Laykar Jaywant Ganpatrao,, Ichalkaranji v. Income-tax Officer,,

ITA 1156/PUN/2016 | 2007-2008
Pronouncement Date: 28-10-2016 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 115624514 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN ABOPL8699M
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 1156/PUN/2016
Duration Of Justice 4 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant Laykar Jaywant Ganpatrao,, Ichalkaranji
Respondent Income-tax Officer,,
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-10-2016
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 28-10-2016
Date Of Final Hearing 22-09-2016
Next Hearing Date 22-09-2016
Assessment Year 2007-2008
Appeal Filed On 30-05-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH PUNE . . BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA AM . / ITA NO.1154/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 LAYKAR AJIT DILEEP BLOCK NO.10 HOUSE NO.144/3 ICHALKARANJI 416 115 PAN : ABOPL8699M . / APPELLANT V/S ITO WARD - 1 ICHALKARANJI . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.1155 & 1156/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 & 2007-08 LAYKAR JAYWANT GANPATRAO BLOCK NO.10 HOUSE NO.144/3 ICHALKARANJI - 416115 PAN : AAJPL6330R . / APPELLANT V/S ITO WARD - 1 ICHALKARANJI . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1157/PN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 LAYKAR RANJIT DILEEP HOUSE NO.9 BLOCK NO.34/51 INDUSTRIAL ESTATE ICHALKARANJI - 416115 PAN : AAXPL4684N . / APPELLANT V/S ITO WARD - 1 ICHALKARANJI . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANTS BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK/ SHRI MAYURESH DOSHI / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMITRA BANERJI / DATE OF HEARING :22.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:28.10.2016 2 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA AM : THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 18-03-2016 OF THE C IT(A)-2 KOLHAPUR RELATING TO THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS AS MENTIONED ABOVE. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN IN ALL THE SE APPEALS THEREFORE ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. I FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO.1154/PN/2016 IN THE CASE OF SHR I LAYKAR AJIT DILEEP AS THE LEAD CASE. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF AR E THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TR ADING IN CLOTH AND DERIVING SHARE INCOME FROM THE FIRM. HE FILED HIS R ETURN OF INCOME ON 21-08-2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 90 525/ -. SUBSEQUENTLY THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RE-OPENED U/S.147 ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING THA T ASSESSEE HAS MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS WHICH ARE NOT RECO RDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON BEING QUESTIONS BY THE AO TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF RS.22 77 800/- IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT WITH SHAHU CORNER SAHA KARI NAGARI PAT SANSTHA THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT DURING T HE ACCOUNTING PERIOD ENDED ON 31-03-2001 HE HAD PROPOSED TO PURCHA SE LAND FROM ONE SHRI SATYENDRA DHONDUJIRAO NAIKNIMBALKAR (AN AGRICULTUR IST) FOR A TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF RS.51 LAKHS. AN ADVANCE OF RS.31 LAKHS WAS GIVEN TO THE VENDOR OF THE LAND ON 31-03-2001 OUT OF LOA N RAISED BY HIS UNCLE SHRI JAYWANT LAYKAR OF RS.15 LAKHS AND BY HIS BROTHER SHRI RANJIT LAYKAR OF RS.16 LAKHS FROM SHAHU CORNER SAHAKARI NAGARI PAT 3 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 SANSTHA. FROM 31-03-2001 TO 31-03-2004 NOTHING HAPPE NED REGARDING THE TRANSACTION FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE AMOU NT OF RS.31 LAKHS REMAINED WITH THE VENDOR SHRI SATYENDRA DHON DUJIRAO NAIKIMBALKAR. THE LOAN TOGETHER WITH INTEREST COMPONENT REMAINED UNPAID. 4. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE INITIAL LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.31 LAK HS AS ABOVE INCREASED TO RS.48 83 619/- AS ON 31-03-2004 WITH ACCRUED INTEREST THEREON. ON 31-03-2004 THE ASSESSEE ALONG WIT H HIS BROTHER AND UNCLE RAISED FRESH LOAN OF RS.18 LAKHS EACH FROM SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA ICHALKARANJI TOTALING TO RS.5 4 00 000/-. ON THE VERY SAME DAY I.E. 31-03-2004 THE ASSESSEE SETT LED THE OLD LOAN ACCOUNT FOR A SUM OF RS.48 83 619/- UTILIZING THE FUNDS O UT OF LOAN RAISED AFRESH FOR RS.54 LAKHS. OUT OF THE BALANCE AMO UNT OF RS.5 16 381/- AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 00 000/- WAS AGAIN PAID TO SHRI SATYENDRA DHONDUJIRAO NAIKNIMBALKAR ON 31-03-2004. 5. THE AO NOTED THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING TH E SAID LAND TRANSACTION WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE EITH ER DURING THE ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE INCO ME TAX DEPARTMENT OR DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE FURTH ER NOTED THAT THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF LAND AS W ELL AS DIFFERENT LOAN ACCOUNTS WITH PATSANSTHA HAS NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR EITHER IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF HIS FAM ILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER FROM THE RECORDS OF THE PATSANSTHA H E NOTED THAT THE LOAN WAS RAISED AGAINST HYPOTHECATION OF HIS TRADE DE BTS PLANT AND MACHINERY ETC. THE AO THEREFORE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER INTENDED TO DISCLOSE HIS SOCALLED INVESTME NT IN LAND TRANSACTION OR LOANS FROM THE PATSANSTHA IN HIS RETURN O F INCOME. 4 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 ACCORDING TO HIM THE LOAN ACCOUNTS AND THE VENDOR OF LA ND SHRI SATYENDRA DHONDUJIRAO NAIKNIMBALKAR IS MERE NAME LENDER. 6. THE AO THEREFORE CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE REGARDING T HE ABOVE TRANSACTION. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT SHRI SATYENDRA DHONDUJIRAO NAIKNIMBALKAR DIRECTLY DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT B Y CASH IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT TOWARDS THE REFUND OF ADVANCE DUE TO CANCELLATION OF LAND TRANSACTION AND THEREFORE ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SOUR CE OF REPAYMENT OF LAND STANDS DISCHARGED. 7. HOWEVER THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION G IVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.22 77 806/- BY HOLDING THAT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY THE ASSESSEE TO T HE PATSANSTHA OF THE ABOVE AMOUNT IS UNEXPLAINED AND THE SAME IS OUT O F HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. REASONS FOR THE AO NOT GETTING CONVI NCED HAS BEEN SUMMARIZED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AT PAGE 9 AND 10 OF HIS ORDER WHICH READ AS UNDER : 1. THE LOAN IS RAISED BY APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEM BERS RS. 31 LACS. THE ENTIRE LOAN AMOUNT RECEIVED IS PAID TO NIMB ALKAR FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. AO STATED THAT APPELLANT DID NOT PRODUCE AN Y AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. HE ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME WERE E VEN NOT PRODUCED BEFORE THE INCOME TAX OFFICER ( INV). (PARA 4. 1 OF ORDER). 2. AO WAS SURPRISED TO LEARN THAT NOTHING PROGRESSED I N THE MATTER OF PURCHASE OF LAND FROM THE DATE OF ADVANCE I.E. 31.03 .2001 TO 31.03.2004. ONLY CHANGE WAS THAT SHRI. NIMBALKAR WAS PAID AGAIN R S.5 16 381 ON 31.03.2004 (PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER). 3. AO STATED THAT APPELLANT DID NOT RECORD THE TRANSA CTIONS RELATING TO PURCHASE OF LAND AND DIFFERENT LOAN ACCOUNTS OF PA TSANSTHA IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED BY HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEM BERS. AO ALSO STATED THAT APPELLANT ADMITTED THE FACT OF NOT RECOR DING THE TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED HERE ABOVE. AO CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT N ON DISCLOSURE OF TRANSACTION WITH RESPECT TO LAND PURCHASE IS WITH MALA FIED INTENTION OF EVADING THE TAX. FURTHER AO EMPATHETICALLY STATED T HAT APPELLANT AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS BEING IN CONTROL OF PATSANSTHA USED IT A ND MR. NIMBALKAR AS A TOOL TO JUSTIFY THEIR UNDISCLOSED TRANSACTION. ( PA RA 4.3 OF THE ORDER). 4. AO OBSERVED WHILE PERUSING THE RECORDS OF PATSANSTHA THAT APPELLANT HAS HYPOTHECATED HIS TRADE DEBTS PLANT & MA CHINERY ETC. FOR RAISING THE LOAN AND THE LOAN WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN USED FOR LAND 5 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 TRANSACTION (PARA 4.3 OF THE ORDER). THUS IT IS A BU SINESS LOAN WITH NO NEXUS TO PURCHASE OF LAND. HAD IT BEEN FOR PURCHASE O F LAND WHY THE BUSINESS ASSETS WERE HYPOTHECATED. 5. AO STATED THAT NIMBALKAR REPAID THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE- TOGETHER WITH INTEREST ON ONE FINE MORNING BY CANCEL LING THE SALE AGREEMENT. AO STATED THAT HE IS NOT CONVINCED OF THE CAPACITY OF NIMBALKAR TO REPAY THE ADVANCE ALONG WITH INTEREST SO ABRUPTLY CONSIDERING HIS INCOME BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT. AO WAS NOT CONVINCED OF THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION' OF RECEIPT OF REFUND OF ADVANCE FROM NIMBALKAR WHO DIRECTLY DEPOSITED CASH INTO LOAN ACC OUNT WITH PATSANSTHA THEREFORE HE PROCEEDED TO TAX REPAYMENT OF LOAN AS HIS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. 8. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CHALLENGED T HE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE Y EAR 2001 THE ASSESSEE WANTED TO PURCHASE SOME LAND ALONG WITH HIS BR OTHER SHRI RANJIT LAYKAR AND UNCLE SHRI JAYWANT LAYKAR. HE THEREFOR E APPROACHED ONE SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR WHO AGREED TO SELL HIS LAND FOR RS.51 00 000/-. THE ASSESSEES BROTHER AND HIS U NCLE ADVANCED OF RS.31 00 000/- TO SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR ON 31-03- 2001. THE ASSESSEES BROTHER AND HIS UNCLE RAISED LOAN OF RS.15 00 000/- AND RS.16 00 000/- RESPECTIVELY FROM SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANASTHA ICHALKARANJI FOR GIVING ADVANCE TO SHRI NAIKN IMBALKAAR. HOWEVER THEY DID NOT REPAY THE LOANS TILL 31-03-2004. TH E LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEES UNCLE SHOWED CREDIT BALANCE O F RS.23 63 042/- AS ON 31-03-2004. SIMILARLY HIS BROTHERS ACCOUNT SHOWED CREDIT BALANCE OF RS.25 20 577/-. THUS THE TOTAL O UTSTANDING LOAN ALONG WITH INTEREST WAS RS.48 83 619/-. IN ORDER TO C LOSE THIS LOAN ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HIS BROTHER AND HIS UNCLE RAIS ED FRESH LOAN OF RS.18 00 000/- EACH AND SETTLED THE TWO LOAN ACCOUNTS. AN AMOUNT OF RS.5 00 000/- OUT OF THE SURPLUS OF RS.5 16 381/- WAS PAID TO SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR ON 31-03-2004 TOWARDS THE FURTHER ADVANCE AS AGREED PURCHASE PRICE OF THE LAND. THE ASSESSEES LOAN ACCOUNT WITH THE SAID NAGARI PAT SANSTHA WHERE REPAYMENT OF LOAN WITH INTEREST OF 6 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 RS.22 77 806/- IS MADE IN F.Y. 2006-07 WAS NOT RECORDED IN ASSESSEES BOOKS AS IT WAS NOT RELATED TO HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. AS THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND COULD NOT MATERIALI ZE DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-07 SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR LAND OWNER R EPAID OUT OF THE ADVANCE RECEIVED EARLIER AN AMOUNT OF RS.22 77 8 06/- BY DEPOSITING IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AS MUTUALL Y AGREED BY THEM. 9. THE AO TAXED THE AMOUNT OF RS.22 77 806/- AS ASSESS EES UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.69A OF THE ACT FOR WANT OF SATIS FACTORY EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF THIS AMOUNT. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT THE AO HAS WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEES CASE. FIRSTLY IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE MONEY IS UNEXPLAINED TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69A. IT IS SIMPLY A REPAYMENT OF LOAN WITH INTEREST. AS AGREED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE LAND OWNER SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR AND AS ADMITTED BY THE LAND OWNER IN HIS SWORN STATEMENT DATED 28-07-2008 MADE BE FORE ITO (INVESTIGATION) KOLHAPUR (VIDE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.14) HE HAS MADE REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS.22 77 806/- ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSE E. THIS FACT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY HIS AO IN THE ASSESSMENT OR DER. THUS WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF EXPLAINING THE SO URCE OF REPAYMENT OF SAID LOAN NO ADDITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE U/S. 69A OF THE ACT. 10. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE AO HAS ALTERNATIVELY HE LD THAT REPAYMENT OF LOAN OF RS.22 77 806/ - MADE DIRECTLY BY THE LANDOWNER SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR TO THE ASSESSEE'S LOAN ACCOUNT IS COVE RED BY SECTION 56(1)(V). IT WAS ARGUED THAT NO SUCH SECTION IS IN EXISTENCE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SIN CE THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND COULD NOT BE MATERIALIZED IN THE 7 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 PREVIOUS YEAR 2006-2007 THE LAND OWNER WAS REQUIRED TO REFUND THE ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS RELATIVES. THIS REFUND OF ADVANCE WAS DIRECTLY PAID TO THE ASSESSEE'S LOAN ACCOUNT WITH THE S AID SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA AS MUTUALLY AGREED BY THE ASSESSEE RANJIT AND THE LAND OWNER SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR. THU S THE AMOUNT OF RS.22 77 806/- REPAID BY SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR WAS N OT A GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE LAND OWNER. THEREFORE THE AO'S VIEW TO TREAT THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME IS INCORRECT. 11. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLA NATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY T HE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 8. AO'S OBSERVATIONS AND MY OBSERVATIONS HAVE LED TO TH E FOLLOWING FINDINGS. 1. IN RESPECT OF MR. NIMBALKAR INFERENCE HAS TO BE D RAWN THAT HE IS A PRUDENT PERSON AND IS A MAN OF NORMAL INTELLECTUAL LEVEL AND HAS INCLINATION TOWARDS DUE DILIGENCE. 2. THE LAND PURCHASE / SALE AGREEMENT IS VERY MUCH NECESS ARY TO CHECK THE VERACITY OF STATEMENT OF NIMBALKAR AND ALSO THE APPELLANT'S ASSERTION OF ADVANCE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND AND ITS RECEIPTS BACK TO HIM ON CANCELLATION OF TRANSACTION. THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NECESSARY FOR EXAMINATION BUT WHICH ARE NOT PRODUCED EITHER BEFORE AO OR BEFORE ME. 3. HE HAS STATED THAT THE AGREEMENT FOR SALE OF LAND E NTERED EARLIER BUT WAS DESTROYED ON CANCELLATION OF THE DEED WHICH COULD NOT BE BELIEVED. NO PRUDENT MAN WILL DESTROY AGREEME NT OF SUCH VALUE AS SUCH DESTRUCTION MAY FALL UPON HIM. IT IS IMPO SSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT MR. NIMBALKAR HAVING INCLINATION TOWAR DS DUE DILIGENCE WOULD HAVE DESTROYED THE AGREEMENT. 4. LAND DETAILS LIKE LOCATION AREA ETC. PROPOSED FOR SALE ARE NOT STATED BY NIMBALKAR THOUGH HE DECIDED TO SELL HI S LAND. 5. DESPITE HAVING RECEIVED SIZABLE ADVANCE OF RS.31 LA CS AGAINST SALE OF LAND QUESTION ARISES AS TO WHY HE RAISED LOAN OF RS.9 LACS IN THE YEAR 2002-03 AND RS.10 LACS IN THE YEA R 2003-04 LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE IS A MERE NAME LEN DER TO THE STORY OF LAND TRANSACTION. IT WOULD BE VERY DIFFICUL T TO BELIEVE THAT HE IS EXTENDING LOANS TO OTHERS & RAISING LOANS FOR HIMSE LF. HE WOULD HAVE COLLECTED ALL THE HAND LOANS AS HE DEED FO R REFUNDING THE ADVANCE & AVOIDED RAISING OF LOANS IF HAD HE REA LLY RECEIVED THE ADVANCE OF RS.31 LACS. 8 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 6. NO PURCHASER AND SELLER OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY WILL MAKE AND RECEIVE ADVANCE WITHOUT ANY STIPULATIONS REGARDIN G THE DESCRIPTION OF THE PROPERTY MEASUREMENT ETC. PURCHA SER WILL ALWAYS INSIST FOR AGREEMENT/MOU (SANCHKAR) PAPER ADD 7/12 EXTRACT SEARCH REPORT BY AN ADVOCATE ASSURANCE OF NO N ENCUMBRANCE ETC. SUCH STIPULATIONS ALWAYS FOLLOW IN TH E FORM OF AGREEMENT WITH REASONABLE AMOUNT OF ADVANCE (SANCHKA R). SELLER ALSO GUARDS HIMSELF BY PUTTING CONDITION OF COMPLETING THE SALE DEED WITHIN. A STIPULATED TIME FRAME FORFEITURE OF ADVANCE LIBERTY TO SEARCH ANOTHER PURCHASER ETC. IN THE INSTANT CASE I AM AFRAID TO KNOW WHY THE PURCHASER AS WELL AS SELLER DID NOT ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WHICH IS AGAINST THE PRACTICE FOLLOWED BY T HE PUBLIC IN GENERAL AND AGAINST THE DUE DILIGENCE EXERCISED BY PU RCHASER & SELLER. THEREFORE IT IS HARDLY POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE LAND TRANSACTION OF THE INSTANT CASE TO HAVE ACTUALLY TA KEN PLACE. MR. NIMBALKAR HAS JUST TRIED TO HELP HIS PERSON KNO WN TO HIM BY INVOLVING HIMSELF AS A PARTY TO THE LAND TRANSAC TION. IN CASE OF NON REAL TRANSACTION NO ONE WILL ENTER INTO WRIT TEN AGREEMENT EVEN IF IT IS MEANT FOR TEMPORARY OR SHORT PURPOSE OF BANK LOAN PRODUCING BEFORE OTHER AUTHORITIES. THERE WOULD ALW AYS BE AN APPREHENSION IN THE MIND OF SELLER OF LIKE ABUSE OF SU CH AGREEMENT BY THE PURCHASER. THAT HAS EXACTLY HAPPENED WITH NIM BALKAR. HE HAS COME FORWARD TO HELP APPELLANT BUT NOT WITH WRIT TEN AGREEMENT AS REALLY THE TRANSACTION HAS NOT TAKEN PLAC E. NEVERTHELESS HE HAS DONE THE SAME WHAT A PRUDENT PERSON WOULD HAVE DONE. THUS MR. NIMBALKAR & APPELLANT STAYED AWA Y FROM WRITTEN AGREEMENT IS ONLY FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO THEM. HOWEVER A TAX AUTHORITY IS BOUND TO READ SUCH KIND OF SITUATION OF SALE/ PURCHASE OF LAND FOR RS. 51 LACS WITHOUT ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT AND THAT TOO IN CASH AS A SHAM T RANSACTION AND WILL TAX ACCORDINGLY OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED. 7. NIMBALKAR STATED THAT HE HAS COLLECTED ALL THE AMO UNT FROM ALL BORROWERS ON ONE FINE MORNING & REFUNDED THE ADV ANCE TO APPELLANT. IT IS PRACTICALLY NOT AT ALL POSSIBLE & IT COULD NEVER BE TRUE TO SAY THAT HE HAS RECOVERED ALL THE LOAN FROM V ARIOUS FARMER BORROWERS FULLY WITH INTEREST. 8. WHEN NIMBALKAR SAYS HE HAS RECOVERED MONEY FROM VARIOUS FARMER BORROWERS ALONG WITH INTEREST IT IS HAR DLY POSSIBLE TO BELIEVE THAT CALCULATION OF INTEREST LIST OF FARM ER BORROWERS THEIR CONFIRMATIONS & OTHER RELATED DOCUMENTS NOT BEI NG KEPT. IN THE ABSENCE OF SUCH DETAILS IT COULD BE CONCLUDED THA T MR.NIMBALKAR HAS NEITHER RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE NOR HE FORWARDED THE SAME AS LOAN TO VARIOUS FARMERS. SIMILARLY IT COUL D BE CONCLUDED THAT HE HAS NEITHER RECOVERED SUDDENLY & FU LLY ALL AMOUNT FROM ALL FARMERS NOR REFUNDED THE SAME TO APPE LLANT. 9. AR'S SUBMISSION THAT APPELLANT IS NOT REQUIRED TO SHOW THE LAND & LOAN TRANSACTION IN HIS BOOKS AS IT WAS NOT RELAT ED TO HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. EVERY ASSESSEE IS REQUIRED TO GIVE HIS FULL ACCOUNTS WITH RETURN OF INCOME BARRING EXCEPTIONS GIV EN BY LAW. ONE CANNOT AVOID THE DISCLOSURE OF ONE'S INVESTMENTS ON THE PRETEXT THAT IT IS NOT RELATED TO HIS BUSINESS TRANSACTI ONS. FURTHER LOAN RAISED BY APPELLANT IS AGAINST HYPOTHECATION OF ' BUSINESS ASSETS LIKE-TRADE DEBTORS PLANT & MACHINERY ETC. 9 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 10. AR HAS SUBMITTED THAT REFUND OF LOAN IS AS PER MUT UAL AGREEMENT OF NIMBALKAR & APPELLANT WHICH HOWEVER I TSELF IS NOT PRODUCED & HENCE IT IS JUST AN ARGUMENT IN VAIN. NO P RUDENT PERSON WILL GO & CLEAR THE LOAN OF THIRD PARTY WITH OUT ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT/DIRECTION TO THIS EFFECT. 11. IT IS DIFFICULT TO BELIEVE AR'S SUBMISSION THAT APPE LLANT HAS DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF EXPLAINING SOURCES OF LOAN REPAYM ENT AS THE SAME IF CONFIRMED BY NIMBALKAR WHO ACCORDING TO ME IS ONLY A NAME LENDER & NOT A REAL PARTICIPANT IN THE LAND TR ANSACTION & LOAN REPAYMENT. HE IS A PERSON NOT TO BE BELIEVED. FURTHE R EXPLANATION HAS TO BE TO THE FULL SATISFACTION OF AO WITH COGENT E VIDENCES & SUPPORTING. AR HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANYTHING TO LEAD THE EXPLANATION AS ACCEPTABLE. 9. AFTER DUE CONSIDERATION OF APPELLANT'S GROUND OF APPEAL AND MY OBSERVATIONS AND FINDINGS I CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASE / SALE OF LAND CANNOT BE BELIEVED TO HAVE TAKEN PLACE. IT IS ONLY A N AFTERTHOUGHT REASONING PUT FORTH BY THE APPELLANT. MR. NIMBALKAR HAS PARTICIPATED AND BECAME PARTY TO THIS AFTERTHOUGHT ARRANGEMENT JUST T O SUPPORT THE APPELLANT FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO HIM WHICH HOW EVER CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED IN LAW GIVEN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE INS TANT CASE. KNOWING THE CONSEQUENCES AS A DILIGENT PERSON HE HAS RESTRAINE D HIMSELF FROM ANY WRITTEN AGREEMENT / MOU BUT PREFERRED TO SUPPOR T ONLY THROUGH STATEMENT BEFORE AUTHORITY. IN THE ABSENCE OF WRITTE N AGREEMENTS OTHER COGENT EVIDENCES AND CONSIDERING THE AO'S OBSERVATIONS AND SHAM REPLIES OF NIMBALKAR AND THE APPELLANT IT COULD BE CONCLUDED THAT APPELLANT HAS DELIBERATELY NOT DISCLOSED THE LAND AND LOAN TRANSACTIONS FOR AVOIDING THE TAXES AND PARKING THE LOAN AMOUNT F OR CHURNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HAD THERE NOT BEEN A TEP NO INVE STIGATION & ENQUIRY WOULD HAVE TAKEN PLACE AND THE ENTIRE EPISOD E WOULD NOT HAVE COME TO LIGHT. THE OBSERVATIONS OF AO TO THE EFFECT THAT APPELLANT BEING IN CONTROL OF THE PATSANSTHA HAS UTILIZED IT FOR CHURNING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND KEEP ON ROTATING THE SAME FO R CUMULATIVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THEREBY CAUSING LOSS TO THE EXCHEQUER IS CORRECT. IN ORDER TO DEFEND HIS MALAFIDE INTENTION OF NOT DISC LOSING THE TRANSACTIONS GAVE SOS CALL TO MR. NIMBALKAR FOR RESCU E. IF SUCH SHAM TRANSACTIONS ARE SIGHTED OFF AND THE DECISIONS ARE MADE IT WILL HARM TAX REGIME. THEREFORE I AM OF THE OPINION THAT ADDITIO N MADE BY AO IS JUSTIFIED AND AS PER LAW. THUS THE THIRD GROUND OF AP PEAL IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. 12. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD.CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147 AND 148 ARE JUSTIFIED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD.CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITIO N OF RS. 22 77 806/- U/S 69A OF THE ACT TREATING THIS AS UNDISCLOSED MONEY W ITHOUT 10 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 APPRECIATING THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE REPAYMENT OF ADVANCE GIVEN TO INTENDED SELLER AND INTEREST THEREON. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE LD.CIT (A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THE TRANSACTION AS SHAM TRANSACTION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AN D IN LAW THE LD.CIT (A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INTENDED SE LLER HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION TO THE AUTHORITIES. 13. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROU ND NO.1 FOR WHICH THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECT ION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 8 THE ASSESSEE HAS CH ALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.22 77 806/- MADE BY THE AO U/S.69A OF THE I.T. ACT. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE COP Y OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYENDR A NAIKNIMBALKAR COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 8 TO 13 OF T HE PAPER BOOK (ENGLISH TRANSLATION AT PAGES 14 TO 19 OF THE PAPER BOOK) DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO QUESTION NO.7 AND QUESTION NO.14. REFERRING TO THE ANSWER GIVEN BY SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBA LKAR HE SUBMITTED THAT HE HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE ITO (INVESTIGA TION) KOLHAPUR IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 28-07-2008 THAT A SALE TRANSACTION FOR SALE OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS FIXED WITH THE LAYKARS FAMILY. IN HIS ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.14 HE HAS ALSO REPLIED THAT AFTER CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION HE HAD DESTROYED THE SALE AGREEMENT PAPERS AND AS PER MUTUAL CONSENT HAD REPAID THE LOAN STANDING IN TH E NAME OF LAYKARS WITH SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA ALONG WITH INTEREST ON LOAN. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN CASE OF SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR PASSED U/S .143(3) 11 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 R.W.S. 147 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 20 TO 23 OF TH E PAPER BOOK HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE SAID ORDER HAS MADE AD DITION OF RS.54 61 781/- AS ASSESSEES CONCEALED INCOME BEING AMOUN T OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN DIRECTLY TO THE PATSANSTHA IN THE ACC OUNTS OF THE LAYKAR FAMILY MEMBERS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT WH EN SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR HAD ALREADY ADMITTED TO HAVE DEP OSITED THE MONEY IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS OTHER RELA TIVES AND SINCE THE AO IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR H AD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH REPAYMENT AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME THEREFORE THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69A OF THE I.T. ACT 1961. HE ACCORDING LY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE ALLOWED. 16. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HA ND SUBMITTED THAT THE ONUS LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTA NTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO REGARDING THE SOU RCE OF THE PAYMENT. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE ORDER AND THE C IT(A) HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VALID REASONS WHILE S USTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED T HAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BE DISMISSED. 17. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PA PER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE AN A MOUNT OF RS.22 77 806/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE MAINTAINED WITH SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PA T SANSTHA MARYA ICHALKARANJI DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR . IT WAS EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO THAT IN THE YEAR 2001 HE ALONG W ITH HIS 12 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 BROTHER AND UNCLE WANTED TO PURCHASE SOME LAND FROM SH RI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR FOR WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.31 LAKHS PAID OUT OF THE AGREED AMOUNT OF RS.51 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEES BROTHER A ND HIS UNCLE HAVE RAISED THE LOAN OF RS.15 LAKHS AND RS.16 LAKHS RESPEC TIVELY FROM SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYA. SINCE THEY DID NOT REPAY THE LOANS TILL 31-03-2004 AND THE TOTAL LOAN A LONG WITH INTEREST HAD GONE UPTO RS. 48 84 619/- THE ASSESSEE ALON G WITH SHRI JAYWANT GANPATRAO LAYKAR AND SHRI RANJIT DILEEP LAYKAR O BTAINED FURTHER LOAN OF RS.18 LAKHS EACH FROM THE SAID PATSANSTHA AND CLOSED THE ORIGINAL LOAN ACCOUNT STANDING IN THE NAME OF SHRI JAYW ANT GANPATRAO LAYKAR AND SHRI RANJIT DILEEP LAYKAR TOTALING T O RS.48 83 619/-. OUT OF THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.5 16 381/- A N AMOUNT OF RS.5 00 000/- WAS PAID TO SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIM BALKAR. SINCE SUBSEQUENTLY ALSO THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALISE SHRI S ATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN THE LOAN ACCOUNTS O F THE RESPECTIVE PERSONS FOR CLOSURE OF THE LOAN ACCOUNT. HOW EVER THE ABOVE CONTENTION WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE AO THE REAS ONS FOR WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN SUMMARIZED BY THE CIT(A) AND REPRODUC ED AT PARA 5 OF THIS ORDER. THE AO ACCORDINGLY INVOKING THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 69A MADE ADDITION OF RS.22 77 806/- IN THE HANDS OF THE AS SESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AO AND THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) FOR UPHOLDING T HE ADDITION HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS. 18. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E THAT WHEN SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR IN HIS STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S.131 BY THE ITO (INVESTIGATION) ON 28-07-2008 HAD AD MITTED TO HAVE REPAID THE LOAN STANDING IN THE NAME OF LAYKARS FAM ILY IN SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYA ALONG W ITH INTEREST 13 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 ON LOAN AND WHEN THE AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.143(3) R .W.S.147 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.54 61 781/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED REPAYMENT OF LOAN RAISE D BY LAYKAR FAMILY MEMBERS DIRECTLY TO THE PATSANSTHA THERE FORE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69A OF THE I.T. ACT. 19. I FIND SOME FORCE IN THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. CO UNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. I FIND SHRI SATYENDRA DHONDUJIRAO NAIKNI MBALKAR IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.131 ON 28-07-2008 IN HIS ANS WER TO QUESTION NOS. 7 AND 14 HAD REPLIED AS UNDER : QUESTION NO.7 : IN THE ANSWER TO Q.NO.4 YOU HAVE TO LD THAT YOU KNOW TO SHRI JAYWANT G. LAYKAR SHRI RANJIT DILIP LAYKAR FO R LAST 15 YEARS. HAVE YOU MADE ANY FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS WITH THIS LAYKAR F AMILY DURING LAST 6- 7 YEARS? IF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE MADE GIVE DETAILS TH EREOF. ANS. OUR FAMILY OWNS 7H 04 R AGRICULTURAL LAND SITUATE D AT MOUJE YADRAV TALUKE SHIROL. A SALE TRANSACTION WAS FIXED WITH THE LAYKAR FAMILY IN MARCH 2001. QUESTION NO.14 : ON CANCELLATION OF THE TRANSACTION HAVE YOU MADE ANY DOCUMENTS ? YOU HAD TAKEN ADVANCE OF RS.31 00 000/- AND RS.5 00 000/- = RS.36 00 000/- FROM LAYKAR FAMILY. AFTER CANCELLA TION OF THIS TRANSACTION HAVE YOU REPAID THIS AMOUNT ? IF REPAID HOW DID YOU PAY IT ? ANS. AS STATED ABOVE AFTER THE CANCELLATION OF THE TR ANSACTION SALE AGREEMENT PAPERS WERE DESTROYED AND AS PER MUTUAL CONSE NT BETWEEN LAYKAR FAMILY AND ME I HAD REPAID LOAN STANDING IN THE NAME OF LAYKARS IN SHAHU CORNER SAH. PAT. SANSTHA ALONG WITH INTERE ST ON LOAN. 20. SIMILARLY FROM THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSE D U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 147 ON 25-03-2013 BY THE AO IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR I FIND THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.54 61 781/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF MR. NAIKNIMBALKAR. TH E RELEVANT OBSERVATION OF THE AO AT PARA 4.2 OF THE ORDER READS AS UND ER: 4.2 IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES DISCUSSE D AS ABOVE IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSEE-SHRI SATYENDRA DHONDUJIRAO NAIKNIMBALKAR-AN AGRICULTURIST ENTERED INTO TRANSACTI ON FOR SALE OF HIS LAND WITH LAYAKAR FAMILY AND IN TURN HE RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.31 LAKHS FROM LAYAKAR FAMILY INCLUDING SUBSEQUENT RECEIPT OF A SUM OF RS.5 LAKHS FROM LAIKAR FAMILY. MOREOVER IT IS ADMITTED BY HIM THAT HE 14 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 REPAID THE LOAN AMOUNT OF THE FAMILY BY CASH TO THE PAT SANSTHA DIRECTLY SINCE THE TRANSACTION FOR SALE OF LAND COUL D NOT BE MATERIALIZED. CONSIDERING THIS FACT UNEXPLAINED INVE STMENT IN HIS HANDS I S P R O POSED T O BE ASSESSED AS ' DEEMED INC OME' AS CO NTE MPLATED U/S . 6 9 A O F T H E ACT TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT OF RS . 12 60 000/- A L LEGED RE PAYM E NT OF LOAN RAI SED BY SHRI J AY A WA N T G A NAPATRAO LA YAKAR MADE DIRECTLY BY HIM T O TH E PAT SANSTHA ON PROTECTIVE BAS I S . I N ADDITION IT IS DEPOSED BY HIM THAT HE HAS EARNED INCOME FROM MONEY-LENDING BUSINESS BY WAY OF LENDING M ONEY TO THE NEEDY FARMERS OUT OF HIS 'SOLD CALLED ADVANCE OF RS.36 LAKHS' RECEIVED BY HIM FROM LAYAKAR FAMILY. IN THIS CONTEXT IT CAN BE SEEN THAT DURING INQUIRIES CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 18/04/2008 IT IS DEPOSED BY THE ASSESSEE SHRI NAIKNIMBALKAR THAT HIS ANNUAL AGRICULTURAL INC OME WAS AROUND RS.1 50 000/- TO RS.1 70 000/- VIDE HIS ANSWER TO Q. NO .6.1 . 1 . IT MAY NOT BE OUT PLACE TO POINT OUT HERE THAT THE SAID STAT EMENT WAS WITNESSED BY THE COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SHR I S.B.DOUNDE. FROM THIS FACT ALONE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.12 6 0 000/- PAID DIRECTLY TO THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF SHRI JAYAWANT GANAP RAO LAIKAR MAINTAINED WITH PAT SANSTHA IS NECESSARI L Y NOT OUT OF HIS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND HAS TO BE TAXED AS DEEMED I NCOME U/S.69A OF THE ACT ON PROTECTIVE BASIS I N HIS HANDS . MOREOVER MY PREDECESSOR HAS RECORDED REASONS BEFORE ISSUE AND SERVICE OF STATUTORY NO TICE U/S . 148 OF THE ACT ON THE ASSESS E E ON 29/03/2012. IN THE REASONS RECORDED IT IS A MATTER O F FA CT T HAT TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT OF RS.12 60 000/- ALLEGED R EPAYMENT OF LOAN RAISED BY SHRI JAYAWANT GANAPATRAO LAYAKAR MADE D I RECTLY BY HIM TO THE PAT SANSTHA HAS ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. HOWEVER AS D I SCUSSED ABOVE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT TOO. 21. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS CLEAR THAT SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKN IMBALKAR HAD ADMITTED TO HAVE DEPOSITED THE MONEY IN THE LOAN AC COUNTS OF THE MEMBERS OF THE LAYKAR FAMILY MAINTAINED WITH SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYA. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALRE ADY STATED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED BY SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR IN T HE LOAN ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYA AND SINCE SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR IN HIS STATEM ENT RECORDED U/S.131 BEFORE THE ITO (INVESTIGATION) HAD ALSO OWNED UP TO HAVE DEPOSITED DIRECTLY THE AMOUNTS IN THE LOAN ACCOUN TS OF THE LAYKARS MAINTAINED WITH THE SAID PAT SANSTHA AND SINCE T HE AO IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR HAD ALREADY MAD E THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUCH DEPOSITS AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INC OME 15 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 THEREFORE I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO HOW ADDITION C AN BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE U/S.69A OF THE I.T. ACT. IN T HIS VIEW OF THE MATTER I HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAIN ING THE ADDITION OF RS.22 77 806/- AS UNDISCLOSED MONEY OF THE ASSES SEE. I THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE GROU NDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 1155 & 1156/PN/2016 (A.YRS. 2005-06 & 2007- 08- SHRI LAYKAR JAYWANT GANPATRAO) : ITA NO.1157/PN/2016 (A.Y. 2007-08-SHRI LAYKAR RANJIT DILEEP) : 22. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES I FIND GROUNDS RAISED IN T HE ABOVE APPEALS BY THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSEES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1154/PN/2016. I HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE AND THE GROUND RELATING TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. SO FAR AS THE GROUND RELATING TO ADDITION U/S.69A IS CONCERNED THE SAME HAS BEEN DELETED ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO IN THE CASE OF SHRI SATYENDRA NAIKNIMBALKAR HAD MA DE ADDITION IN HIS HANDS ON THE BASIS OF HIS STATEMENT THAT H E HAS MADE THE DEPOSIT IN THE LOAN ACCOUNT OF THE LAYKARS MAINTAINED WITH SHAHU CORNER NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA MARYA. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONINGS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES ON THIS ISSUE ARE ALLOWED. 23. IN THE RESULT ALL THE ABOVE APPEALS FILED BY THE RESPE CTIVE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28-10-2016. SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 28 TH OCTOBER 2016. 16 ITA NOS.1154 TO 1157/PN/2016 '# $# / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER /// // $ % / TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // &' % * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY * / ITAT PUNE 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT (A) - 2 KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT- 2 KOLHAPUR 5. $ %%* * SMC BENCH / DR ITAT SMC BENCH PUNE; 6. 2 / GUARD FILE.