Sopan D. Patil, Kolhapur V. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax,

ITA 903/PUN/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9560 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 6 month(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-12-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 26-10-2017
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 11-06-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Income from undisclosed sources; Loose papers; Document seized; Cost of acquisition; Accommodation entries; Onus to prove; Documents seized
• Section: 153A; 132; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHADHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . / ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/15 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2009-10 & 2010-11 SOPAN D. PATIL, ATHARVA PLAZA, 202-3, E-WARD, KOLHAPUR PAN : ABLPP1975F VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), PUNE (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) / ORDER PER R.S.SYAL, VP : THESE TWO APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 23-03-2015 IN RE LATION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009-10 & 2010-11. SINCE SOME COM MON ISSUES HAVE BEEN RAISED IN THESE APPEALS, WE ARE, THEREFO RE, PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE THEM OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER F OR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. APPELLANT BY SHRI K. GOPAL & SHRI MAYURESH DOSHI RESPONDENT BY SHRI SUDHENDU DAS DATE OF HEARING 19-12-2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 20-12-2018 ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 2 A.Y. 2009-10 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED IN THIS APPEAL IS AGAINST THE PASSING AN ORDER U/S. 153A OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTE R ALSO CALLED AS THE ACT) AS AGAINST THE ASSESSEES CONTENTION THA T NO SEARCH ACTION WAS CARRIED OUT ON HIM. 3. BRIEFLY STATED, THE FACTS OF THE CASE, AS RECORDED IN AS SESSMENT ORDER ARE THAT A SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRADDHA GROUP, E NGAGED IN CARRYING OUT IRRIGATION CONTRACTS, WAS CONDUCTED ON 08-09-2 010. PURSUANT TO IT, A CONSEQUENTIAL SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE CASES OF NNK CONSTRUCTIONS, UNIGLORY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., DEVG IRI ENGINEERING AND SHRI SOPAN D. PATIL (THE ASSESSEE IN QUESTION ) VIDE A SINGLE WARRANT ON 17-09-2010 AT THE PREMISES LOCATED AT R OOM NO.102 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, SADHU VASW ANI CHOWK, PUNE 01. THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS RECOR DED THAT UNIGLORY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. IS A SUB-CONTRACTOR OF SHRAD DHA GROUP AND SHRI SUSHIL AGARWAL OF UNIGLORY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD. IS ASSOCIATED WITH NNK CONSTRUCTIONS, DEVGIRI ENGINEERING AND SHRI SOPAN D. PATIL IN SOME WAY OR THE OTHER. A BUNDLE OF LO OSE PAPERS CONTAINING 33 PAGES WAS SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PREMISES, THAT IS, 102-103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, PUNE, WHICH IS THE OFFICE OF NNK CONSTRUCTIONS (SH. NANAK KRISHNANI IS ITS ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 3 PROPRIETOR) AND DEVGIRI ENGINEERING (SH. MURLIDHAR BUBAJI IS ITS PARTNER). THE ASSESSEE GOT A CONTRACT IN SANGAMNER FROM THE IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT AND SUCH WORK OF SANGAMNER PROJECT WA S SUB-CONTRACTED TO NNK CONSTRUCTIONS AND DEVGIRI ENGINEERING. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT, IN RESPONSE TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED A RETURN DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.1,88,11,740/-. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALLY COMPLETED U/S .143(3) R.W.S.153A OF THE ACT ON TOTAL INCOME OF RS.4,95,14,491/ -. THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNSUCCESSFUL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN HIS CHALLENGE TO NON-CONDUCTING OF ANY SEARCH AGAINST HIM, WH ICH HAS NOW BEEN ASSAILED BEFORE US. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE MAIN CONTENTION OF THE LD. AR IS THAT NO SEARCH ACTION WAS TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE AND HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE U/S. 153A BE QUASHED. WE ARE NOT CONV INCED WITH THE SUBMISSION TENDERED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE FACT THAT SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IS AMPLY EVIDENT FROM VARIOUS F ACTS. FIRSTLY, IT IS AN ADMITTED POSITION AND HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE LD. AR AS WELL THAT WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION DATED 17-09-2010 WAS ISSUED, INTER ALIA , IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE. A COPY OF SUCH WARRANT IS PLACED AT PAGE 361 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH PRO MINENTLY ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 4 SHOWS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.45, BEING THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT. THE PREMISES COVE RED UNDER THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION IS ROOM NO.102 AND 103, B-WIN G, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, SADHU VASWANI CHOWK, PUNE 01. THEN, A PANCHANAMA DATED 18-09-2010 WAS DRAWN, WHOSE COPY HA S BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 364 AND 365 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IT INDICA TES THE FACTUM OF CLOSURE OF THE SEARCH AT THE SAME PLACE. SUC H PANCHANAMA ALSO INDICATES THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE ALONG W ITH UNIGLORY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NNK CONSTRUCTIONS, PROPRIETOR SH. N.N.KRISHNANI, DEVGIRI ENGINEERING, BEING, THE SAME PE RSONS IN WHOSE NAME THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ISSUED. STILL FURTHER, PAGE NO. 3 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS A STATEMENT OF T HE ASSESSEE RECORDED U/S.132(4) OF THE ACT IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH ACTION U/S. 132 AT PREMISES NO.102 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CE NTRE, SADHU VASWANI CHOWK, PUNE. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.3 , THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT SHRI NANAK B. KRISHNANI, SHRI NANDGOPAL KRISHNANI AND M/S. DEVGIRI ENGINEERING WERE HIS SUB-CONTRACTO RS LOOKING AFTER SANGAMNER PROJECT. THE VERY FACT THAT A STATE MENT U/S. 132(4) WAS RECORDED AND DULY SIGNED BY THE ASSESS EE, AS SUCH, SHOWS THAT A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT ON THE ASSESSEE, FOR WHICH A VALID WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION WAS ALSO ISSUED. NOT ONLY THAT, THE ASSESSEE ALSO ADMITTED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S. 143(2) OF THE ACT, ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 5 A COPY OF WHICH LETTER HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA NO.7 .3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT : `I AM ONE OF THE PERSONS COVERED UNDER SEARCH ACTION CONDUCTED ON 08-09-2010 AND 17-09-2010 . IT EMERGES FROM THE ABOVE FACTUAL MATRIX THAT NOT ONLY A VALID SE ARCH WARRANT WAS EXECUTED ON THE ASSESSEE BUT THE SAME FACT WA S ALSO ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS LETTER WRITTEN TO THE AO APART FRO M SIGNING THE STATEMENT U/S. 132(4) OF THE ACT. 5. SECTION 153A OF THE ACT PROVIDES THAT WHERE A SEARCH IS INITIATED U/S. 132 ETC., THE AO SHALL ISSUE NOTICE AND COMPLETE TH E ASSESSMENT FOR SIX ASSESSMENT YEARS IMMEDIATELY PRECEDIN G THE ASSESSMENT YEAR RELEVANT TO THE PREVIOUS YEAR IN WHICH SUCH SEARCH IS CONDUCTED. THUS IT IS UNAMBIGUOUS THAT INITIATION OF SEARCH U /S 132 IS SINE QUA NON FOR FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S 153A. SECTION 132(1), IN TURN, PROVIDES THAT WHERE PRINCIPAL DIRECTOR GENER AL ETC., IN CONSEQUENCE OF INFORMATION IN HIS POSSESSION, HAS REAS ON TO BELIEVE THAT ANY PERSON TO WHOM ONE OF THE THREE CIRCUMSTAN CES GIVEN IN CLAUSES (A), (B,) OR (C) APPLY, THEN THE PRINCIPA L DIRECTOR GENERAL ETC. SHALL AUTHORIZE ANY ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR ETC. TO CA RRY OUT SEARCH BY ONE OR MORE OF THE FIVE MEANS ENUMERATED IN THE PROVISION, INTER ALIA, `(I) ENTER AND SEARCH ANY BUILDING, PLACE .. WHERE HE HAS REASON TO SUSPECT THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 6 DOCUMENTS,. ARE KEPT . ON A CAREFUL CIRCUMSPECTION OF SECTION 153A IN CONJUNCTION WITH SECTION 132(1)(I), IT BECOMES VIVID THAT A SEARCH CAN BE CARRIED OUT, INTER ALIA , AT A PLACE WHERE IT IS SUSPECTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS ETC . OF THE PERSON SEARCHED, ARE KEPT. 6. THE WHOLE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE SEARCH W AS CONDUCTED AT 102 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, S ADHU VASWANI CHOWK, PUNE, AND HE IS IN NO WAY CONNECTED WITH IT, WHEREAS THE REVENUE HAS BUILT ITS CASE ON THE PREMISE THAT TH IS IS A PLACE WHERE THE ASSESSEE WAS SUSPECTED TO HAVE KEPT ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS. THE CONTENTION OF THE LD. A R IN THIS REGARD, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, IS BEREFT OF ANY FORCE . 7. UNDOUBTEDLY THIS PREMISES SEARCHED WERE IN THE POSS ESSION OF UNIGLORY INFRA PROJECTS PVT. LTD., NNK CONSTRUCTIONS, PROPRIETORSHIP OF N.N. KRISHNANI, DEVGIRI ENGINEERING ETC. B UT SEVERAL `DOCUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE FOUND TO HAVE BEEN KEPT THERE. IT IS FOUND AS AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT PREMISES AT 1 02 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, SADHU VASWANI CHOWK, P UNE WAS COVERED IN THE SEARCH WARRANT AND WAS ALSO SEARCHED . PANCHANAMA DRAWN ALSO INDICATES FINDING OF CERTAIN LOOSE PA PERS ETC. FROM THE SAID PREMISES. THERE IS AN ANNEXURE TO THE ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 7 PANCHNAMA, WHICH IS A `LIST OF A/C BOOKS ETC.: SEIZED FRO M THE GIVEN ADDRESS OF ROOM NO.102 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, SADHU VASWANI CHOWK, PUNE 01. A TOTAL OF 33 PAG ES WERE SEIZED APART FROM COMPUTER DATA BACKUP- EXTERNAL HA RD DISK. 8. PAGE NO.14 FOUND FROM THE SAME SEARCHED PREMISE S IS AN ACCOUNT OF ONE SH. SUSHIL, HAVING CERTAIN FIGURES. THIS PAGE ALSO RECORDS THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE FIGURE OF 3 07.8466. IN THE WAKE OF MAHARASHTRA IRRIGATION SCAM, THE REVENUE INTERP RETED THIS PAGE AS AN ACCOUNT OF BRIBE PAID TO SH. SUSHIL BY THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS FOR SECURING PROJECTS FROM THE STATE GOVERNMENT. SHRI MURLIDHAR BUBAJI AND SH. NANAK B. KRISHNANI ADMITTED IN THEIR STATEMENTS THAT THE ABOVE SUM OF RS.307.84 LAKHS, MENTIONED ON PAGE 14 OF THE SEARCHED DOCUMENTS, REPRESENTED THE MON EY PASSED FROM ASSESSEE TO SHRI SUSHIL AGARWAL. WHEN CONFRONTED, THE ASSESSEE, IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 5, ADMITTED IN HIS STATE MENT U/S 132(4) : `TO BE OUT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF F.Y. 2009 -10 NOT SHOWN IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HE FURTHER STATE D THAT : `AS EVIDENT FROM THE SEIZED PAPERS AND ALSO STATEMENTS REC ORDED IN RESPECT OF SHRI NANAK B KRISHNANI, MYSELF AND DEVGIRI ENGINEERING WERE JOINTLY EXECUTING THE SANGAMNER PROJECT. HENC E, ON MUTUAL CONSULTATION BOTH OF US HAVE AGREED TO DIVIDE THIS ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 8 UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.307.84 LAKHS IN 40:60 RATIO. EX CONSEQUENTI, THE ASSESSEES SHARE OF RS.123.13 LAKHS WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN HIS RETURN FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11. 9. ONE OF THE PAPERS SEIZED FROM SUCH PREMISES, MAR KED AS PAGE 25, IS A RECORD OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS TOTALING UP TO RS.5,23,53,697/-, BEING, PURCHASE OF STEEL ON DIFFERENT DATES PERTAINING TO THE A.YRS. 2009-10 AND 2010-11. THE REVEN UE CLAIMS THIS PAGE TO BE A LIST OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES, WHICH WERE RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. AT TH E TIME OF SEARCH, SHRI MURLIDHAR BUBAJI, PARTNER OF DEVGIRI ENGINEERING AND SHRI NANAK KRISHNANI, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. NNK CONSTRUCTIONS, WHO WERE WORKING AS SUB-CONTRACTORS OF THE ASSESSEE, ADMITTE D THAT THE TRANSACTIONS AT PAGE 25 WERE A RECORD OF ACCOMMODATION EN TRIES TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN RELATION TO THE SUB-CONTRACT WORK ASSIGNED TO THEM. THE ASSESSEE, IN HIS REPLY, AS REPRODUCED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ADMITTED THAT : `ALL THE MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT WOULD BE PURCHASED BY THE SUB-CONTRACTORS AND DELIVERY OF GOO DS WOULD BE TAKEN BY THEM ALONE. HE FURTHER STATED THAT :`ALL THE OTH ER RELEVANT MATERIAL REGARDING RECEIPT OF GOODS I.E. DELIVERY CHA LLAN, STOCK REGISTER, TRANSPORT MEMOS ETC. WERE REGULARLY KEPT A T SITE AND AS ON TO-DAY IT MAY BE IN THE POSSESSION OF MY SUB-CO NTRACTORS, ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 9 HENCE I AM UNABLE TO PRODUCE THE SAME BEFORE YOUR HONO UR. THE SUB-CONTRACTORS REFERRED TO BY THE ASSESSEE ARE SH. BUBA JI AND SH. NANKANI ETC., WHO WERE IN POSSESSION OF THE SEARCHED P REMISES. EVEN DURING THE COURSE OF STATEMENT U/S 132(4), THE ASSESS EE ADMITTED IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO. 5 THAT : `SH. N.B. KRISHN ANI AND SH. MURLIDHAR BUBAJI WERE LOOKING AFTER THE SANGAMNER PROJECT AND ALSO PURCHASING CONSTRUCTION MATERIAL FOR THE SAID PROJECT. FROM THE ABOVE NARRATION OF FACTS, IT IS PALPABLE TH AT THE `DOCUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE KEPT AT THE PREMISES NO.102 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRADE CENTRE, SADHU VASWANI CHOWK, P UNE AND IT IS ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE C HOSE TO SURRENDER INCOME OF RS.123.13 LAKHS OR DISPUTED THE TAX ABILITY OF INCOME IN RESPECT OF DOCUMENT NO.25, WHICH WE SHALL ADVER T TO INFRA. THIS INDICATES THAT ALBEIT THE SEARCHED PREMISES WAS NOT FORMALLY USED BY THE ASSESSEE, BUT HE KEPT HIS `OTHER DOCUMENTS AT SUCH PREMISES, BRINGING THE CASE WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 132(1)(I) OF THE ACT. 10. THE LD. AR HAS RELIED ON CERTAIN DECISIONS, WHICH ARE DISTINGUISHABLE AND HAVE NO BEARING TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE DECISION REGENCY MAHAVIR PROPERTIES VS. ACIT (2018) 169 ITD 35 LAYS DOWN A RATIO THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SEARCH BEING CONDUCTED AT ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 10 THE PLACE OF BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ASSESSMENT CAN BE MADE BY ISSUING NOTICE U/S.153A OF THE ACT. IN THAT CASE, SEARCH WAS INITIATED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE BUT DID NOT MENTION THE ADDRESS OF THE PREMISES WHERE THE ASSESSEE CONDUCTED ITS BUSINESS. NO INCRIMINATING MATERIAL RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE WAS FOUND IN THE PREMISES WHERE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT. THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED BUT NO PANCHANAMA WAS DRAWN IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE . IT WAS UNDER THOSE CIRCUMSTANCES THAT THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT NO VALID SEARCH TOOK PLACE. ADVERTING TO THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CA SE, IT IS FOUND THAT NOT ONLY THE DOCUMENTS RELATING TO THE ASSESSEES BUSINESS WERE FOUND AT 102 AND 103, B-WING, PARMAR TRAD E CENTRE, SADHU VASWANI CHOWK, PUNE, BUT THEY WERE INCRIMINATIN G IN NATURE AND ON THE BASIS OF SUCH DOCUMENTS THE ASSESSEE SURRENDERED CERTAIN INCOME AS WELL. THE NAME OF THE ASS ESSEE ALSO APPEARS IN THE PANCHANAMA DRAWN FOR THAT PREMISES. 11. NEXT IS THE CASE OF HARSH DEEP CONSTRUCTION VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.1941/MUM/2014 , IN WHICH NO SUCH SEARCH WAS INITIATED OR CONDUCTED IN PURSUANCE TO THE WARRANT. EVEN THE WARRANT IN DICATED THE NAME OF HARSHAD P. DOSHI BUT NOT THAT OF THE ASSESSEE IN THAT CASE. THE TRIBUNAL IN PARA NO.10 OBSERVED WITH CONCURRE NCE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS EXPRESSED THE VIEW THAT THE SEARCH NEE D NOT ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 11 TAKE PLACE AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ITSELF B UT IT CAN BE CONDUCTED IN ANY OTHER PLACE ALSO. THERE CANNOT BE A NY DISPUTE ON SUCH OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THAT CASE. THOUGH THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF HARSH DEEP CONSTRUCTION ARE DIFFERENT BUT THE RATIO AS EXTRACTED ABOVE VALIDATES THE SEARCH ACTION TAKEN UPON THE ASSESSEE IN THE INSTANT CASE. 12. IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS. K.G. FINVEST (P) LTD. (2017) 57 ITR (T) 62 (DELHI-TRIB), THE SEARCH WAS HELD TO BE INVALID AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS QUASHED FOR THE REASON THAT NEITHER THE NAM E OF THE ASSESSEE APPEARED IN THE WARRANT OF AUTHORIZATION NOR ITS AD DRESS WAS GIVEN THEREIN. OBVIOUSLY, THIS CASE ALSO DOES NOT ASSIST THE ASSESSEE IN ANY MANNER. 13. THE OTHER DECISIONS RELIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE FOR QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT ARE ALSO DISTINGUISHABLE HAVING NO RESEMBLANCE TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE. 14. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, WE HOLD THAT AC TION U/S. 132 OF THE ACT WAS VALIDLY TAKEN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, PUR SUANT TO WHICH THE ASSESSMENT GOT COMPLETED U/S. 153A OF THE ACT. NO ILLEGALITY CAN BE FOUND IN THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT U/S. 15 3A OF THE ACT. ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 12 15. GROUND NO.2 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION O F RS.3,07,02,754/-. 16. FACTUAL MATRIX OF THIS GROUND IS THAT CERTAIN LOOSE PAP ERS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE SEARCHED PREMISES. PAGE NO. 25 OF SUCH LOOSE PAPERS HAS BEEN REPRODUCED IN PARA NO.7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THIS LOOSE PAPER CONTAINS DATE-WISE DE TAILS OF CHEQUES ISSUED WITH CERTAIN PARTICULARS AND AMOUNTS. TOTAL OF ALL THE ITEMS ON PAGE NO. 25 WAS GIVEN AS RS.5,23,53,697/- . THE AO NOTICED THAT THIS PAGE CONTAINED PURCHASES OF STEEL AMOUNTING TO RS.5.23 CRORE ON DIFFERENT DATES, SOME FALLING IN THIS YEAR WHILE OTHERS IN THE SUCCEEDING YEAR. HE NOTED THAT, AT THE TIME O F SEARCH, SH. MURLIDHAR BUBAJI, PARTNER OF M/S. DEVGIRI ENGINEERS AND SH. NANAK KRISHNANI, PROPRIETOR OF NNK CONSTRUCTIONS WERE PRES ENT, WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RECORDED REGARDING THIS SEIZED DOCUM ENT. IN RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.7 AND EXPLAINING THE CONTENTS OF PAGE 25, IT WAS STATED BY MURLIDHAR BUBAJI THAT THIS PAGE CONTAINS LIST O F ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RELATING TO THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSE E, DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS CONFRON TED WITH THE STATEMENT OF MURLIDHAR BUBAJI AND ASKED TO GIVE HIS COMMEN TS. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT LIST ON PAGE 25 MIGHT HAVE BEEN PREPARED BY NANAK B. KRISHNANI AND MURLIDHAR BUBAJI. HE ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 13 SUBMITTED THAT SUCH EXPENDITURE WAS RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HE WAS NOT AWARE AS TO HOW MURLIDHAR BUBAJI CLA IMED THE EXPENDITURE TO BE BOGUS BY MEANS OF ACCOMMODATION ENTR IES ONLY. THE AO REQUIRED THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE GENUINEN ESS OF THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.5.23 CRORE RECORDED ON PAGE 25 B Y PRODUCING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE SUBMIT TED THAT THE DAY-TO-DAY EXECUTION OF CONTRACT WORK WAS LOOKED AFTER BY THE SUB-CONTRACTORS, NAMELY, MURLIDHAR BUBAJI AND NANAK B. KRISHNANI AND THE MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT WAS PURC HASED BY THEM ON HIS BEHALF, WHOSE DELIVERY WAS ALSO TAKEN BY TH EM ALONE. HE, THEREFORE, SHIFTED THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE GEN UINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY MEANS OF PRODUCTION OF DELIVERY CHA LLAN, STOCK REGISTER, TRANSPORT LORRY RECEIPTS ETC. ON THEM BY EXPR ESSING HIS INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE SAME. THE REPLY OF THE ASSESSE E WAS CONFRONTED TO M/S. DEVGIRI ENGINEERING AND NNK CONSTRUCTIONS, REPRESENTED BY MURLIDHAR BUBAJI AND NANAK B. KRISHNANI, FOR COMMENTS. IN RESPONSE, BOTH OF THEM STATED THAT THEY WERE WORKING AS SUB-CONTRACTORS ALONG WITH THE ASSESSEE TO EXECU TE THE SANGAMNER PROJECT AND THE MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE PROJE CT WAS PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE ALONE AND THE SAID MATERIAL/GOODS WERE UNLOADED, STORED, ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SUPERVISORY STAFF O F THE ASSESSEE. THE AO AGAIN CONFRONTED THE VERSION GIVEN BY THE SUB- ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 14 CONTRACTORS TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO REITERATED THE EARLIER STAND AS TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED ON PAGE NO.25. SINCE THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT LEAD ANY PRIMARY EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT TH E GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESS EE WAS FALSELY TRYING TO SHIFT THE BURDEN TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS BY LORRY RECEIPTS, GATE PASS ETC. TO THE SUB-CON TRACTORS, WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN PROVED BY HIM ALONE AS THESE WE RE THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 17. AT THIS JUNCTURE, IT IS PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT PAGE NO.14 OF THE LOOSE DOCUMENTS RECORDS CERTAIN PAYMENTS MADE BY THE ASSE SSEE TO SUSHIL AGARWAL. THE AO OBSERVED FROM PAGE 14 OF THE S EIZED DOCUMENTS THAT THE ASSESSEE PAID A SUM OF RS.307.8466 LAK HS TO SUSHIL AGARWAL. THE ASSESSEE AGREED TO SURRENDER HIS SH ARE OF 40% AS ADDITIONAL INCOME AND 60% BY M/S. DEVGIRI ENGINEERING. T HE AO OBSERVED THAT CONTENTS OF PAGE 13 OF THE SEIZED DOCUM ENTS INDICATED THAT ANOTHER RS.216 LAKHS WAS SHARED AMONGST INTER ESTED PARTIES. IF THIS AMOUNT OF RS.216 LAKHS WAS ADDED TO RS.3 07.8466 LAKHS GIVEN TO SUSHIL AGARWAL, THE TOTAL AT RS.523.8466 LAKHS WA S CLOSE TO THE TOTAL ON PAGE 25 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, BEING, A SUM OF RS.5,23,53,697/-. ON THE BASIS OF THE RELEVANT MATER IAL, THE AO DREW AN INFERENCE THAT SUSHIL AGARWAL WAS ACTING AS MIDDLEMAN ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 15 FOR EXTRACTING CONTRACTS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND OTHERS AND IT WAS FOR THIS PURPOSE THAT HE WAS PAID KICKBACKS AMOUNTING TO RS.307. 8466 LAKHS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE IMPLIEDLY ADMITTEDLY BY OFFERING 4 0% OF SUCH PAYMENT AS HIS INCOME AND THE REMAINING 60% BY M/S. DEVGIRI ENGINEERING. ON A PERUSAL OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE, IT WAS SEEN THAT OUT OF TOTAL PAYMENT OF RS.5.23 CRORE AS RECORDED ON PAGE 25 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, THE ASSESSE E RECORDED PURCHASES IN THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION TO THE TUNE OF RS.307.02754 LAKHS. HE, THEREFORE, MADE AN ADDITION OF THIS SUM, WHICH CAME TO BE AFFIRMED IN THE FIRST APPEAL. THE ASSESSE E IS AGGRIEVED BY THE SUSTENANCE OF THE ADDITION. 18. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND GONE THROU GH THE RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD ON THIS ISSUE. FROM THE FACTS R ECORDED ABOVE, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THERE ARE TWO PAGES RELEVANT IN DECIDING THE ISSUE UNDER CONSIDERATION. FIRST IS PAGE NO. 14 OF THE SEARCHED DOCUMENTS, WHICH RECORDS THAT A SUM OF RS.307.8466 LAKH S WAS GIVEN TO SUSHIL AGARWAL, THAT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE A S UNACCOUNTED INCOME AND AGREED TO SURRENDER HIS SHARE O F 40% OF IT WITH THE REMAINING 60% SHARE GOING TO M/S. DEVGIRI ENGINEERING. THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION MAHARASHTRA IRRIGATION SCAM, WHICH TOOK PLACE DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD FO R ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 16 WHICH THE GOVT. OF MAHARASHTRA DIRECTED ITS ANTI CORRUPTION BUREAU TO CONDUCT AN ENQUIRY. THIS FACT HAS BEEN RECORD ED ON PAGES 30 ONWARDS OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT, AT THE RELEVANT TIME WAS MONITORING THE PROBE WHILE DEALING WITH THE PILS FILED ON IRRIGATION SCAM. WHEN WE CONS IDER THE FACTS IN TOTALITY, THE INFERENCE DRAWN BY THE AUTHORITIES REGARDING PAGE 14 OF THE SEARCHED DOCUMENT CANNOT BE INTE RFERED WITH THAT A SUM OF RS.307.8466 WAS PAID TO SUSHIL AGARWAL AS BRIBE FOR PROCURING CONTRACTS FOR THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. D EVGIRI ENGINEERING. THE FACTUM OF THE ASSESSEE HAVING OFFERED FOR TAXATION AN INCOME OF RS.123.13 LAKHS IN HIS INCOME-TAX RE TURN FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 @ 40% OF RS.307.8466 LAKHS PAID TO SU SHIL AGARWAL, FORTIFIES THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE AO. SUCH A SURRENDER HAS NOT BEEN RETRACTED NOR THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE OFFERING OF HIS SHARE AS THE INCOME. THIS IS ONE SIDE O F THE STORY WHICH SHOWS THAT AT LEAST A SUM OF RS.307.8466 LAKHS WAS AN OUTGO FROM THE UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND M/S. DEV GIRI ENGINEERING. 19. THE SECOND SIDE IS PAGE NO. 25 OF THE SEARCHED DOCUMENTS, WHICH RECORDS THE EXPENSES TO THE TUNE OF RS.5.23 CRORE. MURLIDHAR BUBAJI AND SHRI NANAK B. KRISHNANI ADMITTED BEFORE THE AUTHOR ITIES ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 17 THAT THESE WERE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES RECORDED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. WHEN THE AO CALLED UPON THE ASSESS EE TO PROVE THE ACTUAL MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM THE PLACE OF SALE TO ITS DESTINATION, THE ASSESSEE MISERABLY FAILED TO DO SO AND TRIED TO SHIFT BURDEN ON MURLIDHAR BUBAJI AND NANAK B. KRISHNANI, WHO A LSO TURNED THE TABLE TOWARDS THE ASSESSEE BY PUTTING FORTH THAT NO SUCH RECORD WAS WITH THEM. THE LD. AR TRIED TO PROVE THE GENUINE NESS OF SUCH TRANSACTIONS BEFORE US BY PLACING ON RECORD COPIE S OF INVOICES WHICH HAVE BEEN REFERRED TO AT PAGE 25 OF THE SE IZED DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO DISPUTE ON THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSE E, IN FACT, PRODUCED THE INVOICES AND MADE PAYMENT AGAINST THEM THROUG H BANKING CHANNELS, WHICH IS ALWAYS A PRE-CONDITION FOR ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF PURCHASE OF MATERIAL. HOWEVER, EX CEPT FOR A LIP SERVICE ABOUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO SHOW ANY PRIMARY AND EXTERNAL EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE MOVEMENT OF GOODS FROM SUCH SUPPLIERS AND RECEIPTS B Y HIM ALONG WITH ITS CONSUMPTION IN THE EXECUTION OF CONTRACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT THE VIEW POINT OF THE AUTHORITIES THAT A SUM OF RS. 5.23 CRORE, RECORDED ON PAG E 25 OF THE SEARCHED DOCUMENTS, IS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOUNT OF ACCOMMO DATION ENTRIES PROCURED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF REC ORDING THE SAME IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 18 20. THERE IS ANOTHER FACET OF THIS MATTER. IT IS UNDISPU TED THAT THE ASSESSEE CARRIED OUT THE WORK AND EARNED REVENUE FROM IT. PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE INDICATES TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.7.48 CRORE AGAINST TOTAL CONTRACT RECEIPTS OF RS.27.40 C RORE. THE PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASE TO CONTRACT RECEIPTS COMES AT 27.29 %. THE LD. AR HAS PLACED ON RECORD A YEAR-WISE CHART OF PURCHAS ES, CONTRACT RECEIPTS AND PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASES TO CONTRACT R ECEIPTS IN THE PRECEDING THREE YEARS. SUCH A CHART SHOWS PERCEN TAGE OF PURCHASES TO CONTRACT RECEIPTS AT 23.86% FOR THE A.Y. 200 6-07, 12.98% FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08 AND 14.24% FOR THE A.Y. 2 008-09. IF WE EXCLUDE RS.5.23 CRORE FROM TOTAL PURCHASES OF RS.7. 48 CRORE, THERE WILL BE LEFT A FIGURE OF PURCHASES TO THE TUNE OF RS.2. 26 CRORE, WHICH, WHEN APPLIED TO THE CONTRACT RECEIPTS, GIVES PERCENTAG E OF ABOUT 8%. CONSIDERING THE PERCENTAGE OF PURCHASES TO CON TRACT RECEIPTS IN THE PRECEDING YEARS, IT CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT TH E ASSESSEE SIMPLY OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND EXECUTED THE WORK WITH NOMINAL PURCHASES OF RS.2.25 CRORE. THIS IMPLI ES THAT THE ASSESSEE, IN FACT, PROCURED SOME MATERIAL AT A LOWER PRICES AND INFLATED THE PURCHASE COST WITH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THIS FAC T IS FURTHER CORROBORATED BY THE REPLIES GIVEN BY DEVGIRI ENGINEE RING AND NNK CONSTRUCTIONS DATED 3.12.2012 AND 6.12.2012 RESPECTIVELY, AS HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED VERBATIM IN THE ASS ESSMENT ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 19 ORDER TO THE EFFECT THAT : `AS PER HIS (THE ASSESSEE) INSTRU CTIONS AND SUPERVISION WE WERE CARRYING OUT THE PROJECT AND THE MATERIAL REQUIRED FOR THE PROJECT WERE PROCURED BY MR. SOPAN D PA TIL AND THE SAID MATERIAL/GOODS WERE UNLOADED, STORED, ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE SITE SUPERVISORY STAFF OF MR. SOPAN D PATIL. THUS, THERE CAN BE NO DIFFICULTY IN DRAWING AN INFERENCE THAT THE ASSESSEE, I N FACT PURCHASED GOODS FROM OTHER UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND UTILIZE D THE SAME IN THE EXECUTION OF CONTRACTS, THOUGH INFLATED BILLS WERE RECEIVED AND RECORDED IN THE REGULAR BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. 21. THE HONBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT IN VIJAY TRADING COMPANY VS. ITO (2016) 388 ITR 377 (GUJARAT) HAS HELD THAT THE ENTIRE AMOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES CANNOT BE ADDED BUT ONLY THE PROFIT ELEMENT EMBEDDED THEREIN WOULD BE SUBJECTED TO TAX. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THAT CASE RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO 25% OF C OST OF SUCH PURCHASES. IN ANOTHER JUDGMENT IN NK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. DCIT (2016) 292 CTR 354 (GUJARAT) , THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THE TRIBUNAL WAS JUSTIFIED IN RETAINING THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES AT 25%. IF WE APPLY THE PERCENTA GE OF 25% TO THE TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITS ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 20 BOOKS OF ACCOUNT TO THE TUNE OF RS.5.23 CRORE FOR BOTH THE YEARS, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ADDITION COMES TO RS.130 LAKHS. 22. NOW, WE ARE CONFRONTED WITH A SITUATION IN WHICH THE OUTGO TO SUSHIL AGARWAL, AS PER PAGE 14 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS , IS RS.307.8466 LAKHS FOR PROCURING IRRIGATION CONTRACTS AND THE RE ARE CERTAIN FICTITIOUS BILLS RECORDED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER PAGE 25 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. IF THERE IS CERTAIN INFLOW OF UNACCO UNTED INCOME AND THERE IS SOME OUTFLOW OF UNEXPLAINED PAYMENTS, B OTH INFLOW AND OUTFLOW CANNOT BE CHARGED TO TAX. E.G., IF A PERSON HAS EARNED UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.100/- AND SPENT RS.80/ - ON UNACCOUNTED EXPENSES, ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE FOR RS.100 /- AS WELL RS.80/-. THE ADDITION CAN BE MADE ONLY FOR HIGHER O F SUCH UNACCOUNTED INCOME OR UNACCOUNTED EXPENDITURE. IT IS SO FO R THE REASON THAT THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME, IF UTILIZED, CANNOT GIVE R ISE TO ADDITION ONCE AGAIN, WHEN SPENT. IN FACT, THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE GETS TELESCOPED INTO THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME. 23. APPLYING THE SAME ANALOGY HERE, THE SITUATION IS THA T THE ASSESSEE PAID ITS SHARE OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.123 .13 LAKHS TO SUSHIL AGARWAL AND SUCH INCOME WAS GENERATED IN BOOKS BY OBTAINING INFLATED PURCHASE BILLS, ON WHICH HE EARNED INCOME A T THE RATE OF 25% AT RS.130.88 LAKHS. IT IS THE HIGHER OF UNEXP LAINED ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 21 INFLOW OR UNEXPLAINED OUTFLOW, WHICH CAN BE SUBJECTED TO TAX . THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SURRENDERED A SUM OF RS.123.13 LAKHS, BEING, PAYMENT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME TO SUSHIL AGARWAL. IF WE RE DUCE THE OUTFLOW OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME OF RS.123.13 LAKHS FRO M THE INFLOW OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME GENERATED BY PROCURING ACCOMMODATION BILLS AT RS.130.88 LAKHS, ANY FURTHER ADDITION WHICH IS WARRANTED, CAN BE A SUM OF RS.7.75 LAKHS. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT TO RESTRICT THE ADDITION TO A SUM OF RS.7.75 LAKHS. ITA NO.903/PUN/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 : 24. THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APPEAL IS AGGRIEVED BY THE ADD ITION OF RS.90,28,442/- MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF ENTRIES RECO RDED ON PAGE 25 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT. THIS ADDITION WAS MADE B Y THE AO BY NOTING IN PARA NO.9 OF HIS ORDER THAT OUT OF BOGUS PU RCHASES OF RS.5.23 CRORES, THE PURCHASES PERTAINING TO THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION ARE RS.2.13 CRORE, OUT OF WHICH A DISCLOSUR E OF RS.123.13 LAKHS WAS ALREADY MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. RES ULTANT AMOUNT OF RS.90.28 LAKHS WAS ADDED, WHICH GOT THE SEAL O F APPROVAL OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 25. HAVING HEARD BOTH THE SIDES AND GONE THROUGH THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT ADDITION OF RS.90,28,442/ - ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 22 SUSTAINED IN THE FIRST APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF THE BOGUS PURC HASES RECORDED ON PAGE 25 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. SOME OF TH E PURCHASE BILLS PERTAIN TO THE PRECEDING YEAR WHILE THE REMAININ G TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. WE HAVE ALREADY DIRECTED TO INCLUDE A SUM OF RS.7.75 LAKHS IN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FO R THE PRECEDING YEAR ON THE BASIS OF PROFIT OF 25% ON TOTAL BOGU S PURCHASES OF RS.5.23 CRORE FOR BOTH THE YEARS, AS RED UCED BY THE SURRENDER OF RS.123.13 CRORE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FO R THE INSTANT YEAR. IF WE VIEW TOTAL BOGUS PURCHASES PERTAINING TO BOTH TH E YEARS IN JUXTAPOSITION TO THE SURRENDER MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN INC OME FOR THE INSTANT YEAR, THERE REMAINS NOTHING MORE TO BE ADDED ON THIS SCORE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UN DER CONSIDERATION. WE, THEREFORE, ORDER TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.90,28,442/-. 26. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FOR THE A.Y. 2009-10 IS P ARTLY ALLOWED AND THAT FOR THE A.Y. 2010-11 IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VI CE PRESIDENT PUNE; DATED : 20 TH DECEMBER, 2018 ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 23 / COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT; 2. / THE RESPONDENT; 3. ( ) / THE CIT (APPEALS)-12, PUNE 4. 5. THE CIT (CENTRAL), PUNE , , / DR B, ITAT, PUNE; 6. / GUARD FILE. // TRUE COPY // / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY , / ITAT, PUNE ITA NOS.902 & 903/PUN/2015 SOPAN D. PATIL 24 DATE 1. DRAFT DICTATED ON 19-12-18 SR.PS 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 20-12-18 SR.PS 3. DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM 4. DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER. JM 5. APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR.PS/PS SR.PS 6. KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT ON SR.PS 7. DATE OF UPLOADING ORDER SR.PS 8. FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK SR.PS 9. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 10. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE A.R. 11. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER. *