Sh. Gurdhian Singh, Jalandhar V. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalandhar

ITA 420/ASR/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8683 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 12-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: DINESH SARNA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Ignorance of law
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 27; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR (CAMP AT JALANDH AR ) BEFORE SH. A.D.JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A NOS.420 & 421 (ASR)/2016 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 SH. GURDHIAN SINGH H.NO.220, GALI NO.2, NEW JOGINDER NAGAR, RAMA MANDI, JALANDHAR. PAN:ABTPS -9296A VS. ASST CIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. DINESH SARNA (ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. BALWINDER KAUR (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 23.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.03.20 17 ORDER PER T. S. KAPOOR (AM): THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A), BOTH DATED 13.06.2016 FOR ASST. YEAR S: 2011-12 & 2012-13 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND COMMON ISS UE IS INVOLVED IN THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THE SAME ARE BEING DIS POSED OFF THROUGH A COMMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. AR INVITED OUR ATTENTION TO THE BRIEF SYNOPSIS FILED BY HIM AND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS AN IND IVIDUAL AND A SEARCH ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 2 & SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED ON U/S 132 OF THE A CT. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NET INCOME WHEREIN ASSES SEE DULY DISCLOSED THE AMOUNT SURRENDER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AN D PAID ALL THE TAXES ALONGWITH INTEREST. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSMEN T IN THIS CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED AFTER DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAI N EXPENSES AND ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE FILED HIS SUBMISSIONS AND STATED THAT ASSESSEE FULFILLED ALL THE THREE ESSENTIAL CONDITIONS FOR NOT LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271AAA, BUT ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE WRONGLY IMPOSE D PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED PENALTY ON DIFFEREN T BASIS AND HAD IMPOSED PENALTY ON DIFFERENT BASIS AND THEREFORE PE NALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED TO THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE REQUE ST TO ADJUST SEIZED CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.13 LACS TOWARDS THE TAX PAYABL E BUT THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT ADJUST FOR TWO YEARS AND THE DE MAND WAS RAISED ONLY BECAUSE OF INTEREST WHICH OCCURRED DUE TO LATE ADJU STMENT OF CASH SEIZED AND THEREFORE, ASSESSEE HAD FULFILLED ALL THE CONDI TIONS FOR NOT LEVYING PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED PARTLY THE PENALTY HOLDING THAT ENTIRE AMOUNT OF TAX WAS NOT D EPOSITED. THE LD. AR REITERATED HIS STAND ON THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY A ND SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED PENALTY FOR ONE REA SON AND HAD IMPOSED PENALTY FOR ANOTHER REASON. THEREFORE, HE ARGUED TH AT PENALTY WAS NOT ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 3 IMPOSABLE. RELIANCE IN THIS RESPECT WAS PLACED ON T HE CASE LAW OF CIT VS. M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS, SLP CC NO.11485/2016 WHE REIN THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILE D BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF KARNATA KA. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAD DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF REVENUE ON THE BASIS THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED U/S 2 71(1)(C) DID NOT SPECIFY AS TO UNDER WHICH LIMB OF SEC.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, THE PENALTY WAS INITIATED. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED IN THIS CASES A LSO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SPECIFY AND SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME SURRENDERED WAS DERIVED BY HIM AND HAD IMPOSED PENA LTY FOR THE REASON THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID COMPLETE TAXES AND INTER EST THEREON ON THE DISCLOSED INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CI RCUMSTANCES, THE LD. AR ARGUED THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE BE ALL OWED AS THESE WERE DULY COVERED BY THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF M/S SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA). WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE DUE TAXES WERE PAID BY ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.13 LACS WAS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH A ND WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD REQUESTED FOR ADJUSTMENT AGAINST THE D UE TAXES AND THE AUTHORITIES DID NOT ADJUST THE SEIZED AMOUNT FOR TW O YEARS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DEMAND HAD OCCURRED ONLY BECAUSE OF LATE ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 4 ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED AMOUNT AGAINST THE DUE TAXES. THE LD. AR RELIED ON AN ORDER OF ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACI T VS. SH. PARVINDER SINGH PROP. IN ITA NO.385(ASR)/2012, WHEREIN THE HO NBLE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT CASH SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATIONS WAS ADJUSTABLE AGAINST THE LIABILITY TO PAY ADVANCE TAX. THE LD. AR SUBMIT TED THAT HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES AND INTEREST FOR AVAILING IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S 271 AAA OF THE ACT. 4. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, HEAVILY PLACED HE R RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL PARTIES AND HAVE GONE TH ROUGH THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INITIATED PENALTY FOR ONE REASON AND HA D IMPOSED PENALTY BY STATING DIFFERENT REASONS AND THEREFORE, PENALTY WA S NOT IMPOSABLE, WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF LD. AR THAT THE SA ME WAS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF MS . SSAS EMERALD MEADOWS (SUPRA), AS THE ORDER RELIED ON BY ASSESSEE RELATED TO SEC. 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT WHERE THE HONBLE COURT HAD H ELD THAT SEC.271(1)(C) CONTAINS TWO LIMBS FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY I.E., (I) CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. (II) FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE COURT HAD HELD THAT IF ASSESSING OFFICER INITIATES PENALTY UNDER ONE LIMB AND IMPOSES PENALTY UNDER SECOND LIMB THEN PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) IS NOT IMPOSABLE. IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE PENALTY WAS NO T IMPOSED U/S 271(1) (C) OF THE ACT AND RATHER IT HAS BEEN IMPOSED U/S 2 71AAA OF THE ACT ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 5 WHICH DOES NOT SPECIFY TWO LIMBS AND THIS PENALTY I S IMPOSABLE IN A CASE WHERE THE SEARCH IS INITIATED AND UNDISCLOSED INCOM E IS UNEARTHED AND IN THAT CASE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO PAY PENALTY @ 10% O F THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR IS NO T ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF LD. AR THAT THE PENALTY U/S 271 AAA WAS NOT IMPOSABLE AS ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS AS CONTAINED IN SEC.271AAA(2) WERE FULFILLED. IN THIS RESPECT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO VIS IT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.271AAA(1) & 271AAA(2) AND WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS ARE REPRODUCED AS BELOW. 271AAA. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTAN DING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRE CT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR A FTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALT Y, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR. SEC.271AAA(2):- NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1 ) SHALL APPLY IF THE ASSESSEE,- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDER S UB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS B EEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RE SPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS REGARDS, THE FIRST TWO CONDITIONS THERE IS NO DI SPUTE AS LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT PAID COMPLETE TAXES AND INTEREST AND THEREFORE, HE HAD PARTLY CONFIRMED THE PENALTIE S. THE LD. AR STATED THAT THE DEMAND RELATED TO INTEREST ONLY WHICH HAD OCCURRED DUE TO LATE ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CASH AND WHICH HAS BEEN ADJUST ED AFTER TWO YEARS AFTER REPEATED REQUESTS BY ASSESSEE. IN THIS RESPEC T, THE SUBMISSIONS ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 6 FILED BY ASSESSEE AS CONTAINED IN PB 24 TO 25 ARE R ELEVANT AND WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. SIR, IT IS ADMITTED FACT THAT ASSESSEE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SALE/PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND DURING SEARCH CERTAIN LOOSE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH CONTAINS THE DETAIL OF UNDISCLOSED SALE OF PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ASSESSEE DISCLOSED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 7,02,000/-. SIR, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE DULY FILED DETAIL OF DISCLOSUR E MADE BY HER CO- RELATING TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND ASSESSEE ALSO F ILED DETAIL OF PROPERTY ON THE BASIS OF WHICH DISCLOSURE WAS MADE AND THE S AME IS REPRODUCED HEREIN BELOW: CCH-L/A-L/PAEE-1 IT HAS BEEN CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT AMOUNT OF RS.57, 02,000/- WAS RECEIVED AS PROFIT OF SALE OF PROPERTY. CCH-L/A-L/PAGE-2 IN THIS PAPER IT IS MENTIONED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 75,72,800/- WAS RECEIVED AS PROFIT OF SALE AT LADHEWALI. CCH-L/A-L/PAGE-3 IN THIS PAPER IT IS MENTIONED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 45,12,000/- AND RS.48,14,000/- WAS RECEIVED AS PROFIT OF SALE AT DH ILWAN. CCH-L/A-2/PAGE-L IN THIS PAPER IT IS MENTIONED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 36,47,200/- WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. CCH-L/A-2/PAGE-2 IN THIS PAPER IT IS MENTIONED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 28,21,200/- WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. CCH-L/A-2/PAEE-3 IN THIS PAPER IT IS MENTIONED THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 17,29,425/- WAS RECEIVED ON SALE OF PROPERTY. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HIMSELF INCORPORATED THE DETAIL OF THE SAID PROPERTY IN THE PENALTY ORDER I. E CCH-I/A-I/PAGEL TO 3, SO, ASSESSEE DULY SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE SAID INCOME DISCLOSED. THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAS FAILED TO PUT ANY EVIDENCE WHICH PROVES THAT ASSESSEE EARNED INCOME OTHER THAN THE S OURCES DISCLOSED BY HIM. ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONLY BUSINESS OF SAIE/ PURC HASE OF PROPERTY, NO OTHER BUSINESS IS RUN BY ASSESSEE, SO, IT IS REQUES TED THAT CONSIDERING THE FACT PENALTY MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. (III) PAYS THE.TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. SIR, ASSESSEE PAID ALL THE TAXES DUE ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY HIM WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME. ASSESSEE HAS DULY CONSIDER THE DISCLOSURE O F ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 7 RS.57,02,000/- WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND DE CLARED INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.62,08,130/-, ON WHICH ASSESSEE PAID ALL THE TAXES DUE ALONGWITH INTEREST THAN THE LD, ASSESSING OFFICER I S NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS.5,72,000/- ON TOTA L DISCLOSURE OF RS.57,02,000/-. SIR, THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER IMPOSED PENALTY BY S TATING THAT TAXES ON THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNPAID. IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED THAT WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME TOTAL TAX ES DUE WAS RS.17,67,932/-AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE CLAMED TDS AMO UNTING TO RS.27,347/-, PAID SELF ASSTT. TAX AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,09,410/- AND ALSO MADE REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT OF CASH FOUND & SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH I.E. RS.13,00,000/- BUT THE DEPARTMENT ADJUSTED TAX AFTE R TWO YEARS OF REPEATED REQUEST OF ASSESSEE. SIR, THE DEMAND WAS RAISED BECAUSE DEPARTMENT ADJ USTED CASH SEIZED FROM ASSESSEE AFTER TWO YEARS OF REPEAT ED REQUEST FOR ADJUSTMENT. DEMAND IS OUTSTANDING ON ACCOUNT OF INT EREST CALCULATED BY THE DEPARTMENT. ASSESSEE HAS NO FAULT ON HIS PART, WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME ASSESSEE CALCULATED THE TOTAL TAX AND ALSO P AID THE SAME SO, IT IS REQUESTED THAT PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. SIR, CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF TH IS CASE IT IS REQUESTED THAT PENALTY IMPOSED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER MAY KINDLY BE DROPPED. THE LD. AR HAD ARGUED THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT FOR TAXES AND ALSO FOR ADJUSTMENT OF SEIZED CASH AGAINS T DUE TAXES AND HAD RELIED ON THE CASE LAW OF ACIT VS. SH. PARVINDER SI NGH PROP. (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT HONBLE AMRITSAR TRIBUNAL IN THIS CASE VI DE ORDER DATED 25.07.2013 VIDE PARA 12 ONWARDS HAS HELD AS UNDER: 12. AS REGARDS THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO SECTION 271AAA(2)(III) WHERE THE PENAL PROVISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE, WHERE THE ASSESSE PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IN THIS REGARD, W E ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SALIL KAPOOR, ADVOCATE THAT THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT MENTIONED IN T HE SAID SECTION. HAD THERE BEEN ANY INTENTION OF THE LAW THEN SECTION 27 1AAA WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN OMITTED WHICH SINCE HAS BEEN OMITTED BY THE FI NANCE ACT, 2012 FOR THE SEARCHES MADE UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR AFTER 1ST DAY OF JULY, 2012 W.E.F. 1.7.2012 BY INTRODUCING NEW SECTION AS 271AA B WHERE THE TIME LIMIT AND THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY IN DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANC ES HAS BEEN INTRODUCED IN THE ACT ITSELF. THEREFORE, THE LEGISL ATORS WERE CLEAR THAT THERE ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 8 IS NO INTENTION OF THE LAW W.R.T. TIME LIMIT EMBEDD ED IN SECTION 271AAA WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT OF TAX TOGETHER WITH INTERES T. ACCORDINGLY, SECTION 271AAB WAS INTRODUCED W.E.F. 01.07.2012 BY FINANCE ACT, 2012 INCORPORATING THEREIN TIME LIMIT, WHICH FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 271AAB (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTANDING ANY THING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRE CT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 ON OR A FTER THE IST DAY OF JULY, 2012, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM,- (A) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PERCENT OF T HE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSESSEE- (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB- SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPEC IFIED THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOS ED INCOME WAS DERIVED AND III) ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE A) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; AND B) FURNISHES SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME THEREIN. 14 B) A SUM COMPUTED AT THE RATE OF TWENTY PERCENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF SUCH ASSESSEE I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDE R SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, DOES NOT ADMIT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND II) ON OR BEFORE THE SPECIFIED DATE A) DECLARES SUCH INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FUR NISHED FOR THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR; AND B) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME; C) A SUM WHICH SHALL NOT BE LESS THAN THIRTY PERCEN T BUT WHICH SHALL NOT EXCEED NINETY PERCENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR, IF IT IS NOT COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF CLA USE (A) AND (B). 13. THEREFORE, WE ARE CONVINCED WITH THE ARGUMENTS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE LAW HAD NO INTENTION IN SECTION 27 1AAA FOR PAYMENT OF TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST TO PAY THE SAME WITHIN SOME TIME LIMIT IN PARTICULAR BEFORE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. ON IDENTICAL F ACTS, AS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SALIL KAPOOR, ADVOCAT E, THE DECISION OF ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 9 COORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PIONEER ON LINE LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH WILL BE VERY RELEVANT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE S OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE SAID ORDER IN PARA 3 TO 11 ARE REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY AS UNDER: 3. THE ISSUE IN APPEAL LIES IN A NARROW COMPASS OF UNDISPUTED FACTS. ON 30TH AUGUST 2007, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AN D CERTAIN ASSOCIATED ENTITIES, COLLECTIVELY REFERRED TO AS PI ONEER GROUP, WERE SUBJECTED TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS UNDER SE CTION 132 OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF THIS OPERATION, THE ASSES SEE MADE A DISCLOSURE OF RS. 1,00,00,000 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007 -08 AND RS 50,00,000 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09. THERE IS NO 15 DISPUTE THAT THE INCOME SO DECLARED WAS INCLUDED IN THE INC OME SUBSEQUENTLY RETURNED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIDE INCOME TAX RETURNS FILED ON 13T H NOVEMBER 2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEA R 2007 -08 AND 29TH SEPTEMBER 2008 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 0 08-09. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 WAS COMPLETED ON 31 ST DECEMBER 2009, BUT, WHILE FI NALIZING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO INITIATED TH E PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271 AAA AND OBSERVED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PAID THE FULL TAXES AND INTEREST O N DISCLOSURE MADE U/S 132(4), PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT ARE INITIATED. THE SAME WAS THE POSITION WITH REGARD TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 -09. IN THE RESULTANT PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT BEFORE FILING TH E INCOME TAX RETURN, THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID ADVANCE TAX OF RS 18, 72,162 ON 25.10.2007 AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE CASH OF RS.15,00,000 SEIZED FROM ASSESSEES PREMISES DURING SEARCH OPERATION BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE BALANCE LIABILITY . THE ADJUSTMENT WAS FINALLY CARRIED OUT ON 17.3.2010 AND THE CASH S EIZED WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX LIABILITY. THERE WAS ALSO A DEMAND FOR 234B AND 234 C LIABILITIES AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE LATER ON PAID OVER THE SHORTFALL, WITHIN PERMISSIBL E TIME, UPON RECEIVING THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156. S O FAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 008-09 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY PAID TAX LIABILITY BEFORE FILING OF INCOME TAX RETU RN BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT, DUE TO INADVERTENT MISTAKE, COMPUTE INTERE ST UNDER SECTION 234B AND 234C. THERE WAS ALSO A DEMAND FOR 234B AND 234C LIABILITIES AND THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESS EE LATER ON PAID OVER THE SHORTFALL, WITHIN PERMISSIBLE TIME, UPON R ECEIVING THE NOTICE OF DEMAND UNDER SECTION 156. IT WAS THUS ARGUED THA T THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH APPLICABLE INTEREST, WAS DULY PAID BY THE ASSESSEE, AND, ACCORDINGLY, THE CONDITION REGARD PAYMENT OF T AX AND INTEREST WAS DULY COMPLIED WITH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, URGED TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT IMPRESSED WITH THIS SUBMISSION. BY WAY OF 16 TWO SEPARATE, BUT MATERIALLY SIMILAR ORDERS, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEE DED TO IMPOSE THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS: THE ABOVE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND THE AS SESSMENT RECORD HAS BEEN PERUSED. SINCE THE SEARCH WAS CONDU CTED ON ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 10 30/8/2007 AND THE DISCLOSURE WAS MADE IN THE STATEM ENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT FOR THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YE AR, THE PENALTY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA WAS SQUARELY APPLICABL E IN THIS CASE. THE SUB SECTION (2) OF SECTION 271AAA PROVIDES THAT : (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPL Y IF THE ASSESSEE, (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPEC IFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT CAN BE SEEN THAT, IN ORDER TO ESCAPE THE PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271AAA, THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO FULFILL ALL THE THREE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN AS REPRODUCED ABOVE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTEDLY DID NOT PAY THE MANDATORY INTEREST PAYAB LE UNDER SECTION 234 C OF THE ACT. THUS, ALL THE CONDITIONS OF 271AAA(2) HAVE NOT BEEN COMPLIED WITH. IGNORANCE OF LAW CANNOT BE TAKEN AS A PLEA TO GET IMMUNITY. THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPOSED HIMSELF T O THE PENAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271 AAA(1). CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , I AM OF THE OPINION THAT IT IS A FIT CASE FOR IMPOSITION OF PEN ALTY UNDER SECTION 271 AAA. THE QUANTUM OF PENALTY IS COMPUTED @ 10% O F THE AMOUNT OF DISCLOSURE AT RS50,00,000. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEA L BEFORE THE CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) NOTED THAT FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE SECTION (I.E. 271AAA) IT IS APPARENT THAT 17 IF THE CONDITIONS LA ID DOWN UNDER SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 271 AAA ARE SATISFIED, NO PENA LTY WILL BE IMPOSED AND THAT .IN SECTION 271AAA, THERE IS NO PRECONDITION THAT THE TAX ALONGWITH INTEREST MUST BE PAID BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OR AN Y OTHER SPECIFIED DATE. IT WAS IN THIS BACKDROP, AND IN A SITUATION IN WHIC H IT WAS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT DUE TAX, ALONG WITH INTEREST, WAS PAI D BEFORE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED, THE CIT(A) DELETED THE IMPUGNED PENALTY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE STA ND SO TAKEN BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF T HE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE FIND THAT SECTION 271 AAA, WHICH IS APPLICABL E IN RESPECT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 11 ON OR AFTER 1ST JUNE 2007, PROVIDES AS FOLLOWS: PEN ALTY WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED. 271AAA. (1) THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY, NOTWITHSTAND ING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN ANY OTHER PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, DIRE CT THAT, IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 O N OR AFTER THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2007, THE ASSESSEE SHALL PAY BY WAY OF PENALTY, IN ADDITION TO TAX, IF ANY, PAYABLE BY HIM, A SUM COMP UTED AT THE RATE OF TEN PER CENT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE SPECI FIED PREVIOUS YEAR. (2) NOTHING CONTAINED IN SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPL Y IF THE ASSESSEE, (I) IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UND ER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132, ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPEC IFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLO SED INCOME WAS DERIVED; AND 18 (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. (3) NO PENALTY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (C) O F SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 271 SHALL BE IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1). (4) THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 274 AND 275 SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY IN RELATION TO THE PENALTY REFERRED TO IN THI S SECTION. EXPLANATION : FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS SECTION, (A) UNDISCLOSED INCOME MEANS (I) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRE SENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHE R VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, WHICH HAS (A) NOT BEEN RECORDED ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF SEAR CH IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEAR; OR (B) OTHERWISE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED TO THE CHIEF COMMI SSIONER OR COMMISSIONER BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH; OR (II) ANY INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR REPRESENTED, EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY, BY ANY ENTRY IN RESPECT OF AN EXPENSE RECORDED IN THE BOOK S OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE RELATING TO THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE AND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE SO HAD THE SEARCH NOT BEEN CONDUCTED; (B) SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEAR MEANS THE PREVIOUS YE AR ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 12 (I) WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH, BUT THE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB -SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AND THE ASSES SEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE PREVIOUS YEA R BEFORE THE SAID DATE; OR (II) IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. 7. WE FIND THAT UNDER THE SCHEME OF SECTION 271AAA, THERE IS A COMPLETE PARADIGM SHIFT SO FAR AS PENALTY IN RESPEC T OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME UNEARTHED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OPERATION CA RRIED OUT ON OR AFTER 1S T JUNE 2007 IS CONCERNED. UNLIKE IN THE CASE OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C), SECTION 271 AAA, WITHOUT ANY REF ERENCE TO FINDINGS OR PRESUMPTIONS OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR THE FINDIN GS OR PRESUMPTIONS OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS, PROVIDES T HAT IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE CASES WHERE SEARCH INITIA TED AFTER 1S T JUNE 2007, THE ASSESSEE IS TO PAY A PENALTY @ 10% OF UNA CCOUNTED INCOME. SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 271 AAA, HOWEVER, RELAXES THE RIGOUR OF THIS PENALTY PROVISION IN A SITUATION IN WHICH (I) IN TH E COURSE OF THE SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4), ADMITS THE UND ISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS B EEN DERIVED; (II) SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME WAS DERIVED; AND (III) PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTE REST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME . WHILE PAYMENT OF TAXES, ALONG WITH INTEREST, BY THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE CONDITIONS PRECEDENT FOR AVAILING THE IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 271AAA(2), THERE IS NO TIME LIMIT SET OUT FOR SUCH PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE. ONCE A TIME LIMIT FO R PAYMENT OF TAX AND INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN SET OUT BY THE STATUTE, I T CANNOT INDEED BE OPEN TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO READ SUCH A TIME L IMIT INTO THE SCHEME OF THE SECTION OR TO INFER ONE. THERE IS THUS NO LE GALLY SUSTAINABLE BASIS FOR THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT IN A SI TUATION IN WHICH DUE TAX AND INTEREST HAS NOT BEEN PAID IN FULL BEFORE F ILING OF THE RELEVANT INCOME TAX RETURN, THE ASSESSEE WILL NOT BE ELIGIBL E FOR IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 271 AAA(2). 8. WHILE DEALING WITH EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271( 1)(C), WHICH IS BROADLY ON THE SAME LINES, HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, IN T HE CASE OF CIT VS MAHENDRA C SHAH (299 ITR 305) HAS OBSERVED THAT, THERE IS NO PRESCRIPTION ABOUT THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE TAX H AD TO BE PAID QUA THE 20 AMOUNT OF INCOME DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT UNDER SE CTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. WE MUST, HOWEVER, POINT OUT THAT EVEN AFTER M AKING THESE SPECIFIC OBSERVATIONS THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD TO TREAT THE CONCL USION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS OUTER LIMIT FOR MAKING PAYMENT OF TA X AND INTEREST BUT THAT WAS BECAUSE OF THE PECULIAR NATURE OF PENALTY PROVI SIONS UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) WHEREIN ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO RECORD T HE SATISFACTION IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF SOMETHING WHICH IS NOT A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271 AAA. THEIR LORDSHIPS HAD HELD THAT HOWEVER, THE OUTER LIMIT HAS TO BE THE POINT OF TIME WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BECAUSE THE OPENING PORTION OF SECTION 271( 1) OF THE ACT REQUIRES THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECORD SATISFACTION IN THE COU RSE OF SUCH PROCEEDINGS, AND THE SATISFACTION HAS TO BE AS REGARDS THE CONCE ALMENT OF PARTICULARS OF ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 13 INCOME OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCO ME. SECTION 271 AAA, AS THE STATUTE UNAMBIGUOUSLY PROVIDES, DOES NOT REQ UIRE ANY SUBJECTIVE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO BE ARRIVED AT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AND, THEREFORE, THE OUTER LIMIT OF PAY MENT BEFORE THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT COME INTO PLAY. 9. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THEREFORE, ON THE FAC TS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHEREIN ENTIRE TAX AND INTEREST HAS BEEN DULY ADJUS TED OUT OF SEIZED CASH OR OTHERWISE PAID IN DEFERENCE TO NOTICES OF DEMAND , WELL BEFORE THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE CONCLUDED, THE ASSESSEE CO ULD NOT BE DENIED THE IMMUNITY UNDER SECTION 271AAA( 2) ONLY BECAUSE ENTI RE TAX, ALONG WITH INTEREST, WAS NOT PAID BEFORE FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN OR, FOR THAT PURPOSE, BEFORE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. 10. FOR THE REASONS SET OUT ABOVE, WE APPROVE THE CONCLUSIONS A RRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON 17 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2012. 21 14. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDER IN THE CASE O F DCIT VS. PIONEER ONLINE LTD. (SUPRA), IT IS OBVIOUS THAT THE FACTS I N THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PION EER ONLINE LTD. (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WHO HAS RIGHTLY CANCELLED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE A.O . THUS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND THE SA ME IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, ALL THE GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF CO- ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. PIONEER ONLI NE LTD. IN ITA NO.1324-5/KOL/2011 REPORTED IN (2012) 52 SOT 94 (KO L) FOR HOLDING THAT FOR IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY U/S 271AAA, THERE WAS NO TIME LIMIT FOR PAYMENT OF TAXES. THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS FURTHER HELD THAT CASH SEIZED DURING SEARCH WAS ADJUSTABLE AGAINST ADVANCE TAX LI ABILITY. WE FIND THAT IN THE PRESENT CASES, THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN REQUEST ING TO THE AUTHORITIES TO ADJUST THE SEIZED CASH OF RS.13 LACS AGAINST THE TAX DEMAND AND THE AUTHORITIES BELOW DID NOT ADJUST THE SAME AND WHICH THE DEPARTMENT ADJUSTED ONLY AFTER TWO YEARS. THEREFORE, KEEPING I N VIEW THE RATIO OF DECISIONS RELIED ON BY ASSESSEE, IF THE SEIZED CASH WAS ADJUSTED AGAINST THE TAX DEMAND, NO DEMAND WOULD HAVE ARISEN AS THE DEFAULT ITA NOS.4 20 & 421(ASR)/2016 ASST. YEARS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 14 REPRESENTED INTEREST ONLY. EVEN IF IT IS DEEMED THA T ASSESSEE PAID THE TAXES AFTER TWO YEARS AT THE TIME OF ADJUSTMENT BY DEPARTMENT EVEN THEN PENALTY WAS NOT IMPOSABLE AS HELD BY HONBLE TRIBUN AL IN THE CASE RELIED ON BY ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, KEEPING IN VIEW THE RATIO OF JUDGMENTS R ELIED ON BY LD. AR AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT ASSESSEE FULFILLED THE THREE CONDITIONS AND TH EREFORE, WAS NOT LIABLE FOR PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, ALTERNATIVE ARGUMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IS ADMITTED AND THEREFORE, THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESS EE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. A 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.03. 2017. SD/- SD/- S (A.D. JAIN) (T. S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: 27.03.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER