VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA, MUMBAI V. ITO 13(2)-3, MUMBAI

ITA 1246/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2775 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-09-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 03-02-2016
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 25-02-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJNESH K ARVIND
• Keywords: Income from undisclosed sources; Additional evidence; Speculation loss
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131; 68; 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2003-04) SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 13(2)(3) C/O. KHIMJI TOKARSHI & SONS 80, RAFAQ TOWERS, DONTAD ST. DAMAR GALLY, MUMBAI 400009 ROOM NO. 425, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI 400020 PAN - AABOD4468L APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI RAJNESH K. ARVIND DATE OF HEARING: 20.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.09.2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 24, MUMBAI DATED 01.11.2013 FOR A.Y. 2003-04. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL DERIVING INCOME FRO M HIS PROPRIETARY CONCERN, M/S. NIKA PACKS, SHARE OF PROFIT FROM THE FIRM M/S. V. KISHORCHANDRA & CO., INCOME FROM HOUSE PROPERTY AND INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, FILED HIS RETURN OF INCOME FOR A.Y. 2003-0 4 DECLARING INCOME OF ` 2,88,077/- WHICH SHOWED SPECULATION PROFIT OF ` 15,03,999/- WHICH HAD BEEN SET OFF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD LOSS OF A.Y. 2 001-02. THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT 'THE ACT') VIDE ORDER DATED 29.03.20 06 WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DETERMINED AT ` 17,90,880/-, WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES CLAIM FOR SPECULATION PROFIT OF ` 15,03,799/- WAS HELD TO BE UNEXPLAINED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICE R (AO). ON APPEAL, THE LEARNED CIT(A)-XIII, MUMBAI DISMISSED THE ASSESSEE S APPEAL VIDE ORDER ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 2 DATED 05.02.2007 AND THEREIN UPHELD THE AOS VIEW T REATING THE AMOUNT OF ` 15,03,799/- AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. ON FURTHER APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE ITAT, THE COO RDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER IN ITA NO. 3006/MUM/2007 DATE D 09.03.2009 SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND RESTORED MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO AFFORD THE ASSESSEE AN OPPOR TUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVI WHOSE STATEMENT WAS HEAVILY RELI ED UPON BY THE AO AND ALSO TO SUBMIT ANY OTHER EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS CL AIM. 2.2.1 IN THE SECOND ROUND, THE AO IN ACCORDANCE WIT H THE DIRECTIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ITS ORDER DATED 09.03.2009 (SUP RA) MADE AVAILABLE TO THE ASSESSEE A COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVI DATED 07.03.2006 MADE BEFORE THE ADIT (INV), UNIT D-2, MU MBAI AND ALSO COPY OF SUBMISSION DATED 22.03.2006 FILED BY MRS. CHARU SAN GHVI, PROP. FALGUN FINVEST. SUMMONS UNDER SECTION 131 OF THE ACT WERE ALSO ISSUED TO SRI NIRAJ SANGHVI REQUIRING HIM TO PRESENT HIMSELF IN T HE OFFICE OF THE AO ON 15.02.2010 SO THAT HE COULD BE CROSS EXAMINED BY TH E ASSESSEE. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVI WAS ACCORDINGLY REC ORDED BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF HIS DEPOSITION BEFORE THE ADIT (INV), UN IT D-2, MUMBAI DATED 07.03.2006, WHICH HE CONFIRMED AND THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVI ON THE ASSESSEES BEHALF. THIS STATEMENT OF SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVI AND CROSS EXAMINATI ON BY THE ASSESSEE/ LEARNED A.R. IS EXTRACTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE AO WAS OF THE VIEW THAT IT WAS C RYSTAL CLEAR THAT THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE AVERMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE PUT FO RTH IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 22.03.2006 AND THAT T HE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES BY THE ASSESSEE REGARDING SPECULA TION PROFIT OF ` 15,03,799/- WAS ONLY A PAPER TRANSACTION DESIGNED T O EVADE PAYMENT OF TAXES BY LAUNDERING OF HIS OWN UNACCOUNTED INCOME. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, THE AO TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT OF ` 15,03,799/- AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE AND BROUGHT THE SAME TO TAX IN T HE ASSESSEES HANDS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSMENT WAS ACC ORDINGLY CONCLUDED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT VIDE ORD ER DATED 16.12.2010. ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 3 2.2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 DATED 16.12.2010 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 O F THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI. T HE LEARNED CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE ASSESSEES APPEAL VIDE THE IMPUGNE D ORDER DATED 01.11.2013, WHEREIN, INTER ALIA, THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHELD THE AOS ACTION IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF ` 15,03,799/- AS ASSESSEES UNDISCLOSED INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-24, THE ASSESS EE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL RAISING THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS: - IN THE FACTS, CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE CIT(A)- XXIV OF INCOME TAX EARED IN CONFIRMING THE ASSESSING OFFICER'S ORDER A ND ALSO CONFIRMED ADDITIONS OF RS. 15,03,799/- MADE U/S. 68 OF THE IN COME TAX ACT 1961 BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WD.13(2) (3) YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE CIT(A)-XXIV FAILED TO APPRECIATE AND CONSIDER THE (A) GROUNDS OF APPEAL, (B). ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND (C). WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MOVED, WHEREIN ALL THE FACTUAL SITUATION HAS BEEN SUBMITTED NAMELY ALL THE EVIDENCES IN RESP ECT OF THE RECEIPT OF THE SPECULATION PROFIT, CONFIRMATION OF THE BROKER, BANK STATEMENT AND ALL THE OTHER RELEVANT PAPERS AND EVIDENCES IN RESP ECT OF THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE APPEAL. YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE ACTUAL APPLICATION OF PROVISION OF SECTION 68 IS ERRONEOUS AND IRRELEVANT AND HENCE TH E CONCLUSION ARRIVED BY THE CIT APPEAL AS WELL AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS INCORRECT AND HENCE THE SAME IS DESERVED TO BE DELETED. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF YOUR APPELLANT'S CASE YOUR APPELLANT SUBMITS THAT THE SAID ADDITIONS CONFIRMED WITH REGA RD TO THE SEC. 68 IN THE TOTAL INCOME OF YOUR APPELLANT TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,03,799/- MAY PLEASE BE DELETED IN FULL. YOUR APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, TO AMEND AND / OR TO ALTER THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 4. THE HEARINGS IN THIS CASE WERE FIXED ON MANY OCCASI ONS BUT THEY WERE ADJOURNED AS EITHER NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE OR SINCE THE ASSESSEE SOUGHT ADJOURNMENTS OF HEARING. ON ONE OCCASION THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED THRO UGH INTIMATION ON THE NOTICE BOARD. ON 20.09.2016 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D FOR HEARING, AGAIN NONE WAS PRESENT TO REPRESENT THE ASSESSEE BUT THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE WAS PRESENT AND PREPARED TO PRESENT REVENUE S CASE. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 4 PURSUING THIS APPEAL SERIOUSLY AND THEREFORE PROCEE D TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAME WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LEARNED D.R. FOR RE VENUE AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 4.1 ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE, THE CRUX OF GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS THAT THE LEARNED C IT(A) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE AOS ORDER BY CONFIRMING THAT ` 15,03,799/-, WHICH WAS SHOWN AS SPECULATION PROFIT BY THE ASSESSEE, WAS TO BE BROUG HT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WITHOU T TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE SUBMISSIONS AND DETAILS FAILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT ALL SUBMISSIONS/DETAILS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE, INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS REGARD BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAD BEEN DULY CONSIDERED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A) BEFORE RENDERING HIS DECISION IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE L EARNED D.R. CONTENDS THAT THE FACTS ON RECORD CLEARLY INDICATE, AS HELD BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY SPECULATION PROFITS BUT HAD MERELY LAUNDERED HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 15,03,799/- FOR SPECULATION PROFITS BY ENTERING INTO DUBIOUS TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. FAL GUN FINVEST, MUMBAI IN ORDER TO SET OFF THE SAME AGAINST BROUGHT FORWAR D UNABSORBED SPECULATION LOSSES. 4.2 IN RESPECT OF THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED BEF ORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) AND ALSO REFERRED TO IN THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THIS APPEAL (SUPRA), THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE ES CONTENTIONS/ ALLEGATIONS THAT HE WAS NOT AFFORDED PROPER OPPORTU NITY TO CROSS EXAMINE SRI NIRAJ SANGHVI AND THAT SHRI SANGHVIS STATEMENT BEING GIVEN ONLY TO SAVE HIS SKIN AND THEREFORE THE STATEMENT OF SHRI N IRAJ SANGHVI SHOULD NOT BE RELIED ON HAS ALSO BEEN ADDRESSED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) AT PARA 4.5.3 OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER AND WERE RIGHTLY REJECTED. THE L EARNED D.R. PRAYED THAT IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, AS LAID OUT ABOVE, AND ALSO SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDINGS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW, THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) BE UPHELD. ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 5 4.3.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE AN D PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE IS SUE BEFORE US IN THIS APPEAL IS IN RESPECT OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPHOLDIN G THE AOS ORDER IN HOLDING THAT ` 15,03,799/- SHOWN AS SPECULATION PROFIT WAS TO BE B ROUGHT TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS AS INCOME FROM UNDIS CLOSED SOURCES. IT WOULD BE IN THE FITNESS OF THINGS, AT THIS STAGE, T O EXTRACT HEREUNDER THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT UNDER S ECTION 143(3) R.W.S. 254 OF THE ACT FOR A.Y. 2003-04 DATED 16.12.2010 IN RES PECT OF THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS ISSUE AT PARA 5 THEREOF: - 5. IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE SAID ORDER OF TH E HON'BLE I.T.A.T, NOTICES U/S. 143(2) / 142(1) WERE ISSUED ON 08/09/2 009 AND DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER NOTICE U/S. 142(1) WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 18/11/2010 REQUESTING TO PRODUCE NECESS ARY EVIDENCE IN CONNECTION WITH THE SHARE TRANSACTIONS LIKE ORIG INAL CONTRACTS AND DEMAT STATEMENTS, PROOF OF AMOUNT RECEIVED BY CHEQU E INCLUDING BANK STATEMENT ALONG WITH THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME, THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT, THE SAID DETAILS HAVE BEEN ALREADY FURNISHED TO YOUR OFFICE. IT WAS FURTHER REQUESTED TO PROVIDE THE COPY OF STATEMENT ON OATH U/S. 131 OF T HE I.T. ACT OF MR. NIRAJ SANGHVI MADE BEFORE THE A.D.I.T (INV) UNIT IX (2) ON 07/03/2006. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSEE VIDE THIS OFFICE LETTER D ATED 08/12/2010 WAS PROVIDED WITH THE COPY OF STATEMENT OF MR. NIRA J SANGHVI MADE BEFORE THE A.D.I.T. (INV) AND ALSO THE COPY OF SUBM ISSION DATED 22/03/2006 FILED BY MRS. CHARU SANGHVI PROP. MIS. F ALGUN FINVEST. THEREAFTER, SUMMONS U/S. 131 OF THE I.T. ACT DATED 08/12/2010 WAS ISSUED TO MR. NIRAJ SANGHVI ASKING HIM TO ATTEND TH IS OFFICE ON 15/12/2010 AT 3.00 P.M. AND TO ALLOW HIMSELF TO CRO SS EXAMINE TO MR. VINOD K. DEDHIA. ACCORDINGLY, THE FOLLOWING STATEME NT OF MR. NIRAJ SANGHVI, INDIVIDUAL AS WELL AS AUTHORIZED REPRESENT ATIVE OF MRS. CHARU SANGHVI, PROP. FALGUN FINVEST WAS RECORDED. Q.1. PLEASE IDENTIFY YOURSELF AND CONFIRM THAT, OAT H HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED TO YOU AND YOU HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENCES FOR GIVING FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH. ANS. I AM NIRAJ H. SANGHVI, AGED 36 YEAR, RESIDING AT J/103, VARDHAMAN NAGAR, DR. R.P.ROAD, MULUND (WEST), MUMBA I - 80. PRESENTLY, 1 AM WORKING AS A DIRECTOR OF. EQUILINK CAPITAL MANAGEMENT SERVICES LTD., OFFICE NO. 20, KHATAU BUI LDING, 44, BANK STREET, FORT, MUMBAI - 400 023. I FURTHER CONFIRM T HAT, OATH HAS BEEN ADMINISTERED TO ME AND MADE AWARE OF THE CONSEQUENC ES FOR GIVING FALSE STATEMENT ON OATH. Q 2. PLEASE PRODUCE YOUR AUTHORITY LETTER AND THE D ETAILS/ INFORMATION CALLED FOR VIDE NOTICE U/S. 131 DATED 2 /12/2010 AND 13/12/2010. - I ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 6 ANS. I AM THE HUSBAND AND AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIV E OF MRS. CHARU N. SANGHVI. I AM PRODUCING HERE WITH THE AUTH ORITY LETTER AND THE DETAILS CALLED FOR HAVE BEEN SUBMITTED IN YOUR OFFICE ON 13/12/2010 WHICH MAY PLEASE BE TAKEN ON RECORD. Q3. I AM SHOWING YOU THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY YOURSEL F ON 07/03/2006 BEFORE THE A.D.I.T.,(INV), UNIT D 2, MUM BAI. PLEASE GO THROUGH THE STATEMENT AND CONFIRM THE SAME. ANS. YES. I DO CONFIRM THE SAME. Q 4. I AM FURTHER SHOWING YOU THE SUBMISSION DATED 22/03/2006 FILED BY M/S. FALGUN FINVEST DURING THE COURSE OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS FOR A.Y. 2003-04 WHEREIN IT IS SUBMITTE D THAT, THE TRANSACTIONS WHICH WERE DONE THROUGH ME WITH MR. V. K.DEDHIA ARE NOT CHANLISED THROUGH MAIN BROKER, VENTURA SECURITI ES LTD AND THE SAID TRANSACTIONS ARE MERELY AN ADJUSTMENT AS PER R EQUIREMENT OF SAID MR. V.K.DEDHIA AS HE IS INTENDING TO SHOW SOME PROFITS IN HIS REGULAR INCOME TAX RETURN. ANS. I CONFIRM THAT, THE SAID TRANSACTIONS HAVE NOT BEEN ROUTED THROUGH ANY OF THE AUTHORISED EXCHANGE OR BROKERS. Q 5. DO YOU WANT TO SAY ANYTHING ELSE? ANS. NO. PLEASE. WHATEVER STATED ABOVE IS TRUE TO THE BEST OF MY KNO WLEDGE AND BELIEF. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE STATEMENT AND I CON FIRM THAT, THE STATEMENT IS RECORDED CORRECTLY WITHOUT ANY FAVOUR COERCION OR UNDUE INFLUENCE. THEREAFTER, MR. T.S. GADA, CA, AUTHORISED REPRESENT ATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. NIRAJ SAN GHVI THE EXTRACT, OF THE STATEMENT IS AS UNDER. Q.1. DO YOU CONFIRM THE COPY OF ACCOUNTS AND TRANSA CTION AND INFORMATION GIVEN BY YOU IN YOUR LETTER DATED 13/12 /2010. ANS. YES. Q.2. DO YOU CONFIRM THAT, ALL TRANSACTIONS ARE IN O RDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS? ANS. YES. IN VIEW OF THE FORGOING IT IS CRYSTAL CLEAR THAT, T HE ALLEGED TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE IS ONLY A PAPER TRANSACTION DESIGNED TO EVADE PAYMENT OF TAX ON LEG ITIMATELY DUE FROM HIM. THERE IS NO TRUTH IN THE SALE TRANSACTION CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE SUBMISSION MADE BY THE SUB BROK ER M/S. FALGUN FINVEST DURING THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS VIDE LETTER DATED 22/03/2006 AND ALSO CONFIRMED BY THE AUTHORIZED REP RESENTATIVE AS ABOVE. THERE IS ALSO NO TRUTH IN THE CLAIM THAT, TH E AMOUNT OF RS. 15,03,799/ WAS RECEIVED ON PURCHASE / SALE OF SHARE I.E. SPECULATION PROFIT. THEREFORE, THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BY THE ASSESS EE AS ACCRUING OUT ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 7 OF THE SHARE TRANSACTION IS IN REALITY NOTHING BUT SELF OWNED UNACCOUNTED FUND LAUNDERED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER T HE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE SAID AMOUNT OF RS. 15,03,799/- I S TREATED AS UNDISCLOSED SOURCE OF THE ASSESSEE U/S. 68 OF THE L .T. ACT. 4.3.2 IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER, THE LEARNED CIT(A), AF TER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ADDITIONAL GROUNDS RAISED, HAS CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE AO IN BRINGING TO TAX THE AMOUNT O F ` 15,03,799/- AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS HOLDING AS UNDER AT PARAS 4.3 AND 4.4 AND 4.5.1 TO 4.5.4 THEREOF: - 4.3 DECISION :- I HAVE CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. 4.3.1 ASSESSEE'S ADVOCATE, M/S KSHATRIYA & CO. VIDE LETTER DATED 12/12/2012 HAVE FILED ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL NUMBERED AS 1.1 TO 1.7 WHICH ARE AS FOLLOWS AND HAVE SUBMITTED THAT 'THE ADDITIONS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SEC. 68 IN THE TOTAL I NCOME TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 15,03,799/- BE DELETED IN FULL AS THE PROVIS IONS LAID DOWN IN THE SAID SECTION ARE NOT APPLICABLE. 4.3.2 CRUX OF THE ORIGINAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL INCLU DING THE STATEMENT OF FACTS AND THE ADDITIONAL GROUNDS OF APPEAL IS TH AT ASSESSING OFFICER ERRED MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 15,03,799/- TO THE TO TAL INCOME U/S. 68 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WHICH IS NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FA CTS OF THE CASE AND HAS REQUESTED FOR DELETION OF THE SAME. 4.3.3 ASSESSEE'S ADVOCATES, M/S. KSHATRIYA & CO. HA S FILED LETTERS DATED 18/09/2013, 12/12/2012 AND 09/03/2012 ENCLOSI NG DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS AND ASSESSEE HAS ALSO FURNISHED HIS E XPLANATIONS IN THE FORM OF STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEA L AND THESE ARE TAKEN IN CONSIDERATION WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. 4.3.4 THE FACTS IN NUTSHELL EMERGING FROM THE GROUN DS OF ASSESSMENT ORDER, GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND ASSESSEE'S/ADVOCATE'S SUBMISSIONS THAT (1) ASSESSEE HAD AVAILABLE WITH HIM UNABSORBED SPEC ULATION LOSS OF RS. 15,03,798/- AT THE BEGINNING OF THE YEAR AND TH E SAME IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SET OFF AGAINST THE SPECULATION INCOME OF RS. 15,03,798/- BY THE ASSESSEE, (2) ASSESSEE STARTED ENTERING INTO SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES ON 23/1 0/2002 AND LAST TRANSACTION TOOK PLACE ON 21/01/2003, (3) BY AND LA RGE ASSESSEE HAS CONTINUOUSLY MADE PROFITS EXCEPT A MARGINAL LOSS IN THESE TRANSACTIONS, (4) ASSESSEE DID NOT DEPOSIT ANY MONE YS AS ADVANCE AND/OR DEPOSIT WITH THE BROKER FALGUN FINVEST, MUMB AI BEFORE OR AFTER ENTERING ANY OF THE TRANSACTIONS, (5) THE BRO KER DID NOT PAY ANY SECURITY TRANSACTION TAX EVEN THOUGH THE VALUE OF T OTAL TRANSACTIONS RAN INTO LAKHS OF RUPEES ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESS EE, (6) ASSESSEE STOPPED MAKING THESE SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS AFTER REACHING A FIGURE OF RS. 15,03,798/- ON 21/01/2003 AND DID NOT ENTER INTO A SINGLE ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 8 SPECULATIVE TRANSACTION AFTER 21/01/2003, (7) ENTRI ES IN THE PASS BOOK OF FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI INDICATE CREDITS OF SEVER AL LAKHS OF RUPEES FROM FOUR CURRENT ACCOUNTS MAINTAINED IN THE SAME B RANCH OF THE BANK BEFORE ISSUE OF PAYMENT CHEQUES TO ASSESSEE AND OTH ER PARTIES, (8) ASSESSEE HAS TRADED IN SPECULATION ACTIVITY ONLY ON THREE DAYS IN OCTOBER 2002, THREE DAYS IN NOVEMBER 2002 AND FIVE DAYS IN JANUARY 2003 AND HAS NOT CARRIED ON ANY SPECULATIVE ACTIVIT Y ON OTHER DAYS IN THESE MONTHS AND ALSO PRIOR TO AND LATER THAN THIS FOUR MONTHS PERIOD, (9) ASSESSEE HAS TRADED BOTH WAYS WHILE ENTERING IN TO SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS IN DIFFERENT SHARES OF SEVERAL COMPANI ES ON THE SAME DAY, THAT IS, HE HAS SOLD SHARES FIRST AND PURCHASE D LATER ON IN THE EVENING AND SIMULTANEOUSLY PURCHASED SHARES OF SOME COMPANIES FIRST AND SOLD THEM LATER IN THE EVENING/AFTERNOON AND THAT ALSO IN ODD LOTS AND PURCHASE AND SALES TAKING PLACE WITHIN SECONDS AND/OR MINUTES, (10) ASSESSEE HAS EARNED A PROFIT OF ONLY RS. 1,55,676/- IN HIS REGULAR BUSINESS OF PACKING MATERIAL BUSINESS O N A TURNOVER OF RS. 30,21,440/- AND RS. 1,37,490/- BY WAY OF SHARE OF P ROFIT FROM FIRMS AND RS. 13,822/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. 4.3.5 AN ANALYSIS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS REVEALS THA T ASSESSEE WAS SOME KIND OF A WIZARD IN DEALING IN SHARES IN SHARE MARKETS HAVING IN DEPTH KNOWLEDGE OF SEVERAL BLUE CHIP COMPANIES LIKE INFOWAYS, DIGITAL, MERCK, ACC, CMC, IFLEX, ETC. AND TRADED IN THEM WITH THE FINESSE OF MARKET PLAYER WHICH GAVE HIM HUGE SPECUL ATION PROFITS OF RS. 15,03,798/-. THEN THE NEXT QUESTION THAT ARISES IS WHY SHOULD THE ASSESSEE WHO HAD SO MUCH EXPERTISE IN EARNING SPECU LATION PROFITS IN SHARES AND HAD EARNED PROFITS CONTINUOUSLY IN ONLY NINE SESSIONS OF TRADING ON NINE DAYS ABANDON THE SAME AND REVERT BA CK TO NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY ESPECIALLY WHEN HE HAD A WINNING STREAK AND WAS NOT EVEN MAKING LOSSES? THIS IS THE ODD PART OF THE SPECULATION ACTIVITY CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AS SESSEE. ASSESSEE COULD HAVE EARNED LITTLE MORE BY CARRYING ON THE SA ME ACTIVITY FOR THE BALANCE TWO AND A HALF MONTHS OF THE SAME FINANCIAL YEAR TO EARN SOMETHING MORE WHERE HE WAS NOT EVEN REQUIRED TO DE POSIT WITH THE SUB BROKER AND WITHOUT PAYING ANY STATUTORY SECURIT Y TRANSACTION TAX AS DONE IN OTHER TRANSACTIONS. BUT THAT WAS NOT DON E. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECORDED ANY O F THESE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND HAS NOT GO T HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED EVEN THOUGH ASSESSEE CLAIMS TO HAVE CARRIED OUT SPECULATION BUSINESS ACTIVITY AND THE TOTAL TURNOVER IN THIS BU SINESS OF SPECULATING IN SHARES ALONG WITH OTHER NORMAL BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF PACKING EXCEEDED THE STATUTORY LIMIT OF RS. 40,00,000/- PRE SCRIBED IN SECTION 44AB OF I.T. ACT, 1961. WHEN THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE JUXTAPOSED WITH OTHER INCIDENTAL FACTS LIKE THE NATURE OF BUSINESS ACTIVITY CARRIED ON BY THE ASSESSEE WITH THE SUB BROKER FALGUN FINVEST WHI CH HAD ADMITTED THAT 'IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING HAWA LA ENTRIES FOR A FEE AND HAD CLOSED ITS BUSINESS AFTER MARCH 2003, IT D EARLY LEADS ME TO A CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAD EXCHANGED HIS UNDISC LOSED INCOME THROUGH SUB BROKER FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI FOR 'SPEC ULATION INCOME/PROFITS IN SHARES'. IT MAY BE MENTIONED HERE THAT MR. NIRAJ A ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 9 SANGHAVI HUSBAND OF CHARU N. SANGHVI PROPRIETOR OF FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI WAS A POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF CHARU N. S ANGHAVI AND THUS HAD ALL THE AUTHORITY TO FURNISH ALL DETAILS A BOUT THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF HIS WIFE WHO HAD GIVEN HIM THE POWER OF ATTORNEY AND THEREFORE ALL THE STATEMENTS GIVEN BY MR. NIRAJ SAN GHVI AS POWER OF ATTORNEY HOLDER OF CHARU N. SANGHAVI, PROPRIETOR OF FALGUN FINVEST ARE VALID AND LEGALLY BINDING STATEMENTS. IT IS ALSO WO RTH MENTIONING HERE THAT ITAT, MUMBAI IN PARAGRAPH 8 OF ITS ORDER DATED 09/03/2009 HAS VERY CLEARLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE TO CROSS EXAMINE MR. NIRAJ SANGHVI WHO SE STATEMENT WAS HEAVILY RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AN D TO SUBMIT ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE TO JUSTIFY HIS (ASSESSEE'S) CLA IM. AND THIS OPPORTUNITY WAS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO T HE ASSESSEE ON 15/12/2010 AND ASSESSEE'S AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE MR. T. S. GADA - CA AVAILED OF THE OPPORTUNITY ON 15/12/2010 AND CROSS EXAMINED MR. NIRAJ SANGHAVI ON 15/12/2010. 4.3.6 M/S. FALGUN FINVEST IN HIS LETTER DATED 13/12 /2010 HAD CONFIRMED THAT 'IT HAD ISSUED BILLS TO MR. VINOD K. DEDHIA IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS WHICH TOOK PLACE IN THE FINANC IAL YEAR 2002-03 AND THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE DONE THROUGH 'OFF MARKE T TRANSACTION' AND WERE NOT ROUTED THROUGH THE MAIN BROKER VENTURA SECURITIES LTD. 4.3.7 ALL THESE FACTS CLEARLY INDICATE THAT ASSESSE E HAD NOT EARNED ANY SPECULATION PROFITS BUT HAD MERELY EXCHANGED HI S UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 15,03,799/- FOR SPECULATION PROFITS B Y ENTERING IN DUBIOUS TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. FALGUN FINVEST, MUMB AI TO AVAIL OFF ITS SET OFF AGAINST THE BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED SPECULATION LOSSES OF RS. 15,30,016/- AND, THEREFORE, ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN ASSESSING THE INCOME OF RS. 15,03,799/- AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES IS CONFIRMED AND ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS REJECTED ON T HIS GROUND. HOWEVER, ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO CARRY FORWARD THIS SPECULATION LOSS OF RS. 15,03,799/- TO NEXT ASSESSMENT YEAR AS PER LAW AND ITS SET OFF MAY BE ALLOWED FOR LATER ASSESSMENT YEARS SUBJECT T O FULFILLMENT OF OTHER CONDITIONS AS PER LAW. 4.4 DECISION ON ADDITIONAL GROUNDS:- . 4.5.1 CRUX OF GROUND NUMBERS 1.1 TO 1.6 AND RENUMBE RED GROUND 1.5 DEAL WITH THE ISSUE OF APPLICATION OF SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT, 1961 WHILE MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS. 15,03,799/- AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCES AND HAS BEEN SUBMITTED THAT THESE TRANSACTI ONS ARE MERELY REFLECTED IN THE BANK PASS BOOK AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME AND, THEREFORE, PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF I.T. ACT, 19 61 ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE ASSESSEE'S CASE. PRIMA FACIE TH E SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE APPEAR TO BE CORRECT AND PROVISIONS OF SEC TION ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO ASSESSEE'S CASE AND CORRECT PROVISION S OF LAW APPLICABLE ARE SECTION 69 OF I.T. ACT, 1961. IN ANY CASE, NOT APPLYING THE CORRECT SECTION DOES NOT VITIATE THE PROCEEDINGS OR ADDITIO N, IF THE SUBSTANCE IS IN CONFORMITY OR ACCORDING TO THE INTENT AND PURPOS E OF THE ACT. ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 10 THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONAL GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSE SSEE IS DISMISSED . 45.2 CRUX OF THE ARGUMENT IS THAT (1) ACTUAL OPPORT UNITY TO EXAMINE MRS. CHARU N. SANGHVI PROPRIETOR OF FALGUN FINVEST WAS NOT GIVEN, (2) EVIDENCE OF FALGUN FINVEST IS NOT AN EVIDENCE AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE BUT EVIDENCE GIVEN TO SAVE THEIR OWN SKIN AND (3) R ELIANCE SHOULD BE PLACED ON THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE ASS ESSEE AND NOT THE SECONDARY EVIDENCE FURNISHED BY THE SUB BROKER FALG UN FINVEST, MUMBAI. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DEALT WITH IN F OLLOWING PARAGRAPHS: 4.5.3 ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORIGINAL ASSESSMENT HAD RELIED ON THE STATEMENT FURNISHED BY MR. NIRAJ SANGHAVI HUSBAND O F CHARU N. SANGHAVI PROPRIETOR OF FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI AND I TAT, MUMBAI IN PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER DATED 09/03/2009 HAD SPECIFICAL LY DEALT WITH AND DIRECTED THAT AN OPPORTUNITY BE PROVIDED TO ASSESSE E TO EXAMINE MR. NIRAJ SANGHVI HUSBAND OF CHARU N. SANGHVI PROPRIETO R OF FALGUN FINVEST AND, THEREFORE, THESE DIRECTIONS HAVE BEEN FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMI NE HAS BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AND AVAILED OF BY THE ASSESSEE'S CA ON 15/12/2010. THEREFORE, AO'S ACTION IN FOLLOWING ITAT'S DIRECTIO NS IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IS FULLY JUSTIFIED AND UPHELD. MOREOVER, PARA GRAPHS 5.4 AND 5.5 MAINLY HIGHLIGHT THE PRIMARY EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSA CTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE TREATMENTS GIVEN BY THE ASS ESSEE IN HIS ACCOUNTS, PASS BOOK AND COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INCOME ON THESE BASIC DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE AND ONLY PARTIAL RELIANCE IS PLACED ON THE SECONDARY EVIDENCE OF STA TEMENT AND TRANSACTIONS OF FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI TO SUBSTANTI ATE THE MAIN EVIDENCE OF THE TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE AS SESSEE AND OTHER RELEVANT FACTORS LIKE SETTING OFF OF UNABSORBED SPE CULATION LOSS TO ARRIVE AT AND DRAW CONCLUSIONS. THEREFORE, THE SUBM ISSIONS MADE IN GROUND OF APPEAL 1.7 OF ADDITIONAL GROUNDS ARE ALSO TAKEN INTO CONSIDERATION WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL. IN SHORT, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IS REJECTED ON ALL THE SEVEN GROUNDS 1.1 TO 1.7 AND ANOTHER GROUND RENUMBERED AS 1.5 ARE REJECTED AND ASSESSING OFFICER'S ACTION IS UPHELD. 4.5.4 IN NUTSHELL, ASSESSEE'S APPEAL IN RESPECT OF GROUND NUMBERS 1.1 TO 1.5 OF THE ORIGINAL APPEAL MEMO AND GROUND NUMBE RS 1.1 TO 1.7 AND RENUMBERED/REPEATED GROUND 1,5 ARE DISMISSED AND REJECTED. 4.3.3 FROM AN APPRECIATION OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUT HORITIES BELOW (AS EXTRACTED SUPRA) AND THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS COMPREHENSIVELY CONSIDERED THE GROUNDS R AISED AND CONTENTIONS PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. TH E SUM AND SUBSTANCE OF THE ISSUE IN THE GROUNDS RAISED BEFORE US IS THA T THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE AOS ACTION IN BRINGING TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS AS ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 11 UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 15,03,799/-, WHICH THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED WERE SPECULATION PROFITS. BRIEFLY, THE ASSESSEES CLAIM WAS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD UNABSORBED SPECULATION LOSS OF ` 15,03,799/-, WHICH IS CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SET OFF AGAINST SPECULATION INCOME OF ` 15.03,799/- BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING FROM SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE A ND SALE OF SHARES FROM 23.10.2002 TO 21.01.2003 IN ONLY NINE SESSIONS OF T RADING, ON NINE DAYS THROUGH SUB-BROKER M/S FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI. THE LEARNED CIT(A), ON EXAMINATION OF THE DETAILS THEREOF, OBSERVED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD NOT RECORDED ANY OF THE THESE TRANSACTIONS IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS; HAD NOT MADE ANY DEPOSIT WITH THE SUB-BROKER AND NOT PAID S ECURITY TRANSACTION TAX, HAD NOT GOT HIS ACCOUNTS AUDITED EVEN THOUGH T HE TURNOVER IN THIS SPECULATION BUSINESS ACTIVITY WAS IN EXCESS OF ` 40,00,000/- AS REQUIRED UNDER SECTION 44AB OF THE ACT. 4.3.4 THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE SUB-BROKER M/S. FALGUN FINVEST, WITH WHOM THE ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO THESE ALLEGED SPECULATIVE TRANSACTIONS, ADMITTED THAT IT WAS ENGAGED IN THE B USINESS OF GIVING HAVALA ENTRIES FOR A FEE AND CONCLUDED THAT IN VIEW OF THE FACTS ON RECORD, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE LAUNDERED HIS UNDISCLOSED I NCOME THROUGH THIS SUB-BROKER M/S. FALGUN FINVEST AS SPECULATION PROFI T/INCOME IN SHARES. THAT SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVI, HUSBAND AND POA HOLDER OF HIS WIFE SMT. CHARU SANGHVI, PROP. FALGUN FINVEST ADMITTED TO THE SAME, BOTH IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 07.03.2006 BEFORE THE ADIT (INV), UNIT D-2, M UMBAI AND ALSO IN HIS STATEMENT BEFORE THE AO ON 15.12.2010 AND CONFIRMED THE SAME WHEN CONFRONTED IN CROSS EXAMINATION BY THE ASSESSEES A .R. SHRI T.S. GADA, CA, IS A FACT ON RECORD THAT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE COPY OF SHRI NIRAJ SANGHVIS STATEMENT SATED 07.03. 2006 GIVEN BEFORE THE ADIT (INV) RELIED ON BY THE AO IN THE FIRST ROUND O F ASSESSMENT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINATION OF SHRI NIRAJ SANG HVI ON 15.12.2010 WERE BOTH DULY GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE AS PER THE DIRECTIO NS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN ITS ORDER DATED 09.03.200 9 IN THE ASSESSEES CASE. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT M/S. FALGUN FINVEST IN LETTER DATED 13.12.2010 HAS CONFIRMED THAT IT HAD I SSUED BILLS TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT OF CERTAIN TRANSACTIONS THAT TO OK PLACE IN FINANCIAL YEAR ITA NO. 1246/MUM/2014 SHRI VINOD KHIMJI DEDHIA 12 2002-03 DONE OFF MARKET AND NOT ROUTED THROUGH TH E MAIN BROKER, M/S. VENTURA SECURITIES LTD. IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF T HE CASE, FINDING THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO BRING ON RECORD ANY M ATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE UP HOLD THE ACTION OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) IN BRINGING TO TAX IN THE ASSESSEES HANDS, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF ` 15,03,799/- AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, SINCE THE FACTS ON RECORD CLEARLY ESTABLISH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT EARNED ANY SPECULATION INCOME BUT HAD MERELY LAUNDERED HIS UNDISCLOSED INC OME OF ` 15,03,799/- FOR SPECULATION PROFITS BY ENTERING INTO DUBIOUS TR ANSACTIONS WITH/THROUGH M/S. FALGUN FINVEST, MUMBAI IN ORDER TO AVAIL SET O FF AGAINST BROUGHT FORWARD UNABSORBED SPECULATION LOSS OF ` 15,03,016/-. CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMIS SED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2003- 04 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2016 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -24, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT - 13, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.