IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI D.T. GARASIA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (1)M.A.No.04/Ind/2016 Arising out of I.T.A. No.65/Ind/2011 A.Y.2003-04 (2)M.A.No.05/Ind/2016 Arising out of I.T.A. No.63/Ind/2011 A.Y.:2003-04 (3) to (5) M.A.No.06 to 08/Ind/2016 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos.67 to 69/Ind/2011 A.Ys.2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 (6)M.A.No.16/Ind/2016 Arising out of I.T.A. No.102/Ind/2011 A.Y.: 2007-08 (7) to (10)M.A.No.15/Ind/2016 and 35 to 37/Ind/2015 Arising out of I.T.A. Nos. 101/Ind/2011, 98 to 100/Ind/2011 A.Ys. :2007-08, 2003-04, 2004-05 & 2006-07 (1) Smt. Chandni ASSISTANT Panjwani Vs. COMMISSIOINER OF (2) Smt.Sunita INCOME TAX, Panjwani RANGE 5(1), (3)- (5) Smt.Kavita INDORE. Panjwani (6) Shri Deepak Panjwani (7)-(10) Shri Neeraj Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 2 of 11 Panjwani APPLICANTS Respondent Appellant by Shri S.N.Agrawal, C. A. Respondent by Shri R.P. Morya, DR 07.10.2016 Date of hearing 07.10.2016 Date of pronouncement O R D E R PER O.P. MEENA, ACCOUTANT MEMEBR. All these Misc. Applications are by same group of assessees filed u/s 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961, which arise out of orders passed by I.T.A.T. in I.T.A.Nos. and assessment years mentioned against each of them as above. 2. Briefly stated, facts of case are that I.T.A.T. vide its consolidated order dated 28th February, 2013 had decided appeals as filed by assessee and also by Department for assessment years 2003-04 to 2007-08 alongwith other family members of assessee. assessee Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 3 of 11 has taken effective ground in appeal as filed before Tribunal, same are reproduced as under:- (In case of M.A.No.05/Ind/2016 Smt.Sunita Panjwani):- [l](a) That, on facts and in circumstances of case, Learned CIT[A] grossly erred in upholding validity of assessment proceeding u/s 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment year under consideration, without appreciating material fact that original assessment proceedings for assessment year under consideration had attained finality and therefore in absence of seizure of any money, bullion, jewellery, other valuable articles or things or books of other documents, indicating any undisclosed income of appellant for relevant assessment year, during course of search u/s 132(1) carried out in other cases, learned AO was not Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 4 of 11 legally justified in assuming jurisdiction u/s 153C. [1](b) That, on facts and in circumstances of case, Learned CIT[A] grossly erred in upholding validity of assessment proceeding u/s 153C of Income Tax Act, 1961, for Assessment year under consideration, without appreciating material fact that first of all copy of registered Sale Deed, as referred to by learned CIT(A), was not belonging to appellant and even if it is presumed to be belonging to appellant, it could not lead to issuance of Notice u/s 153C for assessment year under consideration. [2](a) That, on facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT (A) grossly eared in upholding validity of assessment proceedings u/s. 153C of Act Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 5 of 11 without appreciating material fact that learned AO had not recorded objective satisfaction, as contemplated u/s. 153C, before assuming jurisdiction of assessment. [2](b) That, without prejudice to above, on facts and in circumstances of case, learned CIT(A) grossly eared in upholding validity of assessment proceedings u/s. 153C, on basis of satisfaction allegedly recorded by Assistant Director of Income Tax in appraisal report. [3] That, without prejudice to above, Learned CIT(A) grossly erred in confirming action of Learned AO, of not accepting long term capital gain of Rs 6,10,080/- shown by appellant, before claim of deduction under s. 54F of Act, in her computation of Total income, by holding, merely on guess work, Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 6 of 11 surmises, conjectures and extraneous consideration, that credit of Rs 6,29,400/- found in bank account of appellant was not proceeds of sales of shares but unexplained income of appellant under s. 68 of Act, without appreciating documentary evidences. 3. ld. Authorized Representative of assessee submitted that Hon'ble Bench in para 76 on inner Page No 214 of order has discussed Ground No 1 wherein assessee has challenged legality of addition made to income of assessee in assessment proceeding U/s 153C of Act. relevant para 76 of order of Hon'hle ITAT is reproduced as under:- "76. We have considered rival submissions and have gone through orders of authorities below and found from record that assessee has challenged validity of Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 7 of 11 assessment framed u/s 153C in case of Kavita Panjwani, Suneeta Panjwani. From record, we found that incriminating material was found during course of search, therefore, framing of assessment u/s 153C was justified. Accordingly, we confirm detailed findings of CIT(A) with regard to validity of assessment framed u/s 153C." 4. ld. Authorized Representative of assessee contended that Hon'ble Bench in para 76 on inner Page No 214 has approved framing of assessment U/s 153C of Act with reference to Incriminating documents found as discussed by Ld. CIT[A]. However, Hon'ble bench has not discussed scope of addition made in assessment framed U/s 153C of Act which was challenged by assessee in Ground No l[a]. 5. ld. Departmental Representative submitted that Tribunal has dealt with issue in respect of ground no. Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 8 of 11 1 and also gave clear cut findings that incriminating material was found during search, hence, proceedings initiated in 153C are valid. 6. We have heard rival submissions and have perused material available on record. We find that Tribunal in para 4 of its order has dealt with ground which is reproduced as under :- 4. In case of Kavita Panjwani, Sunita Panjwani, Chandni Panjwani, Neeraj Panjwani, Deepak Panjwani, Hiralal Panjwani, assessments were framed u/s 153C. Jurisdiction assumed u/s 153C, were confirmed by ld. CIT(A). assessee is aggrieved with regard to validity of assessment proceedings u/s 153C in all these cases. assessee has also taken ground with regard to abatement of assessment proceedings in so far as time limit for issuance of notice u/s 143(2) was completed in some of cases. During course of assessment, AO made addition by disregarding Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 9 of 11 transaction of long term capital gain and treating entire sale proceeds of shares in Media Matrix World Wide Limited (in short MMWWL), credited in Bank account as unexplained income. Grievance of assessee is also that cost of acquisition of shares was also not allowed as deduction. AO has also made addition u/s 68 on account of alleged unexplained deposit in Bank. 7. perusal of above para of Tribunal will reveal that Tribunal has considered grievance of assessee regarding scope and jurisdiction u/s 153C of Act. Similarly, we find from para 74 of order of Tribunal that issue raised by assessee with regard to completion of assessment u/s 153C was also adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) and accordingly, findings of CIT(A) were reproduced thereon and while same were considered and decided vide para 76 of Tribunal order, which reads as under :- "76. We have considered rival submissions and have gone through orders of authorities below and found from record that assessee has challenged Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 10 of 11 validity of assessment framed u/s 153C in case of Kavita Panjwani, Suneeta Panjwani. From record, we found that incriminating material was found during course of search, therefore, framing of assessment u/s 153C was justified. Accordingly, we confirm detailed findings of CIT(A) with regard to validity of assessment framed u/s 153C." 8. From above finding of Tribunal read with paras 4, 74 & 76 makes it clear that Tribunal has considered legality of framing of assessment u/s 153C and decided same by dismissing appeals of assessees on this issue. As Tribunal has clearly held that findings of ld. CIT(A) were confirmed with regard to validity of assessment framed u/s 153C. Therefore, there is no apparent mistake in order of Tribunal. If contention of ld. Authorized Representative of assessee is considered, then it tantamounts to revising decision which stands already decided and, hence, same is not permissible u/s 254(2) of Income-tax Act, 1961. claim of ld. Authorized Representative of assessee that Tribunal has not discussed scope of addition made in assessment Smt.Chandni, Sunita, Kavita, Sh Deepak & Neeraj Panjwani, Misc.Applications No. 4, 5/Ind/2016 etc .. Page 11 of 11 framed u/s 153C of Act amounts to review of appeal decided by Tribunal. Therefore, same is not allowed. Accordingly, Misc. applications filed by assessees in all cases are dismissed. 9. In result, Misc. Applications in respect of all above applicants are dismissed. order has been pronounced in open court on _______________November, 2016. (D.T.GARASIA) (O.P.MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /Dated : 7th October, 2016. CPU* Chandni Panjwani v. Assistant Commissioner of income-tax, Rage 5(1), Indore