Mrs. Savita Bhatti, Chandigarh V. ACIT, Chandigarh

ITA 524/CHANDI/2009

• Counselvise Citation: 52421514 RSA 2009
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-10-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 1999-2000
• Appeal Filed On: 15-05-2009
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: N K SAINI
• Keywords: Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 133A; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MEHAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 524 & 525/CHD/2009 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 1999-2000 & 2000-01 MRS SAVITA BHATTI, VS. THE ITO, WARD 3(2), CHANDIGARH CHANDIGARH PAN NO.ABGPB 9731 Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI M.R. SHARMA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI N.K.SAINI DATE OF HEARING : 04.10.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18.10.2011 ORDER PER MEHAR SINGH, AM THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE O RDER OF CIT(A), PATIALA DATED 12.3.2009 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 1999-2000 & 2000-01 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 250(6) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GRO UNDS IN BOTH THE APPEAL:- 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHELD B Y THE CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AND IS BEYOND ALL THE CANNONS OF LAW AND JUSTICE. 2. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHELD B Y THE CIT(A) MAKING AN ADDITION U/S 69C AT RS. 2,86,204/- (ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000) AND RS. 1,31,370/- 2 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01) RESPECTIVELY IS BAD IN L AW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 3. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHELD B Y THE CIT(A) MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,70,000/- (ASSESS MENT YEAR 1999-2000) AND RS. 50,000/- (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01) U/S 68 MORE SO WHEN THE ADDITION FOR THE S AME AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF ITS PRINCIPAL M/S JASPAL BHATTI FILMS PVT LTD IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 4. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UPHELD B Y THE CIT(A) MAKING AN ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS WHICH ARE NEITHER FOUND NOR SEIZED FROM THE CUSTODY OF APPELLANT BUT SEIZED FROM THE 3 RD PARTY WHOSE STATEMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN RETRACTED AND AS SUCH THE ADDITION M ADE ON THE BASIS OF RETRACTED STATEMENT IS ILLEGAL, UNC ALLED FOR AND NEEDS TO BE SET ASIDE. 5. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DE LETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE SAME IS FIN ALLY HEARD. 3. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT GROUND NO.3 IN BOTH THE APPEALS AS INDICATED A BOVE IS WITHDRAWN. CONSEQUENTLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IN RESPECT OF B OTH THE APPEALS IS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN 4. GROUND NO.1 AND GROUND NO.5 IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION IT NEEDS NO SE PARATE ADJUDICATION. 5. GROUND NO.2 AND GROUND NO.4 ARE INTERLINKED, HEN CE THE SAME ARE CONSIDERED AND ADJUDICATED TOGETHER. 6. IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, BEFORE T HE BENCH, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT A SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED, AT THE BU SINESS PREMISES OF M/S DUESON INDIA, SCO 26, SECTOR 11-D, CHANDIGARH, ON 15.12.2000 AND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO IDIOT FILMS WERE FO UND AND IMPOUNDED. THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE 3 CIT(A) IS BAD IN LAW AS THE SAME IS FOUNDED ON THE STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY. IT WAS, FURTHER, ARGUED THAT ASSESSEES PR EMISES WAS COVERED U/S 133A OF THE ACT AND ASSESSEE HAS NO BUSINESS CONNEC TION WITH THE PARTIES SURVEYED U/S 133A OF THE ACT. THE LD. AR WAS OF THE OPINION THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE LOOSE PAPERS IMPOUNDED, IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATION, AS THE SAME DO NOT REPR ESENT THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HE REFERRED TO PARA 3 OF THE CIT(A) ORDER. HE ALSO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE STATEMENT OF THE AS SESSEE AND SHRI DIWAKAR SAHOONJA. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON TH E FOLLOWING DECISIONS. .1 ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH DECISION IN ITA NO.1002/CHANDI/2004 DATED JAN 05, 2006 IN THE CASE OF ITO V M/S JASPAL BHATTI FILMS (P) LTD, CHANDIGAR H \ 2. DCIT VS RATAN CORPORATION (2005) 197 CTR (GUJ) 536 3. ITAT AMRITSAR BENCH SMC IN THE CASE OF ITO V HANUMAN PODDA & ORS. 7. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE IMPOUNDED DOCUME NTS CONTAIN LIVE EVIDENCE INDICTING BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASS ESSEE AND CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE . HE ALSO REFUTED THE CONTENTION OF THE AR THAT PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEETS ARE AUDITED ONE. IN THIS CONTEXT, HE REFERRED TO PAGE 12 OF THE PAPER BOOK CONTAINING EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. HE C ONTENDED THAT THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT DISCLOSED TO THE DEPARTMEN T IS WITHOUT TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS DULY REPRODUCED THE STATEMENT OF SHRI DIWAKAR SAHOONJA RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OPERATION O N 15.12.2000 AND PREPARED A CHART IN PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER INDICATING EXPENSES INCURRED OUTSIDE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE LD. DR , FURTHER, ARGUED THAT THE SAID IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS CONTAIN DETAILS OF DA TE WISE EXPENSES, NOT 4 FOUND ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS, FURTHER, ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EX PLAIN AND DEMONSTRATE ACCOUNTABILITY OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS. BOTH THE LD. DR AND AR STATED THE SIMILAR SUBMISSION MAY BE CONSIDERED, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000- 01. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, RELEVANT PAPER BOOK AND THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCE EDINGS, THE LD. AR CONTENDED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SHEETS IMPOUNDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS. THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ATTRACTIVE AT THE FIRST GLIMPSE BUT IT IS SPECIOUS IN NATURE. THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, IN ANY FORM, CAN SERVE AS A CREDIBLE EVIDENCE, TO MAKE ADDITIONS, BASED ON THE FACT SITUATION OF T HE PARTICULAR CASE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI DI WAKAR SAHOONJA AT THE TIME OF SURVEY OPERATION ON THE NATURE OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS IS RELEVANT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDIT ION ON THE FOUNDATION OF NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS FOUND RECORDED ON SUCH IM POUNDED DOCUMENTS. A PERUSAL OF THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS MARKED AS ANNE XURE A CLEARLY REVEALS MATERIAL DETAILS OF RECEIPT, FROM IDIOT FIL MS, BY CASH, AT RS. 4,84,000/- AND RECEIPT FROM IDIOT FIRM BY CHEQUE AT RS. 2 LACS. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO REBUT THIS CARDINAL AND CONC LUSIVE EVIDENCE, AS FOUND RECORDED, ON THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN DATE WISE DETAILS OF EXPENSES, FROM 2.10.1998 TO 31 .12.1999. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE PERTINENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS VIS-A-VIS THE REGULAR PROFIT AND LOSS AC COUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, PARA 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CONTA INING THE FINDINGS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS REPRODUCED HEREWITH:- 5 8. WITH ABOVE OBSERVATION, THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE IS ASSESSED AS UNDER:- (1) DIFFERENCE OF EXPENSES UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF ACCOU NTS:- ON COMPARISON OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND / IMPOUNDED AS A RESULT OF SURVEY AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S DEWSON INDIA , SECTOR 11-D, CHANDIGARH AND PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT PREPARED AND FILED WITH THE RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE FOLLOWING DIFFERENCES W ERE NOTICES:- DESCRIPTION AS PER PAPERS DOCUMENTS AS PER P&L OF ASSESSEE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS PAGE NO./ANNEX DIFFERENCE SALARY 79,000/- 35,000/- 30 I 44,000/- TRAVELLING 32,080/- 11,500/- 30 20,580/- TELEPHONE 63,567/- 12,891/- 29 II 50665/- OFFICE STAFF / POSTG 8,201/- 2,160/- 29 6,041/- PUBLICITY DELHI A/C 22,629/- - 29 22,629/- PUBLICITY VEHICLE A/C 36,900/- - 32 III 36,900/- PUBLICITY CHD PREMIER A/C 48,560/- - 32 48,560/- PUBLICITY GENERAL 56,829/- - 31 IV 56,829/- TOTAL DIFFERENCE 2,86,204/- SINCE AS PER DOCUMENTS FOUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS. 2,86,204/- WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN HER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACC OUNT AND IT HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE, HENCE THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2,86,204/- COVERED BY EXPEN DITURE IS DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998-99 RELEVA NT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 AND IS ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE CASE LAWS CITE D BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM AND UPH ELD THE ADDITION MADE 6 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE RELEVANT AND OPERAT IVE PART OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS CONTAINED IN PARAS 3 TO 3.2 WHICH ARE REP RODUCED HEREIN UNDER:- 3. REGARDING IST AND 4 TH GROUND, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT MR DIWAKER SAHOONJA IS CLOSELY ASSOCIATED WITH THE APPELLANT AND HE IS AUTHORIZED BY THE APPELLANT TO OPERATE HER BANK ACCOUNT AND HE IS IN CHARGE OF FUNDS OF THE AP PELLANT. ITS ALSO HAS SIGNIFICANT IMPORTANCE THAT MR DIWAKER SAH OONJA HAS CHANGED HIS STATEMENT VERY OFTENLY FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM. HENCE, IT IS A HARD FACT THAT DOCUMENT / PA PER SEIZED FROM PREMISES OF M/S DEWSUN INIDA, CHANDIGARH ACTU ALLY BELONG TO THE APPELLANT AND THE COMPLETE ONUS LIES ON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS IN THESE PAPE RS WITH HER REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN WHICH SHE FAILED. FURT HER, THE CASE LAWS OF VARIOUS AUTHORITIES CITED BY THE APPEL LANT HAS NO APPLICATION IN THIS CASE AND THERE IS SIGNIFICANT D EVIATION OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WITH THOSE OF THE APPELLANT . HENCE, IT IS NOT REASONABLE TO REPLY ON THESE JUDGMENTS IN TH E ASSESSEES CASE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE E XPENDITURE IN TRANSACTION ARE ACTUALLY ADVERTISEMENT EXPENSES ON BEHALF OF HER PRINCIPALS AND SHE GOT ITS REIMBURSEMENT LATER ON, HAS NO MERITS AS THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO PLACE ON RECO RD ANY SUCH EVIDENCE IN HER SUPPORT AND THE FACTS ARE NOT VERIF IABLE. EVEN THE PLEA TAKEN BY MR DIWAKAR SAHOONJA THAT THESE EX PENSE WRITTEN ON IMPOUNDED PAPERS ARE PROJECTED EXPENDITU RE IS A COOKED UP STORY BECAUSE IF ONE GOES THROUGH THE CON TENTS OF THESE PAPERS IT IS NOTED THAT EXPENSES TO THAT EXTE NT OF LAST DIGIT OF RUPEES UNDER VARIOUS SPECIFIC HEAD AND SUB HEADS ARE WRITTEN THERE E.G. ON 26.12.1998 SHARE FARMS & SCRE EN PRINTING RS. 363/-, STD BILLS (4.12.1998) RS. 3531/-. SIMIL ARLY, OTHER STD & MOBILE PHONE BILLS. 3.1 EVEN, THE SURVEY TOOK PLACE ON 15.12.000 WHEREAS THESE PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH CONTAINED INFORMATION IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT RELATING TO VARIOUS HEADS, SU B HEADS PERTAINING TO THE EARLIER PERIOD BETWEEN SEPTEMBER 1998 TO FEBRUARY 2000 WHICH CLEARLY SUGGESTS THAT THESE EXPENSES HAD ACTUALLY BEEN INCURRED AND THEREFORE, HOW THAT COULD BE PROJECTE D EXPENDITURE FOR FUTURE. 3.2 HENCE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE DISALLOWANCE HAS RIGHTLY BEEN MADE INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C AN D THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE APPROPRIATE ORDER AND THE ADDITION SO MADE IS SUSTAINED. 10. THE CASE LAWS CITED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT APP LICABLE TO THE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE BEING FACTUALLY AND M ATERIALLY 7 DISTINGUISHABLE. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE CIT ED CERTAIN CASE LAWS WITHOUT ELABORATING AS TO HOW THE FACT-SITUATION, AS OBTAINING IN THESE CASE LAWS FITS IN THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE. MERE CITATION OF THE DECISION IS NOT THE SAME THING AS APPLICABILITY OF SUCH DECISION, TO THE CASE IN HAND. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW REGARDING APP LICABILITY OF JUDICIAL PRECEDENT THAT EVEN THE SLIGHT SHADE OF VARIATION I N FACTS RENDERS THE RATIO OF DECISION AS INAPPLICABLE. 11. FROM THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF I TO V M/S JASPAL BHATTI FILMS (P) LTD (ITA NO. 1002/CHANDI/2004), RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998-99, ORDER DATED, 5.1.2006, IT IS EVIDENT THAT FACTS, CONTENTS AND NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS PERTAINING TO THE CASE RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE IS FUNDAMENTALLY DIFFER ENT AND DISTINGUISHABLE. THIS FACTUM WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IN THE CO URSE OF PRESENT APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THAT IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS IN T HE CASE OF M/S JASPAL BHATTI FILMS (P) LTD ARE DIFFERENT IN NATURE AND CO NTENTS OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED THEREON VIS-A-VIS THE PAPERS RELATING TO T HE PRESENT ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION, IN SUCH A DIF FERENT SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT-SITUATI ON OF THE PRESENT CASE. THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF DCI T V RATAN CORPORATION 197 CTR (GUJ) 536. A BARE PERUSAL OF T HE FACT SITUATION OF THE PRESENT CASE REVEALS THAT THE ADDITION IN THIS CASE WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED, ON SALE OF SHOPS BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AS ADMITTED BY THE PARTNER. SUBSEQUENTLY, HE HAS RETRACTED HIS STATEMENT BY MAKING A DETAILED AFFIDAVIT. IT WAS, FURTHER, NOTICED BY THE TRIBUNAL THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS DID NOT RELATE TO TH E SAME PROJECT. IT IS IN THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH FACTUAL MATRIX, THE HON'BLE GUJRAT HIGH COURT RENDERED THE DECISION. IT IS MENTIONED THAT THE FA CT SITUATION OF THE 8 PRESENT CASE IS DIFFERENT AS THESE IMPOUNDED DOCUME NTS CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE BUSINESS CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE AND CONTAIN VITAL AND LIVE EVIDENCE FOUND NOT RECORDED, IN THE REGULAR BO OKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE RATIO OF THE DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACT-SITUATION OF THE CASE. 12. THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF AMRITSAR BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO V HANUMAN PODDAR & ORS (2005) 98 TTJ (AMRITSAR) 705. IN THIS CASE, IN THE COURSE OF SUR VEY OPERATION U/S 133A OF THE ACT, CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND ON WHIC H NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR. THE ENTRIES ON THESE PAPE RS DID NOT SHOW WHETHER THESE WERE RECEIPT, EXPENSES, INVESTMENTS, UNACCOUN TED SALES OR PURCHASES. IT IS IN THE BACKGROUND OF SUCH FACTUAL MATRIX, THE DECISION WAS RENDERED BY AMRITSAR, SMC BENCH OF THE TRIBUN AL. IN THE PRESENT CASE AS INDICATED ABOVE, THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE OF RECEIPT OF MONEY BY CASH AND CHEQUE AS RECORDED ON THE IMPOUNDED DOCUME NTS. FURTHER, BUSINESS CONNECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE CLEARLY DI SCERNIBLE FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID IMPOUNDED DOCUM ENTS. IN VIEW OF THIS, THE RATIO OF THIS CASE LAW IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 13. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUSSI ONS, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A), ARE FOUNDED ON VITAL EVIDENC E AND MATERIAL, IN THE SHAPE OF IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. THE TRANSACTIONS RECO RDED ON SUCH DOCUMENTS CLEARLY ESTABLISH THE BUSINESS CONNECTION , WITH THE ASSESSEE, AS ALSO CONTAIN THE EVIDENCE OF UNRECORDED EXPENSES IN CURRED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH SHRI DIWAKAR SAHOONJA. THE STATEMENT OF SH RI DIWAKAR SAHOONJA IS MERELY RELEVANT AND THE BASIS OF ADDITION IS THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON 9 THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS. THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S 133A OF THE ACT, IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF VAL MATHEW & SONS V CIT 129 TAXMAN (KERELA) MAY NOT HAVE EVIDENTIARY VALUE BUT IS RELEVANT. TH E MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY IS USEFUL EVIDENCE AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ATAM VALVE (P) LTD VS. A DDL CIT (2008) 299 ITR 460 (P&H). IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT EVIDEN CE OR ANY RELEVANT MATERIAL GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF ILLEGAL SURVEY O R SEARCH OPERATION CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, IN THE COURSE OF ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS. NEEDLESS TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT F ETTERED BY TECHNICAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND PLEADINGS AND HE IS ENTITLED TO ACT ON MATERIAL COLLECTED, IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATIONS. IT IS PERTINENT TO HIGHLIGHT HERE THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(2), SUB CL AUSE (II) CLEARLY CONTEMPLATE THAT THE ASSESSEE TO ADDUCE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 143(3) MENTION S THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER TAKING OF RELEVANT MATERIAL MAY FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AND DETERMINED THE TAX LIABILITY. THE L EGISLATURE HAS CONCLUSIVELY USED THE WORD EVIDENCE IN CASE OF AS SESSEE, TO SUPPORT TO HIS RETURN, WHEREAS THE EXPRESSION MATERIAL HAS B EEN USED, IN THE CONTEXT OF ASSESSING OFFICER, TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT. IN A NUTSHELL, THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS CLEARLY CONTEMPLATE THAT THE ASSESSING O FFICER CAN USE RELEVANT MATERIAL, TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT, AS HAS BEEN DONE , IN THE PRESENT CASE. HAVING REGARD TO THE ABOVE LEGAL AND FACTUAL DISCUS SIONS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND, HE NCE, THE SAME ARE UPHELD. 14. BOTH THE LD. REPRESENTATIVES STATED BEFORE US T HAT THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN ITA NO. 525/CHD/20011 ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF FACTS IN THE ITA NO. 524/CHD/2011. WE FIND THAT TH ERE IS SIMILARITY IN THE 10 FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF BOTH THE CASES WHICH REL ATE TO THE SAME ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS EXCEPT THE VARIATION IN AMOUNTS, IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREFORE, OUR AFORE SAID DECISION SHALL APPLY MUTATIS-MUTANDIS TO ITA NO. 525/CHD/2011 RELA TING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01 ALSO. 15. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF OCTOBER , 2011. SD/- SD/- (H.L.KARWA) (MEHAR SINGH) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED 18 TH OCTOBER, 2011 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH