ASST CIT 19(3), MUMBAI V. RAJESH M SHAH(HUF), MUMBAI

ITA 7105/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 125 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1447 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-08-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 05-12-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHAITANYA ANJARIA
• Keywords: Bogus purchase; Initiation of penalty proceedings; Accommodation entries
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 68; 37

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE HONBLE SH. R. C. SHARMA, AM & HONBLE SH. SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM ./ I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13) ACIT- 19 (3), R. NO. 203, 2 ND FLOOR, MATRU MANDIR, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI-400 007 / VS. RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) CC-2082, BHARAT DIAMOND BOURSE, BKC BANDRA (EAST) MUMBAI-400051. ./ ./ PAN NO. AADHR6852G ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI CHAITANYA ANJARIA, DR / RESPONDENTBY : SHRI SUCHEK ANCHALIYA , AR / DATE OF HEARING : 09.08.2018 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 30.08.2018 / O R D E R PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (APPEAL) 30, MUMBAI DATED 16.09. 16 FOR AY 2012-13 ON THE GROUNDS MENTIONED HEREIN BELOW:- 2 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) 1. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES IN THE NAMES OF MARVIN ENTERPRISES, MEENAKSHI EXPORTS, MEENAKSHI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. AND MUKTI EXPORTS WERE GENUINE WHEN IN TH E SEARCH BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND LATER IT WAS CONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THESE ARE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY.' 2. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN HOLDING THAT TH E INTEREST ON THE LOAN TAKEN THROUGH ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES WAS GENUINE.' 3. 'WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE C ASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN NOT CONSIDERING THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS OF THE HON'BLE SUPREME COUR T IN ROSHAN DI HATTI VS. CIT(SC) 107 ITR 938, KALE KHAN MOHAMMED HANIF VS. CIT(SC) 50 ITR 1 AND SREELEKHA BANERJEE & ORS VS. CIT(SC) 49 ITR 112.' 4. THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE ORDER OF THE LEARNE D CIT(A) ON THE ABOVE GROUNDS BE SET SIDE AND THAT OF THE AO BE RESTORED. 3 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) 5. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO AMEND OR ALTER OR DELETE ANY GROUND OR ADD A NEW GROUND WHICH MAY BE NECESSARY. 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT, THE ASSESS EE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE CAPACITY OF HUF, ON 25-09-2 012, DECLARING A LOSS OF (-) 2,75,54,633/-. THE ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF 'TRADING AND MANUFACTURING IN DIAMO NDS'. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY BY CASS AND STATUTOR Y NOTICE U/S 143(2) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 06-08-2013. SUBSEQU ENTLY NOTICE U/S 142(1) OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 12-09-2014 ALON G WITH QUESTIONNAIRE. DUE TO THE CHANGE IN JURISDICTION, F RESH NOTICES UNDER THE SECTIONS WERE ISSUED ONCE AGAIN BY THE NE W AO. ASSESSMENT U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, WAS FINALIZED BY THE LD. AO ON 24-03-2015, DETERMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT 1,28 ,86,260/-, AFTER SETTING OFF THE LOSS. 3. SEARCH & SEIZURE OPERATIONS AS WELL AS SURVEY OP ERATIONS WERE CONDUCTED ON 03-10-2013 BY THE INVESTIGATION W ING, MUMBAI, IN THE GROUP CONCERNS OF ONE SHRI BHANWARLA L JAIN. DURING THE COURSE OF THE SEARCH OPERATION, IT WAS F OUND THAT THE 4 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) ACTIVITIES OF THE GROUP WERE OPERATED THROUGH SEVER AL NAME LENDING DUMMY DIRECTORS, PARTNERS/ PROPRIETORS OF V ARIOUS CONCERNS BELONGING TO THE NATIVE PLACE OF SHRI BHAN WARLAL JAIN & FAMILY, AND ARE ENGAGED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES OF BOGUS PURCHASES/ UNSECURED LOANS TO VARIOUS BENEFIC IARIES. THE CONCERNS WERE LITERALLY CONTROLLED, OPERATED AND MA NAGED BY SHRI BHANWARLAL JAIN AND HIS FAMILY. THOSE PERSONS ADMIT TED THIS FACT IN THE SWORN STATEMENTS RECORDED FROM THEM DURING T HE COURSE OF SEARCH OPERATION AND THEY HAVE ALSO ADMITTED THAT S HRI BHANWARLAL JAIN MADE THEM TO THE POSITION. ON VERIF ICATION OF THE DOCUMENTS FORWARDED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING, AO F OUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES FOR U NSECURED LOANS FROM SIX GROUP CONCERNS OF SHRI BHANWARLAL JA IN, DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR RELEVANT TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THE AMOUNT OF LOANS TAKEN FROM THOSE SIX DUMMY CONCERNS IS TO THE TUNE OF 3,83,10,000/- FOR THE YE AR UNDER CONSIDERATION. IN RESPONSE TO THE SHOW CAUSE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE AO, THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED DETAILS OF LOANS RECEIVE D AND THE INTEREST PAID ON THE LOANS AND COPIES OF THE AFFIDA VITS OF THE LOAN LENDERS ETC., THROUGH THEIR LETTERS DATED 07-01-201 5 & 19-03- 5 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) 2015. AO CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS AND STATED THAT IN THE SEARCH CONDUCTED BY THE INVESTIGATION WING IT WAS C ONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THE GROUP CONCERNS ARE PROVIDING ACCOMM ODATION ENTRIES AND THE UNSECURED LOANS IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNT OF THE APPELLANT REMAINED UNVERIFIABLE. AO, ARRIVED AT THE CONCLUSION THAT THE APPELLANT HAS TAKEN UNSECURED LOAN ENTRIES FROM CERTAIN PARTIES TO INTRODUCE UNACCOUNTED CASH IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND THE CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN CR EDITORS/ LENDER WAS NOT ESTABLISHED AND CORROBORATED BY RELEVANT SU PPORTING DOCUMENTS. AO ALSO STATED THAT MERE FILING OF EVIDE NCES SUCH AS COPIES OF BANK STATEMENT SHOWING PAYMENT THROUGH AC COUNT PAYEE CHEQUE CANNOT BE CONCLUSIVE PROOF OR SACROSAN CT, WHERE GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTION IS IN DOUBT. AO NOT ACCE PTED THE UNSECURED LOAN FROM THE SIX PARTIES TOTALING TO 3,8 3,10,000/- AS GENUINE BORROWINGS, BY STATING THAT THE APPELLANT F AILED TO CUMULATIVELY PROVE THE THREE ESSENTIAL INGREDIENTS SUCH AS IDENTITY, CREDITWORTHINESS AND GENUINENESS OF THE L OAN LENDERS, THERE BY THE LOANS ARE SQUARELY COVERED BY THE PROV ISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. SINCE THE LOANS WERE TREATED AS ACCOMMOD ATION ENTRIES, 6 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) THE INTEREST DEBITED TO THE P & L ACCOUNT, CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TOWARDS SUCH LOANS TO THE TUNE OF 21,30,894/- WAS ALSO DISALLOWED AND ADDED TO THE TOTAL INCOME, U/S 37 OF THE ACT. PENALTY PROCEEDINGS ARE INITIATED U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, FOR FILING INACCURATE PARTICULARS OF INCOME. 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF AO, ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEAL BEFORE LD. CIT(A) AND LD. CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE CASE OF BOTH THE PARTIES, PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE. 5. NOW BEFORE US, THE REVENUE HAS PREFERRED THE PRE SENT APPEAL BY RAISING THE ABOVE GROUNDS. GROUND NO. 1 TO 4 6. SINCE ALL THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE ARE INTER CONNECTED AND INTER RELATED AND RELATES TO CHALLENG ING THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) IN HOLDING THAT THE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIE S IN THE NAMES OF MARVIN ENTERPRISES, MEENAKSHI EXPORTS, MEE NAKSHI DIAMONDS PVT. LTD. AND MUKTI EXPORTS WERE GENUINE W HEN IN THE SEARCH BY THE INVESTIGATION WING AND LATER IT WAS C ONCLUSIVELY PROVED THAT THESE ARE ACCOMMODATION ENTRIES ONLY, T HEREFORE WE THOUGHT IT FIT TO DISPOSE OF THE SAME BY THIS COMMO N ORDER. 