Sanjay Babaso Patil, Kolhapur V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 2238/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7679 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 29-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: NIRUPAMA KOTRU
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Opportunity of being heard
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE . , , BEFORE SHRI D.KARUNAKARA RAO, AM & SHRI VIKAS AWAST HY, JM . / ITA NOS.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13 SANJAY BABASO PATIL, 252, E - WARD, DEEPTI PARK, ASSEMBLY ROAD, KOLHAPUR. PAN: ABLPP1660K .. APPELLANT VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, KOLHAPUR. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI M.K.KULKARNI DEPARTMENT BY : SMT.NIRUPAMA KOTRU (CIT) DATE OF HEARING : 21-08-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24-08-2017 / ORDER PER D.KARAUNAKARA RAO, AM : THERE ARE 3 APPEALS UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEY ARE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE THREE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COM MISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR COMMONLY DATED 25-08-2014 FOR TH E ASSESSMENT YEARS 2008-09, 2011-12 & 2012-13 2. BEFORE US, AT THE OUTSET, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTA TIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION U/S.132 OF THE ACT IN THIS CASE AND AN AMOUNT OF RS.2,65,466/- WAS A DMITTED AS AN ADDITIONAL INCOME FOR THE A.Y.2008-09. HOWEVER, THE SAME WA S INADVERTENTLY OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.2007-08 INSTEAD OF 2008- 2 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL 09. IN THE ASSESSMENT U/S.153A R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT , AO METICULOUSLY TAXED THE SAME IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AO DID NOT GRANT CORRESPONDING RELIEF IN THIS A.Y. 2007-08. THUS, THE SAID AMO UNT IS TAXED TWICE IN TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS. THE SAME WAS CO NFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). 3. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE AO FAILED TO GRANT CORRESPONDING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE A.Y.2 007-08 WHILE MAKING ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y.2008-09. IT IS FAIRLY SUBMITTED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE SHALL NOT PRESS THESE GROUNDS IF THE TRIBUNAL DIRECT THE AO TO GRANT CORRESPONDING RELIEF IN THE A.Y.2007- 08. 4. LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF THE AO/CIT(A). 5. ON HEARING THE PARTIES, WE FIND THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON FACTS. THE FACT OF OFFERING OF THE INCOME OF RS.2,65,466/- IN A.Y.2007-08 IS NOT DISPUTED. IT IS A SETTLED LEGAL PROPOSITION THAT AO IS UNDER OBLIGATIO N TO MAKE ASSESSMENT AS PER THE STATUTE. AO OUGHT TO HAVE GRAN TED DEDUCTION/RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE STATUTE IN THE ASSESSMENT OF A.Y. 2007-08 WHEREVER SUCH CLAIMS ARE MADE ERRONEOUSLY BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ERRONEOUSLY OFFERED BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE A.Y.2007-08 AND THE AO IS UNDER OBLIGATION TO CORRECT SUCH MISTAK E. THUS, IT IS AN OBVIOUS CASE OF DOUBLE TAXATION OF SAME AMOUNT TW ICE, I.E., A.Y.2007-08 AND THEN IN A.Y.2008-09. THEREFORE, WE PROCEE D TO APPROVE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IN A.Y.2008-09 IN VIEW OF THE VALID STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S.132 OF THE AC T. CONSEQUENTLY, 3 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL WE DIRECT THE AO TO REDUCE THE INCOME DETERMINED BY T HE ASSESSEE OR AO TO THE EXTENT OF SAME IN THE A.Y.2007-08. AO SHALL GRANT REA SONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. AO SHOULD G ET IN A TIME BOUND MANNER AND GRANT RELIEF TO THE EXTENT OF INCOME OF RS.2,65 ,466/- IS A.Y.2007-08. ACCORDINGLY, WE ORDER. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED PROTANTO. ITA NO.2237/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2011-12 : 7. THIS IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DATED 25/08/2014 FOR THE A.Y.2011- 12. ASSESSEE RAISED 6 GROUNDS IN THIS APPEAL AND ALL OF THEM REVOLVE AR OUND A SOLITARY ISSUE THAT RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTM ENT OF RS.30,00,000/-. 8. RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS COVERED U/S.132 OF THE A CT AND THE SAME RESULTED IN SEIZURE OF A PURCHASE DEED DATED 13.12.2010. ACCORDING TO THE SAME, ASSESSEE PURCHASED A PLOT OF LAND ADMEASURING 1075 SQ.MT AT KOLHAPUR FOR FULL CONSIDERATION OF RS.30,00,000/ - FROM M/S. RAJHANS HOTELS PRIVATE LTD., THE AMOUNT WAS PAID BY TH E ASSESSEE IN PARTS PRIOR TO THE YEAR 1995. THE DOCUMENT WHICH WAS SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IS THE SAID PURCHASE DEED AND THE MARKET V ALUE OF THE PROPERTY IS WORTH RS.62,29,000/-. IN THE ASSESSMENT, DEP ARTMENT RAISED THE ISSUE AS TO WHY THE PURCHASE DEED IS DATED 13.12.2 010 WHEN THE SAME WAS PURCHASED EFFECTIVELY IN 1995. IN RESPONSE TO THE S AME A RETURN SUBMISSION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 24-03-2014 AND THE SAME READS AS UNDER: 4 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL I HAVE PURCHASED PLOT NO.2 250, B1/A, E WARD, NAGA LA PARK, KOLHAPUR FOR RS.30,00,000/- FROM RAJHANS HOTELS PVT. LTD. KOLHAP UR IN 1995 ALSO I HAVE TAKEN POSSESSION IN 1995. THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF THE SAID PLOT HAS BEEN BEFORE 1995. WHILE THE SALE DEED OF SAID PLOT HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 13.12.2010 AND I HAVE PAID STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRAT ION CHARGES OF RS.3,41,810/- WHICH THE SALE DEED OF SAID PLOT HAS BEEN EXECUTED ON 13.12.2010 AND I HAVE PAID STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRAT ION CHARGES OR RS.3,41,810/- WHICH HAS BEEN REFLECTED IN MAY BALAN CE-SHEET. I HAVE RECORDED THE ENTRY OF RS.30,00,000/- IN FY 2010-11 WHICH I HAVE PAID BEFORE 1995 FOR PURCHASE OF SAID PLOT AND THE CAPITAL A/C CREDITED AND PLOT A/C IS DEBITED. I HAVE PAID THE ABOVE AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- FRO M MY INCOME BEFORE 1995 AND IT HAS NO CONCERNED WITH THE YEAR I N WHICH THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN EXECUTED ONLY THE SALE DEED HAS BEEN MADE ON 13.12.2010. 9. FROM THE ABOVE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE, IS THAT THE S AID PLOT OF LAND HAS BECOME THE PROPERTY OF THE ASSESSEE IN 1995. HOWE VER, THE SALE DEED WAS EXECUTED ONLY ON 13.12.2010 AFTER PAYMENT OF THE S TAMP DUTY REGISTRATION CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.3,41,810/-. THE FACT OF THE PAYMENT OF RS.30,00,000/- IS EVIDENT FROM THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.2011-12. HOWEVER, AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE ABOVE S UBMISSIONS AND MENTIONED THAT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE YEARS 19 95-96 ONWARDS DO NOT CONTAIN ANY SUCH ENTRIES OF PAYMENT OF ADVANCE FOR BUYING THE S AID PLOT OF LAND. ASSESSEE DID NOT SHOW THE PAYMENT AS AN ADVAN CE PAID FOR ACQUIRING THE LAND IN THE ASSESSMENT YEARS PRIOR TO A.Y. 2 011-12. IN THE ABSENCE OF THE ENTRIES, THE AO CONCLUDED BY MENTIONING E ITHER IT IS A CASE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY FOR TRANSFER OF PROPERTY OR ACTUA L PAYMENT OF LAND CASE IS MADE IN THE A.Y.2011-12. AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN THE A.Y.2011-12. OTHERWISE, THERE IS NO EV IDENCE TO SUGGEST THE SAID PAYMENT WAS MADE IN THIS YEAR. IT IS MERELY A CASE OF INFERENCES BY THE AO. 5 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL 10. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE VIEWS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTION ING THAT THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNBELIEVABLE AND ON AFTERTHOUGHT. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), IT IS NOT POSSIBLE THAT PAYMENT W AS MADE IN 1995 I.E., 15 YEARS BACK AND THE REGISTRATION IS DONE IN THE YEA R UNDER CONSIDERATION. 11. AGGRIEVED WITH THE ABOVE CONCLUSIONS OF THE CIT (A), ASS ESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE US AND RAISED VARIOUS ARGUMENTATIVE GROUNDS. 12. AT THE OUTSET, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTE D THAT THE SEARCH DID NOT YIELD ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VIEWS TAKEN BY THE AO AND CIT(A). THE ONLY DOCUMENT FOUND DURING SEARCH IS THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 13.12.2010 (SUPRA) AND THE SAME DO NOT SUPPORT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE AO AND THE CIT(A). ASSESSEE BEING AN INDIVIDUAL, HE WAS NOT U NDER OBLIGATION TO MAINTAIN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE FACT OF SHOWING TH E SAME ENTRIES IN THE RELEVANT FINANCIAL YEAR IS NOT MANDATORY. THIS IS THE CASE OF MAKING ASSESSMENT U/S.153A OF THE ACT AND THE ADDITIONS MADE B Y THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT MUST BE OF THIS NATURE, WHICH GETS THE SUPPO RT OF INCRIMINATING MATERIAL. IN THIS CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER T O SUPPORT THE AO CONTENTIONS THAT THE PAYMENT OF RS. 30 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THIS YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. 13. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDERS OF AO AND CIT(A). 14. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THERE IS NO DISPUT E ON THE FACT THE PURCHASE DEED DATED 13.12.2010 WAS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF THE 6 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL ASSESSEE DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. AS PER CLAUSE 4 OF THE SAID DEED, THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,00,000/- BEING THE MARKET VALUE OF THAT PE RIOD WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE 1995. THIS IS VALUED AT RS.62,29 ,000/- ACCORDING TO THE GOVERNMENT VALUER. BUT THE CONSIDERATION PAID BY T HE ASSESSEE TO THE SELLER IS ONLY 30 LAKHS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT VALUATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SUM OF RS.32.29 LAKHS WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.32.29 LAKHS. THE DISPUTE IS ONLY THE YEAR OF PAYMENT OF RS.30 LAKHS. AS SUCH, THER E IS NO EVIDENCE TO INDICATE THAT THE SAID RS.30 LAKHS IS PAID IN THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ADDITION IN THIS PRESENT FORM IS UNSUSTAINABLE AS REVENUE FAILED TO COLLECT ANY CORROBORA TING EVIDENCES THAT SUPERCEDES THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION. THEREFORE , WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE PRESENT FORM. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ITA NO.2238/PUN/2014 A.Y. 2012-13 : 16. THIS IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE A.Y.2012-13 AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) DATED 25/08/2014. 17. THIS IS A REGULAR ASSESSMENT MADE BY THE AO U/S.143 OF THE ACT. THE OPERATIVE GROUND NO.1 MENTIONS THAT THE CIT(A) CONFIRM ED THE ADDITION OF 5.49 LAKHS, 8.83 LAKHS AND RS.3,63,482/- ON VARIOUS GROU NDS. ALL OTHER GROUNDS ARE EITHER GENERAL OR ARGUMENTATIVE TO NATURE . ACCORDINGLY, WE SHALL TAKE UP THE ABOVE SAID OPERATIVE GROUND OF THE ASS ESSEE IN THE FOLLOWING PARAGRAPH FOR ADJUDICATION. 7 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL 18. IN CONNECTION WITH THE ADDITION OF RS.5,49,000/- THE RELE VANT FACTS INCLUDE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF UNACCOUNTED SILVER WORTH OF RS.5,49,000/-. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTIO N, ASSESSEE ACCEPTED THE SAID INVESTMENT IN SILVER AND DECLARED THE S AME FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME INCLUDING ABOVE AGGRIEVED AMOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMEN T IN SILVER. THEREFORE, AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT IN THE ASSE SSMENT. IN THE FIRST APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTMENT IN SILVER IS HIGH-PITCHED AND MENTIONED THE ACTUAL INVESTMENT OF SILVER WAS ONLY RS.4,43,000/-. THE CIT (A) CONFIRMED THE ENTIRE ADDITIO N IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY BILLS SUGGESTING THE ACTUAL VALUATION OF SA ID SILVER IS ONLY RS.4,43,000/-. 19. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE VALUE OF RS.4,43,000/-. ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EVEN BEFORE US. CONSIDERING THE SA ME, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE DECISION OF THE CIT (A) IS FAIR AND REASONABLE AND IT DOES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE. ACCORDINGLY, RELEVANT GROUND RA ISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 20. REGARDING THE ADDITION OF RS.8,83,000/- IT IS SUBMITTED T HAT THE SAID ADDITION IS MADE BASED ON CERTAIN LOOSE PAPERS/JAGRUTHI DI ARY. ACCORDING TO THE SAID PAPERS, ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED OR INVESTED IN GOLD AN AMOUNT OF RS.4,40,000/- AND IN SILVER RS.4,43,000/- TOTALING TO RS.8,83 ,000/-. DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODU CE ANY DOCUMENT EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF THE SOURCE OF INCOME. AO ACCORDING LY PROCEEDED TO MAKE ADDITION OF RS.8,83,000/-. DURING THE FIRST APPELLATE P ROCEEDINGS, 8 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL THE CIT (A) CONSIDERED THE UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT OF RS.4 ,43,000/- AND DEALT WITH THIS INVESTMENT IN GOLD OF RS.4,47,000/- SEPARATEL Y AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION AS PER THE DISCUSSION GIVEN IN PARA 6 TO 8 OF HIS ORDER. THE CIT (A) REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION FOR GRANT OF TELESCOPY INTO THE OVERALL DISCLOSURE OF RS.17,96,518/- GIVEN DURING T HE SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 21. ON HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO EXPLANATION TO SUGGEST THE SAID DISCLOSURE TO RS.17,96,518/- CONSTITUTES A BUFFER DISCLOSURE TO TAKE CARE OF THE MISCELLANEOUS UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS, IF ANY, LIKE THE PRESENT ONES IN GOLD AND SILVER. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THE CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DENIED THE TELESCOPY RELATED ARGU MENT AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,43,000/-. WE CONFIRM THE SAM E. THEREFORE, THIS PART OF THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 22. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.3,63,482/-, LD. AUTHORISED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID EXPENDITURE PE RTAINS TO THE FOREIGN TOUR OF ASSESSEES SON. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID EXP ENDITURE WAS BORNE BY THE UNCLE OF ASSESSEES SON. HOWEVER, NO EVIDENCE IS FURNISHED TO SUPPORT THE SAID CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, AO PRO CEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) CO NFIRMED THE AOS VIEW. FURTHER, CIT(A) AND ALSO REJECTED THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION SEEKING TELESCOPY BENEFIT AGAINST THE ABOVE REFERRED AMOUNT OF RS.17,96,518/ -. 23. BEFORE US, LD.COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY RELIED ON T HE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY HIM BEFORE THE AO/CIT(A). 9 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL 24. ON THE OTHER HAND, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDERS OF AO/CIT(A). 25. ON HEARING BOTH PARTIES, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEES SON UNDERTOOK A FOREIGN TOUR IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION AND AN AMOU NT OF RS.3,63,482/- WAS INCURRED ON HIM. THE ASSESSEES EXPLANAT ION THAT THE SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS BORNE BY THE ASSESSEES UNCLE, WA S NOT DEMONSTRATED WITH EVIDENCES. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, THE CONCLUSIONS DRAW N BY THE AO AND CIT(A) ARE FAIR AND REASONABLE AND DOES NOT CALL ANY INTERFERENCES . 26. SO FAR AS THE ARGUMENTS PERTAIN TO THE TELESCOPY AG AINST THE SAID DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME, CASE IS NOT MADE OUT BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SAID DISCLOSURE SHOULD INCLUDE THE INVESTMENTS IN THE F OREIGN TOUR OF HIS SON. THEREFORE, THIS PART OF THE EXPLANATION OF THE AS SESSEE IS ALSO DISMISSED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE IS ALSO DISMISSED. 27. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 28. TO SUM UP, ITA NO.2236/PUN/2014 IS PARTLY ALLOWED, IT A NO.2237/PUN/2014 IS ALLOWED AND ITA NO.2238/PUN/2014 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 24 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( /VIKAS AWASTHY) ( . /D.KARUNAKARA RAO) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 24 TH AUGUST, 2017 S S . . G G . . R R 10 ITA NO.2236 TO 2238/PUN/2014 SANJAY BABASO PATIL ! ' $ ! ' $ ! ' $ ! ' $ / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR. 4. / THE CIT, KOLHAPUR. 5. , , , / DR, ITAT, B BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, / / TRUE COPY / / . / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, , / ITAT, PUNE