INDRAMAL B. JAIN, V. ITO WD 16(3)(1),

CO 84/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 123 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0425 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 20-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 18-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Reasonable cause
• Section: 143(3); 234B; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH I, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N. K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO WD - 16(3)(1) R. NO. 219, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI 400 007 VS. SHRI INDRAMAL B. JAIN 1501/A, SANKESHWAR DARSHAN TOWER, BEHIND MAZGAON TELEPONE EX, LOVE LANE, BYCULLA, MUMBAI 400 010 PAN:-AAAPJ 9837 E (APPELLANT) (RESPON DENT) C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 SHRI INDRAMAL B. JAIN 1501/A, SANKESHWAR DARSHAN TOWER, BEHIND MAZGAON TELEPONE EX, LOVE LANE, BYCULLA, MUMBAI 400 010 PAN:-AAAPJ 9837 E VS. ITO WD-16(3)(1) R. NO. 219, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR TARDEO ROAD MUMBAI 400 007 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : MS. NATASHA MANGAT REVENUE BY : SHRI SACCHIDANAND DUBEY DATE OF HEARING : 11 .02.2015 DATE OF ORDER : 20.02.2015 ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 2 O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, JM: THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AND CROSS OBJECTION BY THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 31.01.2012, PASSED BY LD.CIT(A)-27, MUMBAI FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASSESSME NT PASSED U/S 143(3) FOR THE A.Y. 2007-08. 2. IN THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL THE REVENUE AS CHALLENG ED THE IMPUGNED ORDER ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS:- 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE AOS REMAND REPORT ON ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF 20% OF RS.5,11,926/- ON ACCOUNT OF EXPEN SES AT PARA (G) OF THE REMAND REPORT AS QUOTED BY THE CIT(A). 2. THE CIT(A) ERRED IN ASKING FOR COMMENTS OF THE A O AND NOT DIRECTING FOR A VERIFICATION/EXAMINATION OF THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM OF LOAN LEADING TO A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.22,00,234/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. CONSEQUENTLY , NO VERIFICATION/EXAMINATION WAS DONE ON THE CLAIM OF L OAN TRANSACTION AND INTEREST PAID THEREON. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW, THE O RDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS MAY BE RESTORED TO THE AO FOR VERIFICATION AS THE ORDER WAS PASSED U/S 144 OF THE ACT. 3. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESSEE I S AN INDIVIDUAL CARRYING ON THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE TRADING FROM HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN, M/S. JAIN ENTERPRISES. FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT VARIOUS NOTICES WERE ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, NO RESPONSE OR COMPLIANCE WAS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASS ESSMENT U/S 144, AFTER MAKING THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:- ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 3 RETURNED INCOME, AS PER RETURN. RS.2,66,836/- ADD:- (A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE INTEREST RS.22,00,234/- (B) ANY OTHER INCOME FOR RS. 14,153/- (C) ON ACCOUNT THE RENT RS. 7,85,400/- (D) UNEXPLAINED INCOME RS. 3,78,544/- (E) 20% OF 5,11,926 ON ACCOUNT EXPENSES RS. 1,02,385/- --------------------------------- RS.34,80, 716/- TOTAL INCOME RS.37,47,552/- ROUNDED OFF TO RS.37,47,550/- 4. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED TH AT, ALL THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS, HENCE THE DETAILS REQUIRE D COULD NOT BE FURNISHED. THE ASSESSEE THEREAFTER, FURNISHED ALL T HE RELEVANT DETAILS AND EVIDENCES EXPLAINING THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION ON WHIC H VARIOUS ADDITIONS WERE MADE BY THE AO. LD. THE CIT(A) ACCORDINGLY FOR WARDED ALL THE DOCUMENTS AND EVIDENCES TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SUBMIT HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE LETTER DATED 03. 11.2011 SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMP UGNED APPELLATE ORDER. HOWEVER, FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE THE SAME ARE REPRODUCED HEREIN AGAIN:- THE LD. CIT(A) HAS SOUGHT THE COMMENTS OF THE AO N THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE/AR IN THE COURSE O F APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. THE COMMENTS OF THE AO ARE AS UNDER:- (A)THE ARS LETTER DATED 14.07.2011 STATES THAT THE NON ATTENDANCE DURING ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WAS DUE TO THE ASSESSEE HAVING SHIFTED FROM HIS OLD ADDRESS 22. SA I BHAVAN, 3RD FLOOR. FLAT NO 33, 12TH KHETWADI BACK ROAD, MUMBAI -4, TO HIS NEW ADDRESS AT 1501/A, SANKHESHWAR DARSHAN TOWER, B EHIND MAZGAON TELEPHONE EXCHANGE, LOVELANE, BYCULLA, MUMB AI - ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 4 400010. IT MAY BE MENTIONED THAT THERE IS NOTHING O N RECORD TO INDICATE THAT THE CHANGE IN ADDRESS WAS NOTIFIED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE DEPARTMENT. ACCORDINGLY, REFERENCE WAS MADE BY THE AO TO THE ADDRESS ON RECORD WHICH RESULTED IN NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE'S SIDE AND THEREFORE ORDER CAME TO BE PASS ED U/S 144. (B) ASSESSEE HAS NOW FILED EVIDENCES PERTAINING TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ON THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS; SR. NO. GROUND OF ADDITION AMOUNT IN RS. A INTEREST RS.22,00,234/- B ANY OTHER INCOME RS. 14,153/- C REND PAID RS. 7,85,400/- D UNEXPLAINED INCOME RS. 3,78,544/- E 20% OF RS.5,11,926/- ON A/C OF EXPENSES RS. 1,02,385/- RS.34,80,716/- (C) INTEREST ON LOANS: AS PER THE ASSESSEE THE LOAN WCIS TAKEN ON INTEREST FOR BUSINESS PURPOSE, THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN LOAN FROM VARIOUS PARTIES, FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBSTANTIA TION, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW SUBMITTED A COPY OF LOAN CONFIRMAT ION AND A COPY OF THE TDS DEDUCTED. ON THE FACE OF IT, THE PA PER REQUIREMENT AS REGARDS PAN ETC WAS COMPLIED WITH BY THE ASSESSEE. THE CAPACITY OF THE LENDER IN TERMS OF TH E SAID DOCUMENTS APPEARS TO BE RECORDED AND ON THE BASIS O F THE SUBMISSIONS THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REASON TO PRIMA FACIE DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTIONS. (D) ANY OTHER INCOME: THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW SUBMITTE D THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION. HOWEVER THE ASSE SSEE HAD ALREADY OFFERED THIS INCOME TO TAX IN THE ROL. ADDI TION BY THE AO HAS RESULTED IN DOUBLE TAXATION. (E) RENT PAID: THE ASSESSEE HAS NOW SUBMITTED THE L EDGER ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE RENT AGREEMENT. ON THE BASIS OF THE RECORD SUBMITTED THERE APPEARS TO BE NO REAS ON TO PRIMA FACIE DOUBT THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION . ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 5 (F) UNEXPLAINED INCOME: THE AD HAD ADDED RS 3.78.54 4/- ON THE BASIS OF THE TDS DETAILS AVAILABLE IN THE ROI. THE ASSESSEE HAS NO'L-V SUBMITTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACT IONS PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE AND(A)ACIEL CREATIONS(RS 3,49,200/-) (B) S A JEWELS (RS 29,344/-) AND (C) SMT. JAYANTI I JAIN ( RS 16,043/-). THE TOTAL OF ALL THE THREE TRANSACTIONS AMOUNT TO RS 3,78,544/-. AN AMOUNT OF RS 3,78,544/- HAS BEEN RETURNED AS INC OME FROM OTHER SOURCES BY THE ASSESSEE IN HIS ROL. HOWEVER, IN THE COLUMN APPEARING IN THE ROL PERTAINING TO TDS DETAILS, THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HAS BEEN RECEIVED FROM ACIEL CREATIONS (RS 3.49,200/-) AND ONE VIMALKUMAR F JAIN (RS 29,344/-). THEREFORE IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE ENTITI ES FROM WHOM THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED IN THE ROI AND THE ENTITIES AT (B) AND (C) ABOVE ARE THE SAME . (G) 20% OF RS.5,11,926/- ON A/C OF EXPENSES. THE A SSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE TRANSACTION PER TAINING TO THE EXPENSES DEBITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT. THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS NOT SPECIFIED THE INDIVIDUAL COMPONENTS W HICH GO TO FORM THE TOTAL OF RS.5,11,926/-. THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED A SUMMARY AND LEDGER A/CS PERTAINING TO AN AMOUNT OF RS.7,16,723/- DEBITED TO THE P/L ACCOUNT. THEREFORE THOUGH THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,11,926/- IS INCLUDIBLE IN THE AMOUNT OF RS.7,16,723/-IT IS UNCERTAIN AS TO WHICH TRANSACTIO NS THE FORMER AMOUNT CORRESPONDS TO WITH REGARD TO THE SUBMISSION NOW MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION MADE BEFORE HIM AND THE CONTENTS OF THE REMAND REPORT GI VEN BY THE AO, HELD THAT THE AO HAS EXAMINE THE ENTIRE MATERIAL SUBMITT ED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION ON ACCOUNT OF V ARIOUS ADDITIONS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDING WAS SATISFIED WITH THE ASSESSEES EXPLAN ATION AND THE EVIDENCES AND HAS ACCEPTED THE ASSESSEES CONTENTIO N ON MOST OF THE ISSUES. HOWEVER, THE LD. CIT(A) WITH REGARD TO ADDI TION ON ACCOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME BASED ON TDS CERTIFICATES HELD T HAT IN RESPECT OF TWO ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 6 PERSONS, THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FURNISHED TDS CERTIFI CATE IN RESPECT OF THE INTEREST RECEIVED, THEREFORE, HE CONFIRMED THE SUM OF RS.45,387/- BEING UN-RECONCILED INCOME REPORTED IN THE TDS AND INCOME SHOWN IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. 6. BEFORE US, LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED U/S 144 AS THE ASSESSEE DID NOT COMPLY WI TH THE AND OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO. ONCE, THE MATTER WAS REMA NDED TO THE AO TO EXAMINE THE EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) F OR THE FIRST TIME, THEN THE LD. CIT(A) HIMSELF SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE CLA IM OF THE ASSESSEE, SPECIFICALLY WITH REGARD TO THE LOANS WHICH HAD LED TO DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST OF EXPENSES. WITH REGARD TO OTHER DISALLOW ANCE OF EXPENSES ALSO, LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT GIVEN HIS OWN FINDINGS. TH EREFORE, MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO FOR F RESH CONSIDERATION. 7. BEFORE US, LEARNED COUNSEL, MS. NATASHA MANGAT S UBMITTED THAT THE THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NOT ATTENDING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AS NONE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO COULD BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ASSESSEE SUBMITTED ALL THE NECESSARY INFORMATION AN D DETAILS AND HAS EXPLAINED THE ENTIRE MATTER DULY SUPPORTED BY EVIDE NCES RELATING TO ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS TAKEN NOTE OF THIS FACT AND HAS REMANDED THE MATTER TO THE AO TO EXAMINE AL L THE INFORMATION AND DETAILS AND TO SUBMIT HIS REMAND REPORT. IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ONLY VER IFIED THE DETAILS BUT HAS ALSO CARRIED OUT DETAIL SCRUTINY. THEREAFTER, H E HAS GIVEN HIS COMMENTS ACCEPTING THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION WHICH ARE CORROBORATED BY MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. REGARDING INTEREST ON LOANS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS CATEGORICALLY HELD THAT GENUINENESS OF THE SAID TRANSACTION ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 7 CANNOT BE DOUBTED. SHE SUBMITTED THAT, ONCE THE LOA N WHICH WAS TAKEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR HAVE BEEN HELD TO BE GENUINE BY THE AO IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS, THEN INTEREST PAID ON SUCH LOAN S CANNOT BE DISALLOWED, SPECIALLY WHEN TDS HAS BEEN DEDUCTED ON PAYMENT OF THE INTEREST TO THE PARTIES. REGARDING DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES ALSO, SHE SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,11,926/- ON ACCOU NT OF WHICH AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF 20% HAS BEEN MADE PART OF THE INDIR ECT EXPENSES OF RS.7,16,723/- DEBITED IN THE P&L ACCOUNT. EACH AND EVERY HEAD OF EXPENSES WAS DULY EXPLAINED WITH EVIDENCES AND HOW THEY WERE INCURRED FOR THE BUSINESS PURPOSE. SOME OF THE MAJO R AMOUNT HAVE BEEN INCURRED THROUGH CHEQUE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN T HE REMAND REPORT HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENT EXCEPT FOR HOLDING TH AT IT IS NOT CLEAR HOW THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER H AS TAKEN THE FIGURE OF RS.5,11,926/-. THUS, THE LD. CIT(A) FINDINGS WHI CH IS COMPLETELY BASED ON REMAND REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SHO ULD BE ACCEPTED. 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO PER USED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. IT IS AN UNDISPUTED FACT THAT NONE OF THE NOTICES ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD BE SE RVED UPON THE ASSESSEE DUE TO CHANGE OF ADDRESS. HENCE THE ASSESS MENT ORDER WAS COMPLETED U/S 144, WHEREIN THE AO HAS ADDED THE AMO UNT OF INTEREST PAYMENT AND HAS MADE AD HOC DISALLOWANCE OF CERTAIN EXPENSES AND ADDED UNEXPLAINED INCOME ON ACCOUNT OF UN-RECONCILE D INCOME FLOWING FROM THE TDS DETAILS AND AS SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), ENTIRE DETAILS AND EXPLANATION WITH REGARD TO EACH AND EVERY ADDITION WAS SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) ALONG WITH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS. ALL THESE DETAILS WERE REMANDED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, WHO HAS SUBMITTED HIS REMAND REPORT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 8 REMAND PROCEEDINGS HAS ANALYZED EACH AND EVERY DETA ILS AND HAS GIVEN HIS POSITIVE FINDING ON MOST OF THE ISSUES STATING THAT THE MOST OF THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, SPECIFICALLY RELATING TO INTEREST PAID ON LOANS. THE CONTENT OF THE REMAND REPORT HAS ALREADY BEEN R EPRODUCED IN THE FOREGOING PARAGRAPH. SO FAR AS DISALLOWANCE OF INTE REST IS CONCERNED, IT IS SEEN THAT AO HAS VERIFIED THE LOAN CONFIRMATION AND THE COPY OF TDS CERTIFICATE DEDUCTED ON SUCH A PAYMENT. EVEN THE CA PACITY OF THE LENDERS HAS ALSO BEEN ACCEPTED. THUS, THERE IS NO REASON FO R CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT MADE BY THE ASSESS EE TO THE LOAN CREDITORS FROM WHOM LOANS WERE TAKEN IN EARLIER YEA RS. REGARDING AD HOC DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF EXPENSES, IT IS SEEN THA T IN THE REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN ANY ADVE RSE COMMENT WITH REGARD TO THE GENUINENESS OF THE EXPENSES OR HAS GI VEN ANY ADVERSE COMMENT THAT THEY ARE UNVERIFIABLE. HE HAS SIMPLY S TATED THAT IT IS NOT CLEAR AS TO, FROM WHERE THE FIGURE OF RS.5,11,926/- HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE AO IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT ORDER, WHEN THE A SSESSEE HAS DEBITED THE AMOUNT IN THE P/L ACCOUNT AT RS.7,16,723/-. IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY ADVERSE COMMENT WITH REGARD TO UN-VERIFIABILITY OF EXPENSES, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO SUSTAIN ANY PART OF THE DISALLOW ANCE ON AD HOC BASIS. THUS, THE FINDING OF THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS COMPLE TELY BASED ON REMAND REPORT OF THE AO IS UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT STANDS DISMISSED. 9. NOW WE WILL TAKE UP CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, VIDE WHICH THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED:- 1. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER (AD) HAS ERRED IN OBJECTI NG THE JUDICIOUS APPROACH ADOPTED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) BY WAY OF A ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 9 REMAND REPORT AFTER CONCLUDING THE REMAND PROCEEDIN GS IN THE DUE COURSE OF LAW. 2. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW; THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN OBJECTING THE JUDICIOUS VIEW TA KEN BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) REGARDING THE ALLOWANCE OF THE LEGIT IMATE INTEREST EXPENSE IN HIS SPEAKING ORDER. 3. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW; THE LEARNED AO ERRED IN MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 45,387 I -ON ACCOUNT OF UNRECONCILED INTEREST WITHOUT APPRECIATING FACTS AND BY BRUSHING ASIDE THE SUBMISSIONS AND EXPLANATIONS MAD E DURING PROCEEDINGS. 4. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW; THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDI NGS U/S. 271(1)(C). 5. UNDER THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF CASE AND IN LAW; THE LEARNED AO HAS ERRED IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S. 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 10. GROUND NO. 1 AND 2 ARE IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), HENCE THEY ARE TREATED AS INFRUCTUOUS. 11. REGARDING ADDITION OF RS.45,387/- ON ACCOUNT OF UN-RECONCILED INTEREST, LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT, BEFORE TH E ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS AS WELL AS BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A), THE ENTIRE INTEREST INCOME WAS RECONCILED AND IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT NONE OF THE INTEREST INCOME CAN BE HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE AMOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.3, 78,544/- AS UNEXPLAINED MERELY ON ACCOUNT OF DIFFERENCE IN THE FIGURES SHOWN IN TDS CERTIFICATE WITH THAT OF THE INCOME SHOWN BY THE AS SESSEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. SHE DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE P/L ACCOU NT ENCLOSED IN THE PAPER BOOK AND SUBMITTED THAT, SUM OF RS.45,387/- H AS BEEN DULY SHOWN AS INDIRECT INCOME. SHE ALSO FILED COPY OF CO NFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT OF TWO PARTIES FROM WHOM INTEREST AGGREGATING TO RS .45,387/- WAS RECEIVED. ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 10 12. LD. DR ON THE OTHER HAND STRONGLY RELIED UPON T HE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 13. AFTER CAREFULLY CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIO NS AND ALSO ON PERUSAL OF PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT AND CONFIRMATION O F THE ACCOUNTS AS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, WE FIND THAT IN T HE P/L ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD INDIRECT INCOME, AMOUNT OF LOANS RECEIVE D OF RS.45,387/- HAS DULY BEEN CREDITED. SUCH A PAYMENT RECEIVED IS ALSO CORROBORATED BY CONFIRMATION OF ACCOUNT BY M/S. S.A. JEWELLS MUMBAI AND JAYANT I. JAIN, WHEREIN DETAILS OF INTEREST RECEIVED AND ALSO THE T DS DEDUCTED ON SUCH LOANS HAS BEEN GIVEN. THUS, IN WAKE OF THESE EVIDEN CES, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE IS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEES GROUND NO. 3 IS ALLOWED . 14. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO INITIATION OF PENALTY P ROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C), WHICH IS PREMATURE AND HENCE TREATED AS DISMISSED. 15. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S 23 4B AND 234C, WHICH IS CONSEQUENTIAL IN NATURE, HENCE SAME IS DISMISSED . 16. IN THE RESULT THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 17. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED WHEREAS CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PA RTLY ALLOWED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 20 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015. SD/- SD/- (N.K. BILLAIYA) (AMIT SHUKLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 20.02.2015 *SRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 2471/MUM/2012 C.O. NO. 84/MUM/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 11 COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT(A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR I BENCH //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER DY/ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.