Shri Vijaykumar K. Shah, Bharuch V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bharuch

ITSSA 54/AHD/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3122 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 21-03-2017
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Document seized; Peak credit; Question of law; Difference of opinion; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, AHMEDABAD , , BEFORE SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER SL. NOS. IT(SS)A NO(S) ASSESSMENT YEAR (S) APPEAL(S) BY APPELLANT VS. RESPONDENT APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1. 54/AHD/2014 2003-04 VIJAY K.SHAH BHAGYODAYA ESTATE NO.1 TO 4 ZADESHWAR, BHARUCH 392 011 PAN: AJOPS 2511 D THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 BHARUCH 2. 55/AHD/2014 2004-05 -DO- ASSESSEE -REVENUE- 3. 56/AHD/2014 2005-06 -DO-ASSESSEE -REVENUE- 4. 57/AHD/2014 2006-07 -DO-ASSESSEE -REVENUE- ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K. PATEL, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMIT KUMAR VERMA, SR.DR !' / DATE OF HEARING 21/03/2017 #$%& !' / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 13/ 04 /2017 / O R D E R PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSMENT YE ARS (AYS) 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 CONCERNING THE SAME ASSESSEE AGAINST IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'THE ACT'). IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 2 - 2. IN ALL THESE YEARS, THE FACTS AND QUESTION FOR DETERMINATION ARE BROADLY SIMILAR. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 IS TAKEN AS A LEAD YEAR FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. IT(SS) NO.54/AHD/2014 AY 2003-04 ASSESSEES APP EAL 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS ASSAILIN G THE ACTION OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-VI BARODA [CIT (A) IN SHORT] IN UPHOLDING THE PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IMPOSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO). THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER ESSEN TIALLY SEEKS TO ASSAIL THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WHEREIN THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER (AO) TOWARDS IMPOSING PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) WAS SUST AINED. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, ASSESSEE DERIVES INCOME FROM PRO PRIETARY CONCERN, VIZ. VIJAY TRANSPORT. THE ASSESSEE ALSO DERIVES INT EREST INCOME FROM PARTNERSHIP-FIRM AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND A PARTNER IN PARTNERSHIP-FIRM WHICH IS CARRYING ON BUSINESS AS CONTRACTORS. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 17/01/2007 IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AND ITS GROUP WH EREIN VARIOUS MATERIALS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. C ONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE DECLARED TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,76,140/- IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.153A AS AGAINST RS.4,40,605/- IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 3 - DECLARED IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME UNDER S.1 39(1) OF THE ACT FILED PRIOR TO SEARCH. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY OBSERVED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.2,35,535/- REL EVANT TO AY 2003-04 IN CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH ACTION AND INCRIMINATING D OCUMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE AO INTER ALIA NOTED IN THE COURSE OF THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALSO HOLDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF RS.73,340/- OVER AND ABOVE INCOME DE CLARED UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID INCOME WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AO ACCORDINGLY PROCEEDED TO IMPOSE PE NALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) ON THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE OF RS.2,35, 535/- AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.73,340/-. THE PENALTY WAS QUANTIFI ED BY THE AO AT A LUMPSUM OF RS.1 LAKH. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE PENALTY ORDER VIDE ITS ORDER DATED 17/1 0/2013. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE KNOCKED THE DOOR OF THE TRIBUNAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID ACTION O F IMPOSITION OF PENALTY BY THE REVENUE. 6. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSE SSEE MR. M.K.PATEL, AT THE OUTSET, SUBMITTED THAT IN ALL THE FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS IN APPEALS, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED BY THE AO ON TWO COUNTS. FIRSTLY, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFEREN CE BETWEEN THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED PRIO R TO SEARCH QUA THE IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 4 - RETURN FILED SUBSEQUENTLY IN COMPLIANCE OF NOTICE U NDER S.153A OF THE ACT IN PURSUANCE OF SEARCH ACTION. SECONDLY, THE PENAL TY HAS BEEN IMPOSED ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS AMOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) WITH REFERENCE TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS IN APPEALS AS PER TABULATED-SHEET NOTED HEREUNDER:- A.Y. RETURNED INCOME U/S.139(1) RETURNED INCOME U/S.153A DIFFERENCE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT REMARKS ON UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT 2003-04 4,40,605 6,76,140 2,35,535 73,340 DELETED B Y ITAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL 2004-05 4,75,800 7,89,360 3,16,560 5,78,818 ITAT DE LETED RS.1,72,280/- IN QUANTUM OUT OF RS.5,78,818/- 2005-06 3,17,789 9,21,276 6,03,487 5,48,088 ITAT DE LETED RS.80,490/- IN QUANTUM OUT OF RS.5,48,088/- 2006-07 3,23,830 5,91,560 2,67,730 1,63,845 ITAT DE LETED RS.69,260/- IN QUANTUM OUT OF RS.1,63,845/- 6.1. AS REGARDS IMPOSITION OF PENALTY TOWARDS DIFF ERENCE IN THE INCOME DECLARED BETWEEN THE ORIGINAL RETURN PRIOR TO SEAR CH AND SUBSEQUENT RETURN FILED PURSUANT TO SEARCH UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT IS CONCERNED, THE LD.AR CONTENDED THAT THE REVENUE IS NOT ENTITLED TO IMPOSE PENALTY ON IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 5 - INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF UNDER S.153 A OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR POINTED OUT THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED PRI OR TO 01/06/2007 WHEN EXPLANATION-5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WAS IN VOGUE. IN THIS CONTEXT, LD.AR REFERRED TO THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT IN TAX APPEAL NO.1181 OF 2010 & ORS. DATED 03/12/2014 FOR THE PRO POSITION THAT INCOME RETURNED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER S.153A IS REQUIRED TO BE CONSIDERED FOR THE PURPOSE OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1 )(C) OF THE ACT AND PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED ONLY ON THE INCOME ASSESSED O VER AND ABOVE THE INCOME RETURNED UNDER S.153A OF THE ACT, IF ANY. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY EMPHASIZED THAT IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) TOWARDS ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN TH E RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW. THE LD.AR POINTE D OUT THAT THE CIT(A) RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF ACIT VS. KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL REPORTED AT (2009) 121 ITD 159 [AHD .(TM] FOR IMPOSITION OF PENALTY TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN FILED UNDER S.139(1) AND SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE AFORESAID DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS SINCE BEEN REVERSED BY THE HON BLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT AS POINTED OUT. IT WAS THUS SUBMITTED THAT TH E ORDER OF CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) ON UNACCOU NTED INCOME INCLUDED IN RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A IS NOT JUSTIFIED. IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 6 - 6.2. WITH REFERENCE TO THE PENALTY IMPOSED TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, THE LD.AR RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN QUANTUM P ROCEEDINGS AND SUBMITTED THAT IN SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.73,340/- RELEVANT TO AY 2003- 04 IS CONCERNED, THE SAME STANDS DELETED BY THE TRI BUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY DOES NOT SURVIVE O N THIS SCORE. 6.3. AS REGARDS PENALTY ON ADDITIONS OF RS.5,78,818 /- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT RELEVANT TO AY 2004-05 (AND OTHER SIMILAR ADDITIONS FOR OTHER YEARS AS TABULATED) IS CONCERNE D, THE LD.AR POINTED OUT THAT THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN QU ANTUM PROCEEDINGS HAS GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,78 ,280/- AND CONFIRMED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4,06,538/-. THE LD.AR IN THE SAME VAIN SUBMITTED THAT WHILE ADDITION IN THE QUANTUM MIGHT HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE TRIBUNAL, THE PENALTY IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE IS N OT WARRANTED AT ALL. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE NARRATED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS A PARTNER IN M/S.TIRUPATI CONSTRUCTION CO. WHEREIN THE PEAK OF U NACCOUNTED CREDIT AND DEBIT ENTRIES WERE ADDED AS INCOME IN THE HANDS OF FIRM AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH. THIS AMOUNT WAS THUS AVAILAB LE AT THE DISPOSAL OF THE ASSESSEE TO MEET THE IMPUGNED UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENT. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM APPEAL HAS GRANTED THE BENEFIT OF AV AILABILITY OF UNACCOUNTED PEAK CREDIT ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF PART NERSHIP SHARE (12%) OF THE ASSESSEE PARTNER HEREIN. HOWEVER, THIS ESTIMAT ION OF AVAILABILITY OF IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 7 - ADDITIONAL UNACCOUNTED INCOME TOWARDS PEAK CREDIT I S NOT SUFFICIENT TO IMPUGN THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS SOUR CE OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SO FAR AS PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE CON CERNED. IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS A PARTNER OF M/S.TIRUPATI C ONSTRUCTION CO., THE ASSESSEE WAS HAVING ACCESS TO THE WHOLE AMOUNT OF U NACCOUNTED CREDIT ADDED AFTER GRANTING TELESCOPING BENEFIT. THUS, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE S TANDS EXPLAINED BY THE CORRESPONDING UNACCOUNTED PEAK CREDIT ADDED IN THE HANDS OF PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. IT WAS THEREFORE CONTENDED ON BE HALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPOSITION OF PENALTY IS NOT JUSTIFIED ON FACTS IN SO FAR AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS CONCERNED. THE LD.AR SUB MITTED THAT SIMILAR JUSTIFICATIONS ARE AVAILABLE IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENTS FOR OTHER YEARS AS PER ORDER OF THE ITAT B BENCH AHM EDABAD IN QUANTUM APPEAL IN IT(SS)A NOS.211 TO 214/AHD/2010 FOR AYS 2 003-04 TO 2006- 07, ORDER DATED 13/11/2013. THE LD.AR, THUS, CONTE NDED THAT THE PENALTY IMPOSED BY REVENUE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN LAW AND ON FACTS AND HENCE REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. 7. THE LD.DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT NO INFERENCE IS CALLED FOR. IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 8 - 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS, THE CONTROVERSY INVOLVES AROUND IMP OSITION OF PENALTY BROADLY ON TWO COUNTS:- (I) TOWARDS UNDERREPORTING OF INCOME FOUND IN THE RETURN ORIGINALLY FILED AND UNDER S.139 OF THE ACT PRIOR TO SEARCH VIS-A-VIS RETURN SUBSEQUENTLY FILED ON ACCOUNT OF SEARCH ACTION AS A CONSEQUENCE OF NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT. (II) UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW OF THE ASSESSEE IN VARIOUS YEARS IN APPEAL. 8.1. IN TERMS OF THE FIRST ISSUE FRAMED, THE PRIMAR Y QUESTION THAT EMERGES FOR DETERMINATION IS WHETHER PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) CAN BE IMPOSED IF RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER S.153 A OF THE ACT DECLARED HIGHER INCOME THAN IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.139( 1) OF THE ACT? SECTION 153A PROVIDES THE PROCEDURE FOR COMPLETION OF ASSES SMENT WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER S.132 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSET ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER S.132A AFTER 31/0 5/3003. SECTION 153A OPENS WITH A NON-OBSTANTE CLAUSE WHICH SEEKS TO EXCLUDE THE APPLICATION OF, INTER-ALIA , SECTION 139. THUS, IN EFFECT, THE REVISED RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A TAKES PLACE OF THE ORIGINAL RETURN UNDER S.1 39 FOR THE PURPOSES OF ALL OTHER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PO SITION THAT EMERGES FROM IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 9 - THE READING OF THE SECTION 153A IS THAT ONCE THE AS SESSEE FILES A REVISED RETURN UNDER S.153A, THE REVISED RETURN WILL BE TRE ATED AS THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED UNDER S.139 OF THE ACT IN SO FAR ALL O THER PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ARE CONCERNED. THIS VIEW HAS BEEN PROPOUNDED BY TH E HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT (2015) 280 CTR 216 (GUJ.). THE ANSWER TO THE PRIMARY QUESTION , HOWEVER, HAS TO BE DEDUCED IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION-5 TO S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. EXPLANATION 5 IS A DEEMING PROVISION. IN SEARCH CASES, THE AFORESAID HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY INSERTED TO SECTION 271(1)(C) TO DEAL WITH SITUATION WHERE HIGHER INCOME WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN FILED CON SEQUENT TO A SEARCH OPERATION AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT SUCH ADDITIO N DO NOT NECESSARILY IMPLY CONCEALMENT. THUS, IN TERMS OF EXPLANATION-5, THE PENALTY ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEAR CH UNDER S. 132 CANNOT BE ENTIRELY RULED OUT. THE SCOPE AND APPLIC ABILITY OF EXPLANATION- 5 IS DEALT WITH IN SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS. 8.2 NOW, AS A SEQUEL, THE NEXT QUESTION THAT WOULD BE PERTINENT IS WHETHER EXPLANATION-5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS ATTRA CTED IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. EXPLANATION-5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS APPLIC ABLE TO CASES WHERE IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER S.132 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE THE OWNER OF ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHE R VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING. IN SUCH CASES, IF THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THESE ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED BY HIM BY UTILIZING (WHLLY OR IN PART) HIS INCOME FOR ANY IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 10 - PREVIOUS YEAR WHICH HAS ENDED BEFORE THE DATE OF SE ARCH BUT THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR SUCH YEAR HAS NOT BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAID DATE, OR WHERE SUCH RETURN HAS BEEN FURNISHED BEFORE THE SAI D DATE, SUCH INCOME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OR SUCH PREVIOU S YEAR IS YET TO END ON OR AFTER THE DATE OF THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE SHALL , FOR THE PURPOSES OF IMPOSITION OF PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BE DEEMED TO HAVE CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME. OSTENSIBL Y, THIS EXPLANATION HAS BEEN ADDED TO SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE SITUATIONS W HERE CONSEQUENT TO A SEARCH, ASSETS AND VALUABLES ARE DISCOVERED TO BE I N CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, AND THEREAFTER THE ASSESSEE FILES RETURN OF INCOME AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN SUCH CASES, EVEN AFTER THE ASSE SSEE INCLUDES THE AMOUNTS UTILIZED BY HIM IN ACQUIRING THE ASSETS (FO UND IN HIS CONTROL OR POSSESSION DURING THE SEARCH OPERATIONS) AS HIS INC OME IN THE RETURN FILED AFTER THE SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE DEEMED TO H AVE BEEN CONCEALED HIS INCOME. THUS, EXPLANATION-5 CREATES A DEEMING FICTION WHEREBY, NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE INCLUDES SUCH UNRECORDED INCOME (WHICH REPRESENTS THE VALUE OF THE ASSETS FO UND IN HIS POSSESSION DURING THE SEARCH) IN HIS RETURN FILED AFTER THE SE ARCH, IT WILL BE DEEMED THAT SUCH RETURN DISCLOSING ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS F ILED ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSETS WERE FOUND IN HIS CONTROL OR POSSESSION DUR ING THE SEARCH. TO PUT DIFFERENTLY, IT IS PRESUMED BY THE STATUTE THAT ASS ESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE DISCLOSED SUCH UNRECORDED INCOME IN THE RETURN FILE D SUBSEQUENTLY IN THE ABSENCE OF SEARCH. AS A MATTER OF GENERAL PROPOSIT ION, THERE CAN BE NO IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 11 - CONCEALMENT OF INCOME TILL FILING OF RETURN AS PER NORMAL PROVISIONS OF SECTION 271(1)(C) AS THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME CAN BE ATTRIBUTED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN FILED. HOWEVER, AS NO TED, THE EXPLANATION-5 DEALING WITH SEARCH CASES PROVIDES AN EXCEPTION AND DEPARTURE TO THIS GENERAL RULE THAT CONCEALMENT IS COMMITTED VIS--VIS THE RETURN FILED ALONE. IN VIEW OF OVERRIDING PROVISION OF EXPLANAT ION-5 THE DEFAULT UNDER S.271(1)(C) GETS TRIGGERED TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME, IMMEDIATELY ON SEARCH ACTION PENDING FILING OF RETURN SUBJECT TO ESCAPE ROUTE AS PROVIDED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION. 8.3. HAVING NOTED THE LEGAL POSITION, WE NOW TURN T O TAKE COGNIZANCE OF NEW RELEVANT FACTS GERMANE TO THE ISSUE. A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS PENALTY ORDER GIVES AN UNMISTAKABLE IMPRESS ION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OWING TO SOME GROUP DISCLOSURE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THUS, TH E ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A IS BASED ON CERTAIN ADMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. HOWEV ER, IN THE SAME VAIN, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE AFORESAID ADDITIONAL INCOME IS NOT REPORTED TO BE REPRESENTED BY ANY CORRESPONDING ASSET NAMELY; MONE Y BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING. NEEDLESS TO SA Y, TO INVOKE EXPLANATION-5, THE ONUS LIES ON REVENUE TO ESTABLIS H THAT REQUIREMENTS OF THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION ARE SATISFIED. IN ACCORD WITH EXPLANATION-5, IT IS NECESSARY THAT THERE MUST BE CERTAIN ASSETS (MONEY, BULLION ETC.) FOUND IN IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 12 - THE CONTROL OR POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E SEARCH AND THE ASSESSEE MUST CLAIM THAT SUCH ASSETS HAVE BEEN ACQU IRED BY HIM BY UTILIZING UNACCOUNTED INCOME. OSTENSIBLY, EXPLANTIO N-5 WOULD COME TO PLAY ONLY WHEN UNACCOUNTED ASSETS OF THE NATURE AS MENTIONED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION ARE FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. IN OTHER WORDS, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED IN THE COURSE OF SEAR CH ARE TO BE NECESSARILY REPRESENTED BY ASSETS AS ENUMERATED IN THE AFORESAID EXPLANATION. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE INCOME OFFER ED TO TAX UNDER S.153A FOR AYS 2003-04, 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 IS BASE D ON ALLEGED INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AND CONFESSIONAL STATEMENT ALONE. THE REVENUE HAS NOT CLAIMED UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO BE IN THE NAT URE OF AFOREMENTIONED ASSETS. NOTABLY, THE QUANTUM ORDER O R PENALTY ORDER OR APPELLATE ORDER OF CIT(A) ARE NON-DESCRIPT IN SO FA R AS THE NATURE AND SPECIFICATION OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL ARE CONCERN ED. RETURNING TO THIS POINT, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, REFERENCE TO ASSETS IN THE FORM OF MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER ARTICLE OR THING IS A SIN QUA NON FOR PUTTING EXPLANATION-5 IN MOTION. HENCE, ON FACTS, EXPLANATI ON CANNOT BE INVOKED IN THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEARS ON DECLARATIONS B ASED PRESUMABLY ON ENTRIES IN THE PURPORTEDLY SEIZED DOCUMENTS IN THE ABSENCE OF ITS CORRELATION WITH ANY CORRESPONDING UNDISCLOSED ASSE T. A READING OF SUBSTITUTED EXPLANATION 5A SEEKING TO PLUG THIS PUR PORTED ANOMALY ALSO UNDERSCORES THIS VIEW. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID DI SCUSSION, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RECOURSE TO EXPLANATION-5 CANN OT BE TAKEN WITHOUT IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 13 - BRINGING ON RECORD, THE PARTICULARS OF UNDISCLOSED ASSETS DISCOVERED TO BE IN COMMAND OF THE ASSESSEE. HAVING REGARD TO THE A FORESAID LEGAL POSITION, WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE LEVIED IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL INCOME INCORPORATED IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A OF TH E ACT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 9. NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE ISSUE IS AFFIRMED IN F AVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE GIVEN FACTS OF THE CASE, WE ARE EQUALLY INCL INED TO DWELL UPON THE CARDINAL PLEA RAISED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PROPOSITION THAT AS SOON AS RETURN IS FILED UNDER S.153A, THE IMPOSITIO N OF PENALTY OR OTHERWISE HAS TO BE SEEN ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A AND RETURN FILED EARLIER UNDER S.139 PRIOR T O SEARCH SHOWING LESSER QUANTUM OF INCOME FADES INTO INSIGNIFICANCE IN ALL CIRCUMSTANCES. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE GUJAR AT HIGH COURT IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT (2015) 280 CTR 216 (GUJ.) WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON IN THE COURSE OF HEARING. IN ESSENCE THUS, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT INCOME DISCOVERED AS A RESULT OF SEAR CH AND INCLUDED IN THE RETURN FILED UNDER S.153A IN POST SEARCH PROCEEDING S ARE NOT SUSCEPTIBLE TO PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT AT ALL NOTW ITHSTANDING EXPLANATION-5 SUBSISTING IN STATUTE AT THE RELEVANT TIME. IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 14 - 9.1. WE STRAIGHT AWAY RECKON THAT SUCH SWEEPING PROPOSITION DOES NOT FIND ANY SEMBLANCE OF ACCEPTABILITY. AS NOTED EAR LIER, EXPLANATION-5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) SPECIFICALLY ADDRESSES THE AFORE SAID SITUATION WHERE IT IS SPECIFICALLY PROVIDED THAT NOTWITHSTANDING THE F ACT THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOUND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE SH ALL BE DEEMED TO FALL WITHIN THE SWEEP OF SECTION 271(1)(C) UNLESS THE AS SESSEE IS COVERED BY EXIT ROUTE PROVIDED IN THE EXPLANATION-5 ITSELF. THUS, THE AFORESAID PROPOSITION CANVASSED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ONCE THE RETURN IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE SEARCH IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE ISS UED UNDER S.153A INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCOVERED IN THE COUR SE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE GETS INDEFEASIBLE RIGHT TO SHUN AWAY PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS ON SUCH UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS SQUARELY AT LOGGERHEADS WITH DEEMING FICTION CREATED UNDER EXPLANATION-5 FOR THIS PURPOSE. NEEDL ESS TO SAY, THIS GENERIC PROPOSITION TOWARDS NON-APPLICABILITY OF PE NALTY ON UNDISCLOSED INCOME, IF SEEN IN AFFIRMATIVE, WILL RENDER THE LEG ISLATIVE FIAT UNDER EXPLANATION-5 RELATABLE TO SEARCH CASES AS OTIOSE A ND INFRUCTUOUS. AS CAN BE SEEN, THE BENEFIT OF IMMUNITY PROVIDED UNDER EXP LANATION-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 RETUR N HAS NOT EXPIRED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH SUBJECT TO FULFILLMENT OF CONDIT IONS AS CONTEMPLATED IN THE SAID EXPLANATION. IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 15 - 9.2. WE SHALL NOW ADVERT TO THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL (SUPRA) REFERRED TO AND EXTENSIVELY RELIED U PON ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT IN THAT CASE, THE SUBSTAN TIAL QUESTION OF LAW FRAMED FOR DECISION BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT WAS CONFINED TO AVAILABILITY OF IMMUNITY UNDER CLAUSE(2) TO EXPL ANATION-5 OF SECTION 271(1)(C) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. FOR READY REFE RENCE, IT IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER:- WHETHER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN RESTORIN G THE PENALTY IMPOSED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT BENEFIT UNDER EXPLANATION 5 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WOULD BE AVAILABLE ONLY FOR PERIOD WHERE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE RETURN UNDER 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 C OURTS 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 WISDO M, PAUSED AND WENT ON TO WITHDRAW THE SAME AT A LATER STAGE BEFORE THE LD .THIRD MEMBER IN THE ITAT PROCEEDINGS IN KIRIT DAHYABHAI PATEL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN (2009) IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 16 - 121 ITD 159 (TM) WHICH DECISION WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF APPEAL BEFORE THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT. THUS, APPARENTLY, THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF WHILE IN APPEAL BEFORE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WAS NO L ONGER AGGRIEVED BY THE PROPOSITION THAT RETURN UNDER S.153A IS AMENABL E TO PENALTY PROVISIONS UNDER S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. TO ELABORA TE, THE LD.THIRD MEMBER CLEARLY RECORDED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISPUTED THE POSITION THAT SECTION 271(1)(C) IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSMENT MADE UNDER S.153A. THE SUBSTANTIVE QUESTION THAT EMERGED BEFOR E THE LD.THIRD MEMBER OF ITAT ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE OF OPINION WAS WHETHER IMMUNITY GRANTED UNDER EXPLANATION-5(2) TO SECTION 271(1)(C) IS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THUS, ON NUANCED AND CO NTEXTUAL ANALYSIS OF THE JUDGEMENT RENDERED BY THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN APPEAL UNDER S.260A OF THE ACT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO RECKON THE CASE MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE POS T SEARCH RETURNS WOULD BE ENTITLED TO IMMUNITY FROM PENALTY IN A SWEEPING MANNER REGARDLESS OF THE SATISFACTION OF CONDITIONS AS PROVIDED FOR ITS NON-APPLICABILITY AS ENUMERATED UNDER 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 ARE DERIVED FROM THEIR CONTEXT. AS NOTED, THE LAW IS CODIFIED FOR APPLI CABILITY OF PENALTY IN SEARCH CASES. THE LEGISLATURE HAS MADE CONSCIOUS D ISTINCTION BETWEEN THE CASES WHERE THE RETURN OF INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN F ILED PRIOR TO SEARCH IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 17 - QUA THE CASES WHERE THE RETURN IS YET TO BE FILED A ND HAS PUT THEM ON A DIFFERENT PEDESTAL. IT IS TRITE LAW THAT A JUDGEM ENT CANNOT BE READ OUT OF CONTEXT IN WHICH THE QUESTION AROSE FOR DECISION I N THAT CASE. IT IS NEITHER DESIRABLE NOR PERMISSIBLE TO PICK OUT A WORD OR A S ENTENCE FROM THE JUDGMENT OF A COURT DIVORCED FROM THE CONTEXT OF TH E QUESTION IN CONSIDERATION AND TO TREAT IT TO BE THE COMPLETE LA W DECLARED BY THE COURT. A JUDGMENT MUST BE READ AS A WHOLE AND THE OBSERVAT IONS FROM THE JUDGMENT HAVE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF QUES TIONS WHICH WERE PRESENTED BEFORE THE COURT. A DECISION OF THE COUR T TAKES ITS COLOUR FROM ITS QUESTION IN WHICH IT IS RENDERED AS ENUMERATED IN CIT VS. SUN ENGINEERING WORKS PVT.LTD. (1992) 198 ITR 297 (SC). THUS, CONTEXT HOLDS THE KEY AND THE DECISION OF THE COURT HAS TO BE READ IN THE CONTEXT OF THE FACTS INVOLVED THEREIN AND NOT ON THE BASIS OF WHAT LOGICALLY FLOWS THERE FROM. A STRAY SENTENCE CANNOT BE ALLOWED TO BE PUT INTO SERVICE TO DRAW A MEANING WHICH WAS NEVER PROBABLY MEANT BY TH E AUTHOR HIMSELF. A JUDGMENT IS NOT TO BE READ AS STATUTE. THUS, I N THE LIGHT OF QUESTION FRAMED FOR DECISION BY HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT, WE ARE INCLINED TO HOLD THAT THE ABSTRACT PROPOSITION OF NON-APPLICABI LITY 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. IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 18 - 10. ON HOLISTIC CONSIDERATIONS, IT IS MANIFEST THAT THE ABSTRACT PROPOSITION SUGGESTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TH AT PENALTY CAN BE RECKONED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO RETURN OF INCOME FI LED UNDER 153A REGARDLESS OF CONCEALMENT DETECTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WILL, IN OUR HUMBLE OPINION, SPELL REDUNDANCY TO THE OPERATION O F EXPLANATION-5 AS WELL AS EXPLANATION-5A (AS SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF EXPLANATION 5) IN EQUAL MEASURE. THUS, TO SUM UP, WE FIND IN THE INSTANT C ASE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO RELIEF FROM THE CLUTCHES OF PENALTY UND ER S.271(1)(C) OWING TO ABSENCE OF DESCRIPTION OF UNDISCLOSED ASSETS AS SPE CIFIED IN EXPLANATION-5 AND NOT BECAUSE OF BLANKET NON-APPLICABILITY OF EXP LANATION-5 PER SE ON 153A RETURNS AS SOUGHT TO BE PROPOUNDED BY THE ASSE SSEE. 11. WE SHALL NOW TURN TO SECOND LIMB OF PENALTY O N ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IN THIS REGARD, WE FIND THA T THE RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED BY THE ITAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL FOR AY 2003-0 4 ON THE PENALTY SUSTAINED ON UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. THEREFORE, WH EN THE ADDITION ITSELF STANDS DELETED, THE PENALTY THEREON CEASES TO SURVI VE. THE PENALTY ON ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR AY 2003 -04 IS THUS DELETED. 12. AS REGARDS PENALTY ON ADDITION TOWARDS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENTS IN AYS 2004-05, 2005-06 & 2006-07 ARE CONCERNED, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT NEXUS OF THESE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW IS TO BE DRAWN TO PEAK UNEXPLAINED CREDIT ASSESSED IN THE HANDS IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 19 - OF THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM. THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANT UM APPEAL HAS ACCEPTED THE AVAILABILITY OF UNACCOUNTED PEAK CREDI T TO THE EXTENT OF SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE AS A PARTNER IN THE PARTNERSHIP-FIR M AND GRANTED RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. IN CONTRAST, IT IS THE CASE OF THE AS SESSEE HEREIN THAT ENTIRE PEAK UNACCOUNTED CREDIT ATTRIBUTABLE TO PARTNERSHIP -FIRM WAS AVAILABLE TO MEET THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AS OPPOSED TO ONLY CERTAIN PERCENTAGE OF SHARE IN THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM ENDORSED UPON BY THE ITAT IN QUANTUM APPEAL. IT IS, THUS, CASE ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE THAT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT IS PLAUSIBLE AND CONSEQUENTLY BONAFIDE. IT WAS THUS PLEADED THAT PEN ALTY TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 13. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE PARTNERSHIP-FIRM HAS ADMITTEDLY PAID TAXES ON THE U NEXPLAINED PEAK CREDIT. THE AFORESAID INCOME IS THUS AVAILABLE AT THE COMMAND AND CONTROL OF THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM IN ORDINARY COU RSE. THE ASSESSEE BEING ONE OF ITS PARTNERS CAN POSSIBLY HAVE UNILATERAL AC CESS TO THE ENTIRE UNEXPLAINED PEAK CREDIT OWING TO MUTUAL AGENCY. THE REFORE, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SAID TO WHOLL Y IMPROBABLE AND HENCE CANNOT BE SUMMARILY BRUSHED ASIDE. CONSEQUENT LY, WHILE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED PARTIALLY IN QUANTUM PR OCEEDINGS BASED ON PROPORTION OF SHARE IN PARTNERSHIP, SUCH FINDING DO NOT IPSO FACTO APPLY IN THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE I N ITS SCOPE AND IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 20 - CONSIDERATION VIS-A-VIS QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THUS, BENEFIT OF DOUBT IS REQUIRED TO BE ASSIGNED IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE ON TH E TOUCHSTONE OF PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES. THUS, WE ARE DISPOS ED TO APPRECIATE THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN AFFIRMATIVE AND CONSEQUENT LY HOLD THAT PENALTY UNDER S.271(1)(C) CANNOT BE SADDLED ON ADDITIONS TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 14. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE DISPOSED OF AS ALLOWED. THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 13 / 04 /2017 SD/- SD/- ( ) ( ) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 13/ 04 /2017 ,..,.../ T.C. NAIR, SR. PS ! / 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)-VI, BARODA 5. 678'34 , ..34 & , . 2 / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 89 / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, 16'' //TRUE COPY// / ( DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD IT(SS)A NOS. 54 TO 57/AHD/2014 VIJAY KUMAR K.SHAH VS. ITO ASST.YEARS 2003-04 TO 2006-07 - 21 - 1. DATE OF DICTATION .. 21.3.17/5-6..4.17 (DICTATION -PAD 36-PAGES ATTACHED AT THE END OF THIS APPEAL-FILE) 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 22.3.17/5-6.4.17 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.13.4.17 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 13.4.17 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