PRIDE PURPLE BUILDERS PRIVATE LTD.,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX,,

आदेश आदेश / ORDER आदेश आदेश

PER D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM :

There are 2 appeals filed by the assessee under consideration involving A.Yrs. 2010-11 & 2011-12. They are filed against the consolidated order of CIT(A)-13, Pune, dated 15-12-2015.

We shall first take up the appeal of the assessee for the A.Y. 2010-11.

ITA No.283/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2010-11

2 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

“1. The order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13 Pune is opposed to Law and the principles of natural justice.

(B) The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in facts as well as in law to agree with AO’s findings that the appellant had exchanged cash against Share Premium received from the share applicants in cheque though the shares were in fact bought back at a higher price later.

12.The Ld.CIT(A) was apparently was in a state of confusion as he observed in Para 2.3.2 that of opportunity to cross examine the witness who has given the statement causing prejudice to the appellant is an integral part of the Natural Justice; while again in Para 2.4.5 made a contradictory observation "Not

3 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

granting cross examination is not fatal to the addition" misplacing reliance upon the decision in the case of CIT v C P Adam (1976) 105 ITR 465 (Ker) the facts of which are clearly distinguishable from the appellant case.

(B) The Ld.CIT(A) erred both in facts as well as in law in not appreciating that quite a lot of shares allotted to the appellant companies were bought back by the Directors of the assessees company at a price higher than that at which they were sold.

following additional ground, which is legal in nature, and requested for

admitting the same. The said additional ground is extracted as under :

“1. The assessee submits that the notice issued u/s.153C for this year is bad in law since no incriminating evidence was found pertaining to the assessee for this year and accordingly, the asst. completed is also null and void.

The addition on account of non-genuine share application money u/s.68 of

the Act, another addition on account of unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of

the Act are the issues on merits. Further, the legal issue relates to the

validity of the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act in the absence of any

incriminating documents, is the other issue raised in the additional ground

for both the A.Yrs. 2010-11 and 2011-12. We shall take up the legal issue

first for adjudication. We shall proceed to narrate the facts of the case and

the seizure details of the documents.

4 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

assessee belongs to Pride Group along with Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

and Pride Housing Construction Pvt. Ltd. Assessee is engaged in the

business of construction & Real Estate. There was search and seizure action

u/s.132 of the Act on the Pride Group of cases on 07-09-2011. No cash

seizure and other valuables was mentioned in the order of the AO. The

search action resulted in seizure of various documents pertaining

to/belonging to the assessee. Details of the documents shall be discussed in

the later paragraphs of this order. There was no disclosure of unaccounted

income in the case of the assessee for the assessment years under

consideration. Consequent to the search action, AO issued notice dated 15-

03-2013 u/s.153C of the Act. In response, assessee furnished the return of

income on 16-04-2013 declaring Nil income which is same as that of the

originally return of income furnished on 28.09.2010.

share application money (SAM) from various investor companies. The

statements were recorded from Mr. Jagdish Purohit, entry operator, Mr.

Pradeep Gupta, facilitator, Auditors of the various investor companies and

Mr. Arvind Jain, CMD of the Pride Group in an attempt to tax the entire share

application money raised in this year in the hands of the assessee u/s.69C of

the Act. The statements are placed at pages 516 to 533 of the paper book.

However, Mr. Jagdish Purohit retracted the said statement on 31.10.2011

issued u/s.131 of the Act. Retraction statement is placed at pages 532-533

of the paper book. It is the case of the Revenue that Mr. Jagdish Purohit

provided accommodation entries for introducing share application money in

the books of the assessee using various investor companies incorporated/

audited by Mr. Pradeep Gupta at the request of Mr. Arvind Jain, CMD of the

5 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

Pride Group of cases. At the end of the assessment proceedings u/s.153C

r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act, AO made addition of Rs.2,35,00,000/- for the A.Y.

2010-11 and Rs.15,80,00,000/- was added for the A.Y. 2011-12. In addition,

AO also made addition on account of commission paid to Mr. Jagdish Purohit

for providing the services of giving the said accommodation entries. While

doing so, AO analysed the investor companies and their profit making

abilities, their business operations, their common addresses, common

Directors, their credit worthiness etc. Assessee requested for the cross

examination of Mr. Jagdish Purohit, retraction of his statement as per the

provisions of section 68 of the Act and various limbs of it, i.e. identity and

credit worthiness of the investor companies etc., before concluding against

the assessee. Relevant conclusion of the AO is extracted here as under:

“5] In order to prove the fact beyond doubt that the assessee group has received share subscription in a natural course of business the assessee has to prima facie prove i) The identity of the subscriber ii) The genuineness of the transaction viz. whether it has been transmitted through indisputable channels iii) The credit worthiness or financial strength of the subscriber iv) The onus would not stand discharged if the subscriber denies or repudiates (disagrees) the transaction set by the assessee. In the present case the assessee group has failed to prove these facts despite of the fact that specific communication vide show cause letter dated 27.12.2012 was made with the assessee group whereby it was communicated that all material facts are going against the assessee. However, the assessee did not discharge the liability of disproving the facts communicated to him. During assessment proceedings again opportunity was given to substantiate its stand in this regard. However, mainly relied on the fact that share has been allotted to parties and modes of transactions are through cheque only. However, creditworthiness and genuineness of such transactions were not established. Accordingly, share application received in the hand of assessee is treated as unexplained cash credit and added back in the income of assessee. The quantum of disallowance is based on quantum of share application money received during the year as per annexure-1. Accordingly, Rs.2,35,00,000/- is added back in the income of assessee.”

6 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

relating to the validity of the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act. Before the

First Appellate authority also, there is no issue relating to the validity of the

said notice. However, the CIT(A) confirmed the said addition on merits.

Aggrieved with the same, the assessee filed the present appeal before the

Tribunal with the grounds/additional ground extracted above.

BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL

ground extracted in Para No.3 of this order, Ld. Counsel for the assessee

submitted that the same is undisputedly legal in nature and therefore, the

same should be admitted before going into the merits of the addition. AO was

merely on the issue of the applicability of the provisions of section 68 of the

Act and was on the merits of the addition of SAM. However, there are

adequate details on the seizure of documents belonging or pertaining to the

infusion of SAM into the assessee company through the investor company

relevant to the assessment year prior to the search action for the assessment

year 2010-11. There are no documents seized relevant to the A.Y. 2010-11.

In the process, Ld. AR furnished the details of the seized materials pertaining

to the assessee on one side and the investor companies, who introduced the

SAM on the other.

dutifully.

admission of this additional ground, we are of the opinion that the additional

ground, being legal in nature, needs to be admitted in the interest of

7 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

administration of justice. We find no fresh facts are required to be

investigated. All the material necessary for adjudication are already available

on record. Therefore, the additional ground is admitted for adjudication in

the following paragraphs in view of the various binding precedents on this

issue. We keep out reliance on the judgment in the case of NTPC Ltd. 229

ITR 383 and others.

adjudication of the legal issue raised in the additional ground, Ld. Counsel for

the assessee drew our attention to the outcome of the search action and

analysed the documents seized by the Department pertaining to/belonging to

the assessee under consideration. In this regard, Ld. Counsel took us

through each document seized by the department relating to SAM and

submitted that the generic details of the same documents pertaining to the

investor companies, who invested share application money in the assessee

company. These documents include Memorandum of Association, Articles of

Association, Incorporation Certificate, Share Application, Board Resolution,

PAN card, Income-Tax returns, Acknowledgements, Bank Statements,

Financial Statements, Annual Accounts, Annual reports etc. In this regard,

Ld. AR brought our attention to the seized papers and submitted that all the

above referred documents are basically accounted ones or recorded ones in

the Govt. records and does not involve any incrimination of any kind.

Elaborating the same, Ld. Counsel submitted that the said documents are in

the knowledge of the Government, i.e. Income-tax Department, Ministry of

Corporate Affairs, Registrar of Companies etc. and therefore, the documents

seized by the Department involving the assessee constitute incriminating

documents. Ld. AR also submitted that the said documents are never

declared illegal or invalid under any law. Therefore, the issue of notice

8 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

u/s.153C of the Act to the assessee based on such non-incriminating

documents is invalid and unsustainable in law.

explaining the details of the shares to the eight companies in respect of which

the addition was made by the Assessing Officer in A.Y.2010-11 and the same

is extracted as under:

Sr. Name of the Share Premium Total Amount No. company capital (Rs.) 1 Albright Electricals 250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 Pvt. Ltd. 2 Blazar Venture 350,000 2,150,000 3,500,000 Private Limited 3 Casper Enterprises 250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 Private Limited 4 Duke Business 250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 Private Limited. 5 Nakshatra 250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 Business Private Limited. 6 Neha Cassettes 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Pvt.Ltd. Nextgen Infotel 250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 7 Private Limited. 8 Sanjivini Enviro 250,000 2,250,000 2,500,000 Protection Limited. 2,350,000 21,150,000 23,500,000

application money is received are listed below:

Sr. Name of the Share Capital Premium Total Amount No. Company (Rs.) 1 Allbright 2,000,000 18,000,000 20,000,000 Electricals Pvt. Ltd. 2 Amber Tradecom 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Private Limited 3 Concord Vincom 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Private Limited 4 Eternity Multi 1,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 Trade Private Limited.

9 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

5 Fairmont Venture 1,500,000 13,500,000 15,000,000 Private Limited 6 Grafton Merchant 3,000,000 27,000,000 30,000,000 Pvt. Ltd. 7 Kapindra Multi 1,000,000 9,000,000 10,000,000 Trade Private Limited. 8 Kumaon 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Engineering Company Private Limited 9 Matrix Systel 2,750,000 24,750,000 27,500,000 Private Limited 10 Microchip Infotel 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Private Limited 11 Natraj Vinimay 400,000 3,600,000 4,000,000 Private Limited 12 Neha Cassettes 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Pvt. Ltd. 13 Nextgen Infotel 500,000 4,500,000 5,000,000 Private Limited 14 Octopus Infotel 400,000 3,600,000 4,000,000 Private Limited 15 Royalblue 750,000 6,750,000 7,500,000 Realtors Private Limited 15,800,000 142,200,000 158,000,000

different paragraphs of the written submissions and submitted that in view of

the Supreme Court judgment in the case of CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical

Education Society in Civil Appeal No.11080/2017 and others, dated 29-08-

2017, the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Bharati

Vidyapeeth Medical Foundation Vs. ACIT and vice versa in ITA Nos.917 to

922/PN/2010 and others, dated 28-04-2011 and also Bharati Vidyapeeth

Medical Foundation Vs. ACIT and vice versa in ITA Nos.959/PN/2010 and

others, dated 28-04-2011 apart from others. The notice issued by the AO

u/s.153C in the absence of any documents with any incrimination is invalid

10 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

and unsustainable in law. Ld. Counsel for the assessee also discussed the

general nature of the seized documents basing on which no valid notice can

be issued u/s.153C of the Act. He also submitted that it is not the case of

the Revenue that considering the accommodation entry allegation, the cash is

ploughed back to the assessee and there is evidence gathered during search

action against the assessee in support of the same. He also analysed the

retracted statement of Mr. Jagdish Purohit and statement of Mr. Pradeep

Gupta are unsustainable relying on various decisions, such as in the case of

Best Infrastructure India Pvt. Ltd. 47 CCH 159 (Del.), CIT Vs. Harjeev Agarwal

and Late Raj Pal Bhyatia 237 CTR 1 (Del.)

judgments of High Courts/decisions of Tribunal. Referring to the order of

Tribunal in the case of Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA

No.2159/Del/14, Ld. Counsel submitted that, with similar/comparable facts,

the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act was held as invalid by the Tribunal.

Ld. Counsel read out relevant facts and submitted that in that case also, the

fact of introducing equity involving investor-companies, the allegation of

seizure of non-incriminating documents etc., are the common facts. Further,

referring to the said decision of the Tribunal, Ld. Counsel submitted that

this is a case where there is allegation of accommodation entries and the

statements were recorded from the accommodation entry providers, as in case

of the present assessee. There is also an allegation of shell companies as they

were having common addresses and Directors etc. The Delhi Bench of the

Tribunal in the case of Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. DCIT (supra) decided the

issue against the Revenue and in favour of the assessee. Further, on similar

propositions, Ld. Counsel for the assessee relied on the following case laws :

11 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

i. Pr. CIT Vs. Sunny Infra Projects Ltd. 2017-TIOL-810-Del-HC ii. Ravnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. 93 taxmann.com 59 iii. DCIT Vs. Sagar Nahta 82 taxmann.com 344 (Kol.) iv. Bharati Vidyapeeth – ITA Nos. 917 to 922/PN/2010, dt. 28-04- 2011 v. Pr.CIT Vs. Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. 86 taxmann.com 84 (Del.) vi. Pr.CIT Vs. Smt. Sunita Bai 78 taxmann.com 274 (Kar.) vii. DCIT Vs. Royal Cartoons Pvt. Ltd. – ITA No. 472/Coch/2013 (TM)

assessee submitted that the Delhi High Court in the case of SSP Aviation Ltd.

Vs. DCIT 364 ITR 188 (Del.) and the decision of Pune Bench of the Tribunal

in the case of ITO Vs. Phadnis Clinic Pvt. Ltd. 59 taxmann.com 101 (Pune

Trib.) belonging to the period prior to the said Supreme Court judgment in the

case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra). Otherwise, the facts in

those cases are also distinguishable and not comparable to the facts of the

present case. Referring to the decision of Tribunal in the case of Phadnis

Clinic Pvt. Ltd. (supra), Ld. Counsel submitted that this is a case where

company claimed depreciation on an asset which was originally belonged to

the Directors who took the loan from the banks for buying the premises on

which depreciation claimed by the company. Search action in this case

resulted in seizure of various papers showing the ownership of the asset by

the Director and claim as made by the company where the owner is a

Director. Further, Ld. Counsel submitted that the investor companies are not

the shell companies as they are very much active on the website of Registrar

of Companies and Ministry of Corporate affairs, Govt. of India. It is also the

fact that the AO did not disturb the returns filed by the said investor

companies and the same is evident from the fact that no protective additions

are made in the hands of those companies. Referring to another decision of

Pune Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Eshan Minerals Pvt.Ltd. Vs. DCIT

and vice versa in ITA No. 834/PN/2014 and ITA No.1242/PUN/2014, dated

12 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

18-10-2017, Ld. Counsel submitted that this is relied upon by the Ld. DR

where the basic documents includes pre-signed application forms and blank

sale bills, pre-signed bank receipts and blank transfer forms, declaration etc.,

which no where comparable to the entire bunch of documents which are very

much accounted and disclosed to the Government authorities as per the

provisions of relevant Acts. Eventually, it is the case of Ld. Counsel for the

assessee that AO never relied on any seized papers which is unaccounted and

therefore, there is no incriminating material and notice u/s.153C of the Act is

invalid and unsustainable.

Counsel for the assessee submitted that the Revenue did not seize any paper

whatsoever pertaining to/belonging to the assessee. It is the case of Ld.

Counsel that considering the fact that no seizure of any documents, leave

alone the incriminating documents, the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act for

the A.Y. 2010-11 is required to be held as invalid and unsustainable in law.

Revenue furnished the written submissions in the case of Prime Centre and

Developers Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT in ITA Nos. 285 to 287/PUN/2016 and the

same apply to these appeals also since the facts and issues are same.

17.1 Per Contra, Ld. DR for the Revenue relied heavily on the orders of the

AO and the CIT(A). Further, Ld. DR for the Revenue brought our attention to

the clean language of the provisions of section 153C and submitted that there

is no requirement of any incriminating documents for issue of notice

u/s.153C of the Act. Mere seizure of documents pertaining to/belonging to

the assessee is the adequate requirement as per the said provisions. Ld. DR

submitted that mere initiation of search action on the Pride Group as a basis

13 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

of allegation that the group is engaged in introducing the substantial

quantum of unaccounted income in the garb of share application money.

Further, relying on the statements of Mr. Jagdish Purohit and Mr. Pradeep

Gupta, Ld. DR submitted that the said statement reveals the modus operandi

of systematic introduction of their accounted money of the assessee through

the shell companies and the same should constitute colourable device. The

requirement of lifting of the corporate wheel on the transaction was also

mentioned in the arguments. Narrating the commonality of address/directors

of the investor companies, Ld. DR submitted that these companies constitute

shell companies as they suffer from the said unusual features. Regarding the

retraction statements, Ld. DR submitted that the retraction is not accepted by

the AO and therefore the original statements are dependable. Relying on the

original statements, Ld. DR submitted that the accommodation entries are

given at the request of Mr. Arvind Jain, CMD of the Pride Group by raising

the cash payment and by giving commission to the entry providers. Ld. DR

also cited that the admittance of Mr. Pradeep Gupta regarding the formation

of various companies at the instruction of Mr. Jagdish Purohit. Ld. DR

submits that these investor companies are owned by the employees of Mr.

Jagdish Purohit, has only meager income. Further, he submitted that the

said investor companies hardly has any business operations as well as

income which is capable of generating funds for subscribing towards the

share application money with premium. In similar fashion, the share

application money was reported in the A.Y. 2011-12 too. Regarding the

seizure of any document leave alone incriminating documents for the A.Y.

2010-11, Ld. DR has nothing to say except relying on the plain language of

the provisions of section 153C of the Act. Further, Ld. DR relied on the

following decisions and prayed that the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act in

both the assessment years, i.e. 2010-11 and 2011-12 should be sustained :

14 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

DECISION OF TRIBUNAL – LEGAL ISSUE ON VALIDITY OF NOTICE

validity of notice issued u/s.153C of the Act and perused the orders of the

Revenue as well as the paper book filed before us.

A. The case of the assessee on this issue include that the notice under the

said section for the A.Y. 2010-11 is required to be quashed for the reason that

no document whatsoever was seized in the search action conducted u/s.132

of the Act pertaining to/belonging to the assessee. There is no dispute on

this fact.

With reference to the validity of the notice for the A.Y. 2011-12, the

assessee contends that the said notice is invalid and unsustainable as the

documents seized for this year includes accounted or reported documents in

the books of account of the assessee or in the records of various Govt.

departments, i.e. Income Tax Department, Ministry of Corporate Affairs,

Registrar of Companies etc. Relying on the Apex Court judgment in the case

of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) and many others the notice

issued u/s.153C of the Act is unsustainable when the documents seized are

only non-incriminating ones.

B. On the other hand, in connection with appeal for A.Y. 2011-12, the

case of the Revenue is that the very seizure of some documents pertaining

to/belonging to the assessee is sufficient for invoking the provisions of section

153C of the Act and therefore, the notice issued for both the assessment

15 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

years is valid. Further, with reference to appeal for A.Y. 2010-11, where no

documents are seized, Ld. DR rely heavily on the orders of the AO/CIT(A).

both the parties, we find it relevant to analyse the documents-centric

arguments thoroughly in the following paragraphs. Relevant details are

already briefed in the preceding paragraphs that search action took place on

07-09-2011. The documents seized by the Revenue during search and

seizure action in the Pride Group pertaining to/belonging to the assessee are

given below :

A. A.Y. 2010-11

Details of the Seized Papers which relates to share application money received in A.Y.2010-11 from the following companies are tabulated as under :

Sr. Name of Company Description of Seized papers No. 1 Neha Cassettes Pvt.Ltd. Memorandum of Association, Articles of Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual report for F.Y.2008-09, Annual Report for F.Y. 2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN Card Copy 2 Allbright Electricals Memorandum of Association, Articles of Pvt.Ltd. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2009-10 3 Nakshatra Business No documents found Private Limited 4 Casper Enterprises Private Copy of letter and certificate issued by Limited Casper Enterprises private Limited for application of shares along with Board Resolution and Share Application 5 Blazer Ventures Private No documents found Limited 6 Duke Business Private Copy of letter and certificate issued by Limited Duke Business Private Limited for application of share along with Board Resolution and Share Application 7 Nextgen Infotel Private Memorandum of Association, Articles of Limited Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2009-10

16 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

8 Sanjivani Enviro Protection Copy of Letter and certificate issued by Limited. Sanjivani Enviro Protection Limited for application of share along with Board Resolution and Share Application

B. A.Y. 2011-12:

Details of the Seized Papers which relates to share application money received in A.Y.2011-12 by the following companies are tabulated investor-wise.

Sr.No. Name of the company Details of seized documents

1 Allbright Electricals Memorandum of Association, Articles of Pvt. Ltd. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2009-10 2 Amber Tradecom Pvt. Memorandum of Association, Articles of Ltd. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application, Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010- 11, PAN card Copy, 3 Concord Vincom Memorandum of Association, Articles of Private Limited Association, incorporation certificate, share Application, Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010- 11, PAN card Copy, 4 Eternity Multi Trade Memorandum of Association, Articles of Private Limited. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application, Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn.2009-10, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN card Copy, Copy of Bank Statement 5 Fairmont Venture Memorandum of Association, Articles of Private Limited. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application, Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn.2009-10, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN card Copy 6 Grafton Merchant Memorandum of Association, Articles of Private Limited. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application, Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn.2009-10, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN card Copy 7 Kapindra Multi Trade No documents found Private Limited. 8 Kumaon Engineering Memorandum of Association, Articles of Company Private Association, incorporation certificate, share Limited Application and Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y. 2010-11, PAN card Copy, Copy of Bank Statement 9 Matrix Systel Private Memorandum of Association, Articles of Limited. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual

17 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

Report for F.Y.2008-09, Annual Report for F.Y. 2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN card Copy 10 Microchip Infotel Memorandum of Association, Articles of Private Limited Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN Card Copy. 11 Natraj Vinimay Private Memorandum of Association, Articles of Limited Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual Report F.Y.2008-09, Annual Report for F.Y.2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN Card Copy 12 Neha Cassettes Memorandum of Association, Articles of Pvt.Ltd. Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2008-09, Annual Report for F.Y. 2009-10, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y.2010-11, PAN Card Copy 13 Nextgen Infotel Private Memorandum of Association, Articles of Limited Association, incorporation certificate, share Application and Board Resolution, Annual Report for F.Y.2008-09, Income Tax Ackn. A.Y. 2009-10. 14 Octopus Infotel Private No documents found Limited 15 Royalblue Realtors No documents found Private Limited.

seized by the Department pertaining to/belonging to the assessee for the A.Y.

2010-11.

Further, the above table for the A.Y. 2011-12, vide Col.3, demonstrate

that the documents seized include Memorandum of Association, Articles of

Association, Incorporation Certificate, Board Resolution, PAN copy,

acknowledgements, Financial Statements, Annual Report etc. Out of the

above, it is clear that the copies of Memorandum of Association, Articles of

Association and Incorporation Certificate are the regular correspondence with

the Govt. authorities. The Income-tax returns, PAN card details are in the

knowledge of Income-Tax Department. The Board Resolutions, Incorporation

Certificates are the correspondence with the company itself. The bank

18 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

statements and the final statements are undisputedly accounted ones and

they are not unaccounted documents. Therefore, it is the argument of Ld.

Counsel on the fact that accounted documents are seized and the same

cannot constitute incriminating documents. Considering the Apex Court

judgment in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) and

other judgments (supra), we are of the opinion that the arguments of Ld.

Counsel for the assessee on this line has to be allowed and the arguments of

Ld. DR for the Revenue are required to be dismissed.

u/s.153C of the Act for the years, when the incriminating material or in the

presence of merely non-incriminating material are seized in the case of

concluded assessments, it is a settled legal proposition that such non-abated

assessments need not be disturbed unless there exists any incriminating

material which should be the basis for making sustainable additions.

Rigours for the assessee in attending to the assessment proceedings are

generally numerous and assessee has already undergone the same during the

regular assessment proceedings. Reopening the same u/s.153C of the Act

merely based on certain non incriminating material is an unnecessary burden

or hardship for the assessee. It is in this context the Apex Court in the case

of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) apart from many other

decisions, did not approve the issue of such notices u/s.153C of the Act in

the absence of any incriminating material. In fact, if there are certain issues

which are required to be necessarily considered for re-assessment, there are

other provisions in the statute such as section 148 of the Act or section 263

of the Act for bringing the concealed income to tax subject to the conditions

specified in the said sections. The provisions of section 153C are highly

specialized ones and the same are to be cautiously invoked by the

19 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

Department. It is a settled legal proposition that the existence of “assessment

year specific incriminating material” is the requirement for reopening the

concluded assessment u/s.153C of the Act.

Revenue’s allegation about the bogus nature of the investor companies

enlisted above. The case of the Revenue is that these companies constitute

bogus companies floated by Mr.Jagdish Purohit and Mr. Pradeep Gupta at

the instance of Mr. Arvind Jain, CMD of the company and worked as conduit

for ploughing in accounted cash of the assessee in the form of share

application money. The circumstantial evidences, i.e. commonness of the

addresses and Directors, Auditors etc. are relied. Further, statements of Mr.

Jagdish Purohit and Mr. Pradeep Gupta were also relied on by the Ld. DR for

the Revenue.

Jagdish Purohit and Mr. Pradeep Gupta relied upon by the Revenue stands

retracted and the retraction is not proved to be incorrect although the same

was rejected by the AO in the assessment proceedings. The retraction was

given in a reasonable time soon after the search is completed. Further, the

fact that the investor companies are very much active and not struck of in the

records of Registrar of Companies/Ministry of Corporate Affairs was also cited

as a reference to state that the companies cannot be considered as bogus or

shell companies. The inaction of the AO in disturbing the claims in the

assessments of investor companies was also heavily relied upon.

and on perusal of the documents placed before us in this regard, we find the

facts relevant to non-striking of the investor companies in the records of

Registrar of Companies/Ministry of Corporate Affairs is undisputed. We also

20 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

find the documents and the financial statements etc., are very much

accounted in the records of both Income-Tax Department as well as the

Registrar of Companies/Ministry of Corporate Affairs. AOs of the respective

companies have not taken adverse decision against the said companies so far

as the subscription of the share application money by them are concerned. It

is also undisputed fact that search action which is an ultimate event to

happen to any person, which invades into the privacy of the person, did not

yield any evidence to suggest that the cash was supplied to Mr. Arvind Jain,

CMD of the Pride Group or his companies to Mr. Jagdish Purohit or Mr.

Pradeep Gupta for subscribing towards the share application money into the

assessee company. Not even circumstantial and indirect evidences were

found during the search action in respect of the allegation of the Revenue.

Considering these undisputed facts, we are of the opinion that the evidences,

i.e. seized documents gathered by the Revenue in the search action should

constitute non-incriminating documents. Further, no protective additions

were made by the AOs in the hands of the investor companies, i.e. shell

companies. In the absence of any adverse inferences on those companies, the

investor companies are required to be considered as valid and legal.

Purohit and Mr. Pradeep Gupta, it is undisputed fact that the statements

were retracted and the retraction documents are placed in the paper book.

The AO merely rejected the said retraction on the ground of no force on the

deposers who gave the statements u/s.131 of the Act. In this regard, the

arguments of the assessee is that on similar or comparable facts, the Delhi

Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. (supra) held that

the statements of Mr. Jagdish Purohit and Mr. Pradeep Gupta and the

allegations of the Revenue cannot contribute to the incrimination of the

21 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

documents which are otherwise accounted in the books of account of the

assessee. Narrating the facts of the case, Ld. Counsel for the assessee

submitted that similar documents were seized in the said case also and

statement of entry operations and the accountants were relied upon by the

AO for issue of notice u/s.153C of the Act. Further, we have compared the

facts of the present case with that of the Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. Vs. DCIT

(supra) and find they are broadly comparable. The investor companies who

introduced the capital to Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. which were struck down in

the records of Registrar of Companies. The Delhi Bench of the Tribunal held

that the taintedness of such investor companies does not contribute any

incrimination to the non-incrimination material seized by the Department

involving the said assessee. There are number of decisions for the

proposition that notice issued u/s.153C of the Act based on non-

incriminating material such as unaccounted Balance sheet, Annual reports,

Memorandum of Association etc. are not valid and unsustainable in law.

For the sake of completeness, the comparison of facts between the case

of the Assessee, Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. are tabulated here as under :

Sr. Assessee’s case Nova’s case No. 1 Assessee is part of Pride Group The assessee was part of Today and there was a search on Pride Group of cases and there was a Group. In course of search, the search on the said group. In the balance sheets, Memorandum of course of search, Dept. seized Association, Income Tax Returns books of accounts of the assessee of the companies which had and accordingly, notice u/s.153C invested share capital was was issued to the assessee. found and accordingly, notice u/s.153C was issued. 2 The notice u/s.153C has been The notice u/s.153C was in that challenged on the ground that case challenged on the ground that no incriminating evidence was no incriminating evidence was found during the course of found during the course of search. search. 3 The Dept. has alleged that the The Dept. found that Today Group assessee has received had received accommodation accommodation entry from Shri entries from Shri V.K. Jain and Shri Jagdish Purohit S.K. Jain who are the alleged entry operators

22 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

4 The share application money The AO has noted that most of the received is from companies companies have been incorporated which are not struck off from the before the amount is received from ROC records the entry operator. Many companies are considered as Shell companies and has been struck off from the ROC record. 5 In the assessee’s case, the In Para 12.8 of the order, Hon’ble amount received on account of ITAT has mentioned that the loans share capital has been duly and advances received are accounted in the books. disclosed in the books and Further, the balance sheets, therefore, the same could not be Income tax returns, share treated as an incriminating application forms of the investor material for issue of notice companies are all accounted u/s.153C. and therefore, cannot be considered as an incriminating evidence for issue of notice u/s.153C. 6 In the assessee’s case also, On Para 49 of the order, Hon’ble there is no material found ITAT has held that no material was during search that cash was found that the amount received given to the alleged entry was bogus by giving cash and operators. taking cheque.

On considering the above arguments, we are of the opinion that the facts of

above cases are comparable to the facts of the present case under

consideration.

issuance of notice u/s.153C of the Act in the absence of any incriminating

material which is the subject matter of adjudication before us, has been dealt

with by various judicial fora.

when the AO is satisfied that ;

(a) any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing, seized or requisitioned, belongs to; or (b) any books of account or documents, seized or requisitioned, pertains or pertain to, or any information contained therein, relates to, a person other than the person referred to in section 153A...............

23 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

This is the position after the amendment by the Finance Act, 2005. However,

the said provisions are explained various decisions including that of Apex

Court in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 and

the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Sinhgad Technical

Education Society Vs. ACIT 50 SOT 89 which is relevant for the following

proposition :

“Conclusion :

Where no assessment year specific incriminating material or document is found, assessments of such assessment years cannot be disturbed by invoking the provisions of s.153C; in the absence of any reference to any assessment year specific incriminating information or document relatable to the assessee for the assessment years in question in the reasons recorded by the AO, impugned assessment under s.153C is bad in law.”

Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT Vs. Sinhgad Technical Education

Society in Civil Appeal No.11080/2017 and others dated 29-08-2017 vide

Para No.11 of the judgment. For the sake of completeness, the said

observations of the Apex Court are reproduced here as under :

18) The ITAT permitted this additional ground by giving a reason that it was a jurisdictional issue taken up on the basis of facts already on the record and, therefore, could be raised. In this behalf, it was noted by the ITAT that as per the provisions of Section 153C of the Act, incriminating material which was seized had to pertain to the Assessment Years in question and it is an undisputed fact that the documents which were seized did not establish any co- relation, document-wise, with these four Assessment Years. Since this requirement under Section 153C of the Act is essential for assessment under that provision, it becomes a jurisdictional fact. We find this reasoning to be logical and valid, having regard to the provisions of Section 153C of the Act. Para 9 of the order of the ITAT reveals that the ITAT had scanned through the Satisfaction Note and the material which was disclosed therein was culled out and it showed that the same belongs to Assessment Year 2004-05 or thereafter. After taking note of the material in para 9 of the order, the position that emerges therefrom is discussed in para 10. It was specifically recorded that the counsel for the Department could not point out to the contrary. It is for this reason the High Court has also given its imprimatur to the aforesaid approach of the Tribunal. That apart, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent, argued that notice in respect of Assessment Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 was even time barred.

24 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

19) We, thus, find that the ITAT rightly permitted this additional ground to be raised and correctly dealt with the same ground on merits as well. Order of the High Court affirming this view of the Tribunal is, therefore, without any blemish. ……………”

Vidyapeeth Medical Foundation in ITA No. 959/PN/2010 and others, dated

28-04-2011 is relevant for the similar legal proposition. For the sake of

completeness, the operational para on this legal issue is reproduced herein

below :

“24. Appeals by the Assessee - AY 2004-05: In connection with the AYs at sl no (ii) above ie AYs 2004-05, admittedly, there is some seizure of the documents as evident from the satisfaction note. We are convinced that the said ledger is an accounted one. Further, the reasoning given by us in the order in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) apply to the issue in these appeals mutatis mutandis. In other words, the views approved by this bench in the case of Sinhgad Technical Education Society (supra) and Kumar Company (supra) are affirmed by the said Judgment of the Gujarat High Court in the case of Vijaybhai N Chandani 231CTR 474 (Guj) and mere appearance of names does not mean anything as section 153C of the Act is intended for taxing the undisclosed income of the third party based on the material/others seized during the search action. As such, only the unaccounted and incriminating material or others listed in the said section are only seized during the search and the accounted documents should not be seized. Seizure of the documents is aimed at the unearthing of the unaccounted income of the assessee assessable u/s 153A or the other third parties subjected assessment u/s 153C of the Act. When the documents do not indicate any undisclosed income, the ledger in the instant case, what is the relevance of such document? Such ledger constitutes merely an accounted one with no financial implications. Thus, the documents, the ledger in the instant case relevant for the AY 2004-05, with no financial implications can neither be considered incriminating nor be considered capable of springing satisfaction to any AO that there is scope of undisclosed income in respect of the third party assessable u/s 153C of the Act. Accordingly, the legal grounds raised in all these appeals of the assessee relating to the validity of the notice u/s 153C of the Act are allowed in favour of the assessee in respect of all the AYs under consideration. Further, we are of the considered opinion that the adjudication of the other grounds relating to the other legal and merit oriented issues is merely an academic exercise. Therefore, the relevant grounds in all the four appeals are dismissed as academic.”

with the legal issue are extracted as follows :

“a. Nova Iron and Steel Ltd. v. DCIT [ITA No.2159/Del/14]

In this case, there was search on the premises of M/s. Today Homes and Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and its group concerns. The assessee company was part

25 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

of Today group of cases. In the course of search, books of accounts and documents belonging to the assessee company were found and seized and hence, the learned A.O. issued notice u/s.153C to the assessee company. The learned A.O. noted that the said group was generating unaccounted income and the firms were infused in various companies in the form of share capital I share premium through various paper companies. The A.O. noted that the assessee company had received an amount of Rs.3.18 Crs. routed through various companies and the same was taxed u/s.68. It was further noted by the A.O. that almost all companies through whom the funds were received had been stuck off as per the ROC record and they were defaulters in filing annual returns with ROC. These companies had common addresses and the dept. had also conducted survey on the other companies. During the survey, it was found that no business was carried out by the lender companies. The A.O. also referred to the statement of a few persons who had admitted that they were dummy directors.

The A.O. also referred to the seize paper found which contained the information relating to Director number, digital signature and password. The A.O. alleged that the funds were routed by providing accommodation entries and therefore, he made an addition u/s. 68. The assessee contended that the notice issued u/s.153C was bad in law and secondly, even on merits, no addition was warranted. Hon'ble ITAT has considered the relevant facts of the case. Firstly, it admitted the additional ground raised before it regarding validity of notice u/s.153C on the basis of the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhagad Technical Education Society [397 ITR 344]. Thereafter, Hon'ble ITAT has further held in para 12.8 of the order that the dept. has recover documents from third parties. It has further noted that the loans and advances received by the assessee are mentioned and disclosed to the revenue prior to search. Therefore, these books of accounts cannot be said to be incriminating evidence. It is also noted that no evidence was found in the course of search that the money belonged to the assessee. No evidence was found that cash was given by the assessee to take any loan. Accordingly, it has been held that in the absence of any material to prove that the loan received was bogus, the requirement for issue of notice u/s.153C was not satisfied and accordingly, in para 12.9, Hon'ble ITAT has held that the notice issued u/s.153C was bad in law.

b. Pr. CIT v. Sunny Infra Projects Ltd. [2017-TIOL-810-Del H.C.]

In this case, search action was conducted in the case of Minda Group and one Shri Santosh Kumar Jain who was considered to be an entry operator. In his statement, Shri Jain admitted that he was providing accommodation entries. The A.O. noted that the assessee had received share capital from Bahuguli Properties Ltd., concerned controlled by Shri Jain. The A.O. issue notice u/s.153C to the assessee company on the basis of the documents seized during the course of search on Minda Group. Hon'ble H.C. held that the documents on the basis of which notice u/s.153C was issued were basically copies of balance sheet abstracts, auditor's account, companies general profile, income tax return, trial balances. After considering the documents found, Hon'ble H.C. has held that the notice issued u/s 153C was invalid in law because the documents seized did not indicate any income which was not disclosed by the assessee in the original return.

c. Ravnet Solutions Pvt. Ltd. [93 Taxmann.com 59] In this case, search was conducted on Assem Gupta Group of cases who was allegedly engaged in providing accommodation entries to several beneficiaries. Subsequently, search was also conducted on the assessee. The assessee company have received share premium and the same was taxed u/s.68 by the learned A.O. before Hon'ble ITAT, the assessee stated that the addition was not warranted in the absence of any incriminating evidence found as a result of search. On perusal

26 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

of the facts, it was held that no incriminating evidence was found in the course of search and the addition was deleted.

d. DCIT v. Sagar Nahta [82 Taxmann.com 344 (Kol)] The assessee was a practicing C.A. Following the search and seizure action in Bhushan Group of Company, search was conducted on the assessee wherein certain documents belonging to 31 companies were found. The A.O. alleged that the assessee has provided accommodation entries and thereby earn commission. Hon'ble ITAT held that no evidence was brought on record to prove that the assessee had earn commission. Further, no material was brought on record to establish the money trade and accordingly, the addition was deleted.

e. Bharati Vidyapeeth [ITA No. 917 - 922/PN/10] –

In this case, there was search on Shri R. D. Shinde and on the basis of the material seized from him, notice u/s 153C was issued to Bharati Vidyapeeth. In that case, the allegation of the dept. was that the assessee was charging capitation fee and the dept. the dept. was also recorded the statement of Shri Shinde wherein he had confirmed the said fact. The assessee contended that the documents seized did not indicate any incriminating evidence. Further, the inward register for applications received under management quota was found. It was stated that near register without any details regarding cash received cannot be said to be incriminating and accordingly, Hon'ble ITAT held that the notice issued U/S 153C was bad in law. Similar is the ratio laid down in the case of Bharati Vidyapeeth Medical Foundation [ITA No. 959-967/PN/10].

f. Pr. CIT v. Index Securities Pvt. Ltd. [86 Taxmann.com 84 (Del)] In this case, a search and seizure action was conducted on Jagat Group and its directors. In the course of search, trial balance and balance sheet of the assessee was found and on that basis, notice u/s.153C was issued to the assessee company. Thereafter, the learned A.O. completed the asst. by making an addition on account of share application money received by the assessee. The validity of notice issued u/s.153C was challenged by the assessee. In that context, Hon'ble court held in para 31 of the order that as per the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sinhagad Technical Education Society, for issue of notice u/s.153C, the documents seized must be incriminating and must relate to each of the asst. years which are sought to be reopened. Accordingly, the notice issued u/s.153C was held to be invalid in law.

g. Pr. CIT v. Smt Sunita Bai [78 Taxmann.com 274 (Kar)] In this case, the issue raised before Hon'ble H.C. was whether notice u/s.153C could be issued when there was no incriminating document or evidence discover during the course of search. On this issue, Hon'ble Court has held that in the absence of any incriminating evidence, no notice u/s.153C can be issued.

h. DCIT v. Royal Cartons Pvt. Ltd. [ITA No.472/Coch/2013 (TM)]

In this case, it has been held by Hon'ble Third Member that in the absence of incriminating material, notice u/s.153C cannot be issued by the A.O. It is also held that the document found should indicate that for the year under consideration, the assessee had not offered the income to tax.”

From the above, it is evident that the expression “documents” refers to in the

sub-section (1) of section 153C of the Act, needs to be understood in the

context of incriminating documents.

27 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

for the Revenue. The decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of

Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CIT 82 taxmann.com 408 (Delhi) is

found delivered in the context of the expression “documents belonging to

assessee” but also in the context of “non-incriminating documents”. After

analyzing the documents seized, the details of which are analysed in the

satisfaction note (Para 6 of the judgment), the Hon’ble High Court held that

the documents so discussed in the said satisfaction note cannot be

considered non-incriminating and the documents so discussed in the note

not only includes accounted profit and loss account, balance sheet etc. but

also an unsigned indemnity bond, unsigned Memorandum of understanding

between the outgoing Directors of the company and the Buyers of the

Company. Considering the unsigned papers, the Hon’ble High Court has

come to the conclusion that the said documents can be considered as

incriminating documents. After analyzing the same, we find the decision

cannot be applied to the facts of the present case where all the documents

seized are the ones which are already either reported to the Govt. authorities

are pertaining to the assessee company which are duly recorded in the books

of account or others. There are no unsigned Memorandum of understandings

or indemnity bonds as in the case of Ganpati Fincap Services Pvt. Ltd.

(supra).

Court relied by the Ld. DR for the Revenue in the case of CIT Vs. RRJ

Securities Ltd. 79 taxmann.com 115 (SC). The issue in this case relates to

the validity of notice issued u/s.153C of the Act when the seizure includes

hard disk working papers belonging to RRJ Securities Ltd., The Hon’ble High

Court of Delhi held that such hard disk did not contain any incriminating

28 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

material. Therefore, the notice issued u/s.153C of the Act is not validly

issued on the basis of said hard disk. Of course, the SLP was admitted by the

Supreme Court against the said order of Delhi High Court.

Considering the above legal proposition on the issue of validity of notice

u/s.153C of the Act as well as the nature of non-incriminating material seized

in the case on hand for A.Y. 2011-12, we are of the opinion that notice issued

u/s.153C of the Act is not valid. The documents seized pertaining

to/belonging to the assessee is only non-incriminating documents.

Regarding the validity of similar notice for A.Y. 2010-11, we find no document

whatsoever was seized. Therefore, the fate of such notice is placed at much

worse position. Therefore, the additional ground raised by the assessee for

both the assessment years are decided in favour of the assessee and against

the Revenue.

Same is the finding given by us in the case of Prime Centre and

Developers Private Ltd. Vs. DCIT vide ITA Nos. 285 to 287/PUN/2016,

decided on 14-08-2018. Specific to the facts relating to this case are

incorporated in this order as and when they are required.

raised by the assessee on merits, we find the adjudication of the same

becomes an academic exercise. Therefore, the regular grounds raised by the

assessee are dismissed as academic.

ITA No.284/PUN/2016 A.Y. 2011-12

and the arguments of the representatives are same as that of appeal ITA

29 ITA Nos. 283 & 284/PUN/2016 Pride Purple Builders Pvt. Ltd.,

No.283/PUN/2016 for A.Y. 2010-11. Therefore, the finding given on the additional ground in A.Y. 2010-11 apply to this assessment year too.

Accordingly, the additional ground is allowed and the regular grounds raised

by the assessee are dismissed.

Order pronounced on 17th day of September, 2018.

Sd/- Sd/- िवकास अव�थी /VIKAS AWASTHY) (डी डी डी. क�णाकरा राव डी (िवकास अव�थी क�णाकरा राव/D. KARUNAKARA RAO) िवकास अव�थी िवकास अव�थी क�णाकरा राव क�णाकरा राव �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य �याियक सद�य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद�य �याियक सद�य लेखा सद�य लेखा सद�य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER लेखा सद�य

पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 17th September, 2018. Satish

आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The CIT (Appeals)-13, Pune. 4. The Pr. CIT (Central), Pune. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “बी बी” ब�च, बी बी 5. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6.

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER,

// True Copy //

व�र� िनजी सिचव / Sr. Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.