Ujjwala Sanjay pawar, Dhule V. The ACIT, Cir. 2(1), Dhule

ITA 588/PUN/2004

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2878 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 11 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 19-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 1998-1999
• Appeal Filed On: 20-04-2004
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K RASTOGI
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment; Tax effect; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 133A; 132; 12; 10; 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A , PUNE , , BEFORE MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM AND SHRI PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA , AM ITA NO. 588 /PN/20 0 4 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 SMT. UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR, L/H OF LATE SANJAY MAHARU PAWAR, AT POST MOHADI, DIST. DHULE . / APPELLANT PAN: ABDPP3803M VS. THE ASST . COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1304 /PN/20 0 5 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 SHRI BHARAT MAHARU PAWAR, SHRI BHARAT MAHARU PAWAR, MOHADI UPNAGAR, LANE NO.2, DHULE . / APPELLANT PAN: ACOPP3908L VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1 233 /PN/20 05 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI BHARAT MAHARU PAWAR, MOHADI UPNAGAR, LANE NO.2, DHULE . / RESPONDENT PAN: ACOPP3908L 2 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. ITA NO. 130 5 /PN/20 05 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 LATE SHRI RAJENDRA POPAT SHINDE, C/O MEENAXI RAJENDRA SHINDE, MOHADI, DIST. DHULE . / APPELLANT PAN: AFKPS4497J VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / RESPONDENT ITA NO. 123 5 /PN/20 05 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / APPELLANT VS. LATE SHRI RAJENDRA POPAT SHINDE, LATE SHRI RAJENDRA POPAT SHINDE, C/O MEENAXI RAJENDRA SHINDE, MOHADI, DIST. DHULE . / RESPONDENT PAN: AFKPS4497J ITA NO. 1237 /PN/20 05 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRITHVIRAJ C. SHINDE, ANAND NAGAR, DEOPUR, DHULE . / RESPONDENT PAN: ACYPS1689P 3 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. ITA NO. 1292 /PN/20 0 5 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 SHRI PRITHVIRAJ C. SHINDE, ANAND NAGAR, DEOPUR, DHULE . / APPELLANT PAN: ACYPS1689P VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / RESPONDENT ITA NO. 1 717 /PN/20 05 BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD : 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 SHRI BHIKAN BAPURAO SHELKE, BEHIND CIVIL COURT, CAMP ROAD, MALEGAON, DIST. NASHIK . / APPELLANT PAN: A DLPS7058J VS. VS. THE ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE . / RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K. RASTOGI, CIT / DATE OF HEARING : 11 . 0 1 .201 6 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 15 . 0 1 .201 6 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM : OUT OF T HIS BUNCH OF 8 APPEALS , ONE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST ORDER OF CIT(A) - II , AURANGABAD , DATED 1 1. 0 3 .20 0 4 RELATING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) 4 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . FURTHER, T HREE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE DIFFERENT ASSESSEES AND THE REVENUE ARE AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF CIT(A) - II, AURANGABAD, ALL DATED 10.03.2005 , RELATING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 01.04.1 987 TO 10.07.1997 AGAINST RESPECTIVE ORDER S PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). FURTHER, THE ASSESSEE SHRI BHIKAN BAPURAO SHELKE HAS ALSO FILED AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - II, AURANGABAD, DATED 10.03.2005, RELATING TO BLOCK ASSESSMENT PERIOD 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 AGAINST ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THIS BUNCH OF APPEALS RELATING TO DIFFER ENT ASSESSEE S , WHO ALL ARE CONNECTED WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. HOWEVER, REFERENCE IS BEING MADE TO THE FACTS AND ISSUES IN ITA NO.588/PN/2004 TO ADJUDICATE THE ISSUES. 3. BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE MERITS OF THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE , WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO THE ORDER SHEET ENTRIES IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS, WHEREIN THE APPEALS WERE LISTED FOR HEARING FROM 18.01.2007 AND WERE ADJOUR NED FROM DATE TO DATE AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE THAT A WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT. THEREAFTER, THE COUNSEL EARLIER APPEARING IN THE PRESENT BUNCH OF APPEALS WITHDREW HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 13.07.20 15 AND LAST OPPORTUNITY WAS AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO SEEK ADJOURNMENT AND THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE PARTIES THROUGH RPAD. ON THE NEXT DATE OF HEARING I.E. 19.10.2015, COUNSEL SMT. DEEPA KHARE APPEARED AND FILED A LETTER DATED 19.10.2015 ON THE PRETE XT THAT SHE HAD TO RECEIVE THE RELEVANT INFORMATION AND PREPARE THE CASE. THE SAID REQUEST WAS MADE IN ITA NOS. 588/PN/2004, 1235/PN/2005, 1305/PN/2005 , 1237/PN/2005 AND 1292/PN/2005. THE LETTER OF AUTHORITY WAS FILED BY THE COUNSEL IN SOME OF THE 5 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. APPEALS . HOWEVER, THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.01.2016 ON HER REQUEST AND THE BUNCH OF APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 11.01.2016 , SINCE THE ISSUE ARISING IN ALL THE APPEALS WAS IDENTICAL. ON 11.01.2016 I.E. THE APPOINTED DATE OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL SMT. DEEPA KHARE MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT IN ITA NO.1237/PN/2005 AND 1292/PN/2005 STATING THAT THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEALS WAS IN RESPECT OF ASSESSMENT OF UNDI SCLOSED INCOME IN RESPECT OF VDI S SCHEME , 1997 AVAILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE SLP WAS FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT ON THE ISSUE, REQUEST WAS MADE THAT THE CASE MAY BE ADJOURNED, SINCE THE SLP WAS PENDING. 4. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE OBJECTED TO THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE ADJOURNMENT WAS REFUSED TO LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THIS ASPECT AND IT WAS ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TH AT THE MATTER SHALL BE TAKEN UP FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH UP FOR HEARING. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED COUNSEL DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH EVEN ON THIRD CALLING OF THE MATTER AND WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE . 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS BEEN DISMISSED AND THE ALTERNATE PLEA HAS BEEN ALLOWED AND THE TAXES PAID UNDER THE VDI S SCHEME , 1997 HAVE BEEN DIRECTED TO BE REFUNDED ALONG WITH NOMINAL INTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION . FURTHER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AND POINTED OUT THAT IN ALL THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REVENUE, THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS AND IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR DATED 10.12.2015 , THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE WERE NOT MAINTAINABLE. 6 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. 6. WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL AFTER REFERRING TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO.588/PN/2004. 7. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: - 1) THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF ACIT, CIRCLE 2(1), DHULE IN WHICH THE APPELLANT WAS DENIED THE IMMUNITY AND BENEFITS OF THE VDIS, 1997, PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ISSUE IS PENDING WITH AURANGABAD HIGH COURT BENCH IN WRIT PETITION NO.5065 OF 1999. THE CIT(APPEALS) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE A.O. IN WHICH THE INTERPRETATION OF THE VDIS, 1997 IS MADE AGAINST THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD/ALTER/AMEND/DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 8. FURTHER, AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE, WHICH READS AS UNDER: - WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS.1 & 2 AND BY WAY OF AN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION, THE APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT IF IT IS HELD THAT THE APPELLANT WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE DECLARATION UNDER V.D.I.S. 1997 AND IF IT IS HELD THAT THE AFORESAID DECLARATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT WAS NONEST AND VOID AB INITIO THEN THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER MAY PLEASE BE DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF TAXES PAID UNDER V.D.I.S. 1997 SCHEME AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER THE IMPUGNED BLOC K ASSESSMENT. 1997 SCHEME AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER THE IMPUGNED BLOC K ASSESSMENT. 9. THE FACTS IN B RIEF ARE THAT AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE ON 10/11, JULY, 1997 . DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION, VARIOUS INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND RECORDS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED BY THE DEPARTMENT. THE ASSESSEE MADE DECLARATION OF RS.5,65,000/ - . THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK P ERIOD 01.04.1987 TI 10.07.1997 ON 27.10.1997 . THE SAID NOTICE WAS SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE ON 24.111997. IN BETWEEN , THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH OTHER ASSESSEES OF SHINDE GROUP CASES WERE SUPPLIED WITH XEROX COPIES OF SEIZED MATERIAL. THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED THE BLOCK RETURN ON 02.01.1998 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1 LAKH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AS HER REGULAR INCOME AND FROM ASSESSMENT YEAR 1988 - 89 TO 1997 - 98 AT RS.5,65,000/ - CLAIMING THAT THE SAME WAS DECLARED UNDER VDIS, 1997. THE YEAR - WISE BREAK - UP OF 7 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. THE UNDISCLOSED TOTAL INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BLOCK RETURN TOTALING RS.6,65,000/ - IS TABULATED AT PAGE 1 AND 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT HAD GONE IN VDIS IN 1997 FOR ASSESSMENT YEA R S 1988 - 89 TO 199 7 - 9 8 AND FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 , THE CURRENT INCOME WAS SHOWN. THEREFORE, THE INCOME ALREADY DISCLOSED IN VDIS, 1997 SHOULD BE TREATED AS DISCLOSED UNDER THE SAID SCHEME AND HE SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS DEFAULTER FOR NON - DISCLOSURE OF THE INCOME IN THE BLOCK RETURN FURNISHED IN FORM NO.2B . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED THE REQUISITE NOTICES TO THE ASSESSEE AND NOTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, STATEMENT ON OATH WAS RECORDED AND THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE INCRIMINATING B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH ACTION. SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS SAY WITH NECESSARY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE , HE OFFERED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.5,95,000/ - DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION ITSELF. THE DETAILS OF UNEXPLAINED INCOME BEING OFFERED ARE TABULATED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN THE TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THE RETURNED / ASSESSED INCOME AT THE SAME F IGURE. HOWEVER, THIS FACT WAS NOT CORRECT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ASSESSED TO TAX. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER NOTED THAT EXCEPT FOR RS.1 LAKH , WHICH WAS OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION, THE INCOME DECLARED FOR THE REMAINING ASSESSMENT YEARS HAVE BEEN DECLARED UNDER VDIS, 1997. FURTHER, A REQUEST WAS MADE TO ALLOW THE DUE CREDIT FOR THE INCOME DISCLOSED AND TAXES PAID UNDER VDIS, 1997 AND IT WAS ALSO REQUESTED THAT THE SAME SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN FOR TAXATION UNDER THE INCOME - TAX ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE DECLARATION IN VDIS, 1997 WAS MADE ONLY AFTER SEARCH ACTION, HENCE, THE DISCLOSURE OF TOTAL INCOME WAS TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 158BB OF THE ACT AND WAS TAXED FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD UNDER SECTION 113 OF THE ACT. THE CONTENTION OF 8 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF INCOME OF RS.1 LAKH DECLARED FOR THE CURRENT YEAR WAS ACCEPTED AND THE SAME WAS NOT TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME BECAUSE THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE CURRENT YEAR WAS DUE TO BE FILED ON OR BEFORE 31.08.1998 I.E. AFTER THE SEARCH ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPUTED THE TOTAL INCOME INCLUDING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AT RS.6,65,000/ - AND AFTER GIVING BENEFIT OF REGULAR INCOME DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1 LAKH , ASSESSED THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER SECTION 158BB OF THE ACT AT RS.5,65,000/ - IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE I.E. SMT. UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR . THE TA XES ON THE SAME WERE WORKED OUT @ 60%. 10. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND POINTED OUT THAT THERE WAS BAR AGAINST THE IMMUNITY UNDER THE VDIS, 1997 ONLY IN THOSE CASES WHERE AN ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS TAKEN. HE SUBMITTED THAT WHERE THE SCHEME WAS SIGNED BY THE PRESIDENT ON 14.05.1997 AND IT CAME INTO OPERATION W.E.F. 01.07.1997 , THEN THE SCHEME WAS ONLY 14.05.1997 AND IT CAME INTO OPERATION W.E.F. 01.07.1997 , THEN THE SCHEME WAS ONLY APPLICABLE TO THE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT TAKEN BEFORE THE SCHEME CAME INTO OPERATION. SINCE THE SCHEME REFERRED TO ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT IN THE PAST TENSE AND WHERE THE SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT AFTER THE SCHEME CAME INTO OPERATION, THE IMMUNITY UNDER VD IS, 1997 WAS AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE HELD THAT THERE WAS NEITHER ANY RATIONAL BEHIND SUCH AN INTERPRETATION NOR THE CONTE XT WARRANTED IT AND UPHELD THE ORDER OF ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD. 11. THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) AND THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST DENIAL OF IMMUNITY AND BENEFITS OF VDIS, 1997 , TO THE ASSESSEE , PARTICULARLY WHEN THE ISSUE WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT AT AURANGABAD BENCH IN WRIT PETITION. AN ALTERNATE PLEA BY WAY OF AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT IF IT IS 9 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED TO FILE A DECLARATION UNDER VDIS, 1997 AND THE SAME IS NONEST AND VOID AB INITIO , THEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE DIRECTED TO GIVE CREDIT OF TAXES PAID UNDER VDIS, 1997 AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER THE IMPUGNED BLOCK ASSESSMENT. THE ISSUE RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS A LEGAL ISSUE, WHICH DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY ADJUDICATION OF FACTS AND HENCE, THE SAME IS ADMITTED THOUGH, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BY ANY AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR BY THE ASSESSEE HERSELF. 12. ON PERUSAL OF RECORD AND AFTER HEARING THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRES ENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE AND AN ORDER PASSED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, BENCH AT AURANGABAD IN WP NO.5065/1999 , WE PROCEED TO DECIDE THE PRESENT APPEAL. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF THE A SSESSEE ON 10/11, JULY, 1997, DURING WHICH VARIOUS DOCUMENTS, BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER INCRIMINATING MATERIAL WAS SEIZED AND IMPOUNDED. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE DOCUMENTS AND IMPOUNDED. THE ASSESSEE WAS CONFRONTED WITH THE ENTRIES IN THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED AND IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH , THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED TO THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.6,65,000/ - , OUT OF WHICH RS.1 LAKH RELATED TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 , I.E. THE YEAR OF SEARCH AND THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR WHICH WAS STILL NOT DUE. BEFORE THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS COULD B E TAKEN UP, THE ASSESSEE MADE A DISCLOSURE UNDER THE VDIS, 1997 OF INCOME TOTALING RS.5,65,000/ - RELATING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD, EX CEPT TO THE INCOME OF RS.1 LAKH, WHICH RELATED TO THE YEAR OF SEARCH. THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER W AS THAT SINCE IT HAD DECLARED THE ADDITIONAL INCOME UNDER VDIS, 1997, THERE WAS AN IMMUNITY PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY, NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME COULD BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED R EGULAR RETURN OF INCOME RE LATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 AND DECLARED INCOME OF RS.1 LAKH. 10 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. 13. THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS THAT WHERE THE SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 10/11, JULY, 1997 AND W HERE THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A DECLARATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME, BY WAY OF RECORDING OF STATEMENT UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, CAN THE ASSESSEE AVAIL THE IMMUNITY PROVIDED UNDER VDIS, 1997 BY MAKING A DECLARATION OF THE AFORESAID AMOUNT UNDER THE SAID S CHEME? THE ASSESSEE BY WAY OF WRIT PETITION RAISED THE SAID ISSUE BEFORE THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, BENCH AT AURANGABAD. THE SAID WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHER ASSESSEES OF THE GROUP HAVE BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 2 7 .03.2015. IT MAY BE PUT ON RECORD THAT INITIALLY, THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REQUEST THAT THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BE KEPT PENDING SINCE THE WRIT PETITION WAS ADMITTED BEFO RE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND THE SAME WAS PENDING FOR ADJUDICATION. THE SAID WRIT PETITION HAS BEEN DECIDED ON 27.03.2015 . THE APPEAL THEREAFTER WAS FIXED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 30.03.2015 , 13.07.2015, 19.10.2015 AND FINALLY ON 11.01.2016 , THOUGH THE E ARLIER COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE ASSESSEE WITHDREW HIS POWER OF ATTORNEY ON 13.07.2015, BUT THE DISMISSAL OF WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE GROUP OF ASSESSEE S, WAS NOT BROUGHT TO THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE TRIBUNAL. THEREAFTER, NEW COUNSEL APPEARED ON 19.10.2015 AND FURNISHED HER POWER OF ATTORNEY IN SOME OF THE CASES OF GROUP, BUT NOT IN ALL. THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION BY ANY COUNSEL ON BEHALF OF BALANCE ASSESSEES. ON 11.01.2016 ALSO IN THE CASE OF ONE ASSESSEE , AN APPLICATION WAS MOVED FOR ADJOURNMENT ON THE GRO UND THAT SLP WAS PENDING BEFORE THE HON BLE SUPREME COURT. HOWEVER, THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE HAS FURNISHED ON RECORD THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, UNDER WHICH THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE AURA NGABAD BENCH OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD NOT BE ENTITLED FOR IMMUNITY UNDER THE SAID VDIS, 1997 , WHEREIN SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WAS 11 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. CARRIED OUT AND BECAUSE OF THE SAME, THE SCHEME OF VDIS, 1997 WAS NOT APPLICABLE. RELIANCE IN THIS REGARD WAS PLACED ON THE DECISION OF APEX COURT IN HEM ALATHA GARGYA VS. CIT, AP & ANOTHER (20 0 3) 9 S CC 51 0 , WHEREIN THE APEX COURT HAD HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E WAS NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF SCHEME. THE PERUSAL OF THE SAID JUDGMENT REFLECTS THAT THE COUNSEL FOR THE PETITIONER HAD RELIED ON THE SAID JUDGMENT TO CONTEND THAT IF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ENTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF SCHEME, THEN THE REVENUE AUTHORI TIES SHOULD REFUND OR ADJUST THE AMOUNT PAID BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE VDIS, 1997. THE SAID CONTENTION OF THE PETITIONERS WAS OBJECTED TO BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE RESPONDENTS THAT THE PETITIONERS WERE NOT ENTITLED FOR THE REFUND OF AMOUNT AND ALSO N O INTEREST WAS TO BE AWARDED WHILE REFUNDING THE AMOUNT. HOWEVER, THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION HELD AS UNDER: - 11. IT IS HELD THAT, THE PETITIONERS WOULD NOT BE E NTITLED FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE SAID SCHEME, IN EFFECT THE SAID SCHEME WO ULD NOT BE APPLICABLE TO THE PETITIONERS. IT IS SUBMITTED THAT, A SEARCH U/SEC. 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT WAS MADE AND BECAUSE OF THE SAME, THE SCHEME OF V.D.I.S. IS NOT APPLICABLE. 12. THE APEX COURT IN A CASE OF HEML ATHA GARGYA VS. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, A.P. AND ANOTHER REFERRED SUPRA HAS OBSERVED THAT, HAVING HELD THAT, ASSESSEE ARE NOT ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF THE SCHEME SINCE THE PAYMENTS MADE BY THEM ARE NOT IN TERMS OF THE SCHEME, THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES ARE TO BE DIRECTED TO REFUND OR ADJUST THE AMOUNT ALREADY DEPOSITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE PURPORTED COMPLIANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE SCHEME. 13. IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE ONLY LIMITED ORDER THAT COULD BE PASSED IS THAT THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEPOSITED B Y PETITIONER NOS.2, 4, 5, 6 AND 7 PURSUANT TO DECLARATION UNDER THE V.D.I.S. IS REQUIRED TO BE ADJUSTED IN TAX LIABILITY, IF ANY, OF THESE PETITIONERS AND IF AS ON DATE THERE IS NO TAX LIABILITY OUTSTANDING AGAINST THESE PETITIONER NOS.2, 4, 5, 6 AND 7, TH EN THE AMOUNT OF TAX PAID BY THESE PETITIONERS PURSUANT TO THE DECLARATION UNDER V.D.I.S. WILL HAVE TO BE REFUNDED TO THESE PETITIONERS. 14. THE HONBLE HIGH COURT FURTHER DIRECTED THE DEPARTMENT TO AWARD NOMINAL INTEREST @ 6% PER ANNUM FROM THE DATE OF PETITION I.E. SEPTEMBER, 1999 . HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS TO BE RESTRICTED TO THE EXTENT OF PETITIONERS PROSECUTING WRIT PETITION. IT MAY BE CLARIFIED HEREIN THAT SOME OF THE PETITIONERS HAD WITHDRA WN THEIR WRIT PETITION AND THE SAME WAS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS PETITIONER NO.7 IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION NO.506 5 /1999 AND THE ORDER OF THE HONBLE 12 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. HIGH COURT HAS BEEN PASSED IN HER CASE. SIMILARLY, THE OTHER ASSESSEES BEFORE US WERE THE PETITIONERS IN THE SAID WRIT PETITION I.E. BHARAT MAHAR U PAWAR, PETITIONER NO.6, RAJENDRA POPATRAO SHINDE, PETITIONER NO.4, PRITHVIRAJ CHANDRAKANT SHINDE, PETITIONER NO.5 AND BHIKAN BAPU SHELKE, PETITIONER NO.2 AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE WRIT PETITION WAS IN RESPECT OF THE PETITIONER NOS.2 AND 4 TO 7. IN VIEW OF THE SAID ORDER BEING PASSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ENTITLED TO THE IMMUNITY AND BENEFITS OF VDIS, 1997, IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL INCOME SURRENDERED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AND CONSEQUENTLY, SUM OF RS.5,65,000/ - IS TO BE ASSESSED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. FURTHER, FOLLOWING THE DIRECTIONS OF THE HONBLE HIGH COURT, WE HOLD THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO THE REFUND OF TAXES PAID UNDER THE VDIS, 1997 ALONG WITH INTERES T @ 6% FROM SEPTEMBER, 1999, THE SAME MAY BE ADJUSTED AGAINST THE DEMAND RAISED UNDER THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, DISMISSED AND THE ALTERNATE PLEA RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE V IDE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS THUS, ALLOWED. ITA NOS. 1304/PN/2005 & 1233/PN/2015 15. THE CROSS APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE RELATE TO THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BC(C) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD I.E. FROM 0 1.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997 . THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS IN ITA NO.588/PN/2004 I.E. IT WAS ENTITLED TO THE BENEFIT OF VDIS, 1997 AND THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME SHOULD BE ASSESSED AT RS.NIL DURING THE BLOCK PERIOD, BY WAY OF GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1. THE ISSUE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 IS IN RESPECT OF ALLOWANCE OF CREDIT FOR TAXES PAID UNDER VDIS, 1997. THE FACTS AND ISSUE ARISING IN THE PRESENT APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS AND ISSUE IN ITA NO.588/PN/2004 AND OUR DECISION IN ITA NO.588/PN/2004 SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 IS DISMISSED AND THE GROUND OF 13 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AS THE ISSUE IS SAME AS RAISED BY WAY OF ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IN I TA NO.588/PN/2004 . 16. NOW, COMING TO THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 , WHICH IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT A MEMBER OF SO - CALLED AOP I.E. MAHENDRA AUTO SERVICES. THE CIT(A) VIDE PARA 8.1 HAD OBSERVED THAT CERTAIN DIARIES N O.A - 37, A - 39 AND A - 40 WERE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI G.M. WADI, WHEREIN IT WAS NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE ALONG WITH FIVE OTHERS OF THIS GROUP WERE ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SELLING ADULTERATED DIESEL AND PROFITS DERIVED THERE FROM WERE BEING SHARED BY THEM IN A DEFINITE PROPORTION. THE WORKING OF THE PROFIT FOR THE MONTHS OF MAY, 1997, JUNE, 1997 AND JULY, 1997 (UPTO 09.07.1997) WERE ALSO GIVEN IN THESE DIARIES. BASED ON THE ENTRIES IN THE SAID DIARIES, THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONCLUDED THAT THE AOP EXISTED IN THE NAME AND STYLE OF M/S. MAHENDRA AUTO SERVICES AND THEREFORE, SAME DESERVES TO BE ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF AOP. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF AOP. THE CIT(A) THUS, HELD THAT THE SAID INCOME WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF AOP AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF INDIVIDUAL IN LINE WITH HIS APPELLATE ORDER DATED 10.03.2005 IN THE CASE OF M/S. MAHENDRA AUTO SERVICES . FURTHER, SINCE NO OTHER EVIDENCE WAS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH INDICATING EXISTENC E OF ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME OTHER THAN DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT, THE CIT(A) HELD THAT THE INCOME DECLARED FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998 - 99 WAS TO BE EXCLUDED FROM THE COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME. HOWEVER, INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS WAS THE NET UNDISCLOSED INCOME, WHICH WAS DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FINDING OF THE CIT(A), WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 14 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. 17. THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1233/PN/2005 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.7,87,000/ - PERTAINING TO THE BROKEN PERIOD I.E. 01.04.1997 TO 10.07.1997 , WHICH WAS EXCLUDED SINCE IT PERTAINS TO THE REGULAR INCOME OF THE CURRENT YEAR. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE FAIRLY ADMITTED THAT THE SAID APPEAL OF THE REVENUE MERITS TO BE DISMISSED SINCE THE TAX EFFECT WAS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF CBDT CIRCULAR NO.21/2015, DATED 10.12.2015 , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL FIL ED BY THE REVENUE BEING NOT MAINTAINABLE FOR LOW TAX EFFECT. ITA NOS.1305/PN/2005 & 1235/PN/2005 18. THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1987 TO 10.07.1997. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS IDENTI CAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE EARLIER APPEALS I.E. ITA NO.1304/PN/2005 . SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE S ARE IDENTICAL , GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUE S ARE IDENTICAL , GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 19. NOW, COMING TO THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1235/PN/2005 . THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN ITA NO.1233/PN/2005 AND THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE RE VENUE, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LINE WITH INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT CIRC ULAR NO.21/2015, DATED 10.12.2015. 15 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. ITA NOS. 1292/PN/2005 & 1237/PN/2005 20. THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO.1292/PN/2005 HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS IN ITA NO. 1304/PN/2005 AND SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE SIMILAR, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 21. NOW, COMING TO THE CROSS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.1237/PN/2005. THE ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE IN ITA NO.1233/PN/2005 AND THE TAX EFFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS BELOW RS.10 LAKHS. IN VIEW OF THE ADMISSION OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE, WE DISMISS THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS NOT MAINTAINABLE IN LINE WITH INSTRUCTIONS ISSUED BY THE CBDT CIRC ULAR NO.21/2015, DATED 10.12.2015. ITA NO.1717/PN/2005 22. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS RAISED IDENTICAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AS IN ITA NO.1304/PN/2005 AND SINCE THE FACTS AND ISSUES ARE SIMILAR, THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.1 RAISED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED, GROUND OF APPEAL NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.3 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 23. AN ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL BY WAY OF GROUND OF APP EAL NO.4 HAS BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ENHANCEMENT OF ASSESSED INCOME OF RS. 7,54,464/ - BEING ADDITIONAL INVESTMENT IN DEWARPADA (MALEGAON) PETROL P U MP FROM THE PAPERS F OUND UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT. 16 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. 24. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS RELATING TO THE ISSUE BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE AN INVESTMENT IN DEWARPADA (MALEGAON) PETROL PUMP AMOUNTING TO RS.26,56,120/ - AND FURTHER AN INVESTMENT OF RS.7,54,464/ - IN THE SAME PETROL PUMP WAS NOTICED DURING THE COURSE OF S EARCH UNDER SECTION 133A OF THE ACT ON THE PREMISES OF M/S. ROYAL FINANCE IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE INVESTMENT MADE BY M/S. ROYAL FINANCE WAS INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.26,51,120/ - . HOWEVER, DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS WHEN THE DOCUMENTS FOUND FOR BOTH THE INVESTMENTS WERE RECONCILED, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THOUGH THE PERIOD OF INVESTMENT IN BOTH THE CASES WERE MORE OR LESS IDENTICAL, THE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE O N INVESTMENT DID NOT TALLY. THE CIT(A) IN THIS VIEW OBSERVED THAT BOTH THE INVESTMENTS WERE INDEPENDENT OF EACH OTHER AND REQUIRED TO BE EXPLAINED ACCORDINGLY. ON BEING DIRECTED BY THE CIT(A) VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 05.10.2004 , THE ASSESSING OFFICER CALLED FOR CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHO SUBMITTED REPLY ON 21.10.2004, IN WHICH IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE INVESTMENT WAS ALMOST DURING THE SAME PERIOD, THEY WERE NOT SEPARATE FROM EACH OTHER. THE CIT(A) DID NOT ACCEPT T HE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASONS THAT THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE BY M/S. ROYAL FINANCE DID NOT RECONCILE WITH THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT MADE IN DEWARPADA (MALEGAON) PETROL PUMP BY THE ASSESSEE. NEITHER THE DATES NOR THE AMOUNTS OR FOR TH AT MATTER, ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE TALL IED ON THE ANY ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, THE SAID AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS ENHANCED TO THAT EXTENT. THE RELEVANT FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A) ARE VIDE PARA 9 AT PAGE 8 OF THE APPE LLATE ORDER. 25. THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US HAS FAILED TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT(A). DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT CLARIFICATION FROM THE ASSESSEE, WHO SUBMITTED ITS REPLY ON 21.10.2004 . HOWEVER, THE CIT(A) REJECTED THE SAME, IN VIEW OF THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE DATES AND THE 17 ITA NO S . 588 /PN/20 0 4 & 7 ORS SMT.UJJWALA SANJAY PAWAR & ORS. AMOUNTS OF INVESTMENT AND ALSO THE ITEMS OF EXPENDITURE NOT BEING TALLIED. THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO RECONCILE THE DIFFERENCE BEFORE US AND IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THUS, PARTLY ALLOWED. 26 . IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE PARTLY ALLOWED AND ALL THE APPEALS OF THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 15 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 201 6 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 15 TH JANUARY , 201 6 . GCVSR GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - II , AURANGABAD ; 4. / THE CIT - I , NASHIK ; 5. , , / DR A , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE