DIVINE HOLDINGS P.LTD, MUMBAI V. ACIT CEN CIR 31, MUMBAI

ITA 560/MUM/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2953 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 10-03-2015
• Assessment Year: 2001-2002
• Appeal Filed On: 21-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: DR P DANIEL
• Section: 69C; 234B

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO.6198/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA, MADHULI, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, OPP. NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 / VS. THE DCIT, CC-23, MUMBAI / I .T.A. NO.5870/M/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-04 THE DCIT, CC-23, MUMBAI / VS. SMT. RASILA S. MEHTA, MADHULI, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, OPP. NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. ABNPM 8219R / I .T.A. NOS.560 & 561/M/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2001-02 & 2003-04 M/S. DIVINE HOLDINGS PVT. LTD., 32, MADHULI, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, OPP. NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 / VS. THE ACIT, CC-31, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAACD 4959J / I .T.A. NO.6831/M/2013 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2009-10 SMT. DEEPIKA A. MEHTA, 32,MADHULI, DR. ANNIE BESANT ROAD, / VS. THE ACIT, CC-31, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 2 OPP. NEHRU CENTRE, WORLI, MUMBAI-400 018 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABNPM 8231D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY: SHRI DHARMESH SHAH SHRI NILESH MEHTA / RESPONDENT BY: DR. P. DANIEL / DATE OF HEARING :12.10.2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.10.2015 '# / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE BUNCH OF APPEALS OF THREE DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S WERE HEARD TOGETHER AS THEY INVOLVED COMMON ISSUES AND A RE DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. 2. AT THE VERY OUTSET REPRESENTATIVES FROM BOTH SID ES AGREED THAT THE COMMON ISSUES INVOLVED IN ALL THESE APPEALS HAV E ALREADY BEEN DECIDED IN PLETHORA OF DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN HARSHAD MEHTA GROUP OF CASES. RELATED ORDERS WERE PROVIDED BY TH E LD. COUNSEL FOR OUR KIND PERUSAL. 2.1. HAVING SAID ALL THAT WE PROCED BY DECIDING THE APPEALS AS FOLLOWS: ITA NO. 6198/MUM/2011- A.Y. 2003-04 3. THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE STATED THAT HE IS NOT PRESSING GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3, THE SAME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 3 4. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF SUSPENSE ACCOUNT AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,32,052/-. 4.1. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AT PARA-6 OF HIS ORDER. THE ADDITIONS HAVE BEEN MADE IN RESPECT OF DEPOSITS WHICH ACCORDING TO THE AO WERE NOT RECONCILED. 4.2. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT AN IDENTICAL ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ONE OF THE GROUP CASES VIZ., HITESH S. MEHTA IN ITA NO. 1671/M/2012 . 4.3. WE HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA (SUPRA). WE FIND THAT A SIMILAR ISSUE WAS CONSIDERED AT PARA-33 AS UNDER: GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPOSITS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT TREATED AS SUSPENSE ENTRIES AMO UNTING TO RS. 50,641/-. WE FIND THAT IDENTICAL ISSUES WERE BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL IN ITA NO 5587/M/11. THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED IDE NTICAL ISSUES AT PARA-6 OF ITS ORDER AND AT PARA 6.3 THE TRIBUNAL HELD AS UNDER: AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND CONSIDE RING THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FOUND THAT THIS ISSUE NEEDS READJUDICATION AT THE END OF THE LEARNED CIT(A). LE ARNED CIT(A) HAS DISMISSED THE GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVI NG IN PARA 8.2(III) AT PAGE 6, WHICH ARE AS UNDER :- (III) IN RESPECT OF THE ITEM AT SR. NO.2 TO 4, THE APPELLANT HAS MERELY CLAIMED THAT THE SAME REPRESENTS DIVIDEND INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. HE HAS HOWEVER, PLEADED BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE SAID EVIDENCE IS NOT IN HIS POSSESSION AND HENCE THE SAME MAY BE OBTAINED FROM THE CUSTODIAN. I FIND THAT THE ONUS TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSIT ENTRY IS ON THE APPELLANT AND HENCE UNLESS THE BURDEN OF PROVING THE DEPOSIT IS DISCHARGED, THE ONUS DOES NOT SHIFT ON THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IT IS SEEN THAT NO EVIDENCE IS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE CLAIM OF THE APPELLANT THAT ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 4 THE AMOUNT OF RS.37,715/-, RS.2,54,500/- AND RS6,80,500/- DOES NOT REPRESENT INTEREST INCOME. IN THE LIGHT OF THE SAME, THE SAID ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNTS AS INTEREST INCOME IS CONFIRMED. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A), WE FOUND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) SHOULD HAV E OBTAINED THE DETAILS FROM CUSTODIAN AS THE CUSTODIA N APPOINTED BY THE SPECIAL COURT, IS NOT OBLIGED TO ASSESSEE BY PROVIDING NECESSARY DETAILS IN SPITE OF VARIOUS REQUESTS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. COPIES OF REQUESTS ARE PLACED ON RECORD. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, WE SET A SIDE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE CIT(A) TO DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH AFTER OBTAINING NECESSARY DETAILS FROM THE CUSTODIAN AND AFTER AFFORDING OPPORTUNITY OF HEARIN G TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ORDER ACCORDINGLY. THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO READJUDICATE THIS ISS UE IN THE LINE OF THE ABOVE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR A. Y. 1994-95. GROUND NO. 4 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH, WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 4 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 5. GROUND NO. 5 IS COMMON IN ALL THE CAPTIONED APPE ALS AND IT RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENSES. THE QUANTUM OF DISALLOWANCE MAY DIFFER IN THE CAPTIONED APPEALS. 5.1. AN IDENTICAL ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. GROWMORE RESEARCH & ASSETS MGT. LTD. IN ITA NOS. 5137 & 5138/M/2012 AND ITA NO. 2150/M/13. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDERED THE ISSUE AT PARA-5 OF ITS ORDER WHI CH READ AS UNDER : WE HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHOR ITIES BELOW. WHILE DISPOSING THE GROUND RELATING TO THE D ISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST, WE FIND THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS FOLLOWED THE FINDINGS GIVEN IN THE CASE OF EMINENT HOLDINGS PVT. LTD. WE FIND THAT THE ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 5 TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF EMINENT HOLDINGS IN ITA NOS . 2139, 2140 AND 2141/MUM/2013 HAVE FOLLOWED THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL GIVEN IN COMMON GROUP CASE OF HITESH S. MEHTA AT PA RA 2.3 OF THE ORDER AND RESTORED THE MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE LD . CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO- ORDINATE BENCH, WE RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO THE FILES OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR FRESH ADJUDICATION AFTER GIVING REASONABLE OPPO RTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. BEFORE CLOSING THIS ISSUE, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS HELD THAT THE I SSUE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE IS PENDING BEFORE THE HONBLE SPECIAL C OURT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE PROCEEDINGS IN WHIC H THE SAID ISSUE OF INTEREST WAS ISSUED BY THE CUSTODIAN HAVE BEEN A LREADY CONCLUDED WHICH FACT HAS ALREADY BEEN RECORDED BY T HE LD. CIT(A) IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. WE, THEREFORE, DIRECT THE L D. CIT(A) TO CONSIDER THIS FACT WHILE DECIDING THE ISSUE AFRESH. THE LD. CIT(A) MAY ALSO DIRECT FOR THE TAXING OF INCOME IN THE HAN DS OF THE RECIPIENT (FAMILY MEMBERS) IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE M ETHOD OF ACCOUNTING FOLLOWED BY THEM AND AS PER THE PROVISIO NS OF THE LAW. GROUND NO. 4 IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDI NATE BENCH, WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. GROUND NO. 5 IS ALSO TREATE D AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 6. GROUND NO. 6 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF OTHER EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,204/-. 6.1. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE LD. CIT( A) AT PARA-7.4 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE EXPENSES AMOUNTING TO RS. 15,204/-. 6.2. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE ST ATED THAT THE DETAILS HAVE NOT BEEN PROPERLY APPRECIATED BY THE F IRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION AND IN THE IN TEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY, THIS ISSUE NEEDS RECONSIDERATION BY THE FIRST APPELLATE ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 6 AUTHORITY. WE, THEREFORE, RESTORE THIS ISSUE TO TH E FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED TO FILE NECESSARY DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF ITS CLAIM AND THE LD. CIT(A) IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE SAME AND DECIDE THE ISSUE AFRESH. GROUND NO. 6 IS TREATED AS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 7. GROUND NO.7 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT O F DIMINUTIONIN TRADING STOCK AMOUNTING TO RS. 2,05,464/-. 7.1. THE ASSESSEE IS IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE TRAD ING WHICH HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER. FOR CE RTAIN STATUTORY REASONS, THE ASSESSEE IS NOT PERMITTED TO DO TRADIN G IN THE SHARES IN THE STOCK MARKET BUT AT THE SAME TIME THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWING THE SHARES AS STOCK-IN-TRADE AND FOLLOWING THE SAME AS PER THE METHOD OF ACCOUNTING REGULARLY FOLLOWED BY HER FOR THE BUSINE SS. THEREFORE, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, ANY DIMINUTION IN THE VALUE OF THE STOCK AS AT THE END OF THE YEAR HAS TO BE ALLOWED. WE, THEREFO RE, SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DEL ETE THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,05,464/-. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALL OWED. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA NO. 5870/M/2011- A.Y. 2003-04 REVENUES APPEA L 9. THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI DATED 27.6.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2003-04. ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 7 10. THE SOLE GRIEVANCE OF THE REVENUE IS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT NO INTEREST COULD BE LEVIED IN THE PRESENT CASE U/S. 234A, 234B AND 234C OF THE ACT. 10.1. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE T HAT THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COU RT IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE AND AGAINST THE ASSESSEE TO WHICH THE COUNS EL FAIRLY CONCEDED . 10.2. THIS ISSUE HAS ALSO COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUN AL IN ONE OF THE GROUP CASES VIZ., M/S. HARSH ESTATES PVT. LTD. IN ITA NO. 1035, 1033 & 3464/M/2013. WE FIND THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONSIDE RED THIS ISSUE AT PARA-6 OF ITS ORDER WHEREIN IT HAS HELD AS UNDER: SO FAR AS, CHARGING OF INTEREST U/S 234A, 234B AND 234C IS CONCERNED THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDE D THAT IT MAY BE SENT TO THE FILE OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER. HOWE VER, THE LD. SPECIAL COUNSEL CONTENDED THAT THE LEVY OF INTEREST IS MAND ATORY THEREFORE IT SHOULD BE 5 M/S HARSH ESTATES PVT. LTD. DECIDED AGA INST THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT MAY BE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR ACTUAL CALCULATION PURPOSES ONLY. AGREED, LEVY OF INTEREST IS MANDATOR Y AND SOMETIMES CONSEQUENTIAL DEPENDING UPON THE FACTS OF EACH CASE . WE NOTE THAT IDENTICAL ISSUE AROSE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE AF ORESAID CASES THEREFORE FOLLOWING THE REASONING CONTAINED THEREIN , WE DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECOMPUTED THE INTEREST LIABIL ITY AFTER REDUCING THE AMOUNT OF TAX DEDUCTABLE AT SOURCE AND DECIDE A S PER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY, THUS, THI S GROUND IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE FINDINGS OF THE CO-ORDIN ATE BENCH, WE DIRECT ACCORDINGLY. 11. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 8 ITA NO. 560/MUM/2013 A.Y. 2001-02 12. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAINS T THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-37, MUMBAI DATED 20.11.2012 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02. 13. GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED AND THE SA ME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 14.1. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 5 OF ITA N O. 6198/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL . FOLLOWING THE SAME REASONING MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AT PARA 5 & 5 .1, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSE. 15. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 2 34A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 16. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 1 OF I TA NO. 5870/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN REVENUES APPEAL. FOLLOWING TH E SAME REASONING MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AT PARA 10 TO 10.2, GROUND O F APPEAL TAKEN FOR A.Y. 2001-02 IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E. ITA NO. 561/MUM/2013- A.Y. 2003-04 17. GROUND NO. 1, 2 & 3 ARE NOT PRESSED AND THE SA ME ARE DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 18. GROUND NO. 4 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 9 18.1. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 5 OF ITA NO . 6198/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. FOLLOWING T HE SAME REASONING MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AT PARA 5 & 5.1, GROUNDS OF APPEAL TAKEN FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. 19. GROUND NO. 5 RELATES TO LEVY OF INTEREST U/S. 2 34A, 234B & 234C OF THE ACT. 20. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 1 OF I TA NO. 5870/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN REVENUES APPEAL. FOLLOWING TH E SAME REASONING MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AT PARA 10 TO 10.2, GROUND O F APPEAL TAKEN FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOS E. ITA NO. 6831/M/2013 A.Y. 2009-10 21. THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS PREFERRED AGAIN ST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-40, MUMBAI DATED 30.9.2013 PERTAINI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 22. GROUND NO. 1 IS NOT PRESSED THEREFORE IT IS DIS MISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 22.1. GROUND NO. 2 RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST EXPENDITURE. 22.2. THIS GROUND IS IDENTICAL TO GROUND NO. 5 OF ITA NO . 6198/M/2011 FOR A.Y. 2003-04 IN ASSESSEES APPEAL. FOLLOWING T HE SAME REASONING MENTIONED HEREINABOVE AT PARA 5 & 5.1, GROUND OF A PPEAL TAKEN FOR A.Y. 2009-10 IS ALSO ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 10 23. GROUND NO. 3 RELATES TO THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF PERSONAL HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES OF RS. 3,00,000/-. 24. THIS ISSUE HAS BEEN CONSIDERED BY THE AO AT PAR A-7 OF HIS ORDER WHEREIN HE HAS OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT S HOWN PROPER WITHDRAWALS FOR HOUSEHOLD EXPENSES. ACCORDING TO T HE AO, THE ASSESSEE MUST BE SPENDING RS. 25,000/- PER MONTH W HICH IS NOT REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS. THE AO THEREFORE ADDED RS. 3,00,000/- TO THE TOTAL TAXABLE INCOME U/S. 69C OF THE ACT. 25. THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) BUT WITHOUT ANY SUCCESS. 26. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FIL ED A CHART SHOWING DETAILS OF PERSONAL WITHDRAWALS WHICH READ AS UNDER : SR. NO. NAME ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS BY AO ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS CONFIRMED BY LD. CIT(A). PERSONAL WITHDRAWALS DISCLOSED SHOWN BY DR. HITESH S. MEHTA 1. DR. HITESH S. MEHTA ----- ------ 25,79,747/ - 2. SHRI ASHWIN S. MEHTA 12,00,000/- 6,00,000/- ----- 3. SHRI SUDHIR S. MEHTA 12,00,000/- 12,00,000/- ----- 4. SMT. JYOTI H. MEHTA 21,60,000/- 10,80,000/- ----- 5. SMT. DEEPIKA A MEHTA (APPELLANT) 3,00,000 3,00,000/- ----- 6. SMT. RINA S. MEHTA 12,00,000/- 6,00,000/- ----- TOTAL 60,60,000/- 37,80,000/- 25,79,747/- 27. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER FILED A CHART SHOWING Y EAR-WISE DETAILS OF WITHDRAWALS WHICH READS AS UNDER: SR. NO. ASSESSMENT YEAR AMOUNT ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 11 1. 2001-02 93,500/- 2. 2002-03 1,23,600 3. 2003-04 6,59,476/- 4. 2004-05 3,72,580/- 5. 2005-06 6,41,454/- 6. 2006-07 7,00,333/- 7. 2007-08 13,40,729/- 8. 2008-09 13,10,545/- 9. 2009-10 25,79,747 28. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT THE ENTIR E FAMILY LIVES IN THE SAME PLACE AND THE WITHDRAWALS OF THE ENTIRE GROUPS IS SUFFICIENT TO MEET OUT THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURES. 28.1. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER STATED THAT THE PROFE SSIONAL FEE PAID TO CONSULTANTS AND LAWYERS HAVE BEEN SEPARATELY DEBITE D BY DR. HITESH S. MEHTA IN HIS PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT AMOUNTING T O RS. 12,70,258/-. 29. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR STRONGLY SUPPORTED THE F INDINGS OF THE AO. 30. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE FACTS BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT IN THE GROUP CAS ES, THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF LOW WITHDRAWALS MADE BY THE AO AMOUNTIN G TO RS. 60,60,000/- HAVE BEEN RESTRICTED BY THE LD. CIT(A) AT RS. 37,80,000/- WHICH ALSO INCLUDES THE PRESENT ADDITION OF RS. 3,0 0,000/-. CONSIDERING THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE ENTIRE FAMILY , IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, AN ADDITION OF RS. 1,50,000/- SHOULD MEET THE ENDS OF JUSTICE. WE, MODIFY THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIREC T THE AO TO MAKE ITA. NO.5870 & 6198/M/11 ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 & 6831/M/13 12 DISALLOWANCE OF RS. 1,50,000/-. THIS GROUND OF THE ASSESSEE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 31. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 6198/M/11 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE , THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IN ITA NO. 5870/M/.11, IS TREATED AS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEES IN ITA NOS. 560 & 561/M/13 ARE PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE & APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IN ITA NO. 6831/M/13 IS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21 ST OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (AMARJIT SINGH ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) $% ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; (' DATED :21 ST OCTOBER, 2015 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+, %%-. , -.! , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. $ / BY ORDER, * % //TRUE COPY// % / $& ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI