Joint Commissioner of Income-Tax (OSD), Cen Cir 2(4), Pune V. M/s Sable Assocites, Pune

ITSSA 11/PUN/2021

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by the Revenue against the order of the CIT(A) which allowed deductions under section 80IB(10) and treated certain cash receipts as advances under the project completion method. The Revenue contested the CIT(A)'s decision, arguing that the Assessee did not meet the conditions for the deduction and that the cash receipts should be treated as income in the year they were received. The Tribunal examined the issues in light of the relevant provisions of the Income Tax Act and precedents set by other ITAT decisions, ultimately agreeing with the CIT(A) and dismissing the Revenue's appeals.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 136004 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-08-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 05-06-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 05-08-2021
• Other Referred Cases: M/s Runwal Projects Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 5620/Mum/2017, Guruprerna Enterprises vs ACIT in ITA No.4836/Mum/2009, Arth Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No. 6764 to 6768/Mum/2010, Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2006] 102 ITD 375 (Pune)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Business expenditure; Document seized; Documents seized
• Section: 132; 139; 143(3); 153A; 80IB

Judgement Text

आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण ”बी” ɊायपीठपुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B” :: PUNE BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं. / IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year :2014-15 The Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-2(4), Pune. Vs M/s.Sable Associates, CTS No.2134 Adhishthan, Final Plot No.32B/24, Vijaynagar Colony, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030. PAN: AAZFS 7254 F Revenue / Appellant Respondent /Assessee Cross Objection No.37/PUN/2022 (Arising out of IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2021) िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year :2014-15 M/s.Sable Associates, CTS No.2134 Adhishthan, Final Plot No.32B/24, Vijaynagar Colony, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030. PAN: AAZFS 7254 F Vs The Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-2(4), Pune. Assessee / Appellant Respondent /Revenue आयकरअपीलसं. / IT(SS)A No.11/PUN/2021 िनधाᭅरणवषᭅ / Assessment Year :2015-16 The Jt.Commissioner of Income Tax(OSD), Central Circle-2(4), Pune. Vs M/s.Sable Associates, CTS No.2134 Adhishthan, Final Plot No.32B/24, Vijaynagar Colony, Sadashiv Peth, Pune – 411030. PAN: AAZFS 7254 F Revenue / Appellant Respondent / Assessee IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 2 Assessee by Shri Nikhil Pathak & Shri Manoj Solanki – AR’s Revenue by Shri Sardar Singh Meena,IRS – DR Date of hearing 06/06/2023 Date of pronouncement 01/09/2023 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: Theseappeals filed by the Revenueand cross appeal filed by the Assessee aredirected against the common order ofld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)[ld.CIT(A)], Pune-12 dated 31.05.2021 for A.Y.2014-15, AY 2015-16emanating from separate assessment ordersunder section 143(3) r.w.s 153A for AY 2014-15 and u/s 143(3) for AY 2015-16 both dated 30/11/2018.These appeals were heard together as common issues are involved and facts are same. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal in IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2021 : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.75,91,177 /- when the assessee had not completed the project by 31.03.2009 thus violating provisions of section 80IB(10)(a)(ii) of the Act and also violated the condition mandated in clause (c ) and clause (1) to section 80IB(10) of the Act. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in holding Shivsagar City and Shivsagar Residency as two distinct housing project without appreciating the fact that E building (Shivsagar Residency) is an extension of the earlier housing project (Shivsagar City) for which approval was granted on 06.07.2004 and also not considering that the revision / redesigning of the plan is one of the frequent occurrence of any project claiming deduction u/s. 80IB(10). IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 3 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in holding Shivsagar City ( containing buildings A,B,C and D) and Shivsagar Residency ( containing buildings E1-E5) as two distinct housing project and allowing the deduction u/s 80IB (10) without appreciating the findings of the Assessing Officer, based on documents obtained from Pune Municipal Corporation, wherein the note prepared by the Building Inspector and approved by the Assistant Engineer clearly states that E building (Shivsagar Residency) is an extension of / addition to the earlier single housing project (Shivsagar City). 4) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing the proportionate deduction u/s.80IB(10) of the Act even when the Ld.CIT(Appeals) had accepted that the assessee had violated mandatory condition of clause (c) to section 80IB(10) of the Act by combining two flat units into a single unit and exceeding the mandatory limits of 1500sq.ft. 5) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in allowing assessee’s claim of deduction u/s.80IB(10) when the assessee had violated the provisions of clause (f) to section 80IB(10) of the Act by resorting to sale of more than one unit to members of the same family. 6) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A)- was justified in not appreciating the fact that if the conditions set out section 80IB(10) are satisfied, then deduction is allowable on the entire project approved by the local authority and there is no question of allowing proportionate deduction to a part of the project? 7) Whether on the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in not appreciating the fact that there is no provision for allowing proportionate deduction in section 80IB(10)? 8) Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in treating the undisclosed on-money of Rs.80,44,000/- which was outside the books of the assessee as “advances” because assessee is following project completion method without appreciating the fact that assessee itself had deviated from the regularly followed project completion method and offered the on-money to tax for AY 2014-15 in the application before the Hon.ITSC as income. 9) Ld.CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered the on-money of Rs.80,44,000/- as the income of the assessee for AY 2014-15 as the assessee had accepted that it had received on-money during the year and had also offered the same in the application before the IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 4 Hon.ITSC as income for AY 2014-15.” Cross Objection No.37/PUN/2022 : 2. The assessee in Cross Objection Appeal has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in accepting the Revenue’s allegation that, in respect of two flats (namely Flat No. C-2/503 and Flat No. C-2/504 in the housing project Phase-I Shivsagar City) the Assessee has breached the maximum area limit of 1500 sq. ft. prescribed under section 80-IB(10) of the Act by combining the said flats into a single unit whose combined area was 1770 sq. fit., without appreciating that there is a separate sale agreement for each flat and such flats are separate even as per the completion certificate issued by the local authority. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(Appeals) has erred in treating the unaccounted cash receipts of Rs.30,00,000 noted in the seized diary of Mr. Dilip Sable as business income without allowing deduction for the entries of business expenditureaggregating to Rs.18,10,000 noted in the same seized diary.” Brief facts of the case : 3. We are taking IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2021 AY 2014- 15 as lead case. 3.1The assessee filed original return of Income on 29.11.2014 declaring a total income of Rs. Nil/-. A search action u/s 132 of the Act was conducted in the Sable Waghire Group of cases on 12.11.2014, wherein the assessee was covered as a part of this group. In response to notice issued u/s 153A of the Act on 24.12.2014, the assessee intimated to consider the return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act as the return of income u/s 153A IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 5 of the Act. The AO passed order u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act on 30.11.2018 determining total income at Rs.1,86,35,180/- after making additions of Rs.1,86,35,180/-which includes disallowance u/s 80IB(10) of the Act of Rs.75,91,177/-. The Assessing Officer(AO) made addition of Rs.80,44,000/- as undisclosed receipts for the year and AO added Rs.30 lacs as income disclosed before Income Tax Settlement Commission. 4. The ld.CIT(A) has discussed the addition of Rs.80,44,000/- in paragraph 34 onwards of his order. The relevant paragraphs are reproduced here onwards of Ld. CIT(A)’s order : Quote “34.8 It is seen from the above seized documents that notings made in these pages are mostly in chronological sequence regarding receipt of cash. These include the Flat number, Name of the person to whom the flat is sold, date of receipt of cash, amount received (in thousands) and thereafter, apparently, name of the person receiving cash is mentioned The last entry of person contains names like Priya, Nikhil, Sanjay mama/Sanjay Sable, Dilip mama/Dilip Sable etc.... ******* 34.12 In view of the above, I am of the view that these entries reflect the consideration received by the appellant on sale of flats in cash over and above the consideration recorded in the respective sale deeds executed with the customers and these are certainly part of consideration received on sale of flats. Now, the question to be decided is, in which year these receipts are taxable. The AO has taken a view that since the appellant offered these receipts for tax before the Hon’ble ITSC in the year of receipt, it can not change its stand now. The appellant has stated that the income was offered before the Hon’ble ITSC with the intent of bringing a closure/ finality to the proceedings and in the spirit of settlement and contended that since the settlement has not gone through, in view of the provisions of section 245HA(2) of the Act, the aforesaid on-money receipts should be taxable as per the relevant provisions of the Income-tax IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 6 Act and not on the basis of admission made before the Hon’ble ITSC. In this regard, it is relevant to refer to the provisions of section 245HA(2) of the Act, which provide that in a case where the proceedings before the ITSC abate, the AO is required to dispose the case in accordance with the provisions of the Act as if no application had been made before the ITSC. The relevant part of the section 245HA(2) of the Act is reproduced as under: “(2) Where a proceeding before the Settlement Commission abates, the Assessing Officer, or, as the case may be, any other income-tax authority before whom the proceeding at the time of making the application was pending, shall dispose of the case in accordance with the provisions of this Act as if no application under section 245C had been made.” 34.12 Therefore, though the AO can use the material available before the ITSC in the assessment proceedings, the proceedings u/s 153A in the present case are to be conducted as if no application was made before the ITSC, but as per the provisions of the Act. In view thereof, I agree with the contention of the appellant that these cash receipts should be taxable as per the relevant provisions of the Income-tax Act and not on the basis of admission made before the Hon’ble ITSC. Now, as discussed above, the cash receipts under consideration are the “on-money” received by the appellant on sale of flats in cash over and above the consideration recorded in the respective sale deeds executed with the customers and these are certainly part of consideration received on sale of flats. Therefore, these receipts are to be given the same treatment as the other part of the sale consideration received by cheque and recorded in the books of account of the appellant. Now, it is undisputed that the appellant has been consistently following the ‘Project completion method’ for recognizing revenue from sale of units in the project and such method of accounting has been accepted by the Department also. Even in the year under consideration, the advances received by the appellant by cheque and accounted in the books of account, have been treated as advances only. Therefore, in my opinion, these cash receipts, which are also part of consideration received on sale of flats, should also be treated as “advances” from customers and should be accounted as income in the year in which the sale of such flats is recognized by the appellant as per the regular method of accounting followed by it i.e. ‘Project completion method’. IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 7 ***** 34.14 This issue has been considered by the Hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai Bench in the case of M/s Runwal Projects Pvt Ltd in ITA No. 5620/Mum/2017. In that case also, the assessee had admitted undisclosed income of Rs. 18,82,59,020 towards on- money receipts from sale of flats based on certain incriminating documents found during the course of search, but no disclosure was made in the return of income owing to the fact that the assessee was following project completion method for recognition of revenue and the project from which the assessee had received on-money, was not completed during the concerned year. Therefore, the assessee had not disclosed the on-money receipts in the return of income for the impugned assessment year, while the AO added the on- money received during the year on the basis of receipt. The Hon’ble ITAT directed the AO to delete the addition made towards on-money received from sale of flats in the impugned assessment year and to make addition in the year in which the project was completed, since the assessee is following project completion method for recognition of revenue. In this regard, the Hon’ble ITAT had relied upon the decision in the case of group firm of the appellant in the case of Runwal Homes Pvt Ltd in ITA No.5621/Mum/2017. The relevant part of that order is reproduced as under: “....................The learned AR at this juncture has taken a argument that it is a case where the assessee was following project completion method. Project completion method has been followed consistently by the assessee. Both the projects relating to the flats and the shops in respect of which the evidence were found for receipt of on-money by the assessee were not completed during the year. Since these projects were not completed during the year, the amount received by the assessee is merely a booking amount i.e. only the advance received for booking of the flat/shop. These amounts therefore in our view cannot be added during the impugned assessment year. We are of the view that the project completion method is one of the method of accounting where the expenses identifiable with the project are to be allowed in the year when the project is completed. Similarly, the receipt from the project is to be accounting for as income only in the year in which the project is completed. Since both the project for the flats as well as shops were not completed during the year therefore, respectfully following the decision of the hfon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. M/S Bilahari Investment (P) Ltd IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 8 299 ITR 1 (SC), Special Bench decision of the Mumbai Benches of the Tribunal in the case of Wall Street Construction Ltd. vs. JCIT 101ITD 156 (SB)(Mum); ITO vs. Panchvati Developers 115 TTJ 139 (Mum) and that of JCIT vs. K Raheja (P) Ltd. 102 ITD 314 (Mum), we delete the addition during the impugned assessment year and direct the AO to make the addition in respect of these on-money in the respect assessment years in which the projects have been completed." 34.15 The same view was taken by the hon’ble ITAT, Mumbai bench in the cases of Guruprerna Enterprises vs ACIT in ITA No.4836/Mum/2009 and Arth Housing Development Pvt. Ltd. vs ACIT in ITA No. 6764 to 6768/Mum/2010 and by the Hon’ble Pune ITAT in the case of Dhanvarsha Builders & Developers (P.) Ltd. vs DCIT [2006] 102 ITD 375 (Pune). 34.16 In view of the above, it is held that these cash receipts, which are also part of consideration received on sale of flats, should be treated as “advances” from customers in the year under consideration and these should be accounted as income in the year in which the sale of such flats is recognized by the appellant as per the regular method of accounting followed by it i.e. ‘Project completion method’. Therefore, these receipts cannot be part of the income of the appellant for the year under consideration and the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.80,44,000/- made on this account. This ground raised by the appellant is hereby allowed. 35.1 It is relevant to mention here that the project, Shivsagar Platinum, was completed in A.Y. 2017-18 and the appellant offered these on-money receipts for tax from A.Y. 2017-18 onwards, wherein sales of the corresponding flats were recognized in the regular books of account as per the regular method of accounting followed by it. The details of such income offered is as under: AY Amount of on-money receipts accounted for (in Rs) 2017-18 2,50,48,250 2018-19 10,00,000 2019-20 7,50,000 Total 2,67,98,250 35.2 Therefore, these on-money cash receipts have been IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 9 offered for tax by the appellant as per the Project Completion method of accounting followed by it. It is also seen that in A.Y. 2017-18, the appellant had shown net profit of Rs. 34,23,96,080/- on this projecton sales of Rs. 51,50,23,500/- i.e.@66.48%, and the income shown by the appellant was accepted by the AO in the scrutiny assessment for AY 2017-18. Therefore, these on-money receipts have been offered by the appellant in later years as per the method of accounting regularly followed by the appellant and there is no failure on this account. Moreover, from the net profit @66.48% shown by the appellant, it is clear that no attempt was made by the appellant to artificially lower the profit in later years to avoid tax on the on-money receipts found during the course of search and such income shown by the appellant was also accepted by the AO in the scrutiny assessment. ” 5.Findings and Analysis : We have heard both the parties and perused the records. 5.1Ground number 1 to 7 of Revenue : The Ground number 1 to 7 of revenue are regarding allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act. In the case of the Assessee, in IT(SS)No.07/PUN/2021 for AY 2009-10, Cross Objection No.34/PUN/2022, IT(SS)A No.08/PUN/2021, CO 35/PUN/2022 we have elaborately discussed the issue of allowability of deduction u/s 80IB(10) of the Act and decided that the Assessee is eligible for deduction u/s80IB(10) of the Act. Our findings in these appeals will apply mutatis mutandi to the present appeal. Accordingly ground number 1 to 7 of the Revenue are dismissed. 5.2 Ground Number 8 & 9 of the Revenue: The ground number 8& 9 of the revenue are regarding addition of Rs.80,44,000/-. 5.3 It is an accepted fact that the seized documents contained the details of Cash received by the assessee, the seized documents specifically contains the name of purchaser, flat number, IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 10 cash receipts . The flats numbers , names of purchasers appearing in the seized documents matches with the Registered Agreements . Therefore, it is established fact that assessee had collected Cash over and above the Agreement value . However, the assessee submitted that Assessee has been following Project Completion Method of accounting. Therefore, the Assessee submitted that the Cash receipts have been accounted by the assessee following project completion method .Ld.CIT(A) has elaborately analyzed the seized documents and gave the findings that the Cash receipts matches with the flat numbers. This fact has not been disputed by the revenue.Ld.CIT(A) accepted the submission of the assessee that these cash receipts need to be taxed on the basis of Project Completion Method regularly followed by the assessee.Ld,CIT(A) has directed the AO to delete the addition of Rs.80,44,000/- following the decision of ITAT. 5.4 ITAT Mumbai in the case of M/s Runwal Projects Pvt LtdI.T.A No.5620/Mum/2017 AY 2015-16 has held as under : Quote, “We further direct the AO to delete addition made towards on-money received from sale of flats in the impugned assessment year and make addition in the year in which the project has been completed, since the assessee is following project completion method for recognition of revenue. ” Unquote. 5.5 In these facts and circumstances of the case, respectfully following the ITAT decision (supra), we agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the Cash receipts also shall be taxed based on Project Completion method regularly applied by the assessee. It is also a fact that the cash receipts have been offered by the assessee in subsequent years. 5.6Therefore, the ground number 8& 9 of the revenue are dismissed. Accordingly , revenue’s Appeal is dismissed. IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 11 6. Cross Objections of the Assessee, Cross Objection 37/PUN/2022 We have decided the Cross Objection ground number 1 of the Assessee in CO/34/PUN/2022 in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, our findings in CO/34/PUN/2022 will apply mutatis mutandi to the present ground number 1 of the Cross Objection. Accordingly ground number 1 of the cross appeal of the assessee is allowed. 7. Ground Number 2 of Cross Objection : The assessee has claimed that the expenditure has not been allowed . Ld.CIT(A) has analyzed and held as under : Quote, “ 33.2 This issue has been discussed in detail while deciding the grounds No.2 & 3 for the A.Y.2013-14 above, for A.Y.2014-15, the whole receipts of Rs.30 lakhs were related to Bawdhan land, while the expenses related to Bawdhan land mentioned in the above diaries have already been Allowed in the A.Y.2013-14 and therefore, the whole receipts of Rs.30 Lakh mentioned in these diaries are taxable in the hand of the appellant for A.Y.2014-15, while no expenses against the same are allowable. these grounds raised by the appellant are decided accordingly. For statistical purposes, ground No.2 is partly allowed while the ground No.3 is dismissed. ” Unquote. 7.1 We have confirmed these findings of the Ld.CIT(A) in earlier years. We agree with the Ld.CIT(A) that the entire expenditure has already been allowed in AY 2013-14. Therefore, the said expenditure is not allowable in the current year otherwise it will be double deduction. Accordingly, the ground number 2 of the cross objection of the assessee is dismissed. 7.2Thus, the Cross Objection of the Assessee is partly allowed. ********************* IT(SS)A No.11/PUN/2021 AY 2015-16 IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 12 8.Now we will take up revenue’s appeal for AY 2015-16. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue for AY 2015-16 are as under : “1) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- on account of facilitation/ commission income which was declared before Income tax Settlement Commission by the assessee without appreciating the fact that the incriminating materials are available with the department in form of diaries maintained by Shri.Sanjay Sable and Shri.Dilip Sable showing cash receipts which were explained and accepted by the assessee itself as receipts from Facilitation work / commission receipts and assessee had been found to be having unaccounted income on account of commission/facilitation receipts in earlier years. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) erred in treating the undisclosed on-money of Rs.1,87,54,000/- which was outside the books of the assessee as “advances” because assessee is following project completion method without appreciating the fact that the assessee itself had deviated from the regularly followed project completion method and offered the on- money to tax for AY 2015-16 in the application before the Hon.ITSC as income. 3) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld.CIT(Appeals) ought to have considered the on-money of Rs.1,87,54,000/- as the income of the assessee for AY 2015-16 as the assessee had accepted that it had received on-money during the year and had also offered the same in the application before the Hon.ITSC as income for AY 2015-16.” Findings and Analysis : 9. The ground number 2 and 3 of the revenue for AY 2015-16 pertains to On-money receipt. We have already decided this issue of ‘On money’ receipt in the case of Assessee in IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2021 for AY 2014-15 in earlier part of this order. Since the facts are same, our decision in IT(SS)A No.10/PUN/2021 will apply mutatis mutanda to ground number 2 and 3 of the revenue. IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 13 Accordingly ground number 2 and 3 of the revenue are dismissed. 10. Ground number 1 in IT(SS)A no11/PUN/2021 AY 2015-16: This is regarding addition of Rs.500000/- made by AO on the basis of declaration of Additional Income by the assessee before Income Tax Settlement Commission. The Assessee had claimed that the assessee had not received any such income during AY 2015-16 but in-order to avoid technical issue in-admission of Settlement Application the assessee offered the said income. It is also a fact that no incriminating material regarding the said income was found. The AO in the assessment order had not referred to any specific incriminating material for making this addition. The assessee had not shown this income in the return of Income filed in response to notice u/s153A. In the absence of any corroborative evidence, we agree with the ld.CIT(A) that impugned addition cannot be sustained. We agree with ld.CIT(A) regarding reliance on ITAT Mumbai’s decision in the case of Anantnadh Constructions and Farms (P.) Ltd. Vs. DCIT [2017] 166 ITD 83 (Mum) which has held as under: “19......................Therefore, just because assessee has offered additional income before Settlement Commission, no addition can be made without basis.” IT(SS)A No.10&11/PUN/2021& C.O.No.37/PUN/2022 M/s.Sable Associates 14 Therefore, the AO is directed to delete the addition of Rs.5,00,000/-, accordingly, Ground No.1 of the Revenue is dismissed. 11. Ground number 4 is general in nature and does not need any adjudication. Revenue has not altered, amended any ground. Accordingly the ground number 4 is dismissed. 12. In the result appeal of the revenue in IT(SS)A No.11/PUN/2021 for AY 2015-16 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 01 September, 2023. Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 01 Sep, 2023/ SGR* आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, “बी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune.