Ram Singhare Yadav , Kanpur V. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Kanpur

ITA 503/LKW/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 87860 (ITAT-LUCKNOW)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 04-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL
• Keywords: Validity of assessment

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH A, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 503 /LKW/201 3 ASSESSMENT YEAR:200 5 - 200 6 RAM SINGHARE YADAV, 51/56, SHAKKARPATTI, KANPUR PAN:AAVPY3890M VS. D.C.I.T. - CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.504/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005 - 2006 RAJJAN LAL VINOD GUPTA (HUF), 51/56, SHAKKARPATTI, KANPUR PAN:AAFHR7820C VS. D.C.I.T. - CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.505 & 506/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 02 & 2005 - 2006 RAJJAN LAL NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF), 51/56, SHAKKARPATTI, KANPUR PAN:AAFHR7820C VS. D.C.I.T. - CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.507 & 508/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 02 & 2005 - 2006 MAYA DEVI VINOD NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF), 51/56, SHAKKARPATTI, KANPUR PAN:AADHM5077J VS. D.C.I.T. - CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO.509 & 510/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 02 & 2005 - 2006 RAJJAN LAL VINOD NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF), 51/56, SHAKKARPATTI, KANPUR PAN:AAEHR1540N VS. D.C.I.T. - CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.511 & 512/LKW/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2001 02 & 2005 - 2006 VINOD KUMAR NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF), 51/56, SHAKKARPATTI, KANPUR PAN:AA CHV7436H VS. D.C.I.T. - CENTRAL CIRCLE - II, KANPUR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY SHRI A SHISH JAISWAL, ADVOCATE RESPONDENT BY SHRI ANAND KUMAR AGARWAL, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING 19 /0 3 /201 5 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 26 /0 3 /201 5 O R D E R PER A. K. GARODIA, A.M. OUT OF THIS BUNCH OF 10 APPEALS, ALL APPEALS ARE FILED BY DIFFERENT ASSESSES FOR DIFFERENT YEARS BUT SINCE THE ISSUES INVOLVED ARE COMMON, ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. FIRST, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGHARE YADAV FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 503/LKW/2013. 3. AS PER GROUND NO. 1, THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE ISSUE REGARDING SATISFACTION RECORDED BY THE A.O. U/S 153C. THIS IS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE SATISFACTION IS NOT PROPER AND CORRECT. LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESS EE REITERATED THE CONTENTIONS RAISED BEFORE CIT (A). HE ALSO PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FOLLOWING JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS: - A ) PEPSI FOODS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, 52 TAXMAN.COM 220 (DELHI) B ) DSL PROPERTIES (P) LTD. V S . DCIT, 60 SOT 88 (DEL TRIB.) 3 C ) NATURAL PRODUCTS BIOTE CH LTD.VS.DCIT,53TAXMANN.COM400(DEL TRIB.) D ) ACIT VS. GLOBAL ESTATE 142 ITD 740 (AGRA TRIB.) E ) CIT VS. GOPI APARTMENT 365 ITR 411 (ALLAHABAD) F ) DCITVS.QUALITRONCOMMODITIES(P) LTD.,54TAXMANN.COM295(DEL TRIB.) G ) PEPSI INDIA HOLDINGS (P) LTD. VS. ACIT, 228 TAXMAN.COM 116 (DELHI) 4 . LEARNED D.R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDER S PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW . 5. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF PEPSI FOOD (SUPRA) , HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS CONSIDERED A JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CLASSIC ENTERPRISES, 358 IT R 465 (ALL.). HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT HAS OBSERVED IN PARA 7 THAT THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IS IN CONTEXT OF SECTION 158 BD AND THEREFORE THIS JUDGMENT DOES NOT COME TO AID OF THE REVENUE IN A CASE U/S 153C. BUT WHEN WE GONE THROUGH THIS JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHA BAD HIGH COURT, WE FOUND THAT IN THAT CASE ALSO, THE ISSUE IN DISPUTE IN THAT CASE WAS ALSO REGARDING VALIDITY OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153C AND NOT U/S 158BD. IN FACT, AS QUESTION NO. III RAISED BEFORE HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, REFERENCE WAS MADE TO ANOTHER JUDGMENT OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF DIGVIJAY CHEMICALS LTD. VS. ACIT, 248 ITR 381 AND IN THAT CASE, THE I SSUE INVOLVED WAS REQUIREMENT OF RECORDING SATISFACTION U/S 158BD AND IT WAS HELD THAT EVEN RECORDING OF SATISFACTION IN WRITING IS NOT MANDATORY. 6. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CLASSIC ENTERPRISES, 358 IT R 465 (ALL.), IT WAS HELD BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT SINCE AT THIS STAGE THE PROCEEDINGS ARE AT THE VERY INITIAL STATE, THE SATISFACTION IS NEITHER TO BE FIRM OR CONCLUSIVE. IN THE PRESENT CASE, LEARNED CIT (A) HAS REPRODUCED THE SATISFACTION NOTE OF THE A.O. IN PARA 4.2 OF HIS ORDER AND AS PER THE SAME, IT IS SEEN THAT IT IS NOTED BY THE A.O. THAT CERTAIN LOOSE DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH IN KADAK FAMILY TEA GROUP OF CASES AND THESE BELONG TO THIS ASSESSEE. HENCE, IT IS SEEN THAT IN T HE PRESENT CASE, SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON AND THE CASE IS COVERED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE BY THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CLASSIC ENTERPRISES (SUPRA). SINCE THIS JUDGMENT IS OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT, IT IS BINDING ON US AND THEREFORE, WE ARE NOT DISCUSSING VARIOUS JUDGMENTS CITED BY LEARNED AR AS NOTED ABOVE EXCEPT CIT VS. GOPI APARTMENT 365 ITR 411 (ALLAHABAD) BECAUSE THESE ARE NOT BINDING. IN THAT CASE, IT IS NOTE D BY HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT THAT AS PER CATEGORICAL FINDING RECORDED BY COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) AND THE TRIBUNAL, THERE IS NO MATERIAL 4 SHOWING THE RECORDING OF SATISFACTION BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON. BECAUSE SATISFACTION WAS RECORDED BY THE A.O. OF THE SEARCHED PERSON IN THE PRESENT CASE AS REPRODUCED BY THE COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THIS JUDGMENT IS NOT APPLICABLE. HENCE, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT RENDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. CLASSIC ENTERPR ISES (SUPRA), WE DECIDE THIS ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE SECOND ISSUE AS PER GROUND NO. 2 IS REGARDING VALIDITY OF ADDITION OF RS. 438,500 MADE BY THE A.O. ON THE BASIS OF OFFER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN PETITION BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 8. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THIS ISSUE THAT THE OFFER WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION TO AVOID BOTHERATION AND BUY PEACE BUT LATER ON, THE ASSESSEE GOT LEGAL ADVICE THAT THERE WAS NO NEED TO OFFER ADDITIO NAL INCOME BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND TO PAY TAX THEREON BECAUSE IN FACT, THERE WAS NO ADDITIONAL INCOME. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PETITION WAS HELD INVALID BY SETTLEMENT COMMISSION FOR WANT OF PAYMENT OF ADMITTED TAX. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT NO INCRIMIN ATING MATERIAL WAS FOUND IN SEARCH AND THERE IS NO BASIS OF OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. AND CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A) ON THE BASIS OF MERE OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IS NOT JUSTIFIED. LEARNED D .R. OF THE REVENUE SUPPORTED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT AS PER SUB SECTION (3) TO SECTION 245HA, THE A.O. CAN USE ALL MATERIAL AND OTHER INFORMATION PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEF ORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THIS IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE PROVIDED THIS INFORMATION BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION ABOUT HIS ADDITIONAL INCOME. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PROVIDE THE DETAIL ABOUT THE YEAR IN WHICH, THIS INCOME WAS EARNED BY TH E ASSESSEE, THE A.O. MADE SUBSTANTIVE ADDITION IN A.Y. 2005 06 BEING SEARCH YEAR AND MADE PROTECTIVE ADDITION IN 1999 2000 TO 2004 05 ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. IT IS NOTED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IN PARA 5.2 AND 5.2.1 OF HIS ORDER THAT THE LEARNED AR OF THE AS SESSEE HIMSELF MADE AN OFFER BEFORE HIM THAT IF THE ADDITION IS CONFIRMED, THE SAME BE CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2005 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. LEARNED CIT (A) ACCEPTED THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2005 06 BEING S EARCH YEAR. WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE SAME. 10. A CONNECTED ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER GROUND NO. 4 IS THIS THAT IF THIS ADDITION IN A.Y. 2005 06 IS CONFIRMED THAN ALSO, THE AMOUNT OF SUCH ADDITION IN THIS YEAR SHOULD BE REDUCED BY THE AMOUNT OF OTHER ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY CIT (A) IN EARLIER YEARS AS PER SAME ORDER BY ALLOWING 5 TELESCOPING TH OSE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED IN EARLIER YEARS . LEARNED AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITT ED THAT SINCE THE OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS WITHOUT YEAR WISE AND OTHER BREAK UP , T ELESCOPING SHOULD BE ALLOWED. LEARNED DR OF THE REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT TELESCOPING CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 11. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE FIND THAT THIS IS ADMITTED POSITION THAT OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AS REPRODUCED IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS WAS A COMBINED OFFER FOR A.Y. 1999 2000 TO A.Y. 2005 06 WITHOUT ANY YEAR WISE BREAK UP OR IT EM WISE BREAK UP. NO SUCH DETAIL COULD BE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ALSO COULD NOT FIND ANY MATERIAL IN SPITE OF SEARCH TO PIN POINT THE YEAR OF EARNING OF THIS INCOME OR NATURE OF THIS INCOME AND THEREFORE, ADDITION WAS MADE IN EACH YEAR ON PR OTECTIVE BASIS AND IN A.Y. 2005 - 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS. LEARNED CIT (A) HAS CONFIRMED AN ADDITION OF RS. 16,500 IN A.Y. 1999 2000, RS. 10,500 IN A.Y. 2000 2001, RS. 22,000 IN A.Y. 2001 2002, RS. 20,500 IN A.Y. 2002 2003 AND RS. 25,000 IN A.Y. 2003 2004 ON DIFFERENT ACCOUNT APART FROM CONFIRMING THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2005 06 BEING OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION . TOTAL OF ALL THESE ADDITIONS COMES TO RS. 94,500 ONLY WHICH IS MUCH LESS THAT THE ADDITION CONFIRMED IN A. Y. 2005 06. IN VIEW OF PECULIAR FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE WHERE THE ADDITION IS MADE AND CONFIRMED ON THE BASIS OF OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, WHICH IS NOT SPECIFIC, IT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT PART OF SUCH INCOME MIGHT HAVE BEEN EARNED IN THESE EARLIER YEARS AND HENCE, IN VIEW OF THESE PECULIAR FACTS , WE GRANT TELESCOPING AND DIRECT THE A.O. THAT THE ADDITIONS CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A) IN A. Y. 1999 2000 TO 2003 04 AS NOTED ABOVE SHOULD BE CONSIDERED AS PART OF SURRENDER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THEREFORE, THE NET ADDITION IN THIS YEAR IS CONFIRMED TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 3 4 4000 ONLY (RS. 438500 94500) . 12 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED . 13. NOW, WE TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE OF SRI RAJ JAN LAL VINOD GUPTA (HUF) FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 504/LKW/2013. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGHARE YADAV IN ITA NO. 503/LKW/2013 AND THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON SAME LINE. IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE APPROVED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2005 06 IN RESPECT OF OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. WE HAVE ALSO ALLOWED TELESCOPING IN THAT CASE. ON SAME LINE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, ALL THREE ISSUES ARE DECIDED AND NET ADDITION OF RS. 4 07 , 5 00 IS CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2005 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BEING RS. 420,000 OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION LESS THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000 IN A.Y. 1999 2000 AND RS. 2,500 IN A.Y. 2001 02 CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A). 6 14. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE IN THIS CASE REGARDING CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 8,000 IN A.Y. 2005 06 BY ESTIMATING THE RECEIPTS. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED. 16. NOW, WE TAKE UP T WO APPEALS IN THE CASE OF SRI RAJJAN LAL NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF) FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IN ITA NO. 505/LKW/2013 AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 506/LKW/2013. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGHARE YADAV IN ITA NO. 503/LKW/2013 AND THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON SAME LINE. IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE APPROVED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2005 06 IN RESPECT O F OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. WE HAVE ALSO ALLOWED TELESCOPING IN THAT CASE. ON SAME LINE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, ALL THREE ISSUES ARE DECIDED AND NET ADDITION OF RS. 212 , 0 00 IS CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2005 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BEING RS. 422,000 O FFERED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION LESS THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,000 IN A.Y. 1999 2000 AND RS. 200,000 IN A.Y. 2001 - 02 CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A). SINCE TELESCOPING OF ADDITION CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2001 02 OF RS. 200,000 IS ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2005 06, THE APP EAL IN A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED. 17. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE IN THIS CASE REGARDING CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 5 ,000 IN A.Y. 2005 06 BY ESTIMATING THE RECEIPTS. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. NOW, WE TAKE UP TWO APPEALS IN THE CASE OF MAYA DEVI VINOD NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF) FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IN ITA NO. 507/LKW/2013 AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 508/LKW/2013. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO TH E FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGHARE YADAV IN ITA NO. 503/LKW/2013 AND THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON SAME LINE. IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE APPROVED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 200 5 06 IN RESPECT OF OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. WE HAVE ALSO ALLOWED TELESCOPING IN THAT CASE. ON SAME LINE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, ALL THREE ISSUES ARE DECIDED AND NET ADDITION OF RS. 317 ,500 IS CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2005 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BEING RS. 421,000 OFFERED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION LESS THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,000 IN A.Y. 1999 2000 AND RS. 103,500 IN A.Y. 7 2001 - 02 CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A). SINCE TELESCOPING OF ADDITION CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2001 02 OF RS. 103 , 5 00 IS ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2005 06, THE APPEAL IN A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED. 20. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE IN THIS CASE REGARDING CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 7,5 00 IN A.Y. 2005 06 BY ESTIMATING THE RECEIPTS. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE OR DER OF LEARNED CIT (A). 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 22. NOW, WE TAKE UP TWO APPEALS IN THE CASE OF RAJJAN LAL VINOD NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF) FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IN IT A NO. 509/LKW/2013 AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 510/LKW/2013. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGHARE YADAV IN ITA NO. 503/LKW/2013 AND THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON SAME LINE. IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE APPROVED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2005 06 IN RESPECT OF OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. WE HAVE ALSO ALLOWED TELESCOPING IN THAT CASE . ON SAME LINE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, ALL THREE ISSUES ARE DECIDED AND NET ADDITION OF RS. 214,250 IS CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2005 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BEING RS. 422,500 OFFERED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION LESS THE ADDITION OF RS. 7,500 IN A.Y. 1999 2000 AN D RS. 200,750 IN A.Y. 2001 - 02 CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A). SINCE TELESCOPING OF ADDITION CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2001 02 OF RS. 200,750 IS ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2005 06, THE APPEAL IN A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED. 23. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THERE IS ONE MORE ISS UE IN THIS CASE REGARDING CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 12,500 IN A.Y. 2005 06 BY ESTIMATING THE RECEIPTS. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). 24. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 25. NOW, WE TAKE UP TWO APPEALS IN THE CASE OF VINOD KUMAR NEERAJ GUPTA (HUF) FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IN ITA NO. 511/LKW/2013 AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IN ITA NO. 512/LKW/2013. IT WAS AGREED BY BOTH SIDES THAT THE FACTS AND DISPUTE IN THIS CASE ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FA CTS AND DISPUTE IN THE CASE OF SRI RAM SINGHARE YADAV IN ITA NO. 503/LKW/2013 AND THIS APPEAL CAN BE DECIDED ON SAME LINE. IN THAT CASE, WE HAVE APPROVED THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE U/S 153C AND HAVE ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS IN A.Y. 2005 06 IN RESPECT OF OFFER BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. WE HAVE ALSO ALLOWED 8 TELESCOPING IN THAT CASE. ON SAME LINE, IN THIS CASE ALSO, ALL THREE ISSUES ARE DECIDED AND NET ADDITION OF RS. 213,000 IS CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2005 06 ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS BEING RS. 421,500 OFFERED BEFORE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION LESS THE ADDITION OF RS. 8,500 IN A.Y. 1999 2000 AND RS. 200,000 IN A.Y. 2001 - 02 CONFIRMED BY LEARNED CIT (A). SINCE TELESCOPING OF ADDITION CONFIRMED IN A.Y. 2001 02 OF RS. 200,000 IS ALLOWED IN A.Y. 2005 06, THE APPEAL IN A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED. 26. IN ADDITION TO THIS, THERE IS ONE MORE ISSUE IN THIS CASE REGARDING CONFIRMING OF ADDITION OF RS. 10,000 IN A.Y. 2005 06 BY ESTIMATING THE RECEIPTS. ON THIS ISSUE, WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF LEARNED CIT (A). 27. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR A.Y. 2001 02 IS DISMISSED AND FOR A.Y. 2005 06 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 28. IN THE COMBINED RESULT, ALL FOUR APPEALS FOR A.Y. 2001 02 ARE DISMISSED AND REMAINING SIX APPEALS FOR A . Y. 2005 06 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED. (ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE MENTIONED ON THE CAPTION PAGE) SD/. SD/. (SUNIL KUMAR YADAV) ( A. K. GARODIA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACC OUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 26 /0 3 /201 5 *C.L.SINGH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. D.R., I.T.A.T., LUCKNOW ASSTT. REGISTRAR