ITO, Wd.-1(2), Nashik V. Shri Prashant Prabhakar Gadkari, Nashik

ITA 1243/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 124324514 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 07-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 29-09-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record
• Section: 68; 69; 145

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 NO. 804/PN/2010 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08) DY.CIT, CIRCLE-1,NASHIK .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRASHANT PRABHAKAR GADKARI, 2, SHRIRANG MANGAL APARTMENT, SHRIRANG NAGAR, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK PAN NO.AKQPG5006N .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1243/PN/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-09) ITO, WARD-1(2), NASHIK .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRASHANT PRABHAKAR GADKARI, SHRIRANG MANGAL APARTMENT, NEAR PUMPING STATION, NASHIK PAN NO.AKQPG5006N .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR DATE OF HEARING : 10-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-12-2014 ORDER PER R.K.PANDA, AM: THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 23-03-2010 AND 19 -07-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2 ITA NO.804/PN/2010 (A.Y. 2007-08) : 2. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 & 2 BY THE ASSESSEE READ AS UNDER: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING T HAT 50% OF THE AMOUNT OF RS.26,25,000/ -CLAIMED AS DEDUCT ION U/S.37(1) IS ALLOWABLE? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.26,25,000/ - CLAIM ED AS DEDUCTION U/S.37(1) OF THE I.T.ACT ARE NOT GENUINE A ND IS NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS/PROFESSION OF THE ASSESSEE? 2.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LIAISO NING CONSULTANT. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-10-2007 DECLARI NG TAXABLE INCOME OF RS.17,46,750/-. DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE VARIOUS DETAI LS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES ARE NOT GENUINE AND ARE NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PUR POSE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. SR.NO. DATE NAME AMOUNT CHEQUE NO. PURPOSE 1 23-03-2007 RAMAN P. SHAH 6,25,000 409246 CLEARANC E EXPENSES 2 14-03-2007 NAVIN A. SURANI 5,00,000 409244 SERVIC E CHARGES 3 23-03-2007 BABULAL M. MAHESHWARI 5,00,000 409246 SERVICE CHARGES 4 23-03-2007 NAVIN V. GALA 5,00,000 409247 COMMISSI ON CHARGES 5 14-03-2007 KISHOR K. SHETH 5,00,000 409243 BROKERA GE AND COMMISSION CHARGES 2.2 REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE, THE AO DISALLOWED THE ABOVE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 3 I. ON ENQUIRY WITH THE BANKS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT IN RESPECT OF PAYMENTS MADE TO ABOVE STATED 5 PERSONS, THERE WAS ME AGER BALANCE OF RS.570/-, RS.623/- AND RS.889/- IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THE 3 PERSONS, WHEREIN THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY THE APPELLA NT WERE DEPOSITED. II. ON ENQUIRY WITH BANKS, IT WAS REVEALED THAT THE P AYMENTS TO 2 PERSONS, I.E. SHRI NAVEEN SURANI AND SHRI KISHOR K. SETH OF RS.5,00,000/- EACH WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE BANK ACCOU NTS IT WAS RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS LOANS. THE DETAILS OF E NQUIRY MADE BY THE A.O. WITH BANKS AND RESULT THEREOF ARE AS UNDER : NAME OF MEDIATOR RENDERING SERVICES AMOUNT PAID BANK A/C. OF MEDIATOR BAL. IN A/C. AMOUNT TFD. TO A/C.NO. BALANCE IN THE A/C. TFD TO ASSESSEES LOAN RAMAN P. SHAH 6,25,000 -- -- -- -- -- NAVIN A. SURANI 5,00,000 S.B.621048 570 540293 OF LATESH PAREKH 1073 5,00,000 BABULAL M. MAHESHWARI 5,00,000 -- -- -- -- NAVIN V. GALA 5,00,000 S.B.620033 623 380571 RS.1.60 LACS & 771309 RS.3.40 LACS -- -- KISHOR K. SHETH 5,00,000 S.B.500712 889 501239 K.D. JAIN 723 5,00,000 III. THE INSPECTOR, WHO WAS DEPUTED TO MAKE NECESSARY ENQUIRY COULD NOT SERVE SUMMONS ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED 5 PERSONS ON THE ADDRESSES OF THESE PERSONS, COMMUNICATED BY THE APPELLANT. IV. THE BILLS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT O F THE EXPENSES CLAIMED OF RS.26,25,000/- IN RESPECT OF PAYMEN TS TO THE ABOVE STATED 5 PERSONS ARE SIMILAR AND THEIR SIGNATURES O N THE SAID BILLS/VOUCHERS DOES NOT TALLY WITH THEIR SIGNATURES WITH BANKS. THE A.O. THEREFORE HELD THAT THE PAYMENTS OF RS.26,25,000/- ARE NOT GENUINE AND HENCE DISALLOWED T HE SAME. 3. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT IN THE EARLIER YEAR HE HAD VERY MARGINAL TAXABLE INCOME, W HEREAS DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR, HIS GROSS RECEIPT HAS GONE UPTO RS.62 LAKHS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED SUBSTANTI AL PROFIT WHICH COMES TO 29.37% OF THE TOTAL RECEIPT IN RESPECT OF THE LIAISONING 4 WORK CARRIED OUT BY HIM FOR S.D. CORPORATION PVT. L TD. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIAISONING, MAINTAINING GOOD RELATIONSHIP WITH POLITICIANS, GOV T. AUTHORITIES AND ALSO CLIENTS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS TO OBTAIN VARIOUS PERMISSIONS AND SANCTIONS FROM GOVT. DEPARTMENTS AN D THEREFORE HE HAS TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO MEDIATORS FOR FURTHER LI AISONING WITH VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AND POLITICIANS TOWARDS CLEARIN G EXPENSES, SERVICE CHARGES, COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY CROSSED AC COUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND THEREFORE ARE GENUINE PAYMENTS. THE EX PENSES OF THESE PERSONS AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THEM IS ESTA BLISHED IN VIEW OF THE INFORMATION OF THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS SUPP LIED BY THE BANK TO THE AO. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S COMMUNICATED TO THE AO THE ADDRESS OF THE 5 MEDIATORS WHO RENDER ED SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE I S NOT RESPONSIBLE FOR DIFFERENCE IN SIGNATURE OF THE SAID PERSONS, PA RTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT GENUINENESS OF THE PAYMENTS TO THE SAID PERSONS WAS PROVED ON ENQUIRY MADE BY THE AO WITH BANKS OF THE SAID PERSONS. IT WAS FURTHER ARGUED THAT IF THE AMOUNT IS DISALLOWED THAN THE RESULTANT NET PROFIT WOULD BE 73% ON A GRO SS RECEIPT OF RS.65,25,000/- WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE. ACCORDINGLY, I T WAS ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO SHOULD BE DELETED. 4. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R : 5 7. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O., SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND RELEVANT REC ORDS. THE A.O. HAS RAISED OBJECTIONS WHICH SUGGEST THAT THE EXPENSES CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO RS.26,25,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SERVICE CHARGES, CLEARANCE EXPENSES, COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE ARE NO T PROVED TO THE HILT BY THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, IT IS ALSO A FAC T THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES TO THE 5 PERSONS AND THEIR IDENTITY AND ACTUAL PAYMENT IS PROVED BY E NQUIRIES MADE WITH THE BANKS BY THE A.O. FURTHER, NATURE OF B USINESS OF THE APPELLANT IS LIAISONING WORK AND OBTAINING PERMISSIONS F ROM THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS. IN VIEW OF THIS FACT, THE C LAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT HE HAS TO MAKE PAYMENTS FOR FURTHER LIAISONING WORK TO VARIOUS PERSONS APPEARS TO BE REASONABLE. THE CLA IM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE 2 PERSONS TO WHOM THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY HIM I.E. SHRI NAVNEET SURANI AND SHRI KISHOR K.SETH AND THE 2 PERSONS TO WHOM THESE PAYMENTS WERE MADE AND WHO HAVE G IVEN LOANS TO THE APPELLANT I.E. SHRI LATESH PAREKH AND SH RI K.D. JAIN BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES ARE COMMON FRIENDS CANNOT BE BR USHED ASIDE, PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, THESE LOANS WERE REFUNDED. THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER CLAIMED THA T IF THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES IS UPHELD, THEN THE RESULTA NT NET PROFIT OF THE BUSINESS SHALL BE RS.45,41,858/- ON GROSS BUSINESS REC EIPTS OF RS.65,25,000/-, WHICH IS AT THE IMPOSSIBLE RATE OF 73%. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ALSO APPEARS TO BE REASONA BLE TO SOME EXTENT. 7.1 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RAISED ALTERNATIVE CONTENTI ON THAT - 'IF YOUR HONOUR IS OF THE OPINION THAT IN VIEW OF TH E NATURE OF BUSINESS THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS N OT PROVED BEYOND DOUBT AND HENCE BOOKS ARE NOT RELIABLE, THE PROFIT MAY BE ESTIMATED AT 40% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS AS AGAINST P ROFIT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AT 29.37%.' THIS ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIO N OF THE APPELLANT THAT IF HE HAS NOT PROVED THE EXPENSES OF RS.26,25,000/- BEYOND DOUBT AND HENCE BOOKS ARE TO BE TREATED AS NO N-RELIABLE AND NEEDS TO BE REJECTED, IS REASONABLE AND HENCE ACCE PTED PARTICULARLY IN VIEW OF THE NATURE OF BUSINESS OF THE APPELLANT. HOWEVER, THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE NET PR OFIT OF BUSINESS SHOULD BE ESTIMATED AT 40% CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. CONSI DERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND TO MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE, THE NET PROFIT OF THE APPELLANT IS ESTIMATED AT 50% OF THE GROSS RECEIPTS OF RS.65,25,000/- I.E. AT RS.32,32,500/- AS AGAINST THE NE T PROFIT DECLARED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS.19,16,858/-. THE RE SULTANT ADDITION UPHELD ON THIS COUNT SHALL BE RS.13,45,642/- AS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS.26,25,000/- MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDIN GLY. 4.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OBJ ECTED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF 6 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO HAS CONCLUSIVELY PROV ED THAT THE EXPENSES OF RS.26,25,000/- DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOU NT BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE AND NOT WHOLLY AND EXCLUSI VELY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOSE OF HIS BUSINESS. THE AO HAS EVEN G ONE TO THE EXTENT OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ADOPTE D A CIRCUITARY ROUTE OF WITHDRAWING MONEY FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT IN THE GUISE OF EXPENSES AND BRINGING THE SAME BACK INTO THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOANS. HE SUBMITT ED THAT THE DECISION OF THE LD.CIT(A) IN ALLOWING 50% OF THE EX PENSES IS WITHOUT ANY SOUND REASON. HE SUBMITTED THAT UNDER THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE EITHER THE EXPE NSES ARE TO BE FULLY ALLOWED OR FULLY DISALLOWED AND NO ADHOC DISA LLOWANCE IS POSSIBLE. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.26,25, 000/- PAID TO 5 PARTIES ON ACCOUNT OF CLEARING EXPENSES, SERVICE CHARGES AND COMMISSION CHARGES ETC., FOR THE REASONS MENTIONED AT PARA 2.2 OF THIS ORDER. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) GAVE 50% RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUES TO THE 5 PERSONS AND THEIR IDENTITY AND ACT UAL PAYMENT IS PROVED BY ENQUIRIES MADE WITH THE BANK. FURTHER, TH E 2 PERSONS TO 7 WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID COMMISSION AND THE OTHER 2 PERSONS WHO HAVE GIVEN LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE ARE COMMON FRIE NDS AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH HUGE EXPENSES WI LL INCREASE THE PERCENTAGE OF PROFIT FROM LIAISONING WORK WHICH IS NOT POSSIBLE. WE DO NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE ABOV E FINDINGS OF THE LD.CIT(A). FROM THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION FILED B EFORE THE CIT(A), WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS STATED THAT THE BU SINESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT OF LIAISONING, MAINTAINING GOOD RE LATIONSIP WITH POLITICIANS, GOVT. AUTHORITIES AND ALSO CLIENTS. T HE ASSESSEE HAS TO MAKE PAYMENTS TO MEDIATORS FOR FURTHER LIAISONING W ITH VARIOUS AUTHORITIES AND POLITICIANS TO OBTAIN VARIOUS PERMI SSIONS AND SANCTIONS FROM GOVT. DEPARTMENTS. THEREFORE, HE HA S MADE SUBSTANTIAL PAYMENTS TOWARDS CLEARANCE EXPENSES, SE RVICE CHARGES, COMMISSION AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES TO THE MEDIATORS. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT EXPECTED TO KNOW THEIR ADDRESSE S AND SUCH PERSONS ARE NOT LIKELY TO COMMUNICATE THEIR CORRECT ADDRESSES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID SUCH PAYMENTS TO MEDIATORS. WE F IND THE LD.CIT(A) COMPLETELY IGNORED THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS AND ALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENSES ON THE GROUND THAT PAYMENTS HAV E BEEN MADE BY BANKING CHANNELS AND DISALLOWANCE OF SUCH EXPENS ES WILL INCREASE THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE FROM LIAISONING WORK . WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON H IM BY BRINGING SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE IS INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE AND THE VERY NATURE OF SUCH EXPENSES AS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) IS 8 AGAINST PUBLIC POLICY, THEREFORE, SUCH EXPENSES IN OUR OPINION CANNOT BE ALLOWED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE MONEY HAS COME BACK TO THE ASSESSE E INDIRECTLY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE SAME IS SET-ASIDE AND THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS RESTORED. GROUNDS OF APPEAL N O. 1 & 2 BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 8. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 & 4 BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER : 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,97,171/- IS IN THE FORM OF 'ADVANCE' AND NOT 'I NCOME' OF THE ASSESSEE? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE FAC T THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,92,171/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM N ITCO HAS ALL THE INGREDIENTS THEREIN TO CONSIDER THE SAME AS 'INCOME' AND NOT 'ADVANCE'? 8.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSES SING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.52,97,171/- FROM NITCO TILES LTD. THE ASSESSEE H AS CLAIMED CREDIT FOR TDS OF RS.2,97,171/- ON THIS AMOUNT. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.50 LAKHS FROM NITO TILES LTD., AS ADVAN CE. ON BEING FURTHER QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXPL AIN AS TO WHY SUCH ADVANCE SHOWN TO HAVE RECEIVED FROM NITCO TILE S LTD. SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED AS INCOME FOR A.Y. 2007-08, IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS RECEIVED FROM NITCO TILES LTD. WAS FOR A PROPERTY TO BE PURCHASED FROM SHRI S.S. PATIL WHICH IS 9 SITUATED AT SY.NO.140/141, NEAR MAHADI COLONY, KHAN DIVALI, MUMBAI. IT WAS ARGUED THAT SINCE THE ABOVE PROPERT Y WAS COMING UNDER FOREST ZONE AND COASTAL REGULATION ZONE, THER EFORE, THE TRANSACTION OF THE PROPERTY COULD NOT BE COMPLETED WITHOUT PERMISSION OF THE STATE GOVERNMENT. IT WAS STATED THAT THE AMOUNT WITH THE ASSESSEE IS AN ADVANCE WHICH IS TO BE GIVE N TO PROPERTY OWNER WHENEVER GOVERNMENT CLEARANCE IS RECEIVED. I T WAS SUBMITTED THAT NITCO TILES LTD., HAS ERRONEOUSLY DE DUCTED TDS ON THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS. 8.2 HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT ACCEPT T HE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AND TREATED THE SAME AS BUSINESS INCOME FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS : 1. THE NITCO CO. HAS DEDUCTED TDS ON PAYMENT MADE T O ASSESSEE. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF TDS FROM TAX LIABILITY WITHOUT THE SAME AS INCOME. 3. THE PAYMENT IS GENERALLY MADE BY SELLER TO PURCHAS ER DIRECTLY AND NOT THROUGH BROKER AS IS SEEN IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION OF S.D. CORPORATION. THE PAYMENT MADE B Y S.D. CORPORATION TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 62 LAKHS WA S TOWARDS FEES OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE PAYMENT MADE BY NITCO LTD., IS ALSO OF SIMILAR NATURE. 4. NITCO IS A PUBLIC LIMITED COMPANY AND HENCE COULD NOT HAVE PAID ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT RENDERING ANY SERVICE. THE CONFIRMATION GIVEN BY THE COMPANY DOES NOT SERVE ANY PURPOSE AS THE COMPANY SHALL CAPITALIZE THE SAID EXPEND ITURE IN LAND ACCOUNT (ASSET). 5. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT KEPT ASIDE THE SAID ADVANCE AMOUNT BUT HAS UTILIZED THE SAME FOR GIVING INTEREST FREE ADV ANCE TO MUMBAI EDUCATION TRUST AND HAS NOT ADVANCED THE SAME T O THE OWNERS OF THE PROPERTY OR COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS DISCUSSED ABOVE, THE A.O. HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 52, 97, 171/- REPRESENTS THE ASSESSEES INCOME AND THEREFORE, HAS BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX. 10 9. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT NITCO TILES LTD., HAS IN FACT PAID AN ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE FOR MAK ING NECESSARY PAYMENT TO SELLER OF THE LAND AND FOR NECESSARY EXP ENSES TO BE INCURRED FOR TRANSFERRING THE LAND WITHOUT DEDUCTIO N OF TDS. LATER ON, TDS WAS DEDUCTED TO BE ON SAFER SIDE. IT WAS SU BMITTED THAT SECTION 199 IS AN ENABLING PROVISION FOR CLAIMING D EDUCTION OF TDS IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS ETC., THE A.O. IS NOT BOUND TO ASSESS THE INCOME IN THE YEAR TO WHICH THE TDS CERTIFICATE REL ATES AS ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE IS ONLY RS.50 LAKHS. T HE UNCLAIMED TDS WOULD RESULT INTO LOSS OF RS.2,97,171/- FOR NO REASON IF DEAL IS NOT FINALIZED. EVEN IF, FOR THE SAKE OF DEBATE , IT IS ASSUMED THAT NITCO LTD. HAS MADE PAYMENT TOWARDS ADVANCE FEES TO THE ASSESSEE, IT SHALL NOT BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AS THE NECESSARY SERVICES IN THE FORM OF OBTAINING PERMISS ION FROM GOVERNMENT FOR TRANSFERRING LAND UNDER FOREST ZONE AND COASTAL REGULATION ZONE IS NOT YET RENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE . ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT BE RECOGNIZED IN THE YEAR OF RECEIPT ITSELF. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWIN G MERCANTILE SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO IN A CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THE REVENUE IS TO BE RECOGNIZED AFTER R ENDERING THE REQUIRED SERVICES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS DI SBELIEVED THE CONFIRMATION LETTER ISSUED BY A PUBLIC LIMITED COMP ANY WITHOUT PROVING THE CONFIRMATION LETTER TO BE FALSE OR WITH OUT VERIFYING OR EXAMINING THE PERSON ISSUING THE CONFIRMATION. THE RE IS NO REASON AS TO WHY A COMPANY LIKE NITCO WILL ISSUE A FALSE CONFIRMATION. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT KEPT A SIDE THE 11 ADVANCE AMOUNT PAID BY NITCO LTD. BUT GIVEN THE SAM E AS INTEREST FREE ADVANCE TO A PUBLIC TRUST, I.E. MUMBAI EDUCATI ON FOR PROMOTING BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE AL SO RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS : A. K.K. KHULLAR VS. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301, 23 DTR 231 B. CIT VS. SHOORJI VALLABHDAS & CO. (1962) 46 ITR SC C. ACIT VS. FOX MANDAL & CO. (2008) 6 DTR 266 (DEL. TRIB.) 10. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDE R : 8.3.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF THE A.O., ASSESSMENT RECORD, SUBMISSION FILED BY THE APPELLAN T AND THE DECISIONS OF HON'BLE TRIBUNAL AND HON'BLE COURTS RELIE D ON BY THE APPELLANT. THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION IS THAT WHETH ER THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,97,171/- PAID BY NITCO LTD. TO THE A PPELLANT, CLAIMED AS ADVANCE PAYMENT AND ADVANCE RECEIPT BY NI TCO LTD. AND THE APPELLANT RESPECTIVELY, IS LIABLE TO TAX IN T HE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. 8.3.2 ON PERUSAL OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT AN D ASSESSMENT RECORD, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE NITCO LTD. HA S CONFIRMED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID AS ADVANCE TO THE APPELLANT FIRM. FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOT ICED THAT THE APPELLANT IS SHOWN THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,97,171/- AS LIA BILITY IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31/03/2007. 8.3.3 FURTHER, IT IS ALSO NOTICED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY NITCO LTD. FOR PROPOSED PURCHASE OF LAND BELONGING TO SHRI S.S.PATIL SITUATED IN KANDIVALI, MUMBAI. THE SAID LAN D IS IN COASTAL AREA AND THE SAME IS UNDER 'FOREST ZONE AND COASTAL REG ULATION ZONE' AND HENCE FOR TRANSFERRING THE SAID LAND, PERMI SSION FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIES IS NECESSARY. THE APPELLANT HAS T O COMPLY WITH VARIOUS RULES AND REGULATIONS AND PAPERS AND DOCU MENTS FOR OBTAINING THE PERMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT OBTAIN ED THE SAID PERMISSION AND HENCE THE PROPOSED DEAL IN RESPECT OF TH E LAND IS PENDING. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE NITCO LTD. IS ADVANCE PAYMENT FOR WHICH REQUI RED SERVICES WERE NOT RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT. 8.3.4 IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE REQUIRED SERVICES FOR WHICH THE PAYMENT WAS MADE WERE NOT RENDERED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE FORM OF NECESSARY PERMISSIONS FROM GOVERNMENT AUTHORITIE S AND THE ACTUAL PURCHASE DEAL BY ARRANGING REGISTERED PURC HASE DEED BETWEEN NITCO LTD. AND SHRI S.S.PATIL IN RESPECT OF THE SAID LAND. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS NO 'INCOME' ACCRUED TO THE APP ELLANT IN THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. WHAT IS TO BE TAXED IS INCOME AND RECEIPT AN AMOUNT CANNOT BE THE BASIS FOR LEVY OF TAX. 12 8.3.5 ON PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHOORJI VALLABHADAS & CO. 46 ITR 144 R ELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HON'BLE APEX C OURT HAS POINTED-OUT THAT I.T.ACT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT TWO POIN TS OF TIME ON WHICH THE LIABILITY TO TAX IS ATTRACTED, NAMELY (I) ACCRUAL OF INCOME OR (II) RECEIPT OF INCOME. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED T HAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS 'INCOME'. THE HON'BLE DELHI I.T.A.T . WHILE DECIDING SIMILAR ISSUE IN THE CASE OF K.K.KHULLAR VS. DCIT (2009 ) 116 ITD 301 HAS REITERATED THE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BLE SUP REME COURT IN PARA 5 OF THE ORDER AS UNDER: 'IN THE CASE OF SHOORJI VALLABHADAS & CO. (SUPRA), THE HON'BLE APEX COURT POINTED-OUT THAT THAT I.T. ACT TAKES INTO ACCOUNT TWO POINTS OF TIME ON WHICH THE LIABILITY TO TAX IS ATTRACTED, NAMELY (I) ACCRUAL OF INCOME OR (II) RECEIPT OF INC OME. IT IS FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS 'INCOME'. IT MAY BE EMPHASIZED THAT IT IS ACCRUAL O F INCOME OR RECEIPT OF INCOME THAT CAN BECOME THE SUBJECT MATTE R OF TAX AND IT IS THE INCOME WHICH HAS TO BE RECORDED AS PE R SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE IN VIEW OF S ECTION 145 OF THE ACT, BECAUSE THE SUBSTANCE OF THE MATTER IS 'INCOME'.' AFTER RELYING ON THE ABOVE OBSERVATION OF THE HON'BL E SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SHOORJI VALLABHADAS & CO. 46 ITR 144, THE HON'BLE DELHI I.T.A.T. IN THE CASE OF K.K.KHULLA R VS. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 HAS HELD IN THE CONCLUDING PARAGR APH AS UNDER: 'COMING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE PRESENT APP ELLANT, THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNTS FOR SERVICES TO B E PERFORMED OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE AMOUNT RELATABLE TO THE SERVICES RENDERED IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS SHOWN AS INCOME, THE REASON BEING THAT THE ASSESSEE BECAME E NTITLED TO RECEIVE THAT AMOUNT FROM THE CLIENT IN RESPECT OF T HE SERVICES RENDERED. IN OTHER WORDS, DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF THE AMOUNT PERTAINING TO SERVICES RENDERED ONLY GOT VESTED IN THE ASSESSEE. THE REST OF THE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN AS LIABILITY TO BE ADJUSTED IN SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS AND WHEN THE SERVICE WAS RENDERE D. IT IS BUT CLEAR THAT THE EXCESS AMOUNT WOULD HAVE TO BE R ETURNED IN CASE THE SERVICE WAS NOT PERFORMED IN SUBSEQUENT YE AR AND, THEREFORE, IN RESPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT NO DEBT CAME I NTO EXISTENCE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE THIS AMOUNT DID NOT BECOME THE INCOME.' 8.3.6 ON PERUSAL OF THE DECISION OF HON'BLE I.T.A.T ., DELHI RELIED ON BY THE APPELLANT IT IS NOTICED THAT THE HON'BLE TRIB UNAL HAS LAID DOWN IN THE CASE OF K.K.KHULLAR VS. DCIT (2009) 116 ITD 301 THAT DEBT TO THE EXTENT OF AMOUNT PERTAINING TO THE SERVICES RE NDERED ONLY GOT VESTED IN THE ASSESSEE AND THE REST OF THE AMOUNT WA S RIGHTLY TAKEN AS LIABILITY TO BE ADJUSTED IN THE SUBSEQUENT YEAR AS AND WHEN THE SERVICES SHALL BE RENDERED. 8.3.7 THE ACCOUNTING STANDARD 9 PRESCRIBED BY THE IN STITUTE OF CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS OF INDIA ALSO LAYS DOWN THAT THE REVENUE IS TO BE RECOGNIZED ONLY AFTER ACCOMPLISHMENT OF WORK A FTER RENDERING SERVICES. IT ALSO LAYS DOWN THAT SUCH PERFORMA NCE SHOULD BE REGARDED AS BEING ACHIEVED WHEN NO SIGNIFI CANT 13 UNCERTAINLY EXISTS REGARDING THE AMOUNT OF CONSIDERA TION THAT WILL BE DERIVED FROM RENDERING THE SERVICES. 8.4 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION AND RES PECTFULLY THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT AND I.T.A.T., DELHI BENCH, I AM OF T HE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,97,271/- WAS NOT INCOM E OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. THE ADDITION OF RS.52,97,271/- IS DELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORD INGLY. 10.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OP POSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWS CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT OF RS.52,97,171/- REPRESENTS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSE E AND THE SAME CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS AN ADVANCE. SINCE THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER TDS, THEREFORE, IT I S SUFFICIENT TO HOLD THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS IN THE FORM OF INCOME. THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE ABOVE HAS DELETED THE ADDIT ION. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ADVANCE AMOUNT WAS NOT KEP T BY THE ASSESSEE IN A SEPARATE ACCOUNT AND HE HAS UTILIZED THE MONEY BY GIVING THE SAME AS INTEREST FREE LOAN TO A TRUST, THEREFORE, IT CLEARLY INDICATES THAT IT WAS THE INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AND CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN ADVANCE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE SET-ASIDE AND THAT THE ORDER OF TH E AO BE RESTORED. 12. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER H AND DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE CONFIRMATION LETTER O BTAINED FROM NITCO LTD., WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 33 AND 34 OF T HE PAPER BOOK. 14 REFERRING TO PAGE 31 OF THE PAPER BOOK, HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY NITCO LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 23-01-2007 ACCORDING TO WHICH THEY HAV E GIVEN AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS VIDE CHEQUE NO.000677 DATED 2 3-01-2007 DRAWN ON PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBA I TOWARDS PAYMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT KHA NDIVALI BEARING SY.NO. 140/141, CST-I, NEAR MAHADI COLONY, KHANDIVALI. HE SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IN CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, ADVANCE CANNOT BE TAXED UNLESS SPECIFIC SERVICES FO R WHICH THE SAME WAS GIVEN WAS RENDERED. HE SUBMITTED THAT DUE TO ABUNDANT PRECAUTION, NITCO TILES LTD. HAS DEDUCTED TDS FROM THE ADVANCE PAID TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, MERELY BECAUSE TD S HAS BEEN ERRONEOUSLY DEDUCTED FROM SUCH ADVANCE, THE SAME CA NNOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF REVENUE RECEIPTS IN THE HANDS OF T HE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) WHILE GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO WITHDRAW THE CLAIM OF TDS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE REVENUE HAS GOT ANY DOUBT, THEY CAN VER IFY IT FROM NITCOTILES LTD., HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BE UPHELD AND THE GROUNDS RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE BE DISMISSED. 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 OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. FROM THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY NITRO TILES LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE ON 23 -01-2007, A 15 COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE 31, WE F IND NITCO TILES LTD. HAS GIVEN ASSESSEE AN AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/- AS ADVANCE PAYMENT AGAINST THE PURCHASE OF THE PROPERTY AT KHA NDIVALI. SIMILARLY, FROM PAGE 34 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND NITCO TILES LTD., VIDE LETTER DATED 01-04-2009 HAS CONFIRMED TH E DEBIT BALANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS AT RS.52,97,171/- AS ON 31-03-2009. ALL THESE DETAILS WERE VERY MUCH AVAILABLE WITH THE AO BUT HE HAS NOT CONSIDERED ALL THESE THINGS. SINCE NITCO TILES LTD. HAS PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS AS ADVANCE TO THE ASSESSEE FO R PROPOSED PURCHASE OF LAND BELONGING TO ONE SHRI S.S. PATIL A ND SINCE THE DEAL COULD NOT BE MATERIALISED DUE TO CERTAIN CLEARANCES , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION HAS RIGHTLY SHOWN THE AMOUN T AS ADVANCE IN ITS BOOKS AND THE LD.CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN TRE ATING THE SAME AS ADVANCE AND NOT REVENUE IN NATURE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD .CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND THE GROUNDS RAI SE BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 14. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 5, 6 AND 7 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1243/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2008-09): 15. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF VARIOUS EXPENSES. 16 15.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO N OTED FROM THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THAT AS AGAINST RECEIPTS OF RS.40,15,332/- THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED VARIOUS EXPENSES IN THE PR OFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT WHICH INCLUDES THE FOLLOWING EXPENSES : HOTEL EXPENSES : RS.1,30,991/- SALARY : RS.13,08,300/- TRAVELLING EXPENSES : RS.2,67,646/- EXPENSES FOR LAND OWNERS : RS.24,912/- TOTAL : RS.17,31,849/- HE OBSERVED THAT THE ABOVE EXPENSES ARE NOT PROPERL Y VOUCHED/SUPPORTED AND THEREFORE THE ELEMENT OF PERS ONAL USE PARTICULARLY IN HOTEL EXPENSES AND TRAVELLING EXPEN SES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. SIMILARLY, THE EXPENSES CLAIMED ON ACCO UNT OF SALARY ARE WITHOUT DETAILS AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID TO BE WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ASSESSEES BUSIN ESS. FURTHER, THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF LAND OWNERS ARE ALSO WITHOUT SUPPORTING DETAILS. HE, THEREFORE, DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS .8,65,924/- ON ADHOC BASIS BEING 50% OF SUCH EXPENSES. 16. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) RESTRICTED SUCH DISALLO WANCE TO RS.11,550/- AND DELETED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.8, 54,379/- BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 5.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. THE A.O. HAS DISALLOWED 50% OF THE EXPENSES STATING THAT THE SAME ARE NOT PROPERLY VOUCHED, PAYMENT OF SALARY IS WITHOUT DETAIL S AND PERSONAL ELEMENT IN EXPENSES CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THE APPELLANT HAS MAINTAINED REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS AUDIT ED THE SAME. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS. 22,15,4 13/- ON GROSS BUSINESS RECEIPTS OF RS. 40,15,332/-, WHICH IS @ 55.1 7%. THE APPELLANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS CARRYING ON BUSI NESS IN THE 17 PROPRIETARY CONCERN AND HENCE HAS TO EMPLOY STAFF AND HAS TO INCUR EXPENDITURE ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY PAYMENT. THE DETAILS OF SALARIES PAID CAN BE NOTED FROM THE CASH BOOK AND LEDG ER ACCOUNTS WHICH ARE DULY AUDITED. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED DETA ILS OF TRAVELLING EXPENSES, WHICH ALSO INCLUDES SUBSTANTIAL REIMBURSEMENT OF TRAVELLING EXPENDITURE TO THE STAFF. AS REGARDS EXPENSES FOR LAND OWNERS RS. 24,912 THE APPELLANT HAS PO INTED OUT THAT SUBSTANTIAL EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 19,671/- ARE MADE BY CHEQUES. IT HAS ALSO BEEN NOTICED THAT THE AUDITOR HAS CERTIFIED THAT THE PROFIT SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT IS TRUE AND FA IR AND HAS NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCY TOWARDS EXCESSIVE AND UNREA SONABLE CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE AS ALLEGED BY THE A.O. THE EXPE NDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT ON ACCOUNT OF SALARY, TRAV ELLING ETC. APPEARS TO ME TO BE REASONABLE CONSIDERING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS. HOWEVER PERSONAL ELEMENT IN TRAVELLING EXPEND ITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT AT RS. 91.037/- OTHER THAN TRAVELLING EXPENSES OF STAFF AND HOTEL EXPENSES ETC. FOR LAND OWNER S AT RS.24,912/- CANNOT BE RULED OUT. THIS EXPENDITURE IS D ISALLOWED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 11.550/- I.E. 10% OF RS. 1,15,949/ - (RS. 91,037/- + RS.24,912/-). THE BALANCE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITU RE OF RS.8,54,374 IS DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE R EVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE DO NOT FIND AN Y INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). ADMITTEDLY, THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE AUDITED AND NO ADVERSE COMMENTS HAVE B EEN REPORTED BY THE AUDITORS. SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF LIAISONING AND CONSULTANCY, EXPENSES SUCH AS HOTEL EXPENSES, TRAVELLING EXPENSES, ETC. ARE ROUTINE EXPENSES AND ARE REQUIRED TO BE INCURRED. SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED AN AMOUNT OF RS.13,08,300/- AS SALARY WHICH IN OUR OPINION IS CO MMENSURATE WITH THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S FILED SAMPLE COPIES OF SALARY VOUCHERS PLACED AT PAGE 3 OF THE P APER BOOK WHICH WERE AVAILABLE BEFORE THE AO. HOWEVER, HE IS SILEN T ON THE SAME. SIMILARLY, WE FIND FROM THE PAPER BOOK THE DETAILS OF VARIOUS EXPENSES FILED BEFORE THE AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE DO 18 NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) R ESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.11,550/- BEING PERSONAL IN NATUR E AS AGAINST RS.8,65,924/- MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALSO COULD NOT BRING ANY DISTINGUISH ABLE FEATURES SO AS TO TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW THAN THE VIEW TAKEN BY T HE LD.CIT(A). IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 18. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 BY THE REVENUE READS AS U NDER : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE & IN LAW DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO O N ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNSECURED LOAN. 18.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED AN AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS AS UNSECURED LOAN FROM S.D. C ORPORATION. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE THE CONFI RMATION LETTERS WITH SUPPORTING DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINE NESS OF THE SAID LOAN. IN ABSENCE OF ANY SUCH DETAILS FILED BEFORE HIM, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 19. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.25 LAKHS BY BANK CHEQUE FROM S.D. CORPORATION WHICH HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN KARNATAKA BANK ON 28-04 -2007. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE LIABIL ITY SIDE OF THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31-03-2008. ALTHOUGH THE CONFI RMATION LETTER COULD NOT BE OBTAINED BEFORE THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSEE OBTAINED THE SAME IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY, 2011. 19 ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION DATE D 19-11-2011 REQUESTING THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADMITTING THE ABOVEMEN TIONED ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES UNDER RULE46A OF THE I.T. RULE S. THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. HOWEVER, SINCE THE AO DID NOT FILE HIS COMMENTS BY WAY OF RE MAND REPORT TILL THE PASSING OF THE ORDER, THE LD.CIT(A) PASSED THE ORDER AND DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 6.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND THE POSITION OF LAW ON THE SUBJECT. THE ONLY REASON STATED BY THE A.O. FOR MA KING THE ADDITION U/S. 68 IS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM S.D. CORPORATION AND HENCE THE ABOVE ME NTIONED AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000/- SHOWN AS LOANS AND ADVANCES IS NOT PROVED. THE A.O. HAS NOT FILED HIS COMMENTS BY WAY OF REMAND REPORT UPTO THE DATE. THEREFORE, IT IS LEGALLY PRESUM ED THAT THE AO HAS NO OBJECTION TO THEIR ADMISSION. ACCORDINGLY, ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES ARE ADMITTED ON MERITS. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,00,000/- F ROM S.D. CORPORATION BY CHEQUE. THE APPELLANT COULD NOT OBTA IN CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM S.D. CORPORATION DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN DECEMBER, 2010, BUT COULD OBTAIN THE SAME IN JANUARY, 2011. FROM A PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT IS EVIDE NT THAT THE CREDIT IS IDENTIFIED, ITS CREDITWORTHINESS IS ESTABLISHED AS THE CREDITOR IS A COMPANY HAVING SUBSTANTIAL TURNOVER AND THE RECEIPT IS THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE BANK CHEQUE, HENCE THE TRAN SACTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND THE GENUINENESS IS ESTABLISHED. TH EREFORE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT WAS PR EVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FROM PRODUCING THE SAID EVIDENCE, WHI CH WAS CALLED UPON TO PRODUCE BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, IN VI EW OF PROVISIONS OF CLAUSE (B) OF RULE 46A(1), THE ADDITIONA L EVIDENCE IS ADMISSIBLE AND HENCE ADMITTED. 6.5 IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.2 5,00,000 U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, THE ID. A.R. OF THE APPELLANT HAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED THAT THE ADDITION IS NOT JUSTIFIED AS THE SAID PAYMENT WAS UNDISPU TEDLY RECEIVED BY CHEQUE AND HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE CONFIRMATION LETTER WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM M/S. S.D. CORPORATION IN JANUARY, 2011 HAS BEEN FILED ON RECORD. THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT IN RE SPECT OF THIS ADDITION IS EXTRACTED BELOW: 'DURING THE YEAR THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED CHEQUE BEARING NO. 295175 OF HDFC BANK FROM S.D. CORPORATION PVT. LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF ADVANCE CONSULTANCY CHARGES TO BE PAID TO SHRI SUD ESH S. BHOSALE AND OTHERS FOR THE SERVICES TO BE RENDERED BY THEM. THE APPELLANT HAS SHOWN THE SAID AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD 'LO ANS AND ADVANCES'. THE A.O. HAS ASKED THE APPELLANT TO FILE CO NFIRMATION LETTER WITH APPELLANT COULD NOT FILE THE CONFIRMATI ON LETTER AND HAS INFORMED THE A.O. HIS INABILITY TO FILE THE CONFIRMA TION LETTER AS S.D. 20 CORPORATION LTD. HAS NOT GIVEN THE SAID CONFIRMATIO N. THE A.O. HAS, THEREFORE, TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS. 25,00,000/- CR EDITED IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AS UNEXPLAINED AND ADDED THE SA ME U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE CONFIRMATION FROM S.D. CORPORATI ON PVT. LTD. HAS NOW BEEN RECEIVED AFTER LOT OF PERSUASION AND THE S AME IS ENCLOSED WITH THE APPEAL MEMO. IT IS WORTH NOTING HERE THAT DURING THE YEAR, THE CONSULTANCY CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.40,15,332/- HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM S.D. CORPORATION PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS BEEN CREDITED TO PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON WHICH THE S.D. CORPORAT ION PVT. LTD. HAS DEDUCTED TAX AT SOURCE, WHEREAS IN RESPECT OF AD VANCE PAYMENT OF RS.25,00,000/- NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED BY S.D. CORPORATION PVT. LTD.' 6.6 IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN REC EIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY BANK CHEQUE FROM S.D. CORPORATION. FURTHER, AS PER THE CONFIRMATION LETTER OF S.D. CORPORATION IN THE FORM OF ASSESSEE'S ACCOUNT, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE SA ID PAYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY M/S. S.D. CORPORATION TO THE APPELLANT IN APRIL, 2007 AND CREDITED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITS BOOKS IN THE S AME MONTH AND HAS DEPOSITED THE CHEQUE IN KARNATAKA BANK. FROM TH E SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT I N RESPECT OF OTHER PAYMENTS RECEIVED FROM S.D. CORPORATION, THE A PPELLANT HAS DEDUCTED TDS AS THE SAME WERE RECEIVED TOWARDS FEES BUT NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED IN RESPECT OF PAYMENT OF RS. 25,0 0,000/- GIVEN AS LOAN/ADVANCE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CON FIRMATION LETTER OF M/S. S.D. CORPORATION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VI EW THAT THE A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.25,00,00 0/- RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY BANK CHEQUE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CRE DIT. THE ADDITION U/S. 68 OF RS. 25,00,000/-, IS THEREFORE, DELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS A LLOWED. 19.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20. 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 FIND THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS BEING UNSECURED LOA N OBTAINED FROM S.D. CORPORATION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE D ID NOT FILE ANY CONFIRMATION LETTER FOR SUCH LOAN. WE FIND THE ASS ESSEE FILED SUCH CONFIRMATION LETTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND REQUESTED HIM FOR ADMISSION OF THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE UNDER RULE 46A OF THE I.T. RULES. ALTHOUGH SUCH CONFIRMATION LETTER WAS FORWARDED 21 TO THE AO BY THE LD.CIT(A) FOR HIS COMMENTS IN THE FORM OF A REMAND REPORT, WE FIND THE AO DID NOT BOTHER TO COM PLY WITH THE DIRECTION OF THE LD.CIT(A). FURTHER, THERE IS NO D ISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY CHEQUE. WE F IND THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS RE CEIVED CONSULTANCY CHARGES OF RS.40,15,332/- FROM S.D. COR PORATION PVT. LTD., AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE P&L ACC OUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, S.D. CORPORATION PVT. LTD. HAS DEDUCTED TDS FROM SUCH PAYMENT. THEREFORE, WHEN THE COMMISSION R ECEIVED FROM S.D. CORPORATION IS TREATED AS GENUINE BY THE AO WITHOUT ANY FURTHER QUERY, THEREFORE, ITS IDENTITY IS VERY MUCH PROVED. ALTHOUGH THE CONFIRMATION LETTER FILED BY S.D. CORP ORATION PVT. LTD. WAS FORWARDED TO THE AO BY THE LD.CIT(A), WE F IND THE AO REMAINED SILENT. THIS OTHERWISE INDICATES THAT THE AO HAS NO GRIEVANCE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REASONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 21. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 11,57,000/- MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDI T. 21.1 FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE AO D URING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS MADE CASH DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.11,57,000/-. ON BEING QUE STIONED BY THE 22 AO, THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS BY GIVING THE FOLLOWING DETAILS : DATE AMOUNT (RS.) EXPLANATION IN RESPECT OF THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSITS A 10-05-2009 50,000/- RS.40,000/- RECEIVED BY CASH FROM SHRI JAYWANT PATIL AND RS.14,500/- RECEIVED BY CASH FROM SMT. DWARKABAI BHANDARI BOTH ON 28-04-2007 B 13-06-2007 01-07-2007 30,000/- 30,000/- OUT OF RS.2,00,000/- RECEIVED BY CASH FROM SHRI GIRISH SHAH ON 31-05-2007 C 05-09-2007 14-09-2007 03-10-2007 04-12-2007 5,000/- 25,000/- 4,000/- 13,000/- OUT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS OF RS.15,000/- ON 18/08/07, RS.15,000/- ON 24/08/2007, RS.7,000/- ON 29/08/2007, RS.5,000/- ON 20/09/2007, RS.5,000/- ON 23/09/2007, FROM THE SAME BANK. D 11-01-2008 16-01-2008 4,50,000/- 5,50,000/- OUT OF RS. 6,00,000/- RECEIVED FROM SHRI.JAYSUKH DAVE ON 09/01/2008 BY CASH AND RS.4,00,OOO/- RECEIVED ON 15/01/2008 FROM SHRI.PRAVIN MEHTA BY CASH TOTAL 11,57,000/- THE AO, HOWEVER, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIL E THE REQUISITE DETAILS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES TO EXPLAIN THE SO URCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS. HE, THEREFORE, MADE ADDITION OF RS.11,57 ,000/- TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 22. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, T HE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED THAT THE SAID DEPOSITS OF RS.11 ,57,000/- IN KARNATAKA BANK HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE APPELLA NT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND AUDITED. THE SOUR CE OF THE SAID DEPOSITS, THEREFORE, GETS EXPLAINED BY THE ENTRIES O N RECEIPT SIDE OF THE CASH BOOK/BANK BOOK AND HENCE THE DEPOSITS CANNOT BE REGARDED AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. THE APPELLAN T HAS ALSO DEMONSTRATED OUT THE SPECIFIC SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSI TS. FROM THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT, IT HAS BEEN NOT ICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.54,500/- IN THE PRECEDING YEAR TO SHRI JAYWANT PATIL AND SMT. DWARKAB AI BHANDARI WHICH HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO POIN TED OUT THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 18,50,000/- HAS BEEN MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES TO SHRI GIRISH SHAH, SHRI JAISUKH DAVE AND SHRI 23 PRAVIN MEHTA DURING THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AND THE PAY MENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK TO THE EXTENT OF RS.12,00,000/-. IN R ESPECT OF THE ABOVE PAYMENT RECEIVED BACK, THE APPELLANT HAS ISSUED RECEIPTS TO THE PAYERS AND FILED COPIES OF THE SAME. THE A.O. HAS NOT DISPROVED THE ABOVE FACTS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT AS FALSE OR INCORRECT. FURTHER IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 6 9 OF THE ACT, THE DEPOSITS IN BANK RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT/DEPOSITS. IN VIEW OF T HE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT TH E A.O. IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE CASH DEPOSITS IN KARNATAK A BANK ACCOUNT DULY RECORDED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE AUDI TED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. THE ADDITION OF RS. 11.57,000/-, THEREFORE, CANNOT BE CONFIRMED, HENCE THE SAM E IS DELETED. THE A.O. IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 22.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE RE VENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 23. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES. WE FIND THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFA CTION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF SUCH CASH DEPOSITS. WE FIND THE LD.C IT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT SUCH DEPOSITS IN KA RNATAKA BANK HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE SOURCE GETS EXPLAINED BY THE ENTRIES ON RECEIPT SIDE OF THE CASH BOOK. FURTHER, HE NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DEMONSTRATED OUT OF SPECIFIC SOURCE OF THE SAID DEPOSITS. ALTHO UGH THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN GENERAL STATEMENT FOR EXPLAINING THE SOUR CE OF SUCH DEPOSITS, HOWEVER, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIV EN ANY CONFIRMATION FROM THE SAID PARTIES NOR PROVED THEIR SOURCE TO EXTEND SUCH HUGE PAYMENTS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S, WE ARE UNABLE TO ACCEPT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS IS SUE DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE T OTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, W E DEEM IT PROPER TO 24 RESTORE THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIAT E WITH EVIDENCE TO HIS SATISFACTION REGARDING THE SOURCE OF SUCH DE POSITS AND CAPACITY OF THE PAYERS. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDI NGLY. THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. 24. IN THE RESULT, ITA NO.804/PN/2010 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND ITA NO.1243/PN/2011 FILED BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30-12-2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PAN DA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 30 TH DECEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-II, NASHIK 5. THE D.R, B PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE