Bharat Singh, Kolkata V. A.C.I.T.,Central Circle-1(1), Kolkata

ITSSA 15/KOL/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2609 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANISH KANOJIA
• Assessee Lawyers: MANISH TIWARI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Assessment record; Block assessment; Documents seized; Set aside
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 133A; 153A; 143(2); 264; 73; 13; 153C; 147; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA B BENCH, KOLKATA (BEFORE SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SRI M.L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH............................................................................................................................APPELLANT [PAN: BFEPS 8369 J] VS. ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA...................................................................................................RESPONDENT I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 BHARAT SINGH.........................................................................................................................APPELLANT [PAN: AZTPS 4456 L] VS. ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA...................................................................................................RESPONDENT APPEARANCES BY: SH. MANISH TIWARI, A/R, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SH. MANISH KANOJIA, JCIT, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 4 TH , 2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : OCTOBER 26 TH , 2021 ORDER PER BENCH : THE CAPTIONED ARE A BUNCH OF 14 APPEALS I.E. 7 APPEALS IN CASE OF EACH OF THE ABOVE NAMED TWO ASSESSEES RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (IN SHORT AY) 2009-10 TO 2015-16 IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENTS FRAMED IN THE CASE OF PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON U/S 153C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER THE ACT). SINCE THE FACTS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE IDENTICAL AND A COMMON ISSUE IS INVOLVED, HENCE THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 03.04.2014 IN THE CASE OF ONE RUPA SINGH & ORS. GROUP. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION VARIOUS ASSESSEES OF THE GROUP WERE COVERED FOR SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 & ALSO SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT. FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IT REVEALED THAT THE CO-OWNERS OF THE FOLLOWING PREMISES NAMELY 2 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. A) 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, KOLKATA-700006 B) 142, MASJID BARI STREET, KOLKATA-700006 C)12, ABINASHKABIRAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700006 D)14B, ABINASHKABIRAJ STREET, KOLKATA-700006 HAVE SUBSTANTIAL RENTAL INCOME. THE APPELLANT WERE THE CO-OWNERS OF THE ABOVE STATED FOUR HOUSE PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS U/S 153C/143(3) FOR AYS 2009-10 TO 2015-16 WERE PASSED ON 15.12.2016 IN CASE OF THE APPELLANTS. THE DETAILS OF THE ASSESSMENTS ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN CHART BELOW: SL. A.Y. ORDER U/S DATE OF ORDER DISCLOSED INCOME ASSESSED INCOME 1 2009 - 10 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 17,84,085/ - 31,26,900/ - 2 2010 - 11 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 19,98,177/ - 36,69,120/ - 3 2011 - 12 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 22,37,959/ - 43,21,900/ - 4 2012 - 13 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 26,06,641/ - 52,40,770/ - 5 2013 - 14 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 28,07,259/ - 62,08,180/ - 6 2014 - 15 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 31,44,489/ - 84,34,600/ - 7 2015 - 16 153C/143(3) 15.12.2016 35,21,786/ - 83,00,750/ - 3. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (IN SHORT THE AO) OVER AND ABOVE THE SURRENDERED/DISCLOSED INCOME, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [IN SHORT THE LD. CIT(A)]. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. THE ASSESSEE, THUS, HAS COME IN APPEALS BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. 4. FOR THE PURPOSE OF NARRATION OF FACTS AND ADJUDICATION ON THE ISSUES INVOLVED, WE FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO. 12/KOL/2019 FOR THE AY 2009-10 IN THE CASE OF BHARAT SINGH. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1) FOR THE ORDER OF THE APPEAL IS ARBITRARY, ILLEGAL, BAD- IN- LAW & UNNATURAL JUSTICE. 2) THAT THE ENHANCEMENT OF RENTAL INCOME BY RS.26,69,472/-IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND BAD-IN- LAW. 3) THAT THE DECLARED INCOME BY THE APPELLANT OF RENT RS.17,84,086/- SHOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER. 4) THAT THE ID. C.I.T.(A) -1 KOLKATA DISMISSED THE APPEAL CASE IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS OF LAW. 3 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. 5) THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ALTER, ADD, TO AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 4.1. APART FROM THIS, THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO TAKEN THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED INCONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. WHO HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT TO ESTIMATE THE RENTAL INCOME SINCE THE ISSUE DID NOT EMANATE FROM INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH. 5. SINCE THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF THE APPEAL ARE LEGAL GROUNDS RELATING TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AO, HENCE, THE SAME ARE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. LEGAL/JURISDICTIONAL GROUNDS ARE TAKEN FIRST FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE A COMMON SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6. FOR ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: 1. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDING U/S 153C IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE FIRST GROUND WAS THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C IS ERRONEOUS AND BAD IN LAW. NOW ON VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS IT GATHERED THAT SATISFACTION NOTE WAS WRITTEN BY THE AO ON 03.10.2016. AS PER VARIOUS DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, HIGH COURT AND ITAT THE WRITING OF SATISFACTION NOTE OR ASSUMPTION OF THE POSSESSION OF SEIZED ASSETS / DOCUMENTS WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE OF INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S 153C IN THE CASE OF A PERSON WHO HAS BEEN COVERED IN COURSE OF SEARCH OF ANOTHER PERSON. AS PER DECISION OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS RRJ SECURITIES LTD. REPORTED AT 62 TAXMANN.COM 39 I [2015] WHEREIN IT WAS OBSERVED AS: 'IN THIS CASE, IT WOULD BE THE DATE OF THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION UNDER SECTION 153C. IN THIS VIEW, THE ASSESSMENTS MADE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WOULD BE BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS AS RECKONED WITH REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. IT IS CONTENDED BY THE REVENUE THAT THE RELEVANT SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WOULD BE THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED. IF THIS INTERPRETATION AS CANVASSED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCEPTED, IT WOULD MEAN THAT WHEREAS IN CASE OF A PERSON SEARCHED, ASSESSMENTS IN RELATION TO SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THE YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH TAKES PLACE CAN BE REOPENED BUT IN CASE OF ANY OTHER PERSON, WHO IS NOT SEARCHED BUT HIS ASSETS ARE SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON, THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSESSMENTS COULD BE REOPENED WOULD BE MUCH BEYOND THE PERIOD OF SIX YEARS. THIS IS SO BECAUSE THE DATE OF HANDING OVER OF ASSETS / DOCUMENTS OF A PERSON, OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON, TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER WOULD BE SUBSEQUENT TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THIS, WOULD BE CONTRARY TO THE SCHEME OF SECTION 153C(1), WHICH CONSTRUES THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF 4 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. ASSETS AND DOCUMENTS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE ASSESSEE (OTHER THAN ONE SEARCHED) AS THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ON THE ASSESSEE. THE RATIONALE APPEARS TO BE THAT WHEREAS IN THE CASE OF A SEARCHED PERSON THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON ASSUMES POSSESSION OF SEIZED ASSETS / DOCUMENTS ON SEARCH OF THE ASSESSEE; THE SEIZED ASSETS / DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO A PERSON OTHER THAN A SEARCHED PERSON COME INTO POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THAT PERSON ONLY AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSETS / DOCUMENTS DO NOT BELONG TO THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS, THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED ASSUMES THE POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSETS WOULD BE THE RELEVANT DATE FOR APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE CONTENTION THAT IN ANY VIEW OF THE MATTER, ASSESSMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003- 04 AND 2004-05 WERE OUTSIDE THE SCOPE OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO MAKE AN ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE'S INCOME FOR THAT YEAR, IS ACCEPTED. [PARA 24] AGAIN, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT FURTHER OBSERVED AT PARA 14 OF THE ORDER: THE PROVISO TO SECTION 153C(1) OF THE ACT EXPRESSLY INDICATES THAT REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH FOR THE PURPOSES OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS A REFERENCE TO THE DATE ON WHICH VALUABLE ASSETS OR DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE AO OF AN ASSESSEE (OTHER THAN A SEARCHED PERSON). THUS, BY VIRTUE OF THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENTS/REASSESSMENTS THAT WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF RECEIVING SUCH ASSETS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS WOULD ABATE. FURTHERMORE, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT ALSO COMMENTED AT PARA 18 OF THE ORDER: IT, PLAINLY, FOLLOWS THAT THE RECORDING OF A SATISFACTION THAT THE ASSETS/DOCUMENTS SEIZED BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON SEARCHED IS NECESSARILY THE FIRST STEP TOWARDS INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. IN THE CASE WHERE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS WELL AS THE OTHER PERSON IS ONE AND THE SAME, THE DATE ON WHICH SUCH SATISFACTION IS RECORDED WOULD BE THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO ASSUMES POSSESSION OF THE SEIZED ASSETS/DOCUMENTS IN HIS CAPACITY AS AN AO OF THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE SEARCHED. FURTHER IN THE VERY RECENT ORDER OF ITAT, KOLKATA IN THE CASE OF I Q CITY FOUNDATION VS. ACIT REPORTED AT 123 TAXMANN.COM 134 [2021] THE HONBLE MEMBERS OF C BENCH OBSERVED AT PAGE 5 PARA 6 AS UNDER: HOWEVER, DURING THE SEARCH U/S. 132 OR REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT IF IT IS FOUND THAT ANY THIRD PARTY'S MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAINS TO OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO 'OTHER THAN THE PERSON' SEARCHED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT [I.E. A THIRD PARTY IN THIS CASE THE 'ASSESSEE' FOUNDATION], THEN THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO RECORD HIS SATISFACTION THAT THE MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS TO THE OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE FOUNDATION IN THIS CASE) OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED PERTAINS TO THE OTHER PERSONS (THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE) OR ANY INFORMATION CONTAINED THEREIN RELATES TO THE OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE), THEN THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO PREPARE A SATISFACTION NOTE THAT DURING THE SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT OF A PERSON (MANI GROUP IN THIS CASE), THE SEARCH TEAM HAS FOUND/ UN-EARTHED MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR VALUABLE ARTICLES OR THINGS, WHICH WERE SEIZED AND THE AO HAS FOUND THAT AMONG THE SUCH SEIZED MATERIAL, CERTAIN SPECIFIC VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONGS TO A THIRD PARTY (OTHER PERSON AS REFERRED IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WHO WAS NOT SEARCHED AND IN THIS CASE, THE ASSESSEE) OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED CONTAINED INFORMATION, PERTAINED OR RELATES TO THAT OF THE OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE), AND FOR RECORDING SUCH A SATISFACTION NOTE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON HAS TO SEGREGATE THE SEIZED MATERIAL OF THE OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE) FROM THAT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON (MANI GROUP); AND THEN THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON SHOULD EXAMINE THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND SHOULD BE ABLE TO SATISFY HIMSELF THAT THE SEGREGATED SEIZED ASSETS BELONG TO THE THIRD PARTY (IN THIS CASE 5 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. THAT OF THE ASSESSEE) OR BOOKS/DOCUMENTS /INFORMATION, PERTAINS OR RELATES TO THE THIRD PARTY (IN THIS CASE THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS NOT COVERED BY THE SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT) AND THEREAFTER PREPARE THE 'SATISFACTION NOTE' AND THEN HE HAS TO HAND OVER THE SEIZED MATERIALS, WHICH BELONGS / PERTAINS / RELATES TO THE THIRD PARTY TO THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE), THEN ONLY THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE) GETS JURISDICTION U/S. 153C OF THE ACT TO ASSESS THE INCOME OF OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY) AS PER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE RESPECTED MEMBERS ALSO OBSERVED AS UNDER IN PAGE 6 PARA 8 OF THEIR ORDER: 'THUS, WE NOTE THAT BY THE AFORESAID AMENDMENT BROUGHT IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE PARLIAMENT HAS STIPULATED ANOTHER CONDITION-PRECEDENT BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF THE THIRD PARTY, (I.E., THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE) CAN RESORT TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153C READ WITH 153A OF THE ACT ONLY WHEN HE (AO) IS SATISFIED FROM A PERUSAL OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING IN THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE SUCH OTHER PERSON (THIRD PARTY, THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE) THEN HE SHOULD PROCEED AS PER SEC. 153C(2) OF THE ACT AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, (THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE)IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SO IN THIS CASE BEFORE US, SINCE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AS WELL AS THAT OF THE OTHER/ THIRD PARTY / ASSESSEE FOUNDATION ARE THE SAME, HE / AO OF ASSESSEE CAN ISSUE NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT ONLY AFTER SATISFACTION OF THIS CONDITION PRECEDENT ALSO IN ADDITION TO THE REQUIREMENT OF SATISFACTION OF SEARCHED PERSON OF AO AS DISCUSSED SUPRA. [EMPHASIS GIVEN BY US] AGAIN IN THE SAME ORDER HONBLE ITAT FURTHER OBSERVED AT PAGE 8 PARA 11: AND IT IS NOTED THAT THE DEPARTMENT PREFERRED AN S.L.P AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO ASSESSMENT OF THIRD PARTY U/S. 153C OF THE ACT [LIKE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE], THE CONCEPT OF UNABATED / ABATED ASSESSMENT IS MUTATIS MUTANDIS. HOWEVER, ONLY DIFFERENCE IS WHEN THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE INVOKING SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THEN EVEN THOUGH ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT HAS TO BE CARRIED OUT U/S. 153A OF THE ACT, HOWEVER, BY VIRTUE OF THE FIRST PROVISO TO SECTION 153C BY OPERATION OF LAW REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH U/S. 132 OF THE ACT OR MAKING OF REQUISITION U/S. 132A OF THE ACT IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSIDERED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. FOR THIS, WE RELY ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. RRJ SECURITIES LTD. [2015] 62 TAXMANN.COM 391 (DELHI), WHEREIN THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD AS UNDER: '1. AS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, ONCE THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IS SATISFIED THAT THE SEIZED ASSETS / DOCUMENTS BELONG TO ANOTHER PERSON AND THE SAID ASSETS / DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN TRANSFERRED TO THE AO OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT / REASSESSMENT OF INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON HAS TO PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SECTION 153A REQUIRES THAT WHERE A SEARCH HAS BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT, THE AO IS REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE REQUIRING THE NOTICE TO FURNISH RETURNS OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS RELEVANT TO THE SIX PREVIOUS YEARS PRECEDING THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED. AS DISCUSSED HEREINBEFORE, BY VIRTUE OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A, THE ASSESSMENT/REASSESSMENT PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH ABATE. IN THE CONTEXT OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A HAS TO BE CONSTRUED AS THE DATE ON WHICH THE AO RECEIVES THE DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS FROM THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. THUS, BY VIRTUE OF SECOND PROVISO TO SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AS IT APPLIES TO PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSMENT / REASSESSMENT PENDING ON THE DATE ON WHICH THE ASSETS / DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED BY THE AO WOULD ABATE. IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENTS WHICH HAVE ABATED, THE AO WOULD HAVE THE JURISDICTION TO PROCEED AND MAKE AN ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, IN RESPECT OF CONCLUDED ASSESSMENTS, THE AO WOULD ASSUME JURISDICTION TO REASSESS PROVIDED THAT THE ASSETS / DOCUMENTS RECEIVED BY THE AO REPRESENT OR INDICATE ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OR POSSIBILITY OF ANY INCOME THAT MAY HAVE REMAINED UNDISCLOSED IN THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS. 6 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. IN THE SAME ORDER IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE RESPECTED MEMBERS OF HONBLE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 15 OF PAGE 13: SINCE THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEEN UNEARTHED /SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 22-06-2016 FROM THE PREMISES OF MANI GROUP, THE SATISFACTION NOTE PREPARED BY THE AO DOES NOT SATISFY THE REQUIREMENT OF LAW AS STIPULATED U/S. 153C OF THE ACT AND SINCE THE LEGAL REQUIREMENT HAS NOT BEEN MET IN THE 'SATISFACTION NOTE' RECORDED BY THE AO, THE VERY ASSUMPTION OF THE. JURISDICTION FOR AY 2014-15 IS BAD IN THE EYES OF LAW AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SINHGAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY 120171 84 TAXMANN.COM 290/250 TAXMAN 225/397 ITR 344 AND, THEREFORE, IT IS TO BE QUASHED. WE NOTE THAT THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY HAS PASSED THE JUDGMENT WITH SPECIFIC REFERENCE TO THE INVOCATION OF JURISDICTION U/S. 153C, AND WHILE DOING SO THEIR LORDSHIP HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN CIT V. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY [2015] 63 TAXMANN.COM 14/235 TAXMAN 163/378 ITR 84 WHEREIN THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT UNLESS AND UNTIL THE AO CAN ESTABLISH DOCUMENT-WISE (OR ASSET WISE) CORRELATION BETWEEN WHAT HAS BEEN SEIZED FROM THE 'SEARCHED PERSON'- AND - HOW THE SAME IS INCRIMINATING IN NATURE QUA EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION FOR WHICH JURISDICTION U/S. 153C IS SOUGHT TO BE INVOKED FOR THE 'OTHER PERSON'- THEN THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 153C TO THE ASSESSEE QUA THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR WOULD BE WITHOUT THE SATISFYING THE JURISDICTIONAL FACT REQUIRED TO INVOKE SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. NOW IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS WRITTEN BY THE AO ON 03.10.2016 SO THE RELATED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHICH WILL BE COVERED U/S 153C WOULD BE AS BELOW: ASSESSMENT YEAR SECTION 2017-18 SEARCH YEAR - 143(3) 2016-17 153C 2015-16 153C 2014-15 153C 2013-14 153C 2012-13 153C 2011-12 153C SO FROM THE PLAIN READING OF THE ABOVE PARAS IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 153C/143(3) FOR THE AYS 2009-10 & 2010-11 IS BEYOND TIME AND BEYOND JURISDICTION & IT HAS NO LEGAL SUPPORT. HENCE THEY SHOULD BE QUASHED. NOW FOR THE AY 2016-17, CONSIDERING THE DATE OF ASSUMPTION OF SEARCH JURISDICTION IS 03.10.2016 THE ASSESSMENT OF THE SAID AY SHOULD BE COVERED U/S 153C/ 143(3). BUT IN RESPECT OF AY 2016-17 NO NOTICE U/S 153C OR SEARCH RELATED ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED AND THE TIME FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 153C LAPSED LONG AGO, SO NO SCOPE FOR SEARCH AND SEIZURE RELATED ASSESSMENT U/S 153C/143(3) FOR AY 2016-17. FURTHER, FOR AY 2017-18 AS THE ASSUMPTION OF SEARCH JURISDICTION STARTS FROM 03.10.2016 SO THIS YEAR SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS SEARCH YEAR AND ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOULD BE PASSED U/S 143(3). BUT FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR ALSO NO NOTICE/S 143(2) OR 142(1) ISSUED IN DUE COURSE OF TIME AND NO ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. SO AT PRESENT THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR ASSESSMENT FOR AY 2017-18. SO, ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S I53C/143(3) FOR AY 2009-10 & 2010-11 ARE BAD IN LAW AND FOR AY 2016-17 & 2017-18 NO ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED AND NOW BOTH THE YEARS ARE TIME BARRED. 7. IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY, THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF SOME OTHER PERSON, HOWEVER, FROM THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A CO-OWNER IN THE 4 PREMISES AS NOTED ABOVE. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE U/S 153C OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENTS FOR SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCHED YEAR WERE RE-OPENED U/S 153C OF THE 7 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. ACT. NOW, THE FACT IN THIS CASE IS THAT THE SEARCH OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF RUPA SINGH & ORS. ON 03.04.2014. IN THIS CASE, SINCE THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE AND THAT OF THE SEARCHED PERSON WAS THE SAME OFFICER, THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REQUIREMENT OF SENDING THE ACCOUNTS/SEIZED DOCUMENTS TO ANY ANOTHER OFFICER. TO PROCEED WITH THE ASSESSMENTS AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, WHAT WAS REQUIRED AS PER THE SETTLED LAW, WAS THAT THE AO SHOULD HAVE RECORDED SATISFACTION IN THE CASE OF THE SEARCHED PERSON THAT CERTAIN DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PERSON BELONGS/RELATED TO THE PERSON OTHER THAN THE SEARCHED PERSON ( THE ASSESSEE IN THIS CASE) . THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS WRITTEN BY THE AO ON 03.10.2016. NOW AT THIS STAGE, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO REPRODUCE HERE THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AS APPLICABLE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION: 153C. 3[(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147,SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON 3A[AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS THE INCOME OF THE OTHER PERSON IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A, IF, THAT ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED HAVE A BEARING ON THE DETERMINATION OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A\:] 4[PROVIDED THAT IN CASE OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, THE REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A IN THE SECOND PROVISO TO 5[SUB- SECTION (1) OF] SECTION 153A SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS REFERENCE TO THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON:] 6[PROVIDED FURTHER THAT THE CENTRAL GOVERNMENT MAY BY RULES7 MADE BY IT AND PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL GAZETTE, SPECIFY THE CLASS OR CLASSES OF CASES IN RESPECT OF SUCH OTHER PERSON, IN WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL NOT BE REQUIRED TO ISSUE NOTICE FOR ASSESSING OR REASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE EXCEPT IN CASES WHERE ANY ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT HAS ABATED.] 8[(2) WHERE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED AS REFERRED TO IN SUB-SECTION (1) HAS OR HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AFTER THE DUE DATE FOR FURNISHING THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED UNDER SECTION 132 OR REQUISITION IS MADE UNDER SECTION 132A AND IN RESPECT OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR (A) NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SUCH OTHER PERSON AND NO NOTICE UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 142 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO HIM, OR (B) A RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY SUCH OTHER PERSON BUT NO NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 HAS BEEN SERVED AND LIMITATION OF SERVING THE NOTICE UNDER SUB-SECTION (2) OF SECTION 143 HAS EXPIRED, OR 8 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. (C) ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, IF ANY, HAS BEEN MADE, BEFORE THE DATE OF RECEIVING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON, SUCH ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ISSUE THE NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS TOTAL INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON OF SUCH ASSESSMENT YEAR IN THE MANNER PROVIDED IN SECTION 153A.] 7.1. AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH, SHALL BE TAKEN AS THE DATE OF RECEIVING OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BY THE AO HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON. AS PER THE LAW SETTLED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA), IN CASE, THE AO OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE OTHER PERSON IN RESPECT OF WHOM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN FOUND, IS THE SAME AO, THEN IT WOULD BE THE DATE OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION U/S 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE PURPOSE OF CONSTITUTING THE DATE OF INITIATION OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE, THE YEAR OF RECORDING OF SATISFACTION WOULD BE THE SEARCHED YEAR AND SIX YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCHED YEAR WILL BE RE-OPENED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF RRJ SECURITIES LTD. (SUPRA), THE RELEVANT SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS WILL BE AY 2016-17 TO AY 2011-12. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT FOR THE AY 2010-11 AND AY 2009-10 WILL BE BEYOND JURISDICTION AND HENCE, NULL AND VOID. 7.2. FURTHER, IN THIS CASE, THE SEARCHED YEAR WILL BE TAKEN I.E. AY 2017-18. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS NOT IN APPEAL IN RELATION TO THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED FOR THE SEARCHED AY 2017-18. THEREFORE, NO ADJUDICATION IS GIVEN IN RESPECT OF AY 2017-18. 7.3. NOW, IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. AY 2011-12 TO AY 2015-16, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS STRESSED ON HIS SUBMISSIONS MADE IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS, WHICH FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 2. THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF A.O. WHO HAS TRAVELLED BEYOND HIS JURISDICTIONAL LIMIT CONTEMPLATED IN SECTION 153C OF THE ACT TO ESTIMATE THE RENTAL INCOME SINCE THE ISSUE DID NOT EMANATE FROM INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH. THE MAIN ISSUE OF THIS GROUND IS THE ASSESSMENTS COMPLETED BY THE AO U/S 153C/143(3) ARE BEYOND JURISDICTION, AS THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. BEFORE YEARWISE DISCUSSION RELATED TO AY 2011-12, 2012-13, 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 I WANT TO PRESENT A GENERAL SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS. 9 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. NOW AS PER PLETHORA OF CASE LAWS ADDITION WITHOUT INCRIMINATING MATERIALS / DOCUMENTS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AT ALL IN THE CASE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT. IN THE CASE OF SENSITIVE VANIJYA PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT, CC-4(1), ITA NO. 53/KOL/2018, THE HONBLE MEMBERS OF A BENCH, ITAT KOLKATA OBSERVED AS UNDER AT PARA 15: WE ARE BOUND BY THE PROPOSITIONS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE KERALA HIGH COURT RELIED UPON BY THE ID. D/R IS DEALT WITH IN THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MAJESTIC COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. (SUPRA). AS THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THIS ORDER PASSED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. ARE NOT BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING SEARCH AND AS THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12 HAS NOT ABATED, ABATED WE DELETE THE ADDITIONS BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLYING THE PRINCIPLES LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT ON THIS ISSUE. EVEN OTHERWISE, ON MERITS ALL THE SHARE APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE BEEN ASSESSED TO TAX BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT AND THEIR ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE PASSED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE IDENTITY OF THESE SHAREHOLDERS IS NOT PROVED. BE IT AS IT MAY, WE DO NOT ADJUDICATE THIS ISSUE ON MERITS, AS WE HAVE GRANTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE LEGAL ISSUE, AS OTHERWISE, IT WOULD BE AN ACADEMIC EXERCISE. AGAIN IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEERPRABHU MARKETING LTD. [2016] 73 TAXMANN.COM 149 (CALCUTTA), THE HONBLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT EXPRESSED THE FOLLOWING VIEWS: 'WE ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH THE VIEWS OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT THAT INCRIMINATING MATERIAL IS A PRE-REQUISITE REQUISITE BEFORE POWER COULD HAVE BEEN EXERCISED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE ASSES ASSESSING SING OFFICER HAS MADE DISALLOWANCES OF THE EXPENDITURE, WHICH WERE ALREADY DISCLOSED, FOR ONE REASON OR THE OTHER. BUT SUCH DISALLOWANCES WERE NOT CONTEMPLATED BY THE PROVISIONS CONTAINED UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 153A. THE DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WERE UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) BUT THE LEARNED TRIBUNAL DELETED THOSE DISALLOWANCES.' FURTHER CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD. (HAT NO. 264 OF 2016 DATED 24.08.2016 EXPRESSED ITS DECISION AS UNDER: IN THIS CASE, THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT OBSERVED THAT THE LD. ITAT, KOLKATA WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION U/S 153A OF THE IT. ACT TO REOPEN THE CONCLUDED CASES WHEN THE SEARCH & SEIZURE DID NOT DISCLOSE ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. IN TAKING THE AFORESAID VIEW, THE LD. ITAT RELIED UPON THE JUDGMENTS OF DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT(A) VS. KABUL CHAWLA IN ITA NO. 707/2014 DATED 28.08.2014 28.08.2014. THE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT MORE OR LESS AN IDENTICAL VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THIS BENCH IN ITA NO. 661/2008 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VEERPRABHU MARKETING LIMITED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE HONOURABLE HIGH COURT DID NOT ADMIT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. MAJESTIC COMMERCIAL (P) LTD. [2020] 116 TAXMANN.COM 412 (KOLKATA TRIBUNAL), HAS HELD AS FOLLOWS: CONSIDERING THE DECISIONS OF THE JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES ON THE SUBJECT, PARTICULARLY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SALASAR STOCK BROKING LTD. (SUPRA) WHICH IS BINDING UPON THIS TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT IN THE CASE OF UNABATED ASSESSMENTS OF AN ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION IS PERMISSIBLE IN THE ORDER U/S 153A UNLESS IT IS BASED ON ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH.' IN THE SAME LINE THE APPELLANT WANTS TO MENTION THE SUPREME COURTS DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AJIT KUMAR [2018] 93 TAXMANN.COM 294 / 255 TAXMAN 286 / 404 ITR 526 (SC). 'IN THE CASE ALONG WITH THE SEARCH U/S 132 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, SIMULTANEOUS SURVEY PROCEEDINGS WERE CONDUCTED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE'S CONTRACTOR AND THE INTERIOR DECORATOR WHO HAD CONSTRUCTED THE ASSESSEE'S HOUSE. IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 133A, THESE CONNECTED PERSONS HAD ADMITTED OF RECEIVING PAYMENTS IN CASH WHICH WERE NOT FOUND RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THESE FACTS AND EVIDENCES THE QUESTION AROSE WHETHER ANY ADDITION 10 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. WAS PERMISSIBLE WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. ALTHOUGH THE HON'BLE APEX COURT UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE, IT ALSO HELD THAT, 'IT IS A CARDINAL PRINCIPLE OF LAW THAT IN ORDER TO ADD ANY INCOME IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT, EVIDENCE OF SUCH MUST BE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE IT ACT OR IN ANY PROCEEDINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY CONDUCTED IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, RELATIVES AND/OR PERSONS WHO ARE CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEE AND ARE HAVING TRANSACTION/DEALINGS WITH SUCH ASSESSEE. SO, FROM THE ABOVE CITED CASE LAWS IT IS CLEAR THAT WHEN THERE IS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION THEN THERE IS NO SCOPE OF ADDITION IN THE CASE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE RELATED ASSESSMENT. 7.4. THE SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SEIZED INCRIMINATING MATERIALS HAVE TO PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN QUESTION AND THAT THE AO IS NOT SUPPOSED TO MAKE ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OR ON THE BASIS OF APPRECIATION OF MATERIAL OTHER THAN THE SEIZED MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF COMPLETED/UNABATED ASSESSMENTS U/S 153A/153C OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF YEARS PRIOR TO THE SEARCHED YEAR. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE HAS NOW BEEN SETTLED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY VIDE ORDER DATED 29.08.2017 PASSED IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 11080 OF 2017 [ARISING OUT OF SLP (C) NO. 25257 OF 2015]. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD AS UNDER: 13) MR. JEHANGIR D. MISTRI, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE, COUNTERED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS. HE ARGUED THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THE ISSUE REGARDING VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WHEN IT WAS EX FACIE FOUND THAT SUCH A NOTICE WAS TIME BARRED AND, THEREFORE, IT WAS A JURISDICTIONAL GROUND WHICH COULD BE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THAT GROUND, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE SATISFACTION NOTE DATED APRIL 18, 2007 IS EX FACIE RECORDED/PREPARED BY THE AO IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY AND DOES NOT SET OUT THE DATE ON WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED ETC. FROM THE PERSON SEARCHED WERE HANDED OVER/DEALT WITH IN THE CAPACITY OF AO OF THE ASSESSEE SOCIETY, BUT THIS CANNOT BE EARLIER THAN APRIL 18, 2007, I.E. THE DATE WHEN THE SATISFACTION NOTE WAS PREPARED. SINCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PURSUANT THERETO CAN BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT FOR A PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS, IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS WERE RECEIVED BY THE AO OF THE ASSESSEE, HE ARGUED THAT NO NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO 2002-03. THEREFORE, NOTICE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WAS CLEARLY TIME BARRED. IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04, THE SUBMISSION OF MR. MISTRI WAS THAT ONE OF THE JURISDICTIONAL CONDITIONS PRECEDENT TO THE ISSUE OF A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C IS THAT MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR DOCUMENTS MUST BE SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED. IN THE PRESENT CASE, NOTHING WAS SEIZED RELATING TO ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND HENCE THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C AND THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A, READ WITH SECTION 153C, PURSUANT THERETO ARE INVALID. 14) WE HAVE BESTOWED OUR DUE CONSIDERATION TO THE RESPECTIVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE PARTIES. 15) AT THE OUTSET, IT NEEDS TO BE HIGHLIGHTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO ON AUGUST 7, 2008 COVERED EIGHT ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. AS NOTED ABOVE, INSOFAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999-2000 IS CONCERNED, SAME WAS COVERED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WHICH MEANS IN RESPECT OF THAT YEAR, THERE WERE RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. INSOFAR AS ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS FRESH 11 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, INSOFAR AS ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153C READ WITH SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, IT WAS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 TO 2005-06. OUT OF THAT, PRESENT APPEALS RELATE TO FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, NAMELY, 2000-01 TO 2003-04 COVERED BY NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. THERE IS A SPECIFIC PURPOSE IN TAKING NOTE OF THIS ASPECT WHICH WOULD BE STATED BY US IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGRAPHS OF THE JUDGMENT. 16) IN THESE APPEALS, QUA THE AFORESAID FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS, THE ASSESSMENT IS QUASHED BY THE ITAT (WHICH ORDER IS UPHELD BY THE HIGH COURT) ON THE SOLE GROUND THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS LEGALLY UNSUSTAINABLE. THE EVENTS RECORDED ABOVE FURTHER DISCLOSE THAT THE ISSUE PERTAINING TO VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT WAS RAISED FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND AND WHILE DEALING WITH THE SAME ON MERITS, ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 17) FIRST OBJECTION OF THE LEARNED SOLICITOR GENERAL WAS THAT IT WAS IMPROPER ON THE PART OF THE ITAT TO ALLOW THIS GROUND TO BE RAISED, WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT OBJECTED TO THE JURISDICTION UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, IT NEEDS TO BE DETERMINED AS TO WHETHER ITAT WAS RIGHT IN PERMITTING THE ASSESSEE TO RAISE THIS GROUND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE IT, AS AN ADDITIONAL GROUND. 18) THE ITAT PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND BY GIVING A REASON THAT IT WAS A JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE TAKEN UP ON THE BASIS OF FACTS ALREADY ON THE RECORD AND, THEREFORE, COULD BE RAISED. IN THIS BEHALF, IT WAS NOTED BY THE ITAT THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT, INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WHICH WAS SEIZED HAD TO PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION AND IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED DID NOT ESTABLISH ANY CO- RELATION, DOCUMENT-WISE, WITH THESE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS. SINCE THIS REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT IS ESSENTIAL FOR ASSESSMENT UNDER THAT PROVISION, IT BECOMES A JURISDICTIONAL FACT. WE FIND THIS REASONING TO BE LOGICAL AND VALID, HAVING REGARD TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. PARA 9 OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT REVEALS THAT THE ITAT HAD SCANNED THROUGH THE SATISFACTION NOTE AND THE MATERIAL WHICH WAS DISCLOSED THEREIN WAS CULLED OUT AND IT SHOWED THAT THE SAME BELONGS TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 OR THEREAFTER. AFTER TAKING NOTE OF THE MATERIAL IN PARA 9 OF THE ORDER, THE POSITION THAT EMERGES THEREFROM IS DISCUSSED IN PARA 10. IT WAS SPECIFICALLY RECORDED THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT COULD NOT POINT OUT TO THE CONTRARY. IT IS FOR THIS REASON THE HIGH COURT HAS ALSO GIVEN ITS IMPRIMATUR TO THE AFORESAID APPROACH OF THE TRIBUNAL. THAT APART, LEARNED SENIOR COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE RESPONDENT, ARGUED THAT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WAS EVEN TIME BARRED. 19) WE, THUS, FIND THAT THE ITAT RIGHTLY PERMITTED THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND TO BE RAISED AND CORRECTLY DEALT WITH THE SAME GROUND ON MERITS AS WELL. ORDER OF THE HIGH COURT AFFIRMING THIS VIEW OF THE TRIBUNAL IS, THEREFORE, WITHOUT ANY BLEMISH. BEFORE US, IT WAS ARGUED BY THE RESPONDENT THAT NOTICE IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000-01 AND 2001-02 WAS TIME BARRED. HOWEVER, IN VIEW OF OUR AFOREMENTIONED FINDINGS, IT IS NOT NECESSARY TO ENTER INTO THIS CONTROVERSY. 7.5. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT FOR FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S 153C OF THE ACT, THERE MUST BE AN INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELEVANT TO THAT ASSESSMENT YEAR. ON THE BASIS OF THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE FACTS HAVE TO BE EXAMINED FOR EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE US. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11 8. AS PER OUR FINDINGS ARRIVED, WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ADDITIONAL GROUND NO. 1 TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE IS WITHOUT 12 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. JURISDICTION AND THEREFORE, THE SAME IS BAD IN LAW. FURTHER, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AY 2009-10 AND AY 2010-11. THEREFORE, AS PER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT, THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN THESE APPEALS AS WELL AS CONSEQUENT ASSESSMENTS FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYES OF LAW AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY QUASHED. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 & 2012-13 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C/143(3) DATED 15.12.2016, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 39,36,135/- IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE FOUR PROPERTIES. IN RESPECT OF EACH PROPERTY THE AO FURNISHED THE SAME REASON FOR ADDITION & THE SAME IS FURNISHED HERE: AS THE FIGURES OF RENT FOR THIS BUILDING PERTAINING TO AY 2011-12 WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE MOST LOGICAL WAY TO ESTIMATE THE SAME IS TO DETERMINE THE FIGURE OF RENT FOR AY 2013-14 FOR WHICH THE DATA WAS AVAILABLE AND THEN TO ALLOW A REDUCTION FOR THE POSSIBILITY OF LOWER RENT REALIZED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. BASED ON THE ABOVE PRINCIPLE THE RENT FOR AY 2012-13 WAS ARRIVED AT RS. 33,25,625/-. ACCORDINGLY, A 15% REDUCTION IS ALLOWED FROM THE RENT REALIZED DURING THE AY 2012-13 TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF RENT COLLECTION FOR AY 2011-12 AND THE SAME IS DETERMINED TO BE RS.28,26,781/-[33,25,625/- - 15% OF 33,25,625/-] SO, THE AO HIMSELF ADMITTED THAT NO SEIZED MATERIALS I.E. INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE AVAILABLE. NOT ONLY THAT AT THE TIME OF MAKING ADDITION THE AO ALLOWED A DEDUCTION OF 15% FROM THE ESTIMATED RENT. THUS ADDITION OF THE AO IS COMPLETELY ARBITRARY AND WHIMSICAL & IT HAS NO LEGAL SUPPORT. IN THE STATUTE THERE IS NO PROVISION FOR THIS. SO, THE ESTIMATED ADDITION AND WHIMSICAL ALLOWANCE OF 15% OF ESTIMATED RENT IS NOTHING BUT THE REFLECTION OF THE CASUAL NATURE OF THE AO. THE ADDITION WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE ASSESSMENT HAS NO BASIS AND LEGAL SUPPORT. SO, THE ARBITRARY ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. THE AO HAS EXTRAPOLATED THE INCOME IN AN ARBITRARY MANNER WITHOUT BRINGING ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD OR WITHOUT EVEN EXAMINING THE ASSESSEE OR THE TENANTS TO ARRIVE ANY CONCLUSION. ESTIMATED ADDITION HAS TO BE BAD IN LAW EVEN ON MERITS OF THE CASE. THE ESTIMATES ARE NEITHER BONA FIDE NOR ON ANY RATIONAL BASIS BECAUSE THERE WAS NO DATE OR INFORMATION AVAILABLE FOR THIS PERIOD. AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,815/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ABATED, SO THE NON-SEARCH RELATED ISSUES CANNOT BE TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSE. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS BEYOND JURISDICTION. AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C/143(3) DATED 15.12.2016, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 47,45,232/- IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE FOUR PROPERTIES. THE FACTS AND MERIT OF ADDITION OF THIS YEAR IS SIMILAR TO AY 2011-12 & ON THE BASIS OF SAME GROUNDS AS DISCUSSED IN DETAILS IN AY 2011-12. THE ADDITION OF RS. 47,45,232/- SHOULD BE DELETED. AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,820/- UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. AS THE ASSESSMENT WAS NOT ABATED, SO THE NON-SEARCH RELATED ISSUES CANNOT BE TAKEN FOR ASSESSMENT PURPOSE. HENCE, THE ADDITION IS BEYOND JURISDICTION. 9.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WOULD SHOW THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION ALSO. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF 13 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SINGHAD TECHNICAL EDUCATION SOCIETY (SUPRA), ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE IS ALSO BAD IN LAW. THE SAME IS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-14 10. IN RESPECT OF THE AY 2013-14, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: AGAIN IN THIS CASE FOR AY 2013-14 THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 57,24,357/- IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM FOUR PROPERTIES AS STATED IN THE FIRST PARA OF THIS SUBMISSION. THOUGH THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION BUT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE SEIZED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTY MENTIONED AT SI. NO. (A) AT FIST PARA OF THIS SUBMISSION. BUT IN RESPECT OF OTHER 3 PROPERTIES NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE SEIZED. IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, KOLKATA-700006 INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE SEIZED IN RESPECT OF 9 ROOMS ONLY. BUT ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS THE AO ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME FROM OTHER EIGHTEEN ROOMS OF THAT PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES, WHICH WAS MENTIONED AT SI. B, C AND D AT FIRST PARA OF THE SUBMISSION, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR MATERIALS WERE SEIZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND NO DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO APPELLANT. BUT IN SPITE OF THAT THE AO ON ESTIMATE BASIS MADE THE ADDITION. YOUR HONOURS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NEITHER SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT NOR WERE IN THE HANDWRITING OF THE APPELLANT. SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND FROM ANOTHER PERSON SEARCHED. THOUGH, THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE TO MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT BUT NO LINKS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND APPELLANT. THE ACTION OF AO IS PURELY ARBITRARY AND ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND MUST BE DELETED. IN RESPECT OF ALL THE THREE PROPERTIES, THE AO PRESENTED THE SAME REASON MENTIONED AT PAGE 6, 3RD PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HERE: 'AS THE FIGURES OF RENT FOR THIS BUILDING PERTAINING TO AY 2013-14 WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THE MOST LOGICAL WAY TO ESTIMATE THE SAME IS TO DETERMINE THE FIGURE OF RENT FOR AY 2014-15 FOR WHICH THE DATA WAS AVAILABLE AND THEN TO ALLOW A REDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF LOWER RENT REALIZED IN THE EARLIER YEAR. ACCORDINGLY, A 15% REDUCTION IS ALLOWED FROM THE RENT REALIZED DURING THE AY 2014-15 TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF RENT COLLECTION FOR AY 2013-14 AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,21,745/-[12,01,700/- 15% OF 12,01,700/-] TOTAL ESTIMATED RECEIPTS FROM RENT, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, FOR THE ASSESSEE FROM ALL FOUR PROPERTIES IN WHICH HE IS A CO-OWNER WORKS OUT TO BE AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1,06,64,520/- (39,12,500/- + 11,76,400/- + 45,53,875/- + 10,21,745/-). SO FROM THE OWN ADMISSION OF THE AO IT IS CLEAR THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS SEIZED AND THE ADDITION WAS ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 10.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE AY 2013-14 REVEALS THAT THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SEIZED IN RESPECT OF ONE BUILDING ONLY I.E. 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, KOLKATA, THE RELEVANT PART OF THE FINDING OF THE AO IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 4.1 RENT COLLECTED FROM 24/1 MASJID BARI STREET: DURING THE SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATION CONDUCTED AT 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH, ASSESSEE AND ONE OF THE CO-OWNERS, STATED IN HIS STATEMENT, THAT THE ROOMS OF THE BUILDING ARE RENTED AND RENT CAN VARY FROM 20,000/- TO RS 70,000/-. STATEMENTS OF TENANTS WERE 14 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. ALSO RECORDED WHO STATED THAT THE RENT IS AROUND RS 40,000/-. SHRI LAXMAN BAG, COOK OF THE BUILDING, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH STATED THAT AROUND 27 ROOMS ARE GIVEN OUT ON RENT. EVEN SHRI JAGDISH PRASAD SINGH HAD ALSO STATED IN HIS STATEMENT THAT THE SAME NUMBER OF ROOMS HAVE BEEN RENTED OUT. THERE ARE HOWEVER, DIARIES/DOCUMENTS PERTAINING TO COLLECTION OF RENT FROM THE ROOMS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED BUILDINGS WHICH WERE FOUND, INVENTORISED AND SEIZED, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN CONTENTS OF THE PAGES OF THE SEIZED BOOKS VIDE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 142(1) BUT NO COMMENT WAS OFFERED. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. A/R DID NOT OFFER ANY COMMENTS. HOWEVER, THE EXERCISE BOOK BEARING ID MARK- BB-13, CONTAINS THE DETAILS OF RENT COLLECTED FROM 9 ROOMS. DETAILS OF RENT COLLECTED AS PER DOCUMENTS (BB-13) SEIZED SHOWS THAT DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2012-13, FOR THE PROPERTY AT 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, THE TOTAL RENT COLLECTED FOR THE YEAR WAS RS. 39,12,500/-. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE THE RELEVANT SYNOPSIS OF THE BOOK IDENTIFIED AS BB-13 (WHICH IS A PART OF THE APPRAISAL REPORT AT PAGE 42) IS REPRODUCED BELOW: BB-13 RENT COLLECTION FROM 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET FOR 2012 APR MAY JUNE JUL AUG SEP OCT NOV DEC TOTAL 30000 30000 30000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 35000 35000 35000 40000 40000 40000 41000 41000 41000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 30000 30000 30500 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 28000 28000 30000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 35000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 40000 298000 298000 305500 330000 330000 330000 326000 336000 331000 2884500 RENT COLLECTION FROM 24/1, MASJID BARI FOR 2013 MONTH/ENTRY NO. JANUARY FEBRUARY MARCH TOTAL 1 35000 40000 40000 2 40000 40000 40000 3 41000 41000 41000 4 35000 35000 40000 5 35000 40000 40000 6 35000 35000 35000 7 35000 35000 35000 8 35000 40000 40000 9 40000 40000 40000 331000/- 346000/- 351000/- 10,28,000/- HENCE, COLLECTION FOR THE MONTHS FROM APRIL 2012 TO MARCH 2013 FROM 9 ROOMS IS (2884500+1028000) = RS. 39,12,500/-. FROM THE RENT COLLECTED FROM 9 ROOMS, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT RENT COLLECTED FROM OTHER ROOMS WILL ALSO BE SAME. HENCE THE TOTAL RENT OF THE BUILDING FROM 27 ROOMS COMES TO RS (39,12,500 X 3) = 1,17,37,500/-.THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE AT 1/3 OF THE RENT RECEIPT AMOUNTS TO RS. 39,12,500/- (ROUNDED OFF TO THE NEAREST '00). 10.2. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE REPRODUCED RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT A DIARY CONTAINING THE RENTAL INCOME FOR THE WHOLE YEAR WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION. THE RENT FROM NINE ROOMS WAS NOTED IN THE AFORESAID DIARY. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS BROUGHT OUR ATTENTION TO HIS SUBMISSIONS 15 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. MADE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THIS RESPECT, WHICH FOR THE PURPOSE OF READY REFERENCE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: THAT THIS BOOK SHOWN RENTAL INCOME ONLY FROM 9 ROOMS THAT WERE RENTED DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD. YOUR ATTENTION IS DRAWN TO THE FACT THAT WHEN A PERSON MAINTAINS DETAILS OF INCOME AND EXPENSES. HE MAINTAINS TO THE FULLEST. FURTHER IN THE RELEVANT CASE, DIFFERENT BOOKS ARE THEREFORE DIFFERENT YRS. NO ONE WILL MAINTAIN KHATA FOR DIFFERENT YRS. SHOWING INCOME FOR SOME MONTHS AND WILL NOT WRITE INCOME FOR SOME MONTHS. THUS THE KHATA SEIZED AND UN-SEIZED HAS TO BE TAKEN TO BE CORRECT AND THEREFORE IF THERE IS NO RENT SHOWN FOR A PARTICULAR ROOM/S THEN IT HAS TO BE AGREED THAT THOSE ROOMS FOR WHICH NO RENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED WAS VACANT. THERE REMAINS NO PLACE OF PRESUMPTION. IF THAT BE SO, WHY PRESUME SOME PERCENTAGE TAKING ANY FIGURE UNDER THE SKY. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES YOU ARE REQUESTED TO PLEASE TREAT THE FACT AS FACT AND THUS ACCEPT THAT 18 ROOMS REMAIN VACANT AS IS SHOWN IN THE BOOK SEIZED BB/13 AND DONT PRESUME RENT FOR OTHER 18 VACANT ROOMS, IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH VARIOUS TENANT WERE QUESTIONED BY THE CONCERN OFFICERS WHICH IS ON RECORD. HE COULD HAVE VERY EASILY ENQUIRED ABOUT THE VACANT 18 ROOMS, WHICH WOULD HAVE CLARIFIED AND CONFIRMED THE VACANT OF OTHERS 18 ROOMS. I ONCE AGAIN REITERATE THAT VACANT 18 ROOMS BE ALLOWED AND PRESUMED ADDITION FOR THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DROPPED. 11. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ENTIRE INCOME FROM THE AFORESAID BUILDING WAS NOTED DOWN IN THE SEIZED DIARY AND THERE WAS NO PRESUMPTION THAT SOME OTHER DOCUMENT/DIARY WOULD HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED IN RESPECT OF THE REMAINING ROOMS. THE INCOME RECORDED, IN OUR VIEW, IS THE FULL INCOME OF THE YEAR FROM THE AFORESAID PROPERTY. MOREOVER, IT IS NOT NECESSARY THAT ALL THE ROOMS OF THE BUILDING WILL BE OCCUPIED ON ALL DAYS DURING THE ENTIRE YEAR. THEREFORE, AS PER THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, THE RENTAL INCOME FOR THE YEAR FROM THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION WAS AT 39,12,500/-. THE ASSESSEE HAVING ONE THIRD SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, THE RENTAL INCOME FROM THE SAID PROPERTY WOULD BE 13,04,166/- UPON WHICH THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE ENTITLED TO DEDUCTION AT THE RATE OF 30% U/S 24(1) OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE AY 2013-14, HAS ALREADY OFFERED AN INCOME OF 28,07,259/- WHICH IS MORE THAN THE INCOME THAT CAN BE ARRIVED AT FROM THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS. WE FIND FORCE IN THE CONTENTION OF THE LD CIT(A). AR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE INCOME IN LUMP- SUM OF RS. 1,80,00000/- WHICH WAS BIFURCATED ON APPROXIMATION BASIS AND THAT THE EXCESS INCOME OFFERED IN AN YEAR MAY BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE YEAR IN WHICH LESS INCOME IS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN OFFERED. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR ARE SET ASIDE AND IT IS DIRECTED THAT THE TAXES PAID OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME OF RS. 1304166/- WOULD BE ADJUSTED AGAINST OTHER YEARS FOR WHICH THE LESS TAXES HAVE BEEN FOUND TO BE OFFERED. 16 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, FOR THE AY 2014-15, HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: AGAIN IN THIS CASE FOR AY 2014-15 THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 87,63,571/- IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FROM FOUR PROPERTIES AS STATED IN THE FIRST PARA OF THIS SUBMISSION. THOUGH THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL ADDITION BUT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE SEIZED IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES EXCEPT FOR THE PROPERTY MENTIONED AT S.I. NO. (A) AT FIST PARA OF THIS SUBMISSION. BUT IN RESPECT OF OTHER 3 PROPERTIES NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE SEIZED. IN RESPECT OF PROPERTY AT 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, KOLKATA-700006 INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE SEIZED IN RESPECT OF 9 ROOMS ONLY. BUT ON ESTIMATE BASIS WITHOUT ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIALS THE AO ESTIMATED THE RENTAL INCOME FROM ETHER EIGHTEEN ROOMS OF THAT PROPERTY. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF PROPERTIES, WHICH WAS MENTIONED AT SL. B, C AND D AT FIRST PARA OF THE SUBMISSION, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR MATERIALS WERE SEIZED IN COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND NO DOCUMENT PERTAINS TO APPELLANT. BUT IN SPITE OF THAT THE AO ON ESTIMATE BASIS MADE THE ADDITION. YOUR HONOURS IT IS SUBMITTED THAT SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE NEITHER SEIZED FROM THE APPELLANT NOR WERE THE HANDWRITING OF THE APPELLANT. SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND FROM A PERSON SEARCHED. THOUGH, THE AO HAS PLACED RELIANCE TO MAKING ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF APPELLANT BUT NO LINKS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED BETWEEN SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND APPELLANT. THE ACTION OF AO IS PURELY ARBITRARY AND ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND MUST BE DELETED. IN RESPECT OF ALL THE THREE PROPERTIES, THE AO PRESENTED THE SAME REASON MENTIONED AT PAGE 6, 3 RD PARA OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH IS REPRODUCED HERE: FROM THE ABOVE IT IS SEEN THAT EXTRAPOLATING THE AVAILABLE DETAILS FOR THE WHOLE YEAR, THE TOTAL RENT RECEIPT WORKS OUT TO AN AMOUNT OF 83,04,000/-. THE ASSESSEES SHARE AT 1/6 OF THE RENT RECEIPT IS ESTIMATED TO AMOUNT OF RS. 13,84,000/-.' THUS, TOTAL RENT ESTIMATED FOR THESE THREE PREMISES ARE (56,02,500 + 13,84,000 + 12,01,700) = 81,88,200/-. ACCORDINGLY A REDUCTION OF RS. 16,37,640/- IS BEING ALLOWED. HENCE TOTAL RENT ASSESSED IS (1,35,45,700/- - 16,37,640/-) = 1,19,08,060/-. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF GROSS RENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 87,63,571/- (1,19,08,060/- - 31,44,489/-) IS BEING MADE IN THIS CASE. SO FROM THE OWN ADMISSION OF THE AO IT IS CLEAR THAT NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS SEIZED AND THE ADDITION WAS ON ESTIMATED BASIS. 12.1. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN RESPECT OF FOUR PREMISES. THE TOTAL RENT COLLECTED FROM 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS 39,12,500/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS 1/3 RD SHARE, HENCE HIS INCOME COMES FROM THIS PROPERTY AT RS. 13,04166/- THE RENT COLLECTED FROM 142, MASJID BARI STREET, AS PER THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS FROM OCTOBER, 2013 TO MARCH, 2014, WAS 41,52,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONE SIXTH SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, WHICH COMES OUT AT 6,92,000/-. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF TOTAL RENT COLLECTED FROM 12, ABINASH KABIRAJ STREET, AS PER THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WAS 3,21,45,000/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ONE SIXTH SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, WHICH COMES OUT AT 53,57,500/-. SIMILARLY, IN RESPECT OF THE TOTAL RENT COLLECTED FROM 14B, ABINASH KABIRAJ STREET, AS PER THE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WAS 17 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. 36,05,100/-. THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING ONE SIXTH SHARE IN THE SAID PROPERTY, WHICH COMES OUT AT 6,00,850/-. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL RENTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE (1304166+692000+5357500+600850) AT 79,54,516/- . AFTER GRANTING DEDUCTION U/S 24(1) OF THE ACT, AT THE RATE OF 30% , THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR COMES OUT AT 55,68,161/- WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED THE INCOME OF THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AT 31,44,095/-. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF 24,22,066/- IS SUSTAINED FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE WILL BE ENTITLED TO THE ADJUSTMENT OF THE TAXES PAID FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AY 2009-10, AY 2010-11, AY 2011-12, AY 2012-13 AND OF EXCESS TAXES PAID FOR AY 2013-14 AGAINST THE TAXES DUE FOR THE AY 2014-15 IN VIEW OF THE ASSESSMENT QUASHED FOR A.Y. 2009-10 TO A.Y. 2012-13 AND ADDITIONS SUSTAINED FOR A.Y. 13-14 AS ORDERED ABOVE. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPECT OF THE AY 2015-16, HAS MADE THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS: AT THE TIME OF PASSING OF ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 153C/143(3) DATED 15.12.2016, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 83,86,274/- IN RESPECT OF THE RENTAL INCOME OF THE FOUR PROPERTIES. THE AO PASSED ORDER U/S 143(3), BUT SINCE THIS YEAR FALLS UNDER SEARCH ASSESSMENT CATEGORY THE ORDER SHOULD HAVE BEEN PASSED U/S 153C. HOWEVER, NO NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED BY THE AO AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LAW. THE FACTS AND MERIT OF ADDITION OF THIS YEAR IS SIMILAR TO AY 2011-12 & ON THE BASIS OF SAME GROUNDS AS DISCUSSED IN DETAILS IN AY 2011-12. THE ADDITION OF RS. 83,86,274/- SHOULD BE DELETED. AGAIN IN THIS CASE THE ACTUAL DATE OF SEARCH IS 03.04.2014, SO THE AO CONSIDERED THE AY 2015-16 AS THE SEARCH YEAR. BUT ACTUALLY CONSIDERING THE DATE OF SATISFACTION NOTE IS 03.10.2016 THE SEARCH YEAR SHOULD BE AY 2017-18 FOR THE 153C PROCEEDINGS. SO, THE AY 2015-16 IS A BLOCK YEAR ONLY AND THE AY 2015-16 IS ALSO AN UNABATED ONE. AS THE AY 2015-16 IS AN UNABATED ONE, SO AT THE RE-OPENING STAGE ONLY SEARCH RELATED ISSUES AND DOCUMENTS CAN BE CONSIDERED. IN COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION NO INCRIMINATING MATERIALS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED, SO THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF FINDING IN RESPECT OF AY 2015-16 HAS NO BASIS. 13.1. THE AY 2015-16 IN THIS CASE, IS THE PRECEDING YEAR TO THE SEARCHED YEAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOULD HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT BY WAY OF RE-OPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER, IN THIS CASE, ADMITTEDLY NO NOTICE U/S 153C OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. EVEN OTHERWISE, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED 18 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. BY THE ASSESSEE ON 07.02.2016 I.E. WITHIN THE STANDARD PERIOD OF FILING OF THE RETURN OF INCOME AND AS PER THE PROVISO TO SECTION 143(2) OF THE ACT, NO NOTICE COULD HAVE BEEN ISSUED AFTER THE EXPIRY OF SIX MONTHS FROM THE END OF THE FINANCIAL YEAR IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME IS FURNISHED WHICH EXPIRES ON 30.09.2016. HOWEVER, NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 03.10.2016 AND NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THIS CASE ON 21.11.2016 WHICH WAS TIME BARRED. 14. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED WAS TIME BARRED. MOREOVER, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, EVEN OTHERWISE, THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S 153C OF THE ACT WOULD BE WITHOUT JURISDICTION. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS TO BE ACCEPTED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. 15. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE CASES AS WELL AS THE OWNERSHIP RIGHTS IN THE PROPERTY ARE SAME IN CASE OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES, THEREFORE, OUR FINDINGS ARRIVED HEREIN WOULD MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY FOR THE RESPECTIVE APPEALS FOR DIFFERENT YEARS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEES IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y.-2009-10 TO 12-13 AND A.Y. 2015- 16 ARE HEREBY ALLOWED WHEREAS THE APPEALS FOR A.Y.-13-14 ARE ALLOWED IN THE TERMS AS INDICATED ABOVE AND APPEALS FOR 2014-15 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26.10.2021. SD/- SD/- [M.L. MEENA] [SANJAY GARG] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 26.10.2021 BIDHAN (P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. AMAR SINGH, 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, KOKATA-700 006. 2. BHARAT SINGH, 24/1, MASJID BARI STREET, KOKATA-700 006. 3. ACIT, CC-1(1), KOLKATA. 4. CIT(A)-1, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH MAIL) 5. CIT- 6. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. (SENT THROUGH MAIL) 19 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 05 TO 11/KOL/2019 I.T.(S.S.)A. NOS. 12 TO 18/KOL/2019 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 TO 2015-16 AMAR SINGH BHARAT SINGH. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR/DDO ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES