KERSI S. CONTRACTOR, MUMBAI V. ITO WD 12(2)(3), THANE

ITA 1261/MUM/2009

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3559 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 3 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 06-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 24-02-2009
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRY; K K VED
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Additional evidence
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH, MUMBAI . .. . . .. . , ,, , !'# !'# !'# !'# $ $ $ $ %$$ $& %$$ $& %$$ $& %$$ $&, ,, , ' !'# ' !'# ' !'# ' !'# !( !( !( !( BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, AM AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA , JM !./ I.T.A. NO. 1261/MUM/2009 ( '* & $+& '* & $+& '* & $+& '* & $+& / / / / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06) MR. KERSI S.CONTRACTOR 72, FERENA, 25, ARTHUR BUNDER CROSS ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400005 * * * * / VS. INCOME - TAX OFFICER WARD-12(2)(3), AAYAKAR BHAVAN MUMBAI.-400020 #, ! ./ PAN : AABPC2955K ( ,- / // / APPELLANT ) .. ( ./,- / RESPONDENT ) ,- 0 1 ! / APPELLANT BY : SHRI J.D.MISTRY & K.K. VED ./,- 0 1 ! / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR ! *$ 0 / // / DATE OF HEARING : 06-06-2013 23+ 0 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.06.2013 '4 / O R D E R PER P.M. JAGTAP, A.M . .. , !'# : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) -12/MUM DATED 22.01.2009 AND THE SOLITARY IS SUE ARISING OUT OF THE SAME RELATES TO THE ADDITION OF RS. 22,36,660/- MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN BY CAPTAIN BEHRAM TREATING THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S-68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT). 2 2. THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENT CASE IS A INDIVIDUAL WHO DERIVES THE INCOME BY WAY OF BROKERAGE AND OTHER SOURCES SUCH AS INTERES T ETC. THE RETURN OF INCOME OF YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS FILED BY HIM ON 18 TH OCTOBER 2006 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.3,67,540/- . DURING THE COURSE OF ASS ESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS NOTICED BY THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED A SUM OF RS.22,36,660 FROM MR. RUCY BEHRAM WHICH WAS CREDITED TO HIS SAVING BANK ACCOUNT MAINTAINED WITH HSBC BANK MUMBAI MAIN BRANCH. THE SAID AMOUNT WAS C LAIMED TO BE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN GIVEN EARLIER. ALTHOUGH, THE ASSESSEE FILED UNSIGNED COPY OF E-MAIL CLAIMED TO BE RECEIVE D FROM SHRI RUCY BEHRAM CONFIRMING THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION PAID TO THE ASSE SSEE, HE COULD NOT FURNISH OTHER DETAILS AND DOCUMENTS REQUIRED, BY THE ASSESSING OF FICER TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS CLAIM OF HAVING RECEIVED AMOUNT IN QUESTION TOWARDS REPAYMEN T OF LOAN BY MR. RUCY BEHRAM. THE AO, THEREFORE, TREATED THE SAID AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT AND ADDITION OF RS.22,33,660/- WAS MADE BY HIM TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF ASSESSEE U/S-68. 3. THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S-6 8 WAS DISPUTED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE APPEAL BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). IT WA S SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT CAPT. BEHRAM AND ASSESSEE WERE CLOSE FR IENDS AND HAD MET IN THE TRAINING SHIP IN THE YEAR 1942. IT WAS SUBMITTED T HAT CAPT. BEHRAM WAS IN CALCUTTA DURING THE YEAR 1951 TO 1963 AS A RIVER PILOT AND HAD HELPED THE ASSESSEE TO GET A JOB OF RUNNING PEDAL STEAMERS FROM CALCUTTA TO ASSA M. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE PERIOD OF 1953 TO 1955, THE ASSESSEE AND CAPT. BEHRAM SHARED THE SAME ACCOMMODATION. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT CAPT. BEHRAM MIGRATED TO CANADA IN THE YEAR 1963 AND WHEN THE ASSESSEE WAS IN TEHRAN IN THE YEA R 1972, HE CAME TO KNOW THAT CAPT. BEHRAM WAS HAVING SOME FINANCIAL DIFFICULTIES . IT WAS CLAIMED THAT IN ORDER TO OVERCOME THE SAID DIFFICULTIES, THE ASSESSEE HAD GI VEN LOAN OF US $ 50003/- TO CAPT. BEHRAM FROM HIS EARNING IN IRAN AND AFTER THE IMPRO VEMENT IN HIS FINANCIAL POSITION, CAPT. BEHRAM REPAID THE LOAN GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE EARLIER, AS HE WAS HAVING SOME HEART PROBLEMS AND WANTED TO DISCHARGE HIS OBLIGAT IONS. IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT CAPT. BEHRAM EVEN GIFTED THE SUM OF US $ 6881/-EQUI VALENT TO RS. 230924/- TO THE 3 WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE MS. JER CONTRACTOR SIMULTANEOU SLY ONE OF LOVE AND AFFECTION. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED THE FOLLOWING DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) SEEKING ADMISSION THEREOF ON THE GROUND THAT HE COULD NOT FILE THE SAME BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER SINCE CAPT. RUCY BEHRA M WAS AWAY FROM HIS HOME AT THE RELEVANT TIME. 1. AFFIDAVIT OF CAPT. BEHRAM DATED 20.03.08. 2. COPY OF THE PASSPORT OF CAPT. BEHRAM 3. PHOTO-COPY OF BANK ADVICE EVIDENCING THE PAYMENT OF RS. 22,33,660/- BY CAPTA. BEHRAM. 4. THE ABOVEMENTIONED DOCUMENTS FILED BY THE ASSESS EE AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WERE ADMITTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) UNDER RULE 46A OF T HE INCOME-TAX RULES AND SAME WERE FORWARDED BY HIM TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR HIS COMMENTS. THE AO SUBMITTED A REMAND REPORT TO THE LD. CIT(A) OFFERIN G HIS COMMENTS WHICH WAS CONFRONTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) TO THE ASSESSEE SEEKIN G HIS COUNTER COMMENTS THEREON. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT S UBMITTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS THE COUNTER COMMENTS OFFERED BY THE ASSE SSEE ON THE SAID REMAND REPORT, THE LD. CIT(A) DECIDED THE ISSUE INVOLVED IN THE AP PEAL OF THE ASSESSEE RELATING TO THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER U/S 68 VIDE PARAGRAPH NO. 2.3 OF HIS IMPUGNED ORDER WHICH READS AS UNDER : 2.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR THE APPELLANT AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE TEST OF A CREDIT ENTRY BEING A GENUINE ONE IS BY ESTABLISHING THE IDENTITY, CREDIB ILITY AND CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PERSON. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT T HE ONUS OF PROVING A CREDIT LIES WITH THE PERSON WHO SHOWS IT. IN THE I NSTANT CASE, THE IDENTITY OF SHRI BEHRAM IS ESTABLISHED BY THE COPY OF PASSPORT FILED AND AFFIDAVIT SWORN BY HIM. HOWEVER, THE CREDIBILI TY OF THE TRANSACTIONS CANNOT BE ESTABLISHED BY BRINGING IN E MOTIONAL AND SENTIMENTAL REASONS, HOWEVER TRUE AND STRONG THEY M AY BE. THE CREDIBILITY OF A TRANSACTION HAS TO BE BROUGHT OUT BY OBJECTIVE PROOF AND NOT BY SUBJECTIVE REASONS. THE PURPORTED LOAN GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR 1972 IS NOT BACKED BY ANY OBJ ECTIVE EVIDENCES. THE APPELLANT IN THE YEAR 1972 IS NOT BACKED BY ANY OBJECTIVE 4 EVIDENCES. THE APPELLANT MIGHT HAVE BEEN IN TEHRAN DURING THE PERIOD IN 1972 BUT THERE ARE NO EVIDENCES TO PROVE THAT HE HAD GIVEN US $ 50003 TO CAPT. RUCY BEHRAM. THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO CA PT. BEHRAM WAS IN THE FORM OF A LOAN IS NOT DISPUTED. THE AMOUNT OF US$ 50003 WAS AN ASTRONOMICAL SUM IN 1970S AND IT DOES NOT BEAR A NY RATIONAL EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE SAME HAD NOT BEEN REFLECT ED BY THE APPELLANT IN HIS STATEMENT OF AFFAIRS FILED BEFORE THE DEPT. OVER THE YEARS. IT IS ONLY AFTER THE LAPSE OF 32 YEARS WHEN THE AMOUNT OF US $50003 WAS REMITTED TO HIS ACCOUNT, HE HAD CLAIMED THAT HE HAD GIVEN LOAN TO CAPT. BEHRAM, IN THE YEAR 1970. THE ADDITIONAL EVI DENCES SUBMITTED MAY JUSTIFY THE IDENTITY OF CAPT. BEHARAM. THE ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES BY THEMSELVES CANNOT PROVE THE CREDIBILITY OF THE T RANSACTION AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF CAPT. BEHARAM. THE ULTIMATE SO URCE OF THE CREDIT OF US $ 50003 IS THE PURPORTED LOAN TO HAVE BEEN GI VEN IN THE 1972 FOR WHICH THERE IS NO EVIDENCE THAT IT WAS SO. WHEN TH E PROOF FOR THE CAUSE IS ABSENT THE EFFECT CANNOT SUBSTITUTE THE CA USE. THE AFFIDAVIT OF CAPT. BEHRAM ONLY REITERATES THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT ANY MATERIALS TO BACK IT. THE AFFIDAVIT DOES NOT S HOW THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF CAPT. BEHRAM NOR THE CREDIBILITY OF T HE TRANSACTIONS OF LOAN. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS MENTIONED ABOVE, I AM OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO PR ODUCE ANY MATERIALS TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 2236660/- CR EDITED TO HIS ACCOUNT IS REALLY THE AMOUNT REFUNDED BY CAPT. BEHR AM FOR THE LOAN TAKEN BY HIM IN THE YEAR 1972. AS THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE PAYER HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLISHED, THEN THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 68 IS ATTRACTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN ADDING RS. 2236660/- IS CONFIRMED. 5. THE LD. CIT(A) THUS CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF R S. 22,33,660/- MADE BY AO ON ACCOUNT OF THE AMOUNT CLAIMED BE RECEIVED BY TH E ASSESSEE TOWARDS OF REPAYMENT OF LOAN FROM CAPT. BEHRAM TREATING THE SA ME AS UNEXPLAINED AND DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THIS APPEAL BEFO RE THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH SIDES AND ALSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD. AS SUBMITTED B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, SUM OF RS.2,30,624/- WAS SIMULTANEOUS LY PAID BY CAPT. BEHRAM TO THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE MS.JER K. CONTRA CTOR OUT OF LOVE AND AFFECTION AND THE SAME WAS ALSO TREATED BY THE AO A S WELL AS THE LD. CIT(A) 5 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY INVOKING SECTION 68. HE HAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF MRS. J.K. CO NTRACTOR, HOWEVER, HAS ALREADY BEEN DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ITS ORDE R DATED 30 TH JUNE 2011 PASSED IN ITA NO. 1892/MUM/2009 RELYING ON THE SAME DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS FILED IN THE CASE OF THE PRESENT ASSESS EE. COPY OF THE SAID ORDER OF TRIBUNAL IS PLACED ON RECORD BEFORE US AND PERUSAL OF THE SAME SHOWS THAT THE SIMILAR ADDITION MADE U/S-68 IN THE CASE OF THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DELETED BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE FOLLOW ING REASONS GIVEN IN PARAGRAPH NO. 6 TO 9 :- 6. WE HAVE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CERTAI N EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF BEHRANS IDENTITY, BY WAY O F COPY OF CAPT. R.K.BEHRANS, CANADIAN PASSPORT AND THE ASSESSEE HA S ALSO FILED CAPT. BEHRANS AFFIDAVIT WHICH STATES AS FOLLOWS. AFFIDAVIT OF RUCY KHOORSHED BEHRAM I, RUCY KHOORSHED BEHRAM, SON OF KHOORSHED BEHRAM, OF 645 SIXTH AVENUE WEST, IN THE CITY OF OWEN SOUND, IN THE COUN TY OF GRYE, PROVINCE, OF ONTARIO, MAKE OATH AND SAY: 1. I AM CANADIAN CITIZEN HOLDING A PASSPORT NO. JE 949102. 2. I AM AN OLD FRIEND OF CAPTAIN KERSI S. CONTRACTO R AND HIS WIFE, MRS. JER K. CONTRACTOR, WHO RESIDE AT 72, FERENA, 2 5, ARTHUR BUNDER CROSS ROAD, COLABA, MUMBAI-400005, INDIA. 3. WE FIRST MET EACH OTHER ON THE TRAINING SHIP TS DUFFERIN IN THE YEAR 1943 WHERE I WAS HIS SENIOR BY ONE YEAR. 4. THEREAFTER ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THAT THE MERCH ANT MARINE FRATERNITY IN THOSE DAYS WAS QUITE SMALL WE WERE IN REGULAR TOUCH WITH EACH OTHER, MORE SO ON ACCOUNT OF THE FACT THA T WE WERE ALSO OF THE SAME COMMUNITY. 5. DURING THE YEARS 1951 TO 1963 I WAS IN CALCUTTA, NOW KOLKOTA, AS A HOOGLY RIVER PILOT AND KERSI PASSED HIS CAPTAI NS (FOREIGN GOING) EXAM. I GOT HIM A JOB IN INDIA GENERAL NAV IGATION & RAILWAY CO. LTD. A SUBSIDIARY OF KILLICK NIXON LTD., WHICH USED TO RUN PADDLE STEAMERS FROM CALCUTTA(KOLKATA) TO ASSAM AND PATNA. 6. DURING THIS PERIOD 1953 TO 1955 KERSI AND I SHAR ED THE SAME ACCOMMODATION AND LIVED LIKE BROTHERS UNTIL 1955 WH EN HE CAME TO MUMBAI AS A HARBOUR PILOT. 7 . IN 1963 I MIGRATED TO CANADA, BUT WAS IN CLOSE TO UCH WITH KERSI THROUGH CORRESPONDENCE AND TELEPHONE AND ALSO WHEN ON VISIT TO MUMBAI. 8. DURING YEARS 1972 AND ONWARDS WHEN KERSI WAS IN TEHRAN, IRAN, DUE TO INCREASED FINANCIAL LIABILITIES INCLUDING TH E MORTGAGE OF MY 6 RESIDENTIAL PROPERTY, I TOOK UP KERSIS OFFER OF FI NANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM TIME TO TIME, WITH AN UNDERSTANDING THAT I WOU LD REPAY THE AMOUNT AS AND WHEN I COULD. THE TOTAL AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM TI ME TO TIME WAS $50,003.00 (US DOLLARS), FROM HIS EARNINGS IN IRAN. 9. THEREAFTER, OVER THE LAST MANY YEARS WHEN MY MON ETARY CONDITION HAD IMPROVED, I HAVE WANTED TO RETURN THE SAID MONEY TO CAPTAIN KERSI S. CONTRACTOR WHO KEPT ON SAYING THAT THERE W AS NO URGENCY. 10. EVENTUALLY DURING THE YEARS UNDER CONSIDERATION DUE TO MY HEART CONDITION AND OLD AGE, EIGHTY-ONE YEARS, I WAS INSI STENT ON PUTTING MY FINANCIAL AFFAIRS AND OBLIGATIONS IN ORDERS, AND MA DE A REMITTANCE OF USD $50,003.00 ON MAY 19, 2004, TO COVER THE MONIES I HAD RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME, SO THAT MY WIFE AS EXECUTRIX OF MY WILL WOULD NOT HAVE ANY TROUBLE IF I LEFT FOR HER TO MAKE THE PAYM ENT. THE PAYMENT WAS EFFECTED FROM MY ACCOUNT AT THE SCOTIABANCK, OW EN SOUND, ONTARIO BRANCH, ACCOUNTNO.120620062286. 11. IN VIEW OF MY NATURAL LOVE AND AFFECTION FOR MR S. JER K. CONTRACTOR I HAD GIFTED A SUM OF 230924 (INDIAN RUPEES), BY A BANK DRAFT (CANADIAN $6,881.54) FROM MY ACCOUNT TO HER. I DECLARED THAT THE ABOVE STATEMENTS ARE TRUE AND C ORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF. ) SWORN BEFORE ME AT THE ) CITY OF OWN SOUND, IN ) RUCY KHOORSHED BEHRAN THE COUNTRY OF GREY, ) THIS 20 TH DAY OF MARCH, ) 2008, 7. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO NOT ENGAGED IN ANY BUSINESS, HER INCOMES ARE ONLY PASSIVE INCOMES, AND THE MONEY RECEIVED BY HER IS NOT USED IN ANY OTHER INVESTMENT OR SUCH PURPOSES. 8. TAKING ALL THE RELEVANT FACTORS INTO CONSIDERATI ONS, WE SEE NO REASONS TO DISBELIEVE THE GENUINENESS OF GIFT RECEI VED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE, AS ALSO PERSON HAVING MADE THE REMITTANCE, ARE KNOWN TO EACH OTHER FOR OVER HALF A CENTURY, TH ERE IS A PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR REMITTANCE HAVING BEEN MADE TO THE ASSESSEE, THE RECEIPT IS NOT OF AN INCOME NATURE, AND IT IS NOT A CASE WHERE THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES CONTRADICTIONS IN THE EXPLANATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. 9. WE HAVE ALSO NOTED THE ASSESSING OFFICERS OBSER VATIONS ABOUT AN APPARENT CONTRADICTION IN THE STAND OF THE ASSESSEE INASMUCH AS THE AMOUNT WAS SAID TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FROM HER HUSB AND, BUT EVENTUALLY MONEY WAS FOUND TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED FR OM HER HUSBANDS OLD FRIEND. HOWEVER, AS IS CLEAR FROM THE CONTENTS OF THE AFFIDAVIT THIS MONEY WAS BELIEVED TO HAVE BEEN OWED BY HER HUSBANDS FRIEND TO HER HUSBAND, AND, THEREFORE, IN A WAY MONEY, CAN BE SAID TO ACTUALLY BELONG TO HER HUSBAND BUT P AID OVER TO HER. IN ANY CASE, THIS DISCREPANCY IS NOT REALLY VERY RELEV ANT BECAUSE THERE IS A REASONABLE AND PLAUSIBLE EXPLANATION FOR REMITTAN CE TO THE ASSESSEE, AND, AS WE HAVE WORKED, IT IS NOT OF INCO ME NATURE. 7 7. AS IS CLEARLY EVIDENT FROM THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE TRIBUNALS ORDER AS REPRODUCED ABOVE, THE SAME AFFIDAVIT FILED BY CAPT. RUCY BEHRAM HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE A RELIABLE EVIDENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO TREAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE FROM THE SAID DEPONENT AS SATISFACTORI LY EXPLAINED. ALTHOUGH THE AMOUNT PAID TO WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS RECEIVED AS GIFT WHILE THE AMOUNT IN QUESTION IS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE TOWARDS REPAYM ENT LOAN FROM CAPT. RUCY BEHRAM IT IS TO BE NOTED THAT THE AFFIDAVIT OF CAPT . RUCY BEHRAM CONFIRMING BOTH THESE PAYMENTS HAS BEEN FOUND TO BE A RELIABLE EVID ENCE BY THE TRIBUNAL TO TREAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE WIFE OF THE ASSESSEE AS EXPLAINED DELETING THE ADDITION MADE U/S 68 IN HER CASE. IN OUR OPINION, THE RATIO OF THE SAID DECISION RENDERED BY TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MS. J.K.CONTRACTOR(SUPRA ) THUS IS APPLICABLE EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH, WE DELETE THE ADDITION MADE BY TH E ASSESSING OFFICER U/S-68 AND CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON ACCOUNT OF THE A MOUNT RECEIVED FROM CAPT. RUCY BEHRAM. 8. AS A RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST JUNE.2013 '4 0 23+ 5'*6 21 ST JUNE.2013 3 0 SD/- SD/- ( VIVEK VARMA ) (P.M. JAGTA P ) ' !'# JUDICIAL MEMBER !'# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; 5'* DATED 21.06.2013 '*.!./ S.S.K , PS '4 0 .'7% 8%+ '4 0 .'7% 8%+ '4 0 .'7% 8%+ '4 0 .'7% 8%+/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 9 ( ) / THE CIT (A) - , MUMBAI 4. 9 /CIT MUMBAI 5. %$< .''* , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI BENCH 6. =& > / GUARD FILE. '4* ! '4* ! '4* ! '4* ! / BY ORDER, !/% .' //TRUE COPY// ? ?? ?/ // /!@ !@ !@ !@ ( DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , , , , / ITAT, MUMBAI