Sri T.Ashok Kumar, Hyderabad V. Dy.CIT, Central Circle-2, Hyderabad

ITA 588/HYD/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 69811 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 25-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV BENJAWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: A V RAGHURAM
• Keywords: Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 153A; 147; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH B, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, APPELLANT HYDERABAD. (PAN ABXPT7115R) VS. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RESPONDENT CENTRAL CIRCLE 2, HYDERABAD. APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.V. RAGHURAM RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJEEV BENJAWAL DATE OF HEARING : 07/08 /2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 2 7/09/2013 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M.: THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD DATED 28/02/2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, HYDERABAD IS ERRONEOUS, ILLE GAL AND UNSUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS. 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF R S. 2,67,66,078/- RELATING TO WRITE OFF OF NON-EXISTING STOCK (LAND) IN THE OPENING STOCK OF LAND. THE CIT(A) FAI LED TO APPRECIATE THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THA T THE STOCK (LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 8810 SQ.YDS) WAS NOT PHYSICA LLY ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 2 AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT AND THEREFORE OUGHT TO H AVE ALLOWED THE SAME TO BE WRITTEN OFF IN THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 3. THE CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FACT THAT TH E LOSS IN STOCK (LAND) WOULD BE WRITTEN OFF AS AND WHEN IT IS NOTICED AND JUST BECAUSE IN THE PRESENT CASE IT HAPPENED TO BE LAND, THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF NON-AVAILABILITY OF LAND CAN NOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTION RESUL TING IN LOSS OF LAND CANNOT BE DISALLOWED ON THE GROUND THA T THE TRANSACTION RESULTING IN LOSS WAS IN EARLIER YEAR. 4. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT WRITE-OFF OF OP ENING STOCK OF THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 8810 SQ.YDS CANN OT BE ALLOWED ONLY BECAUSE SUCH LAND WAS NOT AVAILABLE TO THE APPELLANT EVEN PRIOR TO THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR . 5. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT TO DIRECT THE AO TO CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF WRITE-OFF IN THE AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 WHICH ASSESSMENT WAS SIMULTANEOUSLY MA DE BY THE AO. THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT THERE WA S NO SUCH CLAIM IN THOSE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS IS BEREFT OF MERITS. FURTHER THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) THAT PROVISIONS O F SECTION 153A LIKE SECTION 147 CANNOT BE USED FOR THE BENEFI T OF ASSESSEE IS DEVOID OF MERITS IN AS MUCH AS THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE SAME JUDGMENT HAD HELD THAT SU CH RESTRICTION IS ONLY TO THE ISSUES THAT WERE CONSIDE RED AND CONCLUDED IN THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT BUT NOT TO CLAI MS THAT ARE NOT MADE OR RESTRICT GIVING EFFECT TO FINDING O F HIGHER AUTHORITIES. 3. THE COMMON ISSUE, WHICH IS RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 TO 4 IS WITH REGARD TO WRITE OFF OF EXCESS STOCK OF LAND AM OUNTING TO RS. 2,67,66,68/- DISALLOWED BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 4. BRIEFLY THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE IN DISPU TE ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPE RATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISE S OF THE ASSESSEE ON 25/03/2010. AFTER THE SEARCH AND SEIZUR E OPERATION TOOK PLACE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCO ME ON 02/10/2010 DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 1,51,340/- AFTER CLAIMING LOSS ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 3 OF RS. 2,19,04,070/-. THEREAFTER, IN RESPONSE TO TH E NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN OF INCOME ON 06/01/2011 DECLARING THE SAME INCOME AS WAS SHOWN I N THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY AND CLAIMING THE BUSINESS LOSS OF RS. 1,53,98,755/- TO BE CARRIED FO RWARD U/S 72 OF THE ACT AFTER SETTING OFF OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOUR CES OF RS. 65,05,315/-, WHICH WAS DECLARED IN THE COURSE OF PR OCEEDING U/S 132 OF THE ACT. 5. IN COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE AO O N VERIFICATION OF THE MATERIAL FURNISHED AND INFORMAT ION AVAILABLE ON RECORD, NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OPENING BALAN CE OF STOCK OF LAND AT DANDAMUDI ENCLAVE OF RS. 2,67,66,078/- DURI NG THE FY RELEVANT TO AY UNDER DISPUTE. HOWEVER, THE SAID LAN D HAS BEEN WRITTEN OFF DURING THE YEAR AS UNAVAILABLE FOR SALE . ON FURTHER VERIFICATION, THE AO NOTICED THAT AS PER THE CLOSIN G STOCK DETAILS FURNISHED IN AY 2008-09, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN 881 0 SQ.YDS. AVAILABLE IN HAND, WHICH WAS ENTIRELY WRITTEN OFF D URING THE YEAR. WHEN ASKED TO EXPLAIN, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE STOCK OF LAND WAS WRITTEN OFF AS THERE WAS DISPUTE WITH ONE MR. PRASHANTH VERMA AND DEEPAK VERMA REGARDING SURVEY NOS. 32/1- 2-3 AND 33/1 AND 92 & 93 AND 52/A BEFORE A COURT OF LAW AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FOREGONE 5956 SQ.YDS TO SETTLE THE DI SPUTE IN PLOT NOS. 116 TO 121 & 139 TO 148, WHICH HAS BEEN WRITTE N OFF. IN SUPPORT OF SUCH CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A COP Y OF THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING. IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO WRITTEN OFF 800 SQ.YDS. IN PLOT N OS. 259, 297 & 298 BY CLAIMING THAT IT WAS WRONGLY INCLUDED TWICE AT THE TIME OF TAKE OVER OF DANDAMUDI LAND IN THE YEAR 2003 VIDE D OCUMENT NO. 6910/2003. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT LAND O F 2054 SQ.YDS. WAS GIFTED TO QUTUBULLAPUR MUNICIPALITY VID E DOCUMENT NO. 4399/06 DATED 23/02/2006. THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 4 CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT TH E MOU DATED 22/03/2006 SHOWED THAT THE AREA MENTIONED WAS 1254 SQ.YDS. ONLY, WHICH WAS OCCUPIED BY PLOT NOS. 105 TO 115 AN D THEY DID NOT HAVE MUTUAL CLAIM OVER EACH OTHER IN RESPECT OF THE DISPUTED LAND BEING BOUNDARY DISPUTE OF SURVEY NO. 52/A. THE AO WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT MOU HAS EXECUTED IN THE YEAR 2006. SO FAR AS THE GIFT TO THE QUTUBULLAPUR MUNICIPALITY IS CONCERNED, THE AO NOTED THAT THE SAID GIFT WAS ALSO MADE IN THE YEAR 2006 O NLY. IN SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF INCLUSION OF 800 SQ.YDS OF LAND TWICE AND CONSEQUENT WRITE OFF OF THE SAID LAND IS CONCER NED, THE AO ALSO DID NOT ACCEPT SUCH CONTENTION AS HE FELT THAT EVENTS NECESSITATING THE WRITE OFF HAD NOT OCCURRED IN THE FY 2009-10 RELEVANT TO THE AY UNDER DISPUTE. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF OF DANDAMUDI STOCK OF LAND A MOUNTING TO RS. 2,67,66,68/- AND ADDED IT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED OF THE ASSESSMENT O RDER PASSED, PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). 6. IN COURSE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, IT WAS CONTE NDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO HAS NOT DISPUTED THE FACTS REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF LAND AT DANDAMUDI ENCLAVE AND FURTHER HE HAS DISALLOWED THE WRITE OFF OF OPENING STOCK ON LY ON THE GROUND THAT EVENTS LEADING TO SUCH WRITE OFF HAD N OT TAKEN PLACE DURING THE YEAR. IT WAS THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT EV EN IF IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS WRITING OFF OF OPENING STOCK BUT I T STILL CAN BE CONSIDERED AS VALUING THE CLOSING STOCK WHICH WOULD NOT HAVE ALTERED THE SITUATION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THA T WHEN THE ASSESSEE TOOK STOCK OF BUSINESS FOR THE PREVIOUS YE AR, IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO LAND LEFT. IT WAS FOUND THA T WHAT WAS APPEARING IN THE BOOKS AS OPENING STOCK WAS IN FACT ON ACCOUNT OF OVER STATEMENT OF 800 SQ.YDS IN PLOT NOS. 259, 297 AND 298 ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 5 SQ.YDS. AND FURTHER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE TRANSFE R OF 5956 SQ.YDS.AS PER MOU AND WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE 2054 SQ.YDS GIFTED TO QUTUBULLAPUR MUNICIPALITY. IT WAS FURTHER CONTEN DED THAT AS PER THE ACCEPTED PRINCIPLE OF ACCOUNTING THE NON-EXISTI NG STOCK SHOULD BE WRITTEN OFF. . IT WAS CONTENDED THAT EVEN IF THE SE WERE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH EVENTS TOOK PL ACE, THE POSITION WOULD NOT BE DIFFERENT AS THE SAME WOULD H AVE RESULTED IN LOSS AND SUCH LOSS AFTER BEING CARRIED FORWARD, WOULD HAVE BEEN SET OFF IN A LATER YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT THE ASSESSMENTS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR AS WEL L AS THE AY 2007-08 WERE COMPLETED SIMULTANEOUSLY. HENCE, IF TH E CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE FOR THE AY 2010-11 AS IT DID NOT RELATE TO THAT YEAR THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOW ED IN THE AY 2007-08. HE, THEREFORE, PUT THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISS ION THAT THE AO MAY BE DIRECTED TO CONSIDER THE SAME IN THE AY 2 007-08. 7. THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND EXAMINING THE MATERIALS PLACED BEFORE HIM, THOU GH, ACCEPTED THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INDEED GIFTED 2053.6 6 SQ.YDS. TO QUTUBULLAPUR MUNICIPALITY, HOWEVER, HE FOUND THAT T HE SAID GIFT WAS EXECUTED ON 23/02/2006 AND WAS ALSO REGISTERED ON THE SAID DATE ITSELF. HENCE, THE LANDS INCLUDED IN THE CLOSI NG STOCK TO THE EXTENT OF 2053.66 HAD BEEN ALIENATED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07 ITSELF. HE FUR THER FOUND THAT EVEN THE LAND FOREGONE IN FAVOUR OF MR. PRASHANTH V ARMA AND DEEPAK VARMA BY WAY OF MOU HAD BEEN GIVEN AWAY ON 22/03/2006 ITSELF. HENCE, HE AGREED WITH THE CONCLU SION OF THE AO IN HOLDING THAT THE EVENTS LEADING TO WRITE OFF OF THE AFORESAID LANDS DID NOT TAKE PLACE IN THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEV ANT TO AY UNDER DISPUTE, WHICH COULD HAVE ENABLED THE ASSESSEE TO C LAIM DEDUCTION IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. SIMILARL Y, SO FAR AS THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF 800 SQ.YDS IN PLOT NOS. 257 , 297 & 298, ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 6 WHICH HAD BEEN INCLUDED TWICE AT THE TIME OF TAKE O VER OF LAND AT DANDAMUDI ENCLAVE IN 2003, IT WAS NOTED BY THE CIT( A) THAT THE EVENTS LEADING TO SUCH A LOSS TOOK PLACE IN THE YEA R 2003 WHEN THE LAND WAS TAKEN OVER BY THE ASSESSEE, NO DEDUCTI ON FOR THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF OF THE VALUE OF STOCK OF 800 SQ. YDS. CAN BE ALLOWED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. WITH THE A FORESAID FINDING, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF WRITE OFF CANNOT BE ALLOWED. SO FAR AS THE ALTERNATIVE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THAT WRITE OFF OF OPENING STOCK SHOUL D BE ALLOWED IN AY 2007-08, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT SINCE THE LAND ADM EASURING 2054 SQ.YDS. AND 5954 SQ.YDS WERE ALIENATED IN FY 2 005-06 ITSELF WHEREAS THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF 800 SQ.YDS. OF LAND PERTAINED TO THE AY 2004-06, AND WHEN NO SUCH LOSSES WERE CLAIME D IN THE RETURNS FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS, IT CANNOT BE AL LOWED IN AY 2007-08. THE CIT(A) FURTHER HELD THAT SINCE THE AS SESSMENTS IN THESE YEARS WERE COMPLETED U/S 153A OF THE ACT, THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN SUCH PROCEEDING, SIN CE, LIKE PROCEEDING U/S 147 OF THE ACT, IT CANNOT BE USED FO R THE BENEFIT OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD IN THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUN ENGG. WORKS P. LTD., 198 ITR 297 . 8. THE CIT(A) FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY LOSS ON THIS ACCOUNT IN AY 2007-08, OR ANY OTHER EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE PROCEEDING U/S 153A T AKEN UP SUBSEQUENTLY FOR THE AY 2007-08 CANNOT BE USED BY T HE ASSESSEE FOR REVIEW OF A CONCLUDED ITEM BY CLAIMING LOSS. AC CORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO. 9. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION IS ALREADY PA RT OF CLOSING STOCK. THE LEARNED AR DRAWING OUR ATTENTION TO THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS SUBM ITTED THAT THE ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 7 LAND IN QUESTION WERE SHOWN AS CLOSING STOCK IN DIF FERENT YEARS AND ONLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE FOUND THAT SUCH LAND IS NOT AVAILABLE AS STOCK IT WAS WRITTEN OFF. THE LEARNED AR SUBMITT ED THAT WHEN THE AO AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAVE NOT DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE LAND TO THE EXTENT WRITTEN OFF WAS NOT ACTUALLY AVA ILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN, THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE DISALLOWED WR ITE OFF OF THE LAND. THE LEARNED AR ALSO RELIED UPON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF ASSOCIATED BANKING CORPORA TIONS OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (56 ITR 1). 10. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY SUP PORTING THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES SUBMITTED THAT TH E LOSS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YE AR UNDER DISPUTE AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER CLAIMED SU CH LOSS IN THE CONCERNED ASSESSMENT YEARS THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOW ED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. ON A PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE CIT(A) HAS NOT DISPU TED THE FACT THAT THE LAND TO THE EXTENT WRITTEN OFF WAS NOT AVA ILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, AS NOTED BY HIM, LAND TO THE EXT ENT OF 2054 SQ.YDS. GIFTED TO QUTUBULLAPUR MUNICIPALITY AND THE LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 5956 SQ.YDS. SETTLED BY VIRTUE OF MOU HAP PENED IN FY 2005-06 RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07. SIMILARLY, LOSS ON ACCOUNT OF DOUBLE ENTRY OF LAND TO THE EXTENT OF 800 SQ.YDS. I N DANDAMUDI ENCLAVE ALSO PERTAINED TO THE AY 2004-05 WHEN THE A SSESSEE TOOK OVER THE LAND IN THE YEAR 2003 ITSELF. IT IS A FACT, NOT CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE LOSSES PERTA INING TO THE AFORESAID LAND IN QUESTION WAS NOT CLAIMED IN THE R ELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. HENCE, WHEN THE LOSS ON ACCOUNT O F UNAVAILABILITY OF LAND DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSE SSMENT YEAR ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 8 UNDER DISPUTE AND CONCERNING EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEA RS, WHICH WERE NEVER CLAIMED AS LOSS IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME FILED FOR THOSE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE CLAIM OF CARRY FORWARD OF SUC H LOSS CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT INCOME BELONGING TO A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR HA S TO BE ASSESSED IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY AND NOT IN AN Y OTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE SAME PRINCIPLE ALSO EQUALLY AP PLIES TO LOSSES ALSO. THE LOSS BELONGING TO A PARTICULAR ASS ESSMENT YEAR HAS TO BE CLAIMED IN THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR HAS TO BE DETERMINED AND ALLOWED TO BE CARRIED FORWARD IN THA T ASSESSMENT YEAR ONLY, IT CANNOT BE ALLOWED IN ANOTHER ASSESSME NT YEAR. THE DECISION RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR IN CASE OF ASSOC IATED BANKING CORPORATION OF INDIA LTD. VS. CIT (SUPRA) IS ALSO N OT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS IN THAT CASE THE F ACT OF EMBEZZLEMENT WAS NOT KNOWN TO THE PRINCIPAL AND THE RE WAS CHANCE OF RECOVERY OF THE EMBEZZLED FUND. WHEREAS I N CASE OF THE ASSESSEE UNAVAILABILITY OF LAND WAS VERY MUCH IN TH E KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHICH IS ACCORDIN GLY UPHELD. THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD, THEREFORE, ARE DISMI SSED. 12. IN GROUND NO. 5, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ALTERN ATIVE CLAIM THAT THE CIT(A) SHOULD HAVE DIRECTED THE AO TO CONS IDER THE CLAIM OF WRITE OFF IN AY 2007-08. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AN D PERUSED THE MATERIALS ON RECORD. THE LEARNED ARS CONTENTIO N SO FAR AS THE ALTERNATIVE GROUND IS CONCERNED IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTA BLE DUE TO THE FOLLOWING REASONS. FIRSTLY, AS HAS ALREADY BEEN OBS ERVED EARLIER, LOSS OF LAND PERTAINED TO THE AYS 2006-07 AND 2004- 05 AND NOT IN AY 007-08, HENCE, NO DIRECTION CAN BE GIVEN FOR ALL OWING LOSS IN 2007-08 WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT CLAIMED ANY LOSS IN THE ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 9 RETURNS FILED IN 2004-05 AND 2006-07. SECONDLY, TH E ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INITIATED U/S 153A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS A RESULT OF SEA RCH. THEREFORE, FRESH CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ENTERTAINED IN A SEARCH ASSESSMENT WHEN SUCH CLAIM HAS NOT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY IN THE RETURNS FIL ED. THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF S UN ENGG. WORKS PVT. LTD (SUPRA) SUPPORTS THE AFORESAID VIEW. FURTHERMORE, UNDISPUTEDLY, THE CIT(A) IS SEIZED WITH THE APPEAL RELATING TO AY 2010-11. THEREFORE, THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) MUST BE STRICTLY CONFINED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN APPEAL BEFORE HI M. HE CANNOT TRAVEL BEYOND THE SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE H IM TO GIVE A FINDING IN RESPECT OF ANOTHER ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN T HE AFORESAID CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE CIT(A) C ERTAINLY COULD NOT HAVE GIVEN A FINDING IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT Y EAR 2007-08 WHEN IT IS NOT IN APPEAL BEFORE HIM. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE FIND THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE LEARNED AR TO BE DEVOID OF MERIT AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. HENCE, G ROUND NO. 5 IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/09/2013. SD/- SD/- (CHANDRA POOJARI) (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMB ER HYDERABAD, DATED: 27 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013. KV ITA NO. 588/HYD/2013 SRI T. ASHOK KUMAR. 10 COPY TO:- 1) SHRI T. ASHOK KUMAR, C/O K. AV RAGHU RAM, ADVOCA TE, 610, BABUKHAN ESTATE, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD 500 001. 2) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HYDERABAD 3) CIT(A)-1, HYDERABAD. 4) CIT(CENTRAL), HYDERABAD 5) THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, I.T.A.T ., HYDERABAD.