ACIT, Kanpur V. Shri Dinesh Jain, New Delhi

ITA 4384/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5257 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 25-07-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 13-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENU AMITABH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Question of law; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 131

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI B BEN CH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI K.N. CHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER. ITA NOS. 4384 & 4385 /DEL/2012 [ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2006-07 & 2007-08] THE ACIT VS. SHRI DINESH JAIN CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING KANPUR 19, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI PAN : ADBPJ 2732 Q ITA NOS. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 [ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2007-08 & 2006-07] THE ACIT VS. MRS. LATA JAIN CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 201, SURYA KIRAN BUILDING KANPUR 19, K.G. MARG, NEW DELHI PAN : AANPJ 5648 L [APPELLANT] [RESPONDENT] DATE OF HEARING : 03.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.08.2017 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJESH JAIN, CA REVENUE BY : MS. RENU AMITABH, CIT-DR ORDER PER B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, ALL THE ABOVE FOUR APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE ARE AGA INST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-III, NEW DELHI IN APPEAL NO. 909/1 0-11, ITA NO. 963/10-11, ITA NO. 910/10-11 & ITA NO. 908/10-11 PE RTAINING TO ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 2 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 AND 2007-08. SINCE ALL TH E FOUR APPEALS PERTAIN TO SAME GROUP OF ASSESSEES AND INVOLVE IDEN TICAL ISSUES, THEREFORE, WE ARE DISPOSING THEM OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THESE APPEALS W ERE ORIGINALLY FILED VIDE ITA NO.742 & 743/LKW/2011 (A.Y. 2006-07 & 2007 -08) IN THE CASE OF SMT. LATA JAIN AND ITA NO. 123 & 280/ LKW/2012 A .Y. 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF SH. DINESH CHAND JAIN BEFORE LUCKNOW BENCH, COMPRISING HON. SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV & SHRI B.R. JAIN, DISMISSED ALL FOUR APPEALS OF REVENUE, VIDE ORDER DATED 3 RD JULY 2012 & 9 TH JULY 2012, RESPECTIVELY WITH THE OBSERVATION THAT LUCKNO W BENCH HAS NOT HAVING JURISDICTION TO ADJUDICATE THESE APPEALS AS ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED IN DELHI AND LD. CIT(A) III, NEW DELHI AND DELHI BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL HAVE JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEES TO HE AR THE APPEALS. LUCKNOW BENCH GAVE LIBERTY TO THE REVENUE TO FILE T HESE APPEALS BEFORE DELHI BENCHES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. ACCORD INGLY THE PRESENT APPEALS WERE FILED BY REVENUE IN DELHI BENCHES ON 1 3 TH AUGUST 2012 AND 4 TH OCTOBER 2012. LD. CIT (DR) DID NOT POINT OUT THIS FACT TO THE BENCH. HOWEVER, KEEPING IN VIEW OF THE FACTS & ORDE RS OF ITAT ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 3 LUCKNOW BENCH ON THE RECORD, WE CONDONE THE DELAY I N FILING APPEAL BY REVENUE BEFORE DELHI BENCHES & ADMIT ALL FOUR APPEA LS FOR HEARING. 3. THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES READ AS UNDE R: ITA NO. 4384/DEL/2012 [A.Y.] 2006-07 SHRI DINESH JAIN 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9.50 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM M/S PENGUINS FAR MS PVT. LTD., ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLIC ATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006-07 AND THIS MATTER WAS NOT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIO N. HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONS ORDER CONFIRMS THAT THE VAL UE OF THE PROPERTY HELD BY M/S PENGUINS FARMS PVT. LTD. AND T HIS SUPPORTS THE A.OS ORDER. 2. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT IT IS A CAS E OF DOUBLE ADDITION IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE HONBLE SETTLEM ENT COMMISSION HAS ACCEPTED INVESTMENT IN THE CASE OF M /S PENGUINS FARMS PVT. LTD. AND THEREFORE, THE VALUE OF INVESTM ENT IN ITS ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 4 HAND. THE SOURCE AND AMOUNT OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE ACQUIRING THIS COMPANY HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHICH IS ASSESSABL E SEPARATELY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAVING PAID ON MONEY IN THIS TRANSACTION. 3. THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELE TING THE INCOME OF RS. 9.50 CRORE FORM THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WH ERE IT IS RIGHTLY ASSESSABLE AS PER LAW. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.10,21,635/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTERE ST ON OVERDRAFT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 5. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,90,432/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE M ARK REGISTRATION EXPENSE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 6. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSE SSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVO LVED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE INSTANT CASE. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 5 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WH EN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 8. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTO RED. ITA NO. 4385/DEL/2012 [A.Y 2007-08]- SHRI DINESH JAIN 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND O N FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.25 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES/PROPERTY OF M/S BAHALSONS & PR OPERTY (P) LTD., ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BE FORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AND THIS MATTER WAS NOT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. TH EREFORE, THE JURISDICTION OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WILL NOT EXTE ND TO THIS CASE IN TERM OF PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 245 (F) OF THE IT ACT 1961. 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9.00 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES/PROPERTY OF M/S PENGUIN FARMS (P) LTD, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 6 SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BE FORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24.00 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY OF A 50 ACRE PLOT IN GREATER NOIDA SEZ IN THE NAME OF M/S PAVITRADHAM CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD, ERRON EOUSLY ACCEPTING, THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SET TLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT A CT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSE D PREMIUM RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT MOTIA KHAN, NEW DELHI IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE DEAL WAS FINALIZED ON 02.02.2007 AND BY ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENTS THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BE FORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 5. THAT LD. CIT (A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.25,60,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNE XPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES SITUATED AT RAJEEV CHOWK A ND GOLF COURSE, ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 7 ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BE FORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 6. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3.33 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN JAIPUR PROPERTY, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTIN G THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PAS SED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 7. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPL AINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT UDAIPUR, ERRONEOUSLY ACCE PTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECID ING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 8. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14.00 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT HONDA CHOWK, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 8 ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECID ING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 9. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING ALL THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.12.2010, PRIOR TO 31.12.2010 I.E. THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10. 10. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEA R INVOLVED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 IN THE INSTANT CASE. 11. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 12. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEO US IN LAW AND ON FACTS HE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RESTO RED. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 9 ITA NO. 4170/DEL/2012 [A.Y. 2006-07] SMT. LATA JAIN 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON F ACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9.50 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEP TING THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECID ING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 AND THIS MAT TER WAS NOT BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, TH E JURISDICTION OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WILL NOT EXTE ND TO THIS CASE IN TERM OF PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (4) OF SEC TION245 (F). 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.8.00 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY, ERRONEOUSLY ACC EPTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECID ING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING BOTH THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE IGNORIN G THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.12.2010, PRIOR TO 31.12.2010 I.E. THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE HONBLE SE TTLEMENT ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 10 COMMISSION PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008- 09 AND 2009-10. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10, WHEREAS THE ASS ESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE INS TANT CASE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 6. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOUS IN LAW AND ON FACTS HE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. B E RESTORED. ITA NO. 4169/DEL/2012 [A.Y.] 2007-08 SMT. LATA JAIN 1. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2.25 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASS ESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PAS SED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT FILED ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 11 APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07, AND THIS MATTER WAS NOT BEFORE THE SE TTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREFORE, THE JURISDICTION OF SETTLEME NT COMMISSION WILL NOT EXTEND TO THIS CASE IN TERM OF PROVISIONS OF SUBSECTION (4) OF SECTION 245 (F). 2. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 9.00 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SHARES/PROPERTY OF M/S PENGUIN FARMS (P) LTD, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BE FORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 3. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 24.00 CRORES ON ACCOUN T OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY OF A 50 ACRE PLOT IN GREATER NOIDA SEZ IN THE NAME OF M/S PAVITRADHAM CONSTRUCTION (P) LTD, ERRON EOUSLY ACCEPTING, THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SET TLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT A CT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 4. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.48,04,50,000/- ON ACCOU NT OF ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 12 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTIES SITUATED AT RA JEEV CHOWK AND GOLF COURSE, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES A RGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDIT ION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLIC ATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 007-08. 5. THAT LD. CTT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3.33 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JAIPUR PROPERTY, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTIN G THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS PAS SED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECIDING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT THAT ASSESSE E HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 6. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,75,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT UDAIPUR, ERRONEOUSLY ACCE PTING THE ASSESSEES ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECID ING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 13 7. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FA CTS IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14.00 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY AT HONDA CHOWK, ERRONEOUSLY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S ARGUMENT THAT HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISS ION HAS PASSED ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE IT ACT, 1961, DECID ING THE ISSUE ON WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE, AS AGAINST THE FACT TH AT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED APPLICATION BEFORE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COM MISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 8. THAT LD. CIT(A) WAS UNJUSTIFIED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DELETING ALL THE ADDITIONS MENTIONED ABOVE IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 28.12.2010, PRIO R TO 31.12.2010 I.E. THE DATE OF ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT CO MMISSION PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-1 0. 9. THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACT IN RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 & 2009-10, WHEREAS THE ASSESSMENT YEA R INVOLVED IS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 -08 IN THE INSTANT CASE. 10. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND ANYONE OR MORE OF THE GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL AS STATED ABOVE AS AND WHEN NEED FOR DOING SO MAY ARISE. 11. THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BEING ERRONEOU S IN LAW AND ON FACTS BE VACATED AND THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE RE STORED. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 14 4. BEFORE TAKING UP, EACH GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, WE AT THE OUTSET, DISCUSS THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF ALL FO UR APPEALS. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WERE PASSED U/S 153C/ 143(3) OF T HE ACT IN ALL FOUR APPEALS, IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132(1) O F THE ACT ON GOPAL ZARDA GROUP. THE APPEALS PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2006-07 AND 2008. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SETTLEMENT PRO CEEDINGS UNDER CHAPTER IXXA WERE IN PROGRESS SIMULTANEOUSLY AND TH E ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE RESPONDENTS AND CIT(ADMIN) CENTRAL CIRCLE II I, JURISDICTIONAL COMMISSIONER WERE PART OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ITSC. THE RELEVANT DATES OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND ITSC APPLICATIONS WERE AS UNDER:- I DATE OF FILING APPLICATIONS BEFORE INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 9 TH DEC. 2009 II DATE OF ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT. 5 TH JAN. 2010 III DATE OF SEARCH ON GOPAL ZARDA GROUP . 15 TH JAN.2009 IV DATE OF ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF ITSC . 31 ST DEC.2010 5. THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) SHRI DINESH JAIN, SMT LATA JAIN AND OTHER ENTITIES OF THE SAID INDIVIDUALS, AS PER ORDE R OF INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 31.12.2010 FILED PETITI ON U/S 245C OF THE ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 15 ACT ON 9 TH DEC. 2009 WHICH WAS ADMITTED FOR HEARING BY ITSC O N 11 TH DEC. 2009. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCL E III, NEW DELHI FILED OBJECTIONS AS PER RULE 9 OF IT SC, RULE ON 6 TH MAY 2010 IN THE CASES OF CASES OF THE RESPONDENTS ON 6 TH MAY 2010 & IN THE CASES OF OTHER ENTITIES ON 30 TH APRIL 2010. THE ORDER OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 31 ST DEC. 2010 AS FILED BY RESPONDENTS, DURING THE COUR SE OF PROCEEDINGS AND ON PAGE NO. 8 TO 11 OF THE ORDER U/ S 254D(4) OF ITSC, THE GIST OF CONTENTIONS OF C.I.T. CENTRAL DELHI HA VE BEEN ELABORATED , THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- PARA 9 : THE GIST OF THE CONTENTIONS OF THE CIT, C ENTRAL III, DELHI MENTIONED IN THE REPORT UNDER RULE 9 IS GIVEN BELOW: PARA 9.1: DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS IN THE PREMI SES OF GOPAL ZARDA GROUP (MAIN PERSON SHRI GOPAL GUPTA) IT WAS F OUND THAT THE APPLICANTS ALONG WITH THE GOPAL GUPTA GROUP (SG GROUP) HAD INDULGED IN UNACCOUNTED PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS WORTH RS. 315 CRORES. OUT OF THIS THE SHARE OF SHRI GOPAL GUPTA W AS SHOWN AT RS 105 CRORES. BASED ON THE EVIDENCES FOUND DURING THE SEARCH PARTICULARLY FROM THE PREMISES OF ONE SHRI ASHOK AG ARWAL, DIRECTOR OF THE GOPAL CORPORATION LTD. (A CONCERN O F THE GOPAL GROUP) SHRI GOPAL GUPTA DISCLOSED UNACCOUNTED INCOM E OF RS. 102 CRORES. PARA 9.2: IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZ ED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL ARE CRUCIAL DOCUMEN TS CONTAINING PARTICULARS OF UNACCOUNTED PROPERTY TRAN SACTIONS. ACCORDING TO ANNEXURE A-4 PAGE 73 SEIZED FROM THE P REMISES OF SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL ON 15.1.2009, THERE WERE 9 PR OPERTIES ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 16 ACQUIRED/OWNED BY THE TWO APPLICANT GROUPS OUT OF W HICH 1/3 RD PART WAS SOLD TO SHRI GOPAL GUPTA. ANNEXURE A-4 (P AGE 1 TO 81) SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ASHOK AGAR WAL CONTAINS DETAILS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS. PARA 9.3: A SUMMARY OF THESE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN GI VEN IN THE REPORT UNDER RULE 9 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX, WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- S. NO. TITLE PAGE NO. OF REMARKS 9.3.1 KAROL BAGH 1 TO 4 AND 68 TO 72 OF ANNEX A-4 ACQUIRED FOR RS. 90 CRORES, ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SHRI GOPAL GUPTA AT VALUATION OF RS. 130 CRORES BY THE APPLICANT GROUP. 9.3.2 MEHRAULI -DO- ACQUIRED FOR RS. 20 CRORES (RS. 19 CRORES IN CASH), ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA AT VALUATION OF RS. 55 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS. SH. DINESH JAIN HAS REACQUIRED 66% OF THIS PROPERTY IN A.Y. 2009-10 FROM P.K. & SG GROUPS. 9.3.3 RAJIV CHOWK -DO- ACQUIRED FOR RS. 66 CRORES, ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA AT VALUATION RS. 90 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS. 9.3.4 GOLF COURSE -DO- ACQUIRED FOR RS. 26 CRORES, ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA AT VALUATION OF RS. 40 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS 9.3.5 UDAIPUR -DO- ACQUIRED FOR RS. 5.46 CRORES, ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA FOR RS. 1.83 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 17 9.3.6 MUSSORIE -DO- & PAGE NO. 95 OF THE ANNEX. ANNEXURE -A-5 AS PER PAGE NO. 95 ANNEXURE A - 5, IT WAS VALUED AT RS. 45 CRORES WHICH CONTAINS PREMIUM OF RS. 10 CRORES RECEIVED BY SH. DINESH JAIN AND SH. GOPAL GUPTA. ITS EARLIER CONSIDERATION OF THIS PROPERTY WAS RS. 26.10 CRORES. ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA BY THE APPLICANT GROUPS. 9.3.7 JAIPUR -DO- ACQUIRED FOR RS. 20 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS. ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA FOR RS. 6.66 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS. 9.3.8 S.E.Z. 1 OF ANN. A-1 AND PAGE NO. 1 TO 4 AND 68 TO 72 OF ANN. A-4. ACQUIRED FOR RS. 96 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS (PAGE NO. 69 AND PAGE NO. 4 OF A-4) AND THEN A THIRD PARTNER AND FOURTH PARTNER WERE INTRODUCED AT VALUATION OF RS. 115 CRORES AND THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REVALUED AT RS. 115 CRORES AND RS. 117 CRORES AND THEN THE SAID PROPERTY WAS REVALUED AT RS. 147 CRORES AND RS. 157 CRORES AND AT LEAST ONE PARTNER RETIRED IN FAVOUR OF THE APPLICANTS. STATUS OF THE 4TH PARTNER IS YET TO BE SUBMITTED BY THE APPLICANTS. 9.3.9 HONDA CHOWK 1 TO 4 AND 68 TO 72 OF ANNEX A-4 ACQUIRED FOR RS. 84 CRORES, ITS 1/3RD PART WAS SOLD TO SH. GOPAL GUPTA FOR RS. 28 CRORES BY THE APPLICANTS. PARA 10 (PAGE 14) OF THE ORDER OF I.T.S.C.: IN A SEPARATE REPORT DATED 27.04.2010 UNDER RULE 9, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, KANPUR HAS MADE A DETAILED ANALYSI S OF THE PAPERS ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 18 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL. HE HAS MADE EFFORTS TO DECIPHER EACH DOCUMENT AND DRAW INFERENCE AS TO THE LIKELY CONCEALMENT. PARA 12 (PAGE 15 & 16) OF THE ORDER OF I.T.S.C.: THE FOCUS OF THE REPORTS OF THE REPORTS OF THE COMM ISSIONER IS ABOUT THE NINE PROPERTIES. CIT(DR) WAS ASKED TO GET EXAMINED THE RECORDS OF AL L THE APPLICANTS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS BEFORE THE COMMISSION BY T HE COMMISSIONER TO ENSURE THAT BARRING THE NINE PROPERTIES, THERE W ERE NO PRIMA FACIE OMISSIONS OR COMMISSIONS OR WRONG FACTS IN THE RETU RN AND ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS IN RESPECT OF THE SETTLEMENT APPLICATIONS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL-III, DELHI HAS GIVEN A REPORT DATED 21.12.2010 DURING THE HEARING ON 22.12.2010 I N WHICH HE DISCUSSED ISSUES OTHER THAN THE NINE PROPERTIES. HE HAS POINTED OUT HEAVY UNSECURED LOANS TAKEN BY T HE APPLICANTS SOME OF WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM APPEAR TO BE SUSPICI OUS. THE ACIT, KANPUR, IN HIS REPORT DATED 6.12.2010 AND 8.12.2010 HAS ALSO RAISED SOME ISSUES. WE FIND THAT THESE REPORTS ARE RATHER VAGUE AND NO SPECIFIC MATERIAL HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE DEPARTMENT WHICH WOULD WARRANT SEPARATE ADDITIONS IN THOSE ARE AS. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 19 PARA 13 (PAGE 16) OF THE ORDER OF I.T.S.C.: A NUMBER OF ASSESSMENTS OF THESE APPLICANTS IN RESP ECT OF OTHER YEARS NOT BEFORE THE COMMISSION ARE PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENTS. THE ASSESSMENT OF SHRI GOPAL GUPTA IS ALSO PENDING IN SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. IT WAS POINTED OUT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ASSISTED THE CIT(DR) IN THE C OURT THAT IN RESPECT OF THOSE ASSESSMENTS WHICH ARE PENDING SCRU TINY, THEY ARE NOT BARRED FROM EXERCISING THEIR POWERS UNDER INCOM E TAX ACT INCLUDING U/S 131 AND 133A. AS A RESULT OF SUCH ENQ UIRIES, IF PRIMA FACIE INCORRECT DECLARATIONS IN THE APPLICATIONS AR E FOUND, THE SAME WAY BE BROUGHT TO THE COMMISSION. WE ALSO FIND THAT A VERY DETAILED QUESTIONNAIRE WAS SENT BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO SHRI GOPAL GUPTA (SG GROUP). IT IS REMEMBERED THAT OUT OF THE THREE ASSOCIATED GROUPS SG, DJ AND PA- ONLY DINESH JAIN & PRADEEP AGGARWAL GROUPS ARE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE MAIN SEAR CH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE SG GROUP WHICH LED TO DISCOVERY OF ALLEG ED INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI ASHOK AGARWAL. T HEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS FREE TO MAKE ANY ENQUIRY IN T HE SG GROUP AND IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS OF THE APPLICANTS OF THE TWO GROUPS NOT COVERED IN THE APPLICATIONS BEFORE SETTLEMENT C OMMISSION. THERE WAS WIDE SCOPE FOR ENQUIRY AND INVESTIGATION LEFT WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICERS, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ASSES SING OFFICER COULD HAVE PROVIDED FURTHER INPUTS. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 20 6. THE HON. I.T.S.C. DULY CONSIDERED ALL SEIZED DOC UMENTS FOUND AT GOPAL ZARDA GROUP IN CONSEQUENCE TO SEARCH U/S 132( 1) OF THE ACT ON 15.01.2009. (NO SEARCH ACTION WAS INITIATED ON THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S), AND THEY FILED PETITIONS BEFORE I.T.S. C. ALONG WITH THEIR COMPANIES, ASSOCIATES, FIRMS IN WHICH THEY WERE PAR TNERS/ DIRECTORS ON 9 TH DECEMBER 2009 MUCH BEFORE THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U /S 153C OF THE ACT TO THEM ON 5 THE JANUARY 2010) ALONG WITH R EPORT OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL III, NEW DELHI, UNDER RULE 9 OF ITSC RULES DATED 6 TH MAY 2010 AND ARGUMENTS OF THE RESPONDENT(S) ASSESSEE(S) & OTHER APPLICANTS WITH CIT(DR) OF THE REVENUE AND ADJUDICATED THE CONTENTIONS OF ALL PARTIES IN DETAI LED MANNER. 7. IN THE APPEALS BEFORE TRIBUNAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE, THE MAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE IN ALL FOUR APPEALS REVO LVES AROUND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN NINE PROPERTIES AND THE YEAR OF TAXABILITY OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/ UNACCOUNTED INCOME ETC :- (I) HOTEL IN MOTIA KHAN, KAROL BAGH (II) PROPERTY AT GITORNY, MEHRAULI (PENGUIN FARMS (P) LT D.) (III) MUSSORIE PROPERTY (BHALSONS & PVT. LTD.) (IV) SEZ GREATER NOIDA PROPERTY (V) PROPERTY AT RAJIV CHOWK (VI) PROPERTY AT GOLF COURSE (VII) PROPERTY AT JAIPUR (VIII) UDAIPUR PROPERTY (IX) HONDA CHOWK ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 21 8. I.T.S.C. ORDER U/S 245D (4) DATED 31 ST DECEMBER 2010 HAS CONSIDERED THE QUANTUM OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/ UNACCOUNTED INCOME QUA RESPONDENT(S) ASSESSEE OR HIS/HER FIRMS/ COMPANIES IN WHICH THEY ARE PARTNER(S) OR DIRECTORS AND THEIR AS SOCIATES PRADEEP AGGARWAL (PJ) GROUP WITH DETAILED REASONS. THE HON. ITSC ALSO CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) WHEREIN THE UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENTS/ INCOME ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAXED. ITSCC , IN ORDER TO SETTLE THE ISSUE(S) IN RESPECT OF NINE PROPERTIES, AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER OF ITSC, BROADLY OBSERVED THAT AMOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENTS/ UNACCOUNTED INCOME /TELESCOPING OF INC OME WITH INVESTMENTS QUA GROUP RESPONDENT ASSESSEE(S) OR ASS OCIATES IS TAX NEUTRAL BEING TAXED IN HIGHEST TAX BRACKET. 9. AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ALL THE FOUR APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL IN NATURE AND INVOLVE COMMON QUESTION OF LAW, ALL APPE ALS ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY COMMON ORDER. THE LEAD CASE OF DINES H JAIN IN ITA NO. 4384/DEL/2012 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS TAKEN UP AND DECI SIONS IN ALL OTHER THREE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED. 10. THE LEARNED AR OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE, SHRI RAJESH JAIN CA ARGUED THAT GROUND NO.1,2,3, & 6 RELATING TO ADDITI ON OF RS. 9.50 CRORE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS/ PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM M/S ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 22 PENGUINS FARMS (P) LTD., A COMPANY OWNING A PROPERT Y IN MEHRAULI AND SUBMITTED THAT M/S D.J. SONS SECURITIES, A FIRM IN WHICH RESPONDENT & HIS WIFE LATA JAIN ARE PARTNERS, HAS MADE DISCLOSUR E OF RS. 19 CRORES IN APPLICATION(S) BEFORE ITSC (PAGE NO. 33 OF THE ITSC ORDER U/S 245D(4) DATED 31.12.2010) & ITSC, FURTHER ENHANCED THE SAI D AMOUNT BY RS. 12.5 CRORE IN THE HANDS OF THE RESPONDENT & HIS WIF E LATA JAIN, DIVIDED EQUALLY IN A.Y. 2008-09 & A.Y. 2009-10. THE AR SUBM ITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) (APPEAL 963/10-11) HAS DISCUSSED TH E ISSUE ON PAGE NO. 20 TO 22 OF THE ORDER IN DETAIL AND ACCEPTED THE CO NTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT/ RESPONDENT UNDER PARA PROPERTY AT GITORNI, MEHARAULI (PENGUINS FARMS (P) LTD), ON PAGE NO. 21 & 22 , THAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY ITSC IN PARA 25 TO 29 OF TH E ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AR, FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE GROUNDS OF APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE IN GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 AND GROUND NO . 6 CONFIRMS THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN ADJUDICATED BY ITSC. AR RELYING ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A),FURTHER READ SECTION 245-I OF THE ACT WHICH MANDATES THE CONCLUSIVENESS OF THE MATTERS CONSIDERED BY ITSC & THOSE ISSUES CANNOT BE REOPENED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS OF THE ACT, ARGUED T HAT THE APPEAL OF REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED AS THE GROUNDS ITSELF C ONFIRMS HIS CONTENTIONS THAT THIS ISSUE OF RS. 9.5 CRORE HAS BE EN DEALT BY ITSC. ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 23 11. THE LEARNED AR OF THE RESPONDENTS, SHRI RAJESH JAIN C.A. ARGUED THAT ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE COVER ED AGAINST THE REVENUE BY STATUTORY PROVISION OF SECTION 245I OF T HE ACT. EVERY ORDER OF SETTLEMENT PASSED UNDER SUB-SECTION (4) OF SECTION 245D SHALL BE CONCLUSIVE AS TO THE MATTERS STATED THEREIN AND NO MATTER COVERED BY SUCH ORDER SHALL, SAVE AS OTHERWISE PROVIDED IN THIS CHAPTER , BE REOPENED IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FO R THE TIME BEING IN FORCE . 12. AS PER THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE LEGISLATION HAS GIVEN WIDE POWERS TO ITSC IN CHAPTER IXX-A OF INCOME TAX ACT AND THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN THE SAID CHAPTER ENSHRINED ALL PROVISI ONS OF MAKING ENQUIRY AND GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE AP PLICANT & THE REVENUE. ITSC AFTER GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY TO CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (ADMIN) WHO SUBMITED OBJECTIONS TO THE ADMISSIBILITY OF APPLICATION(S) FILED BY ASSESSEE(S) AND FURTHER ON THE QUANTUM OF INCOME OFFERED IN THE APPLICATION(S), UNDER RULE 9 OF ITSC RULES AND AS SUCH MATTERS COVERED BY THE APPLICANT(S) IN THEIR SOF BEFORE I TSC AND ISSUES / MATTERS BROUGHT OUT BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN THE REPORT FILED UNDER RULE 9 OF ITSC AND FINAL ADJUDICATION ORDER PASSED ON THOSE ISSUES MATTERS BY THE ITSC ARE CONCLUSIVE AND ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 24 ISSUES COVERED BY THE ORDER U/S 245D(4) OF THE ACT PASSED BY ITSC CANNOT BE REOPENED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THIS AC T OR UNDER ANY OTHER LAW FOR THE TIME BEING. 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO CITED FOLLOWING JUDGME NT IN SUPPORT OF THE ARGUMENTS:- I. P.T. ANTONY & SONS VS. UNION OF INDIA (2005) 279 IT R 363 THE CONCLUSIVENESS PRESCRIBED BY S. 245-I IS AS RE GARDS THE MATTERS COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON THE MATTERS COVERED BY THE APPLICATION OF THE ASSES SEE AND SUCH MATTERS RELATING TO THE CASE, NOT COVERED BY THE AP PLICATION, BUT REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT OF THE CIT UNDER SUB-SS. (1) AND (3) OF S. 245D. SO MUCH SO, THE CONCLUSIVENESS PROVIDED BY S. 245-I IS ONLY REGARDING SUCH MATTERS AS ARE DETERMINED BY THE SETTLEMENT OFFICER, MEANING THEREBY, THE MATTERS RE GARDING THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE IT ACT FOR THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH BECOMES THE SUBJECT MATTERS OF CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . BY THE PROVISION IN S. 245-I THAT NO MATTER COVERED BY SUCH ORDER SHALL BE REOPE NED IN ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE IT ACT OR UNDER ANY LAW F OR THE TIME BEING IN FORCE, THE REOPENING THAT IS PROHIBIT ED IS ONLY OF SUCH MATTERS THAT ARE COVERED BY THE ORDER OF THE S ETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER S. 245D(4). ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 25 II. SMT NEELU AGARWAL VS. UNION OF INDIA & ORS ( 2011) 330 ITR 422 THE FACTS FOUND AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN SUCH OPERA TION WERE MATTERS WHICH RELATE TO THE SETTLEMENT OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME OF THE PETITIONER AND THEREFORE, WERE SUBJECT MATTER O F CONSIDERATION OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IT CANN OT BE SAID THAT SUCH MATTERS ARE MATTERS OTHER THAN THOSE BEFO RE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS REQ UIRED TO DECIDE THE DISPUTE BY PASSING SUCH ORDER AS IT THIN KS FIT ON THE MATTERS COVERED BY THE APPLICATION AND ANY MATTER R ELATING TO THE CASE NOT COVERED BY THE APPLICATION BUT REFERRE D TO IN THE REPORT OF CIT UNDER SUB- SECTION 1 OR SUB- SECTION 3. IT FOLLOWS THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS EMPOWERED TO PASS SUCH ORDER AS IT MAY THINK FIT. THE SUBJECT MATTER OF TH E ORDER IS- (1) THE MATTERS COVERED BY AN APPLICATION AND (2) ANY O THER MATTER RELATING TO THE CASE NOT COVERED BY THE APPLICATION BUT REFERRED TO IN THE REPORT OF THE CIT UNDER SUB- SECTION 1 OR SUB- SECTION 3. III. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DIKSHA SINGH (2012) 247 CTR 0215. IV. JAMMULA SHYAM SUNDER RAO (HUF) VS. ASSISTANT COMMIS SIONER OF INCOME TAX (2011) 54 DTR 0294. V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. KABUL CHAWLA ITA 713 / 2014 DATED 28.08.2015. 14. THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE RESPONDENT S SHRI RAJESH ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 26 SHRI JAIN C.A ALSO FILED A CHART DETAILING PROPERTI ES & REF. NO. OF PAGES OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSION WHERE THE ISSUE OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT/ INCOME ETC OF ALL NINE PROPERTIES HAS B EEN DISCUSSED, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED:- S.N PROPERTY DESCRIPTION PAGE REFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF INCOME TAX SETTLEMENT COMMISSION DATED 31.12.2010. POINT NO. OF (GROUN DS OF APPEAL ) ASSESSME NT YEAR 1. HOTEL IN MOTIA KHAN, KAROL BAGH 27 TO 31 (PARA 21 TO 24 OF THE ORDER) 4 2007 2. PROPERTY AT GITORNY, MEHRAULI (PENGUIN FARMS (P) LTD.) 32 TO 38 (PARA 25 TO 29 OF THE ORDER) 1, 2 2006 2007 3. MUS SORIE PROPERTY BHALSONS & PVT. LTD. 38 TO 42 (PARA 30 TO 33 OF THE ORDER) 1 2007 4. SEZ GREATER NOIDA PROPERTY 42 TO 59 (PARA 34 TO 42 OF THE ORDER) 3 2007 5. TWO PROPERTIES AT RAJIV CHOWK & GOLF COURSE 59 TO 65 (PARA 43 TO 53 OF THE ORDER) 4 & 5 2007 ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 27 6. PROPERTY AT JAIPUR 65 TO 68 (PARA 54 TO 59 OF THE ORDER) 5 & 6 2007 7. UDAIPUR PROPERTY 68 TO 69 (PARA 60 TO 62 OF THE ORDER) 6 & 7 2007 8. HONDA CHOWK 70 TO 72 (PARA 63 TO 68 OF THE ORDER) 7 & 8 2007 15. THE LEARNED CIT(DR) IN SUPPORT OF VARIOUS GROUN DS OF APPEAL BROUGHT TO THE ATTENTION OF BENCH, PARA 13, PAGE NO . 16 OF THE ORDER OF ITSC WHEREIN COMMISSION DIRECTED A.O. OF THE RES PONDENTS TO INFORM THE COMMISSION, IF DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S OF PENDING ASSESSMENTS OF RESPONDENTS OF THOSE ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) WHICH ARE NOT BEFORE ITSC, IF ANY INCORRECT DECLARATIONS IN THE A PPLICATIONS FILED BY THE RESPONDENTS ARE FOUND AND ARGUED THAT THE ASSES SMENT ORDERS PASSED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT CASES ARE CORR ECT. 16. CIT (DR) ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING CASES IN SUPPORT OF THEIR APPEAL, VIDE WRITTEN ARGUMENTS:- ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 28 1. PCIT VS INSTRONICS LTD [2017]82TAXMANN.COM357(DELHI ) (COPY ENCLOSED) 2. GANPATI FINCAP SERVICES (P) LTD. VS CIT [2017]82TAXMANN.COM408(DELHI) (COPY ENCLOSED) 3. PCIT VS SUPER MALLS PVT. LTD [2016] 76 TAXMANN.COM 267 (DELHI)/[2017] 393 ITR 557 (DELHI)/[2017] 291 CTR 1 42 (DELHI) (COPY ENCLOSED) 4. PCIT VS M/S NAU NIDH OVERSEAS PVT LTD. (ITA NO.58/2 017) (COPY ENCLOSED) 5. KAMLESHBHAI DHARAMSHIBHAI PATEL VS CIT {[2013] 31 T AXMANN.COM 50 (GUJARAT)/[201 3] 214 TAXMAN 558 (GUJARAT)/[2013 ] 263 CTR 362 (GUJARAT)) (COPY ENCLOSED) 6. RAJESH SUNDERDAS VASWANI VS ACIT {[2016] 76 TAXMANN .COM 311 (GUJARAT)} (COPY EN CLOSED) 7. SSP AVIATION LTD VS DC IT (20 TAXMANN.COM 214) (OP Y ENCLOSED) 8. CIT VS CLASSIC ENTERPRISES (35 TAXMANN.COM 244, 219 TAXMAN 237, 358 ITR 465, 268 CTR 364) (COPY ENCLOSED) 9. SAVESH KUMAR AGARWAL VS UNION OF INDIA (35 TAXMANN. COM 85, 216 TAXMAN 109, 353 ITR 26) (COPY ENCLOSED) 10. FILATEX INDIA LTD VS CIT (49 TAXMANN.COM 465) (COPY ENCLOSED) 11. CIT VS ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (24 TAXMANN.COM 98) (COPY ENCLOSED) ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 29 17. WE HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF I.T.S.C. U/S 245D (4) DATED 31 ST DEC. 2012 AND ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT CI T(DR) COULD NOT REBUT THE FINDING OF CIT(A) WHO CATEGORICALLY STATE D IN ORDER THAT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS PROPERTIES/UNACCOUNTED INCO ME ON SALE/INTEREST TO THE ASSOCIATES/TELESCOPING, ISSUES RAISED IN ASSESSMENT ORDERS OF THE RESPONDENT ASSESSEE ARE COVERED BY TH E ORDERS OF ITSC AND THE DISPUTE OF ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) QUA ASSESSEE( S) HAVE BEEN DEALT WITH BY ITSC IN THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 245D(4) AN D THE CASE LAWS CITED BY CIT(DR) ARE IN RELATION TO SECTION 153A/ 1 53C OF THE ACT, WHICH HAVE NO RELEVANCE TO THE ISSUE OF SECTION 245 I OF THE ACT AS SUCH WE FIND FAVOUR IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE COUNSEL OF T HE RESPONDENTS AND ALL FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO DISMIS SED, HAVING NO MERIT, AS FAR GROUND NO. 1,2,3, & 6 ARE CONCERNED. 18. GROUNDS NO. 4 AND 5 ARE IN RELATION OF DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS. 10,21,635/- CLAIMED BY THE RESPONDENT ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST ON OVERDRAFT AND RS.4,90,432/- ON ACCOUNT OF TRADE REG ISTRATION EXPENSES. THE LEARNED CIT(A), ON PAGE NO. 22 OF THE ORDER OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.1 2.2008 BEFORE THE PRESENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C OF THE ACT, AND THE A DDITION NOT BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN CONSEQUENCE TO S EARCH, CANNOT BE ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 30 MADE IN VIEW OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA VS. ACIT (ITAT DE LHI) [ITA NO. 2660 TO 2665/ DEL/2009] & VAMA APPARELS (INDIA) PVT LTD. VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 42, MUMBAI [ITA NO. 3221, 3222 & 3223/ MUM/2 010 AND DELETED THE ADDITION. DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE US/ AR OF THE RESPONDENT RELIED ON THE ORDER OF JURISDICTIONAL HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA 380 ITR 573 (DELHI) & LATA JAIN 384 ITR 453 (DELHI) WHEREIN HON. HIGH COURT HELD THAT NO ADDITION IN OR DER U/S 153A OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE WITHOUT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA THE ASSESSEE. 19. THE LEARNED CIT(DR) RELIED ON THE ORDER OF A.O. 20. FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF HON. DELHI HIGH COURT, W E DISMISS GROUND NO. 4 & 5 OF THE REVENUE. 21. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 4 384/DEL/2012 OF DINESH JAIN IS DISMISSED. 22. IN ALL THE OTHER THREE APPEALS, ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IN RELATION OF ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENTS IN PROPERTIES/UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON TRANSFER OF INTERE ST/ PROPERTIES AMONGST ASSOCIATES / GROUP QUA NINE PROPERTIES ABOU T WHICH THE RESPONDENTS/ ASSOCIATES FILED APPLICATION U/S 245C OF THE ACT BEFORE ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 31 ITSC & CIT(A) HAS ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE ORDER U/S ITSC & REFERRED RESPECTIVE PARA OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSION U/S 245D (4) OF THE ACT DATED 31 ST DEC. 2010. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE A LSO CONFIRM THAT ALL THE ISSUE RAISED HAVE BEEN ADJUDIC ATED BY ITSC AND TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT/ UNACCOUNTED INCOME ETC. QUA NINE PROPERTIES QUA QUESTION OF TAXABILITY OF ASSESSMENT YEAR(S) ETC./ TELESCOPING IN DETAIL. THE HON. COMMISSION ON PAGE NO.75 ONWARDS OF THE ORDER U/S 245D(4) SUMMARIES THE ADJUDICATION OF DIFFERENT POINTS ALSO, AS PER TABLE, PREPARED BY THE RESPONDENTS IN THE SYNOPSIS, WHICH IS ALSO REPRODUCED FOR PUTTING THE FACTS STRAIGHT O N RECORD:- S. NO . ALLEGED PROPERTIES DISCLOS URE BY DJ/PA DISCLOS URE BY SG REMARKS 1. HONDA CHOWK NIL NIL NO PROPERTY AT HONDA CHOWK IDENTIFIED. HYPOTHETICAL PRESUMPTIVE CALCULATIONS APPEAR IN SEIZED PAPERS WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING PAYMENT MADE. 2. RAJIV CHOWK NIL NIL ENQUIRY REPORT OF AO HAS ESTABLISHED THAT NO UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE AND APPLICANTS CONTENTION OF CANCELLATION OF DEAL CONFIRMS. HYPOTHETICAL PRESUMPTIVE CALCULATIONS APPEAR IN SEIZED PAPERS WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING PAYMENT MADE. 3. GOLF NEWLA NIL NIL ENQUIRY REPORT OF AO HAS ESTABLISHED THAT NO UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTION TOOK ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 32 PLACE. NO PROPERTY AT GOLF NEWLA IDENTIFIED. HYPOTHETICAL PRESUMTIVE CALCULATIONS APPEAR IN SEIZED PAPERS WITHOUT ANY CORRESPONDING PAYMENT MADE. 4. UD AIPUR NIL NIL THERE IS NO MENTION OF ACTUAL PAYMENT IN SEIZED PAPERS; ONLY HYPOTHETICAL CALCULATION IS THERE. 5. MUSSORIE NIL RS. 25 CRORES SEIZED PAPERS REFLECT AGGREGATE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT/ EXPENSES OF RS. 21.47 CRORES ONLY. 6. JAIPUR RS. 86 LAC NIL SEIZED PAPERS REFLECT PROFIT OF 43 LAKH EACH TO PA AND DJ. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ALLEGED COST OF RS. 20 CRORE. NEITHER THE PROPERTY HAS BEEN IDENTIFIED NOR COULD THE SELLERS IDENTITY BE FURNISHED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 7. MEHRAULI RS. 19 CRORE NIL SG NOT CONCERNED WITH SUCH ACQUISITION. NO EVIDENCE OF ANY UNACCOUNTED CASH PAYMENT OTHER THAN 19 CRORE (PAGE 42 OF A-1) 8. SEZ, NOIDA RS. 15 CRORE RS. 15 CRORE SEIZED PAPERS REFLECT TOTAL UN A/C PAYMENT BY SG OF RS. 15 CRORES. 9. KAROL BAGH (MOTIA KHAN) RS. 16 CRORE RS. 6.5 CRORE SEIZED PAPERS REFLECT 13.33 CRORES ONLY WHICH IS LESSER THAN THE DISCLOSURE OF APPLICANTS. COMPUTATION OF INCOME OF PARTIES AS PER PAGE NO. 78 TO 83 OF THE ORDER OF I.T.S.C. IS PRESENTED BELOW , RELATED TO THE RES PONDENTS :- ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 33 COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF M/S PENGUIN FARMS PVT. L TD. A.Y. INCOME AS PER RETURN ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE SOF INCOME FINALLY SETTLED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING U/S 245D(4) TOTAL INCOME (IN RS.) 2008 - 09 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 2009 - 10 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF MRS. LATA JAIN A.Y. (1) INCOME AS PER RETURN (2) ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE SOF (3) INCOME FINALLY SETTLED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING U/S 245D(4) (4) TOTAL INCOME (IN RS.) (2+4) 2008 - 09 4,62,89,010 8,00,00,000 8,00,00,000 12,62,89,010 2009 - 10 NOT FILED BEFORE DATE OF APPLICATION 6,79,36,219 6,79,36,219 6,79,36,219 COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF SHRI DINESH JAIN A.Y. INCOME AS PER RETURN ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE INCOME FINALLY SETTLED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING U/S TOTAL INCOME (IN RS.) ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 34 (1) (2) SOF (3) 245D(4) (4) (2+4) 2008 - 09 5,86,90,590 5,00,000 5,05,00,000 10,91,90,590 2009 - 10 9,77,81,850 48,00,000 10,48,00,000 20,25,81,850 *ADDITIONAL INCOME ASSESSED BY HON. I.T.S.C. IS RS. 5 CRORE IN A.Y. 2008-09 & RS. 10 CRORE IN A.Y. 2009-10. COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF M/S D.J. SONS SECURITIES A.Y. (1) INCOME AS PER RETURN (2) ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE SOF (3) INCOME FINALLY SETTLED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING U/S 245D(4) (4) TOTAL INCOME (IN RS.) (2+4) 2007 - 08 66,63,460 19,00,00,000 19,00,00,000 19,66,63,460 2008 - 09 11,66,120 5,00,000 5,00,000 16,66,120 2009 - 10 ( - 71,43,920) 75,00,000 75,00,000 3,56,080 COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF M/S D.J. INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. A.Y. INCOME AS PER RETURN ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT INCOME FINALLY SETTLED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING U/S TOTAL INCOME (IN RS.) ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 35 (1) (2) IN THE SOF (3) 245D(4) (4) (2+4) 2008 - 09 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 2009 - 10 NOT FILED BEFORE DATE OF APPLICATION 13,99,900 13,99,900 13,99,900 COMPUTATION IN THE CASE OF M/S D.J. BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. A.Y. (1) INCOME AS PER RETURN (2) ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE APPLICANT IN THE SOF (3) INCOME FINALLY SETTLED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING U/S 245D(4) (4) TOTAL INCOME (IN RS.) (2+4) 2007 - 08 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 2008 - 09 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 2009 - 10 NIL 5,00,000 5,00,000 5,00,000 23. FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BEING IDENTICAL IN ALL THE CASES ABOVE AND ALSO AND PROVISION OF SECTION 245I OF THE ACT A ND CASE LAW CITED BY AR OF THE RESPONDENTS ON ISSUE, WE HAVE NO HESITATI ON TO DISMISS THE OTHER THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ON ALL THE GROUN DS. FINALLY, WE PAINFULLY HOLD THAT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (JUD ICIAL)/ ADMIN ITA NO. 4384 & 438 5/DEL/2012 ITA NO. 4169 & 4170/DEL/2012 36 COMMISSIONER, KANPUR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN PERMITTED TO FILE THESE APPEALS AS THE LD. CIT(A) GAVE DETAILED ORDER IN DE LETING ALL ADDITIONS AFTER CITING RELEVANT PROVISION OF LAW AND JUDGMENT S, AND THERE IS NO CONTRARY JUDGMENT IN SUPPORT OF THE REVENUE. REVENU E IS NOT PERMITTED TO TAX INCOME TWICE, ONCE BY THE ORDER OF ITSC AND AGAIN BY ASSESSMENT ORDER. 24. TO SUM UP, IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE REVENUE STAND DISMISSED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.08 .2017. SD/- SD/- [K.N. CHARY] [B.P. JAIN] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 TH AUGUST, 2017 VL/ COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ASST. REGISTRAR, ITAT, NEW DELHI