7 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) 7. WE HAVE HEARD COUNSELS FOR BOTH THE PARTIES AT L ENGTH AND WE HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE MATERIAL PLACED ON RECORD AS WELL AS THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AUTHORITIES. BEFORE WE DECIDE THE MERITS OF THE CASE, IT IS NECE SSARY TO EVALUATE THE ORDERS PASSED BY LD. CIT(A). THE LD. C IT(A) HAS DEALT WITH THE ABOVE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE IN PARA NO. 5 TO 10 OF ITS ORDER. THE OPERATIVE PORTION OF THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) IS CONTAINED IN PARA NO. 6(6.3.27-6.3.30) TO 10 OF ITS ORDER AND THE SAME IS REPRODUCED BELOW:- 6.3.27 HENCE, IT IS TO BE INFERRED FROM THE ABOVE DISCUSSED DECISIONS OF THE DIFFERENT JUDICIAL FORUM S, THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS SUPPLIED ALL POSSIBLE INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO EX PLAIN THE CREDIT TRANSACTION, HE HAS SATISFACTORILY DISCH ARGED THE BURDEN CAST ON HIM AND IT WOULD BE FOR THE REVE NUE TO PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTION IS NOT SATISFACTORILY EXPLAINED AND PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT A RE APPLICABLE. 6.3.28 IN THE CASE BEFORE ME, THE RECORD ALSO SHOW S THAT TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE IMPUGNED LOAN ENTRIES FROM THE 6 CREDITORS, THE APPELLANT HAS 8 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) FURNISHED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER THE FOLLOWING DE TAILS COPIES OF WHICH WERE ALSO FURNISHED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS: I. PAN DETAILS OF CREDITORS II. CONSTITUTION AND ADDRESS OF THE CREDITORS III PARTICULARS OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE CREDITORS [THESE SHOW THAT THE CREDITORS ARE LEGITI MATE BUSINESS ENTITIES, HAVING THE ABILITY TO ADVANCE TH E IMPUGNED LOANS TO THE APPELLANT.] IV. CONFIRMATORY LETTERS GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS V. AUDITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS (INCLUDING BALANCE SHEETS) OF THE CREDITORS [THESE SHOW THAT THE LOANS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE CREDI TORS.] VI. RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS [THESE SHOW THAT THE LOAN AMOUNTS WERE PAID THROUGH LEGITIMATE BANKING CHANNELS. FURTHER THESE BANK STATEMENTS DO NOT REFLECT ANY MOVEMENT OF CASH, ESSENTIAL TO HAWALA TRANSACTIONS.] VII. DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID TO THE CREDITORS VIII. DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED AND PAID. 6.3.29 AS SUCH, IN SO FAR AS THE APPELLANT IS CONCE RNED, IT HAS PROVIDED ALL POSSIBLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE T O 9 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) PROVE IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS FROM WHOM THE IMPUGNED LOANS OF RS. 3,83,10,000 WERE OBTAINED. TH E EVIDENCE ALSO REASONABLY PROVES CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIO NS. MOREOVER, HOW ALL THE LOANS WERE OBTAINED AND REPAI D THROUGH THE BANK ACCOUNTS, IN THE SAME-YEAR OR IN T HE SUBSEQUENT YEAR WERE ALSO FURNISHED IN THE NOTARISE D AFFIDAVITS BEFORE THE AO(COPIES OF WHICH ARE FURNIS HED IN THE PRESENT PROCEEDINGS) WHICH IS DISCUSSED IN P ARA 6.3.12 ABOVE. 6.3.30 THUS, IT HAS TO BE SAID THAT THE APPELLANT H AD DONE EVERYTHING IN ITS POWER TO PROVE THE THREE INGREDIENTS REQUIRED TO PROVE THE SATISFACTORY NATU RE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ONUS HAD SHIFTED TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. IF THE ASSESS ING OFFICER WAS STILL NOT SATISFIED, HE HAD THE OPTION OF MAKING INQUIRIES FROM THE ALLEGED LENDERS BY SUMMONING THEM. HOWEVER, AS SEEN FROM THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, HE DID NOT DO ANY SUCH THING. FURTHER, IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH WHAT HAD BEEN GIVEN TO HIM BY THE APPELLANT, HE WAS DUTY BOUND TO SPECIFY WHAT MORE MATERIAL HE WANTED THE APPELLANT TO FURNISH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER NEV ER ASKED FOR ANY FURTHER MATERIAL, THIS LEADS TO THE INESCAPABLE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COULD NOT THINK OF ANY FURTHER MATERIAL TO ASK FOR AND 10 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) PROCEEDED TO REJECT THE APPELLANT'S CLAIMS, RELYING UPON THE INFORMATION/ MATERIAL, WHICH HE NEVER EVEN BROU GHT TO THE NOTICE OF THE APPELLANT FOR ANY REBUTTAL. TH E UNEQUIVOCAL CONCLUSION IS THAT ALL THE THREE INGRED IENTS HAVING BEEN SATISFIED, THE IMPUGNED LOANS OF Z 3.83 CRORE HAVE TO BE TREATED AS EXPLAINED SATISFACTORIL Y AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS WRONG IN HAVING DISREGARD ED THE EVIDENCES BROUGHT BEