Devendra B Nagpal HUF, Pune V. DCIT, Pune

ITA 1572/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 157224514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 10-11-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 23-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P D KUDWA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Block assessment; Retraction
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1572/PN/2012 (BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98) DEVENDRA B. NAGPAL HUF, PROP. M/S. NATIONAL AGENCIES, 407, NANAPETH, PUNE 411002 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.AABHN3498L VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-2, PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI P.D. KUDWA REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HEARING : 10-11-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26 -11-2014 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 30-03-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE RELATING T O THE BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1997-98. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 FOR WHICH THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY, THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 BEING GENERAL IN NATURE IS DISMISSED. 3. SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS CONCERNED, FA CTS IN BRIEF, ARE AS UNDER. A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE 2 RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE RELATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 27-02-1997. DURING THE SAID SEARCH, LOOSE PAPERS AND INCRIMINAT ING DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE AO OBSERVED FROM THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED VIDE BUNDLE N O.2 TO 7 THAT THESE PERTAIN TO F.Y. 1996-97 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1997 -98. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROPRIET OR OF M/S. NATIONAL AGENCIES HAD ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES AND UNA CCOUNTED SALES. AS PER THESE PAPERS UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES T OTAL UPTO RS.3,88,269/- WHEREAS THE UNACCOUNTED SALES WORK OU T TO RS.2,70,821/-. IN THE BLOCK RETURN FILED FOR A.Y. 1997-98, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN INCOME OF RS.94,621/-. AN AMOUN T OF RS.58,275- HAS BEEN SEPARATELY DETERMINED AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMEN T IN STOCK. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED UNACCOUNTED PURCHAS ES OF RS.3,88,269/- WHICH IS IN ADDITION TO THE STOCK FOU ND AND SINCE NO EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE WITH REGARD T O THE SOURCE OUT OF WHICH THE UNACCOUNTED PURCHASES WERE MADE, THE A O ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,88,269/- AS PURCHASES MADE OUT OF U NDISCLOSED/ UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. SO FAR AS THE UNACCOUNTED SALE OF RS.2,70,821/- IS CONCERNED, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.48,748/- B EING PROFIT @18% ON SUCH ACCOUNTED SALES. 4. A SEPARATE GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE (GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 AS PER FORM NO.35). THE ASS ESSEE HAS MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSION FOR THE REMAINING GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND FOR THE ABOVE GROUND IT WAS MENTIONED 3 SUBMISSION IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL ARE BEING SEPARATELY FURNISHED. THE LD.CIT(A) DID NOT ADJUDICATE THIS GROUND. NOW THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDISPUTEDLY , THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE ALTHOUGH HE HAS FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON OTHER GROUNDS WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED BY THE CIT(A) IN THE BODY OF THE ORDER. AT THE SAME TIME, IT IS ALSO A FACT THA T THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED A SPECIFIC GROUND BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 AND WHICH IS MEN TIONED IN PAGE 7 OF THE CIT(A)S ORDER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMST ANCES, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE LD.CIT(A) SHOULD HA VE ADJUDICATED THIS GROUND WHICH WAS SPECIFICALLY TAKEN BEFORE HIM . IT IS IMMATERIAL WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ANY WRITT EN SUBMISSION OR NOT ON THIS ISSUE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT WITH DRAWN THIS GROUND, THEREFORE, IN ALL FAIRNESS, THE LD.CIT(A) IN OUR OP INION SHOULD HAVE ADJUDICATED THIS ISSUE. SINCE HE HAS NOT AT ALL DE CIDED THE GROUND RAISED BEFORE HIM, THEREFORE, WE, IN THE INTEREST O F JUSTICE, DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THIS GROUND TO THE FILE OF THE LD .CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 6. SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS CONCERNED, TH E SAME RELATES TO ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED I NVESTMENT TOWARDS DEPOSIT MADE ON RENT OF A FLAT. 4 6.1 FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING ASSESSMENT PROCE EDINGS, THE AO FOUND FROM SEIZED DOCUMENT IN BUNDLE NO.3 WHICH CON TAINS PAPER RECORDING DEPOSIT MADE OF RS.50,000/- BY THE ASSESS EE TOWARDS RENT OF FLAT IN WHICH HE WAS RESIDING ALONG WITH HIS FAM ILY. SINCE NO EXPLANATION WHATSOEVER WAS FURNISHED DURING THE COU RSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOR ANY DETAILS WERE FILED R EGARDING THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.50,000/- MADE FOR THE FLAT TAKEN ON RENT, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S.6 9 AND ADDED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR A.Y. 1996-97. 7. BEFORE THE CIT(A) IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT DURING T HE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DAT ED 09-03-1998 HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE DEPOSIT OF RS.50,000/- WAS P AID BY THE BROTHER-IN-LAW OF THE ASSESSEE SHRI RAJESH SACHDEVA FROM HIS SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 6377 MAINTAINED WITH PUNJA B NATIONAL BANK, CAMP, PUNE. A COPY OF THIS BANK ACCOUNT WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE AO OVERLOOKED THE SAME AND MADE THE ADDITION. 8. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH TH E EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH NO EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE DEPOSI T OF RS.50,000/- WAS MADE FOR THE FLAT TAKEN ON RENT WAS FURNISHED B Y THE ASSESSEE. THE BANK ACCOUNT COPY OF SHRI RAJESH SACHDEVA INDIC ATES SELF WITHDRAWAL OF RS.55,025/- VIDE CHEQUE NO.748 ON 14- 10-1993. HOWEVER, ON THE SAME DATE, I.E. ON 14-10-1993 CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.55,000/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED AND THE SOURCE OF TH E SAID CASH DEPOSIT WAS NOT EXPLAINED EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR B EFORE HIM. HE 5 NOTED THAT THE SAID WITHDRAWAL HAS BEEN SHOWN ON 14 -10-1993, I.E. F.Y. 1993-94 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1994-95 WHEREAS THE L OOSE PAPER FOUND AND SEIZED IN BUNDLE NO.3 PERTAINS TO F.Y. 19 94-95 RELEVANT TO A.Y. 1995-96. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROV E THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE ON 14-10-1993 NOR COULD PROVE CONCLUSIVELY THE SOURCE OF THE CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY HIS BROTHER- IN-LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 9. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSE SSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STRONGLY CHALL ENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE REFERRING TO PAGE 81 OF THE PAPER BOOK DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE RECEIPT DATED 1-02-1994, ACCORDING TO WHICH, AN AMO UNT OF RS.50,000/- WAS RECEIVED BY ONE LATA V.K. FROM SHRI D.B. NAGPAL VIDE CHEQUE NO.535752 FOR RS.35,000/- AND CHEQUE NO .535753 FOR RS.50,000/- DRAWN ON PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, CAMP BRA NCH, PUNE. REFERRING TO PAGES 106 TO 109 OF THE PAPER BOOK HE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI RAJESH SACHDEVA WHEREIN THE ABOVE AMOUNTS WERE REFLECTED O N 01-02-1994 AND 02-02-1994 RESPECTIVELY. REFERRING TO PAGES 26 TO 30 OF THE PAPER BOOK NO.2 WHICH CONTAIN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 27-02-1997 IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAJESH SACHDEVA HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO IN THE SAID CASE HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF LOAN GIVEN TO SHRI D.B, NAGPAL. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME AMOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED TWICE AND THEREFORE, THE SAME SHOULD BE DELETED. 6 11. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHE R HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A ). 12. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 81 OF T HE PAPER BOOK THAT THE SAME CONTAINS AMOUNT OF RS.50,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN GIVEN BY TWO CHEQUES DRAWN ON PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK. THE ABOVE TWO CHEQUES ARE REFLECTED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF SHRI R AJESH SACHDEVA, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED IN PAGES 106 AND 107 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE RECEIPT IS DATED 01-02-1994 AND THE BANK WITHDR AWALS ARE ALSO DATED 01-02-1994-RS.35,000/- (CHEQUE NO.752) AND ON 02-02-1994 RS.15,000/- (CHEQUE NO.753). FURTHER, SAME AMOUNT HAS BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF SHRI RAJESH SACHDEVA ON ACCOU NT OF LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE FIND MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME AMOU NT CANNOT BE ADDED TWICE, I.E. ONCE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE PAYER SHRI RAJESH SACHDEVA. THE FINDI NG OF THE LD.CIT(A) ALSO IS INCORRECT BECAUSE HE HAS NOT CONS IDERED THE DATE OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PROPERLY WHICH IS DATED 01-0 2-1994. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE SET-ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. GROUND OF APPEAL NO .2 BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 13. GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES T O ADDITION OF RS.1,68,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF C ASH FOUND AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. 7 13.1 THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CASH AMOUNTING TO RS.4,35,460/- WAS FOUND AT THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF KISANLAL B. NAGPAL, BROTHER OF THE KARTA OF THE ASS ESSEE HUF SHRI DEVENDRA B. NAGPAL. DURING THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PR OCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI K.B. NAGPAL EXPLANATION WITH REGAR D TO THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CASH AMONG FAMILY MEMBERS WAS F URNISHED AS UNDER : 1. TRIPTI NAGPAL RS.1,01,000/- 2. D.B. NAGPAL, HUF RS.1,68,000/- 3. K.B. NAGPAL, HUF RS.1,31,000/- 4. B.S. NAGPAL, HUF RS. 35,460/- ------------------ RS.4,35,460/- ------------------ 13.2 THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEES PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S. NATIONAL AGENCIES AS ON 31 -03-1996 AND 31-03-1997, FOUND THAT CASH WAS AVAILABLE TO THE EX TENT OF RS.1,578/- AND RS.17,592/- RESPECTIVELY. HE OBSERV ED THAT NEITHER SHRI D.B. NAGPAL NOR SHRI K.B. NAGPAL COULD EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH IN ASSESSEES HAND AT RS.1,68,000/- ON 27- 02-1997, I.E. AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH ALTHOUGH SAME WAS CLAIMED TO BE BELONGING TO THE HUF OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, NO EXPLANATIO N WAS FURNISHED WITH REGARD TO THE CASH NOR ANY WITHDRAWALS WERE SH OWN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM KNOWN SOURCE OF INCOME TO EXPLAIN THE CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. HE THEREFORE MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,68,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME FOR A.Y. 1997-9 8. 14. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS ARGUED THAT BECAUSE OF A T YPOGRAPHICAL ERROR THE NAME OF D.B. NAGPAL HUF WAS TYPED INSTEAD OF K.B. 8 NAGPAL HUF. ALTHOUGH, THE SAME WAS BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO, HOWEVER THE AO WRONGLY CONCLUDED THAT NO EXPLAN ATION WAS FURNISHED. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH BOOK OF NATIONAL MOTORS, PROPRIETARY CONCERN OF SHRI K. B. NAGPAL HUF REFLEC TS CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,68,000/- ON 27-02-1997, I.E. DATE OF SEARCH AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT OF SHRI K.B. NAGPAL HUF. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY ARGUED THAT NO ADDITION SHOULD BE M ADE. 15. HOWEVER, THE LD.CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH T HE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND UPHELD THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 9.2 THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN CONSIDERED AND ALSO PERUSED MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- FOR A.Y. 1997-98 AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME EMERGES OUT OF THE CASH FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZUR E ACTION CARRIED OUT IN THE CASE U/S 132 OF THE I.T ACT, 1961. THE TOTAL CASH FOUND DURING THE SEARCH ACTION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PRE MISES OF K.B. NAGPAL WAS OF RS.4,35,460/-, HOWEVER, DURING THE BLOC K ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF K.B. NAGPAL, INDL T HE EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE DISTRIBUTION AND OWNE RSHIP OF THE CASH AMONG THE FAMILY MEMBERS FURNISHED INDICATED RS. 1 ,68,000/- TO BE BELONGING TO D.B. NAGPAL HUF. NO EXPLANATION WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCES OF THE CASH FOUND WAS FURNISHED BY THE APPEL LANT NEITHER DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION AS EVIDENT FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS BEFORE THE A.O. THE A.O. ON EXAMINING THE BALANCE O F CASH IN HAND AS ON 31.03.96 AND 31.03.97 IN : THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT'S PROPRIETARY CONCERN M/S NATIONAL AGENCIES REFLECTED C ASH BALANCE OF RS. 1578 AND RS. 17,592/- ONLY, RESPECTIVELY. THE A PPELLANT HAS NOW CLAIMED THE SUBMISSION EARLIER MADE DURING, THE, A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF K.B. NAGPAL, INDL TO BE A TYPOGRAPHIC AL ERROR AND INSTEAD OF K.B. NAGPAL HUF THE WORDS D.B. NAGPAL HUF WAS TYPED AND THE EXTRACT OF THE CASH BOOK OF NATIONAL MOTORS P ROPRIETARY CONCERN OF K.B. NAGPAL HUF HAS BEEN FILED WHICH REFL ECTS CASH BALANCE OF RS.1,68,581.87 AS ON 26.02.1997. IN THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT THE PLEA TAKEN OF A TYPOGRAPH ICAL ERROR HAS BEEN AFTER A LONG TIME SINCE THE ASSESSMENT IN THE CASE W AS COMPLETED ON 26.02.1999. FURTHER, THE SOURCE OF THE SAID CASH HAS ALSO NOT BEEN EXPLAINED. AN EXPLANATION FURNISHED EAR LIER HAS BEEN RETRACTED TO GIVE A TOTALLY SEPARATE EXPLANATION IS D IFFICULT TO BE BELIEVED AND ACCEPTED/IN THE CASE OF D.B. NAGPAL (IN DL) THE HON'BLE ITAT PUNE VIDE ITS ORDER IN ITO NO. 707/PN/03 DATED 20.10.2006 HAD REVERSED THE FINDING OF THE CIT (APPEALS) WHO HAD ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION REGARDING THE CASH FOUND AT RESIDENCE DURING SEARCH ON THE GROUND THAT THERE WAS NO NEXUS ESTABLISHED BETWE EN THE CASH FOUND WITH THE CASH AVAILABLE AND SHOWN IN THE R E-CASTED CASH BOOKS OF DIFFERENT CONCERNS. IN THIS CASE, HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT 9 HAS TOTALLY DISOWNED THE OWNERSHIP OF CASH WHICH HAD BE EN EARLIER STATED TO BE BELONGING TO HIM. THIS REVERSAL OF STAND T AKEN BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT BACKED BY PROPER EVIDENCE WHICH COU LD JUSTIFY THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES AND ON F ACTS OF THE CASE AS BROUGHT ON RECORD, THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,68,000/- IS SUSTAINED AND GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 9 RAISED BY THE APPELLANT I S DISMISSED. 16. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 17. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,35,460/- WAS FOUND DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI K .B. NAGPAL. FURTHER, THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI K.B. NAGPAL, THE BIF URCATION OF SUCH CASH WAS GIVEN ACCORDING TO WHICH AN AMOUNT OF RS.1 ,68,000/- WAS BELONGING TO SHRI D.B. NAGPAL HUF. SINCE THE ASSES SEE COULD NOT OFFER AN EXPLANATION THE AO MADE THE ADDITION. NOW IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT BECAUSE OF A TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR IT WAS WRONGLY TYPED AS SHRI D. B. NAGPAL HUF INSTEAD OF K.B. NAGPAL HUF. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSMEN T WAS COMPLETED LONG BACK, THE ASSESSEE COULD REALIZE THE TYPOGRAPHICAL ERROR ONLY BEFORE THE CIT(A), THAT TOO AFTER A GAP OF ALMOST 14 YEARS. SUCH RETRACTION AFTER A GAP OF 14 YEARS CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED IN ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. NO PLAUSIBL E EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTROVERT THE FIN DING GIVEN BY THE LD.CIT(A). UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO I NFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME . GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 10 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26-11-2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEM BER PUNE DATED: 26 TH NOVEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE 4. THE CIT-II, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE