ACIT, Aurangabad V. Smt Anita G Pawar, Aurangabad

ITA 1785/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0756 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 69; 6; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , AM . / ITA NO S . 1781, 1782 & 1 783 /PN/20 1 2 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 6 - 07 , 2009 - 10 & 20 1 0 - 11 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AURANGABAD . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI GOVARDHAN S. PAWAR, PLOT NO.13 - 14, SA HYADRI HILLS, SHIVAJI NAGAR, GARKHEDA AREA, AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT PAN: ABFPP0880K . / ITA NOS. 178 5 & 1 78 6 /PN/201 2 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 200 6 - 07 & 2009 - 10 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRC LE, AURANGABAD . / APPELLANT VS. SMT. ANITA GOVARDHAN PAWAR, PLOT NO.13 - 14, SAHYADRI HILLS, SHIVAJI NAGAR, GARKHEDA AREA, AURANGABAD . / RESPONDENT PAN: A KTPP0531C / APPELLANT BY : SHRI P.S. NAIK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DATE OF HEARING : 0 8 . 1 2 .2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17 . 1 2 .2015 ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 2 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF APPEAL S , FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE RELATE TO CONNECTED ASSESSEE S ARE AGAINST SEPARATE RESPECTIVE ORDER S OF CIT (A), AURANGABAD , ALL DATED 11 . 0 6 .201 2 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 200 6 - 07 AND 20 0 9 - 1 0 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 153A OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . THE REVENUE IS ALSO IN APPEAL AGAINST ORDER OF CIT (A), AURANGABAD , DATED 11 . 06 .201 2 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT . 2. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS RELAT ING TO THE CONNE CTED ASSESSEE S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1 781 /PN/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CAS E, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADDED IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R . W . S 143(3) OF THE ACT, THEREBY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCOME COMPUTE D AS PER THE PROVISION OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT W OULD BE TOTAL INCOME WHICH INCLUDES THE INCOME COMPUTED AS PER THE PROVISION OF THE ACT TILL THE DALE OF SEARCH. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,985/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN ERRED IN DE LETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,52,985/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREBY FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS REDUNDANT. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON DECISIONS WHICH ARE DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE REFERENCE WAS MADE T O DVO UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT AND IN RELATION TO INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 B OF THE ACT. 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE AMEND ANY OF THE 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS, AS PER THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 3 4 . THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1 782 & 1783 /PN/2012 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING COMMON GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.7,36,613/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2 ) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P RODUCED ANY EVIDENCE REGARDING THE CLAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, THUS FAILING TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS AS PER SETTLED PROVISIONS OF LAW. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,96, 854/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN VALUATION OF THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE AO MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THEREBY F AILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE HIS RETURN OF INCOME AND THEREFORE REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IS REDUNDANT. 5 ) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON DECISIONS WHICH ARE DISTINGU ISHABLE FROM THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THE REFERENCE WAS MADE T O DVO UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT AND IN RELATION TO INVOKING PROVISIONS OF SECTION 69 B OF THE ACT. 6 ) THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, MODIFY, DE LETE AMEND ANY OF THE GROUNDS, AS PER THE CIRCUM STANCES OF THE CASE. ITA NO.1781/PN/2012 5 . THE CASE OF THE REVENUE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 BEFORE US IS AGAINST THE OBSERVATIONS OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT IN THE SUBSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE ADDITIONS MADE UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADDED. 6 . BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT AT TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,75,70,410/ - VIDE ORD ER DATED 31.12.2008. SUBSEQUENTLY, SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON PAWAR GROUP CASES AT AURANGABAD ON 19.01.2010. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARI NG TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,40,250/ - AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.9,50,000/ - . THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AT RS.1,77,23,395/ - BY ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 4 MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS.1,52,985/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF CONSTRUCT ION VALUE OF BUNGALOW. 7 . THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD AGGREGATED THE INCOME DETERMINED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT WITH THE ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT FRAMED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SINCE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2008 AND THE S EARCH ACTION WAS CONDUCTED ON 19.01.2010, HENCE, THE PROCEEDINGS FINALIZED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT STAND VALID AND DOES NOT ABATE. HOWEVER, SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD PREFERRED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE SAID ADDITION SHOULD BE DEALT WITH AS PER APPELLATE DECISION AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER. FURTHER, IT WAS OBSERVED THAT THE SAID ADDITION MADE IN ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT CANNOT BE ADDED IN SUBSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. SECTION 153A OF THE ACT. 8 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDING OF C IT(A). 9 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE ORDER OF CIT(A) NEEDS AMENDMENT AND COMPUTATION OF INCOME WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, START S FROM THE ASSESSED INCOME. 1 0 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY AGREED TO THE ABOVE SAID PROPOSITION. ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 5 1 1 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSMENT UNDER CONSIDERATION IS PURSUANT TO SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION CONDUCTE D UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 19.01.2010. PRIOR TO SEARCH ACTION, THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT ON 31.12.2008, UNDER WHICH CERTAIN ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND ASSESSED INCOME WA S DETERMINED AT RS.1,75,70,410/ - . THEREAFTER, THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED. HOWEVER, SINCE THE EARLIER ASSESSMENT DID NOT ABATE, THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS VALID. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES WHEN THE SU BSEQUENT ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS TO BE PASSED UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, THE STARTING POINT WOULD BE THE ASSESSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS POINTED OUT TO US THAT THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT IS PENDING FOR DISPOSAL AND THE SAME WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE US BEING ITA NO.1780/PN/2012. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER DATE AND THE NO.1780/PN/2012. HOWEVER, THE SAME HAS BEEN ADJOURNED TO ANOTHER DATE AND THE ISSUE IS STILL OP EN FOR ADJUDICATION. HOWEVER, WE MODIFY THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD AND HOLD THAT WHILE COMPLETING ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT, COMPUTATION OF INCOME HAS TO BE STARTED FROM THE INCOME ASSESSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF T HE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS THUS, ALLOWED. 1 2 . NOW, COMING TO THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE, WHICH IS AGAINST DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.1,52,985/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF DIF FERENCE IN VALUATION OF RESIDENTIAL HOUSE. THE CONNECTED ISSUE VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DISTRICT VALUATION OFFICER (IN SHORT D VO) WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, HENCE, THE SAME WAS NOT CORRECT. ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 6 1 3 . BRIEFLY, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INVESTMENT IN RESPECT OF BUNGALOW AT S.NO.4, MUSTAFABAD, BEED BY PASS ROAD, NEAR MIT COLLEGE, SATARA PA RISAR, AURANGABAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE A REFERENCE TO THE DVO TO DETERMINE THE VALUE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID BUNGALOW FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005 - 06 TO 2012 - 13. THERE WAS DIFFERENCE IN THE COST AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO FROM YEAR TO YEAR AND ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FROM ASSESSMENT YEARS 2006 - 07 TO 2012 - 13 ON ACCOUNT OF AFORESAID DIFFERENCE. FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR, THE ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,52,985/ - UNDER SECTION 6 9B OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUNGALOW. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE DIFFERENCE IN VALUE AS DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND AS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY 3.49% AND WAS ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATION BY THE DVO, WAS REJECTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 1 4 . THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REFERRED THE INVESTMENT FOR VALUATION WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY SPECIFIC DEFECT IN THE RECORDS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH RESPECT TO CONSTRUCTION OF BUNGALOW. THE CIT(A) RELYING ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SARGAM CINEMA VS. CIT (2011) 241 CTR (SC) 179, HELD THAT THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF HIGHER VALUE ADOPTED BY THE DVO, WITHOU T REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS UNJUSTIFIED. WITH REGARD TO THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUE, THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO WAS HIGHER BY 3.49 % OF THE COST SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE P UNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN RAHUL CONSTRUCT ION VS. DCIT (2010) 38 DTR 19, WHEREIN THE RATIO VIS - - VIS VALUATION AS REFERRED UNDER SECTION 50C(2) AND NOT UNDER SECTION 142A OF THE ACT , BUT THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL WAS APPLICABLE TO THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SAID CASE, IT WAS LAID DOWN THAT THE VALUATION INVOLVES AN ELEMENT OF ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 7 ESTIMATION AND IF THE DIFFERENCE WAS WITHIN 10%, THE VALUE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS TO BE ACCEPTED. APPLYING THE SAID PROPOSITION, THE CIT(A) DE LETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,52,985/ - . 1 5 . THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 1 6 . THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE WAS THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPO NSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT IN TIME AND WHERE THE REFERENCE WAS MADE TO THE DVO BEFORE FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 153A, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT NO SUCH REFERENCE COULD BE MA DE WITHOUT REJECTING BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN RESPECT OF SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER. 1 7 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND, 1 7 . THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HA ND, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN B Y THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT (SUPRA) AND THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 1 8 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRST ASPECT OF THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS WHETHER WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT COMPLIED WI TH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE REFERENCE TO THE DVO FOR VALUING THE CO NSTRUCTION IN THE IMMOVABLE PROPERTY, WITHOUT REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, IS THE SAID REFERENCE MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER INVALID? . THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SARGAM CIN E M A VS. CIT (SUPRA) HAS LAID DOWN THE PROPOSITION THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED AND REFERENCE MADE TO THE DVO, THEN THE SAME WAS UNJUSTIFIED. HOWEVER, FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE AT VARIANCE AND THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN SARGAM CINEMA (SUPRA) IS NOT ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 8 SQUARELY APPLICABLE. HOWEVER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE SECOND ASPECT OF THE ISSUE RAISED BEFORE US THA T IN CASES WHERE THE VALUE DETERMINED BY THE DVO AND THE INVESTMENT SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS AT VARIANCE WITHIN MARGIN OF 10%, THEN THE VALUE SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE MERITS TO BE ACCEPTED. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN RAHUL CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT (SUPRA) HA S LAID DOWN SIMILAR PROPOSITION AN D IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND MERIT IN THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS DISMISSED AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED. ITA NO.178 2 /PN/2012 1 9 . NOW, COMING TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO . 3 TO 5 RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009 - 10 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 4 RAISED IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 . APPLYING THE SAME RATIO ON IDENTICAL FACTS, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND ALLOW GROUNDS OF APPEA L NO.4 AND 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. REVENUE. 20 . NOW, COMING TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2, WHICH IS AGAINST THE REJECTION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2 1 . THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.19,05,141/ - . HOWEVER, BECAUSE OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE WAS EXCESSIVE AND THE SAME WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.7,87,500/ - AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 11,17,641/ - WAS CONSIDERED AS ASSESSEES INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 2 2 . THE CIT(A) ON THE OTHER HAND HAD ELABORATELY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE VIDE PARAS 6 TO 6.1 AND PARTLY ALLOWED THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE VIDE PARA 6.2 OF THE APPELLATE ORDER , WHICH IS NOT BEING REPRODUCED FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY . ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 9 2 3 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF CIT(A) AND IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AN D THE SAME ARE DISMISSED . ITA NO.178 3 /PN/2012 2 4 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED IN ITA NO.1782/PN/2012 AND FOLLOWING OUR REASONING IN THE SAID APPEAL, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 2 5 . SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 TO 5 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 3 TO 5 IN ITA NO.1782/PN/2012 AND FOLLOWING OUR REASONING IN THE SAID APPEAL, WE DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND ALLOW GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.4 AND 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. NO.4 AND 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.178 5 /PN/2012 2 6 . THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE SIMILAR TO GROUND S OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 4 IN ITA NO.1781/PN/2012 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, WE ALLOW THE GROUND S O F APPEAL NO.1 , 3 AND 4 AND DISMISS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. ITA NO.178 6 /PN/2012 2 7 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 5 RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE SIMILAR TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 5 IN ITA NO.178 2 /PN/2012 AND FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO, WE ALLOW THE ITA NO S. 1 781 TO 1 783 /PN/201 2 ITA NOS.1785 & 1786/PN/2012 SHRI GOVARDHAN S PAWAR & ANR 10 GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 AND 5 AND DISMISS THE GROUND S OF APPEAL NO. 1 TO 3 RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 2 8 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 17 TH DAY DE CEMBER , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; D ATED : 17 TH DECEMBER , 2015. GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / T HE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) , AURANGABAD ; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE CIT , CENTRAL, NAGPUR ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE