DCIT, Central Circle-1, Nashik V. Amit Digvijay Singh, Nashik

ITA 1939/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2768 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 05-10-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DOSHI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Opportunity of being heard; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS ] IQ.KS IQ.KS IQ.KSIQ.KS IQ.KS IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE . . , , ! ' BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NOS.1939, & 1941 TO 1943/PN/2012 !$ $ / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2002-03, 2004-05 TO 2006-07 ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NASHIK . / APPELLANT V/S SHRI AMIT DIGVIJAY SINGH, SURGESH RESIDENCY, GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK PAN NO.AQZPS2999F . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.N. DOSHI / DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI, CIT / ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THE ABOVE BATCH OF 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 24-07-2012 OF THE C IT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002-03 AND 2004-05 TO 2 006-07 RESPECTIVELY. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE ALL THESE APPE ALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER. ITA NO.1939/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2002-03) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AN D DERIVES INCOME FROM CONTRACT AND CONSULTANCY RECEIPTS. S HE HAD NOT FILED / DATE OF HEARING : 18.12.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29.01.2016 2 HER RETURN OF INCOME U/S.139. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTIO N U/S.132 OF THE I.T. ACT WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE SINGH-BHUTADA GROUP OF CASES ON 28-06-2007 DURING WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO COVERED. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.153A SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 19-10-2007 THE ASSESSEE FILED A LETTER REQUESTING SOME MORE TIME FOR FILING OF HER RETURN OF INCOME VIDE HER LETTER DATED 19-11-2007. SUBSEQUENTLY, THE AO ISSUED R EMINDER TO THE ASSESSEE ON 31-01-2008 WHICH WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE ON 04-02- 2008. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE HER RETURN OF INCOME THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.142(1) ALONG WITH A QUESTIONNAIRE AS PER ANNEX URE A DATED 14-09-2009 CALLING FOR THE RETURN OF INCOME AND CERTAIN SP ECIFIED INFORMATION. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER FILED HER RETURN OF INC OME ON 07-12- 2009 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,06,624/- FROM CONSULTANCY RECEIPTS AND RS.10,30,560/- FROM AGRICULTURE. HOWEVER, IN RESPONSE T O NOTICE U/S.142(1) AND 143(2) NONE APPEARED BEFORE THE AO TO SUBM IT THE DETAILS AS CALLED FOR VIDE NOTICE DATED 142(2) AND ALSO EXTRACT OF CASH BOOK AND LEDGER ACCOUNTS FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 3. THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED 2 DIFFEREN T PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT, ONE FOR HER CONTRACT BUSINESS AND THE OTH ER FOR HER CONSULTANCY BUSINESS. UNDER THE HEAD INDIRECT EXPENSES IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,60,6 35/-. SINCE NO DETAILS OF ASSETS HAVE BEEN GIVEN AS TO HOW THE DEPRECIA TION HAS BEEN WORKED OUT, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE A LLOWED DEPRECIATION. HE THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,62,635/-. SIM ILARLY, OUT OF DIESEL AND PETROL AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES CLAIMED TOTALING TO RS.26,573/- THE AO DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.5,000/- ON ES TIMATE BASIS FOR PROBABLE PERSONAL USE AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 3 4. THE AO SIMILARLY NOTED FROM THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE CONSULTANCY BUSINESS THAT AS AGAINST CONSULTANCY RECEIPT OF RS.9,53,335/- AND PROFIT FROM A.S. ENTERPRISE OF RS.1,63,225/- THE ASSESS EE HAS CLAIMED DIRECT EXPENSES OF RS.1,78,410/- AND INDIRECT EXPENSES OF R S.4,31,825/-. THUS, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN NET PROFIT OF RS.5,06,624/-. SO FAR AS DIRECT EXPENSES OF RS.1,78,410/- IS CONCERNED THE AO NOTED THAT NO BILLS OR VOUCHERS FOR THE OFFICE EXPENSES HAVE BEEN PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. THEREFORE, HE DISALLOWED AN AMOUNT OF RS.44,602/- BEING 25% OF SUCH EXPENSES AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE AO ON PERUSAL OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOUND THAT UNSECURED LOA N OF RS.16,32,635/- HAS BEEN SHOWN BUT NO DETAILS OF SUCH LOAN S HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. NEITHER THE NAMES OF THE LENDERS NOR THE ACCO UNT EXTRACTS OF THE LENDERS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WE RE PRODUCED FOR VERIFICATION. NO CONFIRMATION OF LOANS FROM THE LENDERS HAVE B EEN FILED. IDENTITY AND CAPACITY OF THE LENDERS ARE NOT PROVED. H E THEREFORE DISALLOWED THE UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.16,32,635/- AS INCOME FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCES TREATING THE SAME AS NOT GENUINE. 