Vasant Shankar Walanj, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1006/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6568 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-01-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRI
• Assessee Lawyers: ARUN A SHINGAVI
• Keywords: Business income; Cost of acquisition

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUN E BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / ITA NO.1005/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 JAGDISH NANDKISHOR KHANDELWAL, 31, BHANGAEWADI, LONAVALA, TAL. MAVAL, DIST. PUNE-410 401 MAHARASHTRA. PAN : ANIPK7647J ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(3), PUNE. / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 /ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 VASANT SHANKAR WALANJ, VARDHAMAN SOCIETY, LONAVALA, TAL. MAVAL, DIST. PUNE-410 401 MAHARASHTRA. PAN : AADPW2272K ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 8(4), PUNE. / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK & SHRI ARUN A. SHINGAVI REVENUE BY : SHRI PANKAJ GARG 2 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 / DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10.01.2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : THESE SEPARATE APPEALS PREFERRED BY ASSESSEES EMANAT ES FROM THE DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), PUNE-6 FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2010-11 DATED 21.04.2015 AS PER GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2. THESE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND SINCE ISSUES C OMMON, FACTS SIMILAR, THEY ARE DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE WOULD TAKE ITA NO.1005/PUN/2015 AS LEAD CASE. WE FIND THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN BOTH THE APPEALS HAVE TAK EN MULTIPLE GROUNDS, THE CRUX OF THE GRIEVANCE IN BOTH THE APPEALS IS WHETHE R THE GAIN ARISING ON THE SALE OF LAND IS TO BE TAXED AS BUSINESS INCOME IN TH E HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1005/PUN/2015 ARE THAT THE ASS ESSEE DEALS IN SALE AND PURCHASE OF LAND AND IS A PARTNER IN M/S. SHRIHARI BU ILDERS AND DEVELOPERS DERIVES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AS WELL AS C LAIMS INCOME FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R 2010-11 WAS FILED ON 25.09.2010 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.7,47,270/- APART FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.79,600/-. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE CASE W AS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S.143(3) OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS COMPLETED ON 0 8.03.2013 AT THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,25,02,890/- IN WHICH ADDITION OF RS.2,17,55,620/- W AS MADE 3 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 IN RESPECT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF LAND CLAIMED TO BE AGRICULTUR AL AND THEREFORE, EXEMPT BY THE ASSESSEE. 4. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHO RITIES IS THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION CONTINUES TO BE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SITUATED BEYOND 8 KMS. OF THE MUNICIPAL LIMITS OF LONAVALA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. WITH REGA RD TO THE CONDITION THAT THE LAND TO BE AN AGRICULTURAL ONE, ARGUME NT ON RECORD BY ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SAID LAND IS SUBJECT TO THE LAND R EVENUE BY THE STATE GOVERNMENT. CROPS ARE GROWN ON THE LAND AS CAN BE SEE N FROM THE 7/12 EXTRACT FILED BY ASSESSEE. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ALSO, TH E ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN SUBSTANTIAL AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RELEVANT ASSES SMENT YEAR 2010- 11. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY ASSESSEE IS AT RS.79,600/-. REGARDING THE CONTENTION THAT THE SAID LAND IS AGRICULTURA L IN NATURE, THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE GU JARAT HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SIDDHARTH J. DESAI (1982) 10 TAXMAN 1 WHICH PLAYS GUIDING FACTORS TO BE CONSIDERED WHILE DETERMINING THE NAT URE AND CHARACTER OF THE LAND. ANOTHER CASE RELIED ON THE ISSUE IS THE RAT IO LAID DOWN BY THE HON'BLE MADRAS HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MRS. SHAKUNTHA LA VEDACHALAM VS. ACIT, 369 ITR 558 (MAD.). THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT LAND SIT UATED BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM LOCAL LIMITS OF LONAVALA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION. IN SUPP ORT OF THIS CONTENTION, THE ASSESSEE HAS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECIS ION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MINGUEL CHANDRA PAIS & ANR, REPORTED AS 282 ITR 618. 