Dr. Nitin Bhalchandra Choudhari, V. ACIT, Cir.-1, Jalgaon,

ITA 1203/PUN/2005

• Counselvise Citation: [2012] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 62733 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2012
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 15-02-2012
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 12-05-2005
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH MS NEERA MALHOTRA
• Keywords: Depreciation; Opportunity of being heard; Retrospective amendment; Valuation report; Capital expenditure
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 147; 148; 263; 154; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SR.NO ITA NO. ASSTT.YEAR APPELLANT V/S RESPONDENT 1. 1203/PN/2005 2000-01 DR.NITIN BHALCHANDRA CHAUDHARI, C/O.MAHER HOSPITAL, NEAR COURT, N.M. COLLEGEROAD, JALGAON PAN: AATPC2020K A.C.I.T., CIRCLE-1, JALGAON 2. 330/PN/2011 2000-01 -DO- - DO - 3. 1204/PN/2005 2001-02 -DO- -DO- 4. 331/PN/2011 2001-02 -DO- -DO- 5. 606/PN/2006 2002-03 -DO- -DO- 6. 332/PN/2011 2002-03 -DO- -DO- APPELLANT BY : MS. DEEPA KHARE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K. SINGH/ MS. NEERA MALHOTRA DATE OF HEARING : 15/2/12 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : -5-12 ORDER PER I.C. SUDHIR, JM ITA NO. 1203 & 1204/PN/2005 2 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 O F THE ACT SETTING ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FRAMED U/S. 143(3) READ WITH S EC. 147 OF THE ACT. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, A DOCT OR, RUNS HOSPITAL IN THE NAME OF MAHER HOSPITAL AT JALGAON. IN THE A. YS. 2000-01 AND 2001-02, IT HAD FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 29.10 .2001. THE ASSESSEE WAS SUBJECTED TO SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A ON 28.3.20 02 AND ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION GATHERED THEREIN, NOTICE U/S. 148 WA S ISSUED ON 8.3,.2002 AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE A.YS. TH E ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 147 HAVE BEEN FRAMED FOR BOTH THE A.Y S. UNDER CONSIDERATION ON 28.3.2003. THE A.O. MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS WHICH WERE QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS FIRST APPEA L BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). PENDING ADJUSTMENT OF THE FIRST APPEAL FOR THE A.YS . UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE LD CIT HAS INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 263 O F THE ACT AND BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, HE HAS COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS ARE ER RONEOUS AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE SINCE THE A. O DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS NOT CONDUCTED PROPER ENQ UIRY ON CERTAIN ISSUES NARRATED IN THE REVISIONAL ORDER IMPUGNED. THE LD CIT HAS ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS WITH DI RECTION TO THE A.O TO FINALIZE ASSESSMENT DENOVO FOR THE A.YS. UNDER CONS IDERATION AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE DISCREPANCIES/SHORT COMING MENTION ED BY HIM AFTER GIVING OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 3 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY 3. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORD ERS IN QUESTION HAVE BEEN FRAMED BY THE A.O AFTER CONDUCTING PROPE R ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUES NARRATED BY THE LD CIT AND THUS THE ASSESSM ENT ORDERS CANNOT BE HELD AS ERRONEOUS ONLY BECAUSE THE LD CIT WAS HAV ING DIFFERENT VIEW ON THOSE ISSUES. SHE REFERRED WRITTEN REPLY DATED (NO T LEGIBLE) AND 17.2.2005 IN REPLY TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THESE LETTERS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MET OUT ALL THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY LD CIT TO JUSTIFY PROPOSED INVOCATION OF PROVISIONS TO SEC. 263 OF THE ACT BY HIM. THE ASSE SSEE HAS POINTED OUT THEREIN THAT ON ALL THE ISSUES NARRATED BY THE LD C IT, THE A.O HAD MADE ENQUIRY AND HAD FRAMED ASSESSMENTS IN QUESTION ACC ORDINGLHY. THE ASSESSMENTS HAVE BEEN FRAMED WITH THOROUGH INSPECT ION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER IMPOUNDED MATERIAL UNDER THE GUI DANCE AND DIRECTION BY THE THEN ADDL. CIT AND CIT. THE A.O. HAD ISSUED LETTERS RAISING SEVERAL QUERIES THEREIN WHICH WERE REPLIED BY THE A SSESSEE. THE A.O HAS ALSO CALLED ACCOUNT EXTRACTS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES F OR CROSS EXAMINING WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. SHE SUBMITTED T HAT THE REPORT OF THE DVO REGARDING DETERMINATION OF COST OF HOSPITAL BUI LDING HAS BEEN FURNISHED IN VIEW OF PROVISIONS OF SEC. 142A ENACTE D BY FINANCE ACT (NO. 2) OF 2004 WITH RETROSPECTIVE EFFECT FROM 15.11.19 72. THE SAID REPORT WAS FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD CIT. EARLIER, REFERENCE TO THE DVO WAS MADE AS PER PROVISIONS OF SEC. 131(1)(D ) OF THE ACT ON 13.1.2003. THE REPORT IN VIEW OF SEC. 142A HAS BEEN SENT BY THE DVO ON 17 .2.2005 BEFORE THE LD. CIT. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT THAT IN ITS CAU SE SHOWN TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESS EE HAD ALSO RAISED OBJECTION REGARDING THE MAINTAINABILITY OF THE ASSE SSMENT ORDERS IN 4 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY QUESTION SINCE THE SAME HAVE BEEN FRAMED U/S. 147 R .W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT IN FURTHERANCE OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 ON 8. 3.2003 IGNORING THIS FACT THAT RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 29.10.2001 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN QUESTION WERE PENDING FOR DISPOSAL. THUS NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 148 WAS NOT LEGALLY VALID AND THE ASSESSMENTS FRAMED IN FUR THERANCE TO THE SAID NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT ARE NULL AND VOID. 4. THE LD. A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DE CISIONS : 1) ACIT VS. SUBHASH CHANDRA GOEL (2005) 4 SOT 405 (AGRA) 2) DR. OMKARDAS MANNALAL AGARWAL VS. ACIT, ITA NO.760/PN/2005 (1988-89 TO 1998-99), ORDER DT. 28 M ARCH 2008. 3) RAJHANS BUILDERS VS. DCIT (2010) 41 SOT 331 (AH D.) 5. THE LD. A.R. POINTED OUT FURTHER THAT EVEN IF 1 5% OF THE COST IS REDUCED ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPWD AND LOCAL PWD RATES AND FURTHER 10% OUT OF THE COST DETERMINED BY THE D VO IS ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION, THEN THE VALUE DETERMI NED AFTER ADJUSTMENT AS PER ORDER U/S. 154 (RS. 15,26,100/- ) COMES TO R S. 1,64,36,346/- AGAINST THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1,27 ,57,991/-. THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO VALUES COME TO LESS THA N 10%, HENCE THE SAME CAN BE IGNORED. IN SUPPORT, SHE CITED DECISIO N OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HARPREET HOTELS P VT. LTD., ITA NOS. 1156 TO 1160/PN/2000 (A.YS. 1989-90 TO 1992-93), ORDER D ATED 16 TH AUGUST 2005. 6. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIF Y THE ORDER IMPUGNED I.E. THE REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE A CT. 5 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY 7. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT SO FAR AS VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 48 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, THE PROPER FORUM FOR RAISING THIS OBJEC TION WAS AT THE EARLIEST AVAILABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE BEFO RE THE A.O AND BEING A LEGAL ISSUE, THE SECOND OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSE E WAS TO RAISE THE SAME BEFORE THE LD CIT(A). THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE REMAINED THAT THE FIRST APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS PASSED U/S. 147 R.W.S. 143(3) WERE KEPT PENDING AS IN THE MEANWHILE, ACTION U/S. 263 OF THE ACT WAS INITIATED. NO SUCH OBJECTION THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS IN QUESTION ARE NULL AND VOID SIN CE FINALIZATION OF RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.YS UNDER CONSIDERATION WERE STILL PENDING WHEN NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED , HAS BEEN RAISED EVEN BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNA L, IN THE PRESENT APPEALS, THUS WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO ADJUDICATE TH E SAME. 8. SO FAR AS VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED U/ S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT ASSESS MENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN FRAMED ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRY BY THE A.O. 9. SO FAR AS VALIDITY OF REVISIONAL ORDER PASSED U/ S. 263 OF THE ACT IN THE PRESENT CASE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT ASSESSM ENTS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BEEN FRAMED ON THE ISSUES RAISE D BY THE LD CIT(A) AFTER CONDUCTING PROPER ENQUIRY THEREON BY THE A.O. IN THE A.Y,2000-01, THE LD CIT IN ITS ORDER U/S. 263 HAS ALLEGED THAT THE A.O HAS NOT DULY ENQUIRED ABOUT NON-ACCOUNTING OF RS. 96,759/- TOWAR DS CAPITAL 6 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY EXPENDITURE IN THE BOOKS; DATE OF BILL OF RS. 3734/ - FROM METAL BELT INDIA PVT. LTD. ; TRANSACTIONS OF RS. 16 LACS WITH GURHI ND INDIA PVT. LTD., CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 2,17,400/- IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT ; ACCEPTANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 5,01,870/- ETC. THE CON TENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CAUSE SHOWN TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE U/S. 26 3 REMAINED THAT ALL THESE ISSUES HAVE BEEN DULY EXAMINED BY THE A.O. T HE SAID CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS DATED 17 TH FEBRUARY 2005, A COPY WHEREOF IS PLACED ON RECORD. IN THIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION, THE ASSESSE E HAS DEALT WITH EACH OF THE ISSUES AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O HAD MADE E NQUIRY ON THESE ISSUES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IT HAS BEEN ALSO POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS GOING TO BE TIME BARRED, THE SAME WERE FRAMED AWAITING THE REPORT OF THE DVO. T HE A.O WHILE CONCLUDING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAD MENTIONED THAT IN ABSENCE OF DVOS REPORTS, HE IS CONSTRAINED TO PASS ASSESSMEN T ORDER WITHOUT AWAITING FURTHER FOR THE VALUATION REPORT AND HAS M ENTIONED FURTHER THAT ON RECEIPT OF DVOS REPORT, ACTION FOR RE-OPENING T HE ASSESSMENT FOR TAXING THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCTION WILL BE TAKEN. THE REVENUE HAS NOT REBUTTED THE CAUSE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE VI DE ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DT. 17.2.2005 TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE I SSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT MAKING IT CLEAR THEREIN THAT A.O HAD MADE PROPER ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUES. THE CIT HAS ALLEGED THAT THE A.O DID NOT MAKE PROPER ENQUIRY, HENCE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJ UDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SAID SUBMISSI ON DT. 17.2.2005 FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ABSENCE OF PRO PER REBUTTAL OF THOSE SUBMISSION BY THE REVENUE, OR THE LD CIT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ALLEGATION OF THE LD CIT THAT THE A.O WHILE FRAMING THE ASSESSMENT IN 7 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY QUESTION HAS NOT MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUE S RAISED BY THE LD CIT DOES NOT HOLD WATER AND THUS, THE ASSESSMENT OR DER CAN NOT BE HELD ERRONEOUS AS WELL AS PREJUDICIAL TO THE INTEREST OF REVENUE. THE SAME IS HELD AS INVALID. 10. SIMILARLY, IN THE A.Y. 2001-02, THE ASSESSEE VI DE ITS LETTER DATED 17.2.2005 HAD SHOWN CAUSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT THAT THE A.O HAD FRAMED ASSESSMENT AFTER M AKING PROPER ENQUIRY ON THE ISSUES RAISED BY THE LD CIT REGARDI NG THE CAPITAL EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS. 45,70,420/- ; EXPENDIT URE AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,09,195/-, BILL OF RS. 3074/- FOR PURCHASE O F CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL FROM METAL BELT (I) PVT. LTD. ; TRANSACTION WITH G URHIND INDIA PVT. LTD. OF RS. 16 LACS ; CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 5000/- UNDER TH E HEAD TRANSFER OF AHHP - 144 ; AND REGARDING ACCEPTANCE OF AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF RS. 2,79,153/- BY THE A.O. 11. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THE SUBMISSION DATED 17.2. 2005 OF THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE OR DER IMPUGNED AND FIND THAT THE A.O HAD MADE ENQUIRIES ON THE ABOVE I SSUES DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND HAS ULTIMATELY FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT IN ABSENCE OF REPORT OF THE DVO SINCE TH E ASSESSMENT WAS GOING TO BE TIME BARRED. THE A.O, HOWEVER, RESERVE D HIS RIGHT TO RE-OPEN THE ASSESSMENT ON RECEIPT OF DVOS REPORT FOR TAXIN G THE DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION. ADMITTEDLY, THE DVO HAD FURN ISHED ITS REPORT AFTER FRAMING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND IN RESPONSE TO LATER REFERENCE ISSUED U/S. 142A OF THE ACT BEFORE THE LD CIT. UND ER THE ABOVE 8 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AS ALLEGED BY T HE LD CIT CANNOT BE TREATED AS ERRONEOUS SINCE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE A.O DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAD MADE PROPER ENQUIRIES ON THE ISSUE RAISED BY LD CIT. THE ORDER U/S. 263 IS THUS NOT A VALID ORDER AND THE SAME IS QUASHED AS SUCH. 12. THE GROUNDS QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF THE IM PUGNED ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 DURING THE A.YS. UNDER CONSIDERATION ARE T HUS ALLOWED. CONSEQUENTLY APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 330 & 331/PN/2011 13. THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ADDITIONS MADE AND UPHELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THE ASSESSMENTS AND FIRST APPELLATE ORDERS FOR THE A.YS. FOR 2000-0 1 AND 2001-02 MADE IN COMPLIANCE OF THE SAID ORDER PASSED BY LD CIT U/S. 263 IMPUGNED IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS, ITA NOS. 1203 AND 1204/PN/2005. THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF HO LDING OF THE 263 ORDERS BY THE BENCH AS NOT VALID IN THE AFORESAID APPEALS. THESE APPEALS ARE THUS DISMISSED. 14. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE ORDER, WE WOULD LIKE TO MENTION OVER HERE THAT IN THE APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESS EE HAS RAISED LEGAL GROUNDS QUESTIONING THE VALIDITY OF REFERENCE MADE U/S. 142A AND ISSUANCE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 KEEPING PENDING DISPOSA L OF RETURNS OF IN- COME FILED FOR THE A.YS. IN QUESTION. ON MERITS, T HE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO QUESTIONED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERE NCE IN THE COST OF THE 9 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING FURNISHED BY THE DVO AND THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS THAT IF 15% O F THE COST DETERMINED BY THE DVO IS REDUCED DUE TO DIFFERENCE BETWEEN CPW D RATES AND LOCAL PWD RATES AND IF 10% DEDUCTION IS ALLOWED ON THE COST DETERMINED BY THE DVO ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION, THE DIFFER ENCE BETWEEN THE FINAL COST AFTER ADJUSTMENT VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S. 154 OF THE ACT BY THE A.O AND THE COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE COMES TO LESS THAN 10% AND HENCE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HARPREET HOTELS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING DOES NOT STAND. IN THIS DECISION, DISCUSSING SEVERAL DECISIONS CITED BEFORE IT, PUNE BENCH HAS HELD THAT THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF COST OF DIFFERENCE IN CONSTRUCTION SINCE AFTER ALLOWING DEDUCTION OF 15% ON ACCOUNT OF RATE DIFFERENCE BETW EEN CPWD OR LOCAL PWD AND AFTER ALLOWING 10% TOWARDS SELF SUPERVISION , THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE WAS HARDLY 10%. IN THE PRESENT CASE, REVENUE HAS NO T DISPUTED THE COMPUTATION FURNISHED BY THE LD. AR IN THIS REGARD SHOWING THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND ADJUSTMENT MADE BY THE LD AO THEREIN VIDE ORDER PASSED U/S. 15 4 AND IF 15% OUT OF THE COST DETERMINED IS ALLOWED DUE TO DIFFERENCE I N THE CPWD RATE AND LOCAL PWD RATE AND FURTHER IF 10% OUT OF THE COST I S ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST D ETERMINED AND ADJUSTED BY DVO/AO AT ONE HAND AND THAT SHOWN BY TH E ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND HARDLY COMES TO 10%. IN THE CITED DECIS ION IN THE CASE OF HARPREET HOTELS PVT LTD. INSTANCES ARE GIVEN WHEREI N IN ROUTINE COURSE 10 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY 15% OF THE COST IS ALLOWED ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN CPWD RATES APPLIED BY DVO AND LOCAL PWD RATES AND 10% REDUCTIO N IS GIVEN TOWARDS SELF-SUPERVISION. WE THUS FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISI ON OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HARPREET HOTELS PV T. LTD. (SUPRA) HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD CIT(A) ON THIS AC COUNT WAS UNCALLED FOR. 15. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO QUESTIONED OTHER ADDITIO NS SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) LIKE ADDITION OF RS. 500/- MADE ON ACCOUN T OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPT SUPPRESSED AND RS. 1,91,028/- ON ACCOUNT O F DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE A.Y. 2001-02. ADDITIONS OF RS. 81,300/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS SUPPRESSED AND RS. 1,67,114/- ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME SUST AINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) HAVE BEEN QUESTIONED IN A.Y. 2000-01. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) H AS CONSIDERED THESE ISSUES JUDICIOUSLY AND HAS GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIEF FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO UNDER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CAS E. THE SAME ARE THUS UPHELD. WE, HOWEVER, EVEN OTHERWISE HELD HEREINABO VE THAT THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS IN VIEW OF OUR DECI SION ON THE VALIDITY OF ORDER PASSED U/S. 263 OF THE ACT. 16. THE APPEALS ARE THUS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 606/PN/2006 AND 332/PN/2011 ITA NO. 606/PN/2006 17. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE T HE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.2,50,000 IN PROFESSIONAL 11 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY RECEIPTS FROM OPD AS AGAINST RS. 3,29,484 MADE BY T HE A.O. (IN ALL TOTAL ADDITION WAS MADE RS. 16,90,937). THE ADDIT ION MAINTAINED IS NOT WARRANTED AND BE THEREFORE DELETED. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE TH E CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING DIRECTIONS ONLY TO THE A.O. TO RE-COMPUTE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CONSTRUCTION OF RS. 14,05,471 MADE BY THE A.O., IN VIEW OF U/S. 154 APPLICATION, WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE OBJECTIONS/SUBMISSION ON THE D.V.O S REPORT, ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID REPORT GIVEN BY THE TECHNI CAL PERSON AND THEREFORE NO REASON TO AMEND OR MODIFY THE SAID REP ORT. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DUE RELIEF. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING FOLLOWING ADDITION - A) RS. 4,26,000 OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISAL LOWED. B) RS. 55,000 BEING PERSONAL USE OF BUILDING FOR RESIDENCE (OUT OF RS. 1,10,000 MADE BY THE A.O) C) RS. 50,000 OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXPS., GEN ERAL, SECURITY, SALARY, TELEPHONE, ANNUAL MAINTAINANCE ETC., A.O. MADE RS. ONE LAC. D) IN MAINTAINING DISALLOWANCE AT 30% FOR CAR EX PENSES AS AGAINST A.OS DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 50,000 OUT OF EXP ENSES OF RS.1,35,993 INCLUSIVE DEPRECIATION. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASES T HE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT CONSIDERING TELESCOPING FOR THE A DDITION OF CONSTRUCTION FROM THE ADDITION MAINTAINED IN PROFESSIONAL INCO ME, ON THE GROUND APPELLANT FAILED PROVE THE PARTICULAR RECEIPTS USE D FOR THE CONSTRUCTION 12 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY EXPENDITURE. THE APPELLANT PRAYES FOR DUE RELIEF, IF, THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,50,000 IS TO BE MAINTAINED. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 18. IN SUPPORT OF THESE GROUNDS, THE CONTENTION OF LD. A.R. REMAINED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTI ON OF MAHER HOSPITAL DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND AFTER ADJUSTMENT OF RS. 15,26,100/- BY THE A.O UNDER ORDER 154 PASSED BY HIM AT ONE HAND AND THE COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, IS LESS THAN 10%, H ENCE AS PER THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HARPREET HOTELS PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,90 ,937/- MADE AND UPHELD BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IS NOT SUSTAINABLE. IN SUPPORT, THE LD. A.R. HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING COMPUTATION : VALUATION BY DVO 1,79,62,446/- LESS: ADJUSTMENTS AS PER ORDER U/S 154 15,26, 100/- --------------- 1,64,36,346/- LESS: SELF SUPERVISIONS @ 10% 16,43,634/- LESS: SELF SUPERVISION ALLOWED BY DVO 6,67,889/- -------------- 9,75,745/- 1,54,60,601/- LESS: 15% RATE DIFFERENCE 23,19,090/- ----------------- 1,31,41,511/- ----------------- VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE 1,27,57,991/- 13 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY 19. THE LD. D.R. HAS NOT DISPUTED THE ABOVE COMPUT ATION. SHE HAS HOWEVER PLACED RELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW ON THE ISSUE. 20. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HARPREET HOTEL PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE FIND THAT ISSUE RAISED IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS IS FULLY COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THAT CASE, SIMILAR ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED BEFORE THE BEN CH THAT IF ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE FOR DEDUCTION FOR SELF SUPERVI SION AT 10% AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENT OF 15% IS MADE FOR LOCAL CONDIT IONS FROM DELHI PLINTH AREA RATES, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF CONSTRUC TION DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND THAT DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE HARDLY C OMES TO 10%, HENCE ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT WAS NOT WARRANTED. IN THAT CASE SEVERAL INSTANCES HAVE ALSO BEEN GIVEN TO SHOW THAT 15% RED UCTION TOWARDS DIFFERENCE IN CPWD RATES AND LOCAL PWD RATE AND 10% REDUCTION TOWARDS SELF-SUPERVISION IS GIVEN IN ROUTINE MANNER. ACCEP TING THESE CONTENTIONS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS APPROVED THE DELETION OF ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT BY THE LD CIT(A). IN PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE L D A.R. HAS CONTENDED THT IF ADJUSTMENTS ARE MADE FOR SELF SUPERVISION AT 10% AND FURTHER ADJUSTMENT OF 15% IS MADE DUE TO DIFFERENCE IN CPWD RATE AND LOCAL PWD RATE, THEN THE DIFFERENCE IN COST OF CONSTRUCT ION DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND ADJUSTMENT MADE BY AO THEREIN AT ONE HAND AND , COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND HARDLY COMES TO 1 0%. IT IS ALSO AN ESTABLISHED PROPOSITION THAT SUCH DIFFERENCE OF 10% IS BOUND TO HAPPEN BETWEEN THE VALUES DETERMINED BY THE TWO EXPERTS DU E DIFFERENCE IN THEIR METHOD AND APPROACH. WE THUS RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF CO- 14 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. HARPREET HOT ELS (PVT.) LTD. (SUPRA) COMES TO THE CONCLUSION THAT IN THE PRESEN T CASE BEFORE US, LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,90,937/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THIS MATERIAL FACT THAT THE CO ST DETERMINED AFTER ALL THE ABOVE STATED ADJUSTMENTS IN THE DVO/AOS VALUA TION COMES TO RS. 1,54,60,601/- AND THE COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT RS.1,27,57,991/- THUS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO COSTS WORKS OUT LESS THAN 10%. WE THUS SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IN THIS REGARD AND DIRECT THE A.O TO DELETE THE ADDITI ON OF RS. 16,90,937/-. GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 ARE THUS ALLOWED. GROUND NO.3 21. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED ADD ITION OF RS. 4,26,000/- MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DISALLO WANCE, RS. 55,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF HOSPITAL BUILDI NG FOR RESIDENCE AND RS. 50,000/- MADE OUT OF ELECTRICITY EXPENSES, GENE RAL, SECURITY, SALARY, TELEPHONE, AND ANNUAL MAINTENANCE ETC. EXPENSES. 22. THE LD. A.R. HAS OPPOSED THE ABOVE DECISION ON SIMILAR GROUNDS. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, WE HOWEVER FIND THAT LD CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF TH E FACTS OF THE CASE ON THE ABOVE ISSUES HAS ALREADY GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIE F TO THE ASSESSEE, HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. 15 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY 23. AS REGARDS ADDITION OF RS. 4,26,000/- MADE OUT OF AGRICULTURE INCOME DISALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT OF RS. 15,02,000/- FOR WHICH I T CLAIMED TO HAVE INCURRED EXPENSES AT RS. 2,05,000/- ONLY. THE A.O NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN EXPENSES AT 16.65% WHEREAS UNDE R THE SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES, HIS WIFE, CO-OWNER OF THE AGRICULTUR E LAND HAS SHOWN EXPENDITURE AT 45% FOR CULTIVATION OF THE SAME CROP . THE AGRICULTURE LAND IS JOINTLY OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE A.O CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INFLATED HIS NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY NOT CLAIMIN G THE AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES IN FULL. BEING NOT SATISFIED WITH EXPLA NATION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE A.O RESTRICTED THE CLAIM OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 8,26,000/- AS AGAINST RS. 12,52,000/- SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O CAME TO THIS FIGURE AFTER APPLYING 45% OF C OST INCURRED. HE ADDED THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 4,26,000/- TO THE REGUL AR INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT IMPROVE ITS CASE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), THE LD CIT(A) HAS UPHELD THE ADDITION WITH THIS FURTHER OBSERVATION THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOU NT HAS NOT AT ALL CLAIMED THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR WHICH IS AN ESSENTIAL COMPONENT FOR AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE FIRST A PPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IS REASONED ONE, HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE SAME IS UPHELD. 24. THE A.O MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2,60,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF DISALLOWANCES OF CERTAIN EXPENSES AND DEPRECIATION . BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED ADDITION OF RS. 55,000/ - SUSTAINED BY THE LD 16 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY CIT(A) AGAINST RS. 1,10,000/- MADE BY THE A.O ON AC COUNT OF PERSONAL USE OF BUILDING FOR RESIDENCE. THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE A.O. OBSERVED THAT RESIDENTIAL ACCOMMODATION HAS BEEN OC CUPIED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HOSPITAL BUILDING. HE NOTED FURTHER TH AT WIFE OF ASSESSEE IS ALSO RUNNING A MEDICINE SHOP IN THE BUILDING AND TH US DISALLOWED 10% OF THE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION . BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IT IS ALWAYS IN THE INTEREST OF THE PROFESSION THAT A DOCTOR IS AVAILABLE DAY AND NIGHT IN THE HOSPITAL PREMISES. CONSIDERING TH ESE MATERIAL FACTS THE LD CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 5% OF THE CLAIMED DEPRECIATION ON THE SAID BUILDING ON ACCOUNT OF PE RSONAL USE BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IT HAS RESULTED I N DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 15000/-. THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER ON THE ISSUE IS REASONED ONE, HENCE WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE THEREWITH. THE SA ME IS UPHELD. 25. THE LD CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 50,000/- AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,00,000/- OUT OF VARIOUS I TEMS OF EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE A.O. SUCH EXPENDITURE WERE CLAIMED TOW ARDS ELECTRICITY, GENERAL, SECURITY, SALARY, TELEPHONE AND ANNUAL MAI NTENANCE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS RESTRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS. 50,000/-. CONSIDERING THIS MATERIAL FACT THAT BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, TH E ASSESSEE WAS AGREEABLE FOR MAKING A REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE, WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) HAS ALREADY GIVEN SUFFICIENT RELIEF BY RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE AT RS. 50,000/- OUT OF RS. 1,00,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. TH E SAME IS UPHELD. IN RESULT, GROUND NO. 3 IS REJECTED. 17 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY GROUND NO.4 26. IN THIS GROUND, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TELESC OPING FOR THE ADDITION OF CONSTRUCTION FROM THE ADDITION MAINTAIN ED IN PROFESSIONAL INCOME. IN VIEW OF OUR FINDING ON THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NOS. 1 & 2 REGARDING ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION, THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 4 HAS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. THE SAME IS REJECTED AS SUCH. CONSEQUENTLY, APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ITA NO. 332/PN/2011 27. THE ASSESSEE HAS QUESTIONED LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 75,000/- U/S. 271(1)(C ) SUSTAINED BY LD CIT(A). 28. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. A.R. CONTENDED THA T THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED ON ESTIMATED RECEIPT CONFIRMED BY THE L D CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSE E HAD DECLARED TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 13,31,826/- AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME A T RS. 10,85,278/-. THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 143(3) HAS BEEN FRAMED DETERMI NING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 51,14,235/- + AGRICULTURAL INCOME AT RS. 10,85,278/-. THESE ADDITIONS WERE QUESTIONED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE LD CIT(A) HAS MAINTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 2, 50,000/- OUT OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,29,484/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPR ESSION IN OPD RECEIPT FOR WHICH THE PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C ) WAS INITIATED . FOLLOWING THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER CONFIRMING THE ADDITION, THE A.O LE VIED PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OF RS. 2,50,000/-. 