AJAY KUMAR RASTOGI, MEERUT V. ITO, WARD- 1(1), MEERUT

ITA 2132/DEL/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4663 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-10-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: C.P. SINGH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Bogus

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.AS. NO.2128/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 M/S. AMIT RASTOGI HUF, A-121, DEFENCE COLONY, MEERUT. V. ITO, WARD-1(1), MEERUT. TAN/PAN: AAJHA 8051L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.AS. NO.2129/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SHILPA RASTOGI, A-121, DEFENCE COLONY, MEERUT. V. ITO, WARD-2(3), MEERUT. TAN/PAN: AJCPR 8711Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.AS. NO.2131/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 SADHANA RASTOGI, A-121, DEFENCE COLONY, MEERUT. V. ITO, WARD-2(3), MEERUT. TAN/PAN: AGQPR 3117F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) I.T.AS. NO.2132/DEL/2018 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2015-16 AJAY KUMAR RASTOGI, A-121, DEFENCE COLONY, MEERUT. V. ITO, WARD-2(3), MEERUT. TAN/PAN: AAMPR 8106Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SHRI SANDEEP SAPRA, ADV. & SHRI ROHIT AGGARWAL, CA RESPONDENT BY: SHRI C.P. SINGH, SR.DR. I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 2 DATE OF HEARING: 10 09 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24 10 2018 O R D E R THE AFORESAID APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ABOVE NAMED ASSESSEES AGAINST SEPARATE IMPUGNED ORDERS DA TED 13.02.2018 AND 12.03.2018, PASSED BY LD. COMMISSION ER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-MEERUT, FOR THE QUANTUM OF ASS ESSMENT PASSED U/S.143(3) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16. SINCE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THE APPEALS ARE COMMON, ARIS ING OUT OF IDENTICAL SET OF FACTS, THEREFORE, SAME WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY WAY OF THIS CONSOLIDATED O RDER. 2. I WILL FIRST TAKE UP THE APPEAL IN THE CASE O F SMT. SADHANA RASTOGI, BEING ITA NO. 2131/DEL/2018 AND MY FINDING GIVEN THEREIN WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN ALL THE APPEALS, SINCE SIMILAR FACTS AND FINDINGS ARE PERME ATING IN ALL THE APPEALS. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY ADDITION OF RS.30,58,008/- WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS LONG TERM CAPIT AL GAIN BY THE ASSESSEE ON SALE OF LISTED EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. BY TREATING IT AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES AND TAXING IT U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 3. THE BRIEF FACTS AND BACKGROUND OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS AN INDIVIDUAL AND HAS CLAIMED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.30,58,008/- (RS.32,26,033 RS.1,70.625/ -) ON SALE OF SHARES OF M/S. CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. WHICH WAS CLAIMED AS EXEMPT U/S.10(38). FROM THE PE RUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 3 ASSESSING OFFICER HAS REFERRED TO SOME INQUIRY COND UCTED BY DIRECTOR OF INVESTIGATION KOLKATA WHICH HAS UNEARTH ED THAT BOGUS ENTRY PROVIDERS OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN FRO M PAGES 1 TO 7 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS INCORPO RATED THE MODUS OPERANDI OF THE MANNER IN WHICH ENTRY PROVIDERS OPERATE WITHOUT EVEN DISCUSSING AS TO WHETHER ANY S PECIFIC INQUIRY WAS DONE OR INFORMATION WAS RECEIVED IN THE CASE ASSESSEE ALSO OR WAS FOUND TO BENEFICIARY IN ANY OF THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE CASE OF THE ENTRY PROVIDERS OR WAS FOU ND TO TAKING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N. THE ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED 6500 EQUITY SHARES OF M/S. CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. ON 11.03.2013 @ 26.25 PER EQUITY SHARE FROM A BROKER, M/S. PANCHSHEEL SECURITIES LTD . LATER ON, THE SAID SHARES WERE SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE ON VA RIOUS DATES DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2014-15 IN DEMATERI ALIZED FORM ON BOMBAY STOCK EXCHANGE FOR A CONSIDERATION O F RS.32,26,033/- ON WHICH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.30,58,008/- WERE SHOWN. THE LEARNED ASSESSING OF FICER HAS INCORPORATED SOME PART OF THE STATEMENT OF A PE RSON, SHRI SOUMEN CHOUDHURY, WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF SOME ENTIT Y M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. WHICH WAS ONE OF THE ENTITIES UTILIZED FOR PROVIDING ENTRY OF BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF M/S. CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD ., WHICH WAS RECORDED BY INVESTIGATION WING TEAM, KOLKATA. F ROM THE SAID STATEMENT, HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CHAN NEL NINE COMPANY IS A JAMA KHARCHI COMPANY THROUGH WHICH MANIPULATIVE TRANSACTION IN SECURITIES HAS BEEN DON E. AFTER I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 4 REJECTING THE ASSESSEES EVIDENCES FILED IN SUPPORT OF PURCHASE AND SALE, HE TREATED THE AMOUNT OF RS.30,58,008/- U /S.68 OF THE ACT. 4. LD. CIT (A) TOO HAS CONFIRMED THE SAID ACTION O F THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HAS GONE BY THE STATEMENT OF THE EMPLOYEE OF M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. AN D HOW THE INVESTIGATION WING HAS EXPOSED THE BOGUS ENTRY MANDATORY OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. HE HAS ALSO IG NORED THE ENTIRE EVIDENCES AND THE EXPLANATION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE. 5. BEFORE US, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, MR. SA NDEEP SAPRA SUBMITTED THAT THE STATEMENT OF PERSON, SHRI SOUMEN CHOUDHURY WHO WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF M/S. GATEWAY FINAN CIAL SERVICES LTD. CANNOT BE RELIED UPON AT ALL TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT, FIRSTLY , ASSESSEE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH M/S. GATEWAY FINANC IAL SERVICES LTD. NOR SHE HAS PURCHASED OR SOLD ANY SHA RES THROUGH THE SAID ENTITY; SECONDLY , NO INFORMATION OR EVIDENCE HAS BEEN FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE THAT SHE WAS IN VOLVED IN ANY KIND OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY NOR HER NAME APPEAR ED ANYWHERE AS A BENEFICIARY. HE FURTHER SUBMITTED THA T ASSESSEE HAS FILED FOLLOWING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS WELL AS LD. CIT (A) TO PROVE T HE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF THE SHARES: - A) BILL DATED 11.03.2013 ISSUED BY THE BROKER M/S. PANC HSHEEL SECURITIES LTD. FROM WHOM ASSESSEE PURCHASED 6,500 SH ARES OF THE AFORESAID CO. FOR RS.1,70,625. I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 5 B) PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF AFORESAID SHARES WAS MADE ON 23/03/2013 THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AS IS EVIDENT FRO M ASSESSEES RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT WITH HDFC BANK. C) THE AFORESAID SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO ASSESSEES D EMAT A/C WITH HDFC BANK ON 01/04/2013 AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENT OF DEMAT A/C. D) THE SAID 6,500 SHARES WERE SUBSEQUENTLY SOLD FOR RS.32,26,033/- DURING THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2014 THROUGH HDFC SECURITY LTD. ON THE RECOGNIZED BOMBAY STO CK EXCHANGE (BSE) AFTER PAYMENT OF STT AS IS EVIDENT FRO M COPY OF STATEMENT AND CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY HDFC SECURITY LTD. ON SALE OF SUCH SHARES, DEMAT A/C OF THE ASSESSE E WITH HDFC BANK WAS DULY CREDITED ON 19.12.2014 AND 22.12.2014. E) RELEVANT BANK STATEMENT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK FROM WHICH IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE SALE PROCEEDS WERE RE CEIVED BY BANK TRANSFER. 