Mr. P.Uthamchand Chordia, CHENNAI V. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITSSA 2/CHNY/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8126 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-08-2011
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 27-01-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AVINASH K SAHAY DRIV
• Assessee Lawyers: V JAGADISAN
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Block assessment
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHENNAI B BENCH, CHENNAI. BEFORE SHRI.U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. & SHRI. N.S. SAINI, A .M. I.T.(SS)A. NO. 02/MDS/2010 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD: 1985-86 TO 94-95 & UPTO 07 .12.1995 MR. P. UTHAMCHAND CHORDIA, NO.43,KALATHIPILLAI STREET, SOWCARPET, CHENNAI 600 079. [PAN:AAGSPC5971A] VS. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE XIII, CHENNAI 600 006. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI V. JAGADISAN REVENUE BY : SHRI AVINASH K. SAHAY, DR IV DATE OF HEARING : 29.08.2011 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 30.08.2011 ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) R.W.S. 254 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 VIDE ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 RELEVANT TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1985-86 TO 1994-95 AND 01.04.1995 TILL 07.12.1995, WHEREBY ACTION OF THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING FOLLOWING ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN CHALLENGED BY RAISING VARIOUS GROUNDS: I. DIVIDENDS/CREDIT RECEIVED IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOU NTS RS. 23,02,566 II. INVESTMENT IN SHARES RS. 21,68,953 III. SALE PROCEED RECEIVED FROM M/S. AARTHI & CO. RS . 5,65,145 IV. PRINCIPAL AMOUNT LENT OR INVESTMENT IN YOU HIRE PURCHASE BUSINESS AS PER THE SEIZED MATERIAL ANN/NGN/B&D/S DATED 07.12.95 AND WORKING SHEET FURNISHED BY YOU ON 29.1.96 RS. 74,360 2. FACTS INDICATE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATI ON WAS CONDUCTED IN THE BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE S HRI P. UTTAMCHAND CHORDIA BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT ON 07.12.1 995. SUBSEQUENTLY A NOTICE I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 2 U/S 158BC WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE TO WHICH HE HAD FILED A RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING INCOME OF RS. 8,82,000/-. 2.1 AN ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 158BC(C) OF I.T. ACT 19 61 DATED 31.12.1996 WITH THE ASSESSED TOTAL INCOME OF RS.63,70,437/- WAS PAS SED ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD E.G. APPRAISAL REPORT, SEIZED MATERIAL AND INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS SOURCE'S AND STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER PARTIES RECORDED ON OATH. THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED WITH TH E PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, TAMIL NADU-IV, MADRAS - 34. 2.2 BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH-'B' CHENNAI. T HE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH -'B', CHENNAI HAD PASSED AN ORDER IN IT (SS)A NO. 37/MDS/ 1997 DATED 19 TH MAY 2005 SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 31.12.1996 TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RE-DO THE ASSESSMENT DE NOVO AS PER THE DIRECTION IN THE ORDER AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER AFFORDING THE ASSESSEE OP PORTUNITY OF HEARING. 2.3 THE THEN ASSESSING OFFICER HAD PASSED AN ORDER U/S 158BC(C) READ WITH SECTION 254 DATED 29.12.2006 ASSESSING TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER REFERENCE AT RS.76,97,035/-. THE SAID ORDER WAS PASSED WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE CIT-IX, CHENNAI-06 AS PER THE PROVI SION OF SECTION 158BG OF I.T. ACT, 1961. 2.4 THE ASSESSEE, BEING AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER DA TED 26.12.2006, HAD AGAIN FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH-'B' C HENNAI. THE ITAT CHENNAI BENCH -'B' CHENNAI IN ITS ORDER IN IT(SS)A NO. 37/M DS/1997 DATED 7 TH MAY 2008 REMITTED BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER WITH THE DIRECTION TO RE- I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 3 EXAMINE THE ISSUES ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILAB LE ON RECORD WITH A VIEW TO REACH DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS, AND PASS A FRESH ORDER AFTER GIVING ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH FRESH ORDER DATED 24.12.2009 CAME TO BE PASSED, WHICH IS AGAIN CHALLENGED BEFORE THIS BENCH. 3. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL, AT THE VE RY OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUAT E OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD HAS NOT BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND WHEN POINT ED OUT THAT FIRST NOTICE, AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 24.12.2009, WAS ISSUED ON 26 .08.2009 AND THERE AFTER HEARING DATES OF 10.09.2009, 19.10.2009, 15.11.2009 AND 25.11.2009 WERE THERE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ALL ALONG BEEN APPEARED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS ALSO FILED VARIOUS DETAILS, SO HOW CAN IT B E SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ALLOWED APPROPRIATE AND ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY O F HEARING, THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT NO DOUBT THERE WAS VARIOUS D ATES FIXED FOR HEARING AND BASIS FOR MAKING THE ASSESSMENT WERE ALSO GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, YET AFTER THE LAST REPLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE NO FURTH ER HEARING WAS GRANTED, AS SUCH, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SHOULD BE QUASHED. 4. WHEREAS, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT NUMBER OF OP PORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER , WHICH IS APPARENT FROM THE FIRST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, AS RIGHTLY POIN TED OUT BY THE BENCH. THEREFORE, THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL IN THIS REGARD S HOULD BE DISMISSED. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE OBJECTIONS WITH REGARD T O NON-GRANTING OF ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AND FIND THAT AMPLE TIME WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUBMISSIONS AND SUPPORT HIS CASE BY LEADING NECESSA RY EVIDENCES, AS IS APPARENT I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 4 FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DATES ARE MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN COL. 11 OF FIRST PAGE OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HAVE NOT BEEN REFUTED BY THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE BEFORE US. THEREFORE, KEE PING IN VIEW THE ENTIRETY OF FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS BEEN AFFORDED TO THE ASS ESSEE BEFORE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THEREFORE, THE PLEA TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS REJECTED AS UNTENABLE. 6. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ONE MORE OBJECTION THAT BEFORE ACCORDING OF APPROVAL FOR PASSING OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, AS ENVI SAGED UNDER SECTION 158 BG OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, NEITHER THE DRAFT ORDER HAS BEE N SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING HAS BEEN AFFORDED BY THE CON CERNED COMMISSIONER. THEREFORE, THE ORDER IS BAD IN LAW AND NEEDS TO BE QUASHED. WHEREAS, THE LD. DR STRONGLY OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WITH THE CONTENTION THAT NO SUCH PROCEDURE IS LAID DOWN IN THE RELEVANT PROVISION AN D SINCE APPROVAL IS REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER, WHICH HAS DULY BEEN OBTAINED BY THE CONCERNED, ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7. AFTER HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERI NG THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THERE IS ANY SUCH REQUIREMENT FOR SERVING ANY DRAFT ORDER AND OBTAINI NG THE OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ACCORDING APPROVAL BY THE COMMISSIONER. THE RELEVANT PROVISION REQUIRES FOR OBTAINING APPROVAL BEFORE PASSING OF THE ORDER, WHICH HAS BEEN OBTAINED AND THIS FACT STANDS INCORPORATED IN THE LAST PARAGRAPH OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 5 THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY VALID REASON TO ACCEP T HE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, AS SUCH, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 8. AS REGARDS ADDITIONS OF RS . 23,02,566/-, RS..21,68,953/-, RS.5,65,145/- AND RS.74,360/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDENDS/CREDIT RECEIVED IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOUNTS, INVESTMENT IN SHARES, SALES PROCEED RECEIVED FROM M /S. AARTHI AND PRINCIPAL AMOUNT LENT OR INVESTMENT IN HIRE PURCHASE BUSINESS AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL, IT IS THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ABOVE ITEMS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME RELATED ONLY TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AWARE THAT THE SAME I NCOME IS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT MADE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON MR. PARASMA L DANGI. MOREOVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT MADE OUT A CASE TO DEPART FROM THE DIRECTIONS OF THE INVESTIGATING AUTHORITY IN ITS APPRAISAL REPORT THA T THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE ON THE ASSESSEE AND SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT IS TO BE MADE ONLY ON MR. PARASMAL DANGI. AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER CANNOT MAK E ANY ASSESSMENT WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE TENOR OF STATEMENT MADE ON O ATH BY THE ASSESSEE AND MR. DHARMICHAND SURANA (THE COMPLAINANT INFORMANT) AN D OTHER PERSONS FROM WHOM STATEMENTS ARE RECORDED BY THE DEPARTMENT. MOREOVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER OMITTED TO CONSIDER THE LEGAL OWNERSHIP OF ALL TRAN SACTIONS, FUNDING OF FINANCE FOR SHARE ADVANCES HAVING ACCEPTED THAT THE SEVERAL BAN K ACCOUNTS OPENED WERE BENAMI FOR MR. PARASMAL DANGI AND FORGED SIGNATURE OF NAME LENDERS IN THE TOTALITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NO T JUSTIFIED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON TRUNCATED STATEMENTS OF PERSONS REFERRED TO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. SINCE NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND OR SEIZED TO HOLD THAT ITEMS OF INCOME ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 6 INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OR BENEFICIALLY ENJOYED BY T HE ASSESSEE, WHEN NO CASH, ASSETS, SHARES WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WITH MR. PARASMAL DANGI DESTROYED ALL EVI DENCES PREVENTING THE SEARCH PARTY ENTERING HIS PREMISES AND A SPECIFIC OBSERVAT ION IS MADE IN THE APPRAISAL REPORT AS WELL AS IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT MADE F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 9. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHILE REITERA TING THE SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING VARIOUS DA TES OF HEARING FIXED IN HIS CASE AND REFERRING TO VARIOUS PAPERS AND FILED BEFO RE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND ENCLOSED IN THREE PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFORE THIS BEN CH HAS PLEADED THAT NO ADDITION ON THESE ITEMS COULD BE MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER AS THE ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT MATERIALS AND DETAILS FOR NO T MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THESE ITEMS, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN APPROPRIATELY DEALT WITH AND CONSIDERED BEFORE MAKING THESE ADDITIONS. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS WITH REGA RD TO ALL THESE ITEMS NEEDS TO BE DELETED, IT WAS, THUS PRAYED FOR DELETION OF THE IM PUGNED ADDITIONS. 10. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL IN THE CA SE OF MR. PARASMAL DANGI HAS ALREADY BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THIS TRIBUNAL BY ACCEPT ING SUCH APPEAL AND DELETING THE ENTIRE PROTECTIVELY SIMILAR ADDITIONS MADE IN H IS CASE, SO IT ALSO PROVES THAT PROTECTIVE ADDITIONS IS NOT CALLED FOR IN OTHER CAS E, THEREFORE, ADDITIONS, IN A WAY, IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS CALLED FOR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY. OTHERWISE ALSO, SEARCH HAS BEEN CONDUCTED IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS IN THE CASE OF MR. PARASMAL DANGI. LOT OF INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL HAS BEEN FOUND, AND HE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH THAT NO ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENT IS CALLED FOR AND BY ASSESSEES OWN VERSION ALSO, HE W AS HAVING VARIOUS BENAMI I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 7 BANK ACCOUNTS IN DIFFERENT NAMES, THEREFORE, ADDITI ON IN ANY ONE OF THE TWO CASES HAS TO BE MADE ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS AND ONCE WHEN P ROTECTIVE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN DELETED IN THE CASE OF MR. PARASMAL DANGI, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE REQUIRES TO BE CONFIRMED. THIS IS ALSO NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MATERIAL PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONSIDERED, BUT THE PLEA IS THAT IT HAS NOT BEEN PR OPERLY AND APPROPRIATELY CONSIDERED WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED A DETAILED ORDER IN THIRD ROUND OF THE PROCEEDINGS CONSIDERING EACH AND EVERY ASPEC T OF THE MATTER. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE LIABLE TO BE CONFIRMED, WHICH MAY BE CONFIRMED. 11. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND CONSIDERED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHILE CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF THE CASE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, IN THE LIGHT OF THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 23 OF HIS ORDER CONTAINED IN PARA 1 TO 4.3 HAS CONCLUDED TO MAKE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS IN PARA 7 AT PAGE 32 OF HIS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THE TOTAL INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1985-86 TO 1994-95 AND 01.04.1995 TO 0 7.12.1995 IS ASSESSED AS UNDER: INCOME AS PER THE BLOCK RETURN RS. . 8,82,000/ - 1. DIVIDEND INCOME AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.1 ABOVE. RS . 23,02, 566 / - 2. INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.2 ABOVE. RS . 21,68,953 / - 3 . SALE PROCEED RECEIVED FROM M/S. AARTHI & CO. AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.3 ABOVE. RS. 5,65,145 / - 4. I NVESTMENT IN H IRE PURCHASE BUSINESS AS DISCUSSED IN PARA 5.4 ABOVE. RS . 74 ,360 / - TOTAL INCOME RS. 59,93,024/ - LESS: TELESCOPING OF RETURNED INCOME AS DISCUSSED I N PARA 6 RS. 8,82,000/ - I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 8 ABOVE TOTAL ASSESSED INCOME RS . 51,11,024 OR RS . 51,11,020/ - TAX CALCULATED @ 60% ON RS. 51,11,020/- RS.30,66, 612/- OR RS.30,66,610/- ASSESSED U/S. 158 BC (C) R.W.S. 254 OF INCOME TAX A CT, 1961 ON A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.51,11,120/- AS ABOVE. ISSUED DEMAND NOTICE AND COPY OF THE ORDER TO THE A SSESSEE. THIS ORDER IS PASSED WITH THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-IX, CHENNAI 6 AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 158 BG OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 11.1 THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE, WHO HAS BEEN HE ARD AT LENGTH IN THE LIGHT OF VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, FILED IN 3 PAPER BOOKS HAS NOT B EEN ABLE TO MAKE OUT A CASE FOR DELETION OF ANY OF THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS AS MA DE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO IS FOUND TO HAVE GIVEN VERY ELABORATE AND JUSTIFIED RE ASONS FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITIONS AND IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND MATERIA L ON RECORD, WE ARE INCLINED TO CONCUR WITH THE FINDING AND CONCLUSION AS ARRIVED A T BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRM HIS ORDER. THE REASONING AND BASIS AS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER ARE NOT BEING REPEATED AS WE FULLY AGREE WITH THE VIEW EXPRESSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAVE NO OTHER GROUND TO RECORD IN SUPPO RT THEREOF OTHER THAN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THIS POINT GETS SUPPOR T FROM THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. K.Y. PILLIAH AN D SONS [63 ITR 411] AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERITS. 12. BEFORE PARTING, IT WILL BE RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT AFTER THE HONBLE MADRAS HIGH COURTS DIRECTION PASSED IN TAX CASE (APPEAL) NO. 996 OF 2004 DATED I.T.(SS)A. NO.2/MDS/10 9 28.06.2011, THE APPEAL HAD TO BE DISPOSED OF WITHIN FOUR WEEKS FROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF THE ORDER, WHICH AS PER OFFICE OF THE IT AT HAS BEEN RECEIVED ON 01.08.2011 AND THE CASE HAS BEEN FIXED BY REGISTRY ON 29.08.2011 FOR THE FIRST TIME AND 31 ST AUGUST, 2011 IS A CLOSED HOLIDAY [RAMJAN (IDUL FI TR)] SO, IT IS TO BE HEARD WITHIN SHORT SPAN OF TIME AND THE ORDER HAD N ECESSARILY TO BE PASSED WITHOUT ANY FURTHER LOSS OF TIME. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STAN DS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 30.08.2011. SD/- SD/- (N.S. SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI) JUDICIAL MEMBER CHENNAI, DATED, THE 30.08.2011 VM/- TO: THE ASSESSEE//A.O./CIT(A)/CIT/D.R.