Akhtarkhan Haji H. Khan, Jalgaon V. ACIT, Cir.-2, Jalgaon

ITA 120/PUN/2002

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2030 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-12-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-02-2002
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Gift; Business income; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 120/PN/2002 (BLOCK PERIOD 01-04-1988 TO 07-01-1999) AKHTARKHAN HAJI HABIBULLA KHAN, SAVDA, TAL : RAVER, DISTRICT : JALGAON. .. APPELLANT PAN NO. ACNPT 6716B VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, B.J. MARKET, JALGAON. .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SMT. DEEPA KHARE RESPONDENT BY : SRI S.K. SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 13-02-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22-02-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 22-11-2001 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK FOR THE BLOCK P ERIOD 01-04-1988 TO 07-01- 1999. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNA L FOR NON-APPEARANCE VIDE ORDER DATED 31-08-2006. SUBSEQUENTLY, VIDE M.A.NO. 10/PN/2007 ORDER DATED 14-05-2006 THE TRIBUNAL RECALLED THE EARLIER ORDER. HENCE THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WEIGHING BRIDGE. AN ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSE SSEE ON 07-01-1999 AND CONTINUED UPTO 09-01-1999. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOTI CE U/S.158BC ON 04-06-1999. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ISSUE OF SUCH NOTICE AND DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME. 2 3.1 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE SRI HAZI HABIBULHA KHAN IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH HAD DECLARED ` 2 LAKHS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS BUSINESS, NAMELY M/S. JANATA FARE SCALE WHICH IS A WEIGHMENT/MEASUREMENT CENTRE. THIS BUSINESS WAS STARTED IN F.Y. 1989-90 AS PER THE ASSESSEES OWN STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT OF SRI LUKWAN BUDDA TADVI, SERVANT OF THE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S.133A ON THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF JANATA FARE SC ALE WHEREIN HE HAD ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE BUSINESS COMMENCED IN F.Y. 1989- 90. HE NOTED THAT THE BUSINESS IS LOOKED AFTER BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS BROTHER AND NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THIS BUSINESS. FROM THE DIARY AND NOTEBOOKS FOUND FOR THE A.Y. 1991-92 TO 1995-96, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER NOTED THAT SUCH TOTAL INCOME HAS BEEN WORKED OUT AT ` 60,000 PER YEAR. THEREFORE, HE ADOPTED THE INCOME @`60,000 PER ANNUM FOR THE F.Y. 1991-92 TO 1 995-96 TOTALLING TO ` 3 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SIMILARLY COMPUTED THE INCOME AT ` 63,112 FOR THE F.Y.1996- 97 AND AT ` 1,10,527 FOR F.Y. 1997-98. HE THUS DETERMINED THE BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT ` 4,73,639 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE INITIAL INVESTMENT AS UNDER : I. PURCHASE OF PLOT IN THE YEAR 1987 ` 90,000 II. CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES IN THE YEAR 1989 THEREON ` 40,000 III. PURCHASE OF AVERY MACHINERY IN THE YEAR 1989 ` 2,85,000 IV. PURCHASE OF COMPUTER WEIGHING MACHINE IN APRIL 1997 ` `90,000 -------------- ` 5,05,000 -------------- 4.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER REFERRED TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION ON 08-01-1999 WHERE IN THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE MONEY UTILISED FOR THE ABOVE INVESTMENT IS OUT OF GIFTS RECEIVED AT THE TIME OF MARRIAGE, BORROWINGS OF LOANS FROM FRIENDS, LOAN OF ` 2,70,000 FROM BANK FOR 3 PURCHASE OF MACHINERY AND ` 15,000 FROM PERSONAL SAVINGS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTE D THAT THE PURCHASE OF LAND AND THE WEIGHING MACHINE WERE OUT OF THE BUSINESS INCOME. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SATISFACTORY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE MARRIAGE GIFTS RECEIVED AND LOAN OBTAINED FROM FRIE NDS AND RELATIVES THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE SAME. HE, HOWEVER, ACCEPTED THE AMOUNT OF LOAN RAISED FROM BANK AT ` 2,70,000 AND TREATED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF ` 2,35,000 AS UNEXPLAINED INITIAL INVESTMENT. THUS, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED BY THE AO AT ` 7,08,640. 5. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE LAND PU RCHASED FOR ` 90,000 IN THE YEAR 1987 FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF THE BLOCK PE RIOD. SO FAR AS THE INVESTMENT REGARDING ` 40,000 IN THE CONSTRUCTION, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT T HE SAME WAS INCURRED BY HIS FATHER AND NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOU ND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE ADDITION WAS BASED PURELY ON THE BASIS OF STATE MENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS THE PURCHASE OF WEIGHING MACHI NE AT ` 2,85,000 IS CONCERNED, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME WAS OUT OF LOAN OBTAINE D FROM BANK AT ` 2,70,000 AND THE BALANCE ` 15,000 WAS OUT OF PERSONAL SAVINGS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS DISBELIEVED THE AMOUNT OF ` 15,000. 5.1 AS REGARDS THE INVESTMENT TO THE TUNE OF ` 90,000 IN PURCHASE OF COMPUTER MACHINE IN APRIL 1997 IT WAS STATED THAT THE SAME W AS OUT OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER YEARS. IN HIS ALTERNATE CON TENTION, IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADOPTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN CASE OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93 TO 1997-98 AT ` 3,63,112, THEREFORE, THE INVESTMENT OF ` 90,000 IN APRIL 1997 STANDS EXPLAINED. 6. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF ` 4,73,639 ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME FROM WEIGHING BRIDGE IS CONCERNED IT WAS ARG UED THAT NEITHER ANY ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR ANY OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE 4 ASSESSEE WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT WA S ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) HAD ACCEPTED THE INCO ME WITHOUT DEDUCTING THE CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT THE INCOME HAS TO BE ESTIMATED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SE ARCH AND THERE IS NO SCOPE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT. FOR THI S PROPOSITION, VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL WERE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE C IT(A). 7. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED CIT(A) WAS NOT FULLY SATISF IED WITH THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF ` 90,000 ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PLOT IN THE YEAR 1987 IS CONCERNED, HE OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF LOAN/BORROWINGS AND HAS SATISFACTORILY EX PLAINED THE INVESTMENT IN THE PURCHASE OF PLOT. FURTHER, THE SAME FALLS OUTSIDE THE PURVIEW OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS. HE ACCORDINGLY DELETED THE ADDITION OF ` 90,000 ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PLOT. 7.1 SO FAR AS PURCHASE OF AVERY MACHINE IN THE YEAR 1989 IS CONCERNED HE ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD SAVIN G OF ` 15,000 AND LOAN OF ` 2,70,000 FROM THE BANK TOWARDS PURCHASE OF THE SAME . SO FAR AS CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES OF ` 40,000 IS CONCERNED HE HELD THAT NEITHER THE ASSESS EE COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOR BEFORE HIM. HE, THEREFORE, SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF ` 40,000 ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES IN THE Y EAR 1989. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF ` 90,000 ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF COMPUTER WEIGHING MACHINE IN APRIL 1997 HE HELD THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAS SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED THE SAME. THUS, OUT OF THE ADDITION OF ` 2,35,000 ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INITIAL INVESTMENT, HE SUSTAINED ONLY A N AMOUNT OF ` 40,000 ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION EXPENSES. 8. AS REGARDS THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME FROM BUSI NESS AT ` 4,73,639 IS CONCERNED HE NOTED THAT DESPITE MANY OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 5 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT BOTHER TO FILE A RETURN IN FOR M NO.2B FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE ESTIMATE MADE BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER BEING IN ORDER. FURTHER, HE NOTED THAT THE DETERMINATION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS BASED ON SEIZED DIARY AND THE STATEMENT OF THE A SSESSEE. HE, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE DECLARATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD WHICH IS COVERED IN THE BLOCK PERIOD IS ENTITLED TO THE CLAIM OF DEPREC IATION WHICH IS A STATUTORY DEDUCTION TO BE ALLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FIXED ALONG WITH APPEAL FILED BY THE R EVENUE ON 28-08-2006 AND DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION OF THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE WAS DECIDED. THE REVENUE IN ITS GROUNDS HAD CHALLENGED THE ALLOWABIL ITY OF DEPRECIATION IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT AND THE TRIBUNAL IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ALLOWING DEPRECIATION FROM SUCH ESTIM ATED INCOME AND DISMISSED THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 10. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT U/S.158BBC R.W. S. 143(3) WHEN THERE WAS NEITHER AUTHORISATION U/S.132, NOR ANY PANCHNAMA. AS SUCH THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT BE HELD THAT ILLEGAL AND VOID AB-INITIO. 2. WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE INVESTMENT IN WEIGH BRIDGE OF `2,35,000 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. NO OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEA RD GIVEN BEFORE TREATING THE INVESTMENT AS UNDISCLOSED. THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED I NCOME MAY PLEASE BE THEREFORE DELETED. 3. ON THE FACTS IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADOPTING THE INCOME FROM WEIGH BRIDGE AS PER THE STATEMENT RECORDED FOR FOLLOWING ASSESSMENT YEARS AND TREATING IT AS UNDISCLOSED. 6 A.Y. AMOUNT 1992-93 60000 1993-94 60000 1994-95 60000 1995-96 60000 1996-97 60000 1997-98 63112 1998-99 110527 ------------------- TOTAL 473639 ------------------- THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS ADOPTED BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IS ESTIMATED ONE AND SUBJECT TO DEPRECIATION, REPAIRING EXPENSES ETC. TH E ADDITIONS BY WAY OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BE DELETED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LEVYING THE PENAL INTEREST OF 1,53,036 U/S. 158BFA(A). THE SAME MAY PLEASE BE DELETED. 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR ANY OTHER THE TIME OF HEARING WITH PERMISSION. 11. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 FOR WHICH THE LEARNED DEPARTM ENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 12. SO FAR AS GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 IS CONCERNED, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION OF ` 40,0000 ON ACCOUNT OF CONSTRUCTION OF WEIGH BRIDGE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IS PURELY BASED ON THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE U/S.132(4) AND NO INCRIMINATING M ATERIAL WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THEREFORE, ADDITION OF THE SAME IS UNWARRANTED SINCE ADDITION IN A BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS TO BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF M ATERIAL SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. 12.1 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 13. 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 7 OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT T HAT THERE IS SOME CONSTRUCTION FOR THE WEIGH BRIDGE WHICH WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH FROM THE STATEMENT RECORDED FROM THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPU TE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) HAS ADMITTED TO H AVE SPENT ` 40,000 FOR CONSTRUCTION OF THE SAME. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT NO ACCOUNTS WERE MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR HIS WEIGHING BUSINES S. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF ` 40,000 SPENT TOWARDS CONSTRUCTION OF THE WEIGH BRID GE EITHER BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR BEFORE THE C IT(A) OR EVEN BEFORE US. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 40,000 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE SECOND G ROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHAL LENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF ` 4,73,639 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 15. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INCOME ESTIMATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS HIGHLY ARBITRARY AND NOT B ASED ON ANY EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. FURTHER, IN VIEW OF T HE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE, DEPRECI ATION HAS TO BE ALLOWED FROM SUCH ESTIMATED INCOME. SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THE INCOME OF ANY YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE BLOCK PERIOD AFTER ALLOWING THE DEPRECIA TION IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, THE SAME HAS TO BE DELETED FROM THE BLOCK PERIOD. 15.1 THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 16. 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 8 OF THE ASSESSEE. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT M AINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED THE INCOME ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN ENTRIES IN THE DIARY @60,000 FOR 5 CONSECUTIVE ASSESSMENT YEAR S STARTING FROM 1992-93 TO 1996-97 AND DETERMINED SUCH INCOME FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AT ` 63,112 AND FOR A.Y. 1998-99 AT ` 1,10,527. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT AL LOWED DEPRECIATION FROM SUCH ESTIMATED INCOME AND IN APPEAL THE LEARNE D CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE INCOME SO ESTIMATED DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION FROM THE SAME. AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE, WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS UNIFORMLY ADOPTED INCOME OF ` 60,000 FOR 5 CONSECUTIVE YEARS, I.E. FROM 1992-93 TO 1996-97, WHICH IN OUR OPINION APPEARS TO BE ON THE HIGHER SIDE. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE SHO ULD BE ADMITTED AS UNDER : ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT 1992-93 36,000 1993-94 42,000 1994-95 48,000 1995-96 54,000 1996-97 60,000 1997-98 63,112 1998-99 1,10,527 THE ABOVE ESTIMATED INCOME IS BEFORE DEPRECIATION A ND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION AND DETERMINE THE TA XABLE INCOME FOR THE RESPECTIVE YEARS FALLING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN CASE, INCOME OF ANY OF THE YEAR IS BELOW THE TAXABLE LIMIT, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO FO LLOW THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BB(1)(C) AND CONSIDER THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE TO EXCLUDE THE SAME FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PER LAW. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 IS ACCORDINGLY PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 17. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 IS REGARDING LEVY OF PEN AL INTEREST U/S.158BFA(1). 9 17.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE ARE OF THE OPI NION THAT LEVY OF INTEREST U/S.158BFA(1) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IS JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, HAS TO COMPUTE THE INTE REST AFTER DETERMINING THE INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 18. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 BEING GENERAL IS DISMISSE D. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY-ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS, THE 22 ND DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 22 ND FEBRUARY 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. CIT-II, NASHIK 5. D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENI OR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE