Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax -1, Durg V. SHRI Ashok Meshram, Durg

ITA 77/BIL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 85391 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHEETAL VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132; 144; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT AND SHRI REJENDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMEBR ITA NO.76/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VS. SHRI TIKAM CHAND AGRAWAL, BHILAI. S/O. SHRI VALLABHDAS AGRAWAL, MIG 2/19, VIVEK VIHAR COLONY, DURG. (PAN: AFUPA 3128 G) ITA NOS.77, 78 & 79/BLPR/2011 A.YS. 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2005-06 RESPECTIVELY ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VS. SHRI ASHOK MESHRAM, BHILAI. S/O. SHRI AANARAM MESHRAM, KOSA NAGAR, BHILAI. (PAN: AJGPM 9549 M) ITA NO.80/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VS. SHRI RAVI YADAV, BHILAI. S/O. SHRI MAKHANLAL YADAV, SANTRABADI, DURG. (PAN: AAXPY 4677 L) ITA NO.81/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2003-04 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VS. SMT. SEEMA GAJBHIYE, BHILAI. 15, TITURDIH, DURG. (PAN: AHFPG 3077 R) ITA NO.82/BLPR/2011 A.Y. 2005-06 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VS. SHRI RAKES H MISHRA, BHILAI. S/O. SHRI K.L. MISHRA, 2 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 SANTRABADI, DURG (PAN: AJKPM 2636 D) ITA NOS.83, 84, 85, 86 & 87/BLPR/2011 A.YS. 1999-2000, 2000-01, 2001-02, 2002-03 & 2003-0 4 RESPECTIVELY ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-1, VS. SHRI SATNA M SINGH, BHILAI. S/O. SHRI RATAN SINGH, DHILLON COMPLEX, SUPELA, BHILAI. (PAN: AVOPS 3870 K) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENTS) APPELLANT BY : SMT. SHEETAL VERMA RESPONDENTS BY : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 23.12.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.12.2014 ORDER PER H.L. KARWA, PRESIDENT THESE TWELVE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE INVOLVING COMMON ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRSTLY, WE WILL TAKE UP ITA NO.76/BLPR/2011 REL ATING TO A.Y. 2003-04. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 30.12.2010 RELATING TO A.Y. 2003-04. 3. ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 3 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR TAKING SECTION U/S 153C OF THE I.T . ACT 1961 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) WAS CONDU CTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON, DHILLON COMPLEX, SUPE LA, BHILAI ON 24.08.2004. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF AP PLICATIONS FOR EXCISE LICENSE AND COPIES OF THE EXCISE LICENSES IN THE NAMES OF S EVERAL PERSONS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PERSONS IN WHOS E CASES SUCH ACTION WAS INITIATED. CONSEQUENTLY, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED OBJ ECTION ON 16.05.2005. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME U NDER PROTEST ON 23.02.2006 DECLARING A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.48,625/- WHICH INCLU DED NET SALARY INCOME OF RS.48,000/- AND MISCELLANEOUS RECEIPTS OF RS.625/-. NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, WAS ISSUED ON 10.07.2006. IN RESPONSE TO WHICH, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED WRITTEN EXPLANATION. THE A.O. ISSUED ANOTHER NOTIC E UNDER SECTION 153A READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, ON 04.09.2006. IN RESPONS E TO WHICH, WRITTEN EXPLANATION WAS FILED STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY FIL ED RETURN UNDER PROTEST IN RESPONSE TO THE ORIGINAL NOTICE. THE A.O. REJECTED ALL THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE OTHER PERSONS WHO ARE ONLY NAME LENDERS OF S HRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON, IN WHOSE NAME LIQUOR LICENSES WERE OBTAINED AND ALL TH E FINANCES WERE FROM SHRI 4 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 TRILOK SINGH DHILLON/ HIS CONCERNS AND FAMILY MEMBE RS. THE A.O. FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INTRODUCED TO THE BANK B Y SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON OR HIS ASSOCIATES. BANK ACCOUNTS WERE BEING OPERATED BY SHRI MANHARAN LAL VERMA AND SHRI HARISH CHANDRA MISHRA. ACCORDING TO THE A.O., THESE ARE THE PERSONS WHO OPERATE THE ACCOUNT OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON AN D HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE A.O. HAS ALSO STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED EXC ISE LICENSE FOR ANDA, MEHANDIPAT SHOPS OF COUNTRY/FOREIGN LIQUOR. IN THI S CONNECTION, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO MAKE PAYMENT OF LICENSE FEE AND EARNEST MONEY. IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR THE ACCOUNTING YEAR 2003-04, THE ASSESSEE HAS S HOWN RS.18,31,500/- AS OPENING BALANCE. THE A.O. OPINED THAT THIS AMOUNT, IN FACT , RELATES TO THE INVESTMENT MADE IN LIQUOR BUSINESS IN THE MONTH OF MARCH 2003 TOWAR DS LICENSE FEE, EMD ETC. THE A.O. REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE ASSESSEE S CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2003 AND IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T RS.6,30,000/- WAS TAKEN AS LOAN FROM SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILON THROUGH FIRM M/S . SUPREME TRADERS AND BALANCE OF RS.12,01,500/- WAS OUT OF HIS PAST SAVINGS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND ONLY IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE RETURN WAS FILED SHOWING INCOME UND ER SECTION 44AF OF THE ACT. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE CLAIM OF ACCRETION OF CAPITAL WAS REJECTED BY THE A.O. AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,01,500/- WAS ADDED TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE AMOUN T IN QUESTION WILL BE CONSIDERED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF SHRI TRILOK SI NGH DHILLON. 5 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 5. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION O BSERVING AS UNDER :- THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION HAS BEEN CONSIDERED. I N THE INSTANT CASE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER SHEET SHOWS THAT ACKNOWLE DGEMENTS OF APPLICATIONS FOR EXCISE LICENSE AND COPY OF EXCISE LICENSE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 WERE FOUND. THEREFORE, THE RE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE FOR ACTION U/S 153C FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 003-04. ACCORDINGLY, KEEPING IN VIEW THE DECISION OF HONBL E TRIBUNAL REFERRED ABOVE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT AO HAS NO JURISDICT ION FOR TAKING ACTION U/S 153C FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR IS ALLOWED ON THIS GROUND. ALL OTH ER GROUNDS OF APPEALS ARE DISMISSED AS THEY DO NOT CALL FOR FURTHER INDEPENDENT ADJUDICATION. 6. FROM THE ABOVE OBSERVATIONS OF THE LD CIT(A), IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT THE ORDER SHEET WHEREIN SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY TH E A.O., REVEALED THAT ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS OF APPLICATION FOR EXCISE LICENSE AND COPY OF EXCISE LICENSE FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WERE FOUND. THUS, IT IS APPARENT FROM THE RECORDS THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND OR SEIZE D FOR INITIATING THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2003-04. WE , THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE A.O. HAD NO JURISDICTION TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 15 3C OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED PERTAINING T O THE A.Y. UNDER CONSIDERATION. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C, THE A.O., AF TER RECEIPT OF RELEVANT MATERIAL, IS REQUIRED TO SATISFY THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELL ERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR RE QUISITIONED BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A ( IN WHOSE CASE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 HAS BEEN TAKEN) , THEN THE BOOKS OF A A CCOUNT ETC. SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE A.O. HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PER SON AND THAT THE A.O. SHALL 6 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 PROCEED AGAINST SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE A.O. HAD NO MATE RIAL FOR INITIATING PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. 7. OTHER ASPECT OF THE MATTER IS THAT AS PER THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 153C, IF THE A.O. IS SATISFIED THAT THE VALUABLES, DOCUMENTS ETC . BELONGS TO OTHER PERSON, THERE REMAINS NO QUESTION OF INDECISIVENESS NECESSITATING A PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT ITSELF CONFIRM S THAT THE A.O. HIMSELF WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED , THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE BRANDED AS BAD IN LAW. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE UPHOLD THE OR DER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.77/BLPR/2011 9. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 24.12.2010 RELATING TO A.Y. 20 03-04. 10. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS A PPEAL READS AS UNDER :- 7 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICE HAS NO JURISDICTION FOR TAKING SECTION U/S 153C OF THE I.T . ACT 1961 FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO TH AT OF THE CASE OF SHRI TIKAMCHAND AGRAWAL ITA NO.76/BLPR/2011 (SUPRA) AN D THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO SIMILAR. AS PER THE COPY OF THE ORDER SHEET R ECORDED SATISFACTION REVEALED THAT THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RELATED TO A.Y. 2004- 05 AND NOT TO THIS YEAR. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS G IVEN IN ITA NO.76/BLPR/2011 (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. IT NO.78/BLPR/2011 12. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 30.12.2010 RELATING TO A.Y. 20 04-05. 13. THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS A PPEAL READS AS UNDER :- WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT A BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. 14. A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDU CTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON, DHILLON COMPLEX, SUPE LA BHILAI ON 24.08.2004. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, A CD CONTAINING DATA R ELATING TO SALES OF DIFFERENT LIQUOR SHOPS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. ACTION UNDER S ECTION 153C OF THE ACT, WAS 8 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE PERSONS IN W HOSE CASES SUCH ACTION WAS INITIATED. IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. COMPLETED THE AS SESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 READ WITH SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, DETERMINING TOTAL INC OME AT RS.17,60,030/-. IN THIS CASE, THE A.O. TREATED THE ASSESSEE AS BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. THE A.O. ADDED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON PROT ECTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, TREATING HIM AS BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. 15. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE A.O., THE ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT HE RECEIVED AND EXECUTED THE EXCISE LICENSE IN HIS OWN NAME. HE HAD NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT FINANCIAL TRANSACTION WITH SHRI TRILOK SIN GH DHILLON OR HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD . CIT(A) THAT THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY DETAILS OR INFORMATION TO CONNECT THE A SSESSEE WITH THE AFFAIRS OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND DIR ECTED THE A.O. TO ASSESS THE INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASS ESSEE. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER :- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE A.OS OBSERVATIONS AND CON SIDERED THE A.O.S SUBMISSIONS DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS AND SU BMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. ADMITTEDLY THE PRESENT APPELLANT WAS NO T A PARTNER OF THE FIRM M/S SUPREME TRADERS. HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY FINANCE EITHER BY THE SAID FIRM OR BY SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. FIN ALLY, THE A.O. COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY COGENT MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE ANY NEXUS OF THE APPELLANT WITH SHRI DHILLON. THE DECISION OF HONB LE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANCHURAM DESHMUKH IS THUS NOT APPLICA BLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED 9 ITA NOS.76 TO 8 7/BLPR/2011 OPINION THAT THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS BEN AMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON AND THE AO IS DIRECTED TO ASSE SS THE INCOME ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. T HEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED , 16. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF TH E AUTHORITIES BELOW. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE CAN BE TREATED AS BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECO RD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. SUPREME TRADERS. THEREFOR E, THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE IN THE CASE OF SHRI PANCHURAM DESHMUKH, INCOME TAX CASE NO.132/2010 DATED 20.10.2010 IS NOT APPLIC ABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE SAID CASE, PANCHURAM DESHMUKH HAS BEE N TREATED AS BENAMIDAR OF SHRI DHILLON, MAINLY FOR THE REASON THAT HE WAS PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. SUPREME TRADERS, WHICH HAS FINANCED THE LIQUOR LICENSEES. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO MATERIAL ON RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM THE SAID FIRM OR SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. T HEREFORE, THE LD CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TR EATED AS BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. ITA NO.79/BLPR/2011 17. THIS APPEAL FIELD BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 30.12.2010 RELATING TO A.Y.2005-06. 10 ITA NOS.76 TO 87/BLPR/2011 18. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS APPEA L READ AS UNDER:- 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .11,05,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BANK DEPOSITS. 2. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT A BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. 19. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.1, THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT WITH STAT BANK OF INDIA, CIVIC CENTRE, BHILAI. THE SAID ACCOUNT REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.5,00,000/- ON 26.07.2004 AND RS.6,05,000/- ON 02.03.2005 AGGREGATING TO RS.1 1,05,000/-. THE A.O. MADE THE ADDITION STATING THAT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT HAS NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE EARLI ER YEAR, IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MAN OF NO MEANS AND REAL PERSON IS SH RI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. HE, THEREFORE, MADE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE O F THE ASSESSEE AND FURTHER HELD THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION WILL BE CONSIDERED IN T HE HANDS OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. 20. ON APPEAL, THE LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE AO AND S UBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANTS APPEAL FOR THE P RECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS DISMISSED AND THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE P RECEDING YEAR WAS VERY WELL AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE SET-OFF OF THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE IMMEDIAT E PRECEDING YEAR FROM THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE THIS YEAR. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 11 ITA NOS.76 TO 87/BLPR/2011 21. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATI VE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER UNDER APPEAL DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENC E AT OUR LEVEL. WE HAVE ALREADY CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR THE PRECE DING A.Y. AND, THEREFORE, WE HOLD THAT THE LD. CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE A.O. TO GIVE SET-OFF OF THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING YEAR F ROM THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION MADE THIS YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER A ND DISMISS GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 22. AS REGARDS GROUND NO.2, THE FACTS OF THIS GROUN D ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CASE OF SHRI ASHOK MESHRAM - ITA NO.78/BLPR/2011 (SUPRA) AND THE SUBMISSIONS ARE ALSO SIMILAR. IN VIEW OF THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ITA NO.78/BLPR/2011 (SUPRA), WE DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 23. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS.80, 81, 83, 84, 85, 86 & 87/BLPR/2011 24. THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THESE CASES ARE SIMILAR TO THAT OF THE CASES OF SHRI TIKAMCHAND AGRAWAL ITA NO.76/BLPR/2011 AN D SHRI ASHOK MESHRAM ITA NO.77/BLPR/2011 (SUPRA). IN THESE CASES ALSO, THE ORDER SHEETS SHOWED THAT COPY OF APPLICATIONS FOR LIQUOR LICENSES FOR A.Y. 2 004-05 WERE FOUND. THEREFORE, 12 ITA NOS.76 TO 87/BLPR/2011 THERE IS NO MATERIAL AVAILABLE FOR ACTION UNDER SEC TION 153C OF THE ACT FOR A.YS. UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, THE A.O. HAD NO JU RISDICTION TO TAKE ACTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY INC RIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND OR SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS PERT AINING TO RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE DECISION GIVEN IN IT NOS.76 & 77/BLPR/2 011 SHALL APPLY TO THESE APPEALS ALSO WITH EQUAL FORCE. THEREFORE, THESE AP PEALS ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. ITA NO.82/BLPR/2011 25. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), RAIPUR DATED 30.12.2010 RELATING TO A.Y.2005-06. 26. IN THIS APPEAL, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLL OWING GROUNDS :- 1. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT A BENAMIDAR OF SHRI TRILOK SINGH DHILLON. 2. WHETHER IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .16,69,710/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN BANK DEPOSITS. 27. THE FACTS AND THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THIS APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO THAT OF ITA NO.78/BLPR/2011 AND 79/BLPR/2011 (SUPRA). FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER OF THE L D CIT(A) CALLS FOR NO INTERFERENCE AT OUR LEVEL. THE DECISION GIVEN IN ITA NOS.78 & 7 9/BLPR/2011 SHALL APPLY TO THIS 13 ITA NOS.76 TO 87/BLPR/2011 APPEAL ALSO WITH EQUAL FORCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE AP PEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 28. WHILE DECIDING APPEAL FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSID ERATION, THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE DECISION GIVEN IN ASSESSEES CASE F OR A.Y. 2004-05. THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THIS CASE HAS BEEN DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE DECISION GIVEN IN THE A.Y. 2004-05. IT APPEARS THAT THE REVENUE HAS ACCEPTED THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) PASSED IN ASSESSEES CASE FOR A.Y. 2004-05. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER ALSO, THE APPEAL DESERVES TO BE DISMISSED. 29. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.12.2014. SD/- SD/- (RAJENDRA) (H.L. KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PRESIDENT RAIPUR, DATED: 23.12.2014 PBN/* COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A) 4. THE CONCERNED CIT 5. D.R. ITAT, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR 6. GUARD FILE //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, RAIPUR