ACIT 32(1), MUMBAI V. GUJARAT ESTATE, MUMBAI

ITA 3184/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5185 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 9 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 02-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAUDHARY ARUN KUMAR SINGH
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 147; 68; 148; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH G, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.3184/M/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 O/O ACIT 32(1), PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, ROOM NO.209, 2 ND FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (EAST), MUMBAI - 400092 VS. M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE, SHOP NO.4, RACHNA CHS, EKSAR ROAD, BORIVALI WEST, MUMBAI 400 092 PAN: AAFFG3632F (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RASHMIKANT C. MODI, A.R. SHRI KETKI RAJESHIRKE, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI CHAUDHARY ARUNKUMAR SINGH, D.R . DATE OF HEARING : 14.01.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.02.2019 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2017 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.63,44,882/- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS AND INTEREST THEREON WHEN THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHI NESS AND GENUINENESS. ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 2 3. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED R ETURN OF INCOME ON 26.09.2008 DECLARING AN INCOME OF RS.1,77 ,39,303/-. THEREAFTER THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REOPENED UN DER SECTION 147 OF THE ACT BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 ON 31.03.2015 AFTER RECEIVING INFORMATION FROM THE OFF ICE OF DGIT, INVESTIGATION WING, MUMBAI AS COLLECTED DURING SEAR CH OPERATION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON BHANWARLAL JAIN GRO UP. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 AFTER COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE SAID INFORMATION CONSTITUTED TANGIBLE MAT ERIAL AND HAS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE AMOUNT RAISED TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.63,44,882/- FROM FIVE PARTIES AS MENTIONED ON PA GE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ARE BOGUS PARTIES AND ARE ENGA GED IN THE BUSINESS OF GIVING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITH OUT DOING ANY ACTUAL BUSINESS. THE SAID HAWALA RACKET CAME T O THE LIGHT WHEN A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON BHANWARLAL JAIN GROU P A LEADING ENTRY PROVIDER WHOSE STATEMENT WAS RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT WHO ADMITTED THAT HE AND HIS ASSOCIATE CONCERNS ARE ENGAGED IN ISSUING ACCOMMODATION ENTRI ES ONLY WITHOUT DOING ANY REAL BUSINESS. THEREAFTER, THE A SSESSEE FILED OBJECTION TO THE ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 1 48 WHICH WAS DISPOSED OF BY THE AO BY PASSING A SPEAKING ORDER O N 29.09.2015. THE AO ALSO ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO FIVE PARTIES ON 07.12.2015. THEREAFTER, AO ISSUED A FINAL SHOW CAUSE NOTICE VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATE D 13.03.2015 TO THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THE LOANS F ROM FIVE PARTIES BELONGING TO BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP SHOULD N OT BE TREATED AS UNSECURED CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS REPLIED BY THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 22.01 .2016 WHEREBY THE ASSESSEE OBJECTED TO THE ADDITION OF TH E SAID LOANS ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 3 UNDER SECTION 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ON THE GROUND THAT THESE ARE NOT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES BUT GENUINE LOA NS WHICH WERE REPAID SUBSEQUENTLY ALONG WITH INTEREST. THE ASSESSEE FILED THE VARIOUS EVIDENCES IN SUPPORT OF THE TRANSACTION S BEING GENUINE SUCH AS CONFIRMATIONS FROM THE PARTIES, THE IR IT RETURNS, BALANCE SHEETS REFLECTING THE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE, BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENCING THE LOAN GIVEN TO THE AS SESSEE ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED AFFIDAVIT FROM THE LENDERS WHEREIN THE LENDERS HAVE STATED ON OATH THAT THEY HAVE GIVEN LO ANS TO THE ASSESSEE. LASTLY, THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT ALL THE FIVE PARTIES HAVE RESPONDED TO THE NOTICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) BY SUBMITTING THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS AND THEREFORE TH E SAID TRANSACTIONS ARE BEYOND DOUBT AND CAN NOT BE TREATE D AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND THUS ESTABLISHES BEYOND DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES, CAPACITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS. HOWEVER, THE AO DOUBTING ALL THE FACT S ON RECORD TREATED THE SAME AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND ADD ED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY FRAMING ASSES SMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 148 OF THE A CT. 4. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AND OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT O RDER AS WELL AS THE WRITTEN SUBMISSION OF THE AR, I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE DETAI LS FILED BY THE AR. THE AO HAS MADE ADDITION U/S 68 OF THE IT ACT 1961. IT IS THER EFORE IMPORTANT TO UNDERSTAND THE POSITION OF LAW WHICH HAS EVOLVED FROM A CATENA OF JUDGMENTS DELIVERED BY HIGH COURTS AND TRIBUNALS ON THIS ISSUE. THE HON'BLE ITA T MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS ANANT SHELTERS PVT. LTD. (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 153 HAS ENUMERATED CERTAIN PRINCIPLES WHICH WOULD BE EXTREMELY USEFUL IN UNDER STANDING THE ISSUE IN HAND. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THAT OVER THE YEARS, LAW REGARDING CASH CREDITS HAVE EVOLVED AND HAS TAKEN A DEFINITE SHAPE. A FEW ASPECTS OF LAW U/S 68 CAN BE ENUMERATED 1. SEC. 68 CAN BE INVOKED WHEN THERE IS A CRE DIT OF AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUCH CREDIT IS A SUM OF MONEY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND EITHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXP LANATION ABOUT THE ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 4 NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CREDITS OR THE EXPLANATIO N BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OPINION OF THE AO IS NOT SATISFACTORY. 2. THE OPINION OF THE AO FOR NOT ACCEPTING TH E EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT SATISFACTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE FORM ED OBJECTIVELY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3. COURTS ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE IN A CASUAL MANNER . 4. THE ONUS OF PROOF IS NOT STATIC. THE INITIAL BUR DEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. 5. THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS CAN BE ESTABLISH ED BY EITHER FURNISHING THEIR PANS OR ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE GENUINENESS OF THE T RANSACTION CAN BE PROVED IF IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUE. CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER CAN BE ESTABLISHED B Y ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 4.4 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, T HE FOLLOWING DETAILS WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. 1. LOAN CONFIRMATION FROM THE LENDERS. 2. PAN NO. OF THE LENDERS. 3. COPY OF THE RETURN OF INCOME OF THE LENDERS WHIC H ADVANCED THE LOAN. 4. COPY OF BANK ACCOUNT OF THE LENDERS. 5. COPY OF BANK A/C OF THE ASSESSES. 6. AFFIDAVIT OF THE LENDERS. 4.5 IF THE ABOVE REFERRED PRINCIPLES ARE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE IDENTIT Y OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS THEY ARE HAVING PAN AND THEY AR E FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS ESTAB LISHED FROM THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ACCEPTANCE AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN HAS BEEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. FURTHER THE INTEREST PAID AGAINST SUCH LO ANS HAVE BEEN SUBJECT TO IDS. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS CAN BE EST ABLISHED FROM BANK STATEMENTS AND BALANCE SHEET OF THE LENDERS WHICH W ERE FILED BEFORE THE AO. 4.6 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE AO MENTIONED THAT MERELY BECAUSE THE FUNDS HAVE MOVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THE EN TITIES CONCERNED HAVE ARRANGED THE PAPER WORK THE TRANSACTION CANNOT BE HELD AS GENUINE. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO H AD ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO THE LENDERS TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS. FROM A PERUSAL OF ASSESSMENT ORDER IT APPEARS THAT THE LENDERS HAV E FILED CONFIRMATION AS WELL AS DETAILS ASKED BY THE AO. THE AO HAS HOWEVER CHOSEN NOT TO DISCUSS THE RESULT OF HIS ENQUIRY CONDUCTED U/S 133(6). IN ORDER TO MAKE ADDITION U/S 68 AO HAD TO ESTABLISH THAT EITHER THE TRANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE OR THE ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 5 LENDERS DID NOT HAVE CREDIT WORTHINESS OR THEIR IDE NTITY WAS NOT ESTABLISHED. AS MENTIONED IN PARA 4.5 ABOVE, THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION AND THE IDENTITY AS WELL AS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LEN DERS HAVE BEEN ESTABLISHED. IT CAN BE SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORD ER THAT THE ENTIRE FOCUS OF THE AO WAS ON THE MODUS OPERAND! ADOPTED BY BHAN WARLAL JAIN GROUP OF CASES TO PROVIDE BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF LOAN. THE MAIN REASON FOR MAKING ADDITION U/S 68 WAS ON THE BASIS OF INFORMAT ION PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING. WHILE THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING CAN BE THE STARTING POINT OF AN ENQUIRY IT CAN NOT BE A CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE AO. THE MOOT POINT BEFORE THE AO WAS TO EXAMINE THE APPLICATION OF SECTION 68 IN THE CASE OF THE APPELL ANT. INSTEAD OF ESTABLISHING THAT THE EXPLANATION OFFERED REGARDING THE NATURE A ND SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT SATISFACTORY THE AO W ENT TO DISCUSS IN DETAIL THE FACTS RELATED WITH BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP OF CAS ES. THE AO HAS NOT APPRECIATED THE FACT THAT HE WAS NOT MAKING ASSESSM ENT OF BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP OF CASES. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE APPELLANT WA S ABLE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS. 4.7 RECENTLY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS PASSED AN ORDER IN WP NO. 167 OF 2015 DATED 15.04.2015 IN THE CASE OF M/S RUSHABH ENTERPRISES VS AC1T 24(3) AND ORS. IN THIS CASE ALSO THE ASSESS EE HAD TAKEN LOAN FROM CONCERNS RELATED WITH BHANWAR AL JAIN GROUP OF CASE S. IN ITS ORDER THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN ADDITION TO DECIDING T HE LEGAL VALIDITY OF REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT ALSO DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE. THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN PARA 8 OF ITS ORDER STATED '.. ....ACCORDING TO HER (AO) THE REVENUE HAS RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM THE DGIT (INV) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOANS FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES BY WAY OF UNACCOUNTED CASH/ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES. WE ARE UNABLE TO AGREE SINCE THE PETITIONER HAS CLEARLY STATED THAT ALL THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUES WHICH WERE ENCASHED IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE PETI TIONER IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS. WE FIND THAT THE PETITIONER HAS ALSO PAID INTEREST ON THIS LOANS AFTER DEDUCTION OF TAX AT SOURCE AND TDS RETU RNS ARE ALSO ACCORDINGLY FILED. THERE IS NO DISPUTE IN REGARD TO THE ABOVE. WE FIND NOTHING TO SUPPORT THE SAID CONTENTIONS OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE'S CONTENTION IN THE AFFIDAVIT IN REPLY HAS NO MERIT. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LOANS APPEAR TO BE TAKEN IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS .......... ' 4.8 AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, THE RI VAL SUBMISSIONS, APPLICABLE LAW AND ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSIONS MENTIONED ABOVE I HAVE COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT NATURE AND SOURCE OF CREDIT IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE APPELLANT STANDS EXPLA INED. CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITION U/S 68 CANNOT BE SUSTA INED. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO.2 IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED AND ADDITION OF RS 63,44,882/- IS DELETED. 5. THE LD. D.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AND THE ORDER OF AO BY SUBMITTING THAT IT HAS COME TO LIGHT ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 6 DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON BHANWARLAL JAIN GROU P ON 03.10.2013 THAT HE AND HIS GROUP CONCERNS/RELATED E NTITIES WERE INVOLVED IN ADVANCING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES W HICH WERE DULY ACKNOWLEDGED AND CONFIRMED DURING THE COURSE O F STATEMENT OF BHANWARLAL JAIN RECORDED UNDER SECTION 132(4) OF THE ACT. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ALL THESE TRAN SACTIONS ARE SHAM AND AO HAS RIGHTLY MADE THE ADDITION UNDER SEC TION 68 DOUBTING THE IDENTITIES, CAPACITY, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THESE TRANSACTIONS AND THEREFORE THE ORDER OF AO NEEDS TO BE RESTORED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMEN T THE LD. D.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE FOLLOWING CASES. 1. PR. CIT VS. BIKRAM SINGH (2017) 85 TAXMANN.COM 1 04 (DELHI) 2. PAVANKUMAR M. SANGHVI VS. ITO (2018) 97 TAXMANN.COM 398 (SC) 3. ASHWINBHAI B POKIYA VS. ACIT (2014) 45 TAXMANN.COM 62 (GUJARAT) 6. THE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY SUBMITTED BEFORE THE BEN CH THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ALL THE NECESSARY EVIDENCES BEFORE THE AO SUCH AS CONFIRMATIONS, AFFIDAVITS OF THE LENDERS TH EIR BALANCE SHEETS, COPIES OF ITRS, BANK STATEMENTS ETC. EVIDEN CING ALL THE TRANSACTIONS OF LOANS TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE L D. A.R. ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID LOANS WERE REPAID IN THE SU BSEQUENT YEARS ALONG WITH INTEREST DUE THEREON. EVEN THE NO TICES ISSUED UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO ALL THESE FIVE P ARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED LOANS OF RS.63,44,882 /- WERE DULY RESPONDED BY THE LENDERS BESIDES FILING ALL TH E EVIDENCES CALLED FOR BY THE AO. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, T HE AO HAS COMPLETELY ERRED IN MAKING THE ADDITION UNDER SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT WHEN ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS SUCH AS IDENTITI ES OF THE PARTIES, CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTI ES AND ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 7 GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WERE PROVED BEYOND DOUBT MORE SO WHEN THE PARTIES INVOLVED IN LENDING MONEY TO TH E ASSESSEE HAVE BY WAY OF FILING AFFIDAVITS CONFIRMING THE LOA N TRANSACTIONS, CONFIRMATIONS OF LOANS AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENC ES PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE GENUINE. T HE LD. A.R. VEHEMENTLY RELIED ON THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) WHICH IS REASONED AND SPEAKING ONE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME HAS BE EN PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE VARIOUS JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMEN TS WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT EVEN IN THE CASE OF BHANWARLAL J AIN GROUP ENTITIES , THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NOT TO BE DOUBTED. IN SUPPORT OF HIS ARGUMENT THE LD. A.R. HAS RELIED UPON THE DECIS ION OF THE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE TITLED ACIT VS. GUJAR AT ESTATE IN ITA NO.6990/M/2016 A.Y. 2007-08 DATED 18.05.2018 WH EREIN THE CO-ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED T HE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN WHICH THE FACTS WERE MATE RIALLY SAME I.E. THE LOANS WERE RAISED FROM THE BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP AND THE ISSUE WAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. FINALLY, THE LD. A.R. S UBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING ALL THE A SPECTS OF THE MATTER IS WELL REASONED THE SAME NEEDS TO BE UPHELD BY THIS HONBLE FORUM. 7. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS BORROWED LOANS AGGREGATING TO RS.63,44,882/- FROM FIVE PARTIES AS DETAILED ON PA GE NO.2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WHICH WERE RELATED TO SHRI BHANWAR LAL JAIN. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS UPON B EING CALLED UPON BY THE AO THE PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS, THE ASSE SSEE FILED THE COPIES OF THE CONFIRMATION, AFFIDAVITS OF THE P ARTIES, THEIR IT ITA NO.3184/M/2017 M/S. GUJARAT ESTATE 8 RETURNS, BALANCE SHEETS AND BANK STATEMENTS EVIDENC ING ALL THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. EVEN NOTICES ISSUE D TO THESE FIVE PARTIES UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT WERE DULY R ESPONDED BY THE LENDERS WITH ALL REQUISITE DETAILS EVIDENCING T HE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERING ALL THESE ASPECTS AND VA RIOUS JUDICIAL DECISIONS CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT ASSESSEE HAS PROVED ALL THE THREE INGREDIENTS AS ENVISAGED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND DELETED THE ADDITION BY REVERSING THE ORDER OF AO. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS ON RECORD VIS--VIS THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A), WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT IN THE P RESENT CASE THERE IS NO SCOPE FOR DOUBTING THESE TRANSACTIONS A S ASSESSEE HAS PROVED BEYOND DOUBT THE IDENTITY OF THE PARTIES , CAPACITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AND GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. WE ARE THEREFORE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE BY DISMISSING THE APPEAL O F THE REVENUE. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISM ISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 05.02.2019. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 05.02.2019. * KISHORE, SR. P.S. COPY TO: THE APPELLANT THE RESPONDENT THE CIT, CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE CIT (A) CONCERNED, MUMBAI THE DR CONCERNED BENCH //TRUE COPY// [ BY ORD ER DY /ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI.