M/S. SHREE LAKSHMI FINANCE CORPORATION,PUTTUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, MANGALURU

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ C ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No.572 & 573/Bang/2019 (Assessment Years : 2000-01 & 2002-03) M/s. Shree Lakshmi Finance Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Corporation, Income Tax, Near Post Office, Main Road, Central Circle, Alangar, Puttur Taluk, Mangaluru. D.K. 574 241 PAN: ABAFS 1171P (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By: Shri V. Srinivasan, Advocate. Revenue By: Dr. P. V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (D.R)

Date of Hearing : 09.07.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 19.07.2019

O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed appeals against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Mangalore under Section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Since both the appeals have a common issue and identical, they are clubbed together and common order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No.572/Bang/2019 for the Assessment Year 2000-01. 2. The assessee has raised grounds of appeal in ITA No.572/Bang/2019 as under :

2 ITA No.572 & 573/Bang/2019

3 ITA No.572 & 573/Bang/2019 3 The Brief facts of the case are that there was a search operation in the case of Shri E. Krishna Murthy on 29.7.2004 and assessee name was included in the warrant where the assessee is engaged in finance business and survey under Section 133A of the Act carried out by the Revenue. Subsequently a Notice under Section 153A(a) was issued for filing Return of Income. The assessee has contested the validity of the search and the submissions are referred at para 6 of the assessment order. Whereas the Assessing Officer finally due to non-production of the details made an addition of Rs.1,02,620 and passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act Dt.27.12.2006. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the CIT(Appeals). The assessee has challenged the order passed under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act as there was only a survey operation. Hence assessment cannot be framed under above provisions and also in the case of search operation in the premises of Shri E. Vidyaranya and Shri E. Krishnamurthy, no incriminating material is found which belong to the assessee or seized documents. But the CIT(Appeals) rejected this ground of appeal and confirmed the action of Assessing Officer in passing the order under Section 153A and dismissed the assessee's appeal. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal with the Tribunal. 4. The learned Authorised Representative submitted that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the assessment under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act as

4 ITA No.572 & 573/Bang/2019 there was only survey operation in the case of assessee and in the case of search. On other group, no incriminating material pertaining to assessee was found. The learned Authorised Representative also referred to the Paper Book filed in the course of hearing in particular written submissions and also demonstrated the contents of Panchanama. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative supported the orders of CIT(Appeals). 5. We heard the rival contentions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, the contention of the learned Authorised Representative that the CIT(Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in passing the order under Section 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act irrespective of the fact that the assessee's name is not included in the search warrant. The ld. AR demonstrated with the copy of Panchanama placed at page 1 of paper book and the learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the submissions. We find CIT (Appeals) has dealt on this disputed issue at para 5.4 of the order but there is no proper findings of facts and decision on the disputed issue that whether the name of the assessee is included in search warrant. But confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. Further the ld. AR further submitted that the search warrant does not indicate name of the assessee. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative submitted that the Assessment records have to be verified to substantiate whether the search warrant was in the name of assessee. We are of

5 ITA No.572 & 573/Bang/2019 the opinion that the assessee has raised the ground of appeal before the CIT(Appeals) on this disputed issue, and CIT (Appeals) dealt on issue but there is no finding that incriminating documents relate to the assessee was found in search. Hence we are of the substantive opinion that the matter needs tobe relooked based on the search warrant and we restore entire issues to the file of CIT (Appeals) to adjudicate afresh and pass a reasonable and speaking order and further the assessee be provided adequate opportunity of hearing and shall co-operate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal and allow the ground of appeal for statistical purpose. 6. Similarly in ITA No.573/Bang/2019, the facts are similar and identical. Applying the Ratio held in the case of ITA 572/Bang/2019, we remit the matter to the file of CIT(Appeals) for adjudicating fresh and allow the grounds of assessee's appeal for statistical purposes. 7. In the result, both appeals of assessee ITA Nos.572/Bang/2019 and 573/Bang/2019 are allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court on 19th July, 2019. Sd/- Sd/- (A.K. GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19.07.2019. *Reddy GP

6 ITA No.572 & 573/Bang/2019

Copy to

Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore