M/s Gyanganga Science Institute, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle 1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT

ITSSA 5/RJT/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9484 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-08-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2013
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2009
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJIV RANADE
• Assessee Lawyers: VIMAL DESAI CA O
• Keywords: Block assessment

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBULAL; RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT . . A OR . . BEFORE SHRI T. K. SHARMA JM AND SHRI D. K. SRIVASTAVA AM I T (SS) A . NO. 05/RJT/2009 CR R / ASSESSMENT YEAR BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 05 - 01 - 1999. M /S GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE RAJ CHAMBER, GONDAL ROAD, RAJKOT PAN : A A B FG 7742 E ( A / APPELLANT) THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCLE - 1, RAJKOT. NA / RESPONDENT CRE / ASSESSEE BY SHRI VIMAL DESAI , CA O / REVENUE BY SHRI RAJIV RANADE , DR / DATE OF HEARING 11 - 06 - 2013 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 23 - 0 8 - 2013 / ORDER . . A , OR / T. K. SHARMA, J. M. : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 17 - 06 - 2009 OF CIT (A) - I , RAJKOT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING ON 05 - 01 - 1999. 2. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE , M/S. GYANGANGA SC IENCE INSTITUTE, IS A FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONDUCTING COACHING CLASSES FOR THE STUDENTS. IN THIS CASE, A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON 05.01.1999 AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, BLOCK ASSESSMENT U/S. 158BC OF INCOME - TAX ACT WAS FRAMED ON 31.01.2001 DETERMINING TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME AT RS.91,97,756/ - . ONE OF THE ITEMS OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME PERTAINED TO SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS OF RS.27,74,055/ - . ANOTHER ITEM RELATED TO THE ADVA NCE FEES OF RS.11,09,520 / - FOR THE FINANCIAL YE AR 1997 - 98 & RS.11,88,650/ - FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR 1998 - 99. ON APPEAL, TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 16 .0 2 .200 5 SET - ASIDE BOTH THE ISSUES TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE AFRESH. WHILE DECIDING BOTH THE ISSUES AFRESH U/S 158BC R.W.S. 254 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER DATED 31.03.2006 MADE THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS: - IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 2 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS 26,89,055/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FEES FOR FY 1997 - 98 11,09,520/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FEES FOR FY 1998 - 99 11,88,65 0/ - 3. AGAINST THE ORDER U/S 158BC R.W.S. 254 DATED 31.03.2006, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) . IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2009, THE LD CIT(A) REDUCED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO RS.24,17,055/ - AS AGAINST ADDITION OF RS.26,89,055 / - MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RESPECT OF SUPPRESSE D RECEIPTS . THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE LD CIT(A) IS CONTAINED IN PARAGRAPH 2(C), (CA), (CB) & (CC) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WHICH READ AS UNDER: - (C) I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE A.OS OBSERVATION, APPELLANTS SUBMISSIONS AND FINDINGS IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS BEFORE ARRIVING AT THE FOLLOWING CONCLUSION. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE A.O. CALCULATED THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS AT 818 AGAINST 850 WORKED OUT IN THE DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS. HOWEVER, THE APPELLA NT DID NOT ACCEPT THIS FIGURE OF 818, AS IT MADE FURTHER CLAIM OF STUDENTS WHO LEFT THE ORGANIZATION AND FOR WHOM THE FEES WERE WAIVED. THE A.R. ALSO INDICATED THAT HE FILED CONFIRMATIONS TO THIS EFFECT BEFORE THE A.O. DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. I OPIN E THAT THE A.O. WOULD NOT BE IN A POSITION TO VERIFY ALL THESE CONFIRMATIONS AT THIS POINT OF TIME, AS THE TRANSACTIONS WERE RELATED TO 1997/1998. SO, IT IS REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE IF THE A.O.S FIGURE OF 818 IS ADOPTED FOR THE PURPOSE OF WORKING OUT THE ALLEGED SUPPRESSION OF RECEIPTS. ONCE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS IS FIXED AT 818, THE NEXT QUESTION ARISES ABOUT THE AMOUNT OF FEES PAID BY THESE STUDENTS. IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS DE NOVO ASSESSMENT, AN UNIFORM FIGURE OF RS.8500/ - WAS TAKEN FOR FINDING OUT THE AMOUNT OF SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS. THE APPELLANT AND ITS A.R.S CLAIMED THAT THERE WERE THREE TYPES OF CATEGORIES OF STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT FREE STRUCTURE. THOUGH OPPORTUNITIES WERE GIVEN AT SEVERAL POINT OF TIME, A.R. DID NOT FURNISH THE NEC ESSARY BREAK UP PARTICULARS OF THESE STUDENTS FEES - WISE, EITHER BEFORE ME OR A.O. SO, ONE HAS TO GO ONLY BY THE FIGURE ADOPTED BY THE A.O. IN THE ORIGINAL AND DE NOVO ASSESSMENT, I.E. 8500/ - . (CA) IN FACT, TO ARRIVE AT A CORRECT AND REASONABLE DECISION ON THE GIVEN ISSUE, I WROTE A LETTER TO THE APPELLANT ON 22 - 09 - 2008 CALLING FOR VARIOUS PARTICULARS AND CLARIFICATIONS. THE SAID LETTER IS REPRODUCED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE. 1 . WITH THE SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, PLEASE PROVE THAT THERE EXISTED A LINK BETWEEN T HE PROSPECTIVE STUDENTS AND THE FEES SHOWN IN THE RECEIPT IN ANNEXURES - A/89, A/127, A/128 & A/129. 2 . WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR YOU TO BIFURCATE THE BATCHES OF THE STUDENTS IN TWO YEARS? 3 . PLEASE PROVE THAT THE FEES REFLECTED IN ANNEXURE A/128 WERE ALSO REFLE CTED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. 4 . PLEASE REFER PAGE - 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THERE, THE A.O. LISTED NINE REASONS FOR NOT ACCEPTING YOUR SUBMISSIONS. PLEASE MEET EACH AND EVERY ITEM AND FURNISH A REPLY. 5 . AS PER THE DEPARTMENT, THE NUMBER OF STUDE NTS WAS 860, WHEREAS YOU CLAIMED 793. THE DEPARTMENT, AFTER VERIFYING THE IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 3 ANNEXURE A/89, FOUND THE NUMBER OF TOTAL STUDENTS AT 850. WHAT WAS THE BASIS FOR YOU TO FIX THE NUMBER AT 793? 6 . BEFORE THE A.O., YOU STATED THAT YOU WERE CHARGING FEES OF DIFFERENT LEVELS, NO AT RS.8500/ - AS ESTIMATED BY THE A.O. IF SO, PLEASE PROVIDE DIFFERENT FEES STRUCTURE ALONG WITH NUMBER OF STUDENTS, AND FEES COLLECTED. 7 . PLEASE CORRELATE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH RESPECT TO ATTENDANT REGISTER AND THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN WHIC H FEES RECEIVED FROM THEM WERE RECORDED. 8 . HOW WILL YOU PROVE YOUR CLAIM THAT FEES OF THE STUDENTS WERE FOREGONE? 9 . PLEASE REFER TO PARA - 10 ON PAGE - 8 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. WHAT IS YOUR COMMENT? (CB) NEITHER APPELLANT NOR ITS A.RS. AVAILED THE OPPORTU NITY TO PROVIDE THE NECESSARY PARTICULARS AND CLARIFICATIONS FOR THE QUERIES RAISED, AS ABOVE. HOWEVER, I APPRECIATE THE A.O. DID GOOD JOB BY CALLING THE A.RS. WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND RELEVANT SEIZED RECORDS SO AS TO CORRELATE ALL THE TRANSACTIONS A ND EVENTS IN SUBMITTING A REASONABLY GOOD REMAND REPORT. WITH THIS BACKGROUND, NOW, I HAVE TO ESTIMATE THE AMOUNT OF RECEIPTS SUPPRESSED BY THE APPELLANT. (CC) THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY POINTED OUT IN THE DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS THAT THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DISCHA RGE THE PRIMARY ONUS CAST ON IT TO CORRELATE THE NUMBER OF STUDENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE ATTENDANT REGISTERS AS WELL AS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN WHICH FEES RECEIVED FROM THEM WERE RECORDED. THE APPELLANT ALSO FAILED TO PROVE ITS CLAIM THAT THE FEES OF THE STUDE NTS WERE FOREGONE. TO CONCLUDE, THE TOTAL FEES FOR 818 STUDENTS WOULD COME TO RS. 69,53,000/ - (818 X 8500) . THE APPELLANT DISCLOSED IN ITS LEDGE WAS RS. 45,35,945/ - . ACCORDINGLY, THE UNDISCLOSED SUPPRESSED INCOME TO BE ASSESSED IS RS. 24,17,055/ - . NEITHER APP ELLANT, NOR A.RS. DISPUTED THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED OF RS. 45,35,945/ - . IN THE LEDGER AT ANY STAGE. 4. FURTHER, IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17.06.2009, THE LD CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.11,09,520/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FEES F OR FINANCIAL YEAR 1997 - 98 AND RS.11,88,650/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FEES FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 1998 - 99, FOR THE DETAILED REASON GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH 3(C) OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 3 (C) THE ISSUE IN QUESTION WAS SYSTEMATICALLY ANALYZED. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION WAS THAT THE FEES RECEIVED OF RS.11,09,520/ - AND RS.11,88,650/ - REPRESENTING ADVANCE FEES FOR THE F.YS. 1997 - 98 AND 1998 - 99 WERE DULY REFLECTED IN SEIZED CASH BOOK AND LEDGER. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENTED THAT SINCE THE FEES WERE RECEIV ED IN ADVANCE, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE METHOD CONSISTENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE APPELLANT, THEY WERE SHOWN AS LIABILITIES IN THE BALANCE - SHEETS AS ON 31.03.1998 AND 31.03.1999 FILED WITH THE RETURNS OF INCOME, WHICH WERE FILED PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. TH US, THE FEES IN QUESTION IN THE FORM OF ADVANCES WERE APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH. THE A.O. CONTENDED THAT THESE ADVANCE FEES SHOULD HAVE BEEN TREATED AS INCOME AND OFFERED FOR TAX (NOT AS LIABILITIES) IN F.YS . 1997 - 98 AND 1998 - 99 RELEVANT FOR A.YS. 1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000. ACCORDINGLY, THE A.O. TREATED IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 4 THE SAME AS INCOME IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. I OPINE THAT THE A.OS ACTION WAS CORRECT. THE APPELLANTS CONTENTION THAT THESE ADDITIONS WERE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF B LOCK ASSESSMENT WAS NOT LEGALLY VALID. FURTHER, THE ITAT GAVE VERY SPECIFIC DIRECTION TO THE A.O. STATING THAT THE SAID ADVANCE AMOUNTS SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN A.YS. 1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000 ONLY AND IF THEY WERE NOT SO OFFERED, THE ADDITION ORIGINA LLY MADE SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS. I DO NOT FIND ANY FALLACY IN THE ACTION BY THE A.O. IN ASSESSING THESE TWO AMOUNTS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THE ADDITIONS ARE, THUS, CONFIRMED. TO SUM UP, ADDITIO N MADE AND RELIEF ALLOWED BY LD. CIT (A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER ARE AS UNDER: - SR. NO. ITEMS OF ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE AMOUNT (RS. ) AMOUNT SUSTAINED / CONFIRME D RELIEF, IF ANY 1 S UPPRESSED RECEIPT 26,89,055 24,17,055 2,72,000 2 ADVANCE FEES FOR F.Y. 97 - 98 11,09,520 11,09,520 -- 3 ADVANCE FEES FOR F.Y. 98 - 99 11,88,650 11,88,650 -- 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - 1. THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IS BAD IN LA W. 2. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.26,89,055/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED SUPPRESSED RECEIPTS. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,17,055/ - . 3. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.11,09,520/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FEES FOR F.Y. 1997 - 98. THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME . 4. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.11, 88,650 / - ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE FEES FOR F.Y. 199 8 - 9 9 . THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME . 6. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE, HENCE NEEDS NO ADJUDICATION. 7. WITH REGARD TO GROUND NO.2, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL, LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.26,89,055/ - . ON APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 06 - 02 - 2005 SET ASIDE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH THE FOLLOWING DIRECTION: - WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE ACTION OF THE CIT (APPEAL). HOWEVER, AT THE VERY SAME TIME, WE ALSO FOUND THAT AS PER ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS THE TOTAL FEES OFFERED FOR TAX IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 98 - 99 AND 99 - 2000 WAS RS.29,41,020/ - AND RS.39,58,475/ - WHOSE NA ME APPEARED IN THE ANNEXURE - A89. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT AO HAS NOT FULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, WE RESTORE THE GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR DECIDING THE AFRESH IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 5 AFTER GIVING TH E OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. NEEDLESS TO SAY THE PRIMARY ONUS TO CORRELATE THE NUMBER OF STUDIERS WITH RESPECT TO ATTENDANCE REGISTER, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN WHICH FEES RECEIVED FROM THEM ARE RECORDED LIES ON THE ASSESSEE. IF ASSESSEE PLEADS THAT FEES OF THE STUDENTS HAVE BEEN FORGONE, THEN ALSO THE BURDEN LIES ON HIM TO PROVE THE SAME. THUS MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE AO FOR EXAMINATION FRESH. 8. THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IN DE NOVO ASSESSMENT, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.26,89, 055/ - (RS.72 ,25,000/ - MINUS 45,35,945/ - . ON APPEAL IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, LD. CIT (A) REDUCED THE STUDENTS FROM 850 TO 818 AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,17,055/ - . BEFORE US, AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUCED ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT AVERAGE FEE S OF PER STUDENT IS LESS THAN RS.8 , 50 0 /. THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE DECISION OF LD. CIT (A) IN THIS REGARD. HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO FEES RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ON GOING THOUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, COPY OF REL EVANT LEDGE R ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE US, WE FIND THAT AO CONSIDERED THE ONLY FEES RECEIVED DURING THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1998 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 05 - 01 - 1999. HOWEVER, ANNEXURE - A89 CONTAINS THE STUDENTS APPEAR IN THE EXAM HELD IN MARCH 1999 AS WELL AS MARCH 2000 WHICH IS ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT AS WELL AS CAN BE DECIDED FROM THE EVIDENCE VIZ. MARK SHEETS OF STUDENT PRODUCED BEFORE US WITH REFERENCE TO ANNEXURE - A89. COPY OF ANNEXURE - A89 CONTAINS THE RECEIPT NO. AGAINST EACH STUDENT ETC. THEREFORE, IT IS CORRECT TO CONSIDER ONLY THOSE FEES RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 1998 TO THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. 05 - 01 - 1999 AS DISCLOSED INCOME. THE ENTIRE FEES RECEIVED AND RECORDED FOR THE ALL THOSE STUDENTS LISTED IN ANNEXURE - A89 IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED IN RESPECTIVE YEAR OF RECEIPT. AS PER PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE, FEES OFFERED TO INCOME IN RESPECTIVE ACADEMIC YEAR AND TREATED AS ADVANCE IN EARLIER YEAR. BEFORE US, COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THAT IN THE F INANCIAL YEAR 1988 - 99 I.E. A.Y. 1999 - 2000, FEES OF RS.29,41,000/ - (FOR 335 STUDENTS) RELEVANT TO EXAM HELD IN MARCH 1999 HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. SIMILARLY, IN FINANCIAL YEAR 1999 - 2000 I.E. A.Y. 2000 - 01 FEES OF RS.39,58,475 (FOR 458 STUDENT) RELEVANT TO EX AM HELD IN MARCH 2000 HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX. THEREFORE, TOTAL FEES RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE STUDENTS LISTED IN ANNEXURE - A89 IS RS.68,99,495/ - ( FOR TOTAL 793 STUDENTS). IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 6 9. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, RS.68,99,495/ - SHOULD BE CONSIDER ED AND ALLOWED AS DISCLOSED INCOME. THE DIFFERENCE OF RS.53,505/ - BETWEEN THE ESTIMATE INCOME OF RS.69,53,000/ - (818 STUDENTS FEES OF RS.8500/ - ) AND DISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.68,99,495/ - SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. 10 . ALTERNATIVELY, IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NUMBER OF STUDENTS AS PER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS 793 FOR BOTH THE ACADEMIC YEARS I.E. 335 AND 458. AS PER THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A), NOS. OF STUDENTS WOULD HAVE ATTENDED THE CLASS IS ESTIMATED AT 818. DIFFERENCE IS O F ONLY 25 STUDENTS. IF WE APPLY ESTIMATE FEES OF RS.8,500/ - PER STUDENT, THEN IT COMES TO RS.2,12,500/ - AND CAN BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME . 11. FROM AFORESAID TWO ALTERNATE S , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT HIGHER AMOUNT SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND DIRECTED TO AO TO TREAT RS.2,12,500/ - AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND DELETE THE REMAINING ADDITION. IN OTHER WORDS, ADDITION OF RS.26,89,055/ - IS RES TRICTED TO RS.,2,12,500/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 12. IN RESPECT OF GROUND NOS.3 AND 4, WE HAVE HEARD BOTH SIDES. THE ONLY CONTENTION RAISED BEFORE US BY LD. AR IS THAT FEES OF RS. 11,09,520/ - AND RS.11,88,650/ - REPRESENT ADVA NCE FEES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 1997 - 98 AND 1998 - 99 ARE DULY REFLECTED IN SEIZED CASH BOOK AND LEDGE. IT WAS CONTENDED THAT THESE ARE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS THEREFORE, THIS CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. AS AGAINST THIS, LD. DR P OINTED OUT THAT TRIBUNAL HAS NO POWER TO REVIEW ITS EARLI E R DIRECTION. AS PER DIRECTION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN FIRST GROUND, AO MADE NECESSARY VERIFICATION AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,09,520/ - AND RS.11, 88,650/ - THEREFORE, VIEW TAKEN BY LD. CIT (A) BE UPHELD. W E FOUND CONSIDERABLE FORCE IN CONTENTION OF LD. DR. THE CONTENTIONS NOW RAISED BEFORE LD. CIT (A) AS WELL AS BEFORE US ARE BEYOND THE SCOPE OF BLOCK ASSESS MENT AND ARE NOT TENABLE BECAUSE THE TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 06 - 02 - 2005 HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC DIRECT ION TO THE AO STATING THAT THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD BE OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 7 A.YS. 1998 - 99 AND 1999 - 2000 ONLY AND IF THEY WERE NOT SO OFFERED, THE ADDITION ORIGINALLY MADE SHOULD BE RETAINED IN THE DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS. ADMITTEDLY, THEY WERE NOT FOUND RECOR DED THEREFORE, AFTER VERIFICATION, AO HAS RIGHTLY RETAINED BOTH THESE PROCEEDINGS IN DE NOVO PROCEEDINGS. WE THEREFORE, DECLINED TO INTERFERE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 14. THIS O RDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OP EN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD/ - SD/ - ( . . O D. K. SRIVASTAVA ) ( . . R / T. K. SHARMA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER C O / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ORDER DATE 23 - 0 8 - 2013. /RAJKOT NVA/ - 3 RJE IE / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1 . A / APPELLANT - M/S GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE, RAJ CHAMBER, GONDAL ROAD, RAJKOT. 2 . NA / RESPONDENT - THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX, CIRCL E - 1, RAJKOT. 3 . T / CONCERNED CIT - I, RAJKOT. 4 . T - / CIT (A) - I, RAJKOT. 5 . NCC , , / DR, ITAT, RAJKOT 6 . R / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER TRUE COPY. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, RAJKOT IT(SS)A - 05 - RJT - 2009 GYANGANGA SCIENCE INSTITUTE[SEC.158BC] 8 1.DATE OF DICTATION : 08 - 07 - 2013, 24. 07 . 2013 & 23 - 08 - 2013 2.DATE OF PLACING THE DRAFT. : 08 - 07 - 2013, 24.07.2013 & 23 - 08 - 2013 3.DATE OF APPROVAL OF DRAFT. : 4.DATE OF RETURN FROM JM : 5.DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 6.DATE OF SENDING TO BENCH CLERK : 7.DATE OF RECEIPT BY BENCH CLERK : 8.DATE OF PLACING IT FOR ENDORSEMENT : 9.DATE OF E NDORSEMENT : 10.DATE OF DISPATCH :