Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Pune
Atr Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.,, Nashik vs Commissioner Of Income-Tax ... on 17 April, 2017
आयकर अपील
य अ धकरण "बी" यायपीठ पण
ु े म ।
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "B" BENCH, PUNE
ी आर. के. पांडा, लेखा सद य, एवं ी !वकास अव थी, या#यक सद य के सम$
BEFORE SHRI R.K PANDA, AM AND SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015
#नधा&रण वष& / Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
ATR Infra Projects Pvt. Ltd.
11, Rameshwar Building,
Oppo. Ashoka House,
Ashoka Marg, Wadala,
Nashik, Pin-422011
PAN : AAHCA4703C
.......अपीलाथ / Appellant
बनाम / V/s.
Commissioner of Income Tax (Central)
Nagpur
......
यथ / Respondent
Assessee by : Shri Kapil Goyal
Revenue by : Shri Shashi B. Prasad
सन
ु वाई क तार ख / Date of Hearing : 08.03.2017
घोषणा क तार ख / Date of Pronouncement : 17.04.2017
आदे श / ORDER
PER VIKAS AWASTHY, JM
These three appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) dated 27.03.2015 passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') common for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-2012. 2
ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
2. The brief facts of the case as emanating from the record are: The assessee is a private company, engaged in civil construction business. The assessee company is a sub-contractor of M/s Ashoka Buildcon Limited (M/s ABL). A search and seizure action u/s 132 of the Act was carried out on Ashoka Group on 20.04.2010. During the course of search incriminating documents pertaining to the assessee were seized from the premises of M/s ABL. Notice u/s 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 10.07.2012. In pursuance to the said notice, the assessee filed its return of income u/s 153C for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. For the assessment year 2011-12, the assessee had filed regular return of income u/s 139 of the Act. The assessment order for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 were passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act. For the assessment year 2011-12, the assessment order was passed u/s 143(3) of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer accepted the income returned by the assessee without making any further addition.
3. The Commissioner of Income Tax invoked revisional jurisdiction and issued notice dated 20.03.2015 u/s 263 of the Act for the assessment years 2009-10 to 2011-12. Thereafter, the Commissioner of Income Tax vide order dated 27.03.2015 common for all the three assessment years under appeal held that assessment order passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C of the Act for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11 and assessment order u/s 143(3) of the Act for the assessment year 2011-12 are erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and set aside the same. The Commissioner of Income Tax further directed the Assessing Officer to frame assessments after 3 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 making proper enquiries. Aggrieved by the action of Commissioner of Income Tax invoking revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.
4. The assessee has raised following grounds in the appeal for assessment year 2009-10 ;
"1. The learned CIT erred in passing order u/s263 of the I.T Act and setting aside the assessment order dt.22.03.2013, passed u/s143(3) r.w.s 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263.
2. The learned CIT erred in holding that , no proper enquiries were carried out with respect to the seized/impounded material, in spite of the fact that the enquiries carried out by the A.O. in relation to the seized material were brought on record by the appellant, during the course of revision proceedings. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263.
3. In any case the learned CIT erred in passing revision order u/s 263 with respect to the invalid assessment order passed inconsequence of invalid Notice u/s 153C. Therefore, it is prayed to cancel the revision order passed u/s 263.
4. Appellant craves leave to add/ amend/alter any grounds of appeal and/ or prayers before or at the time of hearing."
Identical grounds have been raised by the assessee in the appeals for assessment years 2010-11 and 2011-12, assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax.
5. Shri Kapil Goyal appearing on behalf of the assessee submitted that a perusal of the show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act would show that the Commissioner of Income Tax has not formed his firm opinion with respect to escapement of income during assessment proceeding. The expression used by the Commissioner of Income Tax such as "may have not carried out some of the work", "this issue needs detailed verification by causing suitable enquiries", "the Assessing Officer did not carry out proper verification on various aspect arisen from the evidences, found in the seized materials and 4 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 expenses claimed and failed to verify authenticity/ genuineness of the expenses" clearly show that Commissioner of Income Tax has no firm opinion about the assessment order being prejudicial to the interest of revenue and being erroneous. The Commissioner of Income Tax has directed the Assessing Officer to make roving and fishing enquiry and to re-examine the same material which the Assessing Officer has already examined before passing of assessment orders. 5.1 The ld. AR made multiple submissions assailing the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). The ld. AR submitted that no incriminating material was found during search against the assessee. It is a well settled law that when there is no incriminating material, no addition can be made. In support of his submission, the ld. AR placed reliance on the following decisions:
I) CIT V/s. Sinhagad Education Society reported in 378 ITR 84 II) CIT V/s. Central Ware Housing Corporation (Nhava-sheva) reported in 374 ITR 645 The ld. AR contended that transactions found in the documents seized during search have already been reflected in the books of account of the assessee and hence, no further addition was made by the Assessing Officer during assessment. Further, to buttress his submissions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Dr. D.Y Patil Pratisthan V/s. DCIT in ITA No. 1586/PN/2011, Assessment year 2000-01 decided on 07.09.2012.
5.2 The next submission of the ld. AR is that the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings had made enquiries with 5 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 respect to documents seized during the course of search at the premises of M/s ABL. The ld. AR referred the questionnaire dated 28.02.2013 issued to the assessee during assessment proceedings for the assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12. The ld. AR pointed that Assessing Officer had asked specific questions with regard to furnishing of details of labour charges/sub-contractor charges paid along with TDS deducted by the assessee in respect thereof. The ld. AR referring to questionnaire further submitted that a perusal of the questionnaire would show that the Assessing Officer had made queries in respect of documents seized during the course of survey from the premises of M/s ABL. The assessee gave detailed reply to the questionnaire issued by the Assessing Officer on 06.03.2013. Thus, it is evident from the documents on record that Assessing Officer made enquiries with respect to the work performed by the assessee and also on the documents seized during survey action from the premises of Ashoka Group. It is not a case of "no enquiry", at the best it can be a case of "inadequate enquiry". It is a well settled law that where inadequate enquiry is conducted by the Assessing Officer during assessment proceedings, the Commissioner of Income Tax can not invoke revisional jurisdiction and direct the Assessing Officer to re- conduct the enquiry in a particular manners. Thus, revisional jurisdiction cannot be invoked where it is a case of inadequate enquiry to make addition. In support of his contentions, the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Nirav Modi reported as 390 ITR 292.
6
ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 5.3 The next argument raised by the ld. AR against the impugned order is that the Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in remitting the case back to the file of Assessing Officer with a direction to make further enquiries. The Commissioner of Income Tax cannot give such directions to the Assessing Officer. Under the provisions of section 263 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax has power to conduct enquiry. The Commissioner of Income Tax cannot direct the Assessing Officer to conduct roving and fishing enquiries. 5.4 The ld. AR contended that a perusal of notice issued u/s 263 of the Act and the impugned order would show that the Commissioner of Income Tax has enlarged the scope of enquiry. The reasons given in the show cause notice u/s 263 of the Act for invoking revisional jurisdiction were very limited. While passing order u/s 263 of the Act, the Commissioner of Income Tax has gone much beyond the reasons for exercising revision power. Thus, the Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in travelling beyond show cause notice issued u/s 263 of the Act. In support of his contentions the ld. AR placed reliance on the decision of Hyderabad Bench of the Tribunal in the case of K. Sudhakar Reddy V/s. AITO in ITA No. 624/HYD/2010 decided on 07.11.2012.
6. On the other hand, Shri Shashi B. Prasad representing the department vehemently supported the action of Commissioner of Income Tax in invoking revisional powers u/s 263 of the Act. The ld. D.R. submitted that Assessing Officer has not conducted any enquiry with respect to incriminating documents seized during search from the premises of M/s ABL. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) has 7 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 given specific instances to show that payment made by M/s ABL to assessee, were received back by M/s ABL in the form of loan and advances. The ld. DR further submitted that contract agreement between M/s ABL and the assessee was signed by one Shri Sanjay Kankariya on behalf of the assessee. The said Shri Sanjay Kankariya is Senior Executive in the office of M/s ABL. After verification of seized materials, it is evident that the sub contract work of M/s ABL are routed through the assessee for financial year 2008-09 onwards and funds were siphoned off through inflation of expenses under various heads including materials, purchases, the sub contract expenses etc. The ld. DR referring to the detailed findings of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) at para-5 of the impugned order submitted that the Assessing Officer has failed to conduct proper enquiry during assessment proceedings. The ld. DR pointed that after assessments were set aside in revision proceeding, the Assessing Officer conducted detailed enquiries and has passed assessment orders making substantial additions. The ld. DR in support of his submissions placed reliance on the following decisions:
i) Rajmandir Estates (P.) Ltd. V/s. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-III, 77 taxmann.com 285 (SC)
ii) Anuj Jayendra Shah V/s. Pr. CIT-35, Mumbai, 67 taxmann.com 38 ( Mumbai-Trib)
iii) CIT-II, Visakhapatnam V/s. Varanasi Khanta Rao 59 taxmann.com 175 ( Andhra Pradesh)
iv) Appollo Tyres Ltd. V/s DCIT 46 taxmann.com 421 (Kerala)
v) Vikrant Auto Suspension V/s. ACIT, Circle-22(2), Mumbai 45 taxmann.com 344 (Mumbai- Trib)
vi) Commissioner of Income Tax V/s. Jawahar Bhattacharjee 20 taxmann.com 652 ( Guahati) 8 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
vii) Malabar Industrial Co. Ltd. V/s Commissioner of Income Tax 109 Taxman 66 (SC) The ld. DR defending the order of Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 of the Act, prayed for upholding the impugned order and dismissing the appeals of the assessee.
7. We have heard the submissions made by the representatives of rival sides and have perused the order of authorities below. We have also considered the decisions on which the rival sides have placed reliance and the documents furnished by the assessee in the form of paper book. The assessee in appeals has assailed the order of Commissioner of Income Tax passed u/s 263 setting aside the assessments for assessment years 2009-10, 2010-11 and 2011-12.
A search and seizure operation was carried out at the premises of M/s ABL. Some incriminating documents were allegedly found at the premises of M/s ABL in respect of the assessee. Notice u/s 153C was issued to the assessee for the assessment years 2009-10 and 2010-11. In response to the said notice, the assessee filed return of income declaring income as was returned in the original return of income filed u/s 139 of the Act. The contention of the assessee is that assessee has already disclosed the amounts in its return of income as has been found in the documents seized from the premises of M/s ABL. The ld. AR has challenged the invoking of jurisdiction u/s 263 by the Commissioner of Income Tax by raising four objections.
i) Since no incriminating material was found during search from the premises of M/s ABL, therefore, no addition can be made in the hands of the assessee.9
ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
ii) The Assessing Officer had made detailed enquiries at the time of assessment by issuing questionnaire twice which was duly replied by the assessee hence it cannot be said that there was 'lack of enquiry', at the best it can be a case of 'inadequate enquiry'.
iii) The Commissioner of Income Tax has enlarged the scope of enquiry. The Commissioner of Income Tax has gone beyond the notice issued u/s 263 of the Act while passing revision order.
iv) The Commissioner of Income Tax has erred in remitting the matter back to the Assessing Officer for conducting roving and fishing enquiry and to re-examine the same material which the Assessing Officer has already appreciated and thereafter passed the assessment order.
8. Before proceeding further, it would be relevant to have glance at the notice issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263 of the Act. The relevant contents of the notice are reproduced herein below :
"2. A search and seizure operation was conducted in the office premises of Ashoka Group of cases and residential premises of related persons and a survey operation was conducted in the business premises of the assessee on 20.04.2010 and books and documents were found and impounded. On verification of records, it is seen that the assessee is sub-contractor of Ashoka Group of cases. The documents found have various evidences which require cross verification with reference to records and third parties. The assessee has received contract receipts and claimed huge expenses. From the records it is also learnt that the assessee may have not carried out some of the works though claimed huge expenditure without having actual expenditure. This issue needs detailed verification by causing suitable enquiries. The assessee's turnover of contract receipts and expenses are as per the following:
Asstt. Year Turnover Expenditure
Claimed
2009-10 31,52,50,624 29,66,67,895
2010-11 1,45,75,88,533 1,34,58,07,738
2011-12 1,20,88,09,762 1,15,88,12,511
10
ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015
AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
3. On perusal of the record, it is seen that the Assessing Officer has not enquired/ verified the evidences found and the claim of any expenses by the assessee against the contract receipts and accepted the incomes disclosed by the assessee and passed orders u/s 143(3) r.w.s 153C and u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act.
4. Therefore, it is clear that the A.O. did not carry out proper verification of various aspects arising from the evidences found in the seized material and expenses claimed and failed to verify the authenticity/genuineness of expenses as brought out above reflected in the books of account and tax implications before passing the said assessment order. The record shows that the Assessing Officer has not verified any expenses. It is also seen that no justification was placed on record by the A.O. before passing the assessment order with reference to expenses claimed and the income disclosed by the assessee. The failure on the part of the A.O. has rendered the assessment erroneous in so far as it is prejudicial to the interest of Revenue."
A perusal of the above notice reveals that the Commissioner of Income Tax is of the opinion that proper enquiry was not conducted by the Assessing Officer with respect to the documents found during the course of search at the premises of M/s ABL. The apprehension of Commissioner of Income Tax that income of the assessee has escaped assessment arises from the fact that the assessee has claimed huge expenditure. The Commissioner of Income Tax at the time of passing of the order u/s 263 has mentioned certain instances which according to the Commissioner of Income Tax raises an eye of suspicion over the manner in which the assessee has conducted its business and the association of assessee with M/s ABL.
9. A perusal of the documents on record reveal that the questionnaire was issued to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings for the years 2005-06 to 2011-12. The first questionnaire was issued to the assessee by the Assessing Officer on 27.11.2012. The assessee gave detailed reply to the questionnaire on 11.12.2012 and 14.12.2012. The reply of the assessee is at page No. 6 to 10 of the paper book. A perusal of the reply reveals that questions 11 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 were raised by the Assessing Officer with respect to document found/ impounded during the course of search at the premises of M/s ABL. Thereafter, another questionnaire was sent to the assessee by the Assessing Officer on 28.02.2013. The assessee vide communication dated 06.03.2013 gave detailed reply to the Assessing Officer answering the queries raised by the Assessing Officer. In the second questionnaire, the Assessing Officer had raised further queries with respect to the documents seized from the premises of M/s ABL.
Thus, from the documents on record, it is evident that Assessing Officer had made enquiries during course of assessment proceedings with respect to the document seized/ impounded from the premises of M/s ABL. We find merit in the submissions of the ld. AR that it is not a case of 'no enquiry'. However, a perusal of the assessment orders for all the three assessment years under question show that Assessing Officer while framing assessment has not discussed at all the fact regarding enquiries made during the course of assessment with respect to alleged incriminating materials seized from the premises of M/s ABL against the assessee. If the Assessing Officer has made enquiries during assessment proceedings and after examining the documents has made no addition, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot invoke the provisions of section 263 merely for the reason that the Assessing Officer has not passed elaborate order giving details of the enquiries made and the findings of Assessing Officer thereon.
10. It is a well settled law that Commissioner of Income tax can invoke the provisions of section 263 if twin conditions as envisaged under the section are satisfied i.e. 12 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
(i) the assessment order should be erroneous ; and
(ii) it is prejudicial to the interest of revenue. The revisional powers cannot be exercised unless both the conditions are fulfilled. If the Assessing Officer has taken one of the possible views while passing the assessment order and it is evident from record that the assessment order has been passed after conducting enquiry, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise revisional jurisdiction. The Commissioner of Income Tax cannot direct the Assessing Officer to re-conduct enquiry in a particular manner by exercising revisional powers.
11. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT V/s. Nirav Modi (supra) has held that if during assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee has responded to the same, then even if an assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. The relevant extract of the judgment reads as under:
"7. Firstly, the Revenue contends that the exercise of powers under Section 263 of the Act is justified as in this case, as no inquiry in respect of the gifts received during the subject years was done by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment orders for Assessment Years 2007-08 and 2008-09. This according to the Revenue is evident from the Assessment Orders dated 31st December, 2009 and 30th December, 2010 which does not even make a mention of the gifts received much less discuss and/or deal with the same. This issue is no longer res integra as this Court in Idea Cellular Ltd. v. Dy. CIT [2008] 301 ITR 407 ( Bom.) has held that if during Assessment proceedings queries were raised and the assessee responded to the same, then even if an Assessment order does not mention the same, it does not mean that the Assessing Officer has not applied his mind to the issues. It would be well-nigh impossible for an Assessing Officer to complete all assessments assigned to him under Section 143(3) of the Act if he is required to deal with all issues which arose during the Assessment Proceedings. Thus, the Assessment Order primarily deal with only those issues in respect of which the Assessee has not been able to satisfy him and give reasons for his 13 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 conclusion. This would enable the Assessee to challenge the same, if aggrieved. In fact the Gujarat High Court in CIT v. Nirma Chemical Works Ltd.[2009] 309 ITR 67/182 Taxman 183 has observed that if an assessment order were to incorporate the reasons for upholding the claim made by an assessee, the result would be an epitome and not an assessment order. In this case, during the assessment proceedings for both the Assessment Years, the Assessing Officer issued a query memos to the assessee, calling upon him to justify the genuineness of the gifts. The Respondent-Assessee responded to the same by giving evidence of the communications received from his father and his sister i.e. the donors of the gifts along with the statement of their Bank accounts. On perusal, the Assessing Officer was satisfied about the identities of the donors, the source from where these funds have come and also the creditworthiness/capacity of the donor. Once the Assessing Officer was satisfied with regard to the same, there was no further requirement on the part of the Assessing Officer to disclose his satisfaction in the Assessment Order passed thereon. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue, cannot be accepted.
8. It is next submitted that the donor had not been examined by the Assessing Officer. It is not in every case that every evidence produced has to be tested by cross examination of the person giving the evidence. It is only in cases where the evidence produced gives rise to suspicion about its veracity that further scrutiny is called for. If there is nothing on record to indicate that the evidence produced is not reliable and the Assessing Officer was satisfied with the same, then it is not open to the CIT to exercise his powers of Revision without the CIT recording how and why the order is erroneous due to not examining the donors. Thus, this objection to the impugned order by the Revenue is also not sustainable.
9. It was next submitted that no enquiry was done by the Assessing Officer to find out whether the donor Mr Deepak Modi (father) had received money from M/s. Chang Jiang as claimed. Nor any inquiry was done to find out whether the sister had in fact earned amounts on account of Foreign Exchange Transactions as claimed by her. We find that this enquiry of a source of source is not the requirement of law. Once the Assessing Officer is satisfied with the explanation offered on inquiry, it is not open to the CIT in exercise of his revsional powers direct that further enquiry has to be done. At the very highest, the case of the Revenue is that this is a case of inadequate inquiry and not of "no enquiry." It is well settled that the jurisdiction under Section 263 of the Act can be exercised by the CIT only when it is a case of lack of enquiry and not one of inadequate enquiry. This view has been taken by this Court in the matter of CIT v. Shreepati Holdings & Finance (P.) Ltd. [ITA 1879 of 2013 dated 5th October, 2013], by the Delhi High Court in CIT v. Vikas Polymers [2012] 341 ITR 537/194 Taxman 57 and in D.G. Housing Projects (supra). In fact the Delhi High Court in D.G. Housing Projects (supra) while so holding placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Gabriel (India) Ltd. (supra). It is very important to note that the CIT in his order under Section 263 of the Act has recorded the fact 14 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 that there has been no adequate inquiry. Thus, this is not a case of no inquiry, warranting order under Section 263 of the Act. Thus, this objection on the part of the Revenue, is also not sustainable."
[ Emphasized by us]
12. In the present case, documents on record clearly establish that Assessing Officer has made enquiries and after applying his mind on the materials submitted by the assessee in response to the questionnaire has accepted return of income without making further addition. Once Assessing Officer has taken a view after conducting enquiries and examining the documents, it is not open to the Commissioner of Income Tax under revisional jurisdiction to direct the Assessing Officer to re-examine the same material. Undisputedly, the present case is not the one which suffers from 'lack of enquiry'. At the best the present case can be one of those where there was 'inadequate enquiry'. Under such circumstances, the Commissioner of Income Tax cannot exercise his revisional jurisdiction.
13. The Department has placed reliance on the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajmandir Estates (P) Ltd V/s. Pr. CIT (supra) to say that where Assessing Officer completed assessment without holding requisite investigation except calling for records invoking of revisional jurisdiction u/s 263 of the Act is justified.
We are of considered view that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the aforesaid case upheld the revisional jurisdiction invoked by Commissioner of Income Tax u/s 263, as it was a case of lack of requisite enquiry. In the present case, it cannot be said that the Assessing Officer called for the records and thereafter did not scrutinize or examine the same. The Assessing Officer issued first 15 ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015 AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12 questionnaire to the assessee on 27.11.2012. After analyzing the reply of the assessee to the said questionnaire, the Assessing Officer issued second questionnaire to the assessee on 28.02.1013. In both the questionnaires, questions asked by the Assessing Officer were inter alia related to documents seized during search from the premises of M/s ABL. This shows that the Assessing Officer did apply his mind. Whatever queries were lacking in first questionnaire, the Assessing Officer completed in second questionnaire. Therefore, we are of the view that the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court of India relied on by the ld. DR will not support the case of the department being distinguishable on facts.
The other decisions on which the ld. DR has placed are also distinguishable on facts and hence does not support the case of Revenue.
14. Thus, in the light of the facts of case discussed above and the law laid down in the case of CIT V/s Nirav Modi (supra), we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals of the assessee. Order pronounced on Monday, the 17th day of April, 2017.
Sd/- Sd/-
(आर. के. पांडा/ R.K Panda) (!वकास अव थी /Vikas Awasthy)
लेखा सद य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER या यक सद य/JUDICIAL MEMBER
पण
ु े / Pune; !दनांक / Dated : 17th April, 2017.
16
ITA Nos. 600, 601 & 602/PUN/2015
AYs. 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2011-12
SB
आदे श क) *#त,ल!प अ-े!षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to :
1. अपीलाथ / The Appellant.
2. यथ / The Respondent.
3. The CIT (Central), Nagpur.
4. %वभागीय त न(ध, आयकर अपील य अ(धकरण, "बी" ब,च, पण ु े / DR, ITAT, "B" Bench, Pune.
5. गाड/ फ़ाइल / Guard File.
// True Copy // आदे शानुसार / BY ORDER, çðèðÚð¨î Ñðü¸ðó¨îðÜ /Assistant Registrar आयकर अपील य अ(धकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune