Prasanna Kantilal Mehta, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1048/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6874 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-10-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-07-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDENDHU DAS
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Gift; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 133(6); 69A; 139(1); 69; 6

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.1048 & 1049/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 & 2011-12 PRASANNA KANTILAL MEHTA, FLAT NO.404, C WING, HYDE PARK SOCIETY, NEAR MARKET YARD, PUNE 411037. PAN : AGVM6117F. . / APPELLANT V/S THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRATIK SANDBHOR. REVENUE BY : SHRI AVADESH KUMAR & SHRI SUDENDHU DAS. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING OUT OF SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APP EALS) 11, PUNE BOTH DATED 27.02.2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2010-11 & 2011-12. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, BOTH THE PARTIES SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESS MENT YEARS BUT THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE IDE NTICAL / INTER- / DATE OF HEARING : 23.01.2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 28.02.2019 2 CONNECTED EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS AND THE A MOUNTS INVOLVED AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THEM WHILE ARGUING ONE APPEAL WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO THE OTHER APPEAL ALSO AND T HUS, BOTH THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TOGETHER. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES, WE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCE ED TO DISPOSE OF BOTH THE APPEALS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND STATED TO BE ENGAGED IN TR ADING OF PHARMACEUTICAL ITEMS AND IS A DIRECTOR OF MEHTA LIFE SCIENC ES RESEARCH PVT. LTD. AO HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NO T FILED ORIGINAL RETURN U/S 139(1) OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2010-11 & A.Y. 2011-1 2. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN MEH TA GROUP OF CASES ON 29.09.2010. SINCE THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION U /S 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, NOTICE DATE D 28.02.2011 U/S 153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A OF THE ACT, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INC OME FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ON 19.12.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.13,06,380 /-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.28.02.2013 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.73,62,878/-. WITH RESPECT TO A.Y. 2011-12, ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 19.12.2012 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.8,33,180/-. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT W AS FRAMED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.28.02.2013 AND THE TOTAL I NCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.30,83,180/-. 3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MAT TER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDERS DT.27.02.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT (A)- 11/DCIT CEN. CIR1(1)/PN/25/2014-15) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO A.Y. 2010-11 AND DISMISSED APPE AL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2011-12 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-11/ DCIT CEN. CIR1(1)/PN/26/2014-15). AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF LD.CIT (A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ASSESSEE HAS FILED TH E CONCISE GROUNDS IN ITA NO.1048/PN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WHICH REA DS AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,50,000/- FOR UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND KEPT IN BANK LOCKERS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E, THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.24,31,407/- FOR UN EXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FLAT PURCHASED AT HYDE PARK SOCIETY, PUNE. 4. THEREAFTER, ASSESSEE FILED THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONAL GROUND IN ITA NO.1048/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2010-11. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY U/S 6 9 IS NOT SUSTAINABLE ON FACTS AS WELL AS IN LAW, IN AS MUCH THE SAID INV ESTMENT RELATES TO A.Y. 2009-10 AND THEREFORE IF ANY ADDITION IF AT ALL WAR RANTED COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2009-10 AND NOT IN A.Y. 2010-11 5. WITH RESPECT TO ADDITIONAL GROUND, IT IS ASSESSEES SUBM ISSION THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND BEING A LEGAL GROUND AND SINCE IT GOES TO THE ROOT OF THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE APPEAL, THE SAME BE ADMIT TED. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED IN ADDITIONAL GROU ND WAS NEVER TAKEN BEFORE AO OR LD.CIT(A). WITH REGARD TO RAISING AN AD DITIONAL GROUND AND THE ADMISSIBILITY, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HON BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL POWER CO., LTD., VS . CIT REPORTED 4 IN 229 ITR 383 (SC) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF PRUTHVI BROKERS AND SHAREHOLDERS REPORTED AS 349 ITR 336. LD.D.R. DID NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECT TO THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED NOW BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. ON THE ISSUE OF ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE, CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN VIEW OF THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF NATIONAL THERMAL (SUPRA), WE ADMIT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ADJUDICATION. 7. AS FAR AS A.Y. 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, THE ONLY EFFECTIVE G ROUND RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1049/PN/2015 READS AS UNDER : THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ADDITION S MADE IN REGARDS TO THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND IN THE LOCKERS, AS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT, WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACTS AS STAT ED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. GROUND NO.1 FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND GROUND NO.1 FOR A.Y. 20 11-12 BEING INTER-CONNECTED ARE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. IT IS WIT H RESPECT TO ADDITION OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED CASH FOUND IN BANK LOCKERS. 8.1. AO HAS NOTED THAT ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU (ACB), MUMB AI HAD CONDUCTED A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRASANNA K. MEHT A (ASSESSEE) ON 09.06.2010. CONSEQUENT TO SEARCH ACTION, THREE BANK LOCK ERS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE WERE OPERATED BY ACB AND TO TAL CASH OF RS.46,50,000/- WAS FOUND IN THOSE THREE LOCKERS. THE THRE E LOCKERS WERE FREEZED BY ACB AND INTIMATION WAS FORWARDED BY THE M TO INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT (INVESTIGATION UNIT), PUNE ON 25.09.2010. TH E LOCKER- WISE DETAILS OF THE CASH FOUND IN THE 3 LOCKERS AS NOTE D BY AO IN PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW : 5 SR. NO LOCKERS NO. BANK & BRANCH NAME OF HOLDERS CASH FOUND FROM LOCKERS BY CBI (RS.) 1 2 CORPORATION BANK, S. SARASBAUG BRANCH, PUNE SHRI PRASANNA MEHTA 22,50,000/- 2 149 IDBI BANK CAMP BRANCH, PUNE SHRI PRASANNA MEHTA 3,00,000/- 3 138 STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD BIBWEWADI BRANCH, PUNE SHRI PRASANNA MEHTA 21,00,000/- TOTAL : RS.46,50,000/- THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S 131(1A) OF THE ACT ON 25.09.2010 TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND BY ACB IN HIS LOCKERS. AO HAS NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STA TEMENT, ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CASH FOUND AND H E COULD NOT SUBMIT ANY EVIDENCE. DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH ENQUIRIES, ASSESSEE WAS AGAIN ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE CASH FOUND IN TH E BANK LOCKERS. IN RESPONSE TO THE QUERY, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT CASH OF RS.38 LACS WAS WITHDRAWN ON 24.09.2009 FROM THE BANK ACCO UNT OF MEHTA LIFESTYLE & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. IT WAS FURTHER ASSE SSEES SUBMISSION THAT POLICE DEPARTMENT HAD SEIZED DUPLICATE MAS KS ON 23.09.2009 AND ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN CASH OF RS.38 LAKHS ON 24.09.2009 AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT HIS BANK ACCOUNT MIGHT BE FREEZED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AFORESAID CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MEHTA LIFESTYLE & RESEARCH PVT. LTD., WAS KEPT IN THE AFORESAID THREE BANK LOCKERS. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT GIVE ANY SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION FOR THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.8 ,50,000/-. AO HAS ALSO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.8,50,000/- FOR F.Y.2009-10 IN MEHTA LIFESTYLE & RESEARC H PVT. LTD. TO VERIFY THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT WAS WIT HDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF MEHTA LIFESTYLE & RESEARCH PV T. LTD. AND WAS DEPOSITED IN LOCKERS, SPECIFIC INFORMATION WAS CALLED FOR FROM T HE BANKS U/S 133(6) OF THE ACT WITH REGARD TO THE OPERATION OF LOCK ERS DURING THE 6 PERIOD FROM 01.04.2008 TO 29.09.2010 (DATE OF SEIZURE OPERAT ION BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT). ON THE BASIS OF THE INQUIRIES, AO DID NOT FIND THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTABLE THAT THE A MOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE CORPORATION BAN K AND WERE KEPT IN THE LOCKERS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. AO ALSO PERUSED THE INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE ASSE SSEE, HIS WIFE AND HIS COMPANY TO VERIFY THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WHETHER RETURNS REFLECT THE ASSESSEES CAPABILITY TO KEEP RS. 46,50,000/- IN LOCKER S. ON PERUSAL OF THE INCOME TAX RETURNS, IT WAS FOUND THAT TH EY HAVE NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME FROM A.Y. 2009-10. FURTHER, ASSESSEE HA D GIVEN WRITTEN STATEMENT THAT IN EARLIER YEARS ASSESSEE AND H IS WIFE HAD INCOME WHICH WAS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT. IN VIEW OF THESE FA CTS, THE CASH OF RS.46.50 LACS FOUND BY THE ACB IN LOCKERS OF ASSES SEE WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY . AO TAXED THE UNEXPLA INED MONEY IN TWO YEARS BASED ON THE LAST DATE OF OPERATION OF LOCKERS . AO NOTED THAT LOCKER NO.138 MAINTAINED WITH STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD WH EREIN THE CASH OF RS.21 LACS WAS FOUND AND THE LOCKER NO.149 WITH IDBI BANK WHEREIN THE CASH OF RS.3 LACS WAS FOUND WERE LAST OPE RATED BY ASSESSEE IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2009-10 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2010 -11. HE THEREFORE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 TREATED RS.24 LACS AS UNEXPLAI NED MONEY U/S 69A OF THE ACT. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.22.5 LACS W AS ADDED AS INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, A SSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RE LIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 4.3 THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E APPELLANT ARE CAREFULLY EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT OUT OF THE CASH OF RS. 46,50,000/- FOUND IN TH E THREE LOCKERS, CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 38,00,000/- WAS OUT OF CA SH WITHDRAWAL 7 OF RS. 38,00,000/- MADE ON 24.09.2009 FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT NO. 62069200352 HELD IN THE NAME OF M/S MEHTA LIFE SCIENCES & RESEARCH PVT. LTD. THE BALANCE CASH OF RS. 8,50,000 / - IS STATED TO HAVE BEEN OFFERED IN THE H A NDS OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AS THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CAS H TO THIS EXTENT. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 38,00 , 000/- WAS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE SAID COMPA NY HAS NO MERIT. FIRSTLY, AS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, THERE WAS NOTICEABLE TIME LAG OF 20 DAYS BETWEEN CASH WITHDRA WAL FROM BANK ACCOUNT NO. 62069200352 AND LOCKER FI R ST OPERATED BY APPELLANT ON 15/10/2009. IF THE CONTENTION OF THE A PPELLANT THA T AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE REGULAR BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY AN TI CIPATING SEIZURE OF AMOUNT LYING IN THE BANK ACCOUN T BY THE POLICE DUE TO ON-GO I NG DUPLICATE MASKS CASE, THE AMOUNT SO WITHDRAWN WOULD HAVE BEEN KE PT IN THE LOCKER IN A DAY OR TWO IN THE LOCKERS INSTEAD OF KEEPING THE CASH W ITH THE APPELLANT FOR 20 LONG DAYS. FU R THER, NO SENSIBLE PERSON MORE SO D I RECTOR OF THE SAID COMPANY WOULD KEEP THE AMOUNT IN HIS PERSONAL LOCKE R IF HE WA S ANTICIPATING SEIZURE BY POLICE OR ANY O T HER AGENCY. ON THE CONTRARY, IN SUCH SI T UA T IO NS , T HE BALANCE L Y I NG IN TH E REGU L AR B ANK ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY WOULD B E L EF T U NTO U C HED AS ANY CASH WIT HDR AWN A ND KEPT EITHER I N THE LOCKERS OR I N THE RESIDE N C E OF TH E APP E LLAN T M AY B E C ON S T RUED AS I L L-GOTTEN MONEY EARNED OUT OF SUPPLY OF DUPLICATE MASKS. SECONDLY, IT IS VERY DI FFICULT TO BELIEVE THAT THE BUSINESS CASH SO WITHDRAWN WAS KEPT IN THE LOCKERS FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR THAT TOO IN THE INDIVIDUAL LOCKE RS OF THE APPELLANT. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT POLICE. DEPARTMENT HAD REGISTERED AN FIR AGAINST THE APPELLANT' IN THE MAT TER OF DUPLICATE MASKS AND THEREFORE THE CASH WAS WITHDRAW N FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY AND KEPT IN THE LO CKERS FOR PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR DEFIES ANY LOGIC AS NO PRUDENT BUSINESSMAN WOULD KEEP FUNDS DRAWN FROM REGULAR BAN K ACCOUNTS IDLE FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. THIRDLY, THE LOCKER IN CORPORATION BANK AND STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD WERE OPERATED SEVERAL T IMES DURING THE PERIOD BETWEEN DATE OF WITHDRAWAL OF CAS H FROM THE COMPANY'S BANK ACCOUNT AND SEIZURE OF CASH BY THE D EPARTMENT AND IT IS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT THE CASH WAS LEFT UNTOUCHED DURING THIS ENTIRE PERIOD WHEN THE LOCKERS WERE OPERATED O N SEVERAL OCCASIONS AND SUCH CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT DOES NO T ACCORD WITH HUMAN PROBABILITIES. FOURTHLY, AS MENTI ONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER INITIALLY THE APPELLANT STATED O N OATH THAT A PART OF THE CASH BELONGS TO APPELLANT HUF AND SUBSEQUENT LY WHEN IT WAS FOUND THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH HUF IN EXISTENCE, THE APPELLANT CHANGED HIS VERSION AND CLAIMED THAT THE ENTIRE CAS H WAS OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWAL FROM THE AFORESAID BANK ACCOUNT OF THE COMPANY. FIFTHLY, AS OBSERVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THERE WERE MANY INSTANCES OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THE CASH BOOK DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD AND THE SOURCES OF WHICH WAS NOT PROVIDED BY THE APPELLANT EITHER DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. THUS, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLIS H THE' NEXUS BETWEEN THE CASH DRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT AND TH E CASH FOUND IN THE LOCKERS WITH ANY CREDIBLE EVIDENCE AND THE SOURCES OF THE CASH FOUND IN THE LOCKERS ARE NOT EXPLAINED SAT ISFACTORILY EVEN AT THIS STAGE. 4.3.1 AT THIS JUNCTURE, REFERENCE CAN BE MADE TO TH E OFT-QUOTED DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SU MATI DAYAL VS. CIT REPORTED IN 214 ITR 801 WHEREIN IT IS HELD THA T THE TAXING AUTHORITIES ARE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDI NG CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALITY AND THE MATTER HAS TO BE CO NSIDERED BY 8 APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES CIT VS. DURGA PRASAD _ MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540, AT PP. 545, 547 (SC), IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE CLAIMS MADE BY THE APPELLANT DO NOT PASS THE TE ST OF HUMAN PROBABILITY AS ENUNCIATED BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME CO URT IN THE CASES REFERRED ABOVE. 4.3.2 THUS, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE N EXUS BETWEEN THE WITHDRAWALS FROM BANK ACCOUNT NO. 62069200352 ON 24 /09/2009 AND THE CASH FOUND IN HIS INDIVIDUAL LOCKERS ON 25/ 09/2010. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS JUSTIF IED IN DRAWING ADVERSE INFERENCE AND TREATING THE MONEY TO THE EXT ENT OF RS. 24,00,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED CASH U/S 69A OF THE IT ACT IN THIS YEAR ON THE BASIS OF DATE OF LAST OPERATION OF THE LOCKERS. HOWEVER, OUT OF RS. 24,00,000/-, A SUM OF RS. 8,50,000/- WAS ALREADY OFFERED TO THE TAX AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED FOR THIS YEAR IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A AND THE SAME WAS ALSO ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. A C OPY OF THE STATEMENT OF TOTAL INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT WI TH THE RETURN OF INCOME FURNISHED U/S 153A AND THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT F OR THE YEAR ENDED 31.03.2010 ARE ATTACHED TO THE ORDER AS ANNEX URE-A FOR READY REFERENCE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED CASH IS RESTRICTED TO 15,50,000/- (24,00,000-8,50,000) AND THE APPELLANT GET CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF RS.8,50,000/- ON THIS GROUN D. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW BEFORE US. 10. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFO RE AO AND LD.CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH OF RS.3 8 LACS WAS WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK OF MEHTA LIFE SCIENCE PVT. LTD., AN D KEPT IN THE BANK LOCKER. IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH MEHTA LIFE SCIENCE (SUPRA) HE PLACED ON RECORD THE A UDITED BALANCE-SHEET AS ON 31.03.2010 & 31.03.2011 WHICH SHOWED CASH BALANCE OF RS.44.54 LACS AND 46.72 LACS RESPECTIVELY. HE TH EREFORE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAS WRONGLY MADE ADDITION U/S 69A OF THE ACT AND THAT THE SAME BE DELETED. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, POI NTED TO THE DETAILED FINDINGS OF AO AND SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS OF COST IN HIS LOCKERS, THE ADDITION BE FULLY JUSTIFIED . 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL O N RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPEC T TO ADDITION OF 9 CASH FOUND IN THE LOCKERS OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH HAS BEE N HELD BY THE REVENUE TO BE UNEXPLAINED. IT IS ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT THE CASH BELONGING TO MEHTA LIFE SCIENCE (SUPRA) OF WHICH ASSESSEE WA S DIRECTOR WAS WITHDRAWN AND KEPT IN HIS LOCKER. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. IN SU PPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE CASH WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE COMP ANY AND THE SAME WITHDRAWN FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT OF COMPANY AND IN SUPPORT OF WHICH HAS PLACED THE COPY OF AUDITED BALANCE-SHEETS AS ON 31.03.2010 AND 31.03.2011. THE BALANCE-SHEET REVEALS THE CASH BALAN CE OF RS.44,54,363/- AND RS.46,72,208/- ON 31.03.2010 AND 31.03.201 1, RESPECTIVELY. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WHEN THE CASH WAS AV AILABLE WITH THE COMPANY, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.A.R. THAT RS.38 LACS CASH BELONGING TO THE COMPANY WHICH WAS WITHDRAWN ON 24.09.2009 WAS DE POSITED IN THE BANK LOCKER OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSH ED ASIDE. IT IS THE CASE OF REVENUE THAT THE CASH WITHDRAWN FROM COMPA NY WAS KEPT IN THE BANK LOCKER OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED IN VIE W OF THE FACT THAT THERE WAS TIME LAG BETWEEN THE DATE OF WITHDRAWAL O F CASH AND THE DATE OF OPERATION OF THE LOCKER. HOWEVER, REVENUE HAS NO T CONTROVERTED THE SUBMISSION THAT THERE WAS NO CASH AVAILABLE WITH THE COMPANY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE CASH WAS FOUND IN LOCKERS ON 25.09.2010. THE LOCKER WITH STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD (LOCK ER NO.138) FROM WHERE CASH OF 21 LACS WAS FOUND WAS OPERATED ON 3 0.11.2009 (FIRST TIME AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM COMPANY ON 24 .09.2009). IN SUCH A CASE THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DIS CARDED WITHOUT ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL ON RECORD. 12. AS FAR AS LOCKER WITH IDBI BANK (LOCKER NO.149) FROM W HICH RS.3 LAC WAS FOUND IS CONCERNED, AS PER THE DETAILS NOTED BY A O, THE 1 ST DATE IMMEDIATE AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH (ON 24.09.2009) ON W HICH LOCKER 10 WAS OPERATED WAS 24.08.2009. IN SUCH A SITUATION, THE SU BMISSION OF ASSESSEE THAT IT IS OUT OF WITHDRAWAL FROM BANK CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THEREFORE ADDITION OF RS. 3 LAC DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. AS FAR AS LOCKER WITH CORPORATION BANK (LOCKER NO.2) FROM WHICH CASH OF RS.22,50,000/- WAS FOUND AND WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED AS INCOME FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS CONCERNED, THE 1 ST DATE IMMEDIATE AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF CASH ON 24.09.2009 ON WHICH THE LOCKER WAS O PERATED WAS ON 15.10.2009 AND SUBSEQUENT DATES. IN SUCH A SCE NARIO, THE ASSESSEE SUBMISSION OF CASH WITHDRAWN FROM COMPANY AND DEPOSITED CANNOT BE SIMPLY BRUSHED ASIDE WITHOUT ANY MATERIAL TO T HE CONTRARY. HOWEVER WHEN OUT OF RS.38 LACS THAT WERE WITHDRAWN FROM COMPANYS ACCOUNT AND OUT OF WHICH RS.21 LAC THAT WAS KEPT IN LOCK ER OF STATE BANK OF HYDERABAD HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY US HEREINABOVE , THEN THE BALANCE CASH OF COMPANY WHICH IS AVAILABLE IS ONLY TO THE E XTENT OF RS.17 LACS WHICH CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN KEPT IN THE BA NK LOCKER AND THUS EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF BALANCE AMOU NT OF RS.4 LACS (RS.21 LACS RS.17 LACS) + RS.3 LACS AS UPHELD IN PARA HEREINABOVE IS UPHELD FOR A.Y. 2011-12. THUS, THE GROUND NO.1 IN THE APPEALS ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 13. 2 ND GROUND AND ADDITIONAL GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN HOUSE PROPERTY. 13.1. AO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED A HOUSE PR OPERTY AT HYDE PARK DURING THE YEAR JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE FOR RS.57 LACS. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE SOURCE OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY, TO WHICH ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THE SOURCE WAS OUT OF ACCUMULAT ED SAVINGS, GIFT. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE NON-FILERS OF INCOME TAX AND FROM A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2011-12, THEY HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR 11 A.Y. 2008-09 ONLY AND THAT ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT IN EARLIER YEARS, THE INCOME OF BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE WERE BELOW TAXABLE LIMIT. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN PERS ONAL WITHDRAWALS ON LOWER SIDE. HE THEREFORE, AFTER CONSIDERING THE INCOMES DECLARED BY ASSESSEE, THE HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AT PAGE 16 OF THE ASSESSEES ORDER WORKED OUT THAT ASSESSEE COULD EXPLA IN THE SOURCE OF INCOME ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,43,000/- AND THEREFORE THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.36,56,498/- WAS TREATED AS TO BE INVESTMEN T FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND MADE ITS ADDITION U/S 69 AND 69 B OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE BY OBS ERVING AS UNDER : 5 .3 THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT ARE CAREFULLY EXA MINED WITH REFERENCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE, FINDINGS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND OTHER MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. THE FIRST CONT ENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD IS THAT THE SUBJECT PROPER TY WAS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE MRS. SONALI P. MEHTA AND TOTAL CONSIDERATION, INCLUDING STAMP DUTY AND REGIS TRATION CHARGES WAS RS. 59,98,750/-. IT IS STATED THAT OUT OF THE T OTAL INVESTMENT OF RS. 59,98,750/-, THE APPELLANT'S SHARE IN THE PROPE RTY WAS 50% I.E. RS. 29,99,375/- AND THE BALANCE PERTAINED TO HIS WI FE. THERE IS MERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT. WHEN THE PROPERTY WAS HELD JOINTLY BY THE APPELLANT WITH HIS WIFE AND WHEN THE WIFE WAS HAVING INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCO ME AS IS EVIDENT FROM RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A.Y. 20 08-09, IT IS NOT CORRECT TO TREAT THE ENTIRE INVESTMENT AS THAT OF T HE APPELLANT. IN FACT, THE AO HIMSELF HAS TREATED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 1 ,69,154/- DECLARED BY THE SPOUSE OF THE APPELLANT IN HER RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09 AS ONE OF THE EXPLAINABLE SOURCES FOR THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. FURTHER, IN THE AGREEME NT OF SALE DATED 04.04.2009, THE OCCUPATION OF SMT. SONALI PRASANNA MEHTA, WIFE OF THE APPELLANT IS SHOWN AS 'BUSINESS'. THEREFORE, IN MY CONSIDERED OPINION, ONLY 50% OF THE INVESTMENT AMOUNTING TO RS . 29,99,375/- IN THE PROPERTY CAN BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF T HE APPELLANT. 5.3.1 IT IS NOW EXAMINED WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD SOURCES OF INCOME TO EXPLAIN HIS SHARE OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 29 ,99,375/- IN THE SAID PROPERTY. THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IN THIS R EGARD IS THAT HE HAD INCOME ACCRUALS OF RS. 9,87,896/- UP TO 31.03.2 004 AND RS. 20,54,348/- FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2004 TO 31.03 .2010 AS UNDER: 12 SR. NO. NAME F.YEAR SOURCE AMOUNT 1 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2004-05 INCOME ACCRUALS 48,254 2 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2005-06 INCOME ACCRUALS 94,589 3 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2006-07 INCOME ACCRUALS 1,15,636 4 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2007-08 INCOME ACCRUALS 1,91,486 5 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2008-09 INCOME ACCRUALS 2,98,003 6 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2009-10 INCOME ACCRUALS 13,06,380 TOTAL 20,54,348 AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONSIDE RED ACCRUALS FORM F.Y. 2004-05 ONLY ON THE BASIS OF INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURNS FILED U/S 153A.. TO THE TOTAL ACCRUALS OF RS., 20,5 4,348/ AS SHOWN IN THE ABOVE CHART, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED GIF T OF RS. 3,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM HIS BROTHER DURING THE F.Y . 2008-09, ADDITION OF RS. 1,20,000/- ALREADY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INADEQUATE PERSONAL DRAWINGS. IN ADDITION, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ALSO CONSIDERED INCOME OF RS. 1,69,154/- DECLARED. BY HIS WIFE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. FROM THE RESULTANT FIGURE, DRAWINGS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS. 6,00,000/- W AS DEDUCTED AND THE NET SURPLUS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT WAS AR RIVED AT RS. 20,43,502/-. THE INCOME ACCRUALS CLAIMED BY THE APP ELLANT FOR DIFFERENT YEARS ARE DEALT WITH HEREIN BELOW: (I) INCOME ACCRUALS UP TO 31.03.2004: 5.3.2 THE APPELLANT REITERATED ITS CLAIM FOR INCOME ACCRUALS OF RS. 9,87,896/- UP TO 31.'03.2004 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT TAKING INTO CONSIDE RATION THE SAID ACCRUALS OF RS. 9,87,896/-. BUT EVEN IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHO W THAT THERE WERE SO MUCH SAVINGS AND ACCRUALS AND EVEN IF THERE WERE ACCRUALS UP TO 31.03.2004 AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLA NT, IT WAS NOT EXPLAINED IN WHAT FORM THESE ACCRUALS WERE AVAILABL E AS ON 31.03,2004. FURTHER, AS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, BOTH APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE WERE NON-FILERS FROM A.Y. 20 05-06 TO A.Y. 2011-12 AND THEY HAD FILED RETURNS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ONLY AND FOR THE EARLIER YEARS RETURNS HAD NOT BEEN FILE D STATING THAT THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE HAD NO TAXABLE INCOME. IN SU CH CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CLAIM OF APPELLANT OF HAVING INC OME ACCRUALS UP TO 31/03/2004 DEFIES ANY LOGIC AND IT WAS RIGHTLY R EJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. (II) INCOME ACCRUALS FROM 01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2010: 5.3.3 IN CASE OF INCOME ACCRUALS FROM 01.04.2004 TO 31.03.2010, THE AGGREGATE ACCRUALS CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RS.20,54,348/-. HOWEVER, ON VERIFICATION OF THE DET AILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE PROPERTY A T 403 HYDE PARK WAS PURCHASED ON 04.04.2009 AND THEREFORE THE INCOM E ACCRUED DURING THE PERIOD 01.04.2009 TO 31.03.2010 WHICH IN CLUDES UNDISCLOSED CASH OF RS.8,50,000/- FOUND DEPOSITED I N THE LOCKER SUBSEQUENT TO THE INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY, CANNOT BE GIVEN CREDIT FOR INVESTMENT MADE IN THE PROPERTY. THEREFO RE, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT INCOME ACCRUAL OF RS.13,06,380/- RELATING TO THIS YEAR WAS ALSO AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT .NOT TO HAVE ALLOWED 13 THE CREDIT FOR THE ACCRUALS DURING THE YEAR WHILE C OMPUTING THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE SAID PROPERTY. ACCORD INGLY, FROM THE EXPLAINED PART OF THE INVESTMENT CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. INCOME ACCRUALS OF RS.13,06,380/- FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE EXCLUDED AND EXPLAINABLE SOURCES ARE RECOMPUTED AS UNDER: SR. NO. NAME F.YEAR SOURCE AMOUNT 1 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2004-05 INCOME ACCRUALS 48,254 2 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2005-06 INCOME ACCRUALS 94,589 3 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2006-07 INCOME ACCRUALS 1,15,636 4 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2007-08 INCOME ACCRUALS 1,91,486 5 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2008-09 INCOME ACCRUALS 2,98,003 6 PRASANNA K. MEHTA 2008-09 GIFT FROM BROTHER 3,00,000 TOTAL 10,47,968 LESS : HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE AS CONSIDERED BY THE A O 6,00,000 4,47,968 ADD: ADDITION ALREADY MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INADEQUATE PERSONAL DRAWINGS 1,20,000 ACCRUALS AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT AS ON 31.03.2009 5,67,968 THUS, OUT OF THE APPELLANT'S SHARE OF INVESTMENT OF RS.29,99,375/- IN THE PROPERTY, THE APPELLANT .HAD EXPLAINABLE SOU RCES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,67,968/- AND FOR THE BALANCE INVESTM ENT OF RS. 24,31,407- (THE APPELLANT IS NOT IN A POSITION TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, OUT OF THE TOTAL ADDITI ON OF RS. 36,56,498/- MADE BY THE AO ON THIS GROUND (ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 24,31,407/- IS CONFIRMED. THE APPELLA NT GETS CONSEQUENTIAL RELIEF OF RS.12,25,091/-. GROUND OF A PPEAL NO.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN BEFORE US. 14. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFOR E LOWER AUTHORITIES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. H E FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THE AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PR OPERTY WAS REGISTERED ON 06.04.2009 BUT THE PAYMENT OF RS.26,86,125/ - FOR THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY WAS MADE IN A.Y. 2009-10. IN SUPP ORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 200 9-10, HE PLACED ON RECORD THE CHART OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR PURCHA SE OF PROPERTY AND ALSO PLACED ON RECORD THE COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WHICH SHOWED THE PAYMENTS MADE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT IF ANY ADDITION WAS WARRANTED, THE SAME COULD HAVE BEEN MADE ONLY IN THE Y EAR OF PAYMENT I.E., A.Y. 2009-10 AND NOT IN A.Y. 2010-11. HE ALSO PLACED RELIA NCE ON 14 THE DECISION OF ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHREE RAM JAISWAL (1997) 226 ITR 235 (ALL). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY. AO HAD NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED A HOUSE PROPERTY FOR RS.57 LACS . HE AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS, HELD THAT ASSESSEE COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,43,000/-. HE ACCORDINGLY TREATED THE BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.36,56,498/- AS INVESTMENT FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES. W HEN THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE LD.CIT(A), CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDER ING THE SUBMISSIONS, HELD THAT OUT OF ASSESSEES SHARE OF INVESTME NT OF RS.29,99,375/- IN THE PROPERTY, ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINABLE SO URCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.5,67,968/- AND THEREFORE HE CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.24,31,407/-. 16. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. HAS SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ACQUISITION OF PROPERTY, ASSESSEE HAD PAID RS.17.50 LACS ON 14.03.2009 A ND RS.9,36,125/- ON 17.03.2009 AND THUS AGGREGATE PAYMENT O F RS.26,86,125/- WAS MADE IN A.Y. 2009-10. THE PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES AND WHICH ARE ALSO REFLECTED IN THE BAN K STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF ASSESSE E OF HAVING MADE THE PAYMENT OF HIS SHARE IN A.Y. 2009-10. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE THAT THE 15 PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YE AR. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WHEN NO PAYMENT FOR ACQUISITION OF HOUSE PROPE RTY HAS BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2010-11, NO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT CAN BE MADE IN A.Y. 2010-11. THE ADDITION IF AT ALL WAS REQUIRED TO BE MADE COULD HAVE BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2009-10 WHEN THE PAYMENT WAS MADE AND FOR OUR AFORESAID CONCLUSION, WE REL Y ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHREE RAM JAISWAL (1997) 226 ITR 235 (ALL). WE THEREFORE DIRECT TH E DELETION OF ADDITION MADE FOR UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN A.Y. 2010-11. THUS, THE GROUND NO.2 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND OF ASSESSEE I S ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE PAR TLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 28 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2019. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 28 TH FEBRUARY, 2019. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4 5. 6. CIT(A) 11, PUNE. PR.CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE. '#$ %%&',) &' / DR, ITAT, PUNE; $*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // -./%0&1 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE.