M/s. Jamadar Travels, Bharuch V. The CIT-III, Baroda

ITSSA 271/AHD/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3160 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 1 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 09-03-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Question of law; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 263

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NOS. IT(SS)A NO(S) / ITA NO(S). ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 271/AHD/2010 2004-05 M/S.JAMADAR TRAVELS DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH AABFJ 9426 G CIT-III BARODA 2. 541/AHD/2011 2004-05 -DO-ASSESSEE THE ACIT CENTRAL CIR.2 BARODA 3. 272/AHD/2011 2006-07 -DO-ASSESSEE -DO REVENUE 4. ITA1086/AHD/11 2007-08 -DO-ASSESSEE -DO REVENUE 5. ITA 615/AHD/13 2004-05 -DO-ASSESSEE ITO WARD-1 BHARUCH 6. ITA 616/AHD/13 2007-08 -DO-ASSESSEE -DO-REVENUE 7. 52/AHD/2014 2006-07 -DO-ASSESSEE -DO-REVENUE 8. 158/AHD/2014 2006-07 -DO-ASSESSEE -DO-REVENUE 9. 48/AHD/2014 2001-02 MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR BHARUCH PAN: ACAPJ 5828D -DO-REVENUE 10. 18/AHD/2014 2005-06 SHRI BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR, DADIA BAZAR, BHARUCH PAN: ACAPJ 5829 N ITO WARD-4 BHARUCH 11. 96/AHD/2014 2002-03 VIJESH P.JAMADAR DANDIA BAZAR, BAHRUCH PAN: ACHPJ 7661F -DO-REVENUE ASSESSEE S BY : SL.NOS.1 TO 09 SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR SL.NOS.10 & 11 SHRI B.T. THAKKAR, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI JAGADISH, CIT-DR IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 2 - !' / DATE OF HEARING 22/03/2017 #$%& ! ' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20/ 04 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YEARS (AYS) 2004-05, 2006-07 & 2007-08 IN THE CASE OF M/S.JAMA DAR TRAVELS (EIGHT APPEALS) AGAINST THE RESPECTIVE ORDERS OF THE COMMI SSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-IV, AHMEDABAD [CIT(A) IN SHORT]. OTHER THREE CAPTIONED ASSESSEES, NAMELY BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR, VIJAESH P.JAM ADAR AND MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR ALSO FILED APPEALS. SINCE TH E ISSUES INVOLVED ARE BROADLY SIMILAR, ALL THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOG ETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE S AKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. THE IT(SS)A NO.271/AHD/2011 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2004- 05 IS TAKEN AS A LEAD YEAR FOR THE ADJUDICATION PU RPOSES. IT(SS)A NO.271/AHD/2011 AY 2004-05 ASSESSEES A PPEAL 3. THE CAPTIONED APPEAL ARISES FROM THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A), AHMEDABAD PASSED UNDER S.263 DATED 26/03/2010. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER:- IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 3 - (1) THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-III , BARODA HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN NOT AFF ORDING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING AN D IN PASSING THE ORDER U/S.263 OF THE ACT EX-PARTE. (2) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSION OR INCOME- TAX-III, BARODA HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN ASSUMING JU RISDICTION U/S.263 OF THE ACT. (3) THAT ON FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASS ED U/S.153A(B) RWS 143930 OF THE ACT WAS NEITHER ERRON EOUS NOR PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE WITHIN THE M EANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE ACT. (4) THAT IN LAW AND ON FACTS, ACTION U/S.263 COULD NOT BE INITIATED AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALREADY SUBJECT MATTE R OF DISPUTE BEFORE CIT(A), AND CIT(A) HAD DECIDED APPEAL PRIOR TO INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS U/S.263 OF THE ACT ON THE SAME ISSUE SOUGHT TO BE REVISED. (5) THAT, ON MERITS, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-III, BARODA HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN DIRECTING TO MAKE ADDI TION OF RS.55,77,701/- BASED ONLY ON VALUATION REPORT, WITH OUT ANY INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT MADE IN CONSTRUCTION OF PROPERTY. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM TRAVEL AGENCY IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF JAMADAR TRAVELS AND INCOME FR OM VEHICLE HIRING. A SEARCH UNDER S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT') WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF M/S .JAMADAR GROUP OF CASES INCLUDING ASSESSEE HEREIN ON 17/01/2007. CON SEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION, PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT WERE UN DERTAKEN. IN THE IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 4 - COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.153A, IT WAS NOTIC ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, PART NER OF THE ASSESSEE- FIRM WAS FOUND TO HAVE CONSTRUCTED A BIG PALATIAL B UNGALOW AT BHARUCH, THE AREA-WISE CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH WAS RECORDED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT WAS NOTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE-FI RM HAS SHOWN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE AFORESAID BUNGALOW AT RS.59, 31,517/- IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH INCLUDES BANK LOAN OF RS.29,80,54 8/-. DURING SEARCH, THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM SHRI MEHMOODBHAI A DMITTED RS.20 LACS AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW IN REPLY TO Q UESTION NO.40 OF THE STATEMENT DATED 17/01/2007. IT WAS ASSERTED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY BILLS OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNGALOW AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR EVEN IN THE POST SEARCH INVESTIGATIONS. THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS DISCLOSED ONLY RS.7,77,820/- (IN AY 2007-08) IN THE RETURN FILED AFTER SEARCH AS AGAINST THE ADMITTED D ISCLOSURE TOWARDS BUNGALOW CONSTRUCTION OF RS.20 LAKHS. THE AO ACCOR DINGLY MADE A DIFFERENTIAL ADDITION OF RS.13,28,717/- FOR THE AY 2004-05. THE AO SIMULTANEOUSLY MADE REFERENCE TO THE VALUATION CELL FOR DETERMINATION OF THE CORRECT VALUATION OF THE BUNGALOW UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT. PENDING REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER, THE ASSESS MENT WAS FRAMED. THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER AS CALLED FOR IN TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT WAS RECEIVED AFTER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE. IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 5 - 5. AS PER VALUATION OFFICERS REPORT, THE FAIR COST OF CONSTRUCTION WAS REPORTED AT A SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER FIGURE AS TABULA TED HEREUNDER:- SR.NO. PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION A.Y. EXPENDITURE AS STATED BY ASSESSEE ASSESSED COST OF CONSTRUCTION DIFFERENCE 1. 2003 - 04 2004 - 05 67,59,874/ - 1,20,37,575/ - 55,77,701 / - 2. 2005 - 06 2006 - 07 5,00,000/ - 8,90,370/ - 3,90,370/ - 3 2006 - 07 2007 - 08 7,77,820/ - 13,85,095/ - 6,07,275/ - TOTAL 80,37,694/ - 1,43,13,040/ - 62,75,346/ - 6. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN EXERCISE OF RE VISIONAL POWER VESTED UNDER S.263 SOUGHT TO REVIEW THE AFORESAID A SSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05 ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID THE DIFFERENCES IN THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION REPORTED BY THE VALUATION CELL. SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED FOR VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS SEEKING EXPLANATION FROM T HE ASSESSEE WHEREBY QUESTION TOWARDS ENHANCEMENT OR CANCELLATION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS RAISED IN VIEW OF THE VALUATION REPORT SO RECEI VED SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CIT IN ITS ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT (WHICH IS UNDER CHALLENGE) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SHOW-CAUSE NOTICE UNDER S.263 AT ALL. TH E CIT OBSERVED THAT AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT, THE ASSESSED COST OF CONS TRUCTION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 UNDER CONSIDERATION STANDS AT RS.1,20,37,575/- AS AGAINST THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.67,59,874/- AS STA TED TO BE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE CIT OBSERVED THAT A DIFFERENCE OF IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 6 - RS.55,77,701/- IN THE VALUATION OF INVESTMENT IN CO NSTRUCTION WAS FOUND WHICH REMAINS TO BE ASSESSED. THE CIT ACCORDINGLY OBSERVED THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER S.153A IS ERRONEOUS IN SO FAR AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 7. THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE CIT PASSED UNDER S.2 63 DATED 08/02/2011 IS SOUGHT TO BE AGITATED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL. 8. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE M.K. PATEL, AT THE O UTSET, SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTROVERSY REVOLVES AROUND THE CORRECTNES S OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW WHICH WAS SHOWN IN THE REG ULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E LD.AR VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS/MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING SEARCH REGARDING ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW. THE LD.AR CANVASSED THAT ADHOC ADDITION OF RS.20 LACS W AS MADE IN THE STATEMENT DURING THE SEARCH WITHOUT REFERENCE TO AN Y INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF AFORESAID INCOME DE CLARED HAS BEEN ASSESSED UNDER S.143(3) RWS 153A OF THE ACT. WHERE AS RS.7,77,820/- WAS INCLUDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOM E FILED UNDER S.153A, THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13,28,717/- WAS ADDED BY T HE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 7 - CONTENDED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDI NGS AS WELL AS DURING THE ASSESSMENT, ALL THE DETAILS, BILLS & VOUCHERS W ERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND NO DEFECT WERE FOUND THEREIN BY THE REVENUE. T HE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT THE ACTION OF THE CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT I S BASED ON DEPARTMENT VALUATION OFFICERS (DVOS) REPORT OBTAINED AFTER THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAUMYA CONSTRUCTIONS IN TAX APPEAL NO.24 OF 2016 ORDER DATED 14/03/2016 NO SUCH ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE SEARCH ASSESSMENT UNDER S.143(3) RWS 153A OF THE ACT UNTIL AND UNLESS ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND DURING THE SEARCH. THE LD.AR ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED THAT ADDITION BASED ON DVOS REPORT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.153A RWS 143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, NO ERROR CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.153A WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST O F REVENUE. THE LD.AR ALSO POINTED OUT THAT DVOS VALUATION CANNOT BE SOU ND BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITIONS IN SEARCH ASSESSMENT. HE SUPPORTED THIS CONTENTION BY THE DECISION OF CO-ORDINATE BENCH AHMEDABAD TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JAYANTILAL T.JARIWALA IN IT(SS)A NO.65/AHD/2009 ORD ER DATED 29/10/2015. THE LD.AR ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE JURISDICTI ON ASSUMED BY THE CIT UNDER S.263 FOR REVISION OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDE R UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT SUFFERS FROM INHERENT JURISDICTIONAL DEFECT AND THUS VITIATED IN LAW. HE ACCORDINGLY URGED THAT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.263 BE SET ASIDE. IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 8 - 9. THE LD.DR MR. JAGADISH CIT-DR, ON THE OTHER HAND , CONTENDED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF THE ASS ESSEE HEREIN, AN OPULENT BUNGALOW OF PALATIAL CLASS WAS FOUND. THE BILLS/ VOUCHERS ETC. TO SUPPORT THE COST OF THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNGALO W WERE ASKED BY THE SEARCH TEAM IN THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH AS WELL AS IN THE POST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS FURNISHED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED BASED ON ADHOC DECLARATION S MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER S.132(4) TO COVER THE UNACCOUNTED COST INCURRED IN AFORESAID BUNGALOW. HOWEVER, IN O RDER TO FIND OUT THE PROPER AND CORRECT COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNG ALOW, THE REFERENCE UNDER S.142A WAS MADE TO THE VALUATION OFFICER. PE NDING THE RECEIPT OF THE VALUATION REPORT, THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED WHICH WAS FOUND ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE RE VENUE OWING TO A VAST DIFFERENCE IN THE DECLARATION MADE TOWARDS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS AGAINST THE TRUE AND FAIR COST INVOLVED IN SUCH CON STRUCTION. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY CONTENDED WITH FORCE THAT HIGHLY LUXURI OUS BUNGALOW WAS FOUND, THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD NOT BE SUPPORTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS BY ANY BILLS. A N ESTIMATED DECLARATIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS LATER ON FOUN D TO BE UNTRUE. THUS, A CASE OF UNDER DECLARATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION EMERGED. HENCE, THE CIT WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 263 OF THE ACT ON RECEIPT IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 9 - OF VALUATION REPORT ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSMENT RECO RDS (INCLUDING VALUATION REPORT) BEFORE IT WITHIN THE LIMITATION P ERIOD AVAILABLE FOR INITIATING SUCH ACTION. THE LD.DR ACCORDINGLY CONT ENDED THAT THE ARGUMENT ADVANCED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEE DINGS IS FALLACIOUS TO ITS CORE. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO AVAIL THE OPP ORTUNITY OFFERED BY THE CIT TO REBUT THE LOGICAL QUESTIONS EMERGED ON RECEI PT OF THE VALUATION REPORT. THUS, THE ACTION OF THE CIT CANNOT BE FAUL TED IN EXERCISING ITS REVISIONAL POWERS. THE LD.DR FURTHER CONTENDED THA T ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN MERELY SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS OFF ERED OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN AND REBUT CONTENTS OF THE VALUATION REPORT IF IT SO DESIRES BEFORE THE AO. HE THEREFORE URGED THAT NO INTERFERENCE WI TH THE ACTION OF THE CIT IS CALLED FOR. 10. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PE RUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CASE LAWS CITED. THE SHORT QUESTION IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS WHETHER THE CIT WAS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING SECTION 263 OF THE ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS NOTE D ABOVE. IN TERMS OF S.263 OF THE ACT, THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY MAY C ALL FOR RECORD AND EXAMINE THE RECORD OF ANY PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE INC OME TAX ACT AND EXERCISE REVISIONAL POWERS ON SATISFACTION OF CONDI TIONS AS PRESCRIBED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. THE RECORD FOR THE PURPO SE OF SECTION 263 IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 10 - MEANS RECORD AS IT EXISTS AT THE TIME OF ACTION OF THE REVISIONAL AUTHORITY. THUS, RECORD INCLUDES NOT ONLY THE RECORDS AS IT ST ANDS AT THE TIME WHEN THE ORDER IN QUESTION WAS PASSED BY THE AO BUT ALSO INCLUDE THE DOCUMENTS WHICH HAVE COME ON RECORD SUBSEQUENT TO THE ASSESSMENT. THUS, THE EXAMINATION BY THE COMMISSIONER IS NOT RE QUIRED TO BE CONFINED TO THE RECORDS EXISTING AT THE TIME OF ASS ESSMENT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. MANJUNATHESWARE PACKING PRODUCTS 231 ITR 53(SC). T HE VALUATION REPORT, IN THE INSTANT CASE, WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT T HE TIME OF ASSESSMENT BUT WAS RECEIVED POST-ASSESSMENT WHICH HAD A MATERIAL B EARING ON THE ASSESSMENT SO COMPLETED. THE VALUATION REVEALED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ADOPTED BY THE AO KEEPING IN MIND THE DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH WAS NOT IN CONFI RMITY WITH THE TRUE OR FAIR COSTS THEREOF. CONSEQUENTLY, IT WILL NOT BE OUT OF RECKONING TO SAY THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO (SUBJECT MATTER OF REVISIO N) SUFFERS FROM ERRORS WHICH IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENU E. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE CIT FOR ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION UNDER S.2 63 CANNOT BE PRIMA- FACIE FAULTED. 11. THE SECOND QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHETHER THE CIT CAN EXERCISE POWER UNDER S.263 IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE WHERE, A LLEGEDLY, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS RELATABLE TO THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE BUNGALOW IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 11 - WAS FOUND. THUS, A QUESTION THAT REQUIRES TO BE AN SWERED IS WHETHER WHEN THE AO ITSELF IS NOT ALLEGED TO BE COMPETENT T O MAKE THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCES REPORTED BY THE VALUATION REPORT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, PER SE , WHETHER THE CIT CAN ASSUME JURISDICTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT OR NOT. RELIAN CE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED BY ASSESSEE ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. SOUMYA CONSTRUCTION PVT.LTD. IN TAX APPEAL NO.24 OF 2016 ORDER DATED 14/03/2016. 11.1. CITING REFERENCE TO THE AFORESAID DECISION, I T WAS CONTENDED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AO WHILE FRAMING A SSESSMENT UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT MAY MAKE ADDITIONS HAVING REGARD TO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ONLY FOUND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH. 11.2. BEARING THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION IN MIND, WE E XAMINE THE FACTS OF THE CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, AS NOTED ABOVE, THE ASS ESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE IN CONTROL AND POSSESSION OF A PALATIAL AND OPULENT BU NGALOW IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CORROBORATE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNGALOW AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS W ITH SUPPORTING BILLS, ETC. QUA WHAT WAS PHYSICALLY FOUND IN THE COURSE O F SEARCH. THUS, WHILE THE COST OF INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW WAS PURPORTEDLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE TRUE VALUE THEREOF COULD NOT BE ESTABLISHED BY IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 12 - SUPPORTING PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS. THESE FACTS HAVE BEEN STATED AND RE- STATED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE HAVI NG FOUND ITSELF AT THE SLANDER GROUND READILY OFFERED AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS AS UNRECORDED COMPONENT OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION O F BUNGALOW. THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.20 LAKHS WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SEARCHED PERSONS UNDER S.153A, SUBJECT HOWEVER, TO THE TRUE DETERMINATION OF APPROPRIATE INVESTMENT COST OF THE AFORESAID BUNGAL OW. FOR THIS PURPOSE, THE AO REFERRED THE MATTER TO THE VALUATION CELL IN EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER 142A, THE REPORT WHEREOF WAS RECEIVED SUBSEQU ENT TO THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE VALUATION REPORT REVEALED VAST DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT COST ADOPTED BY T HE ASSESSEE (INCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF DECLARATION) AND THE ESTIM ATED COST. THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE IN OUR VIEW, BEARS PROXIMATE A ND RATIONAL CONNECTION TO THE DETERMINATION OF TRUE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OWI NG TO EVENT OF SEARCH THE INVESTMENT COST OF THE BUNGALOW IN QUESTION WAS TAKEN NOTE OF IN THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND ENQUIRY THEREON WAS CONDUCTE D UNDER S.132(4) AS WELL AS POST SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFER SATISFACTORY CORROBORATION TOWARDS OUTLAY ON CONSTRUCTION OF BU NGALOW. THEREFORE, THE ENDEAVOUR OF THE AO TO EXPLORE THE TRUE VALUE O F THE PALATIAL BUNGALOW AND CONSEQUENTLY TRUTHFULNESS OF THE ADHOC ADMISSION WAS WITHIN ITS SCOPE OF POWER AVAILABLE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 13 - 11.3 BE THAT AS IT MAY, IN THE CAPTIONED APPEAL, T HE SCOPE OF POWER OF CIT UNDER S.263 IS IN CHALLENGE. THE LEGALITY OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A WITH REFERENCE TO EXISTENCE OF INCRIM INATING MATERIAL CANNOT BE CHALLENGED IN S.263 PROCEEDINGS. THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.153A THUS SUBSISTS AS VALID ORDER AND CONTI NUES TO DRAW LEGITIMACY. THE APPLICATION OF S.263 ON A LEGAL A ND SUBSISTING ORDER OF AO IS IN REVIEW IN PRESENT APPEAL WHICH IS REQUIRED TO BE TESTED ON THE PARAMETERS INBUILT IN S.263. AT THIS SUBSEQUENT ST AGE OF REVIEW, THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECTS OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S.153A C ANNOT, IN OUR OPINION, BE WEIGHED. 11.4 THE REFERENCE MADE UNDER S.142A FOR DETERMINI NG THE PROPER VALUE OF THE INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW CANNOT BE SEEN AS IND EPENDENT ENQUIRY UNCONNECTED TO THE EVENTS OCCURRED AT THE TIME OF S EARCH. THE ABSENCE OF DOCUMENTATION TO SUPPORT THE INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH IN ITSELF INCRIMINATES THE ASSESSEE. THE ONUS WAS THEREFORE ON THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT THE INFERENCE OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. HAVING FAILED TO DO SO, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED AN ESTIMATED AMOUNT, THE TRUTHFULNESS OF WHICH WAS PUT UNDER ASPERSION ON ACCOUNT OF TH E VALUATION REPORT PREPARED BY A STATUTORY FUNCTIONARY. UNDER THESE C IRCUMSTANCES, THE CASE MADE OUT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION CO ULD NOT HAVE BEEN IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 14 - SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF VALUATION REPORT IN A SEA RCH ASSESSMENT IS TOTALLY DEVOID OF MERIT IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 11.5. THUS, CALLING OF REPORT BY THE AO AND CONSEQ UENT AND ACTION OF THE CIT VS. 263 ARE FOUND TO BE WITHIN THE DOMAIN OF TH E RESPECTIVE AUTHORITIES AND CANNOT THUS BE DISCREDITED. CONSEQ UENTLY, WE DO NOT FORCE IN THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND FOR INAPPLICABILITY OF 263 CANVASSED IN THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US. THE RELIANCE PLACED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. JAYANTI T.JARIWALA (SUPRA) TO ASSAIL THE REFERENCE TO VALUATION OFFICER IS GROSSLY MISPLACED . THE FACTS IN THAT CASE ARE MATERIALLY DIFFERENT. NO INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENTS WERE FOUND IN SEARCH IN SUCH CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE PALA TIAL BUNGALOW WAS FOUND THE COST OF WHICH WAS NOT SUPPORTED AT ALL BY BILLS AND EVIDENCES. THE ASSERTIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR EXIST ENCE OF SUPPORTING BILLS AND DOCUMENTS TOWARDS COST OF CONSTRUCTION PURPORTE DLY RECORDED IN BOOKS IS BALD AND UNSUPPORTED. WE ARE THUS NOT INC LINED TO DWELL ON OTHER ASPECTS OF THE PROPOSITION MADE IN THIS REGAR D. 12. WE SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE RAISE D FEW OTHER CONNECTED GROUNDS ASSAILING THE ACTION OF THE CIT. WE OBSERV E THAT THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT ADDRESS US ON ANY OF THE REMAI NING GROUNDS. HOWEVER, WE SIMULTANEOUSLY OBSERVE THAT THE ACTION OF CIT UNDER S.263 IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 15 - ALLEGED TO BE WITHOUT AFFORDING SUFFICIENT AND REAS ONABLE OPPORTUNITY LACKS MERIT. AS SEEN FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT, TH E OPPORTUNITY GRANTED BY THE COMMISSIONER WAS SQUANDERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ONLY TO BE BLAMED FOR. NO REASONS HAVE BEEN ASSIGNED BEFORE TO US AS TO WHAT PREVENTED THE ASSESSEE TO AVAIL TH E OPPORTUNITY SO PROVIDED. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT SEE ANY JUSTIFICA TION IN SUCH COMPLAINT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO SEEKS TO RAISE A POINT THAT THE A SSESSMENT ORDER UNDER REVIEW OF CIT WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE T HE CIT(A) AND THUS, OWING TO DOCTRINE OF MERGER, THE ORDER OF THE AO STANDS EXCLUDED FROM THE SCOPE AND AMBIT OF S.263. WE DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THIS LINE OF ARGUMENT EITHER. THE QUANTUM OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ARISING OUT OF BUNGALOW WAS NEITHER SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL NOR D ETERMINED BY THE CIT(A) IN AN APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HIM. THE REFORE, THE ISSUE UNCONNECTED TO THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS SUBJECTED TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.263 FOR WHICH THERE DOES NOT APPEAR TO BE ANY IMPEDIMENT. 13. CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(S S)A NO.271/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 16 - ITA NO.615/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2004-05 14. THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FRO M THE CONSEQUENTIAL ASSESSMENT ORDER ARISING AS A SEQUE L TO ACTION OF THE CIT UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 263 CHALLENGED IN I T(SS)A NO.271/AHD/2011(SUPRA). 15. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MADE EARLIER UNDER S.153A WAS REVISED AND AN ADDITION OF RS.52,77,701/- WAS MADE BY AO IN PUR SUANCE OF THE DIRECTION OF THE CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. IN FI RST APPEAL THEREON, THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT INVESTME NT IN BUNGALOW IS SHOWN IN THE BALANCE-SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM. T HE ASSESSEE-FIRM HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DEFECT IN THE VALUATION REPORT RESULTING IN DISPUTED ADDITION OF RS.52,77,700/-. RESULTANTLY, THE CIT(A ) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO. 16. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL, IT WAS REPRESEN TED TO BE A CONSEQUENTIAL APPEAL AND HAS NOT BEEN ADDRESSED IN ANY ELABORATION IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. HOWEVER, THE MAIN PLEA ON B EHALF OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS TO BE THAT NO INDEPENDENT EVIDENCE OF INCUR RING OF UNACCOUNTED IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 17 - EXPENDITURE OF RS.52,77,700/- WAS FOUND IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH AND THEREFORE THE ADDITION BASED ON THE VALUATION REPOR T IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 17. WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE AFORESAID ARGUMENT . A TANGIBLE ASSET IN THE FORM OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WAS FOUND IN THE COU RSE OF SEARCH. THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE-FIRM ADMITTED PRESENCE OF U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE AFORESAID PROPERTY ALBEIT AT A SMALLER FIGUR E. THUS, THE CONSUMMATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CANNOT BE DOUBTE D. IT IS ONLY THE QUANTUM OF UNDISCLOSED COMPONENT OF INVESTMENT WHIC H IS SOUGHT TO BE VEXED WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMIN ATING EVIDENCE. THE VALUATION REPORT ISSUED BY THE DEPARTMENT VALUER IS AVAILABLE BEFORE THE REVENUE WHICH SEEKS TO IMPLICATE THE ASSESSEE ON T HE QUANTUM OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT. NO BIAS OF ANY SUBSTANTIV E NATURE IN THE VALUATION REPORT OF DVO IS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE ONUS TO REBUT THE ALLEGATION OF ADDITIONA L DIFFERENTIAL COMPONENT OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT ALLEGED TO BE R S.52,77,700/-. THEREFORE, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COGENT EXPLANATION FORTHCOMING FROM THE ASSESSEE, WE DO NOT SEEK TO DISTURB THE ELABORA TE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD. WE ALSO NOTE THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE BUNGALOW IS NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE-FIRM . IN THIS CONNECTION, WE ALSO NOTE THAT THIS POINT HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSE D BY THE CIT(A). IT HAS BEEN NOTED THAT THE DISCLOSED COMPONENT OF THE BUNG ALOW WAS DECLARED IN IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 18 - THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. AS A COROLLARY, THE UNDISCLOSED COMPONENT IS ALSO REQUIRED TO BE TAGGED ALONG WITH DISCLOSED COMPONENT. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, ELABORATE ORDER OF CIT(A) DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 18. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DISCUSSION, WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE IN ITA NO.615/AHD/2013 FOR AY 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.541/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2004-05 19. IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE DIF FERENTIAL ADDITION OF RS.13,28,717/- IN THE PRE-REVISED ASSESSMENT UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE SEARCH. 20. AS NOTED EARLIER, THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED RS. 20 LAKHS TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED COMPONENT OF THE INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW IN THE STATEMENT UNDER S.132(4) IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE ADMITTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,77,820/- ONLY IN THE RETURN OF I NCOME UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.13,28,717/- OFFE RED IN SEARCH WAS ADDED IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT PURSUANT TO SEARCH. THE AFORESAID AMOUNT MERELY RE PRESENTS DIFFERENTIAL FIGURE BETWEEN AMOUNT OFFERED QUA AMOUNT DECLARED IN THE STATEMENT IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 19 - UNDER S.132(4) OF THE ACT. THE CONFESSIONAL STATEM ENT UNDER S.132(4) HAS NOT BEEN SHOWN TO BE REBUTTED OR RETRACTED. THEREF ORE, THE SANCTITY OF UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW WHICH WAS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AND NOT DISCREDITED AT ANY STAGE, CANNOT BE DISTURBED. THEREFORE, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKI NG AFORESAID ADDITION BASED ON THE CONFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF CAN NOT BE FAULTED. THE CIT(A) IS THUS RIGHT IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE AO. 21. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A NO.541/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2004-05 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.272/AHD/2011 AY 2006-07 22. THE PRESENT APPEAL CONCERNS AY 2006-07. AS NOT ED IN THE EARLIER IN APPEALS RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05, A SEARCH UNDER S .132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE OF JAMADAR GROUP CASES ON 1 7/01/2007. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER S.153A WAS MADE PURSUANT TO THE AF ORESAID SEARCH ACTION FOR VARIOUS YEARS INCLUDING AY 2006-07 HEREI N. TO REITERATE THE FACTS, DURING THE SEARCH UNDER S.132 IN THE CASES O F JAMADAR GROUP, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT THAT THE ASSES SEE HAS CONSTRUCTED A PALATIAL BUNGALOW NEAR VILLAGE ASURIYA IN BHARUCH . THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW WAS SHOWN AT RS.59,31,157/ - IN THE BOOKS OF IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 20 - ACCOUNTS OF JAMADAR TRAVELS. THE AO OBSERVED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT THAT THE ASSESS EE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DETAILS OF CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF SEARCH A ND IN POST SEARCH INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED DISC LOSURE OF RS.20 LAKHS AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE BUNGALOW. AN AMOU NT OF RS.13,28,717/- WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI VIJES H JAMADAR PROTECTIVELY AND M/S.JAMADAR TRAVELS SUBSTANTIVELY FOR THE AY 2004-05. AS IN THE CASE OF JAMADAR TRAVELS, THE ASSESSEE DIS CLOSED ONLY RS.7,77,820/- (IN AY 2007-08) AS AGAINST THE ADMITT ED DISCLOSURE OF RS.20 LAKHS ON THIS ACCOUNT. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS COVERED IN 1 53A PROCEEDINGS, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE VALUATION CELL UNDER S.14 2A OF THE ACT. THE REPORT OF THE VALUATION OFFICER WAS RECEIVED SUBSEQ UENT TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. A S PER THE VALUATION REPORT BY DVO, THE ASSESSED COST OF CONSTRUCTION WA S TABULATED FOR THE DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN PARA NO.5 OF THIS ORD ER. AS PER DVOS REPORT, THE ASSESSED COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR AY 20 06-07 IS RS.8,90,370/- AS AGAINST EXPENDITURE OF RS.5 LAKHS STATED BY ASSE SSEE. THE INCOME WAS THUS FOUND TO BE UNDER ASSESSED TO THE EXTENT OF RS .3,90,370/- AS PER VALUATION REPORT. IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 21 - 23. BASED ON THE SUBSEQUENT REPORT FROM THE VALUATI ON OFFICER, THE ACTION UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN IN VARIOUS ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION, THE GRIEVANCES OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE MAI NTAINABILITY OF ACTION UNDER S.263 ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS AS RAISED IN THE P RESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN DEALT WITH EARLIER APPEAL RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05 IN IT(SS) NO.271/AHD/2010 HEREINABOVE. IT WAS FOUND THEREIN THAT ACTION OF THE CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT WAS WITHIN THE AUTHORITY OF LAW AND THUS CANNOT BE FAULTED. DETAILED REASONS WERE PROVIDED FOR COMING TO SUCH CONCLUSION. THE FACTS IN ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL EXC EPT FOR THE VARIATIONS ON ACCOUNT OF QUANTUM AND CHANGE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR. IN PARITY WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON ANALOGUES FACTS, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT PASS ED UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO.272/AHD/20 11 FOR AY 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.158/AHD/2014 AY 2006-07 24. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS THE CONSEQUENCE OF ASSESS MENT ORDER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S.153A R.W.S.263 OF THE ACT DATE D 20/12/2011 WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER DATED 03/0 2/2014. 25. FOR THE PARITY OF REASONING GIVEN FOR ITA NO.6 15/AHD/2012 FOR AY 2004-05, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AS A IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 22 - RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.15 8/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1086/AHD/2011 AY 2007-08 26. THE GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AG AINST THE ORDER OF CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT DATED 08/02/2011 PASSED FOR AY 2007-08 ARE SIMILAR TO IT(SS)A NO.271/AHD/2010 FOR AY 2004-05. 27. AS PER DVOS REPORT, THE ASSESSED COST OF CONS TRUCTION FOR AY 2007-08 IS RS.13,85,095/- AS AGAINST THE EXPENDITUR E OF RS.7,77,820/- STATED TO BE INWARD BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS, A DIFFE RENCE OF RS.6,07,275/- WAS FOUND IN THE INVESTMENT MADE AFTER ASSESSES UND ER S.153A WAS CARRIED OUT. 28. THE FACTS BEING ANALOGOUS TO IT(SS)A NO.271 OF 2005, NO INTERFERENCE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT IS CALLED FOR IN PARITY. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE I N ITANO.1086/AHD/2011 FOR AY 2007-08 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.616/AHD/2013 AY 2007-08 29. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT OR DER PASSED UNDER S.143(3) R.W.S.153A(B) R.W.S.263 OF THE ACT DATED 2 0/12/2011 WHICH WAS IN TURN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) IN ITS ORDER DATED 31/12/2012. THE IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 23 - PRESENT APPEAL IS THUS CONSEQUENTIAL TO ITA NO.1086 /AHD/2011(SUPRA). THE FACTS AND ISSUE INVOLVED ARE ANALOGOUS TO IT(SS )A NO.271/AHD/2010 (SUPRA) AND CONSEQUENTIAL APPEAL IN ITA NO.615/AHD/ 2013. IN PARITY, WE DECLINE TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER PASSED IN CONSE QUENCE OF DIRECTION OF CIT UNDER S.263 OF THE ACT. 30. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.616/ AHD/2013 FOR AY 2007-08 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.52/AHD/2014 AY 2006-07 31. THE IMPUGNED APPEAL RELATES TO PENALTY OF RS.1, 70,000/- UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE DIFFERENTIAL INCOME RETURNED UNDER S.139(1) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO SEARCH (RS.13,65,603/-) QUA THE INCOME RETURNED UNDER S.153A IN CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH (RS.18,62,049 ). THE AO IMPOSED PENALTY ON THE UNDERSTATED INCOME OF RS.4,96,446/- IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME QUA THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.153A HOLDING THE SAME AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 32. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAH YABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT (2015) 280 CRT 216 (GUJ.), NO PENALTY CAN BE I MPOSED ONCE THE IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 24 - UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS REPORTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT RE TURN UNDER S.153A FILED IN PURSUANCE OF THE SEARCH. 33. THE ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH IN GREAT LENGT H IN THE CASE OF VIJAY K. SHAH IN IT(SS)A NOS.54 TO 57/AHD/2014 FOR AYS 2003- 04 TO 2006-07, ORDER DATED 13/04/2017. THE RELEVANT PARA DEALING WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS SELF-EXPLANATORY AND THUS IS REPROD UCED HEREWITH. 9. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ISSUE IS AFFIRMED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE EQUALLY INCLINE D TO DWELL UPON THE CARDINAL PLEA RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PROPO SITION THAT AS SOON AS RETURN IS FILED UNDER S.153A, THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY OR OTHERWISE HAS TO BE SEEN ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.153 A AND RETURN FILED EARLIER UNDER S.139 PRIOR TO SEARCH SHOWING LESSER QUANTUM OF INCOME FADES INTO INSIGNIFICANCE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR THIS PROPO SITION, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATE L VS. ACIT (2015) 280 CTR 216 (GUJ.) WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON IN THE COURS E OF HEARING. IN ESSENCE THUS, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME DI SCOVERED AS A RESULT OF SEARCH AND INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A IN PO ST SEARCH PROCEEDINGS ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT ALL NOTWITHSTANDING EXPLANATION-5 SUBSISTING IN STATUTE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. 9.1. WE STRAIGHT AWAY RECKON THAT SUCH SWEEPING PROPOSITION DOES NOT FIND ANY SEMBLANCE OF ACCEPTABILITY. AS NOTED EARLIER, EXPLANATION-5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE AFORESAID SIT UATION WHERE IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT UNDISCL OSED INCOME FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCO ME FURNISHED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE SHALL BE DEEMED TO FALL WIT HIN THE SWEEP OF SECTION 271(1)(C) UNLESS THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY EXIT ROUTE PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION-5 ITSELF. THUS, THE AFORESAID PROPOSIT ION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE RETURN IS FILED BY THE ASSES SEE AFTER THE SEARCH IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S.153A INCLUDING UN DISCLOSED INCOME IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 25 - DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE GE TS INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO SHUN AWAY PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS SQUARELY AT LOGGERHEADS WITH DEEMING FICTION CREATED UNDER EXPL ANATION-5 FOR THIS PURPOSE. NEEDLESS TO SAY, THIS GENERIC PROPOSITION TOWARDS NON-APPLICABILITY OF PENALTY ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF SEEN IN AFFIRMATI VE, WILL RENDER THE LEGISLATIVE FIAT UNDER EXPLANATION-5 RELATABLE TO SEARCH CASES AS OTIOSE AND INFRUCTUOUS. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE BENEFIT OF IMMUNITY PROVIDED UN DER EXPLANATION-5 IS WELL DEFINED AND STRUCTURED. AS PROVIDED, IT IS AVAILAB LE ONLY IN RESPECT OF SUCH YEAR WHERE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF THE RETURN HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS AS C ONTEMPLATED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION. 9.2. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL (SUPRA) REFERRED TO AND EXTENSIVELY RELIED UPON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT IN THAT CASE, THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED FOR DECISION BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS CONFINED TO AVAILABILITY OF IMMUNITY UNDER CLAUSE(2) TO EXPLANATION-5 OF SECTIO N 271(1)(C) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FOR READY REFERENCE, IT IS REPRODUCED HE REUNDER:- WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN RESTORING TH E PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT BEN EFIT UNDER EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR PERIOD WHERE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN UND ER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT HAD NOT EXPIRED? IN THE CONTEXT OF ABOVE QUESTION POSED, THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AFTER REFERRING TO SERIES OF DECISIONS OF VARIOUS COURTS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BROADLY SATISFIED ALL THE CONDITIONS REQUIRED FOR CLAIMING IMMUNITY FROM PAYMENT OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 9.3. SIGNIFICANTLY, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF AFTER HAVI NG RAISED THE GENERAL PROPOSITION TOWARDS CLAIMING IMMUNITY TOWARDS UNDIS CLOSED INCOME INCLUDED IN S.153A RETURN, IN EXERCISE OF ITS WISDOM, PAUSED AND WENT ON TO WITHDRAW IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 26 - THE SAME AT A LATER STAGE BEFORE THE LD.THIRD MEMBE R IN THE ITAT PROCEEDINGS IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2009 ) 121 ITD 159 (TM) WHICH DECISION WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THUS, APPARENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHI LE IN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WAS NO LONGER AGGRIEVED BY THE PROPOSIT ION THAT RETURN UNDER S.153A IS AMENABLE TO PENALTY PROVISIONS UNDER S.27 1(1)(C) OF THE ACT. TO ELABORATE, THE LD.THIRD MEMBER CLEARLY RECORDED A F INDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE POSITION THAT SECTION 271(1)(C ) IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S.153A. THE SUBSTANTIVE QUEST ION THAT EMERGED BEFORE THE LD.THIRD MEMBER OF ITAT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENC E OF OPINION WAS WHETHER IMMUNITY GRANTED UNDER EXPLANATION-5(2) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ON NUANCED AND CONTEXTUAL ANAL YSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN APPEA L UNDER S.260A OF THE ACT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO RECKON THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE POST SEARCH RETURNS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY IN A SWEEPING MANNER REGARDLESS OF THE SATI SFACTION OF CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED FOR ITS NON-APPLICABILITY AS ENUMERATED UN DER CLAUSE(2) OF EXPLANATION-5. 9.4. NEEDLESS TO SAY, SENTENCES USED WHILE RENDE RING A JUDGMENT CANNOT BE READ IN ISOLATION AND THEIR PURPORT AND CONTENTS AR E DERIVED FROM THEIR CONTEXT. AS NOTED, THE LAW IS CODIFIED FOR APPLICABILITY OF PENALTY IN SEARCH CASES. THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE CONSCIOUS DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CASES WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN FILED PRIOR TO SEARCH QU A THE CASES WHERE THE RETURN IS YET TO BE FILED AND HAS PUT THEM ON A DIF FERENT PEDESTAL. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT A JUDGEMENT CANNOT BE READ OUT OF CONTEXT IN W HICH THE QUESTION AROSE FOR DECISION IN THAT CASE. IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A SENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF THE QUESTION IN CONSIDERATION AND TO TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE LAW DECLARED BY THE COURT. A JUDGMENT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE AND THE OBSERVATIONS FROM THE JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF QUES TIONS WHICH WERE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT. A DECISION OF THE COURT TAKES IT S COLOUR FROM ITS QUESTION IN WHICH IT IS RENDERED AS ENUMERATED IN CIT VS. SUN E NGINEERING WORKS PVT.LTD. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC). THUS, CONTEXT HOLDS THE K EY AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT HAS TO BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS IN VOLVED THEREIN AND NOT ON THE IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 27 - BASIS OF WHAT LOGICALLY FLOWS THERE FROM. A STRAY SENTENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PUT INTO SERVICE TO DRAW A MEANING WHICH WAS NEV ER PROBABLY MEANT BY THE AUTHOR HIMSELF. A JUDGMENT IS NOT TO BE READ AS ST ATUTE. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF QUESTION FRAMED FOR DECISION BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIG H COURT, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ABSTRACT PROPOSITION OF NON-APPLI CABILITY OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES (WHEREVER UNDISCLO SED INCOME HAS BEEN INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FILED POST-SEARCH) IS SINGUL ARLY MISPLACED AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE FACTUAL CONTEXT IN WHICH THE DECIS ION IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL(SUPRA) WAS RENDERED. 34. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FINDINGS, WE DO NOT FI ND ANY MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED ON MERITS TO ABSOLVE THE ASSESSEE FROM IMPOSITION OF PENALTY. CONSEQUEN TLY, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS)A NO.52/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2006-07 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS) NO.48/AHD/2014 AY 2001-02 35. THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST T HE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) ON THE INCOME UNDERSTATED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER S.139(1) PRIOR TO SEARCH QUA THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE ORIGINALLY FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139(1) AT RS.1,96,764/-. SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH, IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED INCOME UNDER S.153A AT RS.3,07,421/- . THE AO CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1,10,657/- I NCLUDED IN THE IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 28 - SUBSEQUENT RETURN UNDER S.153A AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.38,840/- THEREON. 36. IN THE APPEAL BEFORE US, THE RELIANCE WAS PLACE D ON THE DECISION OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL(SUPRA) BY THE ASSESSEE FOR EX ONERATION FROM PENALTY. IN PARITY WITH THE ISSUE DISCUSSED IN IT (SS)A NO.52/AHD/2014 , WE DO NOT SUBSCRIBE TO THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE. NO OTHER PLEA HAS BEEN RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEA RING TO DISLODGE PEANLTY. CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN I T(SS)A NO.48/AHD/2014 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.18/AHD/2014 AY 2005-06 37. THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO TOWARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON INCOME UNDERREPORTED IN TH E ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER S.139(1) PRIOR TO SEARCH QUA THE INCOME RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH. 38. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.139 (1) PRIOR TO SEARCH AT RS.52,078/-. SUBSEQUENT TO SEARCH, THE RETURN W AS FILED AT RS.1,00,691/- IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.153A O F THE ACT. THE AO CONSIDERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.52,078/- FIL ED IN THE LATER RETURN POST SEARCH AS CONCEALED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IMPOSED PENALTY OF RS.14,580/- THEREON. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ACTI ON OF THE AO. IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 29 - 39. THE ASSESSEE SEEKS TO RELY UPON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI P ATEL(SUPRA) FOR RELIEF TOWARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY ON THE ADDITIONAL INC OME REPORTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT RETURN. 40. IN PARITY WITH IT(SS)A NO.52/AHD/2014 FOR AY 20 06-07 (SUPRA), WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CI T(A) APPEALED AGAINST. 41. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN IT(SS) A NO.18/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. IT(SS)A NO.96/AHD/2014 - AY 2002-03 42. THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF PENA LTY OF RS.10,520/- BY THE CIT(A) AS IMPOSED BY THE AO UNDER S.271(1)(C ) OF THE ACT. THE FACTS IN ISSUE ARE IDENTICAL TO APPEAL IN IT(SS)A N O.18/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2005-06(SUPRA). IN THIS APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE DECLA RED INCOME OF RS.2,72,471/- IN PURSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER S.153A O F THE ACT FILED POST SEARCH AS AGAINST THE INCOME RETURNED AT RS.2,38,09 1/- IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER S.139(1) OF THE ACT. THE AO DEE MED THE DIFFERENTIAL INCOME BETWEEN THE RETURNS FILED POST-SEARCH AND PR E-SEARCH AS CONCEALED IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 30 - INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY IMPOSED PENA LTY OF RS.10,520/- THEREON. 43. THE FACTS BEING ANALOGOUS, WE DECLINE TO INTERF ERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CONFIRMING THE PENALTY IN PARITY WITH IT (SS)A NO.18/AHD/2014(SUPRA). 44. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NO. 96/AHD/2014 FOR AY 2002-03 IS DISMISSED. 45. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE DISMISSED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 20/ 04 /2017 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 20/ 04 /2017 ,..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS IT(SS)A NOS. 271/AHD/2011 & 10 ORS. JAMADAR TRAVELS VS. ACIT/CIT BABUBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO MOHMOODBHAI P.JAMADAR VS. ITO - 31 - ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ./0 / THE APPELLANT 2. 1/0 / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 234' 5' / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5' ( . ) / THE CIT(A)-IV, AHMEDABAD 5. 678'34 , ..34 & , . 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 16'' //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 10/17.4.17 (DICTATION-PAD 4 1+20 PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE ) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 10/17.4.2017 3. OTHER MEMBER 4. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.P. S./P.S.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR.P .S./P.S.20/4/17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 20/4/17 8. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK ... 9. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER.. 10. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER