ITO 13(3)(3), MUMBAI V. VISHAL RESORT AND HOTELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 4163/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6813 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAJEEV GUBGOTRA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit
• Section: 133(6); 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL F BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 4163 /MUM./2017 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 12 1 3 ) INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 13 ( 3 ) (3) , MUMBAI . APPELLANT V/S M/S. VISHAL RESORTS AND HOTELS P. LTD. 610, TULSIANI CHAMBERS NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 PAN AACCV1629B . RESPONDENT REVENUE BY : SHRI RAJEEV GUBGOTRA ASSESSEE BY : SHRI MADHUR AGARWAL DATE OF HEARING 1 2 . 12 .2018 DATE OF ORDER 28.02.2019 O R D E R PER SAKTIJIT DEY, J.M. THE A FORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 29 TH MARCH 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 21 , MUMBAI, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 20 12 1 3. 2 . THE SOLITARY ISSUE ARISING FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS APPEAL IS WITH REGARD TO DELETION OF ADDITION OF ` 1.68 CRORE MADE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT ). 2 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) 3 . BRIEF FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF REAL ESTATE DEVELOPMENT. FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28 TH SEPTEMBER 2007, DECLARING NIL INCOME. IN THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN LOAN O F ` 1.68 CRORE FROM SAVOUR DEVELOPERS AND CONSTRUCTIONS PVT. LTD. (SDCPL) , ISSUED A LETTER UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE SAID LENDER . ON VERIFYING THE BALANCE S HEET OF SDCPL AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2012, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT IN THE LIST OF LOANS AND ADVANCES APPEARING IN THE SAID BALANCE SHEET OF SDCPL, THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT APPEARING. THEREFORE, HE CALLED UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN WHY THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.68 CRORE SHO ULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME. ALLEGING THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY REPLY, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ADDED BACK THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.68 CRORE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. BEING AGGR IEVED WITH THE AFORESAID ADDITION, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). 4 . BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LOAN OF ` 1.68 CRORE WAS AVAILED FROM SDCPL THROUGH CHEQUE S ISSUED ON 31 ST M ARCH 2 012. THEREFORE , TH E ASSESSEE HAS PASSED BOOK ENTRIES CREDITING TO THE LENDE R AND DEB I TING TO THE BANK. IT WAS SUBMITTED , THE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN BANK ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 3 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) 2012, AND CREDITED TO THE ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON THE SAME DAY. IT WAS SU BMITTED , THOUGH SDCPL ISSUED CHEQUE S ON 31 ST MARCH 2012, HOWEVER, DEBIT ENTRIES IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSEE WAS PASSED IN SDCPLS BOOKS ON 1 ST APRIL 2012. THUS, IT WAS SUBMITTED , FOR THIS REASON ONLY THE LOAN TRANSA CTION WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE S HE ET OF SDCPL AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2012. IN SUPPORT OF THE AFORESAID SUBMISSIONS, THE ASSESSEE FILED COPIES OF L EDGER ACCOUNT, BANK STATEMENT, BALANCE S HEET , INCOME TAX RETURNS COPY, ETC. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED BANK RECONCILIATION STATEMENT, AS WELL AS A COPY OF THE SUBMISSIONS FILED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS MENTIONED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , VIDE LETTER DATED 3 RD JANUARY 2017, HE FORWARDED THE REVISED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR COMMENT. FURTHER, HE ALSO BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE FACT OF WITH REGARD TO THE REFLECTION OF THE LOAN ADVANCED B Y SDCPL TO THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BALANCE S HEET AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2013 AND BY SDCPL ON 01.04.2012 , THOUGH WAS ALSO FURNISHED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER BUT IGNORED. AS OBSERVED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED REPORT DATED 15 TH FEBRUARY 2017, STATING THAT REVISED STATEMENT OF FACTS AND GROUNDS OF APPEAL SHOULD NOT BE CONSIDERED. FURTHER, IT WAS STATED THAT CHEQUE S DATED 31 ST MARCH 2012, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLEARED AFTER EXPIRY OF THREE MONTHS AS PER RBI GUIDELINES EFFECTIVE FROM 1 ST APRIL 2012. THE 4 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO RAISED DOUBTS WITH REGARD TO CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDE R AS WELL AS THE SEQUENCE OF CHEQUES ISSUED . O N THE BASIS OF COMMENTS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REPORT AND ASSESSEES REJOINDER TO THE REMAND REPORT, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OBSERVED , THE REMAND REPORT SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER CARRIED OUT ANY EXTERNAL VERIFICATION NOR CALLED FOR ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ONLY EXPRESSED HIS VIEWS AND OBSERVATIONS ON DOCUMENTS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HE OBSER VED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT COMMENT UPON ASSESSEES SUBMISSION THAT THE LOAN ADVANCED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF SDCPL IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 13. HOWEVER, ON THE BASIS OF ALLEGATION S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE REMAND REP ORT , PARTICULARLY , HIS OBSERVATION THAT CHEQUE S ISSUED PRIOR TO 31 ST MARCH 2012, COULD NOT HAVE BEEN CLEARED ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2012, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) INDEPENDENTLY CONDUCTED ENQUIRY WITH AXIS BANK BY ISSUING NOTICE UNDER SECTION 133(6) OF THE ACT ON 17 TH MARCH 2013. IN RESPONSE TO THE NOTICE ISSUED BY HIM THE CONC ER NED BANK FURNISHED ALL NECESSARY INFORMATION RELATING TO ISSUANCE , DEPOSIT AND CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE S RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SDCPL ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES. THUS, FROM THE INFORMATION OBTAINED FROM AXIS BANK THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FOUND THAT CHEQUES ISSUED BY SDCPL FOR THE AMOUNT OF ` 1.68 LAKH WAS INDEED CLEARED BY 5 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) T HE BANK AND CREDITED TO THE ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON 12 TH SEPTEMBER 2012. AS REGARDS THE DELAY IN PRESENTATION OF CHEQUE BEFORE THE BANK , IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CHEQUES DATED 31 ST MARCH 2012, WERE GIVEN TO THE ACCOUNTANT FOR DEPOSIT, H OWEVER, HE KEPT THE CHEQUES IN HIS DRAWER AND DUE TO OVERSIGHT DID NOT DEPOSIT THEM . AFTER SOME TIME WHEN THIS FACT CAME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THE CHEQUES WERE DEPOSITED IN BANK FOR CLEARING. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FURNISHED A CONFIRMATION FROM SDCPL STATING THAT T HE CHEQUES FOR ` 1.68 CRORE , THOUGH , WERE ISSUED PRIOR TO 1 ST APRIL 2012, HOWEVER, SINCE THE CHEQUES WERE NOT PRESENTED AND CLEARED FOR A LONG TIME THE AUDITORS OF SDCPL SUGGESTED FOR SHOWING THE LOAN ON1ST APRIL 2012 INSTEAD OF 31 ST MARCH 2012. THEREFORE, THE LOAN TRANSACTION WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF SDCPL IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 13. 5 . AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE AND ANALYZING THE ENTIRE GAMUT OF FACTS AND MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) BEING SATISFIED TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE LOAN OF ` 1.68 CRORE BY GENUINE TRANSACTION ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL , ITS GENUINENESS CANNOT BE DOUBTED. AS REGARDS THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF SDCPL, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) OBSERVED THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS SIMP LY GONE BY THE BALANCE SHEET OF SDCPL AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2012 TO TREAT THE LOAN OF ` 1.68 CRORE AS CASH CREDIT. HE OBSERVED , THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT VERIFY WITH SDCPL EVEN AFTER EXPLANATION WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. HE OBSERVED , ONCE THE 6 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND ARE ROUTED THROUGH BANK AND THE CREDITOR HAS CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTION, FURTHER , THERE BEING NO CASH TRANSACTION INVOLVED AND NO ALLEGATION OF UNACCOUNTED MONEY BEING FOUND IN THE TRANSACTION , NO ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT CAN BE MADE ON MERE SUSPICION. ACCORDINGLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION. 6 . THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE JUSTIFYING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED , IN COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT FURNISHED THE REQUIRED DETAILS TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF LOAN TRANSACTION AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER . HE SUBMITTED , THIS IS AN ARRANGED TRANSACTION BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND ANOTHER GROUP CONCERN VIZ. M/S. RUCHI REALTY HOLDING PV T. LTD. (RRHPL) AND SDCPL. THEREFORE, ASSESSING OFFICER MUST BE GIVEN OPPORTUNITY TO VERIFY THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF CHEQUE BOOKS FROM WHICH CHEQUES WERE ISSUED TO RRHPL. THUS, HE SUBMITTED , THE ISSUE MAY BE RESTORED BACK TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. 7 . THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE STRONGLY SUPPORTING THE DECISION OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY SUBMITTED , THE INFORMATION OBTAINED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) FROM AXIS BANK WHICH HAVE BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE APPEAL ORDER CLEARLY DEMONSTRATE THAT CHEQUES WERE ISSUED BY SDCPL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 31 ST MARCH 2012. HE SUBMITTED , THE ASSESSING OFFICE R HAS NOT RAISED ANY DOUBT 7 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) WITH REGARD TO ASSESSEES TRANSACTION WITH RRHPL, THEREFORE, AT THIS STAGE THE DEPARTMENT CANNOT INTRODUCE A FRESH ISSUE. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , THE FACTS ON RECORD CLEARLY REVEAL THAT THE ENTIRE LOAN TR ANSACTION WAS ROUTED THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND THERE IS NO CASH INVOLVED. THEREFORE, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION CANNOT BE DOUBTED. HE SUBMITTED , THE DEPARTMENT HAS ALSO NOT FOUND ANY CASH DEPOSIT EITHER IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE OR SDCPL. ONLY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED THE LOAN IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2011 12 AND SDCPL REFLECTED IT IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 13, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. THE LEARNED AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED , IF THE DEPARTMENT IS OF THE VIEW THAT CHEQUES WERE NOT ISSUED ON 31 ST MARCH 2012, AND ISSUED SUBSEQUENT TO THAT, THEN NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT YEAR. 8 . WE HAVE PATIENTLY AND CAREFULLY HEARD THE LEARNED COUNSELS APPEARING FOR THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS. WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE FACTS MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. UNCONTROVERTED FACTS ARE, THE ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN A LOAN OF ` 1.68 CRORE AVAILED FROM SDCPL DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER DISPUTE. NOT ONLY THE AFORESAID LOAN AMOUNT HAS BEEN SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT BUT HAS ALSO BEEN REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE S HEET AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2012. IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT SDCPL 8 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) HAS ADVANCED THE AFORESAID LOAN AMOUNT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH CHEQUES ISSUED ON 31 ST MARCH 2012. HOWEVER, THE AFORESAID CHEQUES WERE PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2012, AND CREDITED TO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON THE VE RY SAME DAY. FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , IT IS EVIDENT , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TREATED THE LOAN RECEIVED OF ` 1.68 LAKH FROM SDCPL AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT ONLY ON THE REASONING THAT THE AFORESAID LOAN AMOUNT WAS NOT APPEARING IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESS EE IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SDCPL AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2012. OBSERVATIONS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN P ARA 4.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DEMONSTRATE THIS FACT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT REVEAL ANY ENQUIRY MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER EITHER TO VERIFY THE GEN UINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION OR THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER . EVEN , THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT PROVIDED ANY OTHER REASONING FOR TREATING THE LOAN AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 9 . AS COULD BE SEEN, ON THE BASIS OF SUBMISSIONS MADE BEFORE HIM, LEARN ED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CALLED UPON THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS AND OFFER HIS COMMENT. HOWEVER, AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), EXCEPT RELYING UPON THE MATERIALS AVAILABLE AT THE TIME OF THE ASSESSMENT P ROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEITHER HAS CONDUCTED ANY FRESH ENQUIRY NOR HAS CALLED ANY EXPLANATION FROM THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFI CER HAS SIMPLY RAISED SUSPICION/ DOUBT ON THE LOAN 9 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) TRANSACTION ON ACCOUNT OF CLEARANCE OF CHEQUE S AFTER EXPIRY OF T HREE MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF ITS ISSUANCE , SEQUENCE OF CHEQUES ISSUED , NON MENTIONING OF THE LOAN AMOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SDCPL AS ON 31 ST MARCH 2012, NON AVAILABILITY OF FUNDS WITH SDCPL ON THE DATE OF ISSUANCE OF CHEQUES, ETC. HOWEVER, IT IS A FACT ON RECORD , TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTION AND ASCERTAIN THE VERACITY OF ASSESSEES CLAIM, LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY BY CALLING FOR NECESSARY INFORMATION REGARDING THE LOAN TRANSACTION FROM THE AXIS BANK. AS EXTENSIVELY DISCUSSED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) , THE BANK IN ITS REPLY BY E MAIL AND LETTER FURNISHE D HAD CLARIFIED THAT THE CHEQUES ISSUED BY SDCPL FOR ` 1.68 CRORE WERE INDEED PRESENTED BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE BANK ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2012, AND ON THE VERY SAME DAY THE CHEQUES WERE CLEARED AND AMOUNT WAS CREDITED TO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT. EVEN , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS REPRODUCED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES FURNISHED BY THE BANK IN HIS ORDER . ON PERUSAL OF THESE EVIDENCES , REPRODUCED IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), IT IS VERY MUCH CLEAR THAT THE CHEQUES FOR ` 1.68 CRORE WERE C REDITED TO ASSESSEES BANK ACCOUNT ON 10 TH SEPTEMBER 2009. AS REGARDS VARIOUS DOUBTS AND SUSPICIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER REGARDING DELAY IN PRESENTATION OF CHEQUES AND ITS CLEARANCE, SEQUENCE OF CHEQUES ISSUED, NON MENTIONING OF LOAN AMOUNT IN T HE BALANCE SHEET OF SDCPL AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2012, 10 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER , SUFFICE TO SAY , EACH OF THESE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN FACTUALLY VERIFIED BY LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) IN COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDING AND HAVING VERIFIED THEM HE WAS SATISFIED T HAT THE DOUBTS AND SUSPICIONS RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER DO NOT LEAD TO THE CONCLUSION THAT EITHER THE LOAN TRANSACTION IS NON GENUINE OR THE LENDER DOES NOT HAVE CREDIT WORTHINESS. 10 . HAVING PERUSED THE CRUCIAL FACTS AVAILABLE ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS WELL EXPLAINED THE REASON FOR DELAY IN PRESENTATION OF THE CHEQUE S TO THE BANK AND ALSO THE NON MENTIONING OF THE LOAN AMOUNT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF SDCPL AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2012. FURTHER, THE LENDER HAS ALSO CONFIRMED THAT THE LOAN AMOUNT HA S NOT ONLY BEEN REFLECTED IN HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT FOR FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 13 AND BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2013, BUT HAS ALSO EXPLAINED THE REASON WHY IT WAS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS AT 31 ST MARCH 2012. THIS CRUCIAL FACT HAS BEEN COMPLETELY IGNORED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER . IN FACT, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DOES NOT REVEAL THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PROPERLY EXAMINED THE ISSUE OR HAS MADE PROPER ENQUI RY EITHER WITH THE LENDER OR WITH THE BANK . WHEREAS , LEARNED C OMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS PAINS TAKINGLY TRIED TO ASCERTAIN THE REAL FACTS RELATING TO THE LOAN TRANSACTION AND ON THE BASIS OF THE MATERIAL BROUGHT ON RECORD IN PURSUANCE TO THE INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY HIM, HE HAS RECORDED A FA CTUAL FINDING THAT THE LOAN TRANSACTION IS GENUINE. THE FACT THAT SDPCL HAS REFLECTED THE LOAN OF ` 1.68 CRORE TO 11 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) THE ASSESSEE IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND BALANCE SHEET IN FINANCIAL YEAR 2012 13 HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. IN FACT, NONE OF THE FACTUAL FINDING OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HA S BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE DEPARTMENT. EACH OF THE DOUBT AND SUSPICION RAISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT ONLY BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BUT AFTER THOROUGH VERIFICATION, LEARNED COMMISS IONER (APPEALS) HAS FOUND THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE ACCEPTABLE . 11 . PLAINLY SPEAKING, THE ASSESSMENT ORDER REVEALS LACK OF ENQUIRY AND TOTAL NON APPLICATION OF MIND BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHEREAS , LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) HAS CONDUCTED ALL NECE SSARY ENQUIRY TO ASCERTAIN THE TRUTH WHICH ORDINARILY SHOULD HAVE BEEN DONE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE THAT THE MATTER MAY BE RESTORED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO VERIFY THE TRANSACTION B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RRHPL, WE FIND SUCH SUBMISSIONS TO BE DEVOID OF MERIT. WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT UTTERED EVEN A SINGLE WORD IN RELATION TO THE TRANSACTIONS BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND RRHPL, WE CANNOT ACCEPT THE PLEA OF THE DEPARTMENT FOR RES TORING THE ISSUE TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO START FISHING AND ROVING ENQUIRY . IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS). GROUNDS RAISED ARE DISMISSED. 12 JAI KUMAR GUPTA (HUF) 12 . IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.02.2019 SD/ - G. MANJUNATHA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SD/ - SAKTIJIT DEY JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 28.02.2019 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : ( 1 ) THE ASSESSEE; ( 2 ) THE REVENUE; ( 3 ) THE CIT(A); ( 4 ) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; ( 5 ) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; ( 6 ) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ( SR. P RIVATE SECRETARY) ITAT, MUMBAI