Shri Pankaj sumatilal shah, Pune V. ITO,Wd.-3(2), Pune

ITA 698/PUN/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1697 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-06-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MAHESH JARNAM
• Keywords: Gift; Source of fund; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Onus to prove
• Section: 143(3); 131; 68

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.698/PN/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI PANKAJ SUMATILAL SHAH, 796, SADASHIV PETH, PUNE 411 030. PAN : ACGPS6030E . APPELLANT VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(2), PUNE. . RESPONDENT / APPELLANT BY : SHRI M. K. KULKARNI / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MAHESH JARNAM, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 28.04.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.06.2016 % / ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM : THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-II, PUNE DATED 15.03.2011 RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2006-07 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED MULTIPLE GROUNDS OF APPE AL BUT THE SOLITARY ISSUE RAISED IN THE PRESENT APPEAL IS TOWARDS THE B ONAFIDES OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED FROM TWO DONORS AGGREGATING TO RS.12 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS FOUND CREDITE D IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE RELEVANT FACTS CONCERNING TH E ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.5,39,080/-. F ROM THE EXTRACT OF THE 2 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 CAPITAL ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFI CER FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED GIFTS FROM TWO PARTIES NAMELY SHRI MOH AN DATTARAYA PANDIT AND SHRI KAMALAKAR MORESHWAR BOKIL AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00 ,000/- AND RS.7,00,000/- RESPECTIVELY. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY TH E ASSESSEE BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT DONOR SHRI MOHAN DATTARAYA P ANDIT HAS ORIGINALLY MADE GIFT VIDE CHEQUE DATED 19.08.2004 AND EXECUTED AN A FFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE FACT OF THE GIFT ON THE SAME DATE. HOWEVER, THE CH EQUE COULD NOT BE PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR ENCASHMENT DUE TO INSUFFICIENCY OF FUND AND FINALLY RS.5,00,000/- STATED TO BE GIVEN BY THE DONOR IN CA SH ON 30.03.2005. COPY OF IT RETURN OF DONOR SHRI PANDIT WAS SUBMITTED. AS R EGARDS ANOTHER DONOR SHRI KAMALAKAR MORESHWAR BOKIL, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED B EFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT A GIFT OF RS.7,00,000/- WAS RECEIVED I N CASH ON 17.08.2004 WHICH IS ALSO SUPPORTED BY AN AFFIDAVIT IN CONFIRMATION T HEREOF. IT WAS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS GIFT WAS MADE IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 BUT THE ASSESSEE DEPOSITED THE AMOUNT IN BANK IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 6-07. COPY OF IT RETURN OF SHRI BOKIL WAS ALSO ANNEXED. TO VERIFY THE BONA FIDES OF THE GIFTS RECEIVED IN CASH, BOTH THESE PARTIES WERE SUMMONED UNDER SEC TION 131 OF THE ACT AND THEIR RESPECTIVE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED AS EXTRAC TED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER AT APPROPRIATE PLACE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER EXTENSIVE LY REFERRED TO THE STATEMENTS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT AN D OBSERVED THAT THE DONOR SHRI PANDIT WHO CLAIMS TO HAVE GIVEN RS.5,00,000/- AS GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE IS A PERSON OF VERY ORDINARY MEANS AND HAS NO FINANCIAL CAPACITY WHICH PERMITS HIM TO GIVE GIFT OF SUCH LARGE SUM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED THAT IT IS VERY SURPRISING THAT GIFT WAS INITIALLY GIVEN BY CH EQUE IN AUGUST, 2004 WHEN THERE WAS NO BALANCE AVAILABLE AT THE DISPOSAL OF T HE DONOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREAFTER, NOTED THAT FINALLY THE AMOUNT WAS STATED TO HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN CASH INSPITE OF VERY GRIM FINANCIAL BACKGROUND O F THE DONOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ANALYZED THE DATA OF THE DONOR FOR LAST 3 F INANCIAL YEARS AND NOTED THAT WITHDRAWAL IN THE LAST THREE YEARS HARBOURS AROUND MEAGER RS.50,000/- PER YEAR. PERTINENTLY, THE DONOR HAS NEVER MADE ANY IN VESTMENT WORTH RS.1,00,000/- OR MORE. THE RETURNED INCOME RANGES BETWEEN RS.60,000/- TO RS.1,50,000/- IN LAST 3 YEARS. THE CAPITAL OF THE DONOR IS STANDS BETWEEN 3 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 RS.7,00,000/- TO RS.8,00,000/-. THE CASH IN HAND I S AS LOW AS RS.46,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, RS.800/- IN ASSESSMENT YEA R 2005-06 AND RS.8,000/- IN ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEXT OBSERVED THAT THE DONOR COULD NOT DISPLAY ANY RELATIONSHIP WHICH REFL ECTS NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION TOWARDS THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER, THUS, CONCLUDED THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS NATURE AND SOURCE OF RECEIPT OF CASH CREDIT IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT IS NOT FOUND TO BE SATISFACTORY. HE ACCORDINGLY INVOKED SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED THE AFORESAID AMOUNT OF RS.5,00,000/- AS A DEEMED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT OF ANOTHER DONOR SHRI KAMALAKAR MORESHWAR BOKIL WAS ALSO RECOR DED AND SIMILAR REVELATION CAME TO THE FORE. SHRI BOKIL ALSO ADMIT TED THAT HE HAS NOT MADE ANY INVESTMENT EXCEEDING RS.1,00,000/- AT ANY POINT OF TIME. HE HAS INCIDENTALLY TAKEN HOUSING AND MACHINERY LOANS FROM BANK OF MAHA RASHTRA. WHILE DONOR SHRI BOKIL CONFIRMED THAT HE HAS GIVEN GIFT OF RS.7 ,00,000/- IN CASH ON 17.08.2004 TO THE ASSESSEE, HE COULD NOT EXPLAIN TH E SOURCE OF FUNDS AVAILABLE AT HIS DISPOSAL FOR DOING SO. THE DONOR STATED BEF ORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE DOES NOT MAINTAIN ANY REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT A ND DAY TO DAY CASH BOOK TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF CASH GIFT. THE DONOR CL AIMED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT HE AND THE ASSESSEE ARE GOOD FRIENDS F ROM LAST 12-13 YEARS. THERE IS, HOWEVER, NO PARTICULAR REASON AND OCCASION FOR GRANT BY WAY OF GIFT. IT WAS MERELY GIVEN OUT OF NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION. TH E ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT FIND ANY LEGITIMACY IN THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE LIGHT OF STATEMENT OF THE DONOR AND OTHER EVIDENCES PLACED B EFORE HIM. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED FROM THE RETURN OF INCOME OF DONOR SH RI BOKIL THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2004-05, THE INCOME RETURNED WAS RS .76,000/- WHEREAS FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IT WAS RS.2.49 LAKHS AND FO R ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IT AGAIN CAME DOWN TO RS.1.91 LAKHS. THE WITHDRAWA L WAS SHOWN AT ABOUT RS.36,000/- PER ANNUM. THE DONOR HAS SHOWN INVESTM ENT WHICH IS OUT OF BORROWED FUNDS. OWN CAPITAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS ON 31.03.2005 IS PALTRY RS.4.14 LAKHS AND AS ON 31.03.2006 IT IS ONLY RS.7. 12 LAKHS. THE CASH IN HAND IS SHOWN TO BE RS.3 LACS APPROX AS ON 31.03.2004 AG AINST THE TOTAL CAPITAL OF RS.7.69 LAKHS WHEREAS IT HAS COME TO AS LOW AS RS.1 469/- AS ON 31.03.2006. 4 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 NO BANK STATEMENT OF THE DONOR WAS PRODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUPPORT THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE DONOR FOR GIFT OF THIS SIZE. HE ACCORDINGLY CONCLUDED THAT : (I) NO OCCASION OR PARTICULAR REAS ON TO GIVE THE GIFT IS DISCERNIBLE FROM THE STATEMENT OF THE DONORS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT, (II) CREDITWORTHINESS IS NOT PROVED, (III) THE GENUINENE SS OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT ESTABLISHED, (IV) WHILE THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO BEE N RECEIVED GIFT FROM SHRI BOKIL ON 17.08.2004, IT IS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK AC COUNT IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND THAT TOO ON VARIOUS DATES, (V) SIMILAR LY, GIFT RECEIVED FROM SHRI PANDIT INITIALLY BY CHEQUE AND SUBSEQUENTLY BY CASH WAS ALSO DEPOSITED IN CASH IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON DIFFERENT DA TES IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 AND (VI) THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER RELIED UPO N THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASES OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT, (1995) 125 CTR 124 (SC) AND CIT VS. P. MOHANAKALA, (2007) 291 ITR 278 (SC) TO HOLD THAT CREDIT OF RS.12,00,000/- ON THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT REM AINS UNEXPLAINED IN TERMS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO TESTED THE ISSUE ON T HE TOUCHSTONE OF SECTION 56(1)(V) AND MADE AN ALTERNATIVE OPINION THAT THE G IFT SO CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IS TO BE TREATED AS INCOME UNDER SECTION 5 6(1)(V) OF THE ACT SINCE THE SO CALLED GIFTS WERE RECEIVED FROM NON-RELATIVES AN D CREDITED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07 AND ALSO THE RECEIPT DOES NOT FALL IN THE EXCEPTIONS ENUMERATED THEREIN. 5. AGAINST THE AFORESAID ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSE SSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CI T(A). THE CIT(A) ALSO REFERRED TO THE FACTS NOTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R AND DID NOT FIND ANY SUBSTANCE IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. THE CIT(A) THUS ALSO UPHELD THE ADDITION BOTH UNDER SECTION 68 AS WELL AS ON THE AL TERNATIVE GROUND UNDER SECTION 56(1)(V) OF THE ACT. 5 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 6. AGGRIEVED FURTHER BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 7. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) FOR THE A SSESSEE SHRI M. K. KULKARNI SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS I N ERROR IN INVOKING SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DONORS WERE P RODUCED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO WERE EXAMINED AND THEIR STATE MENTS WERE RECORDED. THEY CONFIRMED ON OATH THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN GIFT TO THE ASSESSEE AGGREGATING TO RS.12,00,000/-. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS WHI CH LAY ON THE ASSESSEE IS SUCCESSFULLY DISCHARGED AND THE BURDEN IS SHIFTED O N THE REVENUE WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DISCHARGED. THE ACTION OF THE REVENUE IS THEREFORE CONTRARY TO THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. 8. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) FOR THE REVENUE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE CIT(A) HAS ANALYZED THE ISSUE THREADBARE ON FACTS AND PLACED R ELIANCE ON THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 9. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE SOLITARY ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE INSTANT CASE IS BONAFIDES AND GENUINENESS OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM TWO DONORS A GGREGATING TO RS.12,00,000/- FOUND CREDITED IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUN T OF THE ASSESSEE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAI MS TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFT FROM SHRI MOHAN DATTARAYA PANDIT AND SHRI KAMALAKAR MORESHWAR BOKIL AMOUNTING TO RS.5,00,000/- AND RS.7,00,000/- RESPEC TIVELY. WE ALSO NOTE THAT ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE RECEIVED RS.5,00,000/- FROM SHRI PANDIT INITIALLY BY CHEQUE DATED 19.08.2004 WHICH COULD NOT BE IN ENCAS HED OWING TO INSUFFICIENCY OF FUNDS AND THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED A MOUNT WAS STATED TO BE REPLENISHED IN CASH ON 30.03.2005. HOWEVER, THE ASS ESSING OFFICER SIMULTANEOUSLY NOTED THAT THE CASH HAS BEEN DEPOSIT ED IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2005-06 RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 IN THE BANK AND CREDITED IN HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT IN THE SAME YEAR. THE GIFT FROM OTHER PARTY NAMELY SHRI 6 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 KAMALAKAR BOKIL IS ALSO RECEIVED IN CASH. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS DEALT WITH THE STATEMENT OF THE DONORS EXTENSIVELY AND DEMONST RATED THAT THE GIFT RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES ARE SHAM IN AS MUCH AS THESE PAR TIES HAVE NEITHER ANY FINANCIAL CAPACITY NOR ANY TANGIBLE RELATIONSHIP TO MOTIVATE THEM TO SURRENDER SUCH WHOPPING AMOUNT IRRETRIEVABLY IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.1 FROM A BARE READING OF THE STATEMENT RECORDED U NDER S. 131 AS EXTRACTED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, WE FIND THAT DEPOSITIONS M ADE WHEN READ WITH THE UNDERLYING DOCUMENTS AND RETURN OF INCOME OF THE DO NORS ETC. DOES NOT FOSTER ANY CONFIDENCE ON THE BONAFIDES OF THE GIFT CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM THESE PARTIES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SUCCESSFUL LY DEMONSTRATED THAT BOTH THE PARTIES HAVE MEAGER RESOURCES TO BE ASSIGNED AN Y CAPACITY TO GIFT SUCH SIZEABLE AMOUNT AS CLAIMED HAVING REGARD TO THE CAP ITAL AVAILABLE, YEARLY WITHDRAWALS MADE, YEARLY INCOME GENERATED ETC. COUP LED WITH THIS, WE FIND THAT BOTH THE GIFTS HAVE BEEN GIVEN WITHOUT THERE B EING ANY OCCASION TO DO SO. ONE OF THE DONORS IS CLAIMED TO HAVE PARTED WITH GI FT CHEQUE FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS. 5 LACS TO THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY BALANCE IN THE BANK. THE BALANCE DID NOT EVENTUALLY COME TO THE ACCOUNT. THE DONOR THEN CLAIMS TO HAVE HANDED OVER GIFT IN CASH FOR SUCH SIZEABLE AMOUNT. THE ACTION OF THE DONOR IS IN THE LEAGUE OF EXTRAORDINARY. THIS IS TOTALLY UNBELI EVABLE. THE RESOURCES FOR THE AMOUNT CLAIMED TO BE GIFTED IS NOT KNOWN. THE CAPAC ITY WITH BOTH THE DONORS AS NOTED EARLIER DOES NOT EXIST AT ALL. THE ALLEGED ACTION OF THE DONORS ARE CLEARLY NOT BEFITTING OF A NORMAL HUMAN CONDUCT AND ARE OUTSIDE THE BOUNDS OF RATIONALITY. WHILE THE DONORS HAVE ADMITTED THE FAC T OF THE GIVING GIFT IN CASH, THE ADMISSION IS BARE ONE. IT IS NOT SUPPORTED BY T HE UNDERLYING CAPACITY OR ANY OTHER DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF SOURCE TO PROVE SUCH PAYMENT. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN P.R. GANAPATHY (2012) REPORTED IN 26 TAXMANN.COM 354 HAS HELD THAT UNDER S. 68, THE BURDEN IS ON THE ASSESSE E TO SHOW THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY PURPORTED GIFT(S) FROM THE DONORS IS A GIFT IN THE LEGAL SENSE. THE ASSESSEE HAS TO SHOW WHETHER THE DONORS HAVE THE FI NANCIAL CAPACITY TO MAKE THE GIFT(S) IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THA T THE TWO ARE ASSESSED TO TAX AT SINGAPORE DOES NOT ANSWER THE QUESTION. THE ASSESSE ES HAS TO LEAD EVIDENCE TO 7 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 SHOW THAT THE ALLEGED DONORS HAD ADEQUATE FUNDS IN THEIR RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS TO MAKE THE PURPORTED GIFT(S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH CI T VS. P. MOHANAKALA (2007) (291 ITR 278) (SC). THUS A VERY FEEBLE FINANCIAL CAPACITY RAISES SERIO US QUESTION ABOUT AN ALLEGED GRATUITOUS PAYMENT OF SUC H MAGNITUDE IN THE CONTEXT AND RENDERS IT INCOMPREHENSIBLE. 9.2 COUPLED WITH THIS, ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NO BLOOD RELATIONS BETWEEN THE DONORS AND THE ASSESSEE. THE DONORS APPEAR TO BE ME RE ACQUAINTANCES. IT IS DIFFICULT TO VISUALIZE THAT A PERSON OF THIS GRIM F INANCIAL BACKGROUND WILL VENTURE INTO GIVING A VOLUNTARY GIFT TO THE TUNE OF RS.5 LACS OR 7 LACS WHICH IS EQUIVALENT TO HIS INCOME OF NEARLY 4 TO 5 YEARS. TH E PURPORTED GIFT WOULD LEAD TO ALMOST TOTAL EROSION OF THE CAPITAL OF THE PERSO N CONCERNED. APPARENTLY, THE OVERALL BEHAVIOUR OF THE SO CALLED DONORS IS THUS V ERY INTRIGUING AND DOES NOT ACCORD WITH ORDINARY HUMAN CONDUCT. 9.3 THUS, WHEN SEEN IN TOTALITY, THE WEIGHT OF FACT S AND CIRCUMSTANCES ARE SQUARELY AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. AS A COROLLARY, LOGI CAL CONCLUSION THAT FOLLOWS FROM ABOVE IS THAT THE CLAIM OF RECEIPT OF GIFT FRO M THESE TWO PARTIES AGGREGATING TO RS. 12 LACS REMAINS UNPROVED AND EXP LANATION OFFERED IN RESPECT OF CREDIT TOWARDS GIFTS RECEIVED IS NOT CREDIBLE OR SATISFACTORY. THE CREDIT IN THE FORM OF GIFT IS THUS RIGHTLY ASSESSED TO TAX AS DEE MED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9.4 WE ALSO FIND MERIT IN THE ALTERNATIVE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE GIFT SO MADE FALLS WITHIN THE AMBIT OF S. 56(1)(V) OF THE ACT. AS PER THE SAID PROVISION, THE RECIPIENT OF THE GIFT FROM A NON RELATIVE IS ASSESSABLE TO TAX UNDER S. 56(1)(V). THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO S HOW EITHER BEFORE THE AO OR BEFORE THE CIT(A) AND EVEN BEFORE US AS TO HOW INGR EDIENTS OF SECTION 56(1)(V) ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO IN THE FACTS OF THIS CASE. IN THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE LD. AR ONLY MARSHALED HIS CONTENTION WITH REFERENCE TO S. 68 OF THE ACT. APPLICABILITY OF S. 56(1)(V) WAS NOT ADDRESSED TO U S INSPITE OF HIS ATTENTION SPECIFICALLY DRAWN BY THE BENCH IN THE COURSE OF HE ARING. THUS, IN THE LIGHT OF 8 ITA NO.698/PN/2011 FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, THE CIT(A) IN OUR VIEW, HAS RIGHTLY ENDORSED THIS CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON APPLICABILIT Y OF S. 56(1)(V) OF THE ACT ALSO. 9.5 THUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE CASE OF THE ASSES SEE ON BOTH COUNTS. HENCE, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INTERFERE WITH THE OR DERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 10. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 08 TH DAY OF JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( SUSHMA CHOWLA ) ( PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER # / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER PUNE ; DATED : 08 TH JUNE, 2016. % & '() *)' / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE; 2) THE DEPARTMENT; 3) THE CIT(A)-II, PUNE; 4) THE CIT- II, PUNE; 5) THE DR A BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE; 6) GUARD FILE. %+ / BY ORDER , ' # //TRUE COPY// $ %& # '( / SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ) '* , / ITAT, PUNE