Sammer S. Belvalkar, Pune V. Assistant Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 539/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7231 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 7 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 06-07-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 20-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR VIVEK AGGARWAL
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Salary income; Loose papers; Document seized; Corroborative evidences; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 263; 132

Judgement Text

] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM ITA NO.539/PUN/2014 BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS : 1996-97 TO 2002-03 MR. SAMMER S. BELVALKAR , 1171/1, NIRMITI EMINENCE, 4 TH FLOOR, NEAR MEHENDALE GARAGE, ERANDWANE, PUNE. PAN : AEDPB4169C. . / APPELLANT V/S ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), PMT BUILDING, SWARGATE, PUNE. . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI SARDAR SINGH MEENA & DR. VIVEK AGGARWAL. / ORDER PER ANIL CHATURVEDI, AM : 1. THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS EMANATING OUT OF THE ORDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (A) CENTRAL, PUNE DT.19.12.2013 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1996-97 TO 2002-03. 2. THE RELEVANT FACTS AS CULLED OUT FROM THE MATERIAL ON RECORD ARE AS UNDER :- ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED AS LABOUR CONTRACTOR AND STATED TO BE DRIVING INCOME FROM HIS PROPRIETARY / DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31.10.2017 2 CONCERN UNDER THE NAME AND STYLE OF S.S. ENTERPRISES. SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION WAS CONDUCTED ON 13.09.2001 AT THE RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CASE WAS ASSESSED U/S 158 BC(C) OF THE ACT ON 31.10.2003 AND THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.56,71,362/-. THEREAFTER LD.CIT INITIATED PROCEEDINGS U/S. 263 OF THE ACT AND CANCELLED THE ORDER PASSED U/S 158 BC(C) DT.31.10.2003 AND DIRECTED THE AO TO FRAME FRESH ASSESSMENT ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIONS IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT. PURSUANT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF LD.CIT, AO PASSED ORDER U/S 158 BC(C) R.W.S 263 OF THE ACT ON 20.03.2006 AND THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD WAS DETERMINED AT RS.88,91,362/-. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO VIDE ORDER DT.19.12.2013 (IN APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-IV/ACIT CEN.CIR.2(2)/PN/TR.IN/389/09- 10) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US AND HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE LEARNED CIT (APPEALS) - IV WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY A.G. TO THE TUNE OF RS. 80 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ISOLATED PAPERS ON WHICH CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WERE MENTIONED. EVEN THOUGH I.T. DEPARTMENT'S ACCEPTANCE OF THE SAID TRANSACTION IN HANDS OF THE FIRM M/S BHAT BELVALKAR HOUSING SCHEMES, THE LEARNED CIT (A) DID NOT TAKE COGNIZANCE OF THE SAME & WRONGLY CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DELETION OF RS. 80 LAKHS FROM HIS INCOME. 2. THE LEARNED CIT (A) ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 6,60,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ROUGH WORKINGS ON ISOLATED PAPERS, THOUGH NOT PROVED THAT THEY WERE IN APPELLANTS HANDWRITINGS OR ANY OTHER GROUP MEMBERS WRITINGS FURTHER THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT AND GROUP COMPANIES WERE ALSO VERIFIED BY THE DEPARTMENT AND FOUND THAT SUCH CASH WAS NEVER DEPOSITED INTO BANK ON THOSE DATES OR ANY OTHER DATES. THE LEARNED CIT (A) SIMPLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132 (4A) OF THE 3 ACT AND CONFIRMED THE SAID ADDITION. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 6,60,000/- BE DELETED. 3. THE INCOME TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2001-02 DISCLOSING INCOME AMOUNTING TO RS.71,010/ - WAS FILED AFTER DATE OF SEARCH BUT BEFORE FILING BLOCK ASSESSMENT RETURN. IN LIGHT OF 72 ITD 552 IN CASE OF DIVAKAR SALVI THE DECISION GIVEN BY ITA T PUNE THE SAID INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED. IN SPITE OF DRAWING ATTENTION OF THE ABOVE JUDGEMENT AND EXPLAINING IN THE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE CIT (A) HE FAILED TO UNDERSTAND THE SIMILARITY OF MY CASE WITH DIVAKAR SALVI, HENCE THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR DELETION OF THE SAID ADDITION. 3. FIRST GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.80,00,000/- AO HAS NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CARRIED OUT ON 15.09.2001 LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE WAS SEIZED FROM RESIDENTIAL AND BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE. DURING THE COURSE OF EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO CLARIFY THE CONTENTS OF PAGE NOS.126 AND 127 OF THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER BUNDLE. THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT INTER-ALIA SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A PROPOSAL OF PAYMENT TO BE MADE TO DIFFERENT LAND OWNERS FOR A PIECE OF LAND WHICH THEY WERE CONSIDERING TO ACQUIRE FOR DEVELOPMENT. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE OWNER OF THE LAND WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE BROKER AND THE PAPER WAS WRITTEN BY BROKER. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PROPOSAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND THE PROBABLE COST OF THE LAND WAS RS.3,89,30,000/- BASED ON THE CALCULATION APPEARING ON THE PAPER. AO NOTED THAT SINCE THE SEIZED PAPERS WERE FOUND FROM THE ASSESSEES PREMISES, IT WAS PRESUMED THAT THOSE PAPERS BELONG TO HIM AND THAT THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. AO NOTED THAT ON PAGE 126, IT WAS STATED THAT THE RATE AGREED WAS RS.157/- PER SQ.FT. COMPRISING OF WHITE PAYMENT OF 4 RS.122/- PER SQ.FT. AND BLACK PAYMENT OF RS.35/- PER SQ.FT. ON THE BACK SIDE OF PAPER NO.127, THE TOTAL AREA MENTIONED WAS 279.938 SQ.FT. AND TWO OTHER AMOUNTS MENTIONED WERE RS.34,15,000/- (279938 X 122) AND RS.97,97,830/- (279938 X 35) . AO NOTED THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT COMING OUT WITH THE TRUE CONTENTS OF THE PAPER. HE THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES MADE WITH THE OFFICE OF CCIT-II, PUNE AND CIT(APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY), AHMEDABAD NOTED THAT FIVE SEPARATE 37I FORMS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 31.05.2001 WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED IN THE CAPACITY OF PARTNER OF BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEME. ON THE BASIS OF THOSE FORMS AND ON THE BASIS OF THE STATEMENT OF LANDLORDS RECORDED ON 01.02.2006, AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER OF M/S. BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEME AND HE HAD SIGNED THE 37I FORMS IN THE CAPACITY OF THE PARTNER MEANING THEREBY THAT ASSESSEE WAS AWARE OF THE TRANSACTION. HE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCEEDINGS AND EARLIER ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD TRIED TO CONCEAL THE TRANSACTIONS COVERED IN THE PAPERS AND HAD GIVEN MISLEADING INFORMATION ABOUT THE TRANSACTIONS AND THAT THE LAND OWNERS HAVE DENIED TO HAVE ENTERED INTO ANY TRANSACTIONS THROUGH BROKER. THUS ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED PAPERS, HE NOTED THAT THERE WAS TOTAL UN- ACCOUNT PAYMENT OF RS.80 LACS, OUT OF WHICH RS.47.80 LAKHS WAS IN CASH AND THE BALANCE OF RS.37.21 LAKHS WAS BY CHEQUE. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY PROPER EXPLANATION, AO CONSIDERED RS.80,00,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 5 6.13 BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT IN HIS SUBMISSION DATED 24/08/2013 HAS CLAIMED THAT THE LAND TRANSACTION OF RS. 80 LAKH PERTAINED TO THE FIRM M/S BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEMES AND THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FULLY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE FIRM WHICH WAS EVEN PROVED TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO AS MENTIONED IN THIS ORDER (PAGE NO. 8 OF THE ORDER). INDEPENDENT INQUIRIES WERE ALSO MADE BY THE A.O. AND HE WAS IN TURN INFORMED THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION HAD TAKEN PLACE IN CASE OF THE FIRM M/S BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEMES & NOT IN THE PRESENT APPELLANT'S CASE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE APPELLANT HAS PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION OF RS. 80 LAKH MAY BE DELETED. 6.14 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO ALL THE FACTS BEFORE ME AND TO THE ARGUMENTS AND CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANT. FROM THE SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE ME IT IS SEEN THAT THE ONLY EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT UNDER THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS THAT THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION PERTAINED TO M/S BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEMES AND NOT TO HIM AND THEREFORE NO ADDITION COULD BE MADE IN HIS INDIVIDUAL HANDS. IF THE FACTS WERE REALLY AS CLAIMED BY THE APPELLANT, IT IS DIFFICULT TO APPRECIATE WHY IT WAS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THESE SIMPLE FACTS AT THE VERY FIRST INSTANCE AT THE TIME OF THE SEARCH, OR AT LEAST DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. ON THE CONTRARY I FIND THAT RIGHT FROM THE BEGINNING, HIS ATTITUDE HAS BEEN DILATORY AND HIS RESPONSES VAGUE. AS BROUGHT BY THE LD. AO IN HIS ORDER, IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 14.09.2001, HE NEVER MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSACTION PERTAINED TO THE FIRM IN WHICH HE HIMSELF WAS A PARTNER. ON THE CONTRARY, HE CLAIMED THAT HE NEITHER KNEW THE LOCATION OF THE LAND NOR THE NAME OF THE BROKER NOR THE IDENTITY OF THE PERSON WHO HAD WRITTEN THE TRANSACTIONS DOWN. HE ALSO CLAIMED THAT THE TRANSACTIONS NEVER MATERIALIZED NOR ANY FINANCIAL AGREEMENTS WERE REACHED. IN HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 8/10/2003 BEFORE THE LD. AO HE CATEGORICALLY CLAIMED THAT THE PAPERS HAD NO RELATION TO 'ANY OF OUR TRANSACTIONS EITHER EXECUTED OR TO BE EXECUTED'. HE FURTHER ASSERTED THAT IN HIS INITIAL STATEMENT ITSELF HE HAD CLARIFIED THAT THE SAID PAPERS WERE RELATED TO A PROPOSAL RECEIVED IN THE NORMAL COURSE OF BUSINESS THROUGH A BROKER AND THE TRANSACTION DID NOT MATERIALIZE. THE AO HAS ALSO CLEARLY ANALYZED THE ENTRIES FOUND ON THE DOCUMENT IN DETAIL IN PARAGRAPH 9.5 AND 9.7 OF HIS ORDER. THE APPELLANT HAS OFFERED NO COMMENTS WHATSOEVER ON THE ANALYSIS PRESENTED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS ALSO COLLECTED COGENT EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF FORM NO.37 -I FILED BEFORE THE APPROPRIATE AUTHORITY. SIGNIFICANTLY, NONE OF THIS INFORMATION WAS VOLUNTEERED BY THE APPELLANT BUT HAD TO BE COLLECTED IN THE FACE OF HIS NON- CO-OPERATIVE, DILATORY AND MISLEADING TACTICS. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED THAT THE TRANSACTION HAS BEEN FULLY DISCLOSED BY THE FIRM M/S.BHAT BELWAL HOUSING SCHEMES, NO EVIDENCE HAS BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE ME TO PROVE THAT THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.80 LAKHS FOUND ON THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS HAD BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE FIRM. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE CAREFULLY AS WELL AS THE EVIDENCE MARSHALED BY THE LD. AO, I AM IN FULL AGREEMENT WITH HIS CONCLUSION AND ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 6 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 158 BC(C) OF THE ACT, ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY WITH RESPECT TO THE CASH DEPOSITS OF RS.47,80,000/- OUT OF THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.80,00,000/- BUT IN THE ORDER PASSED CONSEQUENT TO THE DIRECTIONS OF LD.CIT U/S 263 OF THE ACT, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.80,00,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT AO HAD MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND BASED ON THE INFORMATION ABOUT 37I FORMS FILED, HAD MADE THE ADDITION OF RS.80,00,000/-. HE SUBMITTED THAT 37I FORMS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON BEHALF OF M/S. BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEMES, PUNE, IN THE CAPACITY OF PARTNER AND NOT IN AN INDIVIDUAL CAPACITY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF PRESUMPTION AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT EVEN DURING THE TIME OF SEARCH, ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT HAD CLEARLY STATED THAT THE DEAL OF PURCHASE OF LAND DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND THEREFORE NO PAYMENTS WERE MADE. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITION BE DELETED. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.80,00,000/-. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT 7 THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND IN THE ORDER DT.31.10.2003 PASSED U/S 158 BC(C) OF THE ACT AND ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS AND INCRIMINATING MATERIAL, ADDITION WAS MADE ONLY TO THE EXTENT OF CASH AMOUNT OF RS.47,80,000/-. THEREAFTER LD.CIT IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S 263 OF THE ACT NOTED THAT THE PAYMENTS PURPORTEDLY MADE BY THE CHEQUE FOR THE SAME TRANSACTION AND EVIDENCED FROM THE SAME DOCUMENT SHOULD HAVE ALSO BEEN CONSIDERED AS ADDITION AND ACCORDINGLY DIRECTED THE AO TO MAKE THE ADDITION OF CASH PAYMENTS AS WELL AS THE PAYMENTS MADE BY CHEQUE. AFTER CONSIDERING THE DIRECTIONS OF LD.CIT AND AFTER MAKING INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES, THE ADDITION OF THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS.80,00,000/- WAS MADE BY THE AO. IT IS SEEN THAT AO HAD MADE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES AND HAD COLLECTED 37I FORMS AND ON THAT BASIS, HE CONCLUDED THAT ASSESSEE HAD ENTERED INTO THE TRANSACTIONS AND HAD MADE THE PAYMENTS. THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE LETTER REVEALS THAT THESE 37I FORMS WERE FILED, WHEREIN THE TRANSFEREE NAME WAS SHOWN AS M/S. BHAT BELWALKAR HOUSING SCHEME BUT THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED THE SAME IN THE CAPACITY OF THE PARTNER. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE EVEN AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF HIS STATEMENT HAS DENIED ABOUT THE TRANSACTION, HE HAD STATED THAT THE LOOSE PAPER FOUND WAS NOT IN ASSESSEES HAND-WRITING AND WAS A PROPOSAL WHICH WAS NOT ACTED UPON. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF THE DOCUMENTS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH AND IS NOT SUPPORTED BY ANY OTHER CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT THE ADDITION U/S 158 BC(C) OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE ONLY IF THE INCRIMINATING EVIDENCE FOUND THEREIN IS 8 SUPPORTED BY OTHER CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THERE IS NOT SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR MAKING THE ADDITION. WE THEREFORE SET ASIDE THE ADDITION. THUS, THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. 2 ND GROUND IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.6,60,000/- AO ON THE BASIS OF THE SEIZED BUNDLE NO.18 NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CASH OF RS.10,45,000/- AND DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.3,85,000/- IN SUVARNA SAHAKARI BANK. AT THE TIME OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT, ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE PAPERS. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE ABOUT THOSE ENTRIES AND WITH REGARD TO CASH DEPOSIT OF RS.3,85,000/- IN SUVARNA SAHAKARI BANK AND HE WILL CLARIFY LATER. AO NOTED THAT DURING THE EARLIER BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE ROUGH WORKINGS OF THE SCHEMES. THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT FOUND ACCEPTABLE TO THE AO. HE NOTED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO GIVE ANY DETAILS OF THE PAPERS AND THE PAPERS WERE FOUND IN HIS POSSESSION, IT WAS PRESUMED THAT THOSE PAPERS BELONG TO HIM AND THE CONTENTS THEREOF ARE TRUE. HE AFTER GRANTING CREDIT OF RS.3,85,000/- WHICH WERE DEPOSITED IN THE BANK MADE ADDITION OF RS.6,60,000/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 9 7.2 BEFORE ME, THE APPELLANT, IN HIS BRIEF SUBMISSIONS HAS CONTENDED THAT THE LEARNED A.O. WRONGLY ADDED RS.6,60,000/- AS INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF SOME ROUGH WORKINGS MADE ON PAGE NO.41 & 42 OF BUNDLE NO.18. THE SAID ISOLATED PAPERS ARE NEITHER IN THE APPELLANTS HANDWRITING NOR IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY OTHER GROUP MEMBER . THE APPELLANT HAS VERIFIED BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND HAS FOUND THAT SUCH CASH WAS NEITHER RECEIVED NOR DEPOSITED INTO BANK ON THE DATES MENTIONED ON THE LOOSE PAPERS . THE APPELLANT IS NOT ALL AWARE ABOUT THE SAID PAPER, HENCE THE WRONG ADDITION MADE OF RS.6 , 60,000/- MAY BE DELETED, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE A . O . FAILED TO ADDUCE ANY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THAT THEY BELONGED TO OR PARTICULAR TO ANY OF APPELLANT'S TRANSACTIONS . 7.3 I HAVE GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS BEFORE ME AND TO THE APPELLANT'S BRIEF SUBMISSIONS MENTIONED ABOVE . IT IS SEEN THAT THE APPELLANT HAS AT NO STAGE ADVANCED ANY CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS FOR WHICH THE ONUS WAS SQUARELY UPON HIM UNDER SECTION 132(4A) AND SECTION 292C. THE DOCUMENT WAS UNDENIABLY SEIZED FROM HIS PREMISES AND SIMPLY DISOWNING THE DOCUMENTS WITHOUT ADDUCING A SHRED OF EVIDENCE AS TO HOW THE SAME CAME TO BE IN HIS POSSESSION HARDLY DISCHARGES THE ONUS THAT WAS CAST ON HIM UNDER LAW. ACCORDINGLY, I DO NOT FIND ANY REASONS TO DEPART FROM THE AO'S CONCLUSION AND HEREBY CONFIRM THE ADDITION MADE AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 7. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE PAPERS WERE NEITHER IN ASSESSEES HAND-WRITING NOR THE ASSESSEE WAS AWARE ABOUT THOSE PAPERS. HE THEREFORE SUBMITTED THAT NO ADDITION IS REQUIRED TO BE MADE. LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) WHILE UPHOLDING THE ADDITION HAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT ADVANCED CREDIBLE EXPLANATION FOR THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND HAS NOT DISCHARGED 10 THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM. BEFORE US ALSO ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO.3 IS WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS.71,010/- AO NOTED THAT ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2001-02 ON 30.07.2002 THOUGH IT WAS DUE BEFORE THE SEARCH WHICH TOOK PLACE ON 13.09.2001. HE NOTED THAT AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.158BB(1)(CA) WHERE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME HAS EXPIRED BUT NO RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH, THE INCOME FOR THE YEAR HAS TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HE THEREFORE CONSIDERED THE AMOUNT OF RS.70,010/- WHICH WAS FILED IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2001-02 AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE LD.CIT(A), WHO UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO BY HOLDING AS UNDER : 8.3 HAVING GIVEN CAREFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT, I DO NOT FIND ANY MERIT IN THE SAME. THE ACTION OF THE AO WAS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE EXPRESS PROVISION OF S. 158BB(1)(CA). THIS FACT HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED BY THE APPELLANT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL BENCH OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF DIVAKAR SALVI. UPON CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THAT JUDGMENT I FIND THAT THE DECISION OF ITAT IN THAT CASE TURNED ON THE SPECIFIC FACTS OF THAT CASE. IN THAT CASE THE ASSESSEE WAS A FORMER EMPLOYEE OF RESERVE BANK OF INDIA WHO RESIGNED AND JOINED A FIRM AS A PARTNER. ON SEARCH AND SEIZURE AT HIS RESIDENCE, IT WAS NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED HIS RETURNS THOUGH HE HAD TAXABLE SALARY AND INCOME-TAX WAS DEDUCTED AT SOURCE. THE AO COMPLETED BLOCK ASSESSMENT TREATING TAXABLE SALARY FOR RELEVANT PERIOD AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE QUESTION WAS WHETHER DISCLOSURE BY EMPLOYER IN RETURN UNDER SECTION 206 OF EMPLOYEE'S SALARY, TAX DEDUCTED AT SOURCE AND OTHER PARTICULARS, WOULD CONSTITUTE DISCLOSURE FOR PURPOSE OF ACT AND, THEREFORE, 11 TREATING SALARY OF EMPLOYEE AS IF IT HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN DISCLOSED, WOULD BE UNJUSTIFIED. THE HON. TRIBUNAL ANSWERED THIS QUESTION IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND HELD THAT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES PREVAILING IN THAT CASE, THE ASSESSEE'S SALARY INCOME FOR BLOCK PERIOD 1987-88 TO 1992-93 COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR PURPOSE OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME FOR BLOCK ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BB. 8.4 NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE APPELLANT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO EVEN HINT THAT SIMILAR FACTS PREVAILED IN THE APPELLANTS CASE. AS SUCH, THE RATIO OF THAT JUDGMENT CANNOT ASSIST THE APPELLANT IN ANY MANNER. ACCORDINGLY, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALSO HEREBY DISMISSED. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS NOW IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 10. BEFORE US, LD.A.R. REITERATED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE AO AND LD.CIT(A). LD.D.R. ON THE OTHER HAND, SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF AO AND LD.CIT(A). 11. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT FOR A.Y. 2001-02 ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E., TILL 13.09.2001 AND IT WAS FILED SUBSEQUENTLY ON 30.07.2002. AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.158BB(1)(CA) WHERE THE DUE DATE FOR FILING OF RETURN OF INCOME HAS EXPIRED BUT NO RETURN OF INCOME HAS BEEN FILED, THEN THE INCOME IS TO BE CONSIDERED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. IN THE PRESENT CASE, WE FIND THAT LD.CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.158BB(1)(CA) HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF AO. BEFORE US ASSESSEE HAS NOT PLACED ANY MATERIAL ON RECORD TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF LD.CIT(A). WE THEREFORE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE 12 WITH THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A). THUS, THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST DAY OF OCTOBER, 2017. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( ANIL CHATURVEDI ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE; DATED : 31 ST OCTOBER, 2017. YAMINI / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. 4. 5 6. CIT(A)-CENTRAL, PUNE. CIT(CENTRAL), PUNE. , , / DR, ITAT, B PUNE; [ / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE.