JT CIT (OSD), CC-3(1), MUMBAI V. VALLABHBHAI PARSOTTAMBHAI SURANI, SURAT

ITA 498/MUM/2021

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the Joint Commissioner of Income Tax against Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani concerning the assessment year 2007-08. The primary issues revolved around the additions made by the Assessing Officer under sections 68 and 69C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which were later deleted by the CIT(A). The additions were related to unexplained cash credits and deposits amounting to substantial sums linked to the assessee's transactions with Sanika Assets & Investment Management Pvt Ltd and other entities. The Tribunal examined the legal and factual basis of these additions, considering the complex financial transactions and the roles of various parties involved, including Bhupendra Surani and the directors of Sanika.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 123238 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-09-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 31-08-2023
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 31-03-2021
• Other Referred Cases: National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383, Ramesh Chand Premraj Soni (HUF) Vs. ACIT reported in 13 SOT 15, Gurunanak Enterprises v. CIT [259 ITR 637], Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)]
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Search and seizure; Document seized; Share purchase agreement; Opportunity of being heard; Period of limitation; Source of fund; Time period of passing order; Documents seized; Set aside; Liquidation
• Section: 131; 68; 132; 271(1)(c); 69C; 143(3); 153A; 274; 139(1); 142(2A); 158BC; 43; 73; 13; 153; 158BD

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, HON'BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 498/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08) Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19 th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 v. Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani 1, Sundaram Bunglow Lambe Hanuman Road Opp. Saiffe Society Gujrat - 395006 PAN: AJYPS2262F (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O. No.164/MUM/2021 [ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 498/MUM/2021 (A.Y: 2007-08)] Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani 1, Sundaram Bunglow Lambe Hanuman Road Opp. Saiffe Society Gujrat - 395006 PAN: AJYPS2262F v. Jt. Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) Central Circle – 3(1) Room No. 1924, 19 th Floor Air India Building, Nariman Point Mumbai – 400 021 (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri Bharat Kumar Department Represented by : Dr. Mahesh Akhade Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 01.09.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 13.09.2023 ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.2 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (AM) 1. This appeal and cross objection are filed by revenue and assessee respectively against order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 29.01.2021 for the A.Y.2007-08. 2. Brief facts of the case are, Assessee is an Individual having Income from Capital Gains, House Property and Other Sources. The Assessee had filed his Original Return of Income for the year under consideration u/s. 139(1) on 31.3.2008 declaring total Income of ₹.31,62,790/-. A search action u/s. 132 of the Act was conducted by the DDIT (Inv.), Unit – VII, Mumbai in the case of J.B. Diamond Group on 29.10.2010 including the residence of the partners / directors of the group concerns and the premises of other associates. 3. Assessee is one of the partners of the firm M/s. J. B. Diamond and also a director and shareholder of M/s. J. B. Diamond Limited and was accordingly covered by the above search action. A notice u/s. 153A of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.3 Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short “Act”) dated 17.11.2011 was issued and served on the Assessee and in response to the same, he filed the Return of Income on 13.04.2012 and declared the same income as disclosed in the original return of income. 4. At Page No. 2 of assessment order, the assessing officer observed that considering the nature and complexity of the accounts, a show cause notice dated 15.02.2013 was issued to assessee to explain as to why the case of the assessee should not be referred for special audit. In response, assessee filed his objection which is reproduced in Para No. 6 of assessment order. 5. After considering the objections, assessing officer observed in his order at Para No. 7 that the assesse is a shareholder in M/s J B Diamond Ltd. which is also considered for the purpose of the audit u/s 142(2A) in view of the complexities found in its accounts. Further, the assesse is also a partners/director in other group concerns wherein huge transfer of funds from one account to another has been transacted through the bank account of the assessee. Accordingly order u/s 142(2A) dated ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.4 22.03.2013 was passed with the prior approval of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax –II, Mumbai. 6. It was observed that the Assessee was also one of the Director of Sanika Assets & Investment management Pvt Ltd. and the assessee, in active collusion with Shri Rajesh Surani (a member of the JB Group) opened a bank account in ING Vyasa Bank in the name of a group concern Sanika Assets & Investment management Pvt Ltd (in short ‘Sanika’), under a misrepresentation to the Bank Manager that they were the sole directors of this company. Further, it was observed that most of the transactions in this account were not reflected in the ledgers of Sanika. The flagship company of the group, being JB Diamonds, had advanced a loan of ₹.37.02 crore to Vallabh Surani (as reflected in JB ledgers) but this amount was deposited in the ING Vyasa a/c of Sanika to the extent of ₹.24.52 crore and given to one Ajeya Lohia to the extent of ₹.12.50 crore. 7. With the above observations, Assessing Officer passed order u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act dated 11.11.2013 determined total Income of the Assessee at ₹.37,07,62,780/- by making addition of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.5 ₹.32,38,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash credit and ₹.4,38,00,000/- on account of unexplained cash deposits. 8. Aggrieved, Assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) deleted the above additions by observing that ₹.32.38 Crores was received from Bhupendra Surani and above said amount is added in hand of Bhupendra Surani. Further Ld. CIT(A) observed in his order that addition on account of cash deposited of ₹.4.38 Crores, Sanika has paid tax in Vivad se Vishwas scheme, Accordingly, he deleted the addition in the hands of assessee. However, Ld. CIT(A) dismissed legal grounds raised before him. 9. Aggrieved with the above order of the Ld.CIT(A), revenue is in appeal and assessee is in cross objection before us. 10. At the outset, we observe that during the course of hearing, Assessee filed additional grounds of appeal which is reproduced as under:- 1. On the facts and circumstances of the case in law, it is submitted that substantive addition was made in case of Bhupendra surani which was quashed on legal ground therefore appellant case should also be quashed. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.6 2. The Appellant keep right reserve to add/modify/delete any grounds of appeal at any time during the course of proceedings before Hon’ble ITAT. 11. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the above grounds of appeal are purely legal grounds and do not require any fresh examination of facts. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer made protective additions in hands Bhupendra Surani and substantive addition in hand of Assessee i.e. VallabhSurani. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition on merit of the case by giving reasons that ₹.32.38 Crores amount was received from Bhupendra Surani and same is reflected in bank statement of Sanika. In relation to cash deposited of ₹.4.38 Crores in Sanika bank statement, Ld. CIT(A) observed that Sanika has declared the same and paid the due tax under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme. 12. Now legal question before us that substantive order of Shri Bhupendra Surani was quashed by the ITAT on legal ground vide order in ITA.No. 353/MUM/2021 dated 17.04.2023. 13. It is submitted that it is pure legal question arisen due to order of Bhuependra Surani. Therefore, it is requested to admit the additional ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.7 ground in view of Apex Court decision in case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383. 14. On legal issue, Ld. AR of the assessee placed reliance on the decision of Ahmedabad Tribunal ITA No. 142/AHD/2016 A.Y. 2011-12 in which it is held as under:- “6.7 We also note that the ITAT Jodhpur in the case of Ramesh Chand Premraj Soni (HUF) Vs. ACIT reported in 13 SOT 15 has held that if the substantive assessment in the case of the assessee is struck down being barred by time, the additions made in the protective assessment cannot survive. The relevant extract is reproduced as under: “In the instant case, there was no dispute with regard to the facts that all the additions, which were the subject- matter of appeal or for that matter that of assessment order passed under section 158BD in the case of the HUF were made on protective basis. All parallel additions were made in the case of ‘R’ individually. The assessment made under section 158BC in the case of ‘R’ did not survive at all, since it had been struck down being time barred. The additions made on substantive basis had not been decided by deleting the same from assessee’s individual hands rather they were thrown along with the block assessment order, meaning thereby, there was no substantive addition in existence at all; and the protective addition presupposed the existence of substantive additions. In another words whenever additions were made, they were only substantive additions. The term ‘protective addition’ is a misnomer; actually it is a substitutive addition. The ‘protective addition’ name has been given to it since it protects the interest of the revenue. In such a case, there happens to be some doubt as to whom a particular income belongs to; when it is not clearly established as to in whose hands a particular income should be added, when there are evidences that it ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.8 may belong to either of the two, or when scintillating evidences are available from which it is not possible to come to clear-cut conclusion, readily. In the instant case, the substantive additions had not been declared to not belong to ‘R’. Had that been the case, the protective addition could have been considered and added substantially if it was found to belong to ‘protective assessee’. From the above observations, it follows that when the substantial additions go, protective additions cannot survive. When the very base of income ‘goes’, the addition in the assessee’s hands, who was treated as ‘protective’, would also not survive. Consequently, on this legal ground, the assessment order was quashed.” 6.8 In view of the above and after considering the facts in totality, we hold that the protective assessment framed by the AO without making the substantive assessment is not sustainable. Hence, the assessee succeeds on this technical ground. As the assessee has succeeded on the technical ground, we do not find any reason to adjudicate the issue raised by the assessee on merit. Hence the grounds raised by the assessee on merit are dismissed. 7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed. 15. Therefore, requested to kindly allow the additional ground of the assesse. 16. On the other hand, Ld. DR objected for admission of the additional grounds as they were never raised before lower authorities and therefore cannot be admitted. 17. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that as the said additional grounds are legal grounds, wherein, the facts are on record and facts do not require fresh ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.9 investigation, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co., Limited v. CIT 229 ITR 383 (SC), we admit the said additional grounds of appeal. 18. First we proceed to dispose the additional grounds raised by the assessee. 19. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that Assessing Officer made protective additions in hands Bhupendra Surani and substantive addition in hand of Assessee i.e. VallabhSurani. Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition on merit of the case by giving reasons that ₹.32.38 Cr. amount was received from Bhupendra Surani. Therefore, the decision of Ahmedabad ITAT may be followed and prayed that the assessment order passed in the case of the assessee may be quashed. 20. On the other hand, Ld.DR objected to the submissions made by the Ld. AR of the assessee. 21. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record. It was submitted that substantive addition was made in case of Bhupendra Surani which was quashed on legal ground and submitted that assessee ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.10 case should also be quashed. Before us, the Ld AR relied on the decision of Ahmedabad Bench decision and after careful consideration, in our view, no doubt the substantive addition was made by the Assessing Officer in the assessee’s hand and protective addition was made in Bhupendra Surani’s hand. However, Ld CIT(A) has made substantive addition in the hands of Bhupendra Surani and deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee. Since the facts are different, the case of the above Ahmedabad ITAT case cannot be followed. Accordingly the plea of the assessee cannot be entertained and hence the ground raised in additional ground is dismissed. C.O. No. 164/Mum/2021 (A.Y. 2007-08) 22. Now we shall adjudicate the issues raised in cross objection No. 164/Mum/2021. In the cross objection assessee has raised following grounds in its appeal: - 1. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts in not holding that direction of the special audit given by Assessing officer is not in accordance with provision of section 142(2A) of the Act and is bad in Law and illegal. 2. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts in not holding that the assessment order u/s 153A r.w.s. 143(3) of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.11 the Act is time barred and hence bad in law, illegal and void ab intio. 3. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts in not holding those additions of Rs. 32,38,00,000/-and Rs. 4,38,00,000/- were not based on any incriminating materials found during the course of search and hence bad in Law and illegal. 4. On the facts circumstance of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment order passed by the Assessing officer u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 153A of the Act is time barred and in violation of the provision of section 153 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and hence bad in law. 5. The Learned CIT(A) has erred in Law and in facts is not allowing the set off business loss of Rs. 3,15,486 against capital gain of Rs. 32,66,065/- 23. With regard to Ground No. 01 and 02 of grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in cross objection which are in respect of appointment of special Auditor u/s 142(2A) and period of limitation. The relevant facts are, the Assessing Officer referred this case to special auditor with prior approval of the authorities. After considering the objections and grounds of appeal, the Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “5. The issue of appointment of special auditor and subsequent conduct of the assessee has been discussed quite elaborately in the assessment order. In response to the show-cause notice dated 15.2.2013 issued by the Assessing Officer for appointment of Special Auditor, the assessee has made a submission which is similar to the submission made before this office. However, it is noted that the assessee has not committed to produce either his books of account or the books of account of the group members with whom the assessee has significant transactions. There is no dispute that in respect of all the group members including the ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.12 assessee, either the books of account are not prepared or the books of account are not available or the books of account do not match with entries in bank accounts. In such a situation, the Assessing Officer cannot be expected to first prepare reliable books in respect of the assessee and then apply his mind. There have been deliberate delays on the part of the assessee reply to questions/explanations sought. Admittedly, the books of other entities containing the contra-entries are either not available or are not reliable. In such a situation, the assessee cannot claim that the Assessing Officer intended to shift his burden of examining the books of account to the Special Auditor. The Assessing Officer issued his letter appointing a Special Auditor on 22.3.2013. As on this day, the provisions of section 142(2A) were as below: (2A) If, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined inthe Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, nominated by the Chief Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the Assessing Officer may require : Provided that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 5.2 Hence, the key requirement for ordering special audit would be the “nature and complexity of accounts” with reference to the interest of Revenue. The ‘nature of accounts’ are as important as the complexity and reflect a condition wherein the accounts are either not existent or are not reliable enough. In this case, the appointment of special auditor has to be examined in light of the following special circumstances existing at the time of appointment:.............. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.13 5.4 The above set of facts existing at the time of assessment proceedings lay out the predicament of the Assessing Officer. The Officer had no reliable set of books which he could examine and arrive at a reasonable decision with respect to taxability of various transactions identified during the search process. As held by the Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. v CIT [233 ITR 199 (SC)], the Assessing Officer is required to delve into the accounts and scrutinize them before arriving at the decision regarding their complexity. In this case, there were no reliable books existing with the assesse and a huge cache of documents had been located which needed correlation. The nature and complexity of the accounts was crystal clear. An assessing officer is expected to go through the accounts with the assistance of the assessee to understand the same. But for that, the onus of producing reliable account books is on the assessee. The Assessing Officer is not expected to write the books of accounts on behalf of the assessee. In absence of such books of accounts, no option was left to the Assessing Officer but to fall back on the provisions of section 142(2A) which has been provided for precisely these situations. The Delhi High Court in the case of Gurunanak Enterprises v. CIT [259 ITR 637] has observed similarly holding that: The word “and” signifies conjunction and not disjunction. In other words, the twin conditions of “nature and complexity of the accounts” and “the interests of Revenue” are the pre-requisites for exercise of power under Section 142(2A).Although the object behind enacting the said provision is to assist the Assessing Officer in framing the assessment when he finds the accounts of the assessed to be complex and is to protect the interests of Revenue but recourse to the said provision cannot be had by the Assessing Officer merely to shift his responsibility of scrutinising the accounts of an assessed to determine his true and correct income, on to an auditor. 5.5 In my view, present set of circumstances before the Assessing officer constitute the perfect conditions for the Assessing Officer to arrive at his opinion about nature and complexity of accounts and the interest of revenue and seek the assistance of a Special Auditor. The action of the Assessing Officer is found to be in conformity of law and is sustained.” ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.14 24. At the time of hearing, Ld AR submitted that the assessee claims that the appointment of the Special Auditor is not in accordance with the provisions of the Act and hence, the Assessing Officer is not entitled to avail the benefit of extension of limitation period granted u/s 153 of the Act. The Ld AR submitted that since the appointment of the Special Auditor itself is bad in law, the consequential assessment order is barred by limitation period. It was stated that Special Audits are proposed in cases where there is complexity of accounts and interest of the revenue is prejudiced. 25. Further it was submitted that since the assessee was a partner of a firm and shareholder of J.B. Diamond Group, Special Audit was proposed. Further, the assessee also submitted that being a shareholder and director of the company does not make his accounts complex. It was submitted that assessee’s accounts were transparent and the income was mainly from remuneration, interest and equity share transfer profits. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.15 26. It was further submitted that the financial transactions were supported by all documentary evidences and were carried out through normal banking channels. 27. It was submitted that assessee has repeated several times throughout the submission that his books are not complex and can be easily understood. Further he has submitted that in case the Assessing Officer needs any further detail / explanations, he would be more than willing to submit / explain the same. 28. It was submitted that for Special Audit, both the criteria of complexity of accounts and prejudice to the interest of revenue should be satisfied, whereas in assessee’s case none of them was applicable. 29. It was submitted that the assessee requested the Assessing Officer to examine his accounts and then decide about the nature and complexity of the same. In support of the said view, it was referred to few High Court decisions. However, the case was referred for Special Audit without application of mind and examination of the nature and complexities of the books by the Assessing Officer himself. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.16 30. It was submitted that Assessing Officer made addition solely on the basis of Bank statement of Sanika and the bank statement clearly reveals the few transactions and shows fund received in Sanika from Bhupendra Surani. It is very clear and easily reconcilable, he brought to our notice Bank statement of Sanika at page 177-118 of Paper book. 31. It was submitted that the observation made by the Assessing Officer and his reference to the matter to the special auditor is against the settled principles of tax jurisprudence. By referring to Section 142(2A) which reads as under: “If, at any stage of the proceedings before him, the Assessing Officer, having regard to the nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, and the interests of the revenue, is of the opinion that it is necessary so to do, he may, with the previous approval of the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner, direct the assessee to get the accounts audited by an accountant, as defined in the Explanation below sub-section (2) of section 288, nominated by the Principal Chief Commissioner or Chief Commissioner or Principal Commissioner or Commissioner in this behalf and to furnish a report of such audit in the prescribed form duly signed and verified by such accountant and setting forth such particulars as may be prescribed and such other particulars as the Assessing Officer may require. Provided that the Assessing Officer shall not direct the assessee to get the accounts so audited unless the assessee has been given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.17 32. From the above, it is clear that a case can be referred to the special auditor in certain circumstances only. As per the provisions, special audit can be invoked in following circumstances a nature and complexity of the accounts of the assessee and the nature and complexity of the accounts, volume of the accounts, doubts about the correctness of the accounts, multiplicity of transactions in the accounts b or specialised nature of business activity of the assessee, c and the interests of the revenue 33. It was submitted that the case of the assessee does not fall in any of these categories. The Assessing Officer has referred to two page bank statement, while making the addition. There is no circumstances to show that nature and complexity of the accounts was such that it required special audit. Besides, neither there were doubts about the correctness of the accounts or multiplicity of transactions. The Assessing Officer has not explained as to how the special audit was in the interest of the revenue. He submitted that matter was referred to special audit just to buy further time to complete assessment. 34. Ld AR submitted that in the case of Delhi Development Authority and Another (350 ITR 432), the Hon’ble Delhi High Court has observed ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.18 that the conditions stipulated in the section are cumulative. Therefore, it was reiterated that the plain language of the provision indicates that in order to make a reference for special audit under section 142(2A) of the Act, certain essential jurisdictional conditions are required to be satisfied and in the absence thereof, the direction for special audit may not be warranted. The case under consideration is covered under the above observations. 35. It was also submitted that the Assessing Officer had not examined the books of account of the assessee. There was nothing as complexity of accounts in the case under consideration. What was referred to is the bank statement. Therefore, there is no complexity of the accounts. As the Hon’ble Tribunal has decided the issue in favour of the assessee in the case of Bhupendra Surani, (A Y 2007-08- A Y 2010-11) so it is prayed that following the above, the ground raised herewith should be allowed. 36. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.19 37. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the assessee is one of the key persons in the JB Group, in which the search was initiated. During the search, certain materials found relating to the JB Group and certain bank transactions were linked to the assessee as well. All the materials were forwarded to the Assessing Officer to complete the assessment. At that point of time, it was not clear about the various transactions were carried out and certain transactions were unearthed indicating that few Bank transactions were not routed through the books of the assessee as well as Sanika but was transacted through the bank account in the name of Sanika which is subject matter now. This created the doubt on the genuineness of the transaction. When we look at the return of income and transactions of the assessee, it may not require any special audit whereas when we look at the combine transactions involving assessee as a party to the above suspected transactions then the stand taken by the Assessing Officer seems proper. Therefore, we are inclined to accept the findings of the Ld CIT(A) in this regard. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.20 38. With regard to ground no 3 of Cross objection raised by the assessee, the brief facts are, during the assessment proceedings Assessing Officer observed that during the course of search, various incriminating documents were found which includes the following (Page 16-18, Lose paper Folder, Mazarharnama dated 12.01.2011. “.... Page 40 of A.O. Order .... Page 41 of A.O. Order .... Page 42 of A.O. Order .... Page No, 43 During the course of Mazarharnama proceedings prepared on 12.01.2011, the extract of the laptop were taken in form of print- outs which are seized as per Mazarharnama prepared on 12.01.2011 page no. 16 to 18 documents seized shows account of Shri Vallabh Surani in the books of M/s. SA&IM in two formats. Through the laptop belong to Shri Bhupendra Surani, the assesse has accepted this forms part of books of accounts in his replies filed with response to show causes.” 39. On appeal, Ld.CIT(A) observed as under: - “4.1 The assessee has made two submissions during the appellate proceedings, one on 14.10.2014 along with additional evidences which are incorporated while making the submissions. The second submission is on 25.9.2017 i.e. after raising the additional grounds vide letter dated 19.09.2017. But in both these submissions, there is no denial of existence of incriminating material and in the submission dated 14.10.2014, there are clear acceptance in the written submissions with reference to transactions which are not accounted in books of accounts of some of the entities. The assessee is one of the key persons of JB Group and was covered during the course of search action on the JB Group initiated on 29.10.2010. Following findings of the search ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.21 action are significant and need to be considered while examining the presence / absence of incriminating materials: 1. During the course of search action, it was noted that J B Diamonds (as firm) advanced a sum of Rs 37,01,99,999/- to the assessee but these amounts were not found credited in any bank account of the appellant but were found to be credited in the bank accounts of Sanika Asset Management and Investments Pvt Ltd (Sanika) (Rs24,51,00,000/-) and Rs 12,50,00,000/- paid directly to one Ajey Lohia on behalf of the appellant. Admittedly, the appellant did not maintain any books of accounts and the books of J B Diamonds Ltd (subsequently converted into a company) were with liquidator as the company had gone into liquidation. But whatever accounts were available indicated that the only description for this amounts was that these sums were advanced to Vallabh Suran The Sanika bank account with ING Vyasa Bank in which this money was deposited, was found to have been opened by VallabhSurani and Rajesh Surani through mis- representation before the Bank Manager that they were the sole directors in this company. Further, the other Director of Sanika admitted that they were not aware of existence of this bank account which was opened without signature of other directors and was operated exclusively by Vallabh Surani without any mandate from the Board of the Company. The fact of mis-representation has been admitted by the Bank Manager in her statement recorded by the department. Effectively, this account was being managed separately by Vallabh Surani for his own benefit as all the assets acquired through payment from this account were claimed as his own and all credits in this account were debts to VallabhSurani. 2. During the course of Mazharnama proceedings prepared on 12.1.2011 wherein extracts of information were taken out in the form of print out of certain files in the laptop of BhupendraSurani, page no 16 to 18 of the seized documents showed accounts of Shri Vallabh Surani in the books of M/s Sanika in two formats. In one paper, it showed ‘after incorporating the above mentioned as cash deposits made in ING Vyasa Bank’ and other paper showed accounts “without incorporating above mentioned cash deposits in ING Vyasa Bank”. At the bottom of the table shown in page 17, it was stated that “*** marked ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.22 transactions total upto Rs 4.36 crores”. It was also noted that the cash deposited in this bank account as well as the cheques from Bhupendra Surani deposited in this bank account were not reflected in the regular books of Sanika. Existence of two set of documents in respect of the same person, with further evidence that part of these transactions were not reflected in the books of Sanika, indicates clear presence of incriminating documents with reference to the assessee mandating assessment u/s 153A of the Act. 3. Evidences of cash deposit into the Sanika account to the extent of Rs 3.18 crore during January, 2007 to March 2007 (AY 2007-08) were found during the search action for which there were no known sources of income and the amount was not neither recorded in the books of Sanika nor could be explained by VallabhSurani through his own books. Deposit of cash deposit in one of the Sanika accounts by the assesse without any source of this cash deposit, especially when this account has been disowned by Sanika, represents sufficient incriminating material for the year in respectof the appellant. 4. Documents were found indicating a transfer of Rs 32.38 crore from the NRE account of Bhupendra Surani to the a/c of Sanika. This amount was not appearing in the ledgeraccount of Sanika. This amount, together with the cash deposits mentioned above, have been used to pay off the amount owned by J B Diamonds from VallabhSurani, clearly indicating that the account has been used by VallabhSurani without any legal sanctity. The audited books of Sanika do not reflect the transaction of either credit of the amount of Rs 32.38 crore or paying back of the amount owned against Vallabh Suranti to J B Diamonds, indicating a mismatch between ledger maintained by J B Diamonds, the appellant and Sanika. In light of contradictory statements and evidences, these documents clearly constitute incriminating material. 5. The appellant is a creditor in the books of Sanika to the extent of Rs 24.21 crore as on 31.3.2007 to 31.3.2011 while in the books of the assessee, he has to receive only Rs 25,99,999/- from Sanika. The above discrepancy is clearly on account of non accounting of certain amounts from ING Vyasa bank account in the books of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.23 Sanikaandhence, these evidences are in the nature of incriminating material. 4.2 It is clear that significant incriminating documents have been found and seized during the search which indicate generation of unaccounted income in the hands of the assessee which need elaborate examination through assessment proceedings. 4.3 The discussion made above with respect to implications resulting out of documents collected during the search indicate suppression of taxable income in the hands of the assessee and hence, constitute incriminating material pertaining to the assessee. There is no doubt that there are documents which have been seized during the search action. Hence, the ground raised by the assessee that there are no incriminating material against the assessee is not found correct. The ground raised by the assessee is liable to be dismissed.” 40. At the time of hearing, Ld AR submitted that during the course of the search proceedings an excel sheet was found in case of the Bhupendra Surani which is noted in assessment order. The transaction shown in said Excel sheet was records of books of account of the assessee and all transactions in the sheet were appearing in the regular Books of account. While completing the assessment the Assessing Officer referred to three Excel sheet print out. These documents are nothing but entries in books of accounts of the assessee and group concerns. Assessing Officer as well as Ld.CIT(A) unable to bring any materials seized which shows undisclosed income and found from assessee’s premises. These accounts formed part of the returns filed with the authorities and such regular books of accounts maintained in ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.24 the ordinary course of business did not suggest anything of incriminating nature. It is submitted that the addition/s made were not supported or backed by any incriminating material unearthed during the course of search and for that reason the Revenue is now trying to make out a new case that the regular accounts maintained by the assessee was in the nature of ‘incriminating material’, which according to him, was untenable both on facts and in law. 41. Ld. AR of the assessee relied on decision of Apex court in case of Abhisar Buildwell (P.) Ltd reported in Taxman [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) whereas Apex court held as under:- “Section 153A, read with sections 132 and 143, of the Income-tax Act, 1961 – Search and seizure – Assessment in case of (Conditions precedent) – Whether object of section 153A is to bring under tax undisclosed income which is found during course of search or pursuant to search or requisition; therefore, only in a case where undisclosed income is found on basis of incriminating material, Assessing Officer would assume the jurisdiction to assess or reassess total income for entire six years block assessment period even in case of completed/unabated assessment- Held, yes – Whether in case of search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A, Assessing Officer assumes jurisdiction for block assessment under section 153A and that all pending assessments/reassessments shall stand abated – Held, yes – Whether in respect of completed assessments/unabated assessments no addition can be made by Assessing Officer in absence of any incriminating material found during course of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.25 search under section 132 or requisition under section 132A – Held, yes – Whether, however, completed/unabated assessments can be reopened by Assessing Officer in exercise of powers under section 147/148 subject to fulfilment of conditions as envisaged/mentioned under section 147/148 and those powers are saved – Held, yes [Paras 8, 12 to 14] [In favour of assesse] 42. Therefore, Ld. AR of the assessee prayed to delete the addition made by Assessing Officer. 43. On the other hand, Ld.DR relied on the order of the Ld.CIT(A). 44. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe that the Ld AR submits that there is incriminating material found in the premises of the assessee, which directly connected to the assessee. In the given case, the material found during search in the group concerns linking certain transactions with the assessee, which includes the suspected loan transactions and bank account which was not legal bank account of the group concerns. It was alleged that the account was opened by the assessee with the other director without their being any authorization. These facts will remain as incriminating material and in the case of group search cases, we cannot see only the material found in the individual cases but the overall materials found in ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.26 the group has to be seen. Therefore, we are inclined to agree with the findings of Ld CIT(A). Accordingly, the ground raised by the assessee is dismissed. 45. With regard to Ground No. 4, not pressed at the time of hearing and accordingly, it is dismissed. 46. With regard to Ground No. 5 which is in respect of not allowing the set-off of business loss of ₹.3,15,486/- against capital gain of ₹.32,66,065/-. Ld. AR of the assessee has not pressed the same and hence the same is dismissed as not pressed. 47. In the result, cross objection filed by the assessee is dismissed. ITA.NO. 498/MUM/2021 (REVENUE APPEAL) 48. Now we take up the appeal of the revenue for adjudication. Revenue has raised following grounds in its appeal: - 1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in Law in deleting the addition of Rs.32,38,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit as the source of funds relied upon assesse itself is disowned by the payer. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.27 2. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in Law in deleting the addition of ₹.32,38,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit as it is unclear as to why the assesse has received money from Sanika to tune of ₹.32,38,00,000/- which has even been denied by Shri Piyush patel in his statement on oath recorded u/s. 131 of the Income Tax Act during the course of the assessment proceedings in J B diamond. 3. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in Law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,38,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit since said amount is deposited in cash by the assesse only. 4. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case the Ld.CIT(A) was justified in Law in deleting the addition of Rs.4,38,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposited as the assesse in his submission stated that he had deposited the cash amounting to Rs. 4.38 cr as director of Sanika Assets management & Investment Pvt. Ltd. however the same is not reflecting in the books of account of Sanika. 5. The appellant craves to leave, to add, to amend and /or to alter any of the ground of appeal, if need be.” 6. The appellant, therefore prays that on the ground stated above, the order of the Ld. CIT(51), Mumbai may be set aside and that of the Assessing officer is restored.” 49. Brief facts relating to ground Nos. 1 to 4 raised by the revenue on deletion of the addition of ₹.32,38,00,000/- as unexplained cash credit as the source of funds relied upon by the assesse itself is disowned by the payer and deletion of the addition of ₹.4,38,00,000/- as unexplained cash deposit since said amount is deposited in cash by the assesse. During assessment proceedings, Assessing Officer made the addition in the hands of the assessee and observed as under: - ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.28 “at page 50 of A.O.’s order which is reproduced as under:- The facts of the case, report of the special auditors u/s. 142(2A), the submissions made by the assessee and the statements recorded on oath has been perused. The submission made by the assessee is not acceptable for the following reasons. (i) In view of the above, it is clear beyond any doubt that the assesse has malafide intentions for opening the bank account no. 550011024229 in ING Vysya Bank and has merely used the name of M/s. Sanika Asset Management and Investments Pvt. Ltd. to move the funds of the company - M/s. J B Diamonds Ltd. without the knowledge of SANIKA. Hence, whatever funds are moved into the ING Vysya bank account no. 550011024229 in the name of SANIKA is the money of the assessee and not of SANIKA (ii) Further, there are also discrepancies noticed in so far as the balance payable is shown in the books of SANIKA and that shown as receivable in the books of the assessee. The said discrepancy istabulated as under:- Particulars Amount (Rs.) Balance payable to assessee as on 31.03.2007 as per books of Sanika 24,21,00,000/- Balance Payable as 31.03.2007 to assessee from Sanika as per his books 25,99,999/- Difference 23,95,00,001/- The assessee has not been able to reconcile the said difference and also based on the material available on record, it is amply clear that the assessee has received the differential amount of Rs.23,95,00,001/- from unkown/undisclosed source. (iii) In the course of search, the search party had found two set of ledger accounts of SANIKA maintained in excel sheet by the assessee viz. (a) Accounts without considering transactions of ING Vysya Bank A/c. of Sanika Assets & Investments Management Pvt. Ltd. and (b) Accounts after incorporating transactions of ING Vysya Bank A/c. of Sanika Assets 85 Investments Management Pvt. Ltd. The very possession of these two sets of ledger ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.29 accounts prima facie indicate the fact that certain undisclosed bank account is maintained in ING Vysya Bank and he is regularly keeping track of the same. Further, the findings of the special auditors, read with, the statements of ShriPiyuah Patel strengthens the fact that the assesse actually operated the A/c. no. 550011024229 in ING Vysya Bank without any knowledge of SANIKA. The director of SAANIKA, ShriPiyush Patel has filed a complaint with ROC on 31.10.2013, about opening and operation of this bank account without the knowledge of Board of Directors of SANIKA. Further, as discussed above, SANIKA has agreed that a sum of Rs. 24,21,00,000/- is still payable by them to the assessee whereas the assessee is of the view that he is not to receive any such funds from them. Accordingly, the said bank account no. 550011024229 held in ING Vysya Bank account was called from the bank which is reproduced as under:- On perusal of the same, it is noticed that the assessee has received a sum of Rs. 13,94,00,000/- and Rs. 18,39,00,000/- cleared on 03.04.2007, which is accounted in the books of the assessee on 31.03.2007 aggregating to Rs. 32,33,00,000/-. Further, perusal of the account of SANIKA in the books of the assessee and that with the seized material, it is further noted that a sum of Rs. 5,00,000/- is credited to SANIKA account which is actually received from Shri BhupendraSurani as per the seized material found from the premises of the assessee. The assessee is firm in stating that he has received the amount of Rs.32,38,00,000/- from SANIKA only which is reflected in the books of the assessee. Thus, when the source of funds relied upon the assessee itself is disowned by the payer, the said receipt of Rs.32,38,00,000/- remains unexplained. The assessee Claims to have been shareholder of SANIKA is also not clear as the share certificate issued by SANIKA in the name of Vallabh Surani is not signed by authorized signatory at the time of transfer from Shri Dinkar Waglay to Shri Piyush Patel. So, when the ownership of said share with Shri Piyush Patel is unclear, how can Shri Vallabh Surani buy these shares from Shri Piyush Patel. Further when being queried about the payment of consideration for acquisition of these shares, the assessee stated that ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.30 there was no banking channel for payment, but was paid in cash. Therefore, it is not out of place to mention that the assessee failed to prove the genuineness of acquisition of shares of SANIKA. Under these circumstances, it is absolutely unclear as to why the assessee has received money from SANIKA to the tune of Rs.32,38,00,000/- which has even been denied by Shri Piyush Patel in his statement on oath recorded u/s. 131 of the Income Tax Act during the course of assessment proceedings in the J B Diamonds group. In view of the above discussion and difference of Rs.32,38,00,000/- in balance in books of assessee and SANIKA coupled with the fact that the assesse failed to prove the genuineness of the receipt of Rs.32,38,00,000/- is treated as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Income Tax Act and added to the income of the assessee under the head income from other sources. While the sum of Rs.23,95,00,001/- being difference in balance reported by assessee and SANIKA also needs to be added as unexplained, since the addition of Rs.32,38,00,000/- is being made as unexplained cash credit and the difference in balance also arises on account of no explanation is being offered in respect of Rs.32,38,00,000/-, the addition is restricted toRs.32,38,00,000/-. Penalty proceedings u.s,271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income. 8. Further, on perusal of the bank account no. 550011024229 in ING Vysya bank, it is seen that the assessee has deposited cash of Rs. 4.38 crores in the said bank for which the assessee has merely submitted that the said account pertains to SANIKA only. However, the same are not reflection in the books of account of SANIKA. As discussed earlier, the director of SAANIKA, ShriPiyush Patel has filed a complaint with ROC, about opening and operation of this bank account without the knowledge of Board of Directors of SANIKA. The assessee in his letter received on 18.10.2013, has stated had deposited the same cash (Rs.4.38 Crs) as a director of SANIKA Assets Management & Investments Pvt Ltd.". The KYC submitted for opening of said, bank account, no approval, nor permission has been granted by the Board of SANIKA. As discussed above, since the said bank account is conclusively proved to be that owned by the assessee, the cash deposited of Rs. 4.38crores is also added to the total income of the assessee as income from undisclosed sources. Penalty proceedings u.s,271(1)(c)r.w.s. 274 ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.31 are initiated separately for furnishing inaccurate particulars of income and concealment of income.” 50. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal and challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer with detailed submissions before the Ld.CIT(A). After considering the detailed submissions of the assessee, Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions made by the Assessing Officer observing as under:- “Contention noted at page 42 of CIT(A) Order which reproduced as under: - (C) On the issue of addition of Rs 32.38 crore, being unexplained credit in the hands of Vallabh Surani being a credit into Sanika account which is neither being owned by Sanika nor by Vallabh Surani and an addition of Rs 4.38 crore being unexplained credit into various bank accounts belonging to Sanika account 7.17 The appellant obtained Rs 37,02 crore as advance from JBL out of which Rs11,50,00,000 and Rs 99,99,999/- was paid directly to Ajey Lohia while remaining Rs24.52 crore was deposited in Sanika accounts. In the books of JBL, the entire amount was treated as advance to Vallabh Surani while in books of VallabhSurani, entire amount was treated as advance from JBL and given back to back to Sanika. However, Sanika appears to have accounted only Rs 24.52 crore deposited into its own account. At the time of returning this advance, the ING Vyasa account of Sanika has been used. Itis noted that the major chunk of advances received by the appellant from JB Diamond has been returned out of amount of Rs 32.38 crore received in the Sanika account by the appellant and deposit of remaining amount in cash. Documents collected during search and further inquiries have revealed that the appellant had acquired certain assets out of advances taken from J B Diamonds using Sanika as a vehicle for such acquisition. Subsequently, an amount of Rs 32.38 crore has been received by the appellant into the accounts of Sanika from Bhupendra Surani, his nephew. The documents found and seized in the laptop of BhupendraSurani reveal that these investments have been taken ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.32 over by Bhupendra Surani for which this amount has been deposited in the Sanika account and has been used to pay off the advance taken from J B Diamonds by the appellant. During the assessment proceedings, the assessee has claimed that he has nothing to do with the Sanika account and hence refused to explain the credit entry. Sanika has also disowned this account and refused to provide any assistance for meeting the onus cast on an assessee under section 68 of the Act. The AO / on the conclusion of the Special Auditor, has concluded that: - the assessee has opened the Sanika account out of undisclosed sources and has transacted huge amount of moneys from it by creating layers of other company to enter into property deals. - He has noted the denial of transactions by Shri AjeyLohia in his statement as well as the denial of the knowledge of existence of Sanika bank a/c in INGVyasa bank branch by Piyush Patel and statement of Branch Manager with respect to misrepresentation of facts while opening the bank account. - Since he claimed to have received an amount of Rs 32.38 crore from Sanikabut Sanika directors did not confirm such payments, the AO treated such receipt as unexplained cash credit and added it to the income of the appellant. Similarly, he treated the cash deposits of Rs 4.38 crore (deposited in various bank accounts as mentioned in the Sanika ledger seized at page 17/18) made by the appellant as unexplained credits in the hands of the appellant as the onus was on the appellant to explain these deposits. 7.18 Before me, the assessee has provided several evidences to support its contention that the Sanika director Piyush Patel was aware of both, the existence of the ING Vyasa account as well as the transactions made in these accounts. For this, he has relied on the MOU signed between Piyush Patel and AjeyLohia in April 2016 which has reference to the Rs 99,99,999/- paid by JBL to Sanika. It is also stressed that the MOU was signed only because of the financial arrangement with JBL/the appellant and the entire financial arrangement has been made by the Group and not Sanika. He has also claimed that as also admitted by the Branch Manager of Opera House branch, the letter submitted for closure of the ING Vyasa account was signed by Piyush Patel and hence, it could not ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.33 be that he was unaware of the existence of the account till his statement was recorded by the Income Tax Authorities. 7.19 The assessee has further claimed that without prejudice to its position that the account belongs to Sanika and only Sanika should be called upon to explain the various credit entries, It is an admitted position that the credit entries of Rs 32.38 crore have been received from Shri Bhupendra Surani from his NRE account. It is claimed that Shri Bhupendra Surani has already admitted this fact and his bank account clearly demonstrates this fact. The assessee claims that even the AO and Special Auditor acknowledge this fact. Hence, the amount of Rs 32.38 crore does not remain unexplained in the hands of the assessee but has a clear source, having come out of the bank account of Bhupendra Surani and BupendraSurani having accepted the factum of this transaction. It is the appellant’s understanding that since Bhupendra Surani is a non resident since last 18 years and is a tax resident of Hong Kong, the amounts credited in his NRE account do not fall within the domain of Indian income tax. The assessee alsoclaims that an addition u /s 68 has also been made in the hands of BhpendraSurani buton a protective basis. 7.20 The appellant has also claimed that the amount in the books of Sanika represents are turn of loan from Sanika to the assessee and does not represent a fresh loan taken by the assessee in this year. As such, the amount is not covered by section 68 of the IT Act. It is further claimed that in other years, the addition was made u/s 2(24)(iv) of the Act as new loans were received by the appellant from Shri Bhupendra Surani. However, in the year under consideration, the amount represents a repayment of loan given by the appellant to Sanika and hence addition cannot be made u/s 68 of the Act. On the issue of addition u/s 68, the assessee claims to have discharged its onus with respect to the identity of the creditor, the capacity of the creditor and also the genuineness of the transaction (Para 73 of the submission). 7.21 The appellant has relied on the MOU in support of its claim that the Sanika Directors Piyush Patel and Rajesh Patel were aware of the Uniworth transactions and it was through them / Sanika that the payments were being made. He has also referred to this MOU between Piyush Patel and Ajey Lohia to submit that both these entities knew about Sanika as well as Uniworth Investment. The AO, in his remand report, discredited the evidentiary value of this document by saying that the same is not registered and is merely notarized. In my view, whether registered or not, the document ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.34 does evidence that the various transactions related to Uniworth deal were carried out through Sanika. As such, both Ajey Lohia and Piyush Patel were aware of the deal which was being predominantly financed by the JBL group as even the first instalment of Rs 99,99,999was provided by JBL. Subsequent payments are from Sanika out of funds provided by JBL. Hence, the involvement of JBL group as well as existence of Sanika cannot be denied by the two parties. Not just the MOU but the consequent fund transfers evidence this fact. 7.22 However, the transactions between the appellant and Sanika have a distinct feature. The transactions during the period 10.4.2006 to 9.1.2006 and transactions between10.1.2006 to 31.3.2007. The transactions upto 9.1.2006 appear as transactions reflected in the regular books of Sanika and there is no dispute with respect to these transactions. Subsequent to 9.1.2006, the appellant has taken control of some of the bank accounts of Sanika, predominantly the ING Vyasa bank account and used these accounts to deposit certain funds in these accounts either in cash or by cheque which have been immediately transferred to JBL, probably in an attempt to provide emergency liquidity to JBL. 7.23 The important issue is to decide who was in control of this account during the period10.1.2006 till its closure because it is during this period that certain transactions happened in this account for the benefit of JBL group and which had no connection with the business activities of Sanika. It is noted from the documents submitted at the time ofopening the account that the account was created in such a fashion that the existing directors of Sanika (Piyush Patel and Rajesh Patel) had no role to play in operation of this account. Subsequently, the account was used to deposit certain cheques (from Bhupendra Surani) totalling to Rs 32.38 crore which were immediately transferred to JBL. Similarly, certain amounts were deposited in cash in this account which were also immediately transferred to JBL. In fact some other accounts of Sanika were also used for cash deposit and transfer as noted in the seized documents at page 17/18. Such entries are against Vijaya Bank account in this document. The total of amounts deposited in INGVyasa bank and Vijaya bank come to Rs 4.38 crore and all these have been transferred to JBL. The assessee does not deny having handled this account or having deposited this account. His only refrain is that the amounts were transacted in capacity of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.35 Directorof Sanika and not in his individual capacity. However, he has failed to produce any mandate from the Board with respect to the transactions done in this account and hence, such claim cannot be entertained. Further, it is noted that these transactions have benefitted the JBL Group as all the amounts credited in the accounts have been immediately transferred to the JBL account. Hence, based the totality of facts in this case, the onus falls on the appellant to explain the contents of this bank account as well as explain the source of credit in this account. 7.24 This leads us to the first addition of Rs 32.38 crore which has arisen on account of deposit of three cheques (Rs 13.94 crore + Rs 18.39 crore + Rs 5 lakh presented on31.3.2007 and credited on 3.4.2007 except Rs 5 lakh which is not reflected in ING Vyasa account) into the ING Vyasa account of Sanika totaling to Rs 32.38 crore. The assesse has claimed that this amount has been received by him from Sanika and hence, Sanika needs to explain the source of this deposit. On the other hand, Sanika director Piyush Patel has submitted that since the amount is deposited in an account of which theSanika Board was not aware, they have no liability to discharge the onus u/s 68 of the Act. The AO has treated the amount as unexplained credit in the hands of the appellant on account of this stand of Sanika. I am not in agreement with the AO that the amount is liable to be added in the hands of the appellant as both the parties refuse to own up the transaction of certain cheque deposits in the Sanika account. The Special Auditor has examined this transaction and has noted that the amount has been credited to the Sanika account from the NRE account of Bhupendra Surani. It is also noted that advancing of this amount to Sanika / VallabhSurani has been admitted to by Bhupendra Surani and his bank account confirms the same. 7.25 It is also noted that without prejudice to the original stand taken, even the appellant has submitted that the source of this amount is established to be out of the NRE account of BhupendraSurani and that there is no dispute on this issue. This has been accepted by the AO and there is no dispute with reference to the source of such amount. Shri Bhupendra Surani has not denied this transaction although his claim is that the AO, in seeking source of funds in his account, is travelling beyond his jurisdiction as the sources are out of his income outside the country. However, the fact remains that as far as the credit of this amount in the account of Sanika is concerned, the identity of the creditor, the creditworthiness of the creditor as well as the ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.36 genuineness of the transaction stands established. In my view, the amount has first appeared as a credit in the account of Bhupendra Surani as have other credits totalling to Rs 149 crore. The source of credit for this account has to be examined in the account of Bhupendra Surani and not in the hands of the appellant. 7.26 It is further noted that Shri Bhupendra Surani is assessed with the same AO and in the case of Bhupendra Surani, the issue of source of this credit in his NRE account has been examined by the AO. Mr Bhupendra Surani has refused to part with information with respect to this source citing his NRE status and the fact that the amount has been remitted from outside, thus challenging the jurisdiction of the AO to go into the source of this amount. The AO has treated the amount as having been earned out of business connection between his controlled entities and JBL and hence liable to tax in India. However, the AO has made the addition on a protective basis, having added the amount on a substantive basis in the hands of the appellant. While dealing with the assessment of Bhupendra Surani, it has been held that Shri Bhupendra Surani was liable to explain the source of credit entries into his NRE account irrespective of his residential status and hence, failure to provide the details of these credits led to failure of Mr Surani to discharge his onus under section 68 and as such the amount was liable to be taxed in his hands on a substantive basis. Hence, the addition of this amount has been confirmed on a substantive basis in the hands of Shri Bupendra Surani. 7.27 In light of the view taken in the case of Bhupendra Surani, the source of funds in the hands of Vallabh Surani stand explained and no further addition is required to be made on this account. The ground is decided accordingly. AO’s claim that the amount represents money owned by the company JB Diamonds being indirectly passed on to one of its Directors i.e. the appellant 7.28 This is a general hypothesis evolved by the Special Auditor on account of the failure on the part of the appellant group to provide the audited accounts of either JBL, the flagship company or the various controlled entities in Hong Kong with whom JBL had significant sales transactions and was a net creditor of these foreign entities to the extent of Rs 497 crore. Failure of these companies to meet this debt coupled with evidence that Mr Bhupendra Surani has routed huge funds in the hands of directors ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.37 of JBL which have been subsequently infused in JBL either as share capital or loan led to this inference. However, it is noted that in respect of addition of Rs 32.38 crore being amounts credited by cheque into the accounts of Sanika and addition of Rs 4.38 crore being amount deposited in cash in Sanika accounts have been made on account of failure of the appellant to discharge his onus under section 68 of the Act. As such, the issue of rotation of capital as described above is not relevant to present year and is not discussed. 7.29 The action of the AO and the submission made by the assessee has been examined. Itis noted that the various amounts totalling to Rs 32.38 crore credited in the ING Vyasa bank account of Sanika have their source in the NRE account of Bhupendra Surani. The AO has concluded that the said Sanika account is de- facto used by the appellant and on failure of the appellant to provide source of these funds which have been credited, they represent unexplained credit in his hands. The facts as laid out above however do not indicate such a proposition. Even if it is concluded that the said bank account has been utilized by the appellant for his own personal use, the credits of Rs 32.38 crore are undisputedly out of the NRE account of BhupendraSurani. This fact has been confirmed by Shri Bhupendra Surani in his statement recorded at the time of search as well as subsequently although he has not been forthcoming with the source of such amount. The reason for such transfer has been cited by him as the family move to shift various investments made through Sanika to his account. Addition of this amount can only be made in the account in which the amount is found to be unexplained. It is noted that the source of this amount remains unexplained in the hands of Bhupenra Surani and not in the hands of Vallabh Surani. As such, the amount is liable to be taxed in the hands of Bhupendra Surani on a substantive basis. It is noted that Shri Bhupendra Surani has not provided any source of funds for credit of this amount in his bank account, merely claiming that he had sufficient sources of such funds in the form of his operating companies in Hong Kong. The appellate orders of Bhupendra Surani are also being passed by me along with this order. In light of the facts of this case, it has been held in the case of Bhupendra Surani that he has failed to discharge the onus cast on him undersection 68 of the Act. There is no blanket waiver in Indian Income Tax Act against taxation of NRIs. They are liable to be taxed on their income which accrues or is deemed to accrue in India. Bhupendra Surani has significant ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.38 business connection and investments in India to generate such income. 7.30 Since the amount is held to be liable to tax in the hands of Bhupendra Surani on as substantive basis, the addition in the hands of Vallabh Surani is deleted. (C) Cash deposits made by the Appellant in various bank accounts of Sanika totalling to Rs 4.38 crore. 7.31 Perusal of bank accounts of Sanika indicated that substantial cash had been deposited in the its bank accounts, especially in the ING Vyasa bank account wherein cash totalling to Rs 3.18 crore had been deposited. In addition, cash had been deposited in other bank accounts. Full details of such deposits were available in the document found in the laptop of BhupendraSurani and seized at page 17 and 18 of the seized documents. Asper this document, the total of such cash deposit as evidenced from the ledger account of Sanika maintained by the appellant and seized as above amounted to Rs 4.36 crore and this amount was not reflected in the books of Sanika. Since the amounts were reflected in the ledger prepared by Vallabh Surani, the presumption was that the amounts had been deposited by the appellant from his unaccounted sources into these accounts. The AO has noted that the assessee accepted this factum and in his letter dated 18.10.2013, has stated that he had deposited this cash as a director of Sanika. The appellant has maintained that since the amount has been deposited in the bank account of Sanika, the onus is on Sanika to prove the source of this amount. Before me, it has also been claimed that the amount has been admitted by Sanika as being additional income of Sanika for AY 2007-08 and taxes have been paid on this amount by Sanika. It is also noted that while discussing the issue at para 8 of his order, the AO has mentioned the amount as Rs 4.38 crore. It is clear that the correct figure is Rs 4.36 crore as also mentioned in the documents (ledger) seized at page 17 from the laptop of Bhupendra Surani. Hence, the discussion henceforth will be with reference to the amount of Rs 4.36 crore. 7.32 The submission made by the assessee has been examined. Sufficient evidence has been marshalled by the AO to demonstrate that the transactions in the ING Vyasa account have been handled by the appellant. The issue has been concluded in favour of AO as far as the ING Vyasa account is concerned and it has been held that it was the responsibility of the appellant to explain all the entries appearing in this account. However, it is noted that the ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.39 cash deposits are not limited to only the ING Vyasa account but have been deposited in other bank accounts also. The appellant has admitted to having deposited cash in various bank accounts of Sanika which have been transferred to the J B Diamond account immediately. The total amount is Rs 4.36 crore, computed by the appellant himself in the seized papers referred above. Hence, the issue presently is not merely the deposit in ING Vyasa account but cash deposits in other accounts as well. It is noted that the issue has been deliberated by the AO while dealing with the assessment of Sanika for the same year with following observations: 5.8 Subsequently the assessee vide letter dated 21-01- 2013 made its submissions with regards to cash deposits in the bank accounts as stated above. The assessee has once again denied to have deposited the cash in the said bank accounts. As regards digital signature of its director Shri. Piyush Patel on the Form No. 32, it is stated that it is not signed by himself but seems it seems his digital signature has been affixed on the form without any authority from the Board of Directors of Sanika and as such the Form no. 32 filed by using his digital signature is not a valid documents and the same is bad in law. However, the assessee in the said letter has also made submissions which are reproduced hereunder: “However considering the facts of the case and to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigations, we hereby agree to pay taxes on cash deposits made in the bank account as informed to us thereon when demanded by the department with a result not to initiate any penalty and no prosecution should be launched against the company or any of its directors”. 5.9 In view of the above, the cash deposits of Rs. 4,36,00,000/- made in these three bank accounts pertaining to Sanika and discussed hereinabove are treated as Unexplained Cash U/s 68 of the I.T.Act,1961 in the hands of the assessee on substantive basis, since the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source thereof and ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.40 accordingly is added to the total income of the assessee . Penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act are initiated separately since the assessee has concealed income to the extent of Rs.4,36,00,000/- 7.33 It is noted that there has not been proper representation from the assessee side before CIT(A) during appellate proceedings in the case of Sanika and the CIT(A) passed following order while dealing with the issue: 4. The case was taken up for hearing and posted on several occasions. The case was posted for hearing on 07.04.2014, 21.05.2014, 27.05.2014, 07.07.2014, 10.08.2014, 04.09.2014, 25.09.2014, 28.10.2014, 12.11.2014, 28.01.2015 and 05.02.2015. On all the said dates neither did the party appear nor any authorised representative appeared; however routine letters of adjournment were filed on all the above stated dates of hearing stating that various documents relating to the case are readily not available. As a last chance, the case was fixed for hearing on27.02.2015. There was neither any appearance on the said date nor any letter seeking adjournment filed. Therefore, I am constrained to take up the appeal for disposal on merits. 5. It is observed from the assessment order that additions have been made under s. 68 on account of cash credits and under s. 69C on account of unexplained expenditure. The AO has stated that cash aggregating Rs. 4,36,00,000/- was seen deposited in the assessee’s account with ING Vysya Bank, State Bank of Indore and Vijaya Bank. The appellant denied before the AO having made any such cash deposits. However, the assessee made a submission before the AO that to buy peace of mind and to avoid protracted litigation, the company agrees to surrender the said sum and to pay taxes on the same on the condition that no penalty or prosecution is initiated against the company of any of its Directors. The said findings of the AO are found in Para 5.8 of the assessment order. In view of the said submission, the AO brought to tax the cash deposits of Rs. 4,36,00,000/- made in the three bank accounts belonging to the assessee company as ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.41 unexplained cash under s. 68. Penalty proceedings under s. 271(1)(c) were initiated separately. On a consideration of the said facts of the case, I decline to interfere with the action of the AO in this regard. As regards initiation of penalty proceedings, these are separate proceedings and therefore, the merits or demerits of the initiation are not gone into. The addition made in a sum of Rs. 4,36,00,000/- is hereby sustained. 7.34 In light of the order of the CIT(A) confirming substantive addition of this amount in the hands of Sanika, the addition of the same amount cannot be sustained in the hands of the appellant. It is noted that the assessee is the beneficiary of the amounts which had been received from JBL through which various assets were acquired and hence, when these very advances have been returned through deposit of cash, prima facie, the cash should be attributed to the hands of the assessee. However, on account of Sanika owning up the amount and paying taxes, a double taxation on the same amount cannot be imposed on the appellant. It was also been communicated that Sanika has made an applications under VSV @2020 and has paid due taxes on this amount to end litigation associated with the issues. Since Sanika has owned up the amount and paid taxes the addition does not survive in appellant hands. The ground is decided accordingly.” 51. Aggrieved with the above order, revenue is in appeal before us. 52. At the time of hearing, Ld.DR supported the order of the Assessing Officer and prayed to set-aside the order of the Ld.CIT(A). He brought to our notice the detailed findings of the Assessing Officer and findings of Ld.CIT(A). He objected to the findings of Ld.CIT(A) and prayed that the addition may be sustained in the hands of the assessee as he failed to substantiate the genuineness of the transactions. ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.42 53. On the other hand, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the Assessee and his brother Rajesh Surani were appointed as directors of Sanika Assets Management & Investment Pvt. Ltd (SANIKA) on 03.04.2006. Form 35 was digitally signed by Piyush Patel and the same was verified by Company Secretary of company. It may be further noted that there were a total five directors of SANIKA, namely-. 1. Piyush L Patel 2. Rajesh Patel 3. Vallabh Surani 4. Rajesh Surani 5. Jitendra Patel. 54. On 21.07.2008, the assessee along with the other directors received a notice for board meeting by speed post. Assessee and his brother Rajesh Surani opened a bank account in ING Vysya Bank in name of Sanika Assets Management & Investment Pvt. Ltd. as capacity of director, as per the board resolution of the Company. Cash amounting to ₹.4.38 Crore was deposited by the assessee in the capacity of Director of Sanika. Besides, ₹.32,38,00,000/- received from Bhupendra Surani from his NRE Accounts were also deposited in the bank account ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.43 of Sanika. The above mentioned amounts were transferred to J.B.Diamond. No cash was deposited in the account of Bhupendra Surani (or Vallabh Surani) while transferring the amount to Sanika. While completing the assessment, the Assessing Officer added the said amounts (₹.4.38 Crores + ₹.32.38 Crores) in hand of the assessee substantively. Sanika declared and paid tax on ₹.4.38 Crore under Vivad se Vishvas scheme and same is noted by Ld.CIT(A) in his order. 55. During the appellate proceedings the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the addition of ₹.32.38 crores made in the hands of the assessee. He added the said amount in the hands of Bhupendra Surani. 56. Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that as per the bank statement of Sanika the said amount of ₹.32.38 crores was received from Bhupendra Surani and that Bhupendra Surani had remitted it through proper banking channel from his NRE account. In respect of bank account opening, it was submitted that during the assessment proceedings statement of Piyush Patel was recorded on 27.09.2013 with regard to opening of bank account. In his answers to question no.3 and question 4 he has deliberated upon the said account. The Assessing ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.44 Officer has made addition to the income of the assessee considering the statement of Piyush Patel. 57. Further, Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the statement of Piyush Patel is self-contradictory. He had digitally filed Form 32 and had verified it. Not only this, the same was uploaded on MCA website by Piyush Patel. He was appointed director of Sanika in the year 2006. He was aware of all the activities of the company. So his lodging a complaint in the year 2013 was a well thought plan to blame the assessee for the omissions and commissions committed by him. 58. Further it was submitted with regard to statement of Bank Manager Kavita Poojary were recorded during the assessment proceedings. The Assessing Officer has used her statement against the assessee. But, her answers to question no.03 and question no. 06 clearly show that her statements are also self-incriminating and hence not reliable. In her statement she mentioned that bank closure letter signed by Shri Piyush Patel and Shri Rajesh Patel on 21.11.2008 which is against the statement of Shri Piyush Patel. Shri Piyush Patel given statement that he came to know from department about opening of ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.45 bank account. It was submitted that search was conducted on 29.10.2010 and statement was recorded on 27.09.2013 and closure letter signed on 21.11.2008. He brought to our notice statement of Kavita Patel enclosed at Page No. 136 to 138 of Paper Book 02 and statement of Piyush Patel enclosed at Page No. 133 to 134 of Paper Book 02. 59. He submitted that Sanika has paid tax on ₹. 4.38 crores while opting for Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. He submitted the copy of the settlement made under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme by filing various Forms (i.e., Form Nos. 1 to 5). It is very surprising that while Sanika accepted part of transaction of bank account and has disowned the other part of the same bank statement. Therefore, it was submitted that transaction appearing in the bank statement of Sanika should not be added in the hands of the assessee. 60. Further, he submitted that as per the settled principles of tax jurisprudence a bank statement should be read as a whole if it has to be relied upon. It cannot be read only to the extent it is advantageous to the Revenue and not otherwise in case it is disadvantageous to the ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.46 Revenue. In other words, a part of a document cannot be relied upon by the Department while discarding the other part. The transaction of ₹.32.38 Crores cannot be insisted upon when the transaction of ₹.4.38 Crores was believed to be proper. He submitted that the Hon’ble Courts have times and again held that documents should be read as a whole that they cannot be read in bits and parts to suit the convenience of one or other party. 61. He further submitted that the Ld. AO/DR has cherry picked the part of the document on one hand and fastened tax liability to the assessee on the other hand he has ignored the portion which goes against him. In this regard he relied on the case of ACIT v. Satyapal Wassan [2007] 295 ITR (A.T.) 352 (ITAT [Jabl]) 62. Considered the rival submissions and material placed on record, we observe from the records submitted before us that during search proceedings in the group concerns of JB Group, where assesses is one of the key person, certain transactions were noticed and this includes bank transactions of ING Vysya Bank in the name of Sanika, in which they have noticed that this account was opened by the assessee ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.47 alongwith the other director. They also observed that this account was utilized to route loan transaction with Bhupendra Surani, who has transferred an amount of ₹.32.38 crores to buy certain assets and also the funds of JB Group were deposited to the extent of ₹.4.38 crores. These transactions were unearthed only during the search proceedings. The management of Sanika has disowned the same and since the assessee and other director has opened the above said bank account, the assessee has to explain the above transactions, which the assessee could not substantiate the same during assessment proceedings. Considering the complexities in the transactions involved, the Assessing Officer found it convenient and easy to make addition in the hands of the assessee. 63. In the appellate proceedings, the Ld CIT(A) has verified the whole transactions and found that the loan amount was transferred from Bhupendra Surani and not from the assessee, hence he directed the Assessing Officer to make substantial addition in the case of Bhupendra Surani and deleted the addition in the hands of the assessee. After careful consideration, we observe that the revenue also has not brought any record to submit before us that the above loan transaction belongs ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.48 to the assessee and not came from Mr. Bhupendra Surani. We observe from the bank statement of ING Vysya Bank, the funds were received from Bhupendra Surani and forwarded to JB Jewellers and the same account was used to square off the transaction between Bhupendra Surani and JB Jewellers. In the absence of any evidence to show that the amount transferred belongs to the assessee, we are inclined to accept the findings of the Ld CIT(A) and the findings given by Ld CIT(A) is based on the material available on record. Therefore, we do not see any reason to uphold the findings of Assessing Officer. Accordingly, the relevant grounds raised by the revenue are dismissed. 64. With regard to the other addition made in the hands of the assessee of ₹.4.38 crores, it was brought to our notice that this transaction was owned by Sanika and declared the same in the Voluntary declaration scheme under Vivad Se Vishwas scheme and paid the due tax. Since the bank deposit made in the ING Vysya bank was owned by Sanika, which they denied earlier and declared the same as income and paid the due tax, there is no need to make further addition in the hands of the assessee even though the assessee has failed to prove the same as not belongs to him. Therefore, we do not see any ITA No. 498/MUM/2021 C.O.No. 164/MUM/2021 Vallabhbhai Parsottambhai Surani Page No.49 reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld CIT(A) and accordingly, the ground raised by the revenue is dismissed. 65. In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed 66. To sum-up, appeal filed by the Revenue as well as cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 13 th September, 2023 Sd/- Sd/- (KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL) (S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai / Dated 13/09/2023 Giridhar, Sr.PS Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai 5. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER (Asstt. Registrar) ITAT, Mum