Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
131624514 RSA 2010
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
3 year(s) 7 month(s) 29 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-06-2014
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Dismissed
Bench Allotted
A
Next Hearing Date
03-03-2014
Assessment Year
2008-2009
Appeal Filed On
01-11-2010
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.1194 TO 1200/PN/2010 (A.YS: 2002-03 TO 2008-09) ITO (CENTRAL)-1, NASHIK APPELLANT VS. VIKRANT HAPPY HOMES PVT. LTD., 301305, PRASANNA ARCADE, OLD AGRA ROAD, NEAR HOTEL MAZDA, NASHIK PAN: AAACV5949A RESPONDENT ITA NOS.1315 & 1316/PN/2010 (A.YS: 2005-06 & 2008-09) VIKRANT HAPPY HOMES PVT. LTD., 301305, PRASANNA ARCADE, OLD AGRA ROAD, NEAR HOTEL MAZDA, NASHIK PAN: AAACV5949A APPELLANT VS. ITO (CENTRAL)-1, NASHIK RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL P ATHAK DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. M.S. V ERMA, CIT DATE OF HEARING : 13.06.2014 DATE OF ORDER : 30.06.2014 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: SEVEN APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE AND TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PERTAIN TO THE SAME ASSESSEE ARISING FROM A CONSOLIDATED 2 ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, NASHIK. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE, THEY ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. IN ITA NO.1194/PN/2010 FOR A.Y. 2002-03, THE REV ENUE HAS FILED THE APPEAL ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS. 1. THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS ON GRO UND OF LAW AS WELL AS ON POINTS OF FACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS TOWA RDS ON MONEY RECEIPTS. 3. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL ON ALMOST SIMILAR GROUNDS IN OTHER YEARS I.E. A.YS. 2003-04 T O 2008-09 EXCEPT FOR A.Y. 2007-08. IN A.Y. 2007-08, THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SOME ADDITIONAL ISSUE AS WELL. 3. THE ASSESSEE IS A PRIVATE LIMITED COMPANY ENGAGE D IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN LANDS AND CONSTRUCTION OF HO USING PROJECTS. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT WAS CO NDUCTED ON JADHAV-SHAH GROUP OF CASES ON 08.02.2008. DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY SHRI G.K.JADHAV HAS OFFERED TO TAX ADDITIONAL INCOME IN HIS HANDS FOR THE A.Y.2008-2009 IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT AS UNDER: A) ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF PLOTS AT HINDUSTAN NAGAR AT GAT NOS.136, 135, 1399, 1536 & RS.25,00 ,000 1131 TO 1141 B) ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF PLOTS AT HINDUSTAN NAGAR (RECEIVED IN F.Y.2006-2007) RS.12,00,000 C) ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF PLOTS AT WAKAS NERAL R S. 9,00,000 D) ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF LAND AT ANTHRAT RS.11 ,82,000 ----------------- RS.57,82,000 =========== 3 3.1 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ASSESSED THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS TO THE INCOME RETURNED, DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR INCOME RETURNED AFTER ADJUSTMENTS ADDITION OF ON MONEY AT 50% OF SALE OTHER ADDITIONS ASSESSED INCOME 02 - 03 - 1,17,62,965 1,63,58,65 - 45,95,692 03 - 04 - 22,29,910 89,47,120 - 67,17,210 04 - 05 17,51,788 43,06,900 - 60,58,688 05 - 06 28,19,288 68,81,661 - 97,00,949 06 - 07 38,15,884 63,47,470 - 1,01,63,354 07 - 08 46,05,185 33,65,995 93,25,772(UNEXPL. INV.) 1,72,96,952 - 08 - 09 80,60,720 93,28,774 1,30,00,000 (UNRECORDED CASH RECEIPTS) 6,70,819 (PROFIT ON EXTRA WORK) 3,10,60,313 4. LET US DEAL WITH THIS ON-MONEY ISSUE PERTAINING TO ALL THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WITH R EGARD TO ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED ON-MONEY ESTIMATED AND TAXED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 50% OF THE SALES FOR EACH YEAR . AS STATED ABOVE, THIS ISSUE PERTAINS TO A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09. T HE DETAILS OF THE SAID ADDITION OF ON-MONEY ARE AS UNDER: ASST. YEAR SALES ON - MONEY ESTIMATED BY A.O. LESS ( - ) ON - MONEY OFFERED BY G.KJADHAV ADDITION OF ON - MONEY 02 - 03 3,27,17,31 4 1,63,58,657 - 1,63,58,657 03 - 04 1,78,94,241 89,47,120 - 89,47,120 04 - 05 86,13,800 43,06,900 - 43,06,900 05 - 06 1,37,63,322 68,81,661 - 68,81,661 06 - 07 1,26,94,940 63,47,470 - 63,47,470 07 - 08 67,31,990 33,65,995 - 33,65,995 08 - 09 3,02,21,549 1,51,10,774 ( - )57,82,000 93,28,774 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON- MONEY FOR THE FOLLOWING REASONS: I. HE HAS POINTED OUT 11 TRANSACTIONS REFERRING TO THE SEIZED MATERIAL AND STATED THAT ON-MONEY WAS TRANSACTED IN THESE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE STATED 11 TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECORD ED ON- MONEY IS 50% OF ALL THE RECORDED CONSIDERATION. 4 II. THE DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY SHRI G.K.JADHA V HAS ADMITTED IN HIS STATEMENT ON OATH THAT ON-MONEY RECEIVED WAS 15% TO 20% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION RECEIVED. III. THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX ON-MONEY ONLY IN RE SPECT OF TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO IN THE A.Y.2008-2009. IT WAS FOUND IMPROBABLE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT HAVE EARNED ANY ON-MONEY IN THE EARLIER YEARS DURING WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS CARRIED -ON THE SAME BUSINESS. THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY SUG GESTS THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE EARNED INCOME ON ACCOUN T OF ON-MONEY IN THE EARLIER YEARS AS WELL. 4.1 THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER IN PARA 19 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE AS UNDER: S.NO ANNEXURE/ PAGE NO. S.NO./GAT NO. RECORDED AMOUNT CASH ELEMENT/ UNRECORDED AMOUNTS I.E.ON-MONEY % OF ON- MONEY WITH RECORDED AMOUNT A.Y. 1 A- L/20, 21, 32,33,34 SALE OF LAND G.NO.86 AND 76 KOKANGAON 53,50,000 43,79,000 81.85% 2007-08 2008-09 2 A-2/41/129 SALE OF LAND G.NO.150A, B, C. IN FACT THE TRANSACTION IS PURCHASE TRANSACTION AND NOT SALE TRANSACTION 59,30,152 42,20,574 71.17% - 3 A-2/2/23 T O 42 PURCHASE OF PLOT 1090.45 SQ.MTRS. AT S.N0.135A, B, 136, 137 AND 137/B 6,00,000 15,00,000 250% 2008-09 4 A-L/14 SALE OF PLOT NO.339 1950 SQ. MTRS. 10,53,500 12,09,900 115% - 5 A-L/1/6 & 7 PLOTNO.1858 TO 1862 SALE TO NITISHBHAI RUNWAL 1,65,000 2,04,500 124% - 6 A-L/1/6 & 7 3 PLOTS SALE TO SANJAY KALE 99,000 1,97,826 200% 2008-09 7 A- 1/2/1 5 SALE OF 10 PLOTS TO SOLANKI 2,10,000 5,94,000 282% 2008-09 8 A-L/2/15 SALE OF 4 PLOTS TO SOLANKI 84,000 2,24,000 266% 2008-09 9 A-L/8/85 SALE OF PLOT NO.2 1052.50 SQ. MTRS. 2,10,000 3,31,540 158% 18/6/2004 2005-06 5 10 SALE OF PLOTS TO A.P.KARMOKAR (ADMITTED IN STATEMENT) 11,83,000 11,83,000 100% 2008-09 11 SALE OF 39 PLOT (ADMITTED IN STATEMENT) 23,00,000 12,00,000 52% 2008-09 4.2 IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTIONS AT SR.NOS.1 AND 2 RE GARDING SALE OF LAND AT GAT NOS. 86 & 76, KOKANGAON AND LAND AT GAT NO.150A, B & C, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REJECTED THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AS THE TRANSACTIONS ARE IN PROGRESS AND SALE C OULD NOT YET EFFECTED AND POSSESSION WAS NOT GIVEN, THE REVENUE COULD NOT BE RECOGNIZED STATING THAT THE MAIN ISSUE REGARDING RE CEIPT OF ON-MONEY HAS BEEN SKIRTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OF FICER STATED THAT AFTER GOING THROUGH REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, IT W AS FOUND THAT IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED 11 TRANSACTIONS ONLY , PAYMENTS IN CHEQUES / DEMAND DRAFTS WERE RECORDED AND THE CASH PAYMENTS WERE TOTALLY UNRECORDED. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ON-MONEY RECEIVED CONSTITUTED UNDISCLOSED INCOME IR RESPECTIVE OF THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR T HE REASON THAT THE SAID ON-MONEY SHALL NEVER BE ACCOUNTED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ON- MONEY FOR ALL YEARS AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 4.3 IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE VARIOUS CONTEN TIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND THE CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDE RED THE SAME, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIPT WAS CONFIRM ED TO THE EXTENT OF 3,31,540/-, 12,00,000/- AND 13,48,300/- IN THE A.YS. 2005- 06, 2007-08 AND 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY, WHICH IS SUBJ ECT MATTER OF ASSESSEES APPEALS. THE REMAINING ADDITION OF ON-M ONEY BY ESTIMATING THE SAME @ 50% OF THE RECORDED TURNOVER IN THE A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2008-09 WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A). THE REVENUE HAS OPPOSED THE RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WITH REG ARD TO ON-MONEY ISSUE. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT A SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132 O F THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN JADHAV SHAH GROUP OF CASES, CONSEQUE NT TO WHICH 6 ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2002-03 WAS FINALIZED U/S. 143(3 ) DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF 45,95,692/-. WHILE FINALIZING THE ASSESSMENT AN ADDITION OF 1,63,58,657/- WAS MADE TO THE RETURNED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY RECEIPTS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S RECEIVED ON- MONEY IN RESPECT OF SALE & PURCHASE OF LAND ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IT HAS BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE A SSESSMENT ORDER THAT IN RESPECT OF 11 TRANSACTIONS THERE WAS SUBSTA NTIAL ON-MONEY RANGING 52% TO 250%. SHRI G. K. JADHAV MANAGING DIR ECTOR OF ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS AGREED IN THE STATEMENT RECORD ED ON OATH THAT 15% TO 20% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECE IVED IN CASH AS ON-MONEY. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS OFFERED TO TAX ON MONEY AMOUNTING TO 57,82,000/- FOR THE TRANSACTION INTO A.Y.2008-09. CONSIDERING THE FACT, THE ASSESSING OF FICER HAS REASONABLY ESTIMATED ON-MONEY @ 50%. AGAINST THE ABOVE ASSESSMENT ORDER ASSESSEE WENT IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CONCERNED CLT(A), WHO OBSERVED THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MA DE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ESTIMATION AND THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDIT ION BY OBSERVING THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEA RS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS OF THE PREVAILING YEAR IN THE LATER YEAR. AC CORDINGLY, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED BY CIT(A). IN THIS REGARD, TH E LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECI SION OF CIT(A) IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE THE EVIDENCE GATHERED IN RES PECT OF 11 TRANSACTIONS PERTAINS TO A.Y. 2007-08, 2008-09, SAM E COULD BE EXTRAPOLATED FOR PREVIOUS YEAR. MOREOVER, IN THE S TATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE LIME OF SEARCH, SHRI G.K. JADHAV WAS CLE ARLY REFERRING TO SALE OF PLOTS IN WHICH A PARTICULAR PROJECT TALKED OF 'ON-MONEY' RANGING BETWEEN 15% TO 20%. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN NO T APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT REAL ESTATE DEALINGS EXPENSES OF ON- MONEY / UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT IS A KNOWN FACT AND THE SAME IS SUPPORTED BY THE EVIDENCE IN ASSESSEES CASE. THE LEARNED DEPAR TMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISION S TO SUPPORT HIS CONTENTION. 7 I) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-VII V. CHETAN DAS LACHMA N DAS (2012) 25 TAXMANN.COM 227 (DELHI) HIGH COURT OF DELHI II) RAJNIK & CO. V ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (2001) 117 TAXMAN 675 (AP) HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH III) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. HOTEL MERIYA (2010) 1 95 TAXMAN 459 (KER.) HIGH COURT OF KERALA IV) DR. GURVINDER SINGH RANDHAWA V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, PATIALA (2013) 35 TAXMANN.COM 476 (PUNJ AB & HARYANA) HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA V) KHOPADE KISANRAO MANIKRAO V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (2000) 74 ITD 25 (PUNE) (TM) VI) COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX V. DR. M.K.E. MEMON (200 0) 112 TAXMAN 96 (BOM) HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY IN THIS BACKGROUND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHEREBY HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MONEY IN DIFFERENT Y EARS, BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) VIS--VIS RELIEF GRANTED TO THE ASS ESSEE AND RAISED VARIOUS LEGAL CONTENTIONS AND FACTUAL CONTENTIONS T O SUPPORT THE DELETION OF ADDITION BY CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF ON-MON EY AND THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS OPPOSED THE A DDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) WHICH IS BEING DEALT WITH IN FO LLOWING SUB-PARA. 4.4 WE FIND THAT IN RESPONSE TO VARIOUS CONTENTIONS ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE WITH REGARD TO ALL TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTIO N, THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT, WHEREIN, THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS SPECIFICALLY POINTED OUT THE RELEVANT TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING ON- MONEY, OUT OF 11, 9 TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF SALE WHEREAS 2 TRANSAC TIONS WERE IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF PLOT. WE FIND THAT THESE TR ANSACTIONS MAINLY RELATES TO A.Y. 2008-09. ON THE BASIS OF THESE TRA NSACTIONS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE EARNED INCOME IN THE FORM OF ON-MONEY TO THE EXTENT OF 50% OF RECORD ED SALES DURING F.Y. 2001-02 TO 2007-08 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 2002-03 TO 2008-09. THE ASSESSING OFFICERS PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE M UST HAVE EARNED ON-MONEY INCOME IN RESPECT OF ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WAS FOUND TO BE 8 ON THE BASIS OF THE ALLEGED ADMISSION OF ON-MONEY R ECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS STATED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH G.K.JADHAV HAS STA TED ON OATH THAT 15% TO 20% OF THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION HAS BEEN RECE IVED IN CASH AS ON-MONEY. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE QUESTION ASKED TO SHRI G.K.JADHAV IN THIS REGARD WAS SPECIFI C AND THE REPLY GIVEN BY SHRI G.K.JADHAV TO THE SAID QUESTION WAS A LSO SPECIFIC. THE ON-MONEY ADMITTED WAS IN RESPECT OF SPECIFIC PLOTS AND SPECIFIC LAND IN SPECIFIED GAT NUMBERS AND NOT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PLOTS AND LANDS SOLD. ON PERUSAL OF QUESTION NO.3 AND REPLY TO THE SAME RECORDED IN STATEMENT U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT, THE CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT BY CIT(A). FOR TH E SAKE CONVENIENCE, THE SAME IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: Q.NO.3: DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE DOCUMENT W ERE SEIZED AT YOUR OFFICE PREMISES. AS PER THE SAID DOCUMENTS IT IS SEEN THAT YOU HAVE SOLD PLOTS AT HINDUSTAN NAGAR AT POST ODHA AND PIMPRI (SAYYAD). AS PER THE SAID DOCUMENTS IT IS SE EN THAT YOU HAVE EARNED ON-MONEY ON SALE OF PLOTS. PLEASE GIVE THE CLARIFICATION. ANS. DETAILS OF SALES OF EACH PLOT IS TAKEN IN OUR VOUCHER FILES MAINTAINED BY US. IN ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS THE ON- MONEY IS TAKEN TO THE TUNE OF 15% TO 20% OF THE SALES CONSID ERATION. DURING THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR 2007-08 THE COMPA NY HAS SOLD NEAR ABOUT 150 PLOTS AT G.NOS. 135, 136, 1399, 1536 AND 1131 TO 1141 WHICH INCLUDES AROUND 100 PLOTS ADMEAS URING 251 SQ.MTRS. AND 50 PLOTS ADMEASURING 103 SQ. MTRS. OUT OF SUCH SALES OF 150 PLOTS THE COMPANY DUE TO SOME COM PULSION HAS EARNED ON-MONEY (CASH) OF RS.25 LACS IN F.Y.200 7-08. DURING F.Y.2006-07 COMPANY HAS RECEIVED ON-MONEY OF RS.12 LACS ON THE SALES OF 39 PLOTS AS MENTIONED IN ANNEX . A-1/2 OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR I .E. 2007-08 THE COMPANY HAS SOLD 9 PLOTS AT WAKAS NERAL, TALKAR JAT DIST. RAIGAD AND RECEIVED ON-MONEY OF RS.L LAC PER PLOT. THUS TOTAL ON-MONEY OF RS.9 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN THE F.Y.2007- 08. IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 2007-08 COMPANY HAS SOL D AROUND 6 ACRES OF LAND AT ANTHRAT TAL.KARJAT DIST. RAIGAD AN D RECEIVED ON-MONEY OF RS.11.82 LACS FOR 6 ACRES OF LAND. THU S TOTAL MONEY OF RS.11.82 LACS WAS RECEIVED IN F.Y. 2007-08 ON THE SALE OF ANTHRAT LAND. THUS THE TOTAL ON-MONEY ON S ALE OF ABOVE LANDS OF RS.57.82 LACS HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE COM PANY AND FOR THAT I DISCLOSE THE AMOUNT OF RS.60 LACS AS UND ISCLOSED INCOME. 9 4.5 IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT FACTS PREVAILING IN THE LATTER YEAR I.E. A.Y. 2008-09 WHE N THE REAL ESTATE MARKET STARTED BOOMING COULD NOT BE ASSUMED TO HAVE ALSO PREVAILED IN EARLIER YEARS AS WELL WHEN THERE WAS RECESSION I N REAL ESTATE. FURTHER, FROM THE SAID 11 TRANSACTIONS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IT WAS EVIDENT THAT IN SOME CASES OF PURCH ASES ON-MONEY WAS ALSO TO BE PAID. FOR SUPPORTING ITS CONTENTION THAT AN ADDITION COULD NOT BE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS ON THE BASIS OF FACTS PREVAILING IN THE LATER YEAR, THE ASSESSEE RELIED ON THE DECIS IONS OF ITAT, PUNE, IN THE CASE OF SAMRAT BEER BAR VS. ACIT 75 ITD 9 (P UNE) (T.M.), WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN LAID DOWN THAT IN THE ABSENCE O F ANY OTHER EVIDENCE, ASSESSING OFFICER IS NOT EMPOWERED TO EST IMATE THE SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR A LARGER PERIOD ON THE BAS IS OF THE DIARY FOUND IN SEARCH SHOWING SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR A PARTICULAR PERIOD. 4.6 WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. CHETAN DAS LACHMA N DAS [211 TAXMAN 61 (DELHI) (H.C.)] WHEREIN THERE WAS A SEARC H ON THE ASSESSEE AND CERTAIN EVIDENCES WERE FOUND WHICH IND ICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPRESSING ITS INCOME. ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCES FOUND, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED SALES FOR TH E 6 YEARS. THE SAID ADDITION WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE GR OUND THAT NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. HON'BL E DELHI HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL THAT NO SE IZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND WAS NOT CORRECT SINCE EVIDENCES WERE CLEARLY FOUND INDICATING SUPPRESSION OF INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, HON'BLE DELHI H IGH COURT HELD THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NOTED IN HIS ORDER THAT ONE OF THE PARTNERS OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM HAD ADMITTED THE PRACTICE OF SUPPRESS ING INCOME. FURTHER, IN THE SAID CASE, THE ISSUE THAT EVIDENCE OF ONE YEAR CANNOT BE UTILISED FOR ANOTHER YEAR WAS NOT RAISED. ACCOR DINGLY, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME MADE BY T HE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS ACCEPTED. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS, THE SAID DECISION IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE SAID CASE ALSO, THE ASSESSEE HAD ACCEPTED CARRYING OUT SUCH P RACTICE AND 10 ACCORDINGLY, HON'BLE HIGH COURT CONFIRMED THE ACTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS IMPORTANT TO BE NOTED THA T ITAT HAD DELETED THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT NO SEIZED MATERIAL WAS FOUND WHICH WAS TOTALLY CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. AC CORDINGLY, THE ABOVE RATIO IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE P RESENT CASE. REGARDING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES RELIANCE ON THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF CIT V. HOTEL MERIYA [(2011) 33 2 ITR 537 (KER)], WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS RUNNING A RESTAURANT. T HERE WAS A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSEE FIRM AND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, STATEMENT OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS WAS RECORDED. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED, THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM ACCEPTED THAT CERTAIN SALES WERE SUPPRESSED AND SUCH SUPPRESSION OF SALES WAS C ARRIED OUT FROM INCEPTION. CONSIDERING THE SAID STATEMENT, HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT AS THE ASSESSEE HAD AGREED OF SUPPRESSION OF T URNOVER, THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED. IN THE SAID CASE, THERE WAS A CLEAR ADMISSION OF THE P ARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALES WERE SUPPRESSED AND CONSIDE RING THE SAID ADMISSION, THE EXTRAPOLATION OF SALES FOR ALL THE Y EARS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THERE IS NO ACCEPTANCE THAT THE ON-MONEY IS COLLECTED BY THE AS SESSEE FIRM FOR ALL THE YEARS AND ACCORDINGLY, THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF HOTEL MERIYA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. R EGARDING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVES RELIANCE ON THE RATIO IN THE CASE OF RAJNIK & CO. VS. ASST. CIT [(2001) 251 ITR 561(AP)] , WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE FIRM WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF DEALIN G IN CYCLE SPARE PARTS. THERE WAS A SEARCH CONDUCTED ON THE ASSESSE E ON 13 TH NOVEMBER, 1996. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, INCRIMINA TING MATERIAL WAS SEIZED FOR INDICATING SUPPRESSION OF SALES FOR A PE RIOD OF 24 DAYS IN A.Y. 1996 - 97 AND FOR A PERIOD OF 15 DAYS IN A.Y. 1997 - 98. HOWEVER, THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ADMITTED THAT SUCH PRACTICE WAS ADOPTED FOR ALL THE YEARS INCLUDING THE YEARS FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE FACTS, ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED UNDISCLOSE D INCOME FOR THE 11 BLOCK PERIOD. THE MATTER WENT UP TO HIGH COURT AND THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT AS THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FOR CERTAIN YEARS AND CONSIDERING THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE PARTNER THAT SIMI LAR PRACTICE WAS FOLLOWED IN THE EARLIER YEARS, THE ESTIMATION OF IN COME MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS CORRECT. IN THE CASE BEFORE US, THE FACTS ARE NOT IDENTICAL AS THERE WAS NO ACCEPTANCE BY THE ASS ESSEE OR ITS DIRECTORS THAT SUCH PRACTICE WAS FOLLOWED IN THE EA RLIER YEARS AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, THE RATIO OF RAJNIK & CO. IS NOT APPLI CABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. WE FURTHER FIND IN THE CASE OF K HOPADE KISANRAO MANIKRAO V. ASST. CIT [74 ITD 25 (PUNE)(TM)], WHERE IN THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE SAI D DECISION OF ITAT, THIRD MEMBER OF PUNE BENCH. IN THE SAID CASE , THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ON-MONEY ON S ALE OF PLOTS. THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FOR ALL THE YEARS FALLING WI THIN THE BLOCK PERIOD. THUS THE ISSUE AROSE THAT ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FOUND FOR SALE OF CERTAIN PLOTS, CAN THE ASSESSING OFFICER ES TIMATE THE INCOME IN RESPECT OF OTHER PLOTS FOR WHICH NO EVIDENCE WAS FO UND. THE THIRD MEMBER HELD THAT THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT THE AS SESSEE WAS TAKING THE ON-MONEY FOR SALE OF PLOTS FOR THE VARIO US YEARS OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND HENCE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD ESTIMATE THE ON MONEY IN RESPECT OF SALE OF OTHER PLOTS EVEN THOUGH THE EVIDENCE WAS NOT FOUND. HENCE AGAINST THE DISTINGUISHING FACTOR, THE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FOR ALL THE YEARS AND NOT SOME OF THE YEARS A ND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING T HE UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE OTHER YEARS IN THIS CASE. IN THE CAS E OF KHOPADE KISANRAO MANIKRAO (SUPRA), THE ISSUE THAT WHETHER E VIDENCE OF ONE YEAR COULD BE USED FOR MAKING AN ADDITION IN THE OT HER YEAR WAS NOT RAISED SIMPLY BECAUSE CERTAIN EVIDENCE WAS FOUND FO R EACH OF THE YEARS. HENCE, THE RATIO OF KHOPADE KISANRAO MANIKR AO (SUPRA) IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 4.7 WE FURTHER FIND IN THE CASE OF DR. GURVINDER SI NGH RANDHAWA V. CIT [(2013) 352 ITR 616 (P&H)] RELIED BY THE REVENU E, THE ASSESSEE 12 WAS A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER. IN THE COURSE OF SEARC H, EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUPPRESSED HIS PROFESSI ONAL RECEIPTS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER APPLIED THE RATE OF RS.10,147 /- FOR EACH SURGERY AS AGAINST RS.6,000/- OFFERED BY THE ASSESS EE. THE DISPUTE IN THAT CASE WAS REGARDING THE RATE TO BE ADOPTED F OR EACH SURGERY AND THE ISSUE THAT WHETHER EVIDENCE OF ONE YEAR CAN BE USED FOR ESTIMATING INCOME OF ANOTHER YEAR WAS NOT INVOLVED BEFORE HON'BLE HIGH COURT. ACCORDINGLY, THE RATIO OF DR. GURVINDE R SINGH RANDHAWA IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND THE RELIANCE PLACED BY THE LEARNED DR IS MISPLACED. WE FIND IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DR. M.K.E. MEMON [(2001) 248 ITR 310 (BOM)], THE LE ARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DR. M.K.E. MEMON. HOWEVER, THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE NOT IDENTIC AL AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE PRESENT CASE. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS A GENERAL PHYSICIAN. SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON THE ASS ESSEE ON 11.12.1996. IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH, EVIDENCES WER E FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD GENERATED UNACCOUNTED INCOME FOR THE P ERIOD NOV, 1993 ONWARDS. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID EVIDENCE, T HE ASSESSEE OFFERED TO TAX INCOME FOR PRE NOV, 1993 PERIOD AND POST NOV, 1993 PERIOD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ESTIMATED HIGHER INC OME FOR THE PRE NOV, 1993 PERIOD. ITAT DELETED THE ADDITION MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUSTAINED THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE AS SESSEE FOR THE PRE NOV, 1993 PERIOD. THE ISSUE BEFORE HON'BLE BOM BAY HIGH COURT WAS WHETHER SUCH DELETION OF ADDITION MADE BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER WAS JUSTIFIED. HON'BLE HIGH COURT HELD THAT THE TRI BUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BECAUSE THE INCOME DO ES NOT REMAIN CONSTANT OVER THE YEARS. MOREOVER, EVIDENCE OF ONE YEAR CANNOT BE USED FOR OTHER YEAR AS HELD BY THE ITAT, PUNE A B ENCH IN THE CASE OF DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1 (2), PUNE VS. VENKATESHWARA HATCHERIES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NOS.746 & 747/PN/2012 & ANOTHER. ACCOR DINGLY, THE FACTS OF THE SAID CASE ARE NOT IDENTICAL AND NOT AP PLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 13 4.8 THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE REQUIRE THAT NO ONE SHOULD BE PUNISHED ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON PRESUMPTION THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS SUPPRESSING THE SALE AND EXPENSES FOR SUBSEQUENT YEAR, HE MUST HAVE SUPPRESS ED SALES AND EXPENSES FOR EARLIER YEAR ALSO. SUCH ADDITION COUL D NOT BE CONFIRMED AS THE SAME WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY COGENT MATERIAL AN D EVIDENCE. THE ABOVE DECISIONS WERE REFERRED TO IN RESPECT OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER CHAPTER XIV-B OF THE ACT. THE RATIO LAID DOW N IN THESE CASES IS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND ALSO IN VIEW OF THE RATIO AS RELI ED ON BY THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OF FICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING ON-MONEY INCOME IN RESPECT OF ALL TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF PLOTS, LAND AND BUNGALOWS DURING F.YS 20 01-02 TO 2007-08 RELEVANT TO A.YS 2002-03 TO 2008-09. ACCORDINGLY, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THESE ACCOUNTS ON ESTIMATE BASIS @ 50% OF THE RECORDED TRANSACTIONS W AS NOT UNWARRANTED. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 4.9 WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED OUT SPECIFIC 11 TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING ON-MONEY IN A TA BULAR CHART. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID CHART AND REPLY TO Q.NO.3 OF TH E ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT DATED 03.0 3.2008, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE LAST TRANSACTION PO INTED-OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF 39 PL OTS SOLD WAS STATED TO BE 12,00,000/- PERTAINING OF A.Y.2008-2009. WHEREAS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT THE ASSESS EE HAS AGREED THAT DURING F.Y.2006-2007 THE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED ON-MONEY OF 12,00,000/- ON SALE OF THE SAID 39 PLOTS. THE ASSES SEE HAS ALSO INCORRECTLY OFFERED TO TAX THE SAID ON-MONEY OF 12,00,000/- IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y.2008-2009 INSTEAD OF A.Y.2007-2008 RELEVANT TO THE F.Y.2006-2007. THEREFORE, THE CIT( A) DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TAX THE SAID INCOME OF 12,00,000/- IN A.Y. 2007-08 INSTEAD OF A.Y. 2008-09. THIS REASONED FIN DING OF CIT(A) BY 14 WHICH THE CIT(A) HAS SUSTAINED ADDITION OF 12,00,000/- IN A.Y. 2007-08 NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UP HOLD THE FINDING OF CIT(A) TO THIS EXTENT. THIS TAKES CARE OF THE R EVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2007-08 ON ON-MONEY ISSUE. 4.10 REGARDING THE ASSESSEE'S CONTENTION WITH RE GARD TO A.Y. 2008- 09 THAT THE SAID PAPERS IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTI ONS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TABULAR CHART ARE ONLY ROU GH NOTINGS AND THE SAME WERE IN RESPECT OF PROPOSED TRANSACTIONS AND N OT ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS WAS REJECTED IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION S AT SR.NOS. 4 TO 9. IN RESPECT OF TRANSACTION NOS. 4 TO 8, THE CIT(A) O BSERVED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS RELATE TO THE A.Y.2008-2009. THE TOTA L ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS 24,30,226/-. THESE TRANSACTIONS MAINLY RELATE TO THE PLOTS IN HINDUSTAN NAGAR PROJECT. TOTAL TRANSACTIONS IN RES PECT OF SALE OF PLOTS IN A.Y.2008-2009 IN HINDUSTAN NAGAR PROJECT I N SPECIFIC GAT NUMBERS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE IN STATEMENT U/S. 13 2(4) OF THE ACT, UPTO THE DATE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S.132 OF THE ACT AS PER AUDITED LEDGER ACCOUNTS ARE 1,65,71,925/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS POINTED-OUT THAT THE TABULAR CHART OF ON-MONEY SPECIFICALLY IN RESPECT OF PLOTS SOLD FOR 16,11,500/-. THEREFORE, THE ON-MONEY RECEIPTS OF REMAINING PLOTS SOLD FOR RECORDED CONSI DERATION OF 1,49,60,425/- WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE A SSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS AGREED IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S.1 32(4) THAT IT HAS RECEIVED 15% TO 20% ON-MONEY IN RESPECT OF PLOTS IN SPECIFIC GAT NUMBERS OF LAND. HENCE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT U/ S.132(4) OF THE ACT, THE ON-MONEY RECEIPT AT 17.50% [I.E. AVERAGE O F 15% AND 20%] OF 1,49,60,425/- WORKS OUT TO 26,18,074/-. THE TOTAL ON-MONEY WHICH WAS REQUIRED TO BE TAXED WAS THEREFORE 50,48,300/- (I.E. 24,30,226 + 26,18,074). THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX 25,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF THESE TRANSACTIONS RELATI NG TO PLOTS IN HINDUSTAN NAGAR PROJECT IN RETURN OF INCOME FILED F OR A.Y.2008-2009. THE RESULTANT ADDITION ON THIS COUNT WAS 25,48,300/-. THUS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS DIRECTED TO MAKE ADDITION ACC ORDINGLY. AS 15 ALREADY POINTED-OUT IN EARLIER PARAGRAPH THAT THE A SSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX AN AMOUNT OF ON-MONEY OF 12,00,000/- IN A.Y.2008- 2009 INSTEAD OF A.Y.2007-2008, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS TO BE TAXED IN THE A.Y.2007-2008 AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD GET CREDIT FOR THE SAME IN A.Y.2008-2009. THE RESULTANT ADDITION IN THE A.Y.20 08-2009 IN RESPECT OF ON-MONEY WAS THEREFORE 13,48,300/- (I.E. 25,48,300 - 12,00,000). THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A), WHERE BY IT HAS SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF 13,48,300/- FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SID E. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2008-09 IS DISMISSE D AND APPEAL OF REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS DISCU SSED ABOVE. 4.11 AS REGARDS TRANSACTION AT SR.NO.L OF THE TAB ULAR CHART IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED-OUT THAT THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER A ND TOTAL CONSIDERATION WHICH WAS DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE W ERE SAME. FROM THE SEIZED PAPERS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE CIT(A) THAT IN THE SAID PAPERS ONLY TOTAL AM OUNT OF CONSIDERATION TO BE RECEIVED IN CASH AND BY CHEQUES IS MENTIONED. THE DATES ON WHICH THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED OR WO RKED OUT TO BE RECEIVED WERE NOT MENTIONED. FURTHER, THE ACTUAL R ECEIPTS WERE ALREADY DECLARED IN THE BALANCE SHEETS FILED BY THE PROPOSED PURCHASERS OF LAND I.E. SHRI G.K.JADHAV, SHRI P.G.J ADHAV AND SHRI V.G.JADHAV. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NECESSARY EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF BALANCE SHEET ETC . OF THE ABOVE MENTIONED PERSONS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO CLAIMED T HAT THE RIGHTS IN THE LAND WERE ACQUIRED BY SHRI G.K.JADHAV, SHRI P.G .JADHAV AND SHRI V.GJADHAV AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAID PAPERS, THE CIT(A) AGREED WITH THE CONTENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE POINT BECAUSE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED/ REBUTTED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUP PLEMENTARY REMAND REPORT DATED 11.06.2010. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO T DISPUTED THE TOTAL CONSIDERATION STATED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVE D ON-MONEY AND 16 HAS NOT SHOWN THE SAME IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS NOT ACCEPTED AS THE ACTUAL RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY WAS NOT MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. THE TRANSACTION WAS IN PROGRESS AND NOT YE T COMPLETED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER ABOUT RECEIPT OF ON-MONEY AND TAXABILITY OF THE SAME WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE CIT(A). AGAIN, THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT (A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 4.12 AS REGARDS THE TRANSACTION AT SR.NO.2 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CLAIMED THAT IN RE SPECT OF SALE OF LAND AT GAT NO.150A, B, C, THE ASSESSEE HAS PAID RE CORDED AMOUNT OF 59,30,152/- AND HAS PAID UNRECORDED AMOUNT OF 42,20,574/-. IN THIS REGARD THE ASSESSEE FILED DETAILED SUBMISSI ONS BEFORE CIT(A) VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 30.03.2010. THE CONTENTIONS IN THE SAID SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE SUPPORTED BY AUDIT ED / UNAUDITED BALANCE SHEETS AS AT 31.03.2008 OF SHRI G.K.JADHAV AND OTHER CONCERNS OF THE JADHAV GROUP FILED ON THE RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ON PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND SUBMISS ION, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT RECORDED PAYMENT OF 42,20,574/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF THE LAND AT GAT NO.150A, B AND C WAS FOUND INCORRECT BY THE CIT(A). HE NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECORDED TOTAL CONSID ERATION OF 93,99,353/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS CON CERNS OF SHRI G.K.JADHAV OUT OF TOTAL CONSIDERATION OF 1,15,76,186/- AS PER SATHEKHATS AND ALSO AS PER THE SEIZED PAPERS. THE BALANCE PAYMENT AS MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED SATHEKHATS WAS TO BE PAI D AT THE TIME OF PURCHASE DEED. IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE AS SESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE REGISTERED PURCHASE DEED WAS NOT YET ENTER ED INTO. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT DISPUTED/REBUTTED THIS CO NTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE SUPPLEMENTARY REMAND REPORT DATED 1 1.06.2010. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSE SSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED CASH PAYMENTS OF 42,20,574/- IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WAS RIGHTLY REJECTED BY THE CIT(A ). THIS REASONED 17 FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SI DE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 4.13 AS REGARDS TRANSACTION AT SR.NO.9 OF THE TAB ULAR CHART IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION RELATES TO A.Y.2005-2006 AND IN THE SAID TRANSACTIO N ON-MONEY INVOLVED IS 3,31,540/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED TO TAX T HIS AMOUNT IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y.2005-2 006. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THEREFORE DIRECTED TO TAX THE SAME IN A.Y.2005- 2006. THE CIT(A) HAS DISCUSSED THIS ISSUE IN PARA 4.13 AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. IN THIS REGARD, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THA T THE ADDITION MADE OF 3,31,540/- IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE ASSESSEE CLARIFI ED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE OWNER OF THE SAID PLOT AND THE REFORE, QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION IN ITS HANDS SIMPLY DOES NOT ARISE. IT WAS EXPLAINED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID P LOT DID NOT BELONG TO IT AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF MAKING AN Y ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, IT WAS STATED T HAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE SAID PLOT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION MADE OF 3,31,540/- WAS NOT JUSTIFIED. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING O N RECORD TO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE IS THE OWNER OF PLOT MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO.9 OF TABULAR CHART. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF LE ARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT SALE A PLOT WHICH IS NOT OWNED BY HIM, SO ANY ADDITION PERTAINED TO THE TRAN SACTIONS OF SAME IS NOT JUSTIFIED. ACCORDINGLY, THIS ADDITION IS NO T JUSTIFIED AND THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ACCORDINGLY, THE A SSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS ALLOWED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. 5. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED IN REVENUE'S APPEAL FOR A. Y. 2008-09 IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNREC ORDED CASH RECEIPTS OF 1,30,00,000/-. SHRI G.K.JADHAV HAS ENTERED INTO AN 18 AGREEMENT WITH SHRI R.K.PATOLE AND SHRI PRAKASH LOT AN BAGUL, WHO WERE MEDIATORS / COMMISSION AGENTS FOR PROPOSED SAL E OF LAND AT GAT NO.150A, B, C AND GAT NO.144 & 145 OF VILLAGE TALEG AON (VANI) ADMEASURING 53 HECTORS AND 28.5R FOR A CONSIDERATIO N OF 2,07,81,150/-. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALLEGED I N RESPECT OF THIS TRANSACTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED 1.30 CRORES IN CASH AS PER CLAUSE 3 PAGE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT AND AS PER WHI CH 50% AMOUNT WAS TO BE PAID WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF AGRE EMENT. IN SUPPORT OF THIS ADDITION, THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE AS UNDER: 'I. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT DATED 26.10.2007 BETWEEN SHRI G.K.JADHAV AND SHRI R.K.PATOLE AND SHRI P.L.BAGUL F OR PROPOSED SALE OF LAND FOR CONSIDERATION OF RS.2,07, 81,150/-. AS PER CLAUSE 3 PAGE 4 OF THE AGREEMENT, 50% AMOUNT IS TO BE PAID WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT. THE PURCHASERS HAVE THEREFORE PAID RS.7.81 LACS ON THE DATE OF AGREEMENT BY CHEQUE AND RS.1.30 CRORES WITHIN 54 DA YS FROM THE DATE OF AGREEMENT AS PER THE ABOVE MENTIONED CL AUSE. II. THE PROPOSED PURCHASERS OF THE LAND HAVE ISSUED CHEQUE OF RS.20 LACS FROM HDFC BANK IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSAC TION OF PROPOSED PURCHASE OF THE SAID LAND AT TALEGAON (VAN I). III. DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AT THE RE SIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI G.K. JADHAV, 2 RECEIPTS OF RS.30,0 0,000/- AND RS.1,00,00,000/- ON THE LETTER HEAD OF M/S.VIKRANT HAPPY HOMES PVT. LTD., DATED 26/10/2007 AND 19/12/2007 RESPECTIVELY WERE FOUND IN HIS HAND BAG. IV. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, SHRI G.K JADHAV AND ALSO SHRI R.K.PATOLE AND SHRI P.L.BA GUL HAVE DENIED THE TRANSACTION AS THE DENIAL WAS SUITED TO THEM.' 5.1 IN APPEAL, THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AS DETAILED IN PARA 5.1 OF THE ORDER OF CI T(A). THE CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, HAS DELETED THE ADDITIO N OF 1.30 CRORES AND THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US, INTER ALIA , STATED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF 1.30 CRORES TOWARDS UNRECORDED CASH RECEIPT. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CI RCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE C1T(A) ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THAT THE ALLEGED 19 RECEIPTS OF 1.30 CRORES SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI G.K. JADHAV, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, ARE ACTUA LLY PHOTO COPIES OF THE ORIGINAL RECEIPTS ISSUED IN THE LETTER-HEAD OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASERS SHRI R. K. PALO D AND SHRI P. L. BAGUL. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN OVERLOOKING THE FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE WAS DUTY BOUND TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF TRANSACTION AS EVIDENCED BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ALSO SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AS TO WHETHER SUCH TRANSACTION VIS-A-VIS RECEIPTS ARE ACC OUNTED FOR OR NOT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A), WHEREBY HE HAS DELET ED THE ADDITION. 5.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND M ATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THE STATEMENT ON OATH OF SHRI R.K.PATOLE AND SHRI P.L.B AGUL WERE RECORDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING ON 12.02.2008 AN D 13.02.2008 WHEREIN BOTH THE PERSONS HAVE DENIED THE PAYMENT OF 1.30 CRORES TO THE ASSESSEE. SECONDLY, THE RECEIPTS OF 1.30 CRORES WERE FOUND WITH SHRI G.K.JADHAV AND NOT WITH THE PERSONS BY WH OM THE ALLEGED PAYMENTS HAS BEEN CLAIMED TO BE MADE. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE RECEIPTS IN ORIGINAL IN QUESTION WERE FOUND WITH SH RI G.K.JADHAV AND ACTUALLY ON RECEIVING THE SAID AMOUNT THE RECEIPTS WOULD HAVE BEEN HANDED OVER TO SHRI R.K.PATOLE AND SHRI P.L.BAGUL A ND WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN FOUND WITH SHRI G.K.JADHAV, IF THE VERSIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CORRECT. THIRDLY, SHRI G.K.JAD HAV IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 08.02.2008 RECORDED U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT, STATED THAT THE AMOUNT OF 1.30 CRORES WAS NOT ACTUALLY RECEIVED AND THE SAID TWO PERSONS WERE ONLY MEDIATORS AND IN ORDER T O SHOW THEIR INVESTMENTS IN THE PROPERTY SO THAT THEY COULD SHOW THE SAID RECEIPTS TO THE PROPOSED PURCHASERS FOR FINALIZING THE DEAL AT HIGHER RATE, THE SAID RECEIPTS WERE PREPARED. THE ALLEGED RECEIPTS OF 30,00,000/- AND 1,00,00,000/- WERE DATED 26.10.2007 AND 19.12.2007 RESPECTIVELY. THE ALLEGED RECEIPT OF THE AMOUNT WA S ONLY 51 DAYS PRIOR TO SEARCH ACTION AND NO SUCH CASH WAS FOUND I N SEARCH OR NO INVESTMENT OF THE SAID CASH WAS FOUND IN SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION 20 ON 08.02.2008. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT TAKEN ANY ACTION U/S.153C OF THE ACT AGAINS T THE SAID TWO PERSONS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED PAYMENT O F 1.30 CRORES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE AMOUNT OF 1.30 CRORES WAS RECEIVED AS PART OF THE SALE CONSIDERATION AS PER A GREEMENT DATED 26.10.2007. IT WAS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OF FICER THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED WAS OVER AND ABOVE THE CONSIDERATIO N STATED IN THE SAID AGREEMENT. THEREFORE EVEN IF FOR THE SAKE OF A RGUMENT IT IS ACCEPTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY T HE ASSESSEE, THE SAME COULD NOT BE TAXED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E, AS THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF ADVANCE AND THE POSSESSION OF THE LAND IS NOT GIVEN TO THE PROPOSED PURCHASER AND NO SALE DEED WAS ENTE RED INTO IN FAVOUR OF THE PURCHASERS OR ANY PERSON NOMINATED BY THE PURCHASERS IN THIS REGARD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE CIT(A) O BSERVED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE A MOUNT OF 1,30,00,000/- IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOU NT OF ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED RECEIPT. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A ) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE BECAUSE NORMAL RECEIPTS WERE FOUND WITH THE PERSON WHO MADE THE PAYMENT G.K. JADHAV IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 08.02.2008 STATED THAT AN AMOUNT OF 1.30 CRORES WAS NOT RECEIVED AND TWO PERSONS WERE ONLY MEDIATORS AN D THIS AMOUNT WAS MADE FOR BETTERMENT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION . THERE IS NOTHING AS A RESULT OF WHICH TOOK AFTER 51 DAYS OF ALLEGED TRANSACTIONS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. MORE OVER, NO EFFORTS HAVE BEEN MADE TO TAKE ACTION U/S.153C OF THE ACT A GAINST THE TWO PERSONS IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED PAYMENT O F 1.30 CRORES. THERE IS NOTHING CONSIDERATION OF ABOVE DEAL AS FIN ALLY IN FAVOUR OF ALLEGED PURCHASER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ON THIS POINT CONFIRMED. 6. NEXT ISSUE IN REVENUES APPEAL IN A.Y. 2008-09 I S WITH REGARD TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT OF EXTRA WORK OF 6,70,819/- AND 2,68,583/- IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVEL Y. THE 21 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ARRIVED AT AMOUNTS OF EXTRA W ORK IN RESPECT OF F.Y. 2007-08 AND 2006-07 TO THE EXTENT OF 67,08,190/- AND 26,85,832/- RESPECTIVELY AS PER PAGE 30 TO 40 AND P AGE NOS.1 TO 55 OF THE DIARIES SEIZED AT ANNEXURE A-6 AND A-4 RESPE CTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS HELD THAT THE WORK CARRIED OU T BY THE ASSESSEE WAS OUT OF THE BOOKS AND HENCE HAS ESTIMATED NET PR OFIT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID WORK AT 10% OF THE ALLEGED RECEIPTS STATED ABOVE AND TAXED 6,70,819/- IN A.Y. 2008-09 AND THE ALLEGED PROFIT F OR A.Y. 2007-08 WORKED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT 2,68,583/-, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ADDITION TOWARDS UN EXPLAINED REPAYMENT OF LOAN AMOUNTING TO 5,55,33,575/-. 6.1 THE MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, WHEREIN THE VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHA LF OF ASSESSEE AS DETAILED IN PARA 7.1.1 OF ORDER OF CIT(A). THE CIT (A) CALLED FOR REMAND REPORT IN THIS REGARD AS DETAILED IN PARA 7. 1.2 OF HIS ORDER AND THE CIT(A) HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, HAS DELE TED THE ADDITION IN QUESTION. THE SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED BEFORE US O N BEHALF OF REVENUE, INTER ALIA, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE HAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, IT WAS SEEN FROM ANNEXURE A-4 PAGE 1 TO 55 AND ANNEXURE A-6, PAGE NO .30 TO 40 WHEREIN NOTING IN RESPECT OF EXTRA CONSTRUCTION WOR K WERE FOUND. CONSIDERING THE FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REA SONABLY ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS FOR A.Y. 2008-09 AND SIMILARLY FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE ASSESSE ES EXPLANATION THAT ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA WOR K WAS IN FACT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF ASSESSEE COMPA NY. THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED FOR THE REASON THAT WITHOUT PROFIT NOBODY WILL WORK AND THERE MUST BE SOME PROFIT ELEMENT ON EXTRA WORK. CONSIDERING THE FACT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REA SONABLY ESTIMATED PROFIT @ 10% OF GROSS RECEIPTS AND THE ORDER OF CIT (A) ON THE ISSUE BE SET ASIDE THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE HAS SUP PORTED THE 22 ORDER OF CIT(A), WHEREIN, HE HAS DELETED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF 6,70,819/- AND 2,68,583/- IN A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2007-08 RESPECTIVE LY, THE SAME SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6.2 AFTER GOING THROUGH THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT PAGE NOS. 30 TO 40 ARE IN RESPECT OF EXTRA WORK ACTUALLY CARRIED-OUT BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND AS PER THE DETAILED TABULAR CH ART FILED IN RESPECT OF THE SAME, THE TOTAL EXTRA WORK WAS WORKE D-OUT AT 38,86,284/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO POINTED-OUT THAT OUT OF THIS AMOUNT ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM THE CUSTOMERS IS 35,30,680/- WHICH WAS ACTUALLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S. IN SUPPORT OF THIS CLAIM, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED LEDGER EXTRACTS OF THE CUSTOMERS WHEREIN THE EXTRA WORK RECEIPTS WERE MENTIONED. IT WAS THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT PAGE NOS. 1 TO 55 OF ANNEXURE A- 4 ARE THE ESTIMATES PREPARED BY THE ENGINEER OF THE COMPANY IN RESPECT OF 19 CUSTOMERS. THE ACTUAL WORK DONE IN RE SPECT OF 12 PERSONS OUT OF THESE 19 PERSONS WERE INCLUDED IN TH E AMOUNT OF ACTUAL WORK DONE OF 38,26,284/- AS PER PAGE NOS. 30 TO 40 OF ANNEXURE A-6. FURTHER, IT WAS POINTED-OUT ON BEHAL F OF ASSESSEE THAT OTHER 7 PERSONS INCLUDING WORK OF TEMPLE WAS ONLY E STIMATE FOR EXTRA WORK WHICH WAS NOT CARRIED-OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. FR OM THE ABOVE FACTS, THE CIT(A) CONCLUDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFI CER INCORRECTLY WORKED-OUT THE AMOUNTS OF EXTRA WORK BY CONSIDERING AMOUNTS OF ESTIMATES IN RESPECT OF 12 PERSONS AND ALSO AMOUNT OF ACTUAL WORK DONE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID 12 PERSONS. THE ASSESS ING OFFICER HAS ALSO NOT CONSIDERED THAT THE 7 PERSONS INCLUDING TH E WORK FOR TEMPLE WAS NOT CARRIED-OUT BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY ESTIMA TE WAS WORKED- OUT BY THE ENGINEER. 6.3 AS REGARDS THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ACTUAL WORK D ONE AS NOTED IN THE SEIZED DIARIES 38,26,284/- AND RECEIPTS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS 35,30,680/-, THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN TH AT 23 THE CUSTOMERS HAVE ACTUALLY PAID 35,30,680/- IN RESPECT OF THE EXTRA WORK. THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND TO BE CORRECT BY THE CIT(A) AND HE HELD THAT THE ACTUAL AMOUNT RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF EXTRA WORK IS IN FACT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCO UNTS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EARN ED UNDISCLOSED PROFIT OF 6,70,819/- AND 2,68,583/- IN A.YS. 2008-09 AND 2007- 08 RESPECTIVELY. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) N EEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED THE REVENUE FO R A.YS. 2002-03 TO 2006-07 & 2008-09 ARE DISMISSED WHILE FOR A.Y. 2007 -08 IS PARTLY ALLOWED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS ALLOWED AND THAT FOR A.Y. 2008-09 I S DISMISSED AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 30 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.K. PANDA) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH JUNE, 2014 GCVSR COPY TO:- 1. DEPARTMENT 2. ASSESSEE 3. THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. THE DR, A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, I.T.A.T., PUNE
