ITO, Sangli V. Dr. Vikas Anand Satre, Sangli

ITA 2327/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 232724514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-10-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 26-11-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P S NAIK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Valuation report
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) DR. VIKAS ANANDA SATRE, C/O DR. SATRE HOSPITAL, OMKAR COLONY, PETH SANGLI ROAD, ISLAMPUR 415 409. PAN : ALXPS9870N . APPELLANT VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), SANGLI. . RESPONDENT ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), SANGLI. . APPELLANT VS. DR. VIKAS ANAND SATRE, C/O DR. SATRE HOSPITAL, OMKAR COLONY, PETH SANGLI ROAD, ISLAMPUR, TAL.- WALWA, DIST.- SANGLI. PAN : ALXPS9870N . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : MR. C. H. NANIWADEKAR DEPARTMENT BY : MR. P. S. NAIK DATE OF HEARING : 10-09-2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30-10-2014 ORDER PER G. S. PANNU, AM THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10, WERE HEA RD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF A CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. THE CAPTIONED CROSS-APPEALS ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), KOLHAPUR DATE D 13.09.2012 WHICH, IN TURN, HAS ARISEN FROM AN ORDER DATED 26.12.2011 PAS SED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. FIRSTLY, IN APPEAL OF THE REVENUE VIDE ITA NO.23 27/PN/2012, THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED :- ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS .36,30,082/- MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/S 133A, WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE A SSESSEE IN WRITING VIDE LETTER DATED 16.04.2009. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), KOLHAPUR ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VAL UATION REPORT GIVEN BY THE GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER WHEREAS UNDER THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 142A FOR ASSESSING VALUE OF ANY INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, REPORT IS REQUIRED TO BE OBTAINED FROM THE DEPARTMENTAL VALUA TION OFFICER. 3. THE ONLY ISSUE IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE ARIS ES ON ACCOUNT OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 36,30,082/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENT IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING. 4. IN BRIEF, THE RELEVANT FACTS ARE THAT ASSESSEE I S A MEDICAL PRACTITIONER AND IS RUNNING A HOSPITAL. ON 20.02.2009 A SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A(3) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PROFESSIONAL PREMISES VIZ. THE HOSPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION, APART FR OM OTHER INCOMES, A SUM OF RS.36,30,082/- WAS DECLARED AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING. IT HAS BEEN EXPLAIN ED BEFORE US THAT AT THE TIME OF THE SURVEY ACTION ON 20.02.2009, THE HOSPITAL BU ILDING WAS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION WHICH WAS EVENTUALLY COMPLETED IN MAY, 2009. HOWEVER, ON 13.05.2009 ASSESSEE FURNISHED A WRITTEN COMMUNICATI ON TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER RETRACTING FROM THE DECLARATION OF ADDITION AL INCOME MADE IN THE SURVEY ACTION ON THE GROUND THAT HE WAS UNDER TENSION AT T HE TIME OF SURVEY; THAT THE VALUATION OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY WAS ON A HIGHER SIDE; THAT THE BUILDING WAS INCOMPLETE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY; AND, EVEN THE EXPENDITURE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS WAS NOT CONSIDERE D AS THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE INCOMPLETE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY, ETC. . SUBSEQUENTLY, THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 WAS ALSO FILE D ON 05.02.2010 WHEREIN THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INV ESTMENT MADE IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING WAS ALSO NOT OFFERED AS INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEVER, ADDED TO THE RETURNED INCOME A SUM OF RS.3 6,30,082/- DECLARED BY ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 THE ASSESSEE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF HOSPITAL BUILDI NG AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING O FFICER BEFORE THE CIT(A) ON LAW AS WELL AS ON FACTS. THE ASSESSEE PO INTED OUT THAT THE DECLARATION MADE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY ON ACCOUNT O F UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN HOSPITAL BUILDING WAS BASED ON A VALUATION MADE BY ONE, SHRI MADHUKAR DHERE, WHO WAS NOT A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. F URTHER, THE VALUATION MADE BY HIM WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE SAME WAS B ASED ON AN ESTIMATE ON THE DATE OF SURVEY WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERA TION THAT CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS ACTUALLY STARTED IN THE YEAR 2004-05 A ND EVEN ON THE DATE OF SURVEY THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING WAS INCOMPL ETE. THIRDLY, IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE DECLARATION WAS OBTAINED ON THE BASIS OF THE DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION ESTIMATED BY THE VALUER AS ON THE DAT ED SURVEY AND THE AMOUNTS ADOPTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD ENDE D 31.03.2007 AS THE BOOKS WERE NOT COMPLETE AFTER THAT DATE. THUS, EXPENDITU RE INCURRED ON CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AFTER 31.03.2007 AND UPTO THE DATE OF S URVEY WAS NOT AT ALL CONSIDERED BY THE SURVEY PARTY. ON THIS BASIS, THE DECLARATION ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN HOSPITAL BUILDING WAS SOUGHT TO BE SH OWN AS UNRELIABLE. FURTHER, ASSESSEE ALSO RELIED ON A VALUATION REPORT FURNISHE D TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WAS OBTAINED FR OM ONE, SHRI AJIT PATIL, WHO WAS A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. THE SAID VAL UER HAD CERTIFIED THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF BUILDING AT RS.85,46,575/-. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT IF THE SAID ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION IS COMPARED WITH COST OF CONSTRUCTION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TILL 31.03.2009, IT WOULD SHOW A VERY MARGINAL DIFFERENCE MEANING THEREBY THAT THERE WAS NO UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING. ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 6. THE CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED THE AFORESAID SUBMISSI ONS AND HAS FOUND IT FIT TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.36,30,082/- MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) READS AS UNDER :- 11. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ABOVE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THE SHRI MADHUKAR DHERE, WHO PREPARED THE VALU ATION REPORT DT. 20/02/2009, IS NOT AN APPROVED REGISTERED VALUER, A ND THE VALUATION MADE BY HIM IS MADE ON ESTIMATE BASIS, BY ADOPTING A CURREN T FLAT RATE OF RS.800/- PER SQ. FT. AS COST OF CONSTRUCTION. IT IS SEEN THAT HE HAS NOT TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT THE FACT THAT THE CONSTRUCTION WAS STARTED IN THE A. Y. 2005-06 AND THE BUILDING WAS STILL UNDER CONSTRUCTION AT THE TIME OF VALUATI ON. HIS REPORT ALSO DOES NOT SPECIFY THE DETAILS SUCH AS SPECIFICATIONS OF CONST RUCTIONS, FLOOR-WISE AREA, ETC. WHICH IS REQUIRED FOR VALUATION AND HIS REPORT IS O F GENERAL IN NATURE. IT IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERED B Y SHRI DHERE WAS THE THEN PREVAILING MARKET RATES AS ON THE DATE OF VALUATION , THUS, HIS VALUATION REPORT CONNOTES THE 'CURRENT MARKET VALUE' OF THE BUILDING AS ON THE DATE OF PREPARATION OF VALUATION REPORT AND NOT THE 'COST O F CONSTRUCTION' ACTUALLY INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME FROM 20 /12/2004 TO 20/02/2009. IN HIS REPORT DT. 20/02/2009, SHRI DHERE HAS STARTED H IS REPORT WITH THE SENTENCE 'AS PER INSTRUCTIONS, I INSPECTED THE PROPERTY OWNE R DR. SOU SANJIVANI VIKAS SATRE (DESHMUKH) & DR. VIKAS ANANDA SATRE (DESHMUKH ) FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSIGNING ITS PRESENT VALUE ., '. THIS SENTENCE CLE ARLY INDICATES THE FACT THAT THE VALUATION WAS MADE FOR ESTIMATING THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE BUILDING AND NOT TO ESTIMATE THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. WHEREAS, THE VALUATION REPORT OF SHRI AJIT PATIL, WHO IS A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VA LUER, HAS SPECIFIED VARIOUS DETAILS REQUIRED FOR VALUATION. HE HAS ESTIMATED TH E FLOOR-WISE COST OF CONSTRUCTION RANGING FROM RS.550/- TO RS.700/- PER SQ. FT. BUILT UP AREA, WHICH WAS PREVALENT DURING THE PERIOD OF CONSTRUCTION FRO M THE YEAR 2004 TO 2009. THEREFORE, THE VALUATION REPORT GIVEN BY SHRI AJIT PATIL HAS GOT SOME AUTHENTICITY AND RELIABILITY. I ALSO FIND THAT THE A. O. HAS WORKED OUT THE DIFFERENCE BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE TOTAL I NVESTMENT IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING AMOUNTING TO RS.49,13,918/- WHICH WAS REFL ECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED FOR A. Y. 2007-08, AND HE HAS N OT CONSIDERED THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE PERIO D FROM 01/04/2007 TO THE DATE OF SURVEY. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, THE VALUATION MAD E BY SHRI PATIL SHOULD HAVE BEEN TAKEN BY THE A.O. AS A BASIS FOR MAKING ANY AD DITION. HOWEVER, THE A.O. HAS NOT CONSIDERED THE ABOVE FACTS WHILE MAKING ADD ITION, BUT HAS SIMPLY RELIED UPON THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME DECL ARED IN THE STATEMENT. THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATED BY SHRI PATIL WORKED OUT AT RS.85,46,575/-, WHEREAS THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION AS PER BOOKS OF AC COUNT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31/03/2009 SHOWS THE PROGRESSIVE FI GURE OF RS.80,21,408/-. THEREFORE, THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THESE TWO FIGURES WORKS OUT AT RS.5,25,167/- (RS.85,46,575/- MINUS RS.80,21,408/-) ONLY WHICH IS 6.14% OF THE TOTAL VALUATION FIGURE. SINCE THE MARGIN BETWEE N THE VALUE AS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AS PER BOOKS AND THE VALUE AS PER THE APP ROVED VALUER'S REPORT IS LESS THAN 10%, AS HELD BY HON'BLE J & K HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF HONEST GROUP OF HOTELS (P) LTD. V/S CIT (2002) 177 CTR (J& K) 232, THIS DIFFERENCE IS LIABLE TO BE IGNORED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS, I DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.36,30,082/- MADE BY HIM ON THIS COUN T. IN THE RESULT, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED. 7. AGAINST THE AFORESAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A), REV ENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE, THE ADDITION OF ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 RS.36,30,082/- WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF DECLARATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION U/S 133A OF THE ACT, AND THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING SUCH ADDITI ON. IT HAS ALSO BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ACCEPTING THE VA LUATION REPORT OBTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, SHR I AJIT PATIL IN DELETING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FO R THE ASSESSEE VEHEMENTLY POINTED OUT THAT THE CIT(A) MADE NO MIST AKE IN DELETING THE ADDITION BECAUSE IT IS AMPLY CLEAR THAT THE ADDITIO NAL INCOME DECLARED IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY WAS NOT BASED ON ANY SUBSTANTIVE M ATERIAL AND WAS DEVOID OF ANY FACTUAL SUPPORT. THE LEARNED COUNSEL HAS AL SO REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED WHICH, INTER-ALIA, CONTAINS THE VALUATIO N REPORT OF ONE, SHRI MADHUKAR DHERE, WHICH HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE A SSESSING OFFICER TO JUSTIFY THE IMPUGNED ADDITION AS WELL AS THE REPORT OF SHRI AJIT PATIL, A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER. BY REFERRING TO BOTH T HE VALUATION REPORTS, IT IS SOUGHT TO BE POINTED OUT THAT THE REPORT OF SHRI MA DHUKAR DHERE IS UNACCEPTABLE INASMUCH AS IT DOES NOT EVEN GIVE THE BASIS OF THE ESTIMATION. MOREOVER, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE SAI D REPORT REFERS TO THE VALUE OF CONSTRUCTION AT CURRENT RATE MEANING THEREBY THA T THE RATE ADOPTED IS FOR 20 TH FEBRUARY, 2009 AND NOT WITH RESPECT TO THE PERIOD I N WHICH THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING HAS BEEN ACTUALLY UNDERTAKEN. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, THE PLEA OF THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RESPONDENT-ASSES SEE IS THAT, THE CIT(A) MADE NOT MISTAKE IN HOLDING THAT THE ADDITION OF RS .36,30,082/- IS UNSUSTAINABLE. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A), WHICH WE HAVE EXTRACTED IN THE EARLIER PART OF THIS ORDER, ARE QUITE JUSTIFIED INASMUCH AS IT HAS BEEN LUCIDLY BROUGHT O UT THAT THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF HOSPITAL BUILDING IS ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 NOT JUSTIFIED. IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, ASSESSEE D ID OFFER ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE CONSTRUCTI ON OF THE HOSPITAL BUILDING. SO HOWEVER, SUCH A DECLARATION MADE WAS RETRACTED W ITHIN A SHORT SPAN OF TIME AND OF-COURSE MUCH BEFORE THE DUE DATE OF FILI NG OF RETURN FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER. IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED, THE DECLARATION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN HOSPIT AL BUILDING WAS NOT REFLECTED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE DECLARA TION WAS BASED ON A MISTAKEN FACT-SITUATION INASMUCH AS THE VALUATION R EPORT OF SHRI MADHUKAR DHERE DATED 20.02.2009, WHICH FORMED THE BASIS FOR THE DECLARATION, WAS UNRELIABLE. THE CIT(A) HAS APPRECIATED THE AFORESA ID STAND OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDING TO THE CIT(A), THE VALUATION REPORT OF SH RI MADHUKAR DHERE WAS NOT RELIABLE. VARIOUS INFIRMITIES IN THE SAME HAVE BEE N POINTED OUT BY HIM, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN ASSAILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US. I N-FACT, THE CIT(A) HAS REFERRED TO THE REPORT AND NOTED THAT IT REFLECTED ESTIMATION OF THE PRESENT VALUE OF THE BUILDING AND NOT THE ESTIMATE OF THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING. THE CIT(A) HAS NOTED THAT THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE B UILDING STARTED IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 WAS STILL CONTINUING ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AND THEREFORE IT WAS IMPERATIVE FOR THE VALUER TO TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION IN THE RESPECTIVE PERIODS. THE ABSENC E OF SUCH AN APPROACH IN THE REPORT OF THE VALUER, IN OUR VIEW, JUSTIFIABLY RENDERS SUCH REPORT AS UNRELIABLE IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE ESTIMATED COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF THE BUILDING IN THE PRESENT CASE. MOREOVER, THE TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THE HOSPITAL BUILDING WAS ADOPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AT RS .49,13,918/- WHICH WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT MAINTAINED FOR AS SESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AND IT DID NOT TAKE INTO CONSIDERATION THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01.04.2007 UPTO THE DATE OF SURVEY. AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE TOTAL CO ST OF CONSTRUCTION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UPTO 31.03.2009 WAS RS.80,2 1,408/-. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED A VALUATION REPORT FROM ONE SHRI AJI T PATIL, A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER, WHO ESTIMATED THE COST OF CONSTRUC TION OF THE BUILDING AT ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 RS.85,46,575/-. THE CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE SAID REP ORT OF A GOVERNMENT APPROVED VALUER AND COMPARED THE VALUE ESTIMATED BY HIM WITH THE COST OF CONSTRUCTION RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE CIT(A), IN OUR VIEW, CORRECTLY NOTED THAT THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO FIGURES WAS INSIGNIFICANT, WHICH CANNOT BE RULED-OUT BECAUSE VALUATION REPORT IS OSTENSIBLY ONLY AN ESTIMATION. CONSIDERING THE AFORESAID, IN OUR VIEW , THE CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.36,30,082/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND ACCORDIN GLY, REVENUE FAILS IN ITS APPEAL. 10. NOW, WE MAY TAKE-UP THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHEREIN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE :- 1.1 THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEAL S), KOLHAPUR [THE LD. CIT(A)] ERRED IN PARTLY CONFIRMING THE AC TION OF THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2(2), SANGLI (THE A.O.) AND MAKING AN ADDITI ON OF RS.15,210/- U/S 69 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 [THE ACT] BEING THE DIFF ERENCE IN THE AMOUNT FOUND DURING THE SURVEY ACTION AND THE CASH BALANCE AS ON THE DATE OF SURVEY AS PER THE CASH BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE. 1.2 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE FACTS AND THE CIRCU MSTANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. 2.1 THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION O F THE A.O., WHEREBY THE A.O. HAD MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00 0/- U/S 69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FURNITURE, FIXTURE AND INTERIOR DECORATION. 2.1 IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE FACTS AND THE CIRCUMST ANCES OF THE CASE, AND IN LAW, NO SUCH ADDITION WAS CALLED FOR. 11. IN SO FAR AS THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RELATING TO AN ADDITION OF RS.15,210/- IS CONCERNED, THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN PRE SSED AT THE TIME OF HEARING AND IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 12. THE SECOND GROUND IN THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS WITH REGARD TO AN ADDITION OF RS.3,00,000/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN INTERIOR DECORATION. ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 13. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY, APART FROM OTHER DECLARATION ASSESSEE OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3,00,000/- AS ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN FURN ITURE/FIXTURE AND INTERIOR DECORATION. THE SAID ADDITIONAL INCOME WAS NOT DEC LARED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED. THEREFORE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADD ED A SUM OF RS.3,00,000/- TO THE RETURNED INCOME. THE CIT(A) HAS ALSO AFFIRM ED THE ADDITION, AGAINST WHICH ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 14. BEFORE US, THE LEARNED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE A SSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE DECLARATION OF ADDITIONAL INCOME MADE DURING TH E COURSE OF SURVEY ON ACCOUNT OF RS.3,00,000/- WAS RETRACTED BY THE ASSES SEE BECAUSE IT WAS DECLARED UNDER A MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS. ACCORDI NG TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, THE RELEVANT DATA WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BEING COMPLETE. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, ASSESSEE HAD FURNISHED RELEVANT MATERIAL TO SAY THAT THE AMOUNT OF EXPENDI TURE ON FURNITURE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS MORE THAN THE AMOUNT DECLA RED AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO NECESSITY FOR MAKING A SEPARATE ADDITION AND THE DECLARATION MADE DURING THE SURVEY WAS WRONG. 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESE NTATIVE HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN SUPPOR T OF THE CASE OF THE REVENUE :- 19. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELL ANT AND EVIDENCES FURNISHED. I FIND FROM THE ANSWER TO QUES TION NO. 3 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION THAT TH E HOSPITAL WAS RUN FROM A RENTED PREMISES SITUATED AT 'OMKAR COLONY', PETH-SA NGLI ROAD, A/P ISLAMPUR, TAL. WALVA, DIST. SANGLI. FROM THE VALUATION REPORT , IT IS SEEN THAT A NEW HOSPITAL BUILDING IS BEING CONSTRUCTED, WHICH IS SI TUATED AT GAT NO.80, PLOT NO.13/A, 13/B, AT ISLAMPUR, TAL. WALWA, DIST. SANGL I. FROM THE ANSWER TO QUESTION NO.15 OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY, IT IS SEEN THAT THE DECLARATION OF RS.3 LAKHS WAS GIVEN F OR INTERIOR DECORATION, FURNITURE AND FIXTURES OF THE NEW HOSPITAL BUILDING . FROM THE COPY OF THE BILL OF JANAK HEALTH CARE PVT. LTD. DT. 13/10/2008 FURNISHE D BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS SEEN THE ADDRESS MENTIONED ON THE SAID BILL IS OF H OSPITAL OF THE APPELLANT SITUATED AT PETH-SANGLI ROAD, I.E. AT THE HOSPITAL SITUATED AT THE RENTED PREMISES. NOW, THE DECLARATION OF RS.3 LAKHS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT WAS IN RESPECT OF INTERIOR DECORATION, FURNITURE AND FIXTU RES ETC. OF THE NEW HOSPITAL ITA NO.2322/PN/2012 ITA NO.2327/PN/2012 BUILDING, WHEREAS IT IS CLEAR FROM THE BILL OF JANA K HEALTHCARE PVT. LTD. THAT THE SAID BILL OF RS.4,68,246/- WAS IN RESPECT OF PURCHA SE OF BEDS, FOOD TABLE, STRETCHER TROLLEY ETC. AND NO ITEM OF THE SAID BILL WAS RELATED TO INTERIOR DECORATION OR FURNITURE AND FIXTURE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT'S CONTENTION THAT 'SINCE THE FURNITURE AMOUNTING RS.4 ,68,246/- IS DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS, WHICH IS MUCH MORE THAN THE AMOUNT DE CLARED, THE DECLARATION GIVEN WAS UNDER MISTAKEN BELIEF OF FACTS, AS THE DA TA WAS NOT AVAILABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT' CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. I THEREFORE HOLD THAT THE AO HAS CORRECTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE AMOUNTS SPENT O N FURNITURE, FIXTURE AND INTERIOR DECORATION OF RS.3 LAKHS, WHICH WAS DECLAR ED BY APPELLANT AS ADDITIONAL INCOME, WAS NOT AT ALL RECORDED ANYWHERE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN VIEW OF ABOVE FACTS, THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. IN THE RESULT, THE GROUND OF APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. 16. HAVING CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, IN OUR VIEW, THE CIT(A) MADE NO MISTAKE IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.3,00,00 0/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED MONEY SPENT ON FURNITURE, FIXTURE AND I NTERIOR DECORATION. THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HAS BEEN APTLY CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) AND FOUND TO BE INCORRECT. CONSIDERING THE DISCUSSION MADE BY THE CIT(A), WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH HIS CONCLUSION ON THIS ASPECT. T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IS HEREBY AFFIRMED AND ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS ASPECT. 17. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AS WELL AS THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (G.S. PANNU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED: 30 TH OCTOBER, 2014. SUJEET COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : - 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A), KOLHAPUR; 4) THE CIT, KOLHAPUR; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., PUNE