MRS PRATIBHA S. MHATRE, Mumbai V. INCOME TAX OFFICER 4(3), THANE

ITA 695/MUM/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3079 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-06-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 05-02-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHREEKALA
• Keywords: Capital asset; Income from undisclosed sources; Principle of natural justice; Wrong claim; Sham transactions; Capital Gains
• Section: 13; 68

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI S. RIFA UR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IT A NO. 695/MUM./2018 ( ASSESSMENT YEAR : 20 14 15 ) MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE B 5, SAI GARDEN CHS NEAR DHURI SERVICE CENTRE DEWANMAN, VASAI (WEST) MUMBAI 401 202 PAN BBRON4613G . APPELLANT V/S INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 4(3), MUMBAI . RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI NEELKANTH KHANDELWAL REVENUE BY : MS. SHREEKALA DATE OF HEARING 2 3 . 0 3 .202 1 DATE OF ORDER 11.06.2021 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. THE AFORESAID APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE CHALLENGING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 1 ST NOVEMBER 2017, PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) 3, MUMBAI, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014 15. 2. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE AS UNDER: THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (APPEALS) - 3, THANE (HEREINAFTER 2 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE REFERRED TO AS THE CIT (A)) ERRED IN UPHOLDING THE ACTION OF THE INCOME - TAX OFFICER - 4(3), THANE (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER) IN MAKING AN ADDITION OF RS 1,20,11,807 UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT, HOLDING THE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARES OF SHR EE SHALEEN TEXTILES LIMITED TO BE BOGUS AND THEREBY NOT ALLOWING EXEMPTION UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE APPELLANT CONTENDS THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE AS SESSING OFFICER IN CONSIDERING THE TRANSACTION OF SALE OF SHARES OF SHREE SHALEEN TEXTILES LIMITED AS BOGUS INASMUCH AS THE SAID SHARES HAVE BEEN PURCHASED AS INVESTMENT DURING AN EARLIER YEAR; THE SAME BEING SOLD DURING THE YEAR UNDER REFERENCE SHALL NECE SSARILY GIVE RISE TO CAPITAL GAINS AND THE SHARES BEING LONG - TERM CAPITAL ASSET, THE CAPITAL GAINS RS 1,20,11,807 ARE LONG - TERM CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF WHICH THE ASSESSING OFFICER OUGHT TO HAVE ALLOWED EXEMPTION OF SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT; ACCORDING LY, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT IS NOT JUSTIFIED. THE APPELLANT FURTHER, CONTENDS THAT THE CIT(A) OUGHT NOT TO HAVE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN MAKING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION INASMUCH AS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS BEEN FRAMED IN VIOLATION AND UTTER DISREGARD TO THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE INASMUCH AS, AMONGST OTHERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS NOT GIVEN THE DOCUMENTS/ STATEMENTS ON OATH TO THE APPELLANT FOR REBUTTAL, WHICH ARE IN HIS POSSESSION AND ON WHICH HE HAS RELIED UPON AND HAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLANT TO CROSS EXAMINE THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS RELIED UPON. THE APPELLANT FURTHER, CONTENDS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS MADE THE IMPUGNED ADDITION WITHOUT PROVING THAT THE CASH EMANATED FROM THE COFFERS OF THE APPELLANT. 2. FACTS OF THE CASE ARE, THE ASSESSEE IS A PARTNER IN A FIRM M/S. SAURABH REALTORS, ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF CONSTRUCTION. SHE FILED HER RETURN OF INCOME ON 21 ST NOVEMBER 2014, DECLARING TOTAL I NCOME OF ` 5,52,450. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED SHARE OF M/S, SHREE SHALEEN TEXTILES LTD., THROUGH PREFERENTIAL OFFER IN THE YEAR 2012 13 AND PURCHASED 50,000 SHARES BY 3 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE PAYMENT OF ` 5,75,000. THE COMPANY LATER ON SPLIT TH ESE SHARES AT ` 2, PER SHARE ON 7 TH MARCH 2013. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL SHARES ALLOTTED TO THE ASSESSEE WAS 2,50,000 SHARES. THE ASSESSEE HAD SOLD 2,50,000 SHARES OF M/S. SHREE SHALEEN TEXTILES LTD., FOR TRADE VALUE OF ` 1,26,05,797, DURING THE YEAR UNDER CON SIDERATION. IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF ` 1,20,11,807, WAS CLAIMED UNDER SECTION 10(38) OF THE ACT WHICH AROSE OUT OF THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER TRIED TO VERIFY THE GENUINENESS ON THE BASIS OF MATERIAL AVA ILABLE ON RECORD AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NOT CONVINC ED WITH THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON THE BASIS OF CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES AVAILABLE ON RECORD CONCLUDED THAT THE T RANSACTIONS WERE SHAM TRANSACTIONS AND AIMED ONLY TO BRING UNACCOUNTED MONEY IN THE GUISE OF EXEMPTED LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND PAPER WORK W AS MADE UP AND DONE MERELY TO GIVE A COLOUR OF AUTHENTICITY TO THE TRANSACTION AND BY CREATING A FAADE OF LEGITIMA TE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF ` 1,20,11,807 WAS ADDED UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS DELIBERATELY AND WILLFULLY CONCEALED ITS UNACCOUNTED INCOME. THE ASSESSEE BEING AGGRIEVED BY THE AFORESAID ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICE R, FILED APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. 4 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE 3. T HE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) DISMISSED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: - 6 .0 GRO UND N O S .2,8,9 ,1 0 ,11 . 12,13,14 ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ADDITION OF RS.L,20,11,807/ - TREATING THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS UNEXPLA I NED CASH CREDIT AND NOT ALLOWING THE CLAIM OF EXEMPTION U/S . 1 0(38) O F T HE ACT, THEREFORE, T HESE GROUNDS ARE TAK E N UP TO G ETHER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVEN I ENCE. (I) THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION(WING), KOLKATA HAD CARR I ED OUT SEARCH ARID SURVEY ACTION, TO UNEARTH THE O - GAN I ZED RACKET OF GENERATING BOGUS ENTRIES OF LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN(LTCG) AND CLA I MING EXEMPTIO N U/S.10 (38) OF THE ACT . IN TH I S RACKET , THE OPERATORS MAKE THE BENEFICIARY TO BUY SHARES OF A PRE - DETERMINED PENNY STOCK COMPANY CONTROLLED BY THEM. THESE SHARES ARE TRANSFERRED TO BENEFICIARY AT A VERY NOMINA L PRICE THROUGH PREFERENTIAL ALLOTMENT OF OFF - L I NE SALE TO SAVE STT. THE BENEFICIARY HOLDS THE SHA R E FOR T HE STATUTORY PERIOD AND WHEN THE PR ICE REACHES THE DESIRED LEVE L , THE BE N EFIC I ARY WHO BOUGHT THE SHARES AT A LOW O R NORMAL PRICE, IS MADE TO SE L L A T AN EXORBITANT PROFIT AND CLAIMED LTCG EXEMPTION U/S .L 0(38). TH E OPERATORS RI G THE PRICE OF THE STOCK AND GRADUALL Y RAI SE I TS PRICE MANY T I MES , OF T E N 500 T O 1000 TIMES . ACCORDIN G L Y . THE AO D E NIED THE CLA I M OF LONE T ER M CA PI T A L G AIN O F R S .1,20, 11 , 807/ - AND THE SAM E I S A DDED AS UNEXPLAIN E D C A SH CR E DIT U / S. 6 8 O F THE ACT. (II) FROM THE FINDINGS OF THE D I RE CT ORATE OF INVESTIGATION, KOLK A TA, IT CA NN O T B E DENIED THAT THE APPE LL ANT HAS NOT PURCHASED PENNY STOCK THR O UGH OPERATORS/BROKERS AND AFTER RIGG I NG T H E PRICE, T H E SAME W A S SO L D AN D ALSO C L A I MED LTCG EXEMPTION U/S . 10(38) OF THE ACT. THE MODUS OPERANDI CARR I ED OUT BY THESE OPERATORS IS IN PUB LI C D OMAIN AND MOST I MPORTANTLY, SEBI AND BSE HAVE ALSO TAKEN ACTION AGAINST S UCH OPERATORS AND BARRED THESE E NT I TI ES TO TRADE IN STOCK EXCHANGES. IN THE EASES OF PENNY STOCK I NCLUDING THE SCRIP OF SHREE SHALEEN TEX TI LES L I MITED , A DETAILED ENQUIRY WAS CONDUCT E D ON ENTRY PROVIDERS, RIGGERS, BENEFICIARIES ETC BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME - TAX(INVESTIGATION) AND FOUND THAT SEVERAL TAXPAYERS HAD INVESTED MONEY IN PENNY STO C KS, WHICH ARE LOWLY PRICED STOCKS OF COMPANIES WITH WEA K FUNDAMENTALS THROUGH THE OPER ATORS, STOCK BROKERS AND OWNERS FO R RAIS I NG BOGUS LONG TERM CAPITAL GA I NS BY ARTIFICIALLY RAISING THE SHARE PRICE FOR BOOKING BOGUS CLAIMS OF LTCG OR STCL BY VARIOUS BENEFICIARIES. 5 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE (III) IN THIS REGARD : VIDE EFS INSTRUCTION NO.53 OF DIRECTORATE OF SYSTE M DATED 08.03.2016 OF CBDT ISSUED I NSTRUCTION REGARDING THE HANDLING OF PENNY STOCK CASES (SUSPECT LTCG /STCL E TC). V I DE EFS INSTRUCTION UNDER REFER EN CE A NEW BUTTON 'PENNY STOCK' HAS BEEN ADDED ON INDIVIDUAL TRANSACTION SCREEN (ITS) TO DISPLAY INFORMATION RELATED TO PENNY STOCK, WHICH IS ENABLED ON THE SCREEN OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICERS(AOS) . THE CRUCIAL INFORMATION HAS BEEN PROVIDED TO THE AOS REGARDING THE MANIPULATIVE TRANSACTIONS CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTRY PROVIDERS AND RIGGERS HAVE BEEN CAPTURED IN THE F UNCTIONALITY, INCLUDING THE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF THE KOLKATA INVESTIGATION DIRECTORATE. (IV) THE INVES TI GATION OF PENNY STOCK CASES IS CARRIED OUT BY VARIOUS AGENCIES LIKE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME - TAX(INVESTIGATION), BSE, SEBI SURVEILLANCE TEAM ETC. IN F ACT, THE CRUCIAL INFORMATION OBTAINED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INCOME - TAX, (INVEST I GATION) FOUND AT THE TIME SEARCH AND SURVEY HAS BEEN INTIMATED AND SHARED WITH SEBI AND VICE VERSA . AS SUCH , SUCH RAMPANT MANIPULATIONS CALL FOR CONCERTED AND COORDINATED ACTIO N BY TH E VARIOUS ENFORCING AGENCIES CONCERNED. IN THIS R E GARD, SEBI'S PROACTIVE ROLE I N THE ABOVE CONTEXT IS CRUCIAL AND HAS ALSO ESTABLISHED THE MODUS OPERAND CARRIED OUT BY THE ENTRY PROVIDERS, AND BOTH SEBI AS WELL AS BSE, HAVE BANNED TRADING IN THESE PENNY STOCK SECUR ITIES. BASED ON INFORMATION RECEIVED FROM THE IT DEPARTMENT AND ALSO THROUGH ITS OWN SURVEILLANCE SYSTEMS, SEBI HAD PASSED ORDERS UNDER SECTION 1 1(B) O F THE SEBI ACT, 1992, IN CASE OF 13 SUCH COMPANIES AND DEBARRED L,33 6 ENTITIES. FURTHE R, SEBI HAD SUSPENDED TRADING IN THE SHARES OF 203 COMPANIES AND REDUCED THE PRICE BAND OF 168 COMPANIES TO THE LOWEST BAND. (V) IN THE INSTANCE CASE, REGARDING THE PURCHASE AND SALE OF M/S.SH ALEEN TEXTILES LTD SCRIP, THE AO HAS ELABORATELY DISCUSSED FRO M PARA 4 , PAGE 5 TO PARA 11, PAGE 32, IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE AR OF THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY EXPLAINED WHAT WAS EXPLAINE D BEFORE THE AO AND HAS ALSO NOT REBUTT ED THE FINDINGS MADE BY THE DIRECTORATE OR INCOME - TAX(LNVESTIGATION) KOLKATA, SEBI SURVEILLANCE TEAM, AND ELSE, BSE HAS SUSPENDED THE TRADING IN THE SECURITIES OF THE FOLLOWING COMPANIES INCLUDING M/S.SHREE SHALEEN TEXTILES L TD. (505513) IN PURSUANT TO DIRECTIONS RECEIVED FROM SEBI . (VI) AS D I SCUSSED FROM PARA 4 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE DETAILS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES OF M/S.SHREE SHALEEN TEXTILES LTD. ARE AS FOLLOWS : - PURCHASED 50000 SHARES FOR RS.5,75, 000 / - AND LATER ON SPLIT THESE SHARES AT RS.2 / - PER SHARE ON 07.03.2013 AND ALL OT TED SHARE S TOTA LLING TO 2,50,000 SHARES 6 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE AND SOLD 2,50,000 SHARES ON VARIOUS DATES FOR RS. 1 ,26, 05 ,797/ - INCLUDING THE FINANCIAL POSITIONS OF THE COMPANY STARTING FROM 2009 - 2010 TO 2013 - 14 WHICH CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE OPERATORS/ENTRY PROVIDERS IN CONNIVANCE WITH THE MAIN PERSONS OF COMPANY HAS RIGGED THE SHARE PRICES AND THE BENEFICIARIES HAVE BOOKED BOGUS CLAIM OF LTCG EXEMPTION U/S.1 0(38) OF THE ACT . (VII) REFERENCE IS ALSO MACE TO THE ASSESSMENT ORD E R IN THE CASE OF M/S. SHASHIKANT MHATRE (HUF) (APPELLANTS HUSBAND) SINCE BOTH ARE CONNECTED WITH SA M E I SSUE AND FACTS. THE RE FO R E, IN PAR A 13.1 IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OF S H ASH I KANT MHATRE (HUF), THE AO HAS DISCUSSED ELABORATELY THAT AT THE TI ME O F SURVEY U/S.1 3 3A OF THE ACT , T HE CHAI R M A N AND MANAGING DIRECTOR OF COMPANY HAVE CONFIRMED ON OATH THAT THEY HAVE PROVIDED AND A CCOMMODATED BOGUS LONG T ER M C API T A L G AI NS . (VIII) THE APPE L LANT BEING VERY NEW TO TRADING IN PENNY STOCK AND THE EA R N OF SUCH HUGE INCOME BY A PERSON NOT KNOWN TO SUCH TYPE OF TRADING IS AGAI NST HUMAN PROBABILITIES. FOR THIS PROPOSITION ; RELIED ON THE DECIS I ON OF H ON ' BLE S U PREME COURT IN THE CASE OF SUMATI DAYAL VS. CIT (SUPRA) REPORTED IN 2 ITR 801, THE HON'BLE SUPREM E COURT CATEGORICALLY OBSERVED THAT I F THER E SUFFICIENT INDICATION BASED ON THE PROBABILITIES OF AN OCCURRENCE TO D I SBE L IEVE THE STATEMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE, EVEN WHEN ADVANCED WITH PRIMA FA CIE EVIDENCE, THE AO MAY BE JUSTIFIED IN DISBELIEVING THE STATE MENT. FURTHER REFERENCE MAY BE MADE TO ANOTHER LANDMARK JUDGMENT BY T HE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. DURGA PRASAD MORE (19 71) REPORTED IN 82 LTR . 540. THE HON'BLE APEX COURT OBSERVED THAT IT IS TRUE T HAT AN APPARENT MUST BE CONSIDERED REAL UNTIL IT IS SHOWN THAT THERE AR E REASONS TO BELIEVE THAT THE APPARENT IS NOT REAL . IF ALL THAT AN ASSESSEE WHO WANTS EVADE TAX IS TO HAV E SOME RECITALS MADE IN A DOCUMENT EITH ER EXECUTED H I M OR EXECUTED IN HIS FAVOUR THEN THE DOOR WILL BE L EFT WIDE OPEN TO EVA DE TAX. THE HON'BLE COURT ALSO OBSERVED THAT THE TAXING AUTHORITIES WERE REQUIRED TO PUT ON BLINKERS WHILE LOOKIN G AT THE DOCUMENTS PRODUCED BEFORE THEM . THEY WERE ENTITLED TO LOOK INTO THE SURROUNDING CIRCUMSTANCES TO F I ND OUT THE REALITY OF THE RECITALS MADE IN THOSE DOCUMENTS AND THE MATTER HAS TO BE C ONSIDERED BY APPLYING THE TEST OF HUMAN PROBAB I LI T IE S . IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE SCRIP I N WHICH INVESTMENT WAS MADE BY THE APPELL ANT I S ADMITTEDLY A PENNY STOCK AND THE SAID S TOCK BY I TS VERY NAT U RE A FUNCTIONING IS MYSTERIOUS . NORMALLY , IN THE SHARE MARKET AN I NVES T MEN T ALWAYS MADE ONLY IN GOOD STOCK AND THE GOOD STOCK IS IDENT I F I ED IN T HE MARKET WHERE IT HAS SOUND 7 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE FUNDAMENTALS WITH A GOOD TARGET RECORD O F GIV I NG DIVIDEND OVER A PERIOD OF TIME. THE SHARE IN QUESTION IT WAS ARGUED IS DEFINITELY NOT A STOCK IN THAT CATEGORY. THE PENNY STOCK IT WAS A R GUE BASICALLY ALWAYS EXHIBIT A CYCLIC PATTERN WHERE BOTH THE BUYER AND SELLER SE E AN ADVANTAGE OF AN ARTIFICIALLY ' C REATED MARKET SITUATION TO EXPLOIT AND AV OI D TAXATION. (VII) A REFERENCE MAY GAINFULLY BE MADE TO THE FOLLOWING J UDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENT OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT. IN THE CASE OF MCDOWELL & CO. LTD. V. CTO [1985] REPORTED IN 154 ITR 148, THE HON ' BLE SUPREME COURT HELD AND OBSERVED AS UNDER: 'TAX PLANNING MAY BE LEGITIMATE PROVIDED IT IS WITHIN THE FRAMEWO R K OF LAW. COLOURABLE DEVICES CANNOT BE PART OF TAX PLANNING AND IT IS WRONG TO ENCOURAGE OR ENTERTAIN THE BELIEF THAT IT IS HONOURABLE TO AVOI D THE PAYMENT OF TAX BY RESORTING TO DUBIOUS METHODS. IT IS THE OBLIGATION OF EVERY CITIZEN TO PAY THE TAXES HONESTLY WITHOUT RESORTING TO SUBTERFUGES.' RELIANCE IS ALSO PLACED ON THE RECENT DECISION OF THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF SHRI SAUJAY BIMALCHAND JAIN L/H OF SHANTIDEVI BIMALCHAND JAIN VS. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - L, NAGPUR & ANOTHER REPORTED IN ITA NO.18/2017 ORDER DATED 10.04.2017 HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE ITAT IN APPELLANT'S OWN CASE REPORTED IN ITA NO.61/ NAG/2013, A.Y.2006 - 07 ORDER DARED 18.07.2016. THE HON'BLE HIGH COURT HAS DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE REVENUE ON PENNY STOCK ADDITION, THEREFORE, IN PRINCIPLE, EVEN IN THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT IS SQUARELY APPLICABLE. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE STATED FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS CONFIRMED AS THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED LTCG IN A DUBIOUS MANNER AS ESTABLISHED BY THE DIRECTORATE OF INVESTIGATION, K OLKATA AND FURTHER ESTABLISHED AT THE TIME OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. HENCE, THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT IS DISM ISSED. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 5. BEFORE US, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE PAGE 23 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND PAGE 26 OF THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY TO SUBMIT THAT 8 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE FACTS IN THIS APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THE HUF OF THE ASSE SSEES HUSBANDS CASE IN SHASHIKANT B. MHATRE V/S ITO, BEING ITA NO.694/ MUM./2018, ORDER DATED 29 TH MAY 2019, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD . THE LEARNED COUNSEL SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE BEING IDENTICAL TO THE ISSUE RAISED IN HUF OF HER HUSBAND S CAS E, THEREFORE, THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY RELYING UPON THE ORDER OF THE CO ORDINATE BENCH IN SHASHIKANT B. MHATRE (SUPRA) CASE . 6. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL AUTHORITIES, ON THE OTHER HAND, OBJECTED TO THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE LEAR NED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT CHERRY PICK THE ISSUES AND CASES. 7. CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE ISSUE FOR OUR ADJUDICATION RELATES TO THE DISALLOWANCE UNDER SECTION 68 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INCOME . EXACTLY SIMILAR ISSUE HAS BEEN DECIDED BY THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI, IN HUF OF HER HUSBANDS CASE IN SHASHIKANT B. MHATRE V/S ITO, BEING ITA NO.694/MUM./201 8, ORDER DATED 29 TH MAY 2019, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED ON RECORD , WHEREIN THE CO ORDINATE BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL , ON IDENTICAL AND ON SIMILAR SET OF FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES , AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES HAS DECIDED THE ISS UE IN FAVOUR O F THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE 9 MRS. PRATIBHA S. MHATRE REVENUE. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISION, WE ALLOW THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 8. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL IS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.06.2021 SD/ - MAHAVIR SINGH VICE PRESIDENT SD/ - S. RIFAUR RAHMAN ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 11.06.2021 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : (1) THE ASSESSEE; (2) THE REVENUE; (3) THE CIT(A); (4) THE CIT, MUMBAI CITY CONCERNED; (5) THE DR, ITAT, MUMBAI; (6) GUARD FILE . TRUE COPY BY ORDER PRADEEP J. CHOWDHURY SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI