NITIN A. SHAH, MUMBAI V. DY CIT -CC-1(3), MUMBAI

ITA 1201/MUM/2021

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 107 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0386 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-07-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC-1
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 15-06-2021
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Opportunity of cross examination; Third party statement; Retraction; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 131; 133A; 153A; 153C

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC-1” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI KULDIP SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ITA No. 1200/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 1201/MUM/2021 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Nitin A. Shah, 31/32, 8 th floor, Giriraj Apartment, Teen Batti, Walkeshwar, Mumbai-400 006. Vs. DCIT, CC-1(3), 905, 9 th floor, Pratishtha Bhavan, Old CGO Building Annex, Maharshi Karve Road, Mumbai-400020. PAN No. AAHPS 3826 K Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Suchek Anchaliya, AR Revenue by : Mr. Kiran P. Unavekar, DR Date of Hearing : 02/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders dated 28/05/2021 and 31/05/2021 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-47, Mumbai [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013 respectively. As common issue appeals, same were heard consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. First we take of the appeal for assessment year 2013 grounds of appeal of which are reproduced as under: 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessed income at Rs. 8,48,930/ as against the returned income of Rs. 7,86,930/ 2. On the facts and in the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer as bad in law as the legal conditions laid down for initiating assessment proceedings W/s 153C of the Act have not been fu 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in not providing an opportunity to cross examine to the appellant while relying on a third party statement as t same was also in violation of the principles of natural justice. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of interest of Rs. 62,000/ appellant, without providing any corroborative evidence to for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014 s common issue-in-dispute are involved in both these were heard together and disposed of consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. First we take of the appeal for assessment year 2013 of appeal of which are reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessed income at Rs. 8,48,930/ as against the returned income of Rs. 7,86,930/-. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer as bad in law as the legal conditions laid down for initiating assessment proceedings W/s 153C of the Act have not been fulfilled. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in not providing an opportunity to cross examine to the appellant while relying on a third party statement as t same was also in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of interest of Rs. 62,000/- on account of interest allegedly received in cash appellant, without providing any corroborative evidence to Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 2 14 and 2014-15 dispute are involved in both these together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. First we take of the appeal for assessment year 2013-14, the of appeal of which are reproduced as under: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in laws the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the assessed income at Rs. 8,48,930/- circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in not holding the assumption of jurisdiction by the Ld. Assessing Officer as bad in law as the legal conditions laid down for initiating assessment proceedings W/s 153C of the Act On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) erred in not holding that the Learned Assessing Officer erred in not providing an opportunity to cross examine to the appellant while relying on a third party statement as the same was also in violation of the principles of natural justice. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of interest of Rs. on account of interest allegedly received in cash by the appellant, without providing any corroborative evidence to substantiate the same and without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not earned any interest income, other than mentioned in the return of income. 5. The appellant craves to add, alte modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another. 3. Briefly stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed regular return of income decla 24/07/2013. Subsequently, in connection wi out on Sh Bhanwarlal Jain, a survey action under section 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 04/10/2013 by the Investi assessee located at Panchratna, the assessee, notice under section 153 the Act was issued by the incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were seized during the course of the search The assessee filed return of income in response to notice issued for substantiate the same and without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not earned any interest income, other than mentioned in the return of income. The appellant craves to add, alter, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one another. stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed regular return of income declaring total income of 24/07/2013. Subsequently, in connection with the searches carried Bhanwarlal Jain, a survey action under section 133A of the , 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was carried out on Investigation Wing in the office premises of the assessee located at Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbai. In the case of notice under section 153A read with section 153C was issued by the Assessing Officer on the ground that incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were seized during the course of the search in the case of Sh Bhanwarlal Jain The assessee filed return of income in response to notice issued for Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 3 substantiate the same and without appreciating the fact that the appellant has not earned any interest income, other than r, classify, reclassify, delete or modify any of the above grounds of appeal and requests to consider each of the above grounds without prejudice to one stated facts of the case are that the assessee filed ring total income of ₹7,86,930/-on th the searches carried Bhanwarlal Jain, a survey action under section 133A of the ) was carried out on in the office premises of the , Mumbai. In the case of read with section 153C of on the ground that incriminating documents belonging to the assessee were seized in the case of Sh Bhanwarlal Jain. The assessee filed return of income in response to notice issued for 153C proceedings. The assessment was c addition of interest income of On further appeal, proceedings as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved before the Tribunal raising the groun 4. Before us, the Ld. counsel statement of the assessee recorded during survey proceedings. 5. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused relevant material the addition is concerned, the brief facts are that during survey proceedings at the premises of the assessee a person namely Mahendra Kumar R Patel name of ‘Ms. Meenakshi N Shah authorised Officer at the survey premises, recorded statement of Sh Mahendra Kumar R Patel contained quarterly interest in cash and cheque on loan 153C proceedings. The assessment was completed after making addition of interest income of ₹2,60,000/- to the returned income. the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the legality of the proceedings as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved raising the grounds as reproduced above. Ld. counsel of the assessee filed a copy of the statement of the assessee recorded during survey proceedings. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in dispute and perused relevant material on record. As far as merit of the addition is concerned, the brief facts are that during survey proceedings at the premises of the assessee a person namely Mahendra Kumar R Patel’ came to deliver an envelope on which Meenakshi N Shah’ was written in pencil. The at the survey premises, recorded statement of Sh Mahendra Kumar R Patel, wherein the stated that said envelope quarterly interest in cash and cheque on loan Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 4 ompleted after making to the returned income. the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the legality of the proceedings as well as addition on merit. Aggrieved, the assessee is reproduced above. of the assessee filed a copy of the statement of the assessee recorded during survey proceedings. We have heard rival submission of the parties on the issue in As far as merit of the addition is concerned, the brief facts are that during survey proceedings at the premises of the assessee a person namely ‘Sh came to deliver an envelope on which written in pencil. The at the survey premises, recorded statement of Sh ated that said envelope quarterly interest in cash and cheque on loan, which had been taken by one Sh Construction. The survey team further gathered that said envelope contains cheque of ₹ amount of ₹20 lakh for 92 days at the rate of 12% per annum (after deducting TDS) and c the rate of 6% on recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee admitted that he was also 18% out of which 12% was received in was received in cash, whereas only 12% interest was recorded in books of accounts. In view of the statement during assessment proceedings assessee as why the interest at as received in cash on the loans outstanding at the year end. The assessee retracted from the statement and said that statement during the survey was involuntary and under coercion. The been taken by one Sh Kantilal A Shah, partner of M/s Hirok Construction. The survey team further gathered that said envelope ₹55,200/-, which was the interest on the loan 20 lakh for 92 days at the rate of 12% per annum (after deducting TDS) and cash of ₹30,666/- towards interest payment at ₹20 lakh. A statement of assessee was also recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee was also engaged in advancing loan at the rate of 12% was received in cheque and remaining 6% was received in cash, whereas only 12% interest was recorded in books of accounts. In view of the statement in survey proceedings essment proceedings the Assessing Officer e interest at the rate of 6% might not be assessed as received in cash on the loans outstanding at the year end. The assessee retracted from the statement and said that statement during the survey was involuntary and under coercion. The Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 5 Kantilal A Shah, partner of M/s Hirok Construction. The survey team further gathered that said envelope , which was the interest on the loan 20 lakh for 92 days at the rate of 12% per annum (after towards interest payment at tatement of assessee was also recorded during survey proceeding. In said statement, the assessee advancing loan at the rate of and remaining 6% was received in cash, whereas only 12% interest was recorded in in survey proceedings, Assessing Officer asked the the rate of 6% might not be assessed as received in cash on the loans outstanding at the year end. The assessee retracted from the statement and said that statement during the survey was involuntary and under coercion. The Ld. Assessing Officer rejected the retraction of statement by the assessee holding that it was after a lapse of such a long time and in attempt to thwart efforts of the Department. statement was recorded under section 131 of the it was one of the admissible evidence. According to the Officer retraction was not corroborated by any other evidences and therefore it was liable for the rejection. The finally concluded as under: “6. As discussed above that Panchratna, Opera House, on 04.10.2013, the assessee when confronted with the clinching evidences, has very categorically admitted in his statement that he does advance loan @ 18 % interest out of which 12 % interest is recived in cheque and the remaining 6 % is received in cash, but only 12 % Is recorded in the books of account. The above admission conclusively prove that assessee in his individual capacity advances unsecured loans to various parties wherein the rate of interest charged is 18 % pa. However, only 12% interest income is received in cheque and the same is accounted for in the regular books of accounts and remaining 6% interest is received in cash and is not accounted for in the regular books of accounts whi further validation. rejected the retraction of statement by the assessee holding that it was after a lapse of such a long time and in attempt to thwart efforts of the Department. According to him the statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act one of the admissible evidence. According to the retraction was not corroborated by any other evidences and therefore it was liable for the rejection. The Ld. Assessing Officer finally concluded as under: As discussed above that during the course of survey at 210 A Panchratna, Opera House, on 04.10.2013, the assessee when confronted with the clinching evidences, has very categorically admitted in his statement that he does advance loan @ 18 % interest out of which 12 % recived in cheque and the remaining 6 % is received in cash, but only 12 % Is recorded in the books of account. The above admission conclusively prove that assessee in his individual capacity advances unsecured loans to various parties wherein the rate interest charged is 18 % pa. However, only 12% interest income is received in cheque and the same is accounted for in the regular books of accounts and remaining 6% interest is received in cash and is not accounted for in the regular books of accounts which requires no further validation. Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 6 rejected the retraction of statement by the assessee holding that it was after a lapse of such a long time and in According to him the Act and therefore one of the admissible evidence. According to the Ld. Assessing retraction was not corroborated by any other evidences and Assessing Officer during the course of survey at 210 A Panchratna, Opera House, on 04.10.2013, the assessee when confronted with the clinching evidences, has very categorically admitted in his statement that he does advance loan @ 18 % interest out of which 12 % recived in cheque and the remaining 6 % is received in cash, The above admission conclusively prove that assessee in his individual capacity advances unsecured loans to various parties wherein the rate interest charged is 18 % pa. However, only 12% interest income is received in cheque and the same is accounted for in the regular books of accounts and remaining 6% interest is received in cash and is not ch requires no Accordingly the difference of Interest @ 6% (18% amounting to Rs. 62000/ as discussed above is brought to tax and is added back to the total income. Accordingly it is also held that inaccurate particulars of income has been filed to conceal income chargeable to tax and penalty u/s. 271(1)c) of the IT act is separately initiated for the same. 5.1 On further appeal the finding of the Assessing Officer assessee during survey proceedings. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: “14. I have considered the arguments of the assessce and facts of the case. It is relevant to mention over here that in his statement on oath u/s.133A on 3/10/13, when the assessee was asked about interest charged on loan given, the very clearly and categorically mentioned that he was receiving quarterly interest @ 18%; 12% by cheque and 6 by cash. After that statement, there was left no doubts as to the assessee was receiving interest @GX in cash over and above interest @ 12% through cheque. Further, cash portion of interest was no where disclosed by the assessee in the books of accounts Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding a sum of Rs.62,000/- additional interest income in the hands of the assessee being cash component of interest @ 6% on loan amount. Accordingly the difference of Interest @ 6% (18%-12%) of the interest amounting to Rs. 62000/- being cash component of the interest received as discussed above is brought to tax and is added back to the total rdingly it is also held that inaccurate particulars of income has been filed to conceal income chargeable to tax and penalty u/s. 271(1)c) of the IT act is separately initiated for the same.” On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of merit uphe Assessing Officer in view of the statement of the assessee during survey proceedings. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is reproduced as under: 14. I have considered the arguments of the assessce and facts of the evant to mention over here that in his statement on oath u/s.133A on 3/10/13, when the assessee was asked about interest charged on loan given, the very clearly and categorically mentioned that he was receiving quarterly interest @ 18%; 12% by cheque and 6 by cash. After that statement, there was left no doubts as to the assessee was receiving interest @GX in cash over and above interest @ 12% through cheque. Further, cash portion of interest was no where disclosed by the assessee in the books of accounts or the return. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding a sum of additional interest income in the hands of the assessee being cash component of interest @ 6% on loan amount. Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 7 12%) of the interest being cash component of the interest received as discussed above is brought to tax and is added back to the total rdingly it is also held that inaccurate particulars of income has been filed to conceal income chargeable to tax and penalty u/s. 271(1)c) the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue of merit upheld in view of the statement of the assessee during survey proceedings. The relevant finding of the Ld. 14. I have considered the arguments of the assessce and facts of the evant to mention over here that in his statement on oath u/s.133A on 3/10/13, when the assessee was asked about interest charged on loan given, the very clearly and categorically mentioned that he was receiving quarterly interest @ 18%; 12% by cheque and 6% by cash. After that statement, there was left no doubts as to the assessee was receiving interest @GX in cash over and above interest @ 12% through cheque. Further, cash portion of interest was no where or the return. Therefore, the Assessing Officer was justified in adding a sum of additional interest income in the hands of the assessee being 15. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee h evidence or explanation as to why the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unfair or unreasonable. I am therefore, not in a position to deviate from the position taken by the Assessing Officer and therefore, addition taken by the Asses upheld”. 5.2 In our opinion, the only basis for making addition for cash component of interest is the statement of Patel’, which was not in respect of loan given by the assessee. The said envelope was in respect of the loan given by Shah’. On the basis of said st statement of the assessee under section 133A of the Officer that said statement was recorded under section 131 of the Act is incorrect. On perusal of the copy of statement shah i.e. the assessee on 06/10/2013, it is clear that said was recorded under section 133A proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs S Khader Khan Son reported in (2012) 25v taxmann.com 413 (SC) 15. During the appellate proceedings, the assessee has produced no evidence or explanation as to why the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unfair or unreasonable. I am therefore, not in a position to deviate from the position taken by the Assessing Officer and therefore, addition taken by the Assessing Officer as undisclosed interest is , the only basis for making addition for cash component of interest is the statement of ‘Sh Mahendra Kumar R , which was not in respect of loan given by the assessee. The e was in respect of the loan given by ‘Ms. . On the basis of said statement of ‘Sri Mahen statement of the assessee was recorded in survey proceedings of the Act. The contention of the that said statement was recorded under section 131 of the is incorrect. On perusal of the copy of statement shah i.e. the assessee on 06/10/2013, it is clear that said was recorded under section 133A proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme CIT Vs S Khader Khan Son reported in (2012) 25v taxmann.com 413 (SC) has held that section 133A does not Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 8 as produced no evidence or explanation as to why the addition made by the Assessing Officer was unfair or unreasonable. I am therefore, not in a position to deviate from the position taken by the Assessing Officer and therefore, sing Officer as undisclosed interest is , the only basis for making addition for cash Mahendra Kumar R , which was not in respect of loan given by the assessee. The ‘Ms. Meenakshi N Sri Mahendra R Patel’, recorded in survey proceedings . The contention of the Ld. Assessing that said statement was recorded under section 131 of the is incorrect. On perusal of the copy of statement of Sh Nitin A shah i.e. the assessee on 06/10/2013, it is clear that said was recorded under section 133A proceedings. The Hon’ble Supreme CIT Vs S Khader Khan Son reported in (2012) has held that section 133A does not empower any ITO to examine any person on oath and so statement recorded under section and any admission made during such a statement cannot be made basis for addition. The relevant part of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: “In the instant case, there was a survey operation conducted under Section 133A of the Act in the assessee's premises and a statement was recorded from one of the partner. Assuming there were discrepancies and irregularities in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, an offer of additio made by the parnter of the firm. But, such statement, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey action under rightly held by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, since such statement was not attached to the provisions of not be said solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the partner of the assessee lawful income of the assessee. Since there was no material on record to prove the existence of such disclosed income or e in the hands of the assessee, it could not be said that the Revenue had lost lawful tax payable by the assessee. empower any ITO to examine any person on oath and so statement recorded under section 133A does not have any evidencing ny admission made during such a statement cannot be made basis for addition. The relevant part of the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court is reproduced as under: In the instant case, there was a survey operation conducted under of the Act in the assessee's premises and a statement was recorded from one of the partner. Assuming there were discrepancies and irregularities in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, an offer of additional income for the respective assessment years was made by the parnter of the firm. But, such statement, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey action under Section 133A shall not have any evidentiary value, as rightly held by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, since such statement was not attached to the provisions of Section 133A of the Act. It could said solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the partner of the assessee-firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful income of the assessee. Since there was no material on record to prove the existence of such disclosed income or earning of such income in the hands of the assessee, it could not be said that the Revenue had lost lawful tax payable by the assessee.” Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 9 empower any ITO to examine any person on oath and so statement 133A does not have any evidencing of value ny admission made during such a statement cannot be made basis for addition. The relevant part of the decision of the Hon’ble In the instant case, there was a survey operation conducted under of the Act in the assessee's premises and a statement was recorded from one of the partner. Assuming there were discrepancies and irregularities in the books of accounts maintained by the assessee, nal income for the respective assessment years was made by the parnter of the firm. But, such statement, in view of the scope and ambit of the materials collected during the course of survey shall not have any evidentiary value, as rightly held by the Commissioner and the Tribunal, since such statement of the Act. It could said solely on the basis of the statement given by one of the firm that the disclosed income was assessable as lawful income of the assessee. Since there was no material on record to arning of such income in the hands of the assessee, it could not be said that the Revenue had 5.3 We find that there is no other evidence on record except the statement of the assessee recorded during which has already been 5.4 In view of above facts and circumstances, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the not justified and we accordingly CIT(A). The ground No. 4 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. 5.5 Since we have allowed the ground of the assessee on merit of the addition and therefore we are not adjudicating upon legality of the assessment proceedings challenged. appeal are rendered as academic only and dismissed as infructuous. 5.6 In the appeal for assessment year 2014 addition of interest amounting to assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also decided identical to his finding in assessment year 2013 We find that there is no other evidence on record except the statement of the assessee recorded during survey which has already been retracted by the assessee. In view of above facts and circumstances, the action of the Ld. CIT(A) in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer not justified and we accordingly set aside the said finding of The ground No. 4 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. Since we have allowed the ground of the assessee on merit of the addition and therefore we are not adjudicating upon legality of the assessment proceedings challenged. The other gro rendered as academic only and dismissed as infructuous. In the appeal for assessment year 2014-15 identical issue of addition of interest amounting to ₹1,59,708/- has been raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also decided identical to his finding in assessment year 2013-14. The basis of sustaining addition in the Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 10 We find that there is no other evidence on record except the survey proceedings, In view of above facts and circumstances, the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer is the said finding of the Ld. The ground No. 4 of the appeal is accordingly allowed. Since we have allowed the ground of the assessee on merit of the addition and therefore we are not adjudicating upon legality of The other grounds of rendered as academic only and dismissed as infructuous. 15 identical issue of has been raised by the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has also decided identical to his finding in 14. The basis of sustaining addition in the year under consideration is also statement of the assessee survey proceedings i.e. s 2013-14. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee for assessment year the grounds raised in the addition are allowed. 6. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i.e. for assessment year 2013 Order pronounced in the Court on Sd/- (KULDIP SINGH JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 05/07/2022 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// year under consideration is also statement of the assessee survey proceedings i.e. same basis which is in assessment year 14. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee 2013-14, to have consistency in our decision, in assessment year 2014-15 challenging merit of owed. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i.e. for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 are allowed. Order pronounced in the Court on 05/07/2022. Sd/- KULDIP SINGH) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai Nitin A. Shah ITA Nos. 1200 & 1201/M/2021 11 year under consideration is also statement of the assessee during me basis which is in assessment year 14. Since we have already allowed the appeal of the assessee 14, to have consistency in our decision, 15 challenging merit of In the result, both the appeals of the assessee i.e. for 05/07/2022. - OM PRAKASH KANT) MEMBER (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai