Ramrao Tukaram Patil, Nashik V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 441/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9298 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 3 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-06-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 30-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 06-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE
• Keywords: Condonation of delay
• Section: 69; 148; 144

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM . / ITA NOS.440 AND 441/PUN/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2005-06 AND 2006-07 RAMRAO TUKARAM PATIL, SHANTAI BUNGLOW, MAHTMANAGAR, BEHIND VYAPARI BANK, NASHIK 422 005. PAN : AHXPP2905M. . / APPELLANT V/S ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT / ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : SHRI ANIL KUMAR CHAWARE. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE EMANATING OUT OF THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (A)-II , NASHIK DT.12.03.2012 FOR A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07, RESPECTIVELY. 2. WE FIRST TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2005-06. 2.1 THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON R ECORD ARE AS UNDER :- 2.2 ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL STATED TO BE ENGAGED AS CO NTRACTOR FOR COLLECTION OF GARBAGE AND TRADER IN TRACTOR AND TROLLEY S. AO HAS NOTED THAT THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT WAS INITIATED ON THE BASIS OF / DATE OF HEARING : 30.05.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.06.2017 2 AIR INFORMATION FURNISHED U/S 285BA OF THE ACT BY ITO., NAS HIK IN THE CASE OF SHRI MOTIRAM GENU NIMSE FOR A.Y. 2005-06, WHERE IN THE SAID ASSESSEE HAD MADE DEPOSIT OF RS.10,00,000/- IN SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE CASH DEPOSITS WERE TREATED AS UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, SRI MOTIRAM GENU NIMSE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTER DT.11.06.2008 OF SHRI RAMRAO TUKARAM PATIL (ASSESSEE) WHEREIN IT WAS STATED THAT SHRI NIMSE HAD PAID RS.14,00,000/- TO ASSESSEE AND THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BACK THROUGH DEMAND DRAFT. ACCORDINGLY, NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2005-06 WAS ISSUED IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEE TO BRING TO TAX THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,00,000/-, WHICH WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE ESCAPED FROM TAX. AO HAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED NOR FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME. AO THEREAFTER FRAMED ASSESSM ENT U/S 144 OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DT.31.12.2010 AND TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.14,00,000/- RECEIVED BY ASSESSEE U/S 69 OF THE ACT. A GGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFOR E LD. CIT(A), WHO AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT CONFIRMED THE ACT ION OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A PPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 04/07/2011, 02/08/2011, 10/08/ 2011, 25/08/2011, 12/09/2011, 04/10/2011, 17/10/2011, 09/12/2011 AND FINALLY ON 26/12/2011. THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY SPEED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE AND HAVE BEEN D ULY SERVED. THE APPELLANT ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 09/12/2011 BUT DID NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO BY FILING INCOME TAX DETAILS PERTAINED TO AY 2005-06. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE I N REGARD TO CONTRACT RECEIPT AMOUNTING TO RS.33,37,000/- WAS FU RNISHED EXCEPT COPY OF A BANK ACCOUNT SHOWING A CREDIT ENTRY OF EV EN AMOUNT ON 10/09/2014. APPELLANT FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION THAT RS.14 LAC WAS PAI D TO SHRI MOTIRAM G. NIMSE FOR PURCHASE OF LAND. THE APPELLANT HAS W ITHDRAWN RS.10 LAC AND RS.3,38,000/- IN CASH ON 10/09/2004 AND 13/ 09/2004, RESPECTIVELY. SIMILARLY THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO BA CK UP THAT PAYMENTS OF RS.10 LAC AND RS.3.38 LAC WERE MADE TO SHRI NIMSE. APPELLANT DID NOT FILE IT RETURN, B/S, AUDIT REPORT ETC FOR A.Y. 2005- 06. 7. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS AO SU BMITTED A REMAND REPORT AS FOLLOWS: 3 IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PRO PERTIES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMMENT ON THE NATURE AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. A LETTER DATED 19/01/2012 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE IN WHICH HE WAS ASKED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON 23/01/201 2 EITHER PERSONALLY OR ALONG WITH AR AND SUBMIT FOLLOWING DO CUMENTS: 1. COPY OF FILING OF RETURN FOR THE AY 2005-06 AND 200 6-07. 2. COPY OF COMPUTATION SHEET OF YOUR INCOME. 3. SALE/PURCHASE DEED OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 4. DETAILS OF PAYMENT ALONG WITH LEDGER EXTRACT AND CO PY OF BANK ACCOUNT ON WHICH SUCH AMOUNT IS REFLECTED. FURTHER A SECOND OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 30/01/2012 TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AND SUBMIT THE ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SAID LETTERS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 14/ 02/2011 IN WHICH HE HAD REQUESTED TO GRANT ONE MONTH TIME FOR SUBMISSIONS. BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AR APPEARED BEFORE ME NOR HAD SUBMITTED ANY ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS. 8. FROM THE REPORT OF THE AO, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLEA R THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR THE SUBMISSION FILED ON 26 /12/2011. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE APPELLANT DID N OT COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS NOTICES SENT TO HIM FOR ATTENDING THE APPEA L. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS. AO WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. THE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HA S NO DOCUMENTS TO EXPLAIN HIS SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AN D SUBSEQUENT CLAIM OF ADVANCING RS.14 LAC TO SHRI NIMSE FOR PURCHASE O F LAND. IT ALSO ESTABLISHES THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITIES BY THE UNDERS IGNED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF TH E CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ASSESSING THE INCOME AT RS .14,00,000/- FOR AY 2005-06. THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDE R U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING TH E INCOME OF APPELLANT AT RS.14,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT BY DISREGARDING APPELLANTS CONTENTION IN THIS REGA RD. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN MAKING THE AD DITION OF RS.14,00,000/- WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT A SUM OF RS.10,00,000/- IS ALREADY ADDED IN THE HANDS OF MR. MOTIRAM GENU NIMSE, THIS HAS RESULTED INTO DOUBLE ACTION. 4 3. THE CASE FILE REVEALS THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 664 DAYS IN FILING OF APPEAL FOR A.YS. 2005-06 AND 2006-07. ASSESSEE HAS FILED P ETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY AND HAS FURNISHED THE SWORN AFFIDAV IT, WHEREIN THE REASONS FOR DELAY HAS BEEN FURNISHED. LD.D.R. HAS OBJECTED TO THE CONDONATION PETITION FILED BY ASSESSEE. W E HAVE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. CO NSIDERING THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT, WE CONDONE THE DELAY AND AD MIT THE APPEAL FOR HEARING. 4. ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NEITHER THE ASSESSEE APPEARE D NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION. FURTHER THE CASE FILE R EVEALS THAT THE NOTICE OF HEARING THAT WAS SENT THROUGH REGIST ERED POST WAS RETURNED BACK UNDELIVERED AND ASSESSEE HAS NOT INT IMATED THE CHANGED ADDRESS. THE CASE RECORD FURTHER REVEALS TH AT SHRI PRAMOD SHINGTE, CA WHO WAS HOLDING THE POWER OF ATTORNEY ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE HAD WITHDRAWN FROM THE CASE. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY REPRESENTATION, WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EX-PARTE QUA THE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A ) AND FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER FILED THE RET URN OF INCOME NOR APPEARED BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A) AND IN SUCH A SITUATION, AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF RS.14,00,000/-. HE THUS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 6. WE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECO RD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.14,00,000/-. LD.CIT(A) WHILE CONFIRMING THE ADDITION HAS NOTE D THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DOCUMENT TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF CREDIT IN HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND HIS SUBSEQUENT CLAIM OF ADVANCE OF RS.14,00,000/- TO NIMSE FOR PURCHASING OF LAND I S ALSO 5 NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY EVIDENCE. BEFORE US ALSO NO MATE RIAL HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF DE POSITS. IN SUCH A SITUATION, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) AND THUS THE GROUND OF ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS DISMISSED. 8. WE NOW TAKE UP ASSESSEES APPEAL NO.441/PUN/2014 FOR A.Y. 2006-07, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN PASSING ORDE R U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN ASSESSING TH E INCOME OF APPELLANT AT RS.58,83,000/- BY ASSUMING THAT MARKET VALUE OF RS.58,83,000/- IS A PURCHASE VALUE OF THE TRANSACTI ON AND BY COMPLETELY DISREGARDING THE FACT THAT ACTUAL CONSID ERATION PAID BY THE APPELLANT IS RS.35,00,000/-. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ERRED IN NOT APPRECIA TING THE FACT THAT PAID OF THE CONSIDERATION PAID IS ALREADY REFLECTED IN THE APPELLANTS FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF EARLIER YEARS AND APPELLANT HAS EXPLAINED SOURCES OF THE BALANCE INVESTMENT AS WELL. 9. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED FOUR SHOPS NUMBERING 2 TO 6 ADMEASURING 172.49 SQ.MTRS AND BASEME NT ADMEASURING 132.04 SQ.MTRS IN BUILDING OF YASH PLAZA, NASH IK ON 28.10.2005 AND CONSIDERATION RECORDED IN THE DEED WAS RS.35,00,000/- AS AGAINST THE MARKET VALUE OF RS.58,83,000/- . AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME S INCE A.Y. 2005-06. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE INCOME EARNED T O PURCHASE THE PROPERTY HAS ESCAPED ASSESSMENT AND ACCORDINGLY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT DT.21.08.2009 WAS ISSUED AND SERVED ON T HE ASSESSEE. AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED NO R FILED ANY 6 RETURN OF INCOME. HE ACCORDINGLY CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.58,83,000/- BEING THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTIES PURCHASED, AS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO AFTE R CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 6. DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE A PPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 14/06/2011, 04/07/2011, 02/08/2011, 10/0 8/2011, 25/08/2011, 12/09/2011, 04/10/2011, 17/10/2011, 09/ 12/2011 AND FINALLY ON 26/12/2011. THE NOTICES WERE SENT BY SPEED POST WITH ACKNOWLEDGEMENT DUE AND HAVE BEEN DULY SERVED. THE APPELLANT ATTENDED THE OFFICE ON 09/12/2011 BUT DID NOT CONTR OVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AO BY FILING AND DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE RELEVA NT FOR THE AY UNDER APPEAL. NO BALANCE SHEET, COMPUTATION OF INCOME, P& L A/C, AUDIT REPORT ETC. FOR AY 2006-07 WAS FILED. THE APPELLANT ON 26/12/2011 FURNISHED COPIES OF THE I T RETURNS, B/S FOR AY 20 02-03. THE APPELLANT CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID RS. 10 LAC EACH ON 20/10/2001 AND 09/11/2001 FROM SB A/C 248 IN AKOLA URBAN CO-OP. BA NK. HE FURTHER CLAIMED TO HAVE PAID RS. 15 LAC ON 27/10/2005 THROU GH NASHIK DISTRICT GIRNA SAHAKARI BANK LTD. 7. IN ABSENCE OF DETAILS RELEVANT TO AY 2006-07, TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SENT TO THE AO TO FIND OUT THE VERAC ITY OF THE VARIOUS DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE FORMER. AO SUBMITTED REP ORT WHICH IS AS FOLLOWS: IN THIS REGARD IT IS SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUFFICIENT DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROP ERTIES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO COMMENT ON THE NATURE AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. A LETTER DATED 19/01/2012 HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE AS SESSEE IN WHICH HE WAS ASKED TO APPEAR BEFORE ME ON 23/01/201 2 EITHER PERSONALLY OR ALONG WITH AR AND SUBMIT FOLLOWING DO CUMENTS: 1. COPY OF FILING OF RETURN FOR THE AY 2005-06 AND 200 6-07. 2. COPY OF COMPUTATION SHEET OF YOUR INCOME. 3. SALE/PURCHASE DEED OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY. 4. DETAILS OF PAYMENT ALONG WITH LEDGER EXTRACT AND CO PY OF BANK ACCOUNT ON WHICH SUCH AMOUNT IS REFLECTED. FURTHER A SECOND OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSES SEE VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER DATED 30/01/2012 TO APPEAR BEFORE ME AND SUBMIT THE ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE ABOVE SAID LETTERS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED A LETTER DATED 14/02/2011 IN WHICH HE HAD REQUESTED TO GRANT ONE MONTH TIME FOR SUBMISSIO NS. BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AR APPEARED BEFORE ME NOT HAD SUBMITTED ANY ABOVE SAID DOCUMENTS. 8. FROM THE REPORT OF THE AO, IT IS ABUNDANTLY CLE AR THAT THE APPELLANT HAS FAILED TO FURNISH THE REQUISITE DOCUM ENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS GROUNDS OF APPEAL OR THE SUBMISSION FILED ON 26 /12/2011. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS ALSO, THE APPELLANT DID N OT COMPLY WITH THE VARIOUS NOTICES SENT TO HIM FOR ATTENDING THE APPEA L. IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ALSO THE APPELLANT DID NOT COMPLY WITH THE NOTICES AND 7 FAILED TO FURNISH ANY DETAILS. AO WAS LEFT WITH NO OPTION BUT TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 144 OF THE IT ACT. T HE CONDUCT OF THE APPELLANT HAS ESTABLISHED THAT HE HAS NO DOCUMENTS IN HIS POSSESSION TO EXPLAIN HIS INVESTMENTS IN THE SHOPS IN YASH PL AZA UNDER CONSIDERATION. IT ALSO ESTABLISHES THAT APPELLANT I S NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL DESPITE REPEATED OPPORTUNITI ES BY THE UNDERSIGNED. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT AO WAS JUSTIFIED IN ASS ESSING THE INCOME AT RS. 58,83,000/- FOR AY 2006-07. THE SAME IS CONF IRMED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APP EAL BEFORE US. 10. BEFORE US, LD.D.R. POINTED TO THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A) AND SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). 11. WE HEARD THE LD.D.R. AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS ABOUT THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT MADE FOR PURCHASE OF SHOPS. WE FIN D THAT AO HAS NOTED THAT AGAINST THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION R ECORDED IN DEED OF RS.35,00,000/- THE MARKET VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WAS RS.58,83,000/- AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EXPLANATION OF AS SESSEE, HE MADE ADDITION OF RS.58,83,000/- BEING THE MARKET VALUE O F PROPERTY. WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT POINTED OUT THE BASIS OF DETERMINATION OF THE MARKET VALUE AT RS.58,83,000/-. FURT HER, WE FIND THAT BEFORE LD.CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS STATED TO HAVE PA ID RS.25,00,000/- FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT AND THE PAYMENTS WE RE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND WHICH HAS NOT BEEN R EBUTTED BY REVENUE. NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY REVENUE TO SHOW THAT ASSESSEE HAS MADE PAYMENT OF RS.58,83,000/ -, BY THE VALUE DETERMINED BY AO FOR PURCHASE OF SHOPS. WE FIND THA T IN THE REMAND REPORT TO LD.CIT(A), THE AO HAS NOT REBUTTED THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE OF MAKING THE PAYMENT OF THE SUM STATED IN SALE DEED. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE AFORE SAID FACTS 8 AND MORE SO, SINCE THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON MARKE T VALUE OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT ANY BASIS, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT NO SUCH ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS ALLOWED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2005-06 IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IS ALL OWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 23 RD JUNE, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) ! / JUDICIAL MEMBER '! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; ! DATED : 23 RD JUNE, 2017. YAMINI #$%&'('% / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3 . 4. 5. 6. CIT(A)-II, NASHIK CIT-II,NASHIK. #$% &&'(,* '(, / DR, ITAT, A PUNE; %,-./ GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, // // TRUE COPY // / 0123 / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, * '(, / ITAT, PUNE.