Shoukat Allabksha Bagwan, Ichalkaranji V. DCIT, Central Circle, Kolhapur

ITA 203/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9438 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-05-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 19-07-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure
• Section: 40A(3); 6; 132; 12; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH, PUNE . , , , BEFORE SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM . / ITA NO S. 193 TO 203 /PUN/201 3 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN, L R OF SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, YELAJ MALA, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : ABYPB5124E ....... / APPELLANT / V S. DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE , KOLHAPUR / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO S. 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 INCOME TAX OFFICER, (CENTRAL), KOLHAPUR ....... / APPELLANT /VS. ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN, L R OF SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, YELAJ MALA, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : ABYPB5124E / RESPONDENT 2 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 . / ITA NO . 1624/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2012 - 13 SHAHNAJ SHOUKAT BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : AAYPB5123D ....... / APPELLANT /VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 4, ICHALKARANJI / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO . 1625/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 201 3 - 14 SHAHNAJ SHOUKAT BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : AAYPB5123D ....... / APPELLANT /VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI / RESPONDENT 3 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 . / ITA NO . 1626/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 KAISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : AFWPB6636C ....... / APPELLANT /VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO . 1627/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : ABYPB5124E ....... / APPELLANT /VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI / RESPONDENT 4 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 . / ITA NO . 1628/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013 - 14 ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN, 6/464, NEAR JAYASHREE SIZING, SANGLI ROAD, ICHALKARANJI 416115 PAN : AAYPB5125F ....... / APPELLANT /VS. ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, ICHALKARANJI CIRCLE, ICHALKARANJI / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : S HRI M.K. KULKARNI REVENUE BY : DR. SUBHASH CHANDRA / DATE OF HEARING : 15 - 05 - 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17 - 0 5 - 2017 / ORDER PER BENCH : ITA NOS. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013 HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS DECIDED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 VIDE ORDER DATED 19 - 11 - 2012. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 TO 2006 - 07 HAVE BEEN DISPOSED OF BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE COMMON ORDER OF EVEN 5 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 DATE. THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2007 - 08 TO 2009 - 10 HAVE BEEN DECIDED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) VIDE ORDER DATED 19 - 11 - 2012 COMMON FOR THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS . THE DEPARTMENT HAS FILED CROSS APPEALS AGAINST THE AFORESAID ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER O F INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ITA NOS. 500 TO 510/PUN/2013. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THESE APPEALS AND THE CROSS APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL, THESE APPEALS ARE TAKEN UP TOGETHER FOR ADJUDICATION AND ARE DECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER. 2. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION TO BRING ON RECORD THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE ( LR ) OF SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN. THE A SSESSEE SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN HA S DIED ON 27 - 08 - 2014. A PHOTOCOPY OF HIS DEATH CERTIFICATE ALONG WITH THE AFFIDAVIT OF HIS LR ARISH S HOUKAT BAGWAN HAS BEEN FILED. THE LR OF SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN IS TAKEN ON RECORD AND HIS NAME ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN IS ACCORDINGLY SUBSTITUTED IN PLACE OF DECEASED SHOUKAT ALLABAKSHA BAGWAN. 3. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSAILED THE FINDINGS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : UNDER FACTS & UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE 1. HON. CIT [A] HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT ACCEPTING THE BOOK RESULTS FOR AGRICULTURE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. WHEREAS, LEARNED CIT[A] HAS ADOPTED FOLLOWING METHODOLOGY FOR ESTIMATING INCOME FROM SUGARCANE AND VEGETABLE/FRUITS ETC: FROM SUGARCANE GROSS RECEIP TS, 54% IS DEDUCTED TOWARDS AGRICULTURE EXPENSES AND AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS CONTRACTUAL FARMING [BATAI]. FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION, HON CIT[A] HAS TOTALLY RELIED ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF BADSHAH BAGWAN, AND REFERRING THE FACTS OF BADSHAH BAGWAN'S CAS E, THE FORMULA OF 54% DEDUCTION IS APPLIED. WHEREAS, IN THE CASE OF APPELLANT, 6 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED TO ESTABLISH AND SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE APPELLANT HAD GIVEN HIS LAND ON CONTRACTUAL [BATAI] FARMING. HENCE, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AND CONTRACTUAL FARMING IS PURELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION, HENCE NEEDS TO BE DISAPPROVED. IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT, THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE APPROVED . NON SUGARCANE SALES FOR VEGETABLE/FRUITS ETC ARE ESTIMATED @ 150% OF NOTIONAL INCOME FROM SUGARCANE SALE. FROM SAID GROSS RECEIPTS, 50% IS DEDUCTED TOWARDS AGRICULTURE EXPENSES AND AMOUNT PAID TOWARDS CONTRACTUAL FARMING [BATAI], UNDER THE FOLLOWING CAPTION' MENTIONED IN THE TABULATION - TABLE II [PARA 30 OF THE ORDER]' L. LESS: EXPENSES & CONTRACTUAL FARMING FACTOR @ 50% FOR ARRIVING AT THIS CONCLUSION, HON CIT[A] HAS TOTALLY RELIED ON THE FACTS OF CASE OF BADSHAH BAGWAN, AND REFERRING THE FACTS OF BADSHAH BAGWAN' S CASE, THE FORMULA OF 50% DEDUCTIO N IS APPLIED. WHEREAS, IN CASE OF APPELLANT, NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN FOUND AND SEIZED TO ESTABLISH AND SUBSTANTIATE THAT, APPELLANT HAD GIVEN HIS LAND ON CONTRACTUAL [BATAI] FARMING. FURTHER, IN PARA 25 OF THE ORDER, HON CIT[A] HAS MENTIONED THAT, 'IT IS ALSO WELL - KNOWN THAT, NORMALLY VEGETABLES ARE NOT GROWN ON SHARING SYSTEM OR BATAI BASIS' IN VIEW OF THE REMARKS MENTIONED ABOVE, THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTUAL FA RMING [BATAI] IS UNCALLED FOR AND NEEDS TO BE DISAPPROVED. HENCE, DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURE AND CONTRACTUAL FARMING IS PURELY ON ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION, HENCE NEEDS TO BE DISAPPROVED. IT IS HUMBLY PRAYED THAT, THE BOOK RESULTS OF THE APPELLANT MAY KINDLY BE APPROVED. 2. THE APPELLANT MAY BE ALLOWED TO ADD / RECTIFY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ASSAILING THE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS I.E. ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 TO 2009 - 10. 7 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 4 . THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 500/PUN/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1999 - 2000 HAS ASSAILED THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) BY RAISING FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL : 1. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONFIRMING THE AD DITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SALE OF SUGARCANE, VEGETABLES & OTHER AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM FLOWERS, FRUITS, COCONUTS ETC. IN TOTO DISREGARDING THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT OUT IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 2. THE LD. CIT(A) FAIL ED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ASSETS FOUND DURING SEARCH THROUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THEREFORE ADDITION ON THE ISSUE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IS IN ESSENCE ADDITION OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE IN VAR IOUS ASSETS. 3. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ASSETS AND ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS CAST ON HIM THROUGH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. 4. THE LD. CIT FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A NON - FILER, NO BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN MAINTAINED AND THE ASSETS HAVE BEEN UNEARTHED ONLY AS A RESULT OF SEARCH ACTION. THEREFORE, ALLOWING CLAIM OF EXEMPT AGRICULTURAL INCOME AS SOURCE OF ASSETS WI THOUT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WOULD BE GIVING UNDUE ADVANTAGE TO THE ASSESSEE VIS - A - VIS LAW ABIDING ASSESSEES. 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN PARTIALLY DELETING THE ADDITION ON THE ISS UE OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE SHARE OF 46% OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO ASSESSEE IN BATAI/ ADHELI SYSTEM MEANS 46% OF NET AGRICULTURAL INCOME TO FARMER ALSO, WHICH LEAVES ONLY 8% TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES FOR ALL THE ABOVE ASSES SMENT YEARS, WHICH IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. 6. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE AO'S ORDER MAY BE RESTORED. 7. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND, MODIFY ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED, ANY OTHER G ROUNDS AT THE TIME OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE HON'BLE TRIBUNAL WHICH MAY PLEASE BE GRANTED. IDENTICAL GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE APPEALS FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 TO 2009 - 10. 8 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 5 . SHRI M.K. KULKARNI APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SUBM ITTED THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132 O F THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT ) WAS CARRIED OUT AT RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF BAGWAN GROUP ON 18 - 05 - 2005. THE ASSESSEE IS ONE OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF BAGWAN GROUP. THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS ADJUDICATED BUNCH OF APPEALS IN THE CASE OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF BAGWAN GROUP ON 15 - 02 - 2017 IN THE FOLLOWING CASES : IAT NO. A.Y. PARTICULARS 215 TO 225/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT 467 TO 477/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ITO VS. ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN 171 TO 181/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT 489 TO 499/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ITO VS. ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN 182 TO 192/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 SHAHNAZ SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT 478 TO 488/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ITO VS. SHAHNAZ SHOUKAT BAGWAN 204 TO 214/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 KAISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. DCIT 456 TO 466/PUN/2013 1999 - 2000 TO 2009 - 10 ITO VS. KAISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN 226& 227/PUN/2013 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 SONIYA NAGARI VINKAR & VINKAR VYAVASAIK SAH. PAT SANSTHA LTD. VS. DCIT 445 & 446/PUN/2013 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 ITO VS. SONIYA NAGARI VINKAR & VINKAR VYAVASAIK SAH. PAT SANSTHA LTD. THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL AND THUS, THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE 9 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 PLACED ON RECORD A COPY OF THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEALS DECIDE ON 15 - 02 - 2017. 6 . DR. SUBHASH CHANDRA REPRESENTING THE DEPARTMENT FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS AND THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE SIMILAR TO THE BUNCH OF APPEALS DECIDED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF BAGWAN GROUP. 7 . BOTH SIDES HEARD . O RDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW PERUSED. THE DISPUTE IN PRESENT SET OF APPEALS RELATE TO ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. WE FIND THAT THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE ONE ADJUDICATED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO. 216/PUN/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IN THE CASE OF ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN VS. THE DY. COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (SUPRA). SIMILARLY, THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN ITA NO. 468/PUN/2013 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2000 - 01 IN THE CASE OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. ANJUM SHOUKAT BAGWAN ( SUPRA). THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS ADJUDICATED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF BAGWAN GROUP HAVE BEEN ADMITTED BY BOTH THE SIDES. THE TRIBUNAL PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES AND HAS DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 24. WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AROSE BEFORE THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF VENKATESHWARA AGRICULTURAL FARM IN ITA NOS. 386 TO 3 90/PN/2009 (LEAD APPEAL BEING SHRI BABULAL LAXMINARAYAN MALU - ITA NOS. 241 TO 243/PN/2009) ORDER DATED 23 - 09 - 2011 WHEREIN ALSO THE COMPLETE DETAILS WERE NOT BEING MAINTAINED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SELLING THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS IN CASH. THE 7/12 EXTR ACTS DID NOT HAVE CLEAR MENTION OF THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS BUT THE 10 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE SOLD THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ESTIMATED THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURE AND THE BALANCE INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESS EE WAS HELD TO BE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES, AS IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL WAS THAT THE 7/12 EXTRACTS COULD NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE OF THE ACTUAL CROPS BEING GROWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND SIMPLY BECAUSE CROPS W AS SOLD IN CASH IT COULD NOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS A BOGUS SALE. THE TRIBUNAL ACCEPTED THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE INCLUDING THE VEGETABLES AND FRUITS WERE NORMALLY MADE IN CASH AND SUCH A CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT B E TOTALLY DENIED. BUT SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED PROPERLY THE TRIBUNAL HELD TO BE A FIT CASE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM THE ACTIVITIES UNDERTAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE ON LAND HOLDING OF 74.32 ACRES. THE TRIBUNAL THUS DIRECTED THE ASSES SING OFFICER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM FRUITS AND VEGETABLES UPTO 80% OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY THE NHB IN THE CASE OF FRUITS AND ICAR IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLES. THE TRIBUNAL FURTHER HELD THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY SHOWN THE YIELD BELOW 80% OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY THE ABOVE GOVERNMENT BODIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE SAME AND ACCEPT IT. THE RELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL AT PARA 66 READS AS UNDER: 66. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS, THERE IS NO DOUBT ON THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN REGULAR COURSE OF THE BUSINESS CANNOT BE OUTRIGHTLY REJECTED WITHOUT ASSIGNING PROPER REASON FOR THE SAME BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US, THE AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY MAINTAINED REMAINED DOUBTFUL AS THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE OR SURVEY OPERATIONS. THE A.O NOWHERE HAS ACCEPTED ANY SPECIFIC WORDING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SURVEY OPERATION , HENCE EXISTENCE OF THE SAME ALWAYS REMAINED IN DOUBT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONLY OPTION LEFT WITH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS TO EXAMINE THE POSSIBILITY OF ACCEPTANCE OF THE CLAI MED AGRICULTURE INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE ON ESTIMATE BASIS KEEPING IN MIND THE AREA OF LAND HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE THEREON SUPPORTED WITH EVIDENCE. THE A.O NOTED THAT THERE WAS SUBSTANTIAL CASH DEPOSITS IN THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH WERE STATED TO BE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME, IT WAS SEEN THAT WHILE PART OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE WAS PROPERLY BILLED, SOME OF VEGETABLES AND FRUITS WERE SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN S OLD IN CASH, THESE SALES WERE NOT SUPPORTED BY THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE. OTHER SALES OF SOYABEEN, ONION, RICE, SUGARCANE ETC., WERE SUPPORTED BY THIRD PARTY EVIDENCE. VEGETABLES AND FRUITS WHICH WERE SOLD IN CASH WERE NOT MENTIONED IN 7/12 EXTRACTS. THE A.O. A CCEPTED ONLY THOSE SALES WHICH WERE SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE AS GENUINE SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE A.O NOTED THAT NO BOOKS WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVEY. HE ALSO NOTED THAT THE VERY FACT THAT BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED. WE THUS FIND THAT THE A.O HAS SAID SO IN DIFFERENT CONTEXT, FIRSTLY THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES AS THE SAME WAS NOT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH/SURVE Y AND SECONDLY; EVEN IF THE BOOKS WERE MAINTAINED IT WAS NOT SUFFICIENT TO ACCEPT THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED SINCE INCOME IN CASH WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCE. THE A.O ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT THE CASH SALES SHOWN AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME WAS BOGUS AND IT REPRESENTED THE INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD CIT(A) REMAINED THAT THE CULTIVATION OF FRUIT WAS A FACT WHICH WAS DULY MENTIONED IN 7/12 EXTRACTS. HOWEVER, NO MENTION OF SUCH PRODUCTS CANNOT 11 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 LEAD TO CON CLUSION THAT SUCH PRODUCTS WERE NEVER CULTIVATED. IT WAS AGAIN CLAIMED THAT BOOKS HAVE BEEN REGULARLY MAINTAINED AND AVAILABLE FOR VERIFICATION. THE FURTHER CONTENTION REGARDING 7/12 EXTRACTS REMAINED THAT ON MANY OCCASIONS, 7/12 EXTRACTS CONTAINS THE SAME NOTATIONS FROM YEAR TO YEAR AS INFORMATION IS SIMPLY COPIED FROM YEAR TO YEAR WITHOUT ACTUAL VERIFICATION. IT WAS FURTHER CONTENDED THAT SIMPLY BECAUSE CROPS ARE SOLD IN CASH, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT IT WAS A BOGUS SALE. IN NORMAL PRACTICE, AGRICULTURAL PR ODUCE ARE MOSTLY SOLD IN CASH AT THE SPOT. IT IS THE REASON THAT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 40A(3) DOES NOT APPLY WHERE THE PAYMENT IN CASH IS FOR PURCHASE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE FROM THE FARMERS. REGARDING VEGETABLES, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT VEGETABLES AR E NORMALLY GROWN AS INTER CROPS BETWEEN TWO MAIN CROPS AND GENERALLY THE CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES IS NOT MENTIONED IN 7/12 EXTRACTS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT FINDING OF THE A.O WITH REGARD TO SALE OF FRUITS IS NOT CORRECT SINCE THE COPIES OF 7/12 E XTRACTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINED DETAILS OF FRUITS GROWN ON THE LAND. THE FRUITS ARE DESCRIBED AS MANGOES, CHIKKU, BANANA, COCONUT, PAPAYA, LEMON ETC., REGARDING VEGETABLE, THE LD CIT(A) HAS OBSERVED THAT COMPARED TO THE LAND HOLDING THE SALE OF VEGETABLES AT RS. 15 LAKHS OVER THE PERIOD OF 7 YEARS CANNOT BE SAID TO BE AN UNLIKELY SUM ESPECIALLY WHEN THE ASSESSEE IS PRIMARILY AN AGRICULTURAL FARM WHICH HAS BEEN SET UP FOR THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES. HE HAS FURTHER NOTED THAT THE A.O HAS ADDED TH E ENTIRE AMOUNT SHOWN AS CASH SALES AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FROM UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT IF THIS INCOME IS REMOVED FROM THE AGRICULTURAL RECEIPT, A PECULIAR SITUATION EMERGES IN WHICH IN ALMOST ALL THE YEARS, THE INCOME IS LOWER THAN THE TOTAL EXPENDITURE DEBITED TO THE BOOKS RESULTING IN LOSS FROM AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES, WHICH IS UNUSUAL TO SAY. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT THE PRODUCTION OF FRUITS IS WITHIN THE STANDARDS PUBLISHED BY INDIAN GOVERNMENT BODIES. HE HAS ALSO NOTED THAT YIELD OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES PER UNIT AREA WAS COMPARED WITH THE STANDARDS EVOLVED BY THE NATIONAL HOUSING BANK FOR THE PURPOSE OF AGRICULTURAL CREDIT. HE NOTED THAT EXCEPT IN THE CASE OF BANANA THE STANDARDS OF YIELD FOLLOWED BY NHB ARE MUCH HIGHER THAN THE ACTUAL YIELD OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAS NOTED FURTHER THAT IN CASE OF BANANA ALSO WHILE ASSESSEE'S YIELD IS ACTUALLY HIGHER THAN THE STANDARDS, THE AVERAGE YIELD OVER THE PERIOD WORKS OUT TO 56 AS AGAINST THE STANDARD OF 65. THE LD CIT(A) HAS NOTED F URTHER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO PRODUCE THE CASH BOOKS, SALES LEDGER ETC., EXAMINATION OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHOWED THAT THE CASH DEPOSITS WHICH HAVE BEEN FOUND BY THE A.O VARY FROM VERY SMALL FIGURES TO LITTLE ABOVE RS. 1,00,000/ - . IT IS NOT AS IF THE CASH DEPOSITS ARE OF LARGE AMOUNTS IN ONE LUMPSUM. SECONDLY, THE DEPOSITS ARE WELL PLACED WHICH LAYS SUPPORT TO THE ASSESSEES' CONTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT DO NOT REPRESENT EACH AND EVERY SALE BUT CONSOLIDATED FIGURES OF SALE OVER A CERTAIN NUMBER OF DAYS. I T WAS ALSO STATED THAT CERTAIN CASH EXPENSES ARE ALSO INCURRED FROM THE CASH RECEIPTS AND ONLY THE NET AMOUNT REMAINING IS DEPOSITED IN THE ACCOUNT. THE DISTRIBUTION OF THE CASH DEPOSITS, THE MAGNITUDE OF THE DEPOSIT DO NOT APPEAR TO BE SUCH AS TO CONCLUDE THAT THESE ARE NOT AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY WAY OF CASH SALES BUT UNACCOUNTED INCOME INTRODUCED INTO THE BOOKS. THE LD CIT(A) HAS ALSO NOTED IN PARA NO. 11 THAT ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WHERE EACH AND EVERY ITEMS OF PURCHASE AND SALE AND OTHER EXPENSES WERE RECORDED. WE DO NOT AGREE WITH THIS NOTING OF THE LD CIT(A) AS NOWHERE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER NOR IT IS THE CASE OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE FOUND AVAILABLE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SURVEY OPERATION. NO PLAUSIBLE REASO NS HAS BEEN ASSIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE NON - AVAILABILITY OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR SURVEY. THUS, RELIABILITY OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT EVEN IF FURNISHED AT LATER STAGE IS ALWAYS QUESTIONABLE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DO NOT FULLY AGREE WITH THE CONCLUSION OF THE LD CIT(A) THAT 12 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SALES OF FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED. AT THE SAME TIME, WE AGREE WITH THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A.R. WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEP TED BY THE LD CIT(A) THAT SALES OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE INCLUDING FRUITS AND VEGETABLES ARE ALSO NORMALLY MADE IN CASH, HENCE SUCH CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE TOTALLY DENIED. SINCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGARDING THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITY ESPECIALLY SPE CIFIC ABOUT FRUITS AND VEGETABLES, QUESTIONED BEFORE US HAVE NOT BEEN MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF THE AFFAIRS, THUS CORRECT INCOME CANNOT BE DEDUCED THEREFROM. WE ARE THEREFORE OF THE VIEW, THAT IT IS A FIT CASE TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME FROM THESE AC TIVITIES OF THE ASSESSEES AS HOLDING OF LAND OF 74.32 ACRES BY THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN DENIED NOR THIS FACT HAS BEEN DENIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS PRIMARILY AN AGRICULTURE FARM WHICH HAS BEEN SET UP FOR THE BUSINESS OF AGRICULTURE. WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE CLAIMED INCOME FROM FRUITS AND VEGETABLES BY ACCEPTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD UPTO THE 80 % OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY NHB IN THE CASE OF FRUITS AND OF ICA R IN CASE OF VEGETABLE YIELD. WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN THE YIELD BELOW 80% OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY THE ABOVE GOVERNMENT BODIES, A.O SHOULD NOT DISTURB THE SAME AND ACCEPT IT. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND IS THUS PARTLY ALLOWE D. DAIRY INCOME. THE ISSUE WHICH IS ARISING IN THE PRESENT CASE BEFORE US IS ON SIMILAR FOOTING AS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI VENKATESHWARA AGRICULTURAL FARM (SUPRA). THE ASSESSEES LAND HOLDING IS LARGE AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE BAGWAN GROUP ARE ENGAGED IN CULTIVATION OF VEGETABLES AND FLOWERS AND IN SOME CASES IN FRUITS ON THE SAID LAND. MAJORLY THE AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING IS CULTIVATED WITH VEGETABLES AND FLOWERS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT MAINTAINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT REGULARLY. WE HAV E ALREADY HELD THAT THERE IS NEED FOR ESTIMATION FOR AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AGREED TO THE PROPOSITION LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL THAT 80% OF THE STANDA RD YIELD REPORTED BY ICAR IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLE YIELD BE ADOPTED TO WORK OUT THE INCOME FROM VEGETABLES AND FLOWERS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF INDIVIDUAL LAND HOLDINGS. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. NECESSARY EVIDENCE WOULD BE FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. IN CASE THERE IS YIELD FROM FRUITS, THEN 80% OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY NHB SHOULD BE ADOPTED TO WORK OUT THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BASED ON THEIR LAND HOLDING. HOWEVER, IN CASE THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN THE YIELD BELOW 80% OF THE STANDARD YIELD REPORTED BY THE ABOVE SAID GOVERNMENT BODIES, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED NOT TO DISTURB THE SAME AND ACCEPT IT. 25 . ANOTHER ISSUE WHICH WAS CONSIDERED BY BOTH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) WAS THE EXPENSES ON CONTRACTUAL FACTOR. WHILE ESTIMATING THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME THE ASSESSING OFFICER/COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD TAKEN NOTE OF THE FACTS OF SHR I BADSHAH BAGWAN, WHEREIN THE STATEMENT OF ONE PERSON WAS RECORDED WHO STATED THAT FOR CARRYING ON THE AGRICULTURAL ACTIVITIES ON PART OF THE LAND, HE WAS GETTING BATAI @50% OF THE RECEIPTS. THE SAID STATEMENT WAS WITHDRAWN ON A LATER STAGE. HOWEVER, THE S AID FACT WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) IN ORDER TO ESTIMATE THE INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE 13 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE W ITH OUR DIRECTIONS. WE FURTHER HOLD THAT NO FURTHER DEDUCTION IS TO BE MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CONTRACTUAL FARMING FACTOR @50%. THE BASIS FOR THE SAID ESTIMATION IS PURSUANT TO THE FACTS OF SHRI BADSHAH BAGWAN AND WHERE THE STATEMENT OF THE SAID PERSON WAS NEVE R CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE NOR THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE, THE SAID INFORMATION CANNOT BE APPLIED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. IN ANY CASE, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT IT HAS GROWN VEGETABLES ON ITS AGRICULTURAL LAND HOLDING AND HE PLEADS THAT THE SAID VEGETABLES ARE NOT GROWN ON SHARING SYSTEM BASIS. WE FIND MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND ACCORDINGLY WE HOLD SO. 26. THE SECOND ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS ON ACCOUNT OF SUGARCANE WHEREIN PART OF THE LAND WAS UNDER THE CROP OF SUGARCANE FROM A.Y. 2001 - 02 ONWARDS. THE QUESTION AROSE OF ESTIMATION OF THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM SUGARCANE PRODUCE RELYING ON THE FACTS OF SHRI BADSHAH BAGWAN AND 50% WAS DEDUCTED TOWARDS AGRICULTURAL EXPENSES AND PAID TOWARDS CONTRACTUAL FARMING. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE ARE AT VARIANCE TO THE FACTS IN SHRI BADSHAH BAGWAN, WE FIND NO MERIT IN DEDUCTING ANY AMOUNT TOWARDS BATAI EXPENSES IN RESPECT OF THE ESTIMATION OF INCOME ARISING FROM SUGARCANE PLANTATION. WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO APPLY 80% OF THE RATES AVAILABLE TO THE SURGARCANE PRODUCE AS SUGARCANE IS SOLD TO MILLS. NECESSARY EVIDENCE WOULD BE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH ITS CASE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHALL GIVE REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE OF INCOME ARISING FROM SUGARCANE PRODUCE AND ALSO AS HELD IN THE CASE OF VEGETABLES AND FLOWERS. 27. BEFORE ADJUDICATING OTHER ISSUES W HICH ARE RAISED IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS WE MAY ALSO ADDRESS THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS THAT IT HAS SOURCED THROUGH AGRICULTURAL INCOME BU T THE REVENUE IS OF THE VIEW THAT SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE IS ILL - FOUNDED AS THE AGRICULTURAL INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IS HIGHER THAN WHAT IS ACTUALLY EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE. 28. THE NEXT ASPECT OF THE ISSUE IS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DECLARED THE AMOUNT AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME, PART OF WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND THE BALANCE AMOUNT HAS BEEN ASSESSED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. ONCE THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SO ASSESSED, I.E. ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND/OR ON ACCOUNT OF INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES THEN THE SOURCE OF THE AFORESAID ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH, STAND EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, WE HAVE ALREADY ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF ESTIMATION OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE RESPECTIVE YEARS IN THE PARAS HEREINABOVE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY AS TO WHERE THE SAID AGRICULTURAL INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE JUSTIFIES THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF THE ASSET S FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. ONCE THE INCOME IS ESTIMATED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE THE SAME IS PRESUMABLY HELD TO HAVE BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE ACQUISITION OF THE ASSETS AND 14 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 THERE IS NO MERIT IN ANY OTHER ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON A CCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN ASSETS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. WE HOLD SO. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. UNDISPUTEDLY, THE ISSUES, FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN PRESENT SET OF APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND DEPARTMENT ARE SIMILAR TO THE APPEALS BY/AGAINST OTHER FAMILY MEMBERS OF BAGWAN GROUP ADJUDICATED BY THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESS EE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN SAME TERMS AND THE APPEALS OF THE DEPARTMENT ARE DISMISSED FOR SIMILAR REASONS. ITA NOS. 1624 & 1625/PUN/2016 - SHAHNAJ SHOUKAT BAGWAN A.YS. 2012 - 13 & 2013 - 14 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) ITA NO. 1626/PUN/2016 KAISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) ITA NO. 1627/PUN/2016 SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) ITA NO. 1628/PUN/2016 ARISH SHOUKAT BAGWAN A.Y. 2013 - 14 (ASSESSEES APPEAL) 8 . IDENTICAL GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEES I N THEIR RESPECTIVE APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 2, KOLHAPUR IN THEIR RESPECTIVE CASES. SINCE, THE ISSUES RAISED IN THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ABOVE MENTIONED ASSESSEES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THE APPEALS B Y SHOUKAT ALLABKSHA BAGWAN , T HEREFORE, THE FINDINGS GIVEN BY US IN ITA NOS. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013 WOULD MUTATIS 15 ITA NO S. 193 TO 203/PUN/2013, 500 TO 510/PUN/2013 & 1624 TO 1628/PUN/2016 MUTANDIS APPLY IN THE PRESENT SET OF APPEALS, AS WELL. ACCORDINGLY, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED IN THE SAME TERMS. 9 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEES ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON WEDNESDAY, THE 17 TH DAY OF MAY, 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - ( . /D. KARUNAKARA RAO ) ( / VIKAS AWASTHY) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 17 TH MAY, 2017 RK / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) , KOLHAPUR 4. / THE CIT - I /II, KOLHAPUR/CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / / // TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , , / ITAT, PUNE