Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3307 (ITAT-PATNA)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
10 year(s) 2 month(s) 2 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
11-05-2017
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted
DB
Assessment Year
misc
Appeal Filed On
09-03-2007
Judgement Text
1 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH: P ATNA [BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM & SHRI WASEEM AHMED, AM] I.T(SS).A NO. 36/PAT/2007 BLOCK PERIOD: 01.04.1989 TO 28.10.1999 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, GIRENDRA MOHAN ROAD, DARBHANGA (PAN: ABEPN 5067 D) VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME- TAX, CIRCLE/RANGE-3, BEGHUSARAI, CAMP AT MUZAFFARPUR, J. MAHTO APPELLANT RESPONDENT DATE OF HEARING 13.04.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 11.05.2017 FOR THE APPELLANT SHRI S. K. NARAYAN AND SHRI R. P. NAYAK, ADVOCATES FOR THE RESPONDENT SMT. ARCHANA SINHA, SR. S.C. ORDER PER BENCH THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-1, PATNA DATED 04.12.2006 FOR BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1989 TO 28. 10.1999. SHRI S.K. NARAYAN AND SHRI R.P. NAYAK, LD. ADVOCATE S APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE AND SMT. ARCHANA SINHA, LD. SENIOR STANDING COUNSEL REPRESENTED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE. 2. THE FIRST ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 1 IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE SALARY INCOME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE AYS 1994-95 & 1998-99 AS THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS NOT FURNISHED BY THE ASSES SEE. 2 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A DOCTOR SERVING IN THE GOVERNMENT HOSPITAL AGAINST WHOM A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED DATED 28.10.1999. THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 1994 -95 & 1998-99 HAS EARNED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY . BUT THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT FAILED TO FURNISH THE COPIES OF INCOME TAX RETURN FOR THE 2 A SSESSMENT YEARS. THEREFORE, THE AO TREATED THE SAME AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- REGARDING GROUND NOS. 5 RELATING TO NO RETURN FLED FOR THE A.Y 94-95 AND 98- 99, REFERENCE TO ASSESSMENT ORDER SHOWS THAT DESPIT E REQUEST APPELLANT DID NOT FURNISH ANY EVIDENCE FOR FILING OF THE RETURN FOR T HE A.Y 93-94, 94-95 AND 98-99. APPELLANT SUBMITTED EVIDENCE FOR FILING OF REGULAR RETURN FOR OTHER ASSESSMENT YEARS AS DESCRIBED BY THE AO ON PAGE 5 IN PARA 8.1 NO. EVIDENCE FOR FILING OF REGULAR RETURNS FOR THE AY 93-94, 94-95 & 8-99 WAS HOWEVER FILED. THUS NO DEDUCTION WAS ALLOWED BY AO FOR THESE ASSESSMENT YE ARS ON ACCOUNT OF ANY RETURNED/ASSESSED INCOME. THIS GROUND IS THEREFORE DISMISSED AS ARS CLAIM OF FILING REGULAR RETURNS FOR THESE AYS REMAIN UNPROVED EVEN IN APPEAL. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE IS IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. THE LD AR BEFORE US FILED A PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING FROM PAGES 1 TO 247 AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A GOVT. DOCTOR AND IS DRAWING SALARY FROM GOVT. OF BIHAR AND THE SALARY CERTIFICATES HAVE BEEN DULY PLACED ALONG WIT H THE RETURN OF INCOME AND THE STANDARD DEDUCTION HAS BEEN ALLOWED IN 1994-95, AND 1998-99 WHICH ARE NOT TRACEABLE. THE LD. AR FILED PAPER BOOK WHICH IS RUNNING PAGES FROM 1 TO 247 AND IN SUPPORT OF ASSESSEES CLAIM HAS FURNISHED THE COPIES OF COMPUT ATION OF INCOME PLACED ON PAGE 134 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SALARY STATEMENT OF THE GOVER NMENT HOSPITAL WHICH IS PLACED ON PAGE 110 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR ALSO CLAIMED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAD TAXABLE INCOME, THEREFORE, THE STATUTE DOES NOT IMPOSE DUTY UPON THE ASSESSEE TO FILE INCOME TAX RETURN IF IT IS LESS THAN THE TAXAB LE INCOME IN 1994-95. SINCE THE SALARY WAS NOT TAXABLE AS PER THE FORM NO. 16 WHICH WAS GI VEN, THEREFORE, TAX WAS NOT DEDUCTED. HOWEVER, IN 1998-99 TAX WAS DEDUCTED BY T HE EMPLOYER THEREFORE THE FORM 3 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 16 WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO. THEREFORE, IT CANNO T BE SAID THAT THE SALARY WAS UNDISCLOSED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED T HE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS REGARD WE FI ND THAT FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1994- 95 THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAD TAXABLE INCOME THEREFOR E THE RETURN WAS NOT FILED. IT IS ALSO PERTINENT TO NOTE THAT THE STATUTE DOES NOT CAST AN Y RESPONSIBILITY ON THE ASSESSEE WHERE TAXABLE INCOME IS BELOW THE PRESCRIBED LIMIT. SIMIL ARLY, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1998- 99 WE FIND THAT TDS WAS DULY DEDUCTED BY THE HOSPIT AL AND THE SAME WAS DEPOSITED WITH THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT. THUS, THERE WAS NO LOSS TO THE REVENUE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-FILING OF INCOME TAX RETURN BY THE ASSESSEE AS THE DUE TAXES ON THE SALARY INCOME HAS REACHED TO THE GOVERNMENT KITTY. MOREOVER, THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES ALSO SUGGEST THAT THE ASSESSEE OTHER THAN THESE TWO YEAR S HAVE FILED INCOME TAX RETURN FOR ALL THE BLOCK YEAR WHICH ARE UNDER CONSIDERATION. THERE FORE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME UNDER THE HEAD SALARY WHICH IS LIABLE TO BE ADDED IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT YEARS. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE FIND SUPPORT AND GUIDANCE FROM THE ORDER OF HONBLE PATNA TRIBUNAL IN IT(SS)A NO 8 0 ITD 503 IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. DR. REETA SINGH WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT BY FURNISHING PARTI CULARS OF SALARY INCOME IN FORM NO. 16 THE ASSESSEE HAD DISCLOSED SA LARY INCOME AND IT WAS NOT UNDISCLOSED INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF DEFINITION OF THE TERM CONTAINED IN SECTION 158B OF THE ACT, THEREFORE, THE AO WAS NOT JUSTIFIE D IN ADDING SUCH SALARY INCOME TO UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE RELEVANT E XTRACT OF THE ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW : UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF S. 158BB (1) R/W S. 158BC WHAT IS ASSESSED IS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD AND NOT THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS OF THE PREVIOUS YEAR REQUIRED TO BE ASSESSED IN THE NORMAL REGULAR ASSES SMENT UNDER S. 143(3), WHERE THE AO MAKES AN ENQUIRY TO ENSURE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT UNDERSTATED THE INCOME OR HAS NOT COMPUTED EXCESSIVE LOSS OR HAS NOT UNDERPAID TH E TAX IN ANY MANNER AND ON THE BASIS OF THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE EVIDENCE OBTAINED ON THE SPECIFIC POINTS AND ALL RELEVANT MATERIAL WHICH HE HAS GATHE RED, ASSESSES THE TOTAL INCOME OR LOSS AND DETERMINES THE SUM PAYABLE THEREON AS PER THE ASSESSMENT. THE METHOD OF WORKING OUT TOTAL INCOME IS DEVISED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ASSESSMENT OF UNDISCLOSED 4 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 INCOME AND WOULD BE ALIEN TO REGULAR ASSESSMENT UND ER THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (3) OF S. 143. ANY UNDISCLOSED INCOME DETECTED AS A RESULT OF ANY SEARCH OR REQUISITION MADE SHALL BE ASSESSED SEPARATELY AS THE INCOME OF THE B LOCK YEARS. THE INCOME, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY DISCLOSED OR WOULD HAVE DISCLO SED, IS NOT TO BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THE PHRASE 'DISCLOSED FOR THE P URPOSE OF THIS ACT' OCCURRING IN THE PROVISIONS OF CL. (B) OF S. 158B SIGNIFIES ONLY WHA T IS REQUIRED TO BE DISCLOSED UNDER THE ACT. SIMPLY AND LOGICALLY THE ANSWER WOULD BE THAT DISCLOSURE OF INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACT SHOULD BE IN A MANNER AND TO THE AUTHORITY CONCERNED SO THAT IT MAY CHARGE OR DEDUCT INCOME-TAX OUT OF THE SAID INCOME. THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-S. (1) OF S. 192 ENJOINS DUTY ON AN EMPLOYER TO DEDUCT TAX AT TH E AVERAGE RATE OF INCOME-TAX COMPUTED ON THE BASIS OF THE RATES IN FORCE ON THE ESTIMATED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. WE TAKE NOTE THAT OUT OF 10 ASSESSMENT YEARS IN THE BLOCK PERIOD OTHER THAN AYS 1994- 95 AND 1998-99 ALL OTHER SALARY INCOME HAS BEEN ACC EPTED. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO REVERSE THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. ACCORDIN GLY, AO IS DIRECTED. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 6. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUNDS NOS. 2, 3, 8 & 9 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING SAVING BANK A CCOUNT NO. 7902 WITH CANARA BANK AS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE RECEIPTS THEREIN ARE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 7. THE AO HAS TREATED THE SAVING BANK ACCOUNT NO. 7 902 WITH CANARA BANK AS UNDISCLOSED BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE CREDIT E NTRIES THEREIN WERE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THE DETAILS OF THE SAME STAND AS UNDER:- A/YEARS AMOUNT 94-95 79,000 98-99 1,60,000 20-01 2,41,000 4,80,000 ======= THE ABOVE ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROU ND THAT NO SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME O F ASSESSMENT. 8. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO LD CI T(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- REGARDING GROUND NO. 17 & 18, SINCE DEPOSIT IN S.B A/C NO. 7902, CANARA BANK WAS NOT DISCLOSED PRE-SEARCH. AO IS JUSTIFIED IN TREATING THE DEPOSITS MADE 5 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 THEREIN IN DIFFERENT AYS AS NOT DISCLOSED. HOWEVER BY WAY OF EXPLANATION AR HAS SUBMITTED THE SOURCES AS LOAN FROM BROTHER-IN-LAW D R S.N. MAHTHA, REFUND BY SMT. PUSPHA MAHTHA (SISTER) LOAN FROM DR. B.B. SETH (BROTHER-IN-LAW), LOAN FROM S.K. BHA BHAGA, GIFT FROM A. HUSSAINN, GIFT FR OM NASIM JAT. THESE EVIDENCES WERE NOT FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH. T HESE CLAIMS WERE NOT DISCLOSED ANY PRE-SEARCH RETURN FILED WITH THE DEP ARTMENT. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF ANY OF THESE PERSONS SHOWING THE ALLEGED LOANS/G IFTS IN THEIR OWN RETURNS FILED WITH THE DEPARTMENT. CREDIBILITY OF THESE CLAIMS TH EREFORE IS VULNERABLE. IN ADDITION FOR THE AY 98-99 WHEREIN DEPOSIT IN THI S BANK ACCOUNT WAS RS.1,60,000/- IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THIS WAS MADE OUT OF THE DISCLOSED INCOME OF VDIS97 VDIS CERTIFICATE AT PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER BO OK SHOWS THAT FOR THE AY 86-97 AND 96-97 A SUM OF RS.2,90,000/- HAS BEEN DIS CLOSED AS CASH IN HAND. OUT OF THIS PAYMENT OF RS.87,000/- WAS REQUIRED TOWARDS VVDIS TAX PAYMENT WHICH COULD BE LEAVING A SUM OF RS.2,83,000/-. BUT THE BA NK STATEMENT AT PAGE 44 SHOWS CASH DEPOSIT OF 1 LAKH ON 15.1.98 AND RS.60,0 00/- ON 16.1.98. THE VDIS CERTIFICATE AT PAGE 73 IS DATED 5.1.98. ALONG WITH THE VDIS DECLARATION IT WAS PLEADED BY THE APPELLANT THAT CREDIT IN BANK DURING AY 93-94 WAS OF RS.16,025/-, IN AY 95-96 CREDIT IN BANK WAS OF RS.28,848/- AND D URING ASSESSMENT YEAR Z96- 97 CREDIT IN BANK WAS RS.10,889/-. THEREFORE THE CO NTENTION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.2,90,000/- DISCLOSED IN VDS WOULD BE COVERING TH E AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT IN THIS BANK ACCOUNT IN AY 98-99 IS HELD NOT PROVED FROM TH E APPELLANTS DECLARATION ITSELF. IN MY VIEW NONE OF THE BANK DEPOSITS IN CANARA BANK SB A/C NO. 7902 WHICH WAS NOT EVEN DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN ANY OF T HE PRE-SEARCH RETURNS FILED COULD BE SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND HENCE AO IS J USTIFIED IN TREATING THE SAME TO THE EXTENT TAKEN BY HIM IN THIS AY AS UNDISCLOSE D. THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FAILS. REGARDING GROUND NO. 18.1 EXPLANATION REGARDING LOA N OF RS.2,59,000/- RELATING TO TWO GIFTS, SINCE CONFIRMATORY LETTERS OR ANY SUP PORTING EVIDENCE WAS NOT FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH. AO IS PERFECTLY JUSTIFIED IN N OT RELYING UPON THEM IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF THE DONORS DISCLOSING THE TRANSACTIONS AS NOW CLAIMED IN THEIR RESPECTIVE RET URNS FILED PRE-SEARCH. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. IN RESPECT OF THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE IT W AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ONLY ONE BANK A CCOUNT IN THE CANARA BANK A/C. NO. 7902 IN DARBHANGA BRANCH. OUT OF THE TEN ASSESSMEN T YEARS ONLY FOR 3 YEARS I.E. 1994- 95, 1998-99 AND 2000-01 ONLY, THE AO HAS NOT ACCEPT ED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT IS DISCLOSED BANK AC COUNT. THEREFORE, THE CREDITS IN THE 6 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 BANK ACCOUNT CANNOT BE ADDED ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT DISCLOSED. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) ON APPEAL HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THE ORDER O F AO ON THE GROUND THAT IT WAS NOT SUBMITTED DURING SEARCH, THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE TR EATED AS DISCLOSED. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT WHEN THE AO HIMSELF ACCEPTED THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS DISCLOSED FOR THE SEVEN OTHER ASSESSMEN T YEARS HE CANNOT TURN BACK AND SAY THAT FOR THESE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE BANK ACCOUNT. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THE RECEIPTS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND THUS NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE BASED ON TH E FACT THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT HAS NOT BEEN DISCLOSED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. SC DOES NOT AGREE TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR AND REQUESTED TO REMIT BACK THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF A O FOR VERIFICATION AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF LOWER AUTHORITIES. 9. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE LD AR BEFORE US HAS ASSAILED THE THREE ADDITIONS I.E. THE FIRST ADDITION IN 1994-95 AGGREGATE DEPOSIT OF RS.79,000/- OUT OF WHICH RS.19000/- REFUNDED BY SMT. PUSPA MEHTA FOR WHICH CONFIRMATORY LETTER HAS BEEN FILED WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE AO AT PAGE 69 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RS .40000/- AS LOAN FROM S. N. MEHTA WHO WAS EXAMINED ON OATH AND HIS GIVEN CONFIRMATORY LETTER ALSO AT PAGE 65 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- WAS DEPOSITED IN CASH. THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.79,000/- BASED ON THAT THE BANK A CCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE AY 1994-95 AND THE LD. CIT(A) AGREE D WITH THE VIEW OF THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. WE NOTE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.19,000/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE AND THE LOAN HAS BEEN REPAID BY THE LADY SMT . PUSPA MEHTA HAS BEEN RETURNED BACK BY CHEQUE. SIMILARLY AMOUNT FROM MR. S. N. MEH TA FOR RS.40,000/- HAS DULY BEEN CONFIRMED UNDER OATH BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAS BEEN L ENT TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,000.00 & RS. 40,000.00 IS DELETE D. HENCE, AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGLY. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS. 20,000/- HAS BEEN DEPOSITED IN CASH FOR WHICH THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY E VIDENCE TO THAT EXTENT THE SUM OF RS. 20,000.00 IS CONFIRMED. 7 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 9.1 SIMILARLY THE CREDIT ENTRIES OF RS. 2 LACS AND RS. 21,000/- IN THE IMPUGNED BANK ACCOUNT IN THE AY 2000-01 FROM DR. B.B. SETH AND SH RI S.K. BHAGAT WERE ALSO EXAMINED ON OATH. BUT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS THAT THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS NOT DISCLOSED WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THESE WERE DULY EXPLAINED & EXAMINED. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2 LACS AND RS. 21,000/- AS THESE DO NOT REPRESENT THE UNDI SCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LD. AR FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD FOR TH E SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE THE SAME IS HEREBY CONFI RMED. 9.2 SIMILARLY WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TO HAVE MADE THE CASH DEPOSIT IN THE BANK OUT OF THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE VDIS. THE R ELEVANT PAPERS OF THE VDIS ARE PLACED ON THE PAGE 73 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LD. AR , FOR THE ASSESSEE, HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT WHICH IS PLACED ON PAG E 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK JUSTIFYING THE CASH DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT IN THE ASSESSMENT YE AR 98-99 FOR RS.1.60 LACS. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, WE FIND THAT THE SOURCE OF CASH DEPOSITED IN THE IMPUGNED BANK FOR RS.1.60 LACS HAS BEEN DULY EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, WE ARE INC LINED TO DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 10. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 4 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES A S UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 11. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACQUIRED CERTAIN NUMBER OF SHARES IN THE BLOCK PERI OD WHICH WERE NOT DISCLOSED IN HIS INCOME TAX RETURN. THE DETAILS OF THE SHARES STAND AS UNDER:- AY AMOUNT (IN RUPEES) 1990-91 19,000 1991-92 4,000/- 1992-93 5,000/- 1993-94 5,100/- 1994-95 11,700/- 8 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 1995-96 35,750/- 1996-97 26,348/- 1997-98 4,000/- 1998-99 6,000/- 1999-00 17,000/- 2000-01 18,115/- 1,52,013/- THE AO TREATED THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS UNDISCLO SED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAI NED. THUS THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 12. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN PAR T BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- IN THE COMPREHENSIVE REPLY DATED 28.11.06 APPELLAN T HAS CLAIMED THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES TO BE OUT OF SAVINGS BEING CASH IN HAND FOR THE AY 90- 91, 91-92, 92-93, 93-94, 95-96 & 96-97. FOR AY 92-9 3 IT WAS CLAIMED THAT THIS INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF RS.5,000/- WAS ACTUALLY IN MASTER PLUS 91 WHICH WERE PAID FROM HIS ACCOUNT WITH THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM M/S NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL WORKS. PERUSAL OF THE ANNEXURE-I, PAGE 180 OF THE PAPER BO OKS SHOWS THAT THIS WAS THE ACCOUNT OF SRI ATMA PRAKASH NAYAK, KHATA NO.1 FOR T HE FY 91-92. OUT OF THIS ACCOUNT WHICH IS CLAIMED TO BE A PARTNERSHIP CONCER N WITH J.N. NAYAK, KARTA OF HIS HUF AS A PARTNER HAS WITHDRAWN A SUM OF RS.10,0 00/- ON 28.12.99 FOR UT MASTER PLUS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS MENTIONED ABOUT ONLY RS.5,000/- . AS PER AO RS.5,000/- IS INVESTED BY DR. J.N. NAYAK AND NOT BY HIS MINOR SON ATMA PRAKASH NAYAK. THE EXPLANATION THEREFORE IS CONSIDERED NOT OF ANY HELP TO THE APPELLANT. AR HOWEVER HAS PLEADED THAT FOR AY 97-98 (RS.4,000/ -, 98-99 (RS.6,000/-), 99- 00 (RS.17,000/-) & 2000-01 (RS.18,115/-) ARE ALL AL READY DISCLOSED BY HIM IN THE BLOCK RETURN AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME. AR CLAIMED THAT FOR THIS REFERENCE BE MADE TO PAGE NO. 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK. PAGE NO. 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS THE DETAILS OF INVESTMENT WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY AP PELLANT AS UNDISCLOSED AND THEREFORE DISCLOSED IN THE BLOCK RETURN AS UNDISCLO SED INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 97-98 WHEREIN APPELLANT DISCLOSED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.1,23,990/- WHICH INCLUDED INVESTMENTS IN SHARES OF RS.4,000/- BESIDE INVESTMENT I NURSING HOME OF RS.30,592/-. SIMILARLY AY 98-99 UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCLOSED IN BLOCK RETURN AT RS.1,12,720/- IS CLAIMED TO INCLUDE THE INVESTMENT IN SHARE OF RS.6,000/-. SIMILARLY IN AY 99-00 THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 25,710/- DISCLOSED IN BLOCK 9 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 RETURN IS CLAIMED TO INCLUDE RS.17,000/- INVESTED I N SHARE. THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE AY 2000-01. AO IS DIRECTED TO RECHECK WHETHER THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF RS.4,000/-, RS.6,000/- & RS.17,000/- ARE INCLUDED IN THE UNDISC LOSED INCOME RETURNED IN FORM NO. 2B FOR AY 97-98, 98-99 AND 99-00 AND IF YE S REDUCE THE AMOUNTS FROM OUT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME CONSIDERED IN RESPECT OF INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS INVESTMENTS FOR THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS IN SHARE S ARE ALREADY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT IN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OVER FOR 3 YEARS IN THE BLOCK RETURN FILED. THESE THEREFORE NEED NOT BE AGAIN INCLUDED O VER AND ABOVE THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME RETURNED BY THE APPELLANT WHICH AS CLAIMED IS INCLUSIVE OF RS.4,000 + RS.6,000 + RS.17,000 = RS.27,000/-. THUS SUBJECT TO THE ABOVE VERIFICATION APPELLANT WOULD GET RELIEF OF RS.27,00 0/- OUT OF RS.1,52,013/-. THIS GROUND IS PARTLY ALLOWED. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 13. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPLANA TION GIVEN BY ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED WITHOUT ANY REASON BY AO AND HE JUST STATE D THAT THE EXPLANATION IS NOT SATISFACTORY. HE STATED THAT THE LIST OF SHARES IN QUESTION WAS NOT GIVEN AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND WITHOUT CONFRONTING THE SAME THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS PASSED. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE SPECIFICALLY IN HIS LET TER DATED 01.06.2001 WRITTEN TO THE AO REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE ALLEGED LIST OF SHARES. IN ABSENCE OF FULL PARTICULARS OF THE SHARES UNDER CONSIDERATION VIZ., NAME OF THE COMPAN Y, NO OF SHARES, DATED OF PURCHASE ETC. IT IS NOT AT ALL PRACTICABLE TO PIN-POINT THE SOURCE THEREOF. LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT THE ALLEGED SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE MINOR SON ATM A PRAKASH NAYAK (IN AYS 90-91 AND 96-97 AMOUNTING TO RS.19,000/- AND RS.16,348/- RESP ECTIVELY) THE AO IS WRONG IN OBSERVING, WITHOUT ANY BASIS, THAT ASSESSEE HAS MA DE INVESTMENT IN HIS NAME. THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECOR D TO SUPPORT THE SAID ALLEGATION. THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE MERELY BECAUSE HE IS MINOR. LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT DURING THE SAID TWO ASSESSMENT YEARS NO SHARES AT ALL HAVE BEEN PURCHASED IN ASSESSEES NAME. ON THE CONTRARY ONLY FOLLOWING INVESTMENTS HAVE BEE N MADE BY HIM, OUT OF HIS OWN RESOURCES. IN UTI (WHICH APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN MISUN DERSTOOD BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS SHARES WHICH REPRODUCED BELOW:- A.Y DATE AMOUNT NATURE SOURCE 88-89 30.5.87 5,000 CHILDRENS GIFT SEE UTIS INC OME CERTIFICATE 10 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 GROWTH FUND 1986 (P/B PAGE 175). THIS INVESTMENT IS BEYOND THE BLOCK PERIOD. 92-93 28.12.91 5,000 MASTER PLUS-91 PAID FROM HIS A/C WITH NIW (SEE P/B PAGE 176) 10,000 92-93 28.12.91 5,000 MASATER PLUS-91 (PAID FORM HIS A/C WITH NIW (SEE P/B PAGE -188) 15,000 FROM THE AFORESAID CHART HE STATED THAT NO INVESTME NT HAS AT ALL BEEN MADE IN HIS NAME IN SHARES IN AY 1990-91. THUS THE ADDITION IS WHOLL Y ARBITRARY AND BASELESS AND REQUIRES TO BE DELETED. LASTLY, HE PRAYED THAT THER E IS ALSO NO BASIS OR MATERIAL WHATSOEVER TO ADD THE SAME IN ASSESSEES HANDS ONLY BECAUSE THE SAME STANDS IN ASSESSEE/S NAME AND THE ONUS IS ON THE REVENUE, PAR TICULARLY IN 158BC PROCEEDINGS, TO PROVE THAT INVESTMENT HAS IN FACT BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS UDI. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. SC VEHEMENTLY SUPPORT ED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 14. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IN THIS ISSUE, WE FI ND THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN THE S HARES FROM THE UNDISCLOSED SOURCES. IN THE CASE BEFORE US THE LD AR HAS ALSO NOT JUSTIF IED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT MADE IN THE IMPUGNED SHARES. HOWEVER, THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE LIST OF INVESTMENT WAS NEVER MADE AVAILABLE TO THE AO FOR T HE CONFRONTATION. THE LD SR. SC HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD CONTRARY TO THE ARGUMENT PLACED BY THE LD AR. THEREFORE WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO T HE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW AND WITH THE DIRECTION TO P ROVIDE THE LIST OF INVESTMENT FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH TO THE ASSESSEE. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE SHOULD CO-OPERATE IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BEF ORE THE AO. THEREFORE THE IMPUGNED GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR THE STATIS TICAL PURPOSES. 11 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 15. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND S NOS. 5, 6 & 7 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN TREATING THE INVESTMEN T IN LAND AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MADE INVESTMENTS IN THE LAND AS DETAILED UNDER:- AY AMOUNT 91-92 87,784 92-93 97,409 1,26,409 2,23,818 98-99 26,390 THE AO TREATED THE INVESTMENT IN LAND AS UNDISCLOSE D INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENTS WAS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAI NED. THUS THE AO ADDED THE SAME TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO BY GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN PAR T BY OBSERVING AS UNDER:- REGARDING GROUND NO. 16, INVESTMENT IN LANDS IN DI FFERENT YEARS AGGREGATING TO RS.3,38,291/- AS IN THE EARLIER GROUND FOR AY 91-92 FOR THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN LAND IN AY 93-94 AND 98-99 ARE RS.2,24,117/- AND RS .2,690/- RESPECTIVELY. WHENEVER APPELLANT HAS MADE INVESTMENT, AR ALWAYS C LAIMED THAT IT TOO WAS MADE AFTER WITHDRAWAL FROM M/S NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL WORKS WHOSE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PARTICULARLY THE ACCOUNT BEING SUBMITTED IN THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS DOES NOT APPEAR TO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH OR THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WAS DISCLOSED PRE-SEARCH TO THE DEPART MENT. CONSEQUENTLY THIS EXPLANATION IS HELD NOT ESTABLISHED AND ADDITIONS A RE CONFIRMED. THE INVESTMENT IN LAND WAS NEVER DISCLOSED PRE-SEAR CH IN ANY RETURN FILED NOR HAS COME OUT OF ANY ESTABLISHED SOURCES OF APPELLAN TS INCOME. THE COPY OF ACCOUNT BEING SUBMITTED IS NOT EVEN CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN FOUND IN SEARCH. EVEN THE BANK ACCOUNT IS NOT DISCLOSED PRE-SEARCH. THIS GROUND THEREFORE FAILS. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 18. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT AS REGARDS THE SOURCE OF RS. 87,784/- IN AY 1991-92, A SUM OF RS.80,000/- WHICH WAS DEBITED BY NIW TO ASSESSEES ACCOUNT (SEE 12 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 PAGE 149 OF THE PAPER BOOK) BY CHEQUE NO. 8034868 O N ITS OWN BANK ACCOUNT WITH CANARA BANK AS YOURSELF AGAINST WHICH THE BANK IS SUED TWO PAY ORDERS FOR RS.40,000/- EACH FAVOURING THE TWO VENDORS KAPILESH WAR SINGH AND RAJESHWAR SINGH (SEE PAGE 204 OF THE PAPER BOOK). THE BALANCE RS.7, 784/- WAS SPENT OUT OF CASH-IN-HAND TOWARDS REGISTRATION EXPENSES ETC. AS REGARDS AY 1 993-94 IT IS STATED THAT THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.2,24,117/- (MISTAKE OF RS 200) IS CONS TITUTED OF TWO ITEMS VIZ. RS.97,409 AND RS.1,26,409/-. AS REGARDS RS. 97,409/-, IT HAS BEEN INVESTED BY ATMA PRAKASH NAYAK OUT OF HIS OWN RESOURCES VIZ. BY ISSUING A CH EQUE ON HIS S.B. ACCOUNT NO. 3342 WITH BANK OF BARODA IN FAVOUR OF THE VENDOR (TRUSTE E RESIDUARY STATE OF MAHARAJADHIRAJ DR. SN KAMESHWAR SINGH BAHADUR, RAJ DARBHANGA) WHIC H HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE BANK (SEE PAGE 206 OF THE BAPER BOOK). THIS ACCOUNT HAS BEEN MAINTAINED BY ASSESSEE SINCE 23.02.1984 (COPY ALREADY FILED AT PAGES 48 TO 57 OF THE PAPER BOOK) DATE AMOUNT P/B PAGE 27.4.92 19,5000 P-57 & 206 8.5.92 77,909 P-57 & 206 97,409 MOREOVER, THERE IS ALSO NO EVIDENCE AT ALL THAT IN FACT THIS INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY ME OUT OF MY OWN RESOURCES. HE STATED THAT OTHER AMOUN T OF RS.1,26,409/- WAS INVESTED BY ASSESSEE. AS REGARDS ITS SOURCE IT IS STATED THAT A SUM OF RS.70,000/- HAS BEEN PAID BY CHEQUE NO SCD 21411840 DATED 21.01.1992 AND RS.26,9 09/- BY CHEQUE NO NSCE 2968994 DATED 30.4.1992 BOTH ISSUED IN FAVOUR OF TH E VENDOR (SEE PAGE 207 OF PAPER BOOK) ON ASSESSEES SB A/C NO. 7902 WITH CANARA BAN K AS UNDER (WHICH A/C AS DISCUSSED IN PARAS 11.1 TO 11.5 ABOVE WAS DULY DISC LOSED PRIOR TO SEARCH) DATE AMOUNT P/B (PAGE) 23.1.92 70,000 P-24 & 207 27.4.92 19,500 P-25 & 207 04.5.92 26,909 P-25 1,16,409 AND BALANCE RS.10,000/- HAS BEEN SPENT TOWARDS REGI STRATION COST ETC. OUT OF THE CASH- IN-HAND. 13 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR DISAGREED WITH THE ARG UMENT OF THE LD. AR AND PRAYED THE BENCH TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS ASS AILED THREE ADDITIONS OF WHICH ONE ADDITION IS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.26390/- DURING THE AY 1998-99 WHEREIN IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THIS IS AN AMOUNT ADDED IN RESPECT TO THE INVESTMENT IN THE LAND. THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT AO HAS TAKE N THE VALUE SHOWN FROM THE REGISTERED DEED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAS ADDED T HE MISC. EXPENSES ALSO OF RS. 27300/- WHICH HAS COME UP WITH THE CASH FLOW STATEM ENT AND THIS AMOUNT ALSO HAS COME FROM THE CASH IN HAND OF RS. 45168.00. THE LD. DR WANTS THIS ISSUE ALSO TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE LD. AR RAISED NO OBJECTION IF THE MATTER IS REMIT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE IN THE INTE REST OF JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY WE RESTORE THE ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE FILE OF AO FO R FRESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. 19.1 THE SECOND PART OF GROUND NO. 6 IS IN RESPECT TO THE ADDITION MADE OF RS.80,784/- FOR AY 1991-92. THE AO ADDED THE SAID AMOUNT ON TH E BASIS THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL WORK AND THAT PARTNE RSHIP FIRM HAS MADE THE PAYMENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF LAND WHIC H IS EVIDENT FROM THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL WORK. FURTHER, A SU M OF RS.7784/- WAS PAID IN CASH BY THE ASSESSEE OUT OF HIS OWN CASH BALANCE. HOWEVER, THE AO TREATED THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF T HE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS SUBSEQUENTLY CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). ACCORDING TO THE LD. A R THE LOWER AUTHORITIES ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT NO PAPER OR DOCUMENT WAS FOUND IN RESPECT TO NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL WORK AT THE TIME OF SEARCH. THE LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 149 OF THE PA PER BOOK WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN WRITTEN THAT CHEQUE NO. 8034868 HAS BEEN ISSUED BY NIW TO THE VENDOR OF THE PROPERTIES ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND BANKERS C ERTIFICATE HAS BEEN PLACED IN PAGE NO. 205 OF THE PAPER BOOK. IN THE LIGHT OF THE EVIDENC E THAT HAS BEEN BROUGHT BEFORE US, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS.80,000/- OUT OF RS.87,784/- 14 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 CANNOT BE TERMED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME AND, THEREFO RE, THE REST OF THE AMOUNT OF RS. 7,784/- THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION IS HIS OWN CASH A VAILABLE ON RECORD COULD NOT BE SUBSTANTIATED WITH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE, SO THE AMO UNT IS SUSTAINED. THE ADDITION ASSAILED IN GROUND NO. 6 IS IN RESPECT TO AY 1993-94 INVESTMENT IN LAND OF RS.2,23,818/- IN RESPECT OF PURCHASE OF LAND. THE AO MADE THE ADDITION ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID LAND FOR WHICH THE INVESTMENT WAS MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN THE RETURN. THE LD. CIT(A) CONCURRED WITH THE V IEW OF THE AO AND CONFIRMED THE ADDITION. BEFORE US IT WAS PLEADED BY THE LD. AR TH AT IN THE RETURN THERE WAS NO COLUMN TO DISCLOSE INVESTMENT IN LAND. THEREFORE, HE COUL D NOT DISCLOSE THE SAME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. ON THAT REASON THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MA DE. ON A QUERY FROM THE BENCH FOR THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SAID LAND THE LD. A R SUBMITTED THAT THIS LAND WAS PURCHASED IN JOINT NAME WITH THE ASSESSEE AND HIS S ON. IN THAT THE APPELLANT PAID FROM HIS BANK ACCOUNT NO. 7902 ON THREE OCCASIONS OF RS. 1,16,409/- BY CHEQUE AND RS.10,000 BY CASH AND HIS SON WHO HAD A DEPOSIT IN NIW FROM HIS ACCOUNT THE MONEY WAS PAID . THE LD. DR SAYS THAT THESE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LD. AR NEED TO BE VERIFIED BY THE AO. THE LD. AR RAISED NO OBJECTION IF THE M ATTER IS REMIT BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. THEREFORE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE & FAIR PLAY WE RESTORE THE ISSUE OF IMPUGNED ADDITION TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THEREFORE, WE ARE INCLINED TO SEND THIS PA RTICULAR ISSUE FOR VERIFICATION. THUS THE ISSUES IN THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL PARTLY ALLOWE D FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 20. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 10 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.7 2,348.00 ON THE BASIS OF DVO REPORT. 21. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 72,348.00 BEING DIFFERENCE IN THE AMOUNT OF CONSTRU CTION IN NURSING HOME BUILDING SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE AND VALUED BY THE DVO. 22. AGGRIEVED ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE L D CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO AFTER GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN PART. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 15 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 23. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIO N FALL IN FOUR ASSESSMENT YEARS WHICH REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- A.Y ADDITION SHOWN 94-95 4,000 3,568 96-97 2,500 2,090 97-98 37,000 30,592 99-00 3,61,500 2,95,560 4,05,000 3,31,810 LD. AR STATED THAT THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE AS PER THE VALUERS REPORT WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE AS THERE IS NO MATERIALS OR EVIDENCE TH AT IN FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAD MADE SUCH INVESTMENTS, EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT IS PLACED ON THE O RDER OF DELHI BENCH REPORTED IN 64 TTJ 786 (DEL). LD. AR FURTHER STATED THAT NO PAPERS SHOWING INVESTMENT IN CONSTRUCTION OF NURSING HOME HAVE BEEN SEIZED AND H ENCE NO ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT COULD BE MADE IN PRESENT PROCEEDINGS AS ADDITION TH ERE UNDER ARE PERMISSIBLE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF MATERIALS FOUND IN COURSE OF SEARCH AN D NOT BEYOND THERETO. HE FURTHER STATED THAT SINCE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY SHOWN THESE INVESTMENTS OUT OF UDI SHOWN IN FORM-2B AND THE AO HAS PROCEEDED ON THE BASIS OF IN COME AS RETURNED IN FORM-2B AND ADDITION THEREOF TO THAT EXTENT AMONGST TO DOUBLE T AXATION. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE DVO HAD REDUCED HIS ORIGINAL ESTIMATE BUT CREDIT TH EREFORE HAS NOT GIVEN BY THE AO ON THE GROUND THAT NO SUCH REPORT WAS RECEIVED BY AO. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. DR DISAGREED WITH THE ARG UMENT OF THE LD. AR AND PRAYED THE BENCH TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FR ESH ADJUDICATION AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 24. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FI ND THAT THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE IN THE CASE BEFORE US ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE VALUATION MADE BY THE DVO AND THE VALUE OF THE PROPERTY SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVE R, ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORDS WE FIND THAT THE COURTS HAVE HELD THAT THE VALUATION M ADE BY THE DVO SHOULD BE REDUCED BY 20% TO DETERMINE REASONABLE VALUE OF THE PROPERT Y. IN THIS CONNECTION, WE RELY IN THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SMT. PREM 16 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 KUMARI MURDIA REPORTED IN 296 ITR 508(RAJ) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHI PS HELD THAT 20% DEDUCTION OUT OF THE ESTIMATED VALUATION BY THE DVO WILL SERVE THE PURPOSE. IN THE CASE OF THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE, THE AO HAD MADE ADDITIONS AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES FOR ASST. YR. 1995-96, ON THE B ASIS OF DIFFERENCE IN THE COST DECLARED BY THE ASSESSEE AND COST DETERMINED BY DVO ON CPWD RATES. ON APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE APPROPRIATE RATE TO BE TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WOULD HAVE BEEN PWD RATES. KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID, A DEDUCTION OF 20 PER CENT WAS ALLOWED FROM THE COST OF CONSTRU CTION ESTIMATED BY THE VALUATION OFFICER IN ORDER TO ARRIVE AT A REASONABLE ESTIMATE OF COST OF CONSTRUCTION FOR THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR AND SUSTAINED THE BALANCE OF ADDITION ON THAT BASIS. ON FURTHER APPEAL, THE TRIBUNAL BY ORDER UNDER APPEAL HAS UPHELD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) BY FOLLOWING A BENCH DECISION OF THIS COURT IN CIT VS. DINESH TALWAR (2003) 181 CTR (RAJ) 472 : (2004) 265 ITR 344 (RAJ), THE FACTS OF WHICH CASE WERE ALMOST THE SIMILAR. 3. WE ARE ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT WHAT SHALL BE TAKE N TO BE COST OF CONSTRUCTION OF A PROPERTY CONSTRUCTED IS ESSENTIALLY A QUESTION OF F ACT AND NOT THE QUESTION OF LAW. MOREOVER, THE MATTER IS SQUARELY GOVERNED BY THE BE NCH DECISION OF THIS COURT AND DOES NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF L AW. 4. HENCE, IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, THE APPEAL IS DIS MISSED, AS IN OUR OPINION, NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES FOR CONSIDERATIO N IN THIS APPEAL. 5. BEFORE PARTING WITH THE CASE, WE MAY OBSERVE THAT A STRANGE PROCEDURE HAS BEEN ADOPTED BY THE AO IN MAKING A JOINT ASSESSMENT ORDE R FOR THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS IGNORING THAT EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR IS A SEPARATE UN IT AND ITS ASSESSMENT CANNOT TRANSGRESS INTO OTHER ASSESSMENT. THE FACT THAT APP EALS RAISING THE IDENTICAL QUESTION CAN BE DECIDED BY A COMMON ORDER, DOES NOT PERMIT A O TO PASS A COMMON ORDER FOR NUMBER OF ASSESSMENT YEARS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE PRINCIPLES LAID DO WN BY THE HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT WE DIRECT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES TO ADJUDICATE THE AFORESAID MATTER IN THE LIGHT OF ABOVE STATED DISCUSSIONS. AO IS DIRECTED ACCORDINGL Y. THUS THE GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 25. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 11 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.1 .15 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN KVP/IVP AS UNDISCLOSED INVESTMENTS. 26. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDI NGS MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 1.15 LAKH ON ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENT IN KVP/IVP AS UN DISCLOSED INVESTMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT NO SATISFACTORILY EXPLANATION WAS FURNI SHED BY THE ASSESSEE. 17 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 27. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE LD CIT(A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF AO. BEING AGGRIEVED BY THIS ORDER OF LD CIT(A) ASSESSEE CAME IN SECOND APPEAL BEFORE US. 28. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THAT THE INVESTM ENTS ARE OUT OF INCOME WHICH WAS DULY SHOWN IN THE RETURN U/S 158BC. SINCE THE A O HAS ACCEPTED THE INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN, THE ADDITION OF IT AGAIN AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. SC DISAGREED WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWERS AUTHOR ITIES. 29. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FI ND THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 77 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS PREPARED CASH FLOW STATEMENT FOR THE FY 1996-97, 19 97-98, 1998-99 CORRESPONDING AY 1997-98, 1998-99 AND 1999-2000 WHICH IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER:- FY A.Y O.B. UNDISCLOSED INCOM E TOTAL IN NURSING BANK KVP / LAND SHARES TOTAL C.B. OF CASH INCOME DECLARED HOME DEPOSIT IVP CASH (FROM NO. 2B ) IN VDIS-97 96-97 97-98 - - 123990 -- 123990 30592 -- -- -- 4000 34 542 89448 97-98 98-99 89448 112720 203000 405168 --- 160000 11500 0 27600 6000 308600 96568 98-99 99-00 96568 257150 - - 353718 295560 -- -- -- 17000 312560 41158 FROM THE CASH FLOW STATEMENT THE LD. COUNSEL TOOK O UR ATTENTION TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98 AND WHEREIN THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER F ORM NO. 2B COMES TO RS.1,23,990/-. THEREAFTER, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION I N THAT YEAR AN INVESTMENT OF RS.30,592 WAS MADE IN NURSING HOME AND RS.4,000/- W AS INVESTED IN SHARES THUS A TOTAL AMOUNT OF RS.34,542/- WAS INVESTED AND THE CA SH BALANCE WAS RS. 89,448/-. IN FY 1996-97 CORRESPONDING TO AY 1997-98 THIS AMOUNT OF CASH BALANCE OF RS.89,448/- BECAME THE OPENING BALANCE FOR THE FY 1997-98 CORRE SPONDING TO AY 1998-99 AND ADDED WITH THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN FORM-2B OF RS. 1,12,720/- THE INCOME DECLARED IN THE VDIS OF RS. 2,30,000/- COMES TO RS.4,05,168/-. THEREAFTER, HE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE OUTGOINGS IN THE SAID YEAR WHICH IS BANK DEP OSIT OF RS.1.60 LAKH AND INVESTMENT IN KVP AND IVP RS.1.15 LAKH AND LAND RS.27,600/- AN D SHARES RS.6000/- THUS MAKING A 18 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 TOTAL INVESTMENT IN THIS AY OF RS.3,08,600/- AND TH E CASH BALANCE AT RS.96,568/- FOR AY 1998-99. THUS THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.99,568/- BECAM E THE OPENING BALANCE FOR AY 1999-00 AND TO IT UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS.2,57,150 /- WAS ADDED AS PER FORM NO. 2B WHERE THE TOTAL AMOUNT COMES TO RS.3,53,718/- WHICH WAS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREAFTER THE LD. COUNSEL POINTED OUT THAT THAT IN THE NURSING HOME, THE ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.2,95,560/- AND IN SHARES RS.17,000/- TH US MAKING A TOTAL INVESTMENT OF RS.3,12,560/- AND THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.41,150/- W AS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE END OF THE AY 1999-2000. FROM THE ABOVE EXPLANATION, WE FIND THAT THE INVEST MENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE FOR RS.1.15 LAKH STANDS EXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ADDED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, AO IS DIRECTED . HENCE THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 30. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 12 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE REMAND REPORT WAS NOT RECEIVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN -SPITE OF SEVERAL REMINDERS GIVEN TO THE AO. 31. WE HAVE ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERITS, THUS THE IMPUGNED GROUNDS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUD ICATION. HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 32. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN GROUND NO. 13 IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE IN RESPECT TO THE INCOME DISCLOSED IN THE VDIS. 33. WE HAVE ADJUDICATED THE APPEAL ON MERITS, THUS THE IMPUGNED GROUNDS BECOME INFRUCTUOUS AND DOES NOT REQUIRE ANY SEPARATE ADJUD ICATION. HENCE THE SAME IS DISMISSED AS HAVING BECOME INFRUCTUOUS. 34. THE NEXT ISSUE RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ADDITI ONAL GROUND IN THIS APPEAL IS THAT RETURN FOR THE AY 2000-01 WAS NOT FALLEN DUE AT THE TIME OF SEARCH THEREFORE SUCH INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED. 19 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 35. THE LD. AR BEFORE US SUBMITTED THE SEARCH WAS C ONDUCTED ON 28.10.1999 AND THE LIABILITY OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES FOR FILING THE RET URN INCOME AFTER THE EXPIRY OF FINANCIAL YEAR I.E. 31.3.2000. AS SUCH THE RETURN TO BE FILED WAS NOT FALLEN DUE FOR AY 2000-01 ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE LD. COUNSEL STATED BEFORE U S THAT SINCE SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN ASSESSEES PREMISES ON 28.10.1999 AND THE RETURN FO R AY 2000-01 AS PER LAW SHOULD HAVE BEEN FILED BEFORE 31.07.2000, THEREFORE, ACCOR DING TO LD. AR QUESTION OF FILING OF RETURN BEFORE THE SEARCH HAPPENED COULD NOT ARISE. THUS, THE FINDING BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW THAT FOR AY 2000-01 RETURN WAS NOT FILED PRE SEARCH IS LEGALLY UNTENABLE, THEREFORE, ACCORDING TO LD. COUNSEL THE ADDITION MA DE FOR AY 2000-01 ON THE PRETEXT THAT IT IS UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE DELETED. TH E LD. AR DREW OUR ATTENTION TO PAGE 13 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN PARA 9.6 WHERE IN THE AO NOTICED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE FOUND TO BE INCOMPLETE FOR A SPLIT PER IOD. THE LD. AR INFORMED THAT WHEN THE AO HAS MADE A FINDING THAT THERE IS NO BOO KS OF ACCOUNT ( WHETHER IT IS COMPLETE OR INCOMPLETE ) THE FACT REMAINS THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT WERE P RESENT BEFORE HIM IN THAT CASE HE CANNOT BRUSH ASIDE THE ENTIRE I NCOME AS UNDISCLOSED WHEN THE FACTS REMAIN THAT THE SEARCH HAPPENED ON 28.10.1999 AND T HE RETURN HAS TO BE FILED BY 31.07.2000 WHEN THE RETURN IS NOT DUE HOW CAN IT BE SAID THE INCOME HAS BEEN UNDISCLOSED. LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE AO HAS REJECTED THE BOOKS ON THE GROUND THAT IT IS INCOMPLETE AND THEN WENT ON TO MAKE THE ENTIRE ADDI TION WHICH WAS SALARY INCOME, INTEREST ON SAVINGS BANK ACCOUNT AND MATURITY OF MA P. ACCORDING TO THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE SALARY , PROFESSIONAL & OTHER INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED WHEN THE DUE DATE FOR FILING THE INCOME TAX RETURN HAS NOT EXPIRED. ON THE OTHER HAND THE LD. SR. SC DISAG REED WITH THE ARGUMENT OF THE LD. AR AND VEHEMENTLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE LOWERS AU THORITIES. 36. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE ON RECORD. AT THE OUTSET, WE FI ND THAT THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD SHOWING WHETHER THE INCOME PERTAINING TO THE YEAR WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S AS ON THE DATE OF SEARCH. HOWEVER WE HAVE ALREADY HELD THAT THE SALARY INCOME CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN 20 IT(SS)A NO36/PAT/2007 DR. JAGAT NARAYAN NAYAK, BP 01.04.89 TO 28.10.99 EARLIER PARAGRAPH, THUS SALARY INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED. HOWEVER OTHER THAN SALARY THE ASSES SEE HAS TO JUSTIFY WHETHER THE INCOME WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN TH IS REGARD THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 158BB OF THE ACT READS AS UNDER : COMPUTATION OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERI OD. 158BB . (1) THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE BLOCK PERIOD SH ALL BE THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE PREVIOUS YEARS FALLING WITHIN THE BLO CK PERIOD COMPUTED, IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THIS ACT, ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE FO UND AS A RESULT OF SEARCH OR REQUISITION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS AND SUCH OTHER MATERIALS OR INFORMATION AS ARE AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND RELATABLE TO SUCH EV IDENCE, AS REDUCED BY THE AGGREGATE OF THE TOTAL INCOME, OR AS THE CASE MAY BE, AS INCREASED B Y THE AGGREGATE OF THE LOSSES OF SUCH PREVIOUS YEARS, DETERMINED, (A)---- (B)---- (C)---- (D) WHERE THE PREVIOUS YEAR HAS NOT ENDED OR THE DA TE OF FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME UNDER SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 139 HAS NOT EXPIRED, ON THE BASIS OF ENTRIES RELATING TO SUCH INCOME OR TRANSACTIONS AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AN D OTHER DOCUMENTS MAINTAINED IN THE NORMAL COURSE ON OR BEFORE THE DATE OF THE SEARCH O R REQUISITION RELATING TO SUCH PREVIOUS YEARS; IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF LAW, WE ARE OF THE VIE W THAT THE ENTRIES IN BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE NECESSARY TO ARRIVE AT THE CONCLUSION THAT INCOME FOR THE YEAR IS NOT UNDISCLOSED INCOME. THUS, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTIC E & FAIR PLAY WE ARE INCLINED TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJU DICATION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAW. THUS THE ADDITIONAL GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 37. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL STANDS ALLOWED PAR TLY FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 34(4) O F THE ITAT RULES, BY PUTTING ON NOTICE BOARD OPEN COURT ON 11/05/2017 (TOUR BENCH ORDER) SD/- SD/- (ABY. T. VARKEY) (WASEEM AHMED) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *DKP, SR.P.S - 11/05/2017 PATNA COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT-M/S RAVINDRA KUMAR, NASIRGANJ, NR. B.S. COLLEGE, DIGHA, PATNA-012 2. RESPONDENT-ACIT, CIRCLE-5, PATNA 3. CONCERNED CIT 4. CIT (A) 5. DR, ITAT, PATNA 6. GUARD FILE. /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER/ , SR.PS/PS, ITAT, PATNA
