ACIT, New Delhi V. Shri Brij Bhushan Singal, New Delhi

ITA 5261/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87019 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 22-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 19-09-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A MISRA
• Assessee Lawyers: ADITY A KUMARCA
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 133A; 132; 139

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ANEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.5261/DEL/2013 ASSTT.YEAR: 2010-11 ACIT, VS BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE-13, W-29, GREATER KAILASH, ROOM NO. 332, PART-II, NEW DELHI. ARA CENTRE, (PAN: AEFPS6298M) JHANDEWALAN EXTN. NEW DELHI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI A. MISRA, CIT DR RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ASHWANI KUMAR, CA & ADI TYA KUMAR,CA DATE OF HEARING: 22.1.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 9.3.2015 O R D E R PER C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVENUE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- I, NEW DELHI DATED 5.7.2013 IN APPEAL NO.52 /12-13 FOR AY 2010-11. 2. GROUND NO. 1 AND 3 OF THE REVENUE ARE GENERAL IN NATURE. REMAINING SOLE GROUND NO. 2 READS AS UNDER:- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY AO U/S 271AA OF IT ACT AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 CRORES ON THE SURRENDER O F RS. 50 CRORES, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE M ANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED WITH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. 3. WE HAVE HEARD ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND CA REFULLY PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. BRIEFLY STATED , THE FACTS GIVING RISE TO THIS APPEAL ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF BHUSHAN STEEL G ROUP OF CASES ON 3.3.2010. ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL SEIZED DURING SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT ADMITTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.50 CRORE WHICH WAS DECLARE D IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR AY 2010-11 AND TAXES PAID THEREON. THE A O INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SPECIFIED THE MANN ER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS EARNED AND ALSO FAILED TO SUBSTANTIATE I T AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.5 CRORE ON THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH FAILURE. 4. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE SAID PENALTY ORDER, THE A SSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) WHICH WAS ALLOWED BY PASSI NG THE IMPUGNED ORDER BY RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF ITAT DELHI BENCH E IN I TA NO. 337/D/2013 FOR AY 2010-11 IN THE CASE OF NEERAT SINGAL VS ACIT DATED 24.6.2013. NOW, THE REVENUE IS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER O F THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHICH DELETED THE PENALTY AND ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SOLE GROUNDS AS REPRODUCED HEREINABOVE. 5. LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE PENALTY AMOUNTING TO RS. 5 CRORE ON THE SURRENDER OF RS.50 CRORE AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SUBSTANTIATED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME WAS DERIVED WITH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. LD.AR SUPPORTING THE IMPUG NED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT ON SIMILAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) GRAN TED RELIEF IN THE CASE OF NEERAT SINGAL FOR AY 2010-11 IN APPEAL NO.51/12-13 VIDE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DATED 17.12.2012 WHICH WAS UPHELD BY THE ITAT BY OR DER DATED 24.6.2013 (SUPRA) AND, THEREFORE, THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUAREL Y COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL (SUPRA). 6. ON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE NOTE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF FOR THE ASS ESSEE BY FOLLOWING HIS OWN DECISION DATED 17.12.2012 IN THE CASE OF SHRI NEERA T SINGAL (SUPRA) WHICH WAS UPHELD BY ITAT E BENCH DELHI BY ORDER DATED 24.6. 2013. THE RELEVANT OPERATIVE PART OF THIS ORDER READS THUS:- 11. WHEN WE COMPARE EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT WITH THE PROVISIONS LAID DOWN U/ S 271AAA OF THE ACT WE FIND A LOT OF SIMILARITY THEREIN UNDE R WHICH PENALTY IS NOT ATTRACTED IN A CASE OF SEARCH ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AS PER EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT IF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH MAKES A STATEM ENT UNDER SUB SECTION (4) OF SECTION 132 THAT ANY MONEY, BULL ION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THINGS FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION OR UNDER HIS CONTROL HAS BEEN ACQUIRED O UT OF HIS INCOME WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED SO FAR IN HIS R ETURN OF INCOME TO BE FURNISHED BEFORE THE EXPIRY OF TIME SP ECIFIED IN SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 AND ALSO SPECIFIES I N THE STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND PAYS THE TAX, TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, I N RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME, THEN THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH INCOME WILL NOT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INC OME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF SUCH INCOME TO ATTRACT THE PENALTY THEREIN. SIMILARLY UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271AAA OF THE ACT PENALTY IS NOT LEVIABLE WHERE SEA RCH HAS BEEN ITA NO-337/DEL/2013 8 INITIATED U/S 132 ON OR AFTER 1.6.2007 BUT BEFORE 1.7.2012, AND THE ASSESSEE IN T HE COURSE OF SEARCH, IN A STATEMENT UNDER THE SUB SECTION 4 OF S ECTION 132,(I), ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME (II) SPECIFI ES AND SUBSTANTIATES THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS B EEN DERIVED, AND (IIII) PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTE REST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. FROM THE READING OF BOTH THESE PENAL PROVISIONS WE FIND THAT ONE REQUIREMENT IS COMMON FOR NON ATTRACTION OF THE PENAL PROVISIONS UNDER BO TH THE SECTIONS I.E. IF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENTS REC ORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ADMITS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND SPECIFIES IN THE STATEMENT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HA S BEEN DERIVED AND PAYS THE TAX TOGETHER WITH INTEREST, IF ANY, IN RESPECT OF SUCH INCOME. THE ONLY ADDITIONAL REQUIRE MENT IN THE CASE OF SECTION 271AAA IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE A SSESSEE WILL ALSO HAVE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE MANNER IN WHICH THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED BESIDES SPECIFICATION OF THE MAN NER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME WAS DERIVED. THE OTHER DIFFERENCE IS IN THE APPLICATION OF THE PROVISIONS UNDER BOTH THE SECTIO NS. THE PENAL PROVISION U/S 271(1) UNDER EXPLANATION 5 THE RETO IS APPLICABLE IN SUCH CASES WHERE SEARCH U/S 132 WAS I NITIATED BEFORE 1.6.2007 WHEREAS U/S 271AAA, THE PROVISIONS THEREIN ARE APPLICABLE IN A CASE WHERE SEARCH U/S 132 OF TH E ACT HAS BEEN INITIATED ON OR AFTER 1.6.2007 BUT BEFORE 1.7. 2012. THUS THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLEAR TO THIS E XTENT THAT IN A CASE WHEREIN SEARCH WAS INITIATED BEFORE 1.6.2007, PROVISIONS U/S 271(1) WILL BE APPLICABLE AND IN SEARCH INITIA TED AFTER 1.6.2007 (BUT BEFORE 1.7.2012) PROVISIONS U/S 271AA A OF THE ACT WILL BE APPLICABLE. THESE PROVISIONS ARE THUS N OT APPLICABLE SIMULTANEOUSLY BUT THESE ARE PERIOD SPEC IFIC. AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE ONLY ADDITIONAL REQUIREMENT FO R NON ATTRACTION OF PENAL PROVISION U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT IN COMPARISON TO THIS U/S 271(1) IS THAT BESIDES SPEC IFYING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE ADMITTED AN UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, THE ASSESSEE WILL ALSO HAVE TO SUBSTANTIAT E THIS MANNER. IN VIEW OF THIS RELATIVE STUDY OF BOTH THE PROVISIONS WHEN WE GO THROUGH THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR, WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. GEBILAL KANHIA LAL (HUF) (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THE KARTA OF THE ASSESEEE HUF HAD MADE A STATEMENT U/S 132 (4)AD MITTING ITA NO-337/DEL/2013 9 CONCEALED INCOME IN THE COURS E OF SEARCH AND SPECIFIED THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOM E STOOD DERIVED. IN THIS STATEMENT THE KARTA ALSO SURRENDER ED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 42,32,000/-. THE KARTA HOWEVER NEITHE R FILED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139 (1) ON DUE DATE NOR PAID D UE TAX ON THE SURRENDERED INCOME. LATER ON HE ALSO RETRACTED FROM HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ABOUT SURRENDER. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AFTER DELIBERATING IN DETAIL ON DIFFE RENT EXPLANATIONS TO SECTION 271(1) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. IN THA T CASE FAILURE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME ON 31ST JULY 1987 AND FAILURE TO PAY TAX THEREON WAS THE MERE REASON RELIED UPON BY THE DEPARTMENT TO DENY TO THE ASSESSEE THE BENEFIT OF I MMUNITY UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO THE DEPARTMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD C OMPLIED WITH ALL THE CONDITIONS OF CLAUSE 2 OF EXPLANATION 5 EXCEPT PAYMENT OF TAX IN TIME. HONBLE SUPREME COURT PLEAS ED TO HOLD THAT NO TIME LIMIT HAS BEEN PRESCRIBED FOR PAY MENT OF TAX UNDER CLAUSE 2 OF EXPLANATION 5 AND THE ASSESSEE HA VING PAID TAX UPTO THE DATE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME SURRENDERED BY IT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A LL THE THREE CONDITIONS LAID DOWN IN CLAUSE 2 OF EXPLANATION 5 T O SECTION 271(1) STOOD FULFILLED AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY UNDER CLAUSE (2) OF EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTI ON 271(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHA KISHAN GOE L (SUPRA) BEFORE THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THE ISSUE R AISED WAS AS TO WHETHER MERE NON-STATEMENT OF MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED WOULD MAKE EXPLANATI ON 5 (2) TO SECTION 271(1) INAPPLICABLE. THE FURTHER QUESTI ON RAISED WAS AS TO WHETHER IN A CASE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED HAS NOT BEEN STATED IN THE STATEMENT U/S 13 2(4) BUT IS STATED SUBSEQUENTLY, THAT AMOUNTS TO COMPLIANCE WIT H EXPLANATION 5 (2) TO SECTION 271(1) AND NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIABLE UNDER SAID SECTION.. BOTH THESE QUESTIONS HAVE BEEN REPLIED IN AFFIRMATIVE IN THE DECISION OF THE HONB LE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT. AS PER THE DECISION MERE NON STATEMENT OF MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED WAS DERIVED WOULD NOT MAKE EXP LANATION 5 (2) TO SECTION 271(1) INAPPLICABLE. SIMILARLY IN A CASE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN ITA NO-337/DEL/2013 10 DERIVED HAS NOT BEEN STATED IN STATEMENT U/S 132(4) BUT IS STATED SUBSEQUENTLY THAT AMOUNTS TO COMPLIANCE WITH EXPLANATION 5 (2) TO SECTION 271(1) AND NO PENALTY WOULD BE LEVIABLE. SIMILARLY IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHENDRA G. SHAH BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT THE BASIC REQ UIREMENT FOR IMMUNITY FORM THE LEVY OF PENALTY UNDER EXPLANA TION 5 TO SECTION 271(1) OF THE ACT HAS BEEN DISCUSSED AS P ER WHICH THE FIRST REQUIREMENT IS DISCLOSURE IN STATEMENT MA DE U/S 132(4) AND PAYMENT OF TAX BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED. FOLLOWING RATIO LAID DOWN IN THIS DECISI ON OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBU NAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT VS. SHRI INDERCHAND SURAJMAL BOTHR A (SUPRA) WHEREIN PENALTY U/S 271(1) WAS LEVIED HELD THAT IT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME WAS EARNED IN RESPECT OF THE AMOUNT OFFERED TO TAX IN T HE RETURN OF INCOME FILED TO SEARCH ACTION BY PAYING TAXES THERE ON FOR ADOPTING IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY UNDER EXPLANATION 5 OF SECTION 271(A) (C) OF THE ACT. THE CUTTAK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK KUMAR SHARMA (HUF) AND OT HERS VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN PENALTY U/S 271 AAA WAS LEVIED THE ASSESEE HAD DISCLOSED CONCEALED INCOME WHILE GIVING STATEMENT U/S 132 OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH AND HAD PAID THE TAX THEREON AND SHOWED THE SAID UNDISC LOSED INCOME FILED UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS AND DEPARTMENT HAD ACCEPTED THESE RETURNS AND ACCORDING LY PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. PENALTY U/S 271AAA WAS LEVIED . IT WAS HELD THAT UNDISPUTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS IN THE RETURNS FILED BY THEM AND THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTME NT BY PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ACCORDINGLY, THEREFOR E THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE FALLS EXACTLY WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF SUB SECTION 2 OF SECTION 271AAA. THUS THE IMPUGNED PENALTY LEVIED CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED IN SECTION 271AAA (2) I S NOT SUSTAINABLE. THE PENALTY WAS ACCORDINGLY DELETED. I N THE CASE OF SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR JAIN AND ANOTHER VS. JCIT (SUP RA) BEFORE THE CUTTAK BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESE E HAD DISCLOSED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME BUT HAD FAILED TO SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAD BEEN DERIVED. THE DEPARTMENT ACCORDINGLY LEVIED PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. THE SAME ITA NO-337/DEL/2013 11 WAS UPHELD BY THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE TRIBUNAL HAS HOWEVER DELET ED THE PENALTY ON THE BASIS THAT THERE IS NO PRESCRIBED ME THOD TO INDICATE THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME WAS GENERATED W HERE THE DEFINITION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DEFINED IN THE ACT ITSELF WHEN NO INCOME OF THE SPECIFIED PREVIOUS YEA R REPRESENTED EITHER WHOLLY OR PARTLY WHICH ONUS LA Y UPON THE ASSESSEE STOOD DISCHARGED. THE DELHI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN ITS RECENT DECISION IN THE CASE OF MOTHER PRIDE EDU CATION PERSONNA PVT. LTD,.VS. DCIT (SUPRA) WHILE PLACING R ELIANCE ON ITS EARLIER DECISION IN THE CASE OF SMT. RAJ RANI G UPTA (SUPRA) AND FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE HIGH COURTS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHI KISHAN GOEL (SUPRA) (A LL) AND CIT VS. MAHENDRA C. SHAH (SUPRA) (GUJ) HAS DELETED THE PENALTY. THE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RADHA KISHAN GOEL (SUPRA) HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HOLD THAT U/S 132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT 1961 UNLESS THE AUTHORIZED O FFICER PUTS SPECIFIC QUESTION WITH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHIC H INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, IT IS NOT EXPECTED FROM THE PERSO N TO MAKE A STATEMENT IN THIS REGARD AND IN CASE IN THE STATEME NT THE MANNER IN WHICH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED HAS NOT BEE N STATED BUT HAS BEEN STATED SUBSEQUENTLY, THAT AMOUNTS TO T HE COMPLIANCE WITH EXPLANATION 5 (2) TO SECTION 271 (1 ) (C) OF THE ACT. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT IN CASE THERE IS NOTHING TO THE CONTRARY IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF TH E ACT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY SPECIFIC STATEMENT ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, IT CAN BE INFERRED TH AT SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM THE BUSINESS WH ICH HE WAS CARRYING ON OR FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE OBJECT O F THE PROVISION IS ACHIEVED BY MAKING THE STATEMENT ADMIT TING THE NON-DISCLOSURE OF MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY ETC. IT WAS THUS HELD THAT MUCH IMPORTANCE SHOULD NOT BE ATTACHED TO THE STATEMENT ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. IT CAN BE INFERRED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, IN ABSENCE OF ANYTHING TO THE CONTRARY. T HEREFORE, MERE NON STATEMENT OF THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCO ME WAS DERIVED WOULD NOT MAKE EXPLANATION 5 (2) INAPPLICAB LE, HELD THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. 12. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MAHENDRA C. SHAH HAS BEEN PLEASED TO HELD AS UNDER :- IN SO FAR AS THE ALLEGED FAILURE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO SPECIFY IN THE STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT 1961 REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED, SUFFICE IT TO STATE THAT WHEN THE STATEMENT IS BEIN G RECORDED BY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AUT HORIZED OFFICER TO EXPLAIN THE PROVISIONS OF EXPLANATION 5 IN ITS ENTIRETY TO THE ASSESSEE CONCERNED AND THE AUTHORIZED OFFICE R CANNOT STOP SHORT AT A PARTICULAR STAGE SO AS TO PERMIT TH E REVENUE TO TAKE ADVANTAGE OF SUCH A LAPSE IN THE STATEMENT. TH E REASON IS NOT FAR TO SEEK. IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, THE STATEME NT IS BEING RECORDED IN THE QUESTION AND ANSWER FORM AND THERE WOULD BE NO OCCASION OF AN ASSESSEE TO STAGE AND MAKE AVERME NTS IN THE EXACT FORMAT STIPULATED BY THE PROVISIONS CONSIDERI NG THE SETTING IN WHICH SUCH STATEMENT IS BEING RECORDED, AS NOTED BY THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. RAD HA KISHAN GOEL (2005) 278 ITR 454. SECONDLY, CONSIDERING THE ILLITERATE, TO BE SPECIFIC AND TO THE POINT REGARDING THE CONDI TIONS STIPULATED BY EXCEPTION NO.2 WHILE MAKING STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE TRIBUNAL AS WELL AS THE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT TO THE EFFECT THAT EVEN IF THE STATEMENT DOES NOT SPECIFY THE MANNER IN WHICH THE INCOME IS DERIVED, IF THE INCOME IS DECLARED AND TAX THEREON PAID, THERE WOULD BE SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE NOT WARRANTING ANY FURTHER DENIAL OF THE BENEFIT UNDER EXCEPTION NO.2 IN EXPLA NATION 5 IS COMMENDABLE. 13. IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 4.3. 2010 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE TRANSACTIONS IN PROPERTIE S UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AS PER PAGE NOS. 4 & 5 OF ANNEXURE A3 IN SR4. AS PER SUCH PAPER S THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OUTSTANDING SUM OF RS. 3 CRORE AND RS. 6 CRORE FROM VARIOUS PERSON WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 WHILE MAK ING STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. IN ADDITION, AS PE R PAGE NO. 6 OF ANNEXURE A3 IN SR4 THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID IN CASH A SUM OF RS. 17,86,57,781/- FOR PURCHASE OF LAND BY BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED (HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF STATEMENT RECORDED IT WAS ITA NO-337/DEL/2013 13 INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED AS BHUSH AN ENERGY LTD.) WHICH WAS ALSO DECLARED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE ASSTT. YEAR 2010-11 WHILE MAKING A STATEMENT U/ S 132(4) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE SAID STATEMENT THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD ENTERED INTO VARIOUS FORWARD/SPECULATIV E AND PROPERTY TRANSACTION DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.200 9 TO 4.3.2010. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SAME AN INCOME OF RS. 125 CRORES ARISING OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WAS DEC LARED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHIC H INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNDISCLOSED. SUBSEQUENTLY THE TA XES DUE THEREON WERE ALSO PAID AND THE SAME INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010 -11 WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. 14. ON HAVING GONE THROUGH THE QUERY RAISED WHILE R ECORDING THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, WE FIND SUBSTANCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR THAT NOWH ERE THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER HAS ASKED A SPECIFIC QUESTION WI TH REGARD TO THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED. THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS ARE QUESTION NOS. 4,5,6 AND 7. FOR A READY REFERENCE THESE QUESTIONS AND REPLY BY THE AS SESEE THERETO ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- 4 FOR FACILITY OF REFERENCE AND AS IN AID FOR FURTH ER ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT R ECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IS AS FOLLOWS:- Q 4. I AM DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TO ANNEXURE A-3 AT PAGE NO- 6. PLEASE GO THROUGH THE SAME AND EXPLAIN THE CONTE NT THEREOF? ANS. THIS PAPER DEPICTS DETAILS REGARDING PURCHASE OF VARIOUS LANDS ON VARIOUS DATES BY M/S BHUSHAN ENERGY LTD IN KOLKATA. AS MENTIONED IN THIS PAPER IN THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIO N AN AMOUNT OF RS. 178657781/- WAS PAID IN CASH ON 02/05/2009. THIS CASH WAS PAID OUT OF MY OWN UNACCOUNTED ITA NO-337/DEL/2 013 14 FUNDS WHICH WAS NEVER L DISCLOSED FOR TAXATION PURP OSE. I HEREBY ACCEPT THE ABOVE AMOUNT TO BE MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE SHAPE OF INVESTMENT IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE SAME IS OFFERED FOR TAXATION. Q5. I AM DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ANNEXURE A -3 AT PAGE NO-5 FOUND FROM YOUR RESIDENCE, PLEASE EXPLAIN TO WHOM THIS PAPER BELONGS AND UNDER WHOSE HAND WRITING THI S HAS BEEN WRITTEN. PLEASE GO THROUGH THE SAME AND EXPLAI N THE CONTENT THEREOF? ANS. YES, I ACCEPT THAT THIS SHEET OF PAPER WAS FOU ND FROM MY BED ROOM AT THIS PREMISE, I OWN THIS PAPER AND ALL THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAPER ARE WRITTEN BY ME ONLY. THE NOTINGS O N THIS PAPER DEPICTS THE FACT THAT I HAVE ADVANCED CERTAIN AMOUN TS TO SOME PERSON ON DIFFERENT DATES. THE DETAILS OF WHICH IS FURNISHED BELOW:- LIST OF ADVANCES OUTSTANDING ON 31.01.2010 ATMA RAM 11.0 CR SHIV PRAKASH 15.0 CR DEVENDER KUMAR 17.0 CR PREM SINGH 6.0 CR KUNDAN SINGH NEGI 9.5 CR PREMBIR SINGH 5.5 CR SUREINDER SINGH 5 CR _____ 69.0 CR THIS IS THE AMOUNT GIVEN BY ME TO THE ABOVE PERSONS DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR OUTSTANDING AS ON 31.01.2010 . Q.6 WHAT IS THE SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT OF RS. 69 CRO RES? ANS. THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS. 69 CRORES IS MY UNACCO UNTED INCOME FOR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR GENERATED FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. BY MEANS OF ITA NO-337/DEL/201 3 15 T HIS STATEMENT I HEREBY ACCEPT THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF R S. 69 CR TO BE MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME FROM THE CURRENT F.Y AND O FFER IT FOR TAXATION. Q.7. I AM DRAWING YOUR ATTENTION TOWARDS ANNEUXRE- A-3 AT PAGE NO-4 FOUND FROM YOUR RESIDENCE. PLEASE EXPLAIN TO WHOM THIS PAPER BELONGS AND UNDER WHOSE HAND WRITING THI S HAS BEEN WRITTTEEN. PLEASE GO THROUGH THE SAME AND EXPL AIN THE CONTENT THEREOF? ANS. YES, I ACCEPT THAT THIS SHEET OF PAPER BELONGS TO ME, I OWN THIS PAPER AND ALL THE CONTENTS OF THIS PAPER HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY ME ONLY. THE NOTINGS ON THE PAPER DEPICTS THE FA CT THAT I HAD ADVANCED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3.0 CR ON 9.6.2009 FOR THE PURPOSE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AT Q1- A, HAUZ KHIAS ENCLAV E, NEW DELHI. IN RESPECT OF THIS AMOUNT I HEREBY STATE THA T THIS AMOUNT IS MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION F OR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. ON THE BASIS OF MY REPLY TO QUESTIONS NUMBERS 5, 6 AND 7 I REITERATE TO HAVE ACCEPTED A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS. 90 CR (RUPEES NINETY CRORES ONLY) TO BE MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, WHICH I HEREBY OFFER FOR TA XATION. 15. WE FIND FURTHER THAT VIDE ITS REPLY DATED 03.6 .2010, ADDRESSED TO THE ASSTT. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV ESTIGATION) AND DATED 25/7/2011, 8/6/2012 AND 20/6/2012 TO THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX THE ASSESSEE HAS TRIED T O EXPLAIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 125 CRORE SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESEEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF TH E ACT. THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO. 1 & 2 OF THE LETTER DATED 25.7 .2011 ARE BEING REPRODUCED HEREUNDER :- (1) WITH REGARD TO YOUR HONOURS QUERY REGARDING I NCOME OF RS.125 CRORES FOR F.Y 2009-10 DISCLOSED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COU RSE OF THE SAID SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 04 MARCH 2010 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TRANSACTIO NS IN PROPERTIES UNDERTAKEN BY HIM WERE FOUND AS PER PAGE NOS. 4 & 5 OF ANNEXURE A-3 IN SR- 4. AS PER THE SAID PAPERS THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OUTSTANDING OF A SUM OF RS. 3,00,00 ,000/- AND RS. 69,00,000/- FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WHICH WERE DEC LARED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF A/Y 2010- 1\2011 WHILE MAKING A STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. I N ADDITION , AS PER PAGE NO-6 OF ANNEXURE A-3 IN SR-4, THE ASSES SEE HAD PAID IN CASH A SUM OF RS. 17,86,57,781/- FOR PURCHA SE OF LAND BY M/S BHUSHAN STEEL LIMITED HOWEVER, AT THE TIME O F STATEMENT RECORDED IT WAS INADVERTENTLY MENTIONED A S M/S BHUSHAN ENERGY LTD, WHICH WAS ALSO DECLARED AS ADDI TIONAL INCOME FOR A.Y 2010-2011 WHILE MAKING A STATEMENT U /S 132(4) OF THE INCOME-TAX-ACT, 1961. (2) AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HAD ENTER ED INTO VARIOUS FORWARD/SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO T RANSACTIONS RELATED TO PROPERTIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1/4/20 09 TO 4/3/2010 I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-2011. THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN AN UNORGANIZED MANNER AND NEITHER ANY ACCOUNTING RECOR DS NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/SUPPORT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS/ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT WERE MAINTAINED . THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID TRANSAC TION WAS AS PER THE PAGE NOS. 4, 5 & 6 OF ANNEXURE-A-3 IN SR- 4 AND NO OTHER DETAILED RECORD OF TRANSACTIONS WERE EITHER M AINTAINED OR PRESERVED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE SITUATION MENTION ED ABOVE, THE INCOME OF ITA NO-337/DEL/2013 17 RS.125,00,000/ - ARISING OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WAS DECLARED I N THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 WHICH INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT AS PER PAGE NOS. 4, 5 & 6 OF ANNEXURE A-3 IN SR-4. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES DUE T HEREON WERE ALSO PAID AND THE SAID INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y 2010-11. 16. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHER EFROM IT IS EVIDENT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING S THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER OF THE DEPARTMENT HAD NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC QUERY REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UN DISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND ON THE CONTRARY THE ASS ESSEE HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE EARNING OF THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME IN QUESTION IN ITS REPLY DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDIN G OF HIS STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER. WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE RATIO OF ABOVE CITED DEC ISIONS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT AND HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT HOLD THAT IN ABSENCE OF QUERY RAISED BY THE A UTHORIZED OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT U/S 132 (4) ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HA S BEEN DERIVED AND ABOUT ITS SUBSTANTIATION, THE AO WAS NO T JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT SPECIALLY WHEN THE OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AND DU E TAX THEREON HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. WE THUS WHIL E SETTING ASIDE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGAR D DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY OF RS. 12,50,00,000/- LEVI ED U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWE D. 7. TURNING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE FROM PA PER BOOK PAGE NO.16, WE OBSERVE THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) O F THE ACT ON 4.3.2010, THE ASSESSEE SHRI BRIJ BHUSHAN SINGAL, REPLYING TO QUES TION NO.8 OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITY ACCEPTED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.31 CROR E FOR FY 2009-10 RELEVANT TO AY 2010-11 SURRENDERING AND OFFERING THE SAME AM OUNT AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ASSURING THE DEPARTMENT THAT DUE TAXES W ILL BE PAID IN DUE TIME THEREON. 8. WE FURTHER NOTE THAT REPLY FILED DURING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS DATED 25.7.2011 (AVAILABLE ON PAGE NO. 19 TO 21 OF THE PA PER BOOK), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED AND EXPLAINED THE FOLLOWING FACTS:- (1) WITH REGARD TO YOUR HONOUR'S QUERY REGARDING INCOME OF RS. 50 CRORES FOR FY 2009-10 DISCLOSED DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF THE SAID SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF T HE ASSESSEE ON 04 MARCH 2010 CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO TRAN SACTIONS IN PROPERTIES UNDERTAKEN BY HIM WERE FOUND AS PER P AGE NO. 17 OF ANNEXURE A-3 IN SR-4. AS PER THE SAID PAPERS THE ASSESSEE HAD AN OUTSTANDING OF A SUM OF RS. 31,00,0 0,000/- FROM VARIOUS PERSONS WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED AS AD DITIONAL INCOME FOR AY 2010-2011 WHILE MAKING A STATEMENT U/ S 132(4) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. (2) AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAD ADMITTED THAT HE HA D ENTERED INTO VARIOUS FORWARD/SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS AND A LSO TRANSACTIONS RELATED TO PROPERTIES DURING THE PERIO D FROM 01- 04-2009 TO 04-03-2010 I.E. FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-2010 RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE SAID TRANSACTIONS W ERE CARRIED OUT IN AN UNORGANIZED MANNER AND NEITHER AN Y ACCOUNTING RECORDS NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/SUP PORT IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS/ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT WERE MAINTAINED. THE ONLY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAI D TRANSACTIONS WAS AS PER THE PAGE NO. 17 OF ANNEXURE A-3 IN SR-4 AND NO OTHER DETAILED RECORD OF TRANSACTIONS W ERE EITHER MAINTAINED OR PRESERVED. KEEPING IN VIEW THE THE I NCOME OF RS. 50,00,00,000/- ARISING OUT OF THE SAID TRANSACT IONS WAS DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURS E OF SEARCH U/S 132 WHICH INCLUDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 31,00 ,00,000/- AS DISCLOSED IN PAGE NO. 17 OF ANNEXURE A-3 IN SR-4 . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE TAXES DUE THEREON WERE ALSO PAID AND THE SAID INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. (3) REGARDING YOUR HONOUR'S QUERY ASKING THE ASSESS EE TO FURNISH HIS EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE FACT S EMERGED FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE PERSONS LISTED AT SERIAL NOS. A. TO J. THEREUNDER RECORDED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY OPERATI ONS U/S 133A IT IS SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE PERSONS ARE WOR KING AS DIRECTORS OF SOME COMPANIES. THEY HAVE ALREADY CLAR IFIED THAT ON THE DATE OF SEARCH DUE TO TENSION AND MENTAL PRE SSURE CERTAIN OBSERVATIONS WERE MADE BY THEM WHICH DID NO T REFLECT THE ACTUAL STATE OF AFFAIRS. IN ANY CASE ALL SUCH C OMPANIES ARE EXISTING ASSESSEES AND WHATEVER TRANSACTIONS HAVE T AKEN PLACE BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THESE COMPANIES STAND DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND NO ADVERSE INFERENCE N EED TO BE DRAWN ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A AS NONE IS DRAWABLE. 9. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THE ASSESSEE REPLIED ALL THE QUESTIONS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 4.3.2010 U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER NOTE TH AT DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY DATED 25.7.2 011FURTHER SUBMITTED DETAILS OF THE SURRENDERED INCOME OF RS.50 CRORE AND SUBMIT TED THAT HE HAD ENTERED INTO VARIOUS SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO TRANSACTI ON RELATED TO PROPERTIES DURING THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.2009 TO 4.3.2010 I.E. FY 2009-1 0 RELEVANT TO AY 2010-11 AND THE SAID TRANSACTIONS WERE CARRIED OUT IN AN UN RECOGNISED MANNER AND NEITHER ANY ACCOUNTING RECORDS NOR ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE /SUPPORT IN RESPECT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS/ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE WERE MAINTAINED. UNDER THESE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN TH E LIGHT OF DECISION OF ITAT DELHI E BENCH IN THE CASE OF NEERAT SINGAL DATED 24.6.2013, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE PRESENT CASE IS SQUARELY COVERED I N FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS RADHA KISHAN GOEL (SUPRA), BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HI GH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAHENDRA C. SHAH (SUPRA) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE AND HOLD THAT IN ABSENCE OF SPECIFIC QUERY RAISED BY THE AUTHORISED OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ABOUT THE MANNER IN WHICH UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DERIVED AND AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN IMPOSING PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. WE ALSO NOTICE A PECULIAR FACT OF THE PRESENT CASE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT, REPLYING TO THE QU ERY OF THE AO, THE ASSESSEE VIDE HIS REPLY DATED 25.7.2011, AS REPRODUCED HEREI NABOVE, EXPLAINED THE MANNER IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DER IVED WHICH CANNOT BE IGNORED. THEREFORE, WE REACH TO A LOGICAL CONCLUSI ON THAT THE CIT(A) WAS RIGHT IN GRANTING RELIEF FOR THE ASSESSEE IN DELETING THE PENALTY AND WE ARE UNABLE TO SEE ANY CONTROVERSY OR ANY OTHER VALID REASON TO IN TERFERE WITH THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, SOLE GROUND OF THE REVENUE BEING DEVOI D OF MERITS IS DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09.03.2015. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (CHANDRAMOHAN G ARG) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DT. 09 TH MARCH , 2015 GS COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T.(A) 4. C.I.T. 5. DR BY ORDER AS STT. REGISTRAR