RATANCHAND S. OSWAL, MUMBAI V. JT CIT (OSD) RG 8(2), MUMBAI

ITA 3329/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8276 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 03-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 30-04-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: BEHARILAL
• Keywords: Gift; Accommodation entries; Revised return
• Section: 133A; 27; 148

Judgement Text

, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BE NCH, MUMBAI , !' #$% , !& ! ' BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I .T.A. NOS. 3331, 3332 & 3333/M/2013 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2002-03, 2003-04 & 2004-05 SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL, 81/82, SOLITAIRE, CENTRAL AVENUE, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI-400 054 / VS. THE JT. CIT, RANGE 8(2), MUMBAI ./I .T.A. NOS. 3398, 3399 & 3400/M/2013 ( ( ( ( ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2003-04 2004-05 & 2005-06 THE JT. CIT, RANGE 8(2), MUMBAI / VS. SHRI RISHI R. OSWAL, 81/82, SOLITAIRE, CENTRAL AVENUE, SANTACRUZ (W), MUMBAI-400 054 ) !& ./ * ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPOO 750D ( )+ / APPELLANT ) .. ( ,-)+ / RESPONDENT ) )+ . ! / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI BEHARILAL ,-)+ / . ! / REVENUE BY: SHRI LOVE KUMAR SHRI S.D. SRIVASTAVA / 0& / DATE OF HEARING : 03..12.2014 12( / 0& / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :12.12.2014 !3 / O R D E R RISHI R. OSWAL 2 PER BENCH: ITA NO. 3331/M/2013 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE FOR A.Y. 2002-03. ITA NO. 3332 & 3398/M/13 ARE CROSS APPEAL S BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2003-04, ITA NOS. 3333 & 3 339/M/13 ARE CROSS APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE FOR A .Y. 2004-05 AND ITA NO. 3400/M/2013 IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A.Y. 2006-07. ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. ITA NO. 3331/MUM/2013 A.Y. 2002-03 ASSESSEES A PPEAL 2. THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE CONFIRMATION OF THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT BY THE LD. CIT(A) -17, MUMBAI BY HIS ORDER DT. 28.2.2013. 3. BRIEFLY STATED THE FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT TH E RETURN FOR THE YEAR WAS FILED ON 31.7.2002 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS . 24,32,335/-. THE ASSESSEE FILED A REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME ON 1 8.1.2007 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS. 24,32,335/-. THE NOTICE WAS IS SUED U/S. 148 OF THE ACT AND THE ASSESSMENT WAS REOPENED. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DT. 14.11.2008 REQUESTED THE AO TO TREAT THE REVISED INCOME SUBMIT TED ON 18.1.2007 AS RETURN FILED IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT. 3.1. A SURVEY U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CONDUCTED ON 28.6.2006 AT THE OFFICE PREMISES OF M/S. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. L TD. IT WAS FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SURVEY ACTION THAT SHRI MUKESH M. CHO KSI, DIRECTOR OF M/S. MAHASAGAR SECURITIES PVT. LTD. WAS GIVING ACCOMMODA TION ENTRIES AS PER THE REQUIREMENTS OF HIS CLIENTS AGAINST RECEIPT OF CASH AND HIS COMMISSION. RISHI R. OSWAL 3 ACCORDINGLY, ENQUIRIES WERE CONDUCTED TO TRACE OUT THE ACTUAL BENEFICIARIES WHO HAD TAKEN THE ACCOMMODATION ENTIR ES FROM SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI. THE ASSESSEE ALONGWITH HIS FATHE R SHRI RATANCHAND OSWAL & HIS MOTHER SMT. RASILA R OSWAL WERE FOUND T O HAVE TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FROM SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI. ACCORDINGLY, A SURVEY ACTION WAS ALSO CONDUCTED ON 28.12.2006 AT T HE BUSINESS PREMISES OF A COMPANY IN WHICH ASSESSEE IS A DIRECTOR AND A LSO A SHARE HOLDER. 3.2. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 50 LAKHS DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE SAME SHOU LD NOT BE TAXED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE CLAIMED TH AT THE GIFTS ARE GENUINE BUT TO BUY MENTAL PEACE FROM THE DEPARTMENT AND TO AVOID LITIGATION, THE SAME ARE OFFERED TO TAX AS INCOME F ROM OTHER SOURCES. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WERE SEPARATELY INITIATED FOR F URNISHING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME/CONCEALMENT OF INCOME. NOTIC E WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) SHOU LD NOT BE LEVIED. 3.3. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT HE HAS O FFERED GIFTS AMOUNTING TO RS. 50 LAKHS AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES IN VIE W OF THE SURVEY TO BUY PEACE OF MIND AND TO AVOID PENALTY, HE HAS MADE FUL L DISCLOSURE. THERE WAS NO CONCEALMENT AND ALL THE FACTS WERE ALREADY D ISCLOSED WHILE FILING REVISED RETURN OF INCOME AND REQUESTED TO DROP THE PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. THIS EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY TH E AO WHO WAS OF THE FIRM BELIEF THAT HAD THE ASSESSEES CASE NOT BEEN R EOPENED AND SURVEY ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT HAS NOT BEEN CARRIED OU T BY THE DEPARTMENT, THE CONCEALMENT OF INCOME WOULD NEVER HAVE COME TO THE NOTICE OF THE DEPARTMENT. RISHI R. OSWAL 4 3.4. REFERRING TO THE PROCEEDINGS U/S. 133A OF THE ACT, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ACCEPTED THAT THE TRANSACTION CARRIED THROUGH HIM ARE NOTHING BUT HAWALA ENTRIES WHEREBY THE UNEXPLAINED INCOME HAS BEEN BROUGHT IN THE BOOKS IN THE GUISE OF RECEIPT OF GIF TS FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. THE AO WAS CONVINCED THAT THE AMOUNT OF INCOME FOR WHICH CONCEALMENT/INACCURATE PARTICULARS HAVE BEEN SUBMIT TED IS RS. 50 LAKHS AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS, PENALTY WAS LEVIED AT RS. 15.30 LAKHS. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AND REITERATED HIS CONTENTION. IT WAS CLAIM ED BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY U/S. 133A, NO INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS OR ANY OTHER MATERIAL WAS FOUND TO THE NO TICE OF AUTHORISED OFFICER WHICH CAN CONCLUSIVELY PROVE OR ESTABLISH T HAT VARIOUS GIFTS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE IN THE NATURE OF ACCO MMODATION ENTRIES AND ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID GIFTS WERE NOT GENUINE. IT WAS EXPLAINED THAT THE OFFER WAS MADE VOLUNTARILY AND TO AVOID LITIGATION WITH THE DEPARTMENT WITH UNDERSTANDING THAT NO PENALTY PROCEEDINGS WOUL D BE INITIATED. THE ASSESSEE FILED STATEMENT OF GIFTS RECEIVED DURING T HE YEAR GIVING NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE DONOR ALONGWITH CHEQUE DETAILS, COPI ES OF ALL GIFTS DEEDS WERE FURNISHED. 4.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSION S AND DRAWING SUPPORT FROM THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MAK DATA LTD. IN ITA NO. 415/2012 ORDER DT. 22.1.2013, THE LD. CIT(A) CONFIRMED THE LEVY OF PENALTY IN RESPECT OF GIFTS INVOLVED. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. RISHI R. OSWAL 5 6. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ONCE AGAIN MADE SUBMISSIONS IN THE SIMILAR LINES AS WERE MADE BEFORE THE LOWER AUT HORITIES. THE LD. COUNSEL ALSO RELIED UPON THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUN AL NAGPUR BENCH IN THE CASE OF ACIT VS MALU7 ELECTRODES (P) LTD. IN IT A NO. 271/NAG/2008, BANGALORE BENCH IN THE CASE OF ITO V S INTEL TECH INDIA (P) LTD. IN ITA NO. 71/BANG/09 AND ON THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE CALCUTTA BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHAND B ANSAL IT APPEAL NO. 9 OF 2009, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS CAREERS EDUCATION & INFOTECH PVT. LTD. 336 ITR 257. 7. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE FINDINGS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. 8. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTH ORITIES BELOW AND THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECO RD BEFORE US. AS MENTIONED ELSEWHERE, THE ORIGINAL RETURN OF INCOME AND THE REVISED COMPUTATION OF INCOME WERE SAME AT RS. 24,32,335/-. IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO CONSIDER THE RELEVANT QUESTION PUT DUR ING THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY PROCEEDINGS AND THE ANSWER THEREOF. Q.20 DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY IN THIS PREMISES, DOCUMENTS (AFFIDAVITS) INDICATING OFFER OF GIFTS BY VARIOUS PERSONS AND RECEIPTS THEREOF BY YOU AND MEMBERS OF YOUR FAM ILY WERE FOUND, INVENTORISED AND IMPOUNDED. YOU, YOUR FAMILY MEMBERS AND TWO HUFS HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS BY CHEQUES/ PAY ORDERS , THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: ASSESSMENT YEAR NO. NAME 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 TOTAL 1. R. J OSWAL 5,500,000 2,000,000 3,950,000 2,000,000 13,450,000 2. RASILA OSWAL 5,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000 3 RISHI R OSWAL 5,000,000 2,000,000 3,850,000 2,000,000 12,850,000 4. DEEP OSWAL (MINOR) 7,000,000 3,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 14,000,000 RISHI R. OSWAL 6 5. MADHULIKA OSWAL 5,000,000 2,000,000 4,000,000 2,000,000 13,000,000 6. BHIKIBAI OSWAL 5,000,000 2,000,000 3,975,000 2,000,000 12,975,000 7. R.J. OSWAL(HUF) 4,500,000 1,500,000 4,275,000 1,000,000 11,275,000 8. RISHI OSWAL (HUF) 6,500,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 13,500,000 GRAND TOTAL 104,050,000 COMMON FEATURES OF ALL THE AFFIDAVITS REVEAL THAT T HEY WERE GIVEN OUT OF NATURAL LOVE & AFFECTION. PLEASE EXP LAIN HOW EACH OF THE DONORS IS RELATED TO YOU AND YOUR FAMILY MEM BERS SO AS TO ADVANCE SUCH HUGE GIFTS. SHRI MUKESH M. CHOKSI, WHO HAS ARRANGED TRANSACTIONS RELATING TO LTCGS AS DISCUSSE D ABOVE, HAS ALSO GIVEN TWO GIFTS OF RS. 2.5 LACS EACH TO YOU ON 20.03.2003. SIMILAR GIFTS HAVE ALSO BEEN GIVEN BY SMT. MEENAXI MUKESH CHOKSI TO SMT. MADHULIKA R. OSWAL. PLEASE EXPLAIN HOW T HESE GIFTS ARE OUT OF NATURAL LOVE & AFFECTION? ANS. I AND MY FAMILY MEMBERS DO NOT HAVE ANY RELATI ON WITH ANY OF THE DONORS, EXCEPT SHRI POPATLAL FULCHAND WHO IS MY DAUGHTERS FATHER-IN-LAW. THE SAID SHRI POPATLAL FULCHAND HAS GIFTED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,00,000 DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 20 03-04 TO MY GRANDSON DEEP RISHI OSWAL . I AM ALSO UNABLE TO EXP LAIN THE RELATIONSHIP WITH OTHER DONORS WITH REGARD TO NATUR AL LOVE & AFFECTION. Q.21 WHEN THE IDENTITY OF THE DONORS WAS NOT KNOWN TO YOU NOR ARE THEY RELATED TO YOU IN ANY MANNER, PLEASE EXPLA IN WHAT WAS THE MOTIVATION FOR THE DONORS TO GIFT SUCH HUGE SUMS TO YOU AS WELL AS MEMBERS OF YOUR FAMILY AS MENTIONED ABOVE. ANS. I DONT WANT TO MAKE ANY COMMENTS IN THIS REGA RD. I AM OFFERING AN AMOUNT OF RS. 103,050,000 BEING THE SUM COVERED BY THE GIFTS MENTIONED ABOVE AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OF M YSELF, MY FAMILY MEMBERS AND TWO HUFS AS PER WORKING FURNISHE D TO YOU. REVISED RETURNS FOR THE RELEVANT YEARS WILL BE FILE D AND TAXES PAID ACCORDINGLY. Q.23 DO YOU WISH TO SAY ANYTHING MORE? ANS. AS ALREADY STATED ABOVE, I AM DECLARING THE FO LLOWING AMOUNTS AS ADDITIONAL INCOME OVER AND ABOVE THE INC OME ALREADY DECLARED BY ME, MY FAMILY MEMBERS AND TWO HUFS. YEA R-WISE AND PERSON-WISE BREAK-UP OF INCOME HAS ALREADY BEEN FUR NISHED TO YOU. RISHI R. OSWAL 7 I. ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN R S 7,90,88,462/- II. ON ACCOUNT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES RS 103,050,000/- RS 18,21,38,462/- AS I HAVE VOLUNTEERED TO FILE REVISED ROL AND PAY T AXES I EARNESTLY PLEAD THAT NO PENAL PROCEEDINGS BE INITIATED AGAINST ME, MY FAMILY MEMBERS AND THE TWO HUFS. 9. THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS. THE PAYMENTS WERE RECEIVED THROUGH CHEQUES. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS P. MOHANAKALA 291 ITR 278 HAS HELD THAT TRANSFER OF MONIES THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS IS NOT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD GIFTS AS GENUINE. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE DONORS ARE NOT AT AL L RELATED TO THE DONEES. IN ALL THE PROCEEDINGS, THE MAIN PLEA OF THE ASSESS EE WAS THAT THE AMOUNT WAS OFFERED AS INCOME TO AVOID LITIGATION AND TO P URCHASE PEACE OF MIND. 10. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V S MAK DATA LTD 358 ITR 593 HAS HELD AS UNDER: HELD, AFFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HIGH COURT, THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY STATED THAT IT HAD SURRENDERED TH E ADDITIONAL SUM OF RS. 40,74,000 TO AVOID LITIGATION, BUY PEACE AND TO CHANNELIZE THE ENERGY AND RESOURCES TOWARDS PRODUCTIVE WORK AN D TO MAKE AMICABLE SETTLEMENT WITH THE INCOME-TAX DEPARTMENT. THE STATUTE DID NOT RECOGNIZE THOSE TYPES OF DEFENCES UNDER EXP LANATION 1 TO SECTION 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE SURRENDER OF INCO ME IN THIS CASE WAS NOT VOLUNTARY IN THE SENSE THAT THE OFFER OF SU RRENDER WAS MADE IN VIEW OF DETECTION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN TH E SEARCH CONDUCTED IN THE SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. TH E SURVEY WAS CONDUCTED MORE THAN 10 MONTHS BEFORE THE ASSESSEE F ILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME. HAD IT BEEN THE INTENTION OF THE ASSESSE E TO MAKE FULL AND TRUE DISCLOSURE OF ITS INCOME, IT WOULD HAVE FI LED THE RETURN DECLARING AN INCOME INCLUSIVE OF THE AMOUNT WHICH W AS SURRENDERED LATER DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSME NT PROCEEDINGS. RISHI R. OSWAL 8 CONSEQUENTLY, IT WAS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NO INTENTION TO DECLARE ITS TRUE INCOME. IT IS THE STATUTORY DUTY O F THE ASSESSEE TO RECORD ALL ITS TRANSACTIONS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT , TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF PAYMENTS MADE BY IT AND TO DECLARE ITS TR UE INCOME IN THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED BY IT FROM YEAR TO YEAR. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD RECORDED A CATEGORICAL FINDING THAT HE WAS SATISFIED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CONCEALED THE TRUE PARTICULAR S OF INCOME AND WAS LIABLE FOR PENALTY PROCEEDINGS UNDER SECTION 27 1 READ WITH SECTION 274 OF THE ACT. THERE WAS NO ILLEGALITY IN THE DEPARTMENT INITIATING PENALTY PROCEEDINGS. 11. ALL THE DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE ASSESSEE A RE THUS CLEARLY DISTINGUISHABLE FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND IN T HE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT (SUPRA). CONSIDERING ALL THESE FACTS IN TOTALITY, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3332/M/2013 A.Y. 2003-04- ASSESSEES APPE AL 13. THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAI NST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY OF RS. 20,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF GIFTS RECEIVED FRO M VARIOUS PARTIES. 14. FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CON SIDERED BY US IN DETAIL IN ITA NO. 3331/M/2013 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 EXCEPT THAT DURING THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED RS. 20 LAKHS AS GIFTS. H OWEVER, ONLY RS. 3 LAKHS HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS INCOME FR OM OTHER SOURCES IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THEREFORE, THE AO HAS ADDED THE BALANCE AMOUNT AND TREATED THE SAME AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN ITA NO. 3331 /M/2013 FOR A.Y. 2002-03. FOR OUR DETAILED REASON GIVEN IN THE AFOREMENTIONED APPEAL AND ON FINDING THE RISHI R. OSWAL 9 FACTS IN ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL TO BE IDENTICAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3398/M/13 A.Y. 2003-04 REVENUES APPEAL 15. FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF MRS. RASHILA R. OSWAL IN ITA NO. 3334 &3420/M/2013 FOR A .Y. 2005-06. FOR OUR DETAILED REASON GIVEN IN THE APPEAL OF MRS. RASHILA R. OSWAL AND ON FINDING THE FACTS IN ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL TO BE IDENTICAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3333/M/13 A.Y. 2004-05 ASSESSEES APPEA L 16. THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL AGAI NST THE VERY SAME ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE LEVY OF PENALTY U/S. 271(1)(C) AMOUNTING TO RS. 20 LAKHS IN RESPEC T OF GIFTS RECEIVED FROM VARIOUS PARTIES. 17. FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS CON SIDERED BY US IN DETAIL IN ITA NO. 3331/M/2013 FOR A.Y. 2002-03 EXCEPT THAT DURING THIS YEAR THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE RECEIVED GIFTS AMO UNTING TO RS. 40 LAKHS. HOWEVER, RS. 20,00,000/- ONLY HAS BEEN OFFERED BY T HE ASSESSEE IN HIS RETURN AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. THEREFORE, THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED AND CONFIRMED ON THE BALANCE OF RS. 20 LAKHS , WHICH WAS NOT OFFERED FOR TAXATION IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. FOR SIMILAR REASON, THE LEVY OF PENALTY IS CONFIRMED. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AS SESSEE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3399/M/13 A.Y. 2004-05 REVENUES APPEAL 18. FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF MRS. RASHILA R. OSWAL IN ITA NO. 3334 &3420/M/2013 FOR A .Y. 2005-06. RISHI R. OSWAL 10 FOR OUR DETAILED REASON GIVEN IN THE APPEAL OF MRS. RASHILA R. OSWAL AND ON FINDING THE FACTS IN ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL TO BE IDENTICAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ITA NO. 3400/M/2013- A.Y. 2006-07 REVENUES APPEA L 19. FACTS AND ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL TO THE FACTS IN THE CASE OF MRS. RASHILA R. OSWAL IN ITA NO. 3334 &3420/M/2013 FOR A .Y. 2005-06. FOR OUR DETAILED REASON GIVEN IN THE APPEAL OF MRS. RASHILA R. OSWAL AND ON FINDING THE FACTS IN ISSUES IN THIS APPEAL TO BE IDENTICAL, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014 SD/- SD/- (VIJAY PAL RAO ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) /JUDICIAL MEMBER !& / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; 4 DATED : 12 TH DECEMBER, 2014 . . ./ RJ , SR. PS !3 !3 !3 !3 / // / ,0 ,0 ,0 ,0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 5!(0 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. )+ / THE APPELLANT 2. ,-)+ / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 6 ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. 6 / CIT 5. 78 ,0 , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. 8 9 / GUARD FILE. !3 !3 !3 !3 / BY ORDER, -0 ,0 //TRUE COPY// : :: : / ; ; ; ; (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI