DCIT, Pune V. Shri Niraj B. Handa, Pune

ITA 895/PUN/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2040 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-10-2012
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 14-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S K SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Document seized; Block assessment; Documents seized

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S.PADVEKAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K.PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA.NO.895/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR : 1997-98 TO 2003-04) DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE. .. APPELLANT VS. SHRI NEERAJ B.HANDA, HANDA HOUSE, PALLOD FARMS, BANER ROAD, PUNE 411045. .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUNIL GANOO DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI S.K.SINGH DATE OF HEARING : 19.02.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2013 ORDER PER R.S.PADVEKAR, JM : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING TH E IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-IV, PUNE, DATED 29.01.2010 FOR THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS 1997-98 TO 2003-04. THE REVENUE H AS TAKEN THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2,35,91 8/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN RESIDENTIAL HOUSE RELYING ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE HON'BLE MUMBAI HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF CIT VS. VINOD DANCHAND GHODAWAT, 247 ITR 448 IGNORING T HE FACT THAT THE SAID JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED ON 26/06/2000 BEFORE THE SCOPE OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSES OF CHAPTER XIV B WAS WIDENED BY THE AMENDMENTS TO SUB-SECTION (1) OF SECTION 158BB BY THE FINANCE ACT, 2002 WITH RETROSPECTIVE E FFECT FROM 01/07/1995. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN RELYING ON THE DECISION IN GHODAWAT S CASE WHEN 2 THE SAID CASE IS DISTINGUISHABLE ON FACTS. IN THE SAID CASE A REGULAR ASSESSMENT WAS ALREADY MADE FOR THE CONCERN ED ASSESSMENT YEAR WHEREAS IN THE PRESENT CASE, AS PER RECORDS, NO REGULAR ASSESSMENT HAD BEEN MADE FOR A.Y. 2001-0 2 TO WHICH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.2,35,918/- RELAT ED. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN LAW THE CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITIONS OF RS.1,20,0 00/-, RS.18,40,000/- AND RS.18,70,000/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAIN ED INVESTMENT IN OFFICE AT NOIDA, UNDISCLOSED CASH REC EIPTS FROM RMEC AND UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION RESPECTIVELY MADE B Y THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF CERTAIN ENTRIES I N PAPERS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH AT THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI MOHAN SI NGH. AS CERTAIN OTHER ENTRIES IN THE SAME PAPERS WERE REFLE CTED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF RMEC PROJECTS LTD., OF WHICH THE A SSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR AND ACCORDINGLY FOUND TO BE CORRECT, THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO THE ADDITIONS ALSO HAD TO BE TAKEN TO BE CORRECT. 2. SO FAR AS GROUNDS NOS.1 AND 2 ARE CONCERNED, IT IS IN RESPECT OF ADDITION OF RS.2,35,918/- TOWARDS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL HOUSE WHILE COMPLETING THE ASSESSMENT U /S.158BC. THE FACTS AS REVEALED FROM THE RECORD ARE AS UNDER. TH E ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR OF RMEC PROJECTS LTD., M/S.PEMCO SERVICES PVT. LTD. AND M/S.SANS INTERNATIONAL LTD. THE REVENUE HAS CARRIE D OUT SEARCH OPERATION U/S.132(1) OF THE ACT AT THE RESIDENCE AN D VARIOUS BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 23.07.2002. I N CONSEQUENCE OF THE SEARCH AND SEIZURE OPERATION, ASSESSMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPLETED U/S.158BC OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 31. 08.2004. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HA S CONSTRUCTED RESIDENTIAL HOUSE JOINTLY WITH HIS WIFE. THE ASSES SING OFFICER REFERRED THE MATTER OF VALUATION TO THE VALUATION C ELL OF THE DEPARTMENT AND THE DVO, AFTER CONSIDERING THE OBJEC TIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, DETERMINED TOTAL ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INVE STMENT IN THE RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY AT RS.5,15,420/-. THE ASSESSI NG OFFICER, THEREFORE, PROCEEDED TO MAKE THE ADDITION IN THE HA NDS OF THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE IN PROPORTION OF THE INVESTME NT AS UNDER: SHRI NEERAJ HANDA RS.2,35,918/- SMT.SEEMA HANDA RS.2,79,502/- 3. THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGED THE ADDITION BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE LD. CIT(A) FOLLOWED THE DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. VINOD 3 DHANCHAND GHODAVAT 247 ITR 448 (BOM.) AND DELETED T HE ADDITION. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE RECORD . THE LD. DR CLEARLY ADMITTED THAT NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENT OR MATERIAL WAS FOUND AND SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARC H. ON THE OTHER HAND LD. COUNSEL SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND SUBMITS THAT THE LAW IS WELL SETTLED THAT UNLESS AN Y EVIDENCE IS FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE MERELY ON THE BASIS OF THE OPINION OF THE DVO. HE PLEADED FOR CO NFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). 5. WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. COUNSEL . ADMITTEDLY, DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUM ENT OR EVIDENCE WAS FOUND TO SUPPORT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE ADDITION MERELY ON T HE BASIS OF THE OPINION OF THE DVO WHO HAS DETERMINED THE ALLEGED U NDISCLOSED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESIDENTIAL HOUS E. INTERESTINGLY AS PER THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL AT THE BAR, REVENUE HAS NOT FILED APPEAL IN THE CASE OF WI FE OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHOSE HANDS ALSO, THE PRO-RATA ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE DVO WHICH WAS DELETED BY THE CIT(A), PUNE. IN OUR OPINION, LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION, AS NO DEBATE IS REQUIRED ON THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE AD DITION TOWARDS ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WHICH IS MERELY ON T HE OPINION OF THE DVO. WE ACCORDINGLY CONFIRM THE ORDER OF THE L D. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND GROUNDS NO.1 AND 2 ARE DISMISSED. 6. SO FAR AS THE GROUND NO.3 IS CONCERNED, THESE AR E IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHICH A RE AGAIN ON THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS UNDER: 1. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN OFFICE AT NOIDA RS.1,2 0,000/- 2. UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPT FROM RMEC RS.18,40,000/- 3. UNDISCLOSED COMMISSION RS.18,70,000/- 4 7. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT THERE WA S A SEARCH PROCEEDINGS IN THE RESIDENCES OF SHRI JASWINDER SIN GH WHO WAS THE REGIONAL MANAGER FOR THE NORTHERN REGION OF RMEC PR OJECTS PVT. LTD., AND SHRI MOHAR SINGH (DECEASED) WHO WAS THE A CCOUNTANT FOR THE SAME REGION OF RMEC PROJECTS PVT. LTD. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH IN THE RESIDENCES OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH (D ECEASED) CERTAIN DOCUMENTS RELATING TO RMEC PROJECTS PVT. LTD., M/S. SANS INTERNATIONAL LTD., AND M/S.PEMCO SERVICES PVT. LTD ., WERE FOUND. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT MAJORITY OF THE TRANSACTIONS FOUND IN THOSE DOCUMENTS PERTAIN TO AND WERE REFLEC TED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES. HE HAS FURTHER OB SERVED THAT FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH (DECEASED) A T PANIPAT, HARYANA, CERTAIN PAPERS WERE SEIZED AS PER ANNEXURE TO PANCHANAMA DATED 23.07.2002, AND AS PER BUNDLE NO.9 SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH (DECEA SED), SOME PAPERS WERE FOUND SHOWING THE CASH PAYMENTS MADE TO SHRI NEERAJ HANDA, THE PRESENT ASSESSEE. 7.1. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO REFERRED TO CER TAIN TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE ALLEGEDLY RELATED TO RMEC PROJECTS PVT. LTD., IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS OBSERVED THAT IN RESPECT OF THE NOIDA OFFICE, THE ASSESSEE HAS MA DE THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS.1,20,000/-. HE ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.1,20,000/- IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED CASH PAYMENT FOR PURCHASING THE OFFICE IN NOIDA. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER ALSO MADE THE ADDITION FOR ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPT FROM RMEC PROJECTS PVT. LTD., WITHOUT REFLECTING IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT. IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS.18,40,000/- WHICH WERE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CASH RECEIPT BY THE ASSESSEE FROM THE RMEC PROJECTS PVT. LTD., WHICH WERE NOT REFLECT ED IN THE ASSESSEES BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. IN SUM AND SUBSTANCE, ON VERY VAGUE REASONING, THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE THE ADDITIONS OF RS.18,40,000/- TOWARDS ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED CASH REC EIPTS FROM 5 RMEC PROJECTS PVT. LTD., AND RS.18,70,000/- TOWARDS ALLEGED RECEIPT OF THE COMMISSION. 8. WHEN THE ISSUE REACHED BEFORE LD. CIT(A), THE AD DITION WAS DELETED. THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD. CIT(A) FOR D ELETING THE ADDITIONS ARE AS UNDER: I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AN D THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AO FROM TIME TO TIME ALONGW ITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT ON THE GROUNDS NO.2, 3 AND 4 ALONG WITH THEIR SUB-CLAUSES. THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF LATE SHRI MOHAR SINGH, EX-EMPLOYEE OF THE COMPANY M/S.RMEC, IS THE BASIS OF ALL THE THREE ADDITIONS. THE AO HAS RELIED ON THEM AS HE WAS FOUND TO BE THE EMPLOYEE O F THE APPELLANT GROUP DURING THE PART OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THE CONTENTS AVAILABLE COULD BE SEEN BY THE AO TO BE RE LATING TO REGULAR BOOKS AT MANY PLACES AND THEREFORE THE REMA INING CONTENTS WERE HELD TO BE ALSO WORTHY OF CONSIDERATI ON AND RELIANCE FOR MAKING THE ADDITIONS. THE APPELLANT H AS RAISED MANY LEGAL AND FACTUAL OBJECTIONS. THE INFERENCE D RAWN HAS ALSO BEEN CHALLENGED AS ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE INFERENCES CANNOT BE LOGICALLY DRAWN AS HAS BEEN DO NE BY THE AO. HE HAS CHARGED THE AO WITH BIASED MIND. THE C ONTENTS IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN NOIDA PROPERTY HAS BEEN CH ALLENGED ON THE BASIS OF ACTUAL TRANSACTION RELATING TO STAMP D UTY AND THE DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED THAT THE PRESUMPTION U/S.132(4A) CANNOT BE R AISED IN THIS CASE AS THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEIZED NOT FROM THE APPELLANT OR ITS BUSINESS PREMISES BUT WERE SEIZED FROM A PER SON WHO IS AN EX-EMPLOYEE ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. IT HAS ALSO BEEN STATED AND ESTABLISHED WITH DOCUMENTS THAT THE LATE SHRI M OHAR SINGH WAS NOT ALIVE ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH AND THEREFO RE, ACCORDING TO THE APPELLANT, THE SEARCH ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW. THE CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN CHALLENGED TO BE NOT I N THE HANDWRITING OF LATE SHRI MOHAR SINGH. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO PRODUCED DOCUMENTS TO SHOW THAT SHRI MOHAR SINGH MU CH BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH WAS REMOVED FROM THE SERV ICE ON THE GROUNDS OF FINANCIAL IRREGULARITIES AND ADMINISTRAT IVE DEFIANCE AND THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT HAS FURTHER RAISED THE ISSUE OF POSSIBILITY OF MOTIVATED CREATION OF DOCUMENTS TO H ARASS THE APPELLANT GROUP BY THE DISGRUNTLED EMPLOYEE TO REVE NGE AGAINST HIS REMOVAL. THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO RAISED OBJECTI ON FOR RELYING ON THE DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF EX-EM PLOYEE WITHOUT VERIFYING THE CONTENTS FROM THAT EMPLOYEE A S HE WAS DEAD ON THE DATE OF THE SEARCH AND ALSO IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCES, HE HAD NO OCCASION/OPPORTUNITY TO CR OSS- EXAMINE HIM. THE APPELLANT IN THE PROCESS OF DEFEN CE HAS RAISED THE ABOVE AS WELL AS MANY OTHER OBJECTIONS W HICH CAN BE SEEN FROM THE COMPILED SUBMISSION QUOTED ABOVE. IT IS AN 6 ADMITTED FACT THAT STRICT RULES OF EVIDENCE ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE ADHERED IN THE CASE OF INCOME-TAX PROCEEDINGS, HOWE VER, CONSIDERING MANY OBJECTIONS NOTED ABOVE, AS WELL AS IN THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AND ALSO THE FACT THAT MAN Y OF THEM ARE QUITE RELEVANT AND STRONG, FOR WHICH THERE IS N O ANSWER WITH THE AO, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS O F DOCUMENTS SEIZED FROM THE PREMISE OF LATE SHRI MOHA R SINGH, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND THE LAW APPLICABLE. THE ABOVE ADDITIONS ARE TH EREFORE ORDERED TO BE DELETED. APPEAL THEREFORE IN RESPECT OF GROUNDS NO.2, 3 AND 4 ARE ALLOWED. 9. NOW THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITS THAT THE LEGAL HEIRS OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH (D ECEASED) HAVE CHALLENGED THE LEGALITY OF THE SEARCH ACTION IN THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA, AND RELEVANT DECISION IS ALSO REPORTED AS CIT VS. RAKESH KUMAR, MUKESH KUMAR L/H OF LATE M OHAR SINGH 313 ITR 305 (P&H), THE ENTIRE SEARCH WAS SQUASHED. THE LD. COUNSEL RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE SUPRE ME COURT IN THE CASE OF RAMJI DAYAWALA & SONS (P) LTD. AIR 1981 SUP REME COURT 2084 IN SUPPORT OF THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) A ND SUBMITS THAT AT THE FIRST INSTANCE, NOTHING IS CLEAR FROM THE AL LEGED DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE FOUND IN THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI MOHAR SIN GH (DECEASED). HE SUBMITS THAT WHEN THE SEARCH ACTION WAS TAKEN, S HRI MOHAR SINGH WAS DEAD. NOT A SINGLE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN PRO VED OR ADMITTED EITHER BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY OTHER PERSON . HE SUBMITS THAT ONLY ON THE GUESS WORK THE ASSESSING OFFICER H AS MADE THE ADDITION WHICH IS NOT AS PER LAW. THE ALLEGED DOCU MENTS SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH (DECEASED) W HICH ARE USED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVE NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE A S THE CONTENTS REMAINED UNEXPLAINED. WE HAVE ALSO HEARD THE LD. D R WHO SUBMITS THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF ILLEGAL SEARCH, TH E EVIDENCE FOUND CAN BE USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 10. THERE IS NO QUARREL ON THE PROPOSITION THAT EVE N IN THE CASE OF ILLEGAL SEARCH IF ANY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL IS FOUND SHOWING THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME, THE SAID EVIDENCE CAN BE USED A GAINST THE 7 ASSESSEE. BUT AT THE SAME TIME, EVEN THOUGH THE PR OVISIONS OF INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT 1872, HAS NO STRICT APPLICATION TO THE INCOME TAX PROCEEDINGS, THE GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF THE BURD EN OF PROOF AND PRESUMPTION ARE SQUARELY APPLICABLE IN THE QUASI JU DICIAL PROCEEDINGS LIKE THE PRESENT ONE. AS RIGHTLY ARGUE D BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THE ALLEGED DOCUMENTS FOUND IN THE RESIDEN TIAL PREMISES OF SHRI MOHAR SINGH (DECEASED) REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. TH E ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE COLOUR COPIES IN COMPILATION OF SAID ALLEGED DOCUMENT (PAGE NO.19, 20 AND 21 OF THE COMPILATION). WE HAV E PERUSED AND GONE THROUGH THE SAID COPIES OF THE DOCUMENTS BUT N OTHING IS COMING OUT AGAINST PRESENT ASSESSEE. WE FURTHER FI ND THAT HANDWRITINGS ARE ALSO DIFFERENT. MOREOVER, AS PER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE AUTHOR OF THE SAID DOCUMENT IS ALLEGEDLY SHRI MOHAR SINGH (DECEASED). IF IT IS SO, THEN THOSE DO CUMENTS ARE TO BE EXPLAINED BY THE AUTHOR. 11. IN THE CASE OF RAMJI DAYAWALA & SONS (P) LTD. ( SUPRA), THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT ON THE PROOF OF THE DOCUMENT HAS OBSERVED AS UNDER: UNDOUBTEDLY, MERE PROOF OF THE HANDWRITING OF A DOC UMENT WOULD NOT TANTAMOUNT TO PROOF OF ALL THE CONTENTS O R THE FACTS STATED IN THE DOCUMENT. IF THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS STATED IN A DOCUMENT IS IN ISSUE MERE PROOF OF THE HANDWRITING AND EXECUTION OF THE DOCUMENT WOULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENC E OF THE TRUTH OF THE FACTS OR CONTENTS OF THE DOCUMENT. TH E TRUTH OR OTHERWISE OF THE FACTS OR CONTENTS SO STATED WOULD HAVE TO BE PROVED BY ADMISSIBLE EVIDENCE, I.E., BY THE EVIDENC E OF THOSE PERSONS WHO CAN VOUCHSAFE FOR THE TRUTH OF THE FACT S IN ISSUE. BUT IN THIS CASE BHIKHUBHAI GOURISHANKAR JOSHI WHO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT HAS REFERRED T O THE AVERMENTS IN THE LETTER AND THE CABLE. HE IS A PRI NCIPAL OFFICER AND CONSTITUTED ATTORNEY OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. ONCE THE RECEIPT OF THE LETTER AND THE CABLE ARE ADMITTED OR PROVED COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT EVEN AFTER THE DISPUTE A ROSE AND BEFORE THE SUIT WAS FILED, IN THE CORRESPONDENCE TH AT ENSUED BETWEEN THE PARTIES, THE RESPONDENT DID NOT MAKE AN Y OVERT OR COVERT REFERENCE TO THE ARBITRATION AGREEMENT AND U TTER FAILURE OF THE RESPONDENT TO REPLY TO THE LETTER AND THE CABLE CONTROVERTING THE AVERMENTS MADE THEREIN WOULD UNMISTAKABLY ESTAB LISH THE TRUTH OF THE AVERMENTS MADE IN THE LETTER. WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF 8 AVERMENTS IS A DIFFERENT QUESTION ALTOGETHER BUT TH E AVERMENTS CONTAINED IN THE LETTER AND THE CABLE ARE SATISFACT ORILY PROVED. 12. IN OUR OPINION, IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE DISCUSSIO N, THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NO BASE AND THE L D. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE SAME. WE FIND NO REASON TO INT ERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DELETING THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. ACCORDINGLY, GROUND NO.3 IS DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 25 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2013. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( R.S.PADVEKAR ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER GSPS PUNE, DATED THE 25 TH FEBRUARY, 2013 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2(2), PUNE. 3. THE CIT(A)-IV, PUNE. 4. THE CIT, CENTRAL, PUNE. 5. THE DR B BENCH, PUNE. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE.