THE ASSESSMENTS WHICH WERE PEN DING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WIL L ABATE AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BECOME FINAL AS O N THE DATE WILL NOT STAND ABATED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SHOW THAT THE GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINE. LD. AR ALSO D REW OUR ATTENTION TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE HIGH COUR T OF DELHI IN CIT CENTRAL-III VS. KABUL CHAWLA IN ITA NOS. 707/20 14, 709/2014 AND 713/2014. 3. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDE R OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A). 4. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL PLA CED BEFORE US AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED. SECTION 153A OF THE ACT PRO VIDES THAT WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED U/S 132 OF THE ACT, TH E AO SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SIX ASSE SSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR R EQUISITION IS MADE. THE FIRST PROVISO STATES THAT THE AO SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSES SMENT YEAR 10 FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE SE COND PROVISO STATES THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT RELATING TO THE SAID SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIAT ION OF THE SEARCH U/S 132 SHALL ABATE. IT IS SEEN THAT IN ASSE SSEES CASE SEARCH ACTION WAS INITIATED AND ASSESSMENTS U/S 153 A WERE FRAMED FOR MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. IT IS ASSESSEE S CLAIM THAT VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE NOT TENABLE AS THE REGULAR R ETURN HAD BEEN FILED WHERE THE PARTICULARS RELATING TO THE AD DITION HAS BEEN DISCLOSED AND THE SAME HAD BEEN ACCEPTED U/S 143 (1 ) OF THE ACT OR ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT HAD ALREADY BEEN PAS SED AND THAT NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE SEARCH TO JUS TIFY THE ADDITION. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION SECTION 153A DO ES NOT AUTHORISE THE MAKING OF A DENOVO ASSESSMENT IN THES E PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEARS. WHILE UNDER THE FIRST PROVISO, THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO FRAME ASSESSMENT FOR SIX YEARS , UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO ONLY ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIA TION OF SEARCH ABATE. THE EFFECT IS THAT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS DO NOT ABATE. THE ASSESSMENTS CAN BE SAID TO BE PENDING ONLY IF THE A O IS STATUTORILY REQUIRED TO DO SOMETHING FURTHER. IF TH E SECTION 143(2) NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED, THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE SAID TO BE 11 PENDING. HOWEVER THE ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF A RET URN PROCESSED U/S 143(1) OR COMPLETED U/S 143(3) IS NOT PENDING BECAUSE THE AO IS NOT REQUIRED TO DO ANYTHING FURT HER ABOUT SUCH A RETURN. THE POWER GIVEN BY THE FIRST PROVISO TO ASSESS INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS TO BE CONFINED TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH AND CANN OT INCLUDE ITEMS WHICH ARE DISCLOSED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T PROCEEDINGS 5. IT IS SEEN ON FACTS THAT FOR ALL THE FOUR Y EAR UNDER APPEAL, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING AND AS NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH, THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT LEGALLY SU STAINABLE. IT WILL ALSO BE WORTHWHILE TO REPRODUCE PARA 37 OF THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN THE CASE OF CIT CENTRAL III VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) WHICH LAYS DOWN THE ENTIRE LAW WITH REGARD TO SECTION 153A AS UNDER :- 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW E XPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION TH AT EMERGES IS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDI NG THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARC H TAKES PLACE. 12 II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUC H AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXER CISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT A Y IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' 'OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS TH ERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EAC H OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITI ONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FO UND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH M ATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THA T THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOU SLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONL Y ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABAT ED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS '(I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEA RCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, T HE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND TH E ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDING OF THE SEARCH AND ANY O THER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. 13 VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH B Y THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 15 3 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THUS, ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND RESPECTFULLY FO LLOWING THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI IN CIT CENTRAL-III VS K ABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) WE FIND THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR A LL THE FOUR YEARS UNDER APPEAL AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE LETE THE ADDITIONS. THE REMAINING ROUNDS ARE NOT BEING ADJU DICATED UPON AND ARE DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASS ESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29TH APRIL, 2016. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICI AL MEMBER DATED: THE 29TH OF APRIL, 2016 GS 14 COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 4. DR, ITAT BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR