Mr. Nandkumar Amolchand Bafna, Pune V. DCIT, Pune

ITA 1588/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9306 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 10 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure
• Section: 69C; 143(3); 234B; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE , ! ' ,$ % BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.1587, 1588 AND 1589/PUN/2013 ' ' / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2010-11 MR. NANDKUMAR AMOLCHAND BAFNA, 768/10, BAFNA FAMILY HOUSE, (DAKALE NIWAS), NEAR PYC GROUND, DECCAN GYMKHANA, PUNE 411004. PAN : AEHPB8764R. . / APPELLANT V/S DY.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PMT COMMERCIAL COMPLEX, SHANKAR SHETH ROAD, PUNE 411037. . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI AKSHAY / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THESE THREE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING OUT OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE IN PN/CIT (A)- CENTRAL/ACIT CENT. CIR2(2)/106, 107, 108/2011-12 DATED 21.06.2013 FOR A.YS. 2006-07, 2007-08 AND 2010-11, RESPECTIVELY. / DATE OF HEARING : 22.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.06.2017 2 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THOUGH THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE FOR THREE DIFFERENT ASS ESSMENT YEARS BUT THE FACTS AND ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE IDE NTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE A.YS AND THE AMOUNTS INVOLVED AND THEREFORE, HE H AS COMMON SUBMISSION TO MAKE AND THE SUBMISSION MADE BY HIM WHILE A RGUING APPEAL FOR ONE YEAR WOULD BE EQUALLY APPLICABLE TO OTHER Y EARS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD TO GETHER. LD.D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS OF LD.A.R. WE THEREFORE, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, PROCEED TO DISPOS E OF ALL THE APPEALS TOGETHER BY WAY OF CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RE CORD ARE AS UNDER :- 3.1 ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE REAL ESTATE COM MISSION AGENT. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE PREMISES OF SHRI AJAY BAFNA ON 16.02.20 10, WHEREIN CERTAIN INCRIMINATING PAPERS BELONGING TO THE ASSES SEE WERE FOUND. ACCORDINGLY, A NOTICE U/S 153C WAS ISSUED ON 08.02.2 011 AND IN RESPONSE TO WHICH ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FO R A.Y. 2006- 07 ON 18.05.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.67,690/-. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153C, ASSESSEE FILED R ETURN OF INCOME ON 19.05.2011 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.2,34,980/- A ND FOR A.Y. 2010-11 ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 18.05.2011 D ECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,58,280/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND FOR A.YS. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRA MED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153C VIDE ORDER DT.30.12.2011 AND TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,66,100/- FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND RS.15,43,35 0/- FOR 3 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 A.Y. 2007-08 RESPECTIVELY. FOR A.Y. 2010-11 THE ASSESSM ENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DT.30.12.2011 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.1,20,26,670/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) WHO BY CO NSOLIDATED ORDER DT.21.06.2013 (IN APPEAL NO. PN/CIT(A)-CENTRAL/ACIT CENT. CIR2(2)/106, 107, 108/2011-12) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF TH E ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. FOR A.Y. 2006-07 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO. 1587/PUN/2013 READS AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN DISMISSING THE ASSES SEES APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.98,411/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ESTIMATE OF COMMISSION OF 2% OF THE TRANSACTION WAS TOO EXCE SSIVE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING ASSES SEES GROUND AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHAR GING INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT ADJ UDICATING ON THE SAME. 5. FOR A.Y. 2007-08 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO.1588/PUN/2013 READS AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN DISMISSING THE ASSES SEES APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.13,08,371/- ON ACCOUNT OF COMMISSION EARNED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THAT THE ESTIMATE OF COMMISSION OF 2% OF THE TRANSACTION WAS TOO EXCE SSIVE. 4. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING ASSES SEES GROUND AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHAR GING INTEREST U/S 234A AND 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHOUT ADJ UDICATING ON THE SAME. 4 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 6. FOR A.Y. 2010-11 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL NO.1589/PUN/2013 READS AS UNDER : 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IN DISMISSING THE ASSES SEES APPEAL. 2. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,18,68,386/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 69C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITUR E. 3. THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DISMISSING ASSES SEES GROUND AGAINST THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN CHAR GING INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WITHO UT ADJUDICATING ON THE SAME. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI AJAY BAFNA, CERTAIN INFORMATION WAS COLLECTED FROM COMPUTER AND AS PER THE EXCEL FILES CERTAIN ENTRIES WERE FOUND, WHICH ARE N ARRATED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASK ED TO PROVIDE NECESSARY EXPLANATION. ON THE BASIS OF THE DETAILS FOUND, A O NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED LAND FOR MORE THAN RS.7 C RORES FOR EKTA KAPOOR AND SHOBHA KAPOOR AND THE ASSESSEE WAS THE REFORE ASKED TO CLARIFY AS TO HOW MUCH COMMISSION HE HAS RECEIVED FOR THE TRANSACTION. THE ASSESSEE INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT HE M AINTAINS HIS ACCOUNTS ON CASH SYSTEM AND HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY COM MISSION. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO A O AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THOUGH THERE COULD BE CERTAIN DELAY IN G ETTING THE COMMISSION, BUT NOT RECEIVING ANY COMMISSION TILL DATE WAS IMPROBABLE AND SINCE THE TRANSACTIONS PERTAINS TO A.Y. 20 05-06 AND 2006-07, THE PROBABILITY OF NOT RECEIVING ANY COMMISSION TILL THE DATE OF PASSING ORDER WAS NOT CORRECT. THE TOTAL TRANSACTIO NS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT FOR A.Y. 2006-07 WAS FOUND AT RS.49,20,552/- AND H E ACCORDINGLY DETERMINED THE COMMISSION ON THE TRANSACTION S AT 2% AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.98,411/-. SIMILAR ADDITION WAS MADE FOR A.Y . 5 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 2007-08 ON THE TRANSACTIONS OF BANK ACCOUNT FOR A.Y. 200 7-08 OF RS.6,89,95,894/- AND ACCORDINGLY THE COMMISSION INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT 2% AT RS.13,79,918/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE O RDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO UPHELD T HE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 6.4 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FACTS BEFORE ME. IT IS NOT DISPUTED BY THE APPELLANT THAT HE WAS ENGAGED I N BUYING PROPERTY ON BEHALF OF MS. EKTA KAPOOR AND MRS. SHOBHA KAPOOR . IT IS ALSO EXPRESSLY ADMITTED IN THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED WITH THE APPEAL THAT THE APPELLANT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AGENT. FURTHER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AOS FINDING THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT MAINTAINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN SERIO USLY CONTESTED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE ARGUMENT THAT HE WAS FOLLOWING CASH SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING DOES NOT HOLD ANY MERIT. UNDE R THE CIRCUMSTANCES, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE AOS ACTION OF ESTIMATING THE COMMISSION RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT FROM THE TR ANSACTIONS. MOREOVER, AN ESTIMATE OF COMMISSION RECEIPT AT 2% O F THE TOTAL TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR IS NOT SO EXCESSIVE AS FOR ME TO SUBSTITUTE THE AOS JUDGMENT IN THIS REGARD BY MY OWN WITHOUT ANY RATIONAL BASIS. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS HEREBY DISMISS ED AND THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED . 8. AS FAR AS A.Y. 2010-11 IS CONCERNED, AO NOTED THAT THE SUMMARY OF ENTRIES INDICATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID CASH OF RS .1,18,68,386/- TO VARIOUS FARMERS. ON PERUSING THE BANK DETAILS FURNISHE D BY THE ASSESSEE, AO NOTICED THAT THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING WITHDRAWALS OF CASH FOR PAYMENT TO THE FARMERS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENT OF CASH MORE SO WHEN THE SUMMARY OF ENTRIES INDICATED AS PAID CASH. THE ASSESS EE APART FROM OTHER SUBMISSIONS ALSO INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT NO CASH P AYMENT HAS BEEN MADE BY HIM. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS N OT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO AS HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE A SSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE AND THE TRANSACT ION OF PURCHASE OF LAND ARE NOT NECESSARY ALWAYS THROUGH THE BANK. HE WAS ALSO OF THE VIEW THAT BECAUSE MANY A TIMES THE PAYMENT TO FARMERS WHOSE LANDS ARE PURCHASED ARE ILLITERATE AND SINCE THEY DO NOT OPERA TE BANK 6 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OF ENTIRE PAYMENT BEING MADE THOROUGH BANK WAS DIFFICULT TO ACCEPT. HE THEREFORE HELD AND CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED EXPENSES OF RS.1,18,68,386/- IN CASH WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY SO URCE AND ACCORDINGLY, MADE ITS ADDITION U/S 69C OF THE ACT. THE A DDITION FOR A.Y. 2010-11 WAS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A) BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 16 . 4 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FAC TS BEFORE ME AND TO THE ARGUMENTS AND CONTENTIONS PRESENTED B Y THE LEARNED AR ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT . AS POINTED OUT IN MY ORDER FOR AY 2006-07, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION IN THIS CASE THAT THE APPELLANT WAS A REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AGENT . IT IS ALSO NOT DENIED THAT THE APPELLANT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIO D HAD ACTED ON BEHALF OF MS . EKTA AND MRS. SHOBHA KAPOOR. UPON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS, PARTICULARLY TH E ALTERNATE CONTENTIONS, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE APPELLANT'S CON NECTION WITH THE SAID PAPER AND EVEN THE FACT OF CASH HAVING CHANGED HANDS IN THE PROPERTY TRANSACTIONS INVOLVING THE SAID CLIENT S IS NOT SERIOUSLY DENIED BY THE APPELLANT . IT IS ONLY CONTENDED THAT THE MONEY WAS NOT THAT OF THE APPELLANT AND THE APPELLA NT HAD MADE PAYMENTS ON BEHALF OF THE SAID CLIENTS . UPON A CAREFUL LOOK, I ALSO FIND THAT THE VARIOUS POSITIONS TAKEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS ARE CONTRADICTORY, EVEN KEEPING IN MIND THAT THEY ARE MEANT TO BE ALTERNATE CONTENTIONS WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ONE ANOTHER . THE APPELLANT CANNOT STATE IN THE SAME BREATH THAT FIE HAD NO CONNECTION WITH THE SEIZED P APER BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT FOUND IN HIS PREMISES, THAT NO CASH T RANSACTIONS WERE MADE AND EVEN IF CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE MADE, THEY WERE NOT THE APPELLANT'S MONEY. THE AO HAS FURTHER POINT ED OUT THAT ALL THE BANK TRANSACTIONS MENTIONED THE PAPER COULD BE CROSS- VERIFIED AND ONLY THE CASH TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT FO UND IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS . HAVING CONSIDERED THESE FACTS CAREFULLY I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITY OF T HE CASH HAVING BEEN PAID IS SUFFICIENTLY ESTABLISHED. SINCE THERE HAS BEEN NO ATTEMPT ON THE PART OF THE APPELLANT TO EXP LAIN THE SOURCE OF THE CASH IN HIS HANDS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED AO IS HEREBY UPHELD AND THIS GROUND OF APPE AL IS DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN A PPEAL BEFORE US. 9. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT AS FAR AS APPEAL 2006-07 AND 2007-08 ARE CONCERNED BOTH THE APPEALS A RE IDENTICAL AND HE DOES NOT WISH TO PRESS GROUND NOS.1 AND 4 IN BOTH THE YEA RS. 7 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. AS FAR AS GROUND NOS.2 AND 3 ARE CONC ERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT BOTH THE GROUNDS ARE INTER-CONNECTED A ND THEREFORE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. 10. BEFORE US, LD. A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFOR E AO AND LD. CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION THAT ASSESSEE WOULD HA VE EARNED COMMISSION ON THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF LAND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY SUPPORTING DOCUMENT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION U/S 69C CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION. AS AN ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ESTIMATE OF COMMISSION MADE AT 2% IS ON A HIGHER SIDE AND THAT IT MAY BE REDUCED AT SUCH PERCENTAGE AS DEEMED FIT BY THE HONBLE BENCH. 11. WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION MADE BY AO IN A.Y. 2010-11 AN D CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A), HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ENTIRE ADD ITION IS BASED ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE ON RECORD. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROVISION U/S 69C IS NOT APPLICABLE AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT INCURRED ANY EXPENDITURE DURING THE YEAR. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE PAYMENTS ARE NOT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BUT HAVE BEEN MADE ON BEHALF OF KAPOOR FAM ILY, EXPENDITURE CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IF THE REVENUE SEEKS TO HOLD THAT THE AS SESSEE HAD MADE PAYMENT, HEAVY ONUS LIES UPON REVENUE TO PROVE TH E FACT OF PAYMENT BY BRINGING COGENT MATERIAL ON RECORD AND FOR TH IS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE DELHI HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. NARESH KHATTAR (HUF) REPORTED IN 26 1 ITR 664 (DEL) 8 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 669, DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. BAJRANG LAL BANSAL REPO RTED IN 335 ITR 572 (DEL) AND THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF K.P. VARGHESE VS. ITO, ERNAKULAM AND ANOTHER REPORTED IN 131 ITR 597 615 (SC). HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION IN T HE PRESENT CASE IS CALLED FOR. LD. D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEALS IS THE ADD ITIONS MADE U/S 69C OF THE ACT. AS FAR AS A.Y. 2006-07 AND 2007-08 A RE CONCERNED, THE ADDITION OF COMMISSION INCOME HAS BEEN MADE BY PRESUM ING THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD HAVE EARNED COMMISSION OF 2%. WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE COMMISSION AGENT AND THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE AFORESAID FINDIN GS OF LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY LD.A.R BEFORE US. F URTHER, ON THE OTHER HAND, IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF LD.A.R. THAT THE ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISE AND ALTERNATIVELY IF ANY ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE, THE SAME BE ESTIMATED AT A REASONABLE FIGURE A S THE PRESENT ESTIMATE OF 2% IS ON A HIGHER SIDE. THE AFORESAID SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY REVENUE. CONS IDERING THE ALTERNATIVE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE AND THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ADDITION OF COMMISSIO N OF RS.50,000/- (FOR A.Y. 2006-07) AND OF RS.70,000/- (FOR A.Y. 2007- 08) MADE WOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE THEREFORE DIRECT SO. THUS THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. 9 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 13. AS FAR AS THE ISSUE OF ADDITION U/S 69C FOR A.Y. 2010-1 1 IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY AO WHICH IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE OF THE EXPENDITURE BEING INCURRED IN CASH AND WHICH ARE DEBITED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. SE CTION 69C OF THE ACT PERTAINS TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND PROVIDE S THAT WHERE IN ANY FINANCIAL YEAR AN ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED ANY EXPEND ITURE AND HE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITUR E OR PART THEREOF, OR THE EXPLANATION, IF ANY OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT IN TH E OPINION OF THE AO SATISFACTORY, THE AMOUNT COVERED BY SUCH EXPE NDITURE OR PART THEREOF, WOULD BE DEEMED TO BE THE INCOME OF THE AS SESSEE FOR SUCH FINANCIAL YEAR. THUS, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT APPLICATION OF SEC.69C REQUIRES INCURRING OF EXPENDITURE FOR WHICH ASSESSEE OFFERED NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE EXPLANATION WHICH IS O FFERED IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY. IN THE PRESENT CASE, ASSESSEE HAS NO T CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF EXPENDITURE. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE ARE OF T HE VIEW THAT PROVISIONS OF SEC.69C ARE NOT ATTRACTED. WE ACCORDINGLY DIRECT THE DELETION OF ADDITION. THUS, THE GROUND IS ALLOWED. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006 -07 AND 2007-08 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND FOR A.Y. 2010-11 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THE 23 RD DAY OF JUNE, 2017. SD/- S D/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 23 RD JUNE, 2017. YAMINI 10 ITA NO.1587, 1588 & 1589/PUN/2013 AY.NO.2006-07, 2007-08 & 2010-11 )*!+,-,! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE. THE CIT-CENTRAL, PUNE. #$% &&'( , ) '( , / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %*+,/ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // - ./01 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ) '( , / ITAT, PUNE.