Anand Satishkumar Bhutada, Latur V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 1633/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9114 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-03-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 21-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Salary income
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 131; 27; 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.1633 AND 1634/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2006-07 AND 2009-10 ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA, 79-C, MARKET YARD, KAVA ROAD, LATUR 413 512. PAN : AIQPB0400M. . / APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL 1, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NOS.1635 AND 1636/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 AND 2006-07 SATISHKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA, 79-C, MARKET YARD, KAVA ROAD, LATUR 413 512. PAN : AERPB1452Q. . / APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL 1, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1637/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 KIRTIKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA, 79-C, MARKET YARD, KAVA ROAD, LATUR 413 512. PAN : ABIPB5299B. . / APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL 1, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK. REVENUE BY : SHRI AJAY MODI, JCIT. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THESE ARE THE FIVE APPEALS FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT RELATED TO EACH OTHER, ARE EMANATING OUT OF SEPARATE O RDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A) - 13, PUNE DT.06.10.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E., A.YS. 2005-06, 2006-07 AND 2009-10. 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT OUT OF THE FIVE APPEALS, THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1633/PU N/2015, ITA NO.1635/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO.1636/PUN/2015 ARE AG AINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A)-13 , PUNE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS BUT SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THE ABOVE THREE APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL EXCEPT FOR THE ASSESSMENT Y EARS AND THE AMOUNTS IN EACH OF THE YEARS, HIS ARGUMENTS WILL ALSO BE C OMMON AND THEREFORE THE THREE APPEALS CAN BE HEARD AND DISPO SED OF TOGETHER. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEALS IN ITA NOS.1634/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO.1637/PUN/2015 THOUGH OF DIFFERENT ASSESSEES BUT ARE ALSO IDENTICAL AND THEREFORE C AN BE CONSIDERED TOGETHER. LD. D.R. DID NOT OBJECT TO THE AFOR ESAID SUBMISSION OF LD.A.R. WE THEREFORE FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIE NCE FIRST PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE THREE APPEALS (ITA NO.1633/P UN/2015, ITA NO.1635/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO.1636/PUN/2015) OF THE ASSESSEE BY PROCEEDING WITH NARRATING THE FACTS IN ITA NO.1633/PUN/2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. / DATE OF HEARING : 21.02.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 16.03.2018 3 3.1. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING INCOME FRO M SHARE TRADING AND OTHER SOURCES. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 28.08.2008 IN BHUTADA GROUP OF CASES AT LATUR. THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WER E ALSO COVERED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. SINCE THE CASE WAS C OVERED BY SEARCH U/S 132 OF THE ACT, NOTICE U/S 153A WAS ISSUED T O ASSESSEE ON 13.07.2009 AND SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 153A, ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.08.2009 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.22,99,957/-. THE CASE WAS TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY AND THEREAFTER, ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.31.12.2010 AND THE TOTAL INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.63,55,120/-. ON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME DECLA RED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO VIDE ORDER DT.20.03.2013 LEVIED PENALTY OF RS.7,42,260/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE PENALTY ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.06.10.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-13/ITO CENTRAL -1, NASHIK/286/2015-16) GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSE E. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND : ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED HON. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEAL)-13, PUNE HAS ERR ED IN CONFIRMING PENALTY ON ALLEGED GROSS PROFIT ADDITION SUSTAINED BY CIT(A) OF RS.2,68,825/- PENALTY LEVIED THEREON U/S 271(1)(C) BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 4. SUBSEQUENTLY, ASSESSEE HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROU NDS WHICH READS AS UNDER : 1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE PENALTY ORDER PAS SED U/S 271(1)(C) BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID SINCE THERE IS NO PROPER 4 SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT O RDER. 2. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE IS SUED U/S 274 R.W.S. 271(1)(C) IS ALSO BAD IN LAW AND ACCORDINGLY , THE PENALTY LEVIED MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 5. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, BANK ACCOUNTS WITH SOLAPUR JANATA SAHAKARI BAN K IN RESPECT OF ARJUN TRADING COMPANY AND ANAND TRADING C OMPANY AND WITH SOLAPUR JANATA SAHAKARI BANK AND HDFC BANK IN RESPECT OF KAMAL AGRO INDUSTRIES WERE FOUND. PRIOR TO SEARCH , ASSESSEE HAD NOT DECLARED INCOME FROM BUSINESS UNDER THE NAME OF ARJUN TRADING COMPANY AND ANAND TRADING COMPANY. FROM PERUS AL OF THE BANK STATEMENTS, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE TOTAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THESE BANK ACCOUNTS WERE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.13,00,99,4 81/-. ON BEING CONFRONTED, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE IS NOT MAINT AINING BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FOR THESE TWO FIRMS AND AS SUCH THE EXACT AMOUNT OF TURNOVER IS UNASCERTAINABLE AND THAT THE GR OSS PROFITS IN SUCH TYPE OF BUSINESS WAS 0.50%. ASSESSEE OFFERED A SUM OF RS.10 LACS TOWARDS THE CAPITAL IN BUSINESS AND RS.90 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF PROFIT FROM THE BUSINESS FOR WHICH NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WE RE MAINTAINED. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEES CLAIM OF PROFIT PERCE NTAGE WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. HE NOTE D THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE HAD ADMITTED THE PROFIT PERCENTAGE IN BUSINESS TO BE AT 1.5%. HE THEREFORE CO NSIDERED THE PROFIT FROM THE ACTIVITY TO BE AT 1.5% AND ON THE BASIS OF THE TOTAL DEPOSITS IN THE BANK IN RESPECT OF BUSINESS OF RS.39,03,4 4,294/-, WORKED OUT THE PROFIT AT 1.5% I.E., RS.58,55,164/-. SINCE ASS ESSEE HAD SHOWN PROFIT OF RS.18 LACS IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, HE CONSIDERED THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.40,55,164/- TO BE THE PROFITS FROM THE BUSINESS CARRIED IN THE NAME OF KAMAL AGRO INDUS TRIES, 5 ANAND TRADING AND ARJUN TRADING. AGAINST THE QUANTUM A DDITION MADE BY AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO REDUCED THE GROSS PROFIT TO 0.53%. THEREAFTER, THE MATTE R WAS CARRIED BEFORE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN THE GROSS PROFIT WAS FURT HER REDUCED TO 0.45%. ON THE ADDITION OF RS.25,68,782/- (THAT WAS SUST AINED BY CIT(A)), AO VIDE PENALTY ORDER PASSED ON 20.03.2013, LEVIE D PENALTY OF RS.7,42,260/- U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD. CIT(A) , WHO VIDE ORDER DATED 06.10.2015 GRANTED PARTIAL RELIEF TO ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER FRAMED U/S 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THOUGH AO HAD RE CORDED THE SATISFACTION OF ASSESSEE FOR FILING OF INACCURATE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME BUT IN THE PENALTY ORDER, THE PENALTY WAS LEVIED FO R CONCEALMENT OF INCOME AND IN THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AO HAD GIVEN NOTICE FOR CONCEALING THE PARTICULARS OF IN COME OR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. HE THEREFORE, RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SAMSON PERINCHERY (ITA NO.1154 OF 2014 ORDER DT.05.01.2017 ), SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SHOW CAUSE NOT ICE TO ASSESSEE, PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) CANNOT BE LEVIED AND THEREFO RE URGED THAT PENALTY LEVIED BY AO BE DELETED. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPEC T TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. IN THE PRESENT CASE, PEN ALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AT RS.7,42,260/- ON ADDITIONS / DISALLOWANCES MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED INCOME OF RS.18 LACS OFFERED BY THE 6 ASSESSEE, GROSS PROFIT ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD.CIT(A) AT RS.2,68,825/- AND ON CHANGE OF HEAD OF INCOME AT RS.4,99,957 /-. IN THE PRESENT CASE, THE PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE ACT REVEALS THAT IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER, AO HAD RECORDED SATISFACTION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY ON ACCOUN T OF FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME, WHEREAS IN T HE PENALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, AO STATED T HAT THE PENALTY IS LEVIED FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT WHILE LEVYING PENALTY FOR CONCEALMENT, THE AO HAS TO RECORD SATISFACTION AND THEREAFTER COME TO A FINDING IN RESPECT OF ONE OF THE LIMBS, WHICH IS SPECIFIED UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE FIRST STEP IS TO RECORD SATISFACTION WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSM ENT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED ITS INCOME OR FURNIS HED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THEREAFTER, NOTICE U/S 27 4 READ WITH SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT IS TO BE ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEREAFTER HAS TO LEVY PENALTY UNDER SE CTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT FOR NON-SATISFACTION OF EITHER OF THE LIMBS . WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO C OME TO A FINDING AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS CONCEALED ITS INCO ME OR FURNISHED INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. THE HONBLE BOMB AY HIGH COURT IN CIT VS. SHRI SAMSON PERINCHERY IN ITA NO.115 4 OF 2014 WITH OTHER ITA NOS.953 OF 2014, 1097 OF 2014 AND 1 226 OF 2014, VIDE JUDGMENT DATED 05.01.2017 HELD THAT WHERE INITIA TION OF PENALTY IS ONE LIMB AND THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS ON OTHER LIMB, THEN IN THE ABSENCE OF PROPER SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSES SEE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN LEVY OF PENALTY. 8. IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS NOTED HEREINABOVE, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS RECORDED THE CASE T O BE OF 7 FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME BUT IN THE PE NALTY ORDER PASSED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT HE HAD LEVIED PENALTY ON ACCOUNT OF CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. CONSIDERING THE AFORESA ID FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SAMSON PERINCHERY (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE, THE BASIC CONDITION FOR LEVY OF PENALTY HAS NOT BEEN FULFILLED AND THAT THE PENALTY ORDER SUFFERS FROM NON-EXERCISING OF JUR ISDICTION POWER OF AO AND THEREFORE PENALTY ORDER CANNOT BE UPHE LD. WE ACCORDINGLY SET ASIDE THE PENALTY ORDER PASSED BY AO. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1633/PUN/2015 IS ALLOWED. 10. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES OF ASSESSEE I.E., SATISH KUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA IN ITA NOS.1635/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2005-06 AND ITA NO.1636/PUN/2 015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 AND THAT OF THE FACTS OF CASE OF ASSESSEE I.E., ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA IN ITA NO.1633/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 200 6-07 ARE IDENTICAL. WE HAVE HEREINABOVE, WHILE DECIDING THE APP EAL IN CASE OF ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA HAVE DECIDED THE APP EAL IN FAVOUR OF ASSESSEE. WE FOR SIMILAR REASONS SET ASIDE THE PENALTY ORDERS IN ITA NOS.1635/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO.1636/PUN/20 15. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS.1635/PUN/2 015 AND ITA NO.1636/PUN/2015 ARE ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NOS. 1635/PUN/2015 AND ITA NOS.1636/PUN/2015 ARE ALLOWED . 12. NOW WE TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO.1634/PUN /2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IN CASE OF ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA. 8 12.1. ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE HAVING INCOME FROM SALARY AND OTHER SOURCES. A SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF T HE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 28.08.2008 IN BHUTADA GROUP OF CASES AT LATUR. PURSUANT TO SEARCH, ASSESSEE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 17.08.2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.35,36,066/- WHICH INCLUDED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.29,12,725/- DECLARED DURING TH E COURSE OF SEARCH. ON THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.29,12,725 /- DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE, AO VIDE ORDER DT.06.01.2014 LEV IED PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT OF RS.2,91,972/-. AGGRIEV ED BY THE PENALTY ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A) WHO VIDE ORDER DT.06.10.2015 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-13/ITO CENTRAL-1, NASHIK/292/2015-16) CONFIRMED THE ACTION OF AO . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN AP PEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND : ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LE ARNED HONBLE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, (APPEAL)-13, PUNE HAS ER RED IN CONFIRMING IN PENALTY OF RS.2,91,272/- LEVIED U/S 2 71AAA BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 13. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT FOR GRANTING I MMUNITY FOR PENALTY U/S 271AAA, THREE CONDITIONS ARE REQUIRED TO BE SATISFIED NAMELY, (1) DECLARATION MADE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S 132(4) OF THE ACT (2) MANNER OF EARNING OF INCOME IS DISCLOSED (3) PAYMENT OF TAX WITH INTEREST IN RESPECT OF INCOME DISCLOSED. HE SUB MITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE A CT DID NOT DECLARE THE INCOME BUT DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME BEFORE ADIT, INVESTIGATION, AURANGABAD IN THE STATEMENT RECORD ED U/S 131(1) OF THE ACT. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CI T(A) HAS 9 RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OFFERED IN THE STAT EMENT RECORDED U/S 131(1) OF THE ACT CANNOT QUALIFY FOR IMMUNITY . HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO LEVY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. WE FIND THAT AO WHILE LEVYING PENALTY HAS NOTED THAT IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.29,12,720/- WAS ADM ITTED BY SHRI ASHOKKUMAR BHUTADA, FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE BUT NO DETAILS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME WERE GIVEN. THE DECLARATION WAS MAD E BY ASHOK KUMAR V. BHUTADA WHEREIN A LUMPSUM DECLARATION OF RS.6 CRO RES WAS MADE WITHOUT BIFURCATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME ASSES SEE WISE AND ASSESSMENT YEAR WISE. SUBSEQUENTLY, IN THE STATEMEN T RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT ON 26.11.2008 ASSESSEE MADE DISCLOS URE IN THE HANDS OF VARIOUS BUSINESS ENTITIES AND FAMILY MEMBERS. AO THEREFORE HELD THAT ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO SATISFY THE CO NDITIONS REQUIRED TO BE FULFILLED TO CLAIM IMMUNITY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. WE FURTHER FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GIVEN A FINDING THAT ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS OFFERED IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U /S 131 OF THE ACT AND NOT U/S 132 OF THE ACT AND THAT THE STAT EMENT RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT CANNOT QUALIFY FOR IMMUNITY OF PENALTY U/S 271AAA OF THE ACT. BEFORE US, NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLAC ED ON RECORD BY THE ASSESSEE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD .CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFER E WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1634/PUN/2015 IS DISMISSED. 10 16. NOW WE TAKE UP APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1637/PU N/2015 IN CASE OF KIRTIKUMAR VISHUNUDAS BHUTADA. 16.1. BEFORE US BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE ADMITTED THAT THE FACTS OF THE CASES OF ASSESSEE I.E., KRITIKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA IN IT A NOS.1637/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACTS OF CASE IN CASE OF ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUTADA IN ITA NO.1634/PUN/2015 FOR A.Y. 2009-10. WE HAVE HEREINABOVE, W HILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL IN CASE OF ANAND SATISHKUMAR BHUT ADA IN ITA NO.1634/PUN/2015 HAVE DISMISSED THE GROUNDS OF ASSE SSEE. WE FOR SIMILAR REASONS DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF ASSESSEE IN I TA NOS.1637/PUN/2015 ALSO. THUS, THE GROUNDS OF THE ASSES SEE IN ITA NOS.1637/PUN/2015 ARE DISMISSED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1637/PUN/2015 IS DISMISSED. 18. TO SUM UP, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1633/PUN/2015, ITA NO.1635/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO.1636/PUN/2015 ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF ASS ESSEE IN ITA NOS.1634/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO.1637/PUN/2015 ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 16 TH MARCH, 2018. SD/- SD /- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 16 TH MARCH, 2018. YAMINI 11 '#$%&'&$ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT (A)-13, PUNE / CIT(A) CONCERNED. 4. DGIT (INV), PUNE / CIT CONCERNED. 5. '#$ %%&',) &', / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; 6. $,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // /01%2&3 / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) &', / ITAT, PUNE