6. SIMILARLY IN ABSENCE OF ANY DETAILS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SUNDRY CREDITORS OF RS.2,96,535/- AND IN ABSENCE OF PRODUCTION OF B OOKS OF ACCOUNT THE AO ALSO DISALLOWED THE SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS.2 ,96,535/- AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E AO FURTHER NOTED FROM THE BALANCE SHEET FILED FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR THAT THE LIABILITY IN THE NAME OF A.S. ENTERPRISE AND DEEGESH TRANSPOR T COMPANY OF RS.13,88,720/- AND RS.3,24,812/- RESPECTIVELY HAVE BEEN CLA IMED FOR WHICH NO DETAILS HAVE BEEN FURNISHED. ACCORDING TO THE A O, IT IS NOT KNOWN AS ON WHAT ACCOUNT SUCH LIABILITY HAS ARISEN. NO DE TAILS WERE GIVEN TO EXPLAIN AS TO HOW SUCH LIABILITIES HAVE BEEN WORKED OUT. HE THEREFORE ADDED SUCH UNPROVED LIABILITIES TOTALING TO RS.17,13,532/- TRE ATING THE SAME AS NON GENUINE. 4 7. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AGRIC ULTURAL INCOME OF RS.10,35,560/-. IN THE QUESTIONNAIRE THE AO HAD SPECIFIC ALLY ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO RECORDS OR ANY CLUE FOR AGRICULTU RAL INCOME WAS FOUND OR TRACED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION FROM ANY OF THE RESIDENTIAL OR BUSINESS PREMISES BELONGING TO THE ASSESS EE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS OR PROOF IN RESPECT OF HIS C LAIM OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. THE AO FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSES SEE DOES NOT OWN ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND ANYWHERE. HE THEREFORE TREATED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.10,30,560/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 8. BEFORE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DEPREC IATION ALLOWABLE U/S.32 OF THE I.T. ACT IS RS.4,61,784/-. THE ASSESSEE FURNIS HED DETAILS OF ASSETS AND WORKING OF DEPRECIATION AS PER I.T. ACT. IT W AS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE DURING THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR PURC HASED 3 BUSES FROM EICHER LTD. IN THE LATTER HALF OF THE YEAR AND ALSO OBT AINED LOANS AGAINST SECURITY OF BUSES. 9. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF PETROL AND DIESEL EXPENSES AMO UNTING TO RS.5,000/- IS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPEN SES CLAIMED ARE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES AND DOES NOT INVOLVE ANY PERSONAL EXPENSES. IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE PROFIT FROM BUSINESS BEFORE DEPRECIATION WAS 77.78% OF THE TURNOVER. THEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUS TIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES ON ACCOUNT OF PETROL AND DIESEL EXPENSES. 10. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF OFFICE EXPENSES OF RS.44,602/- BEING 25% OF THE OFFICE EXPENSES CLAIMED IS CONCERNED IT WAS ARGUED TH AT THESE EXPENSES ARE INCURRED FOR BUSINESS PURPOSES. SINCE THE NET PROFIT BEFORE DEPRECIATION IS 81.29% OF THE TURNOVER, THEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING THE OFFICE EXPENSES. 5 11. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF RS.16,32,635/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NSECURED LOAN TREATING THE SAME AS NON-GENUINE IS CONCERNED IT WA S SUBMITTED THAT THE LOANS ARE OBTAINED BY BANK CHEQUES AND ARE FROM EX PLAINED SOURCES AND THEREFORE THE LOAN CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED . IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED LOAN OF RS.16,32,635/- FROM 4 PERSONS NAMELY, MRS.BABLEE A. SINGH RS.5,49,622/-, DEEGESH SINGH (HU F) RS.5,18,200/-, RITA SINGH (HUF) RS.4,84,800/- AND SMITA BIPIN S INGH RS.80,013/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE LOAN CONFIRMATION S IN RESPECT OF DEEGESH SINGH (HUF) AND RITA SINGH (HUF). THE ASSESSEE ALS O ENCLOSED THE LEDGER EXTRACT OF THE REMAINING 2 LENDERS. 12. SO FAR AS ADDITION OF RS.2,96,535/- TOWARDS SUNDRY CRE DITORS IS CONCERNED IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCO UNT ARE MAINTAINED FOR EACH BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE BALANCE IS BRO UGHT FORWARD FROM THE EARLIER YEAR. THEREFORE, THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDIT ION. 13. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.17,13,532/- TOWARDS LIABILITIE S IS CONCERNED IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE IN HER PROP RIETARY CONCERN A.S. ENTERPRISES AND DEEGESH TRANSPORT HAS SHOWN HER CAPIT AL BALANCE AT RS.13,88,720/- AND RS.3,24,812/- RESPECTIVELY. THEREFORE, TH E AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN MAKING THE ADDITION. 14. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.10,30,560/- TREATING THE A GRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE IS CONCERNED THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT SHE HAS CULTIVATED THE LAND IN THE CAPAC ITY OF THE TENANT AND HAS EARNED THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. 15. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS FILED THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. SO FA R AS THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION IS CONCERNED THE A O STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED THE BILLS FOR PURCHASE OF VARIOUS ASSETS AND HAS 6 NOT PROVED THAT THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN PUT TO USE FOR THE BUSINESS OF TRANSPORTATION. SO FAR AS THE DISALLOWANCE OF VARIOUS EXPE NSES ARE CONCERNED THE AO REPORTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BILLS AND VOUCHERS AND OWNERSHIP OF VEHICLES IN RESPECT OF W HICH THE EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN CLAIMED. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED . 16. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF OFFICE EXPENSES BEING 25 % OF THE EXPENDITURE CLAIMED THE AO REPORTED THAT SINCE THE ASSE SSEE HAS NOT MAINTAINED PROPER BILLS AND HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THE OWNERS HIP AND USE OF COMPUTERS FOR CLAIMING THE DEPRECIATION ON THE SAME, THERE FORE, THE ORDER DISALLOWING 25% OF THE EXPENSES ON ADHOC BASIS IS JUSTIFIED. AS REGARDS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN AMOUNTING TO R S.16,32,635/- IS CONCERNED THE AO APART FROM REITERATING THE FINDING IN THE ASSESSEMENT ORDER FURTHER STATED THAT IT CANNOT BE VERIFIED WHETHER THE LOANS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR NOT. 17. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUNDRY CREDITO RS AT RS.2,96,535/- IS CONCERNED, THE AO STATED THAT THE BALANC E IN THE LEDGER EXTRACT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS RS.13,88,720/-. SO FAR AS THE ADDITION OF RS.17,13,532/- TOWARDS LIABILITIES IS CONCERNED THE AO REPORT ED THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT AND BALANC E SHEET OF A.S. ENTERPRISES HE HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE FROM INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING. AS REGARDS THE ADD ITION OF RS.10,30,560/- TREATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS INCOME FRO M UNDISCLOSED SOURCES IS CONCERNED THE AO REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. 18. THE LD.CIT(A) CONFRONTED THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO TO THE ASSESSEE. AFTER THE ASSESSEE MADE SUBMISSIONS TO SUCH REMAND REPORT THE CIT(A) ALLOWED DEPRECIATION OF RS.4,61,784/-, DELETED THE AMOUN T OF RS.15,52,622/- OUT OF UNSECURED LOANS, DELETED AN AMOUNT OF 7 RS.1,54,584/- FROM THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME, DELETED THE ADDIT ION OF RS.17,13,532/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED LIABILITIES AND GAVE FUR THER RELIEF OF RS.10,248/- BY SETTING OFF BOGUS UNSECURED LOAN AGAINST CONFIRMATION OF UNSECURED LOAN. 19. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.4,61,784/- OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,62,635 /- 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FU RNISHED EVEN THE BASIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS PURCHASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, MODE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING RS.15,52,622/- ADDED ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE FORM OF UNSECURED LOANS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR OVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS OF RS.15,52,622/- BY FURNISHING THE DETAILS SUCH AS IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND CREDI TWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING A SUM OF RS.1,54,584/- IN THE FORM OF BOGUS AGRICULTURAL INCOME TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES OUT OF TOTAL DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,30,560/- EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE H AS NOT PRODUCED ANY COGENT EVIDENCE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING AN AMOUNT OF RS.17,13,532/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROVED LIABILITIES. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PR OVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE LIABILITIES OF RS.17,13,532/- BY FURNISHING DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM NOR DID HE PRODUCE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN SUPPORT THEREOF. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF OF RS.10,248 /- BY SETTING OF BOGUS UNSECURED LOANS AGAINST CONFIRMED UNSECURED LOANS WHICH ACTION IS NOT JUSTIFIED UNDER THE EXTANT PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TA X ACT, 1961. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 249(4)(A) O F THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS NO PROOF IN RESPECT OF THE TAX PAID HAS BEEN SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8 10. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM WHICH WA S NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH IS IN CLEAR VIOL ATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RULES. 11. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD I N THE FORM OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE VA RIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE, THUS RENDERING THE DECISION PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO T HE EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 12. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL T O ADD, AMEND/ALTER, TO DELETE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS HEREIN, IF DIRECT ED SO. 20. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY OBJEC TED TO THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT P RODUCED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEFORE THE AO. HE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS BEFORE CI T(A) AND THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS PROPERLY HAS D ELETED THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE A SSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH THE BILLS FOR VARIOUS ASSETS PURCHASED AND THE DA TE FROM WHICH IT WAS PUT TO USE ETC., THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO ALLOW DEPRECIATION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.4,61,784/-. SO FAR AS DELE TION OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.15,52,622/- IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTE D THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT(A) IS MERELY BASED ON ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE LENDERS. FOR UNSECURED LOANS TO BE A LLOWED, THE AO HAS TO BE SATISFIED REGARDING THE GENUINENESS, CAPACITY AND ID ENTITY OF THE LENDER WHICH IS A PRIMARY REQUIREMENT. SINCE THESE ARE NO T PROVED THE CIT(A) IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION. 21. SO FAR AS DELETION ON ACCOUNT OF LIABILITY OF RS.17,13,532/ - IS CONCERNED THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE AO IN THE REMAND REPORT WHICH READS AS UNDER : IN THIS REGARD THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY A.O. IN THE REMA ND REPORT WERE AS UNDER : THE A.O. HAS MADE AN ADDITION TOWARDS LIABILITIES IN THE NAME OF A.S. ENTERPRISES RS.13,88,720/- AND DEEGESH TRANSPORT CO. RS.3 ,24,812/- ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FURNISHING OF DETAILS AND THE BACKGROU ND OF SUCH LIABILITIES. THE A.O. FURTHER STATED THAT IT WAS NOT KNOWN ON WHAT ACC OUNT SUCH LIABILITY AROSE. 9 M/S. A.S. ENTERPRISES AND DEEGESH TRANSPORT CO. ARE PROP RIETARY CONCERNS OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT SEPARATE BOOKS OF ACCOUN TS ARE MAINTAINED FOR EACH OF THE PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. HE FURTHER SUB MITTED THAT THE SAID BALANCES APPEARING AS LIABILITIES IN THE BALANCE SHEET ARE NOTHING BUT REPRESENT BALANCES OF HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERNS. ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADVANCE OF RS.15,53,625/- WAS RECEIVED FROM INTERNATIONAL PACKAGING IN INSTALLMENTS, IN PRIOR YEA RS, TOWARDS CIVIL CONSTRUCTION WORK DONE BY A.S. ENTERPRISES. THIS ADVA NCE WAS RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF A.S. ENTERPRISES. REVENUE WAS BOOK ED IN THE BOOKS OF A.S. ENTERPRISES WHEREAS PAYMENT WAS RECEIVED IN THE BOOKS OF ASSESSEE. HENCE, A.S. ENTERPRISES A/C WAS CREDITED BY THE SAME AMOUNT. ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED AGAINST CIVIL CONSTRUCTION REC EIPTS, WHICH ARE ALREADY RECORDED AS REVENUE IN THE BOOKS OF A.S. ENTERPRISES. THE SAID AMOUNT REPRESENTS THE CAPITAL INVESTED BY ASSESSEE IN A.S. ENTERP RISES, THE PROPRIETARY CONCERN. ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FA CTS THE A.O. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DISALLOWING RS.17,13,532/- TOWARDS LIABIL ITIES. REGARDING ABOVE LIABILITY ASSESSEE SUBMITTED COPY OF ACC OUNT AS APPEARING IN HIS BOOKS) WHICH WERE NOT PRODUCED BEFORE A.O.) ASSESSEE S CLAIMS ARE NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, BILLS ETC . ASSESSEE FILED COPY OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET OF M/S. A.S. ENTERPRISES. T HESE TWO ACCOUNTS DO NOT ESTABLISH THAT ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED ANY ADVANCE FROM INTE RNATIONAL PACKAGING. HENCE ASSESSEE IS NOT ABLE TO PROVE GENUINENESS OF CREDITS. HENCE, A.O. HAS CORRECTLY DISALLOWED THE SAME. 22. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) HAS IGNORED ALL THE AB OVE FINDINGS AND ALLOWED THE RELIEF. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER FU RNISHED ANY DOCUMENT TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM NOR PRODUCED ANY BO OKS OF ACCOUNT, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF OF RS.17,1 3,532/-. SO FAR AS THE RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) AMOUNTING TO RS.1,54,584 /- OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.10,30,560/- IS CONCERNED THE LD. D EPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT OWN ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND AND IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CULTIVATION AGREEMENTS WERE MISPLACED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION THE CIT(A) SHOULD NOT HAVE GIVEN SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF ON THIS ACCOUNT. SINCE THE AS SESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE CONFIRMATIONS FROM PARTIES TOWARDS AGREEMENT FOR CULTIVATION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS GROSSLY UNJUSTIFIED. 23. SO FAR AS ALLOWANCE OF SET OFF OF RS.10,245/- AGAINST EXC ESSIVE EXPENDITURE OF RS.80,013/- IS CONCERNED THE LD. DEPARTME NTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.80,013/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN. THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE LEDGER EXTRACTS 10 OF A.S. ENTERPRISES HAS ALLOWED THE RELIEF WHICH HAS NOT BEE N PROPERLY VERIFIED BY HIM. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ORDER OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 24. IN HIS ALTERNATE CONTENTION THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REP RESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE O F THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CASE. 25. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD LODGED THE PURCHASE BILLS WITH THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS WHICH GRANTED T HE LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE AGAINST HYPOTHETICATION OF THE VEHICLES. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN TRANSPORTATION BUSINESS AND HAS DECLARED INCOME FROM SUCH BUSINESS. THUS, THE OWNERSHIP AND THEIR USE STAND PROVED. THE CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE FACTS AND EVIDENC ES PRODUCED BEFORE HIM HAS CORRECTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO T O THE EXTENT OF RS.4,61,784/- AND EXCESS CLAIM OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.3,00,851/- HAS BEEN SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. 26. SO FAR AS DELETION OF RS.15,52,622/-, ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED CREDITS/LOAN IS CONCERNED, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSE E SUBMITTED THAT THE ALL THESE LOANS HAVE BEEN OBTAINED BY BANK CHEQUES AND HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE PARTIES NAMELY, DEEGESH SINGH (HUF) AND RITA SINGH (HUF) WHO ARE REGULAR TAX PAYERS AND WHO HAVE SHOWN TH E LOANS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE BALANCE SHEET. HE SUBMITTED THAT MRS. BABLEE A. SINGH IS THE EX-WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IS ALSO A TAX PAYER. HOWEVER , FOR CERTAIN REASONS THE CONFIRMATION COULD NOT BE FILED. 11 27. AS REGARDS THE LOAN FROM MRS. SMITA SINGH AMOUNTING TO RS.75,000/- + RS.5,013/- FOR REIMBURSEMENT OF THE EXPENSE S IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS TO PAY REASONABLE INTEREST ON THESE LOANS BUT COULD NOT PAY DUE TO HER FINANCIAL CONDITION. THE REFORE, THE LENDER DID NOT GIVE THE CONFIRMATION. HE SUBMITTED THAT TH E REASON FOR NOT FURNISHING THE CONFIRMATION OF MRS. SMITA SINGH WAS FOUND ACC EPTABLE BY THE CIT(A) BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PAY INTEREST AS PROMISED. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE IS VE RY ACUTE WHICH STANDS PROVED AS HOTEL SAI SIDDHI PVT. LTD. OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HER GROUP IS PUT ON AUCTION FOR NON PAYMENT OF BANK LOAN. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,52,622 /- IS JUSTIFIED ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 28. SO FAR AS DELETION OF RS.1,54,584/- OUT OF THE AGRICULTUR AL INCOME OF RS.10,30,560/- ADDED BY THE AO IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CULTIVATED THE LAND IN CAPACITY OF A TENANT BY E MPLOYING THE LABOURERS. THE AGREEMENT COULD NOT BE TRACED AS PROBA BLY DURING THE ACTION U/S.132 THE AGREEMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN SEIZED ALON G WITH OTHER HUGE VOLUME OF PAPERS. THAT IS ALSO ONE OF THE REASON FO R NOT PRODUCING SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT OTHER MEMBERS OF THE ASSESSEE GROUP HAV E CULTIVATED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEIR AGREEMENTS HAVE BEEN FILED. SINCE THE CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED ONLY 15% OF THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE SAME IS JUSTIFIED AND DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. 29. SO FAR AS AMOUNT OF RS.17,13,532/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN PROVED LIABILITIES DELETED BY THE CIT(A) IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN FULL DETAILS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROC EEDINGS. ALTHOUGH THE AO HAS DISPUTED THE CORRECTNESS OF SUCH D ETAILS, HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) ON PROPER APPRECIATION OF FACTS HAS DELETED TH E ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE SAME IS JUSTIFIED. SO FAR AS RELIEF OF RS.10,248/ - ALLOWED BY 12 THE CIT(A) OUT OF BOGUS UNSECURED LOAN IS CONCERNED HE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.1,328/- AND RS.8,920/- OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES CLAIMED. THE AO MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UN SECURED LOAN, DISALLOWANCE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS.80,013/- AND RS.8,75,97 6/- RESPECTIVELY. THE CIT(A) ON CONSIDERING THESE 2 DISALLOWANC ES AND ADDITIONS MADE DELETED THE ADDITION OF ABOVE EXPENSES OF R S.1,328/- + RS.8,920/- TOTALING TO RS.10,248/- ON THE GROUND THAT THE ADDITIONS MADE GET COVERED. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED. 30. SO FAR AS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENG ING THE ADMISSION OF THE APPEAL EVEN THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS VIO LATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) HE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A ) WHILE ADMITTING AND DECIDING THE APPEAL REFERRED TO THE ORDER O F THE ITAT, PUNE IN ITA NO. 493/PN/2011 ORDER DATED 29-07-2011 WHICH HA S SET ASIDE THE ORDER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL HAS NO TED THAT THE TAX LIABILITY WAS ALREADY PAID BEFORE THE FILING OF THE RETURN. THUS , THERE IS NO ERROR ON THE PART OF THE CIT(A) IN ADMITTING AND ADJUDICAT ING THE APPEAL. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BE ING IN CONSONANCE WITH LAW SHOULD BE UPHELD AND THE GROUND RAISED BY THE R EVENUE SHOULD BE DISMISSED. 31. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY BOT H THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AO AND CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIO US DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COOPERATE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR WHICH THE AO HAD TO PASS EXPARTE ORDER MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL IN COME AT RS.59,92,123/- AS AGAINST THE RETURNED INCOME OF RS.5,06,62 4/-. WE FIND DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE FILED CERTAIN DETAILS 13 CHALLENGING THE VARIOUS ADDITIONS BASED ON WHICH THE LD.CI T(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO. ALTHOUGH THE AO REITERATE D HIS EARLIER STAND, WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) WITHOUT PROPERLY ADDRESSING TH E OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE AO GAVE SUBSTANTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE FOR WHICH THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 32. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THERE WAS COMPLETE NON C OOPERATION BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. MEREL Y BY FURNISHING THE LEDGER EXTRACTS OF CERTAIN ITEMS THE VARIOUS RELIEF GIVE N BY THE CIT(A) UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN OUR O PINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED THE PURC HASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, EVIDENCE REGARDING THE USE OF THE ASSE T ETC., AND CLAIMED DEPRECIATION OF RS.7,62,635/- THE CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION TO THE EX TENT OF RS.4,61,784/-. SIMILARLY, FOR GETTING RELIEF ON ACCOUNT OF ADDITIO NS U/S.68 AMOUNTING TO RS.15,52,622/- THE ASSESSEE HAS TO PROVE T HE IDENTIFY AND CAPACITY OF THE LOAN CREDITORS AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRA NSACTION. MERELY BY GIVING THE NAME OF THE LENDERS OR HIS/HER LEDGER ACCOU NT THE ONUS CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSE E IN TERMS OF THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. SIMILAR IS THE CASE WITH THE UNPROVED LIABILITIES OF RS.17,13,532/- DELETED BY THE CIT(A). WE FURTHER FIND NO COGENT EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R CLAIMING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT HOLD ANY AGRICULTURAL LAND. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY AGREEMENT WIT H LANDLORD OR ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE THE CIT(A) IN OUR OPINION WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN GIVING RELIEF OF RS.1,54,584/- OUT OF THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.10,30,560/- MADE BY THE AO. 14 33. THE POWER OF THE AO DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS IS LIMIT ED. HE HAS TO EXAMINE ONLY TO THE EXTENT IT HAS BEEN DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A). ALTHOUGH THE POWERS OF THE CIT(A) ARE COTERMINOUS WITH THAT OF THE AO WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE CIT(A) HAS NOT FOLLOWED THE SAME AND HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE ON THE BASIS OF WHATEVER SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HIM BY THE ASSESSEE. THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE NEVER PRODUCED BE FORE THE AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE UNABLE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE TH E ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER INCOME DECLARED. THE AO SHALL DECIDE THE ISSUE AS PER FACT AND LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD T O THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE R EVENUE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NOS. 1941 TO 1943/PN/2012 ( A.Y. 2004-05 TO 2006 -07) : 34. GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE AS UNDE R : GROUNDS IN ITA NO.1941/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2004-05) : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.5,58,503/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED EVEN THE BASIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS PURCHASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, MODE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.45,69,310 /- BEING THE VALUE OF ASSETS ACQUIRED OUT OF INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PRO VED THE SOURCES OF ACQUISITION OF ASSETS OF RS.45,69,310/- TO THE SATISFACTI ON OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID INTEREST LIABILITY OF RS.2,62,132/- BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE B EEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID N OT PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST WAS IN FACT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILLING OF RETURN. 15 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ENTIRE INTEREST OF RS.7,7 2,868/- ON HOUSING LOAN ALTHOUGH AS PER EVIDENCE ON RECORD THE DISALLOWANCE SH OULD HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED TO RS.1,01,731/- AS NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EVENTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAS VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 249(4)(A) O F THE ACT IN AS MUCH AS NO PROOF IN RESPECT OF THE TAX PAID HAS BEEN SUBMIT TED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIC H IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RUL ES. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD I N THE FORM OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE VA RIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE, THUS RENDERING THE DECISION PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO T HE EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 10. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO ADD, AMEND/ALTER, TO DELETE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS HEREIN, IF DIRECT ED SO. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.1942/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2005-06) : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.1,71,792/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED EVEN THE BASIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS PURCHASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, MODE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNPAID INTEREST LIABILITY OF RS.2,16,111/- BY HOLDING THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS HAVE B EEN PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING THE RETURN ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NO T PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM THAT THE INTEREST WA S INFACT PAID BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILING OF RETURN. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.44,65,905/-. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED EVEN THE BASIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS PURCHASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, MODE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.4,22,253/-. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE INTEREST EXPEN SES DISALLOWED NOR 16 COULD HE PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN SUCH EXPENDITURE AND THE INCOME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE LONAVALA DIESEL EXPENSES O F RS.3,13,200/-. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF LONAVALA DIESEL EX PENSES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR RE MAND PROCEEDINGS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CLAIM. 10. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE HOUSING LOAN INTEREST OF RS.1,83,598/- ALTHOUGH NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PR OVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. 11. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN DELETING OF RS.42,50,000/- BEING I NCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. 12. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT BEFORE HIM THE ASSESSEE TOOK CONTRADICTORY STAND STATING AT FIRST THAT THE TRANSACTIONS CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL BELONGS TO THE COMPANY IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIREC TOR AND LATER ON LOOK AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT STAND STATING THAT THE DOCUMENT S HAVE TO THE EXPLAINED BY M/S. HARIA TRAVELS P. LTD. AND NOT THE ASSESSEE. 13. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD T HAT THESE ADVANCES PROMISSORY NOTES HAVE ALSO BEEN FOUND THUS RENDERING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE NOTINGS ON THIS DIARY ARE ROUGH JOTTING S, AS INCORRECT. 14. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF ADVANCES OF RS.42,50,000/- CONTAINED IN THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS EITHER IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS T HUS RENDERING HIS DECISION PERVERSE. 15. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN HOLDING VIDE PARA 17.2 THAT THE ASSESSME NT HAS TO BE ENHANCED BY RS.20,00,000/- ONLY AND NOT THE AMOUNT OF RS.97,00 ,000/- AS PER HIS OWN DINGING IN THE APPELLATE ORDER ON ACCOUNT OF UNPROV ED LOAN FROM M/S. P.K. CONSTRUCTION, GOA WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE TOTA L LOAN AMOUNT OF RS.97,00,000/- (PARA 17.1) FROM THE SAID PARTY IS ALSO NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. 16. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN DELETING RS.50,000/- BEING UNVERIF IED RECEIPT IN CASH BOOK WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF EACH CASH CREDIT TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 17. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIC H IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RUL ES. 17 18. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD I N THE FORM OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE VA RIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE, THUS RENDERING THE DECISION PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO T HE EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 19. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO ADD, AMEND/ALTER, TO DELETE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS HEREIN, IF DIRECT ED SO. GROUNDS IN ITA NO.1943/PN/2012 (A.Y. 2006-07) : 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN L AW, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION OF RS.41,69,619/-. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED EVEN THE BASIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS PURCHASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, MODE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3,60,7 50/-, I.E. 20% OF RS.18,03,748/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIESEL EXPENSES ALTHOUGH T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCED ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM NOR COULD HE PROVE THE NEXUS BETWEEN SUCH EXPENDITURE AND THE INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT OR THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.5,00 ,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIESEL PETROL AND REPAIRING EXPENSES OF RS.73,740/- & THEREBY ALLOWED RELIEF OF RS.4,26,260/- ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY COGENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM NOR COULD HE PROVE THE NEXUS BETW EEN SUCH EXPENDITURE AND THE INCOME DURING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REMAND PROCE EDINGS. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.37,28, 687/- ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FUR NISHED EVEN THE BASIC EVIDENCE SUCH AS PURCHASE VOUCHERS, DATE OF ACQUISITION, MODE OF PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF THE ASSETS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN ACQUIRED. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK ERRED IN DELETING THE HOUSING LOAN INTEREST OF RS.2,29,834/- ALTHOUGH NO EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO PR OVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CLAIM. 8. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING NEW EVIDENCE BEFORE HIM WHICH WAS NOT PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHIC H IS IN CLEAR VIOLATION OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF INCOME TAX RUL ES. 9. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LA W, THE LD.CIT(A)-I, NASHIK HAS ERRED IN IGNORING THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD I N THE FORM OF INCRIMINATING MATERIALS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE VA RIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE, THUS RENDERING THE DECISION PERVERSE AND CONTRARY TO T HE EVIDENCE ON RECORDS. 18 10. APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVES OF THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL TO ADD, AMEND/ALTER, TO DELETE ANY OF THE AFORESAID GROUNDS HEREIN, IF DIRECT ED SO. 34.1 AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES, WE FIND THE ISSUES RAISE D IN THE ABOVE GROUNDS BY THE REVENUE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUES RAISE D IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO.1939/PN/2012 FOR A.Y. 2002-03. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUES AND THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVEN UE HAVE BEEN ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONIN GS THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE ABOVE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 35. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE 4 APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-01-2016. SD/- SD/- ( VIKAS AWASTHY ) ( R.K. PANDA ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IQ.KS PUNE ; DATED : 29 TH JANUARY, 2016. LRH'K ' (!* + / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. $ ( ) , / THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. $ , / THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. ' **+ , + , IQ.KS / DR, ITAT, A PUNE 6. / / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER , ' * // TRUE COPY // 12 * + / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY +, IQ.KS / ITAT, PUNE