6. ONCE, ASSESSEE HAS PURCHASED THE SHARES DULY DEB ITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND PAYMENT MADE THROUGH BA NKING CHANNEL WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DOUBTED AS ASSESSING OFF ICER AND HAS GIVEN THE BENEFIT OF PURCHASE OF THE SHARES AND THE SAID SHARES WERE DULY TRANSFERRED TO DEMAT WITH HDFC BAN K IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER AND HAS BEEN SOLD TO HDFC SE CURITIES LTD. ON BSE AFTER PAYING STT, THEN SUCH A TRANSACTI ON CANNOT BE HELD TO BE NON GENUINE. HE ALSO DREW OUR ATTENTI ON TO THE PAPER BOOK AND POINTED OUT EACH AND EVERY ENTRY ABO UT THE TRANSACTION OF THE SHARES. HE HAS ALSO REFERRED TO CATENA OF I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 6 JUDGMENTS WHEREIN ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS, VARIOUS T RIBUNALS HAS DECIDED THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, L IST OF SUCH COMPILATION SUBMITTED BEFORE ME IS AS UNDER: COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI ITAT SMC BE NCH IN THE CASE OF SMT. SHIKHA DHAWAN VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER IN ITA NO.3035 /DEL/2018 DATED 27.06.2018 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE DELHI ITAT IN THE C ASE OF MEE NU GOEL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2018) 52 CCH 0232 DATED 19.03.2018 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HIGH COURT OF PUNJA B & HARYANA IN THE CASE OF PCIT VS. PREM PAL GANDHI (2018) 401 ITR 0253 DATED 18.01.2018 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF NAVNEET AGARWAL VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER (2018) 53 CCH 0388 DATED 20.07.2 018 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE HYDERABAD ITAT IN T HE CASE OF INCOME TAX OFFICER VS. SHRI K. RAMAKRISHNA REDDY IN ITA NO. 1614/HYD/2 017 DATED 29.05.2018 COPY OF THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE JAIPUR ITAT IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAMOD JAIN VS. DCIT IN ITA NO.368/JP/2017 DATED 31.01.2018 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE AHMEDABAD ITAT IN T HE CASE OF KETULKUMAR D. JAISWAL VS. ITO (2017) [51 CCH 0135] DATED 28.09.20 17 COPY OF THE J UDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY ITAT IN THE CASE OF ITO V S. ARVIND KUMAR JAIN HUF (2017) [51 CCH 0281] DATED 18.09.2017 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE KOLKATA ITAT IN THE CASE OF MANISH KR. BAID VS. ACIT (2017) [60 ITR (TRI) 0266] DATED 18.08.2017 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY ITAT IN THE CASE OF KAML A DEVI S. DOSHI & ORS. VS. ITO & ORS. (2017) [50 CCH 0072] DATED 22.0 5.2017 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE AHMEDABAD ITAT IN T HE CASE OF SUNITA JAIN VS. ITO (2017) [49 CCH 330] DATED 09.03.2017 COPY OF THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE BOMBAY ITAT IN THE CASE OF FARRAH MARKER VS. ITO (2016) [46 CCH 0535] DATED 27.04.2016 7. ON THE OTHER HAND, LEARNED DEPARTMENT REPRESENT ATIVE HAS STRONGLY RELIED UPON THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND LD. CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT, ONCE INVESTIGATION WING IN THE COURSE OF INQUIRY HAS FOUND THAT SOME OF THE COMPAN IES HAVE I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 7 BEEN PROVIDING BOGUS ENTRY WITH REGARD TO THE SCRIP OF CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT COMPANY THEN PRIMA FACIE IT GOES TO SHOW THAT THE COMPANY ITSELF WAS NOT GENUIN E AND WAS MANIPULATING THE ESCALATION OF PRICE FOR PROVID ING SUCH KIND OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT ( A) HAS NOTED THE TOTAL RESERVE AND SURPLUS OF THIS COMPANY AND INCOME AND FROM THAT HE HAD DEDUCED THAT EARNING PE R SHARE WAS VERY MEAGER. THUS, SUCH AN ACTION CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT (A) NEEDS TO BE UPHELD. 8. I HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND ALSO PER USED THE RELEVANT FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE IMPUGNED ORDERS AS W ELL AS MATER REFERRED TO BEFORE ME. THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCH ASED 6500 SHARE OF M/S. CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. THROUGH A BROKER, M/S. PANCHSHEEL SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WHIC H IS BASED AT NEW DELHI. THE SAID BROKER HAS ISSUED A BILL WHI CH HAS BEEN PLACED AT PAGE 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND SAID P URCHASES HAS BEEN MADE ON 23.03.2013 THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL S AND AMOUNT HAS BEEN TRANSFERRED THROUGH NEFT FROM HDFC BANK DEFENCE COLONY, MEERUT. THE SAID SHARES WERE TRANSF ERRED TO ASSESSEES DEMAT ACCOUNT WITH HDFC BANK ON 01.04.20 13, I.E., WITHIN A WEEK. LATER ON, THESE SHARES HAVE BE EN SOLD AT RS.32,23,033/- IN THE MONTH OF DECEMBER, 2014, I.E. , AFTER A PERIOD OF MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND EIGHT MONTHS THROU GH HDFC SECURITY LTD. AT BSE AFTER PAYING STT. THIS IS EVIDENT FROM THE STATEMENT AND CONTRACT NOTES ISSUED BY THE HDFC SECURITIES LTD. ON SALE OF SUCH SHARES, DEMAT ACCOU NT OF THE ASSESSEE WITH HDFC BANK WAS DULY CREDITED ON 19.12. 2014 I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 8 AND 12.12.2014. THE SALE PROCEEDS HAVE BEEN DULY RE CEIVED THROUGH BANK TRANSFER IN THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUN T WITH HDFC. NONE OF THESE EVIDENCES OR DOCUMENTS HAVE BEE N NEGATED OR HAVE BEEN INQUIRED UPON BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR LD. CIT (A). LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER WITHOUT A NY MATERIAL OR INFORMATION ON RECORD PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSEE HAS REFERRED TO SOME INQUIRY CONDUCTED BY INVESTIGATION WING KOLKATA WAY BACK, WHEREIN RACKET OF ENTITIES PROVID ING BOGUS ENTRIES OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS UNEARTHED. AF TER EXPLAINING THE GENERAL MODUS OPERANDI HOW ENTRY PROVIDERS GIVES LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN, ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TRIED TO SEE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE WITH TH E SAME LENS AS IF ASSESSEE TOO WAS INVOLVED IN SUCH KIND OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. HEAVY RELIANCE HAS BEEN PLACED BY THE AUTHORITY BELOW OVER A STATEMENT OF ONE EMPLOYEE OF SOME M/S. GATEWAY FINANCIAL SERVICES LTD. OF KOLKATA. SU CH AN ENTITY FIRST OF ALL HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSE SSEE, BECAUSE ASSESSEE HAS NEITHER DEALT WITH THE SAID COMPANY NO R HAS CARRIED OUT ANY TRANSACTION AT ANY POINT OF TIME WI TH SUCH ENTITY. SUCH A REFERENCE OF STATEMENT OF EMPLOYEE S ANS ANY REFERENCE OF ASSESSEE TO DRAW ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE IS TOO FARFETCHED EVEN WHEN HE HAS STA TED THAT ITS COMPANY HAS BEEN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN T HE SCRIP OF CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD., BUT THA T DOES NOT MEAN THAT ALL THE SUBSCRIBERS OF THE SHARES IN INDI A OF THE SAID COMPANY ARE INVOLVED IN SHADY TRANSACTION OF G ETTING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE FORM OF LONG TERM CAPITA L GAIN. I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 9 IT HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BY THE LEARNED COUNSE L FROM THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE IN PUBLIC DOMAIN REGARDING CR EDENTIALS OF M/S. CHANNEL NINE ENTERTAINMENT LTD. WHICH IS A GROUP OF DAINIK JAGRAN NEWSPAPER LTD. AND WAS ENGAGED IN T HE BUSINESS OF MARKETING, PRODUCING VARIOUS SERIALS, M OVIES, FILMS DISTRIBUTION AND IS A RENOWNED TV CHANNEL WHI CH IS STILL IN AIR. IT HAS BEEN REGULARLY CARRYING OUT ITS BUSI NESS AND SHOWN HUGE PROFITS FROM OPERATIONS EVERY YEAR. THIS HE HAS POINTED OUT FROM THE AUDITED BALANCE SHEET AND THE P&L ACCOUNT OF THE SAID COMPANY FOR THE FINANCIAL YEARS 2013-14, 2014-15 AND 2015-16. FURTHER THIS COMPANY HAS ALWAY S BEEN LISTED IN BSE AND NEVER GOT DELISTED. THE ENTIRE TR ANSACTION OF SALE HAS TAKEN PLACE THROUGH HDFC SECURITIES LTD. A GAINST WHICH THERE IS NO INFORMATION OR MATERIAL BY THE DE PARTMENT THAT SUCH A REPUTED COMPANY WAS INVOLVED IN PROVIDI NG SOME KIND OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY. IT IS SEEN THAT THE AUTHORITIES BELOW HAVE GONE COMPLETELY BY GENERAL P ERCEPTION RATHER THAN THAT ANY CONTRARY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL FOUND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 9. ANOTHER IMPORTANT FACT WHICH IS TO BE NOT ED HERE IS THAT PURCHASE MADE IN THE EARLIER YEAR HAS NOT BEEN DISTURBED AND ONCE THE ENTIRE TRANSACTION IS THROUGH DEMAT AC COUNT WITH THE REPUTED BROKER WITHOUT HAVING ANY LINK WIT H ANY SUCH ENTITIES POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED ASSESSING OFFICER THEN NO ADVERSE INFERENCE AT ALL CAN BE DRAWN AGAIN ST THE ASSESSEE. IF THE SALES ARE EVIDENCED THROUGH PROPER CONTRACT NOTES BY HDFC SECURITY LTD., SOLD ON BSE AFTER PAYI NG STT I.T.AS. NO.2128, 2129, 2131, 2132/DEL/2018 10 AND DULY CREDITED IN THE DEMAT ACCOUNT, THEN SOURCE OF THE CREDIT HAS TO BE ACCEPTED THAT IT IS FROM TRANSACTI ON OF SALE OF SHARES HELD FOR A LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. IF PURCHA SE OF SHARES IS NOT DOUBTED AND THESE SHARES ARE NOT IN P OSSESSION WITH THE ASSESSEE, THEN THERE CANNOT BE ANY ADVERSE INFERENCE THAT IT IS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT TO BE ADDED U/S.68 OF THE ACT. THUS, ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THERE WAS A GENUINE TRANSACTION OF PURCHA SE AND SALE OF SHARES ON WHICH ASSESSEE HAS EARNED LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAIN, AND THEREFORE, SUCH LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN CANNOT BE TAXED U/S.68. SINCE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAI N IS EXEMPTED U/S.10 (38), THEREFORE, NO ADDITION IS CAL LED FOR. ACCORDINGLY, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 10. SINCE IN ALL THE OTHER APPEALS, I.E., IN THE CA SE OF AMIT RASTOGI, SHILPA RASTOGI AND AJAY KUMAR RASTOGI, SIMI LAR FACTS ARE PERMEATING AND SAME FINDING HAS BEEN GIVEN, THE REFORE, MY FINDING GIVEN ABOVE WILL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS IN THESE APPEALS ALSO, BECAUSE THE NATURE OF TRANSACTIONS, E VIDENCES AND DOCUMENTS ARE EXACTLY THE SAME. THUS, ALL THESE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS ALLOWED. 11. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE FOUR APPEALS OF THE ASSE SSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH OCTOBER, 2018. SD/- [AMIT SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 24 TH OCTOBER, 2018 PKK: