ITO, Ward 1(3), Nashik V. Shri Pravin Paraji Karanjkar L/H Late Shri Paraji Abaji Karanjkar, Nashik

ITA 591/PUN/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0892 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-11-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 18-08-2015
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: B C MALAKAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Document seized; Reasonable cause; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 142(1)

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. 591 /PN/201 3 BLOCK PERIOD : 01.04.1996 TO 25 . 03 . 2003 THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 3, NASHIK . / APPELLANT VS. SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR L/H LATE SHRI PARAJI ABAJI KARANJKAR GANGAPUR ROAD, NASHIK. . / RESPONDENT PAN: ATZPK9835B / APPELLANT BY : S HRI B.C. MALAKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK / DATE OF HEARING : 1 9 .0 8 .2015 / DATE OF PRON OUNCEMENT: 10 . 11 .2015 / ORDER PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, JM: THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT (A) - I , NASHIK , DATED 2 4 . 12 .201 2 RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 25.03.2003 AGAINST ORDER PASSED U NDER SECTION 158BD R.W.S. 1 43(3) OF THE ACT OF THE INCOME - TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) . 2. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL: - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ADMITTING ADDITIONAL GROUNDS WHICH HAD NOT B EEN FILED EARLIER BEFORE CIT(A), NAGPUR DURING THE ORIGINAL APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS . ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 2 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN QUASHING THE NOTICE U / S 158 B D AND ANNULLING THE ORDER PASSED U / S 158B D OF THE ACT. 3. O N THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO PROVISIONS FOR AN ASSESSMENT U / S 158B D AND THAT NO NOTICE CAN BE ISSUED U / S 158B D AND NO BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE PASSED U / S 158B D OF THE I.T. ACT. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,50,550 / - IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN ACCEPTING FRESH EVIDE NCE IN VIOLATION OF RULES 46A. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN A LLOWING IN DELETING THE LEVY OF INTEREST OF RS.219323 U / S 158BF(1) MADE BY THE AO. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAI NST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN QUASHING THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND ALSO ANNULLING THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT . FURTHER, THE REVENUE VIDE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 IS ALSO AGITATED BY THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING TH E ADDITION OF RS.14,50,550/ - IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 4. FIRST, WE SHALL ADDRESS ON THE MERITS OF ADDITION BEFORE ADJUDICATING THE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 5. BRIEFLY, IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE PRESENT APPEAL IS FILED BY LEGAL HEI R OF SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132(1) OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI Y.P. TR IVEDI AND SHRI J.M. JHALA , THE PARTNERS OF THE SA ID FIRM. CERTAIN BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED FROM THE SAID PREMISES. THE DOCUMENT MARKED AS ANNEXURE A - 2 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI SHOWED C ERTAIN CASH PAYMENTS MADE BY RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS ON VARIOUS DATES IN RESPECT OF LANDS / PLOTS PURCHASED / TAKEN FOR DEVELOPMENT FROM THE ASSESSEE. THERE WAS AN AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT NO.42 OF S.NO.705/2/1/3/4 5, ADMEASURING 626.62 SQ. MTRS. THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS FIXED AT RS.3,75,978/ - . IT WAS SEEN FROM THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A - 2 THAT CASH OF RS.9,45,000/ - WAS ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 3 MADE ON VARIOUS DATES. THERE WAS ANOTHER DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT DATED 17.06.1997 IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.33 OF FINAL PLOT NO.434 OF SURVEY NO.705/2/1/3 . IN VIEW OF THE SAID INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENT FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, INTIMATION WAS SENT TO ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, NASHIK , AFTER RECORDING SATISFACTION NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME WITHIN 15 DAYS FROM THE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE ASSESSEE F A ILED TO FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME AND NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED. THE ASSESSEE IN RESPONSE, REQUESTED FOR SU PPLY OF DOCUMENTS, WHICH IN TURN WERE SUPPLIED TO THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY BANK STATEMENT OR ANY OTHER BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HOWEVER, AN EXPLANATION WAS FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS FOR WHICH THE NOTICES WERE ISSUED WERE IN CONNECTION WITH THE TRANSACTION ENTERED INTO BY HIS FATHER. THE ASSESSEE I.E. LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI PARAJI ABAJI KARANJKAR POINTED OUT THAT HE HAD NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT ALL THESE TRANSACTIONS T ILL HE GOT COPY OF SEIZED PAPERS AND EVEN AFTER GETTING THE COPY OF ORDERS, HE WAS NOT AWARE OF THE SIGNIFICANCE OF SEIZED DOCUMENTS. HE FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT THESE DOCUMENTS HAD NO RELEVANCE TO THE ADDITION PROPOSED IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. THE ASSESS EE ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SEIZED PAPERS ITSELF WOULD REVEAL THAT THE SALE WAS EFFECTED PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF BLOCK PERIOD ON 01.04.1996 AND THE PURCHASER WAS PUT INT O THE POSSESSION OF PROPERTY ON FINALIZATION OF THE AGREEMENT, PRIOR TO COMMENCEMENT OF CONSTRUCTION ON 16.02.1996 . THUS, WHERE THE TRANSFER HAD TAKEN PLACE BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF THE BLOCK PERIOD, THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ASSESSING THE INCOME FROM SALE OF PLOT NO.42 FROM SR. NO.705/2/1 OF NASHIK, AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF FATHE R OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SECOND ALLEGATION OF CASH PAYMENT IN RESPECT OF TWO TRANSACTIONS OF SALE OF PROPERTY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ALLEGATIONS WERE TOTALLY FALSE AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 4 EXPLAINED THAT IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AT ANNEXURE A - 2 AT NO PLACE THE N AME OF HIS FATHER WAS APPEARING. FURTHER, IN BOTH THE AFFIDAVITS SUBMITTED BY SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI AND SHRI J.M. JHALA, IT WAS STATED THAT THE ALLEGED CASH IN EXCESS OVER THE DOCUMENTED PRICE, WAS PAID TO SHRI NARE N DRA THAKKER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES AND NOT TO HIS FATHER. THUS, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION THAT THE DECEASED FATHER HAD BEEN PAID ANY CASH, IN EXCESS OVER THE DOCUMENTED PRICE, FOR THE PROPERTIES SOLD TO M/S. RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, NO ADDITION WAS WARRANTED. THE SALE OF PLOT NO.42 WAS ON 15.03.1996 AND THE SALE OF PLOT NO.33 WAS ON 17.0 6 .1997 AND THE CASH IN EXCESS OVER THE DOCUMENT PRICE WAS CLAIMED TO BE PAID THEREAFTER , WHICH WAS NOT REAL LIFE SITUATION. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER REJECTING THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE EVIDENCE AVAILABLE ON RECORD, HELD THAT SUM OF RS. 26,09,350/ - PASSED FROM RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS TO THE ASSESSEE AS BALANCE CONSIDERATION IN CASH OVER AND ABOVE THE DOCUMENTED D EED OF DEVELOPMENT OVER PLOT NO.33 OF FINAL PLOT NO.434 OF SURVEY NO.705/2/1/3 , SINCE THE ASSESSEE WAS CO - OWNER OF THE PROPERTY, THUS ONLY HIS SHARE OF RS.14,49,000/ - WAS ASSESSED IN HIS HANDS. 6. THE CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AT NO PLA CE THE NAME OF ASSESSEE WAS APPEARING FOR PAYMENT OF ANY ON - MONEY. IN THE AFFIDAVITS OF PARTNERS OF M/S. RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS, IT WAS NOT THEIR CLAIM THAT THEY HAD PAYMENT OF ANY ON - MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE OR TO ANYONE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, IN THE STATEMENTS RECORDED, IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSEE S BLOCK PERIOD ASSESSMENT, OF SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI AND SHRI NARENDRA THAKKER, THEY HAVE STATED THAT THEY DO NOT KNOW THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) THUS, OBSERVED THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE IN POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON - MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE , THERE WAS NO MERIT IN ANY ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. CONSEQUENTLY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS.14,50,550/ - WAS HELD TO BE UNWARRANTED AND DELETED. ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 5 7. THE REVENUE IS IN APPE AL AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 8. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENT ANNEXURE A - 2, THERE WAS CASH PAYMENT OF RS.26,09,350/ - AND THE ASSESSEE BEING CO - OW NER IN THE SAID PROPERTY, HALF SHARE WAS ASSESSABLE IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE. 9. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE ON THE OTHER HAND, REFERRED TO THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AND POINTED OUT THAT IT SHOWED PAYMENT ON VARIOUS DATES. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHILE COMPLETI NG ASSESSMENT IN THE HANDS OF RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS HAD GIVEN A FINDING IN THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 153 A R.W.S. 143 (3) OF THE ACT THAT NO SUCH PAYMENT WAS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE, THEN THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF ANY SATISFACTION FOR INITIATING TH E PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE STRESSED THAT IN THE AFFIDAVIT, SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI HAD STRESSED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SHRI NARENDRA Y.P. TRIVEDI HAD STRESSED THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TO SHRI NARENDRA THAKKER FOR PURCHASE OF PLOTS, BUT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY CASH PAYMENTS BEING MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD, PLACED RELIANCE ON THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. M/S. MANOJ MARKETING PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.965/PN/ 2008 AND IN M/S. MANOJ MARKETING PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT IN CO NO.28/PN/2009 , RELATING TO BLOCK PERIOD 1997 - 98 TO 2003 - 04 , ORDER DATED 30.01.2015 , WHEREIN SIMILAR DIARY E NTRIES WERE FOUND AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED ON - MONE Y, THE ADDITION WAS DELETED. 10. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE FIRST ASPECT TO BE CONSIDERED IS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS LEGAL HEIR OF SHRI PARAJI ABAJI KARANJKAR , WHO HAD EXPIRED ON 18.10.2002 . THE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE THER EAFTER IN THE HANDS OF LEGAL HEIR I.E. HIS SON ON THE PREMISE THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATIONS AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF M/S. RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 6 & DEVELOPERS AND RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ITS PARTNERS SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI AND SHRI J.M.JHALA, CERTAIN DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED , WHICH REFLECTED CASH PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED WERE TWO I.E. AGREEMENT FOR PURCHASE OF PLOT NO.42 , WHEREIN THE TOTAL SALE CONSIDERATION WAS RS.3,75,978/ - FOR PLOT NO.42 O F S.NO.705/2/1/3/45 . THOUGH, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VARIOUS ALLEGATIONS WERE MADE IN RESPECT OF THE SAID PLOT, BUT IN THE FINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING PASSED, NO ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SAID TRANSACTION. ANOTHER DOCUMENT SEIZED FROM M/S. RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELO PERS WAS THE AGREEMENT FOR DEVELOPMENT DATED 17.06.1997 IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.33 OF FINAL PLOT NO.434 OF SURVEY NO.705/2/1/3 . THE CONTENTION OF LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT THE ALLEGATION OF CASH PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSE E WAS FALSE AND CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT IN THE SEIZED PAPER ANNEXURE 2 I.E. THE ENTRIES IN THE DIARY AT NO PLACE THE NAME OF HIS FATHER SHRI PARAJI ABAJI KARANJKAR WAS APPEARING. FURTHER, RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON AFFIDAVITS SUBM ITTED BY SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI AND SHRI J.M. JHALA, IN WHICH IT WAS STATED THAT THE CASH IN EXCESS OF SALE CONSIDERATION WAS PAID TO SHRI NARENDRA THAKKER OR HIS REPRESENTATIVES AND NOT TO FATHER OF ASSESSEE. ANOTHER CONTENTION RAISED BY THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS THAT SALE IN RESPECT OF PLOT NO.434 OF SURVEY NO.705/2/1 OF NASHIK HAD TAKEN PLACE ON 17.06.1997 AND CASH IN EXCESS OVER THE DOCUMENT PRICE WAS CLAIMED TO BE PAID THEREAFTER. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND C IRCUMSTANCES, THE ISSUE ARISING BEFORE US IS WHETHER THERE IS ANY MERIT IN THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TREATING ON - MONEY AS ADDITIONAL INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) DELETED THE SAID ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENC E REGARDING RECEIPT OF ON - MONEY BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN THIS REGARD, IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY EVIDENCE FOUND OF CASH PAYMENT MADE TO THE ASSESSEE AND IN VIEW OF THE OTHER EVIDENCE I.E. AFFIDAVIT OF SHRI Y.P. TRIVEDI AND SHRI J.M. JHALA AND THE NARRATION OF ALLEGED CASH HAVING BEEN PAID AFTER THE ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 7 DATE OF EXECUTION OF SALE DEED, NO RELIANCE COULD BE PLACED ON THE AFORESAID ADDITION TO HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS IN RECEIPT OF ON - MONEY. 11. WE FIN D SIMILAR ISSUE OF THE DOCUMENT SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON M/S. RUSHIRAJ BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS AND THE STATEMENT OF ITS PARTNERS, AROSE BEFORE PUNE BENCH OF TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. M/S. MANOJ MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND THE TRIBUNAL DELETED THE ADDITION IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IN TURN RELYING ON THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL ITSELF IN THE CASE OF ONE OF THE PARTNERS I.E. SHRI JITENDRA M. THAKKER, WHEREIN NO ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE ABSENCE OF AN Y CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE. IN THE TOTALITY OF THE ABOVE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ACIT VS. M/S. MANOJ MARKETING PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) AND IN THE ABSENCE OF CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE FOUND EVIDENCING THE PAYM ENT OF ON - MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE STAND OF REVENUE IN THIS REGARD. THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.4 RAISED BY THE REVENUE THUS, IS DISMISSED. IN VIEW OF OUR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON MERIT, WE DO NOT OUR UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION ON MERIT, WE DO NOT FIND I T NECESSARY TO ADJUDICATE JURISDICTIONAL ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT AND COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 158BD R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT. 12. THE OTHER ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF INTEREST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 158BFA(1) OF THE ACT. 13. THE F ACTS AND ISSUE CONSIDERED BY THE CIT(A) IN THIS REGARD ARE AS UNDER: - 9.1 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND ALSO APPLIED MY MIND TO THE POSITION OF THE LAW ON THIS ISSUE. TH E ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY DEMONSTRATED THAT THE DELAY IN FURNISHING OF THE BLOCK PERIOD RETURN OCCURRED FOR VALID REASON. ADMITTEDLY, IN ABSENCE OF PAN, IT WAS IMPOSSIBLE FOR THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT BLOCK PERIOD RETURN IN THE CAPACITY OF LEGAL HEIR. IN FACT THE DELAY HAS OCCURRED DUE TO DELAY ON THE PART OF A.O. TO ALLOT THE ASSESSEE A PAN. THUS, THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE AND THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPECTED TO DO IMPOSSIBILITY. HENCE, UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND BY RELYING ON T HE ITAT DECISIONS REPORTED AT 113 ITD 377 & 103 ITD ITA NO. 591 /PN/201 3 SHRI PRAVIN PARAJI KARANJKAR 8 66, IT IS HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT LIABLE TO INTEREST U/S 158BFA(1). THEREFORE, THE 6 TH GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 14. IN VIEW OF THE FINDING OF CIT(A), WHERE THE ASSESSEE BEING THE LEGAL HEIR O F HIS FATHER , WAS UNABLE TO FURNISH THE RETURN OF INCOME IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 158BD OF THE ACT FOR NON - ISSUE OF PAN NUMBER, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND THE SAME IS DISMISSED . THUS, T HE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. 1 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER P RONOUNCED ON THIS 10 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER , 201 5 . SD/ - SD/ - (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / JUDICIAL MEMBER / PUNE ; DATED : 10 TH NOVEMBER , 2015 . GCVSR / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (A) - I, NASHIK ; 4. / THE CIT - I, NASHIK ; 5. , , / DR B , ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER , // TRUE COPY // / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE