M/S MANTHAN INC , MUMBAI V. INCOME TAX CIRCLE, 19(2), MUMBAI

ITA 2664/MUM/2022

AI Insights

The case involves M/s Manthan Inc, which appealed against the disallowance of deductions claimed for donations made to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust under section 35AC of the Income Tax Act for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The Assessing Officer had initially allowed these deductions, but upon reopening the assessment, it was found that the donations were part of a scheme where funds were returned to the donors after routing through various entities. The CIT(A) upheld the disallowance, and the Tribunal agreed, citing a lack of cogent evidence from the assessee to counter the findings of the investigation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123342 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-01-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 11-01-2023
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 19-10-2022
• Other Referred Cases: Bhavita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE, Raj Karan Dasani vs. ITO, Jadstone Trading Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Charitable institution; Principle of natural justice; Reassessment proceedings
• Section: 147; 148; 143(3); 133(6); 72

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “D” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 2663/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2013-14 & ITA No. 2664/MUM/2022 Assessment Year: 2014-15 M/s Manthan Inc, Rani Bldg., V.P. Road, Mumbai-400 004. Vs. ACIT Cir. 19(2), Tardeo, Mumbai. PAN No. AAKFM 6011 D Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dilip Diwan, AR Revenue by : Smt. Mahita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 12/01/2023 Date of pronouncement : 19/01/2023 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM These two appeals by the assessee are directed against two separate orders both dated 26.09.2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. Being identical issue involved in both these appeals , same were heard together and disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. 2. The appeal for AY 2013 grounds raised by the assess 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹30,00,000/ 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. 3. Your appellate there for prays your addition of 3. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee partnership firm, filed return of income consideration on 29.09.2013 declaring total income at . The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at Subsequently, in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed bogus deduction u/s 35AC(1) of the Act, was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.01.2016. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act has been completed on 02.12.2016 wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for donation made by the assessee of ₹30 lakhs to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and avoid repetition of facts. The appeal for AY 2013-14 is being taken as lead case. The grounds raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 30,00,000/- against the principle of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. Your appellate there for prays your honor to delete the addition of ₹30,00,000/- confirm by the CIT(A). Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee partnership firm, filed return of income for the year under on 29.09.2013 declaring total income at . The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed bogus deduction u/s 35AC(1) of the Act, the case of the ass was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.01.2016. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) has been completed on 02.12.2016 wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for donation made by the assessee 30 lakhs to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 2 disposed off by way of this consolidated order for convenience and 14 is being taken as lead case. The ee are reproduced as under: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of against the principle of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by honor to delete the confirm by the CIT(A). Briefly stated, facts of the case are that the assessee, a for the year under on 29.09.2013 declaring total income at ₹33,25,910/- tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) was completed and income was assessed at ₹35,93,380/-. in view of reasons recorded that assessee claimed the case of the assessee was reopened u/s 147 of the Act by way of issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 14.01.2016. The assessment u/s 147 r.w.s. 143(3) has been completed on 02.12.2016 wherein the Assessing Officer disallowed the deduction for donation made by the assessee 4. On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance following the order 2942/M/2018 for assessment year 2012 5. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the the Tribunal) by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. The sole issue involved deduction u/s 35AC of the Act. 6. The brief facts qua, the issue Navjeevan Charitable Trust was notified u/s 35AC of the Act vide notification No. SO121(E) dated 12.01.2009, which was amended on 27.04.2011 for the project of vocational training programme, medical camps and goods & cloth crores, for a further period of FY 2011 Further, by way of notification dated 11.08.2011, which was further amended on 27.12.2013 and notification dated 07.10.2013 projects of the said trust were approved 35AC of the Act by prescribed authority. consideration, the assessee made payment of Rs. 30,00,000/ M/s Navjeevan Charitable different dates) as donation towards the projects of Navjeevan Charitable Trust notified under section 35AC of the Act and claimed deduction of the same in the return of income filed, which stood allowed by the AO in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the Act. ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance of the ITAT dated 27.08.2019 in ITA No. 2942/M/2018 for assessment year 2012-13. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. The sole issue involved in the grounds raised is disallowance deduction u/s 35AC of the Act. The brief facts qua, the issue-in-dispute are that Navjeevan Charitable Trust was notified u/s 35AC of the Act vide notification No. SO121(E) dated 12.01.2009, which was amended for the project of vocational training programme, camps and goods & cloth distribution, for a cost of a further period of FY 2011-12, 2012- Further, by way of notification dated 11.08.2011, which was further on 27.12.2013 and notification dated 07.10.2013 of the said trust were approved for the purpose of section by prescribed authority. For the year under consideration, the assessee made payment of Rs. 30,00,000/ evan Charitable Trust ( six cheques of Rs. 5,00,000 different dates) as donation towards the projects of Navjeevan Charitable Trust notified under section 35AC of the Act and claimed deduction of the same in the return of income filed, which stood owed by the AO in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 3 On further appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also upheld the disallowance of the ITAT dated 27.08.2019 in ITA No. Aggrieved, the assessee is in appeal before the ITAT ( in short by way of raising the grounds as reproduced above. aised is disallowance of dispute are that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was notified u/s 35AC of the Act vide notification No. SO121(E) dated 12.01.2009, which was amended for the project of vocational training programme, a cost of ₹68.65 -13 & 2013-14. Further, by way of notification dated 11.08.2011, which was further on 27.12.2013 and notification dated 07.10.2013, other for the purpose of section For the year under consideration, the assessee made payment of Rs. 30,00,000/- to six cheques of Rs. 5,00,000/- on different dates) as donation towards the projects of Navjeevan Charitable Trust notified under section 35AC of the Act and claimed deduction of the same in the return of income filed, which stood owed by the AO in the assessment completed u/s 143(3) of the 6.1 The Assessing Officer the Investigation Wing Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o donations u/s 35AC(1) of the Act information interalia Trust was used to received cheque payments of purported donation which were then routed to certain bogus purchase parties for purchase of wheat, rice, pulses, cloth etc. and th parties used to transfer the money to some other bank account controlled by Mr. Ashok Bagaria Charitable Trust and then cash used to be withdrawn from those accounts and returned back to the donors. Subhash Kadam in his statement dated 10.11.2014 described the entire process of receiptof cheque purchase by the trust and then routing of the cash back to the donors. He stated of receipt giving donation receipt to the donors. The Ld. Assessing Officer in para 3.3, the order has reproduced the statement of the bogus purchase parties, which is reproduced as 3.3 Statements of the been recorded where they have stated that they only provided accommodation bills to Navjeevan and that the payments were returned to Shri. Ashok Bagaria either through cash or through payment into one of the bank account him. ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 Assessing Officer subsequently received information from the Investigation Wingof the Income-tax Department Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry o u/s 35AC(1) of the Act to various parties. alia contains that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was used to received cheque payments of purported donation then routed to certain bogus purchase parties for wheat, rice, pulses, cloth etc. and then parties used to transfer the money to some other bank account controlled by Mr. Ashok Bagaria, the trustee of Navjeevan Charitable Trust and then cash used to be withdrawn from those nts and returned back to the donors. Another Subhash Kadam in his statement dated 10.11.2014 described the receiptof cheque from donor, expenses of bogus purchase by the trust and then routing of the cash back to the of receipt of commission @ 3% in the process of giving donation receipt to the donors. The Ld. Assessing Officer in para 3.3, the order has reproduced the statement of the bogus purchase parties, which is reproduced as under: Statements of these bogus purchase parties have also been recorded where they have stated that they only provided accommodation bills to Navjeevan and that the payments were returned to Shri. Ashok Bagaria either through cash or through payment into one of the bank accounts controlled by M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 4 received information from tax Department that M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was engaged in issuing bogus entry of to various parties. The M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was used to received cheque payments of purported donation, then routed to certain bogus purchase parties for bogus purchase parties used to transfer the money to some other bank account the trustee of Navjeevan Charitable Trust and then cash used to be withdrawn from those Another trustee Mr. Subhash Kadam in his statement dated 10.11.2014 described the expenses of bogus purchase by the trust and then routing of the cash back to the of commission @ 3% in the process of giving donation receipt to the donors. The Ld. Assessing Officer in para 3.3, the order has reproduced the statement of the bogus se bogus purchase parties have also been recorded where they have stated that they only provided accommodation bills to Navjeevan and that the payments were returned to Shri. Ashok Bagaria either through cash or s controlled by  For instance, Shri. Amit Sanghvi, proprietor of Amit Corporation, has stated that no business is carried out by this concern, and that he returns cash back to Navjeevan through one Mr. Amish Modi. Shri. Jitendra Thombre, proprietor of proprietorship was formed by his wife's employer, Shri. Babulal Doshi, in the name of Jitendra Thombre. There was no business carried out, and the proprietor would simply sign blank cheques and provide the same to Shri. Babul  Shri. Rajesh Warde, proprietor of M/S Swastik Enterprises and M/S Mehul Synthetics, has stated that no business activity was carried out and the money deposited in the bank accounts would be transferred to bank accounts controlled by Shri. Ashok B bills would be issued for wheat, rice, pulses, etc.  Shri. RashmikantJhaveri, proprietor of M/S Krishna Trading Corporation, M/S Rahul Enterprises and M/S J.B. & Sons stated that there was no business in these concerns and that accommodation b and food grains were provided to Navjeevan. He further stated that staff of Mr. Amish Modi used to come for collecting the accommodation bill along with delivery challan to make the transaction look genuine though no movement of goods e deposited in the bank would be transferred immediately to bank accounts controlled by Mr. Ashok Bagaria, on the instructions of Mr. Amish Modi. He also stated that M/S Mahi Enterprise, a proprietary concern of Ms. ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 For instance, Shri. Amit Sanghvi, proprietor of Amit Corporation, has stated that no business is carried out by this concern, and that he returns cash back to Navjeevan through one Mr. Amish Modi. Shri. Jitendra Thombre, proprietor of M/S J Fabrics, stated that the proprietorship was formed by his wife's employer, Shri. Babulal Doshi, in the name of Jitendra Thombre. There was no business carried out, and the proprietor would simply sign blank cheques and provide the same to Shri. BabulalDoshi. Shri. Rajesh Warde, proprietor of M/S Swastik Enterprises and M/S Mehul Synthetics, has stated that no business activity was carried out and the money deposited in the bank accounts would be transferred to bank accounts controlled by Shri. Ashok Bagaria. Bogus bills would be issued for wheat, rice, pulses, etc. Shri. RashmikantJhaveri, proprietor of M/S Krishna Trading Corporation, M/S Rahul Enterprises and M/S J.B. & Sons stated that there was no business in these concerns and that accommodation bills for stationery and food grains were provided to Navjeevan. He further stated that staff of Mr. Amish Modi used to come for collecting the accommodation bill along with delivery challan to make the transaction look genuine though no movement of goods ever took place. The money deposited in the bank would be transferred immediately to bank accounts controlled by Mr. Ashok Bagaria, on the instructions of Mr. Amish Modi. He also stated that M/S Mahi Enterprise, a proprietary concern of Ms. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 5 For instance, Shri. Amit Sanghvi, proprietor of Amit Corporation, has stated that no business is carried out by this concern, and that he returns cash back to Navjeevan through one Mr. Amish Modi. Shri. Jitendra M/S J Fabrics, stated that the proprietorship was formed by his wife's employer, Shri. Babulal Doshi, in the name of Jitendra Thombre. There was no business carried out, and the proprietor would simply sign blank cheques and provide the same to Shri. Rajesh Warde, proprietor of M/S Swastik Enterprises and M/S Mehul Synthetics, has stated that no business activity was carried out and the money deposited in the bank accounts would be transferred to agaria. Bogus bills would be issued for wheat, rice, pulses, etc. Shri. RashmikantJhaveri, proprietor of M/S Krishna Trading Corporation, M/S Rahul Enterprises and M/S J.B. & Sons stated that there was no business in these ills for stationery and food grains were provided to Navjeevan. He further stated that staff of Mr. Amish Modi used to come for collecting the accommodation bill along with delivery challan to make the transaction look genuine though no ver took place. The money deposited in the bank would be transferred immediately to bank accounts controlled by Mr. Ashok Bagaria, on the instructions of Mr. Amish Modi. He also stated that M/S Mahi Enterprise, a proprietary concern of Ms. Seema Raichura, provide accommodation bills of soaps and condoms to Navieevan.  Shri. KhozemaJaorawala, director of M/S Vaani Mercantile Pvt Ltd stat accommodation bills to Navjeevan Charitable Trust. 6.1 In view of above observation proceedings the Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act calling for details from also to afford an opportunity of cross However, the notice sent u/s unserved. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the trustee was made on the part of the assessee Assessing Officer disallowed ₹30 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of the Tribunal order dated 27.08.2019 wherein the Tribunal observed at under : “7. Upon careful consideration I note that the recipient of the donation in this case h that the assessee has given bogus accommodation to him. In this view of the matter it was incumbent upon the assessee to rebut the same being cogent evidences. It is strange that assessee is asking the recipient whom the assessee has given donation and who is his witness to be produced by the assessing officer for cross ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 Seema Raichura, was controlled by him and would provide accommodation bills of soaps and condoms to Navieevan. Shri. KhozemaJaorawala, director of M/S Vaani Mercantile Pvt Ltd stat accommodation bills to Navjeevan Charitable Trust. In view of above observations, during reassessment the Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of the Act calling for details from M/s Navjeevan Charitable also to afford an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee. However, the notice sent u/s 133(6) of the Act were returned unserved. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to produce the trustee of said trust however on the part of the assessee. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer disallowed the claim of donation of the assessee of 30 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of the Tribunal order dated 27.08.2019 wherein the Tribunal observed at under : Upon careful consideration I note that the recipient of the donation in this case has unequivocally admitted that the assessee has given bogus accommodation to him. In this view of the matter it was incumbent upon the assessee to rebut the same being cogent evidences. It is strange that assessee is asking the recipient whom the has given donation and who is his witness to be produced by the assessing officer for cross-examination. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 6 was controlled by him and would provide accommodation bills of soaps and condoms to Shri. KhozemaJaorawala, director of M/S Vaani Mercantile Pvt Ltd stat accommodation bills to g reassessment the Ld. Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6) of Charitable Trust and examination to the assessee. 133(6) of the Act were returned unserved. In the circumstances, the Assessing Officer asked the however no compliance . In the circumstances, the the claim of donation of the assessee of 30 lakhs. The Ld. CIT(A) followed the finding of the Tribunal order dated 27.08.2019 wherein the Tribunal observed at under : Upon careful consideration I note that the recipient as unequivocally admitted that the assessee has given bogus accommodation to him. In this view of the matter it was incumbent upon the assessee to rebut the same being cogent evidences. It is strange that assessee is asking the recipient whom the has given donation and who is his witness to be examination. 8. I find this proposition totally unacceptable. It was incumbent upon the assessee to provide evidence against the statement by the recipient and the investigation carried on. The detailed investigation carried out duly supports the case of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed correct order upholding the validity of reopening and merits of addition. The precedents relied by him are germane. 9. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent. I uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A). 7. Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that order of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has been recalled by the Tribunal and in 07.10.2021 in ITA No. 2492/Mum/2018 for Assessment year 2012 13, the Tribunal in SMC bench observing as under: “5. I find that on identical set of facts, the Co the case of Bhavita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 3665/M/2019 for AY 2010 under: “4. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below perused. The assessee made donation of Rs.5,00,000/ to NCT in March, 2010 and claimed the benefit of deduction under section 35AC of the Act in its return of income for assessment year 2010 search action was carried out in the case of NCT and it ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 I find this proposition totally unacceptable. It was incumbent upon the assessee to provide evidence against the statement by the recipient and the investigation carried on. The detailed investigation carried out duly supports the case of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed correct order upholding the validity of reopening and merits of addition. The precedents relied by him are germane. In the background of aforesaid discussion and precedent. I uphold the order of Ld. CIT(A).” Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that order of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has been recalled and in the subsequent recalled order dated in ITA No. 2492/Mum/2018 for Assessment year 2012 in SMC bench has deleted the disallowance 5. I find that on identical set of facts, the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Bhavita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 3665/M/2019 for AY 2010-11 decided on 01.12.2020 held as “4. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below perused. The assessee made donation of Rs.5,00,000/ to NCT in March, 2010 and claimed the benefit of deduction under section 35AC of the Act in its return of income for assessment year 2010-11. Subsequentl search action was carried out in the case of NCT and it M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 7 I find this proposition totally unacceptable. It was incumbent upon the assessee to provide evidence against detailed investigation carried on. The detailed investigation carried out duly supports the case of the Revenue. The Ld. CIT(A) has passed correct order upholding the validity of reopening and merits of addition. The precedents relied by In the background of aforesaid discussion and Before us, the Ld. Counsel of the assessee submitted that order of the Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. CIT(A) has been recalled called order dated in ITA No. 2492/Mum/2018 for Assessment year 2012- has deleted the disallowance ordinate Bench in the case of Bhavita Chemicals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No. 11 decided on 01.12.2020 held as “4. Both sides heard, orders of authorities below perused. The assessee made donation of Rs.5,00,000/- to NCT in March, 2010 and claimed the benefit of deduction under section 35AC of the Act in its return of 11. Subsequently, search action was carried out in the case of NCT and it was found that the Trust was issuing bogus donation receipts. On the basis of search action, the assessee’s claim of deduction in assessment year 2010 disallowed in reassessment proceedings. of the Revenue is that the donation amount paid by the assessee to NCT has flownback to the assessee. I find that no positive evidence is brought on record by the Revenue to show that on the date of donation made by the assessee, NCT was no certificate. On the contrary, the assessee has filed evidence to show that NCT was holding valid registration certificate from the Department on the date of donation and the same was subsequently renewed in 2011. This fact is e Finance dated 30/11/2010 at page 70 to 72 of the Paper Book. It is further observed that on the basis of statement/evidence collected at the back of assessee, the claim of deduction under section 35AC of the A been disallowed in proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. It is a well settled law that any evidence collected at the back of assessee if not put to the assessee for crossexamination would result in violation of principles of natural j assessee asked for cross however, the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 62 taxmann.com 3 has held that the witness is a serious flaw which renders the order ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 was found that the Trust was issuing bogus donation receipts. On the basis of search action, the assessee’s claim of deduction in assessment year 2010 disallowed in reassessment proceedings. The contention of the Revenue is that the donation amount paid by the assessee to NCT has flownback to the assessee. I find that no positive evidence is brought on record by the Revenue to show that on the date of donation made by the assessee, NCT was not holding valid registration certificate. On the contrary, the assessee has filed evidence to show that NCT was holding valid registration certificate from the Department on the date of donation and the same was subsequently renewed in 2011. This fact is evident from notification issued by Ministry of Finance dated 30/11/2010 at page 70 to 72 of the Paper Book. It is further observed that on the basis of statement/evidence collected at the back of assessee, the claim of deduction under section 35AC of the A been disallowed in proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. It is a well settled law that any evidence collected at the back of assessee if not put to the assessee for crossexamination would result in violation of principles of natural justice. In the instant case the assessee asked for cross-examination of the trustee, however, the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 62 taxmann.com 3 has held that not providing opportunity to crossexamine the witness is a serious flaw which renders the order M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 8 was found that the Trust was issuing bogus donation receipts. On the basis of search action, the assessee’s claim of deduction in assessment year 2010-11 was The contention of the Revenue is that the donation amount paid by the assessee to NCT has flownback to the assessee. I find that no positive evidence is brought on record by the Revenue to show that on the date of donation made by t holding valid registration certificate. On the contrary, the assessee has filed evidence to show that NCT was holding valid registration certificate from the Department on the date of donation and the same was subsequently renewed in 2011. This vident from notification issued by Ministry of Finance dated 30/11/2010 at page 70 to 72 of the Paper Book. It is further observed that on the basis of statement/evidence collected at the back of assessee, the claim of deduction under section 35AC of the Act has been disallowed in proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 148 of the Act. It is a well settled law that any evidence collected at the back of assessee if not put to the assessee for crossexamination would result in violation ustice. In the instant case the examination of the trustee, however, the same was rejected by the Assessing Officer. The Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Andman Timber Industries vs. CCE, 62 taxmann.com 3 not providing opportunity to crossexamine the witness is a serious flaw which renders the order nullity. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It is further observed that no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the Reve substantiate that the donation made by assessee through banking channel has been received back by assessee in cash. The assessment order and the impugned order has been passed purely on assumptions and presumptions. 5. The Co Pvt. Ltd., (supra), deleted the addition made for similar reasons in respect of donation made to NCT, holding that in the absence of any evidence on record that the amount has been received back by the assessee from the Charitable surmises and conjectures and, hence, is unsustainable. I find merit in the submissions of the assessee, hence, same are accepted and the impugned order is quashed.” 7.1 He further submitted that the Co Tribunal Kolkata Bench in the case of 2346/Kol/2019 has deleted the disallowance of identical donation of ₹ 30 lakhs on the basis that documentation was there and examination was provided to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the instant case M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was granted registration by Government of India which was operation at the time of ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 nullity. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It is further observed that no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the Reve substantiate that the donation made by assessee through banking channel has been received back by assessee in cash. The assessment order and the impugned order has been passed purely on assumptions and presumptions. 5. The Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Jadstone Trading Pvt. Ltd., (supra), deleted the addition made for similar reasons in respect of donation made to NCT, holding that in the absence of any evidence on record that the amount has been received back by the assessee from the Charitable Trust, the addition is solely based on surmises and conjectures and, hence, is unsustainable. I find merit in the submissions of the assessee, hence, same are accepted and the impugned order is quashed.” He further submitted that the Co-ordinate Bench Tribunal Kolkata Bench in the case of Raj Karan Dasani in ITA No. has deleted the disallowance of identical donation 30 lakhs on the basis that (i) regulation was in force documentation was there and (iii) no opportunit examination was provided to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the instant case M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was granted registration by Government of India which was at the time of donation given by the assessee. He M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 9 nullity. The impugned order is liable to be quashed on this ground alone. It is further observed that no cogent evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue to substantiate that the donation made by assessee through banking channel has been received back by assessee in cash. The assessment order and the impugned order has been passed purely on assumptions case of Jadstone Trading Pvt. Ltd., (supra), deleted the addition made for similar reasons in respect of donation made to NCT, holding that in the absence of any evidence on record that the amount has been received back by the assessee from the Trust, the addition is solely based on surmises and conjectures and, hence, is unsustainable. I find merit in the submissions of the assessee, hence, same are accepted and the impugned order is quashed.” ordinate Bench of the Raj Karan Dasani in ITA No. has deleted the disallowance of identical donation regulation was in force (ii) valid no opportunity for cross- examination was provided to the assessee. The Ld. Counsel submitted that in the instant case M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust was granted registration by Government of India which was in the assessee. He further submitted that the assessee got valid receipt as well as certificatesfrom donee and it was not within the control of the assessee that how the donee organization has He further submitted that no cross assessee and there was no proof that assessee had received back the money in question. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down u/s 35AC of the Act and therefore, following the finding of the Tribunal in the dated 07.10.2021,the order of 8. On contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) produced the copy of the Notification No. SO 3592(E) [No.67/2016(F.No.27015/5/2016 whereby the prescribed authority on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the Income M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust u/s 35AC in relation to project of the scheme including the vocational training programme donation. The relevant part of reproduced for ready “Whereas by notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issue Explanation to section 35AC of the In central Government had specified projects / scheme for exemption , in respect of the association and institution approved by the Nat mentioned in the Table below: ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 submitted that the assessee got valid receipt as well as from donee and it was not within the control of the assessee that how the donee organization has utilized He further submitted that no cross-examination was assessee and there was no proof that assessee had received back the money in question. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down u/s 35AC of the Act and therefore, following the finding of the Tribunal in the 07.10.2021,the order of the Ld. CIT(A) need to be reversed. On contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) produced the copy of the Notification No. SO 3592(E) [No.67/2016(F.No.27015/5/2016-SO(NAT.Com)] dated 30 by the prescribed authority on the basis of the inquiry conducted by the Income-tax Department and no response from the M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust, withdrawnthe approval granted u/s 35AC in relation to project of the scheme including the ining programme, for which the assessee gave relevant part of said notification reproduced for ready reference as under: Whereas by notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue) issue under subsection (1) read with clause (b) of the Explanation to section 35AC of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961) central Government had specified projects / scheme for exemption , in respect of the association and institution approved by the Nat mentioned in the Table below: M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 10 submitted that the assessee got valid receipt as well as from donee and it was not within the control of the utilized the money. examination was provided to the assessee and there was no proof that assessee had received back the money in question. The Ld. Counsel submitted that assessee has fulfilled all the conditions laid down u/s 35AC of the Act and therefore, following the finding of the Tribunal in the recalled order the Ld. CIT(A) need to be reversed. On contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR) produced the copy of the Notification No. SO 3592(E) dated 30-11-2016 by the prescribed authority on the basis of the inquiry tax Department and no response from the approval granted u/s 35AC in relation to project of the scheme including the for which the assessee gave said notification (supra) is Whereas by notification of the Government of India , in the Ministry of Finance under subsection (1) read with clause (b) of the tax Act, 1961 (43 of 1961), the central Government had specified projects / scheme for exemption , in respect of the association and institution approved by the National Committee , Sr. No. Name & Address of the Institution 1. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, 08, Jolly Bhavan No. 1,10 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. 2. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, 08, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, 10 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. 3. Navjeevan Charitable Trust, 08, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, 10 New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. 8.1 According to Ld DR approval , which was u/s 35AC of the Act, the assessee is no longer eligible for deduction for the donation paid under the scheme of section 35AC of the Act. Further, the Ld. DR the Act returned back produce trustee of said M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. In such circumstances, the plea of no cross ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 Name & Address of the Project or Scheme Navjeevan Charitable 08, Jolly Bhavan No. 1,10 Shree Navijeevan, Vocational Training Programme, Medical camps and goods & cloth distribution.  S.O. No. 121(E) dated 12.01.2009 at Sl. No. 20 for a period of three financial years till 2010-11 for ₹39.11  S.O. No. 852(E) dated 27.04.2011 for a period of three financial years till 2013 14 and amending the project cost to ₹68.65 crore and amending the address of the Trust from 602, Shastri Hall, 292, J. Dadji Road, Mumbai-400007 to 115, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, 10, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020.  S.O. No. 1228(E) dated 30.05.2011 amending the address to 08, Jolly Bhavan No.1, 10, New Marine Lines, Mumbai-400020. Navjeevan Charitable 08, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, A caring hand  S.O. No. 1860(E) dated 11.08.2011 at Sl. No. 14 for a period of three financial years till 2013-14 for ₹15.34 crores.  S.O. No. 3829(E) dated 27.12.2013 for a period of three financial years till 2016-17 and amending the project cost to ₹24.49 crores Navjeevan Charitable 08, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, Sankalap  S.O. No. 3022(E) dated 07.10.2013 at Sl. No. 9 for a period of three financial years till 2015-16 for ₹27.97 crores Ld DR, in view of subsequent withdrawal of , which was granted to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust u/s 35AC of the Act, the assessee is no longer eligible for deduction the donation paid under the scheme of section 35AC of the Act. submitted that in view of notice u/s 133(6) of returned back unserved, onus was on the assessee to said M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. In such ircumstances, the plea of no cross-examinations M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 11 Maximum amount of cost recommended by the Committee under section 35AC Shree Navijeevan, Vocational Training Programme, Medical camps and goods & S.O. No. 121(E) dated 12.01.2009 at Sl. No. 20 for a period of three financial 11 for a period of three financial years till 2013- 14 and amending the project cost to 68.65 crore and amending the address of the Trust from 602, Shastri Hall, 400007 to 115, Jolly Bhavan No. 1, 10, New S.O. No. 1228(E) dated 30.05.2011 amending the address to 08, Jolly Bhavan No.1, 10, New Marine Lines, ₹68.65 crores S.O. No. 1860(E) dated 11.08.2011 at Sl. No. 14 for a period of three 14 for S.O. No. 3829(E) dated 27.12.2013 for a period of three financial years 17 and amending the 24.49 crores S.O. No. 3022(E) dated 07.10.2013 at Sl. No. 9 for a period of three 16 for 27.97 crores , in view of subsequent withdrawal of granted to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust u/s 35AC of the Act, the assessee is no longer eligible for deduction the donation paid under the scheme of section 35AC of the Act. submitted that in view of notice u/s 133(6) of the assessee to said M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. In such examinations provided to the assessee is not relevant because in view of return 133(6), the onus shifted to the assessee to produce the said party which being witness of the assessee. According to the L decisions relied upon the Ld. Counsel of the assessee the cross-examination does not apply to the facts of the instant case. 9. We have heard rival submission of the parties and issue dispute and perused the relevant material o paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee has filed a copy of the Notification No. S.O. 1967 (E) dated 31.07.2014 to support that the Navjeevan Charitable Trust was notified u/s 35AC for project of vocational training programme, med distribution for a period of 3 years which was further extended for a period of 3 years vide dated 27.04.2011. The assessee has also produce notification dated 07.10.2013 in respec Navjeevan Charitable Trust. relevant receiptsand issued by the donee cheques were cleared assessee is that the assessee has notification issued by the Government of India and assessee was not aware how the said trust ha assessee. The Ld DR has contended th ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 relevant because in view of return back onus shifted to the assessee to produce the said party which being witness of the assessee. According to the L decisions relied upon the Ld. Counsel of the assessee examination does not apply to the facts of the instant We have heard rival submission of the parties and issue dispute and perused the relevant material on record including paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee has filed a copy of the Notification No. S.O. 1967 (E) dated 31.07.2014 to support that the Navjeevan Charitable Trust was notified u/s 35AC for project of vocational training programme, medical camps and goods & cloth distribution for a period of 3 years from financial year 2008 which was further extended for a period of 3 years vide The assessee has also produce notification dated 07.10.2013 in respect of project “Sankalp” of M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust. The assessee has also filed copy of the receiptsand form No. 58A prescribed u/s 35AC of the Act issued by the donee, and bank statement through which the cleared. The contention of the Ld. Counsel of the assessee is that the assessee has given donation in view of notification issued by the Government of India and assessee was not aware how the said trust had utilized the donations paid The Ld DR has contended that Notification granting M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 12 back of notice u/s onus shifted to the assessee to produce the said party which being witness of the assessee. According to the Ld. DR, the decisions relied upon the Ld. Counsel of the assessee non-providing examination does not apply to the facts of the instant We have heard rival submission of the parties and issue-in- n record including paper book filed by the assessee. The assessee has filed a copy of the Notification No. S.O. 1967 (E) dated 31.07.2014 to support that the Navjeevan Charitable Trust was notified u/s 35AC for project of ical camps and goods & cloth financial year 2008-09 which was further extended for a period of 3 years vide amended The assessee has also produced a copy of t of project “Sankalp” of M/s filed copy of the form No. 58A prescribed u/s 35AC of the Act and bank statement through which the n of the Ld. Counsel of the donation in view of notification issued by the Government of India and assessee was utilized the donations paid by the at Notification granting approval of projects of M/s Navjjevan Charitable Trust has been subsequently withdrawn by the Competent authority, so no deduction should be allowed to the assessee. 9/1 As far as contention of the LD DR that deduction should be denied in view of subsequent withdrawal of notification in relation to section 35AC approval granted earlier is concerned, the Explanation below provision of section 35AC(2) of the Act don’t permit for withdrawal circumstances. The relevant reproduced as under: [Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a public sector company or a local authority or to an association or in eligible project or scheme referred to in this section applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee, (a) the approval granted to such association or institution been withdrawn; or (b) the notification notifying the eligible project or scheme carried out by the public sector company or local authority or association or institution has been withdrawn.] 9.2 Therefore, we reject the contention of Ld. DR for confi disallowance of donation on this ground. ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 approval of projects of M/s Navjjevan Charitable Trust has been subsequently withdrawn by the Competent authority, so no deduction should be allowed to the assessee. As far as contention of the LD DR that deduction should be subsequent withdrawal of notification in relation to section 35AC approval granted earlier is concerned, xplanation below provision of section 35AC(2) of the Act don’t permit for withdrawal of deduction in the hands of . The relevant Explanation section 35AC is as under: [Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a public sector company or a local authority or to an association or institution for carrying out the eligible project or scheme referred to in this section applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that subsequent to the payment of such sum by the assessee,- the approval granted to such association or institution been withdrawn; or (b) the notification notifying the eligible project or scheme carried out by the public sector company or local authority or association or institution has been withdrawn.] Therefore, we reject the contention of Ld. DR for confi disallowance of donation on this ground. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 13 approval of projects of M/s Navjjevan Charitable Trust has been subsequently withdrawn by the Competent authority, so no As far as contention of the LD DR that deduction should be subsequent withdrawal of notification in relation to section 35AC approval granted earlier is concerned, we find that xplanation below provision of section 35AC(2) of the Act don’t deduction in the hands of donor in such section 35AC is [Explanation. The deduction, to which the assessee is entitled in respect of any sum paid to a public sector company or a local stitution for carrying out the eligible project or scheme referred to in this section applies, shall not be denied merely on the ground that subsequent to the the approval granted to such association or institution has (b) the notification notifying the eligible project or scheme carried out by the public sector company or local authority or association Therefore, we reject the contention of Ld. DR for confirming 9.2 According to Ld. Counsel of the assessee, no cross examination has been provided to the assessee, therefore, the donation paid cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of statement of the trustee of Navje issued by the Government of India. contention of the assessee due to the reasons that i of the donation paid basis of address of Navjeevan Charitable Trust assessee, the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6 same returned back assessee for producing in producing so. The assessee also failed to provide current address of said Navjeevan Charitable Trust or their Trustees and without which, it was not possible for claim of assessee, particularly the information of bogus donation Therefore, the assessee cannot ask the Revenue to provide for cross-examination of said party regard are accordingly distinguishable. 9.3 The decisions of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench dated 07.10.2021 is also based on no cross already held that in view of notice u/s 133(6) of the Navjeevan Charitable Trust returned back unserved, onus was onthe assessee to produce M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust and ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 According to Ld. Counsel of the assessee, no cross examination has been provided to the assessee, therefore, the donation paid cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of statement of the trustee of Navjeevan Trust ignoring the notification issued by the Government of India. However, we reject the contention of the assessee of non-providing of cross examination that it is the assessee who is seeking of the donation paid to M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust of Navjeevan Charitable Trust provided by the the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6 back unserved.Therefore, the onus shifted the ducingthe said party which the assessee has failed . The assessee also failed to provide current address of said Navjeevan Charitable Trust or their Trustees and without it was not possible for the AO to verify the truthfulness of , particularly the information of bogus donation assessee cannot ask the Revenue to provide for of said party. The decisions relied upon in this are accordingly distinguishable. decisions of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench dated 07.10.2021 is also based on no cross-examination provided. Since, we have already held that in view of notice u/s 133(6) of the Navjeevan Charitable Trust returned back unserved, onus was to produce M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust and M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 14 According to Ld. Counsel of the assessee, no cross- examination has been provided to the assessee, therefore, the donation paid cannot be disallowed merely on the basis of evan Trust ignoring the notification However, we reject the providing of cross examination t is the assessee who is seeking deduction Navjeevan Charitable Trust and on the provided by the the Assessing Officer issued notice u/s 133(6), however the onus shifted the said party which the assessee has failed . The assessee also failed to provide current address of said Navjeevan Charitable Trust or their Trustees and without AO to verify the truthfulness of , particularly the information of bogus donation. assessee cannot ask the Revenue to provide for . The decisions relied upon in this decisions of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench dated 07.10.2021 is examination provided. Since, we have already held that in view of notice u/s 133(6) of the Act issued to Navjeevan Charitable Trust returned back unserved, onus was to produce M/s Navjeevan Charitable Trust and hence plea of cross accordingly,ratio of assessment year 2012 case. 9.4 The assessee under provision of section 35AC(2) was required to file a certificate particulars relating to progress in work relating to project in prescribed proforma. The relevant part of provision is reproduced as under: (2) The deduction under sub section (1) shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes along with his return of income a certificate- (a) where the payment is to a public sector company or a local authority or an association or institution referred to in s section (1), from such public sector company or local authority or, as the case may be, association or institution; "(b) in any other case, from an accountant, as defined in the Explanationbelow sub in such form, manner and c particulars relating to the progress in the work relating to the eligible project or scheme during the previous year) as may be prescribed. 9.5 The assessee has filed copy of issued for the year under consideration and copy of bank ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 hence plea of cross-examination is not applicable ,ratio of the finding of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench in assessment year 2012-13, can’t be applied over facts of instant under provision of section 35AC(2) was required to file a certificate in form No. 58A of Income- particulars relating to progress in work relating to project in prescribed proforma. The relevant part of provision is reproduced as The deduction under sub section (1) shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes along with his return of income a (a) where the payment is to a public sector company or a local authority or an association or institution referred to in s section (1), from such public sector company or local authority or, as the case may be, association or institution; "(b) in any other case, from an accountant, as defined in the Explanationbelow sub-section (2) of section 288, in such form, manner and containing such particulars (including particulars relating to the progress in the work relating to the eligible project or scheme during the previous year) as may be The assessee has filed copy of receipts and form issued for the year under consideration and copy of bank M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 15 not applicable and the finding of the Tribunal ‘SMC’ Bench in , can’t be applied over facts of instant under provision of section 35AC(2) was required -tax forms with particulars relating to progress in work relating to project in prescribed proforma. The relevant part of provision is reproduced as The deduction under sub section (1) shall not be allowed unless the assessee furnishes along with his return of income a (a) where the payment is to a public sector company or a local authority or an association or institution referred to in sub- section (1), from such public sector company or local authority or, "(b) in any other case, from an accountant, as defined in the ontaining such particulars (including particulars relating to the progress in the work relating to the eligible project or scheme during the previous year) as may be and forms No. 58A issued for the year under consideration and copy of bank statement, which are available on page 1 to 18 of the Paperbook. We find in the year under consideration the assessee has produced six receipts of Rs. 5,00,000/ 3/08/12 (PB-4); 3/8/2012 (PB (PB-13) and 12/10/2012 (PB 12/10/2012 (PB-16) extracted as under: ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 which are available on page 1 to 18 of the Paperbook. We find in the year under consideration the assessee has produced six receipts of Rs. 5,00,000/- each issued on 3/08/2012 (PB 4); 3/8/2012 (PB-7); 3/08/2012 (PB-10);12/10/2012 13) and 12/10/2012 (PB-16). One such receipt 16) and form No. 58A ( PB-17) are M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 16 which are available on page 1 to 18 of the Paperbook. We find in the year under consideration the assessee has produced each issued on 3/08/2012 (PB-1); 10);12/10/2012 One such receipt dated 17) are scanned and ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 17 9.6 The assessee has given donation consequently for three assessment years. In normal conduct, it may not be possible donation without verifying the human probability. Thus, circumstantial evid against the assessee. 9.7 In view of above discussion, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue assessee are accordingly dismissed. 10. The ground of appeal of the assessment year 2014 reproduced as under: 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of ₹20,00,000/ 2. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. 3. Your appellate there for prays your honor to delete the addition of 11. The facts and circumstances year under consideration are identical to assessment year 2013 finding above in assessmen assessment year 2014 ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 The assessee has given donations of almost for three assessment years. In normal conduct, it may not be possible, that the assessee will verifying the activities of the Trust. I the human probability. Thus, circumstantial evid against the assessee. In view of above discussion, we uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on the issue-in-dispute. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are accordingly dismissed. The ground of appeal of the assessment year 2014 reproduced as under: The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 0,00,000/- against the principle of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Honorable ITAT dated 07.10.2021. Your appellate there for prays your honor to delete the addition of ₹20,00,000/- confirm by the CIT(A). The facts and circumstances year under consideration are identical to assessment year 2013-14 and therefore following our finding above in assessment year 2013-14. The grounds raised in assessment year 2014-15 are accordingly dismissed. M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 18 s of almost same amount for three assessment years. In normal human the assessee will go on giving Trust. It is against the human probability. Thus, circumstantial evidences also go In view of above discussion, we uphold the order of the Ld. dispute. The grounds of appeal of the The ground of appeal of the assessment year 2014-15 is The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of against the principle of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) has not consider the order pass by Your appellate there for prays your honor to delete the confirm by the CIT(A). The facts and circumstances year under consideration are 14 and therefore following our 14. The grounds raised in 15 are accordingly dismissed. 12. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced the ITAT Rules, 1963 on Sd/- (SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 19/01/2023 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. Guard file. //True Copy// ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court/under Rule 34(4) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 on 19/01/2023. Sd/ SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL) (OM PRAKASH KANT JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Copy of the Order forwarded to : BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai M/s Manthan Inc ITA Nos. 2663 & 2664/M/2022 19 In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. under Rule 34(4) of Sd/- OM PRAKASH KANT) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER BY ORDER, (Sr. Private Secretary) ITAT, Mumbai