AHK Broking Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Ahmedabad

ITA 1071/AHD/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2375 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 28-04-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: LALIT P SHAH
• Assessee Lawyers: S N DIVETIA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Principle of natural justice; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 143(3); 133(6)

Judgement Text

ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 1 OF 9 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD D BENCH, AHMEDABAD [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR VP AND MAHAVIR PRASAD JM] ITA NO.: 1071/AHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 A H K BROKING PVT LTD ..APPELLANT (FORMERLY KNOWN AS AHK DEVELOPERS PVT LTD) 404, ANIKET BUILDING, NEAR MUNICIPAL MARKET C G ROAD, NAVRANGPURA, AHMEDABAD 380 009 [PAN: AAHCA 8282 C] VS DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE 1(1)(1), AHMEDABAD ..........RESPO NDENT APPEARANCES BY S N DIVETIA FOR THE APPELLANT LALIT P SHAH FOR THE RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : AUGUST 2, 2 018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : NOVEMBER 1, 2018 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR, VP: 1. BY WAY OF THIS APPEAL, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLEN GED CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS)S ORDER DATED 7 TH MARCH 2016, IN THE MATTER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13. 2. GRIEVANCES RAISED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS FOLLOW S: 1.1. THE ORDER PASSED U/S.250 ON 07.03.2016 FOR A. Y.2012-13 BY CIT(A)-1, ABAD, CONFIRMING THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES AGGREGATING TO RS.7,05,08,203/- MADE BY AO IS WHOLLY ILLEGAL, UNLAWFUL AND AGAINST THE PRINCIP LES OF NATURAL JUSTICE. 1.2 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN NOT CONSIDERING FULLY AND PROPERLY THE EXPLANATIONS FURNISHED AND T HE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE APPELLANT. 1.3 THE LD. CIT(A) HAS GRIEVOUSLY ERRED IN LAW AND OR ON FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES: (A) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES RS. 4, 33,800 (B) DISALLOWANCE OF BOGUS EXPENDITURE RS.94,48,000 (C) UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS RS .6,06,26,403 ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 2 OF 9 2.1 THAT IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CAS E AS WELL AS IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE CONFIRMED ABOVE-SAID ADDITIONS/DI SALLOWANCES. 3.1 THE OBSERVATIONS MADE AND CONCLUSIONS REACHED BY BOTH THE LOWER AUTHORITIES SO AS TO MAKE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES ARE NOT ADMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN SO FAR AS THE SAME ARE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDENCE ON REC ORD AND PREJUDICIAL TO THE APPELLANT. 3. WHAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON IN THIS APPEAL THUS IS CORRECTNESS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A)S ACTION IN CONFIRMING AN ADDITION O F RS 6,06,26,403 IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWAN CE OF RS 94,48,000 IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED BOGUS EXPENDITURE AND CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE O F RS 4,33,800 IN RESPECT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES. WE WILL TAKE UP THESE THREE ISSUES ON BY ONE. 4. SO FAR AS THE FIRST ISSUE, I.E. ADDITION OF RS 6 ,06,26,403 AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS, IS CONCERNED, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THI S. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM CERTAIN COMPANIES WHICH ARE SHOWN AS CLO SING BALANCE- RS 47,96,088 FROM JAMIE PROPERTIES PVT LTD, RS 2,08,96,548 FROM NCL RESEARC H AND FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD, RS 1,13,77,542 FROM PALLA LAND DEVELOPERS PVT LTD, RS 68,22,369 FROM PARTH FINSTOCK PVT LTD, RS 1,49,68,852 FROM PAWAN ESTATE DEVELOPERS PVT LTD AND RS 17,64.904 FROM SARVAGYA BUILDERS PVT LTD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ISSUED NOT ICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) TO THESE PARTIES TO OBTAIN INFORMATION, SUCH AS COPY OF ACCOUNT OF T HE ASSESSEE IN THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, YEAR END FINANCIAL STATEMENTS, COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT AND COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURN ETC, FROM THESE PARTIES BUT EITHER THE NOTICES COULD NOT BE SERVED OR THERE WAS NO COMPLIANCE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER THEN TOOK UP THE MATTER WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE COMPLETE ADDRESSES OF THE PARTIES , AS AVAILABLE IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THAT SARVAGYA BUILDERS HAS SHIFTED TO A NEW ADDRESS WHICH WAS ALSO FURNISHED, THAT AS FOR PALLA LAND DEVELOPERS, THE NOTICE COULD NOT BE SERV ED TO THIS PARTY AS THE RELEVANT PERSON WAS OUT OF TOWN ATTENDING TO A MARRIAGE ON THAT DATE, T HAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF GIVING COMPLETE DETAILS OF THE PARTIES, THAT THE TR ANSACTIONS ARE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS WHICH SHOWS GENUINENESS, THAT COPIES OF ACCOUNTS A RE DULY FURNISHED, AND THAT SINCE THESE COMPANIES ARE FORMED UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS IS DULY PROVED BY THE FACT THAT THEY ARE IN THE RECORDS OF THE REGIST RAR OF COMPANIES. NONE OF THESE SUBMISSIONS FOUND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE ASSESSING OFF ICER. IT APPEARS THAT ON 13 TH MARCH 2015 THE ASSESSEE FILED THE COPIES OF BALANCE CONFIRMATI ONS, INCOME TAX RETURN AND BANK STATEMENT ETC. IN RESPECT OF JAMIE PROPERTIES, PAVAN ESTATE D EVELOPERS, PALLA LAND DEVELOPERS AND NCL RESEARCH, AND THESE DOCUMENTS SHOWED DEPOSITS IN TH E BANK JUST BEFORE THE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE. AS FOR THE REMAINING CREDITORS, THE ASSES SEE DID NOT HAVE ANY FURTHER DETAILS. THESE SUBMISSIONS DID NOT SATISFY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THERE WAS NO RESPONSE TO THE NOTICES UNDER SECTION 133(6) ISSUED TO THESE COMPANIES, THAT THE MATERIAL ON RECORD DID NOT SHOW CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE LENDER S- PARTICULARLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE DEPOSITS SHORTLY BEFORE THE PAYMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE AND THA T MERE EXISTENCE OF COMPANIES ON THE ROC WEBSITE DOES NOT EVIDENCE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSA CTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, ACCORDINGLY, TREATED THESE CREDITS, AGGREGATING TO RS 6,06,26,403, AS UNEXPLAINED CREDITS AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSE E. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. T HE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 3 OF 9 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. SO FAR AS THE GENUINENESS OF UNEXPLAINED CREDITS IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE IS CONCERNED, WE FIND THAT A SMC BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNA L, SPEAKING THROUGH ONE OF US (I.E. THE VICE PRESIDENT), IN THE CASE OF PAVANKUMAR M SANGHA VI VS ITO [(2017) 59 ITR (T) 359 I(AHD)], HAS DEALT WITH THIS ASPECT OF MATTER IN CO NSIDERABLE DETAIL, AND THE VIEWS SO EXPRESSED HAVE BEEN CONFIRMED BY HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE JUDGMENT REPORTED AS PAVANKUMAR M SANGHAVI VS ITO [(2018) 404 ITR 601 (G UJ)] AND FINALLY BY HONBLE SUPREME COURT, BY DISMISSING THE SLP, IN THE JUDGME NT REPORTED AS [(2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 398 (SC)]. WE MAY REFER TO REPRODUCE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS MADE BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE SAID DECISION: 8. AS I PROCEED TO DEAL WITH GENUINENESS ASPECT, IT IS IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT WHAT IS GENUINE AND WHAT IS NOT GENUINE IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION BASED ON FACTS OF THE CASE VIS--VIS THE GROUND REALITIES. THE FACTS OF THE CA SE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED IN ISOLATION WITH THE GROUND REALTIES. IT WILL, THEREFORE, BE USEFUL TO U NDERSTAND AS TO HOW THE SHELL ENTITIES, WHICH THE LOAN CREDITORS ARE ALLEGED TO BE, TYPICALLY FUN CTION, AND THEN COMPARE THESE CHARACTERISTICS WITH THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN T HE LIGHT OF WELL SETTLED LEGAL PRINCIPLES. A SHELL ENTITY IS GENERALLY AN ENTITY WITHOUT ANY SIG NIFICANT TRADING, MANUFACTURING OR SERVICE ACTIVITY, OR WITH HIGH VOLUME LOW MARGIN TRANSACTIO NS- TO GIVE IT COLOUR OF A NORMAL BUSINESS ENTITY, USED AS A VEHICLE FOR VARIOUS FINANCIAL MAN OEUVRES. A SHELL ENTITY, BY ITSELF, IS NOT AN ILLEGAL ENTITY BUT IT IS THEIR ACT OF ABATEMENT OF, AND BEING PART OF, FINANCIAL MANOEUVRING TO LEGITIMISE ILLICIT MONIES AND EVADE TAXES, THAT TAK ES IT ACTIONS BEYOND WHAT IS LEGALLY PERMISSIBLE. THESE ENTITIES HAVE EVERY SEMBLANCE OF A GENUINE BUSINESS- ITS LEGAL OWNERSHIP BY PERSONS IN EXISTENCE, STATUTORY DOCUMENTATION AS NECESSARY FOR A LEGITIMATE BUSINESS AND A DOCUMENTATION TRAIL AS A LEGITIMATE TRANSACTION WOU LD NORMALLY FOLLOW. THE ONLY THING WHICH SETS IT APART FROM A GENUINE BUSINESS ENTITY IS LAC K OF GENUINENESS IN ITS ACTUAL OPERATIONS. THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THESE ENTITIES, ARE ONLY TO FACILITATE FINANCIAL MANOEUVRING FOR THE BENEFIT OF ITS CLIENTS, OR, WITH THAT PREDOMINANT U NDERLYING OBJECTIVE, TO GIVE THE COLOUR OF GENUINENESS TO THESE ENTITIES. THESE SHELL ENTITIES , WHICH ARE ROUTINELY USED TO LAUNDER UNACCOUNTED MONIES, ARE A FACT OF LIFE, AND AS MUCH A PART OF THE UNDERBELLY OF THE FINANCIAL WORLD, AS MANY OTHER EVILS. EVEN A LAYMAN, MUCH LES S A MEMBER OF THIS SPECIALIZED TRIBUNAL, CANNOT BE OBLIVIOUS OF THESE GROUND REALITIES. 9. I HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AN AMOU NT OF RS 10,00,000 FROM NATASHA ENTERPRISES ON 12TH AUGUST 2006, AND, AS A PLAIN LO OK AT THE CANARA BANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDER, WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 40 ONWARDS OF THE PAPER BOOK, WOULD SHOW, THERE IS A CREDIT OF RS 10,00,000 JUST BEFORE THIS CHEQUE IS PAID. TH E BANK BALANCE BEFORE THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS, AND AFTER THESE TWO TRANSACTIONS, WAS ONLY RS 13,717. QUITE INTERESTINGLY, AGAIN ON 14TH AUGUST 2006 IN THE SAME BANK ACCOUNT, THERE ARE DEBIT AND CREDIT TRANSACTIONS OF AROUND RS 15 LAKHS EACH AND THE BALANCE AS ON THE E ND OF THAT DATE IS RS 8,737. ON 18TH AND 19TH AUGUST 2006, AGAIN THERE ARE QUITE A FEW TRANS ACTIONS AGGREGATING TO RS 10 LAKHS ON DEBIT AS ALSO CREDIT SIDE, AND YET AGAIN CLOSING BA LANCE IS RS 7,578. ON 22ND AUGUST 2006, THERE ARE TRANSACTIONS OF DEBITS AND CREDITS OF ARO UND R 32.50 LAKHS EACH, AND THE CLOSING BALANCE AT THE END OF THE DAY IS AGAIN RS 7,578. AS CAN BE SEEN FROM THIS STATEMENT, ON 29TH AUGUST 2006, THERE ARE DEBIT AND CREDIT TRANSACTION S OF RS 15 LAKHS EACH AND ONCE AGAIN THE CLOSING BALANCE OF THE DAY IS RS 7,578. THIS KIND O F THE STATE OF BANK ACCOUNT DOES NOT INSPIRE ANY FAITH IN THE PROPOSITION THAT THE ENTITY IN QUE STION IS A GENUINE BUSINESS CONCERN. A LOOK AT THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT LEAD TO THIS CONCLUSION EITHER. THE LENDER HAS SHOWN A TURNOVER OF RS 122.92 CRORES BUT THERE IS NO CLOSING STOCK, AND A PROFIT OF ALMOST 0.09% ON THE TURNOVER LEADING TO A TAX PAYME NT OF RS 1,96,138. THE LENDER MAKES ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 4 OF 9 PURCHASES OF RS 123.04 CRORES IN SUCH DIVERSIFIED A REAS AS CUT AND POLISHED DIAMONDS (RS 73.15 CRORES), PLYWOOD AND ALUMINIUM (RS 11.72 CROR E), ROUGH DIAMONDS (RS 4.36 CRORES), SOFTWARE (RS 25.01 CRORES) AND OTHER ITEMS (RS 8.79 CRORES), AND SELLS THESE PRODUCTS TOO BUT ALL THAT THE LENDER HAS SPENT ON SALARIES IS RS 2,2 6,000, ON OFFICE EXPENSES IS RS 8,560, ON OFFICE RENT IS RS 27,600 AND ON PRINTING AND STATIO NERY IS RS 8,560. ALL THIS IS SIMPLY NOT REPRESENTATIVE OF WHAT A GENUINE BUSINESS WOULD TYP ICALLY BE. AS REGARDS MOHIT INTERNATIONAL ALSO, THE STORY IS NO DIFFERENT. THE BANK STATEMENT , WHICH IS PLACED AT PAGES 75 ONWARDS, HAS THE SAME THEME OF HIGH TRANSACTIONS DURING THE DAY AND A CONSISTENTLY MINIMAL BALANCE AT THE END OF THE WORKING DAY. ON 28TH APRIL 2006, I.E. TH E DAY THE ASSESSEE IS GIVEN RS 10,00,000, THERE ARE CREDIT ENTRIES OF ALMOST SIMILAR AMOUNTS, AND HE BALANCE AFTER THESE TRANSACTIONS IS A SMALL AMOUNT OF RS 13,020. SIMILAR IS THE PATTERN OF TRANSACTIONS ON ALL THE DAYS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THIS STATEMENT IS PLACED BEFORE ME. ON 23R D MARCH 2007, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OPENING BALANCE IS RS 1,36,611 AND THERE ARE HUGE DEBITS AN D CREDIT ENTRIES ON 23RD AND 24TH MARCH, AGGREGATING TO ALMOST RS 4 CRORES ON DEBIT AS ALSO CREDIT, AND THE CLOSING BALANCE AT THE END OF 24TH MARCH IS RS 85,991. ON A TURNOVER OF RS 127 .87 CRORES, THE PROFIT IS LESS THAN 0.09% RESULTING IN TAX OUTGO OF RS 2,96,218. TO EFFECT TH IS SCALE OF OPERATIONS, THE LENDER INCURS NO TRAVELLING OR TELEPHONE EXPENSE, AND ENTIRE EXPENSE S OF THE BUSINESS, EXCEPT ON BROKERAGE AND ASSORTMENT OF DIAMONDS, ARE LESS THAN RS 5 LAKHS IN THE YEAR. INTERESTINGLY, IN TODAY'S WORLD WHERE AN AVERAGE HUMAN BEING, MUCH LESS A BUSINESS ORGANIZATION, CAN LIVE WITHOUT TELEPHONES, THIS BUSINESS ENTITY HAS PROSPERED WITH OUT A RUPEE SPENT OF TELEPHONES. THE LEVEL OF TURNOVER AND THE EXPENDITURE INCURRED ON ACHIEVI NG SUCH HIGH TURNOVER DO NOT MATCH AT ALL. THE NUMBERS DO NOT ADD UP AND THE DETAILS FILED IN RESPECT OF THESE LENDERS DONOT CONVINCE ME THAT THE LENDERS ARE ROUTINE BUSINESSES. GIVEN THIS BACKGROUND THE ASSESSEE S INABILITY TO PRODUCE THE RELATED PERSONS OR EVEN GIVE THEIR CURR ENT WHEREABOUTS MAKES THE STORY OF GENUINE TRANSACTIONS EVEN MORE UNBELIEVABLE. IT IS ALSO IMPORTANT TO BEAR IN MIND THE FACT THAT LENDING FOR AN INTEREST @12% P.A. WITHOUT ANY SECUR ITY IS NOT SOMETHING WHICH PEOPLE DO FOR RANK OUTSIDERS. THERE HAS TO BE SOME CLOSE ASSOCIAT ION TO GET SUCH A KIND OF UNSECURED CREDIT AT SUCH LOW RATES. WHEN I CONSIDER THIS SITUATION, COUPLED WITH THE FACT THAT (I) THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO PRODUCE THESE LENDERS FOR VERI FICATION AND REASONABLY EXPLAIN THE COMPLETE CIRCUMSTANCES IN WHICH THESE LENDERS, WHO WERE NOT EVEN ROUTINELY ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING LOANS AND ADVANCES, GAVE HIM UNS ECURED LOANS ON 12% P.A INTEREST- WHICH ESSENTIALLY IS POSSIBLE IN SITUATIONS OF CLOSE RELA TIONSHIPS AND TRUST; AND (II) THE ASSESSEE HAS MAINTAINED STOIC SILENCE ON BEING TOLD ABOUT THESE LENDERS BEING ALLEGED TO BE SHELL ENTITIES, I AM NOT INCLINED TO BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE GENUINE B USINESS TRANSACTIONS. AS I DO SO, I AM REMINDED OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT'S OBSERVATION, IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE [1971] 82 ITR 540 , TO THE EFFECT THAT 'SCIENCE HAS NOT YET INVENTED ANY INSTRUMENT TO TEST THE RELIABILITY OF THE EVIDENCE PLACED BEFORE A COU RT OR TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, THE COURTS AND TRIBUNALS HAVE TO JUDGE THE EVIDENCE BEFORE THEM BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES'. SIMILARLY, IN A LATER DECISION IN T HE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL V. CIT [1995] 214 ITR 801/80 TAXMAN 89 (SC) , HON'BLE SUPREME COURT REJECTED THE THEORY THAT IT IS FOR ALLEGER TO PROVE THAT THE APPARENT AND NOT REAL, AND OBSERV ED THAT, THIS, IN OUR OPINION, IS A SUPERFICIAL APPROACH TO THE PROBLEM. THE MATTER HAS TO BE CONSIDERED IN THE LIGHT OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES. ........SIMILARLY THE OBSERVATION .. .........THAT IF IT IS ALLEGED THAT THESE TICKETS W ERE OBTAINED THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEANS, IT IS UPON THE A LLEGER TO PROVE THAT IT IS SO, IGNORES THE REALITY. THE TRANSACTION ABOUT PURCHASE OF WINNING TICKET TAKES PLACE IN SECRET AND DIRECT EVIDENCE ABOUT SUCH PURCHASE WOULD BE RARELY AVAILA BLE .....IN OUR OPINION, THE MAJORITY OPINION AFTER CONSIDERING SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES AND APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBABILITIES HAS RIGHTLY CONCLUDED THAT THE APPELL ANT'S CLAIM ABOUT THE AMOUNT BEING HER WINNING FROM RACES IS NOT GENUINE. IT CANNOT BE SAI D THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THE SAID AMOUNTS HAS BEEN R EJECTED UNREASONABLY'. I WILL BE SUPERFICIAL IN MY APPROACH IN CASE I DONOT EXAMINE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF DOCUMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND OVERLOOK C LEAR THE UNUSUAL PATTERN IN THE DOCUMENTS ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 5 OF 9 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND PRETEND TO BE OBLIVIOUS O F THE GROUND REALITIES. AS HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED, IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MOR E(SUPRA), .....IT IS TRUE THAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THER E ARE REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT THE REAL PARTY WHO RELIES ON A RECITAL IN A DEE D HAS TO ESTABLISH THE TRUTH OF THOSE RECITALS, OTHERWISE IT WILL BE VERY EASY TO MAKE SELF-SERVING STATEMENTS IN DOCUMENTS EITHER EXECUTED OR TAKEN BY A PARTY AND RELY ON THOSE RECITALS. IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS TO EVADE TAX IS TO HAVE SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITHER EXECUT ED BY HIM OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE LEFT WIDE OPEN TO EVADE TAX. A LIT TLE PROBING WAS SUFFICIENT IN THE PRESENT CASE TO SHOW THAT THE APPARENT WAS NOT THE REAL. THE TAX ING AUTHORITIES WERE NOT REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKING AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BE FORE THEM. THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO FIND OUT THE REALI TY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS'. AS A FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY, THIS TRIBUNAL CANNOT BE SUPERFICIAL IN ITS ASSESSMENT OF GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACTION, AND THI S CALL IS TO BE TAKEN NOT ONLY IN THE LIGHT OF THE FACE VALUE OF THE DOCUMENTS SIGHTED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL BUT ALSO IN THE LIGHT OF ALL THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, PREPONDERANCE OF HUMAN P ROBABILITIES AND GROUND REALTIES. GENUINENESS IS A MATTER OF PERCEPTION BUT ESSENTIAL LY A CALL ON GENUINENESS OF A TRANSACTION IS TO BE TAKEN IN THE LIGHT OF WELL SETTLED LEGAL PRIN CIPLES. THERE MAY BE DIFFERENCE IN SUBJECTIVE PERCEPTION ON SUCH ISSUES, ON THE SAME SET OF FACTS , BUT THAT CANNOT BE A REASON ENOUGH FOR THE FACT FINDING AUTHORITIES TO AVOID TAKING SUBJECTIVE CALLS ON THESE ASPECTS, AND REMAIN CONFINED TO THE FINDINGS ON THE BASIS OF IRREFUTABLE EVIDENC ES. HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS, IN THE CASE OF DURGA PRASAD MORE (SUPRA), OBSERVED THAT 'HUMAN MINDS MAY DIFFER AS TO THE RELIABILITY OF A PIECE OF EVIDENCE BUT IN THAT SPHERE THE DECISION OF THE FINAL FACT FINDING AUTHORITY IS MADE CONCLUSIVE BY LAW'. THIS FAITH IN THE TRIBUNAL BY H ON'BLE COURTS ABOVE MAKES THE JOB OF THE TRIBUNAL EVEN MORE ONEROUS AND DEMANDING AND, IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, IT DOES REQUIRE THE TRIBUNAL TO TAKE A HOLISTIC VIEW OF THE MATTER, IN THE LIGHT OF SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES, PREPONDERANCE OF PROBABILITIES AND GROUND REALITIES , RATHER THAN BEING SWAYED BY THE NOT SO CONVINCING, BUT APPARENTLY IN ORDER, DOCUMENTS AND EXAMINING THEM, IN A PEDANTIC MANNER, WITH THE BLINKERS ON. I MAY ALSO ADD THAT THE PHENO MENON OF SHELL ENTITIES BEING SUBJECTED TO DEEP SCRUTINY BY TAX AND ENFORCEMENT OFFICIALS IS R ATHER RECENT, AND THAT, TILL RECENTLY, LITTLE WAS KNOWN, OUTSIDE THE UNDERBELLY OF FINANCIAL WORL D, ABOUT MODUS OPERENDI OF SHELL ENTITIES. THERE WERE, THEREFORE, NOT MANY QUESTIONS RAISED AB OUT GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS IN RESPECT OF SHELL ENTITIES. THAT IS NOT THE CASE ANY LONGER. JUST BECAUSE THESE ISSUES WERE NOT RAISED IN THE PAST DOES NOT MEAN THAT THESE ISSUES CANNOT BE RAISED NOW AS WELL, AND, TO THAT EXTENT, THE EARLIER JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS CANNOT HAVE BLANKET APP LICATION IN THE CURRENT SITUATION AS WELL. AS HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS OBSERVED IN THE CASE IN M UMBAI KAMGAR SABHA V. ABDULBAHI FAIZULLABHAI AIR 1976 SC 1455 'IT IS TRITE, GOING B Y ANGLOPHONIC PRINCIPLES THAT A RULING OF A SUPERIOR COURT IS BINDING LAW. IT IS NOT OF SCRIPTU RAL SANCTITY BUT OF RATIO-WISE LUMINOSITY WITHIN THE EDIFICE OF FACTS WHERE THE JUDICIAL LAMP PLAYS THE LEGAL FLAME. BEYOND THOSE WALLS AND DE HORS THE MILIEU WE CANNOT IMPART ETERNAL VER NAL VALUE TO THE DECISIONS, EXALTING THE PRECEDENTS INTO A PRISON HOUSE OF BIGOTRY, REGARDLE SS OF THE VARYING CIRCUMSTANCES AND MYRIAD DEVELOPMENTS. REALISM DICTATES THAT A JUDGME NT HAS TO BE READ, SUBJECT TO THE FACTS DIRECTLY PRESENTED FOR CONSIDERATION AND NOT AFFECT ING THE MATTERS WHICH MAY LURK IN THE DARK'. GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS THUS CANNOT BE D ECIDED ON THE BASIS OF INFERENCES DRAWN FROM THE JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE CASES IN WHICH GENUINENESS DID COME UP FOR EXAMINATION IN A VERY LIMITED PERSPECTIVE AND IN THE TIMES WHEN SH ELL ENTITIES WERE VIRTUALLY NON-EXISTENT. AS THE THINGS STAND NOW, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS I S TO BE EXAMINED IN THE LIGHT OF THE PREVAILING GROUND REALITIES, AND THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT I HAVE DONE. IN MY CONSIDERED VIEW, AND FOR THE DETAILED ANALYSIS SET OUT EARLIER IN TH IS ORDER, THE ALLEGED LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE HELD TO BE GENUINE ON THE PECULI AR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THIS CASE. AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS STANDS REJECTED, IT IS NOT REALLY NECESSARY TO DEAL WITH OTHER ASPECTS OF THE MATTER. ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 6 OF 9 7. WHEN WE PUT THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION TO THE LEAR NED COUNSEL, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE BENEFIT OF THIS DECISION WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE P OINT OF TIME WHEN THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) AND THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT, TH EREFORE, PROVIDE THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES AS REQUIRED IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITIO N. BE THAT AS IT MAY, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, EVEN ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL ON RECORD, T HERE IS NOTHING AGAINST THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. HE SUBMITTED THAT IN CASE THERE A RE ANY DOUBTS ON THE GENUINENESS IN THE LIGHT OF THE ABOVE LEGAL POSITION, THE MATTER CAN A T BEST BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER SO AS TO PROVIDE A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY O F PROVIDING THE REQUISITE MATERIAL, WHICH, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED COUNSEL, IS NOT REALLY NEC ESSARY. 8. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESEN TATIVES STAND WAS THAT IF AT ALL THE MATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF ON E OF THE AUTHORITIES, IT SHOULD BE REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) IN ORDER TO ENSURE THAT THE MATTER REACHES FINALITY WITHOUT INORDINATE DELAY. IN ANY EVENT, ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED DEPA RTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE, NO USEFUL PURPOSE WILL BE SERVED BY REMITTING THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) AS THE IMPUGNED TRANSACTIONS ARE CLEARLY NOT GENUINE. IT IS, ACCORDING TO HIM, I NCONCEIVABLE THAT RANK OUTSIDE ENTITIES, ABOUT WHICH ASSESSEE DOES NOT HAVE EVEN BASIC DETAILS, WI LL INVEST SUCH HUGE AMOUNTS WITH THE ASSESSEE. HAVING SAID THAT, HE SUBMITS THAT HE HAS NO OBJECTION TO THE MATTER BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH ANY SPECIFIC DIRECTIONS . 9. WE FIND THAT WHAT IS REALLY REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, TO TAKE A CALL ON GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS, IS A HOLISTIC VIEW ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF PREVAILING GROUND REALITIES RATHER THAN TAKING A NA RROW AND PEDANTIC OR HYPER TECHNICAL VIEW OF THE MATTER. THE MERE FACT THAT A COMPANY IS REGI STERED WITH THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES DOES NOT MEAN THAT IT IS A GENUINE COMPANY AND MERE LY BECAUSE MONEY HAS COME FROM THE BANKING CHANNELS DOES NOT MEAN THAT THIS IS A GENUI NE TRANSACTION TO BE TAKEN AT ITS FACE VALUE. THE EMPHASIS ON THESE TECHNICALITIES, AS IS BEING M ADE BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL, IS MEANINGLESS IN THE PRESENT CONTEXT. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS, INCLUDING THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF THESE COMPANIE S, THE NATURE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE AVAILABILITY OF, OR LACK OF AVAILABIL ITY OF, SUFFICIENT DETAILS ABOUT THE OPERATIONS CARRIED OUT BY THESE COMPANIES AS ALSO THEIR FINANC IAL STATEMENTS, HAVE CRUCIAL BEARING ON THE DECISION ABOUT GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. UNLESS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS IS ESTABLISHED, EVERYTHING ELSE STANDS RELEGATED TO IN SIGNIFICANCE. HOWEVER, GIVEN THE FACT THAT THE BENEFIT OF DECISION IN THE CASE OF PAVANKUMAR M SANGHVI (SUPRA) WAS NOT AVAILABLE AT THE RELEVANT POINT OF TIME AND THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS GI VEN LESS THAN IDEAL OPPORTUNITY TO PRESENT ITS CASE ON THESE ASPECTS, WE ARE INCLINED TO ACCEPT TH E PLEA OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL TO THE LIMITED EXTENT THAT THE MATTER IS RESTORED TO THE FILE OF T HE CIT(A) WITH A DIRECTION TO PROVIDE ONE OPPORTUNITY OF PRODUCING ANY FURTHER MATERIAL THAT THE ASSESSEE DEEMS FIT TO ESTABLISH GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS IN QUESTION. AS WE DO SO, WE MAKE IT CLEAR THAT THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS IS ON THE ASSESSEE, THAT IT IS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH REASONABLE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THIS CASE AND THAT HE HAS ON E MORE OPPORTUNITY TO DO SO. HOWEVER, AS THE MATTER IS BEING REMITTED TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (A), WE REFRAIN FROM EXPRESSING OUR FINAL OPINION ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE AT THIS STAGE AND LEAVE IT AT THAT. THE ISSUE IS LEFT OPEN FOR ADJUDICATION ON ALL ISSUES, INCLUDING, AS EMPHASIZE D BY US, ON THE ASPECT OF GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. 10. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, WE REMIT THE MATTER, WITH RESPECT TO ADDITION OF RS 6,06,26,403 IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS, TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) WITH OUR SPECIFIC ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 7 OF 9 DIRECTIONS AS ABOVE. 11. AS REGARDS THE DISALLOWANCE OF ALLEGED BOGUS EX PENDITURE OF RS 94,48,000, THE RELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE LIKE THIS. DURING THE C OURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS RECEIVED FROM RS 1,02,04,082 FROM ONE PACL INDIA LTD ON ACCOUNT OF AGRICULTURAL DEVE LOPMENT ACTIVITIES, INCLUDING SURVEY, BUSH CLEANING, REMOVAL OF ROOTS, PLOUGHING, LAND FI LLING, LEVELLING, MAKING KACHA MOTORABLE ROAD AND FENCING INCLUDING MISCELLANEOUS PLANTING O PERATIONS IN VELLARAM VILLAGE ... THE ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED EXPENDITURE OF RS 94,48,000 IN THIS REGARD AND THE ASSESSEE ALLEGEDLY PAID RS 35,50,000 TO TAFRAK UKABHAI SHANKARBHAI, RS 30,00,000 TO PATEL RAMSINGHBHAI H AND RS 29,98,000 TO BHANJIBHAI D PATEL. WHILE THE T DS @ 1% WAS DULY DEDUCTED AT SOURCE FROM THESE PAYMENTS, THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT ABLE TO P RODUCE THESE PERSONS OR TO SHOW ANY EVIDENCE ABOUT THE FACT THAT ANY WORK WAS ACTUALLY CARRIED OUT BY THESE SUB CONTRACTORS. NONE OF THESE PERSONS WERE FOUND TO BE FILING ANY INCOME TAX RETURNS. WHILE ONE OF THESE THREE SUB CONTRACTORS DID NOT RESPOND TO THE NOTICES ISSU ED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, THE OTHER TWO ADMITTED INABILITY TO PROVIDE REQUISITIONED DETAILS AND, AS EVIDENT FROM THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS, IT WAS FOUND THAT BOTH OF THEM HAD WITHDRAWN THE SUMS PAID TO THEM AT AHMEDABAD ITSELF- RATHER THAN IN TAMILNADU WHERE THE WORK WAS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT. ON THESE FACTS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THESE PE RSONS ARE MERELY NAME LENDERS AND NO WORK HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THEM. IT WAS ALSO NOTI CED THAT NO SPECIFIC DETAILS ABOUT THE WORK CARRIED OUT WERE FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AT ANY S TAGE. THESE ALLEGED SUB CONTRACTORS DID NOT EVEN CLAIM FOR TDS CREDIT. THERE WERE NO EVIDENCES ABOUT ANY SUPERVISION WORK OR ANY CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE ACTUAL WORK. ALL THESE FACTORS, ACCORDING TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SHOW THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS 94,48,000 WAS A BOGUS EXPENDITURE. THE EXPENDITURE WAS THUS DISALLOWED. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSE E CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND HAVING P ERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE ARE NOT INCLINED TO INFERENCE IN THE STAND OF THE AUTHO RITIES BELOW. WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FOR THE WORK ACTUALLY HAVING BE EN CARRIED OUT BY THE SUB CONTRACTORS AND NOT EVEN THE BASIC DETAILS ABOUT THE SUPERVISION WO RK CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. AS A MATTER OF FACT THERE IS NO CONTEMPORANEOUS EVIDENCE ABOUT THE WORK CARRIED OUT BY THE SUB CONTRACTOR, SUPERVISION CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE OR ANY CORROBORATIVE MATERIAL IN SUPPORT OF THE FACT OF THE ACTIVITIES HAVING BEEN CARRIED OUT AT THE ALLEGED WORK SITE. EVEN THE DESCRIPTION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE CONSISTS OF VAGUE GENERALITIE S AND DOES NOT SET OUT ANY SPECIFIC DETAILS SUCH AS MEASUREMENTS ETC. IT IS ALSO AN UNCONTROVER TED POSITION THAT THE EXAMINATION OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE SUB CONTRACTORS SHOW THAT THE MON IES DEPOSITED IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS WERE WITHDRAWN AT AHMEDABAD ITSELF RATHER THAN AT THE PL ACE WHERE WORK WAS CARRIED OUT AND WHERE LABOUR PAYMENTS WERE REQUIRED TO BE MADE. ALL THESE FACTOR PUT TOGETHER, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, DONOT INSPIRE ANY CONFIDENCE IN TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. WE, THEREFORE, CONFIRM THE ACTION OF THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW ON THIS POINT, AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE. 13. THIS DISALLOWANCE OF RS 94,48,000 IN RESPECT OF ALLEGED BOGUS EXPENDITURE IS THUS CONFIRMED. 14. THAT LEAVES US WITH THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4,33 ,800 IN RESPECT OF INTEREST FREE ADVANCES ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 8 OF 9 15. SO FAR AS THIS DISALLOWANCE IS CONCERNED, THE R ELEVANT MATERIAL FACTS ARE AS FOLLOWS. DURING THE COURSE OF SCRUTINY ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING S, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN INTEREST FREE ADVANCE OF RS 36,1 5,000 TO NILKHAND ORCHID- A UNIT OF DHARMDEV INFRASTRUCTURE PVT LTD. IT WAS ALSO NOTICE D THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RESORTED TO HUGE BORROWINGS ON WHICH INTEREST IS PAID. THE EXPLANATI ON OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS AMOUNT WAS PAID TO BUY A FLAT WAS REJECTED, AS THE ORIGINAL PA YMENT MADE WAS OF RS 1,11,15,000 DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2010-11 BUT THEN AS THE SCHEME C OULD NOT GET APPROVAL, RS 75,00,000 WAS REFUNDED IN THAT FINANCIAL YEAR ITSELF. THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TAKE ANY ACTION TO RECOVER THE BALANCE MONEY WHICH SHOWS THAT IT IS NOTHING BUT DIVERSION OF FUNDS. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT BUYING PROPERTIES IS A BONAFIDE OBJECT OF THE COMPANY WAS ALSO REJECTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE PR OPERTY DEAL WAS EVENTUALLY ABANDONED. ACCORDINGLY, A DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4,33,800 ON ACCOU NT OF INTEREST PAID RELATABLE TO THIS INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS MADE. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SATISFIED AND IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED TH E MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE AP PLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 17. WE FIND THAT IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE INIT IAL PAYMENT OF RS 1,11,15,000 WAS MADE IN LEGITIMATE FURTHERANCE OF A BUSINESS OBJECT OF THE ASSESSEE. OF COURSE, THE DEAL DID NOT MATERIALIZE AND A PART OF THAT AMOUNT COULD NOT BE RECOVERED. ON THESE FACTS, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE INTEREST FREE ADVANCE WAS NOT IN THE COURS E OF THE NORMAL BUSINESS OF THE ASSESSEE. THE SUBSEQUENT EVENTS, I.E. THE DEAL NOT MATERIALIZ ING, CANNOT ALTER THE INITIAL CHARACTER OF THE TRANSACTION, AND THAT IS WHAT MATTERS WHEN EXAMININ G WHETHER THE AMOUNT GIVEN INTEREST FREE IS IN THE COURSE OF BUSINESS OR NOT. THE INTEREST F REE ADVANCE IN QUESTION CANNOT, THEREFORE, BE SAID TO BE A NON-BUSINESS TRANSACTION. TO THIS EXTE NT, WE SEE NO MERITS IN THE STAND OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 18. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSIONS, AND BEARING I N MIND ENTIRETY OF THE CASE, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4,33,800. THE ASSESSEE GETS THE RELIEF ACCORDINGLY. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE GRIEVANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, W ITH RESPECT TO THE INTEREST DISALLOWANCE OF RS 4,33,800, IS UPHELD. 20. NO OTHER ISSUE WAS RAISED AND ARGUED BEFORE US. 21. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS ALLOWED FOR STATIS TICAL PURPOSES IN THE TERMS INDICATED ABOVE. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY ON THE 1 ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- MAHAVIR PRASAD PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (VICE PR ESIDENT ) AHMEDABAD, DATED THE 1 ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2018 ITA NO. 1071/AHD/2016 AHK BROKING PVT LTD VS. DCIT ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 PAGE 9 OF 9 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPOND ENT (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) DR (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER TRUE COPY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCHES, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION: .....ORDER PROCESSED BY HONBLE VP ON HIS LAPTOP 1/11/2018..... 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER: . 1/11/2018. 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S.: 1/11/2018... 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT: . 1/11/2018.. 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK : . 13/11/2018. 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK : . 7. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER : . 8. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER: ......