Mr Arvind Manikchand Gandhi, Pune V. ITO, Ward 4(6), Pune

ITA 895/PUN/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 89524514 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 26-09-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-05-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: H C LEUVA
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Assessment record
• Section: 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 894/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) ITO, WARD-4(6), PUNE .. APPELLANT VS. MR. ARVIND MANIKCHAND GANDHI, MANAS, 524, SINDH HOUSING SOCIETY, BANER ROAD, AUNDH, PUNE - 411007 PAN NO. AAVPG7704L .. RESPONDENT ITA NO. 895/PN/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) MR. ARVIND MANIKCHAND GANDHI, MANAS, 524, SINDH HOUSING SOCIETY, BANER ROAD, AUNDH, PUNE - 411007 PAN NO. AAVPG7704L .. APPELLANT VS. ITO, WARD-4(6), PUNE .. RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NIKHIL PATHAK REVENUE BY : SHRI H.C. LEUVA DATE OF HEARING : 26-09-2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27-09-2013 ORDER PER R.K. PANDA, AM : ITA NO.894/PN/2012 FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ITA NO.895/PN/2012 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED A GAINST THE ORDER DATED 23-01-2012 OF THE CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, BOTH TH ESE APPALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 2 ITA NO.894/PN/2012 (BY REVENUE) : 2. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS EE IS AN INDIVIDUAL. IN THIS CASE, INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED FROM THE TRANSA CTIONS REPORTED IN AIR FURNISHED U/S.285BA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SOLD PROPERTY FOR A CONSIDERATION OF RS.1,58,79,375/- DU RING F.Y. 2004-05. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THEREFORE, ISSUED NOTICE U/S .142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE. ALTHOUGH THE SAID NOTICE WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSEE NEVER COMPLIED TO THE SAME FOR WHICH THE A SSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.144 DETERMINING THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,58,79,375/-. THE SAID ORDE R WAS PASSED ON 24-12- 2007 IN THE NAME OF GANDHI ARVIND MANIKCHAND AS POW ER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. 3. BEFORE CIT(A) IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE NEGOTIATED WITH ABOUT 190 FARMERS FROM THE YEAR 1996 FOR PURCHASE O F AGRICULTURAL LAND FOR THE BENEFIT OF HIS FAMILY. THE TOTAL AREA NEGO TIATED BY HIM WAS 71 ACRES. THE ASSESSEE TOOK POWER OF ATTORNEY FROM TH ESE FARMERS FOR FINALISING SALE OF LAND IN HIS OR HIS NOMINEES NAME IN THE YEAR 1999 TO 2000. HE PAID RS.1.85 CRORES INCLUDING COST OF STA MP DUTY ETC. TO THESE FARMERS BETWEEN 1996 TO 2004 AND GOT POWER OF ATTOR NEY IN HIS NAME FOR REGISTERING THE SALE DEED ON THEIR BEHALF. THIS PO WER OF ATTORNEY TO REGISTER THE SALE DEED WAS TAKEN ONLY TO MAKE THE T HINGS CONVENIENT AT THE TIME OF REGISTERING THE SALE DEED. WITH THE HELP O F THIS POWER OF ATTORNEY, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT REQUIRED TO BRING AL L THE 190 FARMERS TO THE SUB-REGISTRARS OFFICE AT THE TIME OF REGISTRATION. VARIOUS DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE CIT(A) TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT TH ERE WAS NO TRANSACTION 3 OF SALE OF THE LAND OF MR. ARVIND GANDHI. IT WAS S UBMITTED THAT EVEN IF THERE IS CAPITAL GAIN, IT WILL BE IN THE CASE OF TH E FARMERS AND NOT IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE IS ONLY A PURC HASER. HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE NO DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASS ESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN A CONFUSED MIND BROUGHT TO TAX THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REM AND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THIS POINT WHO REPORTED AS UND ER : THE GROUND NO.3 AS MENTIONED ABOVE RAISED BY THE A SSESSEE IS AGAINST TREATING THE TRANSACTION OF PURCHASE PROPER TY AS TRANSACTION OF SALE OF PROPERTY AND LEVYING CAPITAL GAINS TAX ON THE SAME. FROM THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS AVAILABLE, THE A IR DATA CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS REPRESENTING TH E TRANSACTION OF SALE AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF OTHER 169 PE RSONS IN THE THREE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED. FURTHER THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE FOUR SALE DEEDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF THE LAND AT NANEKARWADI, CHAKAN DULY CERTIFIED BY THE S UB-REGISTRAR AT THE TIME OF PREPARING OF REMAND REPORT. THERE A RE FOUR SALE DEEDS FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND. THE SALE DEEDS ARE IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSE, MR. ARVIND GANDHI, HIS SONS, MR. RAJEE V ARVIND GANDHI, MR. PARAG ARVIND GANDHI AND HIS DAUGHTER MR S. RASHMI BAMB. IN ALL THE SALE DEEDS, THE ASSESSEE HAD REPR ESENTED THE SELLING FARMERS AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER. THIS IS SEEN FROM THE CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE SALE DEEDS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE. AS SUCH THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IS A VALID A ND LOOK LIKE A CORRECT ONE. 5. BASED ON THE ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ON THE BASIS OF THE REMAND REPORT THE LD.CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDI TION BY HOLDING AS UNDER : I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS, SUBMIS SIONS OF THE APPELLANT, REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND OTHER MATERI AL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE CATEGORICAL FINDING OF T HE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT TO THE EFFECT THAT THE APPELLANT ACTE D AS A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER ON BEHALF OF VARIOUS SELLERS OF THE LAND AND THE 4 PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SELLERS DO NOT REPRESENT UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT OF THE APPELLANT FOR THE A.Y. UNDER CONS IDERATION, I.E. 2005-06, I HOLD THAT ITO CIB-3 WRONGLY COMPUTED LON G TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.1,58,79,375/- IN HIS ORDER DATED 24-12-2007 U/S.144 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASES OF THE APPELLA NT. I ALSO HOLD THAT ITO, CIB-2 WRONGLY COMPUTED UNEXPLAINED INVEST MENT OF RS.51,25,000/- IN HIS ORDER DATED 28-12-2007 U/S.14 4 OF THE I.T. ACT IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT. THEREFORE, GROUN DS OF APPEAL NO.3 OF APPEAL NO.PN/CIT(A)-CENTRAL/ITO(CIB)- 3/1081/TR.IN./09-10 IS ALLOWED. 6. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE REVE NUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS : 1. THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (AP PEALS) IS CONTRARY TO LAW AND TO THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE'S APPEAL. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, CIB-3, PUNE HAD TREATED THE SUM OF RS.1,58,79,375/- AS SALE CONSIDERATION O NLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO COMPLY WITH THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM AND THUS DID NOT PRESENT THE CORRECT FACTS. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,58,79,375/- MADE BY T HE ITO, CIB-3 AND THE SEPARATE ADDITION OF RS.51,25,000/- MADE BY THE ITO , CIB-2 BY ROUTINELY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S GENERAL SUBMISSION THAT HE HAD SUFFICIENT FUNDS FOR MAKING THE PAYMENTS OF RS.1.85 CRORES (INCLUDING CO ST OF STAMP DUTY ETC.) WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED ANY EVIDENCE S BY WAY OF LINKING THE PAYMENTS WITH THE SPECIFIC AND IMMEDIATE SOURCES TH EREOF. 5. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN FAILING TO APPRECIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT IN ANY MANNER ESTABLISHED, WITH THE HELP OF EVIDENCES, THAT THE LOANS TAKEN BY HIM FROM THE FIRM M/S MANAS CONSTRUCTIONS HAD BEEN NECESSARILY UTILISED F OR MAKING THE IMPUGNED PAYMENTS OF RS 1.85 CRORES. 6. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN ROUTINELY ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEE'S PLEA THAT MOST O F THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE IN THE EARLIER YEARS WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY SUBSTANTIATION IN THIS REGARD. 7. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) GROSSLY ERRED IN RELYING EXCLUSIVELY ON REMAND REPORT WHICH WAS GENE RAL, VAGUE AND NOT BASED ON SPECIFIC EVIDENCES. 8. FOR THESE AND SUCH OTHER GROUNDS AS MAY BE URGED AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING, THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF I NCOME-TAX (APPEALS) MAY BE VACATED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RES TORED. 5 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 HAV E ALSO CONSIDERED THE VARIOUS DECISIONS CITED BEFORE US. WE FIND IN THE INSTANT CASE THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S.144 DETERMINING THE LO NG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,58,79,375/-. WE FIND THE LD.CIT(A) ON THE BASIS OF THE VARIOUS DETAILS FURNISHED BEFORE HIM C ALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAD REPRESENTED THE SELLING FARMER S AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER AND THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE SELLERS DO NOT REPRESENT UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE IMPUGNED ASSESSM ENT YEAR. SINCE THE ORDER OF THE LD.CIT(A) IS BASED ON THE REMAND REPOR T GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO AFTER THOROUGH EXAMINATION HA D ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE O F ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE BY THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRE SENTATIVE WE FIND NO INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE A DDITION OF RS.1,58,79,375/-. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENU E ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. ITA NO.895/PN/2012 (BY ASSESSEE) : 8. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESS ING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE TRANSACTIONS REPORTED IN AIR FURNISHED U/S.285BA SHOWING INVESTMENT OF RS.51,25, 000/- ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASE OF PROPERTY BY THE ASSESSEE ISSUED NOTI CE U/S.142(1) TO THE ASSESSEE. SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY TO THE SAID NOTICE AND SUBSEQUENT NOTICES THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT 6 U/S.144 DETERMINING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.51,25,000/- AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN THE NAME OF GANDHI ARVIND MANIKCHAND. 9. BEFORE THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE MADE VARIOUS SUBM ISSIONS AND FILED VARIOUS DETAILS. THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER WHO REPORTED AS UNDER : THE FOURTH GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ACADEM IC IN NATURE AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY COMMENT/OBSERVATION FROM M Y SIDE. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT THE TOTAL TRANSACTI ON OF PURCHASE OF LAND WAS SPREADING OVER A PERIOD FROM 1996 TO 20 08. HE HAD PRODUCED THE AGREEMENTS/DOCUMENTS EXECUTED AND REGI STERED WITH THE SUB-REGISTRAR IN 1998 AND 1999. THE SAID COPIE S WERE GIVEN IN THE PAGE NOS.4 TO 14 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. THE ASSESS EE HAD PRODUCED THE BANK STATEMENTS AND PAYMENT VOUCHERS F OR THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE FARMERS FROM 1996 TO 2008 FOR THE PURCHASE OF LAND MADE. THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS MADE WERE GI VEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN PAGE NOS. 194 TO 238 OF THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS. ALL THE PAYMENTS WE RE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EVEN THOUGH THE SALE DEEDS WERE MADE IN TH E NAME OF HIMSELF AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. THE BANK STATEMENTS AND VOUCHERS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE EXAMINED. REGARDING T HE SOURCE OF THE PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THE PAYME NTS MADE WERE OUT OF THE FUNDS RECEIVED FROM THE FIRM M/S. MANAS CONS TRUCTIONS, A PARTNERSHIP FIRM IN WHICH HIS SONS WERE THE PARTNER S WITH OTHER PERSONS. HE HAD EXPRESSED HIS INABILITY TO SUBMIT T HE COPY OF ACCOUNT FROM THE FIRM SHOWING THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS RECEI VED FROM THE FIRM. HE HAD SUBMITTED THAT THERE ARE DISPUTES AMONG THE PARTNERS OF THE FIRM AND HIS SONS ARE NOT HAVING ANY ACCESS TO THE RECORDS OF THE FIRM AND HE SUBMITTED THAT THE DISPUTES HAD BEEN RESOLVE D THROUGH AN 'AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND CONCILIATION' DATED 4 TH JANUARY 2007. IT WAS STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE COPY O F THE SAID AGREEMENT OF SETTLEMENT AND CONCILIATION WAS SUBMIT TED TO YOU VIDE THE SUBMISSION MADE ON 16 TH FEBRUARY 2010. AS PER THE SETTLEMENT THE OTHER PARTNERS WILL HAVE CONTROL OVE R THE ACCOUNTS ETC OF THE FIRM AND THEY WILL BE COMPLETING THE BALANCE SHEET ETC. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE'S SONS DO NOT HAVE ANY AC CESS TO THE SAID FIRM'S ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER THE ASSESSEE HAD STATED TH AT THE COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET AND INCOME TAX RETURN OF THE FIRM FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04 WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE YOU AT PAGE NO: 1 66 TO 189 OF THE PAPER BOOK. AT PAGE NO: 179 OF THE PAPER BOOK, AN AMOUNT OF RS.3,17,44,132/- WAS SHOWN AS AN ADVANCE GIVEN TO M R. ARVIND GANDHI BY THE FIRM. THIS BALANCE SHEET ALONG WITH THE BANK STATEMENTS PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM 1996 ONWARDS SHOWS TH AT THE 7 PAYMENT OF RS.1,65,90,505/-MADE TILL ASSESSMENT YEA R 2004-05 COULD BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THU S PURCHASE OF LAND COULD NOT BE CONCLUDED AS FROM THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER THIS PERTAINS TO THE PERIOD P RIOR TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR IN APPEAL IE., ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 -06. THE TOTAL PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE P ERIOD RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06 IS RS.6,05,570/ - EVEN THOUGH ONLY RS.1,55,100/- PERTAINS TO THE SALE DEED MADE I N THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SAME IS ATTACHED HEREWITH AS ANNEXURE-I. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO GIVE THE DETAILS OF PAYMENTS OF RS.6,05,570/- MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE COPY OF THE BANK STA TEMENT, BANK PASS BOOKS, VOUCHERS ETC FOR THE PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR AND THE SAME IS VERIFIED. HOWEVER, IT COULD NOT BE CONCLUD ED THAT THIS PAYMENT OF RS.6,05,570/- MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IS AN UNEXPLA INED INVESTMENT OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE SAID A.Y. 2005-06. THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE COMPUTATION OF INCOM E SUBMITTED FOR THE SAID ASSESSMENT YEAR AND THE SAME IS VERIFIED W ITH THE BANK STATEMENTS, BANK PASSBOOKS AND OTHER DOCUMENTS PROD UCED. 10. THE LD.CIT(A) IN HIS ORDER STATED THAT THE ITO- CIB-2 HAS WRONGLY COMPUTED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.51,25,000 /- IN HIS ORDER DATED 28-12-2007 U/S.144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. SI NCE THERE WAS NO DIRECT RELIEF GIVEN BY THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDI TION, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL BEFORE US WITH THE FOLLOWING GROU NDS : 1. THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT SPECIFICALLY DELETIN G THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.51,25,000/- EVEN THOUGH, HE HAD ACCEPTED THAT THE ADDITION WAS WRONGLY MADE. 2. THE LD.CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED THE APPEAL O F THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.51,25,000/- WAS NOT JUSTIFI ED. 3. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, AMEND OR DELETE ANY OF THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 11. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE ADDITI ON WAS WRONGLY MADE, STILL THERE WAS NO SPECIFIC DIRECTION FOR DEL ETING THE ADDITION ON 8 ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT FOR WHICH THE ASS ESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY APPEAL EFFECT REDUCING THE SAID AMOUN T. 11.1 REFERRING TO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBA Y HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF BABY SAMEUL VS. ACIT REPORTED IN 262 IT R 385 HE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DENIED THE RI GHT TO CLAIM ADJUDICATION OF AN ISSUE ON THE MERIT WHEN THE ISSU E WAS SPECIFICALLY TAKEN AT THE TIME OF FINAL HEARING OF THE APPEAL AN D THE REVENUE HAD OCCASION TO DEAL WITH THE SUBMISSIONS MADE THEREON. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT EVEN IF NO GROUND WAS TAKEN BEFORE T HE LD.CIT(A), STILL THE CIT(A) WAS BOUND TO DECIDE THE ISSUE SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE THE ARGUMENTS WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED IN THE OR DER ITSELF. HE ACCORDINGLY SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH NO SPECIFIC GRO UND WAS TAKEN BEFORE THE CIT(A), STILL THE TRIBUNAL CAN DECIDE THE ISSUE HERE ITSELF INSTEAD OF RESTORING THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A). 12. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ON THE OTHE R HAND SUBMITTED THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH PROPER DIRECTION. 13. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND ALTHOUGH T HE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD MADE ADDITION OF RS.51,25,000/- ON ACCO UNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT WE FIND THE ASSESSEE HAD MERELY CHALLENG ED THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED U/S.144 BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT GRO UNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) READ AS UNDER: 9 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN FRAMING ASSE SSMENT U/S.144 OF THE ACT WITHOUT MAKING ANY FURTHER ENQUIRY IN TH E MATTER. 2. ANY OTHER GROUNDS OF APPEAL THAT MAY BE RAISED W ITH THE PERMISSION OF CIT(A). 13.1 WE FIND ALTHOUGH THE LD.CIT(A) CALLED FOR A RE MAND REPORT FROM THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND OBSERVED THAT THE ITO, CI B-2 HAD WRONGLY COMPUTED THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT OF RS.51,25,000 /- IN THE ORDER PASSED U/S.144, HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SPECI FIC DIRECTION ON THIS ISSUE. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS OF TH E CASE AND IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, WE DEEM IT PROPER TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD.CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO ADJUDICATE THE SAME I N ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE AND PASS A SPEAKING ORDER. WE HOLD AND DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. 14. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATIST ICAL PURPOSES. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 27 TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER 2013 SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (R.K. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNT ANT MEMBER PUNE DATED: 27 TH SEPTEMBER 2013 SATISH 10 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. DEPARTMENT 3. CIT(A) CENTRAL, PUNE 4. CIT CENTRAL, PUNE 5. THE D.R, A PUNE BENCH 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY ITAT, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE