ACIT, Aurangabad V. Shri Satish Dattatraya Vaidya, Aurangabad

ITA 396/PUN/2006

• Counselvise Citation: [2011] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7689 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-01-2011
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 13-04-2006
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Rule of consistency; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B , PUNE BEFORE SHRI I.C. SUDHIR AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ITA NO. 396/PN/06 (BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/2003) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AURANGABAD .... APPELLANT VS. SHRI SATISH DATTARAYA VAIDYA, 22,RENUKRUPA, NEW SHREYA NAGAR, AURANGABAD PAN NO. AAJPV4272C . RESPONDENT ITA NO. 389/PN/06 (BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/2003) SHRI SATISH DATTARAYA VAIDYA, 22,RENUKRUPA, NEW SHREYA NAGAR, AURANGABAD PAN NO. AAJPV4272C .... APPELLANT VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AURANGABAD . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK AND NIKHIL PA THAK DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI A.S. SINGH ORDER PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO AM THESE ARE THE CROSS APPEALS, ASSESSEE AS WELL AS REV ENUE ARE IN CROSS APPEALS AGAINST A CONSOLIDATED ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, NA GPUR DATED 19/01/2006 FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD ENDING 01/04/96 TO 06/02/200 3. 2. THERE ARE COUPLE OF ISSUES IN ALL THESE GROUNDS AND THE ISSUE 1 RELATES TO CONFIRMING OF THE ADDITION OF RS. 3,03,960/- AND TH E OTHER ISSUE REVOLVES AROUND THE ADDITION BASED ON SEIZED PAGES 41, 43, 44 & 45 OF THE ANNEXURE A-12. THE ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 2 OF 12 FACTS OF THE ADDITION AND THE DECISIONS OF THE REVE NUE AUTHORITIES AS DESCRIBED IN THE ORDERS ARE MENTIONED IN PARA 3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CONTENTS OF PARA 3.9 TO 3.11 ARE AS UNDER:- 3.9 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT ALONG WITH THE COPIES OF THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT ETC. HAVE BEEN GIVEN DUE CONSIDERATIO N. IT IS OBSERVED THAT THE AO FOUND DISCREPANCIES IN THE BANK BALANCE AS PE R BANK STATEMENT VIS--VIS BALANCE SHEET AS PER DETAILS GIVEN BELOW:- DATE BALANCE AS PER BALANCE AS PER DIFFERENCE BANK STATEMENT BALANCE SHEET 31-03-1997 RS. 17,868 RS. 6,241 RS. 11, 625 31-03-2000 RS.1,38, 316 RS. 3,901 RS. 1,34, 415 31-03-2001 RS. 3,30,713 RS. 1,83,554 RS. 1,47,1 59 31-03-2002 RS. 59,947 RS. 49,186 RS. 10,761 TOTAL RS. 3,03,960 3.10 THE APPELLANT IN ITS SUBMISSION HAS CONTENDED THAT THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCES AS NOTICED BY THE AO STANDS CONSIDERED IN THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,12,173/ - AND, THEREFORE, THE SEPARATE ADDITION AS COMPUTED ABOVE IS NOT WARRANTED. I HAVE EXAMINED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS IN BANK ACCOUNT AT PARA 15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND FIND THAT THE SAID ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CREDITS APPEARING IN THE BANK ACCO UNTS WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISCLOSED AT ALL IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND, THEREFORE, THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCE AS COMPUTED ABOVE HAVE NOT BEEN INCLUDED IN THE ADDITION OF RS. 14,12,173/- AT PARA 15 OF THE ORDER. THIS IS SUBS EQUENTLY BY THE FACT THAT THE UNDISCLOSED CREDITS IN THE BANK AS DISCUSSE D IN THE PARA 15 DOES NOT TALLY WITH THE CORRESPONDING DIFFERENCES CALCULATE D ABOVE. THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, APPEARS TO BE FACTUALLY INCORRECT AND DESERVES TO BE REJECTED. 3.11 THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ARGUED THAT THE AFORESAID DIFFERENCES WERE INCORPORATED IN THE PEAK WORKING STATEMENT, WHEREIN SEP ARATE ADDITIONS OF RS. 31,40,637/- WAS MADE BY THE AO IN PARA 7.1 AND 7 .2 OF THE ORDER. HERE AGAIN I FIND THAT THE CONTENTION OF APPELLANT I S FACTUALLY INCORRECT, SINCE THE DIFFERENCES AS COMPUTED ABOVE, WERE NEVER I NCLUDED IN THE PEAK WORKING STATEMENT. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE TH AT THE PEAK WORKING STATEMENT WAS DRAWN ON THE BASIS OF RECEIPTS AND PAYM ENTS WHICH WERE NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND, THEREFORE, THE RE WAS NO QUESTION OF INCLUDING THE DIFFERENCES ARISING OUT OF CREDIT BAL ANCE AS PER BANK STATEMENT VIS--VIS REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET. THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WAS CAREFULLY EXAMINED AND NO SUCH ENTRY OF DIFFERENCES COMPUTED AS ABOVE WAS EVER MADE IN THE SAID STATEMEN T AND HENCE THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT IS FOUND TO BE FACTUALLY I NCORRECT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, I AM OF THE CONSI DERED VIEW THAT THE DIFFERENCES IN THE CREDIT BALANCE AS PER BANK STATEMEN T VIS--VIS THE BALANCE SHEET AMOUNTING TO RS. 3,03,960/- DOES NOT STAND INCLUDED EITHER IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 14,12,173/- ASSESS ED AS PER PARA 15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.31,40,637/- BASED ON THE PEAK WORKING STATEMENT COMPUTED AT PA RA 7.1 AND 7.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. I AM, THEREFORE, OF THE VIEW THAT THE DIFFERENCE OF RS. 3,03,960/- COMPUTED BY THE AO IS CLEARLY DISTINC T FROM THE OTHER ADDITIONS AND , THEREFORE, REPRESENTS UNDISCLOSED INCOM E OF THE APPELLANT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ACTION OF THE AO IN MAKING SUCH ADD ITION IS HEREBY CONFIRMED. ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 3 OF 12 3. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS, LD. AR FOR THE ASSESSEE STA TED THAT THE A.O MADE ADDITION OF RS. 3,03,960/- ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE BALANCE AS PER THE BANK STATEMENT VIZ-A-VIZ THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE A SSESSMENT YEARS FOLLOWING IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. FURTHER, HE MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE OFFERED UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS. 14,12,173/- AS DISCUSSED BY THE A.O IN PARA 15 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THUS, DISCREPANCIES IF ANY ARE COV ERED BY THE SAID DISCLOSURE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND NO SEPARATE ADDI TION IS CALLED FOR. FURTHER, DURING THE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS COME TO THE DISCUSSION IF THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND UNEXPLAINED WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE QUANTITATIVELY EQUAL OR NOT. LD. AR MENTIONED THAT NOBODY HAS GONE INTO THI S, HOWEVER HE MENTIONED THAT THE WITHDRAWALS ARE ON THE LOWER SIDE VIZ-A-VIZ THE UNEXPLAINED CREDITS. LD. DR FOR REVENUE HAS RELIED ON BOTH THE ORDERS OF THE REV ENUE. HE FURTHER MENTIONED THAT THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) SHOULD BE CON FIRMED ON THIS ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO PERU SED THE ASSESSMENT YEAR- WISE DIFFERENCES NARRATED IN PARA 3.9 OF THE IMPUGNED O RDER. FOR EG. FOR THE A.Y 1997-98 THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE BANK STATEMENT DIFFERENCE IN CLOSING BALANCE OF BANK STATEMENT AND THE RELEVANT BALANCE SHEET IS RS. 11,625/-. AS PER THE LD. COUNSEL THE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT OFFERED DURING THE SEARCH IS AROUND RS. 1.77 LAKHS. HOWEVER, IT IS NOT CLEAR UN EXPLAINED WITHDRAWALS FOR THE SAID YEAR IS ALSO RS. 1.77 LAKHS ARE LESS OR MORE. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION IF THE UNACCOUNTED WITHDRAWAL OF CASH FROM THIS BANK ACC OUNT IS NOT GREATER THAN RS. 1.77 LAKHS, THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CREDIT ALL THE DIFFERENCE OF THE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, WE HAVE NO FIGURES FOR EXAMINING THE DATA B EFORE US. FOR THESE REASONS WE ARE OF THE OPINION THE MATTER SHOULD BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE A.O WITH THE DIRECTION THAT IN CASE DIFFERENCE N OTICED AND UNEXPLAINED WITHDRAWALS FROM THE BANK ACCOUNT ARE NOT GREATER THAN T HE AMOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS, NO FURTHER ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, ISSUE IS ALLOWED PRO-TANTO . 5. SECOND ISSUE RELATES TO THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN TH E PAGE 41, 43, 44 AND 45 OF THE ANNEXURE 12, WHICH ARE THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS . THESE DOCUMENTS CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF ASSETS AND LIABILITIES POSIT ION (PAGES 41 AND 45), SHARE TRANSACTION PARTICULARS (PAGES 43 AND 44), DATE OF TRAN SFER OF SHARES TO D-MAT A/C AND PAYMENTS PARTICULARS. BASED ON THESE PAPERS, IN PA RTICULAR CONTENTS ON PAGE 41, AO MADE ADDITION OF RS 62 LAKHS. ON THE SAID PA GE, AGAINST THE NAME OF ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 4 OF 12 HAWALE, THERE IS ENTRY OF 0.50 AND 0.12 AND THESE FIG URES ARE ADDED TO ARRIVE AT 0.62 AND THE SAME IS INTERPRETED IN LAKHS TO ARRIVE AT THE FIGURE OF RS 62 LAKHS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO SRI HAWALE, THE SHARE BROKER T RANSACTING FOR THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT THE SAID DOCUMENTS ARE MERE ESTIMATES AND THEY S HOULD BE IGNORED. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) WHILE HOLDING THAT PAGE 41 AND T HE FIGURE OF RS 62 LAKHS HAS TO BE IGNORED, REJECTED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE AS SESSEE AND HELD THAT THE ENTRY BL TO HAWALE-40 W E F 01.O4.2002 APPEARING ON PAGE 43 IS THE ONLY REAL TRANSACTION. ACCORDINGLY, AFTER GIVING SET OFF WITH TH E ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT, THE BALANCE IS CONFIRMED FOR ADDITIONS FOR OTHER REASONS GIV EN IN HIS ORDER. IN THE PROCESS, THE CIT(A) GAVE THE FINDING THAT THE FIGURES I.E., 0.50 AND 0.12 TOTALING TO RS. 0.62 REPRESENTING LAKHS AGAINST THE NAME OF S HRI HAWELE ARE ACTUALS. FOR AOS PROPOSITION THAT WHEN ALL OTHER ENTRIES OF PAGE 41 ARE UNDISPUTEDLY ACTUAL ENTRIES, THE ONE WITH REGARD TO MR. HAWELE CANNOT BE HYPOTHETICAL. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE A MOUNTS ON PAGE 41 ARE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURES (PARA 4.21) AND THESE ARE NOT THE LOANS ADVANCED BY ASSESSEE TO MR. HAWELE PARA 4.22. REFERRING TO PAGE 43 AND 44 AND PARA 4.23 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) MENTIONED THAT THE ENTRY BL TO HAWELE 40 W.E.F 01-04-2002 19% REPRESENTS ACTUAL TRANSACTION AND INFERRED ADVANCE OF RS. 40 LAKHS TO SHRI HAWELE W.E.F. 01-04-2002 EARN ING OF INTEREST AT THE RATE OF 19%. RELEVANT DISCUSSIONS ARE GIVEN IN PARA 4.25 AND 4.26 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.27, THE CIT(A) IS OF TH E VIEW THAT 40 LAKHS WAS PAID BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FORM OF LOAN TO SHRI HAWE LE IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. AFTER GIVING SET OFF OF RS. 20,94,110/- , THE INVESTMENT WITH SHRI HAWELE INVOLVING SELF AND HIS WIFE, THE CIT(A) HELD THE BALANCE OF LOAN O F RS. 19,05,890/- I.E., {RS.40,00,000/- (-) RS. 20,94,110/-} AMOUNTS TO UND ISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. ACCORDINGLY, WE GAVE PA RT RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE CIT(A), TH E REVENUE IS IN APPEAL VIDE ITA NO. 396/PN/06. FURTHER, AGGRIEVED WITH PART RELIEF THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL VIDE ITA NO. 389/PN/06. 7. DURING THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE TOOK US THROUGH THE IMPUGNED INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS ON PAGE 41,43,44 AND 45 OF ANNEXURE 12, SOME OF HIS ARGUMENTS ARE AS FOLLOWS:- I) THESE PAPERS ARE DUMPED DOCUMENTS AND THERE SHOULD NOT BE ANY ADDITION BASED ON SUCH PAPERS. IN THIS REGARD, HE HAS TAKEN US THROUGH THE CONTENTS OF THE PAPERS. ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 5 OF 12 II) ADDITIONAL INVESTMENTS AS PROPOSED BY THE A.O ARE THE LOANS AS MADE OUT BY THE CIT(A) SHOWS THAT THE INTEREST ON TH E PAPERS ARE NOT SPEAKING ONES. III) THERE IS NO COLLABORATIVE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE WIT H THE REVENUE TO DEMONSTRATE CONVINCINGLY THAT THE SAID AMOUNT ARE UNA CCOUNTED INVESTMENT OR UNACCOUNTED LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE TO MR. HAWELE. THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) DISCUSSED IN PARA 2.6 DOES NOT HA E ANY SUPPORT. IV) IN CONNECTION WITH THE ENTRY ON IMPUGNED PAGE 43 , BL TO HAWELE 40 W.E.F 01-04-2002 19%, LD. COUNSEL MENTIONED THAT THE BL SHOULD BE READ AS 31 (PG. 43) THE 19% MENTIONED IN THE ABOVE EXPRESSION REPRESENTS PRESENTLY FLUCTUATION IN THE PRICE OF THE SHARES AND IT DOES NOT REPRESENT RATE OF INTEREST. V) LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED ON VARIOUS CITATIONS TO SU PPORT ABOVE ASSERTIONS. I) ASHWANI KUMAR V. ITO (DELHI) 39 ITD 183 II) GOLANI BROS. V. ACIT [2000] 75 ITD 1(PUNE) III) 289 ITR/ITD 117 IV) 63 ITR/ITD/TTJ 153 8. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. DR FOR THE REVENUE RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND ARGUED STATING THAT THE CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT AP PRECIATING THE STAND OF THE A.O AND OBJECTED TO THE DEVIATION MADE BY THE CIT(A ) BEFORE GRANTING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, HE WAS CRITICAL TO THE CIT(A) A ND MENTIONED THAT CIT(A) IS ERRONEOUS IN GIVING A OBJECTIONABLE FINDING THAT PAGE 41 IS NOT A DOCUMENT WITH ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS. IN THE PROCESS, THE DR DEMONSTRAT ED THAT ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID PAGE 41 ARE REAL AND HAVE THE SUPPORT OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE SAID SUM OF RS 62 LAKHS. IT IS AN UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENT WITH MR HAWALE AND AO IS CORRECT IN ASSESSING THE SAME IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT. FURTHER, DR IS OF THE OPINION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 40 LAKHS IS THE LOAN GIVEN AT THE RATE OF 19% TO THE SHRI HAWELE. HE PLEADED FOR UPH OLDING THE ORDER OF THE A.O AND SETTING ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 9. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE REVENUE AND THE PAPER BOOKS FILED BEFORE US. WE HAVE ALSO GON E THROUGH THE IMPUGNED INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK (PA GE 77 TO 84). PAGE 45 IS MORE OR LESS IN THE SAME LINES AS PAGE 41 WITH SOME C HANGES IN THE FIGURES. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS SOME OF THESE PAGES ARE REPRO DUCED AS UNDER:- ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 6 OF 12 10. THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 43 IS AS FOLLOWS. ANNEXURE-A-12 PAGE NO 41 DEVOLALI 0.75 SATARA 0.35 AMAR PRIT ROAD 1.00 PNB LOAN- 0.25 PN PLOT 0.50 -0.10 PNB O/D- 0.50 _____ PN FLAT 0.08 DENE 0.75 22, SHREYA NAGAR 0.35 23, SHREYA NAGAR 0.22 NIRALA BAZAZ SHOP 0.90 22500 RENT AIRTEL NIRALA BAZAR SHOP 0.50 24500 RENT -BANK R-BD 0.10 4000 RENT - FLAT WALUJ LAND 0.30 WALUJ PLOT 0.05 FLAT BY 0.20 0.5 HAWALE 0.50 0.12 SAKALA NAGAR 0.20 5 AK PARTNER 1.80 NND FL 0.02 42000 GARKHEDA- 1.50 CASH 0.20 0.20 OSMANPURA SHOP 0.13 SHREYA NAGAR SHOP 0.05 3000 RENT DESHMUKH NAGAR SHOP 0.20 21000 RENT _____ 9.90 0.75 = 9.15 BL ON DT 6/3/2002 11. THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 43 IS AS FOLLOWS. ANNEXURE A-12- PAGE 43 1 S.D.V. HAWALE SHARES PURCHASE PURCHASE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SHARE S DATE TO THE DEMAT J & K BANK (10,000) 31.05.2001 21.6.2001 100 26.6.2001 9900 __________ 10000 SANDESH (5000) 30.5.2001 21.6.2001 26.6.2001 ___________ 5000 BL TO HAWALE-40 W.E.F. 01.04.2002- 19% S.S SD 6/9 6L 12.9.2002 17L RECEIVED BY 12/9 8L CHECK FOR CEILING __________ SHARES 14L RECEIVED BY CEILING THE SHARE ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 7 OF 12 APPRO. SANDESH DIVIDEND 32000 BL TO ME 12. THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 43 IS AS FOLLOWS. ANNEXURE A-12 PAGE 44 HAWALE SAW. S.S. VAIDYA SHARE PURCHASE OF PURCHASE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SHARES DATE TO DEMAT A/C INDIAN REYON (11000) 26.7.2001 01/08/2001 11000 13. WE HAVE EXAMINED THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER OF TH E CIT(A) IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE PAGE 41& 45 AND THE CONT ENTS THEREIN ARE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE AND THE IMPUGNED SUM OF RS. 62 LAKHS IS EITH ER A LOAN OR ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. CIT(A), ON COMMENTING ON THE INTERE ST OF PAGE 43 AND 44 CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE EXPRESSION BL TO SHRI HAWELE W.E.F. 01-04-2002 19% IS AN ACTUAL TRANSACTION AS SEEN FROM PARA 4.23 OF H IS ORDER. FOR THE SAKE OF COMPLETENESS RELEVANT DISCUSSION FROM PARA 4.20 TO 4.27 IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- 4.20 THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT HAS BEEN GIV EN DUE CONSIDERATION. THE COPIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND THE STATEMEN T OF THE APPELLANT AND THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO WAS ALSO EXAMINED AND PLACED ON RECORD. I FIND THAT THE CARDINAL ISSUE IN THIS GROUND O F APPEAL IS THE DETERMINATION OF THE NATURE OF THE ENTRIES MADE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AS INVENTORISED AS PAGE NO. 41,43 AND 45 OF ANNEXURE A-12. THEREFORE, IT ESSENTIALLY REQUIRED TO ASCERTAINED AS TO WHETHER T HE NOTINGS AND THE FIGURES APPEARING IN THE STATED SEIZED DOCUMENT PERTAI N TO ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE APPELLANT. ALL THE AFO RESAID DOCUMENTS WERE, THEREFORE, EXAMINED ALONGWITH THE STATEMENTS AND BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. MY OBSERVATIONS ON EACH OF THE DOCUMENTS A RE DISCUSSED AS UNDER: 4.21 PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AS PER ANNEXURE A -12, PAGE 41 SHOWS THAT IT CONTAINS NAMES OF VARIOUS PROPERTIES ON THE LEFT SIDE OF THE PAGE, SUCH AS DEVLALI, SATARA, PN PLOT, PN FLAT, SH REYA NAGAR, NIRALA BAZAR SHOP ETC. THE LIST OF SUCH ASSETS ALSO INCLUDES THE NAME OF HAWELE. IT IS OBSERVED THAT AGAINST ALL SUCH NAMES OF THE PROPERTIES INCLUDING THAT OF HAWELE, CERTAIN FIGURES ARE WRITTEN AS ON 06-03-2002. I T IS ALSO OBSERVED THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN REVISION IN THE FIGURES OF CERTAIN ASSETS EITHER BY SHOWING DEDUCTIONS OR ADDITIONS. THE APPELLANT IN HI S STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) DATED 07-02-2003 HAS STATED THAT THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN PAGE NO. 41,43 AND 45 WERE THE EXPECTED THE VALUES OF TH E ASSETS. THE A.O HAS ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF ALL THE ENTRIES IN THE NATURE OF ASSETS EXCEPT FOR THE ENTRY OF MR. HAWELE WHE REIN AMOUNT OF 0.50 + 0.12 WAS WRITTEN AGAINST HIS NAME IN PAGE 41 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THE AO DREW A CONCLUSION THAT THIS FIGURE IS THE AMOUNT OF RS. 62 LACS AND REPRESENTS ADVANCE GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT TO MR. HAWELE. HOWEVER, PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE AO HAS NO WHERE PROVED THAT THIS IS THE ACTUAL AMOUNT ADVANCED OR LOANS OF RS. 62 LACS GIVEN BY ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 8 OF 12 THE APPELLANT TO MR. HAWELE. ON THE CONTRARY FROM THE ARGUMENTS OF THE APPELLANT IT IS ESTABLISHED FACT THAT WHATEVER NOTIN GS ARE MADE ON PAGE NO. 41 ARE NOTINGS BUT THE PROBABLE VALUES OF VARIOUS ASSETS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS GROUP. THE DOCUMENT AT PAGE NO. 41 HAS TO BE READ IN TOTALITY AND NOT IN BITS AND PIECES AND, THEREFORE, W HEN IT IS ADMITTED BY THE DEPARTMENT THAT ALL THE ENTIRE APPEARING IN THE S AID DOCUMENT ARE EXPECTED VALUES OF THE ASSETS, THEN SIMILAR TREATMENT OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO THE HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE APPEARING AGAINST MR. HAWELE. AFTER EXAMINING THE CONTENTS OF THE SAID SEIZED DOCUMENTS , STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND OTHER EVIDENCES PLACED ON RECORD, I AM OF THE VIEW THAT THE NOTINGS RECORDED ON THE SAID DOCUMENT ARE HYPOTHETIC AL FIGURES WITHOUT HAVING ANY RELEVANCE WITH THE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS, A S THERE IS NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE PROVING THAT THE NOTING AND FIG URES RECORDED ARE OF ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS. SIMILARLY, THERE IS NO ENTRY IN T HE SAID DOCUMENT NO. 41 WHICH SUGGESTS LOAN WAS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLAN T. 4.22 IT IS FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE FIGURES AGAINST VARIOUS ASSETS GIVEN IN PAGE 41 OF TH E SEIZED DOCUMENT DATED 06-03-2002 ARE THE EXPECTED VALUE OF THE ASSET S STANDS SUBSTANTIATED BY THE IDENTICAL ENTRIES MADE IN PAGE 45 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DATED 26-07-2002 WHEREIN FIGURES HAVE BEEN ALTERED OR MODIFIED IN RESPECT OF ALL THE PROPERTIES INCLUDING MR. HAWELE . IT CAN, THEREFORE, BE CLEARLY INFERRED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DRA WN A LIST OF ASSETS OWNED BY HIM AND HIS WIFE TO ESTIMATE ITS EXPECTED VALUE AS ON 06-03- 2002 IN SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 41 AND THEREAFTER, IN PAGE 45 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT DATED 26-07-2002, THE APPELLANT AGA IN TRIED TO ESTIMATE THE FUTURE VALUE OF THE ASSETS OWNED BY HIM AFTER A G AP OF 4 MONTHS. THEREFORE, IF THE FIGURES GIVEN AGAINST THE STATED ASS ETS/ PROPERTIES INCLUDING HAWELE IN PAGE 41 WERE ACTUAL INVESTMENTS, THEN THERE WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN ANY REVISION OF THE FIGURES IN THE SUB SEQUENT ENTRIES OF PROPERTIES APPEARING IN PAGES 45. I AM, THEREFORE, CONVI NCED THAT THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN PAGE 41 AND 45 OF THE SEIZED DOC UMENTS WERE THE PROBABLE VALUES OF VARIOUS ASSETS OF THE APPELLANT AN D HIS GROUP AND, THEREFORE, DOES NOT REPRESENT ACTUAL TRANSACTION. SIMILA RLY, BOTH THE DOCUMENTS ALSO DO NOT PROVE THAT THE LOAN WAS ADVANC ED BY THE APPELLANT TO MR. HAWELE AS HELD BY THE A.O. 4.23 NOW COMING ON TO PAGE 43 AND 44 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, I FIND THAT IT CONTAINS FOLLOWING ENTRIES: (I) NAME OF THE SHARES PURCHASE DATE OF TRANSFER OF SHARES TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT HELD BY THE APPELLANT. (II) NAME OF THE SHARES PURCHASE DATE IF TRANSFER OF SHARES TO THE DEMAT ACCOUNT HELD BY THE WIFE OF THE APPELLANT SMT . SS VAIDYA. (III) THE DETAILS OF SALE OF SHARES IN THE NAME OF T HE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE SMT. SHAKUNTALA SATISH VAIDYA. (IV) LASTLY, THE DOCUMENT ALSO CONTAINS AN ENTRY REPRO DUCED IN VERBATIM: BL TO HAWELE -40 W.E.F. 01-04-2002 19%. 4.24 THUS IT CAN BE OBSERVED THAT ON PAGE NO. 43 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A- 12, THE DETAILED TRANSACTIONS AND WORKING OF THE ASSE SSEES DEALINGS WITH SHRI HAWELE ARE WRITTEN. THE FIRST ENTRIES ARE IN RESPECT OF 10000 SHARES OF J & K BANK PURCHASED ON 31-05-2001 AND 5000 SHARES OF SANDESH COMPANY PURCHASED ON 30-05-2001. THESE PURCHASES ARE S HOWN UNDER THE NAME OF S.D.V. WHICH ARE THE INITIALS OF THE A SSESSEE. FURTHER, THE TRANSFER OF SHARES OF THESE TWO COMPANIES TO DEMAT ACC OUNT ARE ALSO SHOWN THERE. FURTHER 11000 SHARES OF INDIAN RAYON PURCHA SED ON 26-07- ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 9 OF 12 2001 BY SMT. S.S. VAIDYA, WHO IS WIFE OF THE ASSESS EE, ARE WRITTEN ON PAGE NO. 44 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A-12. THE ENTRY FOR TRA NSFER OF SAID 11000 SHARES TO DEMAT ACCOUNT IS ALSO MADE ON PAGE NO. 44. SUBSEQUENTLY THE TRANSACTIONS FOR AMOUNTS RECEIVED BY S.S AND BY S.D ARE WRITTEN. OBVIOUSLY, S.S REFERS TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE NAMED MRS. SHAKUNTALA SATISH VAIDYA AND S.D REFERS TO THE APPELLANT HIMS ELF SHRI. SATISH DATTATRAYA VAIDYA. THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY SMT. S.S. VAIDYA ARE RS. 6 LACS ON 06-09-2002 AND RS. 8 LACS ON 12-09-2002 AND THE TOTAL OF RS. 14 LACS IS SHOWN ON PAGE NO. 43 OF A-12 AS RECEIVED BY SELLING THE SHARES. SIMILARLY, THE AMOUNT OF RS. 17 LACS IS SHOWN AS RECEIVED BY CHEQUE BY SELLING OF SHARES ON 12-09-2002 BY S.D I.E. BY THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF. 4.25 IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT DURING THE C OURSE OF ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE OF SHARES TRANSFER IN DEMAT ACCOUNT AS NOTED ON THE TOP IF THIS PAGE IS DULY DISCLOSED IN THE IN COME TAX RETURNS AND SIMILARLY THE ENTRY OF AMOUNTS RECEIVED MENTIONED ON T HE BOTTOM OF THE PAGE HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT AND TH E SALE CONSIDERATION OF SHARES AND THE PROFIT THEREON IS DULY DISCLOSED IN INCOME TAX RETURNS AND BANK STATEMENTS. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE CONCLUDED THAT THE ALL THE ENTRIES ON PAGE NO. 43 ARE THE NOTINGS OF ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS ENTERED BY THE APPELLANT. CONSIDE RING ALL THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN PAGE 43 WHICH REPRESENTS ACTUAL TRANSACTIO N, THE NOTING BL TO HAWALE 40 W.E.F. 01-04-2002 19% WRITTEN ON THE MIDDLE OF THIS PAGE HAS TO BE TREATED AS ACTUAL TRANSACTION. 4.26. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLA NT THAT THIS ENTRY REPRESENTED THE EXPECTED VALUE OF THE SHARES HELD IN T HE PORTFOLIO MANAGED BY MR. HAWELE ON ACCOUNT OF FOLLOWING REASONS : (A) ALL THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN PAGE 43 REPRESENT ACTUAL TRANSACTI ONS AS ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT AND, THEREFORE, THE ENTRY PERTAINING TO B ALANCE WITH HAWALE CANNOT BE ISOLATED AS HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT. (B) THERE APPEARS CONTRADICTION IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APP ELLANT WHERE IN RESPECT OF ENTRIES APPEARING IN PAGE 441 AND 45, IT IS STATED THAT ALL THE ENTRIES WERE THE EXPECTED VALUE OF ASSETS AND, THEREFO RE, THE ENTRY PERTAINING TO HAWALE WAS ALSO THE EXPECTED VALUE. W HILE ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ALL THE ENTRIES APPEARING IN PAGE 43 HAVE B EEN ADMITTED TO BE ACTUAL TRANSACTIONS THEN BY THE SAME RATIONALE, THE ENTRY PERTAINING TO HAWALE OUGHT TO BE TREATED AS ACTUAL TRANSACTION. THE APPELLANT, THEREFORE, CANNOT PUT FORWARD A CONFLICTING ARGUMENT TO SUIT ITS VESTED INTEREST. (C) THE ENTRY BL TO HAWALE 40 W.E.F. 01-04 -2002 19% ON PAGE 43 CAN BE CLEARLY INFERRED TO BE ADVANCED OF RS. 40 LACS TO SHRI HAWALE WITH EFFECT FROM 01-04-2002 EARNING AN INTERES T OF 19%. THE DESCRIPTION OF THE SAID ENTRY IS VERY CLEAR WITHOUT ANY AMBIGUITY IN DESCRIBING THE NATURE OF LOAN TRANSACTION OF THE APPEL LANT WITH SHRI HAWALE. HAD THIS ENTRY BEEN AN EXPECTED FUTURE VALUE AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, THEN THERE WAS NO NEED TO MENTION 19%. O BVIOUSLY, THE FIGURE OF 19% MENTIONED IN THE SAID ENTRY CLEARLY DENOTES LO AN ADVANCED TO HAWALE. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION HERE THAT THE APPE LLANT HAS NEITHER BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE MOTIVE OF WRITING SUCH FIGU RE OF 19% BEFORE THE AO NOR BEFORE ME AND HENCE SUCH ENTRY HAS TO BE TREATED AS ACTUAL LOAN TRANSACTION WITH SHRI HAWALE. (D) FURTHER, IT IS RELEVAN T TO MENTION HERE THAT THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN ADM ITTED TO BE WRITTEN BY THE APPELLANT AND FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION DURING THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION AND HENCE THE CONTENTS IN THE SAID DOCUMEN TS AT PAGE 43 SHALL BE PRESUMED TO BE TRUE TO U/S 132(4A) UNTIL AND UNLES S PROVED OTHERWISE BY THE APPELLANT. I FIND THAT THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD IN EXPLAINING THE ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 10 OF 12 SAID ENTRY WITH ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT O F THE APPELLANTS AUGMENT AND , THEREFORE, THE ENTRY BL TO HAWALE 40 W.E.F. 01-04-2002 19% IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENT PAGE 43 SHALL BE READ AND TRE ATED AS ACTUAL LOAN OF RS. 40 LACS ADVANCED TO SHRI HAWALE AT AN IN TEREST RATE OF 19% PER ANNUM. 4.27 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, I AM OF THE C ONSIDERED VIES THAT THE ENTRY BL TO HAWALE 40 W.E.F. 01-04-2002 19% REPRESENTS INVESTMENT OF RS. 40 LACS IN THE FORM OF LOAN TO SHRI HAWALE IN THE BLOCK PERIOD. HOWEVER, IT IS OBSERVED THAT INVESTMENT OF RS. 20,94,110/- WITH SHRI HAWALE STANDS DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET O F HE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE WHICH HAS ALSO BEEN ADMITTED BY THE A.O IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THAT SOU RCE OF SUCH LOAN OF RS. 40 LACS ADVANCED TO SHRI HAWALE AND, THEREFORE, THE SA ME IS TREATED AS INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE BALANCE L OAN OF RS. 19,05,890/- {RS. 40,00,000 (-) RS. 20,94,110/-} REMA INED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT, SINCE THE SOURCE OF SUCH LOAN COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF R S. 19,05,890/- IN THE FORM OF LOAN TO SHRI HAWALE IS HELD TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE APPELLANT AS AGAINST A SUM OF RS. 41,05,890/- ADDED BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O IS RESTRICTE D TO RS. 19,05,890/- AND HENCE UPHELD. 14. FURTHER, WE HAVE ALSO EXAMINED THE PAGE 41 AND TH E ENTRIES THEREIN TO APPRECIATE THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE CIT(A) AS TO HOW THESE FIGURES MENTIONED AGAINST SHRI HAWELE ARE NOT ACTUAL FIGURES, WHILE OTHE RS ARE. IN OUR OPINION, THE ORDER OF CIT(A) SUFFERS FROM INCONSISTENCY. THIS FOR THE REASON THAT WHILE ALL OTHER ENTRIES ARE ACTUAL FIGURES THE ENTRIES MENTIONED A GAINST SHRI HAWELE CANNOT BE HYPOTHETICAL AS 0.12 OR 0.62 IS NOT THE ROUNDS UM FIGURE WHICH IS A GROSS OF AN ACTUAL REAL FIGURES. SIMILARLY, BL TO SHRI HAWELE40 W.E.F. 01-04-2002 -19% ARE ALSO ACTUAL FIGURES AS IT IS QUALIFIED BY SENSIBL E EXPRESSION W.E.F. 01-04-2002. THIS EXPRESSION DOES NOT MENTION WHETHER THERE IS LOA N OR ADVANCE WHICH IS HIS FINDING WHILE DEALING WITH PAGE 41. WITH SO MUCH OF DATA SUPPORTED BY THE ENTRIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO A GREAT EXTENT, T HE PAGE 41 CANNOT BE HELD TO BE DUMB DOCUMENT SO ARE THE OTHERS. HOWEVER, ENTRY ON T HIS PAGE HAS A MEANING WHICH CAN BE DECIPHERABLE. AS SUCH THERE IS N O DISPUTE ON THE OWNERSHIP OF THE ENTRIES ON THESE PAGES, WHICH ADMITT EDLY BELONG TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DISPUTE IS RESTRICTED TO THE MEANING AN D INFERENCE OF THE ENTRIES ON THESE PAGES. THUS, THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUFF ER FROM INCONSISTENCY. WE ARE UNABLE TO APPRECIATE THE FINDING OF THE CIT(A) TH AT ENTRIES ON PAGE 41 HAS TO BE IGNORED AND THE ENTRIES ON PAGE 43 HAS TO BE CONSI DERED FOR ADDITIONS. HE HAS NOT ANSWERED HOW THESE TWO DOCUMENTS REQUIRES SEPARATE TREATMENT. 15. IN OUR OPINION ALL THESE PAGES HAVE TO BE READ TO GETHER KEEPING THE RULE OF CONSISTENCY IN MIND. IT IS TRUE THAT PAGE 41 CONT AINS ASSETS AND LIABILITY POSITION OF THE ASSESSEE ON A PARTICULAR DATE MENTION ED THEREIN. BUT THE FACT IS ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 11 OF 12 THAT THERE IS REFERENCE TO MR HAWALE AND SUM AMOUNTING RS 62 LAKHS IS EASILY DECIPHERABLE. THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO DEMONST RATE THE REAL NATURE OF THE TRANSACTIONS AS THIS IS THE SEARCH RELATED DOCUMENT AN D REVENUE SEIZED THE SAME AND IN SUCH CASES, THE INITIAL ONUS IN ON THE ASSES SEE. WHEN 0.50 ON PAGE 41 ADMITTEDLY REFER THE SUM OF RS. 50 LAKHS, THE SUM 0. 12 LOGICALLY REFER TO RS. 12 LAKHS. WHAT IS NATURE OF THIS SUM OF RS. 62 LAKHS IN VOLVING SHRI NAWALE IT HAS TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE ONLY. THE SUBMISSION T HAT IT IS A HYPOTHETICAL FIGURE, HAS TO BE REJECTED AS DONE BY THE A.O. WE SH OULD NOT FORGET THE FACT THAT THE TRANSACTION WITH MR. NAWALES FIRM IN REAL AND THE ASSESSEE MADE CERTAIN PAYMENTS IN CONNECTION WITH OR HIS WIFES THE ACCOUN TED TRANSACTIONS. THUS, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT PAGE 41 CANNOT BE DISMISSED AS A DOCUMENT WITH HYPOTHETICAL VALUES OR AS A DUMB DOCUMENT. THEREFORE, THE CIT(A)S FINDING THAT THE PAGE 41 SHOULD BE IGNORED AND THEREFORE, IT IS NOT TO BE APPRECIATED. 16. REGARDING THE EXPRESSION ON PAGE 43 IE BL TO SHRI HAWELE40 W.E.F. 01- 04-2002 -19% , PRIMA FACE IT RELATES TO A TRANSACTION INVOLVING THE SHARES AND IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO COME OUT CLEAN WITH REAL NATURE OF THE ENTRY. FOR THE PURPOSE OF CLARITY AND THE CONSISTENCY, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THIS ISSUE RELATING TO THE ENTRIES ON THE IMPUGNED PAGES 41 TO 4 5, THE MATTER MUST BE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE CIT(A) FOR PROPER APPRECIATI ON OF THE FACTS AND THE FIGURES AND FORMULATE REASONABLE INFERENCES WITH THE AS SISTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE. HE MAY REFER THE MATTER TO THE A.O CALLING FOR REMAND REP ORT, IF ANY. THE CIT(A) SHOULD GRANT REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO T HE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, RELEVANT GROUNDS IN BOTH THE REVENUE AND ASSESSEES A PPEAL ARE SET ASIDE TO THE FILES OF THE CIT(A) FOR DE NOVO ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE. ACCORDINGLY, THE RELATED GROUNDS ARE SET ASIDE. 17. IN THE RESULT BOTH CROSS APPEALS ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 07 TH JANUARY, 2011. SD/- SD/- (I.C. SUDHIR) (D.KARUNAKARA RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 07 TH JANUARY, 2011. R ITA NO. 396 & 389/PN/06 BLOCK ASSTT. YEAR 01/04/96 TO 06/02/03 PAGE 12 OF 12 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, AURANGABAD 2. ASSESSEE 3. CIT(A)-I, NAGPUR 4. CIT-(CENTRAL), NAGPUR 5. D.R. ITAT B BENCH BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE