Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, V. M/s. Praj Industries Ltd., Pune

ITA 1601/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7441 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-09-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 07-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Loose papers; Document seized; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 14A; 147; 68; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE , , , BEFORE SHRI ANI L CHATURVEDI , AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / I TA NO. 1601 /PUN/20 15 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006 - 07 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE. ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. M/S. PRAJ INDUSTRIES LTD. PRAJ TOWER, 274 & 275/2, BHUMKAR CHOWK, HINJEWADI ROAD, PUNE - 411 057 PAN : AAAC P 6090Q / RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI A SSESSEE BY : SHRI PARESH SHAPARIA / DATE OF HEARING : 31.07.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22 .09.2017 / ORDER PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), PUNE - 11 DATED 30.09.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. 2 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE AS EMANATING FROM RECORDS ARE: A SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 03.04.2012. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , INCR IMINATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED . STATEMENT OF ONE ANIRUDDHA PHADKE , ASSOCIATE VICE - PRESIDENT (COMMERCIAL) OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS RECORDED ON 04.06.2012. IN RESPECT OF BLOCK PERIOD OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS STARTING FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007 - 08 TO 2012 - 13 , THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL IS IMMEDIATELY PRIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS COVERED UNDER SEARCH. THE DEPARTMENT ISSUED NOTICE U/S. 14 8 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 19.11.2012 AND INITIATED RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. DURING RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION ON TWO COUNTS: - I) DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A R.W.RULE 8D AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,61,638/ - II) ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FLOW OF RS. II) ADDITION U/S. 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF CASH FLOW OF RS. 1,10,00,000/ - 3. AGGRIEVED BY ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 21.03.2014 PASSED U/S. 147 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FILED APPEAL BEFORE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE IMPUGNED ORDER DELETED ADDITION OF RS.1,10,00,000/ - WITH RESPECT TO CASH INFLOW. NOW , THE DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEAL BEFORE TRIBUNAL. THE REVENUE IN APPEAL HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FALLEN IN ERROR BY RELYING UPON THE INTERPRETATION OF THE HONBLE SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER ON THE ENTRIES OF EXCEL SHEETS CONTAINING STATEMENTS OF CASH OUTFLOW AND CASH INFLOW FOR A.YS. 2007 - 08 TO 201 2 - 13 RATHER THAN ON THE 3 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 FACTS WHICH EMERGED FROM THE ENTRIES IN THE RECOVERED EXCELS SHEETS FOR THE IMPUGNED A.Y. 2006 - 07. 2) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FALLEN IN ERROR BY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE GROUND REGARDI NG THE CASH INFLOW AND OUTFLOW STATEMENT AS TRANSACTIONS ON BEHALF OF CUSTOMERS AND DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 CRS. FOR A.Y.2006 - 07 U/S. 68 OF INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 3) THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) MAY BE VACATED AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. 4) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER AMEND AND MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. SHRI AJAY MODI REPRESENTING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTED THAT INFORMATION WAS RETRIEVED FROM L APTOP OF ANIRUDDHA PHADKE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDING. AS PER INFORMATION RETRIEVED , TOTAL CASH INFLOW WAS MAINTAINED DATE WISE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13. THE TOTAL INFLOW OF CASH WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS.116,84,27,600/ - . SHRI ANIR UDDHA PHADKE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN DETAILS OF CASH INFLOW. HE ADMITTED THAT CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES AGAINST ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THERE W E RE CERTAIN ENTRIES AGAINST WHICH NO NARRATION WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE PURPORTEDLY ENTRIES AGAINST WHICH NO NARRATION WAS RECORDED. THE ASSESSEE PURPORTEDLY ACTED AS COURIER IN RE SPECT OF SUCH AMOUNT S . THE TOTAL RECEIPT UND ER THIS CATEGORY WAS RS. 17.24 C RORES OUT OF WHICH RS. 1.10 CRORES PERTAIN TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07. THE LD. DR POINTED THAT NO CONFIRMATION FROM THE PARTIES WERE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAI M. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTS THE THEORY OF COURIER AND MADE ADDITION OF THE AFORESAID UNACCOUNTED CASH U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION PRIMARILY ON THE GROUND THAT SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ACCEPTED THE ENTRIES, T HEREFORE, THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION SHOULD BE ACCEPTED BY DEPARTMENT AS WELL. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE CANNOT BE ACCEPTED AS THERE ARE SEVERAL CHINKS IN THE EXP LANATION. THE THEORY OF ASSESSEE ACTING AS COURIER DOES NO T FIT IN THE 4 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 FRAME OF FACTS. T HERE ARE NO COMMISSION CHARGES FOR TRANSACTING SUCH HUGE AMOUNT S . THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SEIZED PAPER GIVING DETAILS OF CASH INFLOW WAS RECORDED IN CODED W ORDS . THE SAME WERE INTERPRETED BY SHRI ANIRUDDHA PHADKE WHO HAD MAINTAINED THE STATEMENTS. THE LD. DR CONTENDED THAT THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS) HAS BRUSHED ASIDE ALL INCRIMINATING MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND HAS DELETE D THE ADDITION BY SOLELY PLACING RELIANCE ON THE OBSERVATIONS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI PARESH SHAPARIA APPEARING ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY DEFEND ING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS COURIER WAS ACCEPTED BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . ONCE T HE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS INTERPRETED THE TRANSACTIONS, THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT TAKE A CONTRARY VIEW. THE LD. AR IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: FOLLOWING DECISIONS: I) SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER REPORTED AS 204 ITR 616 (SC) II) COMMISSIONER OF INC OME - TAX (C) - III V / S. GOPAL GUPTA REPORTED AS 364 ITR 446 ( DELHI) 5.1 THE LD. AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS BELIEVED ONLY PART OF STATEMENT OF SHRI ANIRUDDHA PHADKE AND HAS REJECTED THE PART OF STATEMENT WHERE HE MENTIONED THAT THE ASSESSEE ACTED AS COURIER . IT IS A WELL SETTLED LAW THAT DEPARTMENT CANNOT BE SELECTIVE IN ACCEPTING A PART S OF STATEMENT/EVIDE NCE GATHERED DURING SURVEY TO MAKE ADDITION. EITHER THE ENTIRE STATEMENT/MATERIAL HAS TO BE ACCEPTED OR THE SAME HAS TO BE REJECTED IN TOTO . IN SUPPORT OF HIS SUBMISSIONS , THE LD. AR PLACED RELIANCE ON THE 5 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 DECISION OF THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. P.D. AB RAHAM ALIAS APPACHAN REPORTED AS 349 ITR 442. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY REPRESENTATIVE OF RIVAL SIDES AND HAVE PERUSED THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) D ELETED THE ADDITION BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7.2 IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO, AS DISCUSSED ABOVE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD ACCEPTED AS PARTICULAR INTERPRETATION OF THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED EXCELS SHEETS AFTER CONSIDERING THE STATEMENTS RECORDED DURING TH E SEARCH AND OTHER MATERIAL. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ENTRIES ON WHICH THE ADDITION IN THE PRESENT CASE IS BASED REPRESENTED CASH RECEIVED AND SPENT BY THE APPELLANT ON CUSTOMERS ACCOUNT. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY FURTHER MATERIAL OR IN FORMATION, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT HAVE OPTED FOR A DIFFERENT INTERPRETATION OF THE SAME ENTRIES. THE RECEIPTS OF THE SAME NATURE RECORDED IN THE EXCEL SHEETS TOTAL UP TO RS.17.24 CRORES. EXCLUDING THE AMOUNT OF RS.1.10 CRORES, THE BALANCE PERTAIN TO THE YEARS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE COMMISSION CHOSE NOT TO MAKE ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THESE ENTRIES. THE AO APPEARS TO BE SAYING THAT THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS MADE A MISTAKE. SUCH A FINDING, EVEN BY IMPLICATION ONLY, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. 7.3 THE NEXT ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE INFERENCES DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY ENQUIRY OR STATEMENT OR CORROBORATIVE FINDINGS. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ASST ORDER ITSELF THAT THE ONLY CORROBORATIVE FINDINGS. IT IS MENTIONED IN THE ASST ORDER ITSELF THAT THE ONLY STATEMENT RECORDED REGARDING THE CONTEN TS OF THE SEIZED EXCEL SHEETS IS THAT OF SHRI ANIRUDH PHADKE. SHRI PHADKE HAD EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTIONS AS CASH RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS TO BE SPENT ON THEIR ACCOUNT. THE RELEVANT PART OF THE STATEMENT IS REPRODUCED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON PAGE 5 OF HI S ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ACCEPTED THE STATEMENT TO THE EXTENT THAT THE SEIZED PAPER CONTAINS DETAILS OF CASH TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE DECODING OF THE FIGURES AND LETTERS DONE BY SHRI PHADKE. IF WE IGNORE THE STATE MENT AND ADMISSION OF SHRI PHADKE, THERE IS NO OTHER SUPPORTING MATERIAL TO SHOW THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE EXCEL SHEET PERTAIN TO CASH RECEIVED BACK AGAINST BOGUS PURCHASES ETC. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS TOTALLY SILENT ABOUT ANY ENQUIRY CONDUCTED FROM THE ALLE GED BOGUS SUPPLIERS OF GOODS. THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ASST ORDER TO CONCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE BOGUS OR THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED BACK CASH, FROM THE BOGUS SUPPLIERS. THE WHOLE CASE IS BASED ON THE APPELLANTS ADMISSION. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES THE ASS ESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING PART OF THE CONFESSIONARY STATEMENT GIVEN BY SHRI PHADKE AND THEN ASK THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH AN EXTERNAL CONFIRMATION OF WHAT SHRI PHADKE HAD STATED. 7.4 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO APPEARS TO BE BASED ON THE FOLLOWING ENTRIES IN SEIZED PAPERS AS UNDER: 13.2.06 1000 KHEMANI 29.03.06 10,000 C ROWN 7.5 THE AO HAS NOT EVEN REFERRED TO THE PARTICULAR ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED PAPERS ON WHICH HE HAS BASED HIS ADDITION. IF WE IGNORE THE CONFESSIONARY 6 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 STATEMENT OF SHRI PHADKE, THERE IS NOTHING ON THE RECORD TO CONCLUDE THAT 1000 MEANT 10,00,000/ AND 10000 MEANT 1,00,00,000/. WITHOU T S HRI PHADKE'S STATEMENT WE CANNOT SAY THAT THE FIGURES REPRESENT AMOUNTS RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS. THE AO IS APPARENTLY REL YING ON THE STATEMENT OF S HRI PHADKE TO DECODE THE WRITINGS BUT HE BELIEVES THE STATEMENT SELECTIVELY. THE ASSESSING OFFICER BELIEVES SHRI PHADKE WHEN HE SAYS THAT 50 MEANS 5,00,000/ BUT HE REFUSES TO BELIEVE HIM WHEN HE SAYS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED F ROM CUSTOMERS. THIS APPROACH CANNOT BE APPRECIATED. THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE KERALA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF P D ABRAHAM 349 ITR 442. THE GUJARAT HIGH COURT HAS ALSO HELD IN THE CASE OF MOULIK KUMAR K SHAH (307 ITR 137) THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED EXPLANATION REGARDING NATURE OF ENTRIES IN THE SEIZED PAPERS, THE BURDEN IS SHIFTED TO THE REVENUE IF IT WANTS TO SHOW THAT THE EXPLANATION IS FALSE. 7.6 THE CASH AS RECORDED IN THE EXCEL SHEET WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE SEARCH IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. THE EXCEL SHEETS CONTAIN DETAILS OF CASH OUTFLOW ALSO. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TOOK NOTE OF THIS FACT, BUT THE AO HAS IGNORED THE OUTFLOW OF CASH RECORDED IN THE EXCEL SHEETS. THUS, THE CONTENTS OF THE SEIZED MATERIAL ARE ALSO PARTLY BELIEVED AND PARTLY DISBELIEVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE APPELLANTS RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V/S. M. AJA BABU ( HYD - DATED 23.04.2014) I S WELL PLACED IN THIS REGARD. 7.7 THE SEIZED PAPERS ARE WRITTEN IN A CODED MANNER AND WITHOUT THE AID OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI PHADKE IT CANNOT BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ENTRIES REPRESENT CASH RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS. IF WE BELIEVE SHRI PHADKE'S STATEMENT TH ERE IS NO INCOME BE CAUSE THE CASH WAS RECEIVED ON BEHALF OF THE CUSTOMERS AND DISBURSED AS PER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS. IF WE DO NOT BELIEVE SHRI PHADKE'S STATEMENT THERE IS NO OTHER MATERIEL MENTIONED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER TO HOLD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED CASH FROM THE CUSTOMERS. THUS EITHER WAY THE ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE APPELLANT'S CASE. 7.8 THE THIRD CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 CAN NOT BE APPLIED IN THE CASE OF ENTRIES IN LOOSE PAPERS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH. I AM NOT AWARE OF ANY SUCH LEGAL PROVISION. APPLICABILITY OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 AND THE EXTENT OF THE BURDEN OF PROOF ON THE TAXPAYER DEPENDS ON THE FACTS OF E ACH CASE . THEREFORE NO GENERAL CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN IN THIS REGARD. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) REVEALS THAT ONE OF THE REASON FOR DELETING ADDITION IS THAT ONCE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION AN D HAS INTERPRETED THE DOCUMENTS, NO FURTHER INTERPRETATION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE IN RESPECT OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS BY THE DEPARTMENT . A PERUSAL OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE INCOME SETTLEMENT COMMISSION REVEALS THAT THE COMMISSION HAD SOUGHT REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER RULE 9 BEFORE GIVING ITS FINDINGS. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF 7 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 PROCEEDINGS BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS AT PAGE 52 TO 55 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND EXTRACT OF REPORT UNDER RULE 9 IS AT PAGE NO. 46 - 47 OF THE PAPER BOOK. OSTENSIBLY, THE COMMISSION AFTER ANALYZING DOCUMENTS OF RECORD, EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY ASSESSEE AND REPORT FROM COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX UNDER RULE 9 ACCEPTED THE THEORY OF ASSESSEE ACTING AS COURIER. 7. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRIYANS PRASAD JAIN VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER (SUPRA.) PROPOUNDED THAT WHERE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION NOT ONLY RELIED ON FINDINGS OF COMMISSION OF INQUIRY BUT ALSO GAVE SEVERAL REASONS IN SUPPORT OF ITS FINDINGS, IT CAN NOT BE SAID THAT FINDINGS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ARE BASED ON PURE GUESS WORK. IN APPEAL THE COURT WOULD NOT GO INTO QUESTION OF FACT OR REVIEW THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY COMMISSION. IN CIT VS. GOPAL GUPTA, THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HELD : 13. IT IS APPARENT THAT THE POWER OF INTERFERENCE UNDER ARTICLE 226 IS LIMITED. IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 CAN ONLY INTERFERE WITH THE IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS COURT UNDER ARTICLE 226 CAN ONLY INTERFERE WITH THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IF IT IS FOUND TO BE CON TRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND THAT EVEN IF THE COURT DISAGREES WITH AN INTERPRETATION PLACED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON A DOCUMENT, IT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE ITS VIEW IN PLACE OF THAT OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNLESS AND UNTIL THE INTERPRETATIO N GIVEN BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS CLEARLY ARBITRARY AND PERVERSE. 14. THE LAST DECISION RELIED UPON BY MR. TRIPATHI WAS THAT OF . IND - SWIFT LABORATORIES LTD. (SUPRA) IN WHICH THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED AS UNDER: - '22. AN ORDER PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION COULD BE INTERFERED WITH ONLY IF THE SAID ORDER IS FOUND TO BE CONTRARY TO ANY PROVISIONS OF THE ACT. SO FAR AS THE FINDINGS OF FACT RECORDED BY THE COMMISSION OR QUESTION OF FACTS ARE CONCERNED, THE SAME IS NOT OPEN FOR EXAMINATION EITHER BY T HE HIGH COURT OR BY THE SUPREME COURT. IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION CLEARLY INDICATES THAT THE SAID ORDER, PARTICULARLY, WITH REGARD TO THE IMPOSITION OF SIMPLE INTEREST @ 10% PER ANNUM WAS PASSED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVIS IONS OF RULE 14 BUT THE HIGH COURT WRONGLY INTERPRETED THE SAID RULE AND THEREBY ARRIVED AT AN ERRONEOUS FINDING. SO FAR AS THE SECOND ISSUE WITH RESPECT TO INTEREST ON RS. 50 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE SAME BEING A FACTUAL ISSUE SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN GONE INT O BY THE HIGH COURT EXERCISING THE WRIT JURISDICTION AND THE HIGH COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OWN OPINION AGAINST THE OPINION OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHEN THE SAME WAS NOT CHALLENGED ON MERITS.' (EMPHASIS SUPPLIED) 15. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS E VIDENT THAT THE SUPREME COURT OBSERVED THAT THE HIGH COURT OUGHT NOT TO GONE INTO A FACTUAL ISSUE WHILE EXERCISING WRIT JURISDICTION AND SHOULD NOT HAVE SUBSTITUTED ITS OPINION AGAINST THE OPINION OF 8 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. FROM ALL THESE DECISIONS IT I S ABUNDANTLY CLEAR THAT THE SCOPE OF REVIEW UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION INSOFAR AS AN ORDER PASSED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION UNDER SECTION 245 D (4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS CONCERNED, IS A VERY LIMITED ONE. THIS COURT CERTAINLY CANNOT SUBSTIT UTE ITS VIEW IN PLACE OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PARTICULARLY ON POINT OF INTERPRETATION OF A PARTICULAR DOCUMENT. INTERFERENCE CAN ONLY BE MADE IF THERE IS A FAULT IN THE DECISION MAKING PROCESS AND NOT WITH THE DECISION ITSELF. EVEN IF THIS COURT FEELS THAT IT WOULD HAVE ARRIVED AT A DIFFERENT DECISION, IT CANNOT INTERFERE WITH THE CONCLUSION ARRIVED AT BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BECAUSE THIS COURT DOES NOT SIT IN APPEAL OVER THE DECISION OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 8. A PERUSAL OF THE DECISIONS DISCUSSED ABOVE MAKES IT CLEAR THAT THE FINDS OF SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ON FACTS AND INTERPRETATION OF THE DOCUMENTS GIVEN BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION SHOULD NOT BE DISTURBED UNLESS THEY ARE ARBITRARY AND PERVERSE, ON THE FACE ITSELF. THUS, IN THE LIGHT O F THE ABOVE JUDGMENTS, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE VIEW TAKEN BY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX TO DELETE THE ADDITION. 9. WE FURTHER OBSERVE THAT THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ANIRUDDHA PHADKE, WHEREIN, HE HAS EXPLAINED THE BASIS OF STATEMENT OF ANIRUDDHA PHADKE, WHEREIN, HE HAS EXPLAINED THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN EXCEL SHEET RECOVERED FROM LAPTOP. IN THE SAME STATEMENT ANIRUDDHA PHADKE WHILE REPLYING TO ONE H AS STATED : THE SAID FUNDS ARE RECEIVED FROM CUSTOMERS FOR DISBURSEMENT ON THEIR BEHALF, AS PER THEIR INSTRUCTIONS, WHERE WE HAVE ACTED ONLY AS COURIERS.. THUS, THE ASSESSEE ACTING AS COURIER FOR ITS CUSTOMERS IS NOT A THEORY INTRODUCED AT A LATER STAGE BUT IS THE PART OF SAME STATEMENT ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE DEPARTMENT HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS. 1.10 CRORES. THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT ACCEPT OR REJECT THE STATE MENT IN PIECEMEAL TO MAKE ADDITION. THE DEPARTMENT SHOULD EITHER ACCEPT THE STATEMENT OR DISCARD THE SAME, IN TOTO. CHERRY PICKING OF THE SENTENCES/ TEXT FROM STATEMENT FOR MAKING ADDITIONS IS UNJUSTIFIED. IN HOLDING SO, WE DRAW SUPPORT FROM THE 9 ITA NO. 1601/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2006 - 07 DECISION OF CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ANIL NANDAKISHOR GOYAL VS. ASST. COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX IN ITA NO . 1256/PN/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 DECIDED ON 19.04.2013. 10. THUS, IN VIEW OF OUR ABOVE OBSERVATIONS, W E DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMIT Y IN THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN DELETING ADDITION. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPH O LD THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS ) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL OF DEPARTMENT. 11 . IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON FRIDAY , THE 22 ND DAY OF SEPTEMBER , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( / ANI L CHATURVEDI ) ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 22 ND SEPTEMBER , 2017 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS), PUNE - 11. 4. THE CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE . 5 . , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6 . / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, / PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE .