Ratanlal C. Bafna, Jalgaon V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Jalgaon

ITA 109/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8573 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 6 month(s) 1 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-07-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 11-07-2019
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 13-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VISHWAS MUNDHE
• Keywords: Document seized; Principle of natural justice; Documents seized; Reassessment proceedings; Set aside
• Section: 6; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.SYAL, VP AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM . / I TA NOS.109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 SHRI RATANLAL C. BAFNA, PROPRIETOR OF R.C. BAFNA SILVER PALACE, 96, SUBHASH CHOWK, JALGAON, PIN - 425 001, PAN : AAMPB 3939K ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE - 1, JALGAON. / RESPONDENT A SSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO REVENUE BY : SHRI VISHWAS MUNDHE / DATE OF HEARING : 12 .0 7 .2019 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15 .0 7 .2019 / ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHU RY, JM : THESE TWO APPEALS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) - 2, NASHIK DATED 13.11.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 AND 2004 - 05 RESPECTIVELY AS PER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ON RECORD. 2 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 2. THESE CASES WERE HEARD TOGETHER. SINCE ISSUES COMMON, FACTS ARE SIMILAR, THESE CASES ARE BEING DISPOSED OF VIDE THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE WOUL D TAKE ITA NO.109/PUN/2014 AS THE LEAD CASE. ITA NO.109/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2003 - 04 3. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LEGAL GROUNDS AS WELL AS GROUNDS ON MERIT S . IN THE LEGAL GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT). IN VIEW OF THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153C(1)(B) OF THE ACT, IT IS CONTENDED BY THE ASSESSEE TH AT THE ASSESSING OFFICER INSTEAD OF RESORTING TO THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, SHOULD HAVE CON DUCTED THE PROCEEDINGS AS PER SECTION 153C(1)(B) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, IN THE PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES, THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDERTAKEN U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW AND SHOULD BE QUASHED. 4. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT PROVISION O F SECTION 153C(1)(B) OF THE ACT GOT AMENDED FROM 01.06.2015. IN THAT AMENDMENT, THE WORD BELONG WAS REPLACED BY THE WORD PERTAIN THEREFORE, PRIOR TO AMENDMENT, WHETHER PROCEEDINGS WOULD BE CONDUCTED U/S.153C OF THE ACT WOULD BE DETERMINED BY THE FACT T HAT WH ATEVER INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WE RE FOUND IN THE PLACE OF PERSON WHO IS SEARCHED, I T SHOULD BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. BY THIS WORD BELONG, THERE IS SENSE OF OWNERSHIP ATTACHED TO IT. HOWEVER, AFTER THE AMENDMENT WHEN THE WORD PERTAIN HAS BEEN INCL UDED REPLACING THE WORD BELONG, IT MEANS OWNERSHIP I S NOT ATTACHED WITH IT NOR NOW IT IS RELEVANT . HOWEVER, THESE INCRIMINATING DOC UMENTS SHOULD PERTAIN OR RELATE TO THE 3 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ASSESSEE. ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PASSED ON 16.12.2011. DUR ING THAT TIME, THEREFORE, THE WORD BELONG WAS THERE AND AS FACTS AND SITUATION IN THIS CASE, THE DIARY RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE PREMISES OF THE CHHORIYA GROUP DID NOT BELONG TO THE ASSESSE AND THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C(1 )(B) OF THE ACT IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE AMENDMENT ITSELF COME INTO PLACE ON 01.06.2015. IN THIS REGARD, THE LD. DR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDER OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, PUNE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHERE THIS ISS UE HAS BEEN SPECIFICALLY DISCUSSED AND DECIDED IN ITA NO.204/PN/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 . ON THIS ISSUE, IT WAS HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL AS FOLLOWS: 56. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT IN THE INSTANT CASE THE SEARCH TOOK PLACE IN THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINE SS PREMISES OF THE CHHORIYA GROUP ON 22 - 08 - 2008 DURING WHICH CERTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MARKED AS ANNEXURE B ITEM NOS. 1 TO 4 WERE SEIZED. THESE ARE ROUGH CASH BOOKS OF THE CHHORIYA GROUP WHICH CONTAIN VARIOUS ENTRIES ACCORDING TO WHICH THE VARIOUS LENDERS H AD ADVANCED VARIOUS AMOUNTS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE ENTRIES IN THE ROUGH CASH BOOKS ON ONE HAND REFLECTED THE RECEIPT OF MONEY AND SIMULTANEOUSLY ENTRIES AGAINST WHICH THE SAID MONEY WAS UTILI Z ED WAS ALSO MENTIONED. METICULOUS DETAILS HAVE BEEN WRITTEN IN THE SEIZED DIARY. ENTRIES RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE ARE ALSO FOUND IN THE SEIZED DIARIES, WHICH REFLECT THAT THE ASSESSEE SHRI RATANLAL C. BAFNA HAD ADVANCED VARIOUS AMOUNTS DURING THE IMPUGNED YEAR. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS B ELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE SHRI RATANLAL C. BAFNA WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF CHHORIYA. 56.1 THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C AS IT STOOD AT THE RELEVANT TIME READ AS UNDER: (1) NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN SECTION 139, SECTION 147, SECTION 148, SECTION 149, SECTION 151 AND SECTION 153, WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS SATISFIED THAT ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED BELONGS OR BELONG TO A PERSON OTHER THAN THE PERSON REFERRED TO IN SECTION 153A, THEN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS SEIZED OR REQUISITIONED SHALL BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER SUCH OTHER PERSON AND THAT ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL PROCEED AGAINST EACH SUCH OTHER PERSON AND ISSUE SUCH OTHER PERSON NOTICE AND ASSESS OR REASSESS INCOME OF SUCH OTHER PERSON IN 4 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56.2 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT FOR INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTIONS 153C OF THE I.T. ACT IN CASE OF A NON - SEARCHED PERSONS MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. 56.3 HOWEVER, IN THE INST ANT CASE AS MENTIONED EARLIER, NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN FOUND OR SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE/BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE CHHORIYAS. ONLY DIARIES BELONGING TO CHHORIYAS CONTAINING ENTRIES IN THE NAME OF DIFFERENT PERSONS INCLUDING THAT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND. IT IS ONLY THE ENTRIES RELATING TO ASSESSEE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF CHHORIYA WERE THE BASIS ON WHICH THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED IN THE CASE OF SHRI RATANLAL C. BAFNA. IN OUR OPINION THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF CHHORIYA CANNOT BE EQUATED WITH ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR DOCUMENTS BELONGING TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE PR OVISIONS OF SECTION 153C IN OUR OPINION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE THEREFORE OBSERVE THAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITSELF IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09, IT IS SPECIFICALLY ANALYZED REGARDING THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT. RESPECT FULLY FOLLOWING THE AFORESAID DECISION WHEREIN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THIS RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 ARE S IMILAR , WE DISMISS THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND UPH O LD THE VALIDITY OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORIT IES U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUND NO. 2 AND 3 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED . 5. THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION HAS ALSO PUT FORTH BEFORE US ANOTHER LEGAL GROUND WHERE IN IT IS ASSERTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE HAS BEEN GROSS VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. DEVICHAND CHHORIYA, AUTHOR OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ALSO COPIES OF ALLEGED PAPERS ON THE BASIS OF WHI CH ADDITION WAS MADE, WAS NOT SUPPLIED. THE LD. AR ON THIS ISSUE RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 5 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 I) STATE OF KERALA VS. K.T. SHADULI YUSUFF REPORTED IN 1977 (SC - 2) - GJX - 0054 - SC II) R.B SHREERAM DURGA PRASAD & FATECHAND NURSING DAS VS. SETTLEMENT COMMI SSION, 176 ITR 169 (SC) 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR MADE REFERENCE TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER WHEREIN IT IS MENTIONED ON RECORD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS INFORMED ABOUT REASONS AS WELL AS DETAILS OF THE PERMISSION GIVEN BY THE JCIT, RANGE - 1, JALGAON AS PER LETTER DATED 28.09.2010. THE ASSESEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 11.10.2010 REQUESTED FOR SUPPLY OF COPY O F LETTER FROM JCIT, RANGE - 1, JAL GAON UNDER WHICH PERMISSION WAS GRANTED TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S.148. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 26.10.20 10 INFORMED TO ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SATISFACTION MADE BY THE JCIT, RANGE - 1, JALGAON, ON THE PROPOSAL SUBMITTED BY THIS OFFICE. THE ASSESEE VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 01.11.2010 REQUESTED TO INSPECT THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF SHRI KANHAIYALAL D. CHHORIYA. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 18.11.2010 REQUESTED TO ASSESSEE TO ATTEND ON 29.11.2010 FOR INSPECTION OVER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THE PREMISES OF CHHORIYA GROUP. HOWEVER, NO BODY ATTENDED AND TRADE INSPECTION . 7. THE LD. DR FURTHER REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE. THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THE AO HAS NOT SHOWN THE SAID SEIZED PAPERS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDIT IONS WERE MADE. I T IS NOT A CASE THAT THE AO HAS RECORDED STATEMENT OF MR. CHHORIYA AND NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY OF BEING CROSS EXAMINATION. THE AO HAS PROVIDED THE NECESSARY OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO EXAMINE AND INSPECT THE SEIZED MATERIALS. THE APP ELLANT WAS AWARE OF THE EXACT CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED 6 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 MATERIALS AND HAD PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INVOLVING THE SEIZED MATERIALS. THE APPELLANT HAD THE OPPORTUNITY TO INSPECT THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS MANY TIMES AS HE WANTED AND MAKE NOTINGS. THE DEPARTMENT OR THE AO CANNOT BE FAULTED IF THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED TO INSPECT THE MATERIALS AGAIN. ON THE BASIS OF THIS OBSERVATION THE LD.DR PRAYED THAT THERE HAS BEEN NO VIOLATION OF NATURAL JUSTICE. RATHER, ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY WERE PROVIDE D TO THE ASSESSEE OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT AVAIL OF. 8. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. WE OBSERVE THAT NOTHING ON RECORD DEMONSTRATES THAT PRAYER FOR CROSS EXAMINATION OF MR. DEVICHAND CHHORIYA WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) . THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THEY HAD NOT MADE ANY PRAYER BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES FOR CROSS EXAMINATI ON SINCE IT IS A LEGAL GROUND, T HE ASSESSEE IS TAKING THIS GROUND FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WE HAVE ALSO OBSERVED FROM THE FACTS ON RECORDS THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SEIZED MATERIALS WERE PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT FOR SUCH INSPECTION OF THESE DOCUMENTS NE ITHER EVEN AT A LATER DATE HE SUB MITTED ANY FURTHER REQUEST FOR SUCH EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEVER PRAYED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION. THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT RELIED ON BY THE LD. AR ARE SUBSTANTIALLY D IFFERENT ON FACTS FROM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SPIRIT OF THESE JUDGMENTS REFERRED TO THE BONAFIDE ASSESSEE WHO HAS BEEN DENIED ESSENTIAL RIGHT OF CROSS EXAMINATION BUT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN ACTIVE PART IN THE RESPECTIVE DEPARTMENT PROCEEDING. HOWEVE R, FACTS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY DIFFERENT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . IN THE PRESENT CASE OF THE ASESSEE, THE 7 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 RECORDS ITSELF DEMONSTRATES THAT ALL OPPORTUNITIES WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR EXAMINATION OF THE DOCUMENTS BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER BUT THE ASSESSEE SLEPT THROUGH THE PROCEEDINGS. HE DID NOT AVAIL THE OPPOR TUNITY OF EXAMINATION OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HE HAS NEITHER PRAYED FOR ANY CROSS EXAMINATION BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. THE ASSESSEE ALL THROUGHOUT HAS NEGLECTED THE PROCEEDINGS BEFO RE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES BUT NOW SUDDENLY WAKE S UP BEFORE THE INCOM E TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ALLEGING THAT NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. THIS EXERCISE IS SOLELY AN AFTERTHOUGHT AND IS NOT PERMISSIBLE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF OUR LEGAL FRAMEWORK. THE CON DUCT OF THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT QUALIFY HIM TO BE A BONAFIDE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DISMISS THE GROUND NO.6 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE. 9. THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS N OT PRESSING GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 4. IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, GROUNDS NO. 1 AND 4 ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 10. GROUND NO.8 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND HENCE, REQUIRES NO ADJUDICATION. 11. WITH REGARD TO THE GROUNDS NO. 5 AND 7, THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THESE ARE THE GROUNDS ON MERITS. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT WHATEVER ENTRIES WERE FOUND IN THE DIARY RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE ACT FROM THE PREMISES OF CHHOR IYA ARE NOT CONCERNED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF ALL THOSE ENTRIES, MR. CHHORIYA HAS CLAIMED AND DECLARED BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT THAT THEY ARE INCOME OF THE C HHORIYA GROUP ITSELF AND IT HAS GOT NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT MR. CHHORIYA HAD ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT S TATING NO LOANS WERE 8 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 TAKEN FROM THE ASSESS EE. THEREFORE, THE LD. AR PRAYED THAT NO ADDITION S SHOULD BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR PLACED STRONG RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE SUB - ORDINATE AUTHORITIES. 13. WE HAVE PERUSED THE CASE RECORDS AND HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS ON MERITS. WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IF THE INCOME OF THE ENTRIES WHICH WERE FOUND IN THE DIARY DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF CHHORIYA GROUP, HAD BEEN DECLARED BY MR. CHHORIYA A S H IS OWN INCOME , IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, NO ADDITION SHOULD SUSTAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, IF IT IS FOUND THAT THERE IS A CONTRARY SCENARIO IN THAT CASE, ADDITION HAS TO BE SUSTAINED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE NEEDS DE TAILED FACTUAL VERIFICATION. WE THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(APPEALS) ON THIS ISSUE AND RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR PROPER VERIFICATION AS HEREINABOVE DIRECTED BY US AND RE - ADJUDICATE THE MATTER IN CONFORMIT Y WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. THUS, GROUNDS NO. 5 AND 7 RAISED IN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.109/PUN/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.110/PUN/2014 A.Y.2004 - 05 15. WE OBSERVE THAT BOTH SIDES ARE UNANIMOUS IN STATING THAT THE FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.110/PUN/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 ARE 9 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 IDENTICAL TO ITA NO.109/PUN/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04. AS FACTS AND IS SUES RAISED IN ITA NO.110/PUN/2014 ARE IDENTICAL TO ITA NO.109/PUN/2014, OUR DECISION RENDERED IN ITA NO.109/PUN/2014 WOULD APPLY MUTATIS - MUTANDIS TO ITA NO.110/PUN/2014. THUS, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.110/PUN/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . 16. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003 - 04 (ITA NO.109/PUN/2014) AND 2004 - 05 (ITA NO.110/PUN/2014) ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 15 TH DAY OF JU L Y , 201 9 . SD/ - SD/ - R.S.SYAL PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 15 TH JU LY , 2019 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS) - 2, NASHIK. 4. THE CIT - 2, NASHIK. 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, C BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE . 10 ITA NO S . 109 & 110 /PUN/20 14 A.Y S . 2003 - 04 & 2004 - 05 DATE 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 12 .0 7 .2019 SR.PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12 .0 7 .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