Revannappa Vishwanath Chillale, Pune V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1035/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0775 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 20-09-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL CHAWARE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Salary income; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , ! , # $ BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURV EDI, AM ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 REVANNAPPA VISHWANATH CHILLALE, OASIS PLANATE, GURU VIHAR, FLAT NO.3, PLOT NO.16, SURVEY NO.98/2, PUNE NASHIK ROAD, BHOSARI, PUNE 411 026. PAN : AFGPC0869N . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 10(2), PUNE. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI B. B. MANE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL CHAWARE / DATE OF HEARING : 20.09.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30.09.2016 % / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-V, PUNE DATED 24.02.2014 FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERI ALS ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 2.1 ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING M AINLY INCOME FROM SALARY. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2009-10 ON 03.02.2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,88,490/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR 2 ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.19,56,870/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT (A), WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 24.02.2014 IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-V/ITO, WD.10(2)/6 67/11-12 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED FURTHER BY THE O RDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GR OUNDS :- INSUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY 1. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX APPEAL (L D. CIT (A)) AND LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (LD. AO) ERRED UNDER CIRC UMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW IN MAKING ADDITION AND CONFIRMING A DDITION OF RS. 15,15,000/- TO RETURNED INCOME OF VARIOUS CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING ACCOUNT OF SALARY EARNER APPELLANT WITHOUT PROVIDING REASONABLE AND SUFFICIE NT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THAT THESE DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT). 2. THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FA CTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW BY EVEN AFTER APPRECIATING THAT LD. AO HAS FAILED T O PROVIDE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO APPELLANT TO SUBMIT SUFFICIENT REASONS AND PROPE R MATERIAL TO REBUT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED TO APPELLANT AND TO FURTHER SUBSTANTI ATE EVIDENCES PROVIDED BY HIM TO BOTH LD. AUTHORITIES' SATISFACTION. AMOUNTS OF CASH DEPOSITS ARE UNJUSTIFIABLY 100% AMO UNT CONSIDERED AS INCOME OF APPELLANT. 3. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE OTHER GROUNDS THE LD. C IT (A) GROSSLY ERRED UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES AND FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN LAW CONS IDERING CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNT AS 100% INCOME OF APPELLANT, WITHOUT HAVING ANY COG ENT EVIDENCE. 4. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED BY NOT APPRECIATING THAT APPELLANT IS SALARY EARNER EMPLOY EE AND NOT HAVING ANY TAXABLE SOURCES OF INCOME WHICH WERE TAXED ANYTIME. RELIEF PRAYED A. ADDITION EFFECTED ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN SAVING BANK ACCOUNT BE PLEASED TO BE DELETED AND SET ASIDE LD. CIT(A)S ORDER. B. AS ALTERNATE RELIEF APPELLANT PRAY TO REMAND MAT TER FOR PROPER HEARING. C. ALTERNATIVELY 100% AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDER ED AS TAXABLE INCOME. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY OR AMEND THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3 ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 3. AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS GROUNDS BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE WHICH IS TO BE DECID ED IS ABOUT ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DEPOSITS. 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, AS SESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD DEPOSITED RS.16,65,000/- IN THE S AVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY HIM WITH KARAD URBAN CO-OPERATIVE BAN K LTD., PUNE. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS AN D ALSO PRODUCE ALL THE PERSONS AND THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE THE PERSONS NOR FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENTARY E VIDENCE WITH RESPECT TO CASH DEPOSITS. FROM THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS THAT WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE CONFIRMATION LETTERS HAD N O MENTION ABOUT THE PAYMENT OF DATE OF LOAN, WHETHER THE LOAN WAS REPAID OR STILL OUTSTANDING. THUS, OUT OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS, ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE CASH DEPOS ITS OF RS.1,50,000/- BEING THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES WIFE WHO WAS HAVING PAN NUMBER AND WAS ASSESSED TO TAX, AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.15,50 ,000/- WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND WAS ADDED AS INCOME UNDE R SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, ASSESS EE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER B Y HOLDING AS UNDER :- 11. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE AS WELL AS REPLY OF THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS EXPLANATION OF RS.10,50,000/ - CLAIMED TO BE ADVANCE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF PROPOSED SALE OF APPELLANTS FLAT AT BHOSARI, PUNE WHICH NEVER MATERIALIZED, IT IS SEEN THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THE SAME TO BE A DECEITFUL STORY, IN ORDER TO EXPLAIN THE CASH DEPOS ITS. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT THE APPELLANT HAVING NOT PURCHASED ANY FLAT AS INTE NDED, CANNOT BE AN EVIDENCE AGAINST ADVANCE RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF PROPOSED SAL E OF FLAT. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS DIFFICULT TO BE ACCEPTED AS ONUS W AS UPON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITS WITH ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE IN THIS CASE. THE APPELLANT MERELY CAME OUT W ITH A STORY OF SO CALLED ARRANGEMENT FOR SALE OF FLAT WHICH NEVER MATERIALIZ ED LEADING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT A DECEITFUL STORY WAS CREATED TO DODGE THE TAX AUTH ORITIES. I ALSO FIND THE OBSERVATION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CORRECT AS THE APPELLANT HAS TRIED TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT WITH CONCOCTED EVIDENCES WHICH ARE NOTH ING BUT SELF SERVING AND COLLUSIVE ARRANGEMENT MADE ONLY TO CREATE A FAADE OF TRANSACTION WHICH NEVER 4 ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 WAS. THE APPELLANTS FURTHER GRIEVANCE IS THAT OPP ORTUNITY WAS DENIED TO HIM TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES/EVIDENCES TO THE SATISFACTION O F ASSESSING OFFICER AS SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS RECEIVED BY HIM ON 24.12.2011 WHIL E ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED ON 23.12.2011. THIS FACT MAY BE CORRECT AND THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT PROPER OPPORTUNITY SHOULD HAVE BEEN PROVIDED BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER TO THE APPELLANT TO AVOID SUCH GRIEVANCES. HOWEVER, ON THE FACTS IT SE EMS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN THIS STAND ONLY FOR CLOUDING THE ISSUE. EVEN AT TH E LEVEL OF CIT(A), THE APPELLANT COULD HAVE TAKEN A POSITION, THAT IT CAN PRODUCE TH E PARTIES/EVIDENCES WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED AND APPROPRIATE ORDER U/S.250( 4) OF INCOME-TAX ACT COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED ASKING THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VE RIFY THE ISSUE AND SEND A REMAND REPORT. BUT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT TAKEN THE ABOVE POSITION. THIS CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE APPELLANT IS MERELY TRYING TO DENT T HE CREDIBILITY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT DISCHARGING ONUS CAST UPON HIM TO PRO VE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THEREFORE, ON TOTALITY OF FACTS, IT I S HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT DEPOSIT OF RS.10,50,000/- WAS NOT PROVED. 12. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS.1,31,500/- REPRESENTI NG CASH LOAN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM SEVEN PERSONS, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT NON MENTIONING OF DATES IN THE CONFIRMATION LETTER CANNOT PROVE TH AT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECEIVED THE SUM BECAUSE THE CONFIRMATION WAS RECEIVED ONLY WITH REFERENCE TO DEPOSITS IN THE SAVINGS A/C. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THAT OPPORTUNITY WAS NOT PROVIDED TO PRODUCE THE PERSONS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER FO R VERIFICATION. 13. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CA SE AS WELL AS SUBMISSIONS. IT IS SEEN THAT RS.1,31,500/- HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE R ECEIVED FROM THE FOLLOWING PARTIES. DATE NAME OF THE PERSONS PAN AMOUNT TAKEN RS. 1 SOMNATH M MAHADA AYJPM6264H 18500.00 2 BASAVRAJ KHUSALRAO PATIL ALPP1237E 19000.00 3 KASHINATH S. HOSSALE ABMPP239G 19000.00 4 VIVEK V. PATIL ASDPP2487K 19000.00 5 SHANTIKUMAR M HANDIKERE ADZPH1112L 19000.00 6 SATISH SUBHASH MITHARE AZZPM4535C 18000.00 7 MALLIKARJUN GURAPPA RACHOTE AWJPR3128B 19000.00 14. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE LIST, IT IS SEEN THAT L OANS OF IDENTICAL AMOUNTS WHICH IS JUST BELOW THE THRESHOLD LIMIT OF RS.20,000/- HA S BEEN SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IN ORDER TO DODGE THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.269SS OF INCOM E-TAX ACT. EVEN THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS COMPLIED WITH PAPER WORK, ON A DEEPER PROBE OF THE APPELLANT VERSION, IT IS SEEN THAT THE THEORY OF LOAN RIGHTS HOLLOW. THE CASE DOES NOT FIT INTO THE NORMAL COURSE OF HUMAN CONDUCT OR PROBABILITIES, TESTED BY THE RATIO OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN DURGA PRASAD MORES CASE ( 82 ITR 540). THERE IS NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER, AS TO WHY THE LOANS ARE REC EIVED IN CASH ONLY, WHY THE AMOUNTS ARE IDENTICAL AND WHAT WAS THE PURPOSE OF G IVING THE SAME TO THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, ON THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, TH E STAND TAKEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIFIED. 15. COMING TO THE ISSUE OF CLAIM OF RS.3,39,000/- C LAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM FATHER WHO IS KARTA OF HUF, IT IS SEEN THAT 7/ 12 EXTRACT MERELY SHOWS NATURE OF 5 ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY CARRIED OUT IN THE SAID LAND. THE QUANTUM OF INCOME GENERATED FROM THE LAND CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED UNLESS FURTHER EV IDENCE LIKE DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING, SALE OF CROPS ETC ARE SUBMITTED. THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED COPIES OF RECEIPT FROM COMMISSION AGENTS AT BIDAR AS PROOF OF SALE OF AGRI CULTURAL PRODUCE WHICH IS AS UNDER : 13.05.2007 - RS. 86,308=09 21.11.2007 - RS. 69,448=37 07.04.2008 - RS. 1,00,579=73 19.09.2008 - RS. 82,673=33 16. THE APPELLANT CLAIMS THAT THE SAME WERE FILED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWEVER, I DO NOT FIND ANY DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RECEIPT IT IS SEEN THAT TWO OF TH E RECEIPTS PERTAIN TO EARLIER YEAR. FURTHER, THESE RECEIPTS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE INCOME PER SE AVAILABLE FOR TRANSFER TO THE APPELLANT AS THERE ARE CONNECTED EXPENDITURE LI KE LABOUR, SEEDS, IRRIGATION COST, LAND REVENUE TAX, EXPENDITURE ON TRACTOR FOR PLOUGH ING THE FIELD WHICH HAS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR ARRIVING AT SURPLUS. EVEN IF IT IS CLAIMED THAT LAND WAS GIVEN FOR CULTIVATION ON CONTRACT AND ENTIRE RECEIPT WAS AVAI LABLE, PERSONAL EXPENDITURE OF HUF AS SUCH ON FESTIVALS AND OTHER CEREMONIAL OCCAS IONS ARE ALWAYS THERE. THEN THERE ARE OTHER MEMBERS OF HUF WHO HAVE RIGHT IN TH E SAID INCOME. FURTHER, THIS STORY HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD JUST TO EXPLAIN TH E CASH DEPOSIT AS THERE IS NO PRECEDENCE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER I S ALSO RIGHT IN COMING TO CONCLUSION THAT IN THIS AGE WHEN AMOUNT CAN BE DEPO VITED ANY WHERE THE THEORY OF CARRYING CASH ALL THE WAY FROM BIDAR TO PUNE DOES N OT SEEM TO BE CONVINCING. THE AMOUNT COULD HAVE BEEN BROUGHT THROUGH BANK DRAFT T OO. THEREFORE, ON TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE A CCEPTED AS CREDIBLE. ACCORDINGLY, ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.3,39,000/- IS UPHELD. 17. AS REGARDS THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.35,000/-, THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM WIFE WAS RS.1,50,000/- O UT OF WHICH ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION FOR RS.1,15,000/-. HOWEVE R, NO REASON FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION FOR RS.35,000/- WAS GIVEN BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER WHICH IS NOT JUSTIFIED. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF TH E APPELLANT AND FIND THAT THE GRIEVANCE OF THE APPELLANT IS GENUINE IN THIS REGAR DS AS NO MENTION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS TO WHY ONLY RS.1,15,000/ - OUT OF RS.1,50,000/- IS ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER CANNOT BE UPHELD AND HE IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.35,000/-. TH US, THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.35,000/- WHILE ADDITION OF RS.15,15,000/- (15,50 ,000 35,000) IS UPHELD. THUS, THE GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NO W IN APPEAL BEFORE US. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT ASS ESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS. HE POINTE D TO THE NOTING OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN PARA 4.1 WHEREIN IT IS STATED THAT THE S HOW-CAUSE LETTER DATED 19.12.2011 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTE D THAT ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED AN ORDER ON 23.12.2011 WITHOUT GIVING AN OPP ORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN 6 ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 THE TRANSACTION. WITH RESPECT TO HIS SUBMISSIONS O F INSUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY BEFORE LD. CIT(A), HE POINTED TO THE NOTICE FIXING THE HEA RING BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHICH WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND WHICH IS PLACED AT PAG E 23 OF PAPER BOOK AND FROM WHICH HE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REQUIRED TO FURNISH THE DETAILS ON 19.02.2014. HE SUBMITTED THAT ON THAT DATE ASSESSE E PRESENTED HIMSELF BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND SOUGHT SOME TIME FOR FURNISHING THE INFO RMATION. LD. CIT(A) DENIED THE ADJOURNMENT AND PASSED AN ORDER ON 24.02.2014. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IF GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY, THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE IN A PO SITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF DEPOSITS AND WOULD CO-OPERATE BY FILING THE REQUIRE D DETAILS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, THE ASS ESSEE BE GRANTED ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT HIS CASE. THE LD. DR, ON TH E OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSE D THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE DISPUTE IS WI TH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE UNDER SECTION 69A OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, LD. AR SUBMITTE D THAT DUE TO INSUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND L D. CIT(A), HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS AND IN CASE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY I S GRANTED TO HIM, HE WOULD PRODUCE ALL THE RELEVANT EVIDENCES AND PROOF THE SO URCE OF DEPOSITS. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE SUBMISSION WITH RESPECT OF INSUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY MADE AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION IS INCORRECT. IN SUCH A SITUATION, CON SIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND SUBMISSIONS OF LD. AR, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN T HE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE, ASSESSEE DESERVES ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY. WE THEREFORE GRANT ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSEE TO PLACE ALL THE EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF H IS CLAIM. WE THUS REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF ASSESSING OFFICER TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. NEEDLESS TO STATE THAT 7 ITA NO.1035/PN/2014 ASSESSING OFFICER WAS GRANT ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DIRECTED TO PROMPTLY SUBMIT ALL TH E REQUIRED DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATT ER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WE REFRAIN TO COMMENT ON THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE ON HA ND. THUS, THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 30 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 30 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016. % & ' () *) / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-V, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. % / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE