ACIT 13(2), MUMBAI V. SURYAKANT H GANDHI, MUMBAI

ITA 4758/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4309 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 16-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M M UTTUREDR
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Sale consideration of property below Jantri Value; Business income; Additional evidence; Assessment record; Revised return
• Section: 133A; 148

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI E BENCH , ,, , , ,, , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER /.ITA NO.4758-59/MUM/2013, ! ' /ASSESSMENT YEAR-2006-07 & 07-08 ASSTT. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX- 13(2), ROOM NO.421, 4 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. VS SURYAKANT H. GANDHI S/O., HARAKHLAL K. GANDHI C/O.,NILESH KUMAR VINOD CHANDRA & CO.; 50, KAZI SAYED STREET, MUMBAI-400 003. PAN: AAFPG 6911 M ( / APPELLANT) ( /RESPONDENT) !#$ /ASSESSEE BY : NONE / REVENUE BY : SHRI M.M. UTTURE-DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04.11. 2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01.2016 , 1961 1961 1961 1961 254 254 254 254( (( (1 11 1) )) ) &'$ ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDERS DT.25.03.2013 OF CIT(A)-24, MUMBAI, THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) HAS FILED THE ABOVE MENTIONED TWO APPEALS FOR THE TWO A Y.S. AS THE ISSUE IN BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALMOST SIMILAR, THEREFORE,WE ARE ADJUDICATING THE A PPEAL BY A SINGLE COMMON ORDER. 2. ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL IS PROPRIETOR OF GANDHI CO NSTRUCTION AND CO. AND IS ENGAGED PRIMARILY IN THE BUSINESS OF DEVELOPMENT OF PROPERTIES.HE IS ALSO PARTNER IN NEELESH KUMAR & VINOD CHANDRA & CO. (NVC),H. CHANDRAKANT & CO. (HCC) AND GANDHI EXIM(GE). HE FILED HIS RETURN ON 30.3.2007 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.1.09 LACS. ON 2 6.9.2007 HE FILED REVISED RETURN DECLARING INCOME OF RS.47,870/-.THE AO REOPENED THE CASE AFTE R ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S. 148 OF THE ACT.HE FINALISED THE ASSESSMENT ON 9.4.2010, U/S. 143 OF T HE ACT,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.23,23,259/-. 2.1. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE DISALL OWANCE ON INTEREST EXPENDITURE OF RS.6,22,483/- DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS TH E AO OBSERVED THAT AN ACTION U/S. 133A OF THE ACT WAS CARRIED OUT AT THE BUSINESS PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE ON 14.9.2007, THAT HAVING REGARD TO NATURE OF COMPLEXITIES INVOLVED IN THE ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE, ACCOUNTS WERE AUDITED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE PROVISION OF SECTION 142(2A) OF THE ACT. HE FOUND THAT THE SPECIAL AUDITORS IN THEIR REPORT HAD POINTED OUT THAT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF 31.3.2006, THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN ON THE ASSET SIDE INTEREST RECEIVABLE AT RS.1.39CRORE, THAT THE AMOUNT COMPRISED OF INTEREST AND CAPITALIZED THE WO RK-IN-PROGRESS (WIP) UPTO 31.3.2005, THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES PERTAINED TO THE YEAR UNDER C ONSIDERATION, THAT THE PROJECTS HAD BEEN COMPLETED DURING THE EARLIER A.Y. THE AO HELD THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES CLAIMED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXC LUSIVELY FOR THE BUSINESS, THAT HE HAD FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS TAKEN FROM N VC ON WHICH INTEREST HAD BEEN PAID.FINALLY, HE DISALLOWED THE AMOUNT AND ADDED IT BACK TO THE T OTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . ITA4758-59/M/13-SURYAKANT 2 2.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY( FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HE HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT CLAIMED THE EXPENSES IN QUESTION WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME, THAT THE EXPENSES HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THAT THE EXPENSES WERE IN RESPECT OF A PROJECT WHICH WERE UNDER DISPUTE, THAT THE ASS ESSEE HAD RECEIVED THE INTEREST AND COMPENSATION DURING FY RELEVANT TO AY 2007-08, THAT AO HAD MADE THE ADDITION WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF ASSESSEES CASE AND SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY IT. HE ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 2.3. BEFORE US, THE(DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE) DR SUP PORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO. AS STATED ABOVE NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO HAD MADE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT INTEREST EXPENSES OF RS.6.22 LACS IN RESPECT OF LOA N TAKEN FROM NBC, THAT THE FAA HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING OF FACT THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUN T WAS NOT CLAIMED AS AN EXPENDITURE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THAT THE TRANSACT ION DID NOT PERTAIN TO THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL. IN OUR OPINION THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER F ROM ANY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY.THEREFORE, CONFIRMING THE SAME WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST T HE AO. 3. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITION AND ADM ITTING FRESH EVIDENCE IN CONTRAVENTION OF THE PROVISION OF RULE 46A OF THE INCOME TAX RULES, 162(RULES). 3.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO OBSERVED T HAT IN THE AUDIT REPORT THE SPECIAL AUDITOR HAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LOANS FROM LIC HOUSING OF RS.13,07,106/- .THAT HE HAD FURTHER SHOWN A LOAN OF RS.1.20 LACS FROM LIC OF INDIA, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PRODUCED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IN THAT REGARD. T HE AO HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD TAKEN HOUSING LOAN IN YEAR 2000 ON WHICH INTEREST @ 5% AMOUNTING TO RS.62,243/- WAS CALCULATED, THAT THE LOAN INCLUDING THE INTEREST TOTALING TO RS .13.07 LACS HAD NOT BEEN REPAID BY THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FAILED TO PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE DURING THE TIME OF VERIFICATION, THAT HE HAD ALSO NOT FILED ANY REFERENCE OF LOAN T AKEN FROM LIC OF INDIA, THAT THE AMOUNTS IN QUESTION HAD TO BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH PAI D. 3.2. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASS ESSEE FILED A PAPER BOOK AND REQUESTED THE FAA TO ADMIT ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN ACCORDANCE WITH RULE 46A OF THE RULES. THE FAA AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF ASSESSEE AND THE ADDI TIONAL EVIDENCES HELD THAT BOTH THE LOANS WERE GENUINE AND DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 3.3 BEFORE US,THE DR CONTENDED THAT THE FAA ADMITTED TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WITHOUT CALLING FOR REMAND REPORT OR WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNI TY TO THE AO TO VERIFY THE CORRECTNESS OF THE CLAIM.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE REQUEST TO FAA FOR ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, THAT HE DID NOT CALL FOLLOW THE PROCEDURE AS ENVISAGED B Y THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES, THAT HE HAS NOT MENTIONED THE S/SEC UNDER WHICH TH E ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES WERE ACCEPTED. THEREFORE,WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT IN THE INTERES T OF THE JUSTICE MATTER SHOULD BE RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF AO FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION.HE IS DIRE CTED TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER AFFORDING REASON - ABLE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE AND AFTER CONSIDER ING THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FAA.GROUND NO.2 ALLOWED IN FAV OUR OF THE AO IN PART. 4. LAST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT DELETING THE ADDITIO N OF RS.20,290/- ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT DUE TO FAILURE ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FURNISH DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE. ITA4758-59/M/13-SURYAKANT 3 4.1. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US, THE DR FAI RLY CONCEDED THAT THE DISPUTED AMOUNT DID NOT FIND PLACE IN THE AUDIT REPORT, THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT MADE ANY CLAIM ABOUT IT, THE FAA HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE CORRECT POSITION. 4.2 IN OUR OPINION THE FAA RIGHTLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSE E TO VERIFY THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE TO DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT NEED ANY INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE.GROUND IS DECID ED AGAINST THE AO. ITA 4759/M/2013-AY-2007-08 5. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL DEALS WITH DELETING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENSE OF RS.1.50 CRORES. 5.1. REFERRING TO THE REPORT OF THE AUDITORS THE AO OBSE RVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT INTEREST INCOME OF RS.1.47 CRORES FROM CHARKOP WOODLAND CO-OPERATIVE HSG. SOC., THAT IT HAD RECEIVED COMPENSATION OF RS.60.00 LACS THAT THE INTEREST AND COMPENSATION WERE RECEIVED IN VIEW OF THE MOU DATED 23.3.2003 ENTERED BETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE CO- OPERATIVE HSG. SOC., THAT IN THE YEAR 1994 THE ASSE SSEE HAD PAID RS.60.49 LACS TO MHADA BY WAY OF LEASE PREMIUM, LEASE RENT, THAT THE SOCIETY HAD GRANTING SELLING RIGHTS OF ADDITIONAL FLAT TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE PROJECT WAS DELAYED AND COUL D NOT BE EXECUTED, THAT LATER ON IT WAS AGREED THAT THE ASSESSEE WOULD RECEIVE RS.60.49 LACS, THAT HE WOULD BE PAID RS.1.47CRORE AS INTEREST FOR THE PERIOD UPTO 30.8.2003, THAT HE WOULD BE PAID CO MPENSATION OF RS.60.00 LACS, THAT IN THE RETURN FILED FOR THE AY 2003-04 THE ASSESSEE OFFER ED AN AMOUNT OF RS.60.49 LACS FOR TAX, THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.2.07 CRORES WAS CREDITED TO T HE P&L ACCOUNT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION, THAT AFTER CLAIMING INTEREST EXPENDI TURE OF RS.1.05 CRORES NET AMOUNT WAS OFFERED FOR TAXATION, THAT THE AUDITORS HAD MADE A REMARK T HAT OUT OF THE TOTAL INTEREST EXPENDITURE (RS.1,50,21,941/-) INTEREST OF RS.1.39 CRORES PERTA IN TO THE EARLIER A.YS AND HAD BEEN CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THERE WAS NO RELATION BETWEEN THE RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF INTEREST . HE FURTHER HELD THAT INTEREST OF RS.1.39 CRORES RELA TED TO THE PART OF WIP OF THE EARLIER A.YS., THAT I T DID NOT PERTAIN TO CURRENT AY,THAT INTEREST OF RS.1 0.92 LACS COULD NOT BE LINKED TO THE INTEREST CREDITED TO THE P&L ACCOUNT, THAT WHILE FILING THE RETURN OF INCOME THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN INTEREST INCOME (RS.1.47 CRORES) AND COMPENSATION ( RS.60.00 LACS), UNDER THE HEAD INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES, THAT DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS HE SUBMITTED REVISED STATEMENT OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THAT IN THE REVISED COMPU TATION THE ASSESSEE TREATED THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME. THE AO FINALLY HELD THAT INTEREST INCOME AND COMPENSATION RECD COULD BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES ONLY, THAT SAME COULD NOT BE GIVEN COLOUR OF BUSINESS RECEIPTS, THAT DEDUCTION COULD BE ALLOWED AS PER THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 57 OF THE ACT, THAT EXPENDITURE INCURRED WHOLLY AND EXCLUSIVELY FO R EARNING SUCH INCOME COULD BE ALLOWED, THAT THE INTEREST EXPENSES PERTAIN TO THE PROJECTS CARRI ED OUT DURING THE EARLIER A.YS, THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT CLAIM THE SAME AMOUNT IN THE SUBSEQUENT A SSESSMENT YEAR, THAT THE CLAIM MADE BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST EXPENSES, TOTALI NG TO RS.1,50,21,941/- HAD TO BE REJECTED. 5.2 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY (FAA). AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION O F THE ASSESSEE AND THE ORDER OF THE AO THE FAA HELD THAT THE BUILDER AND THE DEVELOPERS WOULD FOLLOW A PARTICULAR SYSTEM OF ACCOUNTING, THAT IN THEIR CASES THE EXPENSES WOULD BE CAPITALIZ ED TO WORK IN PROGRESS ACCOUNT, THAT LATER ON ENTRIES FOR EXPENSES APPEARING AS WIP WOULD BE REVE RSED IN THE YEAR WHEN THE MAJOR PART OF SALE ITA4758-59/M/13-SURYAKANT 4 REALIZATION WOULD TAKE PLACE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D OFFERED THAT COMPONENT OF INCOME WHICH WAS ALREADY COMPLETED UPTO END OF AY 05-06 AND HAD PA ID TAXES ACCORDINGLY, THAT THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS FOR THE EARLIER AYS WERE AVAILABLE WITH AO AT THE TIME OF FRAMING ASSESSMENT FOR AY 07- 08, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUND FROM NVC FO R DEPOSITING RS.60.49 LACS WITH MHADA, THAT INTEREST ON BORROWINGS WAS CAPITALIZED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WIP IN THE HOPE OF SETTLEMENT OF DISPUTE, THAT THE EXPENSES WERE DIRECTLY RELATABLE TO THE THIRD BUILDING PROJECT, THAT ASSESSEE HAD BORROWED FUND FROM OUTSIDE, THAT INTEREST EXPENDITU RE HAD DIRECT NEXUS WITH EARNING OF INTEREST IN COMPENSATION, THAT THE INTEREST RECEIPT OF RS.1.47 CRORES FROM THE SOCIETY WAS ITSELF INDICATIVE OF THE FACT THAT THE RECEIPTS HAD A DIRECT NEXUS WITH INCURRING OF EXPENSES OF RS.1.50CRORES.FINALLY, HE ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 5.3. BEFORE US, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED CERTAIN AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD INTEREST AND COMPENSA TION,THAT HE HAD PAID INTEREST DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION,THAT THE AO DISALLOWED THE CLAI M MADE BY THE ASSESSEE , THAT HE WAS OF THE OPINION THAT EXPENDITURE WAS NOT INCURRED WHOLLY A ND EXCLUSIVELY FOR EARNING THE INCOME.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD GIVEN A CATEGORICAL FINDING T HAT THERE WAS A DIRECT RELATION BETWEEN INTEREST RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE INTEREST PAID BY H IM, THAT BECAUSE OF THE DISPUTE THE ASSESSEE WAS FOLLOWING A PARTICULAR METHOD OF ACCOUNTING. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE FAA HAD RIGHTLY HELD THAT THE TRANSACTION RELATED WITH INTEREST RECEIPT/PAYMENT WERE DIRECTLY RELATED TO THE BUSINESS ACTIVITY OF THE AS SESSEE.CONFIRMING HIS ORDER, WE DECIDE GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. 6. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT LIC LOANS. WHILE DECIDING THE IDENTICAL ISSUE FOR THE EARLIER YEAR WE HAVE RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE AO.FOLLOWING THE SAME GROUND NO.2 IS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE AO IN PART WITH A DIRECTION TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE . 7 .LAST GROUND OF APPEAL PERTAINS TO DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS.22.00 LACS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT AND CONTRAVENTIO N OF PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A OF THE RULES. 7.1. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED A SUM OF RS.25.90 LACS IN THE NAME OF MIDC PLOT, THAT THE AM OUNT WAS PAID BY WAY OF DEMAND DRAFT BY NVC, THAT LATER ON SAME WAS TRANSFERRED IN THE BOOK S OF ASSESSEE BY WAY OF JOURNAL ENTRIES THROUGH ASSESSEES ACCOUNTS WITH THE PARTY/FIRM, TH AT ULTIMATELY IT WAS SHOWN AS DEPOSIT IN THE BALANCE SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE MIDC PLOT A CCOUNT WAS CREDITED ON VARIOUS DATES, THAT THE XEROX COPIES OF THE RECEIPTS INDICATED THAT THE REF UND HAD NOT BEEN RECEIVED FROM MIDC BUT FROM SOME 3 RD PARTY. AS PER THE AO ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY EXP LANATION ABOUT THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS, THAT THE REFUND WAS RECEIVED FROM A PERSON OTHER TH AN MIDC, THAT IT WAS OBLIGATORY ON PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO PROVE THE CREDIT WORTHINESS AND NATURE OF THE TRANSACTION, THAT THE AMOUNT RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE I.E. RS.22.00 LACS WERE IN THE NATURE OF UNEXPLAINED CASH ENTRIES. ACCORDINGLY HE MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.22.00 LACS. 7.2 AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE A ND THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE FAA ANAYLSED THE MIDC PLOT ACCOUNT FOR THE PERIOD 1.4.2006 TO 31 .3.2007.HE FOUND THAT RS.24.90 LACS WERE APPEARING ON THE DEBIT SIDE AND RS.22.00LACS APPEAR ING ON THE CREDIT SIDE OF THE ACCOUNT.HE HELD THAT NVC, IN WHICH THE ASSESSEE WAS A PARTNER PAID ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DEBITING HIS CAPITAL ACCOUNT, THAT THE REFUND RECEIVED FORM MIDC HAD BEE N TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT IN ASSESSEES BOOKS, ITA4758-59/M/13-SURYAKANT 5 THAT THE ENTRIES COULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINE D.ALLOWING THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 7.3. BEFORE US, THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE AO.ON A SPECIFIC QUERY BY THE BENCH HE STATED THAT THE FAA HAD NOT ADMITTED ANY ADDITIONAL EVIDEN CE WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE OF ADDITION OF RS.22.00 LACS.AS FAR AS MERIT OF THE ISSUE IS CONCE RNED WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY INFIRMITY.WE FIND THA T HE HAS ANALYSED EACH AND EVERY ENTRY WITH REGARD TO MIDC PLOT, THAT ON 2 ND JAN., 9 TH FEB. AND 23 RD FEB. 2007 REFUND CHEQUES WERE RECEIVED AND WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT.THE REFORE, UPHOLDING HIS ORDER WE DECIDE THE GROUND NO.3 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT, APPEALS FILED BY THE AO FOR BOTH THE A.Y.S STAND PARTLY ALLOWED. . . . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016. 01 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / SANDEEP GOSAIN) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI, /DATE: 01.01.2016 . . . .. . 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.