Income-tax Officer, Nashik V. Shivaji Pandurang Chumble, Nashik

ITA 1576/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0885 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 07-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Source of fund; Documents seized
• Section: 145

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . , , ' # BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 '% % / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 AND 2007-08 ITO, CENTRAL-3, NASHIK . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI SHIVAJI PANDURANG CHUMBLE SAPTSHRUNGI COMPLEX, LEKHANAGAR, NASHIK PAN NO. AANPC0932C . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI B.C. MALAKAR / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE 2 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 19-09-2011 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 & 2007-08 RESPEC TIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD T OGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1575/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2005-06) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF / DATE OF HEARING :07.09.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:06.11.2015 2 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 BRICKS, TRADING IN ALL TYPES OF BUILDING MATERIAL, TRUCK PLYING, SCRAP SALES ETC. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO INCOME FROM HOUSE PROP ERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. A SEARCH U/S.132(1) OF THE I. T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT ON 24-04-20 08 IN THE CHUMBLE GROUP OF CASES AT NASHIK. THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUS INESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ALSO COVERED DURING THE S AID SEARCH ACTION. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A WHICH WAS SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 04-08-2002, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INC OME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.16,41,360/-. IT MAY BE PERTINE NT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE ORIGINAL RETURN FILED ON 31- 10-2005 HAD DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1,71,360/-. THE ADDITIONA L INCOME DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U /S.153A AMOUNTING TO RS.14,70,000/- WAS ON ACCOUNT OF 11 SUNDRY CREDITORS BEING WRITTEN OFF AS INCOME. 3. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO NOTED THAT AS PER ANNEXURE A-2/20 AND ANNEXURE A-1/16 SEIZ ED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE THERE IS A REFERENCE TO THE S AND CONTRACT FOR CHUMBLE/AADHAR SITE AND DABHADE SITE. FOR THE PURPO SE OF VERIFICATION THE AO ISSUED LETTERS OF ENQUIRY TO THE DISTRIC T COLLECTOR, NASHIK SEEKING COMPLETE DETAILS OF SAND CONTRACTS ISSUED S INCE 01-04-2002. FROM THE REPLIES OBTAINED IT WAS GATHERED T HAT THE TAHSILDAR, MALEGAON HAD ALLOTTED A CONTRACT TO WAMAN P. CHUMBLE, BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE FOR MINING/DREDGING OF SAND AT CH INCHWAD SITE FOR RS.35 LAKHS FOR THE PERIOD 04-10-2004 TO 31-07-2 005. THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID IN CASH. ON VERIFICATION OF RECORDS O F WAMAN P. CHUMBLE THE AO NOTED THAT THE SAID PAYMENT HA S NOT BEEN ACCOUNTED FOR. WHEN IT WAS CONFRONTED, THE ASSESS EE VIDE 3 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 LETTER DATED NIL SUBMITTED IN THE OFFICE OF THE AO ON 20-1 2-2010 STATED AS UNDER : 1. WHILE THE CONTRACT WAS IN THE NAME OF WAMAN CHUM BLER, THE ACTUAL CONTRACT WAS EXECUTED BY SHIVAJI CHUMBLE WHIC H IS ALSO BORNE OUT BY THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 2. THE CHUMBLE FAMILY HAS CONTRIBUTED ONLY A PART OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF CONTRACT AND THERE ARE VARIOUS OTHER PARTI ES WHO HAVE BEEN PARTNERS IN THIS ENTERPRISE. THIS IS ALSO BORNE OUT BY T HE SEIZED DOCUMENTS ANNEXURE A-1/16 AND A-2/20. 3. THE CHUMBLE FAMILY APPLIES FOR CONTRACTS IN VARIOU S NAMES OF FAMILY MEMBERS. HOWEVER, THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IS A COMM ON FAMILY POOL MANAGED BY SHIVAJI CHUMBLE AND HENCE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN HIS HANDS. 4. THE AO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH EITHER THE NAMES OR CONFIRMATION OF ANY OF THE SOCALLED PAR TNERS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THE BUS INESS IS CARRIED OUT BY HIM. THE ASSESSEE MERELY STATED THAT ALTHOUGH THE CONTRACT IS IN THE NAME OF WAMAN P. CHUMBLE BUT THE BUSI NESS IS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF COMMON POOL OF FUNDS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY. HE ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESS EE SINCE PAGE 13 OF ANNEXURE A-2/20 SHOWS THAT ON 15-07-2005 AND ON 24-08-2005 RS.5.50 LAKHS AND RS.10 LAKHS RESPECTIVELY HAV E BEEN GIVEN TO SHIVAPPA, I.E. SHIVAJI CHUMBLE IN RESPECT OF CHINCHW AD CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF WAMAN CHUMBLE. SIMILARLY, ON 04-09-20 05 AND 16-09-2005 AMOUNT OF RS.1.25 LAKHS AND RS.10,90,500/- RESPECTIVELY HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED WITH APPA, I.E. SHIVAJI C HUMBLE. THIS NOTE ACCORDING TO THE AO MADE IT CLEAR THAT CASH WAS COLLECTED AND DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF WAMAN CHUMBLE BUT WAS ACCE PTED BY SHIVAJI CHUMBLE. MOREOVER, THERE APPEARS TO BE A COM MON SOURCE OF FUND. THUS, ACCORDING TO THE AO THE ASSESSEE IS SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR THE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF RS .35 LAKHS AND ANY INCOME GENERATED OUT OF THE SAME. 4 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 4.1 THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.35 LAKHS FOR ACQUIRING THE RIGHT TO DREDGE SAND AT CHINCHWAD/AADHAR. REJECTING THE REPLY GIVEN BY THE AS SESSEE THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.35,00,000/-. SINCE NO INCOME WAS S HOWN OUT OF SAND BUSINESS, THE AO ADOPTED 10% PROFIT ON THIS S AND BUSINESS. HOWEVER, SINCE THE CONTRACT IS FOR THE PERIOD FR OM 04-10- 2004 TO 31-07-2005 THE AO TOOK PROPORTIONATE PROFIT FOR 6 MONTHS AND DETERMINED THE PROFIT @10% ON SUCH AMOUNT WHICH WOR KS OUT TO RS.2,10,000/-. 5. SINCE THE VARIOUS OTHER ADDITIONS ARE NOT SUBJECT MA TTER OF THIS APPEAL, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING THOSE ISSUES. 6. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT WHILE MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.35 LAKHS THE AO COMPLETELY IGNORED THE COMMON POOL FUNDS OF MEMBERS OF CHUMBLE FAMILY WHICH HAS BEEN SOURCED MAINLY O UT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND ADMEASURING MORE THAN 93 ACRES OWNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY. THE OBSERVATION OF T HE AO AT PAGE 4 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS BROUGHT TO THE NO TICE OF THE CIT(A) WHERE THE AO HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE APPEARS T O BE A COMMON SOURCE OF FUNDS AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HA S ADMITTED THAT THIS BUSINESS IS CARRIED OUT BY HIM OUT OF T HE POOL OF FUNDS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS COMPLETELY IGNORED THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE HIM VIDE LETT ER DATED 25-12-2010 ALONG WITH NECESSARY EVIDENCE OF THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE MEMBERS OF CHUMBLE FAMILY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-04 TO 2005-06 AND TH E MEMBERS OF CHUMBLE FAMILY OUT OF ANCESTRAL AGRICULTURAL LAND AND LANDS ACQUIRED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF ANCESTRAL LANDS IS RS.39,55,937/-. THE SAID INCOME BEING MAINLY FROM ANCESTR AL 5 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 LANDS OF HUF HAVE NOT BEEN CREDITED TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF INDIVIDUAL MEMBERS OF CHUMBLE FAMILY AS THE SAID LAND BELONGS TO HUF . THE DETAILS OF LAND HOLDING, 7/12 EXTRACTS, CROP GROWN, QUANTITY OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, GROSS AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND NET AGR ICULTURAL INCOME AFTER EXPENSES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. IN THE DETAILS FILED BEFORE THE AO IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY OWNS 93.78 ACRES OF AGRICULTURA L LAND AND THE CROPS GROWN ARE GRAPES, KHURASANI, TOMATO, MAS UR, GROUNDNUTS AND VEGETABLES. THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INC OME OF THE FAMILY WAS ALSO ENCLOSED. THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FAMILY HAS BEEN USED BY MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AS AND WHEN REQ UIRED. HOWEVER, THE AO IGNORED THE AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS FROM AGRICULT URAL ACTIVITY FOR PAYING THE DEPOSIT RS.35 LAKHS FOR SAND AUCTION OUT OF COMMON POOL OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 7. IN AN ALTERNATE CONTENTION IT WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE TH E CIT(A) THAT AS PER TRADE PRACTICE IN RESPECT OF SAND AUCTION V ARIOUS PARTIES COME TOGETHER AND JOINTLY CONTRIBUTE TOWARDS DEPOSIT F OR SAND AUCTION AND ACCORDINGLY IN PROPORTION OF CONTRIBUTION MAD E EXTRACT SAND FROM THE RIVER. THIS PRACTICE IS PREVAILING AS THE AUC TION CANNOT BE ACCEPTED JOINTLY BUT IN THE NAME OF A SINGLE P ERSON. THIS FACT IS ALSO EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL IN RESPECT OF OTHER TWO AUCTIONS AT CHINCHWAD AND AADHAR WHEREIN THE SHARE OF T HE ASSESSEE IS AT 23.38% AND 57% RESPECTIVELY. THE COPY OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL SHOWING THE ABOVE FACT WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE C IT(A). THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS FOR SUBSEQUENT YEARS IN WHICH AB OVE- MENTIONED AUCTIONS ARE CONSIDERED BY THE AO WAS BROUGH T TO THE NOTICE OF THE CIT(A). IT WAS ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT A T THE MOST AVERAGE OF THE ABOVE 2 PERCENTAGES FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL, I.E. 6 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 40.19% SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY. SINCE THE SHARE IN PAYMENT OF 40.19% COMES TO RS.14,06,650/- AND THE SOURCE OF THE SAID PAYMENT HAS BE EN EXPLAINED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREF ORE, NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS JUSTIFIED. 8. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 8. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT HAS BEEN OBSERVED THAT THE ONLY DISPUTE IS REGARDING THE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.35,00,000/- MADE FOR OBTAINING SAND CONTRACT AT CHINCHWAD IN THE NAME OF SHRI VAMAN CHUMBLE. IT IS UNDISPUTED FACT THAT THE SAND CONTRACT HAS BEEN EXECUTED BY SHRI SHIVAJI CHUMBLE I .E. THE APPELLANT OUT OF A POOL OF FUNDS BELONGING TO THE CHUMBLE FAMI LY OUT OF COMMON SOURCE OF FUND. THE FACT IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY THE NOTIN GS IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL AS PER WHICH SHRI VAMAN CHUMBLE HAS FORWARDE D SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS OF RS.27,65,500/- TO SHRI SHIVAJI CHUMBLE DUR ING 15/7/2005 TO 16/9/2005 I.E. PRIOR TO THE PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT FO R SAND CONTRACT. THE APPELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 15/12/2010 HAS FILED DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE CH UMBLE FAMILY. THE APPELLANT HAS FILED 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE AGRICULT URAL LANDS ADMEASURING 93.78 ACRES SHOWING CROPS GROWN ON THE SAID LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS WORKED OUT QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL PRO DUCE OF CROPS GROWN ON THE BASIS OF ESTABLISHED NORMS PUBLISHED BY VARI OUS INSTITUTIONS AND AUTHORS INCLUDING RAHURI KRISHI VIDYA PITH. THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE CROPS GROWN HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT ON T HE BASIS OF RATES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CERTIFIED BY NASHIK KRI SHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI. FROM THIS GROSS AGRICULTURAL SALE PROCEEDS THE A PPELLANT HAS REDUCED 40% TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AND NET AGRI CULTURAL INCOME HAS BEEN ARRIVED AT. THE COMMON FUND OF THE F AMILY IS, THUS, SOURCED OUT OF THE ABOVE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT HAS GROWN VARIOUS CROPS INCLUDING THE CA SH CROPS LIKE GRAPES AND VEGETABLES. THE NET INCOME WORKED OUT BY T HE APPELLANT OF THE MEMBERS OF CHUMBLE FAMILY FOR F.YRS. 2002-03 TO 2 008-09 AND CUMULATIVE BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE COMMON FAMILY F UND AS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IS AS UNDER: NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME EARNED, AGRICULTURAL INCOME INTRODUCED IN THE BUSINESS, AGRICULTURAL INCOME USED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND BALANCE KEPT IN COMMON FAMILY POOL FUND CONSIDERING OPENING BALANCE OF THE POOL AT RS. 7,25,000/- ON 1/4/2002. FINANCIAL YEAR NET AGRI.INCOME EARNED BY FAMILY AGRI.INCOME INTRODUCED IN BUSINESS AGRI. INCOME USED FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES AND GIVEN TO FAMILY MEMBERS NET BALANCE AVAILABLE IN COMMON FAMILY POOL FUND CUMULATI VE BALANCE IN COMMON FAMILY POOL FUND 7 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 2002 - 03 14,83,440 5,74,775 2,60,000 6,48,665 13,73,665 2003 - 04 12,49,284 5,50,235 2,65,000 4,34,049 18,07,714 2004 - 05 26,00,280 5,65,862 2,70,000 17,64,418 35,72,132 2005 - 06 28,85,940 12,83,024 2,75,000 13,27,916 49,00,048 2006 - 07 33,36,420 11,887 2,80,000 30,44,533 79,84,581 2007 - 08 38,63,850 14,29,874 2,90,000 21,43,976 1,00,88,557 THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE PER ACRE AGRICULT URAL INCOME FROM GRAPES AND OTHER CROPS IS VERY REASONABLE. IN SUPPORT O F THIS CLAIM, THE APPELLANT HAS FILED TABULAR CHART AS UNDER : A.Y. NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME AREA OF LAND UNDER CULTIVATION AREA UNDER GRAPE CULTIVATION NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM GRAPE INCOME PER ACRE FOR GRAPE INCOME PER ACRE FOR OTHER CROPS 2003 - 04 14,83,440 49.54 12.25 9,92,880 81,051 13,155 2004 - 05 12,49,284 27.20 12.25 10,80,900 88,237 11,263 2005 - 06 26,00,280 46.25 31.50 24,28,020 77,080 11,679 2006 - 07 28,85,940 93.76 31.50 25,90,020 82,223 4,753 2007 - 08 33,36 ,420 93.76 31.50 29,94,480 95,063 5,492 2008 - 09 38,63,850 93.76 31.50 33,95,010 1,07,778 7,530 FROM THE ABOVE TABULAR CHARTS, IT HAS BEEN NOTICED TH AT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS REASONABLE AND THE SAME IS SUPPORTED BY 7/12 EXTRACTS OF THE LAND HOLDINGS ON WHICH CROPS G ROWN WITH AREA HAS BEEN MENTIONED, DATA PUBLISHED BY RAHURI KRISHI VIDYA PITH, SALE RATES OF VARIOUS CROPS FOR THE YEARS UNDER APPEAL, CERTIFIED BY KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI, NASHIK. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THE SOURCE OF DEPOSIT OF RS.35,00,000/- FOR THE SAND CONTRACT IS OUT OF COMMON FAMILY POOL FUND SOURCED BY AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FROM THE TABULAR CH ART FILED BY THE APPELLANT, THE CUMULATIVE BALANCE IN FAMILY POOL FU ND AS ON 1/4/2004 AND 31/3/2005 WAS RS.18,07,714/- AND RS.35,72,132/-. THE PAYMENT OF DEPOSIT FOR SAND CONTRACT HAS BEEN MADE IN THE LAST FOR TNIGHT OF SEPTEMBER, 2005. THEREFORE, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E RECEIVED UPTO LAST FORTNIGHT OF SEPTEMBER IS AVAILABLE FOR F.Y. 2004-05 . THE APPELLANT HAS POINTED OUT THAT SALE PROCEEDS OF GRAPES ARE GENERALLY RECEIVED IN THE MONTH OF APRIL AND MAY. CONSIDERING THESE FACTS, THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FOR F.Y. 2004-05 UPTO THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IS ESTIMATED AT RS.8,50,000/-. THE PREVIOUS BALANCE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT IS AVAI LABLE AS ON 1/4/2004 WAS RS.18,07,714/-. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL BALANCE CLAI MED TO BE AVAILABLE UPTO THE DATE OF DEPOSIT IS RS. 26,57,714/-. CONSIDERI NG THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS AND TO MEET ENDS OF JUSTICE THE AMOUNT AVAILABLE FOR DEPOSIT FOR SAND CONTRACT IS CONSIDERED AT RS. 25,00,000/-. THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE A.O. AT RS. 35,00,000/- IS REDUCED TO RS. 10,00,000/-. THE OTHER CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE SAND CO NTRACTS ARE OBTAINED IN PARTNERSHIP WITH VARIOUS OTHER PERSONS AS IS EVIDENT F ROM SEIZED MATERIAL, AS PER WHICH TWO SAND CONTRACTS HAVE BEEN O BTAINED IN WHICH THE APPELLANT'S SHARE IS 23.58% AND 57% ONLY. THE APPELLAN T, THEREFORE, CONTENDED THAT IN THIS SAND CONTRACT ALSO THERE WERE P ARTNERS AND THE CONTRIBUTION OF THE APPELLANT MAY BE ESTIMATED AT 40 .19% I.E. AVERAGE OF 23.38% AND 57%. THIS CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT CAN NOT BE ACCEPTED AS IN THE ABOVE MENTIONED CONTRACT REFERRED TO BY THE APPELLANT, THERE IS NOTING IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL ABOUT CONTRIBUTION MAD E BY OTHER PARTNERS ETC. IN THE CASE OF THE CONTRACT UNDER CONSIDERATION, NO SUCH NOTINGS ARE FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO NOT SUBMITTED 8 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 TO THE A.O. NAMES OR CONFIRMATIONS OF THE PARTIES WHO WERE CLAIMED TO BE PARTNERS IN THE SAND CONTRACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE F ACTS, THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND DISCUSSION, THE A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSI T PAID FOR SAND CONTRACT OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF R S. 25,00,000/- OUT OF TOTAL ADDITION OF RS 35,00,000/-. THE BALANCE ADDITI ON OF RS.10,00,000/- IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 9. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT O N SALE OF SAND IS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.14,39,000/- WHICH HAS BEEN UTILISED FOR PAYMENT TO CREDITORS. THEREFORE, THE INCO ME OF RS.2,10,000/- IS COVERED IN THE SAID INCOME OFFERED TO TAX. 10. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000/- BY OBSERVING A S UNDER : 9.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE , THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. ON PERUSAL OF STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT HA S BEEN NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED TO TAX SUNDRY CREDITORS OF R S.14,39,000/- WHICH ARE INFACT TOWARDS PAYMENT PAID OFF BY THE APP ELLANT AND OFFERED TO TAX AS PAID OUT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TO AVOID LITIGATION. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, CLAIMED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000/- TOWARDS ALLEGED PROFIT ON SALE OF SAND SH OULD BE TELESCOPED AGAINST THE ABOVE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.14 ,39,000/- ALLEGEDLY UTILIZED FOR PAYMENT TO OUTSTANDING CREDIT ORS. THE ABOVE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE CORRECT A ND SUPPORTED BY FOLLOWING DECISIONS : 1. ANANTHRAM VEERSINGHAIAH & CO. CIT 123 ITR 457 (SC) 2. S. KUPUSWAMI MUDALIAR VS. CIT 51 ITR 457 3. CIT VS. S. MILLAPPAN 66 ITR 722 4. CIT VS. VYANKATESHWARA TIMBER DEPOT 222 ITR 768(AP) 5. CIT VS. K.S.M. GURUSWAMY NADAR & SONS 149 ITR 127 (MAD ) 6. ITO VS. REPUBLIC POULTRY FOODS 45 ITD 359 (CHD.) THE ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000/- IS, THEREFORE, DELETED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 9 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 1. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 25.00 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SAND DREDGING BUSINESS. 2. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING ASSESSEES'S PLEA THAT COMMON FAMILY POOL FU ND IN THE NATURE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS INTRODUCED IN BUSIN ESS TO FINANCE THE SAND DREDGING BUSINESS. 3. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE OF AG RICULTURAL INCOME WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR BEEN SUBMITTED DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING. 4. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE EVIDENCE REGARDING AVAILABILITY OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME BELONGING TO HUF IN CONTRAVENTION OF RULE 46A OF TH E ACT. 5. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS ARE AT PAR WITH SAND DREDGING AS NO SUC H ACTIVITIES WERE DECLARED IN RETURNS FOR A.Y. 2005-06 & 2006-07. 6. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF RS. 2,10,000/- MADE ON ACCOU NT OF PROFIT ESTIMATED FROM SAND DREDGING BUSINESS, HOLDING THAT SAME IS COVERED BY ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE NEVER DISCLOSED T HIS BUSINESS IN THE RETURNS FILED BEFORE AND AFTER SEARCH. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER/DELETE A NY OF ABOVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL. 8. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF H EARING. 12. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY CHALLE NGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED. DURING THE SEARCH IT WAS FOUND THAT CHUMBLE GROUP HAVE SHOWN AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF HUF IN INDIVIDUAL RETURNS OF INCOME. DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISHE T HE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME ALONG WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPP ORT OF THE SAME, HOWEVER, NO SUCH DETAILS WERE FURNISHED. THE AS SESSEE DID NOT MAINTAIN ANY RECORD OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE SEA RCH PARTY ALSO DID NOT FIND ANY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF AGRICULT URAL INCOME DURING THE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. NO DETAILS OF AGRIC ULTURAL 10 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 INCOME LIKE SALE PATTIES, PURCHASE BILLS AND AGRICULTURAL INPUTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH. NO AGRICULTURAL IN COME HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A GRARIAN PURPOSE BUT ONLY AMOUNTS HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO HIS C APITAL ACCOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM HUF. 13. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS PUT FORWARD CLAIM OF AGRICU LTURAL INCOME ONLY HYPOTHETICALLY. NO BILLS FOR AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WERE SUBMITTED. FURTHER EVIDENCES LIKE BOOKS PUBLISHED BY INST ITUTIONS AND AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE, RATES OF KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SA MITI WERE ACCEPTED BY THE CIT(A) AT THE BACK OF THE AO IN CONTRA VENTION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. NO REMAND REPORT WAS CALLED FROM T HE AO. REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNA L IN THE CASE OF ABHIJIT SUBASH GAIKWAD VS. DCIT AND OTHER CONNE CTED APPEALS VIDE ITA NO.699/PN/2013, 700 AND 701/PN/2013 OR DER DATED 27-05-2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) WHO HAS DISREGARDED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE LAND DESPITE 7 /12 EXTRACTS PRODUCED BEFORE HIMSELF STATING THAT ASSESSEE W AS DERIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED. 14. SO FAR AS THE DELETION OF RS.2,10,000/- IS CONCERNED, T HE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT SUCH DELETION IS NOT AT ALL CORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE INCOM E ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITORS AND NOT FROM ANY OTHER INCO ME. THE INCOME FROM SAND DREDGING BUSINESS WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS RETURNS. THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2005-06 ONWARDS HAVE BEEN FILED AFTER THE SEARCH. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED ANY IN COME ON ACCOUNT OF SAND BUSINESS, THEREFORE, THE CREDITORS ARISING ON 11 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 ACCOUNT OF SAND DREDGING BUSINESS HAS REMOTE POSSIBILITY. HENCE, THE DISCLOSURE OF INCOME MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CRED ITORS WRITTEN OFF DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY INCOME FROM SAND DREDGING BUSINESS SINCE SUCH BUSINESS WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RET URN OF INCOME FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED TH AT THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 15. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND REFERRED TO PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT THE A SSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 15-12-2010 ADDRESSED TO THE AO HAD CATE GORICALLY MENTIONED THAT THE CHUMBLE FAMILY OWNS 93.78 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WHERE CROPS SUCH AS GRAPES, KHURASANA, TOMATO, MASUR, GROUNDNUT AND VEGETABLES ARE PRODUCED. THE DET AILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FAMILY WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE AO WHICH WAS WORKED OUT BY CONSIDERING CROPS GROWN, PRODUCTION O F AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FROM CROP, SALE PRICE OF THE AGRICULTUR AL PRODUCE ON THE BASIS OF THE AVERAGE MARKET PRICE OF TH E AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THIS INCOME IS UTILISED FOR THE SAND BUSINESS PURPOS E. EVEN THE AO IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS A LSO ACCEPTED THIS FACT FOR THE ABOVE PURPOSE. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE FOLLOWING OBSERVAT ION OF THE AO AT PAGE 4 OF THE AO : THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO FURNISH EITHER THE N AMES OR CONFIRMATION OF ANY OF THE SOCALLED PARTNERS. IT IS N OT DENIED THAT THE ENTIRE CONTRACT IS IN THE NAME OF WAMAN CHUMBLE WHO IS THE BROTHER OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF HAS ADMITTED THAT THIS BUSI NESS IS CARRIED OUT BY HIM OUT OF A POOL OF FUNDS BELONGING TO THE FAMILY. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT THIS ISSUE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED IN HIS HANDS. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS ACCEPTABLE SINCE PAGE 13 OF ANNEXURE A-2/20 SHOWS THAT ON 15-07-2005 AND 24-08-2005 RS.5.50 LACS AND RS. 10 LACS HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO SHIVAJI APPA, I.E. S HIVAJI CHUMBLE IN RESPECT OF CHINCHWAD CONTRACT ON BEHALF OF VAMAN CHU MBLE. AGAIN ON 04-09-2005 AND 16-09-2005 AMOUNTS OF RS.1.25 LACS AND RS.10,90,500/- HAVE BEEN DEPOSITED WITH APPA, I.E. SHIVAJI CHUMBLE. 12 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 THESE NOTINGS MAKE IT CLEAR THAT CASH WAS COLLECTED AN D DEPOSITED TOWARDS EXECUTING THE CHINCHWAD/AADHAR CONTRACT. TH IS CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN THE NAME OF VAMAN CHUMBLE BUT WAS EXECU TED BY SHIVAJI CHUMBLE. MOREOVER THERE APPEARS TO BE A COMMON SOURC E OF FUND. THUS THE ASSESSEE IS SOLELY AND COMPLETELY RESPONSIBLE FOR T HE CONTRACT AMOUNT OF RS.35 LACS, AND ANY INCOME GENERATED OUT OF THE SAME. 16. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE HUF DOES NOT OWN ANY BANK ACCOUNT. SINCE THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FAMILY HAS BEEN UTILIZED BY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY FOR THE AUCTION PURPOSE, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. MOREOVER, ALTHOUG H NUMBER OF PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN THE AUCTION BUT T HE AUCTION CAN BE ALLOTTED IN THE NAME OF ONLY ONE PERSON WHICH IN T HE INSTANT CASE IS THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE COMMON POOL OF FUND AVAILABLE IN THE FAMILY HAS BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE AUCTION AND THEREFO RE THE LD.CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 17. SO FAR AS THE DECISION RELIED ON BY THE LD. DEPARTMEN TAL REPRESENTATIVE IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID DECISION IS DISTINGUISHABLE AND NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE. IN THAT CASE, IT WAS CATEGORICALLY MENTIONED IN THE 7/12 EXTRACTS FURNISHED PRIOR TO COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT THAT THE LAND IS A BARREN LAND. THERE WAS ALSO SOME TAMPERING IN THE LAND R ECORDS FROM TALATI SHOWING THAT THE CROPS WERE GROWN SUBSEQUEN T TO 2007. INFACT THE INSPECTOR OF THE CONCERNED WARD HAD VISITED T HE SPOT AND HAD REPORTED THAT NO AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY WAS CARRIED O UT ON THE SAID LAND AND THE LAND IS A JIRAYAT LAND, I.E. BARREN LAND. THEREFORE, THE SAID DECISION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO THE FACT S OF THE PRESENT CASE. 18. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.2,10,000/- BY THE AO IS CONCER NED, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) WAS FULLY JUSTIFIED IN DELETING T HE ADDITION. 13 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 19. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE P APER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.35 LAKHS BEING CASH PAID FOR ACQUIRING T HE RIGHT TO DREDGE SAND, THE SOURCE OF WHICH WAS NOT EXPLA INED BY THE ASSESSEE TO HIS SATISFACTION. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED T HE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS WHICH IS FROM AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE CHUMBLE FAMILY WHICH WAS KEPT IN COMMON FAMILY POOL AND IT WAS INTRODUCED IN THE BUSINESS AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. CONSIDERING THE FAMILY HOL DING OF 93 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND, WHERE DIFFERENT CROPS SUCH A S GRAPES, KHURASANA, TOMATO, MASUR, GROUNDNUTS AND VEGETABLES AR E PRODUCED AND CONSIDERING THE QUANTUM OF AGRICULTURAL PROD UCE ON THE BASIS OF ESTABLISHED NORMS PUBLISHED BY VARIOUS INSTITU TIONS AND AUTHORS AND THE RATE FOR SUCH AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CERTIFIED BY NASHIK KRISHI UTPANNA BAZAR SAMITI, THE LD.CIT(A) ACCEPTED T HE SOURCE OF COMMON FUNDS FOR INVESTING IN THE SAND DREDGE BUSINESS. WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). FROM PAGE 4 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 15-12 -2010 ADDRESSED TO THE AO HAS GIVEN THE FOLLOWING DETAILS : TO THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NASHIK CENTRAL-3, NASHIK DATE : 15-12-10 RESPECTED SIR, REG : SHRI SHIVAJI PANDURANG CHMBALE AND BROTHERS/FA MILY MEMBERS, AT POST GAULANE, TAL. DIST. NASHIK. PAN : AANPC0932C SUBJECT : SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2003-04 TO 2007-08. WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED SUBJECT IT IS H UMBLY SUBMITTED TO YOUR HONOUR IS AS UNDER : 14 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 AT THE OUTSET IT IS HUMBLY SUBMITTED THAT CHUMBALE FAM ILY, I.E. SHRI PANDURANG CHUMBALE AND HIS FOREFATHERS OWNED AGRICULT URAL LAND AT VILLAGE GAULANE TAL. AND DIST. NASHIK. THE FAMILY IS BASICALLY AGRICULTURIST FAMILY. OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOM E OF THE FAMILY THE MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY HAVE ACQUIRED SUBSTANTIAL AGRICU LTURAL LAND AT VARIOUS PLACES IN AND AROUND GAULANE. THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF THE FAMILY WAS RETURNED BY VARIOUS MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY I N INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY WHILE FILING RETURNS OF INCOME UPTO A.Y. 20 06-07. HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME F OR THE FAMILY BELONGS TO HUF AND HENCE NOT CONSIDERED FOR RATE PURP OSES WHILE FILING RETURNS OF MEMBERS OF CHUMBALE FAMILY. THE TOTAL AGR ICULTURAL LAND BELONGING TO THE FAMILY IS 93.78 ACRES AND THE CROPS G ROWN ARE GRAPES, KHURASANI, TOMATO, MASUR, GROUNDNUT AND VEGETABLE. T HE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF THE FAMILY ARE ENCLOSED. THE SAID INCOME HAS BEEN WORKED OUT BY CONSIDERING CROPS GROWN, ARE UNDER CULTIVATION OF EACH CROP, PRODUCTION OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE PER A CRE SALE PRICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE ON THE BASIS OF AVERAGE MARKET P RICE OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE SAID INCOME FOR THE FAMILY HAS BEEN USED BY MEMBERS OF THE FAMILY AS AND WHEN REQUIRED. THANKING YOU YOURS FAITHFULLY, SD/- (SHIVAJI P. CHUMBALE) ENCLOSURES : 1) PRODUCTION CHART OF AGRICULTURAL PROD UCE OF CHUMBALE FAMILY, 2) RATE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE CERTIFIED B Y NASHIK KRUSHI UTPANA BAJAR SAMEETY, 3) 7*12 EXTRACTS IN WHICH CRO P TAKEN. 20. ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE IN HIS PAPER BOOK HAS CERTIFIE D THAT THIS REPLY WAS FILED BEFORE THE AO ALONG WITH THE ENCLOSURE S, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, WE FIND THE AO IN A CRYPTIC MANNER HAS MERELY MENTIONED THAT MOREOVER THERE APP EARS TO BE A COMMON SOURCE OF FUND. ONCE THE AO ACCEPTS THAT THER E APPEARS TO BE A COMMON SOURCE OF FUND AND WHEN THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE OWNS MORE THAN 93 ACRES OF AGRICULTURAL LAND ON WHICH VAR IOUS CROPS ARE GROWN, THEREFORE, WE FIND FORCE IN THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MONEY AVAILABLE FROM SUCH AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE AUCTION MONEY REQUIRED FOR THE SAND BUSINESS. 21. SO FAR AS GROUND BY THE REVENUE REGARDING VIOLATION OF RULE 46A IS CONCERNED WE DO NOT FIND MUCH SUBSTANCE IN THE S AME IN 15 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 VIEW OF THE LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE AO , THE CONTENTS OF WHICH HAVE ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE PRECEDING P ARAGRAPH. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED REAS ONING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN HIS ORDER DELETING R S.35 LAKHS. ACCORDINGLY, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS DISMISSED. 22. SO FAR AS DELETION OF RS.2,10,000/- IS CONCERNED WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THE FINDING GIVEN BY THE CIT(A). ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DECLARED ANY INCOME FROM SAND BUSINESS ACTIVITY. THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SO DECLARED IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A IS ON ACCOUNT OF WRITING OFF OF CERTAIN SUN DRY CREDITORS. THEREFORE, ONCE THE INCOME FROM SAND BUSINESS WAS NOT SPECIFICALLY DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE LD.CIT(A), IN OUR OPINION, WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE SAME. WE ACCORDING LY REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE A DDITION OF RS.2,10,000/- MADE BY THE AO IS RESTORED. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ON THIS ISSUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. ITA NO.1576/PN/2011 (A.Y. 2007-08) : 23. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR HAD NOT FILED ANY RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/ S.153A THE ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 23-02-2010 DE CLARING NIL INCOME. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THE STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED U/S.132(4) ON 02 -05-2008 DURING WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED ADDITIONAL INCOME O F RS.10 LAKHS FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND RS.4,53,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR AND OMISSION FOR 6 YEARS IN THE HANDS O F ALL FAMILY MEMBERS. THE AO NOTED THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION 16 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 THE ASSESSEE HAS CREDITED AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,12,500/- TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR AND OMISSION. THE ASSESSEE ACCORDINGLY ADMITTED AND MADE TOTAL DECLARATION OF ADDITIO NAL INCOME OF RS.12,12,500/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08. HOWEVER, IN THE P ROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, AFTER CREDITING THE ABOVE RS.12,12,500/- THE ASSESSEE DECLARED NET LOSS OF RS.5,57,871.14. THE AO COMPA RED THE DIESEL AND PETROL EXPENSES DURING THE YEAR AS WELL AS SUCH EXPENSES IN THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR, VIS--VIS, TRU CK HIRING CHARGES AND NOTED THAT SUCH EXPENSES HAVE INCREASED SUBSTANTIALLY WHEREAS THE TRUCK HIRE CHARGES HAS DECREASED. SIMILARLY , THE EXPENSES INCURRED FOR REPAIRS OF VEHICLES, I.E. FUEL EXPENSES A ND VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES CLAIMED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCO UNT COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED ALONG WITH BILLS AND VOUCHERS. SINCE THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH SUCH DETAILS THE AO APPLYING THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 44AE DETERMINED THE INCOME FROM TRUCK HIRE CHARGES AT RS.13,45 ,000/- THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER : 1. INCOME FROM TRUCK APPLYING ESTIMATED U/S. 40AE RS.1,33 ,000 2. ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLARED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH RS.10,00,000 3. INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF ERROR AND OMISSION RS.12,12,500 ------------------ RS.13,45,000 ------------------ 24. SIMILARLY, THE AO BY ESTIMATING INCOME FROM SCRAP BUSINES S ESTIMATED SALE FIGURE FOR THE YEAR AT RS.22,01,952/-. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SALE DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.20,36 ,393/- THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,65,559/- TOWARDS INCOME FROM SCRAP BUSINESS. 17 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 25. SIMILARLY, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.3,44,335/- BEING INVESTMENT TOWARDS SAND CONTRACT. FURTHER, THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,55,555/- BEING 10% OF INCOME FROM THE SAND AUCTION, THE AUCTION AMOUNT OF WHICH WAS RS.45,55,555/- FO R THE YEAR. THE AO ALSO MADE ADDITION OF RS.71,313/- ON ACCOUNT OF BRICK BUSINESS BY ESTIMATING PROFIT @10% ON SALE VALUE OF MA TERIAL OF RS.7,13,133/-. 26. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN MAKING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE AUDITED AND DULY SUPPORTED BY B ILLS AND VOUCHERS WHICH WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, T HE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REJECTING THE BOOK RESULTS AND GO FOR VARIOUS ADDITIONS ON ESTIMATE BASIS. 27. SO FAR AS INVESTMENT IN SAND AUCTION IS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE FAMILY HAS HUGE AGRICULTURAL LAND THE IN COME OF WHICH IS SUFFICIENT TO MAKE INVESTMENT REQUIRED FOR THE SAND AUCTION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE SEIZE D DOCUMENTS, THE CONTRACT WAS TAKEN BY 9 PERSONS AND T HE CONTRIBUTION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY RS.10,25,000/- WHICH AMOUNTS TO 23.38%. THEREFORE, THE WHOLE AMOUNT FOR THE A UCTION SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 28. THE ESTIMATION OF PROFIT FROM SAND BUSINESS WAS ALSO CHALLENGED STATING THAT THE PROFIT ESTIMATED BY THE AO IS COVERED BY THE INCOME OF RS.12,12,500/- CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT TOWARDS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THEREFORE NO SEP ARATE ADDITION IS REQUIRED. SIMILAR ARGUMENT WAS ADVANCED FOR ADD ITION 18 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 OF RS.71,313/- FROM THE PROFIT ON SALE OF BRICKS. NON ALLOWANC E OF DEDUCTION U/S.80C AT RS.1 LAKH BY THE AO WAS ALSO CHALLENGED. 29. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ENTIRE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WHILE DOING SO, HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE REJECTION OF BOOK RESULTS BY THE AO U/S.145 OF THE ACT WAS NOT CORRECT. 30. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE A.O. WRONGLY REJECTED THE BOOK RESULT U/S. 145 OF THE ACT WITHOUT ANY BASIS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN N OT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EVIDENCE REGARD ING EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS AND BILLS AND THAT FACT WAS ADMIT TED BY THE A. R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING WHICH IS ON REC ORD. 2. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,33,000/- MADE TOWAR DS ESTIMATION OF TRUCK HIRING BUSINESS. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT IN ABSENCE OF EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS AND BILLS, THE AO HAS CORRECTLY APPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 44AE. 3. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN ALLOWING SET OFF LOSS OF RS. 2,78,533 FROM THE INCOM E OFFERED TO TAX AT RS. 12,12,500/- UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME DECLARED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT IS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED DU RING SEARCH, WHICH IS DISTINCT FROM REGULAR BUSINESS INCOME. 4. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,12,500- WHICH WAS FOUND CREDITED TO PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATIN G THAT THE INCOME DECLARED AT RS.12,12,500 U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT IS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME, WHICH IS DISTRICT FROM BUSINESS INCOME, AND SHOUL D NOT HAVE BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 5. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,65,559/- ON ACCOUN T OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF SCRAP. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING T HE FACT THAT ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRODUCE EXPENDITURE VOUCHERS AND BILLS AND THAT THIS FACT WAS ADMITTED BY THE A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE DURING ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDING, THEREBY REQUIRING A.O. TO ESTIMATE THE SA ME. 6. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD.C IT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,44,335/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT FOR SAND AUCTION. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT TAKING INTO COGNIZANCE THE FACT THAT THE ADDITI ON WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 19 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 7. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT PAYMENT FOR SAND AUCTION HAS BEEN MADE OUT OF COMMON POOL FUNDS OF THE FAMIL Y GENERATED OUT OF AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT NO EVIDENCE OF AGRICULTU RAL INCOME WAS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH OR HAS BEEN SUBMITTED D URING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 8. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD . CIT(A) ERRED IN ADMITTING THE NEW GROUND OF APPEAL REGARDI NG AVAILABILITY OF POOL FUNDS ALLEGEDLY GENERATED OUT OF FAMILIES A GRICULTURAL INCOME WITHOUT REMANDING THE MATTER TO THE AO IN CO NTRAVENTION OF RULE 46 OF THE INCOME TAX RULE. 9. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,55,555/- ON ACC OUNT OF PROFIT OF SALE ON SAND. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT AP PRECIATING THE FACT THAT INCOME FROM SAND BUSINESS IS REGULAR BUSI NESS INCOME AND CANNOT BE TREATED AS PART OF DECLARATION OF ADD ITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 12,12,500/- UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. 10. ON THE FACT AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 71,313/- ON ACC OUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF BRICKS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO ERRED IN NOT A PPRECIATING THE FACT THAT ADDITION IS MADE TO REGULAR BUSINESS INCO ME ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSEE'S OWN ADMISSION, WH ICH IS ON RECORD. 11. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES TO ADD, ALTER/DELETE AN Y OF ABOVE GROUND OF THE APPEAL. 12. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A) AND T HE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SO FAR AS GROUND O F APPEAL NO.1 IS CONCERNED WE FIND THE SAME RELATES TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN ACCEPTING THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED BY THE ASSE SSEE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND WHEN THE AO ASKED T HE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DETAILS OF EXPENSES INCURRED FO R TRUCK HIRING CHARGES, DIESEL AND PETROL EXPENSES, REPAIRS AND MAINTENANCE EXPENSES, SCRAP SALES, SALE OF BRICKS ETC. THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PR OVIDED 20 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 THE VARIOUS DETAILS AS CALLED FOR BY THE AO DURING ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CIT(A) IN OU R OPINION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ACCEPTING THE BOOK RESULTS DECLARED B Y THE ASSESSEE. WE THEREFORE REVERSE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A ) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 32. SO FAR AS DELETION OF RS.1,33,000/- BEING ESTIMATED INCOM E FROM TRUCK HIRING BUSINESS IS CONCERNED, WE FIND ADMITTEDLY THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED NIL INCOME IN THE RETURN FILED IN RESP ONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A DESPITE DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.10,00,000/- AND ANOTHER RS.4,53,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF ER ROR AND OMISSION. THEREFORE, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FROM TRUCK PLYING BUSINESS, THE INCOME O F THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE ESTIMATED AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTIO N 44AE. ALTHOUGH THE AO HAS COMPUTED SUCH INCOME AT RS.1,33,000/-, HOWEVER, THE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSE E AT RS.12,12,500/- WHICH WE ARE UPHOLDING IN THE SUBSEQUENT PARAGRAPHS WILL TAKE CARE OF THIS ISSUE. THEREFORE NO SEPA RATE ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACC ORDINGLY DISMISSED. 33. SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 IS CONCERNED, THE GRIEV ANCE OF THE REVENUE IS REGARDING SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS.2,78,533/- FRO M THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX AT RS.12,12,500/- U/S.132(4) OF THE I.T. ACT. 34. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT THE ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED PETROL AND DIESEL EXPENSES OF RS.13,84,767/- AND REPAIR EXPENSES OF RS.4,68,000/- AGAINST THE 21 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 LORRY HIRING CHARGES OF RS.12,71,515/-. THE RATIO OF EXPENDI TURE AS COMPARED TO THE PRECEDING ASSESSMENT YEAR WAS VERY HIGH. THE A O, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT INCUR LOSS FROM THE TRUCK BUSINESS. FURTHER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PROD UCE BILLS AND VOUCHERS ETC., THE AO APPLIED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 44AE. SINCE WE HAVE UPHELD THE ABOVE ACTION OF THE AO, THEREFO RE, WE HOLD THAT THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING SET OFF OF LOSS OF RS.2,78,533/- FROM THE INCOME OFFERED TO TAX DURING THE COU RSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE LOSS SHOULD N OT HAVE BEEN ALLOWED TO BE SET OFF BY THE CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE R EVERSE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED. 35. SO FAR AS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IS CONCERNED IT IS THE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE THAT RS.12,12,500/- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAXED OVER AND ABOVE THE INCOME DETERMINED BY THE AO. THE ASSESSS EE CANNOT CREDIT THIS ADDITIONAL INCOME TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND ADJUST VARIOUS OTHER EXPENSES AND DECLARE NIL INCOME. 36. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE HAS NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE IMP UGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR BEFORE THE SEARCH. ALTHOUGH HE HAD DE CLARED ADDITIONAL OF RS.12,12,500/-, HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT HONOURED THE SAME WHILE FILING RETURN OF INCOME AND HAS DEC LARED NIL INCOME BY FILING PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT IN WHICH THE ADD ITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN CREDITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AND VARIOUS EXPENSES CLAIMED WHICH ASSESSEE COULD NOT SUBSTANTIATE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CA NNOT BE 22 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 LESS THAN RS.12,12,500/-. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY. 37. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.5 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,65,559/- O N ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF SCRAP. SINCE DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO PRO DUCE THE MONTHLY DETAILS REGARDING SALES AND EXPENSES OF SCRAP BUSINESS, THE AO ESTIMATED THE SCRAP SALE AND DETERMINED THE PROFIT ON REASONABLE BASIS. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE UPHOLD T HE ORDER OF THE AO IN BRINGING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,65,559/- ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPRESSED SALE OF SCRAP. GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. HOWEVER, SINCE WE ARE HOLDING THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BELOW RS.12,12,500/-, THE REFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.1,65,559/- IS REQUIRED. 38. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.6 TO 8 ARE ON ACCOUNT OF DELETIO N OF RS.3,44,355/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED PAYMENT FOR SAND AUCTION. 39. SINCE IN ITA NO.1575/PN/2011 WE HAVE ALREADY HELD TH AT THE INCOME OF THE FAMILY FROM AGRICULTURAL LAND OF MORE THAN 93 A CRES IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET THE AMOUNT REQUIRED FOR SAND AUCTION, T HEREFORE, NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CALLED FOR. THIS GROUND RAIS ED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 40. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.9 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.4,55,555/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SAND. IN ITA NO.1575/PN/201 1 WE HAVE ALREADY UPHELD SUCH ESTIMATION OF INCOME FROM SAND BUSINESS. THEREFORE, FACTS BEING SIMILAR, THE ORDER OF THE AO IN 23 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 DETERMINING RS.4,55,555/- ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF SAN D IS UPHELD. THIS GROUND BY THE REVENUE IS DECIDED ACCORDINGLY . HOWEVER, SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE CANNO T BE LESS THAN RS.12,12,500/-, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS CALLED FOR AS THE SAME WILL TAKE CARE OF RS.4,55,555/-. 41. IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.10 THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGE D THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.71,313/- O N ACCOUNT OF PROFIT ON SALE OF BRICKS. SINCE NO DETAILS WERE P RODUCED BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEED INGS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT SO PREPARED, TH EREFORE, WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE AO ON THIS ISSUE AND THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS REVERSED. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCOR DINGLY ALLOWED. HOWEVER, SINCE WE HAVE HELD THAT THE INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE LESS THAN RS.12,12,500/-, THEREFORE, NO SEPARATE ADDITION IS CALLED FOR AS THE SAME WILL TAKE CARE OF RS.71,313/-. 42. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 11 AND 12 BEING GENERAL IN NATU RE ARE DISMISSED. 43. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-11-2015. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; # DATED : 06 TH NOVEMBER, 2015. LRH'K 24 ITA NOS.1575 & 1576/PN/2011 ( )'+ , / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A) - I, NASHIK 4. 5. 6. CIT-I, NASHIK ' *, *, IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' //TRUE COPY// / * / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY *, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE