ASST CIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. PARSHVA ENTERPRISES, MUMBAI

ITA 5288/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 132 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2391 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 11 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-07-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 31-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RADHA KATYAL NARANGDR
• Assessee Lawyers: YOGESH THARAR
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Unexplained expenditure; Principle of natural justice; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 131; 145

Judgement Text

1 , , , , INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CBENCH M UMBAI , , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ./I.T.A./5288/MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 ACIT-25(2) ROOM NO.108, 1 ST FLOOR BLDG.NO.C-11 PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA (E),MUMBAI-400 051. VS. M/S. PARSHVA ENTERPRISES 302, GAJLAXMI BABHAI, L.T. ROAD BORIVALI(W),MUMBAI-400 092. PAN:AAFFP 9598 K ./I.T.A./5436/MUM/2013, /ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S. PARSHVA ENTERPRISES MUMBAI-400 092. VS. ACIT-25(2).MUMBAI-400 051. PAN:AAFFP 9598 K ( /APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY: MS. RADHA KATYAL NARANG-DR ASSESSEE BY: SHRI YOGESH THAR-AR / DATE OF HEARING: 30.06.2016 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:22.07.2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DT.16.5.13 OF CIT(A)-35, MUMB AI THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO),HAVE FILED CROSS APPEALS FOR THE YEAR U NDER CONSIDERATION.ASSESSEE-FIRM ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF RESELLING OF IRON AND STEEL FILE D ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 28.9.10 DECLARING TOTAL INCOME AT RS.42.45LAKHS.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,ON 05. 02.13,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 1.22CRORES. 2. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS,THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD DEBITED PURCHASE OF 25.25 CRORESORES.HE DIRECTED IT TO FILE DETAILS OF PURCHASES,TIN AND NAMES AND ADDRESSED OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM PURCHASES WERE MADE.IN REPLY TO NOTICE IT FILED DETAILS. MEANWHILE,THE AO RECEIVED INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM SALES TAX DEP ARTMENT WHICH WAS ALSO AVAILABLE ON THE OFFICIAL WEBSITE OF SALES TAX DEPARTMENT REGARD ING SUSPICIOUS PARTIES WHO WERE PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WITHOUT DOING ANY ACTUAL BUSI NESS.ON GOING THROUGH THE DETAILS SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE HE FOUND THAT M/S.NIDDHI SH IMPEX PVT. LTD.(NIPL),M/S. S.M. TRADING CO.(SMTC)AND M/S. TULSIANI TRADING PVT. LTD . (TTPL) WERE AMONG THE LIST OF THE BOGUS PARTIES FROM WHOM THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE PURC HASES.HE FURTHER FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CLAIMED TO HAVE PURCHASED GOODS WORTH RS.80.09 LAKHS FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED THREE PARTIES.HE OBSERVED THAT THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT H AD CONDUCTED INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES IN 5288 & 5436/M/13-PARSHVA 2 EACH OF THE HAWALA PARTIES AND HAD CONCLUSIVELY PRO VED THAT THOSE PARTIES WERE ENGAGED IN ACTIVITY OF PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY. T HE AO RECEIVED AFFIDAVIT CUM DECLARATION DATED 05.08.2011 OF KETAN SHAH,PROPRIETOR OF SMTC, STATEMENT DTD. 11.08.2008 OF R.B. SHAH OF NIPL,AFFIDAVIT OF N. K. SHAH OF TTPL,DT. 05 .08.2011.HE PROVIDED THE COPIES OF ABOVE DOCUMENTS TO THE ASSESSEE.HE ISSUED SUMMONS T O U/S. 131 OF THE ACT ON 14.12.2012 AND DEPUTED AN INSPECTOR TO OBTAIN GENUINENESS OF T HE PURCHASE.VIDE HIS REPORT,DT.17.12.2012 THE INSPECTOR STATED THAT CONCERNS MENTIONED IN EAR LIER PART OF THE PARAGRAPH WERE NOT EXISTING AT THE GIVEN ADDRESSES.THE AO ISSUED NOTICE U/S.133 (6) OF THE ACT TO THE ABOVE MENTIONED THREE PARTIES.THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES RETURNED THE N OTICE WITH THE REMARK NOT KNOWN IN THE CASE OF NIPL AND LEFT IN THE CASE OF TTPL HE ISSU ED A SHOW CAUSE NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE ON 11.01.2013 ASKING IT AS TO WHY THE ALLEGED PURCHASE S FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED THREE PARTIES AGGREGATING TO RS.80.09 LAKHS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AND ADDED BACK TO ITS RETURNED INCOME.THE ASSESSEE ,VIDE ITS LETTER DT. 31.03.2013,SUBMITTED COPIES OF BILLS AND DELIVERY CHALLANS ALONG WITH BANK STATEME NT OF THE THREE PARTIES. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE,T HE AO OBSERVED THAT SUBMISSION MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE NOT ACCEPTABLE, THAT KETAN SHAH O F SMTC HAD ACCEPTED IN HIS AFFIDAVIT ON DECLARATION THAT HE DID NOT SELL OR PURCHASE GOODS, THAT N.K. SHAH IN HIS STATED ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS DIRECTOR FOR NAME SAKE ONLY AND THAT ALL OTH ER WORK WAS LOOKED AFTER BY R.B. SHAH THAT NK SHAH ALSO ADMITTED THAT TTPL AND NIPL WERE ISSUI NG BOGUS BILL,THAT RB SHAH IN HIS DEPOSITION HAD ACCEPTED THAT HE WAS ISSUING BOGUS B ILLS, THAT NK SHAH HAD ALSO ACCEPTED OF ISSUING BOGUS BILLS,THAT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PURCH ASE ANY GOODS FROM THE ABOVE MENTIONED PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY AGGREGATE OF THE ABOVE MENTION ED PURCHASES TOTALING TO RS.80.09 LAKHS WAS TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE AS PER THE P ROVISIONS OF SECTION 69C OF THE ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREFE RRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPEALLATE AUTHORITY(FAA).BEFORE HIM,IT ARGUED THAT THE AO HAD PASSED THE ORDER WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY IT AND HAD VIOL ATED THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD MADE A REQUEST FROM CROSS EXAMINAT ION OF PARTIES WHOSE STATEMENTS AND AFFIDAVITS WERE FURNISHED ALONG WITH THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE,THAT DETAILS OF STOCK TALLY WERE FURNISHED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT I T HAD RECEIVED GOODS FROM THE NIPL, SMTC AND TTPL IN ITS WAREHOUSE FOR WHICH IT HAD PAI D TRANSPORT AS WELL AS LOADING /UN- LOADING CHARGES,THAT THE PAYMENTS HAD BEEN MADE THR OUGH A/C. PAYEE CHEQUES AFTER DEDUCTING TAX AT SOURCE, THAT THE GOODS SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SHOWN IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, THAT 5288 & 5436/M/13-PARSHVA 3 PROFIT ARISING OUT OF SUCH TRANSACTION WAS OFFERED TO TAX BY THE ASSESSEE, THAT THERE WAS NO DISPUTE IN THE AMOUNT OR GENUINENESS OF THE SALES M ADE BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT IT HAD PRODUCED COPIES OF STOCK STATEMENT CONFIRMING THE INWARD MOV EMENT OF GOODS AND COPIES OF INWARD MOVEMENT OF THE TRANSPORT, THAT SALES AS WELL AS TH E STOCK STATEMENTS HAD NOT BEEN REJECTED BY THE AO, THAT THERE COULD NOT BE ANY SALE WITHOUT CO RRESPONDING PURCHASES.THE ASSESSEE REFERRED TO CASES OF BALAJI TEXTILE INDUSTRIES P. L TD.(49ITD177),NIKUNJ EXIM ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (ITA5604 OF 2010), FORTUNE STEEL INDUSTRIES(IT A/2894-95/ MUM/ 2007),THAT THE STATEMENTS RECORDED BY THE SALES TAX AUTHORIZES WER E TAKEN BEHIND THE BACK OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT GIVING IT ANY CHANCE TO REVERT THE STATEMEN T BY WAY OF CROSS EXAMINATION, THAT THE AO WITHOUT AFFORDING AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMIN ATION HAD MADE THE ADDITION, THAT THE AO HAD RELIED UPON THE STATEMENTS OF THE THREE SUPP LIERS OF GOODS, THAT THE ONUS WAS ON HIM TO PRODUCE THE PARTIES, THAT THE ADDITIONS BASED ON THE OBSERVATION ON THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED, THAT THE GP RATIO OVER THE YEARS HAD REMAINED MORE OR LESS SAME, THAT IN CASE THE ADDITION TO THE EXTENT OF RS.80.09 LAKH S WAS MADE THE GP RATIO WOULD GO UP TO 7.38% AS AGAINST GP RANGE OF 4.29% TO 5.5%. 3.1. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER,THE FAA HELD THAT THE PURCHASES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WERE SUPPO RTED BY THIRD PARTY EVIDENCES SUCH AS TRANSPORT BILLS AND UNLOADING BILLS, THAT THE PAYME NT FOR THE PURCHASES WERE MADE THROUGH A/C. PAYEE CHEQUES THAT WERE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BANK STATEMENT, THAT THE AO HAD NOT REJECTED ANY OF THE EVIDENCES, THAT THE STOCK SHEET S SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY REFLECTED THE INWARD MOVEMENT OF GOODS IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUN T, THAT NO DISCREPANCY HAS BEEN FOUND IN THE SALES OR CLOSING STOCK OF THE ASSESSEE .REFE RRING TO THE CASE OF BALAJI TEXTILES INDUSTRIES (SUPRA),HE HELD THAT NO SALES WERE LIKELY TO BE EFF ECTED IF THERE WERE NO PURCHASES. HE ALSO REFERRED TO THE CASE OF FORTUNE STEEL INDUSTRIES(SU PRA).HE FURTHER HELD THAT THE AFFIDAVIT / STATEMENTS GIVEN BY THE SUPPLIER BEFORE THE ST AUTH ORITIES PROVIDED THE ADDRESSES OF THOSE PARTIES, THAT IF THE SUMMONS/NOTICES ISSUED BY THE AO WERE RETURNED WITH THE REMARK LEFT/ UNKNOWN NO ADVERSE INFERENCE COULD BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS DENIED AN OPPORTUNITY TO CROSS EXAMINE THE SUPPLIER S, THAT THE AFFIDAVIT HAD NO EVIDENTIAL VALUE.FINALLY ,HE HELD THAT THE DISALLOWANCE MADE B Y THE AO ON THE GROUND OF BOGUS PURCHASES COULD NOT BE SUSTAINED IN TOTO. 5288 & 5436/M/13-PARSHVA 4 3.2. HE FURTHER HELD THAT AS PER HIS DIRECTION THE ASSES SEE HAD FILED THE GP RATIO FOR THE PREVIOUS THREE AY.S. REFERRING TO THE GP OF 5.5% , 4.93% AND 4.49% FOR THE AY.S.2007- 08,08-09 AND 09-10 RESPECTIVELY HE HELD THAT DURING THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GP RATIO @4.29%.HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN THE REASON FOR FALL IN GP RATIO. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT GP RATIO HAD FAL LEN BECAUSE OF INCRORESEASE IN TURNOVER.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE , THE FAA HELD THAT ASSESSEE WAS A TRADER IN THE BUSINESS OF IRON AND STEEL, THAT IN T HE CASE OF FORTUNE STEEL INDUSTRIES (SUPRA) THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GP @ 16.13% IN THE AY 03-04 AND 10.81% IN THE IMMEDIATE PRECEEDING YEAR, THAT THE TRIBUNAL DID NOT CONFIRM ANY ADDITIO N ON THE GP RATIO, THAT STILL IT WAS AN INDICATION THAT GP MARGIN IN THE TRADING BUSINESS O F IRON & STEEL WOULD BE HIGHER THAN THE GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE. CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN GP @4.29%,THE FAA REFERRED TO THE CASE OF FORTUNE STEEL INDUSTRIE S (SUPRA) AND HELD THAT IT WOULD NOT BE UNREASONABLE TO ESTIMATE THE GP RATIO @5.5% FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION.HE REJECTED BOOK RESULTS OF THE ASSESSEE BY INVOKING THE PROVIS IONS OF SECTION 145 OF THE ACT. HE HELD THAT GP @5.5% ON THE TURNOVER OF 25.89 CRORES WOULD BE R S.1.42CRORES. THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE GP WORKED OUT TO 1.42 CRORES AND THE GP SHOWN B Y THE ASSESSEE AT 1.11 CRORES WAS ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE.AS A RESULT THE ADDITION MADE THE AO WAS RESTRICTED TO RS.39.19 LAKHS AND THE BALANCE ADDITION OF RS.48.90 LAKHS WAS DELETED . 4. BEFORE US,THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE(AR)ARGUED T HAT THE FAA COULD NOT MAKE AN ENHANCEMENT TO INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY INTRODUCIN G A NEW SOURCE OF INCOME, THAT WHERE QUANTITATIVE DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BOOKS OF ACCOUN T COULD NOT BE REJECTED, THAT MERE REDUCTION IN GROSS PROFIT FROM THE PRECEEDING YEAR COULD NOT BE A GROUND FOR REJECTION OF BOOKS OF ACCOUNT U/S. 145 OF THE ACT ESPECIALLY WHE N STOCK REGISTER WAS MAINTAINED, THAT THE ALLEGED BOGUS PURCHASES WERE OF RS.80.00 LAKHS ONLY WHEREAS THE FAA HAD APPLIED THE GP FOR THE ENTIRE PURCHASES.ALTERNATIVELY, IT WAS ARGU ED THAT GP @ 5.5% SHOULD BE RESTRICTED TO BOGUS PURCHASES ONLY.THE AR RELIED UPON THE CASES OF M.K. BROTHERS (30 TAXMAN 547) (163ITR249); RAJEEV G. KALATHIL (5T1 TAXMANN.COM 51 4); (67 SOT 52)(MUM TRIB.); RAMESH KUMAR & CO.(ITA NO.2959/MUM/2014 DATED 28.11.2014 A .Y. 2010-11). 4.1. THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) SUPPORTED THE O RDER OF THE FAA TO THE EXTENT OF THE ADDITION SUSTAINED BY THE FAA.WITH REGARD TO THE AD DITION DELETED BY HIM,THE DR ARGUED THAT ASSESSEE HAD NOT FILED CONFIRMATION FROM THE SELLER S, IN PURCHASE BILLS DETAILS OF THE GOODS 5288 & 5436/M/13-PARSHVA 5 WERE NOT AVAILABLE,THAT THE EXPENDITURE MADE BY THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT EXPLAINED DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THAT THE AO PROVIDED REASON ABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE.THE AR REFERRED TO PAGES-159,162-164 OF TH E PB AND STATED THAT AFFIDAVITS/ STATEMENTS OF DILIP SHANTILAL SHAH, M.K.SHAH/K.G.SH AH/ R.B.SHAH DID NOT NAME THE ASSESSEE TO WHOM THE BOGUS BILLS WERE ISSUED, THAT PAYMENTS WERE MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THE AO HAD NOT DOUBTED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SALES MAD E BY THE ASSESSEE ,THAT IT HAD ASKED FOR CROSS EXAMINATION(PG.86-88 OF THE PB),BUT THE AO DI D NOT ALLOW HIM TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PARTIES. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD GIVEN PARTIAL RELIEF TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT H E HAD APPLIED THE PROVISION OF SECTION 145(3) OF THE ACT,THAT APPLYING THE GP OF THE EARLI ER YEAR, PARTIAL ADDITION WAS UPHELD, THAT THE AO HAD NOT DISTURBED THE GP SHOWN BY THE ASSESSEE,T HAT HE HAD NOT ISSUED NOTICE AS ENVISAGED BY PROVISIONS OF SECTION 251(2) OF THE AC T,THAT FOR APPLYING THE EARLIER YEARS GP THE FAA HAD NOT GIVEN ANY REASONABLE BASIS.IN OUR OPINI ON,ENHANCING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT ISSUING A NOTICE U/S 251(2) WAS BAD IN LAW. SECONDLY, THE ADOPTION OF GP AT 5.5% FOR THE ENTIRE PURCHASE CANNOT BE ENDORSED IN OUR OPINI ON THE ORDER OF FORTUNE STEEL INDUSTRIES RELIED UPON BY FAA DOES NOT JUSTIFY THE ADDITION.TH EREFORE,REVERSING HIS ORDER,WE DECIDE THE EFFECTIVE GOA IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE . 5.1. AS FAR AS APPEAL OF THE AO IS CONCERNED,WE WANT TO HOLD THAT THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY, THAT THE AO HA D ACCEPTED SALES MADE BY THE ASSESSEE,THAT WITHOUT PURCHASES THERE COULD NOT BE ANY SALES,THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PRODUCED DELIVERY CHALLANS,BANK STATEMENT,STOCK REGISTER DURING THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS.ALL THESE DOCUMENTS ALONG WITH THE UNDOUBTED SALES CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE.THE ONLY BASIS FOR MAKING THE ADDITION WAS THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE W EBSITE OF THE SALES TAX DEPARTMENT. IN OUR OPINION IT WAS A GOOD LEAD TO START INVESTIGATION,B UT IN ITSELF IT WAS NOT AN EVIDENCE TO MAKE THE ADDITION.IT IS ALSO A FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HA D ASKED FOR CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES, WHOSE STATEMENTS WERE RELIED UPON BY THE AO. IT IS A MATTER OF RECORD THAT REQUEST MADE FOR CROSS EXAMINATION WAS NOT HEEDED TO.THEREFORE,ONLY ON THE BASIS OF NON OBSERVATION OF PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO COULD BE DELETED. HOWEVER,OTHER FACTORS ARE THERE TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FAA,AS DISCUSSED EARLIER. 5288 & 5436/M/13-PARSHVA 6 5.2. HERE,WE WOULD LIKE TO DISCUSS THE APPLICABILITY OF SECTION 69C ALSO,THAT HAS BEEN INVOKED BY THE AO WHILE MAKING THE ADDITIONS. IT IS SAID TH AT SECTION 69C OF THE ACT STIPULATES THAT THE DEEMED INCOME(WHERE THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE I S NOT EXPLAINED)CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS A DEDUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME.IN OTHER WORDS,E VEN IF THE ASSESSEE CAN JUSTIFY THE EXPEN -DITURE,BUT CANNOT EXPLAIN ITS SOURCE,THE SECTION D ISENTITLES HIM FROM CLAIMING A DEDUCTION ON THE DEEMED INCOME UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME.IN SHORT ,WHAT IS POSTULATED IN SECTION 69C OF THE ACT IS THAT FIRST OF ALL THE ASSESSEE MUST HAVE INCURRED THAT EXPENDITURE AND THEREAFTER, IF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE S OURCE OF SUCH EXPENDITURE IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY BY THE AO,THE AMOUNT MAY BE ADDED TO H IS INCOME.IN THE CASE BEFORE US,EXPENDITURE HAS BEEN INCURRED FOR PURCHASING GOO DS AND THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCES.IT IS NOT THE CASE OF EXPENDITURE THAT WAS INCURRED BY THE IT WAS NOT ENTERED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS.THE AO HAS NOWHERE HELD THAT AS T O HOW THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE ABOUT THE SOURCE OF THE EXPENDITURE WAS UN SATISFACTORY.THEREFORE,IN OUR OPINION,THE AO HAD WRONGLY INVOKED THE PROVISIONS OF THE SECTIO N 69C OF THE ACT.CONSIDERING THE ABOVE, EFFECTIVE GOA,RAISED BY THE AO IS DECIDED AGAINST H IM. AS A RESULT,APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALL OWED AND APPEAL OF THE AO IS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED I N THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND JULY, 2016. 22 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( ( ( ( /PAWAN SINGH) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 22.07.2016. JV.SR.PS. / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / 5. DR G BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / , , . . 6. GUARD FILE/ //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.