Bhaidas Daulat Kapure, Dhule V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 274/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1876 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-05-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 04-05-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 12-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: KIRAN S DESH
• Keywords: Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 147; 131

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , A M . / ITA NO. 274 /PN/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 1 0 - 11 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE, AT POST VADEL, TAL. SHIRPUR, DIST. DHULE 425405 . / APPELLANT PAN: CMMPK0826L VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , WARD 3(1), DHULE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : NONE / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI KIRAN S. DESHPANDE / / / DATE OF HEARING : 0 4 . 0 5 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 05 . 0 5 .201 6 / ORDE R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , NASHIK , DATED 29 . 11 .20 1 3 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 1 0 - 11 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 1 4 3(3) R.W.S. 148 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT ) . 2 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1 ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) NASHIK ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE UNDER S. 148 OF THE ACT RESULTING INTO RE - ASSESSMENT U/S 147 OF T HE ACT. THE NOTICE ISSUED AND SERVED U/S 148 IS BAD IN LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. THE ASSESSMENT BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 2 2 ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE FACTS OF THE CASE SHOW THAT THE CASH OF RS.9,20,000/ - WAS SEIZED BY THE POLICE DEP ARTMENT FROM APPELLANT'S HOUSE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE DIT ISSUED WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION HOWEVER THE POLICE DEPTT. DID NOT HANDED OVER THE SEIZED CASH TO THE I .T. DEPARTMENT BUT IN VIEW OF JMFC DIRECTION THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED IN NATIONALIZED BANK A/E. IN ANY CASE THE THIRD PARTY POLICE DEPTT. HAS SEIZED THE CASH AND THEREFORE, S. 153A AND FOR S. 153C OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN INVOKED IN THIS CASE. THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE HELD THAT THE ASSESSMENT U/S 147 WAS NOT ACCORDING TO LAW AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. SINCE THE PROPER STATUTORY PROCEDURE HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED THE ASSESSMENT HAS BECOME ILLEGAL AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IT BE HELD ACCORDINGLY. 3 ) ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSES SMENT MADE BY THE A.O. MAKING ADDITION OF SEIZED CASH BY POLICE OF RS.9,20,080/ - AND STOCK OF RS.12,220/ - U/S 148 R.W.S 143(3) OF THE ACT. THE ADDITION BE DELETED. 3. BEFORE ADDRESSING THE MERITS OF ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WE WOULD LIKE TO REF ER TO THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE CASE. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23.03.2015 ON WHICH DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND SIMILARLY ON 24.06.2015 , NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND ON BOTH THE OCCASIONS, NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO T HE PARTY. FURTHER, EVEN ON 28.09.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND NOTICE WAS EVEN ON 28.09.2015, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTY. ON NEXT DATE S OF HEARING I.E. 28.12.2015, 30.12.2015 AND THEREAFTER, ON 29.03.2016 , THERE WAS REPRESENTATION BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESEN TATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 04.05.2016 , NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT THE CASE WAS BEING HANDLED BY SHRI M.K. KULKARNI , WHO HAD APPEARED ON EARLIER DATES AND HE ALSO APPEARED BEFORE US IN OTHER APPEALS AND SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 04.05.2016 . HOWEVER, WITH REGARD TO PRESENT APPEAL, NO MENTION WAS MADE BY THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AND EVEN ON SECOND CALL, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL , HENCE, WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE AND AFTER PERUSING THE RECORDS. ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 3 4. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS AGAINST THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND THE ISSUE ON MERITS IS AGAINST THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SEIZED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT FROM ASSESSEES HOUSE TOTALING RS.9,20 ,000/ - AND STOCK OF WINE OF RS. 12,220/ - . 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE WAS AN INDIVIDUAL AND CLAIMS THAT IT HAD EARNED INCOME FROM AGRICULTURE. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM INCOME TAX (INVESTIGATION) , DATED 20.10.2011 FOR TAKING NECESSARY ACTION IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT HAS SEIZED CASH OF RS.9,20,000/ - FROM ASSESSEES HOUSE BEING UNAUTHORIZED SALE OF WINE. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER WROTE A LETTER TO ITO (INV) , NASHIK ON 17.01.2012 IN WHICH IT WAS MENTIONED THAT THE DEPARTMENT OF POLICE HAD SEIZED THE CASH OF RS.9,20,0 8 0/ - AND SUBSEQUENTLY, THE DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), NAGPUR HAD ISSUED WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATIO N UNDER SECTION 132A(1) OF THE ACT ON 29.12.2009 ON POLICE SUB - INSPECTOR, SHIRPUR FOR TAKING OVER THE CASH. THE POLICE AUTHORITIES HOWEVER, DID NOT HANDOVER THE SAID CASH TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. HOWEVER, AS PER ORDERS OF JMFC DATED 02.12.2009 , THE S AID CASH WAS DEPOSITED IN A NATIONALIZED BANK . THE JMFC, SHIRPUR FURTHER PASSED AN ORDER DATED 03.05.2010 AS MENTIONED IN THE LETTER DATED 06.09.2010 RECEIVED FROM ITO (INV), NASHIK THAT THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT COULD CONDUCT AN INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY ABOUT THE SAID AMOUNT AND IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO HANDOVER THE CASH TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER MENTIONED IN THE SAID LETTER THAT AS PER PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153B(2)(B) OF THE ACT, WHERE WARRANT UNDER SECTION 132A OF THE ACT CO ULD NOT BE EXECUTED AS THE CASH SEIZED BY POLICE DEPARTMENT WAS NOT HANDED OVER TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, THEREFORE, THE SAID CASE WAS NOT COVERED BY SECTION 153A OF ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 4 THE ACT AND ACTION HAD TO BE TAKEN UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. IN REPLY, THE ASSESS ING OFFICER RECEIVED A LETTER FROM JOINT DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (INV), NASHIK, WHO POINTED OUT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE NOT ATTRACTED IN THE CASE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCERNE D COULD TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION. SUBSEQUENT THER ETO, THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT TO THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE SMT. PRAMILABAI BHAIDAS KAPURE TO VERIFY THE SOURCE OF CASH SEIZED OF RS. 9,20,080/ - WHERE BOTH THE PERSONS HAD NOT FILED RETURNS OF INCOME . IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING NIL INCOME AND AGRICULTURAL INCOME OF RS. 2,73,275/ - . THEREAFTER, THE CASE WAS PICKED UP F OR SCRUTINY AND THE ITP FURNISHED THE DETAILS OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND POINTED OUT THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD HIS AGRICULTURAL CROPS AND ALSO RECEIVED SUM OF RS. 4,43,000/ - FROM SHRI SATTRSIHA P. RAJPUT FOR PURCHASE OF TRUCK / MINI BUS AND SOURCE OF CASH SEIZED WAS FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SOURCE OF CASH SEIZED WAS FROM THE SAME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO THE CONCERNED PERSON. IN HIS STATEMENT, SHRI RAJPUT STATED THAT HE HAD GIVEN RS.2 LAKHS ON 06.02.2009 AND RS.2,43,000/ - ON 23.11.2009 FROM BANK WITHDRAWALS AND HE ALSO STATED THA T THERE WAS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE REGARDING SUM GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. ON VERIFICATION OF PASS BOOK FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THERE WERE ONLY WITHDRAWALS BUT THERE WAS NO CORRESPONDING ENTRIES WHICH PROVE THAT ANY SUM WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY SHRI RAJPUT. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE , EXPLANATION OF ASSESSEE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 4,43,000/ - WAS REJECTED. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT BALANCE SUM WAS FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE, WHERE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE CUL TIVATED THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF SHRI GAMARIYA JAMSING BARELA FOR THE PAST FIVE YEARS. THE STATEMENT OF THE SAID PERSON WAS ALSO RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, IN WHICH HE ADMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO LEASE AGREEMENT MADE BETWEEN HIM AND ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 5 THE ASSESSEE AN D HENCE, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE VIS - - VIS CULTIVATION OF AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED. FURTHER, HE CLAIMED TO HAVE CULTIVATE D THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF SHRI SANTOSH T. AHIRE AND ON VERIFICATION OF DOCUMENT I.E. AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE TWO, THE ASSE SSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS MADE SIMPLY ON PAPER TAKING THE SIGNATURES OF TWO PUNCHAS. THE ASSESSEE IN TURN, AGREED THAT THE AGREEMENT WAS NOT ON STAMP PAPER AND NOT AUTHENTIC. THE SAID PERSON SHRI AHIRE WAS ALSO SUMMONED FOR RECORDING OF STATEMENT AND THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT BECAUSE OF DISPUTE BETWEEN THE TWO, HE COULD NOT BE PRODUCED. THE PLEA THUS, OF THE ASSESSEE OF HAVING EARNED AGRICULTURAL INCOME FROM THE AGRICULTURAL LAND OF SHRI AHIRE, WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER. THE INSPECTOR OF THE WARD WAS DEPUTED TO OBTAIN THE COPY OF POLICE PUNCHANAMA WHICH WAS MADE IN THE HOUSE OF ASSESSEE. THE SAID PUNCHANAMA WAS MADE BEFORE THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE, WHO STATED THAT HER HUSBAND WAS OUT OF STATION AND THE POLICE INSPECTO R MENTIONED THAT WINE STOCK WAS FOUND AND ALSO CASH OF RS. 9,20,080/ - WAS FOUND IN THE THAT WINE STOCK WAS FOUND AND ALSO CASH OF RS. 9,20,080/ - WAS FOUND IN THE CUPBOARD, WHICH WAS SEIZED AND SAMPLE OF THE WINE WAS TAKEN. THE WIFE OF ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE CASH WAS COLLECTED OUT OF SALE OF WINE AND THE SAID SALE WAS MADE BY TH E ASSESSEE WITHOUT LICENCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ALL THESE FACTS MENTIONED BY THE ASSESSEE WE RE IN PUNCHANAMA. ON THE BASIS OF SAME, THE STATEMENT OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED AND IN REPLY TO QUESTION NOS.6, 7, 8 AND 9, HE STATED THAT THERE WAS N O CONCRETE EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THE AGRICULTURAL LAND WAS CULTIVATED BY HIM AND FURTHER, HE WAS ALSO CONFRONTED THAT THERE WERE ALSO NO PURCHASE BILLS REGARDING PURCHASE OF SEEDS, F ERTILIZER, PESTICIDES , ETC. AND SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAD NO AGRICULTURAL LA ND IN HIS NAME AND IN VIEW OF THE STATEMENT OF OTHER PERSON , THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS REJECTED. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF CASH SEIZED OF RS.9,20,080/ - AND STOCK OF WINE OF RS.12,220/ - AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 6 6. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE OF THE SOURCE OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND THE LOANS / ADVANCES. 7. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE ISSUE IN GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST VALIDITY OF RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY RETURN OF INCOME A ND AFTER THE POLICE RAID ON THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE, CASH OF RS.9,20,080/ - AND STOCK OF WINE OF RS.12,220/ - WAS FOUND . WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE RETURN OF INCOME AND WHERE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN RE SPECT OF SEIZURE OF CASH AND STOCK OF WINE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE, REASONS WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT AND NOTICE WAS ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 9. UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT ITSELF, IT IS PROVIDE D THAT WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO FURNISH RETURN OF INCOME FOR ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS, THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER, AS PER REASONS RECORDED IN THIS BEHALF CAN INITIATE PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 10. NOW, COMING TO MERITS OF THE ISSUE I.E. ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CASH OF RS.9,20,080/ - AND STOCK OF WINE OF RS. 12,220/ - . IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESE NT CASE, SEARCH OF THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE SAID CASH AND STOCK OF WINE WAS FOUND FROM HIS HOUSE . THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PRESENT IN HIS HOUSE BUT THE ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 7 STATEMENT OF WIFE OF ASSESSEE WAS RECORDED , WHO ADMITTED T HAT AMOUNT OF CASH REPRESENT THE SALE PROCEEDS OF WINE WHICH WAS SOLD WITHOUT ANY LICENCE. THE SAID CASH WAS SEIZED BY THE POLICE DEPARTMENT AND THE INFORMATION WAS SENT TO THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT IN THIS REGARD. ACTING ON THE SAID INFORMATION, PROCEED INGS WERE INITI ATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY THE SOURCES OF SAID CASH OF RS.9,20,080/ - . THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT IT HAD RECEIVED SUM OF RS.4,43,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF TRUCK / MINI B US AND IN RESPECT OF BAL ANCE, IT CLAIMED THAT IT WAS CULTIVATING THE LAND OF TWO DIFFERENT PERSONS AND RECEIVING AGRICULTURAL INCOME. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO ESTABLISH ITS CLAIM WITH ANY EVIDENCE. THE STATEMENTS OF PERSONS WERE RECORDED, WHICH WE RE AT VARIANCE WITH THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE ANY PROPER EVIDENCE OF LEASING OUT OF THE AGRICULTURAL LAND BY THE OWNERS OF LAND AND IN THE ABSENCE OF SAME, THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO SALE OF EQUIPMENT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO OFFICE R. SIMILARLY, WITH REGARD TO SALE OF EQUIPMENT, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO FURNISH COMPLETE EVIDENCE AND THE SAID CLAIM WAS ALSO NOT ACCEPTED. BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT LOAN OF RS.4,43,000/ - WAS OBTAINED FROM SHRI RAJPUT FOR PU RCHASING THE MINI BUS AND IN RESPECT OF AGRICULTURAL INCO ME, HE PRODUCED PHOTO COPIES OF RECEIPTS IN PROOF OF SALE PROCEEDS OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE. THE CIT(A) NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FABRICATED VARIOUS DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE ACCUMULATED CASH FROM SALE OF AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE AS BACK AS 11.05.2009 (RS.1,97,829/ - ), 20.04.2009 (RS.1,25,000/ - ), 21.04.2009 (RS. 75,000/ - ) AND 01.11.2009 (RS. 1,32,300/ - ) . SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED LOAN OF RS. 2 LAKHS ON 06.02.2009 AND RS. 2,43,000/ - ON 23.11.2009 AND KEEPING IN VIEW OF HIS SOCIAL STATUS AND FINANCIAL POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE CIT(A) WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS HIGHLY IMPROBABLE THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD KEEP THE SAID CASH. FURTHER, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED BEFORE ITA NO. 274 /P N/20 1 4 SHRI BHAIDAS DAULAT KAPURE 8 THE POLICE DEPARTMENT ON 24.11.2009 , THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH OUT OF AGRICULTURAL INCOME AND LOANS / ADVANCES. THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE CASH WAS OUT OF SALE OF LIQUOR AND HAS CONFIRMED THE ADD ITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION FURNISHED IN THIS REGARD OR ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE ITS STAND, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, DISMISSED. 1 1 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF MAY , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 5 TH MAY , 201 6 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - I , NASHIK ; 4. / THE CIT - I , NASHIK ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE