ACIT 22(1), NAVI MUMBAI V. G.V. SONS, MUMBAI

ITA 2239/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: 223919914 RSA 2012
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 13-11-2014
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 04-04-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R N DSOUZA
• Assessee Lawyers: VASANT I PATEL
• Keywords: Accommodation entries; Retraction
• Section: 69; 132; 133A

Judgement Text

G IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI . . . . . . . . , ! ! ! ! '!! '!! '!! '!! ! ! ! ! , # # # # BEFORE SHRI R.C. SHARMA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIVEK VARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. : 2239/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08) ITA NO. : 2240/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ACIT 22(1), 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO. 6, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI -400 705 VS M/S G V SONS, SHOP NO. 7/8, JALARAM NAGAR, NO. 3, VALLABH BAUG LANE, GHATKOPAR (EAST), MUMBAI -400 077 $ .: PAN: AAAFG 1309 E $& (APPELLANT) '($& (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R N DSOUZA DR RESPONDENT BY : SMT VASANTI PATEL ITA NO. : 2238/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) ACIT 22(1), 4 TH FLOOR, TOWER NO. 6, VASHI RAILWAY STATION COMPLEX, VASHI, NAVI MUMBAI -400 705 VS M/S G V ZAVERI RAJPARA, SHOP NO. 5/6, GAYATRI DHAM, M G ROAD, GHATKOPAR (E), MUMBAI -400 077 $ .: PAN: AAAFG 2852 Q $& (APPELLANT) '($& (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI R N DSOUZA DR RESPONDENT BY : SMT VASANTI PATEL )! * +, /DATE OF HEARING : 13-11-2014 -. * +, / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05-12-2014 0 0 0 0 O R D E R '!! '!! '!! '!! ! ! ! ! , : :: : PER VIVEK VARMA, JM: THESE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A). THE THREE APPEALS ARE: ASSESSEES NAME ASST. YEAR CIT(A)/DATE OF ORDER G V SONS 2007-08 33, MUMBAI/23.01.2012 G V SONS 2008-09 33, MUMBAI/23.02.2012 G V ZAVERI RAJPARA 2008-09 33, MUMBAI/23.01.2012 ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 2 2. SINCE ALL THE THREE APPEALS HAVE IDENTICAL GROUNDS, WE A RE PROCEEDING TO DISPOSE OFF THE SAID APPEALS BY PASSING A CO MMON AND CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. WE ARE TAKING UP ITA NO. 2239/MUM/2012 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 AS THE LEAD YEAR. ITA 2239/MUM/2012 : DEPARTMENTS APPEAL : 4. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN RESPEC T OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 16,57,334/- . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING THE ABOVE RELIEF WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE H IS STAND WITH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OTHER THAN SELF SERVING DOC UMENTS THAT THE PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 16,57,334/- ARE GEN UINE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTO RED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 5. THE FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF TRADING IN GOLD, DIAMOND, SILVER, PRECIOUS STONES ETC. SINCE 2006. ASSESSEES PARENT FIRM, M/S G V ZAVERI RAJPARA HAS BEEN IN THIS TRADE SINCE 1949. 6. A SURVEY U/S 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON MOXDIAM GROUP, WHEREIN, OWNERS OF VARIOUS GROUP ENTITIES OF MOXDIAM GROUP WAS RECORDED AND THEY DEPOSED BEFORE THE SURVEY TEAM THA T THEY USED TO PROVIDE ACCOMMODATION BILLS TO VARIOUS PARTIES IN DIAMOND TRADE, WHICH INCLUDED OF COMBINES DIAMOND LTD. AND NAMI EXPORTS. 7. IN THE INVESTIGATION PROCEEDINGS, THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRMS WAS ALSO CALLED TO THE OFFICE FOR HIS STATEMEN T, WHEREIN MR. SURESH RAJPARA STATED THAT THEY HAD CONDU CTED THE FOLLOWING BUSINESS WITH MOXDIAM GROUP: ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 3 GROUP FIRM NAME 2007-08 2008-09 TOTAL BASANT DIA JEWELS 16,57,334 45,24,490 61,81,824 MOXDIM - 38,36,645 38,36,645 TOTAL 16,57,334 83,61,135 100,18,469 8. IN HIS STATEMENT, MR. SURESH RAJPARA DEPOSED THAT TH E ASSESSEE OR ITS GROUP ENTITIES HAVE NOT TAKEN ANY ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM MOXDIAM GROUP, BUT HAVE ACTUALLY CONDUCTED REGULAR BUSINESS WITH THE GROUP CONCERNS OF MOXDIAM GROU P WHEREIN, THE ASSESSEE GROUP HAD TAKEN PHYSICAL DELIVERY O F DIAMONDS. THE ASSESSEE GROUP ALSO SUBMITTED SUPPORTING B ILLS WITH DELIVERY NOTE, BANK STATEMENT AND COPY OF LEDGER AND STOCK REGISTERS. THE AO DID NOT CONSIDER THE DOCUMENTS TO BE AUTHENTIC, BECAUSE AS PER THE STATEMENT OF MR. BASANT J AIN OF MOXDIAM GROUP, WHO HAD EARLIER DEPOSED THAT HE AND HIS G ROUP ENTITIES WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. THE AO, THEREFORE, MADE THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,57,334/- IN THE CUR RENT YEAR. 9. THE ASSESSEE APPROACHED THE CIT(A), BEFORE WHOM FACT S WERE REITERATED. BEFORE THE CIT(A), IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED T HAT M/S BASANT DIA JEWELS HAD TRANSACTIONS WITH VARIOUS PART IES WHO WERE GENUINE, BUT OUT OF THOSE PARTIES, ONLY TWO P ARTIES, I.E. COMBINE DIAMOND AND NAMI EXPORTS ACCEPTED THAT THEY HA D SOUGHT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM MOXDIAM GROUP. 10. IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO ONE OF T HE CONSTITUENTS, WHO HAD DONE REGULAR BUSINESS, ON PHYSICAL DELIVERY BASIS ENTRIES OF WHICH WAS DULY RECORDED IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT AND STOCK REGISTER, AS PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO. 11. WITH THESE FACTS AND CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AD DITION MADE BY THE AO WAS PRAYED TO BE DELETED. ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 4 12. THE CIT(A), AFTER HAVING CONSIDERED THE ENTIRE FACTS OBSERVED, I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND TH E DETAILS FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO GONE THROUGH THE ASSE SSMENT FOLDER AND THE STOCK DETAILS GIVEN FORMING PART OF AUDIT REPOR T AND IT IS NOTED THAT OPENING, PURCHASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK REGISTE R FIGURES OF THE SAME DO NOT MATCH WITH THE FIGURES GIVEN BY THE APPELLAN T IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN VIEW OF THIS THE APPELLANT WAS APPR AISED OF THE GAP IN FIGURES BY LETTER DATED 11.01,2012 WHICH IS REPRODU CED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE COURSE OF APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS IT HAS BEEN SUBMITTED BY YOU THAT ADDITION MADE ON THE BASIS OF RETRACTED ST ATEMENT IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE SHOULD BE DELETED. IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE STATEMENT WAS GIVEN BY SHRI BASANT JAM, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BASANT DIA JEWELLS AND PARTNER OF M/S. MOXDIAM DURING THE COUR SE OF SURVEY ACTION RECORDED ON 09.07.2008 WHICH HAS BEEN RETRACTED BY HIM VIDE AFFIDAVITS DATED 18.11.2010 I.E. AFTER THE GAP OF M ORE THAN TWO YEARS, YOU WERE ASKED TO FURNISH DETAILS OF YOUR STOCK REG ISTER I.E. OPENING STOCK, PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE PARTIES AS WELL AS OTHERS DURING THE YEAR, SALES MADE AND CLOSING STOCK LEFT AT THE END I.E. 31.03.2008. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAILS FILED BY YOU, WHICH A RE AS UNDER PURCHASE 306.13 ISSUE 117.39 CLOSING STOCK 188.74 306.13 306.13 MEANWHILE A COPY OF THE AUDIT REPORTED DATED 11.08. 2007 FILED BY YOU FOR THE INSTANT ASSESSMENT YEAR HAS BEEN ALSO OBTAI NED FROM THE CONCERNED A.O. FROM WHERE IT IS SEEN THAT THE STOCK STATEMENT IS SHOWING THE DETAILS IN FORM OF OPENING STOCK, PURCH ASES, SALES AND CLOSING STOCK AT THE END. AFTER COMPARING BOTH THES E DETAILS IT IS NOTICED THAT THERE IS A GAP IN THE STATEMENT FURNISHED IN T HE AUDITED REPORT AND THE ONE GIVEN BY YOU DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS, FOR THE SAKE OF CLARITY THEY ARE REPRODUCED AS UNDER: OPENING STOCK 0 PURCHASES 1341.660 SALE S 68.270 CLOSING STOCK 1273.390 1341.660 1341.66 3. YOU WILL APPRECIATE THAT IF TRANSACTIONS REFLECTING PURCHASES MADE FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WHICH WERE ACCEPTED BY THEM AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY EARLIER BUT DENIED LATER ARE PU RCHASES THE STOCK POSITION AS REFLECTED IN THE AUDIT REPORT AND THE O NE BY YOU AS REPRODUCED ABOVE SHOULD HAVE TALLIED, WHICH IS NOT THE CASE. PLEASE EXPLAIN AND RECONCILE THE GAP. 4. YOU WILL ALSO APPRECIATE THAT IF SAME IS NOT RECONC ILABLE THEN IT WILL NOT BE THE CASE THAT ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE SOLELY BASED ON STATEMENT GIVEN OF SHRI BASANT JAIN IN THE CAPACITY OF PROPRIETOR OF M/S. BASANT DIA JEWELS PARTNER OF M/S. MOXDIAM AND HENCE YOU ARE REQUIRED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE AND RECONCILE TH E SAME. FOR THE SAME A NOTICE IS BEING ISSUED GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY ON THE DATE MENTIONED THEREIN. 3.4 IN RESPONSE TO THE SAME THE APPELLANT HAS FURNI SHED COPY OF STOCK DETAILS FURNISHED IN FORM NO. 201C, WHICH IS ANNEXE D AS ANNEXURE-A. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND ALSO DETAILS OF FORM NO. 210C. IT IS STATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT DETAILS OF FORM NO. 210C. IT IS * ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 5 SATED BY THE APPELLANT THAT DETAILS WERE GIVEN ONLY WITH RESPECT TO PURCHASES AND SALES OF ONLY ONE CATEGORY I.E. SOLIT AIRE DIAMOND WHEREAS FORM NO. 201C AND AUDIT REPORT REFLECT STOC K DETAILS OF DIAMOND FROM BOTH THE CATEGORIES; ONE IN STUDDED FORM IN TH E JEWELLERY AND OTHER AS SOLITAIRE DIAMOND. I HAVE GONE THROUGH THE DETAI LS. THE OPENING BALANCE AS ON 01.04.2007 AS WELL AS CLOSING BALANCE AS ON 31.03.2008 THOUGH MATCH IN TOTO, THE IN BETWEEN FIGURES OF INC OMING AND OUTGOING WERE NOT FINDING PLACE EITHER IN THE AUDIT REPORT O R IN THE DETAILS FURNISHED EARLIER BY THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT H AS STATED THAT SINCE THIS FORM NO. 2010 IS FOR DIAMONDS IN LOOSE PIECES AS WELL AS THOSE STUDDED IN JEWELLERY, OBVIOUSLY THIS IS NOT MATCHIN G WITH FIGURES GIVEN EARLIER WHICH WERE ONLY FOR DIAMONDS AS IN LOOSE PI ECES AND NOT FOR THE ONES STUDDED IN JEWELLERY, AND WHOSE DETAILS ARE FU RNISHED NOW BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE GONE THROUGH ALL THE THREE DETAIL S AND IT IS NOTED THAT ALL THESE DETAILS OF INCOMING AS WELL AS OUTGOING W HEN COMPARED WITH THESE STATEMENTS FOR THE DIAMONDS IN LOOSE PIECES T OGETHER WITH THE DIAMONDS IN STUDDED JEWELLERY MATCHES. SINCE THE OP ENING AND THE CLOSING STOCK IN FORM 201C IS MATCHING, THE FIGURE IS FOUND RECONCILED FOR THE STOCK REFLECTED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APP ELLATE PROCEEDINGS WITH THE ONE FILED ALONG WITH THE AUDIT REPORT. 3.5 IN VIEW OF THIS, THAT THE DISCREPANCIES COULD N OT BE FOUND IN THE STOCK, IT CANNOT BE INFERRED THAT THERE ARE UNACCOU NTED PURCHASES MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I AM ALSO. OF THE VIEW THAT AS TH ERE ARE SALES CORRESPONDING PURCHASES HAVE TO BE THERE, I AGREE W ITH THE FINDING THAT IT CAN BE A CASE OF ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WHERE APPEL LANT IS ACTUALLY MAKING PURCHASES FROM SOME OTHER SOURCE AND GETTING BILLS FROM THESE TWO PARTIES WHO ACTUALLY HAVE NOT SOLD AS STATED ON OATH ALSO. THIS WAS ADMITTED ORIGINALLY BY THE PARTY WHOSE STATEMENT IS THE BASIS OF ADDITION. HOWEVER IN VIEW OF THAT STATEMENT NOT SUP PORTED BY ANY DOCUMENT, EVIDENCE AND THEN SUBSEQUENT RETRACTION M ADE OF THAT VERY STATEMENT COUPLED WITH IT IS NOT ENOUGH TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. MERELY ON THE BASIS OF STAT EMENT MADE UNDER SECTION 132 (4), IN RESPECT OF LOANS ADDITION UNDER SECTION 69 AS INCOME FROM UNDISCLOSED SOURCE CANNOT BE MADE WHEN THE SAI D STATEMENT WAS RETRACTED AND DETAILS MAINTAINED AND FILED SHOW THE PURCHASES .E CIRCULAR OF CBDT NO F.NO.286/2/2003 IT (INV) DT 10T H MARCH 2003 ALSO SUPPORTS CASE OF APPELLANT ON THE ISSUE. AS IT IS A FACT THAT NO FURTHER ENQUIRY TO AUGMENT THE INFORMATION RECEIVED COULD B E DONE AND PRIMA FACIE THE STOCK MAINTAINED AND REFLECTED IN FORM 20 1C ALSO SUPPORTS APPELLANT'S STAND ONLY. ACCORDINGLY, I AM CONVINCED THAT ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF RETRACED STATEMENT CANNOT BE MADE TILL THE SAME IS AUGMENTED BY ANY DISCREPANCY POINTED OUT EITHER IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR TRANSACTIONS ITSELF. IT IS NOTED FROM THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER ALSO IN PARA 14 THAT THE STOCK REGISTER AND ARTISANS REGISTER WERE PRODUCED BEFORE THE AG., BUT SAME WERE NOT ACCEPTED AS EVIDENCE ON THE BELIEF MADE BY THE AG. THAT THEY CAN BE PREPARED AND MAINTAINED BY THE APPELLANT. THOUGH IT CAN BE POSSIBLE STILL FOR WANT OF ANY FUR THER ENQUIRY TO BRING THE DISCREPANCY, ADDITION MADE ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT WHICH INCIDENTALLY HAS BEEN RETRACTED ALSO AND THEN NOT S UPPORTED BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE IS NOT SUSTAINABLE AND HENCE IS DE1E TED. 13. THE CIT(A), THEREFORE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 14. AGAINST THIS ORDER OF THE CIT(A), DEPARTMENT IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE ITAT. ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 6 15. BEFORE US, THE DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF T HE AO THAT PRIMA FACIE , THE BASIS OF ADDITION WAS THE STATEMENT OF THE SURVYED PARTIES WHEREIN IT WAS ACCEPTED THAT THEY WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION TRANSACTION, AND THEREFORE THE ENTRIES RE CORDED WERE SHAM. THE DR, THEREFORE, SUBMITTED THAT THE ORDER O F THE AO MUST BE RESTORED. 16. THE AR ON THE OTHER HAND SUBMITTED THAT THERE WAS NO SURVEY ON THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE THERE WAS NO ST ATEMENT EVER RECORDED OF THE OWNERS OF ASSESSEE GROUP. IT WAS ONLY IN THE POST SURVEY PROCEEDINGS OF THE SURVEYED ENTITIES, WITH WH OM THE ASSESSEE HAD BUSINESS DEALINGS, MR. SURESH RAJPARA WAS C ALLED & HIS STATEMENT WAS RECORDED. LATER ON, WHEN THE CASE WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE AO, THE AO, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ST ATEMENT OF MR. BASANT D JAIN, MADE THE ADDITION. IT WAS ALSO SUBMITT ED THAT THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED ALL THE POSSIBLE DOCUMENTS, W HICH COULD BE PRODUCED WHICH WERE IGNORED. DESPITE THE EVIDEN CE ON RECORD, THE ASSESSEE WAS SADDLED WITH THE ADDITION, WHICH DOES NOT HAVE ANY FACTUAL BASIS. 17. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS AND HAVE PURSUED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND THE ORDER OF THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. IT IS NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE SURVEY ACTION WAS CONDUCTED ON A THIRD PARTY. IT IS ALSO NOT IN DISPUTE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD B USINESS RELATION WITH MOXDIAM GROUP, LIKE SO MANY OTHER PARTIES. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THERE IS NOT EVEN A IOTA OF EVIDENCE WITH THE AO, TO PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT HAVE STRAIGHT DEALINGS WITH T HE MOXDIAM GROUP. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT, THAT THE ASSESSEE ENTERED EACH OF ITS TRANSACTION IN ITS PRIMARY BOOKS, COMPRISING OF LE DGER AND STOCK REGISTER. FROM THE ORDER OF THE AO, THE DR CO ULD NOT ESTABLISH BEFORE US THAT THE TRANSACTION AS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS WAS SHAM. WE CANNOT ACCEPT A BALD STATEMENT MADE BY T HE AO ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 7 THAT ANY TRANSACTION/BUSINESS DONE WITH A PARTY WOULD B E SHAM, SIMPLY BECAUSE THE OPPOSITE PARTY BESIDES DOING RE GULAR BUSINESS WAS ALSO INDULGING IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. SIMPLY ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY THE TH IRD PARTY, THAT THEY WERE ALSO PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S AS WELL, THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE DOUBTED AND HELD TO BE SHAM. 18. THE ASSESSEE HAD CONDUCTED BUSINESS, THIS IS PROVED BY VARIOUS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT PRODUCED BEFORE THE AO WHICH W ERE ORIGINAL AND PRIMARY BOOKS AND NOT EVEN THE AFTER THOUGH T OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH HAS BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE AO. 19. IN SUCH A CIRCUMSTANCE, WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE ADDITIO N AS MADE BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A), DELETING THE ADDITION MADE, CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE REJECTED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL, AS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. ITA 2240/MUM/2012 : DEPARTMENTS APPEAL : 21. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN RESPEC T OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 83,61,135/- . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING THE ABOVE RELIEF WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE H IS STAND WITH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OTHER THAN SELF SERVING DOC UMENTS THAT THE PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 83,61,135/- ARE GEN UINE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTO RED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 22. AT THE VERY OUTSET, IN THE VERY BEGINNING OF THIS ORD ER, AT PARA 2, WE HAVE VERY SPECIFICALLY WRITTEN, FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY WE ARE PASSING A COMMON AND ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 8 CONSOLIDATED ORDER , WHICH SQUARELY COVERS THE IMPUGNED ISSUE INVOLVED IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITS PRESENT APPEAL VIZ. ITA 2240/MUM/2012. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWIN G THE SAME, AS DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR DECISION TAKEN, AS LEAD APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2239/MUM/2012, WHICH IS ONE OF THE GROUP APPEALS FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT, IN ASSESSEES CASE. WE FOL LOW THE RATIO AND DISMISS THE IMPUGNED APPEAL FOLLOWING THE IDENTICAL DIRECTION WE CANNOT SUSTAIN THE ADDITION AS MADE BY THE AO. WE, THEREFORE, SUSTAIN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), DELET ING THE ADDITION MADE, CONSEQUENTIALLY, THE GROUNDS AS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT ARE REJECTED AS PER PARA 19 OF OUR ORDER, ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN THE IMPUGNED APPE AL STANDS REJECTED. 23. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. ITA 2238/MUM/2012 : DEPARTMENTS APPEAL : 24. THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE DEPARTMENT: 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION IN RESPEC T OF UNEXPLAINED PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 48,13,153/- . 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN GIVING THE ABOVE RELIEF WITHOUT APP RECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS UNABLE TO SUBSTANTIATE H IS STAND WITH ANY OTHER EVIDENCE OTHER THAN SELF SERVING DOC UMENTS THAT THE PURCHASE TO THE TUNE OF RS. 48,13,153/- ARE GEN UINE. 3. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE BE REVERSED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTO RED. 4. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER ANY GROUNDS OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 25. AT THE VERY OUTSET, AS FACTS, GROUNDS AND ISSUE INV OLVED THEREIN IN THE IMPUGNED APPEAL IS IDENTICAL, AS DECIDED HEREINABOVE OF OUR ORDER IN ITA 2239/MUM/2012, AS A LEAD APPEAL, WHICH WE FOLLOW WHILE DECIDING ANOTHER GROUP APPEAL FILED BY THE DEPARTMENT IN ITA 2240/MUM/2012. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME RATIO AND OUTCOME OF THOSE ORDERS, WHICH WE ITAS 2239 & 2240/M/2012 M/S G V SONS ITA 2238/M/2012 M/S G.V. ZAVERI RAJPARA 9 FOLLOW HERE ALSO, WE HAVE NO HESITATION BUT TO DISMISS THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL IN ITA NO. 2238/MUM/2012 AS M/S G V ZAVERI RAJPARA BEING PARENT FIRM. ACCORDINGLY, GROUNDS RAIS ED & ISSUE INVOLVED THEREIN IN THE DEPARTMENTS APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED, AS DIRECTED AT PARA 19 & 22 OF OUR ORDER. 26. IN THE RESULT, DEPARTMENTS APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. SUM-UP: DEPARTMENTS APPEALS IN, ITA NO. 2239/MUM/2012 IN M/S G V SONS STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 2240/MUM/2012 IN M/S G V SONS STANDS DISMISSED ITA NO. 2238/MUM/2012 IN M/S G V ZAVERI RAJPARA STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 5 TH DECEMBER, 2014. SD/- SD/- ( . . . . . . . . ) ( '!! '!! '!! '!! ! ! ! ! ) (R C SHARMA) ( VIVEK VARMA ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATE: 5 TH DECEMBER, 2014 '+/ COPY TO:- 1) $& / THE APPELLANT. 2) '($& / THE RESPONDENT. 3) THE CIT (A)-33, MUMBAI. 4) THE CIT-22, MUMBAI, 5) '!34 '+) G , , / THE D.R. G BENCH, MUMBAI. 6) 45 6 COPY TO GUARD FILE. 0) / BY ORDER / / TRUE COPY / / 7 / 8 9 , DY. / ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T., MUMBAI *;<8) !.).