ACIT, Salem V. Shri R.Rajendran, Tiruchengode

ITSSA 134/CHNY/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7704 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 7 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-03-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 05-03-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 03-08-2005
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIRUDH RAI
• Assessee Lawyers: M NARAYANAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Block assessment
• Section: 132; 143(3); 142(1); 133A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.127(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 LATE(DR.) N.A.RENGASAMY, BY L/R SRI R.RAJENDRAN, RAJA SIDDHA HOSPITAL, PALLIPALAYAM ROAD, THOKKAVADI P.O., THIRUCHENGODE TK. PAN AFFPR0019C. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NOS.133 & 134(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 & ITA NO.2469(MDS)/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER LATE (DR.) N. A.RENGASAMY, OF INCOME-TAX, VS. BY L /R SRI R.RAJENDRAN, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM. THOKKA VADI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O. NOS.72 & 73(MDS)/2008 IN IT(SS)A NOS.133 & 134(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 LATE(DR.) N.A.RENGASAMY, THE ASSISTAN T COMMISSIONER BY L/R SRI R.RAJENDRAN, VS. OF INCOME-T AX, THOKKAVADI. CE NTRAL CLE., SALEM. (CROSS OBJECTOR) ( APPELLANT IN APPEALS) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.NARAYANAN RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, IRS, COM MISSIONER OF IT - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 2 DATE OF HEARING : 5 TH MARCH, 2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 5 TH MARCH, 2012 O R D E R PER DR.O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT: THIS IS A BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS AND TWO CROSS OBJ ECTIONS. OUT OF THE FOUR APPEALS, THREE ARE BLOCK ASSESSMENT APPEALS. THE REMAINING ONE IS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT APPEAL. IT(SS)A NO.127(MDS)/2005 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSE E SHRI R.RAJENDRAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LA TE DR. N.A.RENGASAMY. IT(SS)A NO.133(MDS)/2005 IS THE CORR ESPOND- ING CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- TAX(APPEALS) AT SALEM, PASSED ON 2-6-2005 AND ARISE OUT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC, REA D WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961. 2. THE APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.134(MDS)/2005 IS AGAIN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT SALEM, DATED 2-6-2005, WHICH ARISES OUT - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. 3. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2469(MDS)/2006 IS AGAIN FI LED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT SALEM, DATED 9-8-2006, WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE REGULAR ASS ESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. 4. THE CROSS OBJECTIONS IN C.O. NOS.72 & 73(MDS)/20 08 ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED UNDER SEC TIONS 158BC AND 158BD IN IT(SS)A NOS.133 & 134(MDS)/2005. 5. IN ALL THESE CASES THE ASSESSEE IS SHRI R.RAJEN DRAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE DR.N.A.RE NGASAMY. 6. IN SECTION 158BC BLOCK ASSESSMENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE GROUNDS ARE AGAINST THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AMOUNTING T O ` 1,68,470/- RELATING TO CONSULTANCY CHARGES. 7. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MATTE R OF SECTION 158BC BLOCK ASSESSMENT, THE REVENUE HAS RAI SED GROUNDS AGAINST THE VARIOUS RELIEFS GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 4 OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ADDITI ONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY TH E REVENUE IN THE MATTER OF SECTION 158BD BLOCK ASSESSMENT, AGAIN THE GROUNDS RELATE TO SUCH RELIEFS GRANTED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AGAINST THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS S USTAINED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY. 8. IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN THE MATTE R OF REGULAR ASSESSMENT, THE MAIN GROUND IS THAT THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS FAILED TO OBSERVE THAT M /S. R.S. PHARMACEUTICALS WAS THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOT A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, AS OBSERVED BY THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 9. IN THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS RAISED VERY SERIOUS LEGAL GROUNDS GOING TO THE ROOT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ITSELF. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN L AW, AS THE ASSESSMENTS WERE NOT COMPLETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BUT ONLY IN THE LIGH T OF MATERIALS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED BEFORE THE SEARCH. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LEGAL FRAME AND C ONSEQUENCE - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 5 OF ACTIONS UNDER SECTIONS 132 AND 133A ARE QUITE DI FFERENT AND, THEREFORE, THE ACTIONS CONCLUDED UNDER THESE TWO DI FFERENT SECTIONS CANNOT BE TREATED AS SIMULTANEOUS AND ANAL OGOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION TO FRAME BLOCK ASSESSMENTS. BLOCK ASSESSMENT SHOULD BE COMPLETED ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF MATERIALS COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132. 10. WHEN THESE MATTERS WERE CALLED ON FOR HEARING, SHRI ANIRUDH RAI, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX , APPEARED FOR THE REVENUE AND SHRI M.NARAYANAN, THE LEARNED A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE, APPEARED FOR THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX CONTENDED THAT THOUGH A SURVEY ACTION WAS CARRIED O UT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME WAS CONVERTED INTO A SEARCH, AS PERMITTED BY LAW AND MATERIALS AND EVIDENCES WERE C OLLECTED AND CONCLUDED IN CONSEQUENCE OF THAT SEARCH AND, TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE T HAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED IN THE JOINT LI GHT OF SECTIONS 132 AND 133A. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX EXPLAINED THAT THESE ASSESSMENTS WERE COMPLETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARC H ITSELF, WHICH - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 6 WAS LAWFULLY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132. THE SURV EY, CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTION 133A, WAS ONLY A PRELUDE TO THE S EARCH AND THAT PRELUDE DOES NOT IN ANY WAY INVALIDATE THE SEA RCH CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR DILUTE THE PRO BATIVE VALUE OF MATERIALS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 12. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT THE PRELIMINARY LEGAL OBJ ECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY HIM ARE TO BE DISMISSED AT THE THRESHOLD ITSELF AND THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NEED TO BE ADDRESSED ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE. 13. SHRI M.NARAYANAN, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE O THER HAND, EXPLAINED IN DETAIL THAT THE ACTION AND CONSEQUENCE CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 133A ARE HAVING A DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT LEGAL CHARACTER FROM THE ACTION AND CONSEQUENCE CON TEMPLATED IN A SEARCH PERMITTED UNDER SECTION 132. IF THE AC TIONS CARRIED OUT UNDER SECTIONS 133A AND 132 ARE FINALLY COMPOUN DED AS A SINGLE PROCESS OF OPERATION HAVING ANALOGOUS LEGAL CHARACTER, THEN THERE WAS NO NEED FOR PROVIDING SUCH DIFFERENT SECTIONS IN THE ACT ENABLING THE OFFICERS TO CARRY OUT FIELD OP ERATIONS TO - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 7 COLLECT EVIDENCES. THE ACTIONS PROVIDED UNDER SECT IONS 133A AND 132 ARE NOT COMPLIMENTARY TO EACH OTHER AND THO SE ACTIONS CANNOT BE SUBSTITUTED FOR EACH OTHER. THE ACTIONS UNDER THOSE SECTIONS ARE DISTINCT, DIFFERENT, INDEPENDENT AND M UTUALLY EXCLUSIVE. 14. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTE D, THEREFORE, THAT A BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE STRICT LY COMPLETED IN THE LIGHT OF THE MATERIALS COLLECTED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND ITS STRENGTH SHOULD NOT BE EXTENDED OVER TO THE MATERIALS COLLECTED IN AN ANTECEDENT SURVEY. 15. COMING CLOSER TO THE FACTS OF THESE CASES, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINED THAT AL MOST ALL THE MAJOR ITEMS OF MATERIALS DISCUSSED BY THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY IN THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE C OURSE OF SURVEY CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 133A. THE COST OF C ONSTRUCTION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY B Y THE INSPECTORS WHO HAVE SIGNED AT PAGES 6 AND 140 OF TH E SAID ACCOUNT BOOKS. THE INSPECTORS CAN PLACE SIGNATURES ONLY IN AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 133A AND NOT IN ACTION UNDER S ECTION 132. IT IS ONLY THE AUTHORIZED OFFICER WHO CAN AFFIX HIS SI GNATURE IN AN - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 8 ACTION UNDER SECTION 132. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR T HAT IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES THE DOCUMENTS WERE EXAMINED AND DETAI LS WERE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, WHICH WERE LATER SEIZED UNDER SECTION 132. IT IS THE CASE OF THE LEARNED AUTHORI ZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT AN INCOME OF ` 56,90,500/- WAS ALREADY OFFERED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 133 A ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVE Y AND THEREFORE THE SAID INCOME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN T HE COURSE OF A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE RELIED ON A DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. G.K.SENNIAPPAN, 284 ITR 220, WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT THE INFORMATION, MATERIALS, ETC. AVAILABLE TO AN ASSESS ING AUTHORITY CANNOT BE SEGMENTED AND CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION. A LL THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOU LD BE RELATABLE AND IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES ALL SUCH MATERIALS HAVE T O BE CONSTRUED AS COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE AGAIN EXTENDED FOR MAKING A BLOCK ASSESSM ENT. HE ALSO RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS H IGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. P.K.GANESHWAR, 308 ITR 124. - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 9 10. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EXPLAINE D THAT THE SCHEME OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS RESTING ON T HE WORDS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND THE UNDERLYING PR INCIPLE IS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF MATERIALS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SE ARCH, BLOCK ASSESSMENTS CANNOT BE MADE ON THE STRENGTH OF THOSE MATERIALS. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.BHUVANENDRAN & OTHER S, 303 ITR 235. 11. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ALSO EXPLAINED TO DISTINGUISH THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SIVABALA DEVI(SMT.) ON THE GRO UND THAT THE LEGAL IMPLICATION OF THE EXPRESSION FOUND AS A RES ULT OF SEARCH HAD NOT BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE ADDRESSED ONLY THE ISSUE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, BUT NOT THE STATUTORY CONDITION PROVIDED IN SECTION 158BB(1) THAT THE COMPUTATION MUST REST ON THE MATERIALS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. 12. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER, WHILE DISTINGUISHING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 10 MANGARAM CHAUDHARY(HUF), 308 ITR (AT) 83 (HYD.), RE PLIED THE SUMMING UP PARA 23 OF THE SAID ORDER OF THE TRIBUNA L AS FOLLOWS:- A) IT IS STATED IN THIS SUB-PARA THAT THERE IS NO FORMAL COMMENCEMENT AND COMPLETION OF SURVEY: BUT, THE REQUIREMENT OF NOTING THE COMMENCEMENT AND CLOSURE OF THE SEARCH ALSO IS NOT PROVIDED UNDER EITHER THE CR.P.C. OR THE IT ACT AND THE IT RULES. THE CBDT H AS ISSUED INSTRUCTIONS TO THE OFFICERS ON SURVEY TO NO TE THE SAME. THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED IN THE FORM OF INFORMATION OBTAINED UNDER RTI ACT HAS BEEN FILED B Y THE RESPONDENT. IT IS FURTHER STATED THAT IF THERE IS NO PROVISION MADE BY THE STATUTE, IT CANNOT BE HELD AG AINST THE ASSESSEE. THE DEPARTMENT WHICH PILOTS THE ENACTMENT CANNOT TAKE BENEFIT OUT OF ITS OWN FAILUR E. B) SO FAR AS SUB-PARA B) IS CONCERNED, IT IS STATED THAT SURVEY OPERATION IS ONLY AN INVESTIGATION. BUT THE POWERS UNDER SEARCH AND SURVEY ARE DIFFERENT. WHEN THERE ARE TWO DIFFERENT PROCEDURES WITH POWERS TO DIFFERENT AUTHORITIES, THEY ARE NOT ONE AND THE SAM E. - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 11 BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE SECTION SPECIFIC TO DEAL WITH CASES OF SECTION 132 AND 132A ONLY. IT CANNOT ROP E IN 133A CASES WHERE THE EVIDENCE IS FOUND AS A RESULT OF SURVEY WHICH MAY SUBSEQUENTLY SEIZED IN SEARCH. SEIZURE IS NOT THE SINE QUA NON FOR 158 BC OR 158BD . THERE IS NO PANCHA IN SURVEY. ONLY TO GET SPECIAL POWERS WHICH ARE NOT AVAILABLE IN SURVEY, IT WAS CONVERTED INTO SEARCH. NO ONE CAN ASSERT THAT WHAT WAS FOUND AND KEPT UNDER SURVEY U/S 133A WAS AGAIN SEARCHED FOR TO SEIZE THEM U/S 132. FOR APPLICATIO N OF SECTION 132, SEARCH IS THE PRE-REQUISITE, WHICH WIL L NOT EXIST IN THE CASE OF DOCUMENTS FOUND IN SURVEY, WHE N CONTINUED BY SEARCH. ONLY CASE WHERE SECTION 158BC OR 158BD WILL APPLY WITHOUT A SEARCH IS 132A. C) SUB-PARA C) IS REPLIED AS UNDER: A. THE EVIDENTIAL VALUE IS AVAILABLE AS PER 308 ITR 129 WHICH HAD FOLLOWED SUPREME COURT DECISION. HENCE THE OBSERVATION OF THE AT REQUIRES RECONSIDERATION. - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 12 B. THE DISCLOSURE IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH 133A(1)(III ) READ WITH 133A(1)(I) AND TO THIS EXTENT THE DECISION REQ UIRES RECONSIDERATION. C. THE ABSENCE OF THE PROCEEDINGS OR FAILURE TO INI TIATE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 142(1) OR 148 CANNOT AUTHORIZE INVOCATION OF CHAPTER XIV-B. HOWEVER, IN THESE CASES, RETURNS HAD BEEN FILED VOLUNTARILY FOR THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SURVEY AND SEARCH TOOK PLACE. 13. SHRI M.NARAYANAN FINALLY CONCLUDED THAT BLOCK ASSESSMENTS ARE NOT WARRANTED IN THESE CASES, WHERE MAJORITY OF THE MATERIALS USED IN THE ASSESSMENTS WERE EITHER F OUND BEFORE SEARCH OR AFTER SEARCH AND, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE RE SORTED TO AS EVIDENCES FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH. 14. WE HEARD BOTH SIDES IN DETAIL. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO FILED IN THESE CASES PETITIONS FOR ADMISSION O F ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, WHICH ARE IN THE FORM OF REPLIES OBTAINE D BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE CENTRAL BOARD OF DIRECT TAXES IN THE PROCEDURAL MATTERS RELATING TO SEARCH AND SURVEY. IT IS NECESSARY FOR THE ASSESSEE TO RELY ON SUCH EVIDENCES TO DISTI NGUISH THE - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 13 DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD BENCH IN THE CA SE OF ACIT VS. MANGARAM CHAUDHARY(HUF), 308 ITR (AT) 83(HYD.). 15. ONE OF THE MAIN CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) HAS NOT PAS SED SPEAKING ORDERS. AT THE SAME TIME, THE GROUNDS RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE DESERVE FURTHER CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). IT IS EQUALLY NECESSARY THAT THE LEGAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HI S CROSS OBJECTIONS ALSO HAVE TO BE ADJUDICATED BY THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IN LAWFUL MANNER. THE ROLE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) TO RECONSIDER T HE ISSUE AGAIN IS FELT MORE NECESSARY IN THE LIGHT OF THE AD DITIONAL EVIDENCES SOUGHT TO BE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AVAILA BLE ON THE ISSUES, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY DISCUSSED BY T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS). 16. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ALL THESE MATTERS REQUI RE FRESH CONSIDERATION IN THE HANDS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS). IT IS ALSO NECESSARY TO CONSIDER THE EVI DENCES - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 14 PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE NEW LEGAL ARGUMENTS A DVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS AVA ILABLE ON THE SUBJECT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) IN ALL THESE CA SES AND REMAND BACK THE MATTERS TO THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME- TAX(APPEALS) TO DISPOSE OF THE GROUNDS RAISED BY TH E ASSESSEE AFRESH, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING AN EFFE CTIVE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE OF BEING HEARD. 17. IN RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AN D BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE CROSS OBJECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEARING ON MONDAY, THE 5 TH OF MARCH, 2012 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAYANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 5 TH MARCH, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: APPELLANT/RESPONDENT/CIT/CI T(A)/DR/GF. - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 15 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, CHENNAI BEFORE DR. O.K.NARAYANAN, VICE-PRESIDENT AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.127(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 SRI R.RAJENDRAN, L/R OF LATE N.A.RENGASAMY, RAJA SIDDHA HOSPITAL, PALLIPALAYAM ROAD, THOKKAVADI P.O., THIRUCHENGODE TK. PAN AFFPR0019C. VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.133(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 & ITA NO.2469(MDS)/2006 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SRI R. RAJEND RAN, OF INCOME-TAX, VS. L/R OF LATE N.A.RENGASAMY CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM. THOKKA VADI. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) AND C.O.NO.72(MDS)/2008 IN IT(SS)A NO.133(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 SRI R.RAJENDRAN, THE A SSISTANT COMMISSIONER L/R OF LATE N.A.RENGASAMY, VS. OF INCOME-TAX, THOKKAVADI. CE NTRAL CLE., SALEM. (CROSS OBJECTOR) ( APPELLANT IN APPEAL) - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 16 IT(SS)A NO.134(MDS)/2005 BLOCK PERIOD : 1-4-1990 TO 10-1-2001 AND C.O.NO.73(MDS)/2008 IN IT(SS)A NO.134(MDS)/2005 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER SRI R. RAJEND RAN, OF INCOME-TAX, VS. RAJA SIDDHA HOSPITAL, CENTRAL CIRCLE, SALEM. THOKKA VADI. (APPELLANT) ( RESPONDENT/CROSS OBJECTOR) CORRIGENDUM AS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTA TIVE OF THE ASSESSEES, THE CAUSE TITLE OF OUR ORDER DATED 5-3-2 012 IN THE ABOVE APPEALS IS SUBSTITUTED AS ABOVE. 2. PARAS 1 TO 5 OF THE ABOVE ORDER ARE ALSO REPLAC ED AS UNDER:- THIS IS A BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS AND TW O CROSS OBJECTIONS. OUT OF THE FOUR APPEALS, THREE ARE BLO CK ASSESSMENT APPEALS. THE REMAINING ONE IS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT APPEAL. IT(SS)A NO.127(MDS)/2005 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI R.RAJENDRAN IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE DR. N.A.RENGASAMY. IT(SS)A NO.133(MDS)/2005 IS THE CORR ESPOND- ING CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. THESE CROSS APPEALS ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME- - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 17 TAX(APPEALS) AT SALEM, PASSED ON 2-6-2005 AND ARISE OUT OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 158BC, REA D WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE C ASE OF LATE DR. N.A.RENGASAMY. 2. THE APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.134(MDS)/2005 IS AGAIN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT SALEM, DATED 2-6-2005, WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) RE AD WITH SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.RAJE NDRAN IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. 3. THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2469(MDS)/2006 IS AGAIN FI LED BY THE REVENUE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAI NST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS) AT SALEM, DATED 9-8-2006, WHICH ARISES OUT OF THE REGULAR ASS ESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN THE CA SE OF SHRI R.RAJENDRAN AS THE LEGAL HEIR OF LATE DR. N.A.RENGA SAMY. 4. THE CROSS OBJECTION IN C.O. NOS.72(MDS)/2008 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E IN THE MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECTIONS 158BC - - IT(SS)A 127, 133 & 134 OF 2005, ETC. 18 READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IN IT(SS)A NO.1 33(MDS)/2005 IN THE CASE OF LATE DR.RENGASAMY. 5. THE CROSS OBJECTION IN C.O. NO.73(MDS)/2008 IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY T HE REVENUE IN THE MATTER OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT COMPLETED UNDER SECT ION 158BC READ WITH SECTION158BD IN IT(SS)A NO.134(MDS)/2005 IN THE CASE OF SHRI R.RAJENDRAN IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY . THIS CORRIGENDUM FORMS PART AND PARCEL OF OUR ORD ER DATED 5-3-2012. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (DR. O.K.NARAY ANAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE-PRESIDENT CHENNAI, DATED THE 23 RD APRIL, 2012. V.A.P. COPY TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) RESPONDENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) D.R. (6) G.F.