Shri. Kirtikumar Vishnudas Bhutada, Latur V. ITO, Central,- 1 Nashik., Nashik

ITA 611/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 61124514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VERMA
• Assessee Lawyers: SUNIL PATHAK
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Depreciation; Search and seizure; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 611/PN/2012 (ASSTT.YEAR : 2004-05) KIRTIKUMAR VISHNUDAS BHUTADA, 79-C, MARKET YARD, KAVA ROAD, LATUR - 413512 .. APPELLANT PAN NO.ABIPB5299B VS. ITO, CENTRAL-1, NASHIK .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : SHRI SUNIL PATHAK RESPONDENT BY : SMT. M.S. VERMA DATE OF HEARING : 28-11-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29-11-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 24-02-2012 OF THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK RELATING TO ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2004-05. 2. ADDITION OF RS.21,43,960/- ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTM ENT IN PROPERTIES BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A) I S THE ONLY GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL. 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF MANUFACTURING OF DAL AND PULSES. HE FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME ON 21-10-2004 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.3,54,673/-. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION IN THIS CASE WAS CONDUCTE D U/S.132(1) ON 28-08- 2008. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S.153A, THE ASSE SSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME DISCLOSING THE SAME INCOME AS DECLARED IN TH E ORIGINAL RETURN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AS SESSING OFFICER 2 OBSERVED FORM THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS PURCHASED VARIOUS PROPERTIES AS PER PAGE 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THE PURCHASE CO NSIDERATION OF SUCH PROPERTIES WAS RS.16,74,600/- AND THE PURCHASE EXPE NSES FOR SUCH PROPERTIES WAS RS.4,69,360/-. ON BEING QUESTIONED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ABOVE INVESTMENTS ARE NOT ACCOUNTED FOR AND ARE MADE OUT OF UNEXPLAINED SOURCE OF INCOME. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.21,43,960 /-. 4. IN APPEAL THE LD.CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION SO M ADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE C ASE, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS. ON PERUSAL IT IS NOTICED T HAT THE APPELLANT HAD MADE INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES TOTALING RS. 16,41,700/- AND ALSO INCURRED PURCHASE EXPENSES SUCH AS STAMP DUTY, ETC. TO COMPLETE THE LEGAL FORMALITIES AND SPENT RS.4,69,360/-. BEFORE THE ASSE SSING OFFICER AS WELL AS BEFORE ME, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO SATISFA CTORILY EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE ABOVE INVESTMENT TOTALING RS.21,43,960/-. TH E ID. A.R,, FURTHER, HAS MADE AN ALTERNATIVE PLEA THAT THE ASSESSEE'S BROTHE R SHRI ANAND BHUTADA HAS MADE DISCLOSURE OF ADDITIONAL INCOME OF RS.1 CRORE, THEREFORE, THE TELESCOPING BENEFIT MAY BE ALLOWED, IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLAN T. THIS ARGUMENT OF THE LD. A.R. IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE NO DISCLOSURE OF ADD ITIONAL INCOME HAS BEEN MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE HIMSELF FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER APPEAL. CONSEQUENTLY, INVESTMENT OF RS.16,74,600/- IN THE PROPERTIES HAS BEEN RIGHTLY TAXED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AND DO ES NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE ON THIS COUNT. WITH REGARD, TO THE PUR CHASE EXPENSES OF RS.4,69,360/-, THE LD. A.R. PLEADED THAT THESE WERE INCURRED BY THE SELLERS AND NOT BY THE PURCHASERS. NO CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE WAS HOWEVER FILED IN THIS REGARD. THEREFORE, THIS ARGUMENT IS UNSUBSTANTIATED , HENCE REJECTED. MOREOVER, IN THE PURCHASE/SALE TRANSACTIONS INVOLVI NG IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES, ETC. THE STAMP DUTY AND OTHER LEGAL CHARG ES ARE ORDINARILY PAID BY THE PURCHASER. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THESE WERE BORNE BY SELLERS. CONSEQUENTLY, THE DECISION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TAXING THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF RS. 21,43,960/- IS IN ORDER AND THE SAME IS CONFIRMED. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 4.1 AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASS ESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 3 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS A SEARCH EARLIER IN THIS CASE ON 02-05-2002 AND THE BLOCK AS SESSMENT WAS MADE FOR THE PERIOD FROM 01-04-1996 TO 02-05-2002. IN THE C OURSE OF THE SAID ASSESSMENT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE ADDITION OF RS.76,25,950/- BEING NEGATIVE CASH BALANCE ON SEVERAL DAYS ON ACCO UNT OF CASH DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNTS AND ON ACCOUNT OF CASH EXPENDITURE. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION WAS CONFIRMED BY THE CIT(A) AND ON FU RTHER APPEAL THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED SET OFF OF THE UNDISCLOSED INC OME WITH THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF EXCESS STOCK OF RS.56,18,318/-. THUS, THE TRIBUNAL HAS SUSTAINED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,07,812/-. HE ACCO RDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT THIS CASH BALANCE IS AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE FO R MAKING INVESTMENT IN PROPERTY IN THIS YEAR AND THEREFORE SET OFF SHOULD BE GRANTED TO THIS EXTENT IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITION MADE IN THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDING 02-05-2002. 5.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIG H COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. K. SREEDHARAN REPORTED IN 201 ITR 1010 H E SUBMITTED THAT THE HONBLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS ALLOWED SET OFF OF SUCH ADDITION AFTER A PERIOD OF 4 YEARS. REFERRING TO T HE DECISION OF THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF KASAT PAPER AN D PULP LTD. VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 74 ITD 455 THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BENCH TO PARA 15.1 OF THE SAID ORDER AND SUB MITTED THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS ALLOWED SUCH SET OFF. HE SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SPENT THE MONEY AVAILABLE TO HIM TO TH E EXTENT OF RS.20,07,812/- WHICH HAS BEEN SUSTAINED BY THE TRIB UNAL IN THE FIRST SEARCH ASSESSMENT. HE HOWEVER SUBMITTED THAT HE IS ARGUIN G THIS POINT FOR THE FIRST TIME, THEREFORE, THE MATTER MAY BE SET-ASIDE TO THE FILE OF THE 4 ASSESSING OFFICER FOR DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE ARGUMENTS. 6. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHER HAND HEAVILY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TH E CIT(A). SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE GAP BETWEEN THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DURING THE FIRST SEARCH ASSESSMENT AND THE DATE OF INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES IS FAIRLY LARGE AND THEREFORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS KEPT THE MONEY WITH HIMSELF SO AS TO E XPLAIN THE SOURCE TOWARDS INVESTMENT IN THE UNDISCLOSED PROPERTIES. THE ASSESSEE MIGHT HAVE SPENT THE MONEY FOR SOME OTHER PURPOSE WHICH A RE WITHIN HIS EXCLUSIVE KNOWLEDGE. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AS SOURCE TOWARDS THE INVESTMENT IN THE UNDISCLOSED ASSETS. 7. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL ARGUMENTS MADE BY B OTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. THERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENT IN VARIOUS PROPERTIES AMOUNTING TO RS.16,74,600/- AND INCURRED PURCHASE EXPENSES OF RS.4,69,360/- AGG REGATING TO RS.21,43,960/- WHICH WERE NOT RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACTS THAT THE ASSESSEE COUL D NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF SUCH DEPOSITS FOR WHICH THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND UPHELD BY THE CIT(A). 7.1 IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR TH E ASSESSEE THAT ON ACCOUNT OF THE FIRST SEARCH ON 02-05-2002 CERTAIN A DDITIONS WERE MADE IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ON ACCOUNT OF NEGATIVE CASH AN D AFTER THE ORDER OF THE 5 TRIBUNAL AN AMOUNT OF RS.20,07,812/- WAS FINALLY SU STAINED WHICH IS AVAILABLE TO HIM TOWARDS THE INVESTMENT IN THE ABOV E PROPERTIES. THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE O F K. SREEDHARAN (SUPRA) AND THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF KASAT PAPER AND PULP LTD. (SUPRA) SET OFF TO THE EXTENT OF RS.20,07 ,7812/- SHOULD BE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE. 7.2 WE FIND THE HONBLE KERALA HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF K. SREEDHARAN(SUPRA) HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER (SHORT NOTE S) : IT IS NOW ESTABLISHED THAT THE ONUS IS ON THE ASSE SSEE TO EXPLAIN THE CASH CREDIT ENTRIES IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE MA Y RELATE IT TO THE INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS MADE FOR A PREVIOUS YEAR. AN INTANGIBLE ADDITION MADE TO THE BOOK PROFITS OF AN ASSESSEE IS AS REAL AN INCOME AS THAT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT IT REPRESENTED SECRET PROFITS, NOT DISCLO SED, BUT ADDED IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DISCLOSED IN SOME OTHER A NCILLARY PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT MAKE IT ANY THE LESS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT. ONCE AN INTANGIBLE ADDITION IS MADE, THAT IS AS GOOD AS THE DISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND IT COULD BE TREATED AS AVAILABLE FOR I NVESTMENT FROM THE YEAR IN WHICH SUCH AN ADDITION WAS MADE. IT IS FOR THE ASS ESSING AUTHORITY TO CONSIDER THE ACCEPTABILITY OF THE EXPLANATION OF A CASH CREDI T ENTRY WITH REFERENCE TO ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE PRE SUMPTION THAT CASH CREDITS REPRESENT INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS OF PRIOR YEA RS CANNOT BE DRAWN IF A SUFFICIENTLY LONG PERIOD OF TIME HAS ELAPSED AFTER THE EARNING OF THE UNDISCLOSED PROFITS. THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER IN TWO FIRMS, S AND K. HE WAS ALSO ASSOCIATED WITH A COMPANY, SR, IN WHICH THERE APPEA RED FIVE CASH CREDITS OF RS.50,000 EACH ON JANUARY 1 AND 5, 1980, MARCH 15 A ND 28, 1980, AND RS.1,00,000 ON MARCH 3, 1980, AGGREGATING TO RS. 3 LAKHS. IN COM PLETING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER THE INCOME-TAX ACT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1980-81, THE ASSESSING AUTHORITY HELD THAT THESE CREDITS HAD NOT BEEN SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCORDINGLY TREATED THEM AS HIS INCOME LIABLE TO TAX. THE ASSESSMENT WAS AFFIRMED IN FIRST AP PEAL, BUT ON SECOND APPEAL, THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION IN RELATION TO THESE C REDITS WAS ACCEPTED BY THE TRIBUNAL AND IT DELETED THE AMOUNT FROM THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSEE'S EXPLANATION FOR THESE CASH CREDITS WAS THAT HE HA D SUBSTANTIAL RECEIPTS FROM THE FIRMS, S AND K, DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1976-77 AND THAT THE CASH CREDITS CAME OUT OF THOSE RECEIPTS. IN FACT, AN APPLICATION HAD BEEN MADE TO THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WHICH WAS ADMIT TED ON JULY 30, 1979, OFFERING FURTHER AMOUNTS FOR ASSESSMENT FOR THAT YEAR. THE FIRM, S, HAD OFFERED AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,00,000 FOR ASSESSMENT, OVE R AND ABOVE THE AMOUNT OF RS.11,70,460 DISCLOSED AND RETURNED, OF WHIC H THE ASSESSEE'S 50 PER CENT SHARE AMOUNTED TO RS.3,50,000. THE SETTLEME NT COMMISSION MADE A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.5,57,000 AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE CAME TO RS.2,78,500. THE FIRM, K, HAD OFF ERED FOR ASSESSMENT AN AMOUNT OF RS.11,00,000 AS AGAINST RS. 10,00,8 50 DISCLOSED AND ASSESSED. THE ASSESSEE'S 25 PER CENT, SHARE OF THE ADDITI ONAL AMOUNT 6 OFFERED WAS RS.24,785. THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION MADE A FURTHER ADDITION OF RS.1,04,000 BEING ADDITIONAL INCOME AND DISALLOWANCE OF EXCESS DEPRECIATION OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE'S SHARE CAME TO RS. 26,000. AFTER MAKING A COMPUTATION OF THE AMOUNT THAT WOULD BE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE TRIBUNAL CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT HE HAD WITH HIM AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,87,533 WHICH WOULD FORM THE SOURCE OF THE CREDITS AGGREGATING TO RS. 3 LAKHS BETWEEN JANUARY 1, 1980, A ND MARCH 28, 1980. IT WAS ACCORDINGLY THAT THE APPEAL WAS ALLOWED AND F THE ADDITION DELETED. ON A REFERENCE : HELD, THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE REL ATED TO THE AVAILABILITY OF ADDITIONAL FUNDS FROM THE FIRMS, S AN D K. THIS WAS UNDIS- CLOSED INCOME THE QUANTUM OF WHICH STOOD QUANTIFIED A ND DISCLOSED ONLY BY THE FINAL ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE FACT THAT A LESSER AMOUNT WAS OFFERED EARLIER, BUT IT WAS ENHANCED BY TH E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WOULD NOT DETRACT FROM THE VALIDITY OF THE EXPLANATION. HAVING REGARD TO THE INTANGIBLE ADDITIONS MADE BY TH E SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE DEEMED TO BE IN POSSESSION O F THOSE AMOUNTS FROM 1976-77 ITSELF. THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT HAD NOT BEEN DISCLOSED IN WEALTH- TAX RETURNS UP TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1980-81 WAS NOT RELEVANT BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT DISCLOSED IT OTH ERWISE. THE FACT THAT THE AMOUNT HAD BEEN INTRODUCED IN INSTALMENTS WA S ALSO IMMATERIAL. THE AMOUNT NEED BE INVESTED ONLY AS AND WHEN IT WAS NE CESSARY. IT NEED NOT BE IN ONE LUMPSUM MERELY BECAUSE IT WAS BEING DRA WN FROM A CONSOLIDATED FUND. THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT HAD NO T POINTED OUT ANY CIRCUMSTANCES FROM WHICH AN INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD AS A MATTER OF FACT SPENT THE AMOUNTS. IT WAS STATE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD INVESTED RS.40 LAKHS FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A THEA TRE BETWEEN 1977 AND 1980 FOR WHICH HE HAD TAKEN ONLY A LOAN OF RS.20 LAKHS FROM THE BANK. BUT THAT DID NOT IMPLY THAT THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION H AD ALSO BEEN UTILIZED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION WHEN THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL SOUR CES OF INCOME EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE PROFITS ASSESSEE HAD SUBSTANTIAL SO URCES OF INCOME EVEN OTHERWISE FROM THE PROFITS OF THE TWO FIR MS. ON THE OTHER HAND THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE OFFERED A LARGE AMOUNT FOR SETTLEMENT WITH READINESS TO MAKE PAYMENT OF A LARGE AMOUNT BY WAY OF TAX ANY TIME THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PASSED ITS ORDER WAS ITSELF INDICATI VE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID HAVE SUFFICIENT AMOUNTS WITH HIM. THE TRIB UNAL HAD FOUND AS A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD IN ANY EVENT HAVE HAD AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,87,533 WITH HIM AVAILABLE FOR INVESTMENT IN JANU ARY/MARCH, 1980. THE PERIOD OF FOUR YEARS BETWEEN 1976-77 AND 1980-81 WAS NOT SO LONG A PERIOD AS TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION REGARDING THE CONT INUED AVAILABILITY OF THE AMOUNT. THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCHARGED THE BURDEN THA T LAY ON HIM TO PROVE THE SOURCE OF THE AMOUNTS OF THE CASH CREDIT ENT RIES MADE IN JANUARY/MARCH, 1980. HENCE, THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFI ED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.3 LAKHS MADE UNDER THE HEAD OTHER SOUR CES. 7.3 WE FIND THE PUNE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE C ASE OF KASAT PAPER AND PULP LTD. (SUPRA) AT PARA 15.1 HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER : 15.1 THE LAST ADDITION OF RS.3.5 LAKHS RELATE TO THE PAYMENT MADE TO SHRI SHAIKH AMIN AND SHRI A.G. GHARE. ON MERITS, THE ADD ITION HAS NOT BEEN PRESSED BEFORE US BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. HOW EVER, AN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION HAS BEEN MADE TO THE EFFECT TO THE EFFECT THAT SET OFF BE ALLOWED TO THIS EXTENT AGAINST THE ADDITION ON ACC OUNT OF THE SALE OF COAL ASH AMOUNTING TO RS.5,45,000/- AND NOT DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ALTERNATE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SALE PROCEEDS OF THE COAL ASH MUST HAVE BEEN AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE THOU GH POSSIBILITY OF 7 SPENDING THE SAME TO SOME EXTENT BY THE DIRECTORS CANNO T BE RULED OUT. SINCE NO MATERIAL HAS BEEN PLACED ON RECORD IN THIS REGARD BY EITHER PARTY, THE BENEFIT OF DOUBT GOES TO THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, THE SET OFF AS ARGUED BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED AND THE AD DITION OF RS.3.50 LAKHS ON THIS ACCOUNT IS HEREBY DELETED. 7.4 HOWEVER, SINCE THIS ASPECT IS BEING ARGUED BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FIRST TIME TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT, THEREFORE, THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO DE CIDE THE ISSUE IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE DECISIONS IS ACCEPTABLE AND THEREFORE WE RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AND IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTU NITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PUR POSES. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29-11-2013. SD/- SD/- (R.S. PADVEKAR) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE, DATED : 29 TH NOVEMBER, 2013 SATISH COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DEPARTMENT 3. THE CIT(A)-I, NASHIK 4. THE CIT-I, NASHIK 5. D.R. A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE