SHRI SANJAY RAMESHCHANDRAJI HEDA,AMARAVATI vs. D.C.I.T CENTRAL CIR.2)1), NAGPUR

The notice issued under Section 153A of IT Act; 1961 is Illegal, invalid a bad in law ad consequent assessment framed thereupon is liable to be cancelled, 2. The Learned CIT(A} ought to have directed to accept the income a5 Shown in return filed pursuance to notice ufs. 1534 of IT Act 1961 ad deleted the entire addition as made by the A.O. in the assessment framed, 3 The Learned CIT(A) erred in not accepting the prayer Of assessee to adopt net receipt for determining the estimated income at the hands of assessee after excluding the recoveries made by the Govemment Departments On account of material supplied, sales tax and service tax etc 4 The addition confirmed by learned CIT(A) by adopting 16% of receipts is unjustified , unwarranted and excessive: 5. The learned CIT(A) erred in upholding the part addition made by A.O. by adopting 16% of receipts.

The assessee denies liability to pay interest undek section 2344, 2348 and 234C of IT; Act 1961. Without prejudice; levy of interest under section 234A, 2348 and . 234C Of IT Act 1961 i5 unjustified, unwarranted and excessive 2 The Revenue in Its appeal for A.Y. 07-08 has taken the following grounds of appeal: Similar grounds are taken in A,Y.08-09 to 12-13 except change in figures: 1 Whether On the facts and circumstances Of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) was right in thwarting the very purpose of search and seizure provisions Of the Act by ignoring seized incriminating documents and thereby directing the AO to tax the income on presumed percentage based on surmises 2 Whether On the facts and circumstances of the case and in Iaw the Ld. CIT(A) was right in not affording the opportunity to the AO of being heard during appellate H# Hzl I.T_A.No.JB to 82/Napf2O16 I,T,A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 proceextlgs despite AO has specifically asked of being Iusurdt vicle his Ietter dated 19.02.2015 and thereby passing ordcy in (idue haste ignoring provisions of the Act: 3 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case ad in Iaw; the Ld CIT(A) was right in deleting the addition of Rs. 40,98,887/- made on account of bogus sub- contract payments? 4 Whether on the facts &nd in the circumstances of the case and in Iaw, the Ld. CITIA} was justified in deleting the addition of Rs, 40,98,887/- made on account of bogus sub- contract payments without appreciating the fact revealed from the seized materials and statements recorded that the sub-contractors are only name lenders and have not executed any sub-contract? 5. Whether 0n the facts ad circumstances of the case and in law the Ld CIT{A) was right in holding that the incriminating diaries seized from residence Of the main person of the group cannot be said to be belonging to particular concern ignoring the documentary evidence and the admission of Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya himself that the entries in the diaries pertain to the details of cash flow of assessee groups business activity &nd the entries in the diaries were not completely recorded in the books of account: 6, Whether on the facts and in the circumstances Of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) was right In deleting the addition of Rs. 94,82,027/- being unaccounted income? 7 Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in Iaw, te Ld. CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition Of Rs, 94,82,027/- being unaccounted income without appreciating the evidences found ad seized during the search ad seizure action? 8. Whether On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in IaW, the Ld CIT(A) was justified in directing AO to adopt total income af the assessee at the rate Of 169 gross receipt by ignoring the findings given by the AQ Omi I.T_A.No,78 to 82/Nag/ 2016 I,T.A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 regarding bogus sub-contractors; unaccounted income and gratification payments? 9 On the fact ad circumstance of the case and in law the Ld, CITIA) erred in accepting assessee's contention that various sub contractors used to keep deposit of money withdrawn by them from bank with the assessee group for safe custody which was recorded on the credit side of the incriminating diaries without appreciating that if the contention of the assessee Is true then the credit entries shall be in the name Of the sub-contractors but the fact is otherwise a5 only names of the banks were found written there 10. On the fact and circumstance Of the case a in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in accepting assessees contention that the sub contractors kept their money for safe custody with the assessee group &d amounts in small quantities Were later withdrawn by them far meeting the expenses at sites by ignoring tte fact that none Of the names Of the sub contractors appeared On debit side of the incriminating diaries 2 11. On the fact and circumstance of the case ad in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in nt calculating exact unexplained expenditure and unaccounted investment mentianed in seized incriminating diaries a5 well a5 inflated claim of expenditure in various projects ad directing the AO to assume certain percentage 12 On the fact and circumstance of the case ad in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that having been accepted receipts from the assessee for assessing the income In the hands of sub contractors the payments made by assessee group t0 such sub contractors cannot be treated a5 non genuine; Ignoring the fact that sub contract payments were assessed in the hands of the assessee group as bogus sub contract payments and in the hands of the sub contractors protective assessments were made by treating the entire receipts a5 income a5 no contract waS executed, 13 On the fact and circumstance of the case and in law the Ld CIT(A) erred in observing that unaccounted Ov H3 mRJ 5 I.T.A.No.78 t0 82/Nag/Z016 I.T.A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 payments or unallowable expenses like gratification paid to various politicians and government employers have no corroborative evidence on record to hold that assessee has made payments of any Illegal gratification. The onus in On the assessee to prove that the payments were genuine and incurred legally: As the cash payments were not recorded in the regular books of account and a5 the assessee failed to substantiate those payments; the CIT(A) ought to have upheld that the entire amount Of Rs, 171.10 Crores iS unaccounted expenditure 14 On the fact and circumstance 0f the case and in Iaw the Ld. CIT(A) erred in relying on the decision of Honble ITAT in Bhangdiya group Of cases a5 at that time the information contained in incriminating diaries was not available either to the AQ or to the appellate authorities while restricting it to 12%. The CITIA) ought not have relied On the decision Of Hon'ble ITAT when selzed documents prove clear concealed Income ad unexplained expenditure 15 On the fact a circumstance of the case ad in Iaw the Ld. CITIA) ought to have appreciated the fact that in the case of assessee'5 group It Is not feasible to estimate the net profit at a particular ratio a5 out of gross receipts of 579 Crores the assessee group made unaccounted payments to the tune Of Rs. 171 crores ad hence spent only Rs. 408 crores towards execution of contract work: Whatever profit was derived 0n execution Of the contract work by the assessee group; to that profit unexplained unrecorded expenses of Rs, 171 crores were required to be added to arrive at the correct taxable income of the assessee 16. On the fact and circumstance Of the case ad in law the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the taxable income need not be equal to the actual net profit derived by the assessee as it may include addition towards various other provisions like section 40A(3), 40(a)(ia}, 68, 69, 69C etc: and in the case Of the assessee group addition u/s. 69C is applicable I.T.A.No.78 to 82 /Nag/2016 I.T_A No.266 ta 269/Nag/2016 6 3 In assessment year 2012-13, the Revenue has taken one More ground, which reads as under: "Whether On the facts ad in the circumstances Of the case and in Iaw, the CIT(A) was justified in deleting the addition Of Rs.20,71,297/- being unexplained investment In jewellery without appreciating the fact that the assessee could not substantiate the source of investment ? 4 At the outsety the assessee did not press ground Nos. 1 & 2 during the caurse of hearing therefore; these grounds are dismissed as not pressed: 5. In respect of ground Nos: 3 to 5 taken by the assessee in its appeal and ground No. 1 to 14 taken by the Reverue in its appeal for assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 2010-11 ad ground No 1 to Sand 7 t0 15 in assessment year 2012-13, both the parties agreed that the issue involved in assessee's appeal as well as in Revenue's appeal in all these grounds is. common and identical to the grounds raised by the Revenue as well the assessee for the assessment year 2007-08 to 2011-12 in the case Qf Mitesh Gotulalji Bhangadiya and whatever view this Tribunal may take in the case of Mitesh Gotulalji Bhangadiya in I.T.A.Nos. 56 to 61/Nag/2016 and 261 to 265/Nag/2016, the same view may be taken in all these appeals, 6 We have heard the rival submissions, carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below as well as the order f this Tribunal dated 29/06/2017 in I,T.A.Nos: 56 ta 61/Nag/2016 and 261 to 265/Nag/2016 in the case of Mitesh Gotulalji Bhangadiya. We noted that the similar issue has arisen in that case The aforesaid grounds of appeal taken by the assessee as well as by the Revenue In that appeal are 1/3J423 ITA.No.7B to 82/Nag/2016 I.T.A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 similar and identical to the grounds of appeal taken in the case of Mitesh Gotulalji Bhangadiya. In that case the tribunal under para 12 has held as under: have heard the rival submissions; carefully "

We the same along with the orders of the tax considered below: We noted that the facts and the issue authorities ali the years under appeal in the case Of the involved in assessee are similar and identical The CITIA) has passed a consolidated order: The undisputed facts in the case of the assessee and the group concern are that 3 Search and seizure was carried out in the Bhangdiya action Ujs 132 of the Act Group Of cases on 19/07/2011 Simultaneously; the business and residential premises of the assessee were also Searched: During the course of search conducted incriminating Papers and documents were found ad seized Shri Mitesh Gotumal the key person Of the group: Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya i5 Bhangdiya has two sons namely Shri Kirtikumar M Bhangdiva and Shri Srikant M Bhangdiya ad oe daughter Neha: The business af the Bhangdiya group is being looked after by Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya ad his two Sons The other key persons associated with the group are Shri Sanjay Rameshchandra Heda, husband of Mitesh Bhangdiya 5 sister, Smt Pradnya, resident of Amravati and Smt Manisha 0. Maniyar_widowed Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya who lives with Bhangdiya sister of family. The main business concerns of the group (including 12.1 35 a result of the search action) are a5 those discovered follows 1 MJs MG Bhangdiya (AERPB2503E), (Prop: MGB); converted into 8 company Mfs MK.S Constro-venture Pvt (AAHCM0383T) Ltd. from 01.04,2011: MJs Mahendra Construction; Prop: Shri Sanjay Heda (MC) (AADPH7109J) Mahendra Construction 85 MG Bhangdiya (JV) Ws (AANFM5658B) Mfs Kirtikumar M, Bhangdiya (Prop KMB); converted company Mjs M.KS Acme Buildcon pvt: Ltd. into 0 (AAHCMOJ8ZK) from 01.04.2011. (AGYPB16S9G) 2 3. 3 I.T.A-No.78 t0 82/Nagf2016 ET-A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 #47 8 5. MJs KM, Bhangdiya & Mahendra Canstruction (JV) (AAKFKI8ZOC)

Ms Shrikant M. Bhangdiya (Prop. SMBHATCPB1337J)

Mitcon Infraproject Pvt: Ltd. (MIPL) (AAGCMI868H) 8 Lokshahi Publications Pvt Ltd. (LPPL)(AABCL6673L)

MITZ Infraproject Pvt Ltd (AAGCM3O4ZA)

Sakshi Gruh Nirman Pvt Ltd. (SGNPLJ(AAOCS7974G) Il Balaji Stone Crusher Infraventure P1t Ltd (AADCB5273C) 12,2 The group has also entered into joint ventures with various other Civil contractors of the city to secure some civil contracts, A few of them are listed below: 1 Ms MG Bhangdiya Kitbhav Engg (Jv) (AAOFM474SL) Mfs M.G, Bhangdiya 5 5 Patil & Co: (JVHABIFS3645L) MJs Darshan Construction (JV) (AAHFDO6SAN) Mfs M R Dhoble &5 K M Bhangdiya (JVYAAPFMO6ZZB} 2, 3. 4 12.3 The nature of the business of -the Bhangdiya group primarily i5 executing civil contracts. The group works mainly for Government departments like Ms Vidarbha Irrigation Development Corporation and has been engaged in executing various contracts pertaining to the irrigation projects in the state of Maharashtra. During the course Of search operations incriminating documents were found ad seized from the residential premises of Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya. Item no; 1 to 65 of Annexure-B seized from his residence are the diaries containing ledgers, dally cash books and bank books maintained by the Bhangdiya group. 36 Cash books contained entries for the period from 26/07/2006 to 18/07/2011 and 27 diaries relate to the financial year 2006-07 to 2010-11 whereas the remaining two diaries were maintained for house hold and miscellaneous expenses: A statement of Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya was recorded on oath on 20.07.2011, In his Sworn statement recorded during the course of search action; Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya waS confronted with the entries bprne out from the seized diaries marked as B-l to B-65 and to explain the contents of these diaries; Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya in his statement recorded has submitted that the entries in the diaries & the ledger pertain to the business receipts and 0 Ei50 1T H3=SF I.TA.No.78 t0 82/Nag/2016 I.T.A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 business expenditure: The Assessing Officer in the a5sessment order has recorded a finding that a5 per the item no. 1 to 65 of annexure-B; it is apparent that the amounts withdrawn from the bank accounts af the subcontractors were credited to cash balance Of Bhangdiya group which daily was the confirmed by Shri Mitesh G. Bhangdiya in his statement dated The Assessing Officer has reproduced the 14/09/2011. statement of Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya recorded on 14/09/2011 in para 6 of the assessment order: The Assessing Officer in the assessment order has also recorded 3 finding that the seized documents being B-1 to 8-65 contain entries Of all expenses incurred by the Bhangdiya group in cash from EX; 2006-07 Onwards ad expenses incurred through the bank from FX 2009-10 onwards. Thus the Assessing accunts Officer found that the actual expenses incurred do not match have been incurred in the books The with those shown to Assessing Officer thus concluded that the bookS of account of Shri M.G, Bhangdiya maintained for income-tax purpose do not reflect the true business affairs and are not at all reliable The Assessing Officer analyzed the entries in the diaries ad took the view that on receipt side Various receipts including the withdrawal from the bank of the assessee group concerns were recorded ad on payment side entries of expenses Ilke interest payment; repayment Of loan, deposit into bank account; household expenses, personal expenses, payment to in cash ad investment in properties are various persons Ivno found recorded It was also noted by the Assessing Officer that some Of the entries made in the seized diaries were found reflected in the books of account maintained by the Bhangdiya Statement of Mitesh Bhangdiya was recorded On Group: 20/07/2011. During the course of search , Mitesh Bhangdiya was confronted with the entries borne out from the seized diaries marked B-1 to B-65. In reply to question No: 30 of his statement; Mitesh Bhangdiya submitted that the entries in the ad ledgers pertain to the business receipts and diaries business expenditure but at present it is very difficult for him to state whether the entries recorded in the seized diaries and accounted in the regular books of account ad same can be explained only after verification of the entries of the diaries books of account maintained by the with rhe regular Bhangdiya Group. Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya, reply to question No. 38, we noted voluntarily offered additional unaccounted of Rs.26 crores for the block period including the income I.T.A.No.78 to 82/Nag/ 2016 I.T.ALNo.266 to 269 /Nag/2016 #10 cutrent financial vear over ad above the regular income declared in the retum filed for the assessment year falling within the block period The income Sp declared are summarized a5 under: BHALIR]YA VRQLE hY 06-07 Grand Total AY 2012-13 (Rs;) Farticular Ay "2u0z-QA Ay Z0C8-Q8 AY Z0ny-1Q At 201o-1] 4Y Z0M-12 MinG Btangdixa Conttact [ncox? a5 pFr Qriglnal ieturn 1383,90,275 22,00,540 28,96,[31 18,61,F63 56,34,712 543,1R,322 714,82,707 Additina Inrome dedared durng Surey Additlcnal Income Offered Durlng Seaich 66,46,019 23,97,361 13,94,009 27,04,312 4,50,336 5,09,060 27,10,952 576,81,678 255,17,293 854,27,783 t [ncom? 2214,64,076 45,97,901 48,00,d00 45,66,175 85,0D,0CQ 1120,00,000 970,00,00 MKScopzn Yeture pld Conbrt Fntomie 35 per onglnal retum 182,75,373 132,75,37} Addlcinal Incane declated during SuNVCY Addtlcnal Income Qffered Durlrig Sezrch 104,74,627 164,74,627 Contract [ncome Dedlared 347 , 50,000 347,50,Q01 Mis_Mahentrt Conzwcton Contact Income 35 pe: priginal retum 36,77,656 125,10,051 26,48,924 20,60,666 73,78,074 76,26,315 7,58,4BB 366,20,174 Afditipnal Inctme dedared durlng Sunvey #ddibonal Income cifered During Search 40,41,896 19,17,076 7,14,112 11,11,224 107,06,303 26,80,40 37,72,873 18,36,954 3,26,110 128,61,926 [01,73,6N5 26,41,512 347,83,S18 Contract Income Declared 104,c,dob 212,Q0,0G0 52,00,d0o 40,0,004 202,0,000 178,00,00Q 34,00,0QQ 922,00,000 Wa,Hab;ndia CotBMG @rangdlxil Contraci Intome &5 Per @rIghnal teturn 157,47,756 310,92,743 715,14,4+7 350,75,J20 74,77,336 1617,07,702 1/39 4 [T.A No.78 to 82/Nag/2016 ETANo-266 to 269/Nag/2016 11 Additicratl lncome dexlared during Survey Additonal Income cmered puing Search 157,19,964 193,9,445 492,69,033 943,87,112 257,16,220 190,24,680 172,12,664 619,64,464 Contrct Incame Qedated 314,61,320 50+,90,R5& 1465,00,@dg 549,0C,ODC 2*17,00,0O0 3040,58,578 HisK*Btaopdiz Contrct Income &5 FEr criginal retrjrn 10,18,705 32,86,795 27,20,40) 21,08,306 61,66,670 32,99,734 186,00,11f Addibonal [nccme dedared durng Survey Addiuona| Income Olfered During Search 14,12,34 25,22,355 19,09,360 7,50,653 05,94,712 9,90,030 10,70,239 28,41,041 5B,33,3J0 33,00,766 138,36,226 Conbrxct [ncome Diclared 24,31,049 67,00,000 57,00,Q0D 57,00,O0 120,CO,00n] 66,Q0,00Q 394,31,049 MKS Acme Bd Contace [ncoTg 35 per' ar-qlnal retumti 34,70,653 34,70,653 Addtlonal Income dedared durng Sunvey addltona} Intome Dhered During ~ Cawd pact Incomg Yeo 16,29,347 16,29,347 S1,0,000 51,W0,n0 MIS WG Rhangdin H Wtbay Englly Contrct Income 05 per Criginal [etum 26,84,727 2,20,187 4,63,957 4,00,994 38,37,905 ndditronal Income declared dunng Survey Addmonal Incone Qered Durlng Search 5,63,593 30,344 5,93,927 2,49,469 [,1,Qos 3,80,475 Contact {ncome Dedared 32,40,310 S,oo,0 4,63,99} 6,QO,QQ 43,12,307 Mls MGQonoiz a1SS PAQ_ IT.ANo-78 to 82/Mag/2016 IT.A.No.266 ta 269/Nag/2016 12 Conbact Intome % Per anglnal retum: 4,65,923 477,544 9,43,467 Addibonal Income dedbred duing Sunvey Mdltional [nctz Offered Durlng Sparch 6,01,927 8,33,506 14,40,515 40,000 40,00t (ontact Income Dedlyred 10,67,852 13,16,130 #,0oq 24,23,332 MSk MEhanda 1 Conbadt In4 35 per Onglnu betum 5,14,551 9,77,461 14,47,013 Atdional Jnkom dedared durlng Sunuey Addltlnat Incomz Offered DurIng Seuth 5,85,449 11,67,539 17,52,988 Contact Income edared M,,0cp 21,D0,CD0 32,0oxdo Mo a Prolate Ltd Conbxt Inxontg 05 per Qralnal return 60,39,d4 43,98,429 53,20,051 157,57/480 Nnikonal Incme dedtaed durng Sunva Addtitlonal Income Ofered During Serron 62,61,00 11[,01,571 9,+9,949 182,82,520; Conbar InxT Declared 123,0,0d2 tss,Qq,on0 62,40,010 340,40,00D eddikcoal ocome pilotinfasiqt toditdu Miesh Dhangdlta 74,79,42 74,79,442 Ktlkumar etangdlya 30,d0,010 J,00,0oQ Shrlkant 8hangdiyg 35,00,061 35,,00 Keshar Singh Rotele 1D,42,553 12,03,097 80,93,260 101,78,910 Colsnlid:el Ro4I Eb* Contact Icone I9 per arglna] return 68,55,501 349,06,656 414,88,202 815,34,018 1107,15,914 956,05,476 270,24,565 3990,49,752 4 Mij) 1+g I.T,A.No.78 to 82/Nag/z016 I.T.A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 13 Additional Inccme dedared during Sunvey Andlbonal Lrxome Qfeed Durlng Seanh 78,51,601 251,55,333 261,28,CG0 513,13,590 1104,43,592 26,80,448 51,73,583 29.07,203 123,92,392 1022/48,063 680,144,524 216,65,435 2356,8+,648 Contrac: Inkome Declncd 174,23,950 652,75,572 705,21,473 1652,40,Q0 "129,63,997 1641,O0,C20 494,90,0Q 7451,79,892 Addiliional Intome in cas8s cf Indlyldual 10,42,553 12,03,097 8D,93,260 139,79,442 243,10,352 12.4 From the statement of Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya , it is apparent that the diary found and seized belongs to the assessee group ad the assessee group did not disown these diaries even though in the subsequent statement recorded on 27/07/2013 Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya stated that these diaries were primarily maintained by his father Gotumal Bhangdiva. The Assessing Officer; we noted; has also observed that these seized diaries also contain the pavment made in cash for probable extraneous gratification to various persons Including politicians government officers/officials which are recorded along with their names, dates of payment ad amount paid, We nated that the Assessing Officer has not examined these persons for bringing the corroborative evidence On record In support of his finding that the cash has been paid by the assessee group for probable extraneous gratification. We noted that the Assessing Officer made an exercise to match the entries of the tax payment and receipt with the entries in the regular books of account of Bhangdiya Group. The Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the receipts are predominantly withdrawals fram the bank account by way of creating bogus sub-contract expenditure: The Assessing Officer found that the assessee group hasdeducted & sum Of Rs,361 crores towards the sub-contract payment against the gross receipts aggregating to Rs.579 crores. It was found by him after verifying from Zl contractors that & sum of Rs.54,40 crore i5 attributable to the amount deposited In the bank account of the sub-contractor by account payee cheques by various concerns of Bhangdiya Group; which was subsequently withdrawn in cash ad Is reflected on the receipt side of the seized diaries The total amount so reflected in the diaries on the receipt side was computed at Rs.182.52 crore: The Assessing Officer added the said unaccounted amount Of Rs.182.50 crore in the income Of the assessee group concern 4 Sum Of Rs,54.40 crore was added in proportion to the amount of cheque credited by respective group concern in the Qm I.T,A.No.78 to 82/Nag/2Q1E ITA.NO.Z66 to 269/Nag/2016 /.14 For the balance hands of the respective group concerns amount of Rs.128.12 crore; the Assessing Officer added the same in proportion to the contract receipt Shown br tte grotai the respective assessment years to the total concern in of the group concern in that year. Now the question turnover before US arises whether the said sum of Rs.182,52 crores the diaries found during the course Of found recorded in search as receipt being Withdrawal from the bank account of well a5 from the bank account of the the group concern 35 sub-contractor can be regarded to be the unaccounted income Of the assessee At the micro level, if we look into the nature of the receipt; it is not denied by the Revenue that the receipt the bank account Of the assessee group has come from of the receipt ad has come out of the cash concern and part withdrawn by the sub-contractor to whom the assessee group concer had made te payment The assessment has been the Assessing Officer ufs 1534 in the case af the made by concern. Proceedings asgessee a5 well a5 assessee's group have also been initiated by the Assessing Officer in the case of the sub-contractor U/s 153C of the Act: The sub-contractor submitted be return in response to the notice Ws 153C The Sub-contracior ha5 Shown the income from the contract The paid to them by assessee group: The amount Geicipncbeirg hag Oulft been accepted by the Assessing Officer said income substantive basis in the hands of the Sub-contractor: The On Assessing 'Officer thus has duly accepted while framing te of the Sub-contractor that the payment received bysethenert-oonteactot from the assessee as weli a5 the - by the not bogus but were the assessee group concern were by performing the obligation for 9 received Donsiceration entrusted On them under the sub-contract; denotes that the relationship of the assessee a5 weli a5 This assessee group concern with the sub-contractor a5 genuine; has duly been accepted by the Assessing Officer: Once the sub-contractor has been assessed ad their income has duly been accepted by the Revenue in our viewa the Reveruen on the basis of the same facts in the case of the assessee, cannot take the view that the payment made to the sub-contractor were bogus. Further it Is not the case of the Revenue that the disallowed the payment made to the sub- Revenue has where the Revenue has added the contractor: It i5 & case the sub-contractor entered into the receipt from darigneoure eand fserzedh during the course of the search. Omi H3+ I.T_A,No-78 t0 82/Nag/2016 6133 IT.ANo,266 to 269/Nag/ 2016 15 From the analysis of these diaries, the Assessing Officer has categorically given the finding that the diaries consist of the receipt being the withdrawal made by the Sub-contractor 35 well a5 the withdrawal made by the assessee from the bank account of the group; The diary also consists of the payment some Of which relate to the site expenses; expenses the books Of account; investment in the recorded in immovable property, personal expenses expenses For the well a5 money transferred and the amount paid to jewellery as various persons. It i5 not the case of the Revenue that the assessee has debited the amount paid to various persons Into his regular boOks of account and claimed the deduction S can be disallowed by applying the that these expenses explanation to section 37 of the Act: In fact the assessee has not claimed deduction of these expenses. The Assessing Officer added the recelpt being amount withdrawn by the contractor &s Income Of the assessee The receipt in fact is coming out of the sub contract receipt of the sub-contractor 25 well a5 assessee and group concerns, which has already been assessed to income tax by the Assessing Officer:_ The source of the receipt therefore, i5 apparent Where the nature and source of the receipt stands explained, it cannot be added the income Of the assessee. On this basis itself in Our to view; no addition in view of the cash withdrawn from the bank account of the group concern &d the sub-contractor which are duly disclosed to the department can be added in the income of the assessee i5 not the case Of Revenue that these cash 12.5 This withdrawals are from the bank account which have not been to the Revenue Or in which the assessee has disclosed deposited the cash outside the books %f account So for the source of the receipt Is concerned, it is not denied that the business of the assessee is executing the Government contract and ali the receipts in the bank account of the assessee_is generated only through the contract receipt from tha contract taken from the State Government No cogent material or eviderce was brought to our knowledge which may prove that the State Government has made the payment to the assessee outside the books Of account On this basis itself; we confirm the order of CIT(A) that the addition cannot be Sustained on thee basis Of Cash receipt found recorded out of the cash withdrawal by the assessee or the contractar from their bank Dm I.T,A.No.78 to 82/Nag/016 I.T_ANo.266 to 269/Nag/2016 4116. We also noted that the Assessing Officer has not account the receipt side of the diaries put has also only analyzed analyzed the payment side of the diaries and found from the Of Rs.24.05 crore has been invested payment side that a Sum In thee immovable property outside the books Of account and Similarly, & Sum of Rs.8.47 crore has been utillized a5 expenses outside the books of account As regards t0 observation of the Assessing Officer in respect of outgoings observed by it i5 noted that the Assessing Officer has seized document adverse inference without there being any mainly drawn Such conclusion. Even before material evidence on record for corroborative evidence were referred to and brought o US; no vestment to the extent Of record. Thus, the outgoing/in Rs.32,52 crore can be regarded to have been incurred by the assessee outside the books of account but the same are spent Out Of money withdrawn from bank the source thereof cannot regarded to be unexplained: We noted that in this case be the assessee a5 well 35 assessee group corcert during the surrendered 2 Sum Of Rs.26 crore and course af search; the return in response to the notice Wfs accordingly ; filed 153A, At the most the Assessing Officer could have made the addition in respect of the unaccounted investment provided they are not covered by the amount surrendered by the. assessee during the block period In fact;, In our view; the" 2 expenditure shown in the diary is &1so source Of the said 0 out Of the Cash withdrawal from the banks Of te aroungcoctern aSwesis Or SUb-contractor which has_ already Decm? disciosed :0 the Revenue ad the receipt thereof has already been assessed to income tax 12.6 We noted that the business income assessed by the Assessing Officer in percentage of the gross receipt In the concern varies from 9.34% to hands of the various group 129.92% 25 I5 apparent from the following chart: AY 2007- Ay 2008- AY 2009- AY Z01o- IaY ZO1L- Ay 2012- Farticular AY 2006- 08 09 10 11 12 13 07 41.279 35,609 18.60F 27 .4690 49.509 MJs M.G. Bhangdiya 11.790 9,3406 MKS Constro Venture P Ltd 43,1380 25.4456 11.0490 21.7986 33,0506 27.739 Ms- Mahendra 10.7B90 Canstruction EL 3 Om I.T.A.ND.78 t0 82/Nag/2016 ITANo.266 to 269/Nag/2016 17 1135 Ns Mahendra Const & M; G. Bhangdiya JV 49.5340 73.449 17, 6930 41.819 16.038 Mf $.K M Bhangdiya 11.970 23,3990 26,7690 26,2630 15,2290 13.,9440 10.2890 MKS Aanie Build P Ltd MFS,M G Bhangdlya and Hitbhav Engg JV 66,5300 11.9826 27 ,8300 0,0O% Ms MG Bhangdiya and SS PATIL JV 54,8206 129.9210 13.1894 MS K M Bhangdlya JV 25.2806 39,5291 10,070 10,0096 10,00% Mitcon Infra Praject P Ltd Consolidated 12.3694 47.019 74 ,3626 18,5290 34.2500 49.9706 44.5906 In the case of the assessee group the assessment U/s 153A have been framed for assessment year 2006-07 to assessment year 2011-12 while assessment for the assessment vear 2012- 13 ujs 14303) of the Act The nature of the activity being execution Of government contract was the same during all the assessment years: In assessment year 2006-07, the nature of the work executed For Vidarbha Irtigation Development Corporation remains the same 35 in the case of the assessee for subsequent assessment years. The sub-contractors; who have executed the work, are also similar in various assessment years. The Assessing Officer ; we noted; in the case of the assessee group for the assessment year 2006-07, has accepted the income 25 Shown by the assessee group in the return about 12% of the gross receipts The Assessing Officer; as is apparent from the aforesaid chart, has assessed the income 0n different footing In the subsequent assessment years under the similar circumstances. There had been search in the case of the assessee The nature of the business Of the assessee remains the same No other business activity or the business were found from where the income Is derived Or generated In various noting in the seized documents i.e diaries are part of the gross receipt of the contract receipt of the group entity; is not disputed. The Assessing Officer; while making the addition; observed that the amount withdrawn from the diary Is utilized for unaccounted payments which are not allowable like gratification paid to politician and Government officials: However; the Assessing Officer does not refer to any corroborative evidence on record to hold that 4 I.T,A.No.78 to 82/Nag/2016 I.T.A-No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 18 the assessee has made payment as Illegal gratification He has taken 3 view by observing that payment made in cash is probable extraneous gratification During the course Of search, statement of Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya waS recorded on 20/07/2011 and he in answer to question No: 30 explained that the selzed documents are details of cash flow. During the assessment proceedings Shri Mitesh Bhangdiya has explained that the diaries are noting for the movement of the cash in reply to question No: 23, In the statement recorded On 27/07/2013, It was als0 explained by him in the course Of the assessment proceedings that the sub-contractors On the withdrawal of the money gave to his father for safe custody , the amount which are found to be noted in the seized documents. In the statement recorded, the assessee has clearly explained that the notings made in the seized documents has nothing to d with the political leaders a5 much as political leaders have no business transactions with Bhangdiya group. Even we noted that the Assessing Officer has not brought out On record ay specific evidence to show that payment is made to any politician Or the Government officerfofficial to whom the gratification payment have been given by the assessee group. We noted that the Assessing Officer out of the Sum of Rs. 182.52 crores, added Rs.54.40 crores On the basis of deposition of the sub-contractor for+ which when the assessee has asked for the cross examinatio} the cross examination was not allowed to the assessee wtich 15 contrary to the principles of natural justice: Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Andman Timber Industries VS" Commissioner Of Central Excise, Kolkata (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006) under the similar circumstances; when the adjudicating authority did not allow the cross examination of the witnesses, held as under: A "According to uS, not allowing the assessee to Cross examine the witness by the Adjudicating Authority though the statements Of those witness were made the basis of the impugned order is & serious flaw which makes the order nullity inasmuch 35 it amounted to violation of principles of natural justice because of which the assessee was adversely affected. In view Of the above; we are Of the opinion that if the testimony Of these two witness is discredited, there was no material with the Department on the basis of which it could 2 FPElL _ 3 Om 434 ET.A.No-TB to 82/Nag/2016 (137 I.T.A.No.Z66 to 269/Nag/2016 19 justify its action a5 the statement Of the aforesaid Ewo witness was the only basis of issuing the Show Cause Notice: We; thus; set aside the impugned order a5 passed by the Tribunal ad allow this appeal Following the said decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court; the statement of the sub-contractor; in our view , cannot be relied Even otherwise also, we noted that no corroborative Qn; evidence being brought on record to prove that the receipts, which has been added by the Assessing Officer in the income of the assessee is the undiscosed income of the assessee In fact the receipts for which the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer represents the part of the gross receipts of the assessee and assessee group concern and the sub- contractor; which has duly been taxed to income tar As pointed by uS earlier; due to this addition; there has been 'huge variance in the income assessed as percentage with the receipts by the Assessing Officer: The CITIA) therefore; was correct in rejecting the basis of making the addition by the Assessing Officer In the facts Of the present case; it is seen that regular assessment came to be made as net profit percentage of receipts and which were also upheld in appellate proceedings ad have achieved finality. The returns ujs 153A have also been filed as percentage of receipts in this entities It will only appropriate to determine the group income a5 percentage of receipts as the same are available on record which are accepted by the assessee and the Revenue authorities without dispute 12.7 We may mention that in the case of the assessee group, Survey action was conducted o 17/02/2009 wherein under the similar situation the payment to sub-contractor was disputed ad doubted bv the Assessing Officer . The survey action relates to the assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09, which are part of the block period for the search action conducted On 19/07/2011, The Assessing Officer while making the assessment applied 3 net profit @14% but when the matter reached to the Tribunal; the Tribunal Nagpur Bench in LTANas 268, 269 ad 285/Nag/2012 vide order dated 03/04/2013, after considering the impounded material, directed the Assessing Officer to adopt the net profit @12% a5 against the net profit adopted by the Assessing Officer I,T.A.No.78 to 82/ Nag/Z016 I.TANG.z66 to 269/Nag/2016 20 Kze 1132 There are also the similar type Of defects found a5 @14%. the course of search: We noted the have been found in impugned assessment made in CIT(A) has in the Sengs Offcee directed the Assessing to consequence of search, @16% and not @12%. Even though the estimate the profit of that during the assessment year CITTA) was fully aware the assessee group has surrendered 2006-07 to 2009-10, income at Rs,.Il crore and the Tribunal has directed additional profit @12%. The the Assessing Officer to estimate the net Tribunal in that order under para 4 observed &s under: of the case are that a survey ujs. 133A of te "4, Brief facts 1961 carried out in the business Income Tax Act,; was 17.02.2009. premises of the assesses ad his associates fU_ the Coutse Of survey operations it was found that mose During of the bills vouchers and other evidence in support of the of account Jike labour charges; entries In the bopks sub eraterial purchases 'machine hire charges, site € xpaisen_ Dil and lubricants, repairs ad maintenance contract expenses, 'this A.Y: were not available: Statement of Sri etc pertaining to Mitesh Bhangadiya was recorded under Section 1334 and ujs, In the statement 131 of the Act on behalf of the assesse 13.03.2009, in response to various dt24.02.2009 and :0: relating to the genuineness of the Payments to thir Questious Catinctt angenuieepect t0 other dericienciex 6{ party sub assessee admitted additional income in group cases of Ri were allocated between ali crore and proportionately For the assessment years relating to these four asse5520 under rrsideration L.e; for assessment vear 2006-07 in fczsd Of Sri Mithesh Bhangadiya, the additional income Was offered the income shown originally at at R5.23,97,361/- besides paid before the issuance of Rs.23,63,910/- Due tax was notice under Section 148 a admitted by the AQ in para2 of The important contents of submission recorded on his order; of Sri Mithesh Bhangadiya are 74102-2009 ] andhe Ordeoo? te S. In query of question No. incorporated in the order_ Of survey; it was 1l, it Was answered that during the course noticeddhat there are certain discrepancies &nd crissionis and to cover up all such discrepancies We have made out mind to regular income: Offer additional income over ad above the under the process to determine such additional income We are t0 buy peace of mind. Thereafter in to avoid litigation and, question Nos. 18 & 19 of the statement recorded response to APPELL 1 Imoja 13t I,T.A No.78to 82/Nag/2016 1/34 I.T,A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 67; 31 on 13-3-2009, it was answered that the Sub contractors were awarded the sub contract work by Our firms a5 per contract notes &nd the nature Of sub contractors has been that labour charges ad machine hire charges. The sub contractors by and large illiterate and therefore; their books of accounts found to be incomplete without maintenance of any bills and vouchers: The expenses incurred by our firm has been on the basis of the S0 called vouchers raised by them and therefore; there appears the discrepancies in the expenses claimed It was further stated that the assessee has admitted in his previous statement recorded during the course of survey that there are certain discrepancies and anomalies in the Sub contract expenses in their books Of accounts; non availability of bills and vouchers for the past three assessment years. Accordingly ; it was submitted that there were certain discrepancies and anomalies in the sub contract accounts; In books Of accounts for assessment years 2006-07 to 2009-10. The assessee declared the additional income of Rs. 11 crore in their firm and the five sister concerns in the assessment year 2006-07 to 200g-10. The working of the additional income of Rs If crores wili be done accordingly and the same will be shown: These part of the statements have been incorporated in the order of the AO 35 state above Thereafter the AO started scrutiny of the case: The AO noted that the assessee has shown various expenses under the head labour & wages, machine hire charges; site expenses and sub contract expenses etc: 0n very higher side, which are not supported by valid vouchers, Neither any further evidence was filed It was also observed by the AO that since there are various deficiencies in accounts Of Sub contracts and the assessee has offered 3 sum of Rs; 23,97,361/- On account of discrepancies in respect to sub contract; therefore; he proceedexd to make further addition on account Of various deficiencies i.e in absence or bills and vouchers, excess claim towards machinery hire charges, verification of applicability of provision 0f Section 194C and denial of alleged sub contractors regarding the sub contract given by the assessee: AlI these discrepancies are noted by the AO in his order: Thereafter in para 7, the AO has observed that after having rejected the books of account of the assessee under Section 14503) of the Act; the profit of the assessee has t be estimated reasonably: The AQ also observed that the assessee ha5 dectared net profit ratio of 696 and 7% of the total ET.A.No-7B to 82/Nag/2016 I,T.A.No.Z66 to 269/Nag/2016 ijxo tumnover in assessment years 2006-07 & 2007-08. After offering additional income of Rs.23,97,360/- for assessment vear 2006-07, the results in revised net profit comes to 12.879h Of the contract receipts However; this net profit waS found by the AQ on lower side. The AO noted that in one Of the group case namely ; Mfs; Mahendra Construction & M.G. Bhangadia (JV) who had declared additional income of Rs. 1,57, 47, 760/- in the Assessment Year 2007-08, which gives a net profit ratio of 13,849 af the net contract receipts. In view of these facts the AO adopted 14% net profit: Thereafter the AO completed the assessment and made addition Of Rs. 30,12,7226- against additional income shown by the assessee at Rs. 23,97,360/-, which resulted further addition of Rs.6,15,362f- and ultimately under para 7 35 reproduced hereunder ; estimated net profit @12%; "7, After considering the submission and perusing the material On record; we find that the asses5ee deserves to succeed in his appeal in part We noted for the year under consideration i.e; for assessment year 2006-07, the assessee's NP rate comes to 12.879, for assessment year 2007-08, the assessee's NP rate comes to 10.539, respectively. We also noted that If the NP rate of all the concerns are taken into consideration, then it is 5een that all the assesses have shown government receipt at Rs.258,55,37,850/- and income:&n these contracts have been shown by these assessee at Rs.6,49,57,111f- which gives a NP ratz Of 6.38%. The asse5see has offered additional income declared during the survey at Rs. 11, 03,85,877/-, which gives a NP rate of 4,27% and the total NP rate in all these concerns comes to 10.65%. Of course; the additional income of Rs: 11 crore or odd was segregated proportionately on the basis of contract receipts in the hands Of each concern; In case of Mfs Mahendra Construction & M.G. Bhangadia (JV) the NP rate comes to 13.84% ie for assessment year 2007-08 and this rate has been adopted by the AO ad has applied the NP rate Of 14% in all the years in case of all these assesses on whom & survey was conducted In view; this approach of the AO was not correct approach. In case Of M.G Bhangadiva, the NP rate of three years come to 9.879 whereas in case Of other assesses L.e Sanjay Heda, Mjs Mahendra Construction & M.G 14 CPPEI 4 Qwoo1 t34 IH) I.T.A.No.78 to 82/Nag/Z016 ITAA.No.266 ta 269/ Nay; {2016 Bhangadiya (JV) the NP rate comes to 9,50% &d in case 0f Mfs Mahendra Construction & MG Bhangadiya (JV) the average NP rate of three years comes to 11.289 and in case of Mfs KirtikumarBhangadiya; the NP rate comes tp 8.729 and in case Of MG. Bhangadiya and Ms Mahendra Construction & M.G Bhangadiya (JV) the NP rate comes to 6.129. In Case Of M.G. Bhangadiya and 5.S; Patil & M.G Bhangadiya, the NP of three vears comes to 11.559/. As stated above; the average NP rate Of all the assesses for all the three years comes to 10.65%. Therefare, in our view; 3 rational approach should have been adopted by the AO or by the learned CIT (A} For one case ie; Ms Mahendra Construction & M.G Bhangadia (JV) the NP rate was 13.84% and if this rate is applied in all other cases; which in our view, is not justified. However, there is also no dispute that there were so many discrepancies in maintaining vouchers, bills, sub contracts accounts and other heads, which were not verifiable; therefore; the assessee ad his group came farward to offer an additional income Of Rs. 11 crore and the same has also offered and due tax has been paid, Since a5 stated above; there are certain discrepancies; we are Of the view; that if NP rate Of IZ% Is adopted instead of 14%, that will meet the end of justice: We made it clear that where NP rate shown by the assessee In any year is more than 12% then the more NP rate shown by the assessee has to be taken 35 assessee ; has declared himself and in other years where NP rate shown-by- the assessee is lower than 1Z9, then 12% NP rate has to-be taken. The AO will recomputed the income accordingly. For the sake of clarification; in case of assessee for assessment year 2006-07, the NP rate comes to 12.87% after showing the additional income; therefore; the income shown by the assessee has to be accepted. However, for assessment years 2007-08 & 2008-09, the NP rate shown bY the assessee after additional income comes to 10.69% and 10.539. The AO will adopt the rate Of 1296 and wili compute the income accordingly. 12.8 We noted that the CIT(A) even though followed the Order of the Tribunal in the case of the assessee for the assessment year 2006-07 to 200g-10 but directed the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit during the block period @16% ad for that he has given the reasons that there is material difference in the years under appeal Le. search p4 F0 1142_ IT,A-Na,78 to 82/Nag/2016 I.T.A_Na,266 ta 269/Nag/2016 action has also resulted into detection of the unaccounted assets to the tune of Rs,26 crores and unaccounted jewellery Of Rs,2.37 Crores which has not been disclosed by the assessee group in their respective returns filed nor the source Of Such acquisition Of such assets could be explained satisfactorily. We do not agree with such finding of CIT(A) as we noted that during the block period, the asseSsee has surrendered Rs.11 crore during the course of survey for the assessment year 2006-07 to 2008-09 and further during search a Sum Of Rs,26 crore was surrendered Thus; & Sum Qf Rs,37 crore was available with the assessee which assessee could have utilized far investment in the assets a5 well 25 for the purchase of jewellery. The unaccounted assets &s well as unaccounted jewellery is only R5,28.37 crore which is much less ad Is duly covered by the disclosure Of Rs,37 Crore during the block period made by the assessee; Rs.II crore during the survey ad Rs.26 crore during the block period Even otherwise also, the Assessing Officer, we noted; has gathered the information of unaccounted assets and unaccounted jewellery out af the documents found during the course Of search which shows the utilization Of the amount which the assessee has received by way of withdrawal from the bank account 0f the group concern 25 Well a5 from the bank account of the sub-contractor which cannot be regarded to be undisclosed We; therefore; do not agree with the reasoning Of the CIT(A) in adopting the net profit @16% of. the gross receipts. In our opinion, no addition On accoint op: unaccounted assets to the extent of Rs.26 crores and unaccounted jewellery of Rs,2.37 crores could be made: We; therefore; after considering the facts of the case; past history, relevant case laws and nature Of the activities carried on by the assessee, are Of the view that the estimation Of the income by the CITIA) Is at a higher side and is not justified Therefore; we set aside the order of CIT(A) to the extent &f directing the Assessing Officer to estimate the net profit @16% of the gross receipts &nd direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the net proft on the gross receipt @12% 35 has been estimated and returned by the assessee group in their respective returns filed in response to the notice issued us 1534 and ujs 139 of the Income Tax Act; 7 Respectfully following the aforesaid decision of the Tribunal dated 29/06/2017 we dismiss ground Nos_ 1 to 16 in Revenue's appeal for the Qp1 1143 I.T.A.No.78 to 82/Nag/2016 I.T.A.No.266 to 269/Nag/2016 25 assessment year 2007-08, 2008-09 and 20111-12 ad ground Nos, 1 to 5 and 7 t0 17 for the assessment year 2012-13 in Revenue's appeal. So far the appeal filed by the assessee is concerned, we direct the Assessing Officer to estimate the income of the assessee in each of the assessment vears by applying the net profit rate @12% on the gross contract receipt of each year, which has been applied by the assessee while filing the return. Thus, these grounds taken by the assessee are partly allowed, 8_ The facts relating to ground No. 7 in Revenue's appeal are that during the course of search the gold jewellery was found from the resideritial premises of the assessee at Amrawati which was valued by the approved Government valuer at Rs,33,33,171/- out of the total jewellery found, the jewellery to the extent of Rs.20,71,297/- was seized. The Assessing Officer made the addition of entire jewellery seized far the reason that the assessee could not explain the source of the acquisition of the jewellery treating the same as unexplained. When the matter went before the CIT(A}; the CIT(A) deleted the said addition by holding that since the Assessing Officer has estimated the income of the assessee @169 of the turnover, which comes to Rs.1.07 crore and was more than the returned Income therefore; he deleted the said addition by telescoping the addition in the income of the assessee as made by the CIT(A) a5 differed from the returned income: Pm 9 We have heard the rival submissions; carefully considered the same along with the orders of the tax authorities below; Before US, Learned counsel For the assessee vehemently contended that there were two ladies in the family of the assessee: The ornaments were old and were received at the time of marriage from the relatives and friends; The jewellery amounting to Rs.32,26,165/- has been shown in the Wealth Tax ApP I.T.A.Na-78 to 82/Nag/ 2016 I.T.A.No.266 to 369/Nag/2016 Hx Mih 26 return of the assessee and the wife of the assessee Smt Pradnya Sanjay Heda for the assessment year 2011-12 For which attention was drawn towards pages 40 to 61 of Volume-I of the paper book: It was stated that said jewellery has been accepted bv the Assessing Officer while the assessment uJs 16(3) of the Wealth Tax Act for the framing the assessment year 2011-12_ The balance jewellery in any case is less than 500 grns Which is allowable in case of a married lady as per Instruction Na.1916 dated 11/05/94. Learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the order of the Assessing Officer. We noted from the cOpY of the Wealth Tax return as well as Wealth Tax assessment; which are avallable in Volume-1 of the paper book that the assessee; during the assessment year along with his wife, has shown the jewellery to the extent of Rs.32,26,165/- The Assessing Officer while framing the assessment duly accepted the said jewellery under the Wealth Tax Act: Therefore; out of the sum of Rs.33,33,171/- sum of Rs.32,26,165/- by n stretch of imagination can LAle be regarded to be undisclosed jewellery. Coming to the balance jewellery, 3 no addition can be sustained, reason being that the in our opinion; assessee's wife as well the mother was living in the same premises. The returns were filed for the assessee and the wife of the Wealth Tax In the case of the mother , the assessee is entitled to get assessee; benefit of 5C0 grsm jewellery; the value of which comes to Rs.10,38,500/- as per Instruction No.1916 dated 11/05/94. The same view has been taken by this Bench of the Tribunal in LT.ANo.417/Nag/13 in the case of Shri Chetan B Shah, order dated 26/06/2015, In view of the said Board Instruction and the decision of this Tribunal, we do not find any Illegality Qt infirmity in the arder of CIT(A) deleting the addition of Rs.20,71,297/- therefore, confirm the order of CITIA) deleting the said addition We, although on different ground. 1 0 tZ 1I45 IT,A.No.78to 82/Nag/2016 I.T_ALNo.266 to 269/Nag/2016 10 last ground in assessee's appeal relates ta the charging of The interest u/s 234A, 234B ad 234C Qf the Act. Learned A,R: was fair to concede that this ground is consequential in nature. We; enough therefore, direct the Assessing Officer that the interest chargeable us 2344, 2348 ard 234C be recomputed after giving effect to our this order. Thus, this ground is allowed for statistical purposes in all the appeal: 11_ In the result; all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed whereas all the appeals of the assessee are partly allowed; (Order pronounced in the open court on 30/06/2017 . _ 0 (AMARJIT SINGH) Judicial Member P K, BANSAL ) Vice President Dated:30/06/2017 #Singh Copy gf the order forwarded to 1. 2 3 4 5 The Appellant: The Respondent Concerned CIT The CIT(A) DR,, LtpnJ 44") < Asstt, Registrar HAt ioai Assistant Registrar 410m? #irftu #F7v, incone Tax Appeiate Ttrfnal rdfat / #agpwx Bunch