Smt. Reena Gambhir, New Delhi V. Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax, Gurgaon

ITA 901/CHANDI/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6851 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 5 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Next Hearing Date: 13-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 16-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAVI SARANGALCIT
• Keywords: Gift; Revision of order; Search and seizure; Deemed dividend
• Section: 56(2); 153A; 6; 56; 263; 63

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.901/CHD/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) SMT.REENA GAMBHIR, VS. THE PRINCIPAL C.I.T., N-56, PANCHSHEEL PARK, GURGAON. NEW DELHI. PAN: AAGPG8771N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI PARIKSHIT AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAVI SARANGAL,CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.09.2017 ORDER PER ANNAPURNA GUPTA, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAI NST THE ORDER OF LD. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (CENTRAL) (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS LD.PR.CIT), G URGAON DATED 3.11.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 196 1 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE PRESENT APPEAL AR E THAT, PURSUANT TO SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE,INITIA LLY ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153A(1)(B) OF THE ACT WAS PASS ED ON 31.1.2014 FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THEREA FTER ON EXAMINING THE RECORDS, THE LD.PR.CIT FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED TWO GIFTS OF RS.10 LACS AND R S.5 LACS DURING THE YEAR FROM M/S RAMESH CHANDRA KAPOOR & SO NS (HUF), WHICH ACCORDING TO HIM WAS TAXABLE IN THE HA NDS OF 2 THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56 OF THE ACT. HE FOUND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO T AX THE SAME AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS A PRIMA FACIE CASE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDI CIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U /S 263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE ASSESSMENT SHOULD NOT BE REVISED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE IMPUGNED G IFT WAS NOT TAXABLE AND RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENT OF THE RAJ KOT BENCH OF THE I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF VINEETKUMAR RAGHAVJIBHAI, BHALODIA VS. ITO, 140 TTJ 58 IN THIS REGARD. THE LD.PR.CIT REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE, DISTINGUISHING THE CASE LAW RELIED UPON BY THE ASSE SSEE AND HOLDING THE GIFT TO BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD.PR.CIT THEREAFTER DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFF ICER TO ENHANCE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS.15 LACS. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED PR ESENT APPEAL BEFORE US RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THAT THE ORDER OF THE ID. PRINCIP AL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(CENTRAL)(PCIT), GURGAON PASSED ON 3.11.2 015 WAS ILLEGAL, ERRONEOUS, PERVERSE AND THUS UNCALLED FOR. 2. THAT THE ID. PCIT IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING T HE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, WHICH IS V OID AB-INITIO AND THEREBY HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ID. ASS ESSING OFFICER (AO) U/S 153A(L)(B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, AFTER PERUSING FOR COMPLETE DETAILS AS EVEN FILED ALONG WITH THE I NCOME TAX RETURN AND AFTER DUE APPLICATION OF MIND AND PERUSING THE CONCERNED PROVISIONS OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3 3. THAT SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. CONFERS POWER TO EXAMI NE AN ASSESSMENT ORDER SO AS TO ASCERTAIN WHETHER IT IS E RRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE BUT DOES NOT CONFER JURISDICTION TO SUBSTITUTE HIS OPINION FOR THE OPIN ION OF THE AO. 4. THAT GIFT OF RS.15.00 LACS MADE UNDER GIFT DEED BETWEEN KARTA OF (HUF)MR.RAMESH CHANDER KAPOOR (FATHER) FOR HER DAUGHTER(APPELLANT) SMT.REENA GAMBHIR OUT OF NATURA L LOVE AND AFFECTION. SURJEET LAI CHHABDA V CIT (1975) 101 ITR 776 (SC) RECOGNIZE HUF CONSTITUTES ALL PERSONS LINEALLY DESCENDED FROM A COMMON ANCESTOR. ALL THESE PERSONS FALL IN THE DEFINITION OF RELATIVE AS PROVIDED IN EXPLANATION T O CLAUSE (VI) OF SECTION 56(2) OF THE ACT. HUF IS A GROUP OF RELATIV ES. 5. THAT SECTION 56(2)(VI) ALONG WITH THE EXPLANAT ION TO THAT SECTION AND ON UNDERSTANDING THE INTENTION OF LEGIS LATURE FROM THE SECTION IT COULD BE SEEN THAT A GIFT RECEIVED FROM RELATIVE, IRRESPECTIVE OF WHETHER IT IS FROM INDIVIDUAL RELAT IVE OR FROM A GROUP OF RELATIVES IS EXEMPT FROM TAX AS A G ROUP OF RELATIVES ALSO FALLS WITHIN THE EXPLANATION TO SECT ION 56(2)(VI) OF THE ACT. IT IS NOT EXPRESSLY DEFINED IN THE EXPLANA TION THAT THE WORD RELATIVE REPRESENT A SINGLE PERSON. 6. THAT SECTION 6 OF THE HINDU SUCCESSION (AMENDMEN T) ACT, 2005, EXPRESS THAT DEVOLUTION OF INTEREST IN COPARC ENARIES PROPERTY, THE DAUGHTER OF COPARCENER SHALL A) BY BI RTH BECOME A COPARCENER IN HER OWN RIGHT IN THE SAME MANNER AS T HE SON; B)HAVE THE SAME RIGHTS IN THE COPARCENARIES PROPERT Y AS SHE WOULD HAVE HAD IF SHE HAD BEEN A SON; (C) BE SUBJEC T TO THE SAME LIABILITIES IN RESPECT OF THE SAID COPARCENARI ES PROPERTY AS THAT OF A SON. 7. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON OR BEFORE THE DISPOSAL OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. 4. AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAS CONTESTED THE ORDER PASSED ON BOTH THE LEGAL ISSUE OF ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION U/S 2 63 OF THE 4 ACT AS WELL AS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE OF MAKING ADDITION OF THE IMPUGNED GIFT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. WE SHALL FIRST BE DEALING WITH THE LEGAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.2. BEFORE US LD COUNS EL FOR THE ASSESSEE FIRST CONTENDED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE HELD TO BE ERRONEOUS AT ALL SINCE THE AO COULD NOT HAVE MADE THE IMPUGNED ADD ITION IN THE SAID ORDER AS PER LAW. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAD BE EN PASSED U/S 153A OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE TO SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT THAT AS ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, ASSESSMENT STOOD COMPLETED SINCE THE TIME PERIOD FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT HAD EXPIRED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER STATED THAT IN SUCH CASES ADDITION IN AS SESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153A COULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH WHICH IN THE PRESENT CASE WAS ABSENT VIS--VIS THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF THE SAID GIFTS COULD NOT HAVE BEEN MADE IN ANY CASE IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A AND ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTIO N BY THE LD.PR.CIT HOLDING THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A AS ERRONEOUS ON THIS COUNT IS, THEREFORE, INCORRECT. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FOLL OWING FACTS TO SUBSTANTIATE IS PLEADINGS: A) ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED 2007-08 B) RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS FILED ON 31-07-2007. 5 C) THE DATE FOR ISSUING NOTICE U/S 143(2) EXPIRED O N 30-09-08 AND NO NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. D) SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 8.9.2011 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT T HE ABOVE FACTS CLEARLY SHOW THAT THE ASSESSMENT FOR TH E IMPUGNED YEAR STOOD COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF INITIA TION OF SEARCH. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE THEREAFTER DR EW OUR ATTENTION TO THE FACT THAT IN A NUMBER OF CASES THE HON'BLE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT IN CASE OF COMPLETED ASSESSME NTS, ASSESSMENT U/S 153A COULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH. 1) CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA, 380 ITR 573 (DEL) 2) THE PRINCIPAL CIT VS. LATA JAIN ITA NO.274/2016 ORDER DATED 29.4.2016 (DEL) 3) DCIT VS. TIMES FINVEST & COMMERCE LTD. & ANR. (2015) 45 CH 324 (CHD.TRIB.) 7. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE ALSO POINTED OUT TH AT THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT MAKES NO MENTION OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE GIFTS RECEIV ED BY THE ASSESSEE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE LD . COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE ORDER OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS, THEREFORE, NOT ERRONEOUS AT ALL AND TH E LD.PR.CIT HAD ERRED IN ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/ S 263 OF THE ACT. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. SHRI. MA HESH KUMAR GUPTA IN ITA 810/2016 & CM NOS.43256- 43257/2016 DT.22-11-2016 IN THIS REGARD. 6 8. THE LD. DR, ON THE OTHER HAND STATED THAT NON- INCLUSION OF GIFT WHICH WAS CLEARLY TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S 56 OF THE ACT, TANTAMONTED TO ERRO R HAVING BEEN CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WH ICH CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE LD.PR.CIT WAS, TH EREFORE, VALID. 9. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES WE FIND MERIT IN T HE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASSESSEE. UNDISP UTEDLY, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH HAD BEEN HELD TO BE ERRO NEOUS BY THE LD.PR.CIT WAS PASSED IN PURSUANCE TO SEARCH CONDUCTED, U/S 153A OF THE ACT. ALSO IT IS NOT DIS PUTED THAT AS ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH THE ASSESSME NT FOR THE IMPUGNED YEAR STOOD COMPLETED. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER, THEREFORE, COULD HAVE MADE ADDITION IN THE ORDER PA SSED U/S 153A OF THE ACT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. VARIOUS DECISIO NS OF HON'BLE HIGH COURT AND ITAT CHANDIGARH BENCH HAVE L AID DOWN THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS KABUL CHAWLA (2016) 380 ITR 573(DEL) LAID DOWN THIS PROPOSITION HOLDING AS UNDER ON A CONSPECTUS OF SECTION 153A(1) READ WITH THE PRO VISOS THERETO, AND IN THE LIGHT OF THE LAW EXPLAINED IN TH E AFOREMENTIONED DECISIONS, THE LEGAL POSITION THAT EMERGE S WAS THAT, FIRSTLY, ONCE A SEARCH TAKES PLACE U/S 132, NOTI CE U/S 153A(1) WILL HAVE TO BE MANDATORILY ISSUED TO THE PER SON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMM EDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WH ICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. SECONDLY, ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO BE COMPUTE D BY THE AOS AS A FRESH EXERCISE. THIRDLY, AO WILL EXERCISE NOR MAL ASSESSMENT POWERS IN RESPECT OF THE SIX YEARS PREVIO US TO THE 7 RELEVANT AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE. THE AO H AS THE POWER TO ASSESS AND REASSESS THE 'TOTAL INCOME' OF T HE AFOREMENTIONED SIX YEARS IN SEPARATE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS FOR EACH OF THE SIX YEARS. IN OTHER WORDS THERE WILL BE ON LY ONE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN RESPECT OF EACH OF THE SIX AYS IN WHICH BOTH THE DISCLOSED AND THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME WOULD B E BROUGHT TO TAX. FOURTHLY, ALTHOUGH SECTION 153A DOE S NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE STRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS O F EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST- SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE AO WH ICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT ME AN THAT THE ASSESSMENT CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELE VANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEIZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSME NT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. FIFTHLY, IN ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL, THE COMPLETED ASSESSMENT CAN BE REITERATED AND THE AB ATED ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'AS SESS' IN SECTION 153A WAS RELATABLE TO ABATED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD ' REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. SIXTHLY, INSOFA R AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE JURISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A MERGES 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 ON THE RECORD OF THE AO. SEVENTHLY, COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFERED WITH BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT U/S 153A ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION 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 ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 10. THE SAME WAS REITERATED IN THE FOLLOWING DECISI ONS ALSO PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. SAUMYA CONSTRUCTION P. LTD.(2016) 387 ITR 0529 (GUJ) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. MS. LATA JAIN (2016) 384 ITR 0543 (DELHI) PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. DEVANGI ALIAS RUPA (2017) 98 CCH 0051 GUJ HC 11. HAVING SAID SO WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ORDER O F THE LD.PR.CIT PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT FINDS NO MENTIO N OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH RELATING TO IMPUGNED GIFTS. IN FACT, THE LD. COUNS EL FOR ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US THAT IT WAS DUR ING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A THAT A 8 QUESTIONNAIRE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE DATED 7.8. 2013 ASKING THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS OF ANY GIFT MAD E OR RECEIVED DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE COPY OF CAPITAL ACCOUNT DISCLOSING THE IMPUGNED GIFTS RECEIVED FROM RAMESH CHANDER KAP OOR & SONS (HUF). IT IS EVIDENT, THEREFORE, THAT IT WAS ON THE BASIS OF THIS INFORMATION WHICH WAS PROCURED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND NOT ON THE BAS IS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH LED THE LD.PR.CIT TO BELIEVE THAT AN E RROR HAD CREPT IN THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE THEREFORE AGREE WITH THE LD. COUNSEL FOR ASS ESSEE THAT SINCE NO INFORMATION RELATING TO THE IMPUGNED GIFTS WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER COULD NOT HAVE MADE ANY ADDITION VIS--VIS THE SAID GIFTS IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 153A AND, THEREFORE, THE LD.PR .CIT CANNOT NOW HOLD THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS ERRONEOUS FOR NOT MAKING ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME. THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAHESH GUPTA(SUPRA) HAS IN IDENTICAL FACTUAL MATRIX, WHERE THE ORDER SOUGHT TO BE REVISED WAS PASSED U/S 153A AND THE ADDITION SOUGHT TO BE MADE WAS NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH, HELD TH E ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE CIT U/S 263 AS BA D. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH C OURT IS AS UNDER: 1. THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE INC OME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (ITAT) AND URGES THAT THE IMPU GNED ORDER, INASMUCH AS IT UPSET AND SET ASIDE THE ADDIT ION 9 MADE BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CIT) IN EXER CISE OF THE POWERS UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1963 (IN SHORT THE ACT) BRINGING TO TAX CERTAIN AMOUNTS AS 'D EEMED DIVIDEND' UNDER SECTION 2(22)(E) OF THE ACT, WAS ERRO NEOUS. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT FURTHER TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURNS U NDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETE D BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO). THE JURISDICTIONAL CIT WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BOTH PREJUDIC IAL AND ERRONEOUS TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE AND DIRECT ED ITS REVISION INASMUCH AS AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 2(22) (E) OF THE ACT WAS MANDATED. THE ASSESSEE SUCCESSFULLY APPEA LED TO THE ITAT. 3. THE ITAT CONCLUDED BASED UPON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATIONS DID NOT YIELD ANY FRESH MATERIAL WARRANTING ADDITION UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, COULD NOT CLOTHE TH E CIT WITH THE AUTHORITY TO ADD AN AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF A FR ESH APPRAISAL OF THE EXISTING MATERIALS THAT FORMED PART OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IT IS URGED BY THE REVENUE THAT C IT ACTED WITHIN HIS JURISDICTION IN CONCLUDING THAT THE AO ERRONEOUSLY DID NOT BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNT THAT HA D TO BE INCLUDED UNDER SECTION2(22)(E)FACIALLY ITSELF, THEREFORE , THE CIT'S ORDER WAS JUSTIFIED, CONSEQUENTLY, THE ITAT S HOULD NOT HAVE INTERFERED WITH THAT DETERMINATION. 4. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE PROCEEDINGS IN THIS CASE DID NOT RESULT IN ANYTHING, THEREFORE, MATERIAL EITHER IN THE FORM OF BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVID END UNDER SECTION 2(22) OF THE ACT. THE AMOUNTS PAID WER E IN FACT ORIGINALLY DECLARED IN THE ASSESSMENT RETURNS OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE CIT, THEREFORE, HAD OPPORTUNITY TO EXE RCISE HIS POWERS AS IT WERE ON THE BASIS OF RETURNS AS FILED OR IGINALLY AND VALIDLY UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. 5. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATER IAL DISCLOSING THAT THE ISSUE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND HAD BEEN WILLFULLY DERIVED OR HAD BEEN DEEMED OR OTHERWISE WIT HHELD FROM THE ASSESSMENT AN ADDITION UNDER SECTION 153 A W AS WARRANTED-BASED ON THE PROPOSITION TAUGHT BY THIS COUR T IN JUDGMENT DATED 28.08.2015 IN ITA 707/2014 TITLED: CIT VS KABUL CHAWLA. THEREFORE, WE CONCUR WITH THE ITAT'S OPINION IN THIS REGARD. THE SEARCH AND SEIZUR E PROCEEDINGS IN SUCH CASES ARE UNDOUBTEDLY MEANT TO B RING TO TAX AMOUNT THAT ARE TO BE DETERMINED ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SUCH SEARCHES; PERM ITTING ANYTHING OVER AND ABOVE THAT WOULD VIRTUALLY AMOUNT TO LETTING THE REVENUE HAVE A THIRD OR FOURTH OPINION AS IT WERE. SEARCHES - TO QUOTE THE VIEW OF ATTORNEY-GENERAL (N SW) VS QUIN (1990) HCA 21 IN ANOTHER CONTEXT ARE 'NOT THE K EY WHICH UNLOCKS THE TREASURY' OF THE REVENUE'S JURISD ICTION IN REGARD TO MATTERS THAT HAD ATTRACTED ATTENTION IN T HE REGULAR COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. 10 6. FOR THE ABOVE REASONS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THA T NO QUESTIONS OF LAW ARISE. THE APPEAL IS, THEREFORE, DISMISSED. 13. FOR THIS REASON ALONE WE HOLD THAT THE LD.PR.CI T HAS ERRED IN ASSUMING THE JURISDICTION U/S 263 OF THE A CT TO REVISE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE, THE REFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD.PR.CIT. 14. SINCE WE HAVE HELD THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTI ON BY THE LD.PR.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT TO BE INVALID, WE DO NOT CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH THE MERITS OF TH E ADDITION MADE SINCE IT WOULD ONLY BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. NOR DO WE CONSIDER IT NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH OTHER LEGAL G ROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS A LLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG) (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 21 ST SEPTEMBER, 2017 *RATI* COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 11