ACIT 25(2), MUMBAI V. H.K. PUJARA BUILDERS, MUMBAI

ITA 5307/MUM/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 111 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3835 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-02-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 14-08-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SACHCHIDANAND DUBE
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Accommodation entries; Bogus loan
• Section: 133(6); 153; 69; 132; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES H , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) ITA NO. 5307 /MUM/20 1 7 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 THE ACIT 25(2), R. NO. 508, C - 10, 5 TH FLOOR, PRATYAKSHA KAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA C OMPLEX, BANDRA (E), MUMBAI - 400051 VS. M/S H.K. PUJARA BUILDERS, 11, SWASTIK PLAZA, V.L. MARG, JUHU SCHEME, VILE PARLE (W), MUMBAI - 400049 PAN: AAAFH7230H (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI SACHCHIDANAND DUBE (DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI PRAK ASH JOTWANI (A R) DATE OF HEARING: 07 /01/2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 21 / 0 2 /2020 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 20.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) (FOR SHORT THE CIT (A) - 37 , MUMBAI , FOR THE A S S ESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 09 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ALLOWED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143 (3) R.W.S. 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUND S : 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INC OME - TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS WITHOUT APPRECIATING THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT PROVE THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS AS WELL AS NON - PRODUCTION OF THE LENDERS BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 2 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THAT THE ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE DGIT (INV.), WITH REGARD TO BO GUS LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE FROM SHRI PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN GROUP. 3. AT THE OUTSET, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE ORDER OF THE ITAT, MUMBAI IN ASSESSEES OWN CA SE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08. SINCE, THERE IS NO CHANGE OF FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE AND THE ITAT HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY ALLOWED THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AND DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT SINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE DECISION OF THE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL , THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE REVENUES APPEAL. IN VIEW OF THE AFORESAID FACTS , THE LD. COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE MAY BE DISMISSED. 4. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (DR) SUPPORTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO ESTABLISH THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION, THE LD. CIT ( A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO REJECTING THE CLAIM OF UNSECURED LOAN TAKEN BY THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. DR HOWEVER DID NOT POINT OUT ANY MATERIAL CHANGE IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PAR TIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 RELIED UPON BY THE LD. COUNSEL. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION DECLARING THE TOTAL INCOME OF RS. 1,84,13,090/ - . THE AO PASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER U/S 143 (3) OF THE ACT ACCEPTING THE RETURN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. SUBSEQUENTLY, ON THE BASIS OF INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM OF THE O FFICE OF DIT (INV.), MUMBAI , THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN THE CASE OF SHRI PRAVIN JAIN BY THE 3 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 INVESTIGATION WING , MUMBAI, IT CAME TO THE LIGHT THAT PRAVIN JAIN WAS ENGAGED IN PROVIDING BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES AND DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION THE PRESENT ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED BOGUS LOANS ENTRIES FROM THE PARTIES CONTROLLED BY SH. PRAVIN JAIN. ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INFORMATION, THE CASE WAS REOPENED AND THE AO DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 6,90,13,090/ - AFTER MAKING ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,00,000/ - U/S 68 OF THE ACT HOLDING THAT THE UNSECURED LOAN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE AS BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OBTAINED FROM SH. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND ASSOCIATE CONCERN I.E. ANSH MERCHANDISE PVT. LTD. (NEW PLANET TRADING CO. PVT. LTD.), CASPAR ENTERPRISES PVT. LTD. (OSTWAL TRADING PVT. LTD.), MOHIT INTERNATIONAL (PROPRIETOR M/S NILESH F PARMAR) AND NATASHA ENTERPRISES (PROPRIETOR ROSE SUDHIR PADBIDRI) . IN THE FIRST APPEAL, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE AD DITION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN THE ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE AY 2007 - 08 AND OTHER CASES . THE OPERATIVE PART OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) READS AS UNDER: - 5.15 THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS COVERED BY THE DECISI ON OF ITAT, BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SATISH N. DOSHI HUF VS. ITO, WARD 21 (2) (4), MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 2329/MUM/2009 AND THE DECISION OF ITAT, E BENCH, MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF SHAF BROADCAST PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT CIR - 9(3), MUMBAI IN ITA NO. 1819/MUM/2012. BOTH THE CASES RELATES TO RE - OPENING OF ASSESSMENT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENTS OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSI AND MR. I.C. CHOKSI AND ASSOCIATED BROKERAGE COMPANIES. THE HONBLE ITAT ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE FINDINGS MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDERS HAS REACHED TO THE CO NCLUSION THAT THE RE - OPENING ITSELF IS BAD IN LAW AND QUASHED THE ORDERS ACCORDINGLY. THE RATIO OF THESE JUDGMENTS IS APPLICABLE TO THE FACTS OF THE INSTANT CASE. THIS IS CONFIRMED BY THE DELHI BENCH OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF DCIT V. NIPUN BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS P. LTD. (ITA NO. 557/DEL/2010) WHEREIN THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED THE REVENUE APPEAL BY HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS PRIMARILY RELIED UPON THE REPORT OF THE INVESTIGATION WING WHICH CANNOT CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT ASSES SEES OWN MONEY WAS INVESTED IN THE FORM OF SHARE APPLICATION MONEY. 4 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 FURTHER, IT MAY BE POINTED OUT THAT SECTION 68 UNDER WHICH THE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER READS AS UNDER: - 68. WHERE ANY SUM IS FOUND CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF AN ASS ESSEE MAINTAINED FOR ANY PREVIOUS YEAR, AND THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE THEREOF OR THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY HIM IS NOT, IN THE OPINION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER, SATISFACTORY, THE SUM SO CREDITED MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. 5.16 THE PHRASEOLOGY OF SECTION 68 IS CLEAR. THE LEGISLATURE HAS LAID DOWN THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF A SATISFACTORY EXPLANATION, THE UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT MAY BE CHARGED TO INCOME - TAX AS THE INCO ME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR. IN THIS, CASE THE LEGISLATIVE MANDATE IS NOT IN TERMS OF THE WORDS 'SHALL BE CHARGED TO INCOME - TAX AS THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE OF THAT PREVIOUS YEAR'. THE SUPREME COURT WHILE INTERPRETING SIMILAR PHRASEOLOGY USED IN SECTION 69 HAS HELD THAT IN CREATING THE LEGAL FICTION THE PHRASEOLOGY EMPLOYS THE WORD 'MAY' AND NOT 'SHALL .THUS THE UNSATISFACTORINESS OF THE EXPLANATION DOES NOT AND NEED NOT AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN DEEMING THE AMOUNT CREDITED IN THE BOOKS AS THE I NCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS HELD BY THE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. SMT. P. K. NOORJAHAN [1999] 237 ITR 570. 5.17 THE HON'BLE ITAT MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF ITO VS ANAND SHELTERS PVT.LTD. (2012) 20 TAXMANN.COM 153 HAS ENUMERATED CERTAIN PRINCIPLES WHICH WOULD BE EXTREMELY USEFUL IN UNDERSTANDING THE ISSUE IN HAND. IT HAS BEEN STATED IN THE SAID JUDGMENT THAT OVER THE YEARS, LAW REGARDING CASH CREDITS HAVE EVOLVED AND HAS TAKEN A DEFINITE SHAPE. A FEW ASPECTS OF LAW U/S 68 CAN BE ENUMERATED. 1. SEC. 68 CAN BE INVOKED WHEN THERE IS A CREDIT OF AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE, SUCH CREDIT IS A SUM OF MONEY DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR AND EITHER THE ASSESSEE OFFERS NO EXPLANATION ABOUT THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF SUCH CREDITS OR THE 5 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 EXPLANATION BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE OPINION OF THE AO IS NOT SATISFACTORY. 2. THE OPINION OF THE AO FOR NOT ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AS NOT SATISFACTORY IS REQUIRED TO BE FORMED OBJECTIVELY WITH REFERENCE TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. 3.COURTS ARE OF THE FIRM VIEW THAT THE EVIDENCE PRODUCED BY THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE BRUSHED ASIDE IN A CASUAL MANNER. 4. THE ONUS OF PROOF IS NOT STATIC. THE INITIAL BURDEN LIES ON THE ASSESSEE TO ESTABLISH THE IDENTITY AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE CREDITOR AS WELL AS THE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION. 5. THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY EITHER FURNISHING THEIR PANS OR ASSESSMENT ORDERS. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION CAN BE PROVED IF IT WAS SHOWN THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED BY A/C PAYEE CHEQUE. CRE DITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDER CAN BE ESTABLISHED BY ATTENDING CIRCUMSTANCES. 5.18 DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE APPELLANT HAS SUBMITTED LOAN CONFIRMATIONS, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGEMENT AND COPIES OF THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ANSH MERCHANDISE P. LTD., CASPE R ENTERPRISES P. LTD., MOHIT INTERNATIONAL AND MATASHA ENTERPRISES. IF THE ABOVE REFERRED PRINCIPLES ARE APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION, IT CAN BE SEEN THAT THE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED AS THEY ARE HAVING PAN AN D THEY ARE REGULARLY FILING RETURN OF INCOME. THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION IS ESTABLISHED FROM THE FACT THAT BOTH THE ACCEPTANCE AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN HAS BEEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE LENDERS CAN BE ESTABLISHED FROM THE STATEMENTS. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE A.O. DID NOT AT ALL DISCUSS THE MERIT OF SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT AND CASUALLY BRUSHED ASIDE THE DETAILS FILED BY THE APPELLANT. FURTHER, THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT HE HAD FURNISHED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAI LS DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND ACCORDINGLY HAD DULY DISCHARGED ITS ONUS BY FURNISHING THE IDENTITY AND ADDRESS OF THE PARTIES. FURTHER THE SOURCE OF RECEIPT THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS TO SUBSTANTIATE THE GENUINENESS OF THE CREDITS REF LECTED IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. 6 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 5.19 AFTER CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF FACTS, RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, THE APPLICABLE LAW AND ON THE BASIS OF DISCUSSION MENTIONED ABOVE, I FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENT OF THE APPELLANT AND DRAW STRENGTH FROM THE JUDICIAL DECISION, HAVE COME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT NATURE AND SOURCE OF LOAN TRANSACTIONS OF RS.5,00,00,000/ - STANDS EXPLAINED. CONSEQUENTLY, ADDITION MADE BY A.O. CANNOT BE SUSTAINED. THEREFORE, A.O. IS DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS,5,00,00,000/ - . THIS GROUND OF A PPEAL IS ALLOWED. 6. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE ITA NO. 930/MUM/2017 FOR THE AY 2007 - 08. IN THE SAID CASE, THE ONLY ISSUE RAISED BY THE REVENUE WAS THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAD WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS ENTRIES . THE ASSESSEE HAD RECEIVED UNSECURED LOANS OF RS. 50,00,000/ - FROM M/S JPK TRADING (I) PVT. LTD. AND RS. 77,50,000/ - FROM M/S NEW PLANT TRADING C OMPANY. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT ON THE GROUND THAT DURING THE SEARCH OPERATION IN THE CASE OF SH. PRAVIN KUMAR GROUP AND SH. BHAWARLAL JAIN GROUP BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, IT WAS FOUND THAT THESE GROUPS HAD BEEN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENT RIES TO VARIOUS BENEFICIA RIES AND THESE COMPANIES WERE MANAGED BY PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN GROUP AND BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS, INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE LENDERS, COPY OF ACKNOWLEDGM ENTS OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNTS OF THE CREDITORS, LOAN CONFIRMATION ALONG WITH BANK STATEMENTS REFLECTING THE RECEIPTS AND PAYMENT OF LOANS FROM THE SAID PARTIES. HOWEVER, THE AO RELYING ON THE STATEMENT OF SH. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN AND BHA NWARLAL JAIN CONCLUDED THAT THE COMPANIES HAVE PROVIDED ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES TO THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE NATURE OF SOURCE OF THE TRANSACTION. 7. BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE TRANSACTION BETW EEN THE ASSESSEE AND THE COMPANY OPERATED BY SH. PRAVIN KUMAR JAIN 7 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 GROUP AND BHANWARLAL JAIN GROUP ARE ALL PAPER TRANSACTION, THEREFORE, THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT GENUINE. THE COORDINATE BENCH AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) HOLDING AS UNDER: - 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION BY PLACING RELIANCE MERELY ON THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI PRAVEEN KUMAR JAIN GROUP AND SHRI BHANWARLAL JAIN GR OUP WHICH WERE RECORDED U/S 132 (4) OF THE ACT. NO INDEPENDENT ENQUIRY WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE HAS NOT BROUGHT ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE NON - GENUINE. ASSESSEE PROVIDED VARIOUS EVIDENCES TO EST ABLISH THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE, CREDITORS ARE IDENTIFIABLE AND CREDITWORTHINESS IS PROVED. FOLLOWING INFORMATION IS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE. (1) CONFIRMATION OF A/S BY THE PARTIES. (2) INCOME TAX RETURNS OF THE PARTIES FOR A.Y. 2012 - 13. (3) BANK STATEMENT S OF THE PARTIES SHOWING THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. 7. BY PROVIDING ALL THIS INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED THE INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS U/S. 68 OF THE ACT. EVEN THE ASSESSEE REQUESTED ASSESS ING OFFICER FOR ISSUE OF NOTICES U/S. 133(6) OF THE ACT TO THE LENDERS TO FIND OUT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, ONCE THE INITIAL ONUS IS DISCHARGED BY THE ASSESSEE THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE REVENUE TO DISPROVE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE. WE NOTICE THAT ALL THE LOANS WERE TAKEN THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS AND THE REPAYMENTS FOR THE SAME WAS ALSO MADE THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IGNORED THE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND HAS EXCLUSIVELY RELIED ON STATEMENTS OF THIRD PARTY IN MAKING THE ADDITION. IN SPITE OF REQUEST BY THE ASSESSEE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT PROVIDE ANY CROSS - EXAMINATION OF THE PARTIES WHO HAVE MADE THE SUBMISSIONS. ALL THESE ASPECTS HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD.CIT(A ) AND DELETED THE ADDITION OBSERVING AS UNDER: .. 8. AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL, THERE IS NO CHANGE IN FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE. T HE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED THE COPIES OF LOAN CONFIRMATIONS, 8 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 COPY OF PAN CARD, COPY OF INCOME TAX RETURNS, ACKNOW LEDGMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008, COPY OF DIRECTORS REPORTS, AUDITORS REPORT, AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS ALONG WITH ANNEXURE FOR THE YEAR ENDING 31.03.2008, COPY OF BANK STATEMENT SHOWING RECEIPT AND PAYMENT OF LOANS, COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT IN THE BOOKS OF APPELLANT AND COPY OF BANK STATEMENTS OF THE APPELLANT SHOWING THE RECEIPTS AND REPAYMENT OF LOAN ETC. IN RESPECT OF THE PARTIES FROM WHOM, IT HAD OBTAINED LOANS DURING THE YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. T HE COORDINATE BENCH HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE UNDER SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A) IS IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE COORDINATE BENCH RENDERED IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR THE IMMEDIATE PRECEDING ASSESS MENT YEAR. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE HAVE NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) . HENCE, RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCH PERTAINING TO THE AY 2007 - 08 DISCUSSED ABOVE , WE UPHOLD THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. C IT (A) AND DISMISS THE REVENUES APPEAL. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE FOR A SSESSMENT YEAR 2008 - 2009 IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST FEBRUARY , 2020 . SD/ - SD/ - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 21 / 0 2 / 2020 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 9 ITA NO. 5307 / MUM /2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI