Pushkar Corporation, Ahmedabad V. The Pr.CIT, Central, Ahmedabad

ITA 356/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7500 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AP ARNA AGRAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHHAJED
• Keywords: Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 50C; 153A; 263; 63; 28; 90

Judgement Text

, A IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./ I.T.A. NO. 356/AHD/2016 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13) M/S. PUSHKAR CORPORATION 27, NAKSHATRA ARCADE, I.O.C. ROAD, CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD - 382424 / VS. PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AALFP1840Q ( APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. S. CHHAJED, A.R. / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. APARNA AGRAWAL, CIT. DR DATE OF HEARING 06/05/2019 !'# / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26/07/2019 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA - AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TO IMPUGN THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY TH E PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL), AHMEDABAD (P CIT IN SHORT) UNDER S. 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) DATED 28.01.2016 IN CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 30.03.2015 CONCERNING AY. 2012-13. ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 2 - 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE REA D AS UNDER: 1. ORDER U/S OF THE ACT PASSED BY THE LD. PR. COMM ISSIONER OF I. TAX, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD IS BAD AND ILLEGAL. 2. THE LD. PR. COMMISSIONER OF I. TAX, CENTRAL, AHM EDABAD HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS WHILE PASSING ORDER U/S 263 OF THE ACT IN CONSIDERING THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD.A.O. IS ERR ONEOUS & PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 3. AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, THE ESSENTIAL GRIE VANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE PR.CIT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN EXERCISING REVISIONARY POWERS UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT AS THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IS NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE 4. TO ADJUDICATE THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE NOTED AS FOLLOWS: 4.1 THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR AY 2012-13 IN QUESTION ON 28.08.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.32,50,13 0/-. A NOTICE UNDER S. 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 08.08.2013 AND THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT A SEARCH AND SURVEY ACTION WAS CON DUCTED ON SARKAR GROUP UNDER S.132/133A OF THE ACT. SUBSEQUENTLY, SEARCH AND SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE ALSO CONDUCTED ON SOHAM GROUP AS WELL. APART FROM THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT STATE ANYTHING ELSE OF AN Y RELEVANCE. THE INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED AS SUCH BY A NON-DESCRIPT AND BRIEF ORDER. 4.2 THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SO FRAMED BY THE AO UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT WAS SOUGHT TO BE MODIFIED BY THE PCIT IN THE PROCEE DINGS UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 04.12.2015 WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ALLEGING THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT OR DER TO BE ERRONEOUS AND ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 3 - PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE RE LEVANT PORTION OF THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: NO.CIT(C) I/TECH/263/PC/2015-16 DATE: 04/12/201 5 TO: THE PRINCIPAL OFFICER, MIS. PUSHKAR CORPORATION. 27, NAKSHATRA ARCADE, IOC ROAD, CHANDKHEDA, AHMEDABAD SIR, SUB: NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE I T ACT IN YOUR CASE FO R AY 2012-13 - GIVING AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD REGARDING PLEASE REFER TO THE SUBJECT MENTIONED ABOVE. 2. RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY YOU ON 28/08/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME AT RS.32.50,1 30/-. ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT WAS FINALIZED ON 30/03/2015 ASSESSING YOUR INCOME AT RS.32,50,130/-. 3. ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND CASE RECO RDS THE FOLLOWING DISCREPANCIES HAVE BEEN FOUND: 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF P.O. REVOCATION AT THE OFF ICE OF SOHAM GROUP A LOOSE PAPER FILE CONTAINING PAGES NOS. 1 TO 242 W AS FOUND, ANNEXED AS ANNEXURE A-2 AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH. THIS LOO SE PAPER CONTAINED DETAILS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE DOCUMENTS OF LANDS BY THE ASSESSES. PAGE NO 242 OF THE LOOSE PAPER IS SCANNED AND REPRODUCED BELOW:- ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 4 - 3.2 THE ABOVE CHART IS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE OF FICE PREMISES OF SHRI NARENDRA JIVANLAL PATEL WHO IS ONE OF THE PART NERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE CHART INDICATES THE TOTAL PARCEL OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AND RESPECTIVE SALE. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM T HE CHART THAT FOUR PARCELS OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NOS.315,318,389/1 AN D 316 HAVING A TOTAL AREA OF 38243 SQUARE METRES I.E 45,738 SQUARE YARDS WAS PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. OUT OF THIS THE PLOTS BEARING SURVEY NO.389/1 IS SPLIT INTO TWO FINAL PLOTS BEARING P.P.NO.167/1 AND 167/2. FURTHER , SURVEY NOS. 315 & 318 TOGETHER HAVE BEEN SPLIT INTO TWO FINAL PLOTS B EARING P.P. NO.89/1 AND 89/2. THESE LAND PARCELS WERE SOLD AT THE FOLLOWING PRICE BY THE ASSESSEE: S.NO. PARTICULAR S AREA (SQ MTRS) AREA (SQ YDS) BUYER DATE OF REGISTRATION OF SALE DEED CONSIDERATION AS PER THE REGISTERED SALE DEED 1 F.P. 89/1 OF S. NO 31 5 AT 3,764 4,502 M/S RAMESHWAR 23-OCT-10 RS 2,25,00,000 2 F.P. 90 OF S. NO 316 AT JUNDAL 2,914 3,485 M/S SIDDHI VINAYAK DEVLOPERS 3-NOV-10 RS.1,80,00,000 3 F.P. 89/2 OF S. NO 318 AT JUNDAL 5,220 6,245 M/S KUNJAN CORPORATIO N 19-MAY-11 RS3,50,00,000 4 F. P. 167/2 OF S. NO. 389/1 AT JUNDAL 3,500 4,185 M/S SOHAM HOUSING CORPORATION 19-OCT-11 RS.2,75,00,000 3.3 FROM THE RESIDENCES OF SHRI SARKAR (PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM) A LOOSE PAPER EVIDENCING UNACCOUNTED CASH TRANSACTION S WAS SEIZED VIDE PAGE NUMBER 42 OF ANNEXURE A-1 TO THE PANCHNAMA DAT ED 12/13-07-2013. THE SCANNED IMAGE OF THE SAID LOOSE PAPER IS REPROD UCED BELOW: ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 5 - 3.4 AFTER IN DEPTH INVESTIGATION OF PAGE NO. 42, TH E ACTUAL PICTURE IS CLEAR THAT ON THIS PAGE THREE DIFFERENT LAND TRANSA CTION DETAILS ARE WRITTEN AND IN EACH FIGURE 000 HAVE BEEN OMITTED. THIS F ACTS IS CONFIRMED ON VERIFYING THE COPIES OF SALE DEEDS WITH THE FIGURES MENTIONED IN THE LOOSE PAPER. FOR EXAMPLE THE FIGURE NOTED WITH NARRATION DASTAVEJ ON SEIZED PAPER IS 22500 WHICH AS PER THE DOCUMENT NO.6482/20 11 DATE 29/3/2011 WAS FOUND TO BE ACTUALLY 22500000. THE THREE INSTAN CES RECORDED ON THE LEFT HAND SIDE ARE AS UNDER:- (I) MAVAJIBHAI 4502 (LAND SQ.YD.) X 20.8 (RATE OF LAND I.E. 20,800) A 4502 X 20,800 SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER MARKET RATE. RS.9,36,41,600 B AS PER DOCUMENT NO.6482/2011 DATE 29/3/2011 THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF SAID LAND MENTIONED IN DOCUMENT. RS.2,25,00,000 C ON MONEY AMOUNT ( A-B) RS.7,11,46,000 D LESS: EXPENSES RS. 61,46,000 NET ON MONEY AMOUNT RECEIVED IN CASH (C-D) RS.6,50,00,000 (II) MANUBHAI 3485 (LAND SQ.YD.) X 20 (RATE OF L AND I.E. 20,000) A 3485 X 20,000 SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER MARKET RATE. RS.6,97,00,000 B AS PER DOCUMENT NO. 22936/2010 DATE 14/12/2010 THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF SAID LAND MENTIONED IN DOCUMENT. RS. 1,80,00,000 C ON MONEY AMOUNT ( A-B) RS.5,17,00,000 D LESS: DALALI CASH RS. 3,50,000 NET ON MONEY AMOUNT RECEIVED (C-D) RS.5,13,50,000 (III) 6245 (LAND SQ.YD.) X 23.5 (RATE OF LAND I.E. 23,500) A 6245 X 23,500 SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER MARKET RATE RS.14,67,57,500 B AS PER DOCUMENT NO.9610/2011 DATE 19/05/2011 THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF SAID LAND MENTIONED IN DOCUMENT. RS. 3,50,00,000 C ON MONEY AMOUNT ( A-B) RS.11, 17,57,500 ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 6 - 4. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SUPP RESSED THE SALE PRICE OF THE ABOVE LAND (INSTANCE NO. III OF PARA- 2.4) A S EVIDENCED FROM THE MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE MEMBERS OF THE S OHAM GROUP AND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI SARKAR, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSE E FIRM. 5. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE I. T. ACT DATED 30/03/2015 PASSED BY THE AO IS PRIMA FACI E BOTH-ERRONEOUS AS ALSO PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THEREFORE, I INTEND TO REVISE THE SAID ORDER U/S. 263 OF THE IT ACT. 8. VIDE THIS LETTER, YOU ARE, THEREFORE, GIVEN AN O PPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD IN THIS REGARD. YOU ARE REQUESTED TO ATTEND M Y OFFICE IN PERSON OR THROUGH YOUR AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALONG WITH Y OUR SUBMISSIONS, IF ANY, IN THIS REGARD. THE HEARING FOR THIS PURPOSE I S FIXED ON 29/12/2015 AT 11:45 AM AT THE ABOVE MENTIONED ADDRESS. YOURS FAITHFULLY, (M. K. DUBEY) PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, AHMEDABAD 4.3 AS PER THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE PCIT ESSENTIA LLY OBSERVED THAT A LOOSE PAPER FILE CONTAINING 142 PAGES WERE SEIZED I N THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 12.06.2013 AT THE OFFICE OF SOHAM GROUP. THE LO OSE PAPER FILED CONTAINED DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE DOCUMENT OF LAND BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. PAGE NO.242 OF THE LOOSE PAPER WAS REFERRED WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE OFFICE PREMISES OF SHRI NARENDRA J. PATEL WHO IS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE PCIT OBSERVED T HAT EVIDENCE INDICATED CERTAIN PARCEL OF LAND PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ITS RESPECTIVE SALE. IT WAS NOTED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE EVIDENCE THAT FOUR PARCELS OF LAND BEARING SURVEY NOS. 315, 318, 389/1 AND 316 WERE PU RCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE. SOME OF THE LAND PARCELS WERE SOLD IN FY 2010-11 CONCERNING AY 2011-12 WHEREAS SOME OTHER PARCELS (AS TABULATED AT PAGE NO.3 OF ITS ORDER) WERE SOLD IN FY 2011-12 CONCERNING AY 2012-1 3 IN QUESTION. THIS APART, THE LOOSE PAPER SHOWING UNACCOUNTED CASH TRA NSACTIONS WERE ALSO SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS (YO GENDRA SARKAR) OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE PCIT ESSENTIALLY OBSERVED THAT THESE TWO VITAL EVIDENCES WERE NOT CONSIDERED AT ALL IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR AY 2012-13 AND ISSUES EMANATING THE REFROM WERE NOT INVESTIGATED BY THE AO AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT IN REVISION IS VITIATED BY LACK OF INQUIRY AND THUS BAD IN LAW. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIO NED SEIZED DOCUMENTS ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 7 - WERE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSES OF ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2011-12 WHEREAS TRANSACTIONS CONCERNING AY 2012-13 WERE NOT EXAMINE D BY THE AO WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT FOR IMPUGNED AY 2012-13 IN Q UESTION. 4.4 IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE, THE ASSES SEE FILED REPLY WHICH WAS CAPSULED BY THE PCIT IN PARA 6 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER: 6. A NOTICE U/S. 263 OF THE I T ACT WAS ISSUED UPO N THE ASSESSEE ON 4.12.2015, ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SHOULD NOT BE REVISED AS IT WAS BOTH ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. SINCE N O RESPONSE CARNE FORTH, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN VIDE NOTICE DATED 31. 12.2015. SHRI MAHESH CHHAJED, C.A. & A.R, ATTENDED ON 21.01.2016 AND SUB MITTED THE EXPLANATION, CONTENDING AS UNDER:- A. THAT THE PROPOSED REVISION IS BASED ON MERE SURM ISES AND WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. B. THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVE Y, NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY BY THE AS SESSEE. C. THAT THE LAND HAS BEEN SOLD MUCH ABOVE THE JANTR I PRICE AND ALSO ABOVE THE COMPARABLE SALE INSTANCES. D. THAT 73% OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AR E 100% PARTNERS IN KUNJAN CORPORATION. THEREFORE, THERE CANNOT BE ANY EARNING OF SELF OUT OF SELF. E. THAT THE EVIDENCE BEING ROUGH NOTINGS ON A CHIT SO RELIED UPON BY THE REVENUE IS MERELY A DUMB DOCUMENT. F. THAT SHRI SARKAR HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE I T AC T THAT THE RIGHT HAND SIDE NOTINGS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS IN HIS HANDW RITING AND THE HANDWRITING ON LEFT HAND SIDE AT PAGE NO.42 IS NOT HIS, BUT HE ALSO EXPRESSED IGNORANCE AS TO WHY THE CONTENTS ON THE S AID PAGE HAS BEEN WRITTEN. THE CONTENTS IN THE HAND WRITING OF THE SH RI SARKAR ARE NOTHING BUT MERE JOTTINGS. G. THAT THE LEGISLATURE, IN ITS WISDOM HAS ENACTED SECTION 50C AS PER WHICH, THE FULL VALUE OF CONSIDERATION FOR THE PURP OSE OF SECTION 48 AND SECTION 28 SHALL BE DEEMED AS IS ASSESSED BY THE ST AMP VALUATION AUTHORITY FOR THE PURPOSE OF PAYMENT STAMP DUTY. H. THE AO AS WELL AS THE INVESTIGATION WING HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO PROVE THAT ON MONEY HAS CHANGED HANDS. 6.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RELIED UPON VARIOUS JUDIC IAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CHALLENGING THE PROPOSED REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.263 OF THE IT ACT. THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS SO RELIED UPON BY TH E ASSESSEE, IS BEING CONSIDERED SEPARATELY. 4.5 THE PCIT HOWEVER WAS NOT IMPRESSED BY THE PLEAD INGS OF THE ASSESSEE. AS PER PARA 7 OF ITS REVISIONAL ORDER, T HE PCIT NOTED BROADLY AS UNDER: ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 8 - 4.6 THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE LOOSE SHEET AR E RELATABLE AND CONNECTED TO THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS AND THE ENTRIE S NOTED IN THE LOOSE SHEETS ARE OBVIOUS AND SPEAKING WHICH REVEALS LARGE SCALE INVOLVEMENT OF ON-MONEY/CASH MONEY IN THE LAND TRANSACTIONS AND TH EREFORE SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NOT DUMB DOCUMENTS PER SE. THE PCIT NOTED THAT THE AO HAS NOT VENTURED INTO ANY INQUIRY WHATSOEVER IN RES PECT OF IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED AND CO MPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT MECHANICALLY AND PERFUNCT ORILY. THE PCIT ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE AND CANCELLED ASSESSMENT ORDE R AND DIRECTED THE AO TO LOOK INTO THE FACTUAL ASPECTS AND FINALIZE THE A SSESSMENT AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCE SURFACED IN SEARCH PROCEED INGS AND PASS A FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID DIRECTION OF THE PCIT UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL. 5.1 THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED VARI OUS SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE PCIT AS NOTED IN ITS ORDER AND POINTED O UT THAT THE JURISDICTION ASSUMED BY THE PCIT IS NOT PROPER. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED BY THE LEARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ORDER PASSED UNDER S.1 43(3) OF THE ACT (WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION) ITSELF IS NOT SUSTAI NABLE IN LAW AND THE CORRECT COURSE OF ACTION OPEN TO THE AO WAS TO PASS ORDER U NDER S.153C R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT IN VIEW OF SEARCH IN GROUP CASES. THE L EARNED AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ALSO CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER I S NEITHER ERRONEOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LE ARNED AR RELIED UPON SEVERAL JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS TO SUPPORT ITS CONT ENTION THAT WHERE THE AO HAS WRONGLY ASSUMED JURISDICTION UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT INSTEAD OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ORIGINAL ORDER STOOD I NVALID AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT BASED ON SUCH ORDER IS ALSO VOID AB INITIO . THE LEARNED AR REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF HONB LE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY VS. DCIT (2014) 49 TAXMANN.COM 98 (KARNATAK A) TO SUPPORT SUCH PROPOSITION. THE LEARNED AR ALSO REFERRED TO HOST OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS TO CLAIM THAT THE AO WAS NOT ENTITLED TO MAKE ANY ADDITIONS ON ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 9 - THE BASIS OF DUMB DOCUMENT AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE OR DER PASSED BY THE AO CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. 5.2 THE LEARNED DR FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HA ND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. I T WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT AT THE TIME OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE TO THE ASSES SEE UNDER S.153C OF THE ACT ON 13.11.2015, THE ORDER DT. 30.03.2015 UNDER S .143(3) OF THE ACT WAS ALREADY PASSED AND THEREFORE SUCH ORDER WAS VALID A ND SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW. 6. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED BY THE PCIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT AS WELL AS OTHER EVIDENCES REFERRED TO AND RELIED UPON BY THE RESPEC TIVE PARTIES AND CASE LAWS CITED. 6.1 SUPERVISORY JURISDICTION VESTED UNDER SECTION 2 63 OF THE ACT ENABLES THE CONCERNED PCIT/CIT TO REVIEW THE RECORDS OF ANY PROCEEDINGS AND ORDER PASSED THEREIN BY THE AO. IT EMPOWERS THE REVISION AL COMMISSIONER CONCERNED TO CALL FOR AND EXAMINE THE RECORDS OF AN OTHER PROCEEDING UNDER THE ACT AND IF HE CONSIDERS THAT ANY ORDER PASSED T HEREIN BY THE AO IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INT EREST OF THE REVENUE, THEN HE MAY (AFTER GIVING THE ASSESSEE AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND AFTER MAKING OR CAUSING TO BE MADE SUCH INQUIRY AS HE DEE MS NECESSARY), PASS SUCH ORDER THEREON AS THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE JUSTIFY, INCLUDING THE ORDER ENHANCING OR MODIFYING THE ASSESSMENT OR CANC ELLING THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTING AFRESH ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE REVISIO NARY POWERS CONFERRED ON THE PCIT/CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT ARE OF VERY WID E AMPLITUDE WITH A VIEW TO ADDRESS THE REVENUE RISKS WHICH ARE OBJECTI VELY JUSTIFIABLE. 6.2 IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE SUBSTANTIVE ISSUE THAT EMERGES FOR ADJUDICATION IS WHETHER THE PCIT UNDER THE UMBRELLA OF REVISIONARY POWERS IS ENTITLED TO UPSET THE FINALIT Y OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE AO WHERE THE AO HAS ALLEGEDL Y COMMITTED ERROR IN ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 10 - PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT PROPER VERIFICATIO N AND INQUIRY OF DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN GROUP CASES OF ASSESSEE. IT IS THE CASE OF THE PCIT THAT CERTAIN SEIZED DOCUMENTS GIVING RISE TO INFERENCE OF INVOLVEMENT OF SUPPRESSION IN THE SALE PRICE OF LAND PARCELS AS WELL AS INVOLVEMENT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH MONEY WERE REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT. THE PCI T ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY INQUIRY OR VERIFICATION WHI CH SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6.3 IN SO FAR AS LACK OF INQUIRY ON THE TRANSACTION S FOUND TO BE RECORDED IN THE SEIZED PAPER RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE FIRM, WE FIND THAT THE CONTROVERSY IS PLAIN AND SIMPLE AND IS NOT CAPABLE OF ANY DEBATE. A BARE READING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER TO THE LOOSE PAPER SEIZED. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND TO B E RELATABLE AND CONNECTED TO THE ASSESSEE. A PART OF THE TRANSACTI ONS RECORDED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS WERE SUBJECTED TO ASSESSMENT IN AY 2011-12. IT WAS THUS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO AT LEAST STATE AS TO HOW THE TRANSAC TIONS FOUND TO BE UNRECORDED FROM THE DRASTIC ACTION OF SEARCH ARE NO T LIABLE TO BE ASSESSED. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FAILED TO SHOW THAT RELEVANT ENQUIRIES WERE ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT BY AO WHILE FRAMING ASSESSMENT. ON THE CONSPECTUS OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATED BY THE PCIT, WE AR E OF THE VIEW THAT AO HAS TOTALLY FAILED TO MAKE ANY INQUIRY ON SUCH VITA L DOCUMENTS AND MERELY ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME PERFUNCTORILY AND WIT HOUT APPLICATION OF MIND. THIS IS NOT TO SAY THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASS ESSEE ON MERITS IS INCORRECT OR OTHERWISE. THE PERTINENT QUESTION HER E IS WHETHER WHEN THERE IS NO OR TOTAL ABSENCE OF INQUIRY ON CERTAIN ENTRIE S DISCOVERED AND RELATABLE TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS A BEARING ON ULTIMATE TAX ABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, IS IT OPEN TO THE PCIT TO INVOKE JURISDIC TION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT OR NOT. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS CLEARLY IN AFFIRMATIVE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO IN DISCHA RGE OF ITS QUASI JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS IS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO T HE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AS NOTED. ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 11 - 6.4 WE MAY NOTICE HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE VALIDITY OF ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE FIRS T TIME BEFORE US. HOWEVER THE QUESTION BEFORE US IS THE CORRECTNESS O F THE ACTION OF THE PCIT ON AN ORDER PASSED WHICH CONTINUES TO HOLD FIELD AS ON DATE. THE VALIDITY OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S. 153C INSTEAD OF SECTION 143(2)/143(3) OF THE ACT SOUGHT TO BE RAISED REQUIR ES FACTUAL EXAMINATION AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF SEVERAL FACTUAL ASPECTS. WE, AT THIS STAGE, AND IN THESE PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT EQUIPPED TO LOOK INTO SUCH COMP LEX ASPECTS ON ALTOGETHER NEW FACTS REFERRED FOR THE FIRST TIME. SUCH QUESTION MAY BE RELEVANT ONLY IN REGULAR PROCEEDINGS, IF SUITABLY C HALLENGED. 6.5 IT MAY BE PERTINENT TO OBSERVE THAT THE PROCEED INGS UNDER S.143(2) OF THE ACT WOULD ABATE ONLY UPON VALID ASSUMPTION OF J URISDICTION UNDER S. 153C OF THE ACT. STRINGENT PRE-REQUISITES HAVE BEE N PRESCRIBED UNDER S.153A/153C OF THE ACT FOR COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT BY TAKING RESORT TO SUCH PROVISIONS. IN THE ABSENCE OF A VALID AND MAI NTAINABLE NOTICE DEMONSTRATED TO BE SUBSISTING UNDER S. 153C OF THE ACT DURING THE PENDENCY OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN REVISION, IT DOES NOT LIE IN THE MOUTH OF THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE A PLEA OF NON-MAINTAINABILITY OF A SSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVISION BY SUPERVISORY AUTHORITY AND TAKE SHELTER OF JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (SUPRA) TO ESCAPE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALTOGETHER. THE JUDGMENT IN CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT COMPANY (SUPRA) WAS RENDERED IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WHERE IT WAS PRIMA FACIE DEMONSTRABLE ON FACTS WITHOUT ANY EFFORTS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISION WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. NO EXAMINATIO N OF FACTS WAS NEEDED UNLIKE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 153C OF THE ACT WHI CH IS DEPENDENT ON MANY CONDITIONS AND SATISFACTION OF COMPETENT OFFIC ERS AND BEARS MANY ALTOGETHER DIFFERENT TRAPPINGS. LOOKING FROM A DIF FERENT ANGLE, ANY PROCEEDINGS (UNLESS ABATED) UNDER THE ACT CAN BE SU BJECT MATTER OF REVISIONAL PROCEEDINGS UNDER S. 263 OF THE ACT. TH US, UNLESS IT IS KNOWN THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.143(3) OF THE ACT STOO D INVALIDATED, THE PCIT/CIT IS EMPOWERED TO EXERCISE POWERS CONFERRED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. THE DETERMINATION OF VALIDITY AND JURISDICTIO N OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT ITA NO. 356/AHD/16 [PUSHKAR CORPORATION VS. PR.CIT] AY 2012-13 - 12 - IS THUS IN ALTOGETHER SPHERE. HENCE, AT THE THRESH OLD, THE CONCLUSION OF THE PCIT OF THE ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE CANNOT BE FAULTED WHERE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE OBJECTION RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN TESTED IN ANY O THER PROCEEDINGS AT ALL. IN THE RESULT, WE DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE. RESULTANTLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSE D. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. SD/- SD/- (MADHUMITA ROY) (PRADIP KUMA R KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 26/07/2019 TRUE COPY S. K. SINHA !'#' / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- &. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE (. )*+ , / CONCERNED CIT 4. ,- / CIT (A) /. 012 33*+4 *+#4 56) / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 7. 289 : / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / 4 /5 *+#4 56) THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 26/07/2019