TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1019X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... epted due to the fact that the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court have categorically held that the Authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, Instructions and Directions of the Board. Since the Prohibitory Order has not been removed within the time limit specified by the CBDT Instruction the releasing of the Prohibitory Order on 6/8/2020 and resultant Panchnama on 6/8/2020 becomes invalid in law. On this count also we find that the period of limitation for the purpose of passing the assessment order commences from 31/1/2020 and should have been completed on or before 31/3/2021 which was further extended by Taxation and Other Laws Amendment (TOLA) to 30th September, 2021. But, we find that the assessment order has been passed on 31/3/2022 which is bad in law. Whether Panchnama without any seizure cannot be treated as a valid one for the purpose of computing the period of limitation? - We are of the considered view that the last drawn Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 is only for the purpose of cancellation of the restraint order passed u/s. 132(3) of the Act and it could not be regarded as a Panchnama for the purpose of computation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... no recognition in the eyes of law. The information contained in the seized pendrive is could not be considered as admissible evidence as per the provisions of section 65B of Indian Evidence Act. Therefore, we are of the considered view that such inadmissible seized material is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Thus, the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee on 31/3/2022 is not a valid assessment order in the eyes of law and it deserves to be set aside. Estimation of income - bogus purchases - estimating the profit @ 20% on bogus purchases - HELD THAT:- Since the legal grounds raised by the assessee have been adjudicated in favour of the assessee. hence adjudication of the grounds raised vide Ground No. 5 and 6 on merits needs no separate adjudication. - Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon ble Judicial Member And Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon ble Accountant Member For the Appellant : Sri M.V. Prasad, AR For the Respondent : Sri MN Murthy Naik, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH : All the captioned appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-3, Visakhapatnam in DIN Order No. ITBA/APLS/250/2023- 24/1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... notice u/s. 153A, the assessee filed the return of income on 30/01/2022 admitting the same income declared and filed u/s. 139 of the Act. Subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act was issued on 17/03/2022. The Ld. AO observed that the assessee generated unaccounted cash income by adopting the various modus operandi . The Ld. AO also found that certain incriminating material was found and seized during the search proceedings with respect to unaccounted income generated by the assessee group. In response to the detailed questionnaire issued to the assessee during the assessment proceedings on 22/01/2022, the assessee filed its reply dated 5/3/2022. Considering the reply of the assessee, the Ld. AO observed that the assessee has admitted Rs. 3,99,35,221/- as unaccounted income generated in the FY 2011-12. Therefore the Ld. AO proceeded to complete the assessment by making addition of Rs. 3,99,35,221/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-3, Visakhapatnam. The assessee contested before the Ld. CIT(A) regarding the validity of the issue of notice u/s. 153A which is beyond the period of six years relevant to the previous year in whi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted and the mandatory conditions prescribed in the 4th proviso to section 153A(1) for such assessment years are not satisfied in the appellant s case. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have held that the assessment made without a valid jurisdiction to issue notice u/s. 153A is void. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in stating that the condition prescribed in the 4th proviso to section 153A(1) is satisfied since the deposits in the bank account fall under the definition of Asset as per the Explanation 2 of section 153A(1) though there were no such deposits in bank account as per the satisfaction note of the Assessing Officer. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the cash balance treated by the Assessing Officer as an Asset in the satisfaction note does not come under the ambit of the definition of Asset as per Explanation 2 of section 153A(1) and consequently ought to have held that the issue of notice u/s. 153A is invalid and the Assessment is bad in law. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... general in nature and therefore they need no adjudication. Ground No.2 relates to the validity of issuance of notice u/s. 153A because as per the assessee, in this case, the notice u/s. 153A was issued beyond six assessment years immediately preceding the assessment year relevant to the previous year in which search was conducted and the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) for such assessment years is not satisfied in the assessee s case. Ground No.3 relates to the application of the conditions laid down in the fourth proviso to section 153A(1) of the Act to the case of the assessee by the Ld. CIT(A). 6. In Ground No. 4 the assessee raised a legal issue regarding the period of limitation u/s. 153B of the Act. In Ground No.5 the assessee raised another legal issue relating to the legal infirmity in the Certificate obtained u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The legal issues raised by the assessee vide Ground No.4 5 of this appeal for the AY 2012-13 are identical to the legal issues raised by the assessee in its other appeals for the AYs 2013-14 to 2020-21. We therefore firstly proceed to adjudicate the legal grounds raised by the assessee vide Grounds No. 4 5 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (vi) CIT vs. T.S. Chandrasekhar [2009] 221 CTR 385 (Karnataka HC) (vii) Mohd Yasin vs. CIT, Jaipur [2017] 84 Taxmann.com 292 (Rajasthan) (viii) CIT vs. White White Mineral (P.) Ltd [2011] 12 Taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan). (ix) CIT-1, Jodhpur vs. Om Prakash Mandora [2013] 37 Taxmann.com 426 (Rajasthan). (x) K.V. Padmanabhan vs. ACIT, Central Circle, Trichur [2019] 107 taxmann.com 24 (Kerala HC) (xi) V.L.S. Finance Ltd vs. CIT, Central-II, [2007] 159 taxman 102 (Delhi) (xii) CIT vs. Anil Minda [2010] 235 CTR 1 (Delhi) (xiii) Anil Minda vs. CIT [2023] 148 Taxmann.com 407, Supreme Court of India (xiv) TOLA Notification No. 10/2021, dated 27/02/2021. 8. Countering the arguments of the Ld. AR with reference to Ground No.4(a), the Ld. CIT-DR submitted that the ratio laid down in the case laws relied upon by the Ld. AR have been rendered in the context of old provisions of Block Assessments. The Ld. AR also further submitted that the loose sheets placed vide Prohibitory Order was only to collate it with other documents seized from the other business premises of the assessee and therefore it is a valid Prohibitory Order. The Ld. DR heavily relied on the orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... No.4(d) it was contended by the Ld. AR that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be considered for the purpose of computing the period of limitation. The Ld AR placed reliance on the following case laws: (i) Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Del.) (ii) Judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. D.D. Axles (P.) Ltd reported in [2010] 195 Taxman 277 (Delhi) (iii) Judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal reported in [2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi) (iv) Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) (v) Hon ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White White Mineral (P.) Ltd reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan) 14. Drawing our attention to the Ground No.4(e) the Ld. AR argued that as per the provisions of the Act, the documents placed under restraint by the Prohibitory Order do not culminate into any undisclosed income in the assessment order and hence the Prohibitory Order is in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r or the person who is in immediate possession or control thereof that he shall not remove, part with or otherwise deal with it, except with the previous permission of such authorised officer and such action of the authorised officer shall be deemed to be seizure of such valuable article or thing under clause (iii): 16. From the plain reading of the above section it is very clear that the Authorized Officer may where it is not practicable to seize any article or thing, etc., can place a Prohibitory Order. Various judicial pronouncements as relied on by the Ld. AR have also laid down that where it is impracticable to seize any books of account or document etc., a restraint order cannot be placed as per section 132(3) of the Act. 17. In the case of CIT vs. S.K. Katyal reported in [2009] 308 ITR 168 (Del.), the Hon ble Delhi High Court in Para 16 of their order held as follows: 16. This discussion leads us to the question 'was the Panchnama of 3-1-2001 of the type mentioned in the said Explanation 2(a)'. From the facts narrated above, it is clear that thePanchnama of 3-1-2001 itself reveals that nothing was seized on that date. Nor was anything 'found' ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n though in the meantime more than one month passed from the date of issuance of prohibitory order under s. 132(3) of the Act, no material has been produced before us to show that any of the deposits/entries made in various bank accounts in question represent wholly or partly the undisclosed income of the assessees. This Court in Visa Comtrade Ltd. (supra), referring to the judgment of Punjab Haryana High Court in Om Prakash Jindal v. Union of India [1976] 104 ITR 389 and the decision of Allahabad High Court in the case of Sriram Jaiswal v. Union of India [1989] 176 ITR 261/42 Taxman 83 held that prohibitory order under s. 132(3) of the Act issued in respect of bank accounts without forming any belief or without any material on record to conclude that the amount deposited in such bank accounts is either wholly or partly undisclosed income of the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 20. Further, the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Sandhya P. Naik reported in [2002] 124 Taxman 384 (Bombay) held as follows: Action under section 132(3) can be resorted to only if there is any practical difficulty in seizing the item which is liab ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... The Board of Revenue is competent to issue circulars under section 119. The circulars so issued have got the force of law. The benevolent circulars are in the nature of administrative relief. They really supplant the law. They can even deviate from the provisions of the Act. It is settled law that the circulars cannot impose any burden on the taxpayer, but they can relax rigour of the law. Even if the circulars are relied on for the first time in the High Court during the course of hearing, the assessee will be entitled to the benefit. The Court is bound to take note of the circular. This view has been taken by the Supreme Court and various High Courts in many cases. It is hence too late in the day for the revenue to contend that the circular issued by the Board is only an administrative direction or that it will not bind the department or that it shall not be given effect to, since it goes beyond or deviates from the terms of the statute. Therefore, the Tribunal in the present case, was justified in giving effect to the circular, and thus no question of law arose out of its order. 23. Further, the Hon ble Kerala High Court has also observed as under: 4. We ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... circular is in force, it aids the uniform and proper administration and application of the provisions of the Act. {Refer to UCO Bank, Calcutta v. CIT [1999] 4 SCC 599. 25. Similarly, the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Smt. Nayana P. Dedhia reported in [2004] 270 ITR 572 (AP) relying on the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of UCO Bank vs. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 889 (SC) observed as follows: The Supreme Court in this judgment, which is clear from the paragraph quoted above, held in no uncertain terms that: (a) The authorities responsible for administration of the Act shall observe and follow any such orders, instructions and directions of the Board; (b)such instructions can be by way of relaxation of any of the provisions of the section specified therein or otherwise; (c)the Board has power inter alia, to tone down the rigour of the law and ensure a fair enforcement of its provisions by issuing circulars in exercise of its statutory powers under section 119 of the Income-tax Act; (d)the circulars can be adverse to the Income-tax Department, but still, are binding on the authorities of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... BDT Instruction (supra), the releasing of the Prohibitory Order on 6/8/2020 and resultant Panchnama on 6/8/2020 becomes invalid in law. On this count also we find that the period of limitation for the purpose of passing the assessment order commences from 31/1/2020 and should have been completed on or before 31/3/2021 which was further extended by Taxation and Other Laws Amendment (TOLA) to 30thSeptember, 2021. But, we find that the assessment order has been passed on 31/3/2022 which is bad in law. 28. Further, with respect to Ground No.4(d) wherein it was contended that when there was no seizure in the Panchnama dated 6/8/2020, such Panchnama without any seizure cannot be treated as a valid one for the purpose of computing the period of limitation, the Ld. AR placed reliance on the following cases deserves consideration. 29. The Hon ble High Court of Delhi in the case of Pr. CIT vs. PPC Business and Products Pvt Ltd [2017] 398 ITR 71 (Del.) held as follow: 25.3 The Karnataka High Court in C. Ramaiah Reddy (supra) also took note of the Circular No.772 dated 23rd December, 1998 in relation to the definition of the word 'execute' and then observed as under: ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f CIT, Delhi-II vs. Deepak Aggarwal reported in [2008] 175 Taxman 1 (Delhi) and the relevant para 4 from the said judgment is reproduced herein below: 4. The decision of this Court in Sarb Consulate Marine Products (P.) Ltd.'s case (supra) is applicable to the facts of the present case. In that case a similar situation had arisen and the question before the Court was whether the Panchnama drawn on 6-11-1996 was the last Panchnama or whether it was the Panchnama drawn on 14-9-1998 which was the last for the purpose of reckoning the commencement of the limitation period. The Court examined various decisions including Dr. C. Balakrishna Nair v. CIT [1999] 237 ITR 70 (Ker.) and CIT v. Mrs. Sandhya P. Naik [2002] 253 ITR 534 (Bom.) and concluded as under : A general consensus appears to have emerged among the High Courts to the effect that a search under section 132 of the Act should be continuous and if it is discontinued and thereafter resumed, then there must be a valid explanation for the gap. Insofar as the present case is concerned, the facts on record show that prima facie there was absolutely no justification for keeping the search pending for more than o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to be seized. When there is no such practical difficulty, the officer is left with no other alternative but to seize the item, if he is of the view that it represented undisclosed income. Power under section 132(3), thus, cannot be exercised so as to circumvent the provisions of section 132(3), read with section 132(5). The position has become much more clear after the insertion of the Explanation to section 132(3) effective from 1-7- 1995, that a restraint order does not amount to seizure. Therefore, by passing a restraint order, the time-limit available for framing of the order cannot be extended. 33. Further, the Hon ble Rajasthan High Court is also of the same view in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax vs. White White Mineral (P.) Ltd reported in [2011] 12 taxmann.com 120 (Rajasthan) held as under [Head Note]: Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 - Search and seizure - General - A prohibitory order was passed in case of assessee - Thereupon an order dated 21-12-2002 was passed revoking prohibitory order under section 132(3) - After revoking prohibitory order, there was nothing to show that any fresh prohibitory order was clamped - Further, Panchnama da ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Panchnama drawn. Further the Ld. AR submitted that in that case there was seizure of material in the last drawn Panchnama and hence the Hon ble Supreme Court has held that the period of limitation commences from the last drawn Panchnama. However, in the instant case, the Ld. AR argued that there was no seizure in the lastly drawn Panchnama dated 6/8/2020 and hence the case relied on by the Ld. DR in the case of Anil Minda cannot be applied to the instant case. The Ld. AR filed written submissions which are reproduced herein below: 8. In this connection, it is submitted that while rendering the said decision, the Hon ble High Court observed that it is but logical that the point of execution of warrant on the last Panchnama drawn would be starting point of time of limitation, since it is at that point of time that the search party has in its custody the complete material and is in a position to evaluate disclosed and undisclosed material/income and not before that. While agreeing with the same, the Hon ble Supreme Court observed that it cannot be disputed that the block assessment proceedings are initiated on the basis of the entire material collected during the search and on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pective Panchnama/s drawn. Therefore, the date of the Panchnama last drawn can be said to be the relevant date and can be said to be the starting point of limitation of two years for completing the block assessment proceedings. 9. It is therefore submitted that the decisions of various High Courts referred to in this written submission overwhelmingly support the contention of the appellant that the Panchnama dated 06.08.2020 in its case cannot be considered as the last Panchnama drawn for conclusion of search in the absence of seizure of any material on the said date and the Panchnama drawn on 31.01.2020 itself is required to be considered as the last Panchnama. As a consequence, it is submitted that the original time barring date for completion of search assessments is required to be reckoned as 31.03.2021, being 12 months from the end of the FY 2019-20 relevant to the said last Panchnama, which has since been extended to 30.09.2021 in accordance with the notification issued under TOLA, 2020. As the assessments were not concluded by the said date, it is submitted that the assessments have become time barred and bad in law. 36. We have considered the submission of the Ld ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Srinivasa Rao, Cashier of the assessee. The copy of the Certificate has been placed in Page-11 of the Paper Book-1. The Ld. AR also produced a copy of Certification issued u/s. 65B of the Indian Evidence Act in another case wherein the primary and secondary device details including the owner / user of the device has been clearly mentioned. The Ld. AR submitted that in the instant case, no evidence was produced by the Revenue stating that the data copied to the pendrive was from the system identified in this regard, and used by the Cashier Sri A. Srinivasa Rao. The Ld. AR therefore pleaded that on this ground also, the assessment order is not a valid assessment order. The Ld. AR relied on the following case laws: (i) Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT, Central Circle-2, Madurai [2021] 129 taxmann.com 126 (Madras) (ii) Judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar vs. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and Ors in Civil Appeal Nos. 20825-20826 of 2017. (iii) Anvar P.V. vs. P.K. Basheer and others [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC). 38. Per contra, the Ld. DR submitted before that the Digital Evidence collection form was obtained from the assessee s premises during the s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... omputer was used regularly to store or process information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over 181 that period by the person having lawful control over the use of the computer; (b) during the said period, information of the kind contained in the electronic record or of the kind from which the information so contained is derived was regularly fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities; (c) throughout the material part of the said period, the computer was operating properly or, if not, then in respect of any period in which it was not operating properly or was out of operation during that part of the period, was not such as to affect the electronic record or the accuracy of its contents; and (d) the information contained in the electronic record reproduces or is derived from such information fed into the computer in the ordinary course of the said activities. (3) Where over any period, the function of storing or processing information for the purposes of any activities regularly carried on over that period as mentioned in clause (a) of sub-section (2) was regularly performed by computers, whether- (a) by a com ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ook etc., non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law as held by the Supreme Court in the judgment Anvar P.V. case (supra). ''14. Any documentary evidence by way of an electronic record under the Evidence Act, in view of sections 59 and 65A, can be proved only in accordance with the procedure prescribed under section 65B. Section 65B deals with the admissibility of the electronic record. The purpose of these provisions is to sanctify secondary evidence in electronic form, generated by a computer. It may be noted that the section starts with a non obstante clause. Thus, notwithstanding anything contained in the Evidence Act, any information contained in an electronic record which is printed on a paper, stored, recorded or copied in optical or magnetic media produced by a computer shall be deemed to be a document only if the conditions mentioned under sub-section (2) are satisfied, without further proof or production of the original. The very admissibility of such a document, i.e., electronic record which is called as computer output, depends on the satisfaction of the four conditions under section 65B( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tronic records being more susceptible to tampering, alteration, transposition, excision, etc. without such safeguards, the whole trial based on proof of electronic records can lead to travesty of justice. 17. Only if the electronic record is duly produced in terms of section 65B of the Evidence Act, the question would arise as to the genuineness thereof and in that situation, resort can be made to section 45A opinion of examiner of electronic evidence. 18. The Evidence Act does not contemplate or permit the proof of an electronic record by oral evidence if requirements under section 65B of the Evidence Act are not complied with, as the law now stands in India.'' 43. In the case of Anvar P.V vs. P.K. Basheer and Others [2014] 10 SCC 473 (SC) , the Hon ble Supreme Court held their observations vide Paras 14, 15, 16, 17 18 to state that non-compliance of section 65(B) of the Indian Evidence Act renders the document inadmissible in the eye of law. Relying on the same ratio laid down by the Hon ble Apex Court, the Hon ble Madras High Court delivered its judgment in the case of Vetrivel Mineral vs. ACIT (supra) vide para 24 of its order which is extracted her ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uced. This can be done by the owner of a laptop computer, a computer tablet or even a mobile phone, by stepping into the witness box and proving that the concerned device, on which the original information is first stored, is owned and/or operated by him. In cases where the computer , as defined, happens to be a part of a computer system or computer network (as defined in the Information Technology Act, 2000) and it becomes impossible to physically bring such network or system to the Court, then the only means of proving information contained in such electronic record can be in accordance with Section 65B(1), together with the requisite certificate under Section 65B(4).This being the case, it is necessary to clarify what is contained in the last sentence in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) which reads as if an electronic record as such is used as primary evidence under Section 62 of the Evidence Act . This may more appropriately be read without the words under Section 62 of the Evidence Act, . With this minor clarification, the law stated in paragraph 24 of Anvar P.V. (supra) does not need to be revisited. 45. On careful perusal of the case laws cited above, we are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he assessment order by allowing the Grounds No. 4 5 raised by the assessee, the Ground Nos 2 and 3 needs no separate adjudication. It is ordered accordingly. 48. In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2012-13 is allowed. ITA No.173/Viz/2023 (AY: 2013-14) 49. In this appeal the assessee has raised eight grounds of appeal. Grounds No.1 , 7 8 are general in nature and therefore they need no adjudication. 50. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2013-14 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2013-14 vide Grounds No. 2 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 3 for the AY 2013-14 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 51. Grounds No.4 relates to the addition of Rs. 10,00,00,000/- made by the Ld. AO towards sale of GTC Martur property and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ing reliance on the decision of the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of ITO-12(3)(3), Mumbai vs. Matcon Engineers India Pvt Ltd and hence pleaded that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 54. We have heard both the sides and perused the material available on record. We find from the order of the Ld. CIT(A)has estimated the profit @ 20% on the bogus purchases by relying on the High Court decisions. No doubt, various High Courts have supported the decision of estimating the profit @ 5% to 12.5% only on bogus purchases. Now the question before us is whether the Ld. CIT(A) is right in estimating the profit @ 20% on bogus purchases. The contention of the assessee on this aspect is that it has already shown in its books of accounts about the grey market purchases and it is included in the gross profit. Hence, the Ld. AR pleaded to restrict the estimation to 12.5% instead of 20%. However, since the legal grounds raised by the assessee have been adjudicated in favour of the assessee, as per the foregoing paragraphs and hence adjudication of the grounds raised vide Ground No. 5 and 6 on merits needs no separate adjudication. 55. In the result, appeal of the assessee for the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Revenue. 63. This ground raised by the assessee is identical to that of the Ground No. 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2013-14. Since the issue involved in both these appeals is identical, our decision given therein (AY 2013-14) applies mutatis mutandis to the Ground No. 4 of the this appeal (AY 2015-16) also. Accordingly, this ground needs no separate adjudication as the legal grounds are adjudicated in favour of the assessee. 64. In the result, appeal of the assessee for the AY 2015-16 is allowed ITA No.176/Viz/2023 (AY: 2016-17) 65. In this appeal, the assessee has raised seven grounds of appeal. Grounds No.1, 6 7 are general in nature and therefore, they need no separate adjudication. 66. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2016-17 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppeal. Grounds No. 1, 5 6 are general in nature and therefore they need no separate adjudication. 73. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2017-18 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2017-18 vide Grounds No. 2 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 3 for the AY 2017-18 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 74. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting such purchases and though the said sales have not been disputed by the Rev ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 019-20) 82. In this appeal, the assessee has raised six grounds of appeal. Grounds No. 1, 5 6 are general in nature and therefore they need no separate adjudication. 83. Grounds No.2 and 3 raised by the assessee for the AY 2019-20 are legal grounds which are identical to the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13. Since the grounds and the issues raised by the assessee in its appeal for the AY 2019-20 vide Grounds No. 2 3 are identical to that of the Grounds No.4 5 of the assessee s appeal for the AY 2012-13, our decision given therein while adjudicating the Grounds No. 4 5 for the AY 2012-13 mutatis mutandis applies to the Grounds No. 2 3 for the AY 2019-20 also. Accordingly, these grounds raised by the assessee are allowed. 84. Ground No.4 raised by the assessee reads as under: 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in allowing deduction of expenditure towards purchases of tobacco as reflected in the seized material to the extent of 80% of such expenditure only instead of allowing the entire expenditure though the sales admitted in the books could not have been made without effecting s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... eads as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the contention of the appellant that the assessment is void ab initio since the Assessing Officer has not validly assumed jurisdiction to make the assessment in the absence of issue of notice u/s. 143(2) on the valid revised return filed by the appellant though the revised return was duly considered while making the assessment. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in placing reliance on judicial decisions which have held that issue of notice u/s. 143(2) is not mandatory in the assessments made u/s. 153A though the assessment for the instant AY is not an assessment u/s. 153A. 92. Vide the above ground, the assessee has raised the issue of validity of the assessment order without issuing notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act for the AY 2020-21. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of Chennai in ITA Nos. 22/Mds/2016 in support of his argument. Per contra, the Ld. DR relied on the orders of the Ld. Revenue Authorities. We have heard both the sides and we are of the considered view that since the legal grounds have been adjudicated in favour of the assessee, the Ground No.5 raised by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
