Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax, V. M/s. Ghatge Patil Industries Ltd., Kolhapur

ITA 1279/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1648 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SANJEEV GHEI
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Value adopted by valuation officer; Income from undisclosed sources; Valuation report; Tax effect
• Section: 153A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, PUN E . , , ! , ' # BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AW ASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 '% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03 TO 2004-05 THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (CENTRAL) CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AT POST :-UCHGAON, TAL : KARVEER, DIST- KOLHAPUR, PIN-416 005, PAN : AAACG6595R / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 '% & '& / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 M/S. GHATGE PATIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED, AT POST :-UCHGAON, TAL : KARVEER, DIST- KOLHAPUR, PIN-416 005, PAN : AAACG6595R ....... / APPELLANT (% / V/S. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI SANJEEV GHEI ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK 2 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 / DATE OF HEARING : 20.08.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.08.2018 ) / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM ITA NO.1278/PUN/2016 BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE-11 DAT ED 11.03.2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. THE REVENUE IN APPEAL HA S ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON TWO GROUNDS I.E. I) QUASHING OF RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS; AND II) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,18,469/- MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF SCRAP. 2. SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED AT THE OUTSET THAT THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS LIABLE TO BE DIS MISSED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 3. SHRI SANJEEV GHEI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT IN THE APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 -03 TAX EFFECT IS LESS THAN RS.20 LAKHS. 4. BOTH SIDES HEARD. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST T HE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEAL) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.29,18,469/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF SCRA P. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE TAX EFFECT INVOLVED IN APPEAL IS LESS THAN THE MONETARY LIMI T PRESCRIBED BY THE RECENT CBDT CIRCULAR FOR FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE CBDT VIDE CIRCULAR NO.3/2018, DATED 11.07.2 018 HAS RAISED 3 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 THE MONETARY LIMIT OF TAX EFFECT FOR FILING OF APPEALS BY THE DE PARTMENT BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL TO RS.20 LAKHS. THE CIRCULAR APPLIES TO THE APP EALS TO BE FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN FUTURE AS WELL AS THE APPEALS PENDING BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. WITHOUT GOING INTO MERITS OF THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEA L, IN VIEW OF THE CBDT CIRCULAR THE PRESENT APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISS ED ON ACCOUNT OF LOW TAX EFFECT. 5. BEFORE PARTING, WE CLARIFY HERE THAT THE REVENUE SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THE TRIBUNAL FOR RESTORATION OF APPEAL, WITH THE R EQUISITE MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE APPEAL IS PROTECTED BY THE EXCEPTIONS PR ESCRIBED IN PARA 10 OF THE CIRCULAR (SUPRA.) 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1278/PUN/2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 IS DISMISSED . ITA NO.1279/PUN/2016 (BY REVENUE) ITA NO.1280/PUN/2016 (BY REVENUE) (A.YS. 2003-04 & 2004-05) 7. ITA NO. 1279/PUN/2016 & ITA NO.1280/PUN/2016 BY REVENUE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE-11 DATED 30.03.2016 COMMON FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 20 04-05. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS APPEAL IN ITA NO.1069/PUN/2 016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 AGAINST THE SAME ORDER OF COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 4 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 8. SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE THREE APPEALS ARE A RISING FROM SAME SET OF FACTS, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR AD JUDICATION VIDE THIS COMMON ORDER. 9. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-0 4 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1 ) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE ON SALE OF SCRAP MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTING TO RS.7,02,58,930/- FOR THE YEARS 2003-04 TO 2009-1 0 TREATING THE STATEMENT OF MD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS UNRELIAB LE IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE SUPPORTING/CONFIRMING THE MODUS OPERAN DI FOR SALE OF SCRAP. 2) ON THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE RATIO DECIDED IN THE JUDGMENT OF TH E HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SURJEET SINGH CHHABRA VS. UOI(1986). 3) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND T HAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND AND MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE REV ENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 10. SHRI SANJEEV GHEI REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT SU BMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN MANUFACTURING OF GREY IRON CASTINGS , GATE VALVES, MECHANICAL INDUSTRIAL CLUTCHES ETC. A SEARCH ACTION U/S.132(4 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) W AS CARRIED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE ON 11.09.2008. THE NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT W AS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 21.08.2009. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 12.10.2009 DECLARING LOSS OF RS.5,10,06,327 /-. THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ON THE SIMILAR LINES AS WAS FILED UN DER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. DURING SEARCH, IT WAS FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS INDULGED IN SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF SCRAP. THE MANAGING DIRECT OR OF THE 5 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 COMPANY, SHRI KIRAN PATIL IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.1 32(4) OF THE ACT MADE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.8 CRORE DIVIDED EQU ALLY IN FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006-07 TO 200 9-10. HOWEVER, THE MANAGING DIRECTOR SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED FROM HIS STATE MENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED ASSESSMENT MAKING ADDITION ON THE BASIS O F STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT MADE BY THE MANAGING DIRE CTOR OF THE COMPANY. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,26,255/- IN RESPECT OF UNACCOUNTED SA LE OF SCRAP. FOR THE SIMILAR REASONS, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.39,95 ,909/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SCRAP SALE. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION IN BOTH THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS AS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF SCRAP WAS LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER. THE LD. DR PRAYED FOR SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER AN D RESTORING THE FINDINGS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK APPEARING ON BE HALF OF ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY DEFENDED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT DURING SEAR CH OPERATION NO INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER WAS FOUND BY THE DEPART MENT INDICATING SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF SCRAP. NO DECLARATION WAS MADE BY THE MANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YE ARS 2003-04 AND 2004- 05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION MERELY ON THE BASIS O F ESTIMATION. THE LD. AR REFERRING TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE VALUE OF SALE OF SCRAP @1% OF THE TOTAL TURNOVER AND ACTUAL SCRAP SALE RECORDED IN THE BO OKS. THE LD. AR POINTING TO THE TABLE IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 3 0.12.2010 PASSED 6 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 U/S.143(3) R.W.S 153A OF THE ACT FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY ON ESTIMATION. 11.1 THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED THAT THE MANAGING DIRECT OR OF THE COMPANY IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT HAD NOT A DMITTED ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THE REVENUE IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAS NOT QUESTIONED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) ON NON SEIZURE OF AN Y MATERIAL INDICATING UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 3-04 AND 2004-05. THE LD. AR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONE R OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND PRAYED FOR DISMISSING THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTAT IVES OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE SO LITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN APPEAL IS AGAINST DELETING ADDITION OF RS.1,26,2 55/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSION OF SALE OF SCRAP IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND R S.39,95,909/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05. THE LD. AR HAS ASSERTED TH AT DURING SEARCH OPERATION, NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND FOR MAKING SUCH ADDITION. EVEN IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT BY THE M ANAGING DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY RETRACTED. THERE IS NO DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 AND 2004-05. THESE FACTS HAVE NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE REVENUE. WE OBSERVE TH AT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) IN PARA 4.1 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER HAS CATEGORICALLY RECORDED THESE FACTS AND THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY TH E DEPARTMENT IN THE APPEAL. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION OF UNDISCLOSED SALE OF SCRAP. THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS ESTIMATED 1% OF TOTAL TURNOVER AS THE VALUE OF SCRAP GE NERATED. THE SHORTFALL OF 7 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 SCRAP I.E. LESS THAN 1% HAS BEEN ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS IS A S UNDER: 13. IT WOULD BE RELEVANT TO MENTION HERE THAT REGULAR A SSESSMENTS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 AND 2004-05 WERE COMPLETED U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT. THUS, ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL ARE NON- ABATED ASSESSMENTS. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MAD E BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEARS. SO FAR AS THE STATEMENT OF MANAGING DIRECTOR IS CONCERNED, WE OBSERVE THAT THE MA NAGING DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE-COMPANY HAD NOT MADE ANY DECLARATION OF ADDITIO NAL INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2004-05. THUS, THE STATEME NT BY MANAGING DIRECTOR WHETHER RETRACTED OR NOT WOULD HAVE NO BEAR ING IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS UNDER APPEAL. IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT IN THE CA SE OF COMPLETED ASSESSMENTS, ADDITIONS IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER S ECTION 153A CAN BE MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND A ND SEIZED DURING SEARCH OPERATION. ANY ADDITION MADE ON ESTIMATION OR SURM ISES WOULD NOT SUSTAIN. 14. THUS, IN VIEW OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND WELL SETTLED LAW, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING THE ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME AND DISMISS T HE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR BOTH THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2 004-05. A.Y. TURNOVER SCRAP SALE @1% SCRAP SALE SHOWN IN THE BOOK DIFFERENCE 2003-04 69,30,16,443 69,30,164 68,03,909 1,26,255 2004-05 1,10,20,02,935 1,10,20,029 70,24,120 39,95,909 8 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1279/PUN/2016 & ITA NO.1280/PUN/2016 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 A ND 2004-05 ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1069/PUN/2016 (BY ASSESSEE) A.Y. 2004-05 16. THE ASSESSEE IN ITS APPEAL HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) IS BAD IN LAW AND OPPOSED TO THE FACTS. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ADDITION OF RS.28,621/-MADE BY THE DCIT AS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN C OST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER BOOKS AND VALUE AS PER THE VALUATION REPORT OF DVO. HE ERRED IN SIMPLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) KOLHAPUR FOR A .Y. 2005-06 AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. HE FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T ENTIRE COST OF CONSTRUCTION HAS BEEN RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT OF THE APPELLANT FROM YEAR TO YEAR, IGNORING THE EXTRACT OF LEDGER O F AUDITED ACCOUNTS PLACED ON THE RECORDS WHICH CONTAINED COMPLETE NARRATION F OR EACH ENTRY DATE WISE, AND FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE REPORT OF D VO WAS A PERSONAL JUDGMENT DEVOID OF ANY EVIDENCE. THE ADDITION OF RS .28,621 MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD TO AMEND OR AL TER ANY OR ALL THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL EITHER BEFORE OR AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 17. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN ITS CROSS APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF IN COME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.28,621/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW AS PER DVOS R EPORT. THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE MAKING ADDITION HA S APPLIED CPWD RATES WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D CONSTRUCTED HOUSE IN KOLHAPUR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD HAVE ADOPTED STATE PWD RATES. THE LD. AR FURTHER POINTED THAT DURING SEARCH NO INCRIMINATING MAT ERIAL WAS FOUND INDICATING UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF B UNGALOW. THE LD. AR POINTED THAT DIFFERENCE BETWEEN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF B UNGALOW AS DECLARED BY 9 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 THE ASSESSEE (RS.83 LAKHS) AND THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION DETERMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT (RS.94 LAKHS) IS ABOUT 13%. THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06 IN ITA NO.1332/PUN/2014 DECIDED ON 27.09.2017 HAS DELETED THE A DDITION ON ACCOUNT OF MARGINAL DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION. 18. THE LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION IN RESPECT O F UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN BUNGALOW. 19. BOTH SIDES HEARD. THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE IN APPEAL IS AGAINST CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS.28,621/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERE NCE BETWEEN COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW AS DECLARED BY ASSESSEE AND VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS RAISE D BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1332/PUN/2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 10 . THE FIRST ISSUE WHICH ARISES IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE THAT IN THE CASE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS WHERE NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND, CAN THE ADDITION BE MADE IN R ESPECT OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WHICH HAD NOT ABATED. THE SECOND ISSUE WHICH IS ARISING IS THAT WHERE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION IS ABOUT APPROXIMATELY OF RS.11 LAKHS WHICH WORKS OUT TO 13.43% AND WHERE THE DVO H AS FAILED TO GIVE THE BENEFIT OF DEDUCTION UNDER SELF SUPERVISION AND HAD ALSO APPLIED CPWD RATES AS AGAINST THE PRESCRIBED RATES OF PWD RATES, CAN ANY ADDITION BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. THE TOTAL ADDITION MADE IN THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS ONLY RS.85,988/- AND DIFFERENCE SHALL STAND REDUCED IN CASE THE RATES OF PWD FOR CONSTRUCTION ARE APPLIED AS AGAINST THE DVO APPLYING THE RATES OF CPWD AND FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE D EDUCTION IN VALUE ON ACCOUNT OF SELF SUPERVISION. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE BEING A BOUT 13.43%, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN UPHO LDING THE ABOVE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, WE DELE TE THE ADDITION OF RS.85,988/-. IN VIEW OF OUR DECIDING THE ISSUE ON M ERITS, WE ARE NOT GOING INTO THE JURISDICTIONAL ASPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEANED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE, WHICH BECOMES ACAD EMIC IN NATURE. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. 10 ITA NOS. 1278 TO 1280/PUN/2016 ITA NO. 1069/PUN/2016 A.YS.2002-03 TO 2004-05 THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS THE SAME WHICH WAS SUBJECT MATTER OF VALUATION IN THE ASSESS MENT YEAR 2005-06. NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE CO NTROVERTING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH. FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TR IBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN THE IMMEDIATELY SUCCEEDING ASSES SMENT YEAR, WE DELETE THE ADDITION FOR SIMILAR REASONS. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE A SSESSEE FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS ALLOWED. 20. TO SUM UP, ALL THE THREE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE I.E. FO R ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 TO 2004-05 ARE DISMISSED AND CROSS APPE AL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON FRIDAY, THE 31 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2018. SD/- SD/- ( . / D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( ! /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; !' / DATED : 31 ST AUGUST, 2018 SB ) * +',- . ', / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT(APPEALS), PUNE-11. 4. THE PR. CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE. 5. %&' () , * () , +,- , / DR, ITAT, A BENCH, PUNE. 6. './ 01 / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // *2 / BY ORDER, 3 (- / PRIVATE SECRETARY * () , / ITAT, PUNE.