ITO WD 21(2)(2), MUMBAI V. SONAL KALPAK SHAH, MUMBAI

ITA 4906/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 119 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1102 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 year(s) 4 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-11-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 30-07-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: D G
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences
• Section: 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI BENCH E, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4906/M/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 INCOME TAX OFFICER- 21(2)(2), C-10/ROOM NO.507, 5 TH FLOOR, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA, MUMBAI-400 051 VS. MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH, 7/4 SHREE HIND CHS LTD., MANKIKAR MARG, SION, CHUNNABHATTI (WEST), MUMBAI 400 022 PAN: ASEPS 5327G (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) PRESENT FOR: ASSESSEE BY : SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA, A.R SHRI P.M. SHAH, A.R. REVENUE BY : SHRI D.G. PANSARI, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 17.09.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.11.2018 O R D E R PER RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE REVEN UE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 21.05.2012 OF THE COMMISSIO NER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) [HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS TH E CIT(A)] RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. THE VARIOUS GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.62,32,213/ -MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS, BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF LOAN CONFIRMATIONS DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT REMANDING BAC K THE ISSUE TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF T HE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,49,8 57/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CLAIM OF ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 2 INTEREST, BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPO RT OF CLAIM OF INTEREST DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDING, WITHOUT REMANDING BACK THE ISSUE TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATION. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE ON A CCOUNT OF DEMOLITION JOB EXPENSES TO RS.10,00,000/- 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.14,80,510/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS U/S.68, BY ADMITTING ADDIT IONAL EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF CLAIM OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS DURING THE COURSE OF APPEAL PROCEEDINGS, WITHOUT REMANDING BACK THE ISSUE TO THE A.O. FOR VERIFICATI ON. 5. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED . 6. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR T O ALTER ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND, WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 3. THE ISSUE RAISED IN FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS AG AINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.62,32,213/- BY LD. CIT(A ) BY ADMITTING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF LOAN CONFIRMATI ON WITHOUT REMANDING THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 4. THE FACTS IN BRIEF ARE THAT AO OBSERVED DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE BASIS OF PERUSAL O F DETAILS AND SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.62,32,213/- DURING THE YEAR AND ACCORDIN GLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS AND SUPPORT ING EVIDENCES ETC. ACCORDING TO THE AO, NEITHER ANY CONFIRMATION S NOR ANY EVIDENCES WERE FILED DESPITE A NUMBER OF OPPORTUNIT IES AND FINALLY A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE WAS ISSUED TO THE ASSES SEE CALLING UPON AS TO WHY THE ADDITION SHOULD NOT BE MADE FOR FAILING TO PROVE THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS DURING THE YEAR AND TH EREAFTER ADDITION WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE UND ER SECTION 68 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 3 5. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) ALL OWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR AND PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. APPARENTLY IT SEEMS THAT THE AO HAS MISSED THE DETA ILS ALREADY FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE HIS LETTER DATED 26-12-2011 AND 27-1 2-2011, WHICH WERE FILED IN RESPONSE TO QUERY RAISED IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE D ATED 19-12-2011. IT HAS BEEN ARGUED THAT IN THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19/12/2 011 THERE WERE SEVERAL OTHER ISSUES ALSO WHICH WERE RAISED BY THE AO, TO WHICH A LSO REPLIES WERE FURNISHED AS PER THE SAME LETTERS DATED 26-12-2011 AND 27-12-2011 SU CH AS SOURCE OF CREDIT OF 23.19 LACS IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT AND THE SOUR CE OF ADVANCE OF RS.30.87 LACS AS WELL AS THE SOURCE OF ACQUISITION OF IMMOVABLE PROP ERTY WORTH RS.68,85,000/- AND ; ON THE BASIS OF THE REPLY THEREIN NO ADDITION ON TH OSE ISSUES HAVE BEEN MADE SUGGESTING THAT THE LETTERS DATED 26-12-2011 AND 27 -12-2011 ON RECORD OF THE AO. FROM PERUSAL OF THESE LETTERS IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE DID FURNISHED LOAN CONFIRMATION IN RESPECT OF 3 PARTIES I.E. MS. ARCHA NA LATE (8,00,000), SIDDHIVINAYKA TRANSPORT (2,00,000) AND SUNIL PANDEY (3,00,000). I N RESPECT OF THE CREDIT BALANCE FROM M/S LAXMI GAS SERVICES, THE LEDGER OF THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE FIRM WHEREIN APPELLANT AND HER HUSBAND ARE THEMSE LVES PARTNERS, WAS HELD BEFORE THE AO CONTAINING ALL THE DEBIT AND CREDIT TRANSACT ION DURING THE YEAR AND ALL THE TRANSACTIONS ARE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL AND B ANK STATEMENT OF APPELLANT WERE ALREADY FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO WHICH IS EVIDE NT FROM THE REPLY DATED 28-11- 2011. HENCE THERE IS NO DOUBT ON THE GENUINENESS, I DENTITY AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES APPEARING IN NAME OF MS. ARCHANA LATE (8,00,000), SIDDHIVINAYKA TRANSPORT (2,00,000) AND SUNIL PANDEY (3,00,000), M /S LAXMI GAS AGENCY (48,13,212) AS PER THE DETAILS ALREADY GIVEN TO THE AO IN RESPO NSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE DATED 19/12/2011. IF THE AO WAS NOT SATISFIED FROM THOSE DETAILS, HE SHOULD HAVE RAISED FURTHER QUERY TO THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS NOT BEEN DONE. SO FAR AS THE CREDIT ENTRY OF RS.1,10,000/- FROM SHRI RAMGOPAL SHARMA IS CONCERNED, THE SAME IS OPENING BALANCE ONLY AND HENCE IN ANY CASE IT CANNO T BE ADDED U/S.68 IN THE CURRENT YEAR. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO IN THE ASSES SMENT ORDER THAT NO DETAILS OF THE UNSECURED LOANS WERE FURNISHED IS FACTUALLY INCORRE CT. THUS IT IS CLEAR THAT ALL THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE CREDIT BALANCES, COPY OF T HE BANK STATEMENT ALONG WITH CONFIRMATION FROM THIRD PARTIES WERE ALSO ON RECORD OF THE AO, WHICH HAS REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, ADDITION OF RS.62,32,213/- U/S.68 MA DE BY THE AO IS NOT JUSTIFIED AND HENCE THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 6. THE LD. D.R. ARGUED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCES OR CONFIRMATION OF THESE UN SECURED LOANS BEFORE THE AO AND THEREFORE ALL THESE LOANS REMAINE D UNVERIFIED BY THE AO. THE LD. CIT(A) ADMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES AND ONLY ON THE BASIS OF SAID EVIDENCES THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED THEREBY DEPRIVING THE AO OF THE NECESSA RY VERIFICATION AND THEREBY VIOLATING RULE 46A OF THE IT RULES. THE ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 4 LD DR PRAYED THAT IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS THE ISSUE SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE FILE OF THE AO. 7. THE LD. A.R., ON THE OTHER HAND, STRONGLY OBJECT ED TO THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. D.R. AND SUBMITTED THAT ALL TH E NECESSARY EVIDENCES WERE FILED BEFORE THE AO AT THE TIME OF A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE AO AND T HE AO PROCEEDED TO ADD THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSE SSEE. THE LD. A.R. SPECIFICALLY DREW THE ATTENTION OF THE BEN CH TO THE PAGE NO.15 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHEREIN THE ASSESSEE HAS FI LED LOAN CONFIRMATION BEFORE THE AO. THE LD. A.R. SUBMITTED THAT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES, IF ANY, WERE FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE DIRECTION OF THE SAID AUTHORITY AN D RELIED HEAVILY ON THE DECISION OF HONBLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SMT. MOHINDAR KAUR VS. CENTRAL GOVERNMENT AND OTHER S 104 ITR 120 (ALBD) & ITO VS. INDUSTRIAL ROADWAYS (2008) 305 ITR (AT) 219 (MUMBAI) AND PRAYED BEFORE THE BENCH THAT SINCE THE ISSUE HAS BEEN VERIFIED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AFTER CAL LING FOR NECESSARY EVIDENCES IN THE FORM OF CONFIRMATIONS AN D OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES , THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE SH OULD BE DISMISSED. 8. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT IN THIS CASE THE LD. CIT(A) HA S GIVEN A CLEAR CUT FINDINGS THAT THE ISSUE HAS BEEN VERIFIED AFTER EXAMINING THE LOAN CONFIRMATIONS AND OTHER SUPPORTING EVIDENCES W HICH WERE CALLED FOR BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DURING THE AP PELLATE PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR OPINION, THERE IS NO VIOLATION OF RULE 46A AS HAS BEEN HELD IN THE ABOVE TWO CASES AS THERE IS A BAR ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE TO FILE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES B EFORE THE ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 5 APPELLATE AUTHORITY BUT THERE IS NO BAR UPON THE AP PELLATE AUTHORITY TO CALL FOR ANY INFORMATION WHICH THE APP ELLATE AUTHORITY DEEMS FIT IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ISSUE BEFORE IT. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED . 9. THE ISSUE RAISED IN SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS A GAINST THE DELETION OF DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7,49,857/- BY LD. CI T(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST. THE AO DURING TH E COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS C HARGED TO THE PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT RS.7,49,857/- ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST AND ACCORDINGLY ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO SUBMIT THE DO CUMENTS FOR VERIFICATION. HOWEVER, THE SAME WERE NOT FILED AND THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR AND PERUSED THE DETAILS OF THE INTEREST AND OTHER FINANCIAL CHARGES OF RS.7,49,857 /- AS PER LETTER DATED 27/12/2011. THESE EXPENSES PERTAINED TO BANKING CHARGES, PROCES SING CHARGES AND INTEREST CHARGED BY THE BANKS ON THE LOANS TAKEN FROM VARIOUS BANKS. THE LOANS TAKEN BY-THE ASSESSEE FROM VARIOUS BANKS ARE ALSO APPEARING IN THE BALANC E SHEET OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME HAS NOT BEEN DISPUTED BY THE AO AS NO ADDITION U/S 68 FOR THESE BANK LOANS HAVE BEEN MADE. THE REQUISITE DETAILS OF INTEREST AND OTHER F INANCIAL CHARGES OF RS.7,49,857 WERE ON RECORD OF THE AO, WHICH HAS REMAINE D TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE AO WHILE PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCE S IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT NECESSARY DETAILS FOR CLAIM OF INTEREST ON BANK CHARGES WAS N OT PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO. HENCE ONCE AGAIN THE AO HAS MADE AN ADDITION W ITHOUT REFERRING THE DETAILS ALREADY FURNISHED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE ASSES SMENT PROCEEDINGS. ACCORDINGLY THE INTEREST 56 OTHER CHARGES OF RS .7,49,857/- PAYABLE TO BANK ARE DULY SUBSTANTIATED FROM DETAILS FURNISHED AND H ENCE DISALLOWANCE OF THE SAME IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 11. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VE RY REASONED AND SPEAKING ORDER STATING THAT THE INTEREST AND OT HER CHARGES AMOUNTING TO RS.7,49,857/- WERE DULY SUBSTANTIATED FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED. WE, THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE SA ME ANALOGY AS ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 6 IN THE GROUND NO.1 QUA THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO C ALL FOR INFORMATION IN ORDER TO VERIFY THE ISSUE BEFORE THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY DISMISS THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE AND ACCORDINGLY ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED ON THIS ISSUE. 12. THE 3 RD GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE RESTRICTION OF DISALLOWANCE BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE B Y THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF DEMOLITION JOB EXPENSES TO RS.10 LAKHS. THE AO DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS NOTED T HAT ASSESSEE CLAIMED DEMOLITION JOB EXPENSES AT RS.1,02 ,03,820/-. THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT THE SAID EXPENSES WERE INC URRED IN THE ORDINARY COURSE OF BUSINESS AND BILLS AND VOUCHERS WERE MAINTAINED DULY. THE AO DISALLOWED THE 20% OF THE SAID EXPENSES BY OBSERVING THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED BY THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING CASH COMPONENT AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES, THE NECESSARY VERIFICATION C OULD NOT BE CARRIED OUT AND THUS DISALLOWED 20% OF THE SAID EXP ENSES AMOUNTING TO RS.20,40,764/-. 13. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) RE STRICTED THE ADDITION TO RS.10,00,000/- BY OBSERVING AND HOLDING AS UNDER: 6.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF THE LD. AR . THOUGH THE NECESSARY DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES WERE GIVEN BUT THE FACT REMAINS THA T MOST OF THE LABOUR EXPENSES ARE PAID IN CASH TO THE LABORERS WHICH ARE NOT OPEN TO VERIFICATION CONSIDERING THE VERY NATURE OF EXPENSES. CONSIDERING THE PROFIT ALR EADY DISCLOSED BY THE APPELLANT ON THE DEMOLITION CONTRACT OF 10.68% WHICH IS QUITE GOOD IN THE LABOUR CONTRACT, IT SHALL BE FAIR AND REASONABLE TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITIO N TO THE EXTENT OF RS. 10,00,OOO/- ONLY WHICH SHALL TAKE CARE OF ANY POSSIBLE CASH EXP ENDITURE FOR NON-BUSINESS PURPOSES. THUS THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS RESTRICTED TO R S. 10,00,OOO/- ONLY. 14. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS REDUCED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.10,00,000/- AS AGAINST RS.20,40,764/- BY THE AO ON ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 7 ADHOC BASIS BY OBSERVING THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS ALRE ADY DECLARED A PROFIT ON THE BUSINESS OF DEMOLITION CONTRACT OF 10.68% WHICH IS QUITE GOOD AND REASONABLE. IN OUR OPINION, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS PASSED A VERY REASONED AND CLEAR ORDER ON THIS ISSU E AS THE DISALLOWANCE BY THE AO WAS PURELY BASED ON ESTIMATI ON BASIS. WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. 15. THE ISSUE RAISED IN GROUND NO.4 IS AGAINST THE DELETION OF ADDITION OF RS.14,80,510/- BY LD. CIT(A) AS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT BY ADMITTING ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES. 16. THE AO DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OBSERV ED FROM THE AIR INFORMATION OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE HAS AN A CCOUNT WITH ABHYUDAYA CO-OP BANK LTD IN WHICH CASH TRANSACTIONS OF RS.14,80,510/- WAS APPEARING. THE AO ASKED THE ASS ESSEE TO PRODUCE THE BANK STATEMENT AND EXPLAIN CASH TRANSAC TIONS WITH SUPPORTING EVIDENCES. THE AO ADDED THE SAME AS UNE XPLAINED CASH CREDIT UPON THE ASSESSEES FAILURE TO PRODUCE THE BANK STATEMENT AND EXPLAIN THE CASH TRANSACTION. 17. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE LD. CIT(A) AL LOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AND OBSERVING AS UNDER: 5.3. I HAVE CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS OF LD AR AND PERUSED THE COPIES OF THE LETTERS ALREADY FILED BEFORE THE AO. 1 FIND THAT TH E' BANK STATEMENT WAS ALREADY SUBMITTED TO AO AS PER LETTER DATED 28/11/2011 AND IN THE SAME LETTER THE EXPLANATION FOR SOURCE OF CASH WAS ALSO FURNISHED. HENCE, I AGREE WITH LD. AR THAT NECESSARY DETAILS IN RESPECT OF CASH DEPOSITS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE AO WHICH HAS REMAINED TO BE CONSIDERED AND LOOKED INTO BY TH E AO. THUS VERY BASIS OF ADDITION MADE BY THE AO DOES NOT SURVIVE AND ACCORD INGLY THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION FOR SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. ACCORDINGLY ADDITION OF RS,14,80,510/- IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. ITA NO.4906/M/2012 MS. SONAL KALPAK SHAH 8 18. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERUSING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RECORDED A FINDING OF FACT THAT BANK STATEMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO V IDE LETTER DATED 28.11.2011 AND THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF CASH IN THE SAID LETTER. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FACT, WE FIND NO REASON TO DEVIATE FROM THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IS AFFIRMED BY DISMISSING T HE GROUND RAISED BY THE REVENUE. 19. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DIS MISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30.11.2018. SD/- SD/- (MAHAVIR SINGH) (RAJESH KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 30.11.2018. * 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.