ITO 14(2)(3), MUMBAI V. ASHOK TALREJA (HUF), MUMBAI

ITA 4629/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3442 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 10 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 07-07-2014
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M MURALI
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Opportunity of cross examination; Retraction
• Section: 133A; 147; 148

Judgement Text

, ,, , ' '' ' INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- A,BENCH , , BEFORE S/SHJOGINDERSINGH,JUDICIAL MEMBER & RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./I.T.A.NO.4629/MUM/2014, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ITO-WARD-(14)(2)(3) EARNEST HOUSE, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI-400 021. VS. ASHOK TALREJA (HUF)PROP. S.P. ENTERPRISES, 282, KALBADEVI ROAD,MUMBAI-400 002. PAN:AADHA 0413 Q ./I.T.A. NO.3393/MUM/2014, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 ASHOK TALREJA (HUF) MUMBAI-400 021. VS. ITO-WARD-(14)(2)(3) MUMBAI. ./I.T.A. NO. 6663//MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ITO-WARD-(14)(2)(3) MUMBAI. VS. ASHOK TALREJA (HUF) MUMBAI-400 021. ./I.T.A. NO. 6237/MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 ASHOK TALREJA (HUF) MUMBAI-400 021. VS. ITO-WARD-(14)(2)(3) MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) ./I.T.A. NO. 6664/MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ITO-WARD-(14)(2)(3) MUMBAI. VS. ASHOK TALREJA (HUF) MUMBAI-400 021. ./I.T.A. NO.6238/MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 ASHOK TALREJA (HUF) MUMBAI-400 021. VS. ITO-WARD-(14)(2)(3) MUMBAI. ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) REVENUE BY: SHRI M. MURALI ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA / DATE OF HEARING: 17.03.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.03.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER BENCH - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS OF CIT(A)-25,MUMBAI THE ASSE SSING OFFICERS ( AO.S. ) AND THE ASSESSEE HAVE FILED THE CROSS-APPEALS FOR THE ABOVE MENTIONE D THREE AY.S.AS THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS ARE COMMON,SO FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENI ENCE WE ARE PASSING A SINGLE ORDER. THE AO HAD RE-OPENED THE ASSESSMENT FOR THE AY.2007-08, INVOKING THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT.THE REASONS RECORDED BY THE AO ARE IDENT ICAL TO THE DECISION TAKEN BY HIM FOR THE SUBSEQUENT AY.S.THEREFOR,WE WOULD ADJUDICATE THE AP PEAL FOR THE AY.S.2008-09 &2009-10 BEFORE DECIDING THE APPEAL FOR THE AY.2007-08.ASSES SEE-HUF,IS IN THE BUSINESS OF INTERLINING CLOTH.DETAILS OF DATES OF FILING OF RETURNS, RETURN ED INCOMES,ETC.CAN BE SUMMARISED AS UNDER: A.Y. ROI FILED ON RETURNED INCOME(RS.) ASSESSMENT DT. ASSESSED INCOME(RS.) DT. OF ORDERS OF CIT(A) 2007-08 04.10.2007 1,01,090/- 28/01/2014 28,88,380/ - 29/04/2014 2008-09 23.09.2008 1,81,465/- 29.12.2010 96,02,730/ - 29/08/2013 2009-10 28.07.2009 2,55,336/- 15.12.2011 1,02,07,43 0/- 29/08/2013 ITA/4629/MUM/13,AY.2008-09: 2. EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL,RAISED BY THE AO,IS ABOU T DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 84.79 LAKHS,MADE BY THE AO U/S.69 OF THE ACT,UNDER THE HE AD UNEXPLAINED/UNPROVED PURCHASE/ 6237+5-ASHOK TALREJA 2 INVESTMENT IN PURCHASE.DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEE DINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT A SURVEY U/S 133-A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT ON 13/14- 2-2009 I N CASE OF RAKESH KUMAR GUPTA (RKG),ONE OF THE SUPPLIERS OF GOODS TO THE ASSESSEE -HUF.IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED DURING THE COURSE OF SURVEY,RKG STATED THAT HE WAS PROVIDI NG ACCOMMODATION SALES BILLS FOR PURCHASES IN THE NAME OF VARIOUS PROPRIETARY CONCER NS NAMELY M/S MANOJ MILLS, M/S ASTHA SILK INDUSTRIES,M/S.SAINATH TEXTILES,DEVVANI INDUST RIES AND M/S SHREE RAM SALES & SYNTHETICS,BELONGING TO HIM AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IT WAS FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED GOODS WORTH RS.94.21 LAKHS FROM THE RKG G ROUP.THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES MADE FROM RKG GROUP AND TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE DISPUTED AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE ADDED TO ITS TOTAL INCOME.THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT IT HAD PURCHASED GOODS FROM THE GUPTA GROUP OF CONCERN S, THAT SALES WERE MADE THROUGHOUT INDIA ON A REGULAR BASIS RELATABLE TO THE ALLEGED P URCHASES, THAT THE PAYMENT FOR THESE PURCHASES WERE MADE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES, IF TH E PURCHASES WERE TO BE DISALLOWED GP WOULD WORK OUT TO THE RATIO OF 17.33%.THE ASSESSEE PRODUCED THE XEROX COPIES OF THE PURCHASE BILLS ALONG WITH THE DAY TO DAY ITEM MOVEM ENT OF MATERIAL (QUALITY-WISE) PURCHASED FROM THE GUPTA GROUP OF ENTITIES.HOWEVER,THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE REPLY AND REFERRING TO STATEMENT OF RKG HELD THAT THE ASSESSE E HAD OBTAINED ACCOMMODATION BILLS FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.94,21,268/- TO INFLATE/ACCOMMODATE ITS PURCHASES.THE ASSESSEE ALSO PRODUCED EVIDENCES TO SHOW PAYMENT FOR PURCHASES MA DE BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES.IN THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE ASSESSEE F URTHER PRODUCED THE QUANTITATIVE STATEMENTS SHOWING TALLY OF PURCHASES AND SALES WIT H BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS IN ORDER TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF PURCHASES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA). BEFORE HIM,IT WAS CONTEND ED THAT THE AO HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY DISCREPANCIES IN THE DETAILED QUANTITATIVE STATEMEN TS FURNISHED ALONGWITH THE COPIES OF SALES/PURCHASES BILLS, THAT HE HAD NOT POINTED OUT ANY INFIRMITIES IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OR THE QUANTITATIVE STATEMENTS FILED DURING ASSESSMENT S, THAT MERELY ON THE STATEMENT MADE BY A PERSON PURCHASES COULD NOT BE TERMED NON-GENUINE,TH AT THE AO HAD NOT GIVEN THE ASSESSEE OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTIES/CONCERNS,C OPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENT WERE FURNISHED TO THE AO EVIDENCING PAYMENT BY ACCOUNT P AYEE CHEQUES, THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJECTED THE SALES FIGURES SOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT, THAT IT WAS MAINTAINING PURCHASE REGISTER, SALES REGISTER, STOCK REGISTER.THE ASSESS EE SUBMITTED COMPARATIVE STATEMENT OF SALES, GROSS PROFIT AND NET PROFIT BEFORE THE FAA. HE CALL ED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO.AFTER CONSIDERING THE AVAILABLE MATERIAL,HE HELD THAT THE AO HAD RELIED UPON THE STATEMENTS OF RKG TO MAKE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THE PURCHASER, TH AT HE HAD NOT PROVIDED THE OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION OF RKG INSPITE OF SPECIFIC REQUES T MADE BY IT,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE DAY TO DAY MOVEMENT OF MATERIAL ALONG WITH THE CORRESPONDING SALES/INVENTORY OF STOCK, THAT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WERE AUDITED,THERE WAS NO ADVERSE COMMENT BY THE AUDITORS ABOUT COMPLETENESS OF THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT OR ABOUT THE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS, THAT IF THE SALES WERE TREATE D AS GENUINE CORRESPONDING PURCHASE CANNOT BE CONSIDERED BOGUS,THAT ADDITION COULD BE MADE ONL Y TO THE EXTENT OF SOME PERCENTAGE. FINALLY,HE HELD THAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE WOULD BE SERVED BY MAKING ADDITION @10% OF SUCH PURCHASE IN ORDER TO FILL IN GAP OF DIFFERENCE OF G P IN RECORDING THE SAID PURCHASE AS WELL TO PLUG ANY LEAKAGE OF REVENUE.HE UPHELD THE ADDITION OF RS.9.42 LAKHS AND DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.84.79 LAKHS. 4. BEFORE US,THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPP ORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE (AR) STATED THAT ASSESSEE HAD PRODUC ED ALL THE NECESSARY DOCUMENTS BEFORE THE AO, THAT COPIES OF PURCHASE BILLS AND BANK STATEMEN T, INDICATING THE PAYMENT THROUGH BANKING 6237+5-ASHOK TALREJA 3 CHANNELS WERE FURNISHED, THAT AO HAD NOT DOUBTED TH E SALES SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE .HE RELIED UPON THE CASES OF NIKUNJ EXIM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. ( 372 ITR 619) AND GOOLAMALLY HASANJEE (ITA/3740-41/MUM/2012 AY06-07 AND 08-09, DT.10.6.1 4). 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE SIDES AND A LSO PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. IT IS OBSERVED THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE INVOLVING IDENTICAL FACTS HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESS EE BY THE G BENCH OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF GOOLAMALLY HASSANJI (SUPRA ). WE WOULD LIKE TO REPRODUCE THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL AND SAME READS AS UNDER : 2. THE ASSESSEE IS A TRADER IN COTTON AND MAN-MAD E FABRICS ON RETAIL AS WELL AS WHOLESALE. THE ASSES SEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 27.10.2006 DECLARING TOTA L INCOME AT RS. 4,68,089/-. THE SAID RETURN WAS PROCESSED U/S. 143(1) OF THE ACT AND THEREAFTER IT WAS REOPENED AND NOTICE U/S. 148 WAS ISSUED AND SER VED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE NOTICES U/S. 143(2) AND 142( 1) WERE ALSO ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. 2. THE SURVEY OPERATION U/S. 133A WAS CONDUCTED ON THE PREMISES OF SHRI RAKESHKUMAR M. GUPTA, PROPRIETOR OF M/S. MANOJ MILLS, SHRI MOHIT R. GUPTA PROP. OF M/S. ASTHA SILK INDUSTRIES AND SMT. HEMA R. GUPTA, PROP. OF M/S. SHREE RAM SALES & SYNTHETIC S. IN THE COURSE OF THE SURVEY OPERATION, IT CAME T O THE NOTICE OF THE SURVEY PARTY THAT THE AFORESTATED PERSONS WERE ENGAGED EXCLUSIVELY IN THE ACTIVITY O F ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS ON WHICH THEY RECEIVED COMMISSION AT THE RATE OF 1%. IT WAS ALSO NOTICED THAT ASSESSEE IS ALSO ONE OF THE PERSONS WHO HAD MA DE PURCHASES FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO JUSTIFY HIS PURCHASES FROM TH E AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES. 2.1. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED BILLS WITH DELIVERY CHA LLAN, THE EVIDENCE OF MAKING PAYMENT THROUGH ACCOUN T PAYEE CHEQUE. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED MONTHLY QUANT ITATIVE STOCK RECONCILIATION. THE ASSESSEE WAS FURT HER ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHY THE BOGUS PURCHASES MADE FROM THE AFOREMENTIONED PARTIES BE NOT ADDED TO THE INCOME. IT WAS EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE S TATEMENTS GIVEN BY SHRI RAKESHKUMAR M. GUPTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS ARE NOT CORRECT. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT PURCHASES AND SALES ARE DULY REFLECT ED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE. IT WAS ALS O BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE AO THAT THE AFFIDAVI T OF SHRI RAKESHKUMAR M. GUPTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS W HO HAVE DENIED IN THE SAID AFFIDAVIT ABOUT THE ACTIVITY OF ISSUANCE OF BOGUS BILLS. THE EXPLANATIO N OF THE ASSESSEE DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR FROM THE AO WHO WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS AVAILE D BOGUS BILLS AMOUNTING TO RS. 10,59,265/-. THE AO WENT ON TO TREAT THE PURCHASES AMOUNTING TO RS. 10, 59,265 FROM THE SAID SHRI RAKESHKUMAR M. GUPTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS AS BOGUS AND ACCORDINGLY ADD ED THE SAME TO THE RETURNED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AND COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATT ER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), TH E ASSESSEE REITERATED HIS SUBMISSIONS. AFTER CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THA T AN ADHOC ADDITION OF RS. 1,35,000/- WHICH IS ABOU T 12.5% OF THE PURCHASE IN QUESTION WOULD MEET THE EN DS OF JUSTICE. THE LD. CIT(A) RESTRICTED THE ADDITI ON TO RS. 1,35,000/-. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE ASSESSEE IS BEFORE US. 5. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE REITERATED THAT THE AO HAS GROSSLY ERRED IN TREATING THE PURCHASES AS BOGUS PURCHASE. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL TH AT THE LD. CIT(A) FURTHER ERRED IN MAKING AN ADHOC DISALLOWANCE WHICH HAS NO BASIS. 6. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELIED UPON THE FINDINGS OF THE AO. 7. WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE LOWE R AUTHORITIES. WE FIND THAT THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE STATEMENT OF ONE SHRI RAKESHKUMAR M. GUPTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. IT IS THE ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID FAMILY MEMB ERS WERE ISSUING ACCOMMODATION BILLS TO THE ASSESSE E. THE AO ACCORDINGLY WENT ON TO TREAT THE ENTIRE PURC HASES AS BOGUS PURCHASES. HOWEVER, WE FIND THAT THE SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED. IT I S AN ELEMENTARY RULE OF ACCOUNTANCY AS WELL AS TAXATION LAWS THAT PROFIT FROM BUSINESS CANNOT BE A SCERTAINED WITHOUT DEDUCTING COST OF PURCHASE FROM SALES, OTHERWISE IT COULD AMOUNT TO LEVY OF INCOME- TAX ON GROSS RECEIPTS OR ON SALES. WE FURTHER FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT COMMENTED UPON THE RETRACTION MADE B Y SHRI RAKESHKUMAR M. GUPTA AND HIS FAMILY MEMBERS. WE NOTICED THAT THE SAID RETRACTION WAS MA DE BY FILING AN AFFIDAVIT. NOTHING HAS BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD EXCEPT FOR THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAKESHKU MAR M. GUPTA WHICH COULD SUGGEST THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE ARE BOGUS. 7.1. CONSIDERING THE ENTIRE FACTS IN TOTALITY AND K EEPING IN MIND THAT NO ADVERSE INFERENCE HAS BEEN DRAWN SO FAR AS SALES ARE CONCERNED, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON FOR MAKING ANY DISALLOWANCE ON THIS ACCOUNT. THE ADHOC ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE LD. CI T(A) IS ALSO WITHOUT ANY BASIS AND THE SAME IS DELETED. 6237+5-ASHOK TALREJA 4 5.1. WE FURTHER FIND THAT IN THE CASE OF JEETENDRA HARS HADKUMAR TEXTILES (ITA/771 & 2211 / MUM/2011 DATED 21-11-2012) ,SIMILAR ISSUE WAS DECID ED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF JEETENDRA H ARSHADKUMAR TEXTILES WAS SUBSEQUENTLY FOLLOWED BY THE TRIBUNAL TO DECIDE A SIMILAR ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE CASE OF M/S PRAMIT TEXTILES (ITA/3948 TO 3953/MUM/2012 AND ITA/ 4012 TO 4015 AND 4020 TO 4021/ MUM/2012 DATED 01.10.2013)AND NEETA TEXTILES(ITA/61 38-40/MUM/2013,DTD. 27.05.2015). IN THE CASES OF ASHISH JOBANPUTRA(ITA NO.2566/MUM/2 013).IN THE CASE OF NIKUNJ EXIM (SUPRA)THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT HAS DEALT THE ISSUE OF BOGUS PURCHASES AND CORRESPONDING SALES AS UNDER :- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. HOWEVER, FROM THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED APRIL 30, 2010, WE FIND THAT THE TRI BUNAL HAS DELETED THE ADDITIONS ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS PURCHASES NOT ONLY ON THE BASIS OF STOCK STAT EMENT, I.E., RECONCILIATION STATEMENT BUT ALSO IN VIEW OF THE OTHER FACTS. THE TRIBUNAL RECORDS TH AT THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE RESPONDENT- ASSESSEE HAVE NOT BEEN REJECTED. SIMILARLY, THE SALES HAVE NOT BEEN DOUBTED AND IT I S AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT SUBSTANTIAL AMOUNT OF SALES HAVE BEEN MADE TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT , I.E., DEFENCE RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT LABORATORY , HYDERABAD. FURTHER, THERE WERE CONFIRMATION LETTERS FILED BY THE SUPPLIERS, C OPIES OF INVOICES FOR PURCHASES AS WELL AS COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT ALL OF WHICH WOULD INDICAT E THAT THE PURCHASES WERE IN FACT MADE. IN OUR VIEW, MERELY BECAUSE THE SUPPLIERS HAVE NOT APP EARED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER OR THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS), ONE CANNOT CO NCLUDE THAT THE PURCHASES WERE NOT MADE BY THE RESPONDENT-ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER A S WELL AS THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS) HAVE DISALLOWED THE DEDUCTION OF RS. 1.33 CRORES ON ACCOUNT OF PURCHASES MERELY ON THE BASIS OF SUSPICION BECAUSE THE SELLERS AND THE CANVASSING AGENTS HAVE NOT BEEN PRODUCED BEFORE THEM. WE FIND THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL IS WELL A REASONED ORDER TAKING INTO ACCOUNT ALL THE FACTS BEFORE CONCLUDING THAT THE PURCHASES OF RS. 1.33 CRORES WAS NOT BOGUS. NO FAULT CAN BE FOUND WITH THE ORDER DATED APRIL 30, 2010, O F THE TRIBUNAL. THERE IS NO DOUBT THAT THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE GENU INENESS OF SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. HE HAD NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO MAKE FURTHER INVESTIG ATION TO SUBSTANTIATE HIS ALLEGATIONS WITH REGARD TO NON GENUINENESS OF THE PURCHASES.CONSIDER ING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FAA WAS NOT JUS TIFIED IN PARTLY UPHOLDING THE ADDITIONS. FOLLOWING THE ABOVE MENTIONED DECISIONS OF THE TRIB UNAL AND THE JUDGMENT OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO. I.T.A./3393/MUM/2014,AY.2007-08: 6 .IN THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE-HUF THE EFFECT IVE GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT PARTIALLY SUSTAINING ADDITIONS MADE BY AO AMOUNTING TO RS. 9. 42 LAKHS.WHILE DECIDING THE APPEAL FILED BY THE AO,WE HAVE HELD THAT THE FAA HAD RIGHTLY DEL ETED THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO,THAT THE AO HIMSELF HAD ACCEPTED THE SALES,THAT AFTER AC CEPTING THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALES PURCHASES COULD NOT BE DOUBTED.IN OUR OPINION THE L OGIC APPLIES TO THE REMAINING ADDITION ALSO.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE FACTS,WE HOLD THAT FAA W AS NOT JUSTIFIED IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.9.42 LAKHS-SPECIALLY WHEN THE AO HAD NOT MADE FURTHER ENQUIRIES.REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. I.T.A/3393/MUM/2014,AY. 2007-08 (BY ASSESSEE ) : I.T.A/6238/MUM/2013,AY. 2009-10 -DO- I.T.A/4629/MUM/2014,AY. 2007-08(BY REVENUE ) : I.T.A/6664/MUM/2013,AY. 2009-10 -DO- 7. FOLLOWING OUR ORDERS FOR THE AY.2008-09,WE DECIDE T HE EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE AO AND IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE FOR BOTH THE A Y.S 6237+5-ASHOK TALREJA 5 AS A RESULT,APPEALS,FOR ALL THE THREE AY.S,FILED B Y THE AO.S STAND DISMISSED AND THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE STAND ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH MARCH,2016. 17 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( /JOGINDER SINGH ) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 17 .03.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.