Milind Kamalakar Haval, Kolhapur V. ITO, Kolhapur

ITA 1067/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: 106724514 RSA 2010
• Duration Of Justice: 11 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 19-07-2010
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MITALI MADHUSMITHA
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI I C SUDHIR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER S.NO. ITA NO ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT RESPONDENT 1 1067/PN/10 2002-03 MILIND KAMALAKAR HAVAL, 249, E WARD, NAGALA PARK, KOLHAPUR PAN AACPH3362C INCOME-TAX OFFICER, (CEN) KOLHAPUR 2 1068/PN/10 2003-04 -DO- -DO- 3 1069/PN/10 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 4 248/PN/11 2001-02 -DO- -DO- 5 249/PN/11 2006-07 -DO- -DO- 6 250/PN/11 2007-08 -DO- -DO- 7 1164/PN/10 2001-02 SUDHAKAR MANOHAR HAVAL, 249, E-WARD, NAGALA PARK, KOLHAPUR PAN AAEPH 4475Q -DO- 8 1165/PN/10 2002-03 -DO- -DO- 9 1166/PN/10 2003-04 -DO- -DO- 10 1167/PN/10 2004-05 -DO- -DO- 11 1168/PN/10 2005-06 -DO- -DO- 12 1169/PN/10 2006-07 -DO- -DO- APPELLANTS BY : SHRI C H NANIWADEKAR RESPONDENT BY : SMT MITALI MADHUSMITHA ORDER PER BENCH: THE CAPTIONED APPEALS RELATE TO ASSESSEES OF THE SAME FAM ILY AND INVOLVE CERTAIN COMMON ISSUES AND, THEREFORE, THEY WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE AND BREVITY. 2. IN DEFERENCE TO THE SUBMISSION OF BOTH PARTIES, ITA N O 1164/PN/10 IN THE CASE OF SUDHAKAR MANOHAR HAVAL WAS HEARD AS THE LEAD CASE . ITA NO 1164/PN/10 IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 12.2.2010 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPE ALS), KOLHAPUR, WHICH IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM THE ORDER DATED 31.12. 2008 PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 15 3A(B) OF THE INCOME- TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) PERTAINING TO THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 2 3. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF TH E ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 10.5.2006 AT THE RESIDENTIAL AS WELL AS BUSINESS P REMISES OF HAVAL GROUP, KOLHAPUR OF WHICH ASSESSEE IS A PART. CONSEQUENT TO THE SE ARCH ACTION, ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTICES UNDER SECTION 153A(A) ON 13. 3.2007 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 TO 2006-07 REQUIRING THE ASSESSEE T O FURNISH THE RETURNS OF INCOME. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDER ATION, I.E. 2001-02, ASSESSEE FILED A RETURN IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM NO 2D DECLA RING TOTAL INCOME OF RS 62,140/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS 25,834/-, WH ICH CORRESPONDED TO THE INCOMES DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME ORIGINALLY FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1) OF THE ACT. IN THE ASSESSME NT FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A(B) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2008, ASSESSING OFFICER DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS 5,14,680/- , INTER ALIA, MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS 3,44,540/- AND RS 67,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW AND INVESTMENT IN PAWNING BUSIN ESS RESPECTIVELY, WHICH ARE THE SUBJECT MATTER OF DISPUTE BEFORE US. THE AFORESAID TWO ADDITIONS HAVE ALSO BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TA X (APPEALS). 4. THE FIRST DISPUTE BEFORE US PERTAINS TO AN ADDITION OF RS 3,44,540/-, WHICH HAS BEEN TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNDISCLOSED INV ESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF A RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW AT 249, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR. THE A SSESSEE HAD PURCHASED THE PLOT JOINTLY WITH SHRI MILIND KAMALAKAR HAVAL IN THE YEAR 1999. LATER, A RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW WAS CONSTRUCTED ON THE SAID PLOT AND AN INVESTMENT OF RS 73,55,500/- AS ON 31.3.2007 WAS DECLARED EXCLUDING THE COST OF PLOT (RS 39,75,500/- BY ASSESSEE AND RS 33,80,000/- BY SHRI MILI ND). AS PER THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE SEARCH OPERATION REVEALED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED MORE THAN WHAT IS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BECAUSE DU RING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS 10,00 ,000/- (RS 5,00,000/- EACH BY SHRI SUDHAKAR AND SHRI MILIND HAVAL) ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED INVESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW. TO ASCERTAIN T HE UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT 3 IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MA DE A REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (DVO) TO DETERMINE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. THE DVO DETERMINED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AT RS 96,79,724/- A S ON 31.3.2007 (EXCLUDING THE COST OF PLOT). THE DVO ALSO REPORTED YEAR-WISE COST I NCURRED AND AFTER COMPARING THE SAME WITH THE YEAR-WISE INVESTMENTS SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURNS OF INCOME, A DIFFERENCE OF RS 23,24,222/- (50% OF ASSESSEES SHARE RS 11,62,111/-) WAS COMPUTED. THE YEAR-WISE DIFFERENCE HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 TO 2006-07 IN THE ASSESSMENTS FINALIZED U NDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A(B) OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, IN THE A SSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, WHICH IS UNDER CONSIDERATION, ADDITION OF RS 3,44,540/- HAS BEEN MADE. 5. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PR IMARILY REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. TH E LEARNED COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE DVO WA S NOT JUSTIFIED, INASMUCH AS THE DVO HAS USED THE DELHI PLINTH AREA RATE S DECLARED BY THE CPWD FOR VALUATION OF A PROPERTY LOCATED IN A SMALL CI TY OF KOLHAPUR. IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE RATES DECLARED BY THE CPWD IN THE METRO AREAS ARE ALWAYS ON A HIGHER SIDE. THEREFORE, THIS HAD RESULTED IN A HIGHER ESTIMATION OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE IMPUGNED PROPERTY, WHICH IS LOCATED IN A SMALL CITY OF KOLHAPUR. SECONDLY, IT IS POINTED OUT THAT THE DVO H AS NOT ADEQUATELY GIVEN CREDIT FOR SELF-SUPERVISION. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE DV O HAS ALLOWED 5% CREDIT FOR SELF-SUPERVISION WHEREAS THE PREVALENT NORM WAS TO ALLOW THE SAME AT 10% AND, IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF TH E PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 1156 TO 1160/PN/2000 IN THE CASE OF ACIT V. HERPREET HOTELS PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD DATED 16.8.2005, A COPY OF WHI CH HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD. EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE ADJUSTMENT TO BE MADE FOR LOCAL CONDITIONS BECAUSE OF THE DELHI PLINTH AREA RATES APPLIED, THE L EARNED COUNSEL REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERPREET HO TELS PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD (SUPRA) WHEREIN SUCH ADJUSTMENT HAS BEEN ALLOWED AT THE RATE OF 15%. APART 4 THEREFROM, THE LEARNED COUNSEL ALSO SUBMITTED THAT A SU M OF RS 2,98,734/- HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 WHICH REPRESEN TS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND TH OSE ESTIMATED BY THE VALUER OF THE EARLIER PERIOD. IN THIS REGAR D, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAID DIFFERENCE INCLUDED CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES INCURRED AND ESTI MATED FOR THE EARLIER PERIOD WHICH WAS BEYOND THE PURVIEW OF ASSESSMENTS UNDER SE CTION 153A(B) OF THE ACT AND, IN ANY CASE, THE SAME DID NOT RELATE TO TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 AND, THEREFORE, THE SAID ADDITION WAS LIABLE TO BE DE LETED AS SUCH. 6. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPR ESENTATIVE, APPEARING FOR THE REVENUE HAS DEFENDED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW BY POINTING OUT THAT THE VALUATION EXERCISE CARRIED OUT BY THE DVO IS A REASONABLE ESTIMATE AND NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE SAME. THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO POINTED OUT THAT THE DVO HAS FURNISHED A DETAILED REPORT WHICH, INTER ALIA, TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION VARIOUS FACTORS LIKE SITUATION OF T HE BUILDING, LABOUR COST, ETC. AND THEREFORE, IT WAS WRONG TO SAY THAT THE RELEV ANT LOCAL FACTORS HAVE NOT BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE DVO WHILE MAKING THE VALUATION. EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE ADJUSTMENT MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SELF-SUPERVISION, IT WAS POI NTED OUT THAT THE SAME HAS BEEN QUITE FAIRLY ALLOWED BY THE DVO AT THE RATE OF 5%. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. IN THIS CASE, THE LIMITED GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE PERTAINS TO THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY THE DVO. PRECISELY, THE GRIEVANCE IS LIMITED TO TWO A SPECTS OF THE VALUATION CARRIED OUT BY THE DVO, VIZ., FIRSTLY THE ADJUSTMENT R EQUIRED ON ACCOUNT OF LOCAL CONDITIONS AGAINST THE DELHI PLINTH AREA RATES APPLIED BY THE DVO; AND, SECONDLY, ADJUSTMENT FOR SELF-SUPERVISION AT 10% AS AGAINST 5% ALLO WED BY THE DVO. ON BOTH THESE ASPECTS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERPREET H OTELS PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD (SUPRA). 8. IN THIS BACKGROUND, WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND RIVAL CONTENTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE D VO AND ESTIMATED THE 5 COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW AT RS 9 6,79,724/- AS AGAINST AN INVESTMENT OF RS 73,55,500/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31 .3.2007. THE DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT ESTIMATED BY THE DVO AND TH AT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS AFTER ALLOW ING CREDIT FOR ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORDED INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF THE RE SIDENTIAL BUNGALOW. ON MERITS OF THE VALUATION REPORT, WE FIND THAT THE GRI EVANCES ARTICULATED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE JUSTIFIED HAVING REGARD TO THE PRECEDENT IN THE CASE OF HERPREET HOTELS PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD (SUPRA). IT IS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE DVO HAS APPLIED THE DELHI PLINTH AREA RATE AND SUCH RATES FOR METRO CIT IES WOULD ALWAYS BE HIGHER THAN A SMALL PLACE LIKE KOLHAPUR WHERE THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION HAS BEEN CONSTRUCTED; AND, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AN APPROPRI ATE ADJUSTMENT FOR LOCAL FACTORS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DVO IN THIS REGARD. THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HERPREET HOTELS PVT. LTD., AURANGABAD (SUPRA) IN A SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCE HAD ALLOWED AN ADJUSTMENT OF 15% DO WNWARD, FOR THE PURPOSE OF ARRIVING AT AN APPROPRIATE COST OF CONSTRUCT ION. SIMILARLY, ADJUSTMENT FOR SELF-SUPERVISION HAS ALSO BEEN ALLOWED BY THE TRIBU NAL AT THE RATE OF 10% AS AGAINST 5% THAT HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE DVO IN THE PR ESENT CASE. CONSIDERING THE PRECEDENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO REWORK THE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION BY MAKING ADJUSTMENTS, (I) FOR SELF-SUPERVISI ON AT THE RATE OF 10% AS AGAINST 5% ALLOWED BY DVO; AND, (II) FOR THE LOCAL CON DITIONS @ 15% FROM THE DELHI PLINTH AREA RATES APPLIED BY THE DVO. 9. FURTHER EVEN WITH REGARD TO THE AMOUNT OF RS 2,8 9,734/-, WHICH HAS BEEN ADDED WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02, THE SAME PERTAINS TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMAT ED AND THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000-01. QUITE CLEARLY, IT CANNOT BE MADE A PART OF THE ADDITION FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 OR THEREAFTER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAID ADDITION IS ALSO DIRECTED TO BE DELE TED. 6 10. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME -TAX (APPEALS) IS SET ASIDE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO RE-WORK THE A DDITION MAINTAINABLE, IF ANY, ON THE AFORESAID BASIS. HENCE, ON THIS GROUND TH E ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS. 11. THE NEXT GROUND OF APPEAL RELATES TO THE ADDITIO N OF RS 67,950/- BEING INVESTMENT IN PAWNING BUSINESS. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED SET OF F OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THE FIRM KAMA LAKAR MADHUKAR HAVAL & BROTHERS, KOLHAPUR, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS HAVING 50% SHA RE. THE FIRM HAD DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALE O F SILVER AND GOLD FOR VARIOUS YEARS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TELESCOPING IN THE HAND S OF THE PARTNERS TO THE EXTENT OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS FOR ALL THE YEARS, WHICH WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IN APPEAL, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX (APPEALS) AFFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY HOLDING AS FOLLO WS: SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED. FROM THE CHART, IT IS SEEN THAT FOR EXAMPLE FOR AY 2001-02, RS 71,539/- WAS OFFERED AS GROSS PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALES WHEREAS THE DECLARATION TOWARDS PAWNING OF ARTICLES IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER IS RS 67,950/-. IT IS A FACT THAT THERE ARE OTHER PARTNER S IN THE FIRM AND THEY HAVE THEIR OWN SHARE IN THE GROSS PROFIT ON UNACCOUNTED SALE. THE DATES ON WHICH THIS UNACCOUNTED GROSS PROFIT WAS GENERATED AND UNACCOUNTED ADVANCES GIVEN ON PAW NING OF ARTICLES IS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD. THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM MIGHT H AVE USED THE UNACCOUNTED MONEY FOR THEIR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OR FOR OTHER PURPOSES. THE REFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY DENIED TELESCOPING OF THIS INVESTMENT TOWARDS THE UNACCOUN TED GROSS PROFIT OFFERED BY THE FIRM. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER SHIP FIRM WAS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE PARTNER AND TELESCOPING OF SUCH INCOME AGAINS T THE IMPUGNED ADDITION IS PERMISSIBLE, NOTWITHSTANDING THAT THE SHARE OF THE ASSESSEE PARTNER IN THE FIRM WAS ONLY 50%. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE ADDITION I N QUESTION WOULD THUS BE SUBSUMED IN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, WHERE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE HAS OPPOSED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE ORDE RS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 14. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF RIVAL PARTIES ON THIS ASPECT, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME-TAX (APPEALS). APART FROM 7 REITERATING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT MAKE OUT A CASE FOR OU R INTERFERENCE IN THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS). AD MITTEDLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE IMPUGNED INCOME OF RS 67,950/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PAWNING BUSINESS, AND SUCH DECLARA TION WAS INDEPENDENT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE H ANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THE SET-OFF OF THIS AMOUNT AGA INST THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE PARTNERSHIP ON THE PLEA THAT FUNDS TO THAT EXTENT WERE AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN THE PAWNING BUSINESS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS NEXUS TO ESTABLISH THAT INCOME DECLARED BY THE FIRM HAS BEEN INVESTED BY THE PARTNER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO OBSERVED THA T IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE STATEMENT OF PARTNERS WERE RECORDED WHEREIN NO SUCH EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED THAT THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE FIRM HAS B EEN UTILIZED BY THE PARTNERS FOR ACQUIRING ASSETS IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY . ALL THE AFORESAID ASPECTS BROUGHT OUT BY THE REVENUE HAVE NOT BEEN REBUTTED B Y THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF ANY COGENT MATERIAL OR REASONING. IN PRINCIPLE, THE RE CAN BE NO QUARREL WITH THE PROPOSITION ADVANCED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL THAT ADDI TIONAL INCOME DECLARED AND ASSESSED IN THE FIRM WHERE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER CAN BE A TENABLE EXPLANATION REGARDING AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE I N THE INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY OF THE PARTNER, SO HOWEVER, SUCH A PROPOSITION IS NOT A N ABSOLUTE PROPOSITION. THE SAID PROPOSITION IS TO BE APPLIED HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF A GIVEN CASE AND THE ONUS SHALL BE ON THE ASSESSEE TO JUSTIF Y THE SAME. IN THE PRESENT CASE, HAVING REGARD TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT OUT IN THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES, WE DO NOT FIND THAT THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS JUSTIFIED. WE, THEREFORE, AFFIRM THE ORDER OF THE CO MMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO 11 64/PN/10 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 8 16. IT WAS A COMMON GROUND BETWEEN THE PARTIES THAT TH E ISSUES DECIDED IN THE LEAD CASE OF SHRI SUDHAKAR M HAWAL IN ITA NO 1164 /PN/10 COVER THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ALSO. ACCORD INGLY, FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN THEREIN, AND ON SIMILAR PARITY OF REASONI NG, THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE REMAINING CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE ALSO DECIDED ACCORDI NGLY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL FOLLOW THE DIRECTIONS AND RE-WORK THE VAL UATION OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE RESIDENTIAL BUNGALOW ACCORDINGLY AND THUS, GROU ND NO. 1 RAISED IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. AS FAR AS GROUND NO. 2 RELATING TO ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN PAWNING BUSINESS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT SAID GROU ND IS RAISED ONLY IN THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI SUDHAKAR M HAWAL, AND SUCH A GROUND IS DISMISSED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 15. RESULTANTLY, ALL THE CAPTIONED APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE 15 TH DAY OF JULY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) JUDICIAL MEMBER (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE: DATED: 15 TH JULY, 2011 B COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A) KOLHAPUR 4. THE CIT-I/II, KOLHAPUR 5. THE D.R, B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE 9