Shri Abhay Jaykumar Chordia, Pune V. DCIT, Central Circle 2(1), Pune

ITA 1199/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 119924514 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 11-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A K MODI
• Assessee Lawyers: VIPIN GUJRATHI
• Keywords: Salary income; Loose papers; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS. 1199 AND 1200/PN/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2008-09 AND 2009-10) ABHAY JAYKUMAR CHORDIA, TECH PARK-1, TOWER E, NEAR DON BOSCO SCHOOL, YERAWADA, PUNE 411006 PAN NO. ADNPL9223M .. APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIPIN GUJRATHI REVENUE BY : SHRI A.K. MODI DATE OF HEARING : 26-05-2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-05-2015 ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 10-03-2013 OF THE CIT(A) CE NTRAL, PUNE, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09 AND 2009-10 RE SPECTIVELY. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE ASSE SSEE IN BOTH THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1199/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2008-09) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM SALARY, HOUSE PR OPERTY, CAPITAL GAIN AND OTHER SOURCES. A SEARCH AND SEIZUR E OPERATION 2 U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AGAINST PAN CHSHIL GROUP OF COMPANIES IN SEPTEMBER 2009 DURING THE COURSE OF WH ICH BUSINESS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES CONNECTED WITH TH E GROUP AND RELATED PERSONS WERE SEARCHED. THE RESIDENCE OF TH E ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.153A T HE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 22-04-2010 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,75,28,770/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT VARIOUS LOOSE PAPERS/ DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED, WHICH INCLUDED PAPER NO.1 BU NDLE NO.1 OF ANNEXURE TO THE PANCHNAMA WHICH READS AS UNDER ( PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK ) : 13.08.08 PAYABLE COMPLETED PTPL T/P-1 920,608 50 46,030,400 TECH PARK-1 PTPL UGS 231,098 50 11,554,900 UGS PTPL UGS CAFETTERIA 16,026 50 801,300 WATERFRONT WATERFRONT 170,023 50 8,501,150 WATERFRONT CONDMN WATERFRONT COND. 274,866 50 13,743,300 EON KHARADI-C EON KHARADI C 925,000 50 46,250,000 HINJEWADI EMERSON EON KHARADI CAFETERRIA 40,000 50 2,000,000 HINJEWADI EMERSON 243,609 50 12,180,450 HINJEWADI-EMERSON- CAFETERRIA 4,917 50 254,850 141,061,500 PAID ALREADY PAID AS PER MAR07 CHART 56,719,949 A2Z REMUN APRIL07-MAR 08 2,50,000 12 30,000,000 A2Z REMUN APR 08-JULY 08 2,50,000 4 10,000,000 EON K REMN APR 07-MAR 08 2,50,000 12 30,000,000 EON K REMN APR 08-JULY 08 2,50,000 4 10,000,000 THR MCMG APR 07-8 TH MAR 08 2,50,000 1,217,030 THR MCMG 8.3.08-06.08.2008 2,50,000 5,031,492 142,968,471 BALANCE (1,906,971 PENDING EON KHARADI D 925,000 50 46,250,000 EXCESS PAID AS ABOVE ADJUSTED (1,906,971) 44,343,029 EON KHARADI A 852182 EON KHARADI B 843255 LINER ICC B 3 UPCOMING APPROX AREA EON HSAR ONE MONTH 3,000,000 TECH PK II 2,000,000 KALYANI NAGAR 450,000 VIMAN NAGAR 110,000 WAGHOLI TOWNSHIP 7,500,000 BALEWADI 3,500,000 3. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TH E ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ABOVE DOCUMENT AND HIS STAT EMENT WAS RECORDED U/S.132(4) ON 1-10-2009. THE RELEVANT QUE STION NO.5 AND REPLY OF THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER : 'Q-5 DURING THE COURSE OF REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS OF SA FE AT YOUR RESIDENCE, ONE LOOSE PAPER AS PER ANNEXURE A (ONLY ONE PAGE) FOUND AND SEIZED, WHICH SHOWS TOTAL AGGREGATED PAYABLE AMOUNT RS.14,10,61,500/- AND PAID AMOUNT AGGREGATED RS.14,29,68,471/-. PLEASE GO THROUGH IT & EXPLAIN THE CONTENTS SHOWN ON PAGE NO. 1. ANS.- I HAVE GONE THROUGH THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS NOT HING BUT MY CALCULATION IN COMPARISON TO MARKET IN MY LINE OF B USINESS AND WHATEVER I EARNED BEING A SALARIED PERSON IN JUSTIFIAB LE OR NOT. I TOOK THE FIGURES (SQ. FT) FROM THE PROJECTS UNDERTAKEN BY ME AND MULTIPLIED AT THE RATE OF RS. 50/- PER SQ. FT. BEING OTHER PERSONS OF SIMILAR LINE CHARGING THEIR FEES AND WORKED OUT TOTAL EXPECTABLE AMOUNT TO BE EARNED. THIS EXPECTABLE AMOUNT WORKED O UT ON 13- 8-2008 AT RS.14,10,61,500/- WHICH HAVE BEEN ASKED IN QUESTION. LATER I COMPARED THIS EXPECTABLE AMOUNT WITH MY ACTU AL RECEIPT I.E. RS. 14,29,68,471/- BEING SALARY. I HAVE ALREADY OFFERED MY SALARY AMOUNT FOR TAXATION IN RESPECTIVE YEAR. FOR E G. I HAVE SHOWN SALARY FROM A2Z RS. 25 LAKHS PER MONTH AND FROM E ON KHARADI SALARY RS. 25 LAKHS PER MONTH, IN THIS PAPER, T HE AGGREGATED SALARY HAVE ALREADY BEEN SHOWN IN MY RETUR N OF INCOME FILED FOR THE A. Y. 2008-09 IN THE SAME CONCE RN OF RS. 6 CRORES. THIS PAPER WAS PREPARED FOR MY SATISFACTION IT I WOULD HAVE BEEN WORKED IN OPEN MARKET WHAT WOULD I GET.' 3.1 SUBSEQUENTLY, DURING THE COURSE OF POST SEARCH ENQUIRY VIDE LETTER DATED 30-11-2009 THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE NOTINGS AND THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WHICH HAS BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE AO IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND WHICH READS AS UNDER: 4 SR PARTICULARS / COMPANY PERIOD RS. RS. 1 DETAILS OF ALREADY PAID - SEPT 06 -MAR 07 APR 06 -MAR 07 APR 04 -MAR 07 JUNE07-OCT 07 1,75,00,000 3,00,00,000 42,50,000 50,00,000 5,67,19,949 ICE REALTY INDIA PVT LTD A2Z ONLINE SER. PVT. LTD. WATERFRONT WATERFRONT CONDOMINIUM 2 REMUNERATION FROM A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT LTD. APRIL 2007 -MAR 2008 3,00,00,000 3 REMUNERATION FROM A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT LTD. APRIL 2008 -JULY 2008 1,00,00,000 4 REMUNERATION FROM EON KHARADI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD APRIL 2007 -MAR 2008 3,00,00,000 5 REMUNERATION FROM EON KHARADI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD APRIL 2008 -JULY 2008 1,00,00,000 6 REMUNERATION FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT LTD. APRIL 2007 -MAR 2008 12,17,030 7 REMUNERATION FROM A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT LTD AUG 2008- SEPT 2008 50,31,492 TOTAL 14,29,68,471 SR COMPANY NAME ASSESSMENT YEAR TOTAL 2005-2006 2006-2007 2007-2008 2008-2009 2009-2010 1 WATERFRONT 10,00,000 30,00,000 2,50,000 - - 42,50,000 2 WATERFRONT CONDOMINIUM - - 50,00,000 - - 50,00,000 3 ICC REALTY INDIA PVT. LTD - - 1,75,00,000 - - 1,75,00,000 4 A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD - - 3,00,00,000 3,00,00,000 1,50,00,000 7,50,00,000 5 EON KHARADI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD - _ 3,00,00,000 1,00,00,000 4,00,00,000 6 LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. -- -- -- 12,17,030 -- 12,17,030 TOTAL 10,00,000 30,00,000 5,27,50,000 6,12,17,030 2,50,00,000 14,29,67,030 3.2 THE AO SUBSEQUENTLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLA IN THE FOLLOWING CONTENTS OF THIS PAGE : THR MCMG APR 07 8 TH MAR 08 1,217,030 THR MCMG 8.3.08 06-08-2008 5,031,492 5 3.3 IN HIS REPLY THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO THAT HE IS NOT ABLE TO RECOLLECT HOW THIS WORD MCMG HAS CREP T IN THE SEIZED CHART PREPARED BY ONE OF HIS ASSISTANT AND W HAT ACTUALLY IT MEANS. AS REGARDS THE AMOUNT MENTIONED AGAINST THE ENTRY MCMG IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME HAS ALREADY B EEN EXPLAINED BEFORE THE AO BY FURNISHING THE RELEVANT DETAILS AND ALL SUCH PAYMENTS ARE THROUGH BANK PAYMENTS AND TDS MADE HAVE ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE LE TTER DATED 14- 12-2011 THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE AMOUNTS MEN TIONED AGAINST THE NOTINGS MCMG WERE NOTHING BUT REMUNER ATION, PERQUISITES AND/OR REIMBURSEMENT RECEIVED IN THE CA PACITY AS DIRECTOR FROM M/S LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. AND M/S A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD.' IT WAS STATED THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY M/S. LIFESTYLE INTERIORS (P ) LTD. AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.12,17,030/- WAS RECEIVED AS GROSS REMU NERATION FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 COMPRISING GROSS MONTHLY AMO UNT OF RS.1 LAKH WHICH, AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT THE RATE OF R S.26,000/- PER MONTH, CAME TO RS. 74,000/- AND WAS DEPOSITED BY TH E ASSESSEE IN THE RATNAKAR BANK LTD. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 17,030/-, IT WAS SUBMITTED, WAS DEBITED BY THE SAID COMPANY TOWA RDS PERQUISITES FOR THE FINANCIAL YEAR. IT WAS FURTHER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO A DIRECTOR IN THE COMPANY M/S. A2 Z ONLINE SERVICES PRIVATE LIMITED FROM WHERE AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,00,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED TOWARDS GROSS REMUNER ATION DURING APRIL-SEPTEMBER 2008. 6 4. HOWEVER, THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLA NATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE AO IF THE AMOUNTS WERE IN THE NATURE OF SALARY AND WERE REALLY APPEARING I N THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE AS STATED ASSESSEE COULD H AVE RECONCILED THE SAME WITH REFERENCE TO THE BANK ACCOUNT BUT HE DID NOT DO SO. FURTHER, WHILE TOTAL OF ALL THE DEPOSITS IN THE BAN K ACCOUNT IN RATNAKAR BANK DURING F.Y. 2007-08 WAS APPROXIMATELY RS.55.4 CRORES, THE TOTAL AMOUNT PAID AS WELL AS PAYABLE WA S IN THE RANGE OF RS.14 CRORES. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE REM UNERATION FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. AND A2Z ONLINE S ERVICES PVT. LTD. ARE SEPARATE FIGURES IN THE PAID (RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE), THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT MENTIONED AS MCMG WAS OVER AND ABOVE THAT. ACCORDING TO THE AO IF THE SAID AMOUNT WAS S ALARY, THEY SHOULD HAVE OCCURRED IN BANK ACCOUNTS BUT THE SAME COULD NOT BE RECONCILED WITH THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUN T. FURTHER, THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD ONE MORE BANK ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK HE HAD NOT SUBMITTED THE ACCOUNT STATEMENT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE AO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE FIGUR ES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNTS OCCURRING I N THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS WERE SALARIES RECEIVED FROM LIFESTYLE INT ERIORS PVT. LTD. AND A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. THE AO FURTH ER NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S. ASHRAY PREMISES PVT. LTD. ANOTHER PANCHSHIL GROUP E NTITY, A PARALLEL UNACCOUNTED CASH BOOK WAS SEIZED WHEREIN C ASH 7 PAYMENTS HAD BEEN RECORDED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MAD E A DISCLOSURE OF RS.22 CRORES ON THAT ACCOUNT. 4.1 IN SHORT, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO RECONCILE THE FIGURES TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNTS OCCURRING IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT WERE SAL ARIES RECEIVED FROM M/S.LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. AN D M/S. A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. ON THE CONTRARY, HE POINT ED OUT THAT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF M/S ASHRAYA PREMISES LTD., (ANOTHER PANCHSHIL GROUP ENTITY) A P ARALLEL UNACCOUNTED CASH BOOK WAS SEIZED WHEREIN CASH PAYME NTS HAD BEEN RECORDED AND THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DISCLOSUR E OF RS. 22 CRORES ON THAT ACCOUNT. IN THAT CASE 'MCMG' WAS DE CIPHERED AS 'MONEY COMES AND MONEY GOES'. BY THE SAME ANALOGY , THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT 'MCMG' IN THE IMPUGNED SEIZED DOCUMENT IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO MEANT 'MONEY COMES AND MON EY GOES' AND IS THE CASH COMPONENT OF THE REMUNERATION RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE. TO SUM UP, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT NEITHER THE DOCUMENT WAS A ROUGH CALCULATION/ESTIMATION OF THE ASSESSEE'S EARNINGS NOR WAS THE CALCULATION DONE BY THE ASSIST ANT OF THE ASSESSEE AS WAS BEING CLAIMED. HE POINTED THE EN TRIES IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WERE NOT MATCHING WITH THE AMOUNTS STA TED AS REMUNERATION RECEIVED AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. A LSO, IF THE CORRESPONDING AMOUNT WAS ACCOUNTED, THERE WAS NO NE ED FOR THE REMARK 'MCMG' AGAINST IT. ACCORDING TO THE AO CIRCU MSTANTIAL EVIDENCE CLEARLY SHOWED THAT 'MCMG' DENOTES 'MONEY COMES AND MONEY GOES': THE ONUS WAS UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AND 8 TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PAPERS/DOCUMENTS FOUND DURING T HE SEARCH SINCE HE ONLY KNEW THE NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE HAD GROSSLY FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS. BASED O N THESE FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS, THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS . 12,17,030/- WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE SEIZED DOCUM ENT AGAINST THE NOTING 'THR MCMG APR 07-8 MAR 08' TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS.12,17,030/- AS C ASH COMPONENT OF REMUNERATION AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. IT WAS SUBM ITTED THAT NO ENQUIRY WITH THE EMPLOYER, I.E. LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD., WAS CONDUCTED AND WITHOUT SUCH ENQUIRY THE AO REACHED T O THE CONCLUSION THAT LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD HAS PA ID REMUNERATION IN CASH. FURTHER, THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE NO.1 BU NDLE NO. 1 IS AN UNSIGNED COMPUTERIZED PAPER WHICH IS A DUMB DOCU MENT AND THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF THIS D UMB DOCUMENT WHICH IS NOT LEGALLY CORRECT. IT WAS ARGU ED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER ADMITTED OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON AC COUNT OF SAID LOOSE PAPER NO.1 BUNDLE NO.1 FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH ACTION. FURTHER, DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT RE CORDED U/S.132(4) THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN THE COMPLETE EXPL ANATION OF THE SEIZED PAPER. THE SEARCH PARTY HAS NEITHER RAISED ANY ISSUE NOR QUESTIONED THE VERACITY OF THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE A SSESSEE. THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132 (4) CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE ESPECIALLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACT T HAT NO UNACCOUNTED ASSETS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH 9 ACTION. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO CO NNECTION OR RELATION BETWEEN M/S. ASHRAY PREMISES PVT. LTD. AND MR. ABHAY CHORDIA. FURTHER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT FIRSTLY UN DER THE CAPTION PAID ON PAGE NO.1 THE NAME OF LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. IS NOT APPEARING AT ALL. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHO WN THE REMUNERATION AT RS.12,00,000/- FROM LIFESTYLE INTER IORS PVT. LTD. IN THE RETURN FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE SEARCH ACTION. THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE AO THAT THE AMOUNT IS NOT RECEIVED FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. IS INCORRECT. 5.1 AS REGARDS THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO THAT THE S ALARY RECEIVED FROM A2Z ON LINE SERVICES PVT. LTD IS ALRE ADY MENTIONED UNDER THE PAID COLUMN, IT WAS ARGUED THAT REMUNERATION FOR THE DIFFERENT PERIOD IS MENTIONED IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED B Y THE AO. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT AGAINST A2Z THE REMUNERATION FOR THE PERIOD APRIL 2007 TO MARCH 2008 IS MENTIONED AT RS.3,00,00 ,000/- (RS. TWENTY FIVE LACS PER MONTH FOR 12 MONTHS). SIMILARL Y, THE REMUNERATION FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 08 TO JULY 0 8 IS MENTIONED AT RS. 1,00,00,000/- (RS. TWENTY FIVE LAC S PER MONTH FOR 4 MONTHS). THE REMUNERATION UNDER CONSIDERATION RS.50,31,492/- (RS. TWENTY FIVE LACS PER MONTH FOR 2 MONTHS) IS DIFFERENT THAN THE REMUNERATION MENTIONED AGAINST O THER PERIODS. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF THE AO IS INCORRECT A ND NEEDS TO BE IGNORED. THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT SINCE HE HAS AL READY DECLARED THE SALARY RECEIVED FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. L TD IN THE RETURN, 10 THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF THE SAME AMOUNTS TO DOUB LE TAXATION. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION IS CALLED F OR. 6. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS ALSO NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.8 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FACTS BEFORE ME, THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE APPE LLANT AND THE VERBAL ARGUMENTS PRESENTED BY HIS LD. AR. THE FIRST CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE AO HAD REACH ED THE CONCLUSION THAT M/S. LIFESTYLE HAD PAID REMUNERATION I N CASH TO THE APPELLANT, BUT DID NOT MAKE ANY INQUIRY WITH THE SAID CONCERN, UPON GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAREFU LLY I DO NOT FIND THAT THE AO HAS REACHED ANY SUCH DEFINITE CONCLUSION THAT THE AMOUNT ADDED BACK BY HIM REPRESEN TED REMUNERATION RECEIVED IN CASH FROM M/S LIFESTYLE. THE AO'S CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE DISCUSSIONS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE TO BE FOUND IN PARA 2 AND 3 OF PAGE-7 OF THE IM PUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS CONCLUDED THEREIN THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PROVE AND SUBSTANTIATE THE NA TURE OF TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER. THE ON US OF SUCH PROOF BEING SQUARELY UPON THE APPELLANT, AND THE APPELLANT HAVING FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS, THE AO ADDED THE AMOUNT OF HIS INCOME. NEXT, THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED TO VARIOUS DEFICIENCI ES IN THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO BASED ON THE BANK TRANSACTIONS. IT IS INTER- ALIA STATED THAT THE AO'S OBSERVATION THAT TOTAL DEPOSI TS IN A RATNAKAR BANK LTD. DURING THE FY 2007-08 WAS ABOUT R S.5.54 CRORES WHEREAS THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVABLE AS WELL AS R ECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNTED TO RS.14 CRORES WAS NOT COR RECT SINCE THE PERIODS IN QUESTION WERE DIFFERENT. WHILE THE APP ELLANT'S CONTENTION IN THIS REGARD MAY WELL BE CORRECT, THE MAIN ISSUE RAISED BY THE AO THROUGH HIS OBSERVATIONS IN THIS REGARD IS NOT THAT A DEFINITE CONCLUSION COULD BE REACHED REGARDIN G THE UNACCOUNTED NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, BUT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF RECONCIL ING THE ENTRIES FOUND WITH THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUN TS. HAVING CONSIDERED THE FINDINGS OF THE AO, I FIND THAT THIS PO INT HAS BEEN VALIDLY MADE BY HIM. IT WAS FOR THE APPELLANT TO REC ONCILE THE AMOUNTS FOUND RECORDED ON THE SEIZED PAPER WHICH, EVE N ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT'S OWN EXPLANATION AND CON SIDERING THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY HIM, WAS NOT A DUMB PA PER. IN OTHER WORDS, THE PERTINENT POINT IS NOT WHETHER THE A O HAD BEEN ABLE TO ESTABLISH CONCLUSIVELY BY REFERENCE TO BANK TR ANSACTIONS THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,17,030/- WAS UNACCOUNTED REMUNERATION, BUT THE FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD G ROSSLY FAILED TO PRESENT ANYTHING BY WAY OF RECONCILIATION TO ESTAB LISH THAT THE AMOUNTS WERE IN FACT EXPLAINED. THE ONUS TO DO SO WAS C LEARLY UPON HIM. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT IMPUGNE D SEIZED DOCUMENT WAS AN UNSIGNED COMPUTERIZED PAPER WHICH, IN LAW, HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE BY ITSELF. THIS CONTENTION OF THE 11 APPELLANT IT IS CLEARLY NOT ACCEPTABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE EXISTING LEGAL POSITION. FIRSTLY, UNDER SECTION 2(22AA) THE WOR D 'DOCUMENT' INCLUDES AN ELECTRONIC RECORD. SECONDLY, UNDER SECTION 132 (4) AND SECTION 292 C WHERE A DOCUMENT FO UND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH, IT MAY BE PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THAT DOCUMENT ARE TRUE. FOURTHLY, THE AO WHILE MAKING AN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTIO N 143 (3) IS MANDATED TO TAKE INTO ACCOUNT 'ALL RELEVANT M ATERIAL' WHICH, WILL UNDOUBTEDLY INCLUDE THE IMPUGNED DOCUME NT. AS REGARDS THE APPELLANT'S RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF TH E JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF ITAT IN CHANDER MOHAN MEHTA V. ACIT 65 TTJ 327 (PUNE), THE SAME IS MISPLACED. IN THAT CASE, TH E LOOSE PAPER IN QUESTION WAS FOUND DURING THE SURVEY AND THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 132 (4) AND SECTION 292C WE RE NOT AVAILABLE TO THE AO. SECONDLY, THE ASSESSMENT IN THAT C ASE WAS CONCLUDED UNDER SECTION 158 BC, THE PROVISIONS OF WHIC H ARE NOT PARI MATERIA WITH THE PROVISIONS OF 153A UNDER WHICH THE PRESENT ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN COMPLETED. FOR THE SAME REASON , THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT SINCE THE APPELLANT H AS NOT DISCLOSED ANY INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAID DOCUMENT, THE BURDEN WAS ON THE AO TO ESTABLISH THAT SUCH INCOME IS CHARGEABLE TO TAX DOES NOT HOLD WATER. IT WAS FOR THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN AND SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 12,17,030/- WAS NOTHING BUT THE SALARY RECEIVED BY HI M FROM YOU M/S LIFESTYLE AND M/S A2Z WHICH WAS DULY DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FILED PRIOR TO THE SEARCH, ESPECIALL Y SINCE THERE WAS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE AMOUNT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER AND THE AMOUNT DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS RETURN. AS FOR THE CONTENTION THAT THE IMPUGNED SEIZED PAPER OR WAS A 'DUMB DOCUMENT', NOTHING COULD BE FARTHER FROM THE TRUTH. THE APPELLANT HIMSELF HAS EXPLAINED A SUBSTANTIAL PART OF T HE ENTRIES MENTIONED ON THE SAID PAPER, SOME OF THE AMOUNTS ARE A LSO TALLYING WITH THE INCOME DECLARED BY HIM IN HIS RETU RN OF INCOME FILED PRIOR TO THE SEARCH. ALSO, AS ALREADY MENTIONED, THE PRESUMPTIONS UNDER SECTION 132(4) AND SECTION 292C ARE AGAINST THE APPELLANT ON THIS ISSUE. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE ADD ITION WAS MADE ON GROSSLY INADEQUATE MATERIAL. IN THIS REGARD, T HE JUDGMENT OF THE HON. ITAT DELHI IN BANSAL STRIPS (P) LTD. V. ACIT 100 TTJ (DEL) 665 IS RELIED UPON. I HAVE GONE THROUG H THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DELHI IN THE CITED CASE. IN THAT CASE THE IMPUGNED LOOSE PAPER WAS IN CODED FORM AND EVEN THEIR OWNERSHIP BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. UPON THESE FACTS, THE ITAT HEL D THAT THE DEEMING PROVISIONS OF CHAPTER VI COULD NOT B E INVOKED VIS-A-VIS THE DOCUMENTS WHOSE CONTENT AS WELL AS OWNERSH IP WERE UNCERTAIN. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE ARE NO SUCH FACTS. THE OWNERSHIP OF THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION IS NOT DENIED EV EN BY THE APPELLANT, AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF HAVE ALSO BEEN SUB STANTIALLY EXPLAINED BY HIM TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO. IT WA S ONLY THE AFORE-MENTIONED AMOUNT OF RS.12,17,030/- WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT, LEADING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. AO. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT EVEN IF THE AO'S STAND THAT THE INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.12,17,030/- WAS UNDI SCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS ASSUMED TO BE CORRECT, THE SEARCH 12 PARTY SHOULD HAVE FOUND ASSETS AMOUNTING TO RS. 60 IGKHS (RS. 12,17,030/- FOR AY 2008-09 PLUS RS. 50,31,4927- FOR A Y 2009- 10). THIS ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS ALSO NOT ACCEPT ABLE. FIRSTLY, IT IS ONLY IN A RARE CASE THAT EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTE D INCOME UNEARTHED WOULD BE EXACTLY MATCHED BY UNDISCLOSED ASSE TS DETECTED, NOR IS THIS A PREREQUISITE FOR MAKING AN ADD ITION TO THE INCOME BASED ON EVIDENCE UNEARTHED DURING A SEARCH. S ECONDLY, CONSIDERING THE LEVEL OF THE APPELLANT'S DECLARED INC OME EVEN PRIOR TO THE SEARCH (A TOTAL INCOME OF RS.6,75,28,770 /- FOR AY 2008-09 AS PER THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED PRIOR TO SEA RCH ACTION), IT WOULD NOT BE SURPRISING IF EVIDENCE OF UNACCOUNTED ASSE TS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 12,17,030/-, EVEN IF PRESENT AT THE TIME OF .SEARCH, WERE OVERLOOKED AND MISTAKEN FOR ASSETS ACQUIRED FROM EXPLAINED SOURCES. THE NEXT CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT HE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE COMPANY ASHRAY PREMISES PVT LIMITED AND THERE FORE THE INFERENCE THAT 'MCMG' REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON THE FINDINGS IN THE CASE OF THE SAID COMPANY WAS WIT HOUT ANY BASIS. THIS ARGUMENT IS ALSO NOT VERY CONVINCING. THOUGH THE APPELLANT MAY NOT HAVE HAD ANYTHING DIRECTLY TO DO WITH THE SAID COMPANY, THE FACT REMAINS THAT HE WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PANCHSHIL GROUP TO WHICH THE SAID CO MPANY ALSO BELONGED. UNDENIABLY, THE APPELLANT IS A RELATIVE OF SHRI ATUL CHORDIA, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PANCHSHIL GROUP, AND AL MOST HIS ENTIRE INCOME WAS DERIVED FROM THE GROUP ENTITIES AND PROJECTS. 6.9 HAVING THUS CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS AND AVERMENTS OF THE APPELLANT CAREFULLY, I AM IN AGREEMENT WITH THE LD. AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE HIS ONUS OF EXPLA INING THE TRANSACTION. ON THE CONTRARY FOR ALL THE REASONS MENT IONED ABOVE, THE EVIDENCE IS CLEARLY AGAINST HIS CONTENTIONS. AS SUCH THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISSED AND THE ADDITI ON OF RS.12,17,030/- IS CONFIRMED. 7. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THE SAME SUBMISSIONS AS MADE BEFORE THE AO AND THE CIT(A). REFERRING TO PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION O F THE BENCH TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. REFERRING TO PAGE 8 OF THE PA PER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON 1-10-2009 WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN REPROD UCED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. HE AGAIN REITERATED TH AT THE AMOUNTS PAYABLE MEANS THE EXPECTED AMOUNT TO BE RECEIVED 13 FROM THE COMPANY AND THE AMOUNT PAID MEANS RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8.1 REFERRING TO PAGE 44 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME WHICH INCLUDES SALARY F ROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. AMOUNTING TO RS.12,00,000/- FOR THE A.Y. 2008-09. SIMILARLY HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASS ESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE SALARY OF RS.12 LAKHS RECEIVE D FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD., THEREFORE, THE ADDIT ION OF THE SAME AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT DURI NG THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO UNACCOUNTED ASSET OR UNACCOUNTED EXPE NDITURE WAS FOUND SO AS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY EXTRA MONEY OVER AND ABOVE WHAT HAS BEEN DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 8.2 REFERRING TO THE THIRD MEMBER DECISION OF THE P UNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SAMRAT BEER BAR VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 75 ITD 19 HE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE M ADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF ANY EVID ENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOS ED INCOME. THE AO CANNOT PRESUME THAT THERE MUST BE SOME OTHER MATERIAL OR EVIDENCE WHICH IS NOT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AN D THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE DERIVED UNDISCLOSED INCOME THERE FROM. H E ALSO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. CHANDER MOHAN MEHTA VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 65 TTJ 327 (PUNE) 2. BANSAL STRIPS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 100 TTJ 665 (DELHI) 14 3. CIT VS. VED PRAKASH CHOUDHARY REPORTED IN 305 ITR 245 (DELHI) 4. P.R. METRANI VS. CIT REPORTED IN 287 ITR 209 (SC ) 5. CIT VS. S.M. INVESTMENT CORPORATION P. LTD. REPORTED IN 207 ITR 364 (RAJ.) HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND SUSTAINED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE DELETED. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). REFERRI NG TO PARA 6.6 OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT IN T HE CASE OF M/S. ASHRAY PREMISES LTD. ANOTHER PANCHSHIL GROUP T HE WORD MCMG WAS DECIPHERED AS MONEY COMES AND MONEY GOE S. FURTHER, THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD NO CONNECTION OR RELATION WITH M/S. ASHRAY P REMISES PVT. LTD. IS NOT CORRECT SINCE THE SAID COMPANY BELONGS TO PANCHSHIL GROUP AND THE ASSESSEE WAS DEEPLY INVOLVED WITH THE ACTIVITIES OF THE PANCHSHIL GROUP. THE ASSESSEE IS A RELATIVE OF MR. ATUL CHORDIYA, THE CHAIRMAN OF THE PANCHSHIP GROUP, THER EFORE, HE CANNOT SAY THAT HE IS NOT CONNECTED WITH M/S. ASHRA Y PREMISES PVT. LTD. 9.1 THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED T HAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED SALARY FROM A2Z ONLINE SERVIC ES PVT. LTD. THEN THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR WRITING MCMG SEPA RATELY. THE REMUNERATION FROM A2Z ONLINE SERVICES PVT. LTD. H AS BEEN SEPARATELY MENTIONED AND MCMG IS SEPARATELY MENTI ONED, 15 THEREFORE, IT IS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS HIS SALARY. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON HIM BY SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINING THE E NTRY IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. 9.2 AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT NO UNACCOUNTED ASSET OR UNEXPLAINED E XPENDITURE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE LD. DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT IT IS NOT A CONDITION THAT EQUIVALENT AMOUNT OF ASSET WOULD ALWAYS BE FOUND DURING THE CO URSE OF SEARCH. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE SPENT THE MONEY OT HERWISE FOR WHICH NO RECORDS ARE REQUIRED TO BE MAINTAINED. SI NCE THERE IS AN ENTRY OF RS.12,17,030/- WITH THE WORDS MCMG AND S INCE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF THE EN TRY, THEREFORE, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO. SO FAR AS THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THOSE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. EVERY CASE DEPENDS ON ITS OWN SETS OF FACTS. IN THE INSTANT CASE, OUT OF THE ENTRIES MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED DO CUMENT, THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE 2 ENTRIES. THER EFORE, THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PR ESENT CASE. 10. 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 SEIZED DOCUMENT APPEARING IN PAGE NO.1 16 OF BUNDLE NO.1 OF ANNEXURE TO THE PANCHNAMA WAS FOU ND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TH E ENTRY TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1 2,17,030/- IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID IS OVER AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF SALARY RECEIVE D FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LTD. IT IS THE CASE OF TH E ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED THE ABOVE AMOUNT IN THE RETUR N OF INCOME AS SALARY RECEIVED FROM LIFESTYLE INTERIORS PVT. LT D. DURING A.Y. 2008-09. FURTHER, NO UNACCOUNTED ASSET WAS FOUND D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REC EIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,17,030/- OVER AND ABOVE WHAT IS DEC LARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE DECI DING THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HAS CONSIDERED ALL THE A RGUMENTS TAKEN BEFORE HIM. WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE SUBMISSION O F THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT WHEN THE NAME OF D IFFERENT COMPANIES ARE CLEARLY MENTIONED SUCH AS A2X, EON KH ARADI ETC. THERE WAS NO NECESSITY OF WRITING THR MCMG APR 07 8 TH MAR 08- 1,217,030 WHICH HAS BEEN DECIPHERED AS MONEY COME S AND MONEY GOES. SINCE THE ABBREVIATED ENTRIES ARE WIT HIN THE EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HE HAS NOT COME FORWARD TO TELL THE TRUTH AND SINCE A PART OF THE D OCUMENT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE BY STATING THAT THE SALARY /REMUNERATION FROM A2Z EON KHARADI ETC. HAVE BEEN CORRECTLY DISCL OSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THEREFORE, WE FIND NO REASON AS T O WHY THE AMOUNT WRITTEN IN THE CODED WORD THR MCMG APR 07-8 TH MAR 08 17 AND THR MCMG 8.3.08-06.08.2008 SHOULD NOT BE CONS IDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN ABSENCE OF AN Y SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WHICH HAS BEEN REPROD UCED IN THE PRECEDING PARAGRAPHS AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DISTINGU ISHABLE FEATURES BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR T HE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) CON FIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 10.1 SO FAR AS THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELIED ON BY T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ARE CONCERNED THEY ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE INSTANT CASE , THE DOCUMENT WAS SEIZED CONTAINING VARIOUS ENTRIES OUT OF WHICH ONLY 2 ENTRIES, I.E., RS.12,17,030/- RELATING TO A.Y. 2008-09 AND R S.50,31,491/- FOR A.Y. 2009-10 COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF THIS DOCUMENT C ANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE. FURTHER, THE VARIOUS DECISIONS RELI ED ON BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO PROVISIONS OF S ECTION 158BC WHEREAS THE INSTANT CASE IS FALLING UNDER PROVISION S OF SECTION 153A AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BC ARE NOT PA RI MATERIA WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ACCO RDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 18 ITA NO.1200/PN/2013 (A.Y. 2009-10) : 11. THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUNDS HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.50,31,942/- MADE BY THE AO AS THE CASH COMPONENT OF REMUNERATION. 12. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL T O THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1199/PN/2013 FOR A .Y. 2008- 09. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDE THE ISSUE AND THE GROUN DS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN DISMISSED. FOLLOWING THE SA ME REASONINGS, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN T HE IMPUGNED APPEAL ARE ALSO DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-05-2015. SD/- S D/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PA NDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 29 TH MAY, 2015 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. THE CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE