ACIT, WARDHA CIRCLE, Wardha V. RAMESH KASHINATH PATIL, Yavatmal

ITA 265/NAG/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5671 (ITAT-NAGPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 25-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 10-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R K BARAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S C THAKAR; C J THAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of cross examination; Question of law
• Section: 133A; 131; 10

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 265 - 26 7 / NAG / 201 3 & ITA N O.27 1 /NAG/201 3 & C.O. NO.13 - 16 /NAG/2013 (A/O ITA NO.265 - 26 7 /NAG/2013 & ITA NO.27 1 /N AG /201 3 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005 - 0 6 TO 200 8 - 0 9 ) ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, WARDHA CIRCLE VS. RAMESH KASHINATH PATIL WARDHA - 442001 RAMESH KASHINATH PATIL MOTI NAGAR, TQ. PUSAD, YAVATMAL - 4450001 MOTI NAGAR, TQ. PUSAD, YAVATMAL - 445001 ACIT, W A RDHA CIRCLE PAN AJDPP 7074 M APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY: SHRI C.J. THAKAR & SHRI S.C. THAKAR, ADVOCATE REVENUE BY: SHRI R.K. BARAL, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 09 . 07 .201 8 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 11 . 07.2018 O R D E R PER BENCH TH ESE PRESENT FOUR APPEAL S BY THE REVENUE AS WELL AS FOUR CROSS - OBJECTION S (CO) BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST THE DIFFERENT ORDER S OF THE C OMMISSIONER OF I NCOME T AX (A PPEALS ) - II , NAGPUR OF EVEN DATED 25 . 0 3 .201 3 FOR A SSESSMENT Y EAR S 200 5 - 0 6 TO 200 8 - 0 9 RESPECTIVELY . 2 . SINCE IN ALL THE APPEALS, THE GROUNDS ARE COMMON EXCEPT THE YEAR OF ASSESSMENT, THEREFORE THEY HAVE BEEN CLUBBED, HEARD TOGETHER AND A CONSOLIDATED ORDER IS BEING PASSED FOR THE CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. FIRST OF ALL, WE TAKE UP REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.2 71 /NAG/2013 FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 AS LEAD CASE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE MENTIONED HEREINBELOW: - ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 2 1. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) - II, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` . 1,73,686/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 2. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) - II ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION OF ` .200,21,083/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. 3. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED C IT(A) - II, NAGPUR HAS ERRED IN PLACING UNDUE RELIANCE ON THE SELF SERVING AFFIDAVIT MADE IN THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS IGNORING THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE FARMERS AND THE COMMISSION AGENT U/S.131 DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 4. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRC UMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LEARNED CITT(A) - II, NAGPUR HAS COMPLETELY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS THAT THE NOTINGS MADE IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENTS CORROBORATE WITH THAT OF CASH DEPOSIT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND FAMILY ME MBERS VIS - A - VIS WITH THAT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE FARMERS FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FARMERS U/S. 131 DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 5. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FINDING OF THE AO WITH REGARD TO UTILIZATION OF UNEXPLAINED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS TO ACQU I R E HUGE IMMOBILE PROPERTIES WHEN THE DECLARED PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS ARE MEAGRE. 6. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT FOLLOWING THE CARDINAL PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN U/S. 136 THAT THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE INCOME TAX AUTHORITY ARE JUDICIAL PROCEEDINGS AND INSTEAD GAVE UNDUE IMPORTANCE TO A SELF SERVING DOCUMENT IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT SUBMITTED BEFORE HIM AND THAT TOO AFTER A LAPSE OF 6 YEARS FROM THE CONCLUSION OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. 7. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE COPIES OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THE FARMERS WERE PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE BY THE A|O AND THEREFORE IT IS DUTY OF THE ASSESSEE TO DEMAND FOR CROSS - EXAMINATION AND NOT VICE VERSA. 8. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE THE LD. CI(A) ERRED IN GIVING UNDUE IMPORTANCE TO THE BOOKS PREPARED BY THE ASSESSEE AFTER THE DAT E OF SURVEY IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE INCOMPLETE AND NOT UPTO DATE AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. 9. ANY OTHER GROUND THAT MAY BE RAISED DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING OF APPEAL. ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 3 3 . THE SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 19 61; IN SHORT THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF ASSESSEE BY THE DDIT(INV), UNIT - II, NAGPUR ON 21.09.2007. 4 . THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT ASSESSEE IS AN ADVOCATE BY PROFESSION AND MAINTAINED CASH BOOK AND OTHER LEDGER ACCOUNT WHICH WERE GOT AUDITED. IN THIS CASE, SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED BY THE DDIT(INV) - II, NAGPUR ON 21.09.2007. THEREFOR E THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT. DURING THE SURVEY, IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT MAINTAINED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN RESPECT OF HIS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS. MOREOVER, SOME INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND IMPOUNDED. THE SURVEY PART Y HAD TAKEN SWORN STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND FARMERS WHO SE LAND WAS ACQUIRED OR WHO GOT COMPENSATION FROM MACT. T HE FARMERS WERE CLIENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND BY THE ORDER OF THE COURT, THE FARMERS WERE GRANTED AN ENHANCED COMPENSATION IN LAND ACQUISITIO N CASE. SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF MOTOR ACCIDENT CASES, THE CLIENTS OF ASSESSEE WERE GRANTED COMPENSATION AS PE R THE ORDER MACT. IN THIS CASES , IT WAS ALSO FOUND THAT HUGE AMOUNTS WERE WRITTEN ON THE PAGES OF DIARIES IMPOUNDED AND ON THE LOOSE SHEETS SO IN VENTORIZED . O N INVESTIGATION BY SURVEY PARTY, IT WAS CAME TO THE LIGHT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS US ED TO CHARGE UNREASONABLE FEES FROM HIS CLIENTS ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE S OF LAND ACQUISITION AND MACT. THEREFORE IN SWORN STATEMENTS SOME OF THE FARMERS HAD STATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE, WH O WAS THE IR COUNSEL IN LAND ACQUISITION CASE, HAD RECOVERED FROM THEM NEAR ABOUT 50% AMOUNT AS FEES ON THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEI VED BY THE FARMERS. 5 . THUS, TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SWORN STATEMENTS OF THE FARMERS AND NOTINGS ON DIARY, ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITIO NS UNDER DIFFERENT HEADS, I.E. I NCOME FROM PROFESSION AND I NCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND CONSEQUENTLY PASSED ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 30.12.2010. 6 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD.CIT(A) AND THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL AND DELETED PART ADDITION S MADE BY THE AO. ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 4 7 . AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRESENT APPEAL BEFORE US ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED H EREINABOVE. 8 . ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE FROM 1 TO 8 ARE INTER - RELATED AND INTER - CONNECTS AND RELATE TO CHALLENG ING OF ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFESSION RECEIPTS . THEREFORE, WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DEC IDE ALL THE ABOVE GROUNDS THROUGH THE PRESENT CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 9 . AS PER THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DECLARING INCOME AT 19,77 ,760/ - THE ASSESSEE IS A LAWYER AND MAINLY HANDLES IN LAND ACQUISITION COMPENSATION / ACQUISITION CASES AND IN MOTOR VEHICLE ACCIDENT CLAIMS. A SURVEY U/S 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE AO RECORDED ALL THE FACTUAL FINDINGS WHICH ARE MENTIO NED AT PAGE 2.2 TO 2.6 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREINBELOW: - 2.2 IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. AO THAT IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED ON 22 - 09 - 2007 ONE SHRI KRUSHNARAO KADAMA HAD STATED TH A T FEE @ 20% OF COMPENSATION AMOUNT RECEIV ED IN MACT CASES WAS CHARGED BY THE APPELLANT AND RECOVERED FROM THE CLIENT. THE LD. AO HAS ALSO REFERRED ONE DIARY AS GAU DAINANDINI DIARY AS INVENTORISED AS B - 3 WHICH IS REFLECTED IN PARA 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN CERTAIN NAMES, AMOUNT AND PE RCENTAGE ARE MENTIONED. THE LD. AO ASKED THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID DIARY. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT THAT THE NAMES MENTIONED INIT H DIARY REFERRED TO HIS CLIENTS IN MACT CASES AND THE AMOUNT REFERRED TO THE AMOUNTS DEPOSITED IN THE COURT.. TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KRUSHANRAO KADAM AND NOTINGS ON THE DIARY THE LD. AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT WAS RECOVERED FEES @ 20% FROM HIS CLIENTS OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN MACT CASES AND SINCE THE TOTAL OF AMOUNTS OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED AS PER THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY WAS RS .868431/ - , 20% OF THE SAME BEING RS.173686/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2.3 IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. AO THAT SEVERAL CLIENTS OF THE APPELLANT IN THEIR STATE MENT U/S. 131 RECORDED ON 21 - 09 - 2007 HAD STATED THAT THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED 50% OF FEES RECEIVED ON ACCOUNT OF COMPENSATION AND FURTHER STATED THAT THEY HAVE MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM THEIR ACCOUNT AND PAID THE SAME AMOUNT TO THE APPELLANT. THE LD. AO HAS TH EN MADE A TABLE IN PARA NO. 16 WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT DEPOSITED BY THE FARMERS AND THE AMOUNT WITHDRAWALS ARE MENTIONED. THE SAID TABLE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: - ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 5 SR.NO. NAME OF THE FARMERS DATE AMOUNT DATE AMOUNT WITHDRAWAL 1 RATHOD LAXMAN 13.4.07 606635 16.4.07 16.4.07 4,60,000 40,000/ - 2 JADHAO JYOTIRAM LACCHIRAM 19.6.07 1004428 19.6.07 20.6.07 5.7.07 18.7.07 27.8.07 2,50,000/ - 2,50,000/ - 30,000/ - 1,00,000/ - 1,20,000/ - 3 RATHOD KAILASH NARAYAN 19.5.07 302856/ - 19.5.07 21.05.07 1,77,000/ - 1,25,000/ - 4 PAWAR GOKUL MANIRAM 5.9.07 1243719/ - 6.9.07 7.9.07 8.9.07 8.9.07 3,00,000/ - 2,00,000/ - 6,40,000/ - 1,00,000/ - 5 RATHOD RAJU HEMLA 11.8.07 989510 11.8.07 23.08.07 439500/ - 470000/ - 6 JADHAO MOTIRAM LACHHIRAM 14.07.07 1628060 17.07.07 1627000/ - TOTAL 5775208/ - 2.4 THE LD. AO HAS STATED THAT THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI RAJU HEMLA RATHOD THAT HE PAID AN AMOUNT OF RS. 439500/ - TO THE APPELLANT OUT OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED OF RS.989510/ - . THE LD. AO FURTHER NOTED THAT PAYMENTS MADE BY SHRI JYOTIRAM LACCHIRAM JADHAO AND SHRI GOKUL MANIRAM PAWAR AMOUNTING TO RS.8 LACS AND 2,35,000/ - TO THE APPELLANT. ON BEING CONFRONTE D THE APPELLANT DENIED HAVING RECEIVED THE SAID AMOUNTS. HOWEVER THE LD. AO CAME TO THE CONSIDERED CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAD NOT SHOWN ENTIRE FEES ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE FARMERS AND THEREFORE 40% OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED WHICH WORKS OUT TO RS .57,75,208/ - WHICH AMOUNTS TO RS.289000/ - AS FEES RECEIPT FROM THE FARMERS THE AMOUNT OF RS.289000/ - WAS REDUCED FROM THE SAID ESTIMATE OF RS.2310083/ - AND THE AMOUNT OF RS.2021083/ - WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2.5 IT WAS FURTHER NOTED BY THE LD. A|O THAT TH E RE W A S CERTAIN NOTINGS ON PAGE NO. 45 & 46 OF GAU DAINANDINI DIARY AND THE APPELLANT HAD STATED THAT THE TRANSACTION NOTED IN THE SAID PAGE HAD REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED INIT H BOOKS O F ACCOUNT AND THAT THE SAME MAY BE ADDED TO HIS INCOME. CONSIDERING THE SAID THE AMOUNTS OF RS.402978/ - AND RS.366750/ - TOTALLING TO RS. 769728/ - WERE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 2.6 IT WAS ALSO NOTED BY THE LD. AO THAT THE APPELLANT HAD RECEIVED GIFTS OF RS.301000/ - IN CASH F ROM ONE SHRI KASHINATH GYNBAJI PATIL AND RS.381000/ - FROM SHRI PUNJABRAO PATIL. ON BEING ASKED TO APPELLANT TO IDENTIFY THE DONORS AND ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 6 TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF DONORS, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO DO SO THE LD. AO ADDED A N AMOUNT OF RS.682000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68. 10 . ON APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE FACTUAL POSITION AND AFTER APPRECIATING THE SAME HAD DECIDED THE GROUND BY TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION, THE WRITTEN STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY T HE ASSESSEE WHICH ARE AT PAGE 4 TO 8 IN PARA - 4 AND SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 4. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AS UNDER: 'THE ABOVE ALLEGATIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR A Y.2008 09 ARE UNPROVED ASSUMPTIONS OF LEARNED A O AND ARE NOT PROVED BY ANY LEGAL OR ACCEPTABLE EVIDENCE. THEY ARE THE OUTCOME OF SURMISE DRAWN FROM UNTESTED AND UNPROVED STATEMENTS OF SOME PERSONS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. 4] IN PARA 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER H E REFERS TO DIARY NAMED 'GAU DAINANDINE DIARY' INVENTORIZED AS 8 3 AND REFERS TO PAGE 7 AND 33 THEREOF WHEREIN THE NAMES OF VARIOUS PERSONS ARE STATED ANT! AGAINST WHICH THE AMOUNT OF COMPENSATION RECEIVED/RECEIVABLE BY THEM UNDER MOTOR ACCIDENT CLAIM IS S TATED. THE TOTAL WHEREOF COMES TO RS.8,68,431/ . ACCORDING TO A O . THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE RECEIVED 20% THEREOF AMOUNTING TO RS.1,73,686/ AS FEES. NAMES OF THESE PERSONS DO NOT APPEAR IN FEES ACCOUNT AND HENCE HE HELD THAT FEES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,73,686/ IS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THIS AMOUNT. 5] SAID ADDITION IS TOTALLY BASED ON SURMISES AND CONJUCTURES. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE NAMES OF THESE PERSONS DO NOT APPEAR IN THE FEES ACCOUNT. FOR EXAMPLE THE NAME OF DILDARBH AN IS STATED AND AGAINST HIS NAME THE AMOUNT OF RS.12,791/ IS STATED. ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED THE FEES OF RS.1,OOO/ FROM HIM AND THE SAME IS RECORDED IN CASH BOOK ON 10.04.2007. SIMILARLY AGAINST NAME OF SHEIKH RAJJAK THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,975/ IS STATED. A GAINST THE NAME OF SK. ARIF KHAN AMOUNT OF RS. 29, 007/ IS WRITTEN AND AGAINST THE NAME OF MAKBOOL THE AMOUNT OF RS.29,007/ IS STATED. THEY ARE THE HEIRS OF DECEASED SK. ASHIF S/O. RAJJAK WHO DIED IN VEHICULAR ACCIDENT. THEY ARE RESPECTIVELY FATHER, BROT HER AND MOTHER OF THE DECEASED AND GOT THE ABOVE SAID COMPENSATION. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE FEES OF RS. 9,000/ IN RESPECT OF THE SAID CASE WHICH IS CREDITED IN THE CASH BOOK ON 10.04.2007. SIMILARLY AGAINST THE NAME OF SAHIN PARVEEN RS.30,553/ IS STAT ED, AGAINST THE NAME OF HUSSAIN KHAN RS.30,553/ IS STATED AND AGAINST THE NAME OF UJELABEE '(WRONGLY WRITTEN AS LAIBAI) RS.30,553/ IS STATED. THEY ARE THE HEIRS OF GULZARKHAN HUSAINKHAN WHO DIED IN VEHICULAR ACCIDENT AND THE HEIRS RECEIVED THE ABOVE REFE RRED COMPENSATION. THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED THE FEES OF RS.10,000/ WHICH IS ALREADY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK ON 10.04.2007. SIMILARLY THE FEES RECEIVED FROM OUT OF THE PERSONS STATED IN PARA 12 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE ALL RECORDED IN CASH BOOK OF THE AS SESSEE. THUS THE ASSUMPTION OF LEARNED A.O. THAT THE FEES IN RESPECT OF THOSE CASES WHERE TOTAL COMPENSATION RECEIVED BY THEM IS RS.8,68,431/ THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE RECEIVED ABOUT 20% AS FEES AMOUNTING TO RS.8,68,431/ THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE RECEIVED ABOU T 20% AS FEES AMOUNTING TO RS.1,73,686/ AND THAT THE SAME IS NOT RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK ETC. IS TOTALLY INCORRECT AND CONTRARY TO EVIDENCE AND MATERIAL ON RECORD AND HENCE THE SAID ESTIMATED ADDITION OF RS.1,73,686/ MADE BY THE LEARNED AO ON THE AS SUMPTION THAT THE FEES FROM THE PERSONS STATED IN PARA 12 OF ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE NOTED RECORDED IS ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 7 WHOLLY INCORRECT AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. FEES AS AND WHEN RECEIVED HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED. HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.1,73,686/ BE KINDLY DELETED. 6] IN PARA 13 HE REFERS TO THE LAND ACQUISITION CASES OF FOLLOWING PERSONS. ASSESSEE GAVE DETAILS OF CASE NUMBERS, COMPENSATIONS RECEIVED BY THEM AND FEES CHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DULY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK S NO. CASE NO. NAME OF THE PARTY AMOUNT OF COMPENSA TION DATE FEES CHARGED & RECORDED IN BOOK I) 184/93 MOTIRAM LACHIRAM JADAV RS.21,22,238/ 17 . 07 . 07 RS.80,000/ - II) 173/93 KAILASH NARAYAN RS.3,02,856/ - 19.5.07 RS.15,000 III) 179/93 GOKUL MANIRAM RS.12,43,719/ - 05.09.07 RS.62,000/ - IV) 183/93 LAXMAN MOHIPATI RATHOD RS.6,06,635/ - 16.4.07 RS.32,000/ - V) 201/93 JYOTIRAM LACHIRAM JADHAV - RS.10,04,428/ - 19.6.07 RS.57,000/ - VI) 171/93 RAJU HMU RATHOD RS.9,89,510/ - 11.8.07 RS.43,000/ - TOTAL RS.2,89,000/ - IN PARA 13.1 HE REFERRED TO PAGE 42 OF LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE NO.B 12 ON WHICH SOME CALCULATION AND EXPENSES ARE SATED WITHOUT ANY NAME OR DETAILS. ON SAID PAGE 30% AND 5% WAS ALSO WRITTEN. ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THEY APPEAR TO BE DETAILS OF EXPENSE INCURRED BY THE CLI ENT AND AS STATED BY HIM THE SAME APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN WRITTEN. NO FURTHER DETAILS WERE THERE ON THE SAID STRAY PAPER AND HENCE NOTHING FURTHER COULD BE STATED AND IN FACT THE SAME HAS NO RELEVANCE FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE AND NOTHING COULD BE IN FERRED THEREFROM AND IN FACT EVEN AO HAS ALSO NOT DRAWN ANY INFERENCE THEREFROM HENCE THE SAME IS IRRELEVANT. THEN IN PARA 14 AO SAYS THAT ASSESSEES CLIENT IS ALLEGED TO HAVE STATED BEFORE AUTHORIZED OFFICER ON 21.09.2007 THAT SHRI PATIL CHARGED 50% OF CO MPENSATION AS FEES AND HE IS FURTHER ALLEGED TO HAVE STATED THAT THEY HAVE MADE WITHDRAWAL FROM THE BANK AND HAVE PAID THE AMOUNT TO PATIL. HOWEVER THERE ARE NO DETAILS OF ANY SUCH STATEMENT. WHOSE STATEMENT IT IS? NOTHING IS STATED. IT IS THUS NEITHER KNO WN NOR CLEAR AS TO WHOSE STATEMENT THE AO IS REFERRING IN PARA 14 OF HIS ORDER. NO SUCH STATEMENT SHOWING WHAT IS ALLEGED IS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR ASSESSEE HAD ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE ANY SUCH PERSON. A|O THEN ON PAGE 6 OF HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER GIVES THE DETAILS OF BANK ACCOUNTS OF ABOVE SAID SIX PERSONS, HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED THEREIN AND HOW MUCH AMOUNT WAS WITHDRAWN THERE FROM. WHAT EXACTLY THE AO. WANTS INFER FROM THE SAID BANK ACCOUNT OF SAID SIX PERSONS, AND THEIR DEPOSITS AND WITHD RAWALS, IS NOT CLEAR. THEN IN PARA 16.1 HE REFERS TO THE STATEMENT RAJU RATHOD SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER. HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE STATED THAT HE RECEIVED COMPENSATION OF RS.9,89,510/ AND OUT OF WHICH HE GAVE RS.4,39,500/ AS FEES TO PATIL BY WITHDRAWING FROM BANK. REFERRING TO HIS STATEMENT HE IS SAID TO HAVE STATED THAT HE PAID RS.4,39,500/ BY CHEQUE. HOWEVER THERE IS NO SUCH PAYMENT BY CHEQUE. FURTHER THE SAID STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE. THUS THE SAID UNTESTED, UNSUPPORTED STATEMENT AND BEING CONTRARY TO FACTS HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE. HOWEVER IN HIS SUBSEQUENT STATEMENT RECORDED ON 29.11.2011 HE HAS STATED THAT HE PAID FEES OF RS.60,000/ IN CASH TO PA TIL AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM BANK. THUS THE INFERENCE OF A O. THAT HUGE FEES OR 50% OF COMPENSATION AS FEES ARE TAKEN BY COUNSEL STANDS FULLY REBUTTED. AND THE FACT OF THE FEES ACTUALLY RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS AS STATED IN EARLIER PART OF THIS PARA STANDS FULLY ESTABLISHED. THEN IN PARA 16.2 HE REFERS TO THE STATEMENT OF JYOTIRAM LACHHIRAM SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED BY AUTHORIZED OFFICER IN WHICH HE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE STATED THAT HE PAID FEES OF RS.B,00,000/ TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM BANK. REFERRING TO THE BANK STATEMENT REPRODUCED BY A O. IN THE ORDER IT WILL ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 8 BE SEEN THAT JYOTIRAM LACHHIRAM HAS WITHDRAWN TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.7,50,000/ ON DIFFERENT DATES FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT. THUS HIS STATEMENT THAT HE PAID RS.8,00,000 / TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER WITHDRAWING FROM BANK IS PRIMA FACIE WRONG. THAT APART THE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM. THUS THE SAID UNTESTED AND UNPROVED STATEMENT AND WHICH IS SHOW N TO BE PRIMA FACIE WRONG HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANNOT BE RELIED UPON. IN PARA 16.3 AO. REFERS TO THE STATEMENT OF RAJKUMAR PAWAR WHO IS ALLEGED HAVE STATED THAT GOKUL MANIRAM PAWAR HAS PAID FEES OF RS.2,35,000/ TO PATIL. THERE IS NO STATEMENT OF G OKUL MANIRAM PAWAR AND THERE IS NO REASON WHY HIS STATEMENT WAS NOT RECORDED. STATEMENT OF THIRD PARTY VIZ. RAJKUMAR PAWAR IS JUST HEARSAY AND HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AT ALL. FURTHER THE SAME WAS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE H AD NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM. THUS SUCH SAID UNTESTED, UNPROVED STATEMENT AND CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THEN IN PARA 16.4 THE AO. MAKES SOME STATEMENT BASED ON HIS SURMISES AND SUCH SURMISES HAS NO VALUE. IN PARA 16.5 THE ASSESSEE HAS ASSERTED THAT THE FEES AS RECEIVED HAS BEEN CORRECTLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO SAY THAT THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED HUGE FEES FROM HIS CLIENT ETC. IN PARA 16.6 COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF FEES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS ARE STATED AND THEY N EED NO COMMENT. IN PARA 16.7 AO. ASSIGNS REASON FOR INCREASE IN FEES IS DUE TO SURVEY ACTION. THIS IS A O'S SURMISES WITHOUT ANY BASIS. IN PARA 16.8 HE REFERS TO THE PURCHASE OF HOUSE AT DARWAH FOR WHICH RS.21,00,000/ HAVE BEEN PAID IN CASH. HOWEVER AO. F AILED TO SEE THAT SUCH PAYMENT IS DULY RECORDED IN THE CASH BOOK. THE PAYMENT IS FROM CASH REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE IN. RESPECT OF SUCH PAYMENT IN CASH FOR PURCHASER OF HOUSE NO ADVERSE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AFTER REFE RRING TO ABOVE REFERRED SURMISES AND CONJUCTURES THE AO. IN PARA 16.9 ASSUMES THAT OUT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE FARMERS AMOUNTING TO RS.57,75,20B/ THEY MUST HAVE PAID 40% THEREOF AS FEES TO THE ASSESSEE AMOUNTING TO RS. 23, 1 0,083/ . WH ILE THE ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED THE FEES FROM SAID FARMERS AT RS.2,89,000/ AND HENCE THE AO ADDED RS.20,21,083/ (23,10,083 2,89,000) AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM WHAT IS STATED IN DETAILS ABOVE THE SAID ADDITION IS BASED ON SURMISES AND CO NJECTURE. IT IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND EVIDENCE AND ESPECIALLY THE FACTS THAT THE FEES AS AND WHEN RECEIVED ARE DULY RECORDED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THEY ARE SUPPORTED BY PRIMARY EVIDENCE. ACCOUNTS ARE DULY AUDITED AND NOTHING ADVERSE HAS BEEN FOUND AGAI NST THE SAID AUDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BY THE A O. AND HENCE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.20,21,083/ IS ILLEGAL, UNSUPPORTED AND IS LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 7 ] IN PARA 17 THE A O. REFERS TO PAGE 45 AND 46 OF DIARY ON WHICH AMOUNT OF RS.4,02,978/ AND RS. 3, 66, 7 50/ RESPECTIVELY TOTAL BEING RS.7,69,728/ IS SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECORDED AND THE SAME IS NOT REFLECTED IN BOOKS. IN THIS REGARD IT IS STATED THAT THE TOTAL OF ENTRIES ON PAGE 45 AND 46 COMES TO RS.6,18,180/ AND NOT RS.7,69,728/ AND FURTHER FROM SAID RS. 6,18,180/ THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,08,180/ IS ALREADY REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HENCE THE AMOUNT NOT REFLECTED IN BOOKS COME TO RS.3,77,427/ AND HENCE THE ONLY ADDITIONS THAT CAN BE MADE IS RS.3,77,427/ AND NOT RS.7,69,728/ . THE ASSESSEE IS FILING T HE ABOVE REFERRED DETAILS ENTRY WISE SHOWING THE TOTAL OF ENTRIES ON PAGE 45 AND 46 COMES TO RS.6,18,180/ ONLY AND ALSO GIVES THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT OF RS.2,08,180/ ALREADY REFLECTED IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE THE ONLY ADDITION THAT CAN BE MADE IS RS.3,77 ,427/ . THE ADDITION OF RS.7,69,728/ BE KINDLY MODIFIED AND BE SUBSTITUTED BY RS.3,77,427/ . 8] THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED GIFT OF RS.3,01,000/ IN CASH FR OM SHRI KASHINATH GYANBAJI PATIL WHO IS THE FATHER OF THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE FILED GIFT DEED IN SUPPORT OF THE SAID ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 9 GIFT. A O. SAYS THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION. THIS IS NOT CORRECT. THE DONOR IS A MAN OF MEANS. HE HAD SUFFICIENT CASH BALANCE. HE HAD AGREED TO SELL 0.84 R I.E. ABO UT 2 ACRES OF LAND TO SHRI GARIBSING HIRASING ADE BY AGREEMENT DT.26.09.2007 FOR RS.5,50,000/ AGAINST WHICH HE RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS.2,75,000/ ON SIGNING OF AGREEMENT ON 26.09.2007. THUS ASSESSEE'S FATHER WAS A MAN OF MEANS HAVING SUBSTANTIAL AGRICULTUR AL LAND AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND WAS CAPABLE OF MAKING THE GIFT OF RS.3,01,000/ TO HIS SON AND FURTHER THE SAME WAS SUPPORTED BY GIFT DEED. THUS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE DONOR WERE ESTABLISHED. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES THE AO. COULD NOT ADD THE AMOUNT OF RS.3,01,000/ AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. SIMILARLY THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE GIFT OF RS.3,81,000/ FROM HIS BROTHER PUNJABRAO PETI). HE WENT IN ADOPTION TO HIS MOTHER'S FATHER SHRI GANPATRAO CHANDRABH AN CHOUDHARI. ASSESSEE'S BROTHER AND HIS ADOPTIVE FAMILY WERE MAN OF MEANS AND OWNED ABOUT 40 TO 50 ACRES OF GOOD AGRICULTURAL LAND. SAID PUNJABRAO HAD BY AGREEMENT DT.23.10.2007 AGREED TO SELL 0.49 R. LAND IN MOUZA KHARI TO VASANTRAO DHONE FOR RS.5,00,000 / AND RECEIVED AN ADVANCE OF RS.3,26,000/ . THUS THE ASSESSEE'S BROTHER WAS A MAN OF MEANS AND WAS CAPABLE OF MAKING OF GIFT TO HIS BROTHER. FURTHER THE GIFT IS SUPPORTED BY GIFT DEED AND HENCE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF TH E DONOR IS DULY ESTABLISHED AND CANNOT BE DOUBTED. IN VIEW THEREOF THE AO. WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAID GIFT OF RS.3,81,000/ AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE ADDITION OF RS.6,82,000/ BY DISALLOWING THE GIFTS AND TREATING THEM AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT IS TOTALLY UNJUSTIFIED AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 9] TH E AO. DISALLOWED RS.1,50,000/ U /S.40(A)(IA) ON THE ALLEGED GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID RS.1,50,000/ ON CONTRACTOR ON LAND DEVELOPMENT CONTRACT BUT DID NOT DEDUCT TAX AT SOURCE AND HENCE THE SAID EXPENDITURE WAS DISALLOWABLE. A O DID THIS ON THE BASIS OF AUDITOR'S REMARK. THERE IS SOME MISCO NCEPTION WITH THE AUDITOR AND A O IN THIS REGARD. THE FACT IS THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH ONE MANGILAL DEVA RATHOD AND DEEPAK MANIRAM CHAUHAN PURCHASED AGRICULTURAL LAND JOINTLY IN EARLIER YEAR AND THEREAFTER THE SAID THREE CO OWNERS GOT THE LAND CONVERTED TO N.A. USE AND MADE A LAYOUT. ASSESSEE GAVE RS.1 ,5 0,000/ TO THE OTHER CO OWNER SHRI MANGILAL AS HIS SHARE OF EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE GROU P. IT WAS NOT A PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR AS ASSUMED. IT WAS ASSESSEES CONTRIBUTION TO THE GROUP TOWARDS HIS SHARE OF EXPENSES AND NOT A PAYMENT TO THE CONTRACTOR. HENCE TO SUCH CONTRIBUTION NO TDS PROVISIONS WERE APPLICABLE AND HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTIO N OF DISALLOWING OF RS.1,50,000/ IN ASSESSEES CASE. FURTHER NO SUCH EXPENSES WERE CLAIMED IN COMPUTING THE INCOME AND HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF DISALLOWING THE EXPENSES NOT CLAIMED. THE SAID ADDITION IS ILLEGAL AND NEEDS TO BE DELETED. 1 0 . LD. CIT (A) DECIDED THE GROUNDS RAISED BY ASSESSEE BY AN ELABORATE ORDER MENTIONED IN PARA 5 TO 8.4 WHICH ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: - ' 5. GROUND NO. 1: 5.1 THIS GROUND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 1 73686/ BEING 20% OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED IN RESP ECT OF MACT CASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 868431/ . I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT. THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT IN THIS REGARD IN PARA 5 OF HIS SUBMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT THE NAMES OF ALL THE PARTIES STATED IN THE SAID DIARY INVENTORIED AS B 3 ARE VERY MUCH APPEARING IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE APPELLANT WITH THE FEES THAT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM SAID PARTY HAVE BEEN DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE APPELLANT ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 10 HAS EXPLAINED TH AT MOST OF THE PEOPLE WHOSE NAMES ARE RELATIVES OF VICTIMS OF VEHICLE ACCIDENT EVIDENTLY THERE IS NO MATERIAL WITH THE LD. AO TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS APPEARING IN THE SAID DIARY REFERRED TO THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED. FURTHER THERE I S NO COGENT EVIDENCE EMERGING FROM THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 20% OF THE SAME HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT BY WAY OF FEES FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED. FURTHER AT NO POINT OF TIME WAS THE APPELLANT ALLOWED CROSS EX AMINE SHRI KRUSHNARAO KADAM WHOSE .STATEMENT HAS BEEN RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AO TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE 20% OF THE COMPENSATION WAS RECEIVED AS FEES BY THE APPELLANT. IN VIEW OF THE DETAILED DISCUSSION (IN LATER PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER) NO COGNIZANCE OF THE SAID STATEMENT RECORDED OF SHRI KRUSHNARAO KADAM IS TAKEN. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DISCUSSED IN GREATER DETAIL WHILE PASSING THE APPELLATE ORDER FOR AY 07 08 AND THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED HEREUNDER : 'NO VALUE CAN BE ATTACHED TO ONE NOTING OF 20% IN FRONT OF ONE OF THE CLIENTS. IT CANNOT BE USED TO GENERALIZE THE RECEIPTS OF THE APPELLANT OVER YEARS. APPARENTLY, THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER CONFRONTED WITH THIS EVIDENCE DURING SURVEYOR ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S. IF HE WAS, HE HAS DENIED RECEIVING 20% OF THE COMPENSATION AS HIS PROFESSIONAL INCOME. THIS CONCLUSION CAN BE DRAWN AS THE ID. AD HAS NOT USED THE STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AGAINST HIM. ALSO THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER CONFRONTED WITH THE STATEMENT OF SHRI KADAM. AS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED ABOVE, NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE CAN BE ATTACHED TO SUCH STATEMENTS .. ' ALSO THERE IS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE 20% OF THE COMPENSATION AWARDED BY MOTOR CLAIM ACCIDENT COURT AND DEPOSITED BY INSURANCE COMPANY IN THE COU RT WAS PASSED ON TO THE APPELLANT BY HIS CLIENTS. THE LD. AO DOES NOT HAVE ANY BASIS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT 20% OF THE COMPENSATION IS BEING PASSED ON BY THE CLIENTS TO THE APPELLANT. NO EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE TO CORROBORATE OR STRENGTHEN THE ASSUMP TION OF THE ID. AD. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED ... THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. ' CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACT THE ADDITION OF RS. 173686/ IS HEREBY DELETED. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE ALLOWED. 6. GROUND NO. 2: 7. THIS GROU ND IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 2021083/ MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED OF THE FANNERS ON THE BASIS OF WHICH 40% OF THE COMPENSATION RECEIVED AMOUNTING TO RS. 5775208/ HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. 8. I HAVE CA REFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT. THE MAIN EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE ARE STATEMENT RECORDED U / S 131 OF THE ACT. THE MOST SERIOUS INFIRMITY IN THESE STATEMENTS IS THE FACT THAT APPELLANT WAS NEVER GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SAID WITNESSES. THE APPELLANT WAS ONLY PROVIDED WITH A STATEMENT OF THE PERSONS WHICH WERE PROPOSED TO BE USED AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT WAS NEVER GIVEN ANY OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAM INE THEM AND HE WAS ONLY ASKED TO GIVE HIS EXPLANATION TO THE STATEMENT OF THE FARMERS. THE APPELLANT WAS RIGHTLY AGGRIEVED BY THE FACT THAT STATEMENT OF THESE PERSONS WERE RECORDED BEHIND HIS BACK AND WHATEVER WAS STATED THEREIN WAS UNSUPPORTED AND FALSE IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM WAS GIVEN TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT THEREFORE WAS RIGHTLY OF THE VIEW THAT THESE STATEMENTS HAVE NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE ADDITION COULD BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SUCH UNTESTED STATEMENTS OF WIT NESSES. 8.1 DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE APPELLANT FILED COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS BY WITNESSES/FARMERS WHEREIN THEY STATED THAT THEY HAVE UTILIZED THE SERVICES OF THE APPELLANT AND THAT ON RECEIPT OF ENHANCED COMPENSATION THEY HAVE PAID THE AMOUNT SPECIFIED THEREIN AS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS TO THE APPELLANT. IT IS SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT IT IS ONLY THESE AMOUNTS AS SPECIFIED IN THE AFFIDAVIT WHICH ARE ACTUALLY RECEIVED AS PROFESSIONAL RECEIPTS AND THESE AMOUNTS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN A UDITED BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. SINCE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION WAS NOT GIVEN AND ALSO SINCE NEW EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF AFFIDAVIT HAS BEEN FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT IN ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 11 RESPECT OF THE SAID WITNESS, THE SUBMIS SIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH ALL OTHER EVIDENCES FURNISHED INCLUDING AFFIDAVITS WERE REMANDED BACK TO THE LD.AO VIDE LETTER DT. 19 02 2013 AS STATED ABOVE. 8.2 THE VARIOUS WITNESSES APPEARED BEFORE THE LD.AO AND VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 11 03 2 013 (REPRODUCED ABOVE) IT IS STATED BY THE LD.AO THAT: 'THE WITNESSES / FARMERS ON WHOSE STATEMENTS THE ADDITIONS , HAVE BEEN MADE WERE DULY CALLED. ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF THE SE FARMERS. IN THIS REGARD IT WOULD NOT BE WRONG TO MENTION THAT ALMOST ALL THE WITNESSES/FARMERS WHO HAD DEPOSED ON OATH DURING SURVEY HAD TURNED HOSTILE TO THEIR STATEMENTS. THESE WITNESSES/FARMERS ARE NOW HANDING OVER SWORN AFFIDAVITS TO AR/ ASSESSEE S PECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE FEES PAID BY THEM TO APPELLANT AND TOLD STORIES DURING RECORDING OF REMAND SUCH AS THERE WAS RUSH, AND WE WERE TOLD TO SIGN THE DOCUMENTS; WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN THERE ... ' 8.3 THE COPY OF REMAND REPORT WAS GIVEN TO TH E APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IN RESPONSE TO THIS HAS STATED AS UNDER: - 'IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT THE AO CONDUCTING THE SURVEY HAD RECORDED THE STATEMENT OF FARMERS AFTER THE DATE OF SURVEY AND BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE PRIMA FACIE RECORDED UNDER PRESSURE AND NOT OF FREE WILL. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE THEM IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THOSE STATEMENTS HAD NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. THE AO FRAMED THE ASSESSMENTS ON THE BASIS OF THOSE UNILATERAL AND UNTESTED TESTIMONY OF FARMERS AT A VERY ASTRONOMICAL FIGURES. THOSE FARMERS HAVE FILED AFFIDAVITS STATING THE AMOUNT OF FEES PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. ASSESSEE FILED THOSE AFFIDAVITS B EFORE YOUR HONOUR. THEREAFTER YOU HONOUR FORWARDED - OUR WRITTEN SUBMISSION AND AFFIDAVITS TO A O. AND CALLED HIS REMAND REPORT. IN PURSUANCE THEREOF IT APPEARS HE CALLED THOSE FARMERS TO HIS OFFICE. ASSESSEE AND HIS REPRESENTATIVE WERE ALSO CALLED BY AO I N HIS OFFICE ON 05.03.2013 AND 06.03.2013. WHEN THE FARMERS APPEARED IN THE OFFICE BEFORE THE AO ONE BY ONE HE ASKED THEM BEFORE THE ASSESSEE AND HIS COUNSEL ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF THEIR EARLIER STATEMENT WHICH THEY DENIED AND GAVE THEIR SAY ON THE SAME. T HE AO THEN ASKED THEM AS TO WHAT THEY WANT TO SAY ABOUT THEIR EARLIER STATEMENT. THE FARMERS POINTED OUT THAT WHEN THE I T OFFICIAL CAME IN THE VILLAGE WITH THEIR VEHICLES AND PARAPHERNALIA MANY VILLAGERS (ABOUT 100 VILLAGERS) ASSEMBLED AND ATMOSPHERE THEY WERE ASKED A FEW QUESTIONS AND THEREAFTER THE IT OFFICIALS WROTE THE STATEMENTS ON THEIR OWN AND TOOK THEIR SIGNATURES. WHAT THEY RECORDED WAS NOT READ OVER TO THEM. THEY WERE JUST ASKED TO SIGN OR GIVE THUMB IMPRESSION WHICH THEY DID. IN SHORT THEY DENIE D THE CONTENTS OF THEIR EARLIER STATEMENTS. THEREAFTER THE A O. ASKED THEM ABOUT THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT AND THE FARMERS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTS THEREOF AND THE DETAILS OF FEES PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. IT MAY BE NOTED THAT THE AO DID NOT RECORD THE S TATEMENT OF FARMERS AT ALL BY ASKING QUESTIONS AND RECORDING ANSWERS. HE JUST ASKED THEM QUESTIONS TO THE ABOVE EFFECT AND TOOK VERY SHORT NOTES OF WHAT THEY STATED ON A PIECE OF PAPER. THERE WAS NO RECORDING OF REGULAR STATEMENT AT ALL AND HENCE HERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CROSS EXAMINATION BY ASSESSEE AND FURTHER THE STATEMENTS WHICH THEY MADE BEFORE AO WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH THEIR AFFIDAVIT AND WERE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE ALSO THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF CROSS EXAMINING THEM. THUS THE CONTENTS OF AFFIDAVIT WERE ESTABLISHED AND REMAINED UNREBUTTED. WHILE THE EARLIER STATEMENT OF FARMERS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WERE TOTALLY REBUTTED. HENCE THOSE STATEMENTS HAVE ABSOLUTELY NO VALUE AND CANNOT BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO MAKE SUCH ARBITRARY ADDITION. ON THE OTHER HAND EVEN AFTER CROSS EXAMINATION I.E. QUESTIONING OF FARMERS BY A O IN RESPECT OF THEIR AFFIDAVITS, THEY CONFIRMED THE CONTENTS HEREOF AND THOSE AFFIDAVITS AND CONTENTS THEREOF STAND FULLY PROVED. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 12 AN D MATERIAL, THE REQUEST OF THE AO TO GIVE WEIGHTAGE OF EARLIER STATEMENT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED. THOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE. THEY WERE RECORDED IN AN ATMOSPHERE OF FEAR AND FEAR PSYCHOSIS WAS CREATED BY 1. T. OFFICIALS. THOS E STATEMENTS WERE NOT GIVEN BY THEIR FREE WILL. THOSE FARMERS WHEN CALLED BY AO HAVE DENIED THOSE STATEMENTS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE FARMERS HAVE GIVEN AFFIDAVITS GIVING DETAILS OF FEES PAID BY THEM TO THE ASSESSEE. THOSE AFFIDAVITS WERE FORWARDED TO AO. TH EN AO CROSS EXAMINED THEM ON THOSE AFFIDAVITS AND THEY ALL HAVE STOOD BY THEIR AFFIDAVITS. THUS THOSE AFFIDAVITS HAVE NOT ONLY REMAINED UNREBUTTED BUT ARE CONCLUSIVELY PROVED AND THEY CANNOT BE IGNORED. IN VIEW OF THESE BASIC FACTS, THE DETAILS OF PROFESSI ONAL FEES RECEIVED AND RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN FULLY CORROBORATED AND PROVED BEYOND ANY SHADOW OF DOUBT. IN VIEW OF THESE ESTABLISHED FACTS THE ARBITRARY ESTIMATE OF FEES AT ASTRONOMICAL FIGURES AS ASSESSED BY A O. CANNO T BE SUSTAINED AND HAS TO BE QUASHED.' 8.4 FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT AND THE APPELLANTS' RESPONSE TO THE REMAND REPORT IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE FARMERS WERE UNDER THE FEELING OF FEAR DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL PROCEEDINGS U/S 131 AND THAT ALL THE FARMERS / WITNESSES HAVE NOW, DURI NG REMAND, MADE STATEMENT BEFORE THE LD.AO WHICH ARE IN CONFORMITY WITH THEIR AFFIDAVIT AND ALSO IN CONFORMITY WITH WHAT IS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THERE WAS NO QUESTION OR NEED TO CROSS EXAMINE THEM. THEREFORE THE CONTENTS OF TH E AFFIDAVIT WERE ESTABLISHED TO BE TRUE AND REMAINED UNREBUTTED. I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE EARLIER STATEMENT OF THE FARMERS RECORDED BEHIND THE BACK OF THE APPELLANT STAND TOTALLY REBUTTED AND THAT THEREFORE NO VALUE CAN BE ATTA CHED TO THEM. SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT IS NOT REBUTTED, THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN ABLE TO CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE DETAILS OF PROFESSIONAL FEES RECEIVED AND RECORDED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT HAVE BEEN FULLY CORROBORATED AND PROVE BEYOND ANY DOUB T. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS I COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NO IMPORTANCE CAN BE ATTACHED TO THE STATEMENT RECORDED U/ S. 131 ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LD. AO. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AS NARRATED ABOVE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ADDITION OF RS.2021 083/ IS WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND IS NOT A RESULT OF ANY RELIABLE EVIDENCE. IN VIEW OF THE SAME THE SAID ADDITION IS HEREBY DELETED. ' 11. LD. DR APPEARING BEFORE US RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND SUBMITTE D THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED PROFESSION RECEIPTS IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN PLACING UNDUE RELIANCE ON THE SELF - SERVING AFFIDAVIT MADE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BY IG NORING THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FARMERS AND THE COMMISSION AGENTS U/S 131 OF THE ACT DURING THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT LD. CIT(A) COMPLETELY FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS THAT NOTINGS MADE IN THE IMPOUNDED DOCUMENT S CORROBORATED WITH THAT OF WHAT DEPOSITS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND OTHER FAMILY9 MEMBERS VIS - A - VIS WITH THAT OF CASH WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE FARMERS FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND STATEMENTS MADE BY THE FARMERS U/S 131 OF THE ACT DURING T HE SURVEY PROCEEDING. 12. WHEREAS O N THE CONTRARY LD. AR RELIED UPON THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED OF THE FARMERS / COMMISSION AGENTS ARE UNITERALLY BY THE SURVEY PARTY DURING SURVEY PROCEEDINGS HAD NO EVIDE NTIARY VALUE. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING BEFORE THE AO THOSE FARMERS APPEARED AND DENIED THEIR STATEMENTS RECORDED AT THE TIME OF SURVEY. THEY DID NOT KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN BY THE SURVEY PARTY AND CONFIRMED BEFORE THE AO BY A FFIDAVITS AND FEE PAID BY THEM. THE FARMER ALSO GAVE FIGURES OF FEE ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 13 PAID BY THEN TO THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WAS AS PER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECEIPT GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. FROM THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT MAIN EVIDENCE ON THE BASIS OF WHICH ADDITIONS WER E MADE BY THE AO IS THE STATEMENTS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT OF FARMERS / COMMISSION AGENTS DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT. HOWEVER DURING APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SINCE NO OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS - EXAMINE WAS ACCORDED / GRANTED TO THE AS SESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED NEW AFFIDAVIT OF THE RESPECTIVE FARMERS BEFORE LD. CIT(A) HENCE, LD. CIT(A) WHILE CONSIDERING THESE AS NEW EVIDENCES, REMANDED THE CASES BACK TO THE AO FOR FURTHER VERIFICATION. 14. DURING THE VERIFICATION, VARIOUS WITNESSES APPEARED BEFORE AO AND AFTER EXAMINING THE SAME, REMAND REPORT DATED 11.03.2013 WAS FILED BY THE AO WHEREIN THE SAID FARMERS DENIED HAVING MADE ANY STATEMENTS BEFORE THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES AND THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE REMAND REPORT IS CONTAIN ED IN PARA 8.2 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REPRODUCED BELOW: - 8.2 THE VARIOUS WITNESSES APPEARED BEFORE THE LD.AO AND VIDE REMAND REPORT DATED 11 03 2013 (REPRODUCED ABOVE) IT IS STATED BY THE LD.AO THAT: 'THE WITNESSES / FARMERS ON WHOSE STATEMEN TS THE ADDITIONS , HAVE BEEN MADE WERE DULY CALLED. ASSESSEE AS WELL AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE WERE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS VERIFY THE STATEMENTS OF THESE FARMERS. IN THIS REGARD IT WOULD NOT BE WRONG TO MENTION THAT ALMOST ALL THE WITNESSES/FARMERS WHO HAD DEPOSED ON OATH DURING SURVEY HAD TURNED HOSTILE TO THEIR STATEMENTS. THESE WITNESSES/FARMERS ARE NOW HANDING OVER SWORN AFFIDAVITS TO AR/ ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY MENTIONING THE FEES PAID BY THEM TO APPELLANT AND TOLD STORIES DURING RECORDING OF REM AND SUCH AS THERE WAS RUSH, AND WE WERE TOLD TO SIGN THE DOCUMENTS; WE DON'T KNOW WHAT WAS WRITTEN THERE ... ' 15. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTUAL AND LEGAL PROPOSITION, LD. CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT LENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS JUDGMENTS CITED BY THE PARTIES. FROM THE RECORDS AND THE FACTS AS ENUMERATED IN THE ORDERS OF REVENUE AUTHORITIES, WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITIONS M ADE BY THE AO WERE ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF FARMERS RECORDED U/S 131 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, ALL THE DOCUMENTS / WITNESSES DURING THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS MADE THEIR STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO WHICH WERE IN CONFORMITY WITH THEIR AFFIDAVITS AND ALSO IN CONFORM ITY WITH WHAT WAS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS CORRECTLY FOUND BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THERE WAS NO QUESTION OR NEED FOR THE CROSS - EXAMINING THE FARMERS. ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 14 17. IN THIS WAY, THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVITS SO FILED BY THE FARMERS WERE ESTABL ISHED TO BE TRUE AS THE SAME REMAINED UNREBUTTED. EVEN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE FARMERS U/S 131 OF THE ACT WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SUPERSEDED BY THE SWORN AFFIDAVITS ALL THOSE FARMERS. 18. EVEN HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS. S. KHADER KHAN SON (2013) 352 ITR 480 (SC) HAS HELD UNDER: - INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES ADDITION ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT RECORDED DURING SURVEY UNDER S. 133A SEC. 133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY IT AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH, HENCE, ANY SUCH STATEMENT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND ANY ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATEMENT CANNOT, BY ITSELF, BE MADE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION THIS VIEW IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY CBDT CIRCULAR DATED. 10 TH MARCH, 2003 NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES. 19. S INCE THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 1133A DOES NOT EMPOWER ANY IT AUTHORITY TO EXAMINE ANY PERSON ON OATH, H E NCE, ANY SUCH STATEMENT WHICH IS RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT HAS NO EVIDENTIARY VALUE AND HENCE, ADMISSION MADE DURING SUCH STATE MENT CANNOT BY ITSELF BE MADE THE BASIS FOR ADDITION AND EVEN THIS VIEW IS CLEARLY SUPPORTED BY CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10.03.2003. THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ALSO FIND THAT THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT(A) ARE WELL REASON ED AND JUDICIOUS. WE FEEL NO REASONS TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). WE FIND NO MERITS IN THE SUBMISSIONS RAISED BY LD. DR, THEREFORE WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CI T(A). GROUND NO.9 . 20. THIS GROUND IS GENERAL IN NATURE, THUS REQUIRES NO SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION. IN THE NET RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. NOW WE TAKE UP CO NO.16/NAG/2013 FILED BY ASSESSEE . 21. LD. AR MADE A STATEMENT THAT HE DOES NOT WANT TO PRESS THE CO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. KEEPING IN VIEW THE STATEMENT OF LD AR WE DISMISS THE CO AS NOT PRESSED. IN THE NET RESULT, THE CO FILED BY ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. COMING TO REMAINING APPEALS FIL ED BY REVENUE IN ITA NO.265 - 267/NAG/2013 FOR AYS 05 - 06 TO 07 - 08 . 22. IT IS RELEVANT TO OBSERVE HERE THAT THE FACTS IN GROUND NO. 1 TO 8 OF THESE APPEALS ARE SIMILAR TO THE FACT IN REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO.271/NAG/2013 AND THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN ITA NO.27 1/NAG/2013 SHALL APPLY TO THESE APPEALS ALSO WITH EQUAL FORCE. IN THE NET RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY REVENUE STAND DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ITA NO.265 267/NAG & 271/NAG/2013 CO NO.13 16/N/13 RAMESH K. PATIL 15 COMING TO ASSESSEES CO NO. 13 TO 15/NAG/2013 . 23. IN THESE COS, THE ASSESSEE HAS MERELY SPORTED THE IMP UGNED ORDER OF LD. CIT(A), WHEREBY HE DELETED THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE O U/S 133A OF THE ACT. SINCE WE HAVE ALREADY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ISSUE WHILE DISMISSING THE ABOVE APPEALS OF REVENUE THE COS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND THE SAME ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 24. RESULTANTLY, THE APPEALS FIELD BY REVENUE IN ITA NO.265 - 267 AND 271/NAG/2013 STAND DISMISSED AND THAT OF ASSESSEES COS ARE DISMISSED AS INFRUCTUOUS . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E OPEN COURT ON 11TH JULY , 201 8 . SD/ - SD/ - (JASON P. BOAZ ) ( SANDEEP G O SA IN ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER NAGPUR , DATED: 11TH JULY , 201 8 COPY TO: TH E ASSESSEE - RAMESH KASHINATH PAT IL MOTI NAGAR, TQ. PUSAD,YAVATMAL 1 . THE REVENUE - ACIT, W A RDHA, CIRCLE 2 . THE CIT(A) - 1 , NAGPUR 3 . THE CIT - 1 , NAGPUR 4 . THE DR, BENCH, ITAT, NAGPUR BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// SR.PRIVATE SECRETARY (ON TOUR) DKP .