J.P. Builders & Developers, Nashik V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 371/PUN/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9398 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 08-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUDHENSHU SHAKH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained investment
• Section: 143(3); 69; 148; 132

Judgement Text

- IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH SMC, PUNE , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM . / I TA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 2004 - 05 & 2005 - 06 JAGATSINGH PRATAPSINGH J AD H AV 42, KRUSHI NAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, NASHIK - 422005 PAN : AAPPJ1588D ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4 ), NASHIK. / RESPONDENT . / ITA NO . 371/PUN/2016 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2004 - 05 J.P BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, 42, KRUSHI NAGAR, COLLEGE ROAD, NASHIK - 422005 PAN : AADFJ2547A ....... / APPELLANT / V/S. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1(4 ), NASHIK. / RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUDHENSHU SHAKH AR / DATE OF HEARING : 24.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02. 06 .2017 2 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA , JM OUT OF THESE THREE APPEALS , ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE , JAGATSINGH PRATAPSINGH JADH AV ARE AGAINST THE ORDER S OF THE CIT(A) - 1, NASHIK DATED 20.03 .2015 & 18.03.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2004 - 05 AND 2005 - 06 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT). ONE ANOTHER APPEAL BEING ITA NO. 371/PUN/2016 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, J.P BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 1, NASHIK DATED 01.12.2015 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004 - 05 AGAINST THE O RDE R PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ( IN SHORT THE ACT) 2. THESE BUNCH OF THREE APPEALS RELATING TO CONNECTED ASSESSEE , WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 3 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL IN ITA NO. 696/PUN/ 2015: - 1) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED PURSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 PLEASE BE QUASHED BEING ILLEGAL AND INVALID. 2) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS U/S 69 OF THE AC T. 3) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3,00,717/ - OUT OF THE TOTAL TRANSPORT PAYMENTS AS AGAIN ST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O AT RS. 4,51,076/ - 4) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES TO THE EXTENT OF RS.22,924/ - OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES ON VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O AT RS. 76,413/ - . 5) THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR ADDITION TO; DELETION, ALTERATION, AND MODIFICATION CHANGE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. 3 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 4. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS AGAINST REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED RETURN OF INCOME DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 4 , 65 , 043/ - . THE SAID RETURN OF INCOME WAS PROCESSED UNDER SECTION 143(1)(A) OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, NASHIK THAT THE INCOME CHARGEABLE TO TAX HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT IN RESPECT OF SOURCES OF INVESTMENT OF RS. 10,00,000/ - FOR PURCH ASE OF PLOT. THE ASSESSING OFF ICER, AS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED RETURN OF INCOME, ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. HOWEVER, IN THE SAID PARA ITSELF, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ACKNOWLEDGES THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.03.2005. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETURN OF INCOME BUT FILED REPLY ON 18.10.2007 AND ASKED TO KNOW THE REASONS OF RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OR 142( 1) OF THE ACT INITIALLY AND LATER FURNISHED INFORMATION. 6 . THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WERE INITIATED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE . HOWEVER, WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UND ER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AND IN RESPONSE TO 142(1 ) / 143(2) OF THE ACT THEN , THE ASSESSEE AT THIS JUNCTURE CANNOT RAISE ISSUE AGAINST RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT. HENCE, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 OF APPEAL IS AGAINST THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT U/S 69 OF THE ACT. 8. IN BRIEF, THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE ARE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S 132 OF THE ACT, IN THE CASE OF SHRI CHAND ULAL SADHURAM KHEMANI, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS/BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE SEIZED FROM HIS OFFICE PREMISES. THE ITEM NO. 17 OF PAGE NO. 18 TO 35 WAS PURCHASE DEED DATED 17/07/ 2003 IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO. 77 AT SURVEY NO. 712/2A AND 712/2/D/77 ADMEASURING 502.61 SQ.MTR . 4 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 BETWEEN ZOZDEN F. LOBO AND SHRI ARUN CHACHAD & SHRI J.P JAD H AV , SHRI CHANDULAL S. KHEMANI WAS CONFIRMING PARTY FOR SUCH TRANSACT ION. SHRI J.P JADAV AND SHRI ARU N CHACHAD PAID THE PURCHASE PRICE AT RS. 30,43,000/ - . FROM THE COPIES OF BANK ACCOUNT OF M/S J .P BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS WITH JANLAXMI CO - OP. BANK ACCOUNT NO. 200550, SAMARATH NAGAR BRANCH ON 06/7/2003 THERE WAS CREDIT OF RS.10 LAKHS IN THE CASH IN THE BOOKS J.P BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS , RS. 5 LAKHS SHOWN TO BE RECEIVED FROM SHRI J.P. JADAV AND RS. 5 LA KHS FROM SHRI ARUN CHACHAD. THE SOURCES OF SAID DEPOSITS OF RS. 10 LAKHS WERE NOT EXPLAINED BY SHRI J.P. JADAV AND SHRI ARUN CHACHAD, WHICH WAS DEPOSITED BY M/S J.P. BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ON 10/7/2003 IN JANLAXMI CO - OP. BANK. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE INQ UIRIES FROM THE ASSESSEE BUT NO EXPLANATION ON CASH CREDITS DETECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WAS FILED. THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINED THAT THE CASH DEPOSIT BY HIM IN THE ACCOUNTS HAD ALREADY BEEN EXPLAINED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS FAILED TO FURNISH THE SOURCES OF THE SAID CASH AND HENCE , ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE HENCE , ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - WAS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAID ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A). SIMILARLY, IN THE CASE OF OTHER PARTNER, SHRI ARUN CHACHAD, ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,0 00/ - WAS MADE AND THE APPEAL AGAINST THE SAME IS PENDING BEFORE CIT(A). THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS. 11,00,000/ - AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE . THE CIT(A) REDUCE D THE ADDITION TO RS. 5,00,000/ - HOLDING THAT SUM OF RS. 6,00,000/ - RELATED TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003 - 04 AND SUITABLE ACTION I F DEEMED FIT WAS TO BE TAKEN IN THE SAID YEAR. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - . 9. THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSION AS TO WHY THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE AND FILED EXPLANATION REGARDING SOURCE OF RS. 5,00,000/ - . IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT PROPERTY WAS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF THE PARTN ER WHEREIN FIRM MADE PAYMENT THROUGH CHEQUE AND TOTAL PAYMENT WAS TO THE TUNE OF RS. 30,43,000/ - . THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT 5 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 THAT FIRM HAD DEBITED RS. 16,00,000/ - EACH TO THE PARTNERS CAPITAL ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER STATED THAT ADMITTEDLY IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM, CASH OF RS.5,00,000/ - WAS INTRODUCED BY THE PARTNER AND THE SOURCE WAS EXP LAINED. HOWEVER, IN ORDER TO BUY PEACE OF MIND, THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE PROPOSED THAT SUM OF RS. 5,00,000/ - EACH MAY BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSES SEE AND SHRI ARUN CHACHAD. HE FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM OF RS. 10,00,000/ - BE DELETED. 10. ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD , WITHOUT GOING INTO THE MERITS OF THE EXPLANATION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OR THE LD. AR FOR THE ASS ESSEE DURING COURSE OF HEARING AND IN VIEW OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT U/S 69 OF THE ACT IS UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE , AS THE SAID PLOT IS PURCHASED IN THE NAME OF TWO PERSONS . THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS FAIRLY CONCEDED THAT BALANCE SUM OF RS. 5 ,00,000/ - IS TO BE ADDED IN THE HANDS OF OTHER PARTNER, SHRI ARUN CHACHAD. I N THE SAID CASE , APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ARUN CHACHAD. I N THE SAID CASE , APPEAL IS PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - IS UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE GROUND NO. 2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11 . THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE GROUND NO. 3 IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OF TRANSPORT CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ENGAGED IN THE TRANSPORT BUSINESS AND PAID LORRY HIRE CHARGES OF RS.62,12,254/ - . OUT OF WHICH SUM OF RS.60,14,354/ - WAS CASH PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES, T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ASKED TH E ASSESSEE AS TO WHY REASONABLE DISALLOWANCE SHOULD NOT BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. DURING COURSE OF HEARING, CA & AR OF THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ONLY 5% DISALLOWANCE WOULD BE ACCEPTED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD - HOC ADDITION BY DISALLOWING 7.5% O F THE TOTAL LORRY HIRE EXPENSES AND MADE ADDITION OF RS.4,51,076/ - . THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE SAME TO 5% OF THE TOTAL EXPENSES AGAINST WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD 6 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 WHEREIN THE LD. AR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY ACCEPTED 5% OF DISALLOWANCE OUT OF TOTAL LORRY HIRE CHARGES PAID. UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A), GROUND NO. 3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 12 . THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE GROUND NO. 4 OF APPEAL IS AGAINST DISALLOWANCE OU T OF TOTAL EXPENSES ON VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 22,924/ - . THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD DISALLOWED 1/3 RD OF THE EXPENDITURE OF CAR AND TELEPHONE TOTAL ING RS. 76,413/ - . THE CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 10% OF THE TOTAL EXPENS ES I.E RS. 22,924/ - . THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 4 RAISED BY ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE SAME IS DISMISSED. 13 . THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 676/PUN/2015 HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 2,26,430 OUT OF TOTAL TRANSPORT PAYMENTS AS AGAINST THE DISAL LOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O AT RS. 4,52,866/ - 2 ) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 22,353/ - OUT OF TOTAL EXPENSES ON VEHICLES AND TELEPHONE AS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE A.O AT RS. 44,706/ - . 3) THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR ADDITION TO; DELETION, ALTERATION, AND MODIFICATION CHANGE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. 14 . THE ISSUE RAISED BY ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 IS SIMILAR TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 IN ITA NO. 696/PUN/2015. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.2 IS S IMILAR TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 4 IN ITA NO. 696/PUN/2015 . FOLLOWING SAME LINE OF REASONING , BOTH THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 15 . THE ASSESSEE M/S J.P BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS IN ITA NO. 371/PUN/2016 HAS RAISED FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED PURSUANT TO NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 PLEASE BE QUASHED BEING INVALID, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE NOTICE U/S 148 WAS ISSUED ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND PRESUMPTIONS THAT THE APPELLANT MUST HAVE SOLD THE FLATS AND MIGHT HAVE EARNED PROFIT. 7 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 2) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH INTRODUCED IN THE FIRMS ACCOUNT BY THE PARTNERS IGNORING THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE APPELLANT REGARDING GENUIN ENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES TO THE TRANSACTION. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS ALSO NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 10,00,000/ - PARTICULARLY WHEN THE SAME ADDITION IS ALSO MADE IN THE HAN DS OF THE PARTNERS AND MORE PARTICULARLY WHERE THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE PARTNER IS CONFIRMED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 3) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMM ISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.25,000/ - ON AD - HOC BASIS OUT OF LABOUR CHARGES, CONTRACT WORK CHARGES AND SUPERVISION CHARGES FOR THE REASON THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCH ERS. 4) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN CONFIRMING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.11,235/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE EXPENSES AND VEHICLE EXPENSES IGNORING THE REASONA BILITY COMPARED TO THE NATURE AND VOLUME OF THE BUSINESS. THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS FURTHER NOT JUSTIFIED IN NOT ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE ON MERIT. 5) ON THE BASIS OF FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND AS PER LAW, THE COMMISSI ONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 IS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DIRECTING THE AO TO TAKE FURTHER ACTION AGAINST THE APPELLANT FOR A.Y 2003 - 04 TO VERIFY THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT AMOUNTING TO RS.6,00,000/ - DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE A.Y. 2003 - 04. THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVAN T TO THE A.Y. 2003 - 04. 6) THE APPELLANT CRAVES FOR ADDITION TO; DELETION, ALTERATION, AND MODIFICATION CHANGE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEALS. 16 . THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 AND 5 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT PRESSED AND HENCE, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 1 7 . THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 2 IS AGAIN ST THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 ,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH INTRODUCED IN THE FIRMS ACCOUNT BY THE PARTNER S . IN APPEAL HEREIN ABOVE , IN THE CASE OF JAGATSINGH PRATAPSINGH JADHAV , AD DITION O F RS. 5,00,000/ - ON THE SAME GROUND IS UPHELD AND ACCORDINGLY, NO OTHER ADDITION ON THE SAME TRANSACTION IS TO BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM AND THE SAME IS DELETED. IN RESPECT OF OTHER PARTNER, SHRI ARUN CHACHAD, ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - HAS BEEN MADE AND APPEAL IS STILL PENDING BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS PROPOSED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERS ON ACCOUNT OF THEIR CASH CONTRIBUTION BE UPHELD. IN CASE NO ADDITION IS CONFIRMED IN 8 ITA NOS. 696 & 676/PUN/2015 & ITA 371/PUN/2016 T HE HANDS OF SHRI ARUN CHA CHAD, T HE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.5,00,000/ - WOULD BE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES FIRM. OTHERWISE, IN CASE IT IS ADDED IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER, NO ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE , IS VALID. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO DECIDE TH E GROUND NO. 2 ACCORDINGLY . 1 8 . THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 IS AGAINST THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 25,000/ - OUT OF CONTRACT WORK CHARGES, SUPERVISION CHARGES AND RS.11,235/ - ON ACCOUNT OF OFFICE EXPENSES, VEHICLES EXPENSES. IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES, B OTH THESE ADDITIONS ARE UPHELD IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE GROUND THAT SOME OF THE EXPENSES ARE SUPPORTED BY SELF MADE VOUCHERS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO. 3 AND 4 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS DISMISSED. 19 . IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 696/PUN/2015 AND ITA NO. 676/PUN/2015 ARE DISMISSED AND APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 371/PUN/2016 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 2 ND DAY OF JUNE , 201 7 . ORDER PRO NOUNCED ON 2 DAY OF JUNE , 201 7 . SD/ - ( SUSHMA CHOWLA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE; / DATED : 2 ND JUNE , 2017 . SB / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT. 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) - 1, NASHIK. 4. THE PR. CIT - 1, NASHIK. 5 . , , - , / DR, ITAT, SMC BENCH, PUNE. 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR , / ITAT, PUNE .