Mr Premchand Ramswarup Mittal, Pune V. Add. CIT Range-9, Pune

ITA 2324/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 232424514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 23-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PRAMOD SINGHTE
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Loose papers; Document seized; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE BEFORE M S SUSHMA CHOWLA , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 23 2 4 /PN/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 200 8 - 09 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL, PROP. OF VASANT IN DUSTRIES, 44/1, MIDC, D - II BLOCK, TELCO ROAD, CHINCHWAD, PUNE 411019 . APPELLANT PAN: A BAPM3708Q VS. THE ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 9, PUNE . RESPONDENT A PPELLANT BY : S HRI PRAMOD SINGHTE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAJESH DAMOR DATE OF HE ARING : 3 0 - 0 4 - 201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 20 - 0 5 - 201 5 ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - V , PUNE DATED 22 .1 0 .201 2 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8 - 09 PASSED UNDER SECTI ON 143(3) OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT APPELLANT HAD DECLAR ED CERTAIN AMOUNT IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S 133A , THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF DECLARATION MADE DURING SURVEY WITHOUT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY THE SAME AND HENCE, E NTIRE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED .' 2. ' ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW , THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CONFORMING THE ADDITION OF RS . 36,00 , 000/ - ON THE BASIS OF PAGE NO. 2 OF LOOSE PAPER FILED A 1 FOUND IN THE COURSE OF S URVEY BY DISREGARDING APPELLANT ' S CONTENT I ON THAT THE SEIZED PAPER WERE NOT PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS TO THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE THE QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SAID SEIZED PAPER DID NOT ARISE.' 3. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW , THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS INCURRED UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES OF RS.3,75,000/ - IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN ENTRIES OF ALLEGED PAYMENT ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 2 MADE TO SOME MSEB EMPLOYEES WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT LOOSE PAPER FOUND DURING SURVEY DI D NOT INDICATE ANY SUCH PAYMENT AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PAYMENT OF RS . 3 , 75 , 000/ - . HENCE THE ADDITION MADE MAY KINDLY BE DELETED . ' THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR TO LEAVE, ADD , ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE , ALTER ABOVE THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR TO LEAVE, ADD , ALTER, MODIFY, DELETE , ALTER ABOVE GROUND OF APPEAL BEFORE OR AT THE TIM E HEARING , IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 3. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IN RELATION TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 3 9 . 7 5 LAKHS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME. 4. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACT URE OF HEAVY DUTY PRESS COMPONENT & WELDED TUBULAR SUB ASSEMBLIES. SURVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 26.03.2008. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED SUM OF RS.31,05,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF WORK CHARGES AND AMOUNT OF RS.50 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED SUM OF RS .35.10 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES I N RETURN OF INCOME AND SUM OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS INCLUDED IN THE STOCK AND THE PROFIT WAS ENHANCED TO THAT EXTENT. IN ADDITION TO THE SAID DISCLOSURE, THE ASSESSEE ALSO DISCLOSED ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.55 LAKHS TO COVER UP THE OTHER D I SCREPANCIES. HOWEVER, IN THE RETURN OF INCOME, THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS.35.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES AND ADDED RS.50 LAKHS TO THE STOCK BUT NO SUCH ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.55 LAKHS WAS DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THIS WAS THE CASE OF RETRACTI ON TO THE EXTENT OF RS.55 LAKHS. ON PERUSAL OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND PAPERS IMPOUNDED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT AS PER IMPOUNDED PAPERS PAGE NO.2 OF LOOSE PAPER FILE A - 1, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.36 LAKHS. A QUERY WAS PUT TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID DOCUMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF, TO WHICH HE RE PLIED THAT HE WOULD VERIFY HIS RECORDS AND EXPLAIN. FRESH OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE SAME DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, BUT NO FURTHER REPLY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ASSESSEE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT, UNDER WHICH IT IS TO ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 3 BE PRESUMED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT / DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE OR IN CONTROL OF THE PERSON DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT AND SU RVEY UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT, BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN VIEW THEREOF, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT SUM OF RS.36 LAKHS IS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENT IN THE PROPERTY. ANOTHER REFERENCE WAS MADE TO PAGE 38 OF LOOSE PAPERS FILE A - 2, UNDER WHICH VARIOUS PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO THE MSEB EMPLOYEES AMOUNTING TO RS.3.75 LAKHS. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE SE WERE ONLY NOTINGS . B UT PRIMA FACI E ON GOING THROUGH IMPOUNDED MATERIAL, THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO MSEB EMPLOYEES AND THESE WERE DISALLOWABLE AND WERE HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF THE OTHER MATERIAL FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY INCLUDING LOOSE PAPERS, FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.19 LAKHS INCLUDING SUM OF RS.3.50 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE CIT(A) NOTED THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER 5. THE CIT(A) NOTED THE DISCREPANCIES POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE COURSE OF AS SESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND OBSERVED THAT ONUS WAS ON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE SAID PAPERS AS THE SAME WERE FOUND FROM HIS PREMISES. IN VIEW OF THE SAME NOT HAVING DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE, ADDITION OF RS.55 LAKHS WAS RESTRI CTED TO RS.39.75 LAKHS, AS EVIDENCES WERE FOUND IN RESPECT OF THE CASH PAYMENTS OF RS.36 LAKHS AND RS.3.75 LAKHS. THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.15.25 LAKHS WAS DELETED AS NO EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY. 6. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINS T THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.39.75 LAKHS. 7. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THOUGH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.55 LAKHS WAS OFFERED ON ACCOUNT OF DISCREPANCIES IN THE DOCUMENTS, BUT SINCE TH ERE WERE NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, HENCE NO ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.55 LAKHS WAS DECLARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. OUR ATTENTION WAS ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 4 DRAWN TO TWO DOCUMENTS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER WHICH ADDITION OF R S.55 LAKHS WAS MADE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ITSELF, IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT NONE OF THE ENTRIES PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE. EVEN THE CHEQUE ENTRIES MENTIONED ON THE SAID DOCUMENTS DO NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO DO NOT PERTAIN TO ANY OTHER FOUR ENTITIES, ON WHICH SURVEY WAS CARRIED OUT ALONG WITH SURVEY ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID DOCUMENTS PLACED AT PAGE 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IT WAS NOT CLEAR HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WORKED OUT THE FIGURE OF RS.36 LAKHS. SECONDLY, NO YEAR WAS WRITTEN ON THE SAID DOCUMENT AND ALSO THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS NOT IN THE HAND WRITING OF THE ASSESSEE. REFERENCE WAS MAD E TO PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK , AT THE BOTTOM OF WHICH, THE HAND WRITING OF THE ASSESSEE WAS AVAILABLE. FURTHER, OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE DOCUMENT PLACED AT PAGE 102 OF THE PAPER BOOK, WHICH WAS ACCOUNT WITH THE R.D. DESHPANDE DEVELOPERS PVT. LTD. , I N WHICH CHEQUE NUMBERS WERE MENTIONED AND IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE AMOUNT IN CHEQUE DID NOT TALLY WITH THE AMOUNTS IN CHEQUE MENTIONED AT PAGE 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT DURING THE COURSE OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT ITSELF, IT WAS CLARIFIED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION OF RS.3.75 LAKHS, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E FOR THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO THE NOTINGS AT PAGE 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT THE SAME DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE THAT UNDER SECTION 292C OF THE ACT, THERE IS PRESUMPTION THAT DOCUMENTS BELONGS TO THE PE RSON , FROM WHO SE POSSESSION DOCUMENT WAS FOUND, BUT THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID DOCUMENT HAS TO BE ESTABLISHED TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE DOCUMENT BELONG S TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY KOLKATA BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN VIVEK KUMAR KATHOTIA VS. DCIT (2013) 32 TAXMANN.COM 331 (KOLKATA TRIB) AND DELHI BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 5 VATIKA GREENFIELD (P.) LTD. (2009) 121 TTJ 208 (DELHI) AND ALSO HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CI T VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC). 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT WHILE RECORDING THE STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE HAD OFFERED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.55 LAKHS ITSELF, WHICH IN TURN WAS ALSO REFLECTED ON THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. OUR ATTENTION WAS DRAWN TO THE REMAND REPORT PLACED AT PAGE 5 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CO NTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH GROUP OF PERSONS WERE PUT TO SURVEY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT. DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER ENTITIES AGREED TO OFFER ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THEIR RESPEC TIVE HANDS. THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS.35.10 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF LABOUR CHARGES AND RS.50 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF STOCK . I N ADDITION , THE ASSESSEE OFFERED RS.55 LAKHS TO COVER UP ANY OTHER DISCREPANCIES. HOWEVER, THE SAID RS.55 LAKHS WAS NOT ADDED AS ADDITIONA L INCOME BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME , THOUGH THE ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.35.10 LAKHS AND ADDITION TO STOCK OF RS.50 LAKHS WAS OFFERED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INCRIMINATING MATERIAL FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.55 LAKHS MERITS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE REFERENCE TO THE ALLEGED LOOSE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND WORKED OUT THE ADDITION AT RS.55 LAKHS . THE CIT(A) ON THE OTHER HAND, ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REDUCED THE SAID ADDITION BY SUM OF RS.15.25 LAKHS AGAINST WHICH, NO DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND / OR REFERRED TO BY THE ASSES SING OFFICER. HOWEVER, ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF THE DOCUMENTS DEPICTING ENTRY OF RS.36 LAKHS AND ANOTHER DOCUMENT SHOWING EXPENDITURE OF RS.3 .75 LAKHS WAS HELD TO BE NOT EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE WITH PROPER SOURCES AND HENCE, ADDITION TO THE EXTENT ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 6 OF RS.3 9.75 LAKHS WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. 10. THE FIRST DOCUMENT IS PLACED AT PAGE 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND ON THE PERUSAL OF THE SAME, IT REFLECTS CERTAIN ENTRIES BEING MADE IN RESPECT OF DESHPANDE , SELF AND N AVI N. THEREAFTER, THERE IS A COLUMN OF TOTAL INVESTMENT. THE PERUSAL OF NOTINGS ON THE SAID DOCUMENT REFLECTS THAT CHEQUE ENTRIES UNDER EACH OF THE HEADS BEING NOTED AND THERE IS CASH ENTRY OF RS.9 LAKHS EACH UNDER DESHPANDE AND SELF. AT THE BOTTOM OF T HE PAGE, THERE IS ENTRY OF 17/50 SELF AND 17/50 NAVIN, 1/00 AS ON 28/1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS APPARENTLY PICKED UP THE FIGURE AT THE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE , TOTALING RS.36 LAKHS AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REASON FOR THE SAI D ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS A TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE WITH DESHPANDE FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SOME LAND. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292C OF THE ACT , THOUGH PRESUMPTION IS TO BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE V IS - - VIS NOTINGS ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, V IS - - VIS NOTINGS ON THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, BUT THE BASIC ASPECT CANNOT BE OVERLOOKED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENT, IF ANY , FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE AND TALKS OF TRANSACTIONS WHICH RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE. MERELY BECAUSE CERTAIN NOTINGS WERE MADE ON A DOCUMENT, DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE AUTHORITIES THAT THE NOTINGS ON THE SAID DOCUMENT BELONGED TO THE ASSESSEE FROM WHOSE POSSESSION THE SAID DOCUMENT WAS FOUND. PERUSAL OF NOTINGS ON THE SAID SEIZED PAGE , COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGE 91 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND THE EXERCISE CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE REFLECT THAT EVEN THE CHEQUE ENTRIES MENTIONED ON THE SAID DOCUMENT DO NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE . EVEN THE SO CALLED CASH PAYMENT AL LEGED TO BE REFLECTED ON THE SAID PAGE, SCRUTINY OF WHICH DOES NOT ESTABLISH THE CASE OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES THAT CASH EQUIVALENT TO RS.36 LAKHS HAS BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE DOCUMENT IS THOUGH DATED BUT THE YEAR OF PAYMENT IS ABSENT. I N THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE AFORESAID ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 7 OF NOTINGS ON A SEIZED DOCUMENT, WHICH WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. NOW, COMING TO THE SE COND DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE REFLECTS EXPENDITURE TOTALING RS.3.75 LAKHS WHICH IS ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE TO DIFFERENT MSEB EMPLOYEES . THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AUTHORITIES BELOW WAS THAT THE ENTRI ES RELATED TO SOM E ESTIMATES BY A CONTRACTOR . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) MADE ENQUIRIES FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND IT HAS BEEN REPORTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE DOCUMENTS REFLECTS PERIODIC LUMP SUM PAYMENTS MADE TO EMPLOYEES OF MSEB . IN SUPPORT, THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER NOTED THAT THE MSEB OFFICER COVERED ARE OF RAS TAPETH, RAJGURUNAGAR AND CHAKAN WHICH ARE THE HIERARCHICAL ORDER OF OFFICES UNDER WHICH THE MANUFACTURING LOCATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS LOCATED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE SAID NOT INGS A MOUNTS , AS SMALL AS RS.100/ - HAD FOUND PLACE AND THE MAGNITUDE OF THE FIGURES DIFFERED FROM HIGHER POST / OFFICERS TO LOWER POST / OFFICERS. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD POST / OFFICERS. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOLD THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS MADE TO MSEB EMPLOYEES A RE NOT ALLOWABLE EXPENDITURE AND WE FIND MERIT IN THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN ASSESSING THE SAME AS ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE UPHOLD THE ADDITION OF RS.3.75 LAKHS AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE ADDITION OF RS.36 LAKHS. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 1 2 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - ( R.K. P ANDA ) ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 20 TH MAY , 2015 GCVSR ITA NO . 23 2 4 /PN/20 1 2 MR. PREMCHAND RAMSARUP MITTAL 8 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A) - V , PUNE ; 4) THE CIT - V , PUNE ; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE