ACIT Central Cir.-1(2), Pune V. M/s. Radiant Builders, Pune

ITA 1259/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7197 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 12-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 24-09-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Gift; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132; 28

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO. 1259 /P U N/201 0 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 0 1 - 0 2 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE . / APPELLANT VS. M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS, 150, M.G. ROAD, PUNE 411001 . / RESP ONDENT PAN: AABFR4656A / APPELLANT BY : SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR, CIT / RESPONDENT BY : DR. SUNIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : DR. SUNIL PATHAK / DATE OF HEARING : 16 . 11 . 201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18 . 0 1 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - IV , PUNE , DATED 2 5 . 06 .20 1 0 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 0 1 - 0 2 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A(B) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT TH E ACT) . 2 . THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.36.40 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF FLATS NO.301 & 302. ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 2 2. IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF ONE OF THE PARTNER MR. M.H. MOSAVI WAS GIVEN ADEQUATE CONSIDERATION & INCORPORATED IN TH E ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE DOCUMENTS RELATED TO SALE OF FLATS TO LATE MRS. MURTAZA BEGUM CLEARLY INDICATES THE SALE OF THE AFORESAID TWO FLAT S IN A.Y. 2001 - 02. 4. IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT MERE BOOK ENTRY CANNOT BE TREATED AS ACTUAL TRANSFER WHERE CONTRARY EVIDENCES ARE AVAILABLE. 3. THE ISSUE ARISING IN T HE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.36.40 LAKHS MADE ON ACCOUN T OF SALE OF FLAT NOS.301 & 302 IN THE PROJECT RADIANT PARADISE. 4. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 21.09.2006. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF PROMOTERS, BUILDERS AND DEVELOPER. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001 - 02 TO 2 005 - 06 ON 11.04.2008. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 ON 31.07.2007 ; THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 WAS FILED ON 31.10.2007. THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02 MADE VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE OF RS. 3,50,000/ - . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO ADMITTED TO ON - MONEY RECEIVED OF RS.3 LAKHS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, FURTHER ON - MONEY RECEIPTS RECEIVED IN RADIANT PARADISE PROJECT OF RS.30 LAKHS WERE DECLARED I N ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AND RS.20 LAKHS IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED THE ABOVE SAID ON - MONEY RECEIPTS IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN THE RETURN S OF INCOME AND PAID TAXES THEREON. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH / SURVEY AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. MOHAMMED ALI AKBAR JAFARI, MRS. RUBABA ALI AKBAR JAFARI, MRS. FATIMA ALI AKBAR JAFARI, 978, ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 3 PUDUMJEE PARK, NANA PETH, PUNE , BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED ON 22.09.2006. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUM ENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WERE SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE A TO PANCHANAMA DATED 22.09.2006 CONSISTING OF 1 TO 9 BUNDLES AND ANNEXURE A1 CONSISTING OF 1 BUNDLE. PAGE NO.15 OF BUNDLE NO.5 CONTAINED A NOTING REGARDING THE AMOUNTS TO BE RECEIVED IN THE PROJECT RADIANT PARADISE , COPY OF WHICH IS SCANNED AND IS AVAILABLE AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. AS PER THE SAID SCANNED DOCUMENT, THE DETAILS OF FIVE UNSOLD FLATS WITH INSTALLMENTS DUE AND VALUE OF PARKING SPACE AND TOTAL IS AVAILABLE. WH EN THIS DOCUMENT WAS SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO.28, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE SAME CONTAINS DETAILS OF AMOUNT DUE OF CONSIDERATION, MSEB SOCIETY, EXTRA WORK AND PARKING FROM THE FLAT OWNERS OF RADIANT PARADISE. ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE SAID NARRATION MADE ON THE PAPER, THE PARTNERS OF RADIANT BUILDERS NAMELY, MAHMOOD H. MUSAVI AND SHRI ALI AKBAR JAFARI IN THEIR STATEMENT RECORDED ON 12.10.2006 DECLARED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.50 LAKHS IN ASSESSMEN T YEARS 2006 - 07 AND 2007 - 08 . THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED ADDITIONAL AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS. HOWEVER, AS PER THE DOCUMENT, THE INCOME WORKS OUT TO RS.15 LAKHS WHICH WAS ADDED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 AS UNACCO UNTED RECEIPTS. VIDE PARA 6, THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED T HAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, PAGE NO.186 OF BUNDLE NO.2 WAS FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. MAHMOOD MUSAVI AS PER ANNEXURE A TO PANCHANAMA DATED 23.09.2006, WHICH WAS XEROX COPY OF RECEIPT NO.834, DATED 11.08.2001 FOR RS.18.20 LAKHS IN CASH IN FAVOUR OF MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM KHAN FOR FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 IN RADIANT SUNNY CLIMES. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE. FURTHER, PAGE NOS.1 TO 22 AND 56 T O 70 OF BUNDLE NO.7 WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF MR. MAHMOOD MUSAVI. AS PER ANNEXURE A, PANCHANAMA DATED 23.09.2006, THESE ARE AGREEMENTS DATED 19.01.2001 FOR ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 4 SALE OF FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 IN RADIANT SUNNY CLIMES TO MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN OF KHAR, MUMBAI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SCANNED PAGE NO.65 OF AGREEMENT TO SELL, AT THE BOTTOM OF WHICH, TOTAL COST IS CALCULATED. FURT HER, THE COPY OF CASH RECEIPT FOUND IS ALSO SCANNED AND BOTH THE DOCUMENTS ARE AVAILABLE AT PAGE 5 OF THE ASS ESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, THE COPY OF IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY ALSO SEIZED, IS INCORPORATED AT PAGES 6 AND 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE PARA 7 NOTES WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT DURING THE COURSE O F SEARCH, WHEN CONFRONTED WITH THE SAID DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THOUGH AS PER THE AGREEMENT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY , HE HAD SOLD THESE FLATS TO MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN. BUT IN FACT, THE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE AS SHE FAILED TO MAKE PAYMEN T AS AGREED. SINCE SHE HAD NOT MADE ANY PAYMENT, HE CLAIMS THAT POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS RECEIVED FROM HER AS SECURITY WITH FULL RIGHTS OF SELLING AND GIFTING THESE FLATS. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF EXECUTION OF AGREEMENT, THE ASSESSEE VOLUNTARILY OFFERED, THA T SHE HAD PAID HIM A SUM OF RS.3 LAKHS IN CASH, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY REPAID IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTES THAT AT PAGES 1 TO 14 OF BUNDLE 7 WAS THE AGREEMENT OF SALE DATED 19.01.2001 BETWEEN MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN AND THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SALE OF PROPERTY OF FLAT NO.301 AT RADIANT SUNNY CLIMES. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION MENTIONED AT PAGE 10 WAS RS.17,50,000/ - BEING COST OF FLAT, RS.20,000/ - COST OF PARKING NOS.3 AND 8, RS.35,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF ELECTRIC DEPOSIT AND RS.15,000/ - ON ACCOU NT OF SOCIETY CHARGES, TOTALING RS.18,20,000/ - . IN CLAUSE NO.2 OF PAGE 10, IT WAS CLEARLY MENTIONED THAT THE PURCHASER HAD PAID TO THE DEVELOPER A SUM OF RS.17,50,000/ - ON OR BEFORE SIGNING THEREOF , THE RECEIPT OF WHIC H WAS ADMITTED AND ACKNOWLEDGED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO NOTES THAT ALL PAGES OF THE SAID DOCUMENT WERE SIGNED BY BOTH THE PARTIES IN THE PRESENCE OF MISS. RAJANI BHALERAO. FURTHER, PAGE 186 OF BUNDLE NO.2 WAS CASH RECEIPT VOUCHER OF SUM OF RS.18,20,000/ - FOR FLAT NO.301 OF RADIANT SUNNY ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 5 CLIMES, WHICH ALSO BORE THE SIGNATURE OF MR. MAHMOOD MUSAVI ON REVENU E STAMP. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE DATE OF PAYMENT MENTIONED ON RECEIPT WAS 19.01.2001, WHICH WAS SAME DATE AS DATE OF AGREEMENT. THE DATE ON WHICH THE SAID CASH RECEIPT WAS PREPARED WAS 11.08.2001 , BUT THE DATE OF PAYMENT MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF CASH RECEIPT WAS 19.01.2001. FURTHER, ON PAGES 18 TO 21 OF BUNDLE 7 WAS COPY OF SPECIAL IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY MADE BY MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN. THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS DULY NO TARIZED AND IN THE FIRST PARAGRAPH ITSELF, IT WAS MENTIONED THAT MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN HAD PURCHASED FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 FROM M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS UNDER TWO DIFFERENT AGREEMENTS BOTH DATED 19.01.2001. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WA S C LEARLY MENTIONED IN UNAMBIGUOUS TERMS THAT THE SAID FLATS HAD BEEN PURCHASED BY MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN ON 19.01.2001. FURTHER, IN RESPECT OF FLAT NO.301, THERE WAS AGREEMENT TO SELL FOR RS.18.20 LAKHS, CASH RECEIPTS OF RS.18.20 LAKHS AND IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY CONTAINING NARRATIONS THAT BOTH THE FLATS WERE SOLD TO MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN, UNDER WHICH IT WAS VERY CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED RS.36.40 LAKHS FOR BOTH THE FLATS. THE ASSESSEE WAS THUS, SHOW CAUSED TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY SUM OF RS.3 6.40 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02. IN REPLY, THE ASSESSEE CLARIFIED THAT IT PROPOSED TO SELL THE FLATS AS HE WAS GOING THROUGH FINANCIAL PROBLEMS. HOWEVER, EVEN THOUGH HE HAD MADE RECEIPT OF RS.18.20 LAKHS, THE LADY HAD ACTUALLY PAID HIM RS.3 LAKHS ONLY AND HAS PROMISED TO PAY THE BALANCE ON THE SUBSEQUENT DAY. IN ORDER TO SAFEGUARD HIMSELF, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT ON SAME DATE OF AGREEMENT I.E. 19.01.2001, HE ALSO EXECUTED AN IRREVOCABLE PO WER OF ATTORNEY FROM THE LADY IN HIS FAVOUR, WITH FULL RIGHTS TO SELL, GIFT, TRANSFER, ETC. THE SAID FLAT. AS PER THE ASSESSEE, THE SAME CLEARLY ESTABLISHED THAT FULL PAYMENT OF RS.18.20 LAKHS WAS NOT MADE BY THE LADY, OTHERWISE, SHE WOULD HAVE NOT GIVEN COMPLETE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF THE SAID PROPERTY. ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 6 5. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED WERE COMPLETE AND UNDISPUTED IN ALL RESPECTS. THE CASH RECEIVED BORE THE SIGNATURE OF MR. MAHMOOD MUSAVI, WHO WAS ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF ASSESSE E FIRM AND THAT TOO ON REVENUE STAMP. FURTHER, THE AGREEMENT TO SELL, THE CASH RECEIPT AND THE POWER OF ATTORNEY DEPICTS COMPLETE CYCLE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE OTHER HAND, TOOK NOTE OF THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT THE CASH RECEIPT WAS JUST KEPT READY . THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IN SUCH CASE, THE CASH WOULD BE SHOWN AS RECEIVED ON THE DATE OF PREPARATION OF CASH RECEIPT. WHERE THE CASH RECEIPT WAS PREPARED ON 11.08.2001, IN WHICH , THE DATE OF PAYMENT WAS MENTIONED AS 19.01.2001, THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT CASH HAD ALREADY BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON COMPLETION OF OTHER FORMALITIES, ACTUAL RECEIPT OF CASH, THE CASH RECEIPT WAS PREPARED ON 11.08.2001. THE SECOND CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ISSUE OF AF ORESAID FLAT WAS THAT THE SAID FLAT HAD BEEN TRANSFERRED BY THE FIRM TO ONE OF THE PARTNERS MR. MOHAMMAD MUSAVI EARLIER. IN THIS REGARD, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT BOOK ENTRY WOULD NOT BE TREATED AS ACTUAL TRANSFER IN A CASE WHERE CONTRARY EVIDENCES WERE AVAILABLE. FURTHER, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS WAS STAYING IN THE SAID FLATS WAS ALSO BRUSHED ASIDE, SINCE THE LADY HAD VESTED THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WITH ALL THE RIGHTS BY WAY OF IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND HENCE , IT WAS QUITE CLEAR THAT THE PARTNER WAS STAYING IN THE SAID FLAT. BASED ON THE SAID EVIDENCES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CONSIDERATION OF RS.36.40 LAKHS FOR THE TWO FLATS I.E. 301 AND 302, AT RADIANT SUNNY CLIMES, WHICH W ERE SUBSEQUENTLY ASSIGNED TO THE PARTNERS AND SINCE THE RECEIPTS WERE NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUM OF RS.36.40 LAKHS WAS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 7 6 . BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WHICH A RE REPRODUCED AT PAGES 5 AND 6 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM WAS THE OWNER OF FLATS SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 , WHERE THE SAID FLATS WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE TO MR. M.M.MUSAVI FOR SUM OF RS.46,62,000 / - FOR FLAT NO.301 AND SIMILAR PAYMENT WAS MADE FOR FLAT NO.302 IN RADIANT SUNNY CLIMES. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED TO AUDITED PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT, WHEREIN THE SAID SALE WAS REFLECTED IN SCHEDULE B. THE CASE OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE FLATS WHICH HAD BEEN SOLD TO MR. M.M.MUSAVI COULD NOT HAVE BEEN RE - SOLD BY THE FIRM TO A THIRD PARTY I.E. MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT MR. M.M.MUSAVI WAS LIVING IN THE SAID FLAT SINCE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 AS PER AGREEMENT O F SALE BETWEEN HIM AND THE FIRM. THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT THE DOCUMENT EXECUTED WITH MR.M.M. MUSAVI WERE NOT REGISTERED AND BECAUSE OF FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES, HE HAD THOUGHT OF SELLING OF FLATS TO MR S . MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN AS PER UNREGISTERED AGREEM ENT FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. SINCE THE LADY COULD NOT MAKE ENTIRE PAYMENT, MR.M.M. MUSAVI HAD TAKEN SPECIAL POWER OF ATTORNEY ON THE SAME DAY AS THE DATE OF AGREEMENT, GIVING HIM COMPLETE POWERS INCLUDING THE POWER OF SALE AND GIFT. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER CLAIMED THAT SINCE MR S . MUMTAZ COULD NOT MAKE THE ENTIRE PAYMENT, PART CONSIDERATION OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS RETURNED TO HER IN THE SAME YEAR. BEFORE THE CIT(A), AN AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SO N OF MRS. MUMTAZ CONFIRMING THE FACT THAT HIS MOTHER LATE MRS. MUMTAZ WHO HAD EXPIRED DID NOT BUY THE TWO FLATS I.E. 301 AND 302 IN R ADIANT SUNNY CLIMES FROM MR. MAHMOOD MUSAVI. THE CIT(A) AFTER PERUSING THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS OBSERVED THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE THAT THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS SEIZED SHOW THAT THE TWO FLATS WERE SOLD FOR RS.36.40 LAKHS TO MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN ON 19.01.2001. HOWEVER, ALONG WITH AGREEMENT TO SELL EVIDENCING THE SAID TRANSACTION, THE DEPARTMENT HAD ALSO SEIZED IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY OF APPROXIMATELY THE ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 8 SAME DAY BY THE BUYER IN FAVOUR OF MR. MUSAVI. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD FAILED TO GIVE CONSIDERATION TO THE SAID DOCUMENT. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE DOCUMENT OF SALE EXECUTED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION FOR SALE OF FLATS TO MRS. MUMTAZ BEGUM KHAN WERE NOT SIMPLE, NORMAL AND COMPLETE. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IF IRREVOCABLE POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS ALSO CONSIDERED ALONG WITH SUBMISSIONS OF ASSESSEE AND OTHER EVIDENCES FILED TO SHOW THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED FLATS HAD ALREADY BEEN SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO MR. MUSAVI IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, FOR HIGHER CONSIDERATION OF RS.46,62,000/ - , THEN THE CONCLUSION OF ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF AGREEMENT TO SELL WAS IN - COMPLET E AND INCORRECT. WHERE THE FACT OF SALE ALREADY EFFECTED IN RESPECT OF THESE TWO FLATS IN EARLIER ASSESSMENT YEAR FOR HIGHER CONSIDERATION IS ADOPTED, THEN THERE IS NO MERIT IN ASSESSING RS.36.40 LAKHS IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR. THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE SAME IN COME COULD NOT BE TAXED TWICE SINCE RS.46,62,000/ - HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS SALE CONSIDERATION FOR FLAT NOS. 301 AND 302 IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, THE SAME FLATS COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN SOLD AGAIN FOR THIS ASSESSMENT YEAR AND IN SUCH SITUATION, THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS HELD TO BE ACCEPTABLE. FURTHER, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE SON OF MRS. MUMTAZ SAYING THAT HIS MOTHER HAD NEVER BROUGHT THESE FACTS. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT IF THE TRANSACTION IN THE HANDS OF THE CASE COULD BE CONSIDERED TO HAVE BEEN ENTERED BY MR. MUSAVI FROM WHOSE RESIDENCE THE DOCUMENT WAS RECEIVED, THEN THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE HANDS OF MR. MUSAVI AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM. I N VIEW THEREOF, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT COULD NOT BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR ON THE AVAILABLE FACTS AND IN LAW AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 9 7 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS. SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESS EE ON 21.09.2006. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON 11.04.2008. THE ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL WAS THE ADDITION OF RS.36,40,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TWO FLATS NOS.301 AND 3 02 IN SUNNY CLIMES. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO THE ORDER OF CIT(A) FROM PARA 4.1 ONWARDS AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD SOLD FLATS TO THE PARTNER MR. MUSAVI IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, DOCUMENT WAS FOUND WHICH WAS THE RECEIPT FOR SALE OF FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 ALONG WITH POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DOCUMENT OF SALE I.E. AGREEMENT TO SELL AT PAGES 45 AND 64 OF THE DRAWN TO THE DOCUMENT OF SALE I.E. AGREEMENT TO SELL AT PAGES 45 AND 64 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNE D DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS MADE ON 27.02.2003 AND EXPLANATION WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VID E LETTER DATED 08.12.2002 . HOWEVER, ANOTHER AGREEMENT WAS EXECUTED ON 19.01.2001 BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM KHAN FOR SALE OF FLAT NO.301 MEASURING 1750 SQ.FT. FOR RS.17,50,000/ - PLUS PARKING PLUS OTHER CHARGES. ANOTHER AGREEMENT DATED 19.01.2 001 WAS ALSO EXECUTED BETWEEN ASSESSEE AND MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM KHAN FOR CONSIDERATION ALONG WITH OTHER CHARGES, COPY OF THE SAID AGREEMENT IS PLACED AT PAGES 80 AND 99 OF THE PAPER BOOK. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED ON 19.01.2001 BETWE EN THE PARTIES FOR BOTH THE PURCHASES. ANOTHER DOCUMENT WHICH WAS REFERRED TO WAS THE SCANNED COPY OF RECEIPT DATED 11.08.2001, WHEREIN CASH RECEIVED OF RS.18.20 ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 10 LAKHS WAS ACKNOWLEDGED. HE ADMITTED THAT SALE OF SAID FLATS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSES SEE WAS REFLECTED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE IN SEPTEMBER, 2006, THE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND. HE ACKNOWLEDGED THAT IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY, THERE WAS CLAUSE FOR GIVING AUTHORITY TO MR. MUSAVI FOR GIFTING OR TRANSFERRING THE PROPERTY. HE STRESSED THAT CASH RECEIPT WAS FOUND WHICH IS DATED 11.08.2001. WITH REGARD TO AFFIDAV IT OF SON OF INTENDED PURCHASER OF THE FLATS, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME WAS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND NO REPORT WAS CALLED FOR FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 9 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE AGREEMENT WITH MR. MUSAVI WAS NOT REGISTERED DOCUMENT BUT SINCE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE PARTNER MR. MUSAVI, THE SALE WAS BOOKED IN THE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN TO THE PARTNER MR. MUSAVI, THE SALE WAS BOOKED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM. HE ADMITS THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, CA SH RECEIPT AND POWER OF ATTORNEY WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. MUSAVI AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, MR. MUSAVI CLARIFIED THE NATURE OF SAID DOCUMENT. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE TERMS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT LADY HAD GIVEN THE POWER TO TRANSFER OR GIFT THE SAID FLAT. IN CASE THE TRANSACTION HAD MATERIALIZED, THEN SHE WOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN SUCH POWER OF ATTORNEY. HE STRESSED THAT THE RECEIPTS WERE IN GOOD FAITH BUT SH E ONLY GAVE SUM OF RS. 3 LAKHS, WHICH WAS RETURNED TO HER. ANOTHER ASPECT POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THERE WAS NO ENTRY OF RE - PURCHASE OF THE SAID FLATS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND HE ALSO STRESSED THAT WH ERE THE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM THE RESIDENCE OF MR. MUSAVI, SO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT WERE TO BE APPLIED AGAINST MR. MUSAVI AND NOT ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 11 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FIRM. HE ALSO CLARIFIED THAT THE CHANGE IN MENTIONING THE AREA OF FLATS WAS B ECAUSE OF CONCEPT OF AREA OF FLAT UNDERGOING CHANGE. ANOTHER CLARIFICATION GIVEN BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT EVEN IF THE AGREEMENT TO SELL BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND PARTNER MR. MUSAVI WAS UNDATED, DOES NOT MEAN THAT N O TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE SINCE IT WAS ADMITTED FACT THAT MR. MUSAVI WAS STAYING IN THE SAID FLAT EVEN ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DATE WOULD BE PUT ON THE SAID DOCUMENT ON THE DATE OF REGISTRATION. AGAINST THE OBJECTION RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE IN RESPECT OF AFFIDAVIT OF SON OF MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM KHAN FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME WAS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTIONS MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND DOES NOT PARTAKE THE NATURE OF NEW EVIDENCE. HE STRESSED THAT THE INCOME IS TO BE TAXED ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SAID FLAT WHEN ASSESSEE GIVES POSSESSION OR REGISTERS THE SALE DEED. IN CASE OF TRANSACTION WITH MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM KHAN, NEITHER OF TWO ACTS HAVE BEEN CO MPLETED. HE REFERRED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 28 OF THE ACT AND POINTED OUT THAT CONSIDERATION IS TO BE ACKNOWLEDGED ONLY WHEN THE SALE IS REGARDED ON RECEIPT OF MONEY, WHERE THE ASSESSEE IS FOLLOWING COMPLETION METHOD. HE STRESSED THAT WHERE THERE W AS NO SALE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ACCRUAL OF INCOME. HE ADMITTED THAT AT THE TIME OF SEARCH, THE CASH RECEIPTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND EVEN POWER OF ATTORNEY WAS FOUND AND SEIZED, SO EQUIVALENT IMPORTANCE SHOULD BE GIVEN TO T HE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THE TRANSACTION SHOULD NOT BE BASED ON ONLY THE RECEIPTS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HE ADMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION W AS CON TEMPLATED BUT THE SAME WAS NOT COMPLETED. HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT HAD TO BE READ AS A WHOLE. IN THIS REGARD, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF MANGE RAM MITTAL VS. ACIT (2007) 289 ITR (AT) 112. WITH REGARD TO THE QUESTION OF TAXING OF RS.3 LAKHS, HE FURTHER STRESSED THAT THE STATEMENT HAD TO BE TAKEN AS A WHOLE , ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 12 WHERE IT WAS ADMITTED THAT RS.3 LAKHS WAS RECEIVED AND RS.3 LAKHS WAS RETURNED. 10 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ISSUE WHICH IS ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO TWO FLATS BEARING NOS.301 AND 302 IN SUNN Y CLIMES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF BUILDERS, DEVELOPERS AND PROMOTERS. THE ASSESSEE WA S PARTNERSHIP FIRM. DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01, THE ASSESSEE FIRM SOLD TWO OF THE FLATS TO ONE OF ITS PARTNER I.E. MR. MUSAVI. THE SAID SAL E OF FLATS IS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND CONSIDERATION IS SHOWN IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT SINCE THE POSSESSION OF SAID PROPERTY WAS GIVEN TO MR. MUSAVI . THE ASSESSEE FIRM ACKNOWLEDGED THE TRANSACTION AS COMP L ETED AND ACCORDINGLY, PASSED ENTR IES IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED ON 31.10.2006, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS DULY ACKNOWLEDGED AS PART OF ITS SALE CONSIDERATION, EVEN AN EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD WAS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 08.12.2002, WHIC H IS PLACED ON RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WAS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 27.02.2003 ACCEPTING THE SAID TRANSACTION. THE PREMISES OF PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FIRM MR. MUSAVI WAS SEARCHED ON 21.09.2006. DURING THE COUR SE OF SEARCH AT HIS RESIDENCE, CERTAIN CASH RECEIPTS, AGREEMENT TO SELL AND POWER OF ATTORNEY IN RESPECT OF SAID FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 IN SUNNY CLIMES WERE FOUND AND SEIZED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS SCANNED AND PLACED THE COPIES OF ALL THE ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE DOCUMENTS SUGGEST A TRANSACTION OF SALE OF FLATS BY MR . MUSAVI TO MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM KHAN. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF TERMS OF POWER OF ATTORNEY REFLECTS THAT MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM HAD GIVEN COMPLETE POWE RS OF SALE OF THE PROPERTY, ITS TRANSFER OR EVEN GIFTING OF THE PROPERTY TO MR. MUSAVI. IN CASE THE SALE TRANSACTION BETWEEN MR. MUSAVI AND MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM IS COMPLETE AND THE SALE ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 13 CONSIDERATION HA D PASSED HANDS, THEN THERE WA S NO QUESTION OF SUCH TERMS BEING PROVIDED IN THE POWER OF ATTORNEY. THE COURTS HAD TIME AND AGAIN HELD THAT WHENEVER CERTAIN DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND, THEN ALL THE RELATED DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE READ TOGETHER AND NOT INDEPENDENTLY. IN CASE, WE LOOK AT CASH RECEIPTS AND AGREEMENT TO SELL EXECUTED BETWEEN MR. MUSAVI AND MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM IN ISOLATION, THEN YES THERE IS SALE OF FLATS BUT THE NEXT QUESTION IS WHERE THE SAID SALE CONSIDERATION HAS TO BE ASSESSED I.E. IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM OR IN THE HANDS OF MR. MUSAVI. BEFORE GOING IN TO SUCH DETAILS , WE WOULD ALSO LIKE TO MAKE REFERENCE TO THE POWER OF ATTORNEY EXECUTED BETWEEN THE PARTIES ON THE SAME DATE I.E. 19.01.2001 , WHERE IT IS CLEARLY PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHT TO TRANSFER, SALE OR GIFT THE SAID FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 I N SUNNY CLIMES. THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AND SEIZED HAVE TO BE READ AND RELIED UPON AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EMANATING THEREFROM. UNDOUBTEDLY, THERE IS CASH RECEIPT EXECUTED ON LATE R DATE BUT WHEN THE TERMS OF POWER OF ATT ORNEY ARE READ, WHICH IS REGISTERED DOCUMENT, THEN IT TRANSPIRES THAT UNDOUBTEDLY, A TRANSACTION W AS CONTEMPLATED BETWEEN THE PARTIES BUT THE SAME WAS NOT COMPLETED. 1 1 . THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE TRANSACTION IS THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON THE PREMI SES OF MR. MUSAVI, WHO WAS THE PARTNER OF ASSESSEE FIRM, THE SAID DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION. ONCE THE DOCUMENTS ARE FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132(4A) OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED VIS - - VIS MR. MUSAVI AND NOT VIS - - VIS THE ASSESSEE FIRM. IN ANY CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD THE SAID PROPERTY TO THE PARTNER MR. MUSAVI IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 AND HAD ACKNOWLEDGED AND ACCEPTED THE SALE TO BE COMPLETE IN THE SAID YEAR AND ACCOUNTING ENTRIES IN THIS REGARD WERE PASSED . THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS SCRUTINIZED AND THE INCOME WAS ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FIRM UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT PRIOR TO ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 14 SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. NO DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SUGGESTING THAT THE SAID FLATS HAVE BEEN RE - PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND UNDER SUCH FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. WE ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD THAT THE TRANSACTION WHICH IS DEEMED TO HAVE B EEN EXECUTED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM , IN ACTUAL FACT , DID NOT TAKES PLACE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THERE IS MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE WHICH WAS TO BE FORWARDED AS EARLY AS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHILE RECORDING STATEMENT UNDE R SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT AND EVEN THE STATEMENT MADE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE TO ESTABLISH HIS CLAIM THAT THE SAID PROPERTY IN THE FIRST INSTANCE WAS SOLD TO MR. MUSAVI BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN ASSESSM ENT YEAR 2000 - 01. ONCE THE SALE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN RECOGNIZED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 , THERE IS NO MERIT IN ASSESSING THE SALE CONSIDERATION ONCE AGAIN IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 - 02, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND THAT THE SAI D FLATS HAD BEEN RE - PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM. THE PARTNER MR. MUSAVI WAS RESIDING IN THE SAME PREMISES EVEN ON THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E. ON 21.09.2006. THE OTHER OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE F OR THE REVENUE THAT THERE IS DIFFERENCE IN MENTIONING THE AREA DOES NOT HOLD ANY IMPORTANCE WHERE ADMITTEDLY, THE FLATS IN QUESTION I.E. FLAT NOS.301 AND 302 AT SUNNY CLIMES ARE SAME. 12 . ANOTHER ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT AFTER DEMISE OF MRS. MUMTAJ B EGUM, HER SON HAS FILED AN AFFIDAVIT DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS STATING THAT THEY HAD NOT PURCHASED THE SAID FLATS FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE OBJECTED TO ITS ADMISSION. HOWEVER, THE SAID EVI DENCE IS IN RESPECT OF PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND DOES NOT PARTAKE THE CHARACTER OF ITA NO. 1259 /PN/20 1 0 M/S. RADIANT BUILDERS 15 NEW EVIDENCE. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. THE ASSESSEE HAVING A CKNOWLEDGED THE TAXABILITY OF INCOME ARISING ON SALE OF FLAT NOS.301 AND 302, WHERE POSSESSION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM TO ITS PARTNER AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE OF RE - PURCHASE OF THE SAID FLAT BY THE ASSESSEE FIRM, THERE IS NO MERIT IN ASSES SING ANY INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID TRANSACTION, IF ANY, BETWEEN MR. MUSAVI AND MRS. MUMTAJ BEGUM . ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 1 3 . IN TH E RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 18 TH JANUARY , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE AP PELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - I V , PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT , CENTRAL, PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR