Smt. Jyotsna Desai, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T Cir - 32,kolkata, Kolkata

ITA 504/KOL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 78349 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2013
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI JAIN
• Assessee Lawyers: D S DAMLE
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH C , KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM & HONBLE SR I GEORGE MATHAN, JM] ITA NO.503/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI. , -VS- A.C.I.T., CIRCLE- 32, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AFQPD 8487 F) ITA NO.504/KOL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) SMT.JYOTSNA DESAI . , -VS- A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA KOLKATA (PAN:AGPPD 5544 F) FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI D.S.DAMLE, FCA FOR THE RESPONDENT SHRI RAVI JAIN, CIT (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 27.06.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27. 06.2014. ORDER PER SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, AM THESE APPEALS BY SEPARATE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF LD. C.I.T.(A)- XIX, KOLKATA AND PERTAIN TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON AND CONNECTED BOTH THE APPEALS ARE DISPO SED OF BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO.503/KOL/2013 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 153C/143(3) BY THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 SINCE THE SAID ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN A DDING BACK THE ITEMS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C. 3. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ON THE GROUND OF ABNORMAL DELAY. ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 2 4. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. U/S. 153C R.W. SEC. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 INASMUCH AS NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 AT THE PREMISES OF BHARAT SH AH GROUP IN MUMBAI ON 15.03.2008. 5. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,78,67, 908/-, MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN FLATS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY WRONGLY TREATING THE SAID SUM AS, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B. 6. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ITA NO.504/KOL/2013 THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER :- 1.FOR THAT THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED TH E ENTIRE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S. 153C/143(3) BY THE A.O. VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 SINCE THE SAID ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. 2.FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE A.O. IN A DDING BACK THE ITEMS OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT IN THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153C. 3.FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSES SEE ON THE GROUND OF ABNORMAL DELAY. 4.FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. U/S. 153C R.W. SEC. 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2010 INASMUCH AS NO MONEY, BULLION, JEW ELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 AT THE PREMISES OF BHARAT SHAH GROUP IN MUMBAI ON 15.03.2008. 5.FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.5,09,61, 592/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED INVESTMENT IN FLATS IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE BY WRONGLY TREATING THE SAID SUM AS, UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT U/S 69B. 6.THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. AT THE OUTSET IN THESE CASES THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADMITTING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESEE ON THE GROU ND OF ABNORMAL DELAY. THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THIS ISSUE G OES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER AND THE LACK OF ADJUDICATION BY THE LD. CIT(A) IS NOT JUST IFIED. 4. SINCE THE ISSUES ARE COMMON IN BOTH THE APPEALS WE DEAL WITH THE ISSUE WITH REFERENCE TO FACTS IN ITA NO.503/KOL/2013. IN THIS REGARD WE NOTE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE BY OBSERVING IN (G), (H) AND (I) OF HIS ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER :- ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 3 DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 12 .10.2010 THE A/R REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- FOR THAT THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE A.O. U/S 153C R.W.SEC.143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 31.1.2010 IS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED INASMUCH AS NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THINGS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESEE WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/ S 132 ON THE PREMISES OF BHARAT SHAH GROUP IN MUMBAI ON 15.03.2008. REGARDING THE ADMISSION OF ABOVE STATED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IT MAY BE STATED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FILED ITS APPEAL ON 28.01.20 11, THE REQUEST FOR ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS IS VIDE LETTER 12.10.2012. THUS, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IS LATE BY ALMOST MORE THAN 1 YEAR AND 8 MONTHS. IT IS TRUE TH AT THE LEGAL QUESTION ARISING FORM THE FACTS LYING ON THE RECORD CAN BE RAISED AT ANY POIN T OF TIME HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS TO EXPLAIN AND MANIFEST THE EXISTENCE OF REASONABLE CA USE OFR NOT RAISING SUCH ADDITIONAL GROUND ALONG WITH ORIGINAL GROUND OF APPEAL. IN THI S CASE NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED FOR SUCH ABNORMAL DELAY AND ON ACCOUNT OF THIS ONLY THE ADDITIONAL GROUND IS INADMISSIBLE. IN ADDITION TO MY ABOVE OBSERVATION ON MERIT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED I AM NOT IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LINE OF SUBMISSION MAD E BY THE A/R. EVEN ON MERIT THE A/R STAND ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IS CLEARL Y DISTINGUISHABLE IN VIEW OF FOLLOWING DISCUSSION. 4.1. THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE SUBMI SSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WHICH READS AS UNDER :- THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL CHALLENGES THE JUR ISDICTION OF THE A.O.TO INVOKE THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C TO RE-OPEN THE CONCLUDED ASSESSMENT IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO DOCUMENT, VALUABLE OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS FOUN D IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS CONDUCTED U/S 132 AT THE PREMISES OF BHA RAT SHAH GROUP AT MUMBAI. THE FACT STATED ABOVE IS APPARENT FROM PARA 1 OF TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHICH IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE.- FOR THE RELEVANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME ON 30.10.2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.74,16,715/- INCLUDING SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.4301142/-. THE SAME WAS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) AS WELL AS ASSESSED U/S 143(3) AS PER ORDER DATED 31.12.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ACIT CENT RAL CIRCLE 24 AND 26, MUMBAI, INFORMED THE UNDERSIGNED THAT DURING SEARCH OPERATI ONS CONDUCTED U/S 132 ON THE PREMISES OF BHARAT SHAH GROUP AT 55, GAMDEVI, 2 ND FLOOR, PANCHSHIL PLAZA, MUMBAI ON 15.03.2008 A CERTAIN PAPER BOOK WAS SEIZED. THE SAI D BOOK WAS FOUND TO REPRESENT SYSTEMATIC RECORDS RELATED TO ACTUAL SALES TRANSACT IONS IN LEGEND PROJECT PROMOTED BY LAYER EXPORTS PVT. LTD. SITUATED IN WALKESHWAR, MAL ABAR HILL, MUMBAI-400006, CONTAINING DETAILS OF FLAT NUMBERS, FLAT SIZE (TOTA L SOLD ARE), CHEQUES TO BE PAID, DETAILS OF RENEGOTIATION DETAILS OF ACTUAL CASH PAYMENT, DETAI LS OF ACTUAL CHEQUE PAYMENTS ETC. IN THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID RECORDS, SH WAS FOUND TO REPRESENT CASH PORTION I.E. ON MONEY OR OUT OF BOOKS PORTION AND Q AND CHQ WERE FOUND TO RE PRESENT CHEQUE PAYMENTS. IN THIS REGARD, ON PAGE NO.8 THERE IS RECORDING OF TRANSACT ION RELATED TO SALES OF FLATS BY LAYER EXPORTS (P) LTD., TO CHANERAVADAN DESAI (PAN-AFQPD8 487F) AND JYOTSNA DESAI (PAN-AGPPD5544F). AS PER THE RECORD, THE ASSESSEE W AS RECORDED TO HAVE PAID CASH MONEY I..E OUT OF BOOKS MONEY OF RS.80139192/- TO T HE SELLER OF PROPERTY. ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 4 ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE, ACTION WAS INITIATED U/S 153C, AND NOTICES WERE ISSUED U/S 153C ON 19.02.2010. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED RETURN ON 01.10.2010, BUT ALSO PRAYED FOR DROPPING OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C. NOTICE U/S 143(2) AND SECTION 143(1) WAS ISSUED ON 26.11.2002 (SIC 2010) THE PROVISION OF SEC.153(1) IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147 AND SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SEC.151 AND SEC.153, WHERE THE AO IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER T HAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASS ETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SU CH OTHER PERSON AND THAT A.O. SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SU CH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. A PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES T HAT THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C CANNOT BE INVOKED UNTIL AND UNLESS THE DOCUMENTS/BO OKS SEIZED BELONG TO TO THE PERSON WHOSE ASSESSMENT IS BEING SOUGHT TO BE OPENED OR RE OPENED U/S 153C. RECENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT A BENCH, KOLKAT A IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS- VINEET DHINGRA IT(SS)A.NO.139/KOL/2011 VIDE ITS ORDER DATE D 31.08.2012 HAS HELD AS UNDER : WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT UNLIKE SECTION 158BD, WHICH REFERRED TO INCOME BELONGING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON WHOSE PREMISES WAS SUBJECTED TO SEA RCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS, SECTION 153C REFERS TO ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLER Y OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISI TIONED BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A I.E. (THE PE RSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED U/S 132 OR WHERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY A SSETS ARE REQUISITIONED U/S 132A AFTER 31 ST DAY OF MAY 2001). IN OTHER WORDS, THEREFORE, WHIL E THE EMPHASIS WAS ON INCOME BELONGING TO OTHER PERSON UNDER THE OLD SCH EME OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, THE CORRESPONDING PROVISION OF SECTION 153C REFERRED TO SITUATION WHERE DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO OTHER PERSON OR OTHER ASSETS OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BELONGING TO OTHER PERSON HAVE BEEN FOUND IN SEARCH OPERATION. HONBL E GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OR VIJAYBHAI N.CHANDRANI VS ACIT REPORTED IN 333 IT R 436 HAS HELD THAT IT IS A CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF SECTION 153 C IS THAT THE ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOO KS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHOULD BELONG TO A SUCH PERSON AND TH AT WHETHER THIS REQUIREMENT IS NOT SATISFIED RESORT CANNOT BE HAD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C.. IT IS THUS CLEAR THAT MERELY BECAUSE A DOCUMENT IS FOUND IN THE PREMISES OF A THIRD PERSON, EVEN IF IT INDICATES UNACCOUNTED ENTRIES OF THE ASSESSEE, IT C ANNOT BE THE REASON ENOUGH TO INVOKE SECTION 153C UNLESS THE SAID DOCUMENT BELONGS TO THE PERSON WHOSE ASSESSMENT IS BEING SOUGHT TO BE OPENED OR REOPENED U/S 153C. WHI LE ON THIS ISSUE, IT IS USEFUL TO REFER TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CAW OF VIJAYABHAI N.CHANDRANI (SUPRA). EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE IN THE LIGH T OF THE AFORESAID STATUTORY SCHEME, IT IS IN ADMITTED POSITION AS EMERGING FROM THE RECORD OF THE CASE, THAT THE DOCUMENTS IN QUESTION NAMELY THE THREE LOOSE PAPERS RECOVERED DU RING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS DO NOT ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 5 BELONG TO THE PETITIONER. IT MAY BE THAT THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE PETITIONER IN AS MUCH AS HIS NAME IS REFLECTED IN THE LIST UNDER THE HEAD ING SAMUTKARSH MEMBER DETAILS AND CERTAIN DETAILS ARE GIVEN UNDER DIFFERENT COLUMNS A GAINST THE NAME OF THE PETITIONER ALONG WITH OTHER MEMBERS, HOWEVER, IT IS NOBODYS C ASE THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS BELONG TO THE PETITIONER. IT IS NOT EVEN THE CASE OF REVEN UE THAT THE SAID THREE DOCUMENTS ARE IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE PETITIONER. IN THE CIRCUMSTA NCES, WHEN THE CONDITION PRECEDENT FOR ISSUANCE OF NOTICE IS NOT FULFILLED ANY ACTION TAKE N UNDER S.153C OF THE ACT STANDS VITIATED. (K) WITH DUE RESPECT AND IN ALL HUMILITY IT MAY BE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTERPRETATION GIVEN BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AND SUBSEQUENT RE LIANCE PLACED IN OTHER CASES AS AGAINST THE RULE OF CONSTRUCTIVE AND HARMONIOUS INT ERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS. RESPECTFULLY IT MAY ALSO BE SUBMITTED THAT THE WORD BELONGING TO HASD BEEN INTERPRETED IN ISOLATION WITHOUT REFERRING TO THE SUBJECT MATTE R AND THE CONTEXT IN WHICH SUCH WORD HAS BEEN USED IN SECTION 153C. TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS THE REFERENCE IS MADE TO THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRECEDENCE ON HOW THE WORD IN A STATUTE SHOULD BE INTERPRETED. (I) THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMIS SIONER OF GIFT-TAX VS N.S.GETTI CHETTIAR, [1971] 82 ITR 599 (SC) HAS OBSERVED WORDS IN THE SECTION OF A STATUTE ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED BY HAVING THOSE W ORDS IN ONE AHND AND THE DICTIONARY IN THE OTHER. IN SPELLING OUT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN A SECTION, ONE MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SETTING IN WHICH THOSE TERMS ARE USED AND THE PURPOSE THAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE. (L) THE ISSUE IN THIS CASE BEFORE THE HONBLE SUP REME COURT WAS WHETHER PARTITION OF HUF LEADS TO TRANSFER OF PROPERTY AND WILL ATTRACT GIFT TAX. GIVING REFERENCE TO SECTION 2(XXIV) WHICH WAS USING THE WORD DISPOSITION, CON VEYANCE ASSIGNMENT, SETTLEMENT,DELUIVERY, PAYMENT OR OTHER ALIENA TION OF PROPERTY. IT WAS OBSERVED THAT :- A READING OF THIS SECTION CLEARLY GOES TO SHOW TH AT THE WORDS DISPOSITION, CONVEYANCE, ASSIGNMENT, SETTLEMENT, DELIVERY AND PAYMENT ARE USED AS SOME OF THE MODES OF TRANSFER OF PROPERTY. THE DICTIONARY G IVES VARIOUS MEANINGS FOR THOSE WORDS BUT THOSE MEANINGS DO NOT HELP US. WE HAVE TO UNDERSTAND THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS IN THE CONTEXT IN WHICH THEY ARE USED. WORDS IN THE SECTION OF A STATUTE ARE NOT TO BE INTERPRETED BY HAVING THOSE WORDS IN ONE HAND AN D THE DICTIONARY IN THE OTHER. IN SPELLING OUT THE MEANING OF THE WORDS IN A SECTION, ONE MUST TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE SETTING IN WHICH THOSE TERMS ARE USED AND THE PURPO SE THAT THEY ARE INTENDED TO SERVE. IF SO UNDERSTOOD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE WORD DISPOSITI ON, IN THE CONTEXT, MEANS GIVING AWAY OR GIVING UP BY A PERSON OF SOMETHING WHICH WAS HIS OWN. CONVEYANCE MEANS TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, ASSIGNMENT MEANS THE TRANSFER OF TH E CLAIM, RIGHT OR PROPERTY TO ANOTHER, SETTLEMENT MEANS SETTLING THE PROPERTY, RIGHT OR CLAIM CONVEYANCE OR DISPOSITION OF PROPERTY FOR THE BENEFIT OF ANOTHER, DELIVERY CON TEMPLATED THEREIN IS THE DELIVERY OF ONES PROPERTY TO ANOTHER FOR NO CONSIDERATION AND PAYMENT IMPLIES GIFT OF MONEY BY SOMEONE TO ANOTHER. WE DO NOT THINK THAT A PARTITIO N IN A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY CAN BE CONSIDERED EITHER AS DISPOSITION OR CONVEYANCE OR ASSIGNMENT OR SETTLEMENT OR DELIVERY OR PAYMENT OR ALIENATION WITHIN THE MEANING OF THOSE WORDS IN SECTION 2(XXIV). THIS LEAVES US WITH CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION 2 (XXIV) WHICH SPEAKS OF A TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY ANY PERSON WITH INTENT THEREBY TO DIMINISH DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE VALUE OF HIS OWN PROPERTY AND TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE PROPE RTY OF ANOTHER PERSON. A MEMBER OF A HINDU UNDIVIDED FAMILY WHO, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, H AS NO DEFINITE SHARE IN THE FAMILY PROPERTY BEFORE DIVISION, CANNOT BE SAID TO DIMINIS H DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY THE VALUE OF ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 6 HIS PROPERTY OR TO INCREASE THE VALUE OF THE PROPER TY OF ANY OTHER COPARCENER BY AGREEING TO TAKE A SHARE LESSER THAN WHAT HE WOULD HAVE GOT IF HE HAD GOT TO COURT TO ENFORCE HIS CLAIM. TILL PARTITION HIS SHARE IN THE FAMILY PROPE RTY IS INDETERMINATE. HE BECOMES ENTITLED TO A SHARE IN THE FAMILY PROPERTY ONLY AFT ER THE PARTITION. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF HIS EITHER DIMINISHING DIRECTLY OR INDI RECTLY THE VALUE OF HIS OWN PROPERTY OR OF INCREASING THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY OF ANYONE E LSE. THE TRANSACTION REFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (D) OF SECTION (XXIV) TAKES ITS COLOUR FORM THE MAIN CLAUSE, VIZ., IT MUST BE A TRANSFER OF PROPERTY IN SOME WAY. THIS CONCLUSION O F OURS GETS SUPPORT FORM SUB-CLAUSES (A) TO (C) OF CLAUSE (XXIV) OF SECTION 2, EACH OF W HICH DEALS WITH ONE OR THE OTHER MODE OF TRANSFER. IF PARLIAMENT INTENDED TO BRING WITHIN TH E SCOPE OF THAT PROVISION PARTITIONS OF THE TYPE WITH WHICH WE ARE CONCERNED, NOTHING WAS E ASIER THAN TO SAY SO. IN INTERPRETING TAX LAWS,. COURTS MERELY LOOK AT THE WORDS OF THE S ECTION. IF A CASE CLEARLY COMES WITHIN THE SECTION, THE SUBJECT IS TAXED AND NOT OTHERWISE . FOR THESE REASONS, WE AGREE WITH THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE HIGH COURT OF MADRAS, THE TRIBUNAL AND THE APPELLATE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER T HAT THE ASSESSEE MADE NO GIFT UNDER THE PARTITION DEED IN QUESTION. IN THE RESULT THESE APPEALS FAIL. CIVIL APPEAL NO.1 341 OF 1971 IS DISMISSED ON MERITS AND CIVIL APPEAL NO.128 OF 1969 IS DISMISSED AS BEING N OT MAINTAINABLE. THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO HIS COSTS FEE ONE SET. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ORISSA STA TE WAREHOUSING CORPORATION VS CIT 237 ITR 589 (SC) REGARDING INTERPRETATION OF TA XING STATUTES OBSERVED . A FISCAL STATUTE SHALL HAVE TO BE INTERPRETED ON THE BASIS OF THE LANGUAGE USED THEREIN AND NOT DE HORS THE SAME. NO WORDS OUGHT TO BE ADDED AN D ONLY THE LANGUAGE USED OUGHT OT BE CONSIDERED SO AS TO ASCERTAIN THE PROPER MEANING AND INTENT OF THE LEGISLATION. THE COURT IS TO ASCRIBE NATURAL AND ORDINARY MEANING TO THE WORDS USED BY THE LEGISLATURE AND THE COURT OUGHT NOT, UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES, T O SUBSTITUTE ITS OWN IMPRESSION AND IDEAS IN PLACE OF THE LEGISLATIVE INTENT AS IS AVAI LABLE FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS. IN THE PREMISES, IT WOULD BE EXPEDIENT TO RECORD TH AT BY REASON OF THE CLARITY OF EXPRESSION, QUESTION OF THERE BEING ANY INTEGRATED ACTIVITY BEING EXEMPT WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 10(29) DID NOT AND COULD NOT ARI SE. SECTION 10(29) IS SINGULARLY SINGULAR IN ITS APPLICATION WITH ITS SCOPE RESTRICT IVE AS IS EVIDENT FORM THE INTENT OF THE LEGISLATURE AND AS EVIDENCED FROM THE LANGUAGE AND THEREIN. AS A RESULT, THE APPEALS FAILED AND WERE DISMISSED. (III) THE KERALA HIGH COURT IN ITS FULL BENCH DECIS ION IN CASE OF BHARGAVY P. SUMATHYKUTTY VS- JANAKI SATHYABHAMA AND OTHERS 217 ITR 129 (KER)(F.B) ON INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTES AND INTENTION OF LAW MAKERS OBSERVED (IV) WE REMIND OURSELVES OF THE WELL-ESTABLISHED GUIDELINES FOR THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTORY PROVISIONS. THE OBJECT OR PURPOSE OF ALL CONSTRUCTION OR INTERPRETATIONS IS TO ASCERTAIN THE INTENTION OF THE LAW-MAKERS AND MAKE IT EFFECTIVE IN CRAWFORDS INTERPRETATION OF LAWS THE LEARNED AUTHOR QUOTING FROM A SERIES OF DECISI ONS, STATED THAT THE BASIC PRINCIPLE HAS BEEN ANNOUNCED TIME A FTER TIME THAT IF THE STATUTE IS PLAIN, CERTAIN AND FREE FROM AMBIGUITY A BARE READING SUFF ICES AND INTERPRETATION IS UNNECESSARY. IT IS ONLY WHEN THE STATUTE IS AMBIGUO US OR ITS MEANING IS UNCERTAIN THAT INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED IN ORDER TO ASCERTAIN WH AT THE LEGISLATIVE MEANT(VIDE PAGE 244). THE CAUTION IN THIS REGARD IS THAT IN THE END EAVOUR TO DISCOVER THE INTENTION OF THE LAW-MAKER COURTS SHALL NOT REWRITE A STATUTE AND SH ALL NOT EXERCISE A SORT OF LEGISLATIVE ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 7 POWER WHICH THE COURT DOES NOT HAVE. EVEN WHEN LORD COKE REPORTED IN HEYDONS CASE [1584] 3 CO. REP.7A THE MISCHIEF RULE LAID DOWN T HE STANDARDS TO ESCHEW THE MISCHIEF WHICH THE STATUTE WANTED TO UNDO AND UPHOLD THE REM EDY ADUMBRATED THEREIN (MAXWELL ON THE INTERPRETATION OF STATUTES AT PAGE 40 OF THE 12 TH EDITION). (V) A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT HAS O BSERVED IN HARIPRSASAD SHIVSHANKER SHUKLA V. A.D.DIVELKAR [1956-57] 11 FJR 317 : AIR 1957 SC 121 LIKE THIS : THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT WHEN THE ACT ITSELF PROVIDE S A DICTIONARY FOR THE WORDS USED. WE MUST LOOK INTO THAT DICTIONARY FIRST FOR AN INTERPR ETATION OF THE WORDS USED IN THE STATUTE. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH ANY PRESUMED INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE.; OUR TASK IS TO GET AT THE INTENTION AS EXPRESSED IN THE STATUTE. THE SUPREME COURT HAS AGAIN STATED IN B.N.MUTTOO V. DR.T.K.NANDI , AIR 1979 SC 460; [1979] 1 SCC 36 THAT THE COURT HAS TO DETERMINE THE INTENTION AS EXPRESSED BY THE WORDS U SED. IF THE WORDS OF STATUTES ARE THEMSELVES PRECISE AND UNAMBIGUOUS THEN NO MORE CAN BE NECESSARY THAN TO EXPOUND THOSE WORDS IN THEIR ORDINARY AND NATURAL SENSE. TH E WORDS THEMSELVES ALONE DO IN SUCH A CASE BEST DECLARE THE INTENTION OF THE LAW-GIVER . A CONSTITUTION BENCH OF THE SUPREME COURT IN PUNJAB LAND DEVELOPMENT AND RECLAMATION CORPN. LTD. V. PRESIDING OFFICER, LABOUR COURT [1990] 77 FJR 17:[1990] 3 SCC 682 HAS REITERATED T HE PRINCIPLE AND FURTHER QUOTED WITH APPROVAL THE OBSERVATIONS OF TI NDAL C.J. IN SUYSSEX PEERAGES CASE (8 ER 1034 (HL)) (II) THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN CASE OF CIT VS FA SION PRINTS LTD. 217 ITR 456 (BOM.) ON INTERPRETATION OF TAXING STATUTES AND INTENTION OF LAW MAKERS OBSERVED IN A TAXING STATUTE ONE HAS TO LOO K MERELY AT WHAT IS CLEARLY SAID THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION AS TO A TAX. NOTHING I S TO BE READ IN, NOTHING IS TO BE IMPLIED. ONE CAN ONLY LOOK FAIRLY AT THE LANGUAGE U SED. IN THE BACKGROUND OF ABOVE STATED JUDICIAL PRONOUNC EMENTS IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT SECTION 153C NEEDS TO BE READ ALONG WITH SUBJECT MA TTER (HEADING) IN WHICH IT IS ON THE STATUTE AND IT READS IN THIS MANNER :- ASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF ANY OTHER PERSON 153C 89 [( 1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153 WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BUILLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DO CUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR R EQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSO N AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A:] [ PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE T O THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 13 2 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO [SUB-SECTION(1) OF ] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR A SSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTH ER PERSON:] [PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BE RULES M ADE BY IT AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRE D TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR ASSESSING OR REASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEA RS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE ANY ASSES SMENT OR REASSESSMENT AHS ABATED.] ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 8 (2) WHERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS S EIZED OR REQUISITIONED AS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) HAS OR HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FURNI SHING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WH ICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION IS MADE UNDER SECTION 132A AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR - (A) NO RETURN OF INCOME AHS BEEN FURNISHED B SUCH O THER PERSON AND NO NOTICE UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO HIM O R (B)A RETURN OF INCOME AHS BEEN FURNISHED BY SUCH OTHER PERSON BUT NO NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2 OF SECTION `43 HAS BEEN SERVED AND LIMITATION OF SERVING THE NOTICE UN DER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 HAS EXPIRED OR (C) ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, HAS BEEN MADE. BEFORE THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURIS DICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ISSUE THE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE MANNER PROVID ED IN SECTION 153A . IF THE CONTENT OF SEC. 153C IS CONJOINTLY READ WITH THE SUBJECT MATTER IT IS QUITE OBVIOUS THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED MATERIALS BELONGIN G TO THE APPELLANT IS IN THE CONTEXT OF DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THUS, THE INTENTION OF THE LAW MAKER IS TO SEE THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENT IN THE HANDS OF PERSON WHO IS BEING ASSESSED U/S 153C. IF THE NOTING AND DETAILS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DULY CORROBORATE IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT AND IT LEADS TO DETECTION OF INCOME, IT CERTAINLY BELONGS TO THAT APPELLANT. RESPECTFULLY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT BELO NG TO USED IN SECTION 153C SHOULD NOT BE SEEN FROM THE ANGLE OF PHYSICAL/LEGAL OWNERSHIP RATHER THE INTENTION OF THE STATUTE IS TO SEE IT FROM THE ANGLE OF CORROBORATIVE NATURE OF EVIDENCES SO THAT, INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IS ESTABLISHED. TO THIS EXTENT EXISTENCE OF NAME, ADDRESS, TELEPHON E NO. AND SIGNATURE OF PERSON ON THE PAPER IS JUSTIFICATION OF OWNERSHIP OF SUCH PAPER F ROM LEGAL PERSPECTIVE. HOWEVER, FROM THE PERSPECTIVE OF SECTION 153C OF THE I.T.ACT, IF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DOES NOT CONTAIN SIGNATURE, TELEPHONE NO. ETC. BUT THE DETAILS OF TR ANSACTION INCLUDE CHEQUE PAYMENT, CASH PAYMENT (LIKE THE PRESENT CASE) WHICH IS DULY CORRO BORATED AND LEAD TO DEDUCTION OF INCOME IN THE HANDS OF PERSON THEN IT BELONGS TO TH AT PERSON. THUS, UNLIKE THE GENERAL MEANING HERE THE WORD BELO NG TO HAS BEEN USED IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE RELATED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE I .T.ACT, THE INTENTION OF THE LAW MAKER IS TO SEE ITS EVIDENTIAL VALUE, AND NOT THE LEGAL O WNERSHIP, IN THE HANDS OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM IT IS CONSIDERED TO BE BELONGING TO THIS INTERPRETATION OF WORD BELONG TO APPEARS TO BE IN TUNE WITH THE OBJECTIVE OF SEC.153C OF THE I.T.ACT. IN SEARCH RELATED PROCEEDI NGS AND DURING SEARCH SURVEY IT IS UNJUSTIFIED AND HIGHLY UNLIKELY TO EXPECT THAT UNEX PLAINED AND OUT OF BOOKS TRANSACTION WILL BE KEPT ON THE SAME LINE AS APPEARING IN THE R EGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ON ACCOUNT OF VERY NATURE AND PREVAILING GROUND REALITY OF SEA RCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS THE WORD BELONG TO USED IN SEC. 153C HAS TO BE INTERPRETED A S ASSOCIATED WITH PROVEN EVIDENTIAL VALUE IN PLACE OF LITERAL MEANING OF LEGAL OWNERSHI P. IN THIS CASE THE DIFFERENT SEIZED DOCUMENT, ESPECIA LLY THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.8 RELEVANT IN CASE OF APPELLANT, IS DULY CORROBORATED FROM THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THE DETAILS OF CHEQUE PAYMENT APP EARING IN SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.8 IS DULY REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THE APPELLANT. THE NOTING ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 9 MADE IS PRECISE AND IT IS NOT A ROUGH WORKING. THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO APPEARING ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. IN VIEW OF SUCH G REAT EVIDENTIAL VALUE AND PROVEN NOTING IT DEFINITELY BELONG TO THE APPELLANT. 4.2. THEREAFTER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDE R :- IN VIEW OF ABOVE STATED DISCUSSION AND WITH ALL RE SPECT TO THE ORDER OF HONBLE ITAT KOLKATA, THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT IN SU PPORT OF HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISTINGUISHABLE. IN THE BACKGROUND OF ABOVE DISCUSS ION AS WELL AS THE DETAILED DISCUSSION WHICH IS INCORPORATED IN THE CIT(A) ORDER DATED 24- 01-2011 IN THE CASE OF M/S. LAYER EXPORTS PVT.LTD. FOR THE A.Y.2004-05, FROM WHERE TH E 16 DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED AND ON THE BASIS OF THESE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ADDITION OF RS. 57,14,15,087/- WAS MADE AS UNACCOUNTED CASH RECEIPT RELATED TO SALE OF FLATS W HICH IS UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) IN ITS AFORESAID ORDER, THE GREAT EVIDENTIAL VALUE OF THOS E SEIZED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CONTAINING THE UNEXPLAINED MONEY IN CASH ALONG WITH CHEQUE PAYMENT IS DULY ESTABLISHED. THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.8 PERTAINING TO THE APPELLANT IS ALREADY CONSIDERED IN THE CASE OF M/S. LAYER EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND ON MERIT IT HAS ALREADY BEEN ESTABLISHED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PAID ON-MONEY. IN VIEW OF ALL THESE DISCUSSIONS THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.8 UNDOUBTEDLY BELONG TO THE APPELLANT ( CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & JYOTSNA DESAI). IN VIEW OF ABOVE STATED ENTIRE DISCUSSION THE RELIA NCE PLACED BY THE APPELLANT ON JUDICIAL DECISION FOR QUASHING THE PROVISION INITIA TED U/S 153C IS REJECTED AND IT IS HELD ON MERIT THAT SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.8 BELONG TO THE AP PELLANT (CHANDRAVADAN DESAID & JYOTSNA DESAI). 5. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE SHOWS THAT FIRSTLY THE LD . CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS NOT ADMITTED ON ACCO UNT OF DELAY. WE FIND THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED PERTAINS TO LEGAL ISSUE AN D ADJUDICATION OF THE SAME GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. IN THIS REGARD WE ALSO FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF NTPC VS CIT 22 9 ITR 383 (SC). ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A)S DECISION THAT ADDITIO NAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE ON ACCOUNT OF THE DELAY IS NOT SUSTAINAB LE. AFTER IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND WAS NOT ADMISSIBLE, THE LD. CIT(A ) HAS FURTHER ERRED IN MAKING A HALF HEARTED ATTEMPT FOR THE ADJUDICATION ON MERITS OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND. THE LD. CIT(A) REPRODUCED THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND L ACONICALLY DEALT WITH THE ISSUE. THE LD. CITA) HAS NOT PROPERLY DISCUSSED THE REASON S FOR WHICH HE CHOSE TO IGNORE THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY REASON AS TO WHY THE RELIANCE OF THE ASSES SE ON THE DECISION OF THE ITAT, KOLKATA WAS DISTINGUISHABLE. FURTHERMORE THE LD. CI T(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THE CASE OF M/S. LAYER EXPORTS PVT. LTD. AND MENTIONED THAT DETAIL ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 10 DISCUSSION WAS THERE, WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD AN Y THING FROM THE SAID ORDER. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINIO N THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY ADJUDICATED BY THE L D. CIT(A). AS WE HAVE ALREADY MENTIONED HEREINABOVE THIS IS AN IMPORTANT ISSUE AN D GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 6. APART FROM THE ABOVE THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSE SSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED CERTAIN OTHER LEGAL ASPECT S WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FAILED TO ADDRESS. HENCE THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE PLEA DED THAT THIS ISSUE ALONG WITH OTHER LEGAL ASPECTS MAY BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF LD. CI T(A) FOR PROPER ADJUDICATION. THE LD. DR IN THIS REGARD RELIED UPON THE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, HE COULD NOT COGENTLY REBUT THE SUBMISSION THAT THE LD. CIT(A) H AS NOT PROPERTY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE. 7. UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION WE ARE OF THE CONSIDE RED OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS TO BE SENT BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. ACCORDINGLY WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESEE B EFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE ADDITIONAL GROUND AND OTHER LEGAL ASPECTS EMANATING OUT OF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. ACC ORDINGLY THE LD. CIT(A) SHOULD ADJUDICATE THE SAME AFRESH BY GIVING THE ASSESSEE P ROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY REMITTED THE ISSUES PERTAININ G TO JURISDICTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION WE ARE NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON MERITS RAISED IN THESE CASES. 8. IN THE RESULT THESE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSES S TAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27.06.2014. SD/- SD/- [ GEORGE MATHAN ] [SHAMIM YAHYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 27.06.2014. R.G.(.P.S.) ITA.NOS.503&504/KOL/2013 SHRI CHANDRAVADAN DESAI & SMT.JYOTSNA DES AI A.YR.2006-07 11 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI CHADRAVADAN DESAI, 37, SHSKESPARE SARANI, KOLK ATA-700017. 2 SMT. JYOTSNA DESAI,37, SHAKESPEARE SARANI, KOLKATA- 700017. 3 . A.C.I.T, CIRCLE-32, KOLKATA. 4. CIT(A)-XIX, KOLKATA 5. C IT KOLKATA 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASST. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES