B. R. Agarwal (HUF), V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 346/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9315 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 03-01-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMITRA BANERJEE
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Reason to believe; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 37(1); 131; 148; 132; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/201 4 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 20 0 2 - 0 3 TO 2005 - 06 B.R. AGARWAL (HUF), 283, BUDHWAR PETH, PUNE - 411002 . / APPELLANT PAN: AACHA7282E VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE . / RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : S HRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SMT. SUMITRA BANERJEE / DATE OF HEARING : 12 .0 6 . 2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23 . 0 6 .201 7 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J M : TH IS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEAL S FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AGAINST CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT (A) - CENTRAL, PUNE , DATED 26.11.2013 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 20 0 2 - 03 TO 200 5 - 06 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PA SSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT , 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2 . THIS BUNCH OF FOUR APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENC E. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 2 IN ITA NO. 344 /PUN/201 4 , RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 2 - 03 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUE. 3. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 344 /PUN/201 4 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - ON FACTS AND IN LAW, 1] T HE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS VALID AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE RE - ASST. PASSED U/S 147 WAS JUSTIFIED IN LAW. 1.1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS NULL AND VOID SINCE AT THE TIM E OF ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148, THE PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WERE NOT YET DROPPED AND HENCE, THE RE - ASST. U/S 147 BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID. 1.2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE LEARNED A.O. HAD NOT GIVEN ANY COGENT REASON FOR TH E INORDINATE DELAY IN SERVING THE ORDER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A AND SINCE THE SAID ORDER WAS SERVED ON 19.05.2008, IT SHOULD BE DEEMED THAT THE PROCEEDINGS U/S 153A WERE DROPPED ON THAT DAY AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 ON 27.03.200 8 WAS BAD IN LAW. 2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION OF RS.20,85,775/ - MERELY ON THE PRESUMPTION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PAID INTEREST AND BROKERAGE TO SHRI SHRIRAM SONI ON THE CASH LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.1] THE LEARNED CIT(A ) ERRED IN PLACING RELIANCE ON THE STATEMENT OF SHRI SUNIL RATNAKAR, ACCOUNTANT OF SHRI SHRIRAM SONI TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN CASH LOANS FROM SHRI SONI WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT SHRI RATNAKAR HAD NEVER STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE (HUF) HAD TAKEN AN Y CASH LOANS FROM SHRI SONI AND ACCORDINGLY, AND THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. 2.2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY OF THE RELATED ENTITIES HAD TAKEN ANY LOANS IN CASH FROM SHRI SONI AND ACCORDINGLY, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE (HUF). 2.3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT - A . THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE FOUND WITH THE DEPT. THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ANY CASH LOAN FROM SHRI SONI. B . SHRI SONI HAD ALSO DENIED H AVING ADVANCED ANY LOAN TO THE ASSESSEE. C . FURTHER, THE LOOSE PAPERS FOUND WITH SHRI SONI WERE IN THE NAME OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE ITS NAME WAS NOT ON THE LOOSE PAPERS . ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 3 D . THE PRESUMPTION U/S 132(4A) WAS NOT APPLICABLE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE THE ADDITION. E . NO CHEQUE OR PROMISSORY NOTE WAS FOUND PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH INDICATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN ANY LOAN IN CASH FROM SHRI SONI. 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.7,93,085/ - AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.18,32,468/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID AMOUNTS WERE NOT ALLOWABLE AS A DEDUCTION WHILE COMPUTING THE INCOME OF THE ASSES SEE. 3.1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT - A . THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE INTEREST OF RS.7,93,085/ - AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.18,32,468/ - DEBITED IN THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT. B . THE INTEREST PAID ON FUNDS UTILISED BY THE ASSESSEE FO R NON BUSINESS PURPOSES WAS NOT CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE AT ALL AND THEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO ALLOW THE ABOVE INTEREST. C . ONLY THE INTEREST PAID ON FUNDS UTILISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OR ADVANCING, LOANS TO OTHER PERSONS ON WHICH THE ASSESSEE H AD CHARGED INTEREST WAS ONLY CLAIMED AS EXPENDITURE AND THEREFORE, THE A.O. TOTALLY ERRED IN DISALLOWING THE INTEREST. 4] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DIVERTED INTEREST BEARING FUNDS FOR NON BUSINESS PURPOSES AND HENCE, THE DI SALLOWANCE OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN LAW. 5] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT PART OF THE BORROWED FUNDS WERE USED FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BUSINESS AND T HEREFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISALLOW THE ENTIRE NET INTEREST AND BROKERAGE DEBITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. 6] WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO THE ABOVE GROUNDS, THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THAT IF AT ALL, ANY AMOUNT OF INTEREST WAS TO BE DISALLOWED THEN THE DIFFERENTIAL AMOUNT BETWEEN THE AVERAGE RATE OF INTEREST CHARGED & PAID COULD BE DISALLOWED AND NOT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT AS HAS BEEN DONE BY THE LEARNED A.O. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITION TO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, HAS ALSO RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL WHICH READS AS UNDER: - 1) ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE & IN LAW, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 IS NOT VALID IN LAW AND CONSEQUENTIAL ASST ORDER U/S 143(3) RWS 147 OF THE ITA BE DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI OF PUNE, WAS ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 4 CARRIED OUT ON 29.07.2003 AT HIS RESIDENTIAL AND OFFICE PREMISES. BOTH SHRI SHRIRAM HIRAL AL SONI AND HIS BROTHER SHRI SHRIKANT H. SONI WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF FINANCE BROKER S AND MONEY LENDING AS PROPRIETOR S FROM COMMON OFFICE PREMISES AND HAD COMMON STAFF MEMBERS. BOTH THE BROTHERS HAD SHOWN INTEREST INCOME FROM THE LOAN ADVANCED TO VARIOUS BORROWERS IN SEVERAL YEARS. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION, LARGE NUMBER OF DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE SEIZED RELATING TO THE MONEY LENDING BUSINESS. APART FROM REGULAR TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO THE FINANCE BROKERAGE, INCRIMINATING DO CUMENTS RELATING TO ADVANCES, CASH LOANS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED WHICH WERE MOSTLY IN THE FORM OF BLANK PROMISSORY NOTES DULY SIGNED BY THE BORROWERS, BLANK UNDATED CHEQUES DULY SIGNED BY THE BORROWERS, WITH AN AMOUNT OF LOAN MENTIONED, BESIDES THE ENTRIES I N THE CASH BOOK OF PART PERIOD, VIDE B.NO.100/PANCHNAMA DATED 02.08.2003 , CHECKLIST OF BORROWERS INDICATING THE DUE DATE OF PAYMENT OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE TO SHRI SONI WERE FOUND. THE MODUS OPERANDI FOLLOWED BY SHRI SONI WAS THAT CASH LOAN WAS ADVANCED FOR 90 DAYS, AFTER DEDUCTING INTEREST AMOUNT AND BROKERAGE AMOUNT . A T THE TIME OF BORROWING THE CASH LOAN, THE BORROWER S HANDED OVER THE BLANK CHEQUE OF THE FULL AMOUNT BORROWED AND ALSO PROMISSORY NOTES. ANOTHER PROMISSORY NOTE FOR ONE PERCENTAGE OF AM OUNT BORROWED WAS ALSO OBTAINED FROM THE BORROWER, WHICH WAS TO KEEP TRACK OF THE INTEREST PAYMENT ON THE DUE DATE BY THE BORROWERS. BASED ON THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS, THE ASSESSEE B.R. AGARWAL, HUF WAS ALSO FOUND AS BORROWER OF SHRI SHRIRAM H. SONI AND FOUND TO HAVE AVAILED LOAN TRANSACTION THROUGH SHRI SONI. VIDE LETTER OF ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL RANGE - 2, PUNE, DATED 18.06.2007, THESE FACTS WERE INTIMATED TO THE OFFICE OF ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), PUNE ALONG WITH RELEVANT SEIZED DOCU MENTS, EVIDENCING THE TRANSACTION OF ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTES THAT THE NAME ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 5 OF ASSESSEE APPEARED AS RAJ LAXMI AGRAWAL IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS CONTENDED THAT IT HAD NO CONNECT ION WITH THE NAME APPEARING IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL I.E. RAJ LAXMI AGRAWAL. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDITION NOTED THE FOLLOWING CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES: - I) MR. SUNIL RATNAKAR THE ACCOUNTANT OF SHRI SHRIRAM SONI IN HIS STATEMENT UNDER SECTI ON 132(4) DATED 29 - 07 - 2003 HAS STATED THAT HE RECEIVED RS.28 LAKHS AGGREGATE FROM SHRI RAJKUMAR AGARWAL ON 26 - 07 - 2003, 25 - 07 - 2003 AND 24 - 07 - 2003 I.E. IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH ON 29 - 07 - 2003 IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHRIRAM SONI. II) ON PAGE NO.115 (BACK) RELATED TO JULY 2002 TRANSACTIONS, ONE ENTRY SHOWS THAT RS.1 LAKH HAS BEEN PAID TO SHRI RAJESH, C.A. OF RAJLAXMI. IT IS NOTEWORTHY TO MENTION THAT SHRI RAJESH MUNDADA IS C.A. OF AGARWAL GROUP. III) DOCUMENTS AT BUNDLE NO.31 REPRESENT THE CHEQUE TR ANSACTIONS WHICH SHOW THE ASSOCIATION OF THE ASSESSEE WITH MR. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL AS KARTA OF B.R. AGARWAL (HUF). IV) B.R. AGARWAL (HUF), PUNE HAS BEEN BORROWING SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNTS THROUGH SHRI SHRIRAM SONI / SHRI SHRIKANT SONI. 6. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, STATEMENT OF SHRI SONI AND THAT OF ACCOUNTANT MR. RATNAKAR WAS RECORDED. BOTH OF THEM GAVE QUITE EVASIVE ANSWERS AND DID NOT REVEAL THE TRUE IDENTITY OF THE BORROWERS. HE ALSO DENIED TO DISCLOSE THE IDENTITY OF THE INVESTORS OR BO RROWERS IN THE PAST ALSO , ON THE GROUND T HAT THEY COULD CAUSE GRIEVOUS HARM TO HIM. THE ACCOUNTANT ON THE OTHER HAND, HAD MENTIONED IN THE STATEMENT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH THAT HE HAD RECEIVED SUM OF RS.28 LAKHS ON DIFFERENT DATES IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH FROM RAJKUMAR AGARWAL. HE LATER ON MODIFIED HIS STATEMENT AND STATED THAT HE HAD MADE ENTRY OF CERTAIN AMOUNTS IN THE NAME OF PERSON CALLED RAJKUMAR AGARWAL ON THE DIRECTION OF SHRI SONI. ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 6 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REOPENED THE ASS ESSMENT BY RECORDING REASONS FOR REOPENING THAT INCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS.26,25,553/ - HAD ESCAPED THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE IN REPLY STATED THAT THE EARLIER RETURN FILED BY IT MAY BE TREATED AS FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED FOR PROVIDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, WHICH W ERE SO PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS NON - COMPLIANCE TO VARIOUS NOTICES ISSUED. THE ASS ESSING OFFICER ISSUE D SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT TO SHRI RAJKUMAR AGARWAL, KARTA OF HUF CALLING FOR HIS PERSONAL ATTENDANCE ALONG WITH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE SAME. THE ASSESSEE TIME AND AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT A ND DID NOT FURNISH INFORMATION. HOWEVER, WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS O N VARIOUS ISSUES WERE THEN LATER FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE ANALYSIS OF STATEMENTS OF SHRI SONI AND HIS ACCOUNTANT SHRI RATNAKAR, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT WHERE SHRI RATNA KAR HAD ADMITTED IN THE FIRST INSTANCE THAT HE HAD RECEIVED RS.28 LAKHS FROM RA JKUMAR AGARWAL , ACCORDINGLY, ON 26.07.2003, 25.07.2003 AND 24.07.2003 I.E. BEFORE MAKING SEARCH ON 29.07.2003, THEN THAT STATEMENT HAS TO BE GIVEN CREDENCE. THE LATER STATEMENT OF SHRI RATNAKAR THAT HE HAD MADE THE ENTRY OF CERTAIN AMOUNT IN THE NAME OF PERSON CALLED RA JKUMAR AGARWAL ON THE DIRECTION OF SHRI SONI WERE HELD TO BE MODIFICATION OF EARLIER REPLY AND ALSO THE EVASIVE REPLY GIVEN BY SHRI SONI. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A FTER CONSIDERING THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE OPERATIONS BY SHRI SONI, WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN THE NAME OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE BECAUSE OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE AND CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BY WAY OF ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 7 INTEREST PAYMENT ON CASH LOAN OF RS.20,85,775/ - IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002 - 03. SIMILAR ADDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE IN LATER YEARS ALSO. 8. THE SECOND ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF A SSESSEE WAS ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST LOANS / DEPOSITS TAKEN. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED VARIOUS AMOUNTS AS LOANS ON WHICH IT HAD PAID BROKERAGE AS WELL AS INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE ALLOWABILITY OF EXPENDITURE UNDER SECTION 37(1) OF THE ACT, SINCE THE BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ON VERY LOW SCALE AND DID NOT REQUIRE ANY SUCH BORROWINGS. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT IT HAD ADVANCED THE FUNDS TO THE SISTER CONCERNS, ON WHICH IT HAD CHARGED INTEREST. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE ASSESSEE TO HAVE ONLY DEBITED THE NET INTEREST I.E. INTEREST PAID MINUS INTEREST RECEIVED, TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE INTEREST DEBITED IN THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE BORROWED AND DIVERTED FUNDS WAS NOT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS OF ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED. SIMILARLY, BROKERAGE PAID FOR ARRANGING BORROWED AND DIVERTED FUNDS WAS ALSO HELD TO BE NOT FOR THE PURPOSE OF BUSINESS AND THE SAME WAS DISALLOWED RESULTING IN ADDITION OF RS.7,93,085/ - ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND SUM OF RS.18,32,468/ - ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE. 9. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT IT WAS BORROWING FU NDS FOR THE PURPOSE OF MAKING ADVANCE TO ITS SISTER CONCERNS FROM YEAR TO YEAR, ON WHICH IT WAS CHARGING INTEREST AND HENCE, IT WAS AN INDEPENDENT SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WITHOUT PREJUDICE, THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED THAT THE INTEREST INCOME WAS IN AL TERNATE, TO BE TREATED AS ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 8 INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ENTITLED TO CLAIM DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST PAID AND BROKERAGE PAID AS AN ALLOWABLE DEDUCTION UNDER SECTION 57(3) OF THE ACT AS EXPENDITURE WAS DIRECTLY INCURRED FOR THE PURPOS E OF EARNING INTEREST INCOME. THE CIT(A) UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY DISALLOWING INTEREST AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES. THE CIT(A) ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPEND ITURE ON THE AMOUNTS BORROWED FROM SHRI SONI, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HUF WAS REGULARLY TAKING LOANS FROM SHRI SONI. THE CIT(A) HAS FURTHER GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE APPEALS FILED BY RAJKUMAR AGARWAL WERE ALSO PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND IF WHILE DECIDING T HOSE APPEALS, IT IS FOUND THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION WERE ACTUALLY ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF SAID APPELLANT, THEN THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF HUF WOULD BE RECTIFIED AND THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED WOULD BE DELETED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY T HE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) WAS AGAINST THE REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT AND THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT WAS DISMISSED BY THE CIT(A). 10. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 11. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 AND 1.1 IS AGAINST NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD WAS THAT THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NULL AND VOID, SINCE AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, PARALLEL PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE NOT YET DROPPED. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS ALSO AGAINST THE JURISDICTION EXERCISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 9 CHALLENGED THAT THE N OTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS NOT VALID IN LAW AND THE CONSEQUENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE ACT WAS BE DECLARED AS NULL AND VOID. THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE BEING LEGAL IN NATURE, IS AD MITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. 12. BRIEF FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 AND ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL ARE THAT SEARCH ON RAJKUMAR B AGARWAL WAS CONDUCTED ON 16.07.2005. THE COPY OF PANCHNAMA IS PLACED AT PAGES 1 TO 21 OF THE PAPER BOO K NO.2 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE PERUSAL OF PANCHNAMA REFLECTS THAT WARRANT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME S OF RAJKUMAR B AGARWAL AND HIS WIFE AMITA R. AGARWAL. IT MAY BE POINTED OUT HEREIN ITSELF THAT RAJKUMAR B. AGARWAL IS THE KARTA OF B.R. AGARWAL, HUF I.E. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON RESIDENTIAL PREMISES, CERTAIN JEWELLERY WAS FOUND AND IT WAS DECLARED THAT THE JEWELLERY BELONGS TO VARIOUS FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING THE ASSESSEE HUF BEFORE US. SHRI RAJKUMAR AGARWAL WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF 73 GRAMS OF GOLD ORNAMENTS AND SILVER UTENSILS WEIGHING 7.99 KG. THIS DECLARATION WAS LATER ON WITHDRAWN DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESSEE IN THE FIRST INSTANCE, CLAIMS THAT THE RE - ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE NOT VALID SINCE AT THE TIME OF ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE PENDING. THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UND ER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE HUF WERE DROPPED AS THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HUF WAS NOT IN THE SEARCH WARRANT. THE ORDER DROPPING THE PROCEEDINGS IS DATED 31.12.2007 AND WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 09.05.2008. THE NOTICE UNDER SECTIO N 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2008. THE SECOND PLEA OF ASSESSEE BY ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 10 WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE PROCEEDINGS SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 13. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZ ED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS AWARE THAT PART OF JEWELLERY BELONGED TO THE HUF, HE SHOULD HAVE ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND NOT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 14. THE LEARNED DEPART MENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE ON THE OTHER HAND, POINTED OUT THAT THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153A OF THE ACT WERE INVALIDLY INITIATED AS THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT IN THE SEARCH ACTION AND IF THE PROCEEDINGS ARE INVALIDLY INITIATED, WHETHER TH E SAME ARE DROPPED OR NOT HAS NO CONSEQUENCE. IN ANY CASE, THE PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED ON 31.12.2007 AND THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 27.03.2008. IN RESPECT OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE, NO MONEY, JEWELLERY, BULLION, ETC. WERE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN - CHARGE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF ASSESSEE HUF I.E. PERSON OTHER THAN PERSON SEARCHED AND HENCE, THE SAID SECTI ON 153C OF THE ACT IS NOT ATTRACTED WHEN THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT WERE VALIDLY INITIATED. 15. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST INITIATION OF PR OCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147 / 148 OF THE ACT. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT AND HAD ISSUED NOTICE ON 27.03.2008 ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 11 WHICH WAS WITHIN THE STATUTORY PERIOD. SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED O UT AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF RAJKUMAR B. AGARWAL IN HIS INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY, THOUGH HE IS THE KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF, BUT NO SEARCH HAD TAKEN PLACE IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE HUF AND CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS, IF ANY, INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153A OF T HE ACT, IN THE ABSENCE OF NAME OF ASSESSEE IN THE SEARCH WARRANT, CANNOT BE VALIDLY INITIATED. IN ANY CASE, THE SAID PROCEEDINGS WERE DROPPED ON 31.12.2007 THOUGH THE COPY OF ORDER WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 09.05.2008. IN SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HOL D THAT WHERE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD REASON TO BELIEVE AND HE HAD RECORDED THE SAME AND OBTAINED THE APPROVAL, THEN THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT HAVE BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 1.2 AR E DISMISSED. 16. NOW, COMING TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL THAT THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE ASSESSEE SHOULD HAVE BEEN INITIATED UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AND NOT AGAINST UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. ON PERUSAL OF PANCHNAMA, IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THOUGH DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH VARIOUS ITEMS OF GOLD JEWELLERY WERE FOUND FROM THE PERSONS SEARCHED I.E. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL, WHO ADMITTED THAT IT BELONGED TO HIM AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND ACCORDINGLY, BIFURCATION OF JEWELLERY WAS GIV EN. HOWEVER, THE PERUSAL OF PANCHNAMA ITSELF REFLECTS NO ITEM OF JEWELLERY WAS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH. THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE ATTRACTED WHERE ANY MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, ARTICLE OR THING, ETC. IS FOUND AND BELONGS TO A PERSON OTHER THAN PERSON SEARCH ED , THEN SUCH ITEM IS TO BE HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN - CHARGE OF THE OTHER PERSON, WHO IN TURN, WOULD INITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 153C OF THE ACT AFTER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN - ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 12 CHARGE OF THE PERSON SEARCH HAS RECORDED REASONS IN THIS REGARD. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT NOTHING WAS HANDED OVER TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN - CHARGE . C ONSEQUENTLY, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 153C OF THE ACT ARE NOT ATTRACTED, HEN CE THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE PROCEEDINGS INITIATED UNDER SECTION 147/148 OF THE ACT ARE VALIDLY INITIATED. 17. NOW, COMING TO THE ISSUE RAISED VIDE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 AND 2.2 I.E. ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE. 18. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE AFTER REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER AND HIS OBSERVATIONS ON VARIOUS COUNTS, POINTED OUT THAT THE NAME RECORDED IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT IS THAT OF RAJ LAX MI AGARWAL AND ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE I.E. BY WAY OF ANY PROMISSORY NOTES OR CHEQUES WERE FOUND, WHICH RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT EVEN SHRI SONI HAD NEV ER STATED THAT THE LOANS IN THE NAME OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE HUF. HE ADMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HUF HAD BORROWED CERTAIN CASH LOANS IN ITS NAME, SO THE ASSESSING OFFICERS PRESUMPTION THAT ALL UNACCOUNTED TRANSACTIONS ALSO RELATE TO HU F. COMING TO THE STATEMENT OF RATNAKAR, WHEREIN HE STATES THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECORDED IN THE NAME OF RAJKUMAR AGARWAL THOUGH THE NAME WRITTEN IS RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL, THEN HE STRESSED THAT ADDITION, IF ANY, IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT H UF. ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 13 19. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO PAGES IN BUNDLE 100 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF SAID NOTINGS. 20. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN REJOINDER, POINTED OUT THAT NOTHING WAS SEIZED ON ACCOUNT OF SAID BUNDLE 100. HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN TULSIRAM JODHARAJ PALLOD VS. ITO IN ITA NOS.1789, 1790 & 1791/PN/2013, RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01, 2001 - 02 & 2002 - 03, ORDER DATED 30.04.2015, WHEREIN THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL HAD DELETED THE ADDITION AS NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS FOUND WITH REGARD TO RAISING OF LOANS. HE DISTINGUISHED THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF PUNE BENCH DECISION IN ITO VS. M/S. KARVE CONSTRUCTIONS AND OTHERS WITH LEAD ORDER IN ITA NOS.472 TO 472/PN/2011, RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2000 - 01 TO 2002 - 03, ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 . 21. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE WAS MADE PURSUANT TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE CASE OF SHRI SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI, WHEREIN EVIDENCE WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID PERSON HAD ADVANCED UNACCOUNTED MONEY TO DIFFERENT PERSONS BY WAY OF LOANS, ON WHICH HE WAS CHARGI NG INTEREST AND FOR ARRANGING THE TRANSACTIONS, BROKERAGE WAS ALSO BEING CHARGED. VARIOUS DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF PROMISSORY NOTES, CHEQUES FOR THE LOAN AMOUNTS AND THE INTEREST AMOUNT WAS FOUND FROM HIS POSSESSION. THE ASSESSEE HUF HAD BO RROWED CERTAIN LOANS FROM THE SAID ENTITIES OF SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI, WHICH ARE ACCOUNTED FOR IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SEARCH TEAM HAD ALSO FOUND THE LIST OF LOANS ADVANCED BY SHRI SHRIRAM HIRALAL SONI, WHEREIN THE DATE OF ADVANCING OF LOANS, ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 14 RATE OF I NTEREST AND PERIOD OF LOAN WERE MENTIONED. IN THE SAID DOCUMENT, ONE NAME I.E. RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL WAS MENTIONED. THE KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF BEFORE US WAS RAJKUMAR AGARWAL AND THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE NAME NOTED RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL IN THE SAID LIST OF SHRI SONI WAS THAT OF RAJKUMAR AGARWAL AND RAJKUMAR AGARWAL HAD BORROWED THE FUNDS AND SINCE B.R. AGARWAL, HUF, OF WHICH, RAJKUMAR WAS KARTA , HAD BORROWED FUNDS WHICH WERE ACCOUNTED, THEN THESE UNACCOUNTED ACCOUNTS RELATED TO T HE ASSESSEE HUF. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF AUTHORITIES BELOW IN HOLDING THAT THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE HANDS OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE HUF ON THE PREMISE THAT THE NAME OF KARTA OF HUF RAJKUMAR AGARWAL IS SIMILAR. THE SECOND SIMILI WHICH WAS DRAWN WAS THE C.A. WHO WAS RAJESH MUNDADA AND IN O NE OF ENTRIES, THE NAME WAS WRITTEN AS RAJESH ( CA ) OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL. FOR CONFIRM ING THAT THE LOAN WAS BORROWED BY THE ASSESSEE HUF, THE STATEMENT OF ACCOUNTANT OF SHRI SONI RECORDED DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH, WHEREIN HE ADMITTED THAT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE SEARCH, SUM OF RS.2 8 LAKHS IN CASH WAS HANDED OVER BY RAJKUMAR AGARWAL. THE SAID STATEMENT WAS NOT CORROBORATED BY SHRI SONI. IT WAS PUT TO HIM, BUT HE DID NOT ADMIT THAT THE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE , HUF . THE ACCOUNTANT RATNAKAR THEREAFTER, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF SHRI SONI, MODIFIED HIS STATEMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT HE DOES NOT KNOW RAJKUMAR AGARWAL BUT SHRI SONI TOLD HIM THAT RS.28 LAKHS WAS RECEI VED FROM HIM AND HENCE, THE ENTRY. ADMITTEDLY, NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF PROMISSORY NOTE OR BLANK CHEQUES DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESSEE HUF OR RAJKUMAR AGARWAL WERE FOUND. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WHERE THERE IS N OT H ING FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, EXCEPT THE NAME OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL WHICH IS NOT RAJKUMAR AGARWAL AND NO OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 15 PROMISSORY NOTES OR CHEQUES BEING FOUND, DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE HUF. IN ANY CASE, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE BROUGHT ON RECORD TO ESTABLISH THAT THE ENTRY OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL RELATES TO THE ASSESSEE HUF. IT MAY RELATE TO THE PERSON IN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY I.E. RAJKUMAR AGARWAL BUT IT DEFINITELY DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE HUF BEFO RE US. THE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ITO VS. M/S. KARVE CONSTRUCTIONS (SUPRA) HAD CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ENTRIES FOUND FROM SHRI SONI BECAUSE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE OF PROMISSORY NOTES AND CHEQUES ISSUED BEING FOUND FROM THE P OSSESSION OF SHRI SONI. 22. HOWEVER, IN THE CASE OF TULSIRAM JODHARAJ PALLOD VS. ITO (SUPRA) ON SIMILAR ENTRIES IN THE LIST MAINTAINED BY SHRI SONI, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESEN T CASE BEFORE US ALSO, FIRST OF ALL, THE NAME OF ASSESSEE HUF IS MISSING FROM THE LIST OF PERSONS MAINTAINED BY SHRI SONI AND SECONDLY, NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE AT ALL WAS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF SHRI SONI EVIDENCING THE BORROWING OF LOAN BY ASSESSEE HUF. THE ENTRY IN THE NAME OF RAJ LAXMI AGARWAL DOES NOT RELATE TO THE ASSESSEE AS THE KARTA OF ASSESSEE HUF WAS RAJKUMAR AGARWAL. THE STATEMENT OF THE ACCOUNTANT HAS NO MERIT SINCE THE SAME HAS BEEN MODIFIED AND SECONDLY, SHRI SONI HAS NOT ADMITTED TO THE STAND OF SHRI RATNAKAR, ACCOUNTANT. EVEN IF RELIANCE IS TO BE PLACED ON THE STATEMENT OF RATNAKAR, THEN THE ISSUE HAS TO BE SEEN ON TAXABILITY OF SUCH AMOUNT IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF HUF. ACCORDINGLY, WE HOLD SO. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE OF INTEREST AND BROKERAGE IS DELETED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 2.2 ARE THUS, ALLOWED. ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 16 23. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 TO 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFEREN CE IN INTEREST PAID BETWEEN THE AMOUNTS BORROWED AND INTEREST CHARGED AMOUNT. FURTHER, ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF BROKERAGE PAID FOR BORROWING / ADVANCING THE LOANS. ADMITTEDLY, THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED THE LOANS AT HIGHER RATE OF INTEREST WHI CH WERE ADVANCED AT LOWER RATES OF INTEREST AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ADDED THE DIFFERENCE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. FURTHER, THERE IS NO MERIT IN CLAIM OF EXPENDITURE O F BROKERAGE. CONFIRMING THE BOTH , WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.3 TO 6 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 24. THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NOS.345/PUN/2014 & 346/PUN/2014 ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.344/PUN/2014 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.34 4/PUN/2014 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS TO ITA NOS.345/PUN/2014 & 346/PUN/2014. 25. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED I N ITA NO.347/PUN/2014 IS ON ACCOUNT OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE AND BROKERAGE , O N MERITS . T HE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL AND THE FIRST ISSUE IS AGAINST THE RE - ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AS IN ITA NO.344/PUN/2014 , WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.1 TO 1.2 AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL . I N RES PECT OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 TO 5 , THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF RS.5,85,379/ - AND BROKERAGE EXPENSES OF RS.13,75,613/ - . FOLLOWING THE SAME PARITY OF REASONING AS IN ITA NO.344/PUN/2014, WE DISMISS THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO .2 TO 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO S . 344 TO 347 /P U N/20 1 4 B R AGARWAL, HUF 17 2 6 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEARS 2002 - 03 TO 2004 - 05 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF JUNE , 201 7 . SD/ - SD/ - (ANIL CHATURVEDI ) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 23 RD JUNE , 201 7 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - CENTRAL, PUNE ; 4. / THE CIT - CENTRAL, PUNE ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, , / ITAT, PUNE