ITO, Nashik V. Shri Shailendra B Agrawal, Jalgaon

ITA 1827/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8531 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 10-09-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Block assessment; Revised return
• Section: 153A; 27

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1825 TO 1828/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004-05 TO 2007-08) ITO CENTRAL-2, NASHIK .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI SHAILENDRA B. AGRAWAL, C/O. SITA INDUSTRIES, J-79, MIDC AREA, JALGAON PAN NO. AAKPA2311E .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SMT. M.S.VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 02-12-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-12-2014 ORDER PER BENCH : THE ABOVE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER DATED 21-06-2012 OF THE CI T(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05 TO 2007 -08 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TA KEN BY THE REVENUE IN ALL THESE APPEALS, THEREFORE, FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE, THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DIS POSED OF IN THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1825/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND DERIVES INCOME FROM BUSINESS, I.E. I NTEREST FROM FIRM 2 AS A PARTNER AND DIVIDEND INCOME. THE ORIGINAL RET URN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) OF THE I.T. ACT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,94,132/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTI ON U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CONDUCTED IN THE SAHAYOG GROUP ON 22-1 1-2007 DURING WHICH THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CASES OF M/S. SAHAYOG GROUP WERE CENTRALIZED AND THEREAFTER NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE I .T. ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE, T HE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE RETURN FOR A.Y. 2004-05 ON 26-06-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,79,132/-. THIS RETURN WAS SUBSEQUEN TLY REVISED ON 27-07-2009 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.19,79,132/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE REQUISITE DETAILS FROM TIME TO TIME ON THE BASI S OF THE NOTICES ISSUED U/S.143(2) AND 142(1). SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE AS SESSEE DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 9,79,132/-. 2.1 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PREFER ANY APPEAL BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A) SINCE THE RETURNED INCOME WAS ACCEPTED. SUBSEQUENT LY, THE AO INITIATED PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. HE OBSERVED THAT AS AGAINST THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF RS. 3,94,132/- FILED U/S.139(1), THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED A RETURN SHOWING INCOME OF RS.19,79,132/- BY OFFERING ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS. 15,85,000/-. THIS ACCORDING TO THE AO WAS DUE TO THE SEARCH ACTI ON CONDUCTED U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT. HE, THEREFORE, ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE PENALTY U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T ACT SHOULD NOT BE LEVIED. REJECTING THE VARIOUS EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND DISTINGUISHING THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE H IM, THE AO LEVIED 3 PENALTY OF RS.5,23,050/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 BEING THE MINIMUM PENALTY OF 100% ON THE TAX SOUGHT TO BE EVADED. (S IMILAR PENALTY OF RS.9,727/- FOR A.Y. 2005-06, RS.81,402/- FOR A.Y. 2 006-07 AND RS.3,35,282/- FOR A.Y. 2007-08 WERE ALSO LEVIED). 3. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS A PARTNER IN THE FIRM M/S. SITA I NDUSTRIES, JALGAON. HE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 18-10-2005 DEC LARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,94,132/-. THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WERE SEARCHED U/S.132 OF THE ACT ON 22-11-2007 . NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED U/S.153A IS NO T VALID. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 30-11-2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCO ME AT RS.4,79,132/-. HOWEVER, INADVERTENTLY, THE ASSESSE E INCLUDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.15 LAKHS BEING THE AMOUNT INVESTED IN FD WITH JRKD, A CREDIT COOPERATIVE SOCIETY, JALGAON IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED FOR A.Y. 2005-06 U/S.153A OF THE ACT I NSTEAD OF THE A.Y. 2004-05. THE SAID ERROR WAS RECTIFIED BY FILI NG SECOND RETURN U/S.153A OF THE ACT ON 27-07-2009 DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME AT RS.19,19,132/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05. IT WAS ARGUED THAT ALL EARLIER PROCEEDINGS/MATTERS AND THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCO ME GOT ABATED ONCE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A WERE COMMENCED AND CONSEQ UENTLY DEFAULT, IF ANY, COMMITTED WITH REFERENCE TO RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S.153A ALONE WAS RELEVANT. IT WAS ARGUED THAT TH E AO IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.153A HAS ACCEPTED THE RETURN OF INCOME I N TOTO. THEREFORE, NO DEFAULT COULD BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN CO MMITTED WITHIN 4 THE MEANING OF SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. FURTHER, RELEVANT SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DID NOT SPECIFY THE EXACT NATURE OF ALLEGED DEFAULT, I.E., WHETHER FOR CONCEALMENT OF INCOME OR FOR FURNISHING OF INACCURATE PARTICULARS AND THEREFORE SUCH PENALTY O RDER MUST BE HELD TO BE BAD IN LAW. VARIOUS DECISIONS WERE ALSO RELI ED ON BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A). 4. BASED ON ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WHILE DOING SO, HE OBSERVED THAT IN THE IMPUGNED CASE NO MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE IS INVOLVED. IT IS ONLY THE INVESTMENT IN FDR AS ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AND INTEREST ON FDRS FOR A.Y. 2005-06 TO 2007-08 AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. THERE IS NO DIRECT OR INDIRECT LINKAGE BRO UGHT ON RECORD WITH REFERENCE TO ANY OF THE SPECIFIED SEIZED MATER IALS SO AS TO ESTABLISH THE CHARGE FOR WHICH THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED. THEREFORE, HE HELD THAT EXPLANATION 5A TO PROVISION S OF SECTION 271(1)(C) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE CASE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED TO TAX THE INVESTMENT IN FDR OF RS.15,85,00 0/- FOR A.Y. 2004-05 AS ADDITIONAL INCOME TO TAX ONLY TO BUY PEA CE OF MIND. IN SUBSEQUENT YEARS, HE HAS OFFERED TO TAX THE INTERES T INCOME ON SUCH FDR AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO PA ID THE TAXES. HE, THEREFORE, WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE EXPLANAT ION OF THE ASSESSEE IS PLAUSIBLE AND HENCE BONAFIDE AND THE SA ID EXPLANATION HAS NOT BEEN FOUND TO BE FALSE. RELYING ON VARIOUS DECISIONS HE DELETED THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T . ACT. 5 5. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NASIK ERRED IN DELETING THE PE NALTY OF RS.5,23,050/- LEVIED UNDER SECTION 271 (1)(C) OF THE INCOME-TAX 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NASIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THA T THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FDR WAS OFFERED TO TAX ONLY AFTER THE SEARCH ACTION AND THEREFORE IS NOT VOLUNTARY DISCLOSURE . 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-I, NASIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE SETTLED POSITION OF LAW THAT IS THE DEPARTMENT IS IN POSSESSION OF INCRIMI NATING EVIDENCE AND DISCLOSURE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH EVIDENCE I N THE REVISED RETURN CAN BE CONSIDERED CONCEALMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF LEVYING PENALTY UNDER SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, MODIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, IF CONSIDERED NECESSARY SUBSEQUENTLY. 5. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET R EQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF THE FOLLOWING NEW ALTERNATE PLEA TO SU PPORT THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) : THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT THE PENALTY LEVIED U/S. 27 1(1)(C) IS INVALID IN LAW SINCE THE ASST. ORDER PASSED U/S 153 A IS NULL AND VOID ON THE GROUND THAT NO SEARCH WARRANT IN THE NAME OF THE AS SESSEE AND HENCE, NO SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE AND ACCOR DINGLY, THERE WAS NO JURISDICTION WITH THE LEARNED A.O. TO PASS THE O RDER U/S. 153A FOR THIS YEAR. 6.1 RELYING ON THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH OF T HE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJ SURI VS. ADDL.CIT REPORTED IN 9 8 ITD 187, HE SUBMITTED THAT AN ADDITIONAL GROUND REGARDING VALID ITY OF ASSESSMENT WHICH INVOLVES THE PURE LEGAL QUESTION N OT INVOLVING ANY INVESTIGATION INTO FACTS CAN BE ADMITTED FOR DE CISION IN APPEAL AGAINST PENALTY. REFERRING TO THE SAID DECISION HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION US/.132 IN THE NAME OF 6 THE ASSESSEE, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT BECOMES VOID AB- INITIO AND THEREFORE, THE PENALTY LEVIED CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. REFERRING TO THE STATEMENT OF FACTS FILED BY THE REVENUE, HE DREW TH E ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO POINT NOS. 4 AND 5 WHICH READS AS UNDER : 4. NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY OBJECTED TO THE VALIDI TY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A COMMENCED AGAINST HIM. 6.2 REFERRING TO PARA 6 (PAGE 2) OF THE CIT(A)S OR DER HE AGAIN DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE CIT(A) WHERE IT WAS MENTIONED AS UN DER : 6.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6.3 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDIC ATED THIS ISSUE ALTHOUGH A SPECIFIC GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE H IM IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.6 IN FORM NO.35 WHICH READS AS UNDER : THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT WHICH WERE BAD IN LAW , CANNOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL AND AS SUCH LEVY OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE ALL THE FACTS ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND NO FRESH INVESTIGATION IS REQUIRED, THEREFORE, THE ENT IRE ASSESSMENT ORDER BECOMES VOID AB-INITIO AND THEREFORE THE PENALTY LE VIED BY THE AO CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 7. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OBJ ECTED TO THE ABOVE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TR IBUNAL IN THE 7 CASE OF ACIT VS. SHRI RAGHAV BAHL VIDE IT(SS)A NO.4 8/DEL./2007 ORDER DATED 15-1-2010 FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 1991-92 TO 2001-02 AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE DELHI BENCH O F THE TRIBUNAL HAS REJECTED SUCH CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REJOINDE R SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF SHRI RAGHAV BAHL H AS NOT CHALLENGED THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION IN QUANTUM APPEAL AN D THE SAME HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, IT WAS HEL D THAT ONCE THE ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION HAS BEEN UPHELD BY THE T RIBUNAL IN QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS, THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN A SUB SEQUENT PROCEEDINGS, I.E., IN PENALTY PROCEEDINGS, CANNOT PASS AN ORDER HOLDING THAT ORDER PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL EARLIER W AS A WRONG ORDER AND ASSUMPTION OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO IN FRAMING ASSESSMENT U/S.158BD WAS BAD IN LAW. HOWEVER, IN THE INSTANT CASE, THERE IS NO SUCH OCCASION FOR THE ASSESSEE TO CHALLENGE THE VAL IDITY OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IN APPEAL SINCE THE RETURNED INCOME HAS BEEN ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, A SPECIFIC GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT (A) ON THIS ISSUE AND HE IS SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE FOR WHICH HE HAS FILED THE GROUND AS A RESPONDENT. 8.1 THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B. R. BAMASI VS. CIT REPORTED IN 83 ITR 223 HAS HELD THAT THE TR IBUNAL CAN PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO TAKE A NEW GROUND BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DURING ARGUMENT IN ANSWER TO AN APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENU E. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ALTERNATE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IS AD MITTED AS IT DOES 8 NOT REQUIRE ANY FRESH INVESTIGATION OF FACTS AND TH E ISSUE IS A PURELY LEGAL ONE. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPE R BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED TH E VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139(1) DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,94,132/-. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A, HE FILED THE RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,79,132/- ON 26-06-20 09 WHICH WAS REVISED TO RS.19,79,132/- ON 27-07-2009. WE FIND T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ACCEPTED THE INCOME OF RS.19,79,132/- BUT L EVIED PENALTY OF RS.5,23,050/-U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. WE FIN D THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE PENALTY SO LEVIED U/S.271(1)(C) OF THE I.T. ACT. 9.1 IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSES SEE THAT A SPECIFIC GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE LD.CIT(A) WHIC H REMAINED UNADJUDICATED. WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN GROU ND OF APPEAL NO.6 BEFORE CIT(A) AS PER FORM NO.35 AND WHICH REA DS AS UNDER : THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A OF THE ACT WHICH WERE BAD IN LAW , CANNOT BE TAKEN AS LEGAL AND AS SUCH LEVY OF PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN LAW. 9.2 WE FURTHER FIND POINT NO.4 AND 5 OF THE STATEME NT OF FACTS FILED BEFORE LD.CIT(A) READS AS UNDER : 4. NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE APPELLANT. 5. THE APPELLANT ACCORDINGLY OBJECTED TO THE VALIDI TY OF THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.153A COMMENCED AGAINST HIM. 9 9.3 SIMILARLY, IN THE SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE LD.CIT (A), THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO STATED THAT NO WARRANT OF AUTHORI ZATION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF VALIDITY OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS DUE TO NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IS SILENT. 9.4 WE FIND THE DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DHIRAJ SURI (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT A SEARCH U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT IS PERSON SPECIFIC AND NOT PREMISES SPECIFIC. THEREFORE, IT FOLLOWS THAT IF THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST WHOM THE BLOCK ASSESSM ENT HAS BEEN MADE, DOES NOT FIGURE IN THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATI ON ISSUED U/S.132, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT WOULD BE UNAUTHORIZED, VOID AB -INITIO. IF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ITSELF IS WITHOUT JURISDICTION, TH EN THERE IS NO QUESTION OF LEVY OF ANY PENALTY U/S.158BFA(2). ACC ORDINGLY, THE TRIBUNAL HAD HELD THAT PENALTY CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ONCE THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT IS HELD TO BE VOID AB-INITIO. SINCE IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN A SPECIFIC GROUND BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT AS THERE WAS NO WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IN THE NAME O F THE ASSESSEE, THE 153A PROCEEDINGS ARE BAD IN LAW AND SINCE THE L D.CIT(A) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED ON THIS ISSUE, THEREFORE, WE DEEM I T PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH A DIREC TION TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 RAISED BEFORE HIM. HE SH ALL ALSO GIVE A FINDING AS TO WHETHER ANY WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE OR NOT. 10 9.5 SINCE WE ARE RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE FILE O F THE LD.CIT(A) ON THIS PRELIMINARY ISSUE, WE REFRAIN OURSELVES FRO M ADJUDICATING THE APPEAL ON MERIT. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 1826 TO 1828/PN/2012 (A.YRS. 2005-06 TO 20 07-08) : 10. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE REVENU E IN THE ABOVE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO REQUESTED FOR ADMISSION OF ALTERNATE PLEA AS RESPONDENT SUPPORTING THE ORDER O F THE CIT(A). BASED ON THE REASONINGS GIVEN IN PARA NOS.9.TO 9.5, WE RESTORE THE ABOVE APPEALS ALSO TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) FOR ADJUDICATION IN THE LIGHT OF THE DIRECTIONS GIVEN THEREIN. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE R EVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 09-12-2014. SD/- SD/- (SUSHMA CHOWLA) (R.K . PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED: 09 TH DECEMBER, 2014 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE