DCIT CEN CIR 3(3) CEN RG 3, MUMBAI V. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 5728/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8056 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 20 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-12-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 21-12-2015
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ABHIJIT PATANKAR
• Assessee Lawyers: MITESH SHAH
• Keywords: Unexplained expenditure; Depreciation; Income from undisclosed sources; Opportunity of being heard; Earning of tax free income; Question of law; Accommodation entries
• Section: 69C; 14A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, A M AND SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 5728/MUM/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011 - 12 ) DY. CIT, CENTR AL CIRCLE 3(3), ROOM NO. 401, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, 4 TH FLOOR, M. K. ROAD, MUMBAI - 400 020 / VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. WELSPUN HOUSE, 7 TH FLOOR, B - WING, KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND, SENAPATI BAPAT MARG, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI - 400 013 ./ ./ PAN /GIR NO. AAACW 0489 L ( / APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI ABHIJIT PATANKAR / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MITESH SHAH / DATE OF HEARING : 28.09.2017 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 11.12. 2017 / O R D E R PER SHAMIM YAHYA , A. M.: THIS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 51, MUMBAI (CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 11.09.2015 AND PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR (A.Y.) 2011 - 12. THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL READ AS UNDER: 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D DESPITE THE EXPRESS MANDATE TO DO SO U/S. 14A O F THE IT ACT. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A READ WITH RULE 8D CAN BE MADE WHEN 2 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME DESPITE THERE BEING NO SUCH CONDITION STIPULATED IN THE IT ACT. 3. ON THE FA CTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 CRORES BEING PAYMENT MADE TO M/S. MAGINOT TRADING COMPANY THEREBY DISREGARDING THE ADMISSION OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY BY SHRI BALAKRISHNA GOENKA AND ALSO THE EV IDENCE FOUND IN THE SEIZED MATERIAL. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.2 CRORES WITHOUT GIVING ANY DIRECTION TO TREAT THE SAME AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME IN THE HANDS OF SHRI BALAKRISHNA GOENKA , AS WAS DONE BY THE LD. CIT(A) ON SIMILAR TRANSACTION IN THE CASE OF M/S. WELSPUN MAXSTEEL LTD., A SISTER CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE. APROPOS GROUND RELATING TO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A : 3. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HELD INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS AT 31.3.2011 AS UNDER: 1. SHARES IN SUBSIDIARY AND GROUP COMPANIES 25,073/ - 2. SHARES OF OTHER COMPANIES 22,33,35,000/ - TOTAL 22,33,60,073/ - 4. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY PROVISION FOR DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A ON THE GROUND THAT N O DIVIDEND INCOME WAS EARNED DURING THE PREVIOUS YEAR. HOWEVER , THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AN ADDITION OF RS.1,37,60,144/ - U/S. 14A. HOWEVER, THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION RELYING ON THE DECISION OF HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. DELIGHT ENTERPRISES (IN ITA NO. 110/2009) THAT NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A SHOULD BE MADE WHEN THERE IS NO EXEMPT INCOME. 5. A GAINST THIS ORDER, THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 6. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE LD. COUNSEL AND PERUS ED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS ISSUE IS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL 3 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. HIGH COURT REFERRED AS ABOVE. THE DECISION OF SPECIAL BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL IN CHEMINVEST LTD. VS. ITO [2009] 121 ITD 318 (DEL.)(TRIB.)(S B) HAS ALREADY BEEN REVERSED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT. FURTHERMORE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR. CIT VS. BALLARPUR INDUSTRIES LTD. IN ITA NO. 51 OF 2016 , IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: BY THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL THE APPELLANT - DEPARTMENT CHALLENGES THE ORDERS OF T HE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX AND THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, NAGPUR. ON HEARING THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE DEPARTMENT AND ON A PERUSAL OF THE IMPUGNED ORDERS, IT APPEARS THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE RECORDED A CLEAR FINDING OF FACT THAT THERE WAS NO EXEMPT INCOME EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE W H ILE HOLDING SO, THE AUTHORITIES RELIED ON THE JUDGMENT OF THE DELHI HIGH COURT IN INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 749/2014, WHICH HOLDS THAT THE EXPRESSION 'DOES NOT FORM PART OF THE T OTAL INCOME' IN SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ENVISAGES THAT THERE SHOULD BE AN ACTUAL RECEIPT OF THE INCOME, WHICH IS NOT INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME, DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISALLOWING ANY EXPENDITURE INCURRED I N RELATION TO THE SAID INCOME. THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 14A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WOULD NOT APPLY TO THE FACTS OF THIS CASE AS NO EXEMPT INCOME WAS RECEIVED OR RECEIVABLE DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR. IT IS NOT THE CASE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ANY ACTUAL INCOME WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS INCLUDIBLE IN THE TOTAL INCOME. IN THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE AUTHORITIES HELD THAT SINCE THE INVESTMENTS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE IN THE SISTER C ONCERNS WERE NOT THE ACTUAL INCOME RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THEY COULD NOT HAVE BEEN INCLUDED IN THE TOTAL INCOME. THE FINDINGS OF FACTS RECORDED BY BOTH THE AUTHORITIES DO NOT GIVE RISE TO ANY SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW. SINCE NO SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW ARISES IN THIS INCOME TAX APPEAL, THE INCOME TAX APPEAL IS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COSTS. 7. PRINCIPALLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT AS ABOVE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE PROPOSITION THAT W HEN NO EXEMPT INCOME IS EARNED, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S . 14A SHOULD BE MADE. HOWEVER, THIS ASPECT AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT 4 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. INCOME OR NOT , REMAINS TO BE EXAMINED AT THE LEVEL OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HENCE, WE REMIT THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EXAMINE AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSEE HAS EARNED EXEMPT INCOME OR NOT. IF THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT EARNED ANY EXEMPT INCOME, THEN AS PER THE RATIO EMANATING FROM THE ABOVE, THE HON'BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT DECISIONS, NO DISALLOWANCE U/S. 14A IS REQUIRED. NEEDLESS TO ADD, THE ASSESSE E SHOULD BE GRANTED ADEQUATE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD. ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. APROPOS ADDITION OF RS. 2 CRORES OF BOGUS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY: 8. THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS REGARD MAKING DISALLOWANCE OF RS.2 CORES READS AS UNDER : 7. BOGUS BILLING: 7.1 ASSESSEE HAS DEBITED BOGUS EXPENDITURE AMOUNTING TO RS.2,00,00,000 UNDER THE HEAD LAND DEVELOPMENT IN THE NAME OF M/S. MAGINOT TRADING CO. PVT. LTD. 7.2 DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, VIDE QUESTION NO.L(B) OF NOTIC E U/S.142(1) DATED 18.10.2012, THE ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO EXPLAIN WHERE THE ABOVE INCOME HAS BEEN OFFERED TO TAX WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS. THE ASSESSEE AS ALSO ASKED TO SPECIFY THE END USE OF FUNDS RAISED BY M/S.MAGINOT TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., WITH SUPPORTI NG EVIDENCES. IN RESPONSE, THE ASSESSEE VIDE ITS LETTER DATED 03.12.2012 SUBMITTED AS UNDER. 'IN ANSWER OF QUESTION NO.14 MR. B.K GOENKA HAS STATED THAT RS.5 CRORES IS AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE HANDS OF M/S.WELSPUN MAX STEEL AND RS.2 CRORES IN THE HAND S OF M/S.WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD., IT MAY PLEASE BE NOTED THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED TWO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN DEBITED AS 'LAND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES' IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPANIES. 5 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. WE CONFIRM THAT NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED SO FAR AND NO D EPRECIATION WILL BE CLAIMED BY ANY OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES ON THE ABOVEMENTIONED AMOUNTS. THE BALANCE TAX, IF ANY, WILL BE PAID BY M/S.WELSPUN MAX STEEL IN DUE COURSE OF TIME.' 7.3. IN THIS REGARD, IT IS TO MENTION THAT SHRI BALKRISHNA GOENKA, IN HIS STATE MENT ON OATH RECORDED U/S,132(4) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AT THE PREMISES OF M/S.WELSPUN CORP. LTD., WELSPUN HOUSE, TRADE WORLD - B, KAMLA MILLS COMPOUND, LOWER PAREL, MUMBAI DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH & SEIZURE ACTION ON 14.10.2010, STATED AS UNDER, I N RESPONSE TO QUESTION NO.14; 'Q.24: NOW I AM SHOWING YOU PAGE NO.46 & 61 OF ANNEXURE A - L. AN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE MEMO, HOWEVER, NO SUCH PARTY WAS FOUND TO BE EXISTING AT EITHER OF THE ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THE MEMO. PLEASE FURN ISH THE ADDRESS OF THIS PARTY AND EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THEM? ANS: THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. MAGINOT TRADING CO. PVT. LTD., AMOUNTING TO TOTAL OF RS.5 CR, IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF MURAM AT THE RAIGAD SITE OF M/S. WELSPUN MAXSTEEL LTD ., IS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ARRANGED BY ONE OF THE BROKER FOR GENERATION OF CASH BY DEBITING BOGUS EXPENSES. I CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE TAKEN AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO GENERATE CASH FOR EXPENDITURE. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR ENTRY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S.WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD., FOR AN AMOUNT OFRS.2 CR IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO SURRENDER THIS AMOUNT OF RS.7 CR (5 CR IN THE HANDS OF M/S.WELSPUN MAXSTEEL LTD., & 2 CR IN THE HANDS OF M/S.WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.,) AS MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME GENERATED BY DEBITING BOGUS EXPENSES AND OFFER THIS AMOUNT AS MY TAXABLE INCOME, OVER & ABOVE MY REGULAR INCOME, FOR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR.' 7.4. FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, IT IS CLEAR THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT OFFERED TH E UNACCOUNTED INCOME GENERATED BY DEBITING BOGUS EXPENSES. HENCE, ADDITION OF RS.2,00,00,000 IS MADE TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S 271AAA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 9. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE APPEALED BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS). 10. THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) DELETED THE ADDITION BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 6 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE, THE SUBMISSIONS OF APPELLANT AND REASONS RECORDED BY THE A O. IT IS NOTED THAT SHRI BAL KRISHNA GOENKA HAS ADMITTED OF THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN HANDS OF HIS TWO COMPANIES (INCLUDING THE APPELLANT COMPANY FOR RS.2 CRORES). IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF BOGUS EXPENSES ON THE PLEA THA T THESE EXPENSES CANNOT FORM PART OF COST OF LAND AND THESE EXPENSES CANNOT BE ALLOWED AS DEDUCTION UNDER ANY HEAD OF INCOME FOR INCOME TAX PURPOSES IN ANY OF THE ASSESSMENT YEARS. HOWEVER IT IS SEEN FROM THE FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CL AIMED ANY DEDUCTION OF WHATSOEVER NATURE IN RESPECT OF LAND DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES NOR ANY DEDUCTION ON ACCOUNT OF DEPRECIATION WAS CLAIMED THEREON. THE DISALLOWANCE OF ANY EXPENSES PRESUPPOSE THE CLAIM OF DEDUCTION OF SUCH EXPENSES WHICH IS ABSENT IN THIS C ASE. THEREFORE, IN MY OPINION THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UNWARRANTED AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED FROM THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. EVEN OTHERWISE ALSO THE PHRASEOLOGY USED IN SECTION 69C IN RESPECT OF UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE SHOWS THAT FOR INVOKING THE PRO VISIONS OF SECTION 69C, THE CONDITION PRECEDENT IS TO ESTABLISH THE EXISTENCE OF EXPENDITURE NOT EXPLAINED SATISFACTORY BY EVIDENCE OR MATERIAL ON RECORD. IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT, PAYMENT OF RS.2 CRORES WAS MADE TO M/S. MAGINOT TRADING CO. FROM THE RE GULAR BANK ACCOUNT AND THE SOURCE OF SUCH PAYMENTS ARE NOT DOUBTED BY THE AO. THE PAYMENTS ARE PROPERLY RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT. HENCE THE ADDITION IS UNWARRANTED ON THAT COUNT ALSO SINCE THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF PAYMENTS ARE ACCEPTED BY THE AO. T HE ADMISSION BY SHRI BAL KRISHNA GOENKA U/S. 132(4) IS NOT RELEVANT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, I FIND THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS UNWARRANTED AND THEREFORE I DELETE THE ADDITION. IN THE RESULT THIS GRO UND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 11. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER, THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 12. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE COUNSEL AND PERUSED THE RECORDS. WE FIND THAT THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF M/S. JSW STEEL (SALAV) L IMITED VS. DCIT FOR THE SAME ASSESSM ENT YEAR HAS DECIDED THE IDENTICAL ISSUE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. WE MAY GAINFULLY REFER TO THE RELEVANT PORTION OF THE ORDER OF THE ITAT DATED 08.02.2017 IN ITA NO. 394/MUM/2015 AS UNDER: 7 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. 9.4. WE HAVE HEARD THE SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. BEFORE PROCEEDING FURTHER WE WOULD LIKE TO REFER TO QUESTION AND ANSWER NO.14 OF THE STATEMENTS RECORDED ON 14.10.2010: 'Q.14: NOW I AM SHOWING YOU PAGE NO.46 AND 61 OF ANNEXURE A - 1. SN ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCTED AT THE ADDRESS IN THE MEMO, HOWEVER, NO SUCH PA RTY WAS FOUND TO BE EXISTING AT EITHER OF THE 69/15,70/15 - JSW&394/15 - WELSPUN ADDRESSES GIVEN IN THE MEMO. PLEASE FURNISH THE ADDRESS OF THIS PARTY AND EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THEM. ANS: THE PAYMENTS MADE TO M/S. MAGINOT TRADING CO.PVT. LTD., AMOUNTIN G TO TOTAL OF RS.5.CRORES, IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR, MADE ON ACCOUNT OF SUPPLY OF MURAM AT THE RAIGAD SITE OF M/S. WELSPUN MAXSTEEL LTD., IS NOTHING BUT AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY ARRANGED BY ONE OF THE BROKER FOR GENERATION OF CASH BY DEBITING BOGUS EXPE NSES. I CONFIRM THAT WE HAVE TAKEN AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY TO GENERATE CASH FOR EXPENDITURE. I HAVE ALSO TAKEN A SIMILAR ENTRY IN THE ACCOUNTS OF M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD., FOR AN AMOUNT OF RS.2 CR. IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR. I TAKE THIS OPPORTUNITY TO S URRENDER THIS AMOUNT OF RS.7 CR.(RS.5 CR. IN THE HANDS OF M/S. WELSPUN MAXSTEEL LTD., & RS.2 CR. IN THE HANDS OF M/S.WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD.) AS MY UNACCOUNTED INCOME GENERATED BY DEBITING BOGUS EXPENSES AND OFFER THIS AMOUNT AS MY TAXABLE INCOME, OVER & ABOVE MY REGULAR INCOME, FOR THE CURRENT FINANCIAL YEAR.' IT IS FURTHER FOUND THAT IN ITS LETTER DT.3.12.2012 THE ASSESSEE MADE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS BEFORE THE AO: 'IN ANSWER OF QUESTION NO.14 MR. B.K. GOENKA HAS STATED THAT RS.5 CRORES IS AN ACCOMMODATION ENT RY IN THE HANDS OF M/S.WELSPUN MAX STEEL AND RS.2 CRORES IN THE HANDS OF M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD., IT MAY PLEASE BE NOTED THAT THE ABOVE REFERRED TWO PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN DEBITED AS 'LAND DEVELOPMENT CHARGES' IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNTS OF THE RESPECTIVE COMPAN IES. WE CONFIRM THAT NO DEPRECIATION HAS BEEN CLAIMED SO FAR AND NO DEPRECIATION WILL BE CLAIMED BY ANY OF THE ABOVE COMPANIES ON THE ABOVE MENTIONED AMOUNTS. THE BALANCE TAX, IF ANY, WILL BE PAID BY M/S. WELSPUN MAX STEEL IN DUE COURSE OF TIME.' IF WE GO THROUGH THE ABOVE STATEMENT OF BG AND THE LETTER OF THE ASSESSEE DT.3.12.2012, IT BECOMES CLEAR THAT THE BG HAD MADE THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.5 CRORES IN THE CAPACITY OF MD OF THE COMPANY AND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PROMISED TO PAY OUTSTANDING TAXES. THE LAND DE VELOPMENT A/C. CLEARLY PROVES THAT ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WERE OBTAINED FOR ASSESSEE COMPANY . THEREFORE, IN OUR OPINION THE FAA WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN REVERSING THE ORDER OF THE AO. IN OUR OPINION, THE AO HAD RIGHTLY MADE THE DISALLOWANCE OF THE IMPUGNED SUM IN THE 8 ITA NO. 5728/MUM/2015 (A.Y. 2011 - 12) DY. CIT VS. M/S. WELSPUN SYNTEX LTD. HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE AO WE DECIDE EFFECTIVE GROUND OF APPEAL IN HIS FAVOUR. 13. SINCE IN IDENTICAL SITUATION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE , WE SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) AND RESTORE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THIS CASE. 14. IN THE RESULT, TH IS APPEAL BY THE REVENUE IS PARTLY ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.12.2017 SD/ - SD/ - ( AMARJIT SINGH ) (S HAMIM YAHYA ) / J UDICIAL MEMBER / A CCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED : 11.12.2017 . . ./ ROSHANI , SR. PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. / CIT - CONCERNED 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD F ILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI