The DCIT, Central Circle-1, Surat V. Shri Jagdishbhai S.Ramani, Surat

ITSSA 250/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0012 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 24-02-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 07-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMALENDU VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: M K PATEL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT(SS)A NO.229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2 011 A.YS. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 SHRI JAGDISHBHAI S. RAMANI, RNJ ESTATE, SUPER COMPOUND, VASTA DEVDI ROAD, SURAT. PAN: ABNPR 3702L VS ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 A.Y. 2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2 007-08 & 2008-09 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, SURAT. VS SHRI JAGDISHBHAI S. RAMANI, RNJ ESTATE, SUPER COMPOUND, VASTA DEVDI ROAD, SURAT. PAN: ABNPR 3702L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI VIMALENDU VERMA, CIT-DR, ASSESSEE(S) BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL / DATE OF HEARING : 24/02/2014 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26/02/2014 / O R D E R PER SHRI MUKUL KUMAR SHRAWAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS EMANATING FROM THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A)-II AHMEDABAD, DATED 27.12.2010, 7 BY THE REV ENUE DEPARTMENT AND 7 BY THE ASSESSEE. YEAR-WISE, GROUNDS EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE REVENUE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW. IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 2 - A. GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS LAW ON THE SUBJECT, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF THE INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN M AKING ADDITION OF (RS.18,55,000/-, FOR A.Y. 2002-03), (RS.90,625/-, F OR A.Y.2003-04), (RS.7,13,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05), (RS.4,00,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05), (RS.4,48,000/- FOR A.Y.2006-07), (RS.17,20,500/- FO R A.Y. 2007-08), (RS.12,90,000/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09) ON ACCOUNT OF ALL EGED UNRECORDED INCOME. B. GROUNDS OF THE REVENUE. I) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND LAW , THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION AT (RS.18,55,000/- FOR A.Y.2002- 03), (RS.90,625/- FOR A.Y.2003-04), (RS.7,13,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05), (RS.4,00,000/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06), (RS.4,48,000/- FO R A.Y.2006-07), (RS.17,20,500/- FOR A.Y.2007-08), (RS.12,90,000/- F OR A.Y.2008-09) OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITION OF (RS.42,27,000/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04) , (RS.11,71,000/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04), (RS.12,79,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05), (RS.10, 91,000/- FOR A.Y.2005-06), (RS.14,12,000/- FOR A.Y.2006-07), (RS.34,41,500/- F OR RS.2007-08), (RS.28,69,500/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09) MADE ON ACCOUNT O F UNACCOUNTED INCOME WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF NOTINGS IN THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED AS PER PAGE NO.33 TO 49 OF ANNEXURE- A-2 DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. II) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION AT (RS.18,55,000/- FOR A.Y.2002- 03), (RS.90,625/- FOR A.Y.2003-04), (RS.7,13,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05), (RS.4,00,000/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06), (RS.4,48,000/- FO R A.Y.2006-07), (RS.17,20,500/- FOR A.Y.2007-08), (RS.12,90,000/- F OR A.Y.2008-09) AGAINST THE TOTAL ADDITION OF (RS.42,27,000/- FOR A.Y. 2003 -04), (RS.11,71,000/- FOR A.Y. 2003-04), (RS.12,79,000/- FOR A.Y.2004-05), (R S.10,91,000/- FOR A.Y.2005-06), (RS.14,12,000/- FOR A.Y.2006-07), (RS .34,41,500/- FOR RS.2007- 08), (RS.28,69,500/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09) HOLDING THAT NET INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES IN RELATION TO THE PERSONAL EXP ENDITURE AND INVESTMENT COMES TO RS.63,98,500/- FOR THE ENTIRE PERIOD FROM A.Y. 2002-03 TO A.Y. 2008- 09 INSTEAD OF RS.1,54,91,000/- AS DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE FIGURE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE, BASED ON THE NOTINGS IN THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED AND THE LOGIC OF ARRIVING AT THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN CLEARLY SHOWN IN THE CHART PREPARED IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER WITH THE HELP OF YEAR WISE BIFURCATION OF DETAILS UNDER VARIOUS HEAD S AS ENCLOSED WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ANNEXURE-A AS FORMING PART OF T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 1.1 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED AN ADDITIONAL GROU ND AS UNDER: IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 3 - 1. THAT ON FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, AS WELL AS ON THE SUBJECT, THE LD. AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ASSESSMENT U /S.153C OF THE ACT WHERE IN THERE ARE NO DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE FO UND/ IMPOUNDED FROM ANY PARTY, WHICH ARE COVERED U/S.132 OF THE ACT. 2. THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S.1 53C OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND HENCE THE ENTIRE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.153C OF THE ACT IS VOID AB INITIO AND BE CAUSED AS BEING WITHOUT JURISDICTION. 2. HEARD BOTH THE SIDES. IN RESPECT OF THIS ADDITIO NAL GROUND, WE FIND NO FORCE IN THIS GROUND BECAUSE THE ACCEPTED FACTUA L POSITION WAS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS/LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND WHICH WERE BELONGING TO THIS ASSESSEE. THOSE LOOSE PAPERS WERE ADMITTEDLY CONNECTED WITH THE ASSESSEES LIAISON BU SINESS. ON ACCOUNT OF THESE FACTS, WE HEREBY HOLD THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/ S.153C WERE RIGHTLY INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY CONTRARY EVIDENCE, WE HEREBY DISMISS THIS ADDITIONAL GROUND OF THE ASSESS EE. 3. THE LEAD ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2002-03 AND THE FACT S ARISING FROM THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R.W.S 1 53C OF IT ACT, DATED 31.12.2009 WAS AS SEARCH CONDUCTED ON 14.02.2008 AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF DOKANIA GROUP. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH CE RTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED, WHICH WERE BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE; HENCE NOTICE U/S.153C WAS ISSUED. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE RETURN, HOWEVER, PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED. IT WAS NOTED B Y THE AO THAT ON VERIFICATION OF LOOSE PAPERS IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEES UNACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AND EXPENDITURE WERE RECORDED IN THOSE LOO SE PAPERS. THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION WAS THAT HE WAS ENGAGED IN LI AISONS WORK AND ON THOSE RECEIPTS HE HAS ONLY RECEIVED COMMISSION IN T HE RANGE 1.5% TO 2% ON THE LIAISON WORK. THE ASSESSEES REPLY BEFORE TH E AO, WAS AS UNDER: THE ASSESSEE IS COMMITTEE MEMBER OF SOCIETY AND AS SOCIATED WITH VARIOUS NGOS. HE ALSO GOOD HOLD IN THE SOCIETY AT LARGE AND IS CLOSE TO MANY BUILDERS IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 4 - AND DEVELOPERS. THE TRANSACTION AS ENVISAGED IN THE PAPERS AS MENTIONED ABOVE ARE HIS LIAISON WORK DETAILS AS HAS BEEN DONE THROUGH HIM DURING VARIOUS YEARS. THE SAME IS NOTHING MORE THAN LIAISO N. HE GENERALLY EARNS 2 TO 2.5% ON SUCH DEALS. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE LIAI SON WORK PAYMENT RECEIPT AND PAYMENT IS DUE TO THE FACT THAT IN SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS WHAT WAS IMPORTANT WAS THE RECEIPT PART. THE PAYMENT IN ANY CASE IN A AFTER EFFECT OF RECEIPT. THUS BUSINESS IDENTITY AND LIAISON COMMISS ION AS IS BASED ON RECEIPT, IT BECOMES THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF SUCH BUSINESS . PAYMENT IN ANY CASE IS DONE AND RECORDED. EVEN IF NOT RECORDED IT COULD NO T AFFECT HIS COMMISSION INCOME, HENCE MORE EMPHASIS IS PUT BY THE ASSESSEE ON RECEIPT OF SUCH LIAISON WORK. IN SHORT LIAISON RECEIPTS ARE MORE ACCURATELY RECORDED AS COMMISSION IS BASED ON THE SAME. WHEREAS PAYMENT ARE RECORDED MOR E FOR SELF REMEMBRANCE. IT IS ALSO WORTH NOTING THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS ALREADY ACCEPTED HIS INCOME OF LIAISON IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND H ENCE ANY ADDITION IN THIS REGARD IS UNWARRANTED FOR. 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS AND CERTAIN DE TAILS FILED, IT WAS OPINED BY THE AO THAT THE LIAISON WORK WAS AN ACC EPTED FACTUAL POSITION AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS EARNING ABOUT 2% INCOME ON THE SAID LIAISON RECEIPTS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS ALSO NOTED TH AT THE RECEIPT FROM LIAISON WORK WAS MUCH MORE THAN THE LIAISON PAYMENT S WHICH HAD EXCEEDED THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT AS ARGUED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE LARGE SURPLUS AMOUNT WAS INVESTED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS RENOVATION IN THE HOUSE AND PURCHA SE OF PERSONAL ASSETS. THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ADMITTEDLY FORMED HIS CAPITAL BY TAKING CERTAIN GIFTS. ACCORDING TO AO, THE SAID INVESTMENT WAS FIN ANCED FROM THE LIAISON INCOME. THE AO HAS ALLOWED CERTAIN AMOUNT BY TELESC OPING RECEIPTS AND INVESTMENTS. HOWEVER THEREAFTER HE HAS COMPUTED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME AS FOLLOWS: 6. CALCULATION OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE CURRE NT YEAR: THE INCOME FROM THE LIAISON WORK IS CALCULATED IN TABLE GIVEN BELOW: WORK AMOUNT LIAISON WORK RECEIPTS 1,26,56,000 LIAISON WORK EXPENSES 84,73,000 IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 5 - EXCESS BALANCE 41,83,000 4.1 IN THE LIKE MANNER; FOR REST OF THE YEARS, THE AO HAS COMPUTED THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE MATTER WAS CARRIED FOR ALL THE YEARS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 5. BEFORE LEARNED CIT(A) ALSO THE SAME EXPLANATION WAS OFFERED AND HE WAS CONVINCED THAT THE INVESTMENT WAS REQUIRED T O BE TELESCOPED WITH THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE OBSERVATION OF LEAR NED CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD WERE AS FOLLOWS: 6. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS . IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENGAGED IN THE WORK OF LIAISONING AND RECEIVING VARIOUS AMOUNTS AND ALSO MAKING VARIOUS EXPENSES AND GIVEN AMOUNTS TO VARIOUS PERSONS IN THIS RESPECT. HE ALSO ADMITS THE PAPER B ELONGING TO HIM AND THE RECEIPTS ARE FROM THE LIAISONING WORK. THE TOTAL GR OSS RECEIPT COMES TO RS.4,01,87,500/- FROM WHICH THE REASONABLE AMOUNT O F INCOME DERIVED HAS TO BE CALCULATED. 6.1 THE APPELLANT HAS CONTENDED THAT THE REASONABLE AMOUNT OF INCOME IS @ 2% WHICH BECOMES RS.8,03,750/-, WHEREAS THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS CALCULATED IT AT RS.1,54,91,000/- ON THE BASIS THAT THE APPELLANT IS ENTITLED FOR DEDUCTION OF ONLY THOSE EXPENSES WHICH ARE RECORDED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AND ARE IN THE NATURE OF EXPENSES RELATED TO LIAISON WO RK, AND EXPENSES NOT RECORDED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS, ARE NOT ALLOWABLE. 6.2 HERE, I AGREE WITH THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSI ON THAT IN THE ROUGH NOTINGS FOR LIAISON WORK, THE MOST IMPORTANT PART IS THE RE CORDING OF GROSS RECEIPT AND THE BUSINESS IDENTITY OF THE PERSON CONCERNED BECAU SE THE COMMISSION IS RECEIVED ON THE GROSS RECEIPT FROM THE CONCERNED PE RSONS AND THESE ITEMS ARE TO BE REMEMBERED AND NOTED CORRECTLY. THE PAYMENTS AND OUTGOINGS ARE NOT RECORDED TOTALLY AS THIS WILL NOT AFFECT HIS COMMIS SION INCOME. THEREFORE, IN MY VIEW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S APPROACH OF TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION OF ONLY THOSE; EXPENSES, RECORDED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS, IS N OT PROPER. WHEN IT IS FOUND THAT ALL THE DETAILS ARE NOT MAINTAINED, THE LOGICA L APPROACH SHOULD BE THAT ON THE GROSS RECEIPT, A REASONABLE AMOUNT OF NET PROFI T RATE SHOULD BE APPLIED AND NET INCOME SHOULD BE WORKED OUT. 5.1 IN HIS OPINION, THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO EX PLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. IN RESPECT OF POOJAN PALACE AND CERTAI N OTHER ASSETS, THE IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 6 - OWNERSHIP OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED; HENC E, IT WAS HELD THAT IT WAS NOT JUSTIFIED TO TREAT THE INVESTMENT IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN SOME OF THE ASSETS SUCH AS AIR CONDITIONED, ETC., T HE ACTION OF THE AO WAS HELD AS JUSTIFIED. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DETAILS OF THE ASSETS AND THE DETAILS OF THE INCOME EARNED, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMPUTED T HE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS FOLLOWS: 6.10 THUS, THE TOTAL OF PERSONAL EXPENDITURE AND INVESTMENT MADE COMES TO RS.63,98,500/- AS UNDER: PERSONAL ASSETS RS. 60,000/- PERSONAL EXPENSES RS.26,34,500/- CAPITAL FORMATION RS.08,80,000/- NET DEPOSIT IN BANK RS.06,87,000/- INVESTMENT IN FD/MUTUAL FUND RS.21,37,000/- IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER EXPLANATION, THE INVESTMEN T & EXPENDITURE TO THIS EXTENT HAS TO BE CONSIDERED AS MET FROM INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. 5.2 ON THAT BASIS, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT TH E CONCLUSION AS FOLLOWS: 6.11 FROM THE INCOME THEORY, THE INCOME FROM LIA ISON WORK EVIDENT FROM THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND AND SEIZED COMES TO RS.10,04 ,687/- WHEREAS FROM ASSETS THEORY, THE INCOME EVIDENT FROM LOOSE PAPERS COMES TO RS.63,98,000/-. THEREFORE, IT WILL BE LOGICAL TO TAKE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AT RS.63,98,000/- AS AGAINST RS.1,54,91,000/- DETERMIN E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE YEAR WISE BREAK UP COMES TO AS UNDER: HEAD A.Y. 02- 03 A.Y. 03-04 A.Y. 04- 05 AY. 05-06 A.Y. 06- 07 A.Y. 07- 08 A.Y. 08- 09 INVESTMENT (LESS.FD MATUARED) 599000 15000 280000 0 300000 70000 980000 (- 107000) DEPOSIT IN BANK (- BANK WITHDRAWA L) 59000 (- 114000) 17000 (- 55900 0) 15000 12000 0 0 1080000 45000 IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 7 - PERSONAL ASSETS 20000 50000 0 40000 0 0 0 PERSONAL EXPENSE 891000 17500 0 238000 24000 0 148000 570500 372000 CAPITAL FORMATION GIFTS 400000 30000 0 180000 0 0 0 0 TOTAL 1855000 0 713000 40000 0 448000 1720500 1290000 6.12 HENCE, THE INCOME IS TO BE TAKEN AT RS.18,55,0 00/-, RS.7,13,000/-, RS.4,00,000/-, RS.4,48,000/-, RS.17,20,500/- AND RS .12,90,000/- FOR A.YS.2002-03, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. HOWEVER, FOR A.Y.03-04, THE TOTAL RECEIPT FROM LIAI SON WORK AND BUSINESS IS RS.36,25,000/- AND THE INCOME @ 2.5% COMES TO RS.90 ,625/- WHEREAS FROM THE ASSETS THEORY IT COMES TO 0. THEREFORE, THE INC OME FOR A.Y.2003-04, IS TO BE TAKEN AT RS.90,625/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED TO THIS EXTE NT I.E. RS.18,55,000/-, RS.90,625/-RS.7,13,000/-, RS.4,00,000/-, RS.4.48,00 0/-; RS.17,20,500/- AND RS.12,90,000/- FOR A.YS.2002-03, 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007- 08 & 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY AND THE APPELLANT IS ALLO WED RELIEF FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT. 6. BECAUSE OF THE PART RELIEF GIVEN BY LEARNED CIT( A), NOW BOTH THE SIDES ARE BEFORE US. HAVING HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS O F BOTH THE SIDES AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE EVIDENCES ON RECORD, IT APPEA RS THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ARRIVED AT A LOGICAL CONCLUSION. ACCORDING TO U S, IN SUCH CASES WHERE SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR AN ACTION IS TAKEN IN CONSEQ UENCE OF THE SEARCH THEN THE ASSESSMENTS ARE GENERALLY BEING MADE ON TH E BASIS OF ASSETS UNEARTHED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. IN GENERAL TERMS , WE SAY THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS ASSETS VALUE BASED. THERE IS ONE MORE SITUATION WHEN UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS DETECTED. IN THIS SITUATION, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 8 - IS DETERMINED AFTER ALLOWING CORRESPONDING UNDISCLO SED EXPENDITURE. THIS TYPE OF ASSESSMENT IS SAID TO BE INCOME BASED ASSES SMENT. THERE IS THIRD CATEGORY OF ASSESSMENTS WHERE THERE IS DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS WELL AS DETECTION OF UNDISCLOSED ASSETS. IN THIS TYPE OF CASES, THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT ADOPTS TELESCOPIC METHOD. ACCORD ING TO WHICH, THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS ARE BEING MATCHED WITH THE UNDIS CLOSED INCOME. THIS TELESCOPIC IS BASED UPON THE SIMPLE PRINCIPLE THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS INVESTED TOWARDS THE ACQUISITION OF UNDISCLOSED ASSETS. IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IN HAND, LEARNED CIT(A) HAS APPLIED THIS PR INCIPLE. HE HAS EXAMINED THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS ALONG WITH UNACCOUN TED INCOME THEREAFTER HE HAS MATCHED BOTH THE COMPONENTS AND T HEN GRANTED PART RELIEF, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. AFTER EXAMINING THE MET HOD ADOPTED BY LEARNED CIT(A), WE HAVE INQUIRED FROM BOTH THE SIDE S TO DEMONSTRATE ANY FALLACY IN THE SAID ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). HOWEVE R, THE PARTIES APPEARING BEFORE US IN A SUBTLE MANNER HAVE ACCEPTE D BY AND LARGE THE VERDICT OF LEARNED CIT(A) WITHOUT SPECIFYING ANY FA LLACY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THIS AND ALSO CONSIDERIN G THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE FACTUAL FINDING OF LEARNED CIT(A) AND THE SAME ARE HEREBY CONFIRMED. THE RESULT OF THIS DISCUSSION IS THAT GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF BOTH THE SIDES ARE DIS MISSED. SD/- SD/- (T.R. MEENA) ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUD ICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 26/02/2014 PRABHAT KR. KESARWANI, SR. P.S. IT(SS)A NO. 229, 230, 231, 232, 233, 234 & 235/AHD/2011 IT(SS)A NO.249, 250, 251, 252, 253, 254 & 255/AHD/2 011 SHRI JAGDISH S. RAMANI VS. ACIT SURAT. FOR A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 - 9 - / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. / CONCERNED CIT 4. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD 5. , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD