Ramchandra Nivruti Barure, Latur V. Income-tax Officer, Ward - 3, Latur

ITA 1724/PUN/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0727 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 03-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 14-07-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M K VERMA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Capital receipt
• Section: 56; 28

Judgement Text

SMC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, PUNE . , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM . / ITA NO.1724/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 RAMCHANDRA NIVRUTI BARURE, HARANGAL (BK), TALUKA AND DIST. LATUR 413531 PAN : BCIPB1170K . /APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, LATUR . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1725/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 HARISHCHANDRA NIVRUTI BARURE, HARANGAL (BK), TALUKA AND DIST. LATUR 413531 PAN : ASJPB7772P . /APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, LATUR . / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO.1726/PUN/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012-13 SANJAY NIVRUTI BARURE, HARANGAL (BK), TALUKA AND DIST. LATUR 413531 PAN : ASJPB7773P . /APPELLANT VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3, LATUR . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE (WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS) / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI M.K. VERMA / DATE OF HEARING : 01.10.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 03.10.2018 ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 2 / ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE 3 APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION FILED BY 3 DIFFEREN T ASSESSEES NAMELY (1) RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE; (2) HARISHCHA NDRA N. BARURE; AND (3) SANJAY B. BARURE INVOLVING COMMON A.Y. 2012 -13. THEY ARE FILED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-2, AURANGAB AD, COMMONLY DATED 01-05-2017. 2. IN THESE APPEALS, THE FACTS, ADDITIONS, ARGUMENTS, SUBMIS SIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DECISION OF AO/CIT(A) ARE IDENTICAL. THEREFORE , ALL THESE APPEALS ARE CLUBBED AND ADJUDICATED IN THIS COMPOSITE ORD ER. HOWEVER, WE SHALL FIRST PROCEED TO TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN RESPECT OF RAMCHANDRA N . BARURE FOR WANT OF FACTS AND ARGUMENTS AS A STANDARD ONE. ITA NO.1724/PUN/2017 MR. RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE A.Y. 2012-13 3. BRIEFLY STATED RELEVANT FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ISSUES INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND FILED THE RETURN OF I NCOME ON 21-11-2016 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,83,305/-. BEFORE T HIS AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.148 OF THE ACT ON 14-10-2015 FOR OPININ G THE CASH DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS IN LATUR AS CONCEALED INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AND HOWEVER, H E FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. CONSIDERING THE SAID SUBMISSIONS, THE RE-ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS COMPLETED DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME A T RS.41,55,425/-. AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.40,97,120/- ( I.E.50% O F THE INTEREST AND THE LAND COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE. IN THE PROCESS, AO INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIII) AND 5 6(2)(VI) OF ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 3 THE ACT. DURING THE RE-ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAME IS NOT TAXABLE RECEIPT AND THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS NOTHING BUT PART OF THE ENHANCED VALUE OF THE LAND EXEMPT FROM TAX AND REL IED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS. REJECTING THE SAME, THE AO TREATED THE AMO UNT OF RS.81,24,240/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INTEREST OF LAN D ACQUISITION PAYMENT. AO EXAMINED THE PROVISIONS WHICH PROVIDES FOR TA XATION OF SAID INCOME BY WAY OF INTEREST RECEIVED ON COMPENSATION O R ENHANCED COMPENSATION. THESE AMENDED PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(V III) OF THE ACT AND THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 145A(B) ARE BROUGHT INTO STATUTE W.E.F. 01-04-2010 BY THE FINANCE (NO.2) ACT, 2009. AO ALSO ANAL YSED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 23(1A), 28 AND 34 OF LAND ACQUISITION AC T, 1984 AND HELD THAT THESE AMOUNTS ARE CHARGEABLE TO INCOME T AX. AO ALSO ANALYSED THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM DAS (HUF) 224 CTR 522, MANJET SINGH (HUF) KAR TA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA 65 TAXMAN.COM 160, SUNDER LAL AND ANOTHER VS. UOI AND OTHERS VIDE CWP NO.2014 OF 2015, DAT ED 21-09- 2015 AND EVENTUALLY HELD AS UNDER : 12. DECISION : VIEWED IN THIS CONTEXT, IN SECTION 56(2)(VIII) OF T HE ACT, THE AIM, SCOPE AND OBJECT OF THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX UNDER THE HE AD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IS CLEARLY MENTIONED. THE WORDS ARE CLEAR AND UNAMBIGUOUS AND IF THERE IS NOTHING IN THE ACT DETRACTING FROM THE WIDTH OF THE SAID TERMS, IT IS CLEAR THAT, THE INTEREST RECEIVED ON E NHANCED COMPENSATION IS TAXABLE U/S.56(2)(VIII) OF THE ACT. AS THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT OFFERED THE INTEREST OF RS.81,94,240/- FOR TAXATION AND THE SAM E IS ADDED TO HIS TOTAL INCOME, SUBJECT TO THE DEDUCTION OF 50% AS PROVIDED U/S.57(IV) OF THE ACT. FURTHER, AS HE HAS CONCEALED THE PARTICULARS OF HIS INCOME AND ALSO NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME DELIBERATELY TO EVADE TH E TAX, PENAL PROCEEDINGS U/S.274 R.W.S.271(1)(C) ARE INITIATED SEPARATELY. 13. SUBJECT TO THESE REMARKS, THE TOTAL INCOME IS C OMPUTED AS UNDER : INCOME RETURNED RS.58,305 INTEREST ON LAND COMPENSATIONS RS.81,94,240 LESS : DEDUCTION @50% RS.40,97,120 TAXABLE INTEREST U/S.56(2)(VIII) RS.40,97,120 ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 4 ---------------------- TOTAL INCOME RS.41,55,425/- ---------------------- FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THIS IS A CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WHERE THE AMOUNT OF RS.81,94,240/- RECEIVED BY THE ASSES SEE CONSTITUTES INTEREST ON THE COMPENSATION OR ENHANCED COMPENSATION TAXABLE U/S.56(2)(VIII) OF THE ACT. SIMILARLY, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.35,84,468/- IN THE CASE OF MR.HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND RS.26,19,000/- IN THE CASE OF MR. SANJAY B. BARURE (50% OF THE INTEREST AND THE LAND COMPENSATION). 4. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFOR E THE CIT(A). ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE HIM STATING THAT ASSESSEE RECEIVED SUM OF RS.71,68,936/- AGAINST THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,86,75,746/- AND NOT RS.81,94,240/-. GIVING BREAK UP FOR SAID SUM OF RS.71,68,936/ -, ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT OUT O F THAT WORKS OUT TO RS.19,69,307/- ONLY AND THE INTEREST SEGMENTS AM OUNT WORKS OUT TO RS.51,99,629/-. ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENTS IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT AND SUB MITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE AO REQUIRES RECTIFICATION. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE ARGUED BEFORE THE CIT(A) ABOUT THE MEANING OF SOLATIUM PAYMENT, INTEREST AMOUNT ON EXCESS COMPENSATION AND COMPENSATION ETC. AND STATED FO R DELETION OF THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ON CONSIDERING THE ASSESS EES SUBMISSIONS AND CASE LAWS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE, T HE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO AND THE INVOKING OF THE PROVISION S OF SECTION 56(2)(VIII) OF THE ACT IN RESPECT OF AMOUNT OF INTEREST ON COMP ENSATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE U/S.28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION A CT. RELEVANT LINES FROM THE CONTENTS OF PARA NO.13 OF THE ORDER OF CIT(A) ARE EXTRAC TED HERE AS UNDER : ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 5 13. IN VIEW OF THE DECISIONS OF THE HONBLE APEX C OURT IN BIKRAM SINGH CASE (SUPRA) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT THE INTE REST RECEIVED ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION DETERMINED U/S. 28 TO 31 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS INCOME, AND A TAXABLE EVENT , MANJEET SINGH (HUF) CASE WHICH HAS BEEN APPROVED BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT AND BALASAHEB RAOSAHEB BIDWE AND OTHERS (SUPRA) CITED A BOVE, I HOLD THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AS SESSING OFFICER, WHEREBY COMPENSATION RECEIVED U/S.28 OF THE L.A. AC T WAS BROUGHT TO TAX IN TERMS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIII) OF THE I.T. ACT. H OWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT TREATED AS INTE REST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND AS STATED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN ASSESSMENT ORD ER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.81,94,240/- AS THE QUANTUM OF INTEREST RECEIVED WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE STATES THAT HE HAD RECEIVED ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.51,99,629/- AS INTEREST. THEREFORE , I DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE FACTS AND BRING THE CORRECT AMOUNT OF INTEREST TO TAX AS PER MY DECISION. FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE ADDITION, IN PRINCIPLE, AND HOWEVER, DIRECTED THE AO TO ADOPT THE CORRECT FIGURE AND FACTS AND CONFIRM THE TAXATION OF INTEREST INCOME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 56(2)(VIII) OF THE ACT. IN THE PROCESS, T HE CIT(A) RELIED HEAVILY ON THE APEX COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF BIKRAM SINGH VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR 224 ITR 551 FOR THE PROPOSITIO N THAT INTEREST RECEIVED ON THE DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION DETERMINED U/S.28 OR 31 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT CONSTITUTES TAXA BLE INCOME. HE ALSO MENTIONED THE SAID JUDGMENT, THE APEX COURT CON FIRMED THE OTHER JUDGMENTS DELIVERED IN THE CONTEXT OF MANJET SIN GH (HUF) KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA AND BALASAHEB RAOSAHEB B IDWE AND OTHERS VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA. 5. AGGRIEVED WITH THE SAME, ASSESSEE FILED THE PRESENT AP PEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : ON FACTS AND IN LAW & WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO EACH OT HER : 1. THE LD. AO ERRED IN TREATING THE AMOUNT OF RS.81 ,94,240/- RECEIVED BY ME U/S.28 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984 , AS INTEREST INSTEAD OF PART AND PARCEL OF CONSIDERATION. ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 6 1.1 AS THE PRIME ASSET DOES NOT FALL UNDER THE CATE GORY OF CAPITAL ASSET, THE LD. AO (AS WELL AS LD.CIT(A)) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE LEVIED TAX ON AMOUNT RECEIVED BY ME U/S.28 OF LAND ACQUISITION AC T, 1984. 2. THE LD. AO ERRED (LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING) IN TAXING THE INCOME WHICH WAS EFFECTIVELY NOT RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE. 3. THE ASSESSEE CRAVES THE LIBERTY TO ADD, ALTER OR AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR TO TAKE FRESH GROUND OF APPEAL AT THE TIME OF HEARING. AS EVIDENT FROM THE ABOVE, THE SOLITARY ARGUMENT OF THE A SSESSEE IS THAT THE SUM OF RS.81,94,240/- DOES NOT CONSTITUTE INTE REST INCOME IN ITS ENTIRETY AND THE SAME CONSTITUTES CONSIDERATION AND THE SAME IS IN THE NATURE OF CAPITAL ASSET. IN THIS REGARD, LD. COUNSEL FILE D THE FOLLOWING WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS : I. RELY OF PUNE ITAT DECISION IN CASE OF DNYANOBA SHAJ IRAO JADHAV V (2018) 169 ITD 291 (PUNE) (TRIB.) IN THIS DECISION, HON. PUNE TRIBUNAL, HAD CONSIDERE D ALL THE RELEVANT DECISIONS OF APEX COURT AND OTHER HIGH COURTS ON TH E SUBJECT INCLUDING LANDMARK DECISION OF BIKRAM SINGH & ORS. VS. LAND A CQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS , COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX. VS. GHANSHYAM ( HUF) 2009) 26 DTR (SC) 129) AND DECIDED THE ISSUE AS UNDER - 10 . THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) WHILE CONF IRMING THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE CASE OF ASSESSEE IS COVERED BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF B IKRAM SINGH & ORS. VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. (SUPRA) AS THE SA ID JUDGMENT IS DELIVERED BY LARGER BENCH AND PREVAILS OVER THE DEC ISION RENDERED IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GHANSHYAM (H UF) (SUPRA) WHICH IS THOUGH SUBSEQUENT IN TIME BUT IS RENDERED BY DIV ISION BENCH. WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) TO MAKE THE ADDITION. UNDISPUTEDLY, WHILE RENDERING TH E DECISION IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) ( SUPRA) THE JUDGMENT OF LARGER BENCH IN THE CASE OF BIKRAM SING H & ORS. VS. LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR & ORS. (SUPRA) WAS NOT CONSID ERED. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CONFLICT OF LAW LAID DOWN IN BOTH THE CASES . THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HAS CLEARLY MARKED THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S. 23(1A) AND 23(2) R.W.S. 28 OF THE L.A. ACT VIS-A-VIS INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF C OMPENSATION U/S. 34 OF THE L.A. ACT. THE LARGER BENCH OF HON ' B L E SUPREME COURT OF INDIA IN THE CASE OF BIKRAM SINGH & ORS. VS. LAND ACQUISI TION COLLECTOR & ORS . (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT THE INTEREST RECEIVED U/S. 34 OF THE ACT ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION IS A REVENUE RECEIPT AND IS ELIGIBLE TO TAX. BOTH THE JUDGMENTS RENDERED B THE HON'BLE APEX COURT HAV E HELD THAT PAYMENT OF INTEREST ON DELAYED PAYMENT OF COMPENSATION U/S. 34 OF THE L.A. ACT ARE LIABLE TO TAX UNDER THE PROVISIONIS OF INCOME T AX ACT. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF BINDING DECISION OF HON. PUNE TRIBUNAL, WE PRAY YOUR HONOR TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LD. A O. ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 7 FROM THE ABOVE, IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT CHOSE TO APPEAR BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT MERELY RELIED ON THE DECIS ION OF PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DNYANOBA SHAJIRAO JADHAV VS. ITO (SUPRA) WHICH IS RELEVANT FOR THE FOLLOWING PROPOSITION : INTEREST AWARDED U/S.28 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION AC T IS IN THE NATURE OF SOLATIUM AND AN INTEGRAL PART OF COMPENSATION AND R ECEIPT OF SAID COMPENSATION IS A CAPITAL RECEIPT WHEREAS, INTEREST AWARDED U/S.34 OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT IS ON ACCOUNT OF DELAYED PAYME NT OF COMPENSATION AND IS RECEIVE RECEIPT EXIGIBLE TO TAX. THEREFORE, ANY ASSESSEE COULD HAVE RECEIVED EITHER U/S.28 OF U/S.34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984. 6. LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE INTEREST U /S.28 IS TAXABLE UNDER SECTION 56 OF THE I.T. ACT AND PRAYED FOR CONFIRMING THE ORDERS OF AO/CIT(A). LD. DR RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING JUDGMENTS : 1. MANJET SINGH (HUF) KARTA MANJEET SINGH VS. UNION OF INDIA 65 TAXMAN.COM 160 (PUNJAB & HARYANA 2. CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) CIVIL APPEAL NO.13053/2017 , DATED 12-09-2017 3. SHIVAJIRAO S/O. DNYANOBA GHANWAT AND OTHERS VS. THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA AND OTHERS - WRIT PETITION NO.5402 OF 2013 AND OTHERS DATED 27-08-2013 6.1 REFERRING TO THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) (SUPRA) HE SUBMITTED THAT IN THE S AID JUDGMENT, THE HONBLE APEX COURT AFTER DEALING WITH THE J UDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE CONTEXT OF CIT VS. GHANSHYAM (HUF) HELD AS UNDER : RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE ALLO W THESE CIVIL APPEALS, SET ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE HIGH COURT AS ALSO THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AND HOLD THAT THE RESPONDENTS ARE LIABLE T O TAX ON THE ENHANCED AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE M DURING THE YEAR IN QUESTION. 7. I HAVE HEARD THE LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE AND THE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE OF TAXABILITY OF INTEREST INCOME. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT APPEARED BEFORE ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 8 THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO WAY TO KNOW THE BASIC FACTS RELA TING TO THE INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE IF THE SAME IS RECEIVED U/S.28 OR 34 OF THE LAND ACQUISITION ACT, 1984. AS SUCH, THERE ARE NO FAC TS AS TO WHAT IS THE INTEREST AMOUNT, WHAT IS THE COMPENSATION OR ENHA NCED COMPENSATION ETC. ASSESSEE NEVER FILED THE COPIES OF THE RELEVANT ORDERS DIRECTING THE PAYMENTS. NO DETAILS OF VARIOUS SECTIONS OF LAND ACQUISITION ACT (SUPRA) ARE AVAILABLE BEFORE ME. THE ORDERS OF AO/CIT(A) ARE SILENT ON THESE DETAILS/FACTS. FOR WANT OF FAC TS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE REQUIRES TO REVISIT THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER CONSIDERING NOT ONLY THE ORDER OF PUN E BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DNYANOBA SHAJIRAO JADHAV VS. ITO (SUPRA) BUT ALSO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT JUDGMENT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CHET RAM (HUF) (SUPRA) AND ANY OTHER LAW IN FORCE. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR ST ATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 1725 AND 1726/PUN/2017 MR. HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND MR. SANJAY N. BARURE -A.Y.2012-13 9. THE FACTS, ISSUES, DECISION OF AO/CIT(A), ASSESSEES SUBMIS SIONS AND THE ARGUMENTS OF LD. DR IN THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE SA ME. SINCE THE ISSUE IS REMANDED TO THE FILE OF AO IN THE CASE OF MR. RAMCH ANDRA N. BARURE, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THE GROUNDS IN THESE TW O APPEALS BEING IDENTICAL IN PRINCIPLE SHOULD ALSO BE REMANDED TO THE FILE OF A O. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES IN THE IR APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 10. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AR E ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 1724 TO 1726/PUN/2017 RAMCHANDRA N. BARURE, HARISHCHANDRA N. BARURE AND SANJAY N. BARURE 9 11. TO SUM UP, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 03 RD DAY OF OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; DATED : 03 RD OCTOBER, 2018. SATISH / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-2, AURANGABAD 4. / THE PR.CIT-2, AURANGABAD 5. , , SMC / DR SMC, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// SENIOR PRI VATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE