THE ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL)-1, Indore V. SHRI SUNIL KATARIA, Ratlam

ITSSA 12/IND/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2246 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 12-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P D NAGAR
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJEEV VARSHNEY
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 153A; 32; 147; 132; 15

Judgement Text

ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JM & SHRI N.S. SAINI, AM IT(SS)A NO. 10/IND/2016 : A.Y.2008-09 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX -1 INDORE ::: APPELLANT VS ANIL KATARIA RATLAM ::: RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO. 12/IND/2016 : A.Y.2008-09 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX -1 INDORE ::: APPELLANT VS SUNIL KUMAR KATARIA RATLAM ::: RESPONDENT IT(SS)A NO. 13/IND/2016 : A.Y.2008-09 ASSTT. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX -1 INDORE ::: APPELLANT VS MANOHARLAL KATARIA THROUGH L/H SHRI SANJAY KATARIA RATLAM ::: RESPONDENT ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 2 APPELLANT BY SHRI ANIL SATHE & SHRI P.D. NAGAR RESPONDENT BY SHRI RAJEEV VARSHNEY DATE OF HEARING 12 .7.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14 .7.2016 O R D E R THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDERS DATED 23.11.2015 PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A)- II, INDORE, IN ALL THE CASES OF THESE ASSESSEES. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, THE REVENUE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWIN G COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL :- (I) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CORRECT IN LAW TO HOLD TH AT ADDITIONS BASED ON INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ONLY CAN BE MADE IN ABATED/COMPLETED ASSESSMENT. (II) WHETHER RETURNS PROCESSED U/S 143(1) CAN BE TRE ATED AS COMPLETED ASSESSMENT DESPITE THE FACT THAT HON'BLE APEX COURT HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT PROCESSING OF ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 3 RETURN U/S 143(1) DOES NOT AMOUNT TO ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. RAJESH JHAVERI STOCK BROKERS PVT . LTD. CASE NO. 2830 OF 2007 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT U/S 132 OF THE ACT O N 7 TH SEPTEMBER, 2011 ON KATARIA GROUP OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ONE OF THE MEMBERS. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FIL ED RETURN OF INCOME U/S 139(1) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR ON 27.9.2008 IN THE CASE OF ANIL KATARIA, ON 17.9. 2008 IN THE CASE OF MANOHARLAL KATARIA AND ON 18.9.2008 IN THE CASE OF SANJAY KATARIA. FURTHER THE RETURNS OF INCOME F ILED BY THE ASSESSEES WERE ACCEPTED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND NO NOTICE U/S 143(2) OR 142(1) WAS ISSUED AND ACCORDING LY THE ASSESSMENTS ATTAINED FINALITY DUE TO EXPIRY OF LIMITATIO N PERIOD OF 12 MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WH ICH THE RETURNS WERE FILED. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENTS WERE DEEMED TO BE COMPLETED AND NOT PENDING ON THE DATE OF ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 4 SEARCH ON 7.9.2011. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE CONTEN DED THAT AS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT ON 7.9.2011, NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN AN ASSESSMENT MADE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE FACTS OF THE CASE HELD THAT THERE WERE NO VALID PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF THE ACT AND ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE BY CANCELLING THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN THE CASES OF ALL THESE ASSESSEES. WHILE DOIN G SO, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HELD AS UNDER :- 4.1 I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSEES CONTENSIONS. THE HON'BLE ITAT, INDORE BENCH, INDORE , IN IT(SS) ANOS. 71/IND/2014 IN THE CASE OF M/S KALANI BROS. HAS HELD AS UNDER :- ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 5 8. IN RESPECT OF 153A BAD IN LAW ON THE GROUND THAT ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 143(3) WAS COMPLETED ON 29.12.2006 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED AS ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR EACE OF REFERENCE), THE A.O. TREATED THE SAID LEASE TRANSACTION AS SALE TRANSACTION AND TAXED THE TOTAL SECURITY DEPOSIT RECEIVABLE AS SALE CONSIDERATION OF SALE OF LAND. T HE ADDITION MADE IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT ORDER PERTAI NED TO THE ISSUE ALREADY DEALT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSME NT ORDER I.E. LEASE TRANSACTION CATEGORISED AS SALE TRANSACTION. THE FACT THAT THE AFORESAID ISSUE BEA RS NO RELATION TO ANY OF THE MATERIAL/DOCUMENTS/RECORDS F OUND AND SEIZERD DURING THE SEARCH ACTION ON 16.04.2009. LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED UPON THE CIRCULAR NO. 7 OF 2003 W HICH CLARIFIES THE POSITION OF THE PENDING APPEALS AS ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THE RELEVANT PORTION IS REPRODU CED HEREWITH ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 6 THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS T HE TOTAL INCOME OF EACH OF THESE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTI ON 132A AS THE CASE MAY BE SHALL ABATE. IT IS CLARFIED THAT THE APPEAL REVISION OR RECTIFICATION PROCEEDINGS PE NDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 1 32 OR REQUISITION SHALL NOT ABATE. ACCORDINGLY, AS FAR AS COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THEY DO NOT ABATE. THE A.O. CANNOT PROCE ED TO MAKE THE SAME ADDITION IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COU RSE OF SEARCH. THE SAID VIEW PREVENTS THE A.OI. TO UNDO WH SAT HAS ALREADY BEEN COMPLETED AND HAS BECOME FINAL IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 7 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY BOTH THE SIDES . WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED VARIOUS RELEVANT FACTS OF THE CASE. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT ONCE A SEARCH A ND SEIZURE ACTION HAS TAKEN PLACE U/S 132 OF THE ACT O R A REQUISITION HAS BEEN MADE U/S 132A THE PROVISIONS O F SECTION 153A TRIGGED AND ASSESSING OFFICER IS BOUND TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. ONCE NOTICES ARE ISSUED U/S 153A OF THE ACT THEN ASSESSEE IS LEGALLY OBLIGED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SIX YEARS. THE ASSESSMENT AND REASSESSMENT FOR SIX YEARS SHALL BEFINALISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS ALSO HE LD BY VARIOUS COURTS THAT ONCE NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT ISSUED, THEN ASSESSMENT FOR SIX YEARS SHALL BE AT L ARGE BOTH FOR ASSESSING OFFICER AND ASSESSEE HAVE NO WARRANT OF LAW. IT HAS BEEN ALSO HELD THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS WHERE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 8 ABATED IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A T HEN ASSESSING OFFICER ACTS UNDER ORIGINAL JURISDICTION AND ONE ASSESSMENT IS MADE FOR TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING T HE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. BUT WHERE THERE IS NO ABATEMENT OF ASSESSMENT AND ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH TH EN ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINA TING DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED ASSETS ETC. IN THESE CASES THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT FOUND AND SEIZE D. NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE ABATED IN THESE ASSESSEE. THUS ASSESSMENT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEAR S WERE COMPLETED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSMEN TS WERE COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT READ WITH SECT ION 153A/153C OF THE ACT AFTER THE SEARCH. THERE WAS NO ABATEMENT OF ANY PROCEEDINGS IN THESE CASES FOR THE SE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT. THERE IS NO SEIZED MATERIAL BELONG ING TO ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 9 THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED IN RELATION TO ADDITIONS MADE. IN A RECENT A DECISION, HON'BLE DEL HI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUP RA0 HAS HELD THAT COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS CAN BE INTERFER ED WITH BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ASSESSME NT U/S 153A OF THE ACT 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 WAS NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. IN ALL THESE CASES NO ASSESSMENTS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS. NO ASSESSMENT S WERE ABATED IN TERMS OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECION 15 3A OF THE ACT. HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) HAS CONSIDERED VARIOUS HIGH COURT DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE LEARNED DR. THE ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 10 HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED THE CASES O F CANARA HOUSING DEV. CO. VS. DCIT; MNADUGULA VS. DCIT; CIT VS. CHETANDAS LAXMANDAS AND CIT VS. ANIL KUMAR BHATIA (SUPRA). THE ONLY DECISION OF THE HON' BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE ASE OF CIT VS. RAJ KUMA R ARORA; 367 ITR 517 RELIED UPON BYTHE LEARNED DR WAS NOT CONSIDEERED BY HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA. THE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT HAS REVERSED THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND REMANDED THE ISSUE TO THE TRIBUNAL TO CONSIDER THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT ON MERITS. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSS IBLE ON A PARTICULAR ISSUE THEN THE VIEW FAVOURABLE TO T HE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCT S; 88 ITR 192. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TH E HON'BLE APEX COURT, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 11 THE REVENUE. DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS ARE DISPOSED ACCORDINGLY. 4.2 HON'BLE ITAT INDORE BENCH INDORE HAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZE D DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION IN NON-ABATED ASSE SSMENT ORDER WHILE PASSING THE ORDER U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3 ) OF THE ACT. THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KALANI BROS. HAS A GAIN BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE HON'BLE INDORE BENCH INDORE IN THE CASE OF M/S ANANT STEEL PVT. LTD. INDORE IN IT(SS) A NO. 31, 28, 29 & 30/IND/2010 VIDE ORDER DATED 18.11.2015. 4.3 THE HON'BLE ITAT INDORE BENCH INDORE WHILE ARRIVING AT THE ABOVE DECISION HAS DISCUSSED ALL TH E RECENT DECISIONS ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF SEC. 153A IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SE IZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND HELD THAT IT IS A S ETTLED LEGAL POSITION THAT WHEN TWO VIEWS ARE POSSIBLE ON A ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 12 PARTICULAR ISSUE THEN THE ABOVE FAVOURABLE TO THE A SSESSEE SHOULD BE FOLLOWED AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE APEX COUR T IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEGETABLE PRODUCTS, 88 ITR 192. 4.4 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT STATING THAT NO DO CUMENT, PAPER, BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, ARTICLE OR ANY MATERIAL WHATSOEVER PERTAINING TO ANY INCOME CHARGEABLE TO T AX IN HIS HANDS WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. TH E APPELLANT HASA FURTHER DECLARED THAT EVEN AFTER THE SEARCH AND PRIOR TO THE COMMENCEMENTS OF THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENENT PROCEEDINGS IN HIS CASE N O DOCUMENT, PAPER OR INFORMATION PERTAINING TO HIS IN COME WAS REQUISITIONED BY THE DEPARTMENT AT ANY POINT OF TIME. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO AFFIRMED THAT NO DOCUMENT PERTAINING TO HIS OCCUPATION, TENANCY RIGHTS, ACQUI SITION OF TENANCY RIGHTS, SALE OF ALLOTMENT RIGHTS OR SALE OF ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 13 PERMANENT ALTERNATE ACCOMMODATION WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH. 4.5 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENT WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND FOLLOWING THE DECIS IONS OF THE JURISDICTIONAL ITAT CITED ABOVE, I ALLOW THE AP PEAL ON THE GROUND OF VALIDITY OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A OF T HE IT ACT. GROUND NO. 1 IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 5. THE ONLY CONTENTION OF THE REVENUE IS THAT AS THE RETURN WAS ONLY PROCESSED U/S 143(1), THE SAME CANNOT BE TREATED AS AN ASSESSMENT AND RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH JHAVE RI STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. CASE NO. 2830 OF 2007. THER EFORE, ASSESSMENT WAS VALIDLY MADE U/S 153A OF THE ACT. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 14 7. WE FIND THAT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN THE CASES OF ALL THESE ASSESSEES HE HAS PLACED RELIANC E ON THE DECISION OF THIS BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN IT( SS) A NO. 71/IND/2014 IN THE CASE OF KALANI BROTHERS AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KABUL CHAWLA (2015) 61 TAXMAN. 412 (DEL) WHICH IS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE ABOVE PROPOSITION. THE LEARNED DR COULD NOT CITE ANY CONTRARY DECISION BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KABUL CHAWLA (SUPRA) TAKING NOTE OF QUESTION POSED IN TH E CASE OF ANIL KUMAR BHATIA WHICH READS AS UNDER :- '21. A QUESTION MAY ARISE AS TO HOW THIS IS SOUGHT TO 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 OB VIOUSLY BEEN PASSED PRIOR TO THE INITIATION OF THE SEARCH/REQUISITION, THE ASSES SING OFFICER IS EMPOWERED TO REOPEN THOSE PROCEEDINGS AND REASSESS THE TOTAL INC OME, TAKING NOTE OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF ANY, UNEARTHED DURING THE SE ARCH. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE FETTERS IMPOSED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE S TRICT 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.' ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 15 THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF DELHI HELD 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 PERSON SEARCHED REQUIRING HIM TO FILE RETURNS FOR SIX AYS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE PREVI OUS YEAR RELEVANT TO THE AY IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES P LACE. II . ASSESSMENTS AND REASSESSMENTS PENDING ON THE DATE O F THE SEARCH SHALL ABATE. THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SUCH AYS WILL HAVE TO B E COMPUTED BY T HE 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 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 YEARS. 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 BROUGHT TO TAX'. IV . ALTHOUGH SE CTION 153 A DOES NOT SAY THAT ADDITIONS SHOULD BE S TRICTLY MADE ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, OR OTHER POST- SEARCH MATERIAL OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE WITH THE A O WHICH CAN BE RELATED TO THE EVIDENCE FOUND, IT DOES NOT MEAN THAT THE ASSESSMENT 'CAN BE ARBITRARY OR MADE WITHOUT ANY RELEVANCE OR NEXUS WITH THE SEI ZED MATERIAL. OBVIOUSLY AN ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE UNDER THIS SECTION ONL Y 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 REASSESSMEN T CAN BE MADE. THE WORD 'ASSESS' IN SECTION 153 A IS RELATABLE TO ABAT ED PROCEEDINGS (I.E. THOSE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH) AND THE WORD 'REASSESS' TO COMPLETED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CEEDINGS. VI . INSOFAR AS PENDING ASSESSMENTS ARE CONCERNED, THE J URISDICTION TO MAKE THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 153A MERGES INTO ONE. ONLY ONE ASSESSMENT SHALL BE MAD E SEPARATELY FOR EACH AY ON THE ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 16 BASIS OF THE FINDINGS OF THE SEARCH AND ANY OTHER M ATERIAL EXISTING 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 T HE BASIS OF SOME INCRIMINATING MATERIAL UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR R EQUISITION OF DOCUMENTS OR UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR PROPERTY DISCOVERED IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED OR NOT ALREADY DISCLOSED OR MADE KNOWN IN THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT. 9. HENCE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) WHICH IS IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL O F THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 10. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14 JULY, 2016 SD/- SD/- (D.T. GARASIA) (N.S. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER 14 TH JULY, 2016 DN/- ACIT VS. ANIL KATARIA & OTHERS ITA NOS. 10,12 & 13/IND/2016 17