SOPAN D. PATIL,KOLHAPUR vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,

आदेश / 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 relation to the assessment years 2009-10 & 2010-11. Since some common issues have been raised in these appeals, we are, therefore, proceeding to dispose them off by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience.

2 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

A.Y. 2009-10

order u/s. 153A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter also

called as ‘the Act’) as against the assessee’s contention that no

search action was carried out on him.

order are that a search in the case of Shraddha Group, engaged in

carrying out irrigation contracts, was conducted on 08-09-2010.

Pursuant to it, a consequential search was carried out in the cases

of NNK Constructions, Uniglory Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., Devgiri

Engineering and Shri Sopan D. Patil (the assessee in question) vide

a single warrant on 17-09-2010 at the premises located at Room

No.102 and 103, B-Wing, Parmar Trade Centre, Sadhu Vaswani

Chowk, Pune – 01. The Assessing Officer (AO) has recorded that

Uniglory Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd. is a sub-contractor of Shraddha

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 loose

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

3 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 was

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, which has

now been assailed before us.

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 convinced

with the submission tendered on behalf of the assessee. The fact

that search was carried out is amply evident from various facts.

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 prominently

4 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

shows the name of the assessee in Form No.45, being the warrant

of authorization u/s. 132 of the Act. The premises covered under

the warrant of authorization is Room No.102 and 103, B-Wing,

Parmar Trade Centre, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune – 01. Then, a

Panchanama dated 18-09-2010 was drawn, whose copy has been

placed at pages 364 and 365 of the paper book. It indicates the

factum of closure of the search at the same place. Such

panchanama also indicates the name of the assessee along with

Uniglory Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., NNK Constructions, proprietor

Sh. N.N.Krishnani, Devgiri Engineering, being, the same persons

in whose name the warrant of authorization was issued. Still

further, page no. 3 of the paper book is a statement of the 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 Centre,

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-contractors

looking after Sangamner project. The very fact that a statement

u/s. 132(4) was recorded and duly signed by the assessee, 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,

5 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 search

warrant was executed on the assessee but the same fact was also

admitted by the assessee in his letter written to the AO apart from

signing the statement u/s. 132(4) of the Act.

initiated u/s. 132 etc., the AO shall issue notice and complete the

assessment for six assessment years immediately preceding 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 General etc.,

in consequence of information in his possession, has reason to

believe that any person to whom one of the three circumstances

given in clauses (a), (b,) or (c) apply, then the Principal Director

General etc. shall authorize any Additional Director etc. to carry

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

6 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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.

conducted at 102 and 103, B-Wing, Parmar Trade Centre, Sadhu

Vaswani Chowk, Pune, and he is in no way connected with it,

whereas the Revenue has built its case on the premise that this is a

place where the assessee was suspected to have kept its books of

account or other documents. The contention of the ld. AR in this

regard, in our considered opinion, is bereft of any force.

Uniglory Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd., NNK Constructions,

proprietorship of N.N. Krishnani, Devgiri Engineering etc. But

several `documents’ of the assessee were found to have been kept

there. It is found as an admitted position that premises at 102 and

103, B-Wing, Parmar Trade Centre, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune

was covered in the search warrant and was also searched.

Panchanama drawn also indicates finding of certain loose papers

etc. from the said premises. There is an Annexure to the

7 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

Panchnama, which is a `List of A/c Books etc.: Seized’ from the

given address of Room No.102 and 103, B-Wing, Parmar Trade

Centre, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune – 01. A total of 33 pages

were seized apart from computer data backup- External hard disk.

account of one Sh. Sushil, having certain figures. This page also

records the name of the assessee against the figure of 307.8466. In

the wake of Maharashtra Irrigation scam, the Revenue interpreted

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 money passed

from assessee to Shri Sushil Agarwal. When confronted, the

assessee, in response to question no. 5, admitted in his statement

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 stated that :

`As evident from the seized papers and also statements recorded in

respect of Shri Nanak B Krishnani, myself and Devgiri

Engineering were jointly executing the Sangamner Project. Hence,

on mutual consultation both of us have agreed to divide this

8 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

unaccounted income of Rs.307.84 lakhs in 40:60 ratio’. Ex

consequenti, the assessee’s share of Rs.123.13 lakhs was offered

for taxation in his return for the A.Y. 2010-11.

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 Revenue claims

this page to be a list of accommodation entries, which were

recorded by the assessee in its books of account. At the 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, admitted that the

transactions at page 25 were a record of accommodation entries

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 goods would

be taken by them alone’. He further stated that :`all the other

relevant material regarding receipt of goods i.e. delivery challan,

stock register, transport memos etc. were regularly kept at site

and as on to-day it may be in the possession of my sub-contractors,

9 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

hence I am unable to produce the same before your honour’. The

sub-contractors referred to by the assessee are Sh. Bubaji and Sh.

Nankani etc., who were in possession of the searched premises.

Even during the course of statement u/s 132(4), the assessee

admitted in response to question no. 5 that : `Sh. N.B. Krishnani

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 that the

`documents’ of the assessee were kept at the premises No.102 and

103, B-Wing, Parmar Trade Centre, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune

and it is on the basis of such documents that the assessee chose to

surrender income of Rs.123.13 lakhs or disputed the taxability of

income in respect of document No.25, which we shall advert 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.

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

10 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 case, it is

found that not only the documents relating to the assessee’s

business were found at 102 and 103, B-Wing, Parmar Trade

Centre, Sadhu Vaswani Chowk, Pune, but they were incriminating

in nature and on the basis of such documents the assessee

surrendered certain income as well. The name of the assessee also

appears in the panchanama drawn for that premises.

ITA No.1941/Mum/2014, in which no such search was initiated or

conducted in pursuance to the warrant. Even the warrant indicated

the name of Harshad P. Doshi but not that of the assessee in that

case. The Tribunal in para No.10 observed with concurrence that

‘the ld. CIT(A) has expressed the view that the search need not

11 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

take place at the business premises of the assessee itself but it can

be conducted in any other place also’. There cannot be any 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.

(T) 62 (Delhi-Trib), the search was held to be invalid and the

assessment was quashed for the reason that neither the name of the

assessee appeared in the warrant of authorization nor its address

was given therein. Obviously, this case also does not assist the

assessee in any manner.

assessment are also distinguishable having no resemblance to the

facts of the case.

132 of the Act was validly taken against the assessee, pursuant to

which the assessment got completed u/s. 153A of the Act. No

illegality can be found in the framing of assessment u/s. 153A of

the Act.

12 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

Rs.3,07,02,754/-.

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 details 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 of search,

Sh. Murlidhar Bubaji, partner of M/s. Devgiri Engineers and Sh.

Nanak Krishnani, proprietor of NNK Constructions were present,

whose statements were recorded regarding this seized document.

In response to Question No.7 and explaining the contents of page

25, it was stated by Murlidhar Bubaji that this page contains list of

accommodation entries relating to the assessee. The assessee,

during the course of assessment proceedings was confronted with

the statement of Murlidhar Bubaji and asked to give his comments.

In response, the assessee stated that list on page 25 might have

been prepared by Nanak B. Krishnani and Murlidhar Bubaji. He

13 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

submitted that such expenditure was recorded in his books of

account and he was not aware as to how Murlidhar Bubaji claimed

the expenditure to be bogus by means of accommodation entries

only. The AO required the assessee to prove the genuineness of

the expenditure of Rs.5.23 crore recorded on page 25 by producing

documentary evidence. In response, the assessee submitted 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 purchased

by them on his behalf, whose delivery was also taken by them

alone. He, therefore, shifted the burden to prove the genuineness

of the transactions by means of production of delivery challan,

stock register, transport lorry receipts etc. on them by expressing

his inability to produce the same. The reply of the assessee 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 execute the

Sangamner project and the material required for the project was

procured by the assessee alone and the said material/goods were

unloaded, stored, acknowledged by the supervisory staff of the

assessee. The AO again confronted the version given by the sub-

14 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 the

genuineness of the transactions, the AO held that the assessee was

falsely trying to shift the burden to prove the genuineness of the

transactions by lorry receipts, gate pass etc. to the sub-contractors,

which ought to have been proved by him alone as these were the

transactions recorded in his books of account.

loose documents records certain payments made by the assessee to

Sushil Agarwal. The AO observed from page 14 of the seized

documents that the assessee paid a sum of Rs.307.8466 lakhs to

Sushil Agarwal. The assessee agreed to surrender his share of 40%

as additional income and 60% by M/s. Devgiri Engineering. The

AO observed that contents of page 13 of the seized documents

indicated that another Rs.216 lakhs was shared amongst interested

parties. If this amount of Rs.216 lakhs was added to Rs.307.8466

lakhs given to Sushil Agarwal, the total at Rs.523.8466 lakhs was

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 material, the AO

drew an inference that Sushil Agarwal was acting as middleman

15 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 40% of

such payment as his income and the remaining 60% by M/s.

Devgiri Engineering. On a perusal of the books of account 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 assessee 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 assessee is

aggrieved by the sustenance of the addition.

relevant material on record on this issue. From the facts recorded

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 lakhs was

given to Sushil Agarwal, that was accepted by the assessee as

unaccounted income and agreed to surrender his share of 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 for

16 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

which the Govt. of Maharashtra directed its Anti Corruption

Bureau to conduct an enquiry. This fact has been recorded on

pages 30 onwards of the impugned order. The Hon’ble Bombay

High Court, at the relevant time was monitoring the probe while

dealing with the PILs filed on Irrigation Scam. When we consider

the facts in totality, the inference drawn by the authorities

regarding page 14 of the searched document cannot be interfered

with that a sum of Rs.307.8466 was paid to Sushil Agarwal as

bribe for procuring contracts for the assessee and M/s. Devgiri

Engineering. The factum of the assessee having offered for

taxation an income of Rs.123.13 lakhs in his income-tax return for

the A.Y. 2010-11 @ 40% of Rs.307.8466 lakhs paid to Sushil

Agarwal, fortifies the conclusion drawn by the AO. Such a

surrender has not been retracted nor the assessee has challenged

the offering of his share as the income. This is one side of 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. Devgiri

Engineering.

which records the expenses to the tune of Rs.5.23 crore. Murlidhar

Bubaji and Shri Nanak B. Krishnani admitted before the authorities

17 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

that these were accommodation entries recorded by the assessee in

his books of account. When the AO called upon the assessee 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 also

turned the table towards the assessee by putting forth that no such

record was with them. The ld. AR tried to prove the genuineness

of such transactions before us by placing on record copies of

invoices which have been referred to at page 25 of the seized

documents. There is no dispute on the fact that the assessee, in fact,

produced the invoices and made payment against them through

banking channels, which is always a pre-condition for any

accommodation entry of purchase of material. However, except

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 by 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 page 25 of the

searched documents, is nothing but an account of accommodation

entries procured by the assessee for the purpose of recording the

same in his books of account.

18 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 crore. The

percentage of purchase to contract receipts comes at 27.29%. The

ld. AR has placed on record a year-wise chart of Purchases,

Contract receipts and Percentage of purchases to contract receipts

in the preceding three years. Such a chart shows percentage of

purchases to contract receipts at 23.86% for the A.Y. 2006-07,

12.98% for the A.Y. 2007-08 and 14.24% for the A.Y. 2008-09. 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 percentage of

about 8%. Considering the percentage of Purchases to Contract

receipts in the preceding years, it cannot be accepted that the

assessee simply obtained accommodation entries and executed the

work with nominal purchases of Rs.2.25 crore. This implies that

the assessee, in fact, procured some material at a lower prices and

inflated the purchase cost with accommodation entries. This fact is

further corroborated by the replies given by Devgiri Engineering

and NNK Constructions dated 3.12.2012 and 6.12.2012

respectively, as have been reproduced verbatim in the assessment

19 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

order to the effect that : `As per his (the assessee) instructions and

supervision we were carrying out the project and the material

required for the project were procured by Mr. Sopan D Patil 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, in fact

purchased goods from other undisclosed sources and utilized the

same in the execution of contracts, though inflated bills were

received and recorded in the regular books of account as

accommodation entries.

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 cost

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 percentage of

25% to the total bogus purchases recorded by the assessee in its

20 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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.

to Sushil Agarwal, as per page 14 of the seized documents, is

Rs.307.8466 lakhs for procuring irrigation contracts and there are

certain fictitious bills recorded by the assessee as per page 25 of

the seized documents. If there is certain inflow of unaccounted

income and there is some outflow of unexplained payments, both

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 of such

unaccounted income or unaccounted expenditure. It is so for the

reason that the unexplained income, if utilized, cannot give rise to

addition once again, when spent. In fact, the unexplained

expenditure gets telescoped into the unexplained income.

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 at the

rate of 25% at Rs.130.88 lakhs. It is the higher of unexplained

21 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 reduce

the outflow of unaccounted income of Rs.123.13 lakhs from 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 :

Rs.90,28,442/- made by the AO in respect of entries recorded on

page 25 of the seized document. This addition was made by the

AO by noting in Para No.9 of his order that out of bogus purchases

of Rs.5.23 crores, the purchases pertaining to the year under

consideration are Rs.2.13 crore, out of which a disclosure of

Rs.123.13 lakhs was already made by the assessee. Resultant

amount of Rs.90.28 lakhs was added, which got the seal of

approval of the ld. first appellate authority.

material on record, it is seen that addition of Rs.90,28,442/-

22 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

sustained in the first appeal is in respect of the bogus purchases

recorded on page 25 of the seized documents. Some of the

purchase bills pertain to the preceding year while the remaining to

the year under consideration. We have already directed to include

a sum of Rs.7.75 lakhs in the income of the assessee for the

preceding year on the basis of profit of 25% on total bogus

purchases of Rs.5.23 crore for both the years, as reduced by the

surrender of Rs.123.13 crore made by the assessee for the instant

year. If we view total bogus purchases pertaining to both the years

in juxtaposition to the surrender made by the assessee in income

for the instant year, there remains nothing more to be added on this

score to the total income of the assessee for the year under

consideration. We, therefore, order to delete the addition of

Rs.90,28,442/-.

allowed and that for the A.Y. 2010-11 is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 20th December, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- (PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY) (R.S.SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT पुणे Pune; �दनांक Dated : 20th December, 2018 सतीश

23 ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

आदेश क� क� क� �ितिलिप क� �ितिलिप �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अ�ेिषत/Copy of the Order is forwarded to: अ�ेिषत आदेश आदेश आदेश 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant; 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent; 3. आयकर आयु�(अपील) / The CIT (Appeals)-12, Pune 4. The CIT (Central), Pune िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय 5. अिधकरण, पुणे “बी” / DR ‘B’, ITAT, Pune; 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. // True copy // आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, आदेशानुसार आदेशानुसार

// True Copy // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ,पुणे / ITAT, Pune

ITA Nos.902 & 903/PUN/2015 Sopan D. Patil

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 JM second member 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second JM Member. 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. *