18 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY 29. BEFORE THE LD CIT(A), IT WAS ARGUED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,29,484/- WAS MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED/UNACCOUNTED OPD RECEIPTS ON ESTIMATED BA SIS, HENCE, PENALTY U/S. 271(1)( C) WAS NOT LEVIABLE. RELIANCE WAS ALSO PLACED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS, BUT THE LD CIT(A) DID NOT AGR EE THEREWITH AND HAS UPHELD THE PENALTY LEVIED AT RS. 75,000/- : 1. SUDHARSHAN SILKS & SAREES V/S. CIT(2008) 216 CT R (SC) 12 2. CIT V/S. AARKAY SAREE MUSUM REPORTED IN 187 ITR 147 (BOM) 3. RAJAN S. SHINDE V/S. ITO [2006] 104 TTJ (PUNE) TM 445 4. ITO VS. RAVI KHURANA [2008] 114 TTJ (DEL) 561 5. SHYAM NATHANI VS. ITO [2007] 109 TTJ (JP) 421 6. PARAMOUNT RATIO SERVICES VS. ITO [1990] 36 TTJ (AHD) 464 30. THE LD D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, TRIED TO JUSTIF Y THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER. 31. HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORI TIES BELOW, WE FIND THAT LD CIT(A) HAS JUSTIFIED THE LEVY OF PENALTY MA INLY ON THE BASIS THAT UNDISPUTEDLY, NUMBER OF UNACCOUNTED/RECORDED PAPER S/DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS WERE FOUND D URING SURVEY CONDUCTED U/S. 133A AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 6.3.2002 A ND 7.3.2002; WHEN CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE CATEGORICALLY REPLIED THAT THESE RECEIPTS AND BOOKS HAVE NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR BY ME IN REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, I AM UNABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DISCREPANCIES. THE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED FURTHER THAT ON PERUSAL OF BOOKS IMPOUNDED DURING S URVEY, THE A.O HAD FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING SEPARA TE DETAILS OF PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE WAS GETTING FEE RECEIPTS FROM OUTDOOR 19 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY PATIENTS(OPD) AS WELL AS INDOOR PATIENTS (IPD) WHO WERE ADMITTED IN THE HOSPITAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FAILED TO PROVIDE DETA ILS OF OPD AND IPD RECEIPTS THUS, THE A.O WAS HAVING NO OPTION BUT TO ESTIMATE OPD RECEIPT AND IPD RECEIPT ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVAILABLE WITH HIM. THE AO HAS ESTIMATED THESE RECEIPTS AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDER ATION THE TOTAL RECEIPT, THE KUCHA (ROUGH) OPD REGISTER FOUND DURING SURVEY . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FULLY CONCUR WITH THE FINDING OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE NEXUS OF THE ESTIMATED UNRE CORDED RECEIPTS TO THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL, HENCE IT CANNOT BE SAID THA T ADDITION MADE WAS BASED ON ESTIMATION ONLY AND THUS THERE WAS NO ELEM ENT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE OR FURNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT HIS INCOME. WE THUS DO NOT FIND REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE ORDER IN THIS RE GARD. THE LEVY OF PENALTY AT RS. 75,000/- SUSTAINED BY THE LD CIT(A) IS THU S UPHELD. THE GROUND IS ACCORDINGLY REJECTED. CONSEQUENTLY APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 32. IN RESULT, ITA NOS. 1203 AND 1204/PN/2005 ARE ALLOWED, ITA NOS. 330, 331 AND 332/PN/2011 ARE DISMISSED AND ITA NO. 606/PN/2006 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH MAY 2012. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (I.C. SUDHIR ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED THE 14TH MAY , 2012 20 ITAS . NO. 1203, 1204//PN/2005ETC., DR.NITIN B. CHAUDHARY ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 14.05.2012 IN OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDE) (I.C. SUDHIR) AM JM US COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT II, NASHIK 4. THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. THE D.R. B BENCH, PUNE 5. GUARD FILE BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE