Smt. Vimla Singhvi, JODHPUR V. ACIT, JODHPUR

ITA 345/JODH/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 34523314 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-12-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 24-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR DEEPAK SEHGAL
• Assessee Lawyers: U C JAIN
• Keywords: Gift; Revision of order; Revised return; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 234B; 139(5); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELALTE TRIBUNAL : JODHPUR BENC H : JODHPUR BEFORE SHRI HARI OM MARATHA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA NO.345/JODH/2013 (A.Y. 2002-03) SMT. VIMLA SINGHVI VS. A.C.I.T. JODHPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR. PAN NO. ACAPS1714R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.346 & 347/JODH/2013 (A.YS. 2004-05 & 2006-07) VINOD SINGHVI (HUF) VS. A.C.I.T. JODHPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR. PAN NO. AADHV8791E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NOS.348,349,350 & 351/JODH/2013 (A.YS. 2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2007-08) SHRI UMMAID MAL SINGHVI VS. A.C.I.T. JODHPUR, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, JODHPUR. PAN NO. ABPPS7429D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ASSESSEES BY : SHRI U.C. JAIN & SHRI RAJENDRA JAIN. DEPARTMENT BY : DR. DEEPAK SEHGAL- D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 11/12/2013. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 13/12/2013. O R D E R PER BENCH. THESE APPEALS BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN FILED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A), CENTRAL, JAIPUR AS PER FOLLOWING DETAILS:- APPEAL NO. ORDER DATED ASSESSMENT YEAR I.T.A. NO. 345/JODH/2013 22.04.2013 2002 - 03 I.T.A. NO. 346/JODH/2013 22.04.2013 2004 - 05 I.T.A. NO. 347/JODH/2013 18.04.2013 20 06 - 07 I.T.A. NO. 348/JODH/2013 17.04.2013 2002 - 03 I.T.A. NO. 349/JODH/2013 17.04.2013 2004 - 05 I.T.A. NO. 350/JODH/2013 18.04.2013 2005 - 06 I.T.A. NO. 351/JODH/2013 23.04.2013 2007 - 08 2. IN THESE APPEALS, COMMON ISSUES ARE INVOLVED AND T HE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER, SO THESE ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY T HIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 3 . AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, WE WILL DECIDE THE APPEAL IN I.T.A. NO. 345/JODH/2013, FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED I N THIS APPEAL. 1] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH E CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CANCELLED THE ASSESSME NT ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153C IN THE INDIVIDUAL NAME OF THE APPELLAN T PARTICULARLY WHEN THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION TO S EARCH WAS ISSUED IN THE JOINT NAMES OF SEVERAL PERSONS. 2] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING AN ADDITION IN T HE AGRICULTURE INCOME PARTICULARLY WHEN NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN T HE SEARCH WHICH JUSTIFY SUCH ADDITION. 3] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 95,231/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF AGRICUL TURAL INCOME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR RETURN OF INCOME F ILED U/S 139(1) TREATING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURC ES PARTICULARLY WHEN NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH WHICH DISPROVES SUCH CLAIM. 4] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION WHI CH IS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF SECTION 153A/153B OF THE ACT. 5] THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE CHARGING OF I NTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C. 6] THAT THE PETITIONER MAY KINDLY BE PERMITTED TO RAISE ANY ADDITIONAL OR ALTERNATIVE GROUND AT OR BEFORE T HE TIME OF HEARING. 7] THE PETITIONER PRAYS FOR JUSTICE AND RELIEF. 4 4. THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL RELATES TO SUSTENANCE OF ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 (HEREINAF TER TO BE REFERRED AS THE ACT) IN RESPECT OF INCOME, WHICH WAS SHOWN IN R EGULAR RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. 5. THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT IN THIS CA SE A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 25/3/2008 AT THE RESI DENCE OF SHRI UMMAID MAL SINGHVI AND THE NOTICES U/S 153C OF THE ACT WER E ISSUED. IN RESPONSE OF WHICH, THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME O N 17/11/2009 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS. 1,69,169/- AND THE ASSES SMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT ON 11 /12/2009 AT AN INCOME OF RS. 2,64,400/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAD E THE ADDITION OF RS. 95,231/- CONSIDERING THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THE SAID INCOME WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSER VING THAT NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING EARNING OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME HAD BEEN FILED. 6. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER TO THE LD. CIT(A), WHO SUSTAINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 5 7 . LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RE TURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION, THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS SHOWN IN THE SAME MANNER AS WAS DONE IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE INCO ME WAS ACCEPTED AS AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THEREFORE, TREATING THE SAID I NCOME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153 C OF THE ACT, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED PARTICULARLY WHEN NO DOCUMENT OR INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SUGGEST THAT T HE ASSESSEE EARNED THE INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON T HE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VISHAL DEMBLA VS. DCIT (2013) 93 DTR (JD) (TRIB.)-1. 8 . IN HIS RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE LEARNED D.R. SUPPOR TED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PART IES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RE CORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE FILE D THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT BY SHOWING THE AGRICUL TURAL INCOME AT RS. 95,231/- AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE SAID RETUR N WAS ACCEPTED BY THE 6 DEPARTMENT. LATER ON, A SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT W AS CARRIED OUT ON 25/3/2008. HOWEVER, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MA TERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH BUT THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT CONSIDERED THE AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME, A S INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFORESAID REFERRED TO CASE OF SHRI VISHAL DE MBLA VS. DCIT WHEREIN BY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE JURISDICTI ONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S JAI STEEL (INDIA) VS. ACIT (2013) 259 C TR (RAJ.) 281, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF RECOVERY OF ANY DO CUMENT OR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, GIF TS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS FILED PRIOR TO THE SEAR CH WHICH HAVE ATTAINED FINALITY, CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT. RELEVANT FINDINGS HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN PARA 2.8 AND 2 .9 OF THE SAID ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER:- 2.8 IT WAS FOUND FOR A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SUBMITTED HIS RETURNS PRIOR TO SEARCH WHICH HAD ALSO ATTAINED FINALITY. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT NO D OCUMENT OR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH COULD BE LEGALLY MADE A BASIS FOR DIST URBING THE ALREADY SETTLED ISSUES. THE DECISION OF THE HON 'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT (SUPRA) ORDAINS AS UNDER: 'SEC. 153A CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION, IN AS MUCH AS, THE SAME IS TRIGGERED ONLY ON ACCOUNT OF ANY 7 SEARCH/REQUISITION UNDER S. 132 OR 132A. IF ANY BOO KS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSM ENT HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR OTHER DOCUMENTS HAVE TO BE TAK EN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE ASSESSING OR REASSESSING T HE TOTAL INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 153A. EVEN IN A CASE WHERE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR UNDISCLOSED PROPER TY HAS BEEN FOUND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH, THE SAME WOULD ALSO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION. THE REQUIREMENT OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT UNDER THE SAID SECTION HAS TO BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF S. 13 2 OR S. 132A, IN AS MUCH AS IN CASE NOTHING INCRIMINATING I S FOUND ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH SEARCH OR REQUISITION, THE N THE QUESTION OF REASSESSMENT OF THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMEN TS DOES NOT ARISE, WHICH WOULD REQUIRE MORE REITERATIO N AND IT IS ONLY IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ABATED ASSESSMENT UND ER SECOND PROVISO WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED. TH E UNDERLYING PURPOSE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT OF TOTAL IN COME UNDER S. 153A IS, THEREFORE, TO ASSESS INCOME WHICH WAS NOT DISCLOSED OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED. THE PURPOSE OF SECOND PROVISO IS ALSO VERY CLEAR, IN AS MUCH AS ONCE AN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT IS PENDING' ON T HE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION AND IN TERMS OF S. 153A, A RETURN IS FILED AND THE AO IS REQUIRED TO A SSESS THE SAME, THERE CANNOT BE TWO ASSESSMENT ORDERS DETERMI NING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID ASSES SMENT YEAR AND, THEREFORE, THE PROVISO PROVIDES FOR ABATEMENT OF SUCH PENDING ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IT IS ONLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S. 153A WOULD BE THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE SAID YEAR. THE NECESSARY COROLLA RY OF THE SECOND PROVISO IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN 'COMPLETED' AN D ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED DETERMINING THE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME AND, SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBSIS TING AT THE TIME WHEN THE SEARCH OR THE REQUISITION IS MADE , THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ABATEMENT SINCE NO PROCEEDINGS A RE 8 PENDING. THE ARGUMENT RAISED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT ONCE A NOTICE UNDER S. 153A IS ISSUED, THE ASSESSMENTS FOR SIX YEARS ARE AT LARGE BOTH FOR THE AO AND ASSESSEE HAS NO WARRANT IN LAW. FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION ALONG WITH THE PURPOSE AND PURPORT OF THE SAID PROVISION, WHICH IS INTRICATELY LINKED WITH SEARCH AND REQUISITION UNDER SS. 132 AND 132A, IT IS APPARENT THAT : (A) THE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS, WHICH STAND ABATE D IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO S. 153A, THE AO ACTS UND ER HIS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, FOR WHICH, ASSESSMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE; (B) REGARDING OTHER CASES, THE ADDITION TO THE INCO ME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND (C) IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CA N BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMEN T CAN BE MADE. THOUGH SUCH A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST T IME UNDER S. 153A IS NOT CONTEMPLATED, THE CASE IN HAND HAS T O BE CONSIDERED AT BEST SIMILAR TO A CASE WHERE IN SPITE OF A SEARCH AND/OR REQUISITION, NOTHING INCRIMINATING IS FOUND. IN SUCH A CASE THOUGH S. 153A WOULD BE TRIGGERED AND ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT TO ASCERTAIN THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE PERSON IS REQUIRED TO BE DONE, HOWEVER, THE SAME WOULD IN THAT CASE NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITION AND THE ASS ESSMENTS PASSED EARLIER MAY HAVE TO BE REITERATED. THE ARGUM ENT OF THE COUNSEL THAT THE AO IS ALSO FREE TO DISTURB INCOME, EXPENDITURE OR DEDUCTION DE HORS THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WH ILE MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 153A IS ALSO NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE SCHEME OF THE SAID PROVISION WHICH IS ESSENTIALLY I N CONTEXT OF SEARCH AND/OR REQUISITION. THE PROVISIONS OF SS. 15 3A TO 153C CANNOT BE INTERPRETED TO BE A FURTHER INNINGS FOR THE AO AND/OR ASSESSEE BEYOND PROVISIONS OF SS. 139 (RETUR N OF INCOME), 139(5) (REVISED RETURN OF INCOME), 147 (IN COME ESCAPING ASSESSMENT) AND 263 (REVISION OF ORDERS). THE PLEA RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS T HE FIRST PROVISO PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL 9 INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING W ITHIN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IS MERELY READING THE SAID PR OVISION IN ISOLATION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE SECT ION. THE WORDS 'ASSESS' OR 'REASSESS' HAVE BEEN USED AT MORE THAN ONE PLACE IN THE SECTION AND A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROVISION WOULD LEAD TO AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORD 'ASSESS' HAS BEEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF ABATED PROCEEDINGS AND 'REASSESS' HAS BEEN USED FOR COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WOULD NOT ABATE AS THEY ARE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIA TION OF THE SEARCH OR MAKING OF REQUISITION AND WHICH WOULD ALSO NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION THAT FO R THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CAN BE TINKERED ONL Y BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS. THE ARGUMENT OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IF TAKEN T O THE LOGICAL END WOULD MEAN THAT EVEN IN CASES WHERE THE APPEAL ARISING OUT OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL AND THE HIGH COUR T, ON A NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S. 153A, THE AO WOULD HAVE POWE R TO UNDO WHAT HAS BEEN CONCLUDED BY THE HIGH COURT. ANY INTERPRETATION WHICH LEADS TO SUCH CONCLUSION HAS T O BE REPELLED AND/OR AVOIDED. CONSEQUENTLY, IT IS HELD T HAT IT IS NOT OPEN FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK DEDUCTION OR CLAI M EXPENDITURE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CLAIMED IN THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT, WHICH ASSESSMENT ALREADY STANDS COMPLETED, ONLY BECAUSE AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 153A IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADESUNCITY ALLOYS (P) LTD. VS. ASSTT. CIT (2009) 124 TTJ (JD) 674 : (2009) 27 DTR (JD)(TRIB) 139 AFFIRMED; C IT VS. SMT SHAILA AGARWAL (2012) 246 CTR (ALL) 266 : (2012 ) 65 DTR (ALL) 41 : (2012) 346 ITR (ALL) RELIED ON; K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO (1981) 24 CTR (SC) 358 : (1981) ITR 597 (SC ) APPLIED. CONCLUSION : IN AN ASSESSMENT UNDER S. 153A, IT IS NOT OPEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK DEDUCTION OR CLAIM REL IEF NOT 10 CLAIMED BY IT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WHICH ALRE ADY STANDS COMPLETED BEFORE THE DATE OF INITIATION OF T HE SEARCH OR MAKING OF REQUISITION.' 2.9 THEREFORE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOV E JUDGMENT, WE ALLOW GROUND NO. 2, IN ALL THE YEARS, IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE GIFTS ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME, WHICH HAVE ATTAI NED FINALITY, CANNOT BE DISTURBED. ACCORDINGLY, CONSEQU ENTIAL ADDITIONS ARE DELETED. 10. SO RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID REFERRED T O ORDER OF THIS BENCH OF THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI VISHAL DEMBLA VS. DCIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN C ONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO THE SEARCH CONDUCTED U/S 132 OF THE ACT PARTICUL ARLY WHEN NEITHER ANY DOCUMENT OR INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED ANY INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, THE INCOME ALREADY ACCEPTED AS AN AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED U /S 139(1) OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE DISTURBED IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 15 3C READ WITH SECTION 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS DELETED. 11. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE RELATING TO QUANTU M ADDITION ON MERIT, NO FINDING IS BEING GIVEN ON THE LEGAL ISSUE RELATING TO THE VALIDITY 11 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, MOREOVER, THE SAID ISSUE W AS NOT ARGUED BEFORE US. 12. IN ALL OTHER APPEALS PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT ASSES SEES, THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS INVOLVED IN THE CASE OF SMT. VIMLA SHIGHVI VS. ACIT IN I.T.A. NO. 345/JODH/2013 FOR THE A.Y. 2002-03 (S UPRA). THE ONLY DIFFERENCE IS IN THE AMOUNT INVOLVED AND THE HEAD O F INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEES IN THEIR ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME F ILED U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE FORMER PA RT OF THIS ORDER IN RESPECT OF I.T.A. NO. 345/JODH/2013 SHALL APPLY MUT ATIS MUTANDIS FOR ALL THE REMAINING APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. 13 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOW ED. (ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 13/12/2013). SD/- SD/- (HARI OM MARATHA) (N.K.SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 13/12/2013 RANJAN* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE LD.CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE D.R ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, JODHPUR.