Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. Shri Moti U. Panjabi, Pune

ITA 1098/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1799 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 16-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 21-05-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Tax effect
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO.1098/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 2(1), PUNE . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI MOTI U. PANJABI, MARBLE ARCH CO-OP. SOCIETY, 23/24, AUNDH, PUNE 07 PAN NO.AARPP2118D . / RESPONDENT . / CO NO.40/PN/2015 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1098/PN/2014) #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI MOTI U. PANJABI, MARBLE ARCH CO-OP. SOCIETY, 23/24, AUNDH, PUNE 07 PAN NO.AARPP2118D CROSS OBJECTOR V/S DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE APPELLANT IN THE APPEAL / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEELESH KHANDELWAL / REVENUE BY : SHRI SUDHENDU DAS / ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20-08-2014 OF THE CIT(A)-V, PUNE RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FILED TH E CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. / DATE OF HEARING :26.05.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:27.05.2016 2 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 ITA NO.1098/PN/2014 (BY REVENUE) : 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET FILED A CHART AND SUBMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HAS TO BE DISMISSED IN VIEW OF THE LATEST CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 D ATED 10-12-2015. 3. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER H AND FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ADMITTEDLY BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE. 4. AFTER HEARING THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS MADE BY BOTH THE S IDES, WE FIND THE TAX EFFECT IN THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE IS ADMITTEDLY BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF CIRCULAR NO.21/2015 DATED 10-12-2015 OF CBDT RAISING THE MONETA RY LIMIT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DEPARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL, WHICH ALSO APPLIES TO PENDING APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS NOT MAINTAINABLE AND HAS TO BE DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE IS DISMISSED. CO NO.40/PN/2015 (BY ASSESSEE) : 6. THERE IS DELAY OF 73 DAYS IN FILING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO THE AFFIDAVIT DATED 19-02-2016 EXPLAINED THE REASONS FOR SUCH DELAY IN FILING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE CONT ENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT AND CONDONATION PETITION AND AFTER HEARING THE LD. 3 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, THE DELAY IN FILING OF THE CROSS OBJECTION IS CONDONED. 7. THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS CHALLENGED T HE PENALTY SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE CIT(A ) AS WELL AS THE TRIBUNAL. 8. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A BUILDER. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE ON 17-03-2006. THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 31-10-2006 DISCLOSING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,75,20,060/- WHICH WAS REVISED ON 08-10-2007 DISCLOSING TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.1,74,21,210/-. THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28- 12- 2007 DETERMINED THE TAXABLE INCOME AT RS.2,51,87,710/-. WH ILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOU NT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, ADDITION U/S.40A(3), UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NT OF RS.11 LAKHS AND ON-MONEY PAID OF RS.66 LAKHS. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.11 LAKHS AND ON-MONEY PAID TO ROHIT ASSOCIATES OF RS.65 LAKHS. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO INITIA TED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE AO NOTED THAT BUNDLE NO.19 IMPOUNDED FROM THE OFFICE OF RAMA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS CLEARLY INDICATED THAT RS. 11 LAKH S IN CASH WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE ON 10-02-2006. SINCE TH E ASSESSEE FAILED TO GIVE SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE AO UNDER THE HEAD UNACCOUNTED CASH PAID/UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. SIMILARLY, ON THE BASIS OF PAG E 4 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 NO.22 BUNDLE NO.11 IMPOUNDED FROM THE OFFICE OF RAMA BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS WHICH TRANSPIRED THAT ASSESSEE HAS PAID ON- MONEY OF RS.66 LAKHS WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.25,96,600/- U/ S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 10. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED ON R S.65 LAKHS SINCE THE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITION. SO FAR AS PENALTY LEVIED ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS IS CONCE RNED, HE SUSTAINED THE PENALTY BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.9 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPE LLANT CAREFULLY. AS REGARDS THE MERITS OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 11 ,00,000/-, THE SAME NEED NOT BE GONE INTO AT THIS STAGE SINCE BOTH THE CIT(A) AND THE ITAT HAVE CONSIDERED THE SAME AND CONFIRMED THE ADDIT ION. WHAT IS, THEREFORE, REQUIRED TO BE SEEN AT THIS STAGE IS WHETHER THE FACTS ON RECORD, WHICH HAVE BEEN TAKEN AS PROVED, MAKE OUT A CASE OF 'CONCEALMENT' OR 'FURNISHING OF. INACCURATE PARTICUL ARS' SO AS TO ATTRACT THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 271 (1)(C). HAVING CONSIDERED T HE FACTS CAREFULLY, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT AT THE VERY LEAST, A CASE OF FU RNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IS PATENT UPON THE FACTS OF TH E CASE. THE HON. TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED THE FINDING THAT THE TRANSACTI ON OF RS.11,00,000/- WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT EVEN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT HAD BEEN MAD E ONLY SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH ACTION AFTER THE IMPUGNED DOC UMENT HAD BEEN DETECTED AND THE APPELLANT WAS NOT IN A POSITION TO DENY THE TRANSACTION AS SUCH. 6.10 I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE APPELLANT. IN CIT V. UPENDRA V. MITHANI (BOM. ORDER DTD 5/8/2009) IT WAS HELD BY THE HON. BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ITS VERY BR IEF ORDER THAT NO PENALTY CAN BE LEVIED IF THE FACTS ARE EQUALLY CO NSISTENT WITH THE VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT REPRESENTS CONCEALED INCOME AS TH E HYPOTHESIS THAT IT DOES NOT. THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES LEADING T O THE DECISION ARE NOT CLEAR. IT IS WELL SETTLED THAT A DECISION IS A PRECEDENT ON ITS OWN FACTS [STATE OF ORISSA V. M.D. ILLYAS 1 SCC 275]. M OREOVER, THAT CASE IS ON THE LEVIABILITY OF PENALTY ON THE BASIS OF 'CONCEALMENT' AND WOULD NOT CONSTITUTE A PRECEDENT WHERE PENALTY IS LEV IED ON THE GROUND OF 'FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS'. THE DECISION IN NATIONAL TEXTILES V. CIT (2001) 249 ITR 125 (GUJ) R EPRESENTS OLD LAW WHEREIN IT WAS ESSENTIAL TO PROVE MENS REA BEFORE PENAL TY COULD BE LEVIED. THIS VIEW HAS SINCE BEEN REVISED BY THE HON. SU PREME COURT IN DHARMENDRA TEXTILE PROCESSORS AND CIT VS. ATUL MOHAN B INDAL WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT PENALTY UNDER SECTION 2 71(1)(C) IS A CIVIL LIABILITY. IN THE LATTER CASE, THE HON. SUPREM E COURT CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS:- 5 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 THE PENALTY SPOKEN OF IN SECTION 271(1)(C) IS NEIT HER CRIMINAL NOR QUASI CRIMINAL BUT A CIVIL LIABILITY; ALBEIT A STRICT LIABILITY SUCH LIABILITY BEING CIVIL IN NATU RE, MENS REA IS NOT ESSENTIAL.' SAKET AGARWAL V. ITO (ITAT DEL. ORDER DTD.20/6/2013 ) IS ON A DIFFERENT ISSUE, NAMELY, WHETHER AN ADDITION MADE BY INVOKING THE DEEMING PROVISION OF S. 68 WOULD ALSO IPSO FACTO JUSTIFY LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C). IN M/S SRI TARAKA JEWELLERS V. ITO (ITAT HYD. ORDER DTD. 4/10/2013) WAS BASED ON THE FINDING THAT T HE APPELLANT HAD DISCLOSED ALL THE DETAILS BEFORE THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE MEANING OF EXPLANATION-1 TO SE CTION 271 (1)(C). IN THE PRESENT CASE THE CLEAR FINDING RECORDE D BY THE HON. ITAT ITSELF IS THAT THE APPELLANT CONTENDED BEFORE TH E AO THAT HE HAD PAID THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT OF RS.11 LAKH IN CASH ON 10. 02.06 BUT THE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND HENCE THE AMOUNT IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE APPELLANT WAS HOWEVER N OT ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE THIS EXPLANATION OR PROVE HIS BONAFIDES IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTION EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY OR BEF ORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITIES. 6.11 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I DO NOT FIND ANY M ERIT IN THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS NO CONCEA LMENT OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS IN SO FAR AS THE A DDITION OF RS.11,00,000/- CONFIRMED BY THE HON ITAT IS CONCERNE D. ACCORDINGLY, LEVY OF PENALTY ON THE SAID AMOUNT IS HE REBY CONFIRMED. 11. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRING TO PAGES 51 AND 52 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH GIVES THE CASH FLOW CHART FOR VARIOUS YEARS STARTING FROM 01-04-1999 TO 31-03-2008 SUBMITTED THAT THE OPENING CASH BALANCE AS ON 01-04-2005 WAS SHOWN AT RS.15,67,990/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT AS ON 31-03-2006 THE CLOSING CASH BALANCE WAS RS.13,42,926/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT NODOUBT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SUSTAINED IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS BY TH E TRIBUNAL, HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE LAND IN QUESTION. WHATEVER ON-MONEY WAS GIVEN WAS RETURNED BACK TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SAME FINA NCIAL YEAR FOR WHICH IT HAS NOT ENTERED INTO THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT . HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE SOURCES ARE ALREADY TAXED AND SINCE THE 6 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 SAID AMOUNT HAS ALREADY BEEN REFUNDED TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR, THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE ADDITION HAS BEEN CONFIRMED PENALTY CANNOT BE LEVIED ON THIS RS.11 LAKHS. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.11 LAKHS SHOU LD BE DELETED. 13. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.11 LAKHS HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS GIVEN VALID REASONS FOR SUSTAINING THE PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITION OF RS.11 LAKHS. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CO SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 14. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PA PER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE. WE FIND THE TRIBUNAL WHILE SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.11 LAK HS MADE BY THE AO AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) AT PARA 8 OF TH E ORDER HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE REASONS G IVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR CONFIRMING THE ADDITION. NOTHING HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US TO SHOW WHEN THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS CANCELLE D AND THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED BACK THE CASH. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE TRANSACTION OF RS.11 LACS WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE REGU LAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN OUR OPINION THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE WHEN THE CASH WAS RECEIVED BACK. MERE ORAL EXPLANATION IS NOT SUFFICIENT WHEN PAYMENT WAS MADE THROUGH AN AGREE MENT. WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD .CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. 7 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 15. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESS EE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.11 LAKHS PAID DURING THE F.Y. 2005-06 HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK IN THE SAME F.Y. 2005-06 FOR WHICH HE DID N OT ENTER THE SAME IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT. IT IS ALSO HIS SUBMIS SION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PURCHASED THE LAND IN QUESTION. H OWEVER, WE FIND FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THA T ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED BEFORE HIM THAT THE D EAL OF LAND DID NOT MATERIALISE, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRODUC ED ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE FACT OF NON-MATERIALISATION OF THE DEA L OF LAND. HE HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE DOCUMENT CONTAINING THE DEAL IS DATED 10-02-2006 AND THE DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED O N 18-03- 2006. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT UNDERSTANDABLE AS TO WHY THE NECESSARY ENTRIES RELATING TO NON-MATERIALISATION OF THE DEAL AND REFUN D OF TOKEN MONEY OF RS.11 LAKHS ARE NOT THERE IN CASE THE D EAL WAS CANCELLED AND THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BACK IMMEDIATELY. T HE CIT(A) HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT STATEMENT RELATING TO N ON- MATERIALISATION OF DEAL OF LAND HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE AND NOT BY THE AO AND THEREFORE THE ONUS WA S ON THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENT. ALTHOUGH IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT T HE DEAL HAS NOT MATERIALISED, HOWEVER, NO SUCH CONFIRMATION OR AFFIDAV IT FROM THE PERSON REFUNDING THE CASH DUE TO NON-MATERILISAT ION OF THE DEAL HAS BEEN FURNISHED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BE FORE THE CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US. A MERE STATEMENT THAT THE DE AL DID NOT MATERIALISE IN OUR OPINION IS NOT SUFFICIENT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE MATERIALISATION OF THE DEAL OR OTHERWISE IS WITHIN THE EX CLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE DEAL INFACT HAS NOT 8 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 MATERIALISED. IT IS NOT KNOWN AS TO WHETHER THE PERSON TO WHOM THE MONEY WAS PAID HAS INFACT RETURNED THE MONEY TO THE ASSES SEE OR NOT. NO AFFIDAVIT BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE MONEY TO SHOW THAT HE HAS RETURNED THE SAID MONEY HAS BEEN FILED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SHOW THAT THE DEAL INFACT DID NOT MATERIALISE AND THE MONEY HAS COME BACK TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ORAL SUBMISS ION OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BELIEVED. 16. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALREADY SUSTA INED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT. THE ONUS WAS VERY MUCH ON THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIA TE WITH EVIDENCE THAT THE MONEY INFACT HAS BEEN RETURNED BY TH E PERSON CONCERNED WITHIN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR AND THE DEAL WAS CANCELLED OR DID NOT MATERIALISE. IT IS THE SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS AND PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE S EPARATE AND DISTINCT. ALTHOUGH IN THE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS THE AD DITION HAS BEEN SUSTAINED THE ASSESSEE COULD HAVE PRODUCED S OME MATERIAL DURING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS EITHER BEFORE THE AO O R BEFORE THE CIT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US IN SHAPE OF CONFIRMATION OR AN AFFIDAVIT FROM THE CONCERNED PERSON TO WHOM THE AMOUNT O F RS.11 LAKHS WAS PAID THAT THE MONEY HAS BEEN RETURNED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALISED. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH EVIDENCE THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT MONEY HAS COME BACK IN THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR FOR WHICH THE ENTRY WAS NOT REQ UIRED IN THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT AND THAT DEAL DID NOT MATERIALISE DOES NOT HOLD GOOD. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDE R OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE ACT ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.11 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF 9 ITA NO.1018/PN/2014 & CO NO.40/PN/2015 UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE CROSS OBJECTION IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS WE LL AS THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27-05-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 27 TH MAY, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A ) - V, PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-V, PUNE $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // // TRUE COPY // // $ ' //TRUE /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE