SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA V. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA

ITA 594/JPR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7634 (ITAT-JAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-04-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2016-2017
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus Share capital; Revision of order; Search and seizure; Question of law; Fair market value; Deemed dividend; Block assessment; Revised return; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside; CHAPTER XIVB; Bogus
• Section: 147; 131; 68; 148; 132; 144; 139; 143(3); 153A; 2(22)(e); 139(5); 143(1); 201; 143(2); 139(1); 73; 72; 13; 153; 22; 153C; 101; 20

Judgement Text

VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHE S, JAIPUR JH FOT; IKY JKWO] U;KF;D LNL; ,OA JH FOE FLAG ;K NO ] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JM AND SHRI VIKRAM SING H YADAV, AM VK;DJ VIHY LA-@ ITA NO. 593 & 594/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'K Z@ ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2013-14 & 16-17 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA 23-24B, INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, KOTA. CUKE VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA. LFKK;H YS[KK LA-@THVKBZVKJ LA-@ PAN NO. ABRPB 7858 D VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ LS@ ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.C. PARWAL (CA) JKTLO DH VKSJ LS@ REVENUE BY : SHRI B.K. GUPTA (CIT-DR) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF HEARING : 09.04.2019. ?KKS'K .KK DH RKJH[K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25/04/2019. VKNS'K@ ORDER PER BENCH : THESE ARE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAI NST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A) DATED 23.03.2018 FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEARS 2013-14 & 16-17. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISE D THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN CO NFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.17,30,520/- U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A EVEN WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAS NOT ABATED AND NO INCR IMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE SAME WAS FOUND IN SEARCH A ND THUS, THE ADDITION SO MADE IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2) THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND IN LAW IN UP HOLDING THE FINDING OF AO THAT AMOUNT OF RS. 79,20,000/- GIVEN BY M/S. BHATIA CORPORATION PVT. LTD. IN BUSINESS EXPEDIENCY TO ASS ESSEE FOR INVESTMENT IN SHARE CAPITAL OF ITS GROUP COMPANY M/ S. BHATIA COLONIZERS PVT. LTD. IS IN THE NATURE OF LOAN OR AD VANCE, THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF SAME U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE IT ACT. 2 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 3) THE ASSESSEE CRAVES TO AMEND, ALTER AND MODIFY ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4) THE APPROPRIATE COST BE AWARDED TO THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 1 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE IT ACT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE C OURSE OF SEARCH INDICATING THE ALLEGED ADDITION. 2. THE LD. A/R OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT S INCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING AS ON DATE OF SEARCH AND THERE IS NO INCRIM INATING MATERIAL FOUND AND SEIZED DISCLOSING ANY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVIDEND , THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A SSESSEE FILED THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 20.12.2013. THE TIME LIMIT FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE U/S 143(2) FOR THE RELEVANT AY WAS UPTO 30.09.2014. NO NOTICE WAS ISSU ED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS DATE. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN SEARCH, NO INCRIM INATING MATERIAL INDICATING ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FOUND. SECTION 153A EMPOWERS THE AO TO ISSUE NOTICE TO A PERSON WHO IS SEARCHED U/S 132 TO FILE RETURN IN RESPECT OF 6 AYS PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED AND TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THESE YEA RS NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, 147 AND OTHER RELATED SEC TIONS. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ARE NOT DE NOVO ASSESSMENTS SINCE THE PURPOSE OF MAKING THE REASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153A IS SUBJECT TO TAX, THE HITHERTO UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH. IT IS FOR THIS REA SON THAT THE SECOND PROVISO TO 3 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. SECTION 153A(1) PROVIDES ONLY FOR THE ABATEMENT OF THE PENDING ASSESSMENTS. THIS IS DONE TO ENSURE THAT THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS UNDER THE NORMAL PROVISIONS AND THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A A RE NOT CONDUCTED SIMULTANEOUSLY SINCE THAT WOULD RESULT IN REDUNDANC Y. THEREFORE, ALREADY COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS DO NOT ABATE AND THEY SHALL HOLD THE FI ELD. IT CAN BE INTERFERED BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ONLY IF SOM E INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY IS DECLARED IN THE COURSE OF SEA RCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE O F ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153A(1) FOR ALL T HE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS DOES NOT ENTAIL ALTOGETHER A FRESH EXERCISE OF MAKING A FRES H ASSESSMENT. HENCE, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE INCRIMINATING DOC UMENTS FOUND IN SEARCH. THUS, WHEN NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE FOUND, DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS U/S 153A IS ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THE LD. A/R PL ACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING CASES LAWS :- JAI STEEL (INDIA) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME TAX 219 TAXMAN 233 (RAJ. HC) SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT. LTD. 387 ITR 529 (GUJ. HC) PCIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA 395 ITR 526 (DEL. HC) CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA 126 DTR 130 (DEL. HC) 4 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. DCIT VS. M/S. A.M. EXPORTS IN ITA NO. 561/JP/2018 DATED 07.01.2019. THUS THE LD. A/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE PROCEEDI NGS UNDER SECTION 153A THE AO CAN REASSESS THE INCOME IN RESPECT TO 6 PRECEDING Y EARS, HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE AO F OR MAKING ADDITION TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE ADDITION MADE DE HORS THE INC RIMINATING MATERIAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIA L WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALRE ADY ASSESSED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THA T AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, THE AO HAS TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A (1) OF THE IT ACT FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. FURTH ER, THE AO HAS TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH YEARS. THE PROVI SIONS OF SECTION 153A DO NOT MENTION ABOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOR THE PU RPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME FOR THESE SIX YEARS. T HE LD. D/R HAS POINTED OUT THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 OF THE ACT FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND NO ASS ESSMENT ORDER IS PASSED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT THEN EVEN IF NO INCRIMINATIN G MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH BUT OTHER INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT WHICH LEAD TO ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E THEN IF NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASS ESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE PROVISION OF SECTION 1 53A(1) WOULD BE REDUNDANT WHICH CANNOT BE THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. THEREF ORE, THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT 5 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A DO NOT REQUIRE ANY I NCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF INCOME. SIMILARLY, W HEN NO SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3)/144 OF THE ACT WAS MADE THEN T HE AO IS DUTY BOUND TO ASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHETHER IT IS BAS ED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR ON THE BASIS OF INFO RMATION AVAILABLE ON RECORD OR COMES TO HIS NOTICE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION, HE HAS RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF HON BLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. ST. FRANCIS CLAY DCOR TILES, 70 TAXMANN.CO M 234 (KERALA) AS WELL AS IN CASE OF E.N. GOPAKUMAR VS. CIT, 75 TAXMANN.COM 215 (KERA LA). THE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED THAT NEITHER UNDER SECTION 132 NOR UNDER SECTION 153A, PHRASEOLOGY INCRIMINATING IS USED BY PARLIAMENT, THEREFORE, ANY MATERIAL WHICH WAS UNEARTHED DURING SEARCH OPER ATIONS OR ANY STATEMENT MADE DURING COURSE OF SEARCH BY ASSESSEE IS A VALUABLE P IECE OF EVIDENCE IN ORDER TO INVOKE SECTION 153A. THE LD. D/R HAS ALSO RELIED UP ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CIT VS. DR. P. SASIKUMAR, 73 TAXMANN.COM 173 (KERALA) AS WELL AS DECISION OF HONBLE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IN CASE OF CANARA HOUSING DEVELOPMENT CO. VS. DCIT, 49 TAXMANN.COM 98 (KAR.) HE HAS FURT HER POINTED OUT THAT THE SLP FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN CASE OF PCIT VS. BEST IN FRASTRUCTURE (INDIA) PVT. LTD., 94 TAXMANN.COM 115 (SC) HAS BEEN ADMITTED AND, THEREFO RE, THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS NOT ATTAINED FINALITY. THUS T HE LD. D/R HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS BASED ON THE MATERIAL AV AILABLE WITH THE AO AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT AND, THEREFORE, THE TECHNICAL OBJECTI ON OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WILL NOT ABSOLVE THE AS SESSEE FROM THE TAX LIABILITY ON SUCH INCOME. 6 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 4. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WELL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON 3 RD MARCH, 2016. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER THE AO COULD MAKE THE ADDIT ION IN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONS IDERED BY US IN THE CONNECTING APPEAL IN CASE OF SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 IN ITA NO. 1284/JP/2018 VIDE EVEN DATE ORDER IN PARA 9 AS UNDER :- 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 ON 29.12.201 2 WHICH WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE IT ACT. SUBS EQUENTLY, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 03.03.2016 . IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT AS ON DATE OF SEARCH ON 03.03.2016 THE ASSESSMENT ON THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139 WAS NOT PENDING AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT GOT ABATED DUE TO THE REASON OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. THEREFORE, IT IS A CASE OF REASSESSMENT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE RE IS NO QUARREL ON THE POINT THAT ONCE A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IS CARRIED OUT, THE AO IS BOUND TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A IN RESPECT OF SIX YEARS PRECEDING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CON DUCTED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, T HE REASSESSMENT OF THE INCOME CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACT ION DEPENDS UPON THE STATUS OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IF THE ASSESSMENT FOR A PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR FAL LING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IS PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARC H, THE SAME SHALL ABATE BY VIRTUE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UN DER SECTION 132 OF 7 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. THE IT ACT AND CONSEQUENTLY THE AO SHALL ASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 153A WHICH WILL BE CONSIDERE D AS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND NOT A REASSESSMENT. ON THE OTHER HA ND, IF THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT PENDING AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THEN THE AO HAS TO REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DEPENDING UP ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETECTED DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH AND SEIZURE. THEREFORE, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE DISTURBE D BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ONLY IF TH ERE IS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE SEARCH DISC LOSING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. OTHERWISE THE INCOME AS DE CLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND ACCEP TED IN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(1) OR 143(3) WOULD BE REAFFIRMED. IN THE CASE IN HAND UNDISPUTEDLY NEITHER ANY INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH DISCLOS ING UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION NOR ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED ANY INCOME IN THE STATEMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132( 4) OR UNDER SECTION 131(1) OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEEMED DIVI DEND. THE TRANSACTIONS OF ALLEGED LOANS/ADVANCES WERE ALREADY MATTER OF RECORD AS NOTHING NEW WAS DETECTED OR UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN RESPECT OF THE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN QUESTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. D /R WILL NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE REVENUE WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL INDICATING ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME NOR ANY DISCLOSURE MADE BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE DEEMED DIVIDEND IN QUESTION. THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT WERE FINALLY TAKEN UP TO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF PCIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA, 257 TAXMA N 441 (SC) AND THE SLP FILED BY THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED. THIS T RIBUNAL IN CASE OF DCIT VS. A.M. EXPORTS (SUPRA) AFTER CONSIDERING ALL THE RELEVANT DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY EITHER OF THE PARTIES HAVE DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 8 AS UNDER :- 8 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WEL L AS RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE FIRST ASPECT INVOL VED IN THE MATTER IS SUSTAINABILITY OF THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION. THERE IS N O DISPUTE THAT THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 11/10/2010 WAS NOT PENDING ASSESSMENT AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 03/4/2013. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(1) AND IT WAS NOT ABATED DUE TO T HE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 03/4/2013. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT AND SPECIFI CALLY THE QUESTION NO. 77. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT DURIN G THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, THE STATEMENT OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS BEING RECORDED FROM 04/4/2013 TO 05/4/2013 AND AS M ANY AS 78 QUESTIONS WERE PUT TO THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMEN T OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S 132(4) RUNS INTO ABOUT 50 PAG ES. THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED FROM 12.00 N OON ON 04/4/2013 AND CONTINUED UP TO 1.00 A.M. ON 05/4/201 3. AFTER THE BREAK, THE RECORDING OF STATEMENT AGAIN RESUMED AT 7.50 A.M. ON 05/4/2013 WE NOTE THAT UP TO QUESTION NO. 6 7 WERE RECORDED ON 04/4/2013 AND UP TO 1.00 A.M. ON 05/4/2 013 AND THEREAFTER THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN RESUMED IN THE MORNING OF 05/4/2013 AND CONTINUED UP TO QUESTI ON NO. 78. IT IS MANIFEST FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132( 4) OF THE ACT THAT REPEATED QUESTIONS WERE ASKED ABOUT THE GENUIN ENESS OF THE LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE FINANCIA L YEAR 2009- 10 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERAT ION AND THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE ANSWER AND STATED THAT ALL T HESE LOANS ARE GENUINE AND TAKEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND T HE ASSESSEE ALSO REPAID THESE LOANS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THESE TRANSACTIONS ARE VERY MUCH PART OF THE REGULA R BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE SEARCH TEAM A GAIN PUT QUESTION TO THE ASSESSEE AS QUESTION NO. 77 IN WHIC H THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CHECKED T HE DETAILS OF THE LOANS FROM M/S DIPNARAYAN VYAPAR PVT. LTD. FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CASH AND THE SAME WAS DECLARED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR OF THE SEARCH. WE F IND THAT PRIOR TO THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ASKED QUESTION NO. 34 TO 36 AND QUESTION NO. 39. EVEN AFTER THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE INVESTIGATION WING AGAIN SUMMONED T HE ASSESSEE U/S 131 OF THE ACT FOR CONDUCTING POST SEA RCH ENQUIRY AND THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED ON 3 0/05/2013 WHEREIN IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 12, THE ASSESSE E CLARIFIED THAT THE EARLIER STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN QUEST ION NO. 77 9 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. WAS NOT A CORRECT STATEMENT REGARDING THE LOAN TAKE N FROM M/S DIPNARAYAN VYAPAR PVT. LTD.. THUS, FOR UNDERSTANDIN G OF THE ISSUE, ALL THE RELEVANT QUESTIONS PUT TO THE ASSESS EE AND ANSWERED TO THEM ARE TO BE READ CONJOINTLY. HENCE, WE QUOTE QUESTION NO. 34 TO 36 AND QUESTION NO. 39 OF ASSESS EES STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) DATED 04/4/2013 AND Q UESTION NO. 77 OF STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) ON 05/4/201 3 AND QUESTION NO. 12 AND REPLY OF THE STATEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT IN POST SEARCH INVESTIG ATION BY THE ADIT AS UNDER: IZ IZIZ IZ- -- -34 3434 34 ESA VKILS VKIDH HKKXHNKJH QEZ ,-,E-,DLIKSVLZ CQD ESA FUEUFYF[KR VUFLD;KSJMZ YKSU SFMVLZ DS YSTJ FN[KK JGK GW& (I) INTERLINK SAVING & FINANCE PVT. LTD. 57 ADARSH NAGA R, RISHIKESH, DEHRADUN, UTTRANCHAL. (II) PARMATMA DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD., 101, BALARAM DEY STR EET, GR FLOOR, KOLKATA (III) RAMESHWAR FINVEST PVT. LTD., 101 BALARAM DEY STREET , KOLKATA (IV) SRI RAM TIE UP PVT. LTD., 2, BANARASHI GHOSH, 2 ND BYE LANE, KOLKATA (V) ________________________DO ________________________ _ (VI) TARA VINIMAY PVT. LTD., 101, BALARAM DEY STREET, G. FLOOR, KOLKATA (VII) VICTOR PROJECT PVT. LTD., 2 MULLICK STREET, IST FLO OR, KOLKATA (VIII) YATAN TRADERS PVT. LTD., 62/1, HRIDAY KRISHNA BANER JEE LANE, HOWRAH. MIJKSDR LHKH TRANSACTIONS DH IZEK.K LI'V DJSA\ MKJ MKJ MKJ MKJ& MIJKSDR [KKRKSA DH UDYKSA DKS ESAUS NS[KDJ ;G DGUK PKGRK GW ;G FOK O'KZ 2009&2010 C;KT IJ DTKZ FY;K GQVK FOK O'KZ 201 1&12 ESAUSA PQDK FN;KA IZ IZIZ IZ- -- -35 3535 35 MIJKSDR OF.KZR LHKH DEIFU;KA VKIDS LEIDZ ESA DSL S VK;H FOOJ.K NSA MKJ MKJ MKJ MKJ& ESJH QEZ }KJK T;IQJ ,OA T;IQJ DS CKGJ ESA TGK A LS HKH O;KIKJ DS FY, EQ>S DTKZ IZKIR GQVK ESAUS FY;K RFKK YKSVK;K ,OA XR O'KKSZA EAS BULS ESJK LEIDZ DSLS JGK EQ>S VHKH ;KN UGHA VK JGK GSA IZ IZIZ IZ- -- -36 3636 36 BU DEIFU;KSA LS D;K JSV VKWQ BUVSLV FN;K GS FOOJ. K NS\ 10 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. MKJ& MKJ& MKJ& MKJ& XR O'KKSZA DH CKR EQ>S TCKUHRKSJ IJ ;KN UGHA GSA ;G QEZ }KJK IS'K DH XBZ [KKRKSA ESA X.KUK DJ FUDKYUK GKSXK TKS JHEKU ~ DS DK;KZY; ESA GKTJH NSUS VKAXK TC X.KUK DJ CRKAXKA IZ IZIZ IZ- -- -39 3939 39 VKIDH QEZ A.M. EXPORTS DK DIPNARAYAN VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. DS LKFK D;K LECU/K GS] LI'V DJSA\ MKJ MKJ MKJ MKJ& ESAUS DIPNARAYAN VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. LS YXHKX RHU O'KZ IGYS C;KT LS ISLK M/KKJ FY;K FKK EQ>S ;G ISLK FDL C;KT NJ IJ FNY K;K FKK EQ>S VHKH ;KN UGHA VK JGK GSA DIPNARAYAN VYAPAAR PVT. LTD. LS FDL O;FDR DS EK/;E LS ISLK M/KKJ FY;K FKK VHKH EQ>S ;KN UGHA VK JGK GSA BL LECU/K ESA TKUDKJH IZKIR DJ ESA VKIDKS CRK NWAXKA IZ IZIZ IZ- -- -77 7777 77 GEUS IZ'U LA- 39 ESA A.M. EXPORTS ,OA DIPNARAYAN O;KIKJ DS TRANSACTIONS DS CKJS ESA IWNK RKS VKIUS V/KWJH TKUD KJH NH FKH D;K VC VKIDKS BL CKCR~ VKSJ VF/KD FOOJ.K CRKUK GS\ MKJ MKJ MKJ MKJ& TH GK] ESJS DKS NKS FNU LS ;KN DJRS GQ, ;K N VK JGK GS ,OA FOHKKX LS LG;KSX DH BPNK J[KRS GQ, CRKUK PKGRK GW FD ESAUS E SLLZ DIPNARAYAN VAYAPAR PRIVATE LIMITED DKS PSD FN;K FKK FTLDK EQ>S BL LKY ESA DS'K IZKIR GKS X;K FTLS ESAUS BL FOK O'KZ DH V?KKSF'KR VK; DS :I ESA FOHKKX DKS LEFIZR DJ FN;KA IZ IZIZ IZ- -- -12 1212 12 VKIUS IZ'U LA[;K 11 DS TOKC ESA ,USDLJ AS EXIBIT- 5 DS IST LA[;K 37 D TOKC ESA CRK;K FD VKIUS ESLLZ NHIUKJK;.K O;KIK J IZK-FY- LS C;KT IJ ISLK FY;K GQVK GSA MLDK , ,E ,DLIKSVZ DH YS[KK IQLR DKSA ESA FNUKAD 01-04- 11 LS FNUKAD 31-03-12 DH VOF/K DK YSTJ GSA ESA VKID KS RYK'KH ,OA TCRH DH DK;ZOKGH DS NKSJKU VKIDS L'KIFK NTZ C;KU DK IZ'U LA[;K 77 FN[KK JGK GW FTLDS MRRJ ESA VKIUS DGK FKK FD------- TH GKA ESJS DKS NKS FNU LS ;KN DJRS GQ, ;KN VK JG K GS ,OA FOHKKX LS LG;KSX DH BPNK J[KRS GQ, CRK;K PKGRK GWA FD ESAUS E SLLZ NHIUKJK;.K O;KIKJ IZK-FY- DKS PSD FN;K FKK FTLDK EQ>S BL LKY ESA DS'K IZKIR GKS X;K FTLS ESAUS BL FORR O'KZ DH V?KKSF'KR VK; DS :I ESA FOHKKX DKS LEFIZR DJ FN;KA D`I;K RYK'KH ,OA TCRH DH DK;ZOKGH DS NKSJKU VKIDS L 'KIFK NTZ C;KU DK IZ'U LA[;K 77 DS TOKC DKS ,D CKJ IQU% I<+DJ LE> YSO SA FD VKIUS MIJKSDR IZ'U LA[;K 11 DS TOKC ESA D;K LGH MRRJ FN;K GSA BL LACA/K ESA ESA VKIDK /;KU VK;DJ VF/KFU;E 1961 DS VFHK;KSTU IZKO/KK UKSA DH RJQ VKIDK /;KU VKDF'KZR DJUK PKGRK GW FD XYR C;KUH DH N'KK E AS VKIDS FO:) 11 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. VFHK;KSTU DH DK;ZOKGH IZKJEHK DH TK LDRH GSA D`I;K ,D CKJ IQU% LKSPDJ CRK;SA FD VKIUS ESLLZ NHIUKJK;.K O;KIKJ IZK-FY- LS FDRUK :I;K M/KKJ FY;K GS VFKOK VKIUS PSD NSDJ MULS OKIL UXN JKF'K IZKIR D H FKH] LI'V DJSAA MKJ MKJ MKJ MKJ& ESAUS VKIDS }KJK FN[KK;S X;S ,USDLJ AS EXIBIT -5 DS IST LA[;K 37 ,OA RYK'KH ,OA TCRH DH DK;ZOKGH DS NKSJKU NTZ ESJS C;KU KSA DKS VPNH RJG LS I<+DJ LE> FY;K GSA ESA ;GKA ;G DGUK PKGRK GWA FD RY K'KH ,OA TCRH DH DK;ZOKGH DS NKSJKU FOHKKX DS VF/KDKFJ;KSA }KJK BL L ACA/K ESA EQ>LS CKJ&CKJ IWNK X;K RKS ESAUS EKUFLD :I LS FKDDJ ;G TOKC NS FN ;K FKKA YSFDU VC ESAUS VIUH IWJH YS[KK IQLRDKSA DKS NS[K FY;K GS VKS J ESA VC ;G 'KIFKIWOZD C;KU DJUK PKGRK GW FD ESAUS ESLLZ NHIUKJK;.K O;KIKJ IZK -FY- PSD LS C;KT IJ ISLK FY;K FKK ,OA MLDK HKQXRKU HKH PSD LS GH FD;K GSA ES AUS BL DEIUH DS LKFK DKSBZ UXN YSU&NSU UGHA FD;K GSA TGKA RD VK;DJ IZKO/ KKUKSA DH CKR GS MLDS LACA/K ESA ESJS C;KU NTZ DJRS ODR FOHKKX }KJK EQ>S VOXR DJK FN;K X;K FKK TKS ESJH TKUDKJH ESA GSA FQJ HKH ESA IW.KZ :I LS LARQ'V GKSDJ BL I`'B DS CKJS ESA TOKC NS JGK GWAA IN REPLY TO THE QUESTION NO. 34, THE ASSESSEE HAS C LEARLY STATED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN FROM ALL THE PARTIES WERE T AKEN ON INTEREST IN THE F.Y. 2009-10 AND THESE WERE REPAID IN THE F.Y. 2011-12. THEREAFTER A SPECIFIC QUESTION WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE REGARDI NG THE LOAN TAKEN FROM M/S DIPNARAYAN VYAPAR PVT. LTD. AS QUESTION NO . 39 AND IN REPLY TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE LOAN WAS TAKEN ABOUT THREE YEARS BACK ON INTEREST BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABL E TO REMEMBER THE PERSON THROUGH WHOM THE LOAN WAS TAKEN. THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 39 EXCEPT TH AT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO TELL THE NAME OF THE PERSON WHO HELPED THE ASSESSEE IN PROCURING THE LOAN. SINCE THE INVESTIGATION WING WA S NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ANSWERS OF THE ASSESSEE AS THEY COULD NOT EXTRA CT THE STATEMENT WHICH CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, QUESTION WERE CONTINUOUSLY PUT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR TWO DAYS AND I T IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GRILLED UP TO 1.00 A.M . ON THE NIGHT OF 04/4/2013 AND AGAIN RESTARTED IN THE MORNING AT 7.5 0 A.M. AND THE QUESTION NO. 77 WAS AGAIN ASKED SPECIFICALLY REGARD ING LOAN FROM M/S DIPNARAYAN VYAPAR PVT. LTD. IN REPLY TO THAT THE AS SESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THAT AFTER TRYING TO REMEMBER FOR CONTINUOUSLY FOR TWO DAYS AND HOPING THE COOPERATION FROM THE DEPARTMENT, HE SAID THAT H E RECEIVED CASH AGAINST THE SAID LOAN WHICH WAS DECLARED AS UNDISCL OSED INCOME FOR THE YEAR OF SEARCH. THE INVESTIGATION WING WAS STILL NO T SATISFIED WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN CALLED THE ASSE SSEE FOR FURTHER INVESTIGATION ON 30/5/2013 AND THEREAFTER ON 21/6/2 013. THE ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN PUT THE QUESTION ABOUT THE LOAN TAKEN FRO M M/S DIPNARAYAN VYAPAR PVT. LTD., IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT ON REPEATED 12 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. INSTANCES OF THE INVESTIGATION TEAM AND DUE TO EXHA USTED MIND, THE ASSESSEE GIVEN AN INCORRECT REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 7 7 RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT ON 05/4/2013 AND AGAIN STATED THA T AFTER VERIFYING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE SAID LOAN WAS TAKEN ON IN TEREST AND WAS ALSO REPAID BOTH THE TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CH ANNEL. THUS, HAVING REGARD TO THE BACKGROUND OF THE CIRCUMSTANCE S IN WHICH STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SAID TRANSACTIO N OF LOAN FROM M/S DIPNARAYAN VYAPAR PVT. LTD. WAS RECORDED AND FINALL Y STATEMENT RECORDED IN POST SEARCH INQUIRY WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE FINALLY CLARIFIED THE ISSUE IN THE STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S 131 OF THE ACT AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO ADMISSION ON THE PART O F THE ASSESSEE. EXCEPT THE STATEMENT OF PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE, TH ERE WAS NOTHING INCRIMINATING FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, THEREFORE, THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RE CORDED DURING THE SEARCH AND POST SEARCH ENQUIRY HAS TO BE READ TOGET HER AND THE OUTCOME OF THE SAID STATEMENT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER ADMITTED ANY BOGUS TRANSACTION EXCEPT THE MISUNDERSTANDING D UE TO CONTINUOUS GRILLING BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND DUE TO MENTA LLY EXHAUSTED, THE ASSESSEE GIVEN SOME INCONSISTENT REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 77 WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED IN QUESTION NO. 12 OF THE ST ATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IN THE POST SEARCH ENQUIRY U /S 131 OF THE ACT. EVEN OTHERWISE, ALL THESE STATEMENTS ARE ONLY REGAR DING ONE TRANSACTION OF LOAN THAT CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE E NTIRE TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN TAKEN FROM 12 PARTIES. THEREFORE, EXCEPT THE S TATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO QUESTION NO. 77, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CLARIFIED IN QUESTION NO. 12, THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE SHAPE OF ANY MATERIAL OR DOCUMENT MUCH LESS INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE THE ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE. IF THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IS READ IN TOTO THEN THER E WILL BE NO ADMISSION REGARDING ANY OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS BE ING AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. THEREFORE, THE QUESTION ARISES WHETHER IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER CAN MAKE ANY ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WH EN THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ABATED DUE TO THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION . THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUP RA) HAS CONSIDERED AND OBSERVED IN PARA 37 AND 38 AS UNDER: 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, REA D WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTI ONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: I . ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERS ON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. 13 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. II . ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE O F THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III . THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFOREMENTION ED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS TH E RE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH B OTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV . ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH , OR OTHER POST- SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELA TED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR M ADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEI ZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MAD E UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V . IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MA DE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOS E PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. VI . INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE J URISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ME RGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT O N THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII . COMP LETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVER ED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT. CONCLUSION 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN AYS, 2002-03, 2005-06 AND 2006-07.ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPL ETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITI ONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. THUS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS RULED THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A OF THE ACT CAN MAKE THE ADDITION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTH ED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS, WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURS E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE IN HAND, ALL THE TRANSACTIO NS WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. EVEN THE LOANS WE RE ALREADY PAID 14 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. DURING THE F.Y. 2011-12 AND THEREFORE, THESE TRANSA CTIONS WERE DISCLOSED AND KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT/RETURN OF INCOME. HENCE IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATER IAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION TO THE TOTAL INCOM E OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SUBSEQUENT DECISION, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA (SUPRA) HAS HELD IN PARA 57 TO 72 AS UNDER: 57. THE QUESTION WHETHER UNEARTHING OF INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL RELATING TO ANY ONE OF THE AYS COULD JUSTIFY THE RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE EARLIER AYS WAS CONSIDERED BOTH IN ANIL KUMAR BHATIA ( SUPRA ) AND CHETAN DAS LACHMAN DAS ( SUPRA ). INCIDENTALLY, BOTH THESE DECISIONS WERE DISCUSSED T HREADBARE IN THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ). AS FAR AS ANIL KUMAR BHATIA ( SUPRA ) WAS CONCERNED, THE COURT IN PARAGRAPH 24 OF THAT DECISION NOTED THAT 'WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH A CASE WHERE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. WE THEREFORE EXPRESS NO OPINION AS TO WHETHER SECTION 153A CAN BE INVOKED EVEN UNDER SUCH SITUATION'. THAT QUESTION WAS, THEREFORE , LEFT OPEN. AS FAR AS CHETAN DAS LACHMAN DAS ( SUPRA ) IS CONCERNED, IN PARA 11 OF THE DECISION IT WAS O BSERVED: '11. SECTION 153A (1) (B) PROVIDES FOR THE ASSESSME NT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PREC EDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE . TO REPEAT, THERE IS NO CONDITION IN THIS SECTION THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDE NCE FOUND. THIS, HOWEVER, DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOU SLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATE RIAL.' 58. IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ), THE COURT DISCUSSED THE DECISION IN FILATEX INDIA LTD. ( SUPRA ) AS WELL AS THE ABOVE TWO DECISIONS AND OBSERVED A S UNDER: '31. WHAT DISTINGUISHES THE DECISIONS BOTH IN CIT V. CHETAN DAS LACHMAN DAS ( SUPRA ), AND FILATEX INDIA LTD. V. CIT-IV ( SUPRA ) IN THEIR APPLICATION TO THE PRESENT CASE IS THAT IN BOTH THE SAID CASES THERE WAS SOME MATERIAL UNEARTH ED DURING THE SEARCH, WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE ADMITTEDLY WAS NONE. SECONDLY, I T IS PLAIN FROM A CAREFUL READING OF THE SAID TWO . DECISIONS THAT THEY DO NOT HOLD THAT ADDITIONS CAN BE VALIDLY MADE TO INCOME FORMING THE SUBJECT MATTER OF COMPLETED ASSE SSMENTS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH EVEN IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHATSOEVER WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. 32. RECENTLY BY ITS ORDER DATED 6TH JULY 2015 IN IT A NO. 369 OF 2015 ( PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX V. KURELE PAPER MILLS P. LTD. ), THIS COURT DECLINED TO FRAME A QUESTION OF LAW IN A CASE WHERE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL BEING FOUND DURING THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, THE REVENUE SO UGHT TO JUSTIFY INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AND MAKE AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON BOGUS SHARE CAPITAL GAIN. THE ORDER OF T HE CIT (A), AFFIRMED BY THE ITAT, DELETING THE ADDITION, WAS NOT INTERFERED WITH.' 15 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 59. IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ), THE COURT REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE RAJAST HAN HIGH COURT IN JAI STEEL (INDIA) V. ASSTT. CIT [2013] 36 TAXMANN.COM 523/219 TAXMAN 223 . THE SAID PART OF THE DECISION IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ) IN PARAS 33 AND 34 READS AS UNDER: '33. THE DECISION OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN JAI STEEL (INDIA), JODHPUR V. ACIT ( SUPRA ) INVOLVED A CASE WHERE CERTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS A ND OTHER DOCUMENTS THAT HAD NOT BEEN PRODUCED IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WERE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IT WAS HELD WHERE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR UNDISCLOSED PROPERTY HAS BEEN FOUND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH, THE SAME WOULD ALSO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE COMPUTING THE TOTAL INCOME UNDE R SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE COURT THEN EXPLAINED AS UNDER: '22. IN THE FIRM OPINION OF THIS COURT FROM A PLAIN READING OF THE PROVISION ALONG WITH THE PURPOSE AND PURPORT OF THE SAID PROVISION, WHIC H IS INTRICATELY LINKED WITH SEARCH AND REQUISITION UNDER SECTIONS 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT, IT IS APPARENT THAT: ( A ) THE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS, WH ICH STAND ABATED IN TERMS OF II PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE AO ACTS UNDER HIS ORIGINAL JUR ISDICTION, FOR WHICH, ASSESSMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE; ( B ) REGARDING OTHER CASES, THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME T HAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL; AND ( C ) IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MA DE.' 34. THE ARGUMENT OF THE REVENUE THAT THE AO WAS FRE E TO DISTURB INCOME DE HORS THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WAS SPECIFICALLY REJECTED BY THE COURT ON THE GROUND TH AT IT WAS 'NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE SCHEME OF THE SAID PROVISION' WHICH WAS IN THE CONT EXT OF SEARCH AND/OR REQUISITION. THE COURT ALSO EXPLAINED THE PURPORT OF THE WORDS 'ASSE SS' AND 'REASSESS', WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND AT MORE THAN ONE PLACE IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS UNDER: '26. THE PLEA RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE FIRST PROVISO PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME IN R ESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IS MERELY READING THE SAID PROVISION IN ISOLATION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE SECTION. THE WORDS 'AS SESS' OR 'REASSESS'-HAVE BEEN USED AT MORE THAN ONE PLACE IN THE SECTION AND A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROVISION WOULD LEAD TO AN IRRESISTIBLE CONCLUSION THAT THE W ORD ASSESS HAS BEEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ABATED PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS HAS BEEN USED FOR COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WOULD NOT ABATE AS THEY ARE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH OR MAKING OF REQUISITION AND WHICH WOULD ALSO NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION THAT FOR THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CAN BE TINKERED ONLY BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS.'' 60. IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ), THE COURT ALSO TOOK NOTE OF THE DECISION OF THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPN (NHAVA SHEVA) LTD. [2015] 58 TAXMANN.COM 78/232 TAXMAN 270/374 ITR 645 (BOM.) WHICH ACCEPTED THE PLEA THAT IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH IN RESPECT OF AN ISSUE, THEN NO ADDITIONS IN RESPECT OF ANY ISSUE CAN BE MA DE TO THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 16 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT. THE LEGAL POSITION WAS TH EREAFTER SUMMARIZED IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ) AS UNDER: '37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN THE AFOREMENTI ONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PERSO N SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE O F THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RE SPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. T HE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE. AFOREMENTIO NED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS TH ERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS 'IN WHICH B OTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH , OR OTHER POST- SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE E VIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR M ADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESS MENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL.' V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MA DE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOS E PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE J URISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A ME RGES INTO ONE. ONLY ON E ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXISTING OR BROUGHT O N THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII. COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEAR CH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT.' 61. IT APPEARS THAT A NUMBER OF HIGH COURTS HAVE CONCU RRED WITH THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ) BEGINNING WITH THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ). THERE, A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIE D OUT ON 7TH OCTOBER, 2009 AND AN ASSESSMENT CAME TO BE FRAM ED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A(1)(B) IN DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF RS. 14.5 CRORES AGAINST DECLARED INCOME OF RS. 3.44 CRORES. THE ITA T DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE 17 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. SEARCH IN RESPECT OF AYS UNDER CONSIDERATION I.E., AY 2006-07. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REFERRED TO THE DECISION IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ), OF THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN JAI STEEL (INDIA) ( SUPRA ) AND ONE EARLIER DECISION OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COUR T ITSELF. IT EXPLAINED IN PARA 15 AND 16 AS UNDER: '15. ON A PLAIN READING OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE TRIGGER POINT FOR EXERCISE OF POWERS THEREUNDER IS A SEARCH UNDER SEC TION 132 OR A REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT. ONCE A SEARCH OR REQUISITION IS MA DE, A MANDATE IS CAST UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT TO THE PERSON, REQUIRING HIM TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF E ACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSME NT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITI ON IS MADE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF TH E ACT IS LINKED WITH SEARCH AND REQUISITION UNDER SECTIONS 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE OBJECT OF THE SECTION IS TO BRING TO TAX THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME W HICH IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF OR PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. HOWEVER, INS TEAD OF THE EARLIER REGIME OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT WHEREBY, IT WAS ONLY THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD THAT WAS ASSESSED, SECTION 153A OF THE ACT SEEKS TO ASSESS T HE TOTAL INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHICH IS CLEAR FROM THE FIRST PROVISO THERETO WHICH PROVIDES THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME I N RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SECON D PROVISO MAKES THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE CLEAR AS THE SAME PROVIDES THAT ASSESSM ENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN THE SUB-SEC TION PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTI ON 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE. SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT P ROVIDES THAT IF ANY PROCEEDING OR ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT MADE UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) IS ANNULLED IN APPEAL OR ANY OTHER LEGAL PROVISION, THEN THE ASSESSMENT OR R EASSESSMENT RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH HAD ABATED UNDER THE SECOND PROVISO WOUL D STAND REVIVED. THE PROVISO THERETO SAYS THAT SUCH REVIVAL SHALL CEASE TO HAVE EFFECT IF SUCH ORDER OF ANNULMENT IS SET ASIDE. THUS, ANY PROCEEDING OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSE SSMENT FALLING WITHIN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION STANDS ABATED AND THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO BE DETERMINED UNDER SEC TION 153A OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, SUB- SECTION (2) PROVIDES FOR REVIVAL OF ANY ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WHICH STOOD ABATED, IF ANY PROCEEDING OR ANY ORDER OF ASSESSMENT OR REASSE SSMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS ANNULLED IN APPEAL OR ANY OTHER PROCEEDI NG. 16. SECTION 153A BEARS THE HEADING 'ASSESSMENT IN C ASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION'. IT IS 'WELL SETTLED AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN A CAT ENA OF DECISIONS THAT THE HEADING OR THE SECTION CAN BE REGARDED AS A KEY TO THE INTERPR ETATION OF THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE SECTION AND IF THERE IS NO AMBIGUITY IN THE LANGUAG E OR IF IT IS PLAIN AND CLEAR, THEN THE HEADING USED IN THE SECTION STRENGTHENS THAT MEANIN G. FROM THE HEADING OF SECTION 153. THE INTENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE IS CLEAR, VIZ., TO PROVIDE FOR ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH AND REQUISITION. WHEN THE VERY PURPOSE OF THE PROVI SION IS TO MAKE ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION, IT GOES WITHOUT SAYING THAT THE ASSESSMENT HAS TO HAVE RELATION TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION, IN OTHER WORDS, THE ASSE SSMENT SHOULD CONNECTED WITH SOMETHING ROUND DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION VI Z., INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH REVEALS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, WHILE IN VIEW OF THE MANDATE OF SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, IN EVERY CASE WHERE THERE IS A SEARCH OR REQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS OBLIGED TO ISSUE NOTICE TO SUC H PERSON TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME FOR THE SIX YEARS PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REL EVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE 18 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE, ANY ADD ITION' OR DISALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL COLLECTED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION, IN CASE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, AS HELD BY THE RAJ ASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) V. ASST. CIT ( SUPRA ), THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT WOULD HAVE TO BE REITERAT ED, IN CASE WHERE PENDING ASSESSMENTS HAVE ABATED, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER CAN PASS ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS DETERMINING THE TO TAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURNS, IF ANY, FUR NISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SE ARCH OR REQUISITION. IN CASE WHERE A PENDING REASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT H AS ABATED, NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF THE ASSESSMENT WOULD INCLUDE ANY ORDER WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD HAVE PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AS W ELL AS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. ** ** ** 19. ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN CONTEND ED THAT IF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT IN RELATION TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, IT WOULD BE PERMISSIBLE TO MAKE ADDITIONS AND DISALLOWANCE IN RESPECT OF AN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THE OPINION OF T HIS COURT, THE SAID CONTENTION DOES NOT MERIT ACCEPTANCE, INASMUCH AS. THE ASSESSMENT IN RE SPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IS A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT ASSESSMENT. UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE IN RELATION TO THE SEARCH OR REQUISI TION, NAMELY, IN RELATION TO MATERIAL DISCLOSED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. IF IN R ELATION TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND, NO ADDITION OR DIS ALLOWANCE CAN BE MADE IN RELATION TO THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SE CTION 153A OF THE ACT AND THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT SHALL HAVE TO BE REITERATED. IN THIS REG ARD, THIS COURT IS IN COMPLETE AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEW ADOPTED BY THE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT I N THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) V. ASST. CIT ( SUPRA ). BESIDES, AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED C OUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENT, THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVED IN THE PRESENT CASE STANDS CONCLUDED BY THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. JAYABEN RATILAL SORATHIA ( SUPRA ) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT WHILE IT CANNOT BE DISPUTED THAT CONSIDERING SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CAN REOPEN AND/OR ASSESS THE RETURN WITH RESPECT TO SIX PRECEDING YEARS ; HOWEVER, THERE MUST BE SOME INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH RESPECT TO THE SALE TRANSACTIONS IN TH E PARTICULAR ASSESSMENT YEAR.' 62. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN DEVANGI ALIAS RUPA ( SUPRA ), ANOTHER BENCH OF THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT REITERATED THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION FOLLOWING ITS EARLIER DECISION IN SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ) AND OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ). AS FAR AS KARNATAKA HIGH COURT IS CONCERNED, IT HAS IN IBC KNOWLEDGE PARK (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ) FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ) AND HELD THAT THERE HAD TO BE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA EACH OF THE AYS IN WHICH ADDITIONS WERE SOUGHT TO B E MADE PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD. ( SUPRA ), TOO, FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ). IN GURINDER SINGH BAWA ( SUPRA ), THE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HELD THAT: '6. . . . . . ONCE AN ASSESSMENT HAS ATTAINED FINAL ITY FOR A PARTICULAR YEAR, I.E., IT IS NOT PENDING THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN P ROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THIS OF COURSE WOULD NOT APPLY IF INCRIMINATIN G MATERIALS ARE GATHERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WHICH ARE CONTRARY TO AND/OR NOT DISCLOSED DURING THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.' 19 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 63. EVEN THIS COURT HAS IN MAHESH KUMAR GUPTA ( SUPRA ) AND RAM AVTAR VERMA ( SUPRA ) FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ). THE DECISION OF THIS COURT IN KURELE PAPER MILLS (P.) LTD. ( SUPRA ) WHICH WAS REFERRED TO IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ) HAS BEEN AFFIRMED BY THE SUPREME COURT BY THE DISMISSAL OF T HE REVENUE'S SLP ON 7TH DECEMBER, 2015. THE DECISION IN DAYAWANTI GUPTA 64. THAT BRINGS US TO THE DECISION IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ). AS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT BY MR. KAUSHIK, LEARNED COUNSEL APPEARING FOR T HE RESPONDENT, THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DISTINGUISHING FEATURES IN THAT CASE WHICH MAKES IT S RATIO INAPPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE FIRST PLACE, THE ASSESSEES THE RE WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PAN MASALA AND GUTKHA ETC. THE ANSWERS GIVEN TO QUESTIO NS POSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SURVEY PROCEEDINGS IN THAT CAS E BRING OUT THE POINTS OF DISTINCTION. IN THE FIRST PLACE, IT WAS STATED THAT THE STATEMEN T RECORDED WAS UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND NOT UNDER SECTION 133A. IT WAS A STATEMENT BY THE A SSESSEE HIMSELF. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 7 WHETHER ALL THE PURCHASES MADE BY TH E FAMILY FIRMS, WERE ENTERED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE ANSWER WAS: 'WE AND OUR FAMILY FIRMS NAMELY M/S. ASSAM SUPARI T RADERS AND M/S. BALAJI PERFUMES GENERALLY TRY TO RECORD THE TRANSACTIONS MADE IN RE SPECT OF PURCHASE, MANUFACTURING AND SALES IN OUR REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BUT IT IS AL SO FACT THAT SOME TIME DUE TO SOME FACTORS LIKE INABILITY OF ACCOUNTANT, OUR BUSY SCHE DULE AND SOME FAMILY PROBLEMS, VARIOUS PURCHASES AND SALES OF SUPARI, GUTKA AND OT HER ITEMS DEALT BY OUR FIRMS IS NOT ENTERED AND SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY OUR FIRMS.' 65. THEREFORE, THERE WAS A CLEAR ADMISSION BY THE ASSE SSEES IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ) THERE THAT THEY WERE NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS AND THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT RECORDED THEREIN. 66. FURTHER, IN ANSWER TO QUESTION NO. 11, THE ASSESSE E IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ) WAS CONFRONTED WITH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURI NG THE SEARCH. THE ANSWER WAS CATEGORICAL AND READS THUS: 'ANS:- I HEREBY ADMIT THAT THESE PAPERS ALSO CONTEN D DETAILS OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS INCLUDE PURCHASE/SALES/MANUFACTURING TRADING OF GUT KHA, SUPARI MADE IN CASH OUTSIDE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THESE ARE ACTUALLY UNACCOUNTE D TRANSACTIONS MADE BY OUR TWO FIRMS NAMELY M/S. ASOM TRADING AND M/S. BALAJI PERF UMES.' 67. BY CONTRAST, THERE IS NO SUCH STATEMENT IN THE PRE SENT CASE WHICH CAN BE SAID TO CONSTITUTE AN ADMISSION BY THE ASSESSEE OF A FAILUR E TO RECORD ANY TRANSACTION IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE AYS IN QUESTION. O N THE CONTRARY, THE ASSESSEE HEREIN STATED THAT, HE IS REGULARLY MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE DISCLOSURE MADE IN THE SUM OF RS. 1.10 CRORES WAS ONLY FOR THE YEAR OF SEA RCH AND NOT FOR THE EARLIER YEARS. AS ALREADY NOTICED, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTI ON NO. 16 POSED TO MR. PAWAN GADIA, HE STATED THAT THERE WAS NO POSSIBILITY OF M ANIPULATION OF THE ACCOUNTS. IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ), BY CONTRAST, THERE WAS A CHART PREPARED CONFIRMI NG THAT THERE HAD BEEN A YEAR-WISE NON-RECORDING OF TRANSACTIONS. IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ), ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL RECOVERED DURING SEARCH, T HE ADDITIONS WHICH WERE MADE FOR ALL THE YEARS WHEREAS ADDITIONS IN THE PRESENT CASE WER E MADE BY THE AO ONLY FOR AY 2004- 05 AND NOT ANY OF THE OTHER YEARS. EVEN THE ADDITIO NS MADE FOR AYS 2004-05 WERE 20 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. SUBSEQUENTLY DELETED BY THE CIT (A), WHICH ORDER WA S AFFIRMED BY THE ITAT. EVEN THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED ONLY TWO OF SUCH DELETIONS I N ITA NO. 306/2017. 68. IN PARA 23 OF THE DECISION IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ), IT WAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: '23. THIS COURT IS OF OPINION THAT THE ITAT'S FINDI NGS DO NOT REVEAL ANY FUNDAMENTAL ERROR, CALLING FOR CORRECTION. THE INFERENCES DRAWN IN RESPECT OF UNDECLARED INCOME WERE PREMISED ON THE MATERIALS FOUND AS WELL AS THE STAT EMENTS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEES. THESE ADDITIONS THEREFORE WERE NOT BASELESS. GIVEN THAT THE ASSESSING AUTHORITIES IN SUCH CASES HAVE TO DRAW INFERENCES, BECAUSE OF THE NATUR E OF THE MATERIALS - SINCE THEY COULD BE SCANTY (AS ONE HABITUALLY CONCEALING INCOME OR I NDULGING IN CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS CAN HARDLY BE EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN METICULOUS BOOKS OR RECORDS FOR LONG AND IN ALL PROBABILITY BE ANXIOUS TO DO AWAY WITH SUCH EVIDENC E AT THE SHORTEST POSSIBILITY) THE ELEMENT OF GUESS WORK IS TO HAVE SOME REASONABLE NE XUS WITH THE STATEMENTS RECORDED AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED. IN TILLS CASE, THE DIFFERENCE S OF OPINION BETWEEN THE CIT (A) ON THE ONE HAND AND THE AO AND ITAT ON THE OTHER CANNO T BE THE SOLE BASIS FOR DISAGREEING WITH WHAT IS ESSENTIALLY A FACTUAL SURMISE THAT IS LOGICAL AND PLAUSIBLE. THESE FINDINGS DO NOT CALL FOR INTERFERENCE. THE SECOND QUESTION OF L AW IS ANSWERED AGAIN IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE.' 69. WHAT WEIGHED WITH THE COURT IN THE ABOVE DECISION WAS THE 'HABITUAL CONCEALING OF INCOME AND INDULGING IN CLANDESTINE OPERATIONS' AND THAT A PERSON INDULGING IN SUCH ACTIVITIES 'CAN HARDLY BE ACCEPTED TO MAINTAIN METI CULOUS BOOKS OR RECORDS FOR LONG.' THESE FACTORS ARE ABSENT IN THE PRESENT CASE. THERE WAS NO JUSTIFICATION AT ALL FOR THE AO TO PROCEED ON SURMISES AND ESTIMATES WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA THE AY FOR WHICH HE SOUGHT TO MAKE ADDITIONS OF FRA NCHISEE COMMISSION. 70. THE ABOVE DISTINGUISHING FACTORS IN SMT. DAYAWANTI GUPTA ( SUPRA ), THEREFORE, DO NOT DETRACT FROM THE SETTLED LEGAL POSITION IN KABUL CHAWLA ( SUPRA ) WHICH HAS BEEN FOLLOWED NOT ONLY BY THIS COURT IN ITS SUBSEQUENT DECISIONS BUT ALSO BY SEVERAL OTHER HIGH COURTS. 71. FOR ALL OF THE AFOREMENTIONED REASONS, THE COURT I S OF THE VIEW THAT THE ITAT WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE INVOCATION OF SECTION 153A BY THE REVENUE FOR THE AYS 2000-01 TO 2003-04 WAS WITHOUT ANY LEGAL BASIS AS T HERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL QUA EACH OF THOSE AYS. CONCLUSION 72. TO CONCLUDE: ( I ) QUESTION (I) IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE I.E., IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IT IS HELD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE REVENUE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASS ESSEE IN RELATION TO AYS 2000- 01 TO AYS 2003-04? ( II ) QUESTION (II) IS ANSWERED IN THE AFFIRMATIVE I.E., IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. IT IS HELD THAT WITH REFERENCE TO AY 2 004- 05, THE ITAT WAS CORRECT IN CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF THE CIT (A) TO THE EXTENT IT DELETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO TO THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF FRANCHI SE COMMISSION IN THE SUM OF RS. 88 LAKHS AND RENT PAYMENT FOR THE SUM OF RS. 13.79 LAKHS? 21 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. THE SAID DECISION OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT WAS CHALLEN GED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT, HOWEVER, THE SLP OF THE REVENUE WAS DISMISSED VIDE ORDER DATED 02/7/2018 REPORTED SUPRA. THUS, TH E HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS REITERATED ITS VIEW AS TAKEN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) AND SPECIFICALLY HELD THAT ONCE THE ASSESSMENT HAS ATTA INED THE FINALITY I.E. IS NOT PENDING THEN THE SAME CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX IN P ROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT EXCEPT SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ARE GATH ERED IN COURSE OF SEARCH OR DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL (INDIA) VS ACIT (SUP RA) HAS ALSO CONSIDERED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 22 TO 26 AS UNDER: 22. IN THE FIRM OPINION OF THIS COURT FROM A PLAIN REA DING OF THE PROVISION ALONG WITH THE PURPOSE AND PURPORT OF THE SAID PROVISION, WHIC H IS INTRICATELY LINKED WITH SEARCH AND REQUISITION UNDER SECTIONS 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT, IT IS APPARENT THAT: ( A ) THE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS, WHICH STAND ABATE D IN TERMS OF II PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT , THE AO ACTS UNDER HIS ORIGINAL JURISDICTION, FOR WHICH, ASSESSMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE; ( B ) REGARDING OTHER CASES, THE ADDITION TO THE INCOME T HAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATI NG MATERIAL AND ( C ) IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPLETE D ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MA DE. THOUGH SUCH A CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE FIRST T IME UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS NOT COMPLETED, THE CASE IN HAND, HAS TO BE CONSI DERED AT BEST SIMILAR TO A CASE WHERE IN SPITE OF A SEARCH AND/OR REQUISITION, NOTHING IN CRIMINATING IS FOUND. IN SUCH A CASE THOUGH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WOULD BE TRIGGERED A ND ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT TO ASCERTAIN THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PERSON IS REQUIRE D TO BE DONE, HOWEVER, THE SAME WOULD IN THAT CASE NOT RESULT IN ANY ADDITION AND T HE ASSESSMENTS PASSED EARLIER MAY HAVE TO BE REITERATED. 23. THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE COUNSEL FOR THE APPELLA NT ON THE CASE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA ( SUPRA ) ALSO DOES NOT HELP THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE SAID JUDGMENT READS AS UNDER: '19. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, AS WE HA VE ALREADY NOTICED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO ISSUE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH RETURNS FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDI ATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEA RCH OR REQUISITION WAS MADE. ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THIS SECTION IS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE AFO RESAID YEARS. THIS IS A SIGNIFICANT DEPARTURE FROM THE EARLIER BLOCK ASSESSMENT SCHEME IN WHICH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ROPED IN ONLY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE REGULA R ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PRESERVED, RESULTING IN MULTIPLE ASSESSMENTS. UNDER SECTION 153A, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN THE POWER TO ASSES S OR REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION IN SEPARATE AS SESSMENT ORDERS. THIS MEANS THAT THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT O F EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 22 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 20. A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO HOW THIS IS SOUGHT T O BE ACHIEVED WHERE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD ALREADY BEEN PASSED IN RESPECT OF ALL OR ANY OF THOSE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, EITHER UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OR SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. IF SUCH AN ORDER IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, HAVING OBVIOUSLY BEEN PASSED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE SEARCH/REQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME, TAKING NOTE TO THE U NDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE FETTERS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSE SSING OFFICER BY THE STRICT PROCEDURE TO ASSUME JURISDICT ION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIONS 147 AND 148, HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE WITH WHICH SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OPENS. THE TIME-LIMIT W ITHIN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 CAN BE ISSUED, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 1 49 HAS ALSO BEEN MADE INAPPLICABLE BY THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE. SECTION 15 1 WHICH REQUIRES SANCTION TO BE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY ISSUE OF NOTIC E TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 HAS ALSO BEEN EXCLUDED IN A CASE COVERE D BY SECTION 153A. THE TIME-LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR COMPLETION OF AN ASSESSMENT OR REASS ESSMENT BY SECTION 153 HAS ALSO BEEN DONE AWAY WITH IN A CASE COVERED BY SECTION 15 3A. WITH ALL THE STOPS HAVING BEEN PULLED OUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTIO N 153A HAS BEEN ENTRUSTED WITH THE DUTY OF BRINGING TO TAX THE TOTAL INCOME OF AN ASSESSEE WHOSE CASE IS COVERED BY SECTION 153A, BY EVEN MAKING REASSESSMENTS WITHOUT ANY FETTERS, IF NEED BE. 21. NOW THERE CAN BE CASES WHERE AT THE TIME WHEN T HE SEARCH IS INITIATED OR REQUISITION IS MADE, THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE SI X ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTIONED ABOVE, MAY BE PENDING. IN SUCH A CASE, THE SECOND P ROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A SAYS THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS 'SHALL ABAT E'. THE REASON IS NOT FAR TO SEEK. UNDER SECTION 153A, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MULTIPLE A SSESSMENT ORDERS IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH AT IS BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO DETERMINE NOT MERELY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALSO THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE CASE A SEARCH OR R EQUISITION HAS BEEN INITIATED. OBVIOUSLY THERE CANNOT BE SEVERAL ORDERS FOR THE SA ME ASSESSMENT YEAR DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO ENSUR E THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS NAMELY, THAT IN RESPECT OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING THE A SSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE THERE IS ONLY ONE DE TERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME, IT HAS BEEN PROVIDED IN THE SECOND PROVISO OF SUB-SECT ION (1) OF SECTION 153A THAT ANY PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE A SSESSEE WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH OR MAKING REQUISIT ION 'SHALL ABATE'. ONCE THOSE PROCEEDINGS ABATE, THE DECKS ARE CLEARED, FOR THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO PASS ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THOSE SIX YEARS DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WOULD INCLUDE BOTH THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETUR NS, IF ANY, FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. THE POSITION THUS EMERGING IS THAT THE SEARCH IS INITIATED OR REQUISITION IS MADE, THEY WILL ABATE MAKING WAY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DETERMINE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED, BUT IN CASE WHERE THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED DE TERMINING THE ASSESSEE'S TOTAL INCOME AND SUCH ORDERS SUBSISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THE SEARCH OR THE REQUISITION IS MADE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ABATEMENT SINCE N O PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING. IN THIS LATTER SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS ALREADY MADE (WITHOUT HAVING THE NEED TO FOLLOW THE STRICT PROVISIONS OR COMPLYING 23 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. WITH THE STRICT CONDITIONS OF SECTIONS 147, 148 AND 151) AND DETERMINE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SUCH DETERMINATION IN THE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 153A WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ORDERS PASSED IN ANY REASSE SSMENT, WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE INCOME THAT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ARE CLUBBED TOGETHER AND ASSESSED AS THE TOTAL INCO ME. IN SUCH A CASE, TO REITERATE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ABATEMENT OF THE EARLIE R PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NO PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WERE PENDING SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY CULMINATED IN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OR DERS WHEN THE SEARCH WAS INITIATED OR THE REQUISITION WAS MADE.' (EMPHASIS S UPPLIED) 24. THE SAID JUDGMENT ALSO IN NO UNCERTAIN TERMS HOLDS THAT THE REASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS HAVE TO B E MADE TAKING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SE ARCH AND THE INCOME THAT ESCAPED ASSESSMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE CLUBBED TOGETHER WIT H THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSED AS THE TOTAL I NCOME. THE OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE JUDGMENT CONTRASTING THE PROVISIONS OF DETERMIN ATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER CHAPTER XIVB WITH DETERMINATION OF TOTAL INCOME UND ER SECTIONS 153A TO 153C OF THE ACT HAVE TO BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF SECOND PR OVISO ONLY, WHICH DEALS WITH THE PENDING ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE FU RTHER OBSERVATIONS MADE IN THE CONTEXT OF DE NOVO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO HAVE TO BE READ IN CONTEXT THAT IRRESPECTIVE OF THE FACT WHETHER ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE NOTICE AND CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A HAVE TO BE UNDERTAKEN. 25. THE ARGUMENT OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT THE AO IS ALSO FREE TO DISTURB INCOME, EXPENDITURE OR DEDUCTION DE HORS THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS ALSO NOT BORNE OUT FROM THE SCHEME OF THE SAID PROVISION WHICH AS NOTICED ABOVE IS ESSENTIALLY IN CONTEXT OF SEARCH AND/OR REQUISITION. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 153A TO 153C CANNOT BE I NTERPRETED TO BE A FURTHER INNINGS FOR THE AO AND/OR ASSESSEE BEYOND PROVISIONS OF SEC TIONS 139 (RETURN OF INCOME), 139(5) (REVISED RETURN OF INCOME), 147 (INCOME ESCA PING ASSESSMENT) AND 263 (REVISION OF ORDERS) OF THE ACT. 26. THE PLEA RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE FIRST PROVISO PROVIDES FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE TOTAL INCOME IN R ESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IS MERELY READING THE SAID PROVISION IN ISOLATION AND NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE ENTIRE SECT ION. THE WORDS 'ASSESS' OR 'REASSESS' HAVE BEEN USED AT MORE THAN ONE PLACE IN THE SECTIO N AND A HARMONIOUS CONSTRUCTION OF THE ENTIRE PROVISION WOULD LEAD TO AN IRRESISTIB LE CONCLUSION THAT THE WORD 'ASSESS' HAS BEEN USED IN THE CONTEXT OF AN ABATED PROCEEDIN GS AND REASSESS HAS BEEN USED FOR COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH WOULD NOT A BATE AS THEY ARE NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH OR MAKING OF R EQUISITION AND WHICH WOULD ALSO NECESSARILY SUPPORT THE INTERPRETATION THAT FOR THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CAN BE TINKERED ONLY BASED ON THE INCRIMINATING MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS. THUS, THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS HELD THAT FOR THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, THE SAME CAN BE TINKERED ONLY BASED ON THE INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL FOUND 24 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF DOCUM ENTS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 7 TO 7.7 AS UNDER : 7. I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISSI ONS MADE IN THIS REGARD. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE VARIOUS CASE LAWS CITED BY THE AR. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE LEGAL GROUND IS ADJUDICATED 1 ST AS IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE MATTER. 7.2 IN SUPPORT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUND TAKEN/ CONT ENTION RAISED DETAILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION ARE MADE WHEREIN THE APPELLANT HAS CHALL ENGED THE LEGAL VALIDITY OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ORDER FRAMED U/S 143(3) /153A. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SUCH ADDITIONS CANNOT BE MADE AS THEY ARE NOT RELATABLE TO ANY INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH. THE APPELLANT HAS CITED FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF THE CON TENTION TAKEN: 1) JAY STEEL LIMITED VS. ACIT (88 DTR 1) [RAJ HC] 2) KABUL CHAWLA VS. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (DEL HC) 3) CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 374 ITR 645 ETC. 7.3 I HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE AO AND SUBMISSI ONS MADE IN THIS REGARD. PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3)/153A SHOWS THAT ALL THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE NOT RELATABLE TO ANY S EIZED MATERIAL. I ALSO FIND THAT FOR THE A.YR THE ASSESSMENT STOOD COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. 7.4 THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE AS SESSMENT U/S 143(3)/153A WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATER IAL WAS CONSIDERED BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF JAI STEEL LIMITED VS. ACIT (88 DTR 1). THE HONBLE COURT WAS OF THE VIEW IN CASE OF COMPLE TED ASSESSMENTS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IF NO INCRIMINA TING SEIZED MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE RELEVANT OBS ERVATION OF THE JUDGMENT IS REPRODUCED BELOW: 'IN THE FIRM OPINION OF THIS COURT FROM A PLAIN REA DING OF THE PROVISION ALONG WITH THE PURPOSE AND PURPORT OF THE SAID PROVISION, WHICH IS INTRICATELY LINKED WITH SEARCH AND REQUISITION UNDER SECTIONS 132 AND 132A OF THE ACT, IT IS APPARENT THAT: (A) THE ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS, WHICH STAND ABATED IN TERMS OF II PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE AO ACTS UNDER HIS ORIG INAL JURISDICTION, FOR WHICH, ASSESSMENTS HAVE TO BE MADE; (B) REGARDING OTHER CASES, THE ADDITION TO THE INC OME THAT HAS ALREADY BEEN ASSESSED, THE ASSESSMENT WILL BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND JUST IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE COMPL ETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE 25 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR 13 D.B. INC OME TAX APPEAL NO.53/2011 JAI STEEL (INDIA), JODHPUR VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX, JODHPUR (ALONG WITH OTHER 16 SIMILAR MATTERS) REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE.' 7.5 SIMILAR VIEW POINT WAS EXPRESSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA VS. ACIT 380 ITR 573 (DEL HC). THE RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF HONBLE COURT COULD BE SEEN IN PARA 37 & 38 OF ORDER, SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: PARA 37. ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A (1) OF THE ACT, READ WITH THE PROVISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN T HE AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGES IS AS UNDER: I. ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE UNDER SECTION 132 OF T HE ACT, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A (1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PER SON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. II. ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DA TE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPU TED BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. III. THE AO WILL EXERCISE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIOUS TO THE RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAK ES PLACE. THE AO HAS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX Y EARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUG HT TO TAX. IV. ALTHOUGH SECTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITI ONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SE ARCH, OR OTHER POST-SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMEN T CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATE RIAL. OBVIOUSLY ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. V. IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE CO MPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE ABATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMEN T CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABATED PR OCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMP LETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. VI. INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, T HE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MADE SEPARATELY FOR EA CH AY ON THE BASIS OF THE 26 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER MATERIAL EXIST ING OR BROUGHT ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. VII COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153 A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITIO N OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEAR CH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURS E OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. CONCLUSION 38. THE PRESENT APPEALS CONCERN AYS, 2002-03, 2005 -06 AND 2006-07.0N THE DATE OF THE SEARCH THE SAID ASSESSMENTS ALREADY STOOD COMPL ETED. SINCE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH, NO ADDITI ONS COULD HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE INCOME ALREADY ASSESSED. 7.6 THE ISSUE OF ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO WHILE FRA MING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3)/153A, IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WAS CONSIDERED BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SOUMYA CONSTRUCTION PL VS CIT 387 ITR 529. IN ITS ORDER DA TED 14/03/2016 HONBLE COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT, IN CASES OF CO MPLETED ASSESSMENT, IF NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS FOUND THEN NO ADDITIONS C AN BE MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A OF THE ACT. THE RELEVANT PARA NO. 18 8S 19 OF THE COURT ORDER CAN BE REFERRED TO. SIMILAR VIEW OF ALSO TAKEN IN THE FOLLOWING JUDGME NTS, INCLUDING BY HON'BLE JAIPUR ITAT HON'BLE ITAT JAIPUR IN MANY CASES: A. CONTINENTAL WAREHOUSING CORPORATION 374 ITR 645 B. PCIT VS. MEETA GUTGUTIA 152 DTR 153 C. VIJAY KUMAR D AGARWAL V/S DCIT IN IT(SS)A NOS. 153,154,155 & 156/AHD/2012 D. RATAN KUMAR SHARMA VS. DCIT ITA 797 & 798 /JAIP UR/2014 E. VIKRAM GOYAL VS. DCIT ITA 174/JAIPUR/2017 ETC F. JADAU JEWELLERS & MANUFACTURER PL VS ACIT (686/ JAIPUR/2014) G. PRATEEK KOTHARI VS. ACIT (312/JAIPUR/2015. 7.7 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AS THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO ARE WITHOUT ANY REFERENCE TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL, THEY ARE NOT LEGALLY TENABLE. THE SAME ARE THEREFORE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. THE LEGA L GROUND TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS THUS ALLOWED. THE APPELLANT SUCCEEDS O N LEGAL GROUND. 27 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS WEL L AS IN THE LIGHT OF BINDING PRECEDENTS AS DISCUSSED IN THE FORGOING PAR AGRAPHS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) QUA THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF BINDING PRECEDENTS AS WELL AS THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIM INATING MATERIAL THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) IS N OT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BINDING PRECEDENTS, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A O IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS DELETED. 5. SINCE WE HAVE DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE VALIDITY OF THE ADDITION IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE WE DO NOT PROPOSE TO GO INT O THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 594/JP/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2016-17 : 6. THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E ) IS IDENTICAL AS IN THE CASE OF SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA IN ITA NO. 597/JP/2018 A.Y. 2016-17. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE LD. A/R AS WELL AS THE LD. D/R AND CONSIDERED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. WHILE CONSIDERING THE IDENTICA L ISSUE IN CASE OF SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA IN ITA NO. 597/JP/2018 VIDE EVEN DATE ORDER, WE HAVE HELD IN PARA 34 AS UNDER :- 28 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 34. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AS WE LL AS THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE T HAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED RS. 53,20,000/- FROM M/S. BHATIA CORPORATI ON PVT. LTD. AND THE SAID MONEY WAS UTILIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR INV ESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF THE SAME COMPANY. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT R ECEIVED FROM THE COMPANY WAS CONVERTED INTO THE INVESTMENT AND THE O WNERSHIP OF THE INVESTMENT IS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE TOOK THE BENEFIT OF ACQUIRING THE SHARES OF THE SAME COMPANY BY UTILIZI NG THE FUND OF THE COMPANY TAKEN FOR THIS PURPOSE. THOUGH THE LD. A/R HAS VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT THIS INVESTMENT WAS FOR THE BUSINESS CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME COMPANY AS THE RENEWAL OF THE LOAN WAS SAN CTIONED BY THE BANK SUBJECT TO INFUSION OF MORE CAPITAL AND TO SAT ISFY THE SAID CONDITIONS, THE DIRECTOR, PROMOTER OF THE COMPANY H AVE TAKEN THE MONEY FROM THE COMPANY TO INFUSE TO SHARE CAPITAL O F THE SAID COMPANY, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR THE BUSINESS OF THE COMPANY AND NOT FOR PERSONAL USE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, EVEN IF THE AMOUNT WAS UTILIZED FOR INCREASE OF THE SHARE C APITAL, THE OWNERSHIP OF THE SHARES HAVE NOW TRANSFERRED TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT PAYING ANYTHING FROM THE ASSESSEES OWN FUND. WE F URTHER NOTE THAT IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT AS WELL AS IN THE BALANCE SHEET THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THIS AMOUNT UNDER CURRENT LIABILITIES AND A LSO PAYING THE INTEREST @ 12%. THEREFORE, WHEN THE TREATMENT OF T HE SAID AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY IS LOAN A ND ALSO PAYING THE INTEREST ON THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE COMPANY THEN MER ELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAS INVESTED IN THE SHARES OF THE SAID COM PANY WILL NOT CHANGE THE CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION OF LOAN REC EIVED FROM THE COMPANY. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 2.3.4 TO 2.3.6 AS UNDER :- 2.3.4. THUS, FROM THE ABOVE DISTINGUISHING, IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE IT IS GRATUITOUS LOAN OR ADVANC E GIVEN 29 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. BY A COMPANY TO THE APPELLANT BELONGING TO THOSE CL ASSES OF SHAREHOLDERS WOULD COME WITHIN THE PURVIEW OF S. 2(22)(E). 2.3.5. THE LAW IS CLEAR THAT ONCE THE LOAN/ADVANCE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE SUBSTANTIAL SHAREHOLDERS, THE SAME HAS TO BE TREATED AS DEEMED DIVIDEND UNLESS THE SAME FALLS IN EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES AS ENUMERATED IN THE VARI OUS CASE LAWS AND CBDT CIRCULAR. IT MAY BE MENTIONED T HAT TRANSACTION MADE BY THE APPELLANT DOES NOT FALL IN ANY WAY IN TO TRADE ADVANCE/COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS DESCRIBED IN CBDT IN CIRCULAR NO. 19/2017 DATED 12 JUNE 2017 AND THEREFORE, THE SAID CIRCULAR CANNOT HELP T HE APPELLANT TO TAKE OUT THE TRANSACTION FROM THE AMBI T OF THE WORD ADVANCE IN SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. 2.3.6. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, THE AD DITION OF RS. 53,20,000/- MADE BY THE AO BY TREATING THE ADVANCE TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE COMPANY AS DEEMED DIVIDEND IS CONFIRMED. THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT A PPLICABLE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS THIS IS NEITHER THE AM OUNT GIVEN BY THE COMPANY FOR TRADING OR BUSINESS PURPOSES OF THE SAI D COMPANY BUT THIS AMOUNT WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAKING THE INV ESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF THE COMPANY THOUGH THE SAID INVESTMENT WA S REQUIRED FOR TAKING THE LOAN FROM THE BANK. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE PROMOTERS AS A SHAREHOLDER OF THE SAID COMPANY TO INFUSE MORE CAPI TAL IN THE SAID COMPANY, THEREFORE THE FUND OF THE SAID COMPANY USE D BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOTHING BUT THE LOAN/ADVANCE IN TERMS O F SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 30 ITA NOS. 593 & 594/JP/2018 SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. SINCE THE FACTS AS WELL AS THE ISSUE IS IDENTICAL, THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING IN CASE OF SMT. REEMA HARISH BHATIA, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y ERROR OR ILLEGALITY IN THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A) QUA THIS ISSUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A. Y. 2013-14 IS ALLOWED AND FOR 2016-17 IS DISMISSED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25/04/2 019. SD/- SD/- ( FOE FLAG ;KNO ) ( FOT; IKY JKWO (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (VIJAY PAL RAO) YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER JAIPUR DATED:- 25/04/2019. DAS/ VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSF'KR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT- SMT. JAYA PREM BHATIA, KOTA. 2. THE RESPONDENT THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOTA. 3. THE CIT(A). 4. THE CIT, 5. THE DR, ITAT, JAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE (ITA NO. 595 & 594/JP/2018) VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER, LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASSISTANT. REGISTRAR