Shri Pralhad Hariram Panhale,, Aurangabad v. ACIT, Cent.,, Aurangabad

ITA 769/PUN/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2014 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 76924514 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN ACEPP9243N
Bench Pune
Appeal Number ITA 769/PUN/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 22 day(s)
Appellant Shri Pralhad Hariram Panhale,, Aurangabad
Respondent ACIT, Cent.,, Aurangabad
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 28-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 28-11-2014
Date Of Final Hearing 08-08-2012
Next Hearing Date 08-08-2012
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 06-06-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.769/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) SHRI PRAHLAD HARIRAM PANHALE PLOT NO.18 JAI VISHWA BHARTI COLONY GARKHEDA ROAD AURANGABAD. PAN: ACEPP9243N . APPELLANT VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE AURANGABAD. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.807/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2001-02) THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE AURANGABAD. . APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRAHLAD HARIRAM PANHALE PLOT NO.18 JAI VISHWA BHARTI COLONY GARKHEDA ROAD AURANGABAD. PAN: ACEPP9243N . RESPONDENT ITA NO.808/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE AURANGABAD. . APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRAHLAD HARIRAM PANHALE PLOT NO.18 JAI VISHWA BHARTI COLONY GARKHEDA ROAD AURANGABAD. PAN: ACEPP9243N . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. MODI DATE OF HEARING : 30-10-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 28-11-2014 ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 2 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA JM: THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVEN UE ARE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AURANGABAD DATED 07.03.2011 R ELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND ANOTHER APPEAL FILED BY REV ENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 07.03.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSME NT YEAR 2003-04 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDERS PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. SINCE THE CAPTIONED APPEALS PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASS ESSEE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING ADJUDICATED BY THIS CONSO LIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.769/PN/2011 HAS RAISED THE FO LLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ENTIRE ADD ITION OF RS. 33 50 000/- AND BIFURCATING THE SAME BETWEEN ASST YEAR 2001-0 2 AT RS.16 32 600/- AND AT RS.8 72 400/- IN THE ASST YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN IGNORING THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.33 50 000/- ARE TO BE TAXED AT 8%. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ENTIRE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF INDICATE NOTHING BUT CONTRACT RELATED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS AND THEREFOR E THE CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.33 50 000/- ARE TO BE TAXED AT 8% IS CORRECT AND TENABLE . 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT HAVING GIVEN CREDIT I N RESPECT OF THE CONTRACT RELATED EXPENSES FROM OUT OF THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS THAT HAD BEEN SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ARRI VING AT THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION TO BE MADE UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM BUSINESS OR PROFESSION BUT RATHER MERELY BIFURCATED THE ADDITIONS BETWEEN THE ASST YEAR 2001-02 AND ASST YEAR 2002-03. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD AMEND ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. ANY OTHER GROUND/S THAT MAY BE TAKEN UP DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING. ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 3 4. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.807/PN/2011 HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NET AMOUNT OF RS.33.50 LAKHS ARRIVED AT AS PER SEIZED MATERIAL IS TO BE TAXED AT RS.16 32 600/- F OR A.Y. 2001-02 AND AT RS.8 72 400/- FOR A.Y. 2002-03 WHICH IS CONT RARY TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.33.50 LAKHS CANNOT BE TAXED WHOLLY IN A.Y. 2001-02 EVEN THOUGH THE GROSS INCOME AND NET INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IS RS.33.50 LAKHS FOR THE A.Y. 01-02 AS PER CHART GIVEN IN PARA 5 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER WHICH IS BASED ON THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NET RECEIPTS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE RS.25.05 LAKHS WHICH IS CONTRARY TO THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT EXPENSES OF RS.24.75 LAKHS FOR A.Y. 02-03 BE SET OFF AGAINST RECEIPTS OF R S.33.50 LAKHS FOR A.Y. 01-02 AND THE ASSESSEE NEVER OFFERED RS.25.05 LA KHS AS INCOME. 4. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEA RING. 5. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.808/PN/2011 HAS RAISED THE FOLLO WING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.30 DID N OT BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE WHEREAS ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS AN D ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME SEIZED DOCUMENT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE AN ASSOCIATE OF THE AS SESSEE WAS UPHELD THERE BY CONTRADICTING HIS OWN STAND IN T HE CASE OF TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEES. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE T HE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING A PART OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE AND IG NORING THE PART OF TRANSACTION PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF THE SAME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 3. ANY OTHER GROUNDS THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING . ITA NO.769/PN/2011 6. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT SEARCH AND SEIZU RE OPERATIONS UNDER SECTION 132 WERE CONDUCTED ON RUDRAN I GROUP AND ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 4 ITS ASSOCIATES ON 02.02.2006. THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WAS CLOSE ASSOCIATE OF THE RUDRANI G ROUP WERE ALSO SEARCHED. THE PANHALE SUB-GROUP HAD VARIOUS BUSINE SS CONCERNS WHICH ARE TABULATED AT PAGE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE MRS. MANDAKIN I PANHALE WERE THE MAIN PERSONS IN THE PANHALE GROUP WHO CONTROL AND MANAGE VARIOUS BUSINESS CONCERNS. THE MAIN BUSINESS OF THE PANH ALE SUB- GROUP WAS CONTRACTORSHIP AND ALL THE BUSINESS CONCERNS CONTROLLED BY THE ASSESSEE OPERATED EITHER AS SUB-CONTRACTORS OF RU DRANI GROUP OR IN THE LATER YEARS ONE OF THE CONCERNS PIYUSH ENTERPRISE EXECUTED INDEPENDENT CONTRACTS. 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED A NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153 A OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4 77 180/-. THE GROUP CONCERN OF ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS HAD M ADE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS.1.69 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS ITEMS A ND CERTAIN DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SEIZED. THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AT PAGES 10 AND 11 OF ANNEXURE A1 OF THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN AT RESIDENCE OF SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE R EFLECTED CERTAIN RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS IN CASH IN THE NAME OF VIVE K DESHPANDE AND SHRI P.H. PANHALE I.E. THE ASSESSEE. THE DAT E-WISE DETAILS NOTED ON THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE TABULATED UNDE R PARA 9 OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT A SUM OF RS.33.50 LACS ON DIFFERENT DATES HAD BEEN PAID BY THE RCC TO THE DIFFERENT CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2000-01. THE A SSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT THERE WAS NO MENTION OF ANY CONCERN O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE RECEIPT HAD NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED IN ANY CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEES SUB-GROUP. IN REPLY THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE AMOUNTS ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 5 WERE RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS FOR W ORKS EXECUTED BY RUDRANI GROUP AS PRINCIPAL CONTRACTOR THROU GH PANHALE WHO ACTED AS SUB-CONTRACTOR BY CHEQUE AND FEW ENTRIES OF CASH RECEIPTS BY THE SAID GROUP REFLECTED THE PAYMENTS MADE BY PANHALE GROUP FOR THEIR EXPENSES OR TOWARDS THEIR SHARE OF COMMON EXPENS ES IN RESPECT OF BOTH THE GROUPS. THE SAID DOCUMENTS ALSO RE FLECTED CERTAIN AMOUNTS PAID I.E. THE AMOUNT PAID BY RUDRANI GROUP TO EITH ER PANHALES VARIOUS ENTITIES BY CHEQUES OR TO THE MATERIAL SUPPLIERS. THE ASSESSEE MADE REQUEST FOR THE ADDITION TO BE MADE ON P EAK BASIS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 10 OBSERVED AS UNDER: 10. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE CONTENTIONS OF THE THAT THE ADDITION SHOULD BE ON PEAK BASIS IS ACCEPTABLE AND THEREFORE PEAK AMOUNT OF RS.33.50 LA KHS IS THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR CASH PAYMENTS BY THE ASSESSEE T O SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE AND SIMILARLY THE REPAYMENT OF THE P ART OF THE AMOUNT BACK TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE ADDITION OF RS.33 .50 LAKHS IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE P EAK BASIS IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATIONS. THE PENAL TY PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. 8. THE CIT(A) NOTED PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM OF RS.33.50 LACS DURING THE YEAR REPRESENTS THE GROSS CONTRACT RE CEIPTS AND NOT NET INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING O FFICER AND BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR PERFORMIN G CONTRACT WORKS SHOULD BE ALLOWED AND IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SEC TION 44AD OF THE ACT THE PROFIT SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT 8% OF THE CO NTRACT RECEIPTS. FURTHER PLEA WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN R ESPECT OF PAYMENTS IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04 ALSO AND THE SET OFF OF THE SAME WAS REQUESTED TO BE GIVEN AGAINST THE GR OSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARAS 7.1 AND 7.2 HELD AS UNDER:- 7.1 THE CASH RECEIVED RS.33 50 000/- DURING THE YEAR UN DER APPEAL FROM SHRI. VIVEK DESHPANDE / RUDRANI CONSTRUCT ION COMPANY AND REPAYMENT IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR RS.24 75 000 /- CAN BE EITHER ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND CONTR ACT RELATED ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 6 EXPENSES OR CAN BE THE RUNNING ACCOUNT OF THE APPELL ANT IN CASH FOR EXPENSES INCURRED AND REIMBURSED. IN EITHER CASE THE PEAK CANNOT BE THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. THE CONTENTIO N OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS. 33 50 00 0/- ARE TO BE TAXED AT 8% CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN THE ABSENCE OF SUPPORTING EVIDENCE. THE APPELLANT HAS HIMSELF OFFERED TO TAX THE NET RECEIPTS OF RS.25 05 000/- IN RESPECT OF GROSS RECEIPTS RS. 51.40 LACS IN THE A.Y. 2002-03 I.E. @ 48.73%. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF T HE CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.33 50 000/- IS TO BE TAXED @ 48.73% I.E. RS.16 32 600/- IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS AGAINST THE AMOUNT TAXED BY THE A.O. AT RS.33 50 000/-. THE NECESSARY COROLLAR Y OF THIS IS THAT THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.17 90 000/- IN A.Y . 2002-03 ARE ALSO TO BE TAXED @ 48.73% I.E. AT RS.8 72 400/-. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE RECEIPT OF RS.17 90 000/- IS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES THE CLAIM IS NOT SU PPORTED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AND HENCE THE SAID RECEIPT I S ALSO TREATED AS GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPT. 7.2 TO SUM UP THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX BY THE APPELL ANT IN A.Y. 2002-03 AT RS.25 05 000/- IS TO BE TAXED IN A.Y. 2001-02 AT RS. 16 32 600/- AND AT RS.8 72 400/- IN A.Y. 2002-03. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NOS.1 AND 3 ARE PARTLY A LLOWED. GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEE DING. THE GROUND IS PREMATURE AND HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 9. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE A T RS.16 32 600/-. 10. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE PARTIAL RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). 11. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE ADMITS THE CONTENTS OF BOTH UN- ACCOUNTED RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT NOTED ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HOWEVER BE FORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT HE WAS A CON TRACTOR AND ONLY PERCENTAGE OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS SHOULD BE ADDED. IT WAS FURTHER POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT DISPUTING THE QUANTUM IN THE YEAR IN WH ICH THE SUM HAS TO BE TAXED BUT IT WAS DISPUTING THE RATE APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHOR IZED ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 7 REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THA T THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 10 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD APPLIED P EAK OF RS.33 50 000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND NO FURTHER ADDITION WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04. IT WAS ALSO POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7 HAS GIVEN A WRONG FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ANY INCOME IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. OUR ATTE NTION WAS DRAWN TO THE COPY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 PLACED AT PAGES 22 TO 24 OF THE PAPER BOOK IN WHICH NO SUCH ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CO NTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE IN RELATION TO CONT RACT WORK AND THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ALSO INDICATE PAYMENT MADE IN LATER YEARS. FURTHER THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME CO URT IN ITO VS. ANAND BUILDERS IN SLP (C) NO.18171 OF 2012 DECIDED ON 13.01.2003 AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.132/PN/2007 IN THE CASE OF MR. ANIL BANSILAL LODHA VS. ASST.CIT ORDER DATED 29.02.2012. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT IN THE FACTS OF ANIL BANSILAL LODHA VS. ASST.CIT (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE HAD RECE IVED ON- MONEY AND THE EVIDENCE OF THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE ALSO FOUND. HOWE VER ONLY 30% OF THE SAID ON-MONEY WAS INCLUDED AS INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE. 12. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REV ENUE ON THE OTHER HAND POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS CASE OF THE CONTRAC TOR. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENTS ENTRIES WERE NOT CLEAR WHETHER THESE WERE RECEIPTS OR PAYMENTS ALTHOUGH THESE WERE ON ACCOUNT O F CASH RECEIPTS ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 8 AND PAYMENTS BUT THERE WAS NO CLARITY THAT IT WAS CONT RACT RECEIPT. AS PER THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE RS.33 50 000/- WAS REIMBURSEMENT OF CASH EXPENSES AND TH E SAME HAD TO BE TAXED IN THE ENTIRETY. FURTHER THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE CI T(A) HAD GIVEN A FINDING FOR A YEAR WHEN NO OFFER WAS MADE AND NO INCOME WA S TAXED AND HENCE THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WAS INCORRECT. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED TH E RECORD. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO TH E TAXABILITY OF THE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF SEA RCH CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND WHICH REFLECTED CERTAIN RECE IPTS. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IN ADDITION TO THE RECEIP TS CERTAIN PAYMENTS WERE ALSO REFLECTED ON THE SAID DOCUMENT AND T HEREAFTER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE CONTENTION WAS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT PEAK AMOUNT OF RS.33 50 000/- WAS AVAILABLE FOR PAYM ENTS BY THE ASSESSEE TO SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.33 50 000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF R S.33 50 000/- WAS TO BE TAXED @ 48.73% I.E. RS.16 32 600/- IN THE YEAR U NDER APPEAL AS AGAINST THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE CIT(A) THAT G ROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.17 90 000/- WERE TO BE TAXED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 002-03 @ 48.73% I.E. RS.8 72 400/-. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT TH E RECEIPT OF RS.17 90 000/- WAS TOWARDS REIMBURSEMENT OF EXPENSES BE ING NOT SUPPORTED BY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS REJECTED AND THE SAID RECEIPT WAS ALSO TREATED AS GROSS CONTRACT RECEIPTS. THE ASS ESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMING OF ENTIRE ADDITION OF RS.33 50 000/- AND BY BIFURCATION OF THE SAME IN TWO YEARS. ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 9 14. THE NEXT OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID CONTRACT RECEIPTS WERE TO BE TAXED @ 8%. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF HE ARING FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT DISPUTING THE QUANTUM SHOWN T O BE TAXED BUT IT WAS DISPUTING THE RATE APPLIED TO DETERMINE THE INC OME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 2002-03 AND 2003-04 REFLECT THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPUTING THE ADDITION HAD APPLIED PEA K OF RS.33 50 000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND NO FURTHE R ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2003-04. THE CI T(A) WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 HAS B IFURCATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.33 50 000/- IN TWO YEARS I.E. IN ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2001-02 AND 2002-03. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF TH E CIT(A) IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADDITION BEING MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE HOLD THAT THE RECEIPTS OF RS.33 50 000/- ARE TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE RELATABLE ISSUE IS THE RATE TO BE APP LIED TO DETERMINE THE INCOME FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. 15. THE TRIBUNAL IN ANIL BANSILAL LODHA VS. ASST.CIT (SUPRA) W HILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE OF ON-MONEY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE THEREIN EVIDENCE OF WHICH WAS ALSO FOUND DURING THE CASE HELD THAT THE ENTIRE ON-MONEY COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESS EE AND ESTIMATED AT 30% OF THE GROSS ON-MONEY RECEIPTS. IN T HE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH REFLECTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE RECEIVED CE RTAIN RECEIPTS WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE PEAK OF THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AT RS.33 50 000/-. ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 10 THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD THAT A SUITA BLE PERCENTAGE IS TO BE APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT 8% BE APPLIED TO WORK O UT THE NET PROFIT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE DIRECT THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO APPLY NET PROFIT @ 30% ON GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.33 50 000/ - IN ORDER TO DETERMINE THE NET PROFIT INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.807/PN/2011 16. NOW COMING TO THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WE FIND NO M ERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED IN VIEW OF OUR DIRECTING THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. THUS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL R AISED BY THE REVENUE ARE THUS DISMISSED. 17. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.769/PN/2011 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.807/PN/20 11 IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.808/PN/2011 18. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED IN THE APPEAL NO.808/PN/2011 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF DIFFERENCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NOTINGS IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT NO.30. ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 11 19. THE BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE ON 02.02.2006 CERTAIN PAPERS WERE SEIZED AND WERE INVENTORIZ ED AS PAGE NOS.29 30 AND 31 OF ANNEXURE A1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NO TED THAT THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID PAPERS REFLECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AND SUB-CONTR ACTORS AND HAD PASSED ON THE SAME TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. THE TOTAL OF SUCH AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS RS.81 LAKHS. THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ENTR Y I.E. THE NAME OF THE PERSON FROM WHOM THE MONEY HAD BEEN COLLECTED A ND THE PURPOSE FOR WHICH IT WAS COLLECTED. FURTHER THE NAMES AN D ADDRESSES OF THE PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE STATED TO H AVE BEEN MADE ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WERE ASKED TO BE FURNISH ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ASSESSEE IN THE REPLY POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID PAPERS WERE NEITHER THE COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT NOR A S TATEMENT SHOWING FULL DETAILS IN THE ANNEXURE. FURTHER IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS NAME DID NOT APPEAR IN THE TYPE D SCRIPT OF THE FAX MESSAGE AND THE FIGURES AND LETTERS SUBSEQUENTLY WR ITTEN ON THE FAX MESSAGE MIGHT HAVE BEEN WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY WITHOUT ANY DE TAILS. THE ENDORSEMENTS MADE ON THE FAX MESSAGE AS PER THE ASSESSEE WERE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FAXED MESSAGE AND EVEN THERE WAS N O SPECIFIC MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RECIPIENT OF ANY CASH COLLE CTED OR THAT HE WAS A RECEIVER OF ANY CASH PAID OR THAT HE HAD MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER WAS THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS A DUMP DOCUMENT. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 15 OBSERVED AS UNDER:- 15. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PAGES 29 30 AND 31 THAT THIS BELONGS TO ASSOCIATION OF THE CONTRACTORS A ND SUB CONTRACTORS WHOSE NAMES HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON THE PAGE 29 OF THE ABOVE REFERRED ANNEXURE. THERE IS ALSO MENTION OF TH E GROSS WORK ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 12 DONE BY THESE CONTRACTORS IN THE PROJECT TOTALING T O RS.10.96 CRORES. THE PAGE 30 OF THE ANNEXURE HAS DETAILS OF T HE AMOUNT OF WORKING OF CERTAIN AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN WORKED OUT 3% AND 5% OF THE GROSS CONTRACT WORK DONE BY DIFFERENT CONTRA CTORS. IT IS SEEN FROM THESE PAPERS THAT THESE AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN PREC ISELY WORKED OUT AND HAVE BEEN COLLECTED AND PAID TO DIFFER ENT PERSONS. THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARS IN ABBREVIATED FOR M AS PHP MEANING PRAHLAD HARIRAM PANHALE. 20. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THUS HELD THAT THE CONTENTION O F THE ASSESSEE THAT HIS NAME WAS NOT MENTIONED ON THE SAID P APERS WAS NOT CORRECT AND AS THE PAPERS RELATED TO THE ASSESSEE AN D HENCE THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPERS WERE PRESUMED TO BE CORRECT. IN VIEW OF NO EXPLANATION HAVING BEEN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.81 LAKHS WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND A DDITION TO THAT EFFECT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 21. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD NOTED AS UNDER:- 1. IT IS SEEN FROM THESE PAPERS THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS COLLECTED CERTAIN AMOUNT FROM DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AND SUB C ONTRACTORS AND HAS PASSED ON THE SAME TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. THE TO TAL OF SUCH AMOUNTS IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RS.81.00 LAKHS. 2. IT IS VERY CLEAR FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE PAGES 2 9 30 AND 31 THAT THIS BELONGS TO ASSOCIATION OF THE CONTRACTORS A ND SUB CONTRACTORS WHOSE NAME HAVE BEEN GIVEN ON THE PAGE 29 OF THE ABOVE REFERRED ANNEXURE. 22. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT FROM THE ABOVE STATE MENT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT WAS CLEAR THA T AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SAID PAPERS BELONGS TO ASSOCIATION O F CONTRACTORS AND SUB CONTRACTORS AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.81 LAKHS HAD BEEN COLLEC TED FROM CONTRACTORS AND SUB CONTRACTORS AND HAD PASSED ON TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. HENCE THE AMOUNT OF RS.81 LAKHS COULD NOT BE T HE AMOUNT BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE OR THE AMOUNT RECEIVE D OR PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE PERUSAL OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE A ND RECORD THE CIT(A) UNDER PARA 7.1 OBSERVED AS UNDER:- ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 13 (I) THE PAPERS BEARING NO.29 30 AND 31 WERE NO T FOUND WITH THE APPELLANT BUT THE SAME WERE FOUND WITH SHRI. VIVEK DESHPANDE. (II) THE SAID PAPERS ARE LOOSE PAPERS AND ARE NO T BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ANY PERSON. (III) THE AUTHOR OF THE PAPERS IS UNKNOWN AND IS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. ONLY THE NAME OF SENDER OF TYPED MESSAGE IS A PPEARING ON FAX IS MENTIONED BY THE A.O. (IV) THE DATE OF PAYMENT OR RECEIPT OF RS. 81 00 0 00/- HAS NOT BEEN MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPER. (V) THE SAID PAPERS ARE UNSIGNED PAPERS. VI) ON PAGE NO 29 OF THE SEIZED PAPERS IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN AS UNDER PAID TO SACHIN 06=00 ..||. 25=00 ..||. 50=00 --------- 81=00 ===== VIII) PAGE NO 31 DOES NOT CONTAIN NAME OF THE APPELLA NT. PAGE NO 30 IS A COMPUTERIZED FAX SHEET WHICH DOES NOT CONTA IN NAME OF THE APPELLANT. THE FAX IS NOT ADDRESSED TO THE APPELLA NT. AFTER RECEIPT OF THE FAX SOME HAND WRITTEN NOTINGS HAVE BEE N MADE. THE HAND WRITTEN NOTING '81=00 PHP' IS APPEARING ON PAGE 30. IX) THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE E ITHER DIRECT OR CIRCUMSTANTIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE NOTINGS ON THE SEIZED P APERS. 23. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 7.2 HELD AS UNDER:- 7.2 IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SAID PAPERS BEARI NG NO.29 30 AND 31 WERE FOUND WITH SHRI. VIVEK DESHPANDE AND NO T IN THE PREMISES OF THE APPELLANT OR IN POSSESSION OF THE APP ELLANT. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT IN ORDER TO ATTRACT PRESUMPTION U/S 132(4A) OF THE ACT THE DOCUMENT SHOULD BE FOUND IN POSSESSION OF TH E ASSESSEE. THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE PRESUMED THAT THE DOCUMENT I S OWNED AND RELATES TO THE APPELLANT AND THE CONTENTS OF THE DOC UMENTS ARE TRUE. IT IS ALSO WELL ESTABLISHED LAW THAT THE NOTINGS O N PAPERS FOUND CAN BE CORRECTLY EXPLAINED BY ITS AUTHOR AND N OT BY ANY OTHER PERSON AND PARTICULARLY BY THE PERSON WITH WHO M THE PAPERS WERE NOT FOUND. THE AUTHOR OF THE SEIZED PAPE RS IS UNKNOWN AND HAS NOT BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD IN ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. ONLY THE NAME OF PERSON SENDING THE FAX IS APPEARING ON FAX MASSAGE. THE SAID PAPERS ARE NOT SI GNED AND THE DATES OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.81 00 000/- HAVE NOT BEE N MENTIONED ON THE SAID PAPER. THE CONTENT OF THE SAID PAPERS DOES NOT LEAD TO ANY SPECIFIC CONCLUSION. FURTHER THE NOTIN GS IN THE SEIZED PAPERS WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY CORROBORATI VE EVIDENCE. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO SU PPORT HIS CONTENTION AND TO PROVE MEANING OF THE NOTINGS ON T HE SEIZED PAPERS. ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 14 24. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) A ND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 25. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSE SSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS FOUND FROM POSSESSION OF THE SEARCHED PERSON I.E. SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE AND THE TRIBUNAL HAD DELET ED THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE SAID PERSON IN ITA NO.241/PN/ 2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 2 7.05.2014 AND HENCE THE PRESUMPTION WAS THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT HAD NO RELATION TO THE ASSESSEE. 26. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECOR D. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HAD BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF FAX DOCUMENT FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE SEARCHED P ERSON SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE. THE SAID DOCUMENT HAD CERTAIN NOTINGS IN RESPECT OF VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS CONTAINED ON PAGE NOS.29 30 AND 31 OF ANNEXURE A1. THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID SHEET WERE REFERR ED TO GROSS WORK DONE BY VARIOUS CONTRACTORS AND SUB CONTRACTORS AND FURTHER PAYMENTS BEING MADE TO CERTAIN PERSONS. THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT HIS NAME DID NOT APPEAR ANYWHERE IN THE TYPED SCRIPT OF FAX MESSAGE AND THE FIGURES AND LETTERS SUBSEQU ENTLY WRITTEN ON THE FAX MESSAGE WERE WRITTEN BY SOMEBODY WITHOUT AN Y DETAILS. FURTHER THE ENDORSEMENTS ON THE SAID FAX MESSAGE WERE SUBSEQUENT TO THE FAX MESSAGE AND THERE WAS NO MENTION OF THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS THE RECIPIENT OF ANY CASH COLLECTED OR THE ASSESSEE WAS THE RECEIVER OF ANY CASH PAID OR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE ANY CASH PAYMENTS. THE WORDS KIND ATTENTION PANHALE WERE WRITT EN IN HAND WRITTEN AND WERE NOT PART OF THE FAX MESSAGE. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID PAPER RE FLECTED THAT ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 15 THE ASSESSEE HAD COLLECTED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FROM DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AND SUB CONTRACTORS AND HAD PASSED ON THE SAME TO C ERTAIN INDIVIDUALS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER GAVE A FINDING THAT THE PERUSAL OF PAGE NOS.29 30 AND 31 REFLECTS THAT IT BELONGS TO ASSOCIATION OF CONTRACTORS AND SUB CONTRACTORS WHOSE N AME HAD BEEN GIVEN ON PAGE 29 OF THE SAID ANNEXURE. ONCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA S COME TO FINDING THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID PAPERS BELON GED TO AN ASSOCIATION OF CONTRACTOR AND SUB CONTRACTORS THE QUES TION IS WHETHER THE AMOUNT OF RS.81 LAKHS CAN BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 27. THE FIRST ASPECT TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF THE ISSUE THAT THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS BEARING NO.29 30 AND 31 WERE FOUND FROM THE P OSSESSION OF SHRI VIVEK DESHPANDE IN WHOSE HANDS NO ADDITION HAS B EEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID DOCUMENTS. THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO.241/PN/2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI VIVEK S. DESHPANDE VS . DCIT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 VIDE ORDER DATED 27.05.2014 CONSIDERED THE ISSUE IN RESPECT OF THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED I.E. PAGE NOS.29 AND 30. THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL VIS--VIS THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID DOCUMENT WERE THAT THOUGH THE DOCUMENT W AS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF MR. VIVEK S. DESHPANDE BUT THE SAID SEI ZED PAPER CONTAINED AMOUNT PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT PROJECTS BY DIFFERE NT PERSONS AND NO OTHER MATERIAL OR ANY DIARY OR ANY DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED TO CORRELATE THE SAID TRANSACTION. THE TRIBUNAL THUS HELD T HAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4)(A) OF THE ACT HAVING LIMITED APPLICAT ION. THE ENTRIES ON THE SAID PAPER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTH ER SUPPORTING EVIDENCE COULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE THEREIN. AS REFERRED TO PARAS HEREINABOVE THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE LOOSE PAPERS AND WERE NOT FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DOCUMENTS DO NOT MENTION THE DATE OF PAYMENT OF RS.81 LAKHS AND TH E SAID ITA NOS.769 807 AND 808/PN/2011 PRALHAD HARIRAM PANHALE 16 PAPERS ARE NOT SIGNED. HOWEVER ON PAGE 30 AFTER THE R ECEIPT OF FAX A HAND WRITTEN NOTING HAD BEEN MADE I.E. IN FRONT OF NOTING 8 1=00 PHP WAS APPEARING. FURTHER THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT REFLECTED COLLECTION OF CERTAIN AMOUNT FRO M DIFFERENT CONTRACTORS AND SUB CONTRACTORS AND ITS PASSING ON TO CERTAIN INDIVIDUALS WHICH IN NO WAY ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER THAT THE SAID ENTRIES PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ABO VE SAID EVIDENCE NEITHER BEING DIRECT NOR COMPLETE COULD PIN POINT ITS RELAT ION TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE PRESUMPTION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID SUM OF RS.81 LAKHS IS TO BE ADDED AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CAPTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE APPEAL OF T HE REVENUE IS THUS DISMISSED. 28. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AN D THE TWO APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 28 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED: 28 TH NOVEMBER 2014. GCVSR COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE DEPARTMENT; 2) THE ASSESSEE; 3) THE CIT(A) AURANGABAD; 4) THE CIT AURANGABAD; 5) THE DR B BENCH I.T.A.T. PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T. PUNE