DCIT CEN CIR 4(1) CEN RG 4, MUMBAI V. RINA S. MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 1367/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3502 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-04-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 1992-1993
• Appeal Filed On: 11-03-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DANIEL
• Keywords: Rejection of books of accounts; Unexplained investment; Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Question of law; Cost of acquisition; Corroborative evidences; Assessment record; TDS; Set aside; Capital Gains
• Section: 142(1); 234B; 139(1); 48; 13; 22; 131; 69; 27; 6; 12; 28; 144; 10; 2; 11; 15

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1367/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1992-93 DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, ROOM NO.1916, 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI - 400021 VS. SMT. RINA S. MEHTA, 32, MADHULI, 3 RD FLOOR, ABN ROAD, OPP. NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN: ABNPM8222C (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) ITA NO.1455/M/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1992-93 SMT. RINA S. MEHTA, 32, MADHULI, 3 RD FLOOR, ABN ROAD, OPP. NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI, MUMBAI 400 018 PAN: ABNPM8222C VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 4(1), CENTRAL RANGE-4, ROOM NO.1916, 19 TH FLOOR, AIR INDIA BUILDING, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 (APPELLANT) (R ESPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DHARMESH SHAH, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI P. DANIEL, D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 07.01.2021 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.04.2021 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT CROSS APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED AGAI NST THE ORDER DATED 31.12.2015 OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOM E TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE CIT(A)] R ELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 1992-93. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 2 ITA NO.1455/M/2016 2. THE APPELLANT HAS RAISED 8 GROUNDS IN ITS APPEAL ORIGINALLY. SUBSEQUENTLY, REVISED GROUNDS WERE FILED BY THE APP ELLANT VIDE LETTER DATED 04.01.2021 AS ORIGINAL GROUNDS HAD SOM E TYPOGRAPHICAL ERRORS. THE SAID REVISED GROUNDS RAI SED BY THE APPELLANT ARE AS UNDER: 1. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HA S ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT COMPLIED WITH THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE EITHER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OR DURING THE COURSE OF THE REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 2. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT DETERMINING THE INCOME BASED ON THE FI NAL BOOKS OF ACCOUNT THEREBY CONFIRMING THE MANNER OF DETERMINATION OF INCOME BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LEARNED CIT(A) OUGHT TO HAVE ACCEPTED BOOK RESULTS SHOWN BY THE APPELLANT. 3. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE WORKING OF UNEXPLAINED INVES TMENTS RELYING ON THE VARIOUS SOURCES OF INFORMATION. 4. THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN UPHOLDING THE DETERMINATION OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENTS AS PER ANNEXURE 1 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AMOUNTING TO RS.19,86,14, 228/- ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION COLLECTED FROM VARIOUS SOURCES ALLEGEDL Y SHOWING THE SHAREHOLDING OF THE APPELLANT WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE COPIES OF THE SAID LETTERS/INFORMATION WAS NEITHER PROVIDED TO THE APPELLANT DURING ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS NOR DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS. 5. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION OF RS.11,63,200/- ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT. 6. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST OF RS.2, 04,00, 000/- ON FUND BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS AND BUSINES S. 7. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS THAT IN CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 8. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN LAW AND IN FACTS IN NOT APPRECIATING THAT THE INCOME ASSESSED IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WERE SUBJECTED TO THE PROVISIONS OF TDS AND HENCE ON THE SAID AMOUNT OF TAX NO INTEREST CAN BE COMPUTED U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT . 9. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE OF YOUR HONOUR TO ADD TO, ALTER, AMEND AND7 OR DELETE ALL OR ANY OF THE FOREGOING GROUNDS OF APPEA L. 3. GROUND NO.1 IS GENERAL IN NATURE AND NOT BEING ADJUDICATED SEPARATELY. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 3 4. GROUND NO.2 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST TH E CONFIRMATION OF REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY L D. CIT(A) THEREBY UPHOLDING THE ORDER OF AO. 5. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN I NDIVIDUAL AND DOING THE BUSINESS OF TRADING AND INVESTMENTS IN SH ARES. DURING THE YEAR THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY RETUR N OF INCOME UNDER SECTION 139(1) OF THE ACT. THEREAFTER, THE A SSESSEE WAS ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT ON 04 .01.1993, HOWEVER, THE SAME WAS NOT COMPLIED WITH. THE ORIGI NAL ASSESSMENT IN THIS CASE WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT ON 28.02.1995 ASSESSING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.20,29,21,230/- BY MAKING VARIOUS ADDITIONS. IT I S PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FURNISH ANY BO OKS OF ACCOUNTS BEFORE THE AO AND AO ACCORDINGLY COMPLETED ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF AVAILABLE INFORMATION AN D INCOMPLETE BOOKS FOUND AT THE TIME OF SEARCH BY MAKING ADDITIO NS UNDER SECTION 69 IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS OF RS19,86,14,228/-. THE MATTER REACHED THE TRIBUNAL AND THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 13.06.2008 RESTORED THE M ATTER TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO ADMIT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS EVIDENCE AND DECIDE THE APPEAL AFTER GI VING A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. IN THE SEC OND ROUND, THE LD CIT(A) PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE AS SESSEE VIDE ORDER DATED 31.12.2015 AND THEREFORE THE ASSESSEE A S WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PRODUCE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS BECAUSE THEY WERE NOT COMPLETE DUE TO S EVERAL UNFORESEEN AND UNCONTROLLABLE REASONS BEYOND THE CO NTROL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED ON THE ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 4 BASIS OF INFORMATION/DETAILS AND MATERIAL GATHERED BY THE AO AND THE INFORMATION SUPPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE AO MADE SEVERAL ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF DIVIDEND AND INTERE ST OF RS.31,43,803/-, UNEXPLAINED RECEIPTS RS.11.63,200/- AND UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS RS.19,86,14,220/-. ALTHOUG H THE TRIBUNAL HAD DIRECTED LD. CIT(A) TO ADMIT AND CONSI DER THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT EXAMINE THE BOOKS AND PASSED THE APPELLATE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. THE REASON CITED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS T HAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO PRODUCE THE BOOKS BEFORE T HE AO AND THE AO WAS DIRECTED TO SUBMIT THE REMAND REPORT BUT INSPITE OF THAT NO SUCH REMAND REPORT WAS FURNISHED DESPITE SE VERAL OPPORTUNITIES GIVEN TO THE AO. 6. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE FOR THE PU RPOSE OF DETERMINATION OF INCOME. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED TH AT SINCE THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE PRIMARY EVIDENCES FILED BEFORE HIM COMPRISING CONTRACT NOTES, DIVIDEND WARRANTS AND BA NK STATEMENT ETC., THEN THERE WAS NO REASON FOR REJECT ING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS ENTRIES MADE THEREIN WERE ON THE BAS IS OF ABOVE PRIMARY EVIDENCES AND RECORDS WHICH WERE BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT INCOME FROM INVESTMENTS IN THE FORM OF DIVIDEND AND INTEREST ETC. HAVE BEEN DETERMINED AND ACCEPTED AS SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH INCIDENTALLY I S MORE THAN THE INCOME ASSESSED BY THE AO IN THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER. THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ARE VERIFIABLE WITH THE SUPPORTING EVIDENCES SUCH AS BANK STATEMEN TS, CONTRACT NOTES AND INCOME WARRANTS ETC AND SINCE SU BSTANTIAL TRANSACTIONS OF INVESTMENTS WERE WITH BROKERAGE FIR MS WITHIN ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 5 THE FAMILY, THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS OF THESE BROKERA GE FIRMS IN THE FAMILY OF THE ASSESSEE WHO WERE ASSESSED WITH S AME AO, COULD HAVE BEEN EXAMINED. THUS THE ACCURACY AND RE LIABILITY OF THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD BE DETERMINED WITH VARI OUS EVIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS. THE LD. A.R. ALSO REFERR ED TO THE OBSERVATIONS OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCHES IN SEVERAL CASES OF RELATED ENTITIES THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WHICH WERE PREPARED UNDER GREAT DIFFICULTIES SHOULD NOT BE REJECTED ON FLIMSY GROUNDS , YET THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN REJECTED WITHOUT ANY JUSTIFICATION AND COGENT REASONS. THE LD. A.R. THEREFORE REQUESTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OUGH T TO HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. THE LD. A.R. FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE REJECTED BY THE AO NOT ONLY IN THE CA SE OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ALSO IN THE CASES OF ALL THE FAMILY ME MBERS WHERE THE ASSESSMENTS WERE FRAMED UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTA NCES. THE LD. A.R. ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA. VS. ACIT ITA NO.5190/M /2017 A.Y. 1992-93 ORDER DATED 31.08.2020 WHEREIN THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH HAS HELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS TO BE INCORRECT AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. A.R. FINALLY PRAYED THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE D ESERVED TO BE ACCEPTED IN VIEW OF THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AS NARRATED ABOVE AND ALSO THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENC H AS CITED (SUPRA). 7. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND SUBMITTED THAT THE BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS ,WHICH WERE NOT FILED BEFORE THE AO AND NOR LD. CI T(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION BUT FILED BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL FOR THE FIRST ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 6 TIME, CAN NOT BE RELIED UPON AND WAS RIGHTLY REJECT ED BY THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT DIVIDEND AND INTEREST INCOME W AS DETERMINED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF BANK STATEMENT S AND DIVIDEND WARRANTS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAI D INCOME WAS DULY ACCOUNTED FOR BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE ALSO NOTE THAT IN VIEW OF SUCH MASSIVE SEARCH ON TH E ASSESSEE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS COULD NOT BE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION BECAUSE THESE COULD N OT BE COMPUTED AND ONLY COMPUTED IN THE LATER SERIES ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION ON RECORD AVAILABLE WITH THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTE THA T THESE BOOKS WERE FILED AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FOR THE FIRST TI ME BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE FIRST ROUND AND TRIBUNAL AFTER ADMI TTING THE SAME RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT (A) WITH THE DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AFTE R CONSIDERING THE SAID BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. HOWEVER, WE NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS AGAIN DISREGARDED THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS FILED B Y THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT EVEN POINTING A SINGLE DEFECT FOR THE SAID REJECTION. IN OUR OPINION, THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES IS NOT CORRECT IN VIEW OF T HE FACT THAT ALL THE RELATING EVIDENCES SUCH AS CONTRACT NOTES, DIVI DEND WARRANTS AND THE BANK STATEMENTS AND OTHER EVIDENCES AVAILAB LE ON RECORD WERE ACCEPTED WHICH WAS USED TO COMPLETE THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. IN OUR OPINION THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS CON STITUTE AN IMPORTANT PIECE OF EVIDENCE AND THEREFORE WE ARE NO T IN AGREEMENT WITH THE CONCLUSION DRAWN BY THE LD. CIT( A) ON THIS ISSUE THAT TOO WITHOUT POINTING OUT ANY DEFECTS AND DEFICIENCY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. WE ALSO NOTE THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 7 WERE ALSO REJECTED IN THE CASE OF ALL THE RELATED E NTITIES. WE NOTE THAT IN ONE OF THE RELATED ENTITIES M/S. HITESH S. MEHTA VS. ACIT (SUPRA) THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL UNDER SIMILAR CIRCUMSTANCES HAS HELD THE REJECTION OF BOOKS OF AC COUNTS AS INVALID AND INCORRECT AND ACCORDINGLY DECIDED THE I SSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWING THE SAID D ECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL WE ALSO HOLD THAT THERE IS NO REASON AND JUSTIFICATION FOR REJECTING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS BOTH THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO GIVE THE REASONS OR POINT OUT ANY DEFECTS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS. ACCORDINGLY, WE ALLOW THIS GROU ND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. GROUND NO. 2 IS ALLOWED. 9.IN GROUND NO. 3 AND 4, THE APPELLANT HAS CHALLENG ED THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS AS S USTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A). 10. THE BRIEF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS OR IGINALLY COMPLETED U/S. 144 OF THE ACT ON 28.02.1995 MAKING AN ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AT R S. 19,86,14,228/-. THE SAID ADDITION WAS MADE ON ACCOU NT OF ALLEGED UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE OF SHARES. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, INFORMATION PERTAINING TO T HE INVESTMENTS IN SHARES BY THE APPELLANT WERE COLLEC TED BY THE AO FROM THE FOLLOWING SOURCES: A. DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDING PROVIDED BY VARIOUS COMPANI ES. B. CUSTODIANS LETTER DATED 29.10.1993 GIVING DETAILS OF SHAREHOLDING IN VARIOUS COMPANIES. C. DIVIDEND ACCOUNT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 8 D. DETAILS OF SEIZED SHARES. ON THE BASIS OF THE ABOVE INFORMATION, A DETAILED L IST OF THE INVESTMENTS IN VARIOUS SHARES WAS PREPARED BY THE AO AND IN RESPECT OF EACH SCRIP, THE HIGHEST HOLDING FROM THE VARIOUS SOURCES WAS TREATED AS THE INVESTMENTS OF THE APPEL LANT MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE SAID LIST WAS MARKED AS ANNEXU RE 1 TO THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE ASSESSEE WAS CALLED UPON BY T HE AO TO FURNISH THE EVIDENCES IN RESPECT OF THE INVESTMENTS AS LISTED IN ANNEXURE 1 AND MADE BY HER DURING THE YEAR. ACCORDI NGLY, THE ASSESSEE FILED INVESTMENT IN SHARE ACCOUNT AND CONT RACT NOTES IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES TO SUBSTANTIATE AN D EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY HER. THE AO, HOWEVER, CONCLUDED THAT THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 20.02.1995 ARE CONSIDERED AS EXPLAINED THOUGH NO SUCH NOTICE WAS GIVEN AND THE A SSESSMENT ORDER WHICH COULD HAVE BEEN PASSED BY 31.03.1995 WA S SUDDENLY PASSED ON 28.02.1995 AFTER SEEING THE COMP LIANCE BEING MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. IN FACT, A LIST OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE AND SUPPORTED BY EVIDENCES FILED VIDE AND UPTO LETTER DATED 20.02.1995 IS PREPARED AND MARKED AS ANNEXURE 2. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT FOR THE REASONS BEST KNOWN TO AO, HE IGNORED THE EVIDENCES FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 21.02.1995, 28.02 .1995 AND 01.03.1995. HE ACCORDINGLY PASSED THE ORDER ON 28.0 2.1995, TREATING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INVESTMENT, AS PER ANNEXURE 1 AND THE INVESTMENTS AS PER ANNEXURE 2 AS THE UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE BASIS OF THE F ACT THAT THE SHARES STOOD REGISTERED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE , THE AO MADE THE PRESUMPTIONS THAT THE APPELLANT HAS ACTUAL LY MADE THE INVESTMENT (I.E. THAT SHE HAS ACTUALLY PAID FOR THE PURCHASE ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 9 OF THE SHARES) AND THAT THE SAID INVESTMENTS WERE MADE DURING THE RELEVANT YEAR. THE AFORESAID MATERIAL COLLECTED BY THE AO WAS NEVER DISCLOSED OR CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND REPEATED REQUESTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO ALLOW INSPECTION AND SUPPLY COPIES OF THE MATERIALS AS ALSO TO GRANT CROSS-EXAM INATION OF THE PERSON SUPPLYING SUCH MATERIAL WAS NOT GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS DULY CONFIRMED IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IT SELF PASSED ON 28.02.1995. THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINING THAT SHE HAD FUNDED THE INVESTMENTS BY A VAILING INTEREST-BEARING LOANS FROM THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS W AS ALSO REJECTED RESULTING INTO A HUGE ADDITION BEING MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. 11. BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE 1 ST ROUND AS WELL AS IN THE 2 ND ROUND, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE EVIDENCES F ILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTERS DATED 21.02.1995, 28.02.1995 AND 01.03.1995 WHICH OUGHT TO HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY T HE AO WERE NOT CONSIDERED AND IF THE SAME WERE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT, LARGE PART OF THE ADDITIONS WAS LIABLE TO BE DELETE D ON THAT GROUND ALONE. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO DI STINCTION BETWEEN THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE PRIOR T O 20.02.1995 AND THOSE FILED SUBSEQUENTLY BEFORE THE PASSING OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THROUGH LETTERS DATED 21.02.1995, 28.02.1995 AND 01.03.1995, ALL BEFORE RECEIPT OF THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT DIRECTED THE AO TO CON SIDER THE INVESTMENTS REFLECTED IN THE AFORESAID 3 LETTERS AN D DELETE THE ADDITIONS. HE ALSO DIRECTED THE AO TO RESTRICT THE ADDITIONS BY GIVING DUE CREDIT IN RESPECT OF THE SHARES RECEIVED AS BONUS SHARES OR ON ACCOUNT OF CONVERSION OF DEBENTURES AS EXPLAINED ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 10 BY THE APPELLANT AND THAT SUCH INVESTMENTS CANNOT B E TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED SINCE THERE WAS NO FRESH INVESTMENTS MA DE BUT THE SHARES WERE RECEIVED THROUGH BONUS ISSUE OR ON ACCO UNT OF CONVERSION OF DEBENTURES ON THE EXISTING INVESTMENT S. THE LD. CIT(A) UPHELD THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINE D INVESTMENTS ONLY IN RESPECT OF THE RESIDUAL INVESTM ENTS AFTER GRANTING THE AFORESAID RELIEFS. THE LD. CIT(A) ALSO DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE AMOUNT OF ADDITION SO SU STAINED SHOULD BE DETERMINED BY ADOPTING THE PURCHASE RATE OF THE SHARES SO TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED ON THE BASIS OF TH E DATE OF PURCHASE FOUND IN THE VARIOUS CORRESPONDENCES AND T HE INFORMATION GATHERED BY THE AO AND ALSO AFTER CONSI DERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE. THUS, EVEN THE CHALLEN GE TO VALUATION ADOPTED BY THE AO WAS GRANTED IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE. 12.THE LD. AR SUBMITTED THAT SUCH RESIDUAL ADDITION S SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WERE INCORRECT AND UNJUSTIFIED FO R SEVERAL REASONS. IT IS STATED THAT THE ADDITIONS SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ARE SUMMARISED AT PAGE 1 OF PB. THE LD AR S UBMITTED THAT INVESTMENTS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED ARE LIABLE TO BE DELETED AS THEY WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE AFORESAID BOOKS O F ACCOUNTS AND CAN ALSO BE PROVED WITH THE HELP OF CONTEMPORAR Y EVIDENCES WHICH ARE AVAILABLE ON RECORD THAT THESE WERE ACCOU NTED FOR INVESTMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THIS REGARD, RELIAN CE IS PLACED BY THE LD AR ON THE FOLLOWING EVIDENCES WHICH CONCLUSI VELY PROVE THAT THESE INVESTMENTS WERE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE AN D THAT THE SAME DOES NOT REPRESENT UNRECORDED INVESTMENTS OF T HE ASSESSEE. THESE EVIDENCES ARE AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 11 E. LEDGER ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT REFLECTING THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT THROUGH THE CREDIT GIVEN BY ABOVE 3 BROKE RAGE FIRMS. [PAGE 33-50 OF PB NO. 1] F. LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE ABOVE BROKERAGE FIRMS THROUGH WHOM THESE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE APPELLANT [PAGE 51-80 OF PB NO. 1].THESE BROKERAGE FIRMS HAVE ALSO FILED THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTBEFORE THE SAME AO IN THEIR ASSESSMENT AND APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. G. EXTRACT OF THE BANK BOOKIN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLA NT REFLECTING PAYMENTS MADE TO THE BROKERS TO THE EXTE NT THE APPELLANT HAD THE RESOURCES.[PAGE 81-85 OF PB N O. 1] H. AFFIDAVIT OF THE BROKER, SHRI ASHWIN MEHTA ON BEHAL F OF HIS BROKERAGE FIRM, M/S. ASHWIN MEHTA, CONFIRMING T HE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGES ON BEHA LF OF THE APPELLANT (ALONGWITH THE LIST OF SUCH INVEST MENTS MADE DURING A.Y. 1992-93 ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ) [PAGE 86-91 OF PB NO. 1]. THE LIST OF PURCHASES MAD E- ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT CLEARLY REFLECTS THE INVE STMENTS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO THOUGH THE SAME WA S NOT UNEXPLAINED. I. AFFIDAVIT OF THE BROKER, SMT JYOTI H. MEHTA ON BEHA LF OF HER BROKERAGE FIRM M/S. J.H. MEHTA, CONFIRMING THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON BEHAL F OF THE APPELLANT (ALONG WITH THE LIST OF SUCH INVESTME NTS ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 12 MADE DURING A.Y. 1992-93 ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT ) [PAGE 92-99 OF PB NO. 1]. - THE LIST OF PURCHASES M ADE ARE ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT CLEARLY REFLECTS THE INVESTMENTS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO. J. AFFIDAVIT OF THE BROKER, SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA ON BEHA LF OF HIS BROKERAGE FIRM M/S. HARSHAD S. MEHTA, CONFIRMIN G THE PURCHASE OF SHARES FROM THE STOCK EXCHANGE ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT (ALONG WITH THE LIST OF SUC H INVESTMENTS MADE DURING A.Y. 1992-93 ON BEHALF OF T HE APPELLANT) [PAGE 100-108 OF PB NO. 1]. - THE LIST O F PURCHASES MADE ARE ATTACHED TO THE AFFIDAVIT CLEARL Y REFLECTS THE INVESTMENTS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO. K. SAMPLE COPY OF THE CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY THE BROKERS, IN RESPECT OF THOSE SHARES WHICH ARE ALLEG EDLY TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO. [PAGE 113-118 OF PB NO. 1]. L. STATEMENT OF SHRI ASHWIN MEHTA RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT BEFORE THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY PROCEEDINGS CONDUCTED ON 22.02.1996 WHEREIN, VIDE Q . NO. 6 AND 8 OF THE STATEMENT, HE ACCEPTED THAT THE CONTRACT NOTES WERE ISSUED BY HIM TO VARIOUS CLIENT S WHICH INCLUDES THE APPELLANT. [PAGE NO. 109-112 OF PB NO. 1]. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 13 M. CORRESPONDING LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN BO OKS OF ALL THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS REFLECTING THESE VERY TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLAN T [PAGE NO. 506-515 OF PB NO. 3] N. AFFIDAVIT DATED 11.10.2006 FILED BY THE APPELLANT B EFORE THE HONBLE SPECIAL COURT IN MA NO. 337 OF 2006 (PA RA 9, 12-15 OF THE AFFIDAVIT)CONFIRMING PURCHASE OF SH ARES BEING MADE BY BROKERS ON CREDIT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE.[PAGE NO. 627-645 OF PB NO. 4] 13.FURTHER, THE LD. AR ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE FAC T THAT THE SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY THE ASSESSEE THROUGH THE AFORESAID 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS OF THE FAMILY WAS ALSO ACCEPTED BY THE HONBLE SPECIAL COURT AND HONBLE SUPREME COURT. THE APPELL ANT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING ORDERS IN THE CASES OF OTHER FAMIL Y MEMBERS WHEREIN THE AVERMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE THAT THE PURCH ASE OF SHARES MADE BY THE APPELLANT WERE SOURCED OUT OF FU NDS PROVIDED BY THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS AND THAT THESE SH ARES WERE ACQUIRED ON CREDIT EXTENDED BY THEM AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THESE ENTITIES: A. RASILA MEHTA AND RINA MEHTA V. CUSTODIAN [(2011) 6 SCC 220] [PARA 69-71 AT PAGE NO. 560-600, OF PB NO. 4] B. ASHWIN S. MEHTA AND OTHERS V. CUSTODIAN [(2006) 2SCC 385][PARA 48 AT PAGE 601-626 OF PB NO. 4] 14.FURTHER, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE SHARES TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED BY THE AO HAVE BEEN SOLD IN THE SUBSEQU ENT YEARS ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 14 UNDER THE ORDERS OF THE HONBLE SPECIAL COURT AND T HE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE COST OF ACQ UISITION OF THE SHARES WHILE COMPUTING CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT IVE YEARS. THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE AO HAS ALSO ACCEPTED THE COST OF ACQUISITION AND THE DATE OF ACQUISITION IN RESPECT OF THESE SHARES AS ALSO THE CONTRACT NOTES ADDUCED IN SUPPORT THERE OF. IN FACT, THE REFERENCE TO THIS EFFECT WAS ALSO MADE BY THE H ONBLE TRIBUNAL WHILE ADJUDICATING THE ISSUE RELATING TO L ONG-TERM CAPITAL GAINS ASSESSED BY THE AO IN CASE OF DEEPIKA A. MEHTA V. DCIT [ITA NO. 3177/MUM/2008]FOR A.Y. 2002-03 ORDER DATED 29.07.2011 (PARA 11 AND 20 OF THE ORDER) [PAGE NO. 646-657 OF PB NO. 4] 15.THE LD AR ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALSO EXP LAINED TIME AND AGAIN THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DEPOSITING THE DIVIDENDS RECEIVED ON THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY HER IN HER DISC LOSED BANK ACCOUNTS, NO INFERENCE CAN EVER BE DRAWN THAT THE A PPELLANT HAS MADE ANY INVESTMENTS OUT OF ANY UNACCOUNTED RESOURC ES OR HAS MADE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THE HONBLE SPEC IAL COURT HAS ALSO GRANTED TITLE IN RESPECT OF UNREGISTERED S HARES AS PER THE DISCLOSURES MADE BY SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA IN NUMER OUS PROCEEDINGS BEFORE IT ON THE BASIS OF TRANSACTIONS OF THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS AND ON THAT BASIS ISSUED DIRECTIONS TO REGISTER THE UNREGISTERED SHARES IN THE NAME OF THE FAMILY M EMBERS AS PER THE DISCLOSURE MADE BY SHRI HARSHAD MEHTA. IN ESSENCE, THE EVIDENCES OF CONTRACT NOTES AND THE AVERMENTS AND A SSERTIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS WERE A LREADY ACCEPTED IN EACH AND EVERY PROCEEDINGS BEFORE HONB LE SPECIAL COURT AND THEREFORE THE AO, WHO WAS BOUND BY SUCH O RDERS, ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 15 COULD NOT HAVE TAKEN A COMPLETELY CONTRARY VIEW THA T THE APPELLANT HAS MADE ANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS, PAR TICULARLY WHEN U/S 9-A OF THE TORTS ACT, ONLY THE SPECIAL COU RT HAS EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION TO DETERMINE THE OWNERSHIP O F SHARES IN RESPECT OF NOTIFIED ENTITIES. 16. THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE ABOVE EVIDENCE S CLEARLY PROVED THAT THE INVESTMENTS WERE DULY RECORDED BY T HE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT THE INVESTMENTS W ERE MADE OUT OF THE CREDIT GRANTED BY THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS IN THE FAMILY. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THESE INVESTMENTS CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED U/S. 69 OF THE ACT. THIS IS BECAUSE NOT ONLY THESE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN PROVED TO BE RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS, THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE SAID INVESTM ENTS HAVE ALSO BEEN EXPLAINED BY WAY OF SEVERAL EVIDENCES LIS TED ABOVE. 17. THE APPELLANT FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT IDENTICAL NATURE OF ADDITION WAS MADE IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA V. ACIT [ITA NO. 5190/MUM/2017][PAGE 713-736 OF PB NO. 4]FOR A.Y . 1992- 93 WHEREIN IDENTICAL ADDITION WAS MADE BY THE AO AN D THE RELIEF GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) WAS ALSO OF THE IDENTICAL NATURE. IN THE SAID CASE, THE HONBLE TRIBUNAL HAS DELETED THE SAI D ADDITION AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE (PA RA 8-14, PAGE 9-14 OF THE ORDER). IN LIGHT OF THE ABOVE, THE APP ELLANT HUMBLY PRAYED THAT THE ADDITION MADE IN THE CASE OF THE AP PELLANT MAY KINDLY BE DELETED. 18. PER CONTRA LD DR RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND JUSTIFIED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY AO ON ACC OUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN SHARES AND SECURITIES. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 16 19. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE AO HAS CONSIDERED THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IN THE FORM OF CONTRACT NOTES WHICH WERE FILED BY THE ASSE SSEE IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE OF SHARES TO EXPLAIN INVESTMENT S MADE BY HER. HOWEVER, THE AO CONSIDERED THESE EVIDENCES FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE TILL 20.02.1995 AND FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT ON 28.02.1995. THUS WE NOTE THAT AO HAS IGNORED THE E VIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATE D 21.02.1995, 28.02.1995 & 01.03.1995 WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO DIF FERENCE OF RS.19,86,14,220/- WHICH WAS ADDED AS UNEXPLAINED IN VESTMENT. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE APPELLANT AND HAS GRANTED RELIEF IN RESPECT OF THE DETAILS ON THE EVIDENCES FILED BY HER ON THE AF ORESAID 3 DATES VIDE VARIOUS SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS DIRECTED TO R ECOMPUTE THE UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AFTER GIVING CREDIT ON ACCOU NT OF THE DETAILS ON THE EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HER SUBMISSIONS DATED 21.02.1995, 28.02.1995 AND 01.03. 1995. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ALSO GRANTED RELIEF ON ACCOUNT O F THE BONUS SHARES RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT AS WELL AS THE SHA RES RECEIVED ON CONVERSION OF THE EXISTING INVESTMENT AND DEBENT URES. HOWEVER, WE FAIL TO UNDERSTAND THE REASONS FOR WHIC H THE BALANCE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN SUSTAINED AS UNEXPLAI NED. WE NOTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED NUMEROUS EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT(A) TO PROVE TH AT ALL THE INVESTMENTS WHICH HAVE BEEN TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED WERE DULY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND WERE SUPPORTE D BY ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 17 APPROPRIATE EVIDENCES. THE INVESTMENTS HAVE BEEN RE FLECTED IN THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF INVESTMENTS IN THE BOOKS. FU RTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED THE LEDGER ACCOUNT OF THE BROKERAGE FIRMS IN HER BOOKS TO SHOW THAT THE SHARES WERE PUR CHASED THROUGH THE BROKERAGE FIRM ON CREDIT FROM THEM. FUR THER, THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO FILED THE COPIES OF THE LEDGER A CCOUNT OF THE APPELLANT IN THE BOOKS OF ALL THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS REFLECTING THEREIN THE DETAILS OF TRANSACTIONS OF SHARES PURCH ASED BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT THESE PURCHASES HAVE BEEN DULY SUPPORTED BY THE AFFIDAVIT S OF ALL THE 3 BROKERAGE FIRMS, COPIES OF WHICH HAVE BEEN FILED BE FORE US AT PAGE 86-108 OF PB NO, 1. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH THESE AFFIDAVITS AND FIND THAT THE BROKERAGE FIRMS WHO HAVE PURCHASE D SHARES ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT AND DULY CONFIRMED THESE PU RCHASES. IN FACT, THEY HAVE ALSO PROVIDED THE LIST OF SHARES PU RCHASED BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT, WHICH COVERS THE I NVESTMENTS TREATED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS UNEXPLAINED. OU R ATTENTION WAS ALSO INVITED TO THE STATEMENT OF SHRI ASHWIN ME HTA RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT ON 22.06.1996, WHEREIN HE HAD A CCEPTED THAT SHARES WERE PURCHASED BY HIS BROKERS ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS INCLUDING THE APPELLANT. IT IS ALSO NOTED THAT THE CUSTODIAN IN ITS AFFIDAVIT DATED 01.03.2006 HAS ACC EPTED THAT THE SHARES ARE PURCHASED ON BEHALF OF THE FAMILY MEMBER S INCLUDING THE APPELLANT BY THE BROKERAGE FIRMS OF HARSHAD MEH TA, ASHWIN MEHTA AND JYOTI MEHTA. AS SUCH, IN OUR OPINION, THE RE ARE AMPLE EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT TO PROVE THAT THE SHARES WERE ACQUIRED BY HER THROUGH THE BROKERAGE FIRMS ON CREDIT, AND THAT THE SHARES ARE DULY REFLECTED IN YOUR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THAT THEY ARE FULLY EXPLAINED. WE ALSO NOTE THAT TH IS PLEA OF THE ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 18 ASSESSEE HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE HON'BLE SPECIAL C OURT AND ALSO THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT SHARES WERE SOU RCED OUT OF THREE BROKERAGE FIRMS BY TAKING INTEREST BEARING LO AN. WE ALSO NOTE THAT SIMILAR ISSUE ALSO CAME UP BEFORE THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RELATED ENTITI ES NAMELY RASILA MEHTA AND RINA S. MEHTA VS. CUSTODIAN (SUPRA ), ASHWIN S. MEHTA & ORS. VS. CUSTODIAN (SUPRA) AND THESE WER E ACCEPTED AS ACQUIRED OUT OF CREDIT EXTENDED BY THREE BROKERA GE FIRMS. AS SUCH, THE REQUIREMENT OF S. 69 OF THE ACT TO PROVE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE ALSO STAND SATISFIED , IN ASMUCH AS THE APPELLANT HAS PROVED WITH EVIDENCES THAT TH E SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AND SOURCED OUT OF THE CREDIT GIVEN BY THE BROKERAGE FIRMS. IN OTHER WORDS, THE SOURCE OF THES E INVESTMENTS ARE THE CREDIT GRANTED BY THE BROKERAGE FIRMS WHICH WAS ALSO CONFIRMED BY WAY OF THEIR BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AS WELL AS THE AFFIDAVIT CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS MADE BY THEM ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANT. MOREOVER, WE FIND THAT ALL THE INVES TMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING DIVIDEND AND INTEREST ON DEBENTURES ETC. WERE ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AN D THEREFORE THE SAME CAN NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTME NTS. IN OUR OPINION, THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN EXPLAINED WITH THE SOURCE OF FUNDS ARRANGED FROM TH REE BROKERAGE FIRMS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE ISSUE IS SQUARELY COVERED BY THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RELATED ENTITIES M/S. HITESH S. MEHT A VS. ACIT (SUPRA) WHEREIN THE ADDITION MADE UNDER SIMILAR CIR CUMSTANCES HAVE BEEN DELETED. THE OPERATIVE PART IS AS UNDER: 12. WE OBSERVE THAT THE SAID ADDITION COMPRISED OF VARIOUS AMOUNTS AS HAVE STATED IN PARA 8 ABOVE. THE FIRST AMOUNT OF RS.12,38,857/- COMPRISED OF TWO COMPONENTS ONE RS.5,09,932/- IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED THE THIRD PARTY EVIDENCES RELIED UPON BY THE AO I.E. COMPANIE S LETTERS AND THESE COMPANIES ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 19 ARE STATED ON SERIAL NO 1 TO 8 IN PARA 9 ABOVE. SIN CE THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED THE COPIES OF THESE LETTERS AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND THE FACT HAS BEEN BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO DURIN G ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING VIDE LETTER DATED 27.03.2015, THEREFORE, THE ADDITION OF RS.5,09,932/- CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THIS HAS BEEN HELD BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE EARLIER R OUND IN ITA. NO.538/M/2012 VIDE ORDER DATED 01.05.2013 IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. PERT INENT TO THE MENTIONED THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WAS CHALLENGED OF THE REVENUE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT AND HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT VIDE ORDER DATED 07.0 6.2016 IN ITA. NO. 2490 OF 2013 HAS UPHELD THE VIEWS OF TRIBUNAL AND DISMISSED THE QUESTION OF LAW RAISED BY THE REVENUE. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALSO SUPPO RTED BY THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF ASSESSEES BROTHER LATE SHR I HARSHAD S. MEHTA IN ITA. NO.637/M/2007 DATED 02.01.2008 WHEREIN IT WAS CATEG ORICALLY OBSERVED THAT WHEREVER ADDITIONS WERE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED MATERIAL OR MATERIAL COLLECTED FROM THIRD PARTIES AND COPIES THEREOF WERE NOT PROV IDED TO THE ASSESSEE, IN THAT CASE, THE ADDITION CANNOT BE MADE. IT WAS ALSO HELD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE HAS REQUESTED FOR THE CROSS EXAMINATION, AN OPPORTUNITY MUST BE PROVI DED TO THE ASSESSEE FOR SUCH CROSS EXAMINATION. SO FAR AS, THE SECOND AMOUNT OF 7,28,925/- REPRESENTING THE ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF LETTERS FILED BY FOUR COMPANIES AS MENTIONED AT SERIAL NO. 9 TO 12 IN PARA NO. 9 ABOVE, WE FIND THAT IN TH E SAID LETTERS DETAILS PROVIDED WERE INCOMPLETE AS IT IS NOT CLEAR WHETHER THE SAME PERT AIN TO THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. FOR EXAMPLE, THE DETAILS AND INFORMATION PROVIDED B Y THESE COMPANIES DO NOT EXPLAIN TO WHICH YEAR THESE TRANSACTION RELA TE TO AND THERE WERE SEVERAL FLAWS IN THE SAID LETTERS. THUS, THE DETAILS PROVIDED BY ABOVE 4 COMPANIES DO NOT REFLECT THE EXACT DETAILS TO COME TO THE CONCLUSION THE CORRECT HOLDING OF THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE, WE FIND MERITS IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE L D. AR THAT THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF SAID LETTERS IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND CAN NOT BE SUSTAINED. ACCORDINGLY, WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE AND DIRE CT THE AO TO DELETE THE ADDITION. WE THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION O F THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL DIRECT THE AO TO DEL ETE THE DISALLOWANCE. CONSEQUENTLY THE GROUND NO. 3 AND 4 A RE ALLOWED. 20. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.5 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF ADDITION OF RS.11,63,200/- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS. 21.THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THERE ARE CERTAIN DE POSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR WHICH COULD NOT BE EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE ASSESSMENT PRO CEEDINGS. IN THE FIRST ROUND OF LITIGATION THE LD. CIT(A) REM ANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. DURING THE REM AND PROCEEDINGS ALSO, ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN AND PR OVE THE ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 20 SOURCES OF THESE CREDITS. ACCORDINGLY, THESE WERE CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE FIRST ROUND VIDE ORDER DATED 13.03.2003. BASED ON THE SAME, THE LD. CIT(A) IN THE SECOND ROU ND ALSO CONFIRMED THE ADDITIONS IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF LD . CIT(A) BY OBSERVING THAT THE LD. A.R. OF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT GIVEN ANY FURTHER EXPLANATION AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND OF A PPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WAS DISMISSED ON THIS ISSUE. 22. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THESE DEP OSITS WERE FULLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A) IN THE FIRST ROUND. THE LD. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT IN THE SEC OND ROUND, THE FULL DETAILS WERE GIVEN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT S PRODUCED WHICH WERE REMANDED BACK TO THE AO BY LD. CIT(A). HOWEVER, THE AUTHORITIES HAVE FAILED TO TAKE COGNIZANCE OF T HE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS AND THE ENTRIES RECORDED THEREIN. THE LD. A.R. REFERRED TO PAGE NO.119 OF PAPER BOOK NO.1 WHICH CONTAINED I TEMWISE DETAILS OF DEPOSITS AND ALSO REFERRED TO PAGE NO.12 TO 125 WHICH CONTAINED THE COPIES OF DIVIDEND INCOME, MISCELLANE OUS INCOME, SAVING BANK INTEREST, INTEREST ON BANK LOAN, SHARES /DEBENTURES AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL THESE ITEMS WERE SHOWN IN TH E RESPECTIVE INCOME AND OTHER ACCOUNTS RESPECTIVELY AND PRAYED B EFORE THE BENCH THAT THE ADDITION MAY KINDLY BE DELETED AS AL L THE DETAILS OF THESE CREDITS ARE AVAILABLE IN THE BOOKS. 23. THE LD. D.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, RELIED HEAVILY ON THE ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 24. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED TH E DETAILS OF THESE DEPOSITS AT PAGE NO.119 WHICH IS REPRODUCED A S UNDER: ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 21 SR. NO. DATES PARTICULARS AMOUNT 1 31.03.92 REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND INTEREST ON SHARES 6,94,863 2 31.03.92 SAVING BANK INTEREST 5,912 3 15.02.92 SUSPENSE 1,35,300 4 06.07.91 CASH DEPOSIT-REVERSED 1,100 5 17.09.91 DIVIDEND INCOME 2,402 6 01.10.91 INTEREST INCOME 14,150 7 01.10.91 MISCELLANEOUS INCOME 12,300 8 19.10.91 DIVIDEND INCOME 750 9 12.12.91 REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY AND INTEREST ON SHARES 2,95,000 10 11.01.92 DIVIDEND INCOME 450 11 12.01.92 DIVIDEND INCOME 224 12 15.02.92 DIVIDEND INCOME 600 13 12.03.92 DIVIDEND INCOME 150 TOTAL 11,63,200 WE FURTHER NOTE THAT ALL THESE ENTRIES WERE MADE I N THE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS AS ATTACHED ON PAGE NO.120 TO 1 25. THEREFORE, IN OUR VIEW, EXCEPT FOR AN ENTRY OF RS.1 ,35,000/- DT.15.02.1992, THE ASSESSEE HAS FULLY EXPLAINED THE NATURE OF MOST OF THESE DEPOSITS AND SHOWN THEM EITHER INCOME DURING THE YEAR SUCH AS DIVIDEND, INTEREST, MISCELLANEOUS INCO ME OR CREDITED THE REFUND OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY IN T HE RESPECTIVE ACCOUNTS. THE ENTRIES PERTAINING TO THE INCOME ARE DULY OFFERED TO TAX BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE ADDING THE SAME A S UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS WOULD AMOUNT TO DOUBLE ADDITIO N IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 22 IN RESPECT OF THE ENTRY OF RS. 1,35,300/- RECORDED ON 15.02.1992, THE APPELLANT HAS NOT EXPLAINED THE SAI D DEPOSIT AND HAS REFLECTED THE SAME AS SUSPENSE ENTRY IN HER BOOKS. SINCE THE SAID ENTRY REMAINS TO BE EXPLAINED, THE S AME IS RIGHTLY ADDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND TO THAT EXTENT T HE ADDITION STANDS CONFIRMED. CONSIDERING ALL THESE EVIDENCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THESE DEPOSIT ENTR IES IN THE BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO THE TUNE OF RS.10 ,27,900/- FOR WHICH NO ADDITION IS CALLED FOR. MOREOVER, THE AUT HORITIES BELOW HAVE FAILED TO TAKEN THE COGNIZANCE OF BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS WHICH WE HAVE ALREADY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE B Y HOLDING THAT BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS WERE INCORRECTLY REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). CONSEQUENTLY GROUND NO.5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DIRECTING THE AO TO DELETE ADDITION TO THE TUNE OF RS.10,27,900/-. WHEREAS BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.1,35 ,300/- IS CONFIRMED. THE GROUND NO. 5 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 25. ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.6 IS AGAINST THE CONF IRMATION OF DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.2,04,00,000 /- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO BY NOT GRANTING DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF FUNDS BORROWED FOR THE PURPOSE OF INVESTMENTS AN D BUSINESS. 26.AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL OF THE ASSESSEE S UBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IS OF RECURRING IN NATURE ARISING IN EVER Y YEAR IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO HER FAMILY MEMBERS FO R THE PAST SEVERAL YEARS AND HAS BEEN DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF TH E ASSESSEE AND HER FAMILY MEMBERS UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS. THE L D. A.R. RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENTS: ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 23 A. RINA S. MEHTA (APPELLANT) V. DCIT [ITA NO. 5804/ MUM/2017 AND OTHERS] FOR A.Y. 2010-11 AND OTHERS DATED 28.12 .2017 (PARA 32-333 OF THE ORDER) [PAGE [PAGE [PAGE [PAGE 772 772 772 772- -- -812 812 812 812 OF PB NO. 4] OF PB NO. 4] OF PB NO. 4] OF PB NO. 4]. B. HITESH S. MEHTA V. DCIT [ITA NO. 5190/MUM/2017] FOR A.Y. 1992-93 DATED 31.08.2020 (PARA 18-22 OF THE ORDER) [PAGE 713 [PAGE 713 [PAGE 713 [PAGE 713- -- - 736 OF PB NO. 4] 736 OF PB NO. 4] 736 OF PB NO. 4] 736 OF PB NO. 4]. C. GROWMORE LEASING AND INVESTMENTS LTD V. DCIT [ITA N O. 6091-6093/MUM/2018] FOR A.Y. 2013-14 TO A.Y. 2015-1 6 DATED 16.12.2020 (PARA 7-8 OF THE ORDER) [PAGE [PAGE [PAGE [PAGE 737 737 737 737- -- -754 754 754 754 OF PB OF PB OF PB OF PB NO. 4] NO. 4] NO. 4] NO. 4]. D. HARSH ESTATES PVT. LTD. V. DCIT [ITA NO. 6957- 6959/MUM/2018] FOR A.Y. 2013-14 TO A.Y. 2015-16 DAT ED 15.09.2020 (PARA 4-18 OF THE ORDER) [PAGE [PAGE [PAGE [PAGE 755 755 755 755- -- -771 771 771 771 OF PB NO. OF PB NO. OF PB NO. OF PB NO. 4] 4]4] 4]. 27. THE LD. D.R. , HOWEVER, RELIED ON THE GROUNDS O F APPEAL AND ORDER OF AUTHORITIES BELOW. 28. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT TH E ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCHES UNDER IDENTI CAL FACTS IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.5804/M/2017 & OTH ERS FOR A.Y. 2010-11 & ORS. VIDE ORDER DATED 28.12.2017. WE , THEREFORE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN A.Y. 2010-11 AND ALSO IN THE CASE OF FAMILY MEMBERS SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF L D. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO ALLOW THE DEDUCTION OF INTEREST EX PENSES ON BORROWED FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE AS CLAIMED. ACCORDIN GLY THE GROUND NO. 6 IS ALLOWED. 29. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.7 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTION OF THE AO BY LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF LEVY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B, 234C OF THE ACT. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 24 30. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE OBSERVE THAT THE ISSUE IS DECIDED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF ANJUM H. GHASWALLA (252 ITR 1) SC WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT CHARGING OF INTEREST UNDER THE ABOVE THREE SEC TIONS IS MANDATORY. WE ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND THE GROUND NO.7 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. 31. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.8 IS AGAINST THE CONFIRMATION OF THE ACTION OF THE AO BY LD. CIT(A) IN RESPECT OF CALCULATION OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B, 234C OF THE ACT WITHOUT ALLOWING THE DEDUCTION OF TDS DEDUCTIBLE ON THE INC OME ASSESSED WHICH IS SUBJECT TO THE PROVISIONS OF TDS. 32. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE RELEVANT PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND ALSO THE VARIOUS DECISION S OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCHES OF THE TRIBUNAL, WE HOLD THAT INTE REST CHARGED UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C NEEDS TO BE RECOMPU TED BY THE AO IN TERMS OF THE DECISION OF THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RELATED ENTITIES M/S. GROWM ORE RESEARCH AND ASSETS MANAGEMENT LTD. ITA NO.1807 & 2192/M/201 5 A.Y. 1992-93. THE OPERATIVE PART WHEREOF IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: 24. AT THE OUTSET, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASS ESSEE STATED THAT THE IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESS EES OWN GROUP CASES, IN THE CASE OF HARSHAD S MEHTA VS. ACIT IN ITA NO. 3271/MUM/201 5 FOR AY 2009-10 VIDE ORDER DATED 20.03.2017, WHEREIN TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED T HE ISSUE AND REMANDED THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B, 234C AND ALSO UNDER SECTION 220 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 4. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND ON PERUSAL OF THE RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES BELOW AND CASE LAW RELIED UPO N BY THE LD.AR, WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE IN HAND HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE COOR DINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 6 AND 6.1 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSES SEE. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE, WE REPRODUCE THE ABOVE REFERRED PARAS AS UNDER : ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 25 6. THE ONLY OTHER ISSUE IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REG ARD TO THE CHARGEABILITY OF INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. ON THIS ASPECT, PLEAS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TWO FOLD. FIRST, THE PLEA IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 234A, 234 B AND 234C ARE NOT APPLICABLE TO NOTIFIED ENTITY. THIS ASPECT OF THE M ATTER IS REQUIRED TO BE HELD AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOLLOWING THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF DIVINE HOLDINGS PV T. LTD( ITA NO.3334 OF 2010 DATED 7/3/2012), AS DECIDED BY OUR CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE EMINENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO.2139/MUM/2013 DATED 18/6/2014, WHICH ALSO WAS A CASE OF NOTIFIED ENTITY UNDER THE SPECIAL COURT (TRIAL OF O FFENCES RELATING TO TRANSACTIONS IN SECURITIES) ACT, 1992. AT THE TIME OF HEARING THIS ASPECT OF THE MATTER WAS FAIRLY CONCEDED BY THE LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 THE SECOND PLEA OF THE ASSESSE E IS WITH REGARD TO THE QUANTUM OF INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 23 4A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT WHICH IS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE INT EREST SHOULD BE CHARGED AFTER CONSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTI BLE AT SOURCE ON THE INCOME ASSESSED. SIMILAR PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE W AS UPHELD BY OUR CO-ORDINATE BENCH IN THE CASE OF EMINENT HOLDINGS P VT. LTD. (SUPRA). FOLLOWING THE SAME, WE DEEM IT FIT AND PROPER TO RE STORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE FILE OF AO WHO SHALL RECOMPUTE THE INTE REST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT AFTER CO NSIDERING THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE ON THE INCOME AS SESSED. NEEDLESS TO MENTION, THE AO SHALL ALLOW THE ASSESSE E A REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD AND THEREAFTER, RECOMPUT E THE INTEREST CHARGEABLE UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B & 234C OF THE A CT, AS PER LAW. THUS, ON THIS ASPECT, THE ASSESSEE PARTLY SUCCEEDS. 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE CO-OR DINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE, WE RESTORE THE ISS UE TO THE FILE OF THE AO WITH A DIRECTION TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST U/S 234A , 234B AND 234C AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE TAX DEDUCTIBLE ON TOTAL INC OME OF THE ASSESSEE BY AFFORDING FAIR AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. 25. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, WE DIRECT THE AO TO RECOM PUTE THE INTEREST UNDER SECTION 234A, 234B, 234C AND 220 OF THE ACT AS HELD BY TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF HARSHAD S MEHTA (SUPRA). THIS ISSUE OF ASSESSEES APPEAL IS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 33. SINCE THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT ISSUE BEFORE US IS IDENTICAL TO ONE AS DECIDED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH SUPRA, WE ACCORDINGLY, DIRECT THE AO TO RECOMPUTE THE INTEREST IN TERMS OF THE ABOVE DECISION AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE AMOUNT OF TA X DEDUCTIBLE AT SOURCE ON THE ASSESSED INCOME. GROUND NO. 8 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 26 ITA NO.1367/M/2016 34. THE GROUNDS TAKEN BY THE REVENUE IS AS UNDER: ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A), MUMBAI ERRED IN GIVING RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE IN RESPECT O F UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO APPRECIATE THE FAC T THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED DETAILS IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ALSO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS.' 35. THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE ALREADY BEEN DISCUSS ED IN THE ASSESSEES APPEAL. WE NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS ALL OWED THE RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE AFTER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT THE EVIDE NCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 21.02.1995, 28.02.19 95 & 01.03.1995. WE NOTE THAT THERE IS HARDLY ANY DIFFE RENCE IN THE EVIDENCES FILED UP TO 20.02.1995 AND THEREAFTER. W E ALSO NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE A DDITION IN RESPECT OF SHARES WHICH WERE RECEIVED BY THE ASSESS EE AS BONUS ISSUE RECEIVED BY THE COMPANY AND ALSO SHARES RECEI VED UPON CONVERSION OF CONVERTIBLE DEBENTURES. WE ALSO NOTE THAT A SIMILAR RELIEF HAS BEEN GRANTED BY LD. CIT(A) IN AS SESSEES HUSBANDS CASE NAMELY SHRI SUDHIR S. MEHTA VIDE ORD ER DATED 11.03.2014, A COPY OF WHICH IS FILED AT PAGE NO.338 TO 374 OF PAPER BOOK NO.1 AND THE SAID RELIEF WAS NOT CHALLEN GED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF SHRI SUDHIR S. MEHTA IN ITA NO.3917/M/2014 DATED 16.12.2015 IS FILED AT PAGE NO .377 TO 383 OF PAPER BOOK NO.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARI NG BEFORE US THE LD. A.R. ALSO REFERRED TO THE DECISION OF THE F AMILY MEMBER WHEREIN SIMILAR RELIEFS WERE GRANTED AND ALL THESE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) WERE ACCEPTED BY THE AO AND NO FURTHER APPEA L WAS PREFERRED. THE DETAILS OF SUCH ORDERS ARE AS UNDER : ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 27 A. ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 20.01.2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. DEEPIKA A. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 163- 199 OF PB NO. 1] B. ORDER DATED 29.08.2012 GIVING EFFECT TO LD. CIT(A) S ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. DEEPIKA A. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 200-202 OF PB NO. 1] C. ORDER OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. DEEPIKA A. MEHTA V. DCIT [ITA NO. 1889 & 6164/MUM/2012] DATED 15.09.2016 FOR A.Y. 1992- 93.[PAGE 203-210 OF PB NO. 1] D. ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.02.2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 211-243 OF PB NO. 1] E. ORDER DATED 14.08.2012 GIVING EFFECT TO LD. CIT(A) S ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. RASILA A. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 244-246 OF PB NO. 1] F. ORDER OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA V. DCIT [ITA NO.6165/MUM/2012] DATED 17.06.2014 FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 247-249 OF PB NO. 1] G. ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 30.12.2011 IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 250-282 OF PB NO. 1] H. ORDER DATED 03.09.2012 GIVING EFFECT TO LD. CIT(A) S ORDER IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 283-285 OF PB NO. 1] I. ORDER OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI HITESH S. MEHTA V. DCIT [ITA ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 28 NO.538/MUM/2012] DATED 01.05.2013 FOR A.Y. 1992- 93.[PAGE 286-291 OF PB NO. 1] J. ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 29.02.2012 IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 292- 327 OF PB NO. 1] K. ORDER DATED 03.09.2012 GIVING EFFECT TO LD. CIT(A) S ORDER IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA FOR A.Y. 1992-93.[PAGE 328-330 OF PB NO. 1] L. ORDER OF THE HONBLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SMT. PRATIMA H. MEHTA V. ACIT [ITA NO.2694/MUM/2012] DATED 30.06.2014 FOR A.Y. 1992-93. [PAGE 331-337 OF PB NO. 1] 36. THEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS IT IS APPAREN T THAT REVENUE CAN NOT CHOOSE TO DISPUTE THE ISSUE ON THE IDENTICA L FACTS WHICH HAS NOT BEEN CHALLENGED IN OTHER CASES AS THE SAID ISSUE HAS ATTAINED FINALITY. BESIDES, WE NOTE THAT LD. CIT(A ) HAS FOLLOWED THE ORDERS IN RESPECT OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE ASSE SSEE WHERE UNDER IDENTICAL FACTS THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DECIDED TH E ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE SAME HAS NOT B EEN CHALLENGED BEFORE THE HIGHER FORUM. THIS IS A SETT LED POSITION OF LAW AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE FOLLOWING CASES. A. BERGER PAINTS INDIA LTD V. C1T [266 ITR 99, 10 4 (SC)]. [PAGE 538-554 OF PB NO. 4] B. UOI V. SATISH PANNALAL SHAH [249 ITR 221, 222 (S C)]. [PAGE 555-556 OF PB NO. 4] C. CIT V. GREENFIELD HOTELS AND ESTATES PVT LTD [ 389 ITR 68, 69 (BOM.)]. [PAGE 557-559 OF PB NO. 4] 37. ON PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AND COORDINATE BENCHES OF TRIBUNAL IN CASE OF THE FAMIL Y MEMBERS OF THE APPELLANT, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE RELIEF H AS BEEN RIGHTLY GRANTED BY THE LD. CIT(A). WE ,THEREFORE , RESPECTF ULLY FOLLOWING ITA NO.1367/M/2016 & ORS SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 29 THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CASES OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS AND ALSO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE RELIEF GRANTED B Y LD. CIT(A) IN THOSE CASES HAVE NOT BEEN CHALLENGED, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) DESERVED TO BE UPHELD. ACCORDINGLY THE GROUN D RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 38. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS PAR TLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE AND APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DI SMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.04.2021. SD/- SD/- ( AMARJIT SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05.04.2021. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORDER DY/ASS TT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.