Satish Ramchandra Mundra, Pune V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 1682/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7733 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 23-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Tangible material
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 132

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . . . . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO. 1682/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA, FLAT NO.401, CLOVER COURT, OPP. GURU PRASAD SOCIETY, BUND GARDEN ROAD, PUNE 411 001 PAN : ABFPM7101E . / APPELLANT V/S D CIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE - 1(1), PUNE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE REVENUE BY : SHRI VIVEK AGGARWAL / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-11, PUNE, DATED 15-10-2015 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 5-06. 2. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN ISSUING NOTICE U/S.147 OF THE INCOME T AX ACT, 1961. SPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE FACTS THAT PROCEEDINGS WERE INITIATED A S A RESULT OF SEARCH ACTION U/S.132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT AND CORRECT PROCEEDINGS OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INITIATED U/S.153(A) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. IN VIEW OF THIS, YOUR APPELLANT PRAYS THAT P ROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ARE BAD IN LAW AND THEREFO RE NEEDS TO BE QUASHED AND ORDER PASSED IN CONSEQUENCES TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS NE EDS TO BE CANCELLED. / DATE OF HEARING :08.08.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 18.08.2017 2 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW THE LD.AO HAS ERRED IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.12 LAKHS U/S. 69B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 BY ALLEGING THAT THIS IS A CASH COMPONENT GIVE N BY THE APPELLANT BY DISREGARDING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY YOUR APPELL ANT. 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSES SEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 ,67,45,520/-. THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION ON THE ASSESSEE ON 21-06- 2011. THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION IS UNDISPUTEDLY OUTSIDE THE BLOCK OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SPECIFIED IN THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. CONS IDERING THE INCRIMINATING SEIZED MATERIAL RELEVANT TO THE A.Y. 2005-06, BEING THE SE VENTH ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE AO REOPENED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.1 47 OF THE ACT BASED ON THE TANGIBLE MATERIAL AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.12 LAKHS SOLELY BASED ON THE SAID MATERIAL. THE RE-ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.143( 3) READ WITH SECTION 147 OF THE ACT ON 28-02-2013. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE SAID A DDITION OF RS.12 LAKHS, BEING THE UNACCOUNTED CASH PAID TO THE BUILDER FOR PURCHA SE OF A FLAT. AGGRIEVED THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE GROUNDS EX TRACTED ABOVE. 4. REFERRING TO LEGAL GROUND RAISED VIDE GROUND NO. 1, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE A.Y. 2005-06 IS THE 7 TH ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME IS UNDISPUTEDLY OUTSIDE THE SAID BLOCK OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. ACCORDING TO THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE SAID ASSE SSMENT YEAR SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S.147 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE I S COVERED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD, AND BRI NGING OUR ATTENTION TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT RELATING TO ASSESSMENT IN CASE OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT, IN TH IS KIND OF SEARCH CASES, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 ARE SUBJE CTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. FOR THIS PROPOSITION, HE RELIED ON VARIOUS DECISIONS. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THESE DECISIONS ARE DECIDED NOT IN THE CONTEXT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. ACCORDING TO 3 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, THE ASSESSMENT F OR A.Y. 2005-06 SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN COMPLETED U/S.147 OF THE ACT ON THE REASO NING THAT THE SAID PROVISIONS ARE SUPERCEDED BY THE PROVISIONS OF SECT ION 153A OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF ALL ASSESSMENT YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS SEA RCHED U/S.132 OF THE ACT. THUS, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE PRAYS FOR QUASH ING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-02-2003. 5. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY AND DUTIFULLY ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND THE CIT(A). LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE PROPOSITION IS VALID IN SO FAR AS THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE CONCERNED AND NOT THE ASSESSME NT YEARS POSTERIOR OR ANTERIOR TO THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEARS OF SIX AS SPE CIFIED IN SECTION 153(B) OF THE ACT. AS PER LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, SINCE THE RESTRICTIONS PROVIDED IN RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT, ARE MET, THE A.Y. 2005-06 IS VALIDLY REOPENED. THEREFORE, THE GROUND NO.1 IS RE QUIRED TO BE DISMISSED. 6. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THE LEGAL ISSUE AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE DECISIONS CITED BY THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. TO START WITH, WE PERUSED THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. TO MAKE THIS ORDER SELF CONTAINED, WE PRO CEED TO EXTRACT RELEVANT PROVISION OF SECTION 153A AS UNDER : 153A [(1)] NOTWITHSTANDING ANYTHING CONTAINED IN S ECTION 139, SECTION 147, PERSON WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 13 2 OR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ANY ASSETS ARE REQUISITIONED UNDER SEC TION 132A AFTER THE 31 ST DAY OF MAY, 2003, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL (A) ISSUE NOTICE TO SUCH PERSON REQUIRING HIM TO FU RNISH WITHIN SUCH PERIOD, AS MAY BE SPECIFIED IN THE NOTICE, THE RETU RN OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SIX ASSESSME NT YEARS [AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS] REFERRED TO IN C LAUSE (B), IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM AND VERIFIED IN THE PRESCRIBED MANN ER AND SETTING FORTH SUCH OTHER PARTICULARS AS MAY BE PRESCRIBED AND THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT SHALL, SO FAR AS MAY BE, APPLY ACCORDINGLY AS IF SU CH RETURN WERE A RETURN REQUIRED TO BE FURNISHED UNDER SECTION 139; 4 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA (B) ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED OR REQUISITION IS MADE [ AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS] : PROVIDED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL ASSESS OR REASSESS THE TOTAL INCOME IN RESPECT OF EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN SUCH SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS [AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS] : PROVIDED FURTHER THAT ASSESSMENT OR REASSESSMENT, I F ANY, RELATING TO ANY ASSESSMENT YEAR FALLING WITHIN THE PERIOD OF SIX AS SESSMENT YEARS [ AND FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR OR YEARS] REFERRED TO IN T HIS [SUB-SECTION] PENDING ON THE DATE OF INITIATION OF THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OR MAKING OF REQUISITION UNDER SECTION 132A, AS THE CASE MAY BE, SHALL ABATE . PROVIDED. . . . . . . . . PROVIDED . . . . . . . . EXPLANATION 1 . . . . . EXPLANATION 2 . . . . . 7. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 147/148 ETC. ARE SUBJECTED TO OPERATION OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, THE SAME IS RESTRICTED TO VARIOUS CONDITIONS AND ON E SUCH CONDITION RELATES TO THE RESTRICTION OF NUMBER OF THE ASSESSMENTS AND REASSE SSMENTS OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS SPECIFIED IN CLAUSE (A) AND (B) AND THE PROVI SOS AND EXPLANATIONS TO SUB- SECTION (1) OF THIS SECTION. THUS, IN OUR VIEW, TH E OVERRIDING EFFECT OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT ON THE OPERAT ION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT IS NOT OPEN ENDED FOR ALL THE AS SESSMENT YEARS OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING ASSESSMENT YEARS OUTSIDE THE SAI D BLOCK. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL POSITION OF LAW THAT THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS PROVIDE D IN CLAUSE (A) AND (B) AND THE PROVISOS EXPLANATION 1 AND 2 TO SECTION 153A(1) OF THE ACT PREVAILS OVER THE GENERAL PROVISIONS MENTIONED IN SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, THE PROCEEDINGS RELATING TO THE ASSESSME NTS OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE CASES, WHICH ARE POSTERIOR OR ANTERIOR TO THE SAID BLOCK OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS STAND CONTROLLED BY THE NORMAL PROVISIONS OF SECTIO NS 147/148 OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE FULFILLMENT OF CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THESE PR OVISIONS. 8. FURTHER, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE A CT ARE SILENT ON THE MANNER ON THE UTILIZATION OF THE SEIZED MATERIALS/PERTAINI NG TO OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS IF 5 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA ANY, I.E., OTHER THAN THE BLOCK OF SIX ASSESSMENT Y EARS. THESE PROVISIONS DEALS WITH MAKING OF ASSESSMENTS/REASSESSMENTS OF BLOCK O F SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IN CASES OF SEARCH ONLY AND NOT THE OTHER ASSESSMENT Y EARS. THE SUMMARY OF THESE PROVISIONS DEALS WITH THE EFFECT OF THE SEARCH RESU LTS ON THE BLOCK OF SAID SIX YEARS BOTH CASES OF ABATED AND NON-ABATED ASSESSM ENTS. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A(1) (A) AND (B) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT S UPPORT THE SAID INTERPRETATIONS. AS SUCH, THESE PROVISIONS DO NOT PREVENT THE OPERATION OF THE OTHER PROVISIONS, SUCH AS SECTIONS 143/147/148 OF T HE ACT IN RESPECT OF THE OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS POSTERIOR OR ANTERIOR TO THE SAID BLOCK OF SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, WE FIND THAT THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, IF ANY, PERTAINING TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH IS SEIZED, THE SAME IS RIGHTFULLY AND VAL IDLY USED WHILE MAKING THE ASSESSMENT OF THE CURRENT ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER REG ULAR PROVISIONS OF SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PRIN CIPLES OF PARITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON AS TO WHY AND HOW THE INCRIMINATING MATE RIAL RELATING TO SEVENTH ASSESSMENT YEAR I.E., 2005-06 AS IN THIS CASE, IS N OT TO BE USED FOR MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S.147/148 OF THE ACT ONCE THE CONDITIO NS SPECIFIED IN THESE PROVISIONS ARE SATISFIED. OF COURSE, THE AO IS REQ UIRED TO ENSURE THE CONDITIONS SPECIFIED IN THESE PROVISIONS ARE MET SATISFACTORIL Y. THEREFORE, THE RESTRICTIONS IMPOSED ON THE OPERATION OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTI ON 147 OF THE ACT ARE VALID ONLY ON THE SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS MENTIONED IN SECTI ON 153(B) OF THE ACT AND NOT ON THE SEVENTH ASSESSMENT YEAR, I.E. 2005-06 AS IN THIS CASE. THEREFORE, ON FINDING THAT THE DECISION CITED BY THE ASSESSEES C OUNSEL ARE NOT ON THE SUBJECT UNDER CONSIDERATION, WE PROCEED TO DISMISS THE LEGA L GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO.1. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. REFERRING TO GROUND NO.2, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE AS SESSEE PROCEEDED TO NARRATE THE RELEVANT FACTS STATING THAT, IN THE COU RSE OF SAID SEARCH ACTION ON 21- 6 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA 06-2011, THE SEARCH TEAM LAID THEIR HANDS ON SOME I NCRIMINATING PAPERS, COPIES OF WHICH ARE PLACED AT PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE PAPER B OOK, PERTAINING TO THE PAYMENT OF UNACCOUNTED CASH TO M/S. LOKHANDWALA BUI LDERS. ASSESSEE PURCHASED A FLAT FROM THE SAID BUILDERS IN THIS YEAR UNDER CO NSIDERTATION. 10. BACKGROUND FACTS OF THE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED A 2BHK FLAT FROM M/S. LOKHANDWALA BUILDER S. THE ASSESSEE GOT ALLOTMENT OF THE SAID FLAT VIDE LETTER DT. 28-06-20 04. IN THE CONTEXT OF THE SAID FLAT WHICH HAS AREA OF 1250 SQ.FT. IN 16 TH FLOOR, WESTERLY FACING FLAT, AS PER THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK, THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF THE FLAT IS TOTALLED AT RS.37.50 LAKHS. IT DOES NOT INCLUDE CA R PARKING. ON THIS PAGE, THE VALUE OF THE FLAT, AREA OF THE FLAT, ADDRESS OF THE FLAT, MODE AND MANNER OF PAYMENT AND THE PURCHASE VALUE ARE MENTIONED. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS, THE CONTENTS OF SAID PAGE 7 IS SCANNED AND INSERTED AS UNDER. THE TRANSCRIPTION OF THESE EXTRACTS ARE GIVEN IN THE BOXES LOCATED AD JACENT TO THE SAME. MR. MUNDRA 28/5/04 LOKHANDWALA 100% DOWN PAYMENT 1250 SQFT. * 16 TH FLR 1250 X 3000/PER SQFT. 12 37,50,000/- 25.5 NO CAR PARKING 35.5/ POSSESSION 3 TO 3 YRS NOTE : 1250 SQFT (APPROX AREA) FLOOR UP OR DOWN (ONE/TWO FLOORS) WESTERLY FACING PLOT SD/- 7 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA 11. FURTHER, BRINGING OUR ATTENTION PAGE 8 OF THE P APER BOOK, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE MENTIONED THAT THIS PAGE TALKS ABOUT R S.12 LAKHS RECEIVED BY M/S. LOKHANDWALAL BUILDERS ON 28-06-2004. THE EXPRESSIO N RECD APPEARING ON THE PAGE 8 REFERS TO THE ENGLISH WORD, I.E., RECEIVED AND IT REFLECTS THE FACT THE AMOUNT ACTUALLY CHANGED HANDS BETWEEN THE SELLER, I .E. M/S. LOKHANDWALA BUILDERS AND THE BUYER, THE ASSSESSEE. FOR THE SAK E OF COMPLETENESS, THE SAID PAGE 8 IS ALSO SCANNED AND EXTRACTED AS UNDER: 12. LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ARGUED THAT THE CONTENTS ON THESE PAGES ARE MERE DUMB FIGURES AND THE ASSESS EE NEVER PAID THE SUM OF RS.12 LAKHS AS ALLEGED BY THE REVENUE. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTAT IVE FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID INCRIMINATI NG PAPERS (PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK) ARE SELF-EXPLANATORY, AND THEREFORE , THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN TOTO. LOKHANDWALA AN ISO 9001 : 2000 COMPANY RECD 12/- LAKHS 28/6/04 SD/- W-1 SD/- W-2 SD/- 8 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA 14. WE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES ON THIS ISSUE OF ADDI TION OF RS.12 LAKHS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE TO M/S. LOKHANDWALA BUILDERS IN CONNEC TION WITH THE PURCHASE OF FLAT BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACTS RELATING TO THE AL LOTMENT OF THE SAID FLAT ARE GIVEN AT PAGE 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE TOTAL COST OF THE FLAT IS RS.37.5 LAKHS. IT HAS TWO SEGMENTS NAMELY, RS.25.5 LAKHS AND RS.12 LAKHS. SO FAR AS THE AMOUNT OF RS.25.5 LAKHS IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT BEARING NO.872075 DATED 24-06-2004 DRAWN ON U NION BANK OF INDIA, MUMBAI. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THIS PART OF THE CO NTENTS ON SEIZED PAPER. AS THE FIGURE OF RS.25.50 LAKHS IS CLEARLY MENTIONED A T PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAME CONSTITUTES AN ACCOUNTED TRANSACTIO N. 15. HOWEVER, WHEN IT COMES TO THE OTHER SUM OF RS.1 2 LAKHS MENTIONED IN THE DOCUMENT, THE SAME IS PAYABLE BY THE ASSESSEE AS ON 28-06-2004 (RELIANCE IS PLACED ON CONTENTS OF PAGE 7 OF THE PAPER BOOK) AND THE SAME IS ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY M/S. LOKHANDWALA BUILDERS (RELIANCE I S PLACED ON PAGE 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THESE TWO PAGES INDICATE THAT THE CON TENTS ON THESE TWO DOCUMENTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE INTERPRETED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THIS AMOUNT OF RS.12 LAKHS IS NOT AC COUNTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS THE SAME IS PAID IN CASH, AS HELD BY THE AO. IN OUR VIEW, THE SAME CONSTITUTES A PLAUSIBLE INFERENCE. IT IS RELEVANT TO MENTION THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS SHOULD BE INTERPRETED AS-A-WHOLE. IT IS NOT A SUSTAINABLE INTERPRETATION OF SUCH SEIZED DOCUMENT THAT SOME OF THE CONTENTS OF A PAGE ARE TRUE WHILE OTHERS ARE UNTRUE. THEREFORE , THE SAID LEGAL PROPOSITION OF INTERPRETING THE CONTENTS HARMONIOUSLY LEADS US TO THE FIRM BELIEF THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS INDEED PAID A SUM OF RS.12 LAKHS OUT O F HIS UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO M/S. LOKHANDWALA BUILDERS ON 28-05-2004 IN CONNECTI ON WITH THE PURCHASE OF FLAT AT 16 TH FLOOR. THEREFORE, THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE AO IN PARA 5 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 28-02-2013 AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE THE 9 ITA NO.1682/PUN/2015 SATISH RAMCHANDRA MUNDRA DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 7 OF HIS ORDER, IN OUR OPI NION ARE SUSTAINABLE. THE RECEIPT OF CASE OF RS.12 LAKHS BY THE COMPANY, THE SELLER OF THE FLAT IS EVIDENT CONSIDERING THE CORRESPONDENCE SEIZED BY THE REVENU E. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS DO NOT PERTAIN TO HIM . IN THE BACKGROUND OF THESE INCRIMINATING PAPERS AND DETAILS, THE ARGUMEN T OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE SUM OF RS.12 LAKHS OF CASE PAYMENTS TO THE COMPANY STILL PAYABLE ON THOSE DATES AND IT WAS NEVER PAID, AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT BE SUSTAINED, ST ANDS DISMISSED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE CONFIRMED IN FULL AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 16. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 18 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- (VIKAS AWASTHY) (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) /JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 18 TH AUGUST, 2017. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE 1. # / THE APPELLANT 2. $%# / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. THE CIT (A) - 11, PUNE THE CIT-11, PUNE 5 . $ , , B BENCH PUNE; 6 . , / GUARD FILE.