Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2012] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8188 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-11-2012
Appeal Filed By
Department
Bench Allotted
A
Assessment Year
2005-2006
Appeal Filed On
09-06-2011
Judgement Text
, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA () BEFORE , /AND , . ! . '# ) [BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JM & SHRI C. D. RAO, AM ] $ $ $ $ / I.T.A NOS. 882 & 883/KOL/2011 %& '( %& '( %& '( %& '(/ // / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2004-05 & 2005-06 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, VS. M/S. BMW I NDUSTRIES LTD., CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXI, KOLKATA. (PAN: AABCB0986G) (*+ /APPELLANT ) (,-*+/ RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 10.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.11.2012 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI A. K. MAHAPATRA, (CIT DR) FOR THE RESPONDENT: SHRI S. K. TULSIYAN, ADVOCAT E '. / ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, JM ( , , , , ) THESE APPEALS BY REVENUE ARE ARISING OUT OF SEPARAT E ORDERS OF CIT(A), CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS.207 & 208/CC-XXI/CIT(A)C-II/1 0-11 DATED 28.03.2011. ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED SEPARATELY BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-XXI, KO LKATA U/S.153A/143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 AND 2005-06 VIDE HIS ORDERS DATED 30.12.2010. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THESE TWO APPEALS OF REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDERS OF CIT(A) IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND THE SAME WAS DELETED BY CIT(A) AND AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN REV ISITING THE SAME ISSUE AS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS HAVE NOT BEEN ABATE. FOR THIS, REVENUE HAS RAISED COMMON GROUND IN BOTH YEARS AND GROUND AS RAISED IN AY 2005-06 READS AS UNDER: 1. THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.96,92, 024/- DISALLOWED IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT BY HOLDING THAT THE SIMILAR DISALLOWANCE MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE AO WAS NOT CORRECT IN REVISITING THE SAME ISSUE IN THE FRESH ASSESSMENT AFTER THE SEARCH, WIT HOUT CONSIDERING THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD ABATED PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH OPERATION AND THE A.O . HAD CORRECTLY MADE THE ADDITION IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT AS PER THE ORIGINAL ORDER. 2 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 SINCE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE IDENTICAL IN BOTH THE YEARS, WE WILL TAKE THE FACTS FROM AY 2005-06 AND DECIDE THE ISSUE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON ASSESSEE ON 30.04.2008 AND SUBSEQUENTLY NOTICE U/S. 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FOR BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS ON 19.03.2009. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICES U/S. 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE ORIGINAL RETURNS OF INCOME FILED AS FILED IN RE SPONSE TO NOTICES U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ORIGINAL ASSESSM ENT WAS COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 28.12.2007 FOR AY 2005-06 AND ON 29.12.2006 FOR AY 2004-05. IT MEANS IN BOTH THE YEARS ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT B EFORE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED ON ASSESSEE ON 30.04.2008. IT IS PERTINEN T TO MENTION THAT AO IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS FOR BOTH THE YEARS, DISALLOWED CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U /S. 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT, WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENTS U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENTS, WHERE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS CLAIM WAS MADE. ITAT IN AY 2004-05 UPHELD THE ORDER OF C IT(A) AND APPEAL FOR AY 2005-06 IS STILL PENDING BEFORE TRIBUNAL. HOWEVER, AO FOR AY 2005-0 6 WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT U/S. 153A/143(3) OF THE ACT MADE DISALLOWANCE ONLY BY NO TING AS UNDER: IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06, PASSED U/S. 143(3) ON 28.12.2007 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.64472700/-, DEDU CTIONS 80IB CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AND EXPENSES UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS WERE DISALLOWED TO THE TUNE OF RS.10430966/-. SUBSEQUENTLY CIT(A) ALLOWED DEDUCTION OF RS.96,92,0 24/-. DEPARTMENT FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT AGAINST THE DELETION. AS T HE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT SAME ADDITIONS ARE BEING MADE AGAIN TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE. 4. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE CIT( A), WHO ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.1. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS PRESENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND IT W AS ACCEPTED BY HIM THAT THE ISSUE IN THE APPEAL IS EXACTLY THE SAME AS WAS THERE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES WHEN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) WAS MADE. I FIND THAT I N THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) DATED 28-12-2007, ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801B OF RS. 2,23,35,957/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE INITIAL YE AR OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION WAS NOT APPARENT FROM 1OCCB REPORT AND THE ASSESSMENT RECOR DS REVEALED THAT APPELLANT HAD CLAIMED DEDUCTION U/S 801B IN 1995-96 AND THEREFORE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS 11TH YEAR OF DEDUCTION AND APPELLANT COULD NOT CLAIM DED UCTION U/S 80IB AFTER 10 YEARS. IT APPEARS THAT APPELLANT HAS NOT PREFERRED ANY APPEAL BEFORE CIT(A) AGAINST THIS ISSUE IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THIS I SSUE HAS BECOME FINAL. ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ALLOW CLAIM OF DONATION OF RS 2,00,000/- U/ S 80G IN ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE AND CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THIS DISALLOWANCE. ASSESSING O FFICER DID NOT ALLOW CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 4,05,162/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEE S CONTRIBUTION TO PF BEYOND DUE DATE WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). APPELLANT DID NOT PR EFER APPEAL AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.1,33,780/- UNDER THE HEAD MISCELLANEOUS EXPEN SES. HOWEVER THE OTHER DISALLOWANCES SUCH AS CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS. 22,91,155/- U/S 4 0(A)(IA), DEDUCTION OF RS.54,08,070/- OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES AND DEDUCTION OF RS.19,92,799/- ON FOREIGN 3 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 TRAVEL, TOTALING RS. 96,92,024/- WERE ALLOWED BY CI T(A). THEREFORE AFTER GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT WAS DETERMINED AT RS.5,47,80,680 AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.3,17,05,780/-. I N NUTSHELL, DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.1,04,30,966/- WAS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMEN T ORDER, CIT(A) ALLOWED RS 96,92,024/- OF SUCH EXPENSES AND THE DISALLOWANCE O F CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF RS.2,23,35,957/- U/S 80IB WAS NOT CONTESTED BY APPE LLANT AT ALL. THEREFORE NO FRESH ADDITION OUT OF EXPENSES ALREADY ALLOWED BY CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 96,92,024/- CAN BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ASSESSING OFFICER CA N ONLY RETAIN THE DISALLOWANCE OF DONATION OF RS 2,00,000/- U/S 80G, CLAIM OF DEDUCTI ON OF RS.4,05,162/- ON ACCOUNT OF EMPLOYEES CONTRIBUTION TO PF BEYOND DUE DATE AND M ISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES OF RS.1,33,780, TOTALING RS.7,38,942/- WHICH ARE THE D ISALLOWANCES ACCEPTED BY APPELLANT OF CONFIRMED BY CIT(A). I THEREFORE FIND THAT DISALLOW ANCE OF RS.10430966 UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF EXPENSES IS ALREADY A SETTLED ISSUE AT THE LEVEL OF CIT(A). APPELLANT COMMITTED A MISTAKE IN ASKING ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE TO TAL INCOME OF APPELLANT AT RS.3,17,05,780/- IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, WH EN THE TOTAL INCOME OF APPELLANT WAS ALREADY DECIDED BY CIT(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER ON 22.01.2010 AT RS. 5,47,80,680/-. SIMILARLY ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO COMMITTED THE MIST AKE OF AGAIN DISALLOWING EXPENSES OF RS 96,92,024/- UNDER VARIOUS HEADS OF INCOME WHICH WERE ALREADY ALLOWED BY CIT(A). 4.2. CBDT HAS CLARIFIED IN PARA 65.5 OF THE CIRCULA R NO 7 OF 2003, DATED SEPTEMBER, 2003 (EXPLANATORY NOTES ON PROVISION RELATING TO DIRECT TAXES) THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YE AR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A SHALL ABATE; THE APP EAL, REVISION OR RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SE ARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION SHALL NOT ABATE. THE SAME DISALLOWANCE OF CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S 801A AND 801B WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSES SMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) ON 09.02.2007 WHEREAS THE SEARCH WAS INITIATED ON 30.04.2008 AND THEREFORE THE QUESTION OF ABATEMENT OF THIS ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT ARISE. NOW IF THE AP PEALS AGAINST THIS ORDER WERE FILED WITHIN PRESCRIBED TIME THEN SUCH APPEALS DO NOT ABA TE AS PER THE CLARIFICATION OF CBDT. IT IS A FACT THAT THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT ON THIS ISS UE IS PENDING BEFORE HBLE HIGH COURT AND THE ISSUE IS LIVE, AND HAS NOT ABATED, AND THER EFORE THERE IS NO REASON TO SAY THAT THE SAME DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE AGAIN IN THE ASSESS MENT ORDER IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 153A TO KEEP THE ISSUE ALIVE. 4.3. HBLE ITAT- AHMEDABAD IN CASE OF MEGHMANI ORGA NICS LTD VS DCIT REPORTED IN 006 ITR (TRIB.) 360 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD) HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS PRECLUDED FROM RE AGITATING THE ISSUE WHICH HAS ATTAINED FINALITY IN ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SUCH ISSUES COULD NOT BE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE LITIGATION AS THE ASSESSMENTS HAD NOT ABATED. HONBLE AHMEDABAD BENCH FURTHER OBSERVED TH AT THE HONBLE FINANCE MINISTER IN HIS BUDGET SPEECH WHILE INTRODUCING SECTIONS 153A T O 153C OF THE ACT OBSERVED THAT THE EXISTING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER XIV-B WHICH PROVIDE FOR SINGLE ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE INTRODUCED FOR AV OIDANCE OF DISPUTES, EARLY FINALIZATION OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS AND REDUCTION IN MULTIPLICITY O F PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, SINCE THERE WERE PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS NAMELY REGULAR ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF BLOCK PERIOD, IT AMOUNTED TO MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS. IN ORDER TO AVOID MULTIPLICITY OF PROCEEDINGS AND TO HAVE ONLY SINGLE ASSESSMENT AND IN RESPECT OF PENDING ASSESSMENTS, SECTION 153A TO SECTION 153C OF THE AC T WERE PROPOSED TO BE INTRODUCED. HBLE ITAT-AHEMEDABAD HELD THAT IF THAT BE THE INTE NTION, IN ASSESSMENTS UNDER SECTION 153C, THE ISSUE CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY IF THE PENDI NG ASSESSMENT IS ABATED AND NOT OTHERWISE AND IF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS ARE COMPL ETED WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF FURTHER LITIGATION AND IF THOSE VERY ASSESSMENTS AR E RE-AGITATED, UNDER SECTION 153C PROCEEDINGS THE SAME WILL NOT ONLY MULTIPLY ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS BUT WILL MULTIPLY EVEN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THIS CAN NEVER BE THE IN TENTION OF THE LEGISLATURE. THEREFORE, I FIND THAT IN PRESENT CASE THE JURISDICTION OF ASSES SING OFFICER IS OUSTED IN RESPECT OF THE 4 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 ISSUE OF DISALLOWANCES MADE U/S 801A AND U/S 801B A ND RE-AGITATING THE CONCLUDED ISSUES IN SECTION 153A PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT ANY DOCUMENTS R ELATING THERETO FOUND DURING THE SEARCH CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN SUCH ASSESSMENT UNDE R SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS EXCEEDED HIS JU RISDICTION IN DISALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 96,92,024/- AND TH EREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW THE CLAIM IN THE SAME MANNER AS ALLOWED BY CI T(A) IN HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 22- 01-2010 IN THE APPEAL ORIGINATING FROM EARLIER ASSE SSMENT ORDER U/S 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT DATED 28.12.2007. AGGRIEVED, REVENUE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROUGH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT IN BOTH THE YEARS, ASSESSMENTS WERE CO MPLETED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT I.E. ON 29.12.2006 FOR AY 2004-05 AND 28.12.2007 FOR AY 200 5-06 AND SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.04.2008. EVEN BEFORE CIT(A) APPEAL WAS PREFERRED ON 09.02.2007 FOR AY 2004-05 AND ON 30.01.2008 FOR AY 2005-06. AS ARGUED BY LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSMENTS OR REASSESSMENTS FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH SHALL ABATE. IF THE ASSESS MENT IS COMPLETED AND ANY ADDITION IS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND WHICH IS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES LIKE CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL, THE SAME SHALL NOT ABATE. SINC E IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING AT THE TIME OF INITIATION OF SEARC H THE SAME WILL NOT ABATE. FURTHERMORE, IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENC H THE LD. CIT, DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE IS NO SEARCH MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR ANYTHING RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OR 80IB OF THE ACT. LD. CIT, DR WHEN TIME AND AGAIN ASKED TO PROD UCE ANY SEARCH MATERIAL WHICH INDICATES THAT THIS IS A WRONG CLAIM OR FALSE CLAIM EVEN THOU GH I.E. SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT. EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, AO IN BOTH ASSESSMENT YEARS HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING THAT THIS IS A FALSE CLAIM OR WRONG CLAIM MADE BY ASSESSEE. ONCE THIS IS THE POSITION, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THIS ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (2012) 24 TAX MANN 98 (DEL.), WHEREIN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 139 TO 153 AND 153A TO 153C OF THE ACT A RE DISCUSSED ELABORATELY AND HELD AS UNDER: 18. A PERUSAL OF SECTION 153A SHOWS THAT IT STARTS WITH A NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE RELATING TO NORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCEDURE WHICH IS COVERED BY SEC TIONS 139, 147, 148, 149, 151 AND 153 IN RESPECT OF SEARCHES MADE AFTER 31.5.2003. TH ESE SECTIONS, THE APPLICABILITY OF WHICH HAS BEEN EXCLUDED, RELATE TO RETURNS, ASSESSMENT AN D REASSESSMENT PROVISIONS. PRIOR TO, THE INTRODUCTION OF THESE THREE SECTIONS, THERE WAS CHA PTER XIV-B OF THE ACT WHICH TOOK CARE OF THE ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE IN CASES OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE. SUCH AN ASSESSMENT WAS POPULARLY KNOWN AS BLOCK ASSESSMENT BECAUSE THE CHAPTER PROVIDED FOR A SINGLE 5 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 ASSESSMENT TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF A PERIOD OF A B LOCK OF TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS MADE. I N ADDITION TO THESE TEN ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE BROKEN PERIOD UP TO THE DATE ON WHICH TH E SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED WAS ALSO INCLUDED IN WHAT WAS KNOWN AS BLOCK PERIOD . THOUGH A SINGLE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS TO BE PASSED, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS TO BE ASSESSE D IN THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS TO WHICH IT RELATED. BUT ALL THIS HAD TO BE MADE IN A SINGLE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT SO MADE WAS INDEPENDENT OF AND IN ADDITI ON TO THE NORMAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS CLARIFIED BY THE EXPLANATION BELOW S ECTION 158BA(2). AFTER THE INTRODUCTION OF THE GROUP OF SECTIONS NAMELY, 153A TO 153C, THE SINGLE BLOCK ASSESSMENT CONCEPT WAS GIVEN A GO-BY. UNDER THE NEW SECTION 15 3A, IN A CASE WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS IS MADE UNDER SECTION 132A AFTER 31.5.2003, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS OBLIGED TO ISSUE NOTICES CALLING UPON THE SEARCHED PERSON TO FURNISH RETURNS FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION WAS MADE. THE O THER DIFFERENCE IS THAT THERE IS NO BROKEN PERIOD FROM THE FIRST DAY OF APRIL OF THE FI NANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE OR THE REQUISITION WAS MADE AND ENDING WITH T HE DATE OF SEARCH/REQUISITION. UNDER SECTION 153A AND THE NEW SCHEME PROVIDED FOR, THE A O IS REQUIRED TO EXERCISE THE NORMAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR I N WHICH THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE. 19. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, AS WE HAV E 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 IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH O R REQUISITION WAS MADE. ANOTHER SIGNIFICANT FEATURE OF THIS SECTION IS THAT THE ASS ESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE AFORESAID 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 REGULAR ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS WERE PRESERVED, RESULTING IN MULTIPLE ASSESSMENTS. UNDER SECTION 153A, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BEEN GIVEN THE POWER TO ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THIS MEANS THAT THER E CAN BE ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IN WHI CH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD BE BROUGHT TO TAX. 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 TH E INITIATION OF THE SEARCH/REQUISITION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME, TAKING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF A NY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE FETTERS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER BY THE STRICT PROCEDURE TO ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIONS 147 AND 148, HAVE BEEN REMOVED BY THE NON OBSTANTE CLAUSE WITH WHICH SUB S ECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OPENS. THE TIME-LIMIT WITHIN WHICH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 14 8 CAN BE ISSUED, AS PROVIDED IN SECTION 149 HAS ALSO BEEN MADE INAPPLICABLE BY THE NON OBST ANTE CLAUSE. SECTION 151 WHICH REQUIRES SANCTION TO BE OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER BY ISSUE OF NOTICE TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 HAS ALSO BEEN EXCLUDED IN A CASE COVERED BY SECTION 153A. THE TIME-LIMIT PRESCRIBED FOR COMPLETION OF AN ASSE SSMENT OR REASSESSMENT BY SECTION 153 HAS ALSO BEEN DONE AWAY WITH IN A CASE COVERED BY S ECTION 153A. 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 ASSE SSEE WHOSE CASE IS COVERED BY SECTION 153A, BY EVEN MAKING REASSESSMENTS WITHOUT ANY FETT ERS, 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 RE LATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING 6 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 WITHIN THE PERIOD OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTI ONED ABOVE, MAY BE PENDING. IN SUCH A CASE, THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB SECTION (1) OF SECT ION 153A SAYS THAT SUCH PROCEEDINGS SHALL ABATE. THE REASON IS NOT FAR TO SEEK. UNDER SECTION 153A, THERE IS NO ROOM FOR MULTIPLE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THAT IS BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS TO DETERMINE NOT MERELY THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT ALSO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE CASE A SEARCH OR REQUISITION HAS BEEN INITIATED. OB VIOUSLY THERE CANNOT BE SEVERAL ORDERS FOR THE SAME ASSESSMENT YEAR DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO ENSURE THIS STATE OF AFFAIRS NAMELY, THAT IN RESPEC T OF THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE YEAR IN WHICH T HE SEARCH TOOK PLACE THERE IS ONLY ONE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME, IT HAS BEEN PROV IDED IN THE SECOND PROVISO OF SUB SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A THAT ANY PROCEEDINGS FO R ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATIO N OF THE SEARCH OR MAKING REQUISITION SHALL ABATE. ONCE THOSE PROCEEDINGS ABATE, THE DE CKS ARE CLEARED, FOR THE ASSESSING 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 RETURNS, IF ANY, FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE UNDISCLOSE D INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH OR REQUISITION. THE POSITION THUS EMERGING I S THAT WHERE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING COMPLETION WHE N 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 UNDISCLOS ED INCOME WOULD ALSO BE INCLUDED, BUT IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS HAVE ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED DETERMINING THE ASSESSEES TOTAL INCOME AND SUCH ORDERS ARE SUBSISTING AT THE TIME WHEN THE SEARCH O R THE REQUISITION IS MADE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF ANY ABATEMENT SINCE NO PROCEEDINGS ARE PENDING. IN THIS LATTER SITUATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WILL REOPEN THE ASSESSMENTS OR RE ASSESSMENTS ALREADY MADE (WITHOUT HAVING THE NEED TO FOLLOW THE STRICT PROVISIONS OR COMPLYING 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 SECTION 15 3A WOULD BE SIMILAR TO THE ORDERS PASSED IN ANY REASSESSMENT, WHERE THE TOTAL INCOME DETERMINED IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE INCOME THAT ESCAPED ASSESSMENT ARE CL UBBED TOGETHER AND ASSESSED AS THE TOTAL INCOME. IN SUCH A CASE, TO REITERATE, THERE I S NO QUESTION OF ANY ABATEMENT OF THE EARLIER PROCEEDINGS FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NO P ROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT WERE PENDING SINCE THEY HAD ALREADY CU LMINATED IN ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT ORDERS WHEN THE SEARCH WAS INITIATED O R THE REQUISITION WAS MADE. 22. IN THE LIGHT OF OUR DISCUSSION, WE FIND IT DIFF ICULT TO UPHOLD THE VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL EXPRESSED IN PARA 9.6 OF ITS ORDER THAT SINCE THE R ETURNS OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ALL THE SIX YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION BEFORE THE SE ARCH TOOK PLACE WERE PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 153A CANNOT BE INVOKED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS THE POWER UNDER SECTION 153A TO MAKE ASSESSMENT FOR ALL THE SIX YEARS AND COMPUTE THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURNS BEF ORE THE DATE OF SEARCH WHICH STOOD PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A). THE OTHER REASON GIVEN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAME PARAGRAPH OF ITS ORDER THAT NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND D URING THE SEARCH IS FACTUALLY UNSUSTAINABLE SINCE THE ENTIRE CASE AND ARGUMENTS B EFORE THE DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL HAD PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS THA T THE DOCUMENT EMBODYING THE TRANSACTION WITH MOHINI SHARMA WAS RECOVERED FROM T HE ASSESSEE. WHILE SUMMARIZING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN PARAGRAPH 5 OF ITS O RDER, THE TRIBUNAL ITSELF HAS REFERRED TO THE CONTENTION THAT NO DOCUMENT MUCH LESS INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEES PREMISES, EXCEPT ONE UNSIG NED UNDERTAKING FOR LOAN. AGAIN IN PARAGRAPH 10 OF ITS ORDER, WHILE DEALING WITH THE A SSESSEES CONTENTION AGAINST THE ADDITION OF ` 1,50,000/- BEING UNEXPLAINED LOAN GIVEN TO MOHINI S HARMA, THE TRIBUNAL HAS STATED THAT IT HAS ANALYZED THE SUBJECT DOCUMENT C AREFULLY, RECOVERED FROM SEARCH SUGGESTING THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS RECOVERED DURING T HE SEARCH FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE 7 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 TRIBUNAL HAS EVEN PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF ` 1,50,000/- AS WELL AS THE NOTIONAL INTEREST ON MERITS, HOLDING THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS U NSIGNED, THAT MOHINI SHARMA WAS NOT EXAMINED BY THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITIES AND THERE WA S NO CORROBORATION OF THE UNSIGNED DOCUMENT. IF IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEE, THEN SECTION 153A IS TRIGGERED. ONCE THE SECTION IS TRIGGERED, IT APPEARS MANDATORY FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ISSUE NOTICE S UNDER SECTION 153A CALLING UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURNS FOR THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEA RS PRIOR TO THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE. THERE ARE CONTRADICTIONS IN THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE HOW THE TRIBUNAL CAN SAY IN PARA 9.6 THA T NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND AT THE SAME TIME IN PARAGRAPH 10 DEAL WI TH THE MERITS OF THE ADDITIONS BASED ON THE DOCUMENT RECOVERED DURING THE SEARCH WHICH A LLEGEDLY CONTAIN THE LOAN TRANSACTION WITH MOHINI SHARMA. THEREFORE, BOTH THE REASONS GIV EN BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSMENTS MADE UNDER SECTION 153A WERE BAD IN LAW DO NOT COMMEND THEMSELVES TO US. THE RESULT IS THAT THE FIRST SUBSTANTIAL QUESTI ON OF LAW IS ANSWERED IN THE NEGATIVE, IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 23. WE ARE NOT CONCERNED WITH A CASE WHERE NO INCR IMINATING 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 IN SUCH A SITUATION. THAT QUESTION IS THEREFORE LEFT OPEN. 6. WE FIND THAT HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN PARA 20 HAS DISCUSSED THE ISSUE WHERE ASSESSMENT ORDER ALREADY PASSED IN RESPECT OF ANY O F THOSE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND ACCORDING HONBLE HIGH COURT, IF SUCH A N ORDER IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, HAVING OBVIOUSLY BEEN PASSED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF SE ARCH/REQUISITION, THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INC OME TAKING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. FURTHER, HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS LEFT THE QUESTION OPEN IN RESPECT TO WHERE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. HERE, IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED U /S. 143(3) OF THE ACT I.E. ON 29.12.2006 FOR AY 2004-05 AND 28.12.2007 FOR AY 2005-06 AND SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 30.04.2008. EVEN BEFORE CIT(A) APPEAL WAS PREFERRED ON 09.02.2007 FO R AY 2004-05 AND ON 30.01.2008 FOR AY 2005-06. THE CIT(A) ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS, WHERE DISALLOWANCE OF THIS CL AIM WAS MADE. ITAT IN AY 2004-05 UPHELD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND APPEAL FOR AY 2005-06 IS ST ILL PENDING BEFORE TRIBUNAL. IN VIEW OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSME NTS OR REASSESSMENTS FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS REFERRED TO IN SECTI ON 153A(1) OF THE ACT, WHICH ARE PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH SHALL ABATE. IF T HE ASSESSMENT IS COMPLETED AND ANY ADDITION IS MADE IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND WHICH IS SUBJEC T MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES LIKE CIT(A) OR TRIBUNAL, THE SAME SHALL NOT ABATE. SINCE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT PENDING AT THE TIME O F INITIATION OF SEARCH THE SAME WILL NOT ABATE. FURTHERMORE, IT IS TO BE MENTIONED THAT ON A SPECIFIC QUERY FROM THE BENCH THE LD. CIT, DR FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THERE IS NO SEARCH MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHICH 8 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 INDICATES THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR ANYTHING RELATING TO THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA OR 80IB OF THE ACT. LD. CIT, D R WHEN TIME AND AGAIN ASKED TO PRODUCE ANY SEARCH MATERIAL WHICH INDICATES THAT THIS IS A WRONG CLAIM OR FALSE CLAIM EVEN THOUGH I.E. SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEALS BEFORE APPELLATE AUTHORIT IES IN REGULAR ASSESSMENT. 7. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. SH AILA AGARWAL (2012) 346 ITR 130 (ALL) WHEREIN IT IS HELD THAT (FROM HEAD NOTES) SECTION 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, PROVIDES THAT WHERE NOTICE UNDER THIS SECTION IS ISSUED AS A RESU LT OF ANY SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YE AR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEAR S REFERRED TO UNDER SECTION 153, PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A SHALL ABATE. THE WOR DS 'PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH UND ER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE,' HAVE TO BE ASSIGNED THEI R SIMPLE AND PLAIN MEANING. WHERE THE ASSESSMENT OR R EASSESSMENT IS FINALISED, THERE ARE NO PENDING PROCEEDINGS TO ABATE AND BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE WORD 'ABATEMENT' IS REFERABLE TO SOMETHING WHICH IS PENDING, ALIVE, OR IS SUBJECT TO DEDUCTION. ABATEMENT REFERS TO SUSPENSION OR TERMINATION OF PROCEEDINGS EITHER OF THE MAIN ACTION, OR PROCEEDINGS ANCILLARY OR COLLATERAL TO IT. PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE ALREADY TE RMINATED ARE NOT LIABLE FOR ABATEMENT UNLESS THE STATUTE EXPRESSLY PROVIDES FOR IT. THE WORD 'PENDIN G' OCCURRING IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IS QUALIFIED BY THE WORDS 'ON THE DATE OF I NITIATION OF THE SEARCH', AND MAKES IT ABUNDANTLY C LEAR THAT ONLY SUCH ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT PROCEEDIN GS ARE LIABLE TO ABATE. THE PENDENCY OF AN APPEAL IN THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT AGA INST WHICH AN APPEAL HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IS NOT A CONTINUATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT. AN APPEAL UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT LIES TO THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ON A QUESTION OF LAW. EVEN IF IT IS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WILL NOT ABATE. THE ABATEMENT OF ANY PROCEEDINGS HAS SERIOUS EFFECT INASMUCH AS IT TAKES AWAY ALL THE CONSEQUENC ES THAT ARISE THEREAFTER. THE MATERIAL FOUND IN THE SEARCH MAY BE A GROUND FOR NOTICE AND ASSESSMENT UN DER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT BUT THAT WOULD NOT EFFACE OR TERMINATE ALL THE CONSEQUENCES, WHICH ARI SE OUT OF THE REGULAR ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT RESULTING IN A DEMAND OR PROCEEDINGS FOR PENALTY. 8. WE FURTHER FIND FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE DEL HI HIGH COURT ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA) WHEREIN PARA 20 HONBLE HIGH COURT HAS OBSE RVED THAT IF AN ORDER U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, IN RESPECT OF ANY OF THOSE SIX ASSESSMENT YEAR S, IS ALREADY IN EXISTENCE, HAVING OBVIOUSLY BEEN PASSED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE SEARCH/R EQUISITION, THE AO IS EMPOWERED TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME, TA KING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SEARCH. BUT IN THE PRESENT CA SE BEFORE US, NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS 9 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND EVEN THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION U/S. 80IA AND 80IB OF THE ACT WAS ADDED BY THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF OR IGINAL ASSESSMENT MUCH PRIOR TO SEARCH AND THAT WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL IN ONE YEAR BEFOR E ITAT AND FOR THE OTHER YEAR THE ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION WAS CONFIRMED BY ITAT. IN SUCH CIRCUM STANCES, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CAS E OF SMT. SHAILA AGARWAL (SUPRA) WE CONFIRM THE ORDERS OF CIT(A). 9. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2012. SD/- SD/- . ! ! ! ! . '# , (C. D. RAO) (MAHAVIR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( !# !# !# !#) )) ) DATED : 30TH NOVEMBER, 2012 /0 %12 3 JD.(SR.P.S.) 10 ITA 882 & 883/K/2011 M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD. A.Y.04-05&05-06 '. 4 ,5 6'5'7- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . *+ / APPELLANT DCIT, CENTRAL CIR-XXI, KOLKATA. 2 ,-*+ / RESPONDENT M/S. BMW INDUSTRIES LTD., 12/2, PARK MENSION, 57A, PARK STREET, KOLKATA-700 016. 3 . .% ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. .% / CIT, KOLKATA 5 . >? ,% / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA -5 ,/ TRUE COPY, '.%@/ BY ORDER, 2 /ASSTT. REGISTRAR .