4 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 5. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) ON THIS ISSUE ANALYZED THE FACTS AN D CIRCUMSTANCES WHICH HAS GIVEN RISE TO THIS PARTICULAR DISPUTE. IT IS ON R ECORD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE WHO IS PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S.SHRIHARI BUILDE RS AND DEVELOPERS, HAD SHOWN PROFITS FROM HIS PROPRIETARY BUSINESS WHICH WAS DEALING IN PURCHASE & SALE OF LAND APART FROM INCOME FROM OT HER SOURCES HAD SHOWN CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.2,17,55,620/- AS EXEMPT ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND AND SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE W AS HAVING 1/3 RD SHARE IN THE PROPERTY AND CAPITAL GAIN WAS CALCULATED BY ADOPTING 1/3 RD PART OF SALE CONSIDERATION AND COST OF ACQUISITION. SINCE THE SA ME WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BEING AGRICULTURAL LAND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONT ED THE ASSESSEE ON THE ISSUE AND ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVIDE VARIOUS DETAILS LIKE COPIES OF PURCHASE/SALE DEED. COPIES OF 7/12 EXTRACT AS WELL AS CE RTIFICATE FROM TALATHI ETC. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREBY, EXAMINED THE ISSUE IN DE TAIL AND AFTER APPLYING AERIAL DISTANCE, HELD THAT THE PLOT WAS 7.4 KM. FR OM THE LIMITS OF LONAVALA MUNICIPAL CORPORATION AS AGAINST THE CLAIM OF THE A SSESSEE BEING 13 KMS BY ROAD DISTANCE. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IN HIS ORDER HAS NOT ACCEPTED THE VIEW OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE V ARIOUS TRIBUNALS THAT AERIAL DISTANCE CANNOT BE ADOPTED FOR MEASUREMENT OF DISTANCE. THE AMENDMENT IN THE ACT REGARDING AERIAL DISTANCE TO BE A DOPTED IS APPLICABLE FROM A.Y.2014-15 VIDE FINANCE ACT 2013 AND THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE APPLIED IN THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E. A.Y.2010-11. TO THIS ASPECT, LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS AGREED WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E THAT IT IS ROAD DISTANCE TO BE CALCULATED WHILE DETERMINING THE LIMITS FROM MU NICIPAL LIMITS AND NOT AERIAL DISTANCE. HOWEVER, MAIN ISSUE REMAINS WHETHE R LAND CAN BE TERMED AS INVESTMENT AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE AND 5 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 ALSO WHETHER IT COULD BE TAXABLE AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND ALSO WHETHER THE CHARACTER OF THE LAND IS AGRICULTURAL AS TAKEN BY ASS ESSEE MERELY BECAUSE OF THE FACT THAT AGRICULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN SHOWN BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON THIS ISSUE, LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS: I) THE LAND WAS ACQUIRED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER TWO PERSONS, ONE OF WHOM ALSO HAPPENS TO BE PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. S HRIHARI BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS. II) THE LAND IN QUESTION IS IN THE FOOTHILLS OF LOHGARH FORT AN D IS LOCATED IN FOREST ZONE. III) THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT AS PER 7/12 EXTRACT, THE LAN D IS AGRICULTURAL AND HAS ALSO DERIVED INCOME FROM THE SAME BUT THE FACTS PROVE OTHERWISE AS ONE LATE GANPAT GOPAL BAIKAR CLAIMED THAT HE WAS IN POSSESSION OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND AND HE WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND. ULTIMATELY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER CO-OWNERS HAD TO AR RIVE AT SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT WHICH WAS REGISTERED ON 24.07.2008 BY GIVING RS.30,00,000/- TO LEGAL HEIR OF LATE GANPAT GOPAL BAIKAR. TH IS BEING SO, NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION COULD HAVE BEEN' CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE LAND WAS IN ADVERSE POSSESSION. IV) THE LD.CIT(APPEAL) ALSO HELD THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS NOT TO KEEP THE LAND AS INVESTMENT BUT TO ACQUIRE THE SAME, CLEAR THE ENCUMBRANCES AND SELL THE SAME AT HIGHER PROFIT WHICH CLE ARLY HIGHLIGHTS THE BUSINESS MOTIVE OF THE TRANSACTION. V ) AS PER THE FINAL REGIONAL PLAN OF PUNE REGION, LAND IN FOREST ZONE CAN BE PERMITTED TO BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. THIS PR OVES THAT THE LAND IN QUESTION CANNOT BE TERMED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PERMISSIBLE USE IN AFFORESTATION ZONE IS AS UNDER: USERS PERMISSIBLE IN AFFORESTATION ZONE: IN ADDITION TO THE PLANTATION OF TREES, FOREST HOUS ES, MEANT FOR THE SERVANT/TECHNICIANS/OWNER AND FOR STORING OF FERTIL IZERS/FOREST TOOLS ETC, MAY BE PERMITTED SUBJECT TO THE FOLLOWING REGULATIO NS (A) BUILDING FOR THE RESIDENTIAL PURPOSES OF FOREST HOU SE SHALL HAVE BUILT UP AREA NOT EXCEEDING 100 SQ.MTR., PROVIDED THAT FO REST PLOT AREA IS NOT FESS THAN 0.4 HECT. ADDITIONAL AREA OF 50 SQ.MT RS. MAY ALSO BE PERMITTED FOR ANCILLARY USERS. STRUCTURE TO BE EREC TED FOR THESE 6 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 PURPOSES SHOULD BE OF GROUND FLOOR ONLY AND SHOULD NOT HAVE HEIGHT MORE THAN 5 METERS AND SHOULD BE OF SUCH MATERIAL A S WOULD BLEND WITH THE SURROUNDINGS: PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO FOREST HOUSE SHOULD BE PER MITTED UNLESS OWNER HAS PLANTED AT LEAST 800 TREES PER HECTOR ( O R SUCH LESSER NUMBER ON THE BASIS OF THE SPECIES SELECTED AND APP ROVED BY FOREST DEPARTMENT), AND ONLY AFTER SUCH TREES ARE REARED F OR 1 YEAR) PROVIDED FURTHER THAT NO SUCH FOREST HOUSE WILL BE PERMITTED I) WITHIN A DISTANCE OF 100 METERS, FROM THE H.F.L/ F.S.L OF THE LAKE, II) AND ON HILL SLOPES STEEPER THAN 1:5. LAYOUT OF THE FOREST LEDGES MAY BE PERMITTED FOR AREAS MORE THAN 0.4 HECTARE. (B) LAND IN THE AFFORESTATION ZONE MAY BE PERMITTED TO BE USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES. (C) TOURIST RESORT COMPLEXES MAY ALSO BE PERMISSIBLE IN THE AFFORESTATION ZONE SUBJECT TO THE RESTRICTION IN REGULATION NO. 2 .6.2. TABLE NO. X-1. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. CIT(APPEAL), IT IS CLEAR THA T APART FROM CONSTRUCTION OF FOREST HOUSES AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY, THE ONLY OTHER FRUITFUL ACTIVITY COULD BE CARRIED OUT WAS CONSTRUCTION OF TOURIST RESORT COMPLEX. THE FACT THAT LAND IN QUESTION WAS AT THE FOOT HILL OF LOHGARH FORT, MADE IT A N IDEAL LOCATION FOR TOURIST COMPLEX, WHICH CLEARLY EMERGES OUT FROM THE MOTIVE TO SELL THE LAND TO MANHAR RESORTS PVT. LTD. THEREFORE, IT IS C LEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSET WAS ACQUIRED NOT WITH INVESTMENT MOTIVE BUT BUSINESS MOTIVE. 6. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) FURTHER HELD THAT ASSET WAS SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS PER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED FOR THE SIMPLE REASON THAT NATURE OF ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS NOT THE DECISIVE FACTOR AS FAR AS TAXATION OF ANY AMOUNT IS CONCER NED AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF KEDARNATH JUTE MILLS, 82 ITR 363. 7 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 7. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE VE HEMENTLY ARGUED THAT ALL THROUGHOUT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEY HAVE SHOWN THE LAND AS AGRICULTURAL LAND AS INVESTMENT, THEY HAVE ALWAYS OFFERED FO R TAX AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THAT RICE WAS GROWN EXCLUSIVELY ON LAND AND EVEN AT THE PRESENT DATE ALSO, THERE IS NO COMMERCIAL ACTIVITY THAT H AS BEEN UNDERTAKEN AND IT IS STILL AGRICULTURAL LAND. THAT IT IS ALREADY ESTABLISHED , IT IS BEYOND 8 KMS. FROM MUNICIPAL LIMITS. ON THIS ASSERTION, IT WAS PRAYED BY THE LD. AR THAT LAND SHOULD BE TREATED AS INVESTMENT. SINCE IT IS AGR ICULTURAL LAND, IT CANNOT BE CHARGED TO BUSINESS INCOME AND THAT THE SALE OF LAND IS, THEREFORE, NOT BUSINESS TRANSACTION. THAT IT IS FURTHER SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR THAT THE REVENUE ON HYPOTHETICAL BASIS HAS STATED THAT THE ASSE SSEE AND THE OTHER CO OWNERS HAVE PURCHASED LAND TO SALE IT LATER ON HIGHER PR OFITS AND THEREFORE, THE MOTIVE WAS ONLY BUSINESS. THIS IS PURELY HYPOTHETICA L AS THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORDS FROM REVENUE SIDE TO PROVE SUCH CLAIMS. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DR ARGUED THAT AT PRESENT T HE LAND HAS BEEN SOLD TO MANHAR RESORTS PVT. LTD. THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOW N MEAGER AGRICULTURAL INCOME WHICH DOES NOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT IT WAS USE D FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES THROUGHOUT. THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID MONEY TO FR EE THE LAND FROM ADVERSE POSSESSION AND THEN SOLD IT TO THE PRESENT PUR CHASER ONCE ADVERSE POSSESSION IS BEING CLEARED. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE LAND WAS AGRICULTURAL LAND, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS AT THAT POINT OF TIME NO AGRICULTURAL OPERATION COULD HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE LAND WAS IN ADVERSE POSSESSION. THE LD. DR FURTHER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 9. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE R IVAL CONTENTIONS. WE FIND THAT THE PREMISE IN WHICH THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION AND HELD THE TRANSACTION IN SALE OF LAND AS BUSINESS TRANS ACTION, IS ONLY ON INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE NOT TO KEEP THE LAND AS INVEST MENT BUT TO ACQUIRE THE SAME, CLEAR ENCUMBRANCES AND SELL THE SAME AT HIGHER PROFIT WHICH THEREFORE, IS BUSINESS MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS ALSO AS SERTED BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) THAT THE LAND SOLD TO MANHAR RESORT PVT. LTD AND THEREFORE, THE LAND WAS NOT IN THE NATURE OF INVESTMENT BUT FOR BUSINESS MOTIVE TRANSACTION. WE DO NOT FIND ANYTHING COMING OUT FROM THE ORDER OF LD. C IT(APPEAL) WHEREIN HE HAS BROUGHT OUT ANY SPECIFIC REASONS REGARDING STATE MENT MADE IN THE ORDER. THERE IS NO ENQUIRY OR FACTUAL VERIFICATION DONE BY THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) TO ASCERTAIN THE NATURE AND CHARACTER OF LAND AND WHET HER IT COULD BE CALLED AS AGRICULTURAL LAND IN TERMS OF CONTINUOUS AGRICULTURAL ACTIV ITIES, IF AT ALL UNDERTAKEN. SIMILARLY, THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN AT PRESENT THE LAND IS USED FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES AND ALL THROUGHOUT, THEY HAVE SHOWN IT AS INVESTMENT IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A ND AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS ALSO SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 10. WE HAD PUT A QUESTION TO THE LD. AR WHETHER THEY HAVE ANY PHYSICAL PROOF REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL NATURE OF THE LAND AND TH AT AS ON DATE WHETHER STILL IT IS AGRICULTURAL LAND. TO WHICH, LD. AR STATED AS INSTRUCTED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS STILL AGRICULTURAL LAND AND THERE IS NO CONSTRUCTION OF RESORT OR ANYTHING LIKE THAT ON THE SAID LAND. WE FIND THAT THE PO WER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) IS COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) SHOULD HAVE CALLED FOR INSPECTORS REPORT AFTER SENDING INSPECTOR FOR SPOT VERIFICATION AND TAKING DETAILS ABOUT THE LAND. IT SHOULD COME OUT FROM FACTS ON RECORD THAT CONTINUOUSLY AGRICULTURAL ACTIVIT IES WERE CARRIED ON 9 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 THE SAID LAND AND IF REVENUE IS HAVING DOUBT IT SHOULD BRIN G EVIDENCES ON RECORD. SIMILARLY SPECIFIC VERIFICATION NEEDS TO BE CONDUCTED TO VERIFY WHETHER ACTUAL INTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PROCURE THE LAND FOR INVESTMENT OR TO SALE IT AT HIGHER PROFIT. THESE THINGS ARE NOT CLEAR FROM TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEAL). THEREFORE, THE ISSUE REQUIRES DETAILED VERIFICATION. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEAL) AND REST ORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO MAKE DETAILED VERIFICATION AND RE-AD JUDICATE THE MATTER AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 11. SINCE THE FACTS ARE SIMILAR AND ISSUES ARE COMMON IN I TA NO.1006/PUN/2015, THE DECISION TAKEN BY US IN ITA NO.1005 /PUN/2015 SHALL APPLY FOR ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 ALSO AND THEREFORE H EREIN WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEAL) AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH FACTUAL VERIFICATION AND ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE AFTER PROVIDING REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PU RPOSES . 12. IN COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE DIFFERENT A SSESSEES ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 10 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- D. KARUNAKARA RAO PARTHA SARAT HI CHAUDHURY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 10 TH JANUARY, 2019. SB 10 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 !'#$%$' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS), PUNE-6. 4. THE PR. CIT, PUNE-5. 5. '#$ %%&' , ( &' , )*+ , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. $,- ./ / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // (0 / BY ORDER, %1 &+ / PRIVATE SECRETARY ( &' , / ITAT, PUNE. 11 ITA NO. 1005/PUN/2015 ITA NO.1006/PUN/2015 A.Y.2010-11 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 07 .01.2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 09 .01 .201 9 SR.PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED AND PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/JM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR.PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS/PS 7 DATE OF UPLOADING OF ORDER SR.PS/PS 8 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR.PS/PS 9 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R 11 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER