Sri Ajit Kumar Surana, Kolkata V. DCIT, Cen. Cir-XVIII, Kolkata, Kolkata

ITSSA 81/KOL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2810 (ITAT-KOLKATA)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 7 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-10-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MD USMAN
• Assessee Lawyers: S M SURANA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Assessment record; Revised return; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 131; 263; 132

Judgement Text

1 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S. S. VISWAN ETHRA RAVI, JM] I.T(SS).A NO. 81/KOL/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI AJIT KUMAR SURANA VS. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (PAN: ALBPS1149Q) CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVIII, KOLKATA ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 05.12.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.12.2016 FOR THE APPELLANT: SHRI S. M SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR THE RESPONDENT: MD. USMAN, CIT ORDER PER SHRI M. BALAGANESH, AM: THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS ARISING OUT OF REVISION ORDER OF CIT, CENTRAL-II, KOLKATA VIDE F. NO. CIT(CENTRAL)-II/KOL/263/2013-14/5514-55 16 DATED 03.03.2014. ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XVIII, KOLKATA U/S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR AY 2010- 11 VIDE HIS ORDER DATED 30.12.2011. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE TO BE DECIDED IN THIS APPEAL IS AS TO WHETHER THE LD CIT IS JUSTIFIED IN INVOKING REVISIONARY JURISDICTION IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THIS CASE IS THAT THE ASSESS EE FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME ON 2.10.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 6,03,497/-. SUBSEQUENTLY REVISED RETURNS WERE FILED ON 30.12.2010 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 2,63,24,3 13/- ; ON 10.8.2011 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 22,25,130/- AND ON 29.12.2011 SHOWING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,92,56,130/-. THERE WAS A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S 132 OF THE ACT CONDUCTED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AND OTHERS ON 23.2.2010 AND AS A CONSEQUENCE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS 8 CRORES (RS 5 CRORES FOR AY 2009-10 AND RS 3 CRORES FOR AY 2010-11) AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF FIVE DIFFERENT B ANK ACCOUNTS OF VIJAYA BANK, BURRABAZAR BRANCH, WHICH THE ASSESSEE OWNED UP AS HIS BENAMI A CCOUNTS. SUBSEQUENTLY, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OWNED UP ANOTHER BANK ACCOUNT THAT OF ONE RINA SAHA WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, BRABOURNE ROAD BRANCH . A N AMOUNT OF RS. 1,70,31,000/- WAS 2 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 ALSO DISCLOSED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BAS IS OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT IN RELATION TO AY 2010-11. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) O F THE ACT ON 30.12.2011 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,92,56,130/-. 4. THE LD CIT OBSERVED THAT FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009 -10, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN WHICH INCLUDED THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FO RS. 5 CRORE AS P ER THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY HIM. HOWEVER, FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE FI LED HIS RETURN FOR RS. 1,86,51,094/- (RS 1,70,31,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RINA SAHA WITH DEVELOPM ENT CREDIT BANK AND RS. 16,18,244/- ON ACCOUNT OF FIVE BANK ACCOUNTS OF VIJAYA BANK). THE LD CIT OBSERVED THAT THE BALANCE PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 2,83,81,756/- ( RS 3,00,00,000 RS. 16,18,244) WAS NEITHER OFFERED TO TAX NOR WAS IT ADDED BY THE LD A O AS RS 3 CRORES WAS DECLARED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME SOON AFTER THE SEARCH FOR THE AS ST YEAR 2010-11. FOR THIS PURPOSE, HE INITIATED REVISION PROCEEDINGS U/S 263 OF THE ACT A ND ISSUED SHOW CAUSE NOTICE IN THIS REGARD TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THA T AT THE TIME OF MAKING DISCLOSURE AFTER THE SEARCH, IT WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE AND AT THAT POINT O F TIME, THE PAPERS WERE NOT PROPERLY ARRANGED AND HENCE THE FIGURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME COULD NOT BE PROPERLY COMPUTED. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER DATED 2 9.12.2011 STATING THAT THE FIGURE OF DISCLOSURE WOULD BE RS. 14.48 CRORES FOR THE ASST Y EAR 2009-10 AND RS. 1.93 CRORES FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 FOR WHICH REVISED COMPUTATION AND REVISED RETURN WAS FILED FOR EACH OF THE TWO YEARS TO THAT EFFECT. IT WAS FURTHER STAT ED THAT THE TOTAL DISCLOSED AMOUNT OF RS. 16.41 CRORES WAS THUS MORE THAN THE DISCLOSURE OF R S 8 CRORES MADE EARLIER. IT WAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE DISCLOSURE MADE VIDE PETITION DATED 19.4.2010 WAS NOT A SACROSANCT FIGURE THAT THE DISCLOSURE MADE AFTERWARDS WAS ON THE BASI S OF ANALYSIS OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS AND HENCE THE ASSESSMENT MADE WAS CORRECT AND WAS NOT E RRONEOUS. 5. THE LD CIT HOWEVER CONCLUDED THAT THERE IS NO R EASON FOR NON-INCLUSION OF THE BALANCE OF RS. 1,13,48,906/- (3,00,00,000 1,86,51 ,094) BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 IN THE ASSESSED INCOME. HE ALSO OBSERVED T HAT ON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS, IT WAS SEEN THAT THE STATEMENTS OF 5 UNDIS CLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS WERE NOT PLACED ON RECORD. FURTHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER MENTIONS A CA SH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH WAS ALSO NOT AVAILABLE. ACCORDINGLY IT WAS CONCLUDED THAT THE LD AO HAD NOT LOOKED INTO THE MATTER AND HAD NOT MADE THE NECESSARY ENQUIRIES THEREBY MAKING THE ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND THERE 3 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 WAS POSSIBLE UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME AMOUNTING T O RS. 1,13,48,906/- WHICH HAS CAUSED PREJUDICE TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HENCE H E SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT AND DIRECTED THE LD AO TO PASS A FRESH ORDER DE NOVO AND FURTHER DIR ECTED THE LD AO TO OBTAIN THE BANK STATEMENTS OF UNDISCLOSED ACCOUNTS AND ALSO CALL FO R THE ASSESSEES CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND CARRY OUT NECESSARY ENQUIRIES THEREON. HE DIRECTED TO PASS A FRESH ORDER ON THE BASIS OF THESE ENQUIRIES. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BE FORE US ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS :- 1. FOR THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS ARBITR ARY, ILLEGAL AND BAD IN LAW. 2. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN INITIATING THE PRO CEEDINGS UNDER SEC. 263 WHEN THE FACT OF DISCLOSURE OF RS. 3 CRORES IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS AND THEREAFTER SUBMISSION OF THE RETURN AND REVISED RETURN WAS DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD. AO AND THE INCOME OF RS.19256130/- WAS COMPUTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW A ND ON THE FACTS FOUND AND INVESTIGATED BY THE AO. 3. FOR THAT THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE I.T.O. AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE ISSUE INCLUDING THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME WITH REFERENCE TO THE D ISCLOSURE MADE CANNOT BE SAID TO BE ERRONEOUS AND THEREBY CANNOT ALSO BE TREATED AS PRE JUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. 4. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE LD. CIT WAS WRONG IN HOLDING THE VIEW THAT THE ORDER WAS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTEREST OF REVENUE, NOR THERE WAS ANY EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST EVEN REMOTELY THAT THE ASSESSEE EARNED THE DISCLOSED INCOME PARTICULARLY WHEN IT WAS FULLY DISCLOSED EVEN AT THE TIME OF DIS CLOSURE THAT THERE MAY BE CALCULATION MISTAKE WHICH WAS TAKE DUE CARE BY THE AO AND MORE INCOME W AS ASSESSED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 5. FOR THAT THE LD. CIT ERRED IN SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT DE-NOVO WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED UNDER SEC. 263 ON SPECIFIC ISSUE AND FURTHER THERE WAS NOTHING IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSMENT IS REQUIRED TO BE SET AS IDE DE-NOVO, THE ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 IS, THEREFORE, BAD IN LAW. 7. FOR THAT ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE THE ORDER OF THE CIT BE MODIFIED AND THE ASSESSEE BE GIVEN THE RELIEF PRAYED FOR. 6. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ENTIRE 5 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS WITH VIJAYA BANK, BURRABAZAR WAS DULY FILED BEFORE THE LD AO AND CONS IDERED BY THE LD AO IN HIS ELABORATE ORDER PASSED FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10. HE PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S 153A / 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE ASST YE AR 2009-10 ON 30.12.2011. HE ALSO DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE DISCLOSURE P ETITION DATED 19.4.2010 WHICH IS REPRODUCED IN PAGES 4 & 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER F OR AY 2009-10, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DEP LOYED IN UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 5,16,32,207/- (5 BANK ACCOUNTS) AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT RECEIVABLE BY HIM WHICH SHALL BE DEPOSITED IN THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUN TS ON RECEIPT OF THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY A SUM OF RS. 8,00,00,000/- WAS VOLUNTARILY OFFERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WHICH WAS DISTRIBUTED INTO TWO ASST YEARS I.E AYS 2009-10 AND 2010-11 FOR RS. 5 CRORES AND RS 3 4 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 CRORES RESPECTIVELY. HE ARGUED THAT THIS ITSELF CL EARLY PROVES THAT THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT BASED ON DETAILD ANALYSIS OF THE S EIZED DOCUMENTS AND WAS MADE ONLY ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS. LATER ON WHEN THE ENTIRE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND BANK STATEMENTS WERE THOROUGHLY ANALYSED, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A HIGHER SUM OF RS. 14.48 CRORES FOR AY 2009-10 AND A LESSER SUM OF RS.1.93 CRORES FOR ASST YEAR 20 10-11. THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN APPRECIATED BY THE LD CIT. THE LD AR ALSO DREW TH E ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PARA 3 OF PAGE 14 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10 WHEREIN THE LD AO HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER:- AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE, THE ASSESSEE HAS REVISED HIS QUANTUM OF DISCLOSURE TWICE, FIRST VIDE LETTER SUBMITTED ON 17.08.2011 WHEREBY HE OFFERED F URTHER RS.29187380/- ON ACCOUNT OF OWNING UP RINA SAHA'S BANK ACCOUNT AND THEN AGAIN HE REVIS ED THE DISCLOSURE AMOUNT VIDE LETTER DATED 29.12.2011 TO RS.410713801- FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 9-10 ON A/C OF RINA SAHA'S A/C. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED THAT WHY HE HAS EXCLUDED RS.2.5 CRORES IN HIS 2ND DISCLOSURE LETTER FROM THE SUM TOTAL OF ALL THE NON - CASH DEPOSITS APPEARING IN THE ACCOUNTS STATEMENT. HE STATED THAT THE REASON HAS BEEN EXPLAINED IN THE LETTER DATED 29.12 .2011 ALONG WITH ENCLOSURES IN THE FORM OF BANK STATEMENTS. HE ALSO SUBMITTED A CASH-FLOW STAT EMENT SHOWING THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF RINA SAHA [AND IN FACT IN THE OTHER FIVE ACCOUNTS] WERE OUT OF CASH-IN-HAND AND HENCE DOES NOT DESERVE ADDITION. I HAVE CONSIDERED THESE EXPLANATIONS BY THE ASSESSEE AND IS OF THE OPINION THAT THEY ARE REASONABLE AND ACCEPTABLE SO FAR AS THE QUANTUM OF DISCLOSURE IN RESPECT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF RINA SAHA AND OTHER FIVE ACCOUNTS. FOR RECORDS, IT SHOULD BE MENTIONED AT THIS POINT THAT AT THE FAG END OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TO BE PRECISE ON 29.12.2011 THE ASSESSEE THROUGH HIS A.R. SUBMITTED TWO LETTERS, KEPT IN THE FOLDERS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. IN ONE LETTER HE HAS FORWA RDED RS.40056380/- AS HIS INCOME ARISING OUT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF 'RINA SAHA. IN THE SAME LETTER HE HAD ALSO REQUESTED THAT OUT OF THIS AMOUNT A TOTAL SUM OF RS.10,15,000/- WAS TRANSFERRE D TO VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS DURING THE MONTHS OF MARCH, 2009, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE GIVEN I N ANNEXURE-A TO THIS LETTER. THE SAID TRANSFERRED AMOUNT IS REFLECTED AS INCOME IN IT RET URN OF RESPECTIVE PERSONS AND COPIES OF THE SAME HAS ALREADY BEEN FURNISHED TO YOU. UNDER THE C IRCUMSTANCES, THIS SUM OF RS.10,15, 000/- SHALL NOT PART OF MY INCOME .'. THIS FINDING GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE UNDISCLO SED BANK STATEMENTS AND ITS ANALYSIS TOGETHER WITH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS AND THE LETT ER DATED 29.12.2011 WERE FILED IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR THE ASST YEAR 2009-10 AND HE NCE THE SAME COULD NOT BE FOUND IN THE FOLDER OF ASST YEAR 2010-11 BY THE LD CIT. THAT BY ITSELF WOULD NOT MAKE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERES TS OF THE REVENUE. THE LD AR ALSO DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PAGE 16 OF THE ASST O RDER FOR THE AY 2009-10 WHEREIN THE LD AO HAD OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ON 29.12.2011 ITSELF, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ANOT HER LETTER WHEREBY HE HAD SUMMED UP HIS TOTAL SIGNIFICANT DISCLOSURE FOR THREE YEARS AND AL SO MADE SOME PRAYERS AS UNDER: - '6. IN COURSE OF DISCUSSIONS IN RELATION TO THE ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS DETAILS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO MY ATTENTION. AS I HAVE NOT KEPT PROPER RECORDS OF THE DEAL AND THE TRANSACTIONS, I AM UNABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTS IN ABSENCE OF DATA W ITH ME/MY FAMILY MEMBERS. CONSIDERING CRITICAL CONDITION OF MY FATHER REQUIRING MY CONTIN UOUS PRESENCE WITH HIM AND TO AVOID 5 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 LITIGATION AND TO BUY PEACE, I AM AGREEING TO REVIS E MY TOTAL INCOME WITH CERTAIN PRAYERS AND REQUESTS ENUMERATED BELOW FOR THE ABOVE YEARS AND O FFER FOR TAXATION, INCOME AS UNDER: I) AY: 2007-08 RS.6200000/- APPROX. II) AY: 2009-10 RS. L44800000/- APPROX. III) AY: 2010-11 RS. 19300000/- APPROX. FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE INCOME IS MORE OR LE SS SAME AS RETURNED. THE PRAYERS I REQUESTS ARE AS UNDER: A) THE REVISED AMOUNTS ARE ACCEPTED AS MY INCOME FO R THE RELEVANT YEARS, AS DECLARED VOLUNTARILY. B) THE REQUIREMENTS OF FURTHER EXPLANATIONS IN RESP ECT OF THE MATTER ARE WAIVED. C) NO PENAL PROCEEDINGS OF ANY KIND ARE INITIATED / AND NO PENALTY OF ANY NATURE ARE IMPOSED. D) AMOUNTS LYING WITH THE DEPARTMENTS PURSUANT TO T HE SEARCH ARE APPROPRIATED AS ADVANCE-TAX FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS. E) NO INTEREST IS LEVIED FOR THE BALANCE TAX PAYABL E, IF ANY, AFTER APPROPRIATION OF THE AMOUNTS LYING WITH THE DEPARTMENT. F) NO FURTHER ACTIONS ARE INITIATED ON IDENTICAL IS SUES AGAINST THE FAMILY MEMBERS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTION WITH SONY. G) ENTIRE ADDITIONAL INCOME ASSESSED SHALL BE BROUG HT IN THE BOOKS AT AN APPROPRIATE TIME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SEVEN REQUESTS, IT IS TO BE ME NTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE MAY, OF COURSE, BRING THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ASSESSED IN HIS BOOKS AT AN A PPROPRIATE TIME AS REQUESTED IN (G) ABOVE. HOWEVER, NEITHER IT IS POSSIBLE NOR IT IS REQUIRED I APPROPRIATE / LEGAL TO ACKNOWLEDGE OR ADMIT ANY OF THE OTHER SIX REQUESTS AS PER (A) TO (F) ABO VE. SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS ASSESSED AT RS.14,49,45,980/- [COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME IS G IVEN BELOW]. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT THE ENTIRE DETAILS WERE DUL Y FILED AND EXAMINED IN DETAIL BY THE LD AO IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTHER ARGU ED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LD CIT THAT THERE COULD BE INCOME OF ABOUT RS 3 CRORES FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010- 11. HE HAD MERELY HARPED ONLY ON THE DISCLOSURE PE TITION DATED 19.4.2010 WHICH WAS LATER CHANGED IN THE REVISED RETURNS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BY WAY OF DETAILED EXPLANATIONS AND ANALYSIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF BHAGWATI SPONGE PVT LTD VS CIT IN ITA NO. 1283/KOL/2013 DATED 15.6.2016 AND IN THE CASE OF IVORY CONSULTANTS (P) LTD VS ITO IN ITA NO. 35/KOL/2016 DATED 9.11.2016 IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS. 7. IN RESPONSE TO THIS, THE LD DR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED REVISED RETURNS AND OFFERED MORE INCOME THAN THE ORIGINAL DISCLOSURE FO R THE ASST YEAR 2009-10 BUT OFFERED LESSER INCOME IN THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 THAN THE ORI GINAL DISCLOSURE. THE BANK ACCOUNTS AND THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS WERE NOT FOUND IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 FOR HIS EXAMINATION TO ARRIVE AT A CONCLUSI ON THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO WAS 6 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 NOT ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS IT IS NOT PREJUDICIAL T O THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE. HENCE REVISIONARY JURISDICTION WAS RIGHTLY INVOKED BY THE LD CIT. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT AT THE OUTSET THE ASSESSEE HAD OWNED U P 5 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED WITH VIJAYA BANK, BURRABAZAR BRANCH AND ONE ACCOUNT OF RINA SAHA WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH. TH OUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE DISCLOSURE OF RS 8 CRORES (RS 5 CRORES FOR AY 2009-10 AND RS 3 CRORES FOR AY 2010-11) VIDE PETITION DATED 19.4.2010 , IT IS ACCEPTED FROM THE EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD (I.E BASED ON THE DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 19.4.2010 ) THAT THE SAID DISCLOSURE WAS MADE ONLY ON AN ESTIMATE WITHOUT PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. H ENCE THE ASSESSEE THOUGHT IT FIT TO RECTIFY THE SAID DISCLOSURE BY FILING REVISED RETURNS TIME AND AGAIN AND FINALLY ON 29.12.2011 WHEREIN A SUM OF RS. 14.48 CRORES WAS OFFERED FOR A Y 2009-10 AND RS 1.93 CRORES WAS OFFERED FOR AY 2010-11 I.E THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A DETAILED CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH WERE ADMITTEDLY KEPT BY THE LD AO IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER OF ASST YEAR 2009-10 AND HENCE THE SAID PAPE RS COULD NOT BE FOUND BY THE LD CIT IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR AY 2010-11. BUT WE HOLD THAT THE MERE ABSENCE OF CERTAIN PAPERS IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER ALONE WOULD NOT AUTOMATICA LLY MAKE THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE R EVENUE , AS WE FIND THAT THE LD AO HAD ALSO RECORDED A FINDING IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2 010-11 THAT THE 5 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS OF VIJAYA BANK AND ONE ACCOUNT OF RINA SAH A WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK WERE OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE PURSUANT TO THE SEARCH. OUT OF THE 5 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS, 2 PARTIES ALSO APPEARED BEFORE THE LD AO IN THE COURS E OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED FROM THEM. SMT RINA SAHA IN RESPONSE TO SUMMONS U/S 131 OF THE ACT HAD DENIED ANY CONNECTION WITH THIS PARTICULAR ACCOUNT NO. 7955 STANDING IN HER NAME WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK (DCB), BRABOURNE ROAD BRANCH. SHE ALSO CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT IS SOLELY MAINTAI NED BY MR AJEET SURANA (ASSESSEE HEREIN). HENCE THE TRANSACTIONS OF 6 BANK ACCOUNTS WERE DULY CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LD AO. WE FIND THAT THE LD AO HAD ALSO RECOR DED A FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED TWO CASH FLOW STATEMENTS SHOWING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH IN HAND WHICH EXPLAINS THE SOURCE FOR SUBSEQUENT CASH DEPOS ITS AND HENCE NO SEPARATE ADDITION WAS MADE TOWARDS CASH DEPOSITS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IT COULD BE SAFELY CONCLUDED THAT THE 7 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 ENTIRE BANK STATEMENTS TOGETHER WITH THE CASH FLOW STATEMENTS EVEN THOUGH NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR AY 2010-11 BUT WERE AVAIL ABLE IN THE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR AY 2009-10, HAD BEEN DULY EXAMINED BY THE LD AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ALSO FIND THAT WHEN ALL THESE SUBMISSIONS WERE M ADE BEFORE THE LD CIT, HE HAD NOT PROPERLY APPRECIATED THE SAME ON MERITS AND HAD MER ELY SOUGHT TO REVISE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ERRONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. WE HOLD THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, PROPER AND SUFFICIENT ENQUIRIES WERE DULY CONDUCTED BY THE LD AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ITSELF AND AFTER D UE CONSIDERATION OF THE SAME HAD SOUGHT TO ASSESS THE ENHANCED INCOME FOR ASST YEAR 2009-10 AT RS. 14.48 CRORES WHICH DULY EXPLAINS THE FUTURE CASH DEPOSITS MADE IN THE SAME 5 UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNTS IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO ASST YEAR 2010-1 1 (I.E THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL). ACCORDINGLY THE REDUCED INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSES SEE FOR THE ASST YEAR 2010-11 WAS ACCEPTED BY THE LD AO. THERE CANNOT BE ANY ERROR FO UND IN THE SAID FUNCTIONING OF THE LD AO BY MERELY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORIGINAL DISCLOSU RE MADE VIDE PETITION DATED 19.4.2010 WHICH WAS MADE ONLY ON AN ESTIMATE BASIS AND WITHOU T PROPER ANALYSIS OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT HAD NOT POINTE D OUT ANY SPECIFIC ERROR IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO. HE MERELY STATES THAT SINCE T HE ASSESSMENT FOLDER FOR AY 2010-11 DOES NOT CONTAIN THE BANK STATEMENTS AND CASH FLOW STATEMENTS PURPORTED TO BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD AO COULD NOT HAVE VERIFIED THE SAM E IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. BUT WE FIND THAT THE SAME LD AO HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED I N THE ASST ORDER FOR AY 2009-10 THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE DULY PLACED IN THE ASSESSMENT F OLDER FOR AY 2009-10. HENCE THE PRIMARY BASIS FOR THE LD CIT TO REVISE THE ORDER GE TS DEFEATED. MOREOVER WE FIND THAT THE LD CIT HAD STATED THAT THERE MIGHT BE POSSIBLE UNDER A SSESSMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 1,13,48,906/- WHICH IS MERELY BASED ON DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 19.4.2010. ONCE THE DISCLOSURE PETITION DATED 19.4.2010 WAS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS AND WHIC H WAS LATER REVISED IN THE REVISED RETURNS FILED TOGETHER WITH LETTERS AND EXPLANATION S IN THE FORM OF DETAILED CASH FLOW STATEMENTS, THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD AO THAT THERE IS UNDER ASSESSMENT OF INCOME TO THE TUNE OF RS. 1,13,48,906/- GETS DEFEATED. HENCE IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HAVE NO HESITATION TO HOLD THAT THE LD CIT HAD NOT MADE OUT A CASE AS TO HOW THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD AO WAS ERRONEOUS IN AS MUCH AS IT IS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTERESTS OF THE REVENUE WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 263 OF THE AC T AND HENCE THE REVISION ORDER PASSED 8 IT(SS)A NO.81/KOL/2014 AJIT KUMAR SURANA, AY 2010-11 U/S 263 OF THE ACT BY THE LD CIT IS HEREBY QUASHED. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.12.201 6 SD/- SD/- (S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI) (M. BALAGANESH) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTAN T MEMBER DATED :14TH DECEMBER, 2016 JD.(SR.P.S.) COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 . APPELLANT SHRI AJIT KUMAR SURANA, 126A, SARAT BOS E ROAD, LANSDOWNE, KOLKATA-700029. 2 RESPONDENT DCIT, C.C XVIII, KOLKATA 3 . THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. 5. CIT , KOLKATA DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA / TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR .