Mr Sonal Parag, Pune V. ITO, Central-II, Pune

ITA 1158/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2597 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-02-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 04-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D N PARAKH
• Keywords: Gift; Depreciation; Document seized; Additional evidence; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 234B; 37(1); 63

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , ! , # $ BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.2151 TO 2157/PN/2013 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2010-11 SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY, 22-C, DIAMOND PARK, PARK STREET, KALEWADI PHATA, WAKAD, PUNE 411 057 PAN NO.AARPP2115Q . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, CENTRAL-II, PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.1156 TO 1162/PN/2013 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2010-11 MR. SONAL PARAG, 15-C, DIAMOND PARK, PARK STREET, KALEWADI PHATA, WAKAD, PUNE 411 018 PAN NO.AMNPP3292J . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, CENTRAL-II, PUNE . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.95 TO 101/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2010-11 SHRI JANARDHAN SARVADEO PANDEY, 22-C, DIAMOND PARK, PARK STREET, KALEWADI PHATA, WAKAD, PUNE 411 018 PAN NO.ALDVPP2116L . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, CENTRAL-II, PUNE . / RESPONDENT 2 PANDEY GROUP . / ITA NO.108/PN/2014 #& & / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 MRS. NEELAM ARVIND PANDEY, 22-C, DIAMOND PARK, PARK STREET, KALEWADI PHATA, WAKAD, PUNE 411 018 PAN NO.ALYPP2394R . / APPELLANT V/S ITO, CENTRAL-II, PUNE . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEES BY : SHRI S.N. PURANIK / REVENUE BY : SHRI D.N. PARAKH / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM : THESE 22 APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEES ASSAILIN G THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN THE RESPECTIVE CASES. SINCE AL L THESE APPEALS ARE ARISING FROM THE SAME SET OF FACTS, THE APPEA LS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORD ER. 2. ITA NO.2151/PN/2013 TO 2157/PN/2013 FOR THE ASSESS MENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE DATED 21-11-2012 COMMON FOR ALL THE ASSESS MENT YEARS. IN ITA NO. 1156/PN/2013 TO ITA NO.1162/PN/2013 , THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) CENTRAL PUNE D ATED 28-02- 2013 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010- 11. IN ITA NO. 95/PN/2014 TO ITA NO.101/PN/2014 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A), CENTRAL PUNE DATED 22-10-2013 COMM ON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11. IN ITA NO.108/P N/2014 THE / DATE OF HEARING :28.01.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:29.02.2016 3 PANDEY GROUP ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) CENTRAL PUNE DATED 22-10-2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS IN APPEALS AS EMANATING FROM THE RECORD S ARE : THE FACTS NARRATED HEREIN BELOW ARE TAKEN FROM THE APPE ALS OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY, AS HE WAS THE PRIME PERSON MAN AGING THE TRANSACTIONS. THE OTHER ASSESSES ARE HIS ASSOCIATE S AND CLOSE RELATIVES. A SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON 07-08-2009 AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY AND HIS ASSOCIATE SHRI SONAL PARAG. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, INCRIMINATING RECORDS INDICATING HUGE CASH RECEIPTS AND PAY MENTS ON ACCOUNT OF ARRANGING ADMISSION FOR PROFESSIONAL COURSES WERE FOUND. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED ALSO INDICATED THAT THE ASSE SSEES WERE NOT ONLY INVOLVED IN ARRANGING FOR THE SEATS IN THE PROF ESSIONAL COURSES, BUT WERE ALSO ARRANGING HIGHER MARKS FOR A CONS IDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS INVOLVED IN GETTING ADMISSIONS OUT OF MAN AGEMENT QUOTA AND SECURING PASS MARKS FOR THE STUDENTS WHO DID NOT FAIR WELL IN THE EXAMINATION. THE NOTINGS IN THE DIARIES AND OTHE R DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH INDICATED THAT HUGE AMOUNTS WERE COLLECTED BY THE ASSESSEES, SPECIALLY FOR T HE MEDICAL SEATS. FOR SECURING MBBS SEAT, THE ASSESSEES WOULD CHARGE BETW EEN RS.10 TO 20 LAKHS. FOR POST GRADUATE MEDICAL COURSE, TH E AMOUNT CHARGED WAS IN THE RANGE OF RS.35 TO 80 LAKHS. DURING S EARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOK S OF ACCOUNTS. NEITHER ANY CASH RECEIPTS NOR PAYMENT ACCOU NTS FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS WERE FOUND. 4 PANDEY GROUP HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE (S HRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY) CLAIMED THAT HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE OFFICE OF DCIT, C ENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE. ON INVESTIGATION, RETURNS ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND IN THE OFFICE OF DCIT, CENTRAL CIRC LE-2(1), PUNE. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE RETURN REGISTER NUMBE R PERTAINING TO THE DATE ON WHICH THE ALLEGED RETURNS WERE FILED DOES NOT MATCH WITH THE NUMBERS ON THE RETURN OF INCOME, THUS THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE RETURNS HAVE BEEN FILED FOR THE IMPUGN ED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS FALSE. AFTER THE SEARCH NOTICES U/S.1 53A WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 10-02-2010 FOR ALL THE IMPUGNE D ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES THE ASS ESSEE DID NOT FILE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE ASSESSMENT YEARS WITHIN THE TIME SPECIFIED. IT WAS ON SUBSEQUENT NOTICES THAT THE AS SESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME. A PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WOULD SHOW THAT ASSESSEE WAS NON COOPERATIVE RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING. AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THE ASSESSEE DELIBERATELY SUPPRES SED THE INFORMATION AND REPEATEDLY SOUGHT TIME TO FURNISH THE INFOR MATION. DESPITE SEEKING TIME, NO INFORMATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE AS SESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ATTITUD E OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHANGE. HE DID NOT COOPERATE WITH THE AO. TIME AND AGAIN, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE STUDENTS FROM WHOM THE AMOUNTS WERE RECEIVED FOR A DMISSION TO VARIOUS COURSES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE REMAINED SILENT A ND DID NOT DIVULGE ANY DETAILS ABOUT THE STUDENTS AND THE COURSES FOR WHICH THE ADMISSIONS WERE ARRANGED. THE AO IN HIS ORDER HAS GIVEN SPECIFIC INSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE GAVE IRRELEVANT REPLIES ON THE SPECIFIC 5 PANDEY GROUP QUESTIONS. DURING ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE AVOIDED EXPLA INING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND FURNISH OF THE RELEVANT DETAILS. IN T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THAT WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WERE SEVERAL DISCREPANCIES AND DEFECTS. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY SUPPORTING VOU CHERS/BILLS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. TH E AO HAS ALSO RECORDED THE INSTANCES WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS TRYING TO INFLUENCE THE AO THROUGH THE JCIT BY SENDING SMSS ON HIS MOBILE NU MBER. THE ASSESSEE TIME AND AGAIN EXPRESSED HIS IGNORANCE IN G IVING THE BASIC DETAILS OF THE ADMISSIONS SECURED BY HIM. THE ASSES SEE ADMITTED THAT THEY HAVE DESTROYED THE RECORD IN RESPE CT OF SUCH ADMISSIONS. IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTS AND COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO MAKE ADDITIONS/DISALLO WANCE ON ESTIMATIONS. IN THE BACKDROP OF ABOVE FACTS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSES SES ARE DECIDED AS UNDER : ITA NOS.2151 TO 2157/PN/2013 A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 20 10- 11: (SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY : 4. THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSME NT YEARS ON SIMILAR COUNTS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE WE TAKE THE APPEAL IN ITA NO.2151/PN/2014 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AS LEAD CASE. 5. THE ASSESSMENTS FOR A.Y. 2004-05 TO A.Y. 2009-10 WERE MADE U/S.143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSM ENT FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WAS COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THE AO PRIMARILY MADE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FOR ARRANGING ADMISS IONS, LOWER WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES, DISALLOWANCE ON ACC OUNT 6 PANDEY GROUP OF INFLATED EXPENSES AND RECEIPTS FOR SECURING PASS MARKS. AGGRIEVE D BY THE ADDITIONS, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE TH E CIT(A). THE CIT(A) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DO CUMENTS ON RECORD CONFIRMED SOME OF THE ADDITIONS AND GRANTED PART RELIEF IN THE OTHERS. THE CIT(A) DECIDED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE (S HRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY) FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS 200 4-05 TO 2010-11 VIDE SINGLE ORDER. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE TABULATED HEREINUNDER : A.Y. 2004-05 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 1,17,813/ - NIL DISALLOWANCE OF BROUGHT FORWARD LOSSES 4,84,139/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 4,00,000/ - 2,00,000 INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSIONS 29,98,048 / - 9,98,048 / - A.Y. 2005-06 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 3,71,270/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 5 ,00,000/ - NIL INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSIONS 65,00,000/ - 43,71,270/ - A.Y. 2006-07 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 8,85,067/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 6,00,000/ - NIL INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSIONS 55,14,933 / - 15,14,933 / - RECEIPTS FOR SECURING PASS MARKS 16,80,000/ - NIL 7 PANDEY GROUP A.Y. 2007-08 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 16,16,287/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 9,00,000/ - NIL INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSIONS 54,83,713 / - 9,83,713/ - RECEIPTS FOR SECURING PASS MARKS 71,09,000/ - NIL A.Y. 2008-09 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 17,46,327/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 10,00,000/ - NIL CASH GIVEN TO FATHER (SHRI JANARDHAN PANDEY) 1,67,37,000/ - NIL ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @ 25% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS 40,00,000 NIL A.Y. 2009-10 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 17,46,327/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 13,00,000/ - NIL CASH GIVEN TO FATHER (SHRI JANARDHAN PANDEY) 1,67,37,000/ - NIL ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT @ 25% OF TOTAL RECEIPTS 5,25,00,000/ - NIL A.Y. 2010-11 : DESCRIPTION OF THE ADDITION MADE A DDITIONS MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES 17,56,880/ - NIL WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 10,00,000/ - NIL CASH FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 20,20,500/ - NIL DIFFERENCE IN PURCHASE PRICE OF PROPERTY 25,00,000/ - NIL INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSIONS 5,52,22,620/ - NIL 8 PANDEY GROUP 6. THE ASSESSEE IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL HAS PRIMARILY ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS IN A.Y.2004-05 TO A.Y. 2010-11 : I. CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. II. CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW HOUSEHOLD WITHDRAWALS. III. ADDITIONAL INCOME ESTIMATED ON ACCOUNT OF ADMISSION RECEIPTS. IV. PRAYED FOR GRANTING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING. V. CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION FROM EARLIER YEARS (IN A.Y. 2004-05 ONLY). VI. IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FOR SECURING PASS MARKS (PASSING REC EIPTS) RS.16,80,000/- IN A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS.71,09,000/- IN A.Y. 2007-08. VII. APART FROM THE ABOVE COMMON GROUNDS, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE H AS ASSAILED THE ESTIMATION OF NET PROFIT MARGIN (25%) BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) BEING ON THE HIGHER SIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO ASSAILED THE ADDITION CONFIRMED ON ACCOU NT OF CASH GIVEN TO FATHER, AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. VIII. IN A.Y. 2010-11 THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- TOWARDS THE PURCHASE OF PROPERTY AND RS.20,20,500/- AS CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. 7. SHRI S.N. PURANIK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN THE IMPUG NED ASSESSMENT YEARS ON IDENTICAL GROUNDS. THE ADDITIONS HAV E BEEN MADE AFTER SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISE S OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED ORIGINAL RETURN OF INC OME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON 30-12-2004. THEREAFT ER, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.1 53A ON 25-03-2010. THE AO IN AN ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED MANNE R HAS 9 PANDEY GROUP MADE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES. THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE ESTIMATED AT 20% IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. 8. IN RESPECT OF DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXP ENSES, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT FOR THE ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2004-05 THE CIT(A) HAS MADE A REASONABLE DISALLOWANC E, HOWEVER, IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IT IS ON THE HIGHER S IDE. WITH REGARD TO NON GRANTING OF SET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEP RECIATION FROM EARLIER YEARS THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ELIGIBLE TO CLAIM THE SAME. THE BENEFIT OF S ET OFF OF BROUGHT FORWARD DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN DENIED WITHOUT ANY BASIS. 9. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT IN A .YRS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACC OUNT OF MONEY RECEIVED FOR SECURING PASS MARKS FOR THE STUDENTS . THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION ONLY ON THE GROUND THAT THE WORD S IR IS USED IN THE DOCUMENTS WHICH REFERS TO THE ASSESSEE. INFACT THE WORD SIR USED IN THE DOCUMENTS MEANS THE PERSON TO WHOM THE P AYMENTS WERE MADE AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS FOR SECURING PASS MARKS HAVE NOT BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, TH EREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE MADE AN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION THAT EVEN IF THE ADDITION IS TO BE MAD E, THE GROSS AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. SOME PART OF THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR SECURING PASS MARKS MUST HAVE BEE N PASSED ON TO THE INSTITUTIONS/COLLEGES WHERE ADMISSIONS WE RE ARRANGED, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF NET AMOUNT CAN BE MADE. 10. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED T HAT IN A.YRS. 2008-09 & 2009-10 THE AO HAS ESTIMATED PROFIT MAR GIN OF THE NET RECEIPTS AT 25% WHICH IS VERY MUCH ON THE HIGHER SID E. THE AO 10 PANDEY GROUP HAS NOT FOUND OR BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY UNDISCLOSED OR ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT OTHER THAN THE ASSETS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANC E SHEET FILED ALONG WITH THE RETURN. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR ESTIMATING TH E NET PROFIT AT SUCH A HIGHER MARGIN. EVEN IF THE ADDITION IS TO BE MAD E, THE SAME SHOULD BE AT A NOMINAL RATE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ORDERS MAY BE SET A SIDE AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE ALLOWED. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED AT THE BAR THAT THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EARS IS NOT PRESSED. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND SHRI D.N. PARAKH REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTA INING ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. NO BOOKS WERE FOUND BY THE DEPARTMENT DURING THE SEARCH. THE BOOKS WHICH WERE FURNISHED SUBSEQUENTLY AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT WERE PREPARED AFTER THE DATE OF SEARCH ON VERBAL INFORMATIONS/INSTRUCTIONS FROM VARIOUS SUB AGENTS. THE RET URNS OF INCOME ALLEGEDLY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE DCIT, CEN TRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE WERE NEVER LOCATED. THE AO HAS GIVEN A CA TEGORIC FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FRAUDULENTLY OBTAINED ACKNOWLEDGEMENT RECEIPTS IN RESPECT OF RETURNS OF INCOME . THE ACT AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE THROUGHOUT HAS BEEN NON- COOPERATIVE AND UNDER THE SHADOW OF SUSPICION. THE ASSESSEE HAS AD MITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES HAVE BEEN DESTROYED, IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANC ES THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO MAKE ADDITIONS ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMAT IONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DENIED THE RECEIPT OF AMOUNTS FOR SECU RING ADMISSIONS IN VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL COLLEGES. THERE IS NOTHING ON RECORD TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS PASSED ANY SHA RE IN RECEIPTS 11 PANDEY GROUP FOR SECURING ADMISSIONS IN VARIOUS PROFESSIONAL COURSES OR FO R SECURING PASS MARKS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIV E CONTENDED THAT IN SO FAR AS ESTIMATION OF 25% NET PROFIT MARGIN IN A.YRS. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 IS CONCERNED, THE ASSESSEE H AS ACCEPTED THE SAME. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) AND PRAYE D FOR DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. CONTROVERTING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER ACCEPTED THE MARGIN OF 25% AS ALLEGED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS COOPERATED WIT H THE DEPARTMENT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAD GIVE N THE NAMES OF THE INSTITUTIONS TO WHOM DONATIONS WERE GIVEN. TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ASSERTIONS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED ON 08-08-2009 PLACED ON RECORD AT PAGES 745 TO 761 (RELEVANT PAGE 75 7) OF THE PAPER BOOK. 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. AFTER CLOSE SCRUTINY OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER, WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NON-COOPERATIVE DURING THE SEARCH AS WELL AS D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO MAK E ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATIONS IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY COOPERATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. IT IS EVIDENT FROM THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIE S BELOW THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUN T. DURING SEARCH AND ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NO T COOPERATE IN EXPLAINING THE NOTINGS. EVEN BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT 12 PANDEY GROUP ABLE TO PLACE ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE AO. IN FACT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT DISPUTE THE ADDITIONS M ADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FOR ARRANGING ADMISSIONS AND PASS MAR KS. ACCORDINGLY, CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE. WHEREVER THE ASSESSEE WAS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE WERE ON THE HIGHER SIDE, THE CIT(A) HAS GRA NTED RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 14. IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASS AILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN ESTIMATING RECEIPTS AS WELL AS NET PROFIT. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO EST IMATED RECEIPTS AT RS.16,00,00,000/- IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND RS.21,00,00,000/- IN A.Y. 2009-10. THE AO MADE ADDITION BY FURTHER ESTIMATING NET PROFIT MARGIN @25% OF THE ESTIMATED RECEIPTS. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTENDED THAT NET PROFIT MARGIN ESTIMATED BY AO IS VERY MUCH ON THE HIGHER SIDE AND THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED THE NET PROFIT MARGIN WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT THE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED IN ALL THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ON THE BASIS OF INCRIMINATING MA TERIAL SEIZED DURING SEARCH. FROM THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED IT WAS QUITE EVIDENT THAT THERE WERE HUGE CASH TRANSACTION WHICH WE RE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS PREPARED EVEN SUBSEQUENT TO SE ARCH. THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN DO CUMENTS SEIZED. FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS IT WAS AMPLY EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN BUYING SEATS FROM EDUCATIONAL INS TITUTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DENIED THE TRANSACTIONS NOR EXPLAINED THE SAME. THUS, THE AO WAS CONSTRAINED TO ESTIMATE THE INCO ME ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AND MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN A.Y . 2008- 13 PANDEY GROUP 09 AND 2009-10, THE AO ESTIMATED THE NET PROFIT AT 25% OF THE GROSS ESTIMATED RECEIPTS. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT GROSS REC EIPTS ARE ESTIMATED AND FURTHER NET MARGIN IS ALSO ESTIMATED, WE ARE OF CONSIDERED OPINION THAT NET PROFIT IS ESTIMATED MARGINALLY O N THE HIGHER SIDE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE, WE REDUCE NET PROFIT FROM 25% TO 20%. THUS, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE PARTLY ACEPTED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. 15. AS REGARDS THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND A.Y. 2009-10, AND THE GROUNDS RAISED IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YE ARS UNDER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL EXCEPT FOR THE BALD ASSERTIONS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE AS TO HOW THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY THE CI T(A) ARE ERRONEOUS OR PERVERSE. AFTER EXAMINING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND DOCUMENTS ON RECORD, WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE IMP UGNED ORDER. THE ORDER OF FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS DETAILED AN D JUSTIFIED AND WE CONCUR WITH THE SAME. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY, WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIO NS CONFIRMED AS THEY ARE EXHAUSTIVE AND WELL REASONED. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K.Y. PILLAI AND SONS REPORTED AS 63 ITR 411 SC HAS HELD THAT WHERE THE TR IBUNAL HAS CONCURRED WITH THE VIEW OF CIT(A), THERE IS NO NEED TO RE PEAT THE REASONING OF CIT(A). SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HON BLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. GLOBAL VANTEDGE PVT . LTD. REPORTED AS 354 ITR 21. SINCE THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRE SENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDIN G OF THE CIT(A) OR HAS PLACED ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL TO THE CONTRARY, W E DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER. ACCOR DINGLY, THE 14 PANDEY GROUP APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.YRS 2004-05 TO 2007-08 AN D 2010-11 ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 200 4-05 TO 2007-08 AND A.Y. 2010-11 ARE DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2009-10 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1156 TO 1162/PN/2013 - A.Y. 2004-05 TO A.Y. 2010-11 (SHRI SONAL PARAG) : 17. THE ASSESSEE IN THESE SET OF APPEALS IS AN ASSOCIATE OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY. BOTH THE SAID PERSONS WERE JO INTLY ENGAGED IN ARRANGING ADMISSIONS TO THE PROFESSIONAL COURSE S IN VARIOUS INSTITUTIONS BY CHARGING COMMISSION FROM THE STUDEN TS. THE FACTS NARRATED IN PARA 3 ABOVE ARE COMMON AND WOULD AP PLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THE CASE OF PRESENT ASSESSEE. 18. THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE INCOME RETURNED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.143(3) R.W.S. 153A CONSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH. IN FIRST APPEAL THE CITA) AFTER APPRECIATING THE FACTS GRANTED PART RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RES PECT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IN A.Y. 2004-05 AND IN THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE FINDINGS OF AO. 19. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 28-03-2013 CO MMON FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2010-11, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL FOR ALL THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. ITA NO. 1156/PN/2013 - A.Y. 2004-05 : 20. THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED INCOME OF RS.29,89,150/- IN A .Y. 2004-05. THE AO ASSESSED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE AT RS.37 15 PANDEY GROUP LAKHS VIDE ORDER DATED 30-12-2011 AFTER MAKING ADDITIONS ON FOLLOWING COUNTS : I. MONEY RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF ARRANGING ADMISSIONS II. HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES III. OPENING CAPITAL THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN WITHDRAWALS OF RS.2,32,573/- ON ACC OUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS HAVING CASH TO THE EXTENT OF RS.87,88,000/-, JEWELLERY TO THE TUN E OF RS.11,64,240/-, 2 LUXURY CARS, A BUNGALOW MEASURING APPROXIMATELY 3000 SQ.FT. AND INVESTMENTS IN KVPS OF MORE THAN RS.81 LAKH S. KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATUS & LIFESTYLE OF ASSESSEE, THE AO M ADE ADDITION OF RS.7,10,850/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES . THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN A BLE TO EXPLAIN OPENING CASH OF RS.1,31,500/- AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE OF RS.1,953/- IN M/S. SAHEB N SAHIBA. NO BASIS FOR HAVING OPEN ING CASH BALANCE AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT WAS GIVEN. THUS, THE A O MADE A LUMPSUM ESTIMATE OF THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.37 LAKHS. 21. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WAS RECORDED FOR THE PERIOD RELATIN G TO THE A.Y. 2004-05 AND 2005-06. THE AO COULD NOT FIND ANY UN DISCLOSED ASSET WHICH WAS NOT COVERED BY THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSES SEE. THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR BY T HE AO RS.7,10,850/- IS TOWARDS THE LOWER WITHDRAWAL FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ONLY. IN THE PERIOD RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2004-05, T HE ASSESSEE WAS LEADING A BACHELOR LIFE IN A SHARED FLAT WITH 4 FRIENDS. S INCE HE HAD JOINED SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY DURING THAT PER IOD, MOST OF THE TIMES HE WAS HAVING LUNCH AND DINNER WITH HIM ONLY. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT HAVING ANY LUXURY CAR OR LAVISH LIFE STYLE DURING THE 16 PANDEY GROUP PERIOD RELATING TO A.Y. 2004-05 AND THUS, THERE WAS NO QU ESTION OF SPENDING SUCH A HUGE SUM ON HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE C IT(A) ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.6 LAKHS AND FURTHER GAVE CREDIT OF RS.2,32,573/- WHIC H WAS ALREADY DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME. THE CIT(A) THUS CONFIRMED THE TOTAL ADDITION OF RS.5,00,880/-, I.E. RS. 6 LAK HS RS.2,32,573/- = RS.3,67,427 (HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES) + 1,31,500 (OPENING CASH BALANCE) + 1,953 (CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE). 22. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE REPRESEN TATIVES OF BOTH THE SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FA CT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN A TENANTED SHARED FLAT DURING TH E PERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS NOT BEEN CON TROVERTED BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE CONTENTIONS OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT SIN CE THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS ONE OF THE INITIA L YEAR WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD JOINED SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PAND EY IT SEEMS UNLIKELY THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE BEEN OWNIN G LUXURY CARS AND WAS LIVING A LAVISH LIFE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE NOT ASCERTAINED AS TO WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LUX URY CARS AND THE BUNGALOW. ACCORDINGLY, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT RS.50,000/- PER MONTH TOWARDS HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES ESTIMA TED BY THE CIT(A) IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE RESTRICT THE HOUSEHOLD EXP ENDITURE TO RS.30,000/- PER MONTH AFTER GIVING THE CREDIT OF RS.2,32,573/ -. THUS, THE ASSESSEE GETS THE BENEFIT OF RS.2,40,000/-ACCORD INGLY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 ARE PARTLY ACCEPTED. 17 PANDEY GROUP 23. NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE L D. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE CONTROVERTING THE ADDITION IMPU GNED IN GROUND NO.3 WITH RESPECT TO OPENING CASH BALANCE RS.1,31,5 00/- AND CAPITAL ACCOUNT BALANCE RS.1,953/-. ACCORDINGLY, THE S AME IS REJECTED. 24. IN GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOU NT BY AO. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS POINTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND. IT WA S DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS . THE BOOKS PRODUCED BY ASSESSEE WERE MADE SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH. THE AO FOUND DISCREPANCIES AND DEFICIENCIES IN THE BOOKS. N O PLAUSIBLE REASON WHATSOEVER WAS GIVEN TO EXPLAIN THE DEFICIE NCIES. THERE WERE NO BILLS, VOUCHERS ETC SUPPORTING THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REJECTED THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. DURING THE PENDENCY OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE C OULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS MAINTAINING REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THUS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GIVEN A CATEGORIC FINDING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE DURING SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. EVEN DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT EXPLAIN VARIOUS ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS ALLEGEDLY MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THUS THE A O WAS CONSTRAINED TO MAKE ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ACTION OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN REJECTING B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATING THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF MATERIA L SEIZED 18 PANDEY GROUP DURING SEARCH. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO.4 IN THE APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 25. AS REGARDS CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S.234A, 234B AND 2 34C IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL. ACC ORDINGLY, GROUND NO.5 OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ACCEPTED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ITA NOS.1157/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2005-06) : 27. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) IN A. Y. 2005-06 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. CIT(A) CENTRAL, HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDI TION OF RS.4,99,518/- TO RETURNED INCOME, RESTRICTING THE REL IEF TO RS.12,18,594/-. APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE WHOLE OF THE ADDITION. 2. CIT(A) CENTRAL, HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ESTIMATE O F HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.9,60,000/- BY ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST ACTU AL DEBIT OF RS.4,60,482/- THEREBY CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.4,99, 518/-. APPELLANT PRAYS TO CANCEL THE ADDITION. 3. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER S ACTION OF REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHILE ESTIMATING ADDITIONS TO RETURNED INCOME. 4. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CHARGING INTERES T U/S.234A, B, C PARTICULARLY INTEREST U/S.234A FOR THE PERIOD AFTER DATE OF SUBMISSION OF RETURN ON 25-03-2010. APPELLANT PRAYS FO R JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 5. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND OR WITHD RAW THE GROUND/S, AS OCCASION MAY DEMAND. THE OTHER GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL ARE SIMILAR TO GR OUND OF APPEAL NO.4 AND 5 RAISED IN A.Y. 2004-05. WE HAVE DISMIS SED THOSE GROUNDS IN A.Y. 2004-05. FOR SIMILAR REASONS THE GR OUND NO.3 AND 4 RAISED IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ARE DISMISSED. 19 PANDEY GROUP 28. THE ASSESSEE HAS RETURNED INCOME OF RS.37,81,888/- IN A.Y. 2005-06. THE AO ASSESSED THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.55,00,000/- BY MAKING ADDITION OF RS.9,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.7,58,112/- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FOR ARRANGING ADMISSIONS. THE ASSESSE E HAS HIMSELF ADMITTED WITHDRAWAL OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.4,60,482/-. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.7,58,112/- ON ACCOUNT OF ADMISSION RECEIPTS AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION O N ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AFTER GIVING THE BENEFIT OF E XPENSES DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IN PRESENT AP PEAL IS SEEKING RELIEF ON THE AMOUNT CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF HOUS EHOLD EXPENSES. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW ESTIMATION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AT RS.9,60,000/- IS ON HIGHER SIDE IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE IT WOULD BE JUST AND PROPER IF THE AD DITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS MADE @ RS.50,000/- PE R MONTH, I.E. RS.6 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE WILL FURTHER GET BENEFIT OF THE AMOUNT RS.4,60,482/- ALREADY DECLARED BY HIM. THUS, ADDITION ON A CCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES IS RESTRICTED TO RS.6,00,000/- INCLUD ING THE AMOUNT ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ACCEPTED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. 29. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005 -06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.1158/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2006-07) : 30. THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 20 PANDEY GROUP 1. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFI RMING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER TO RETURNED INCOME O F RS.30,06,944=00 SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. SR.NO. PARTICULARS ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER (RS.) CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) (RS.) RELIEF (RS.) 1 ADMISSION RECEIPTS *17,48,252.00 17,48,252.00 2 PASSING RECEIPTS 57,39,000,00 57,39,000.00 ** 3 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 12,00,000.00 5,00,000.00 7,00,000,00 4 P&L EXPENSES DISALLOWANCE 44,804.00 44,804.00 TOTAL 87,32,056.00 80,32,056.00 (*EXCLUDING 3 AND 4) (** RS.16,80,000/- IF ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF MR. ARVIN D PANDEY) 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE GROUND NO.1 ABOVE 2.1 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING AN ADHOC HOUSEHOLD ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000.00. SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.2 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRM ING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.44,804.00, I.E. 20% EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.3 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT ADJUDICATING AND GIVING ANY FINDING ON ESTIMATING INCOME OF RS.60,00,000.00 AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.30,06,944.00. APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE ADDIT ION. (RS. 60 LAKHS INCLUDING ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF HOUSE HOLD AN D DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES). 3. COMMISSIONER (A) CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING AD DITION OF RS.57,39,000/- ALLEGING GROSS RECEIPT ESTIMATED AS APPEL LANTS INCOME AS AGAINST SMALL PART OF IT AS ASSESSEES AGENCY COMMISSION F OR ARRANGING FOR PASSING STUDENTS. APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ACCEPTING ADDITION AS PER GROUND NO.2.3 AND GROUND 3, BUT IF IT IS SO HELD AS INCOME, T ELESCOPING EFFECT MAY PLEASE BE GIVEN. 5. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DELETION OF INTEREST CHARGED U /S.234A FROM 25-03-2010. 6. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELLATION OF INTEREST CHARG ED U/S.234B. 7. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 8. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY THE GROUND/S OR WITHDRAW THE SAME DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. 21 PANDEY GROUP 31. IN GROUND NO.1 THE ASSESSEE IS SEEKING DELETION OF TH E ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDER THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE HIM AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION S MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF ADMISSION RECEIPTS, PASSING RECEIP TS AND HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE H AS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SHOW FROM MATERIAL ON RECORD ANY PERVERSITY OR ERROR IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ADDITIONS. ACCORDINGLY , THE GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 32. IN GROUND NO.2.1, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ADHO C ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. THE AO HAD M ADE ADDITION OF RS.12,00,000/-. THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITIO N TO RS.5 LAKHS. WE FIND THAT THE CIT(A) IS QUITE REASONABLE AND JUSTIFIED IN GRANTING THE RELIEF TO THE TUNE OF RS.7,00,000/- TO THE ASSESSEE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 32.1 AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF RS.44,804/- THE ADDITION HA S BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED/UNVERIFIABLE EXPENSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED EXPENSES TO THE TU NE OF RS.2,24,020/- AGAINST THE GROSS RECEIPTS FROM CONSULTANCY BUSINESS OF RS.31,22,130/-. SINCE THE EXPENDITURE WAS NOT SUPPORTE D BY ANY COGENT EVIDENCE THE AO DISALLOWED THE EXPENDITURE TO THE TUNE OF 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRME D THE SAME. THE DISALLOWANCE HAS BEEN MADE ON ESTIMATION, WHICH TO OUR MIND IS ON THE HIGHER SIDE. TO MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE W E RESTRICT THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. ACCORD INGLY, THIS GROUND NO.2.2 OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ACCEPTED. 22 PANDEY GROUP 32.2 THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.2.3 OF THE APPEAL HAS ASSA ILED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS.60,00,000/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.30,06,944/-. IN GROUND NO.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE ADDITION OF RS.57,39,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS FOR PASSING THE STUDENTS. THE CIT(A) IN PARA 24.2 OF THE ORDER HAS GIVEN THE BREAK-UP OF THE ASSESSED INCOME : NATURE OF ADDITION AMOUNT (RS.) PASSING RECEIPTS 57,39,000/ - I. INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSIONS (NOT SEPARATELY QUANTIFIED) II. HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE (RS.12,00,000/-) III. UNPROVED UNVERIFIABLE EXPENDITURE (RS.44,804/-) IV. SHORTCOMINGS IN BOOKS (NOT SEPARATELY QUANTIFIED) 60,00,000/- TOTAL INCOME 1,17,39,000/ - IN SO FAR AS PASSING RECEIPTS TO THE TUNE OF RS.57,39,000/- ARE CONCERNED, THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE FROM ACTUAL QUANT IFICATION OF RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT CHALLENGED THE ABOVE QUANTIFICATION OF RECEIPTS. THE ASSES SEE IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED ON 26-03-2013 BEFORE THE AUTHORIT IES BELOW HAVE SPECIFICALLY STATED THAT THE ESTIMATE OF GROSS AMOUNT OF RS.57,39,000/- IS NOT CHALLENGED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GI VEN THE DETAILS OF THE INSTITUTIONS AND THE PERSONS WITH WHOM THE AMOUNT RECEIVED FOR PASSING STUDENTS HAVE BEEN SHARED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT GIVEN THE DETAILS OF THE STUD ENTS AND THE AMOUNT PASSED ON TO THE INSTITUTIONS. THEREFORE, IN THE ABS ENCE OF ABOVE INFORMATION THE ONLY INFERENCE THAT CAN BE DRAWN IS THAT THE ENTIRE RECEIPTS HAVE BEEN RETAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND NO.3 OF APPEAL AND THE S AME IS DISMISSED. 23 PANDEY GROUP 32.3 AS REGARDS BALANCE RS.60,00,000/-, THE BIFURCATION GIVEN ABOVE SHOWS THAT IT HAS FOUR COMPONENTS (I) INCOME FROM AR RANGING ADMISSIONS, WHICH HAS NOT BEEN QUANTIFIED; (II) SHORTFALL IN BOOKS, AGAIN THIS COMPONENT HAS NOT BEEN SEPARATELY QUANTIFIED ; (III) HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE RS.12,00,000/-. UNDER THIS HEAD THE CIT(A) HAS GRANTED RELIEF OF RS.7,00,000/- AND WE HAVE CONFIRMED TH E SAME; AND (IV) UNVERIFIABLE EXPENDITURE RS.44,804/-. THE AO HAD DISALLOWED 20% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE. THE CIT(A) HAS UP HELD THE ORDER OF AO. HOWEVER, WE HAVE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. WITH RESPECT TO UNQUANTIFIED COMPONENTS, THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED AS TO WHY THE ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUSTAINAB LE. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL/DOCUMEN TS SEIZED DURING SEARCH ACTION. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN T HIS GROUND NO.2.3 OF APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 33. IN GROUND NO.4 OF APPEAL THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED FOR GIVING THE BENEFIT OF TELESCOPING ON THE ADDITIONS MADE. WE DO NO T FIND ANY MERIT IN THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AU THORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SU BSTANTIATE AS TO HOW TELESCOPING EFFECT CAN BE GRANTED TO THE ASSESSE E ON THE ADDITIONS MADE. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO.4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1159/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2007-08) : 34. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.34,05,520=00 TO RET URNED INCOME OF RS.16,64,480=00. 24 PANDEY GROUP SR.NO. PARTICULARS ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER (RS.) CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) (RS.) RELIEF (RS.) 1 ADDITION FOR ARRANGING ADMISSION *39,44,251.00 *39,44,251.00 2 ADDITION ESTIMATED FOR PASSING RECEIPTS 82,70,000,00 82,70,000,00 3 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 18,00,000.00 18,00,000.00 7,00,000,00 4 EXPENSES DISALLOWED OUT OF DEBIT TO P&L 91,219.00 91,219.00 TOTAL 1,41,05,520.00 1,34,05,520.00 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE 2.1 COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) - CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFI RMING ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE OF RS.18 LAKHS THEREB Y AN ADHOC ADDITION FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.11,00,000=00 IS CO NFIRMED. SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.2 COMMISSIONER (A) CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING T HE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 91,269=00 I.E. 20% EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.3 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT GIVING ANY FINDING/DECISI ON ON ESTIMATE OF INCOME OF RS.75,00,000.00 BY ASSESSING OFFICER AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.16,64,484.00. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DELET ION OF ADDITIONS (75 LAKHS IS INCLUSIVE OF ADDITION FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSE & DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES). 2.4 COMMISSIONER (A) CENTRAL HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING A DDITION OF RS.82,70,000/- ALLEGING GROSS RECEIPT ESTIMATED AS APPEL LANTS INCOME AS AGAINST SMALL PART OF IT AS ASSESSEES AGENCY COMMISSION FO R ARRANGING FOR PASSING STUDENTS. (PARA 39.1) OF THE OR DER). APPELLANT PRAYS TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 2.5 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN OBSERVING THAT EXPENDITURE IS NOT ALLOWABLE UNDER EXPLANATION TO SEC.37(1) OF THE ACT. IT MAY PLEASE BE HELD THAT EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO TH E ASSESSEE. 2.6 WHILE DEALING IN GROUND NO.6 BEFORE CIT(A) PARA 39 OF THE ORDER, THERE APPEARS TO BE MISUNDERSTANDING ON APPELLANTS SUBMI SSION, SUBMISSION RELATES TO ESTIMATE OF RS.75,00,000.00 BY ASSESSI NG OFFICER AND NOT FOR PASSING RECEIPT . 2.7 WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.2.4, 2.5 CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING WITHOUT PREJUDICE GROUND NO.8 BEFORE HIM, O N DOUBLE TAXATION OF PART OF THE AMOUNT, I.E. PART OF THE AM OUNT ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF MR. ARVIND PANDEY & ALSO ASSESSEE INCLUDED IN 82 ,70,000.00. ATLEAST THE SAME IF BROUGHT TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF MR. ARVIND PANDEY. SAME BE EXCLUDED. 3. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND OF APPELLA NT ON ASSESSING OFFICERS ALLEGATION OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM ETC. (I.E. GROUND NO.10 BEFORE CIT(A). 25 PANDEY GROUP 4. WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND WITHOUT ACCEPTING ADDITION TO RETURNED INCOME BUT IF SAME IS UPHELD, THEN TELESCOPING EFFECT MAY PLEASE BE GIVEN. 5. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND IN RESPECT OF ALLEGATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM. 6. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DELETION OF INTEREST CHARGED U /S.234A FROM 25-03-2010. 7. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELLATION OF INTEREST CHARG ED U/S.234B. 8. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF. 9. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY THE GROUND/S TO WITHDRAW THE SAME DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING. 35. THE ADDITIONS IN A.Y. 2007-08 HAVE BEEN MADE ON SIMILAR LINES AS WERE MADE IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. FOR THE REASONS GIVEN IN A.Y. 2006-07, THE GROUND NO.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4 AND 4 OF THE APPEA L ARE DISMISSED. 36. THE GROUND NO.2.2 OF APPEAL IS SIMILAR TO GROUND NO.2.2 IN APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07. THE CIT(A) HAS CONFIRMED 20% DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. WE HAVE RESTRICTED TH E DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. THEREFORE T HE GROUND NO.2.2 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 36.1 IN GROUND NO.2.5, THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE ORD ER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE SANS EXPLANATION TO SECTION 37(1). NO SUBMISSIONS HAVE BEEN MADE BY THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE IN SUPPORT OF THIS GROUND. ACC ORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF MERIT. 36.2 IN GROUND NO.2.6 THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE HIM IN GR OUND NO.6 OF THE APPEAL. 26 PANDEY GROUP THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUND NO.6 BEFORE THE CIT(A). ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION AND TAXI NG RS.82,70,000/- UNDER THE HEAD PASSING RECEIPTS. SAME BE DELETED. THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE GROUND AS FOLLOWS : 39 GROUND NO.6: THIS GROUND IS REGARDING ADDITION OF AN AMOUNT OF RS.82,70,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF 'PASSING RECEIPTS' AND COR RESPONDS TO GROUND NO.6 FOR A Y 2006-07. FOR THE PRESENT YEAR, H OWEVER, AN ADDITIONAL ISSUE HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THERE WAS A TOTALLING MISTAKE IN THE AO'S CALCULATION OF GROSS RECE IPTS AS PER BUNDLE NOS.6 & 7 A SUMMARY OF WHICH HAS BEEN MADE ON PAGE-19 OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS CONTENDED IN THIS REGARD THAT THE TOTAL IS RS. 27,59,00,000/- AND NOT RS. 29,84,71,000/-. IT I S ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THESE FIGURES ARE FOR FY 2007-08, 2008-09 AND 20 09-10. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PROVIDED A FINANCIAL YEAR WISE BREA K-UP. IT IS ALSO CLAIMED THAT THERE ARE DUPLICATE ENTRIES IN THE BUND LE. 39.1 THE SUBSTANTIVE GROUND CHALLENGING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 'PASSING RECEIPTS' IS HEREBY DISMISSED FOR THE REASONS DISCUS SED AT LENGTH UNDER GROUND NO.6 FOR AY 2006-07. AS REGARDS T HE FURTHER ISSUES RAISED REGARDING TOTALLING ERROR AND DUPLICATE ENTRI ES, THE AO IS DIRECTED TO GIVE THE APPELLANT AN OPPORTUNITY TO DEMONSTRATE THE EXISTENCE OF ERRORS AND REDUCE THE ADDITION MADE TO THAT EXTENT I F THE APPELLANT'S CLAIMS IN THIS REGARD ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR IN THE GROUND DECIDED BY THE C IT(A). THE CIT(A) HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE PRECISELY WHAT WAS RAIS ED IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. WE DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THIS GROUND NO.2.6 OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 36.3 IN GROUND NO.2.7, THE ASSESSEE HAS PRAYED THAT THE RECEIPTS SHOULD NOT BE SUBJECT TO DOUBLE TAXATION, I.E. THE AMOUNT WHICH HAS BEEN TAXED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY SHOULD NOT BE TAXED AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT BEFORE US ANY INSTANCE WHERE THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY IS ALSO TAXED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF TH E LD. 27 PANDEY GROUP AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE SAME AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TAXED TWICE IN THE HANDS OF TWO PERSONS. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO VERIFY THAT THE AMOUNT ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHA N PANDEY IS NOT ADDED AGAIN IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A SSESSEE SHALL SPECIFICALLY HIGHLIGHT THE INSTANCE(S) WHERE THE AMOUNT HAS B EEN TAXED TWICE. THE GROUND NO.2.7 IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSES SEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 37. IN GROUND NO.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN UPHOLDING THE FINDINGS OF AO IN RESPECT OF ALLEGATION OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN FILING RETURN OF INCOME ON 25- 03- 2010 AND NON-COOPERATION BY ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED IN APPEAL BEFORE HI M FOR THE DETAILED REASONS RECORDED WHILE DECIDING THE APPEA L OF ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2004-05. IN PARA 4.3 OF THE ORDER, THE C IT(A) HAS SUMMARISED THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN BY AO TO RECORD S UCH FINDINGS. FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY WE ARE NOT REPRODUCING THE SAME. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE H IS CLAIM EITHER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES OR BEFORE US, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN AFFIRMING THE FINDINGS OF AO. ACCORDINGLY, T HIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 38. IN GROUND NO.6 & 7 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED CHARGIN G OF INTEREST U/S.234A AND 234B. THE CHARGING OF INTEREST IS MANDATORY AND CONSEQUENTIAL, THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROU NDS RAISED IN THE APPEAL. ACCORDINGLY GROUND NO. 6 & 7 OF THE APPEA L ARE DISMISSED. 28 PANDEY GROUP 39. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1160/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 40. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON FOLLOW ING GROUNDS : 1. COMMISSIONER APPEALS HAS ERRED CONFIRMING THE ADDIT ION OF RS. 44,47,892/- TO RETURNED INCOME, THEREBY ESTIMATING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.95,44,062/- AGAINST RETURNED INCOME OF RS.50,96,170 /-. SR.NO. PARTICULARS ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER (RS.) CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) (RS.) RELIEF (RS.) 1 INCOME FROM ARRANGING ADMISSION *27,27,685.00 27,27,685.00 2 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 21,00,000,00 16,44,062.00 4,55,938.00 3 UNPROVED EXPENSES 76,145.00 76,145.00 TOTAL 49,03,830.00 44,47,892.00 (* EXCLUDING 2 AND 3) 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE 2.1 COMMISSIONER (A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE RELI EF OF RS.4,55,938/- OUT OF ESTIMATE OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.21 LAKHS. ADDITION MADE MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 2.2 COMMISSIONER (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISA LLOWANCE OF EXPENSES OF RS.76,145/-, I.E. 20% OF EXPENSES DEBITED TO PROFIT & LOSS A/C. APPELLATE PRAYS TO CANCEL THE DISALLOWANCE. 2.3 CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACTION OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS & ACCOUNT STATEMENTS. 2.4 CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND IN RESPE CT OF ALLEGATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM. 2.5 APPELLATE PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF IN CLUDING TELESCOPIC. 3. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DELETION OF INTEREST U/S.234A FROM 25-03- 2010. 4. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR CANCELLATION OF INTEREST U/S.2 34B. 5. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND/OR WITH DRAW THE GROUND/S OF APPEAL AS OCCASION MAY DEMAND, DURING APP ELLANT PROCEEDINGS. 29 PANDEY GROUP 41. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2008-09 ON SIMILAR LINES AS WERE MADE IN THE A.Y. 2006-07. FOR THE DETAILED REASO NS GIVEN WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07, THE G ROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1, 2.1, 2.3, 2.4, 2.5, 3, 4 AND 5 OF THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED. 42. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2.2 RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE IS PARTLY ALLOWED BY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANC E TO 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED. 43. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ACCEPTED. ITA NO.1161/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) : 44. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON FOLLOW ING GROUNDS : 1. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN C ONFIRMING ADDITIONS OF RS.63,89,368/- TO RETURNED INCOME OF RS.4 0,16,632/- : SR.NO. PARTICULARS ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER (RS.) CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) (RS.) RELIEF (RS.) 1 ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ARRANGING ADMISSIONS 43,18,011/ - 43,18,011/ - 2 HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES 2 4 ,00,000,00 1 8 , 06,000 .00 5,94,000/ - 3 EXPENSES DISALLOWED 20% 2,65,357/ - 2,65,357/ - TOTAL 69,83,368/ - 69,83,368/ - 5,94,000/ - APPELLANT PRAYS TO CANCEL/DELETE THE ADDITIONS MADE. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND NO.1 ABOVE, APPELLAN T PRAYS FOR JUST AND EQUITABLE RELIEF INCLUDING TELESCOPIC. 3. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACT ION OF REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND ESTIMATE OF INCOME . APPELLANT PRAYS TO ACCEPT RETURNED INCOME AS PER ACCOUNTS. 4. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GROUND RELATING T O ALLEGATION BY ASSESSING OFFICER OF FRAUDULENT CLAIM. 5. APPELLANT PRAYS TO CANCEL THE INTEREST CHARGED U/S. 234A FROM 25- 03-2010. 30 PANDEY GROUP 6. APPELLANT PRAYS TO CANCEL THE INTEREST U/S.234B, C. 7. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY THE GROUND/S OR WITHDRAW THE SAME AS OCCASION MAY DEMAND 45. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN A.Y. 2009-10 ON SIMILAR LINES AS WERE MADE IN THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE ALSO RAIS ED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN WHILE DEC IDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN A.Y. 2009-10 ARE ALSO DISMISSED, EXCEPT THE A DDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. THE DISALLOWAN CE OF EXPENSES IS RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. 46. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY AC CEPTED IN THE AFORESAID TERMS. ITA NO.1162/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2010-11) : 47. THE ASSESSEE HAS IMPUGNED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) ON FOLLOW ING GROUNDS : 1. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ESTIMATE INCOM E AT RS.1,05,27,100/- THEREBY CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.56,11,710/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.49,15,200/-. APPELLANT PR AYS TO DELETE THE ADDITION/DISALLOWANCES. PARTICULARS ADDITION BY ASSESSING OFFICER (RS.) CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) (RS.) RELIEF (RS.) ARRANGING ADMISSION 60,84,710/- 56,11,710/- CIT(A) GRANTED RELIEF ONLY OUT OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENDITURE ADDITION OF RS.4,73,000/- HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES - RS.24 LAKHS UNVERIFIED EXPENSES (RS.2,65,357/-) SHORTCOMING IN BOOKS & FAILURE TO EXPLAIN SEIZED MATERIAL 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO GROUND 1 ABOVE. 31 PANDEY GROUP A) CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ABOVE ADDITION OF HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS.19,27,000/-. SAME MAY PLEASE BE CANCELL ED. B) CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF 20% OF EXPENSES. SAID DISALLOWANCE MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. C) CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.15,0 0,000/- FOR CASH SEIZED, ALLEGING UNEXPLAINED. 3. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING ASSESSING OFFICERS ACT ION OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND ESTIMATING INCOME. 4. APPELLANT PRAYS FOR JUST & EQUITABLE RELIEF, INCL UDING TELESCOPING EFFECT. 5. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING CHARGING OF INTERE ST U/S.234B, SAME MAY PLEASE BE CANCELLED. 6. APPELLANT PRAYS TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY THE GROUND/S OF APPEAL OCCASION MAY DEMAND, DURING APPELLATE PROCEED INGS. 48. THE ADDITIONS IN A.Y. 2010-11 HAVE BEEN MADE ON SIMILAR LINES AS WERE MADE IN THE A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED SIMILAR GROUNDS OF APPEAL. FOR THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN W HILE DECIDING THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 THE GROU ND NO.1, 2(A), 2(C), 3 TO 6 ARE DISMISSED. 49. THE GROUND 2(B) RELATES TO DISALLOWANCE OF UNVERIFIED EXPE NSES. THE DISALLOWANCE IS RESTRICTED TO 10% OF THE EXPENSES CLAIMED. 50. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NOS.95 TO 101/PN/2014 (A.YRS. 2004-05 TO 2010-11 ) : 51. IN THESE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDING OF CIT(A) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING THE GRO UND NO.4 BEFORE HIM IN RESPECT OF QUANTUM OF INCOME CLUB BED U/S.64 OF THE ACT. APPELLANT PRAYS TO RESTRICT THE SAME TO INCOME FROM R ESPECTIVE HOUSE PROPERTY AS MAY BE FINALLY ASSESSED IN THE ASSESSMEN T OF MRS. NEELAM PANDEY. 32 PANDEY GROUP 2. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NO T CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF KARMA PROPERTY -GOA (PAGE 6 & 7) OF THE ORDER). APPELLANT PRAYS TO CONSIDER THE SAME AND GRANT JUST & EQUITABLE RELIEF. 3. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NO T SPECIFICALLY ADJUDICATING THE GROUND RELATING TO COM PUTATION OF INTEREST U/S.234B(3).: IN ALL THE APPEALS SIMILAR GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 52. THE ASSESSEE IS FATHER OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY WHO WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF ARRANGING ADMISSIONS TO PR OFESSIONAL COLLEGES UNDER MANAGEMENT QUOTA. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED HIS ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2004-05 DECLARING NIL INCO ME. SUBSEQUENT TO THE SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI ARVIND JANA RDHAN PANDEY, NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASS ESSEE. ASSESSMENTS WERE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEA RS U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT. THE AO IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PUR CHASED IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF HIS DAUGHTER-IN-LAW SMT . NEELAM ARVIND PANDEY AND CLUBBED HER INCOME U/S.64(1)(VI) IN T HE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS ON ACCOUNT OF CLUBBING OF INCOM E IS AS UNDER : ASST. YEAR INCOME DECLARED IN RETURN FILED IN PURSUANCE TO NOTICE U/S.153A ADDITION MADE BY THE AO RELIEF GRANTED BY CIT(A) 2004 - 05 97,481 1,00,800 -- 2005 - 06 89,867 1,10,880 -- 2006 - 07 67,845 2,41,703 -- 2007 - 08 11,988 1,34,165 -- 33 PANDEY GROUP 2008 - 09 88,675 2,44,697 -- 2009 - 10 ( - ) 90,14,332 1,42,347 -- 2010 - 11 NIL 20523 -- 53. IN FIRST APPEAL THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED CLUBBING OF INC OME BY AO. THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS U/S.64(1)(VI) OF THE ACT AFTER CONSIDERING THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND T HE ORDER PASSED IN THE FIRST APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEELAM PAND EY. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE AS UNDER : 6.4 IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT IN THE PRESENT CASE THAT T HE PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED BY MRS. NEELAM PANDEY, DAUGHTER-IN-LAW OF T HE APPELLANT, OUT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM THE APPELLANT. AS REGA RDS THE ESTIMATE OF HOUSE PROPERTY INCOME MADE THE LD. A.O., I HAVE ALRE ADY UPHELD THE SAME WHILE DISPOSING THE RELEVANT GROUND OF APPEAL RAI SED BY HER IN HER INDIVIDUAL CASE. THE APPLICABILITY OF 64(1)(VI) IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAS ALSO NOT BEEN SERIOUSLY CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT BY PUTTING FORWARD ANY COGENT ARGUMENTS. RATHER HIS CONTENTIONS ARE REGA RDING THE QUANTUM OF INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE LD. AO IN HER HAN DS WHICH I HAVE ALREADY UPHELD. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT SEE ANY REASONS TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. AO IN THIS RESPE CT. ACCORDINGLY, THESE TWO GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE HEREBY DISMISSED. 54. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND HAVE PERUSE D THE RECORD. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). IN THE ABSENCE OF A NY CONTRARY MATERIAL, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 RAISED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 55. IN GROUND NO.2 OF THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLE NGED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN NOT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS IN RESPEC T OF KARMA PROPERTY AT GOA. 55.1 IN RESPECT OF KARMA PROPERTY THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN HIS FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF SMT. NEELAM PANDEY AS UNDER : UPON CAREFUL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND THE DOCUM ENTARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT, I AM UNABLE TO ARRIVE AT ANY DEFINITE CONCLUSIONS WITH REGARD TO THE TWO PROPERTIE S. IN THE WRITTEN 34 PANDEY GROUP SUBMISSIONS DATED 21-10-2013, WHICH ARE IN RESPECT OF A .Y. 2006-07 IT IS STATED THAT THE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.A-2 KARMA CLASSIC WAS ENTERED INTO ON 21-09-2005 WHEREAS IN THE WRITTEN SUB MISSIONS DATED 23-10-2013 IT IS STATED TAHT THE AGREEMENT IN RESPECT OF THIS PROPERTY WAS ENTERED INTO ON 21-04-2005. A DOCUMENT DATED 13 -03-2006 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A LETTER ISSUE D BY THE PROPRIETOR OF THE SAID BUILDER COMPANY (KARMA CONSTRU CTIONS) TO HIS OWN SITE ENGINEER ASKING TEH LATTER TO HAND OVER POSSE SSION OF THE PROPERTY AT A-1, KARMA CLASSIS, RANGHVI ESTATE, GOA T O THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THIS ADDRESS, I.E. RANGHVI ESTATE IS NOT FOUN D ANYWHERE ELSE INCLUDING THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. AS REGARDS FLAT NO.A-2, AS PER THE LETTER DATED 14-12-20 05 PURPORTEDLY WRITTEN BY THE APPELLANT TO M/S. KARMA CONSTRUCTIONS, THE SCHEME KARMA CLASSIS IS LOCATED IN BOGMALO, GOA AND WHEREAS A S PER THE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE ISSUED BY THE VILLAGE PANCHAYAT WHICH IS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT TO BE IN RESPECT OF HIS PROJECT (KA RMA CLASSIS) THE SAME IS LOCATED IN VELSAO, PALE, ISSORCIM, P.O. CANSAULIM . ONE MORE OCCUPANCY CERTIFICATE FROM THE MORMUGAO MUNICIPAL C OUNCIL, VASO DA GAMA, GOA HAS BEEN FURNISHED WHICH DOES NOT REFLECT TH E NAME OR THE NUMBER OF EITHER OF THE FLATS BUT RATHER SHOWS THE NAM E AND LOCATION OF THE BUILDING AS KARMA EMPRESS VADDEM, VASO DA GAMA, G OA. MOREOVER, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDICATE THAT ANY OF THESE DOCUMENTS WERE FURNISHED AT THE ASSESSMENT STAGE BEFORE THE LEARNED ASSESSIN G OFFICER. THERE IS ALSO NO REQUEST FROM THE APPELLANT FOR ADMISSI ON OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER R.46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES AND UND ER WHICH SUB- RULE THE SAME IS ADMISSIBLE. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, TH E MATERIAL SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIO NS REGARDING THE OWNERSHIP OF THE TWO FLATS IS HEREBY REJECTED AND THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER IS UPHELD. WE OBSERVE THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE A FTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE DETAILED ORDER PASSED IN THE CASE OF MRS. NEELAM PANDEY. THE LD. AUTHORISE D REPRESENTATIVE HAS NOT RAISED ANY SPECIFIC OBJECTION POIN TING ERROR IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) BY RAISING GENERAL OBJECTIONS, W HICH ARE NOT SUSTAINABLE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL NO .2 IS DISMISSED BEING DEVOID OF ANY MERIT. 56. IN GROUND NO.3 OF THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSA ILED THE COMPUTATION OF INTEREST U/S.234B(3). THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT WHEREVER ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE INTEREST U/S.234B SHOULD BE CHARGED ON TH E ADDITIONAL INCOME ASSESSED. 35 PANDEY GROUP WE FIND MERIT IN THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE LD.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO REMIT THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO TO COMPUTE INTEREST U/S.234B IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORIGINA L RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND RAISED IN A LL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 57. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.108/PN/2014 (A.Y.2006-07 ) : 58. THE ONLY ISSUED RAISED IN THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESS EE IS IN RESPECT OF INCOME FROM FLAT A1 AND FLAT A2 AT KARMA CLAS SIC, GOA. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO OBSERV ED THAT THE ABOVE MENTIONED PROPERTIES WERE PURCHASED BY SHRI ARVIN D JANARDHAN PANDEY, HUSBAND OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE INCOME FROM THE AFORESAID PROPER TIES WERE CLUBBED WITH THE INCOME OF SHRI ARVIND JANARDHAN PANDEY FOR THE A.Y. 2006-07. 59. DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE FIRST APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE FILED SOME ADDITIONAL DOCUMENTS. THE CIT(A) REFUSED TO ADMIT THO SE DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, AS NO FORMAL REQUEST WA S MADE TO ADMIT THESE NEW DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES. A FURTHER PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER SHOW THAT PRIMA-FACIE THE C IT(A) WAS NOT ABLE ARRIVE AT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE 2 PROPERTIES AT GOA. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCE OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IF PROPER TO REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WIT H A DIRECTION TO CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E BEFORE 36 PANDEY GROUP CIT(A). THE AO SHALL DECIDE THIS ISSUE DENOVO, IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 60. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON MONDAY, THE 29 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( R.K. PANDA ) ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH FEBRUARY, 2016. ) *#,! -! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A ) - II , PUNE 4. 5. 6. THE CIT-II, PUNE $ ''(, (, / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; - / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // $ ' //TRUE COP TRUE C /0 ' ( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY (, / ITAT, PUNE