Fulchand Dilsukh Pande, Ahmednagar V. Income-tax Officer,

ITA 552/PUN/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0816 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 30-11-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-03-2014
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Income from undisclosed sources
• Section: 143(3); 69

Judgement Text

] ]] ] IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE , !', $ % BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM ITA NO.552/PN/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI FULCHAND DILSUKH PANDE, BANK ROAD, KOPARGAON, DIST.- AHMEDNAGAR 423 601. PAN : AAXPP7904R . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 2, AHMEDNAGAR. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI B. C. MALAKAR / DATE OF HEARING : 30.11.2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.12.2015 & / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE PRESENT APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGA INST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE DATED 27.01.2014 RELATING TO ASS ESSMENT YEAR 2010-11 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER :- 1] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ADDIT ION U/S 69 OF RS.40 LACS MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD MADE UNRECORDED INVESTMENTS IN PROPERTY AT NASHIK AND HENCE, THE AD DITION WAS JUSTIFIED. 2] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE SAI D PROPERTY ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR WAS NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCES OF PAYMENTS MADE FOR ACQUISITIO N OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY WITH THE HELP OF SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND THEREF ORE, THE ADDITION WAS JUSTIFIED. 3] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE ABOVE PROPERTY WERE DULY EXP LAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO MAKE ANY ADDITION U/S 69 IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. 4] THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE APPRECIATED THA T- 2 ITA NO.552/PN/2014 A. THE PAYMENT OF RS.40 LACS WAS MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TO THE VENDOR, SMT. BAGADE, OVER A PERIOD OF YEARS AS WHEN THE SMT . BAGADE WAS IN NEED OR FUNDS AND THIS FACT IS ALSO MENTIONED IN TH E SALE DEED OF THE ABOVE PROPERTY AND THUS, IT WAS NOT A CASE WHERE LU MP SUM PAYMENT WAS MADE TOWARDS PURCHASE OF PROPERTY. B. THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.40 LACS WAS SOURCED OUT OF LOAN OF RS.10 LACS EACH TAKEN IN THE NAMES OF THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE, HIS SON AND ONE FRIEND OF THE ASSESSEE FROM DHANASHRI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI (DMNS) PAT SANSTHA FROM TIME TO TIME AND THE SAID F ACT WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE ABOVE THREE PERSONS IN WHOSE NAMES THE LOANS WERE TAKEN. C. IN VIEW OF THE RULES AND REGULATIONS OF THE PAT SANSTHA, IT WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN POSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE/ SMT. BAGADE TO TAKE LOAN EXCEEDING RS.10 LACS IN INDIVIDUAL NAME AND THEREFO RE, THE LOANS WERE TAKEN IN DIFFERENT NAMES FOR EASE OF SANCTION OF LOANS AND THE SAME WERE ADVANCED TO SMT. BAGADE FROM TIME TO TIME . D. THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE, WHATSOEVER, TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED ANY INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND THER EFORE, THERE WAS NO REASON TO DISBELIEVE THE BONAFIDE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE SOURCES OF PAYMENT MADE FOR ACQUISITI ON OF PROPERTY AND HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LEARNED A.O. WA S NOT JUSTIFIED. 5] THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN FURTHER ENHANCING TH E TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY RS.2,03,410/- ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED UNR ECORDED PAYMENTS MADE TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES OF THE ABOVE PR OPERTY ACQUIRED DURING THE YEAR. 6] THE LEARNED CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES WAS MADE BY THE VENDOR AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, THE ENHANCEMENT OF INCOME OF RS.2,03,410 /- MADE BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 7] THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 3. THE PRIMARY ISSUE ARISING IN THIS APPEAL IS ADDI TION OF RS.40,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN SHOPS. ANOTH ER ISSUE RAISED IS TOWARDS ADDITION OF RS.2,03,410/- INCURRED ON STAMP DUTY AN D REGISTRATION CHARGES IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAS PAID CONSIDERATION OF RS.40,00,000/- TO ONE SMT. URMILA BAGADE FOR PURCHASE OF SHOPS NO.32, 26 AND 27 SITUATED AT MADHURA TOWERS A PARTMENT, NASHIK. IT WAS FOUND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS NOT DECLARED THE AFORESAID SHOPS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET AND REMAINS UNDECLARED. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED CERTIFICATE FRO M SMT. URMILA BAGADE, SELLER OF THE SHOPS, WHO CERTIFIED THAT SHE RECEIVE D A SUM OF RS.40,00,000/- AS ON 01.04.2009 FOR SALE OF THE AFORESAID THREE SHOPS AT MADHURA TOWERS 3 ITA NO.552/PN/2014 APARTMENT, NASHIK. THE TRANSACTION WAS MADE IN CAS H. THE ASSESSING OFFICER STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SOURCE O F PURCHASE OF THE AFORESAID IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AND ACCORDINGLY ADDED THE SAME T O THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER 69 OF THE ACT. 5. IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE PURCHASES OF THE AFORESAID THREE SHOPS ARE FUNDED FROM THE LOANS OBT AINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THREE OTHER PERSONS FROM DHANASHRI MAHILA NAGARI SA HAKARI PAT SANSTHA, KOPARGAON. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) THAT THE SHOPS WERE PURCHASED VIDE AGREEMENT DATED 11.05.2009 FOR RS.40,00,000/- AND PAYMENTS WERE MADE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME SINCE 2005 AND NOT AS ON 01.04.2009. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT SHRI BABURAO BAGADE WAS A FRIEND AND THUS THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED FUNDS TO HIS WIFE SM T. URMILA BAGADE OVER A PERIOD OF TIME, WHENEVER SHE WAS IN NEED OF FUNDS. HOWEVER, WHEN SHE COULD NOT REPAY THE LOAN, SHE AGREED TO TRANSFER HER IMMO VABLE PROPERTY OF THREE SHOPS IN CONSIDERATION OF RS.40,00,000/- ADVANCED T O HER FROM TIME TO TIME. THE ASSESSEE EMPHASIZED THAT CONSIDERATION WAS PAID OVER THE PERIOD OF FEW YEARS AND NOT ON A SINGLE DAY I.E. NOT ON 01.04.200 9 AS IT IS EVIDENT FROM PAGE 8 OF THE PURCHASE DEED, WHEREIN THE VENDOR, SMT. URMI LA BAGADE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE PURCHASE CONSIDERATION OF RS.40,00,000/- H AS BEEN RECEIVED BY HER FROM TIME TO TIME UPTO 11.05.2009. IT WAS THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE CIT(A) THAT THE LOANS RECEIVED FROM DHANASHRI MAHI LA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA AND THE SAME HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY ITS MAN AGER. 6. IN THE COURSE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE C IT(A), IN PURSUANCE TO AN ENHANCEMENT OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 251(2) OF TH E ACT, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED CONFIRMATION LETTER OF SMT. URMILA BAGADE DATED 30.08.2012 (PAGE NO.9 -10 OF THE PAPER BOOK) STATING THAT THE EXPEN DITURE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES OF RS.2,30,410/- WAS BORNE BY THE SELLER. HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) DID NOT CONCUR WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE A SSESSEE. AFTER ANALYZING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/- TOWARDS UN RECORDED INVESTMENTS AND FURTHER ENHANCED THE INCOME BY RS.2,03,410/- TOWARD STAMP DUTY AND 4 ITA NO.552/PN/2014 REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC.. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IS EXTRACTED BELOW FOR READY REFERENCE :- 2.10 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND TH E APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION. I FIND THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT DISCLOSE THIS PRO PERTY IN HIS BALANCE SHEET AND WHEN ASKED, HE FILED WRITTEN SUBMISSION THAT NO ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE FIXED ASSETS. EVEN EXPLANATION ON SOURCE OF INVESTMENT WAS MODIFI ED DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS FROM WHAT WAS ORIGINALLY SUBMITTED BEFO RE THE LEARNED AO. 2.11 THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT HE ALONG WITH H IS FAMILY MEMBERS AND FRIEND HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM PATSANSTHA AND ADVANCED THE SAME TO SMT. BAGADE FROM TIME TO TIME. FIRST ISSUE WHICH ARISES FROM THIS AR RANGEMENT IS THAT, THE APPELLANT HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM PATSANSTHA ON 08.05.2002 WHEREA S WIFE AND SON HAD TAKEN LOAN IN JANUARY 2006, WHEREAS FRIEND HAD AVAILED LOAN ON 31.03.2008. THEREFORE, IT IS NOT POSSIBLE TO ACCEPT THAT THE APPELLANT KEPT RS.10,00 ,000/- WITH HIMSELF FOR THREE YEARS AND LATER ADVANCED LOAN TO SMT. BAGADE. SECON DLY, WHEN LOAN ITSELF WAS TAKEN FROM THE FINANCIAL INSTITUTION, THE NEED OF ADVANCI NG LOAN IN CASH WAS NOT EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THIRDLY AND MOST IMPORTANTLY, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT ESTABLISHED THAT IT IS THE SAME MONEY OF LOAN WHICH WAS ADVANCE D TO SMT. BAGADE IN ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR ANY OTHER CONTEMPORANEOUS EVID ENCE. 2.12 I FIND THAT PAGE 8 OF THE PURCHASE AGREEMENT STATES THE FACT THAT SMT. BAGADE RECEIVED RS.40,00,000/- IN CASH FROM TIME TO TIME FROM THE APPELLANT. I CONSIDER THIS PURCHASE AGREEMENT AS CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENT AS IT WAS REGISTERED IN 2009, MUCH BEFORE THE DEPARTMENT INIT IATED ENQUIRIES. HOWEVER, IT IS STILL DOES NOT ANSWER THE BASIC QUESTION AS TO WHET HER THE AMOUNT WAS PAID OUT OF THE APPELLANTS DISCLOSED INCOME OR NOT ? ACCORDING TO ME, THE APPELLANTS ACTION OF ADVANCING MONEY IN CASH, NON-DISCLOSURE OF ASSET IN THE BALANCE SHEET, CATEGORICAL WRITTEN REPLY TO THE LEARNED AO REGARDING NO ADDITI ON TO FIXED ASSETS AND ABSENCE OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS SUPPORTING THE APPELLANTS EXPLAN ATION INDICATE THAT RS.40,00,000/- WAS PAID OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY LOAN WAS AVAILED BY THE DIFFER ENT PERSONS FROM PATSANSTHA TO ADVANCE THE SAME TO SMT. BAGADE. ANOTHER ISSUE WHI CH REQUIRES TO BE EXPLAINED IS THAT THE APPELLANTS FRIEND SHRI SANJAY BHUTADA HAS NOT RECEIVED BACK HIS LOAN AMOUNT ALTHOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS RECEIVED 3 SHOPS AGAINST MONEY ADVANCED BY HIM. THE APPELLANT ALSO HAS NOT EXPLAINED THIS ASP ECT. PRESUMABLY THE APPELLANT PAID RS.10,00,000/- TO HIM IN CASH, GAIN NO SUPPORT ING ENTRY IN THE APPELLANTS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 2.13 AS FAR AS THE STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHA RGES ARE CONCERNED, THE APPELLANT RELIED ON THE CONFIRMATION ISSUED BY THE SELLER DATED 30.08.2012. THE FACT THAT THESE CHARGES WOULD BE BORNE BY THE VENDOR IS NOT MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT, WHICH IS A CONTEMPORANEOUS DOCUMENT. THE CONFIRMAT ION LETTER IS DATED AFTER THE COMPLETION OF THE ASSESSMENT. THE MP HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GUNWANTIBAI V CIT 146 ITR 140 HAS HELD THAT ECEN CONTENTS OF THE AFFI DAVIT CAN BE REJECTED ON THE BASIS OF ADVERSE EVIDENCE. THE HIGH COURT HELD THAT, NOW, AN AFFIDAVIT IS A PIECE OF EVIDENCE, WHICH, A LONG WITH OTHER MATERIAL ON RECORD, HAS TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION BY TH E TRIBUNAL BEFORE ARRIVING AT A FINDING. THE DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSES SEE ARE DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. THESE DECISIONS LAY DOWN THAT WHEN IS NO MA TERIAL ON RECORD TO DISPROVE THE VERACITY OF A STATEMENT MADE AN AFFIDA VIT, A FINDING ARRIVED AT IGNORING THAT STATEMENT, WOULD BE A FINDING BASED O N NO EVIDENCE OR A FINDING WHICH NO PERSON ACTING JUDICIALLY COULD HAV E ARRIVED AT. IN MEHTA PARIKH & CO. V. CIT [1956] 30 ITR 181, THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS A PURE SURMISE AND HAD NO BASIS ON THE EVIDENCE. THE SUPREME COURT FOUND THAT THE CASH BOOK OF THE A SSESSEE WAS ACCEPTED, THAT THE ENTRIES THEREIN WERE NOT CHALLENGED AND NO FURTHER DOCUMENTS OR 5 ITA NO.552/PN/2014 VOUCHERS IN RELATION TO THESE ENTRIES WERE CALLED F OR NOR WAS THE PRESENCE OF THE DEPONENTS OF AFFIDAVITS CONSIDERED NECESSARY BY EITHER PARTY. THE SUPREME COURT, THEREFORE, HELD THAT THERE WAS NO MA TERIAL WHATSOEVER TO JUSTIFY THE FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL. THE DECISION IN [1956] 30 ITR 181, CANNOT BE CONSTRUED TO LAY DOWN THE PROPOSITION THA T UNLESS THE DEPONENTS ARE CROSS-EXAMINED, THE AFFIDAVITS CANNOT BE REJECT ED. THAT DECISION LAYS DOWN THAT IF THERE IS NO MATERIAL WHATSOEVER ON REC ORD FOR DOUBTING THE VERACITY OF THE STATEMENTS MADE IN THE AFFIDAVITS A ND IF THE DEPONENTS HAVE ALSO NOT BEEN SUBJECTED TO CROSS-EXAMINATION FOR BR INGING OUT THE FALSITY OF THEIR STATEMENTS, THEN THE TRIBUNAL WOULD NOT BE JU STIFIED IN DOUBTING THE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS MADE BY THE DEPONENTS IN THE AFFIDAVITS. 2.14 THEREFORE, MERE CONFIRMATION LETTER WITHOUT S UBSTANTIATING EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO PRO VE ITS CONTENTS. FURTHER, VENDOR BEARING STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES ARE AGA INST THE NORMAL BUSINESS PRACTICE. IN VIEW OF THIS DISCUSSION, I CONSIDER T HE REGISTRATION CHARGES AND STAMP DUTY TO BE AN AFTER-THOUGHT AND NOT SATISFACTORY EX PLANATION. 2.15 IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I HOLD THAT THE ADDITIO N MADE BY THE LEARNED AO OF RS.40,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTM ENTS IN THREE SHOPS TO BE PROPER. I CONFIRM THE ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/-. AS FAR A S AMOUNT OF RS.2,03,410/- INCURRED ON STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES, I DO NOT FI ND APPELLANTS EXPLANATION SATISFACTORY. I ENHANCE THE ADDITION BY RS.2,03,41 0/-. 7. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), THE ASSESS EE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESS EE RELIED UPON THE FACTUAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE PLACED BEFORE T HE CIT(A) AND SUBMITTED THAT RS.40,00,000/- WAS SOURCED OUT OF LOAN OF RS.1 0,00,000/- EACH TAKEN AS THE ASSESSEE, HIS WIFE, HIS SON AND ONE FRIEND OF THE A SSESSEE FROM DHANASHRI MAHILA NAGARI SAHAKARI PAT SANSTHA FROM TIME TO TIM E. WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.2,03,410/- TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND RE GISTRATION CHARGES, THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ADVERTED OUR ATTENTION TO A CONFIRMATION LETTER FROM THE SELLER DATED 30.08.201 2 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONS OF RS.40,00,000/- HAVE BEEN MADE PRESUMIN G THE PAYMENT ON 01.04.2009 PERTAINING TO THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YE AR. THE SAME CONFIRMATION ALSO SPEAKS OF THE FACT THAT THE INCIDENTAL EXPENDI TURE ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC. HAS BEEN PAID BY THE SELLER AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHEN A PART OF THE CON FIRMATION WAS RELIED UPON BY THE CIT(A) FOR ARRIVING AT A CONCLUSION ADVERSE TO ASSESSEE, THERE IS JUSTIFICATION TO IGNORE THE OTHER PART OF THE CONFI RMATION ON FACTS, AS PER HIS CONVENIENCE. HE THEREFORE PLEADED THAT THE CONTENT S OF THE CONFIRMATION 6 ITA NO.552/PN/2014 SHOULD BE READ IN TOTO AND THE ADDITION OF THE INCIDENTAL EXPENSES IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND BE DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 9. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVE NUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). 10. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSI ONS. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/- TOWARDS UNACCOUNTED P URCHASE OF SHOPS IN NASHIK AND INCIDENTAL EXPENSES INCURRED TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES RS.2,03,410/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. 11. WE FIND FROM RECORD THAT THE PAYMENT TOWARDS AL LEGED UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS HAS BEEN MADE IN CASH AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DECLARED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE SOURCE OF CASH PAYMENT IS AL SO NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORILY WITH EVIDENCE. WE ARE IN COMPLETE A GREEMENT WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) NOTED ABOVE TOWARDS SUSTAINING THE AD DITION OF RS.40,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AND THEREFORE DO NOT INTEND TO REPEAT THE SAME. ACCORDINGLY, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CON TENTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND THUS ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNE D ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/- UNDER SECTION 69 OF THE ACT. THUS, GROUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE FAILS ON THIS ISSUE. 12. AS REGARD SECOND ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.2,03,4 10/- TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC., WE FIND THAT THE CO NFIRMATION FROM SMT. URMILA BAGADE IS CLEAR AND EXPLICIT THAT THE IMPUGNED EXPE NSES WERE INCURRED BY HER ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FIND THAT THE P RIMARY BASIS OF SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.40,00,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010- 11 IN APPEAL BY THE CIT(A) IS THE AFORESAID CONFIRMATION DATED 30.08.2012. TH EREFORE, WE OBSERVE THAT THE REVENUE CANNOT CHOOSE TO ACCEPT ONE PART OF THE CON FIRMATION WHICH IS IN ITS FAVOUR AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND IGNORE THE REST OF THE PORTION WHEREIN SPECIFIC AVERMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE ON FACTS IN FAVOU R OF THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NOT PERMISSIBLE IN LAW TO ACCEPT A PART AND IGNORE THE REST OF A DOCUMENT. THIS PROPOSITION IS SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION IN THE CAS E OF GLASS LINES EQUIPMENTS CO. LTD. VS. CIT, (2002) 253 ITR 454 (GUJ.). THERE FORE, WE DO NOT CONCUR 7 ITA NO.552/PN/2014 WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF ADDIT ION MADE TOWARDS STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC. ACCORDINGLY, W E DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DELETE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION CHARGES, ETC.. THUS, ASSESSEE SUCCEEDS ON THIS ISS UE. 13. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 04 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER $ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 04 TH DECEMBER, 2015. & ' ()* +*( / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-IT/TP, PUNE; 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE; 5) THE DR B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. &, / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE