Dr.K.Vanitha, CHENNAI v. DCIT, CHENNAI

ITA 839/CHNY/2011 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 83921714 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AEIPR3763D
Bench Chennai
Appeal Number ITA 839/CHNY/2011
Duration Of Justice 5 year(s) 5 month(s) 23 day(s)
Appellant Dr.K.Vanitha, CHENNAI
Respondent DCIT, CHENNAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Allowed
Bench Allotted D
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 15-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 15-09-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 05-05-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH CHENNAI . . . !' . #$#% & '' BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 832/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 MRS.K.RESHUMA 19 SRINIVASAPURAM I CROSS STREET THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI 600 041. PAN : AEIPR3763D V. THE DEPUTY /ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II (2) CHENNAI 600 034. ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) ITA NOS. 833 TO 839/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 & 2007-08 DR.K.VANITHA 19 SRINIVASAPURAM I CROSS STREET THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI 600 041. PAN : AACPV1968L V. THE DEPUTY /ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II (2) CHENNAI 600 034. ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) 2 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 ITA NO.882/MDS/2011 & CO NO.82/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE II(2) CHENNAI 600 034. V. DR.K.VANITHA 19 SRINIVASAPURAM I CROSS STREET THIRUVANMIYUR CHENNAI 600 041. PAN : AACPV1968L ( () /APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT/ CROSS OBJECTOR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.SRIDHAR ADVOCATE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI R.DURAI PANDIAN JCIT -.& /DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2016 /01 -.& /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28.10.2016 /O R D E R PER N.R.S. GANESAN JUDICIAL MEMBER: ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE RELAT ES TO TWO INDEPENDENT ASSESSEES. SINCE COMMON ISSUE ARISES FOR CONSIDERAT ION IN ALL THE APPEALS WE HEARD THE SAME TOGETHER AND DISPOSING OFF THE SAME BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THERE WAS A SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF DR.K.VANIT HA ON 03.07.2006. THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 ON 29.11.2001. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDE R SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED ON 3 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 30.11.2002. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FU RTHER SUBMITTED THAT AN ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED UNDER SECTION 143( 3) ON 22.03.2004. THEREFORE NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS PENDING AS ON 03.07.2006 WHEN THE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT. SINCE NO ASSESSMENT PROCEED ING WAS PENDING THE INCOME DISCLOSED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH CANNOT B E TAKEN AS INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN OTHER WORDS ACCORDING TO THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY T O THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITA NOS.559 TO 564/MDS/2014 DATED 16.06.2014 THE L EARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS WAS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH REASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE ONLY IF IN CRIMINATING MATERIAL ARE COLLECTED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH MATERIAL. 3. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THERE WAS NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADDITION WHEN THE ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDING WAS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A AND 153C OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO PLACED HIS RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI V.G.S.RAJESH IN ITA NOS.2081 TO 2086/MDS/2012 DATED 03.07.2015. 4 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 4. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 THE LE ARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETU RN OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT ON 29.07.2002. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED ON 31.07.2003. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 06.08.2003. SINCE THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DING IS TERMINATED BY OPERATION OF LAW. THEREFORE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS PENDING. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS T O CONFINE HIMSELF ONLY TO THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIO N AND THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE REGULAR RETURN BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH CAN NOT BE A REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. SIMILARLY FOR THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 22.09.2003 AND T HE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED ON 30.09.2004. NO ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) WAS PASSED. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING O FFICER ISSUED INTIMATION UNDER SECTION 143(1) ON 05.03.2004. THEREFORE ON T HE DATE OF SEARCH NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS PENDING. 5. REFERRING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN THE REGULAR COURSE ON 02.02.2005 AND THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED ON 28.02.2006. IN THIS ORDER ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL NO INTIMATION WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 143 (1) AND NO ASSESSMENT 5 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 ORDER WAS ALSO PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3). THEREFO RE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS TERMINATED ON 28.02.2006. HENCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05 IS NOT VALIDLY FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF THE SEARCH MATERIALS. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPER ATION. WHAT WAS DISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE MEDICAL PROFESSION AND ALSO GIFT RECEIVED FROM CLOSE RELATI VES. IN FACT THE EXPENDITURE AND GIFT WERE DISCLOSED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF FILING RETURN BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS FILED BEFORE THE A SSESSING OFFICER IN THE REGULAR COURSE ALONG WITH RETURN OF INCOME BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE A BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT. 6. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2006-0 7 AND 2007-08 THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 2006-07 AND 2007-08 WAS P ENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE FIRST ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER IS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84 606/- TOWARDS EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO THE LEAR NED COUNSEL THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT EXPENSES TOWARDS VEHICLE MAINTENANCE TELEPHONE BILL STAFF SALARY LIGHTING CHARGES MEDICINE EXPENSES ETC. TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1 61 554/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 40% OF THE 6 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 TOTAL CLAIM ON ADHOC BASIS WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) HOWEVER RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 25%. THE LEA RNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A MEDICAL P RACTITIONER BY PROFESSION. AFTER THE DEATH OF HER HUSBAND THE ASSESSEE IS RUN NING THE CLINIC WITH A SKELETON STAFF. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EVEN MEET TH E DAY TO DAY EXPENDITURE. IN FACT THE ASSESSEES CLOSE RELATIVE ONE MR.A.RAV INDRAN WHO IS EMPLOYED IN UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WAS FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING THE ASSESSEE BY GIVING SMALL MONETARY GIFT. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) INSTEAD OF RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. SIMILARLY FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS THE EXPENDITURES WERE D ISALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 40%. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE SAME AT 25%. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25%. THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE DELETED THE ENTIRE DI SALLOWANCE. THE OTHER COMMON GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN OTHER ASSES SMENT YEARS IS THE GIFT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MR.A.RAVINDRAN. 7. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL SHRI A.RAVINDR AN IS ASSESSEES MOTHERS OWN BROTHERS SON. SHRI.A.RAVINDRAN STUDI ED IN U.S.A. AND HE WAS RESIDING THERE FOR MORE THAN 40 YEARS. IN FACT THE SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN BECAME A CITIZEN OF U.S.A. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS A WIDOW AND SUFFERING HE IS EXTENDING FINANCIAL SUPPORT BY GIVING MONETARY GIFT . EVEN THOUGH FOR THE 7 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.43 620/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED GIFT THE CIT(A) DE LETED THE SAME ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 T HE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE GIFT OF RS.2 66 747/- OUT OF THE TOTAL GIFT OF RS.4 41 966/-. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE GIFT OF RS.3 08 378/-. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE FILED THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL CHALL ENGING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE EXPENDITURE CONFIRMED BY T HE CIT(A) TO THE EXTENT OF 25% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM WAS ALSO BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE REVENUE IN THE DEPARTMENT APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. FURTHERMORE THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 22 906 /- ON RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING. THE CIT(A) WITHOUT GIVING ANY REASON HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDING TO THE LE ARNED COUNSEL INCURRED EXPENDITURE OF RS.1 22 906/- FOR RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING FROM THE PROFESSIONAL INCOME AND THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI A.RAVINDRAN. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RECEIVED GIFT DURING HER BIRTHDAY CELEBRAT IONS. THE ASSESSEE BEING A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER BY PROFESSION SHE USED TO REC EIVE SMALL GIFT FROM VARIOUS PERSON AND CLOSE RELATIVES DURING HER BIRTHDAY. THE DETAILS OF GIFT WERE FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INSPITE OF THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION. 8. ON THE CONTRARY SHRI DURAI PANDIAN THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 2001-02 TO 2004-05 THE 8 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE FALSE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH WHAT IS THE BAS IS FOR CONCLUDING THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIM BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR AS SESSMENT PROCEEDING ARE FALSE THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMIT TED THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER WAS EXPECTED TO MAINTAIN CER TAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER NO SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE MAINTAINED. NO VOUCHERS AND BILLS WERE ALSO MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IS NOT CORRECT. HENCE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING INITIATED BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 153A IS JUSTIFIED. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT R EPRESENTATIVE FURTHER CLARIFIED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER WAS WITH REGARD TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO GIFT RECEIVED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE DEPARTMENT NO SPECI FIC MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION IN RESPECT OF THE SO CA LLED EXPENDITURE AND THE GIFT. THE DISALLOWANCE WAS MADE MAINLY ON THE BASIS OF TH E PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR COUR SE BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE EXPENDIT URE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT CORRECT HE RIGHTLY INITIATED THE PR OCEEDING UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 9 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 9. REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2006-0 7 AND 2007-08 THE DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO PASS A COMPOSITE ORDER INC LUDING ALL THE INCOME DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE REGULAR COURSE AND ALSO THE INCOME WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. AS RIG HTLY SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER CLAIMED EXPENDITURE FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSING OF FICER ON ADHOC BASIS DISALLOWED 40% OF THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. O N APPEAL BY ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OF THE CL AIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BILLS AND VOUCHERS ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER. THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CHALLENG ING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) GRANTING PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. REFERRING TO THE UNEXPLAINED MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE THE LEARNED D EPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID A SUM OF RS.25 000/- BY CASH ON 07.03.2006 TO HOTEL LE MERIDIEN AND ANOTHER SUM OF RS.2 50 000/- WAS ALSO PAID TO THE VERY SAME HOTEL. APART FROM THIS THE A SSESSEE HAS PURCHASED A DIAMOND EARTOP AND DIAMOND NECKLACE FROM M/S.VBJ JE WELLERIES AND PAID RS.49 825/- ON 15.05.2006. OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITIO N OF RS.12 16 610/- THE 10 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING O FFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.8 91 785/-. HOWEVER THERE WAS AN ADDITION TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.3 24 825/-. REFERRING TO THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE WERE MET BY THE ASSESSEES AUNT AND THE ASSESSEE REIMBURSED THE EXPENDITURE SUBSEQUENTLY THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) REJECT ED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.3 25 825/-. ACCORDING TO THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE WHEN NO EVIDENCE WAS AVAILABLE THE CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12 61 610/-. THEREFORE THE CIT(A) COMMITTED AN ERROR IN RESTRICTING THE ADDITION TO RS.3 24 824/-. 10. REFERRING TO THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE AS SESSEE TOWARDS RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY MATERIAL FO R THE SOURCE OF EARNING THE INCOME OF RS.1 22 906/- WHICH WAS SAID TO BE FOR IN VESTED FOR RENOVATION OF THE BUILDING. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) THAT THE ENTIRE EXPENDITURE WAS ACCOUNTED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT ANY REASON. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED 11 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 THE SOURCE FOR EARNING RS.1 22 906/- THE SAME HAS T O BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. REFERRING TO THE GIFT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM A.RAVINDRAN ADMITTEDLY SHRI A.RAVINDRAN IS A NON RESIDENT INDIAN. YEAR AFT ER YEAR THE ASSESSEE RECEIVING GIFT FROM THE SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN. SINC E THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RECIPROCATING BY OFFERING ANY GIFT TO SAID A.RAVIND RAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THERE IS NO GENUINENESS IN THE SO CALLED GIFT SAID TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI A.RAVINDRAN. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R MADE AN ADDITION. THE CIT(A) HOWEVER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS ON EI THER SIDE AND ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. LET US FI RST TAKE THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2004-05. FROM THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD IT APPEARS THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH OPERATION IN THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE NAMELY DR.K.VANITHA ON 03.07.2006. THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSU ING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 200 3-04. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 THE ASSESSING OFFICER PASS ED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) ON 22.03.2004. THEREFORE ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ON 03.07.2006 NO PROCEEDING WAS PENDING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER . HENCE THE ASSESSING 12 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 OFFICER CANNOT RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT CONCLUDED BEF ORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. IN OTHER WORDS THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY MAKE A FRESH ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF THE INCOME WHICH WAS UNEARTHED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND BY THE REVENUE IN THE C OURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. IN THE CASE BEFORE US ADMITTEDLY NO MATERIAL WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF TH E CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT OF INCOME FOR THE BL OCK PERIOD IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH O PERATION. WE HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ORDER OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI V.G.S.RAJESH (SUPRA). IN THE CASE BEFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IN SHRI V .G.S.RAJESH (SUPRA) THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIR ED ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ARE TERMINATED BY OPERATION OF LAW. SINCE NO ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS PENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH THE TRIBUNAL FOUND THAT THE ASSESSMENT F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD COULD BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSMENT MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER AS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) WAS SET ASIDE. IN THIS CASE ALSO FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND 2002-03 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PASSED THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3). FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 & 2 004-05 THE TIME LIMIT FOR ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 143(2) EXPIRED. THEREF ORE FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE N OT PENDING ON THE DATE 13 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 OF THE SEARCH. HENCE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MATERIA L FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF OPERATION THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINI ON THAT THERE CANNOT BE ANY ASSESSMENT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY THE O RDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ARE SET ASIDE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 AND 2004-05 THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER IS DELETED. 13. NOW COMING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 2006-07 AND 2007-08 IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WAS P ENDING ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE FIRST DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.84 606/- TOWARDS EXPENDITURE. THE ASSESSING O FFICER HAS ALSO DISALLOWED RS.1 61 554/- TOWARDS TELEPHONE BILL STAFF SALARY LIGHTING CHARGES MEDICINE EXPENSES ETC. IN FACT OUT OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITUR E CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED 40% OF THE CLAIM ON AD HOC BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT REFERRED TO ANY MATERIAL FOUND DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION. ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE THE CIT(A) RE STRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE AT 25% OF THE TOTAL CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAS ALSO MADE AN ADDITION WITH REGARD TO SO CALLED GIFT SAID TO BE R ECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM MR.A.RAVINDRAN. THE SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN IS A CLOS E RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. AFTER THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEES HUSBAND THE SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN IS FINANCIALLY SUPPORTING THE ASSESSEE BY ADVANCING GI FT OCCASIONALLY. NO MATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION TO SHOW THAT THE TRANSACTION 14 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 OF GIFT WAS NOT GENUINE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAI MED THAT THE MARRIAGE EXPENSES WERE MET BY THE ASSESSEES AUNT AND THE SA ME WAS REIMBURSED SUBSEQUENTLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISBELIEVED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NOT MATERIAL EVIDENCE. IT IS PERTINENT TO KEEP IN MIND THAT THIS IS A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THEREFORE IT IS F OR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT. W HEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE MARRIAGE EXPENDITURE WAS MET BY THE AUNT A ND IT WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REIMBURSED IT IS FOR THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAM INE FURTHER AND FIND OUT WHETHER SUCH CLAIM WAS CORRECT OR NOT. IN THE ABSEN CE OF ANY FURTHER INVESTIGATION AND MATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFF ICER THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT DISALLOWING THE MARRIAGE EX PENDITURE IS NOT JUSTIFIED AT ALL. 14. NOW COMING TO THE ADDITION MADE IN RESPECT OF F IXED DEPOSITS IN THE HANDS OF MRS.RESHUMA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-0 7 FROM THE ORDER OF BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT APPEARS THAT THE FIX ED DEPOSIT RECEIPTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.27 40 313/-. HOWEVER NO ADDITION WAS MADE OTHER THAN THE GIFT C REDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4 91 414/-. THE ASSESSE E CLAIMED BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT SHRI A.RAVINDRAN A NON RESI DENT INDIAN LIVING IN U.S.A. GIFTED RS.4 91 414/- ON THE OCCASION OF THE BIRTHDA Y. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE 15 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN BEING A CLOSE RELATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE GIFTED MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND HER SISTERS ETC. THE FINANCIAL CAPABI LITY OF THE SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECIPROCATED BY MAKING A RETURN GIFT TO SAID SHRI A .RAVINDRAN. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT THE SAID SHRI A.RAVINDRAN IS S UPPORTING THE FAMILY THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NON RECI PROCATION OF THE GIFT BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A REASON FOR MAKING DOUBTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE GIFT. FOR ACCEPTING A GIFT IT IS NOT NECESSARY IN LAW TH AT SUCH GIFTS NEED TO BE RECIPROCATED BY MAKING ANOTHER GIFT. IT MAY BE A MO RAL RESPONSIBILITY OF THE RECIPIENT OF THE GIFT TO RECIPROCATE THE SAME AT TH E APPROPRIATE STAGE. WHEN THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED THE GIFT FROM HER MATERNAL UNCLE SHRI A.RAVINDRAN WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS UNDER FINANCIAL C ONSTRAINT THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE DONOR HIMSELF MI GHT NOT HAVE EXPECTED SUCH RECIPROCATION FROM THE ASSESSEE OR FROM HER FAMILY. THEREFORE THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT REJECTION OF THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO GIFT SAID TO BE GIVEN BY SHRI A.RAVINDRAN IS NOT JUSTIFIABLE. 15. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION THIS TRIBUNAL IS UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ASSESSME NT YEARS 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ALSO. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY MAT ERIAL THIS TRIBUNAL IS OF 16 I.T.A. NOS.832 TO 839 & 882/MDS/2011 & C.O.NO.82/MDS/2011 THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUT HORITIES ARE SET ASIDE AND THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DE LETED. 16. IN THE RESULT ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.882/MDS/2011 IS DISMISSED AND THE CROSS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN CO NO.82/MDS/2011 IS ALSO ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH OCTOBER 2016 AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( !' . #$#% ) ( . . . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) (N.R.S. GANESAN) & /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /JUDICIAL MEMBER /CHENNAI 2 /DATED THE 28 TH OCTOBER 2016. SP. - *.34 541. /COPY TO: 1. () /APPELLANT 2. *+() /RESPONDENT 3. 6. ( )/CIT(A) 4. 6. /CIT 5. 47 *. /DR 6. % 8 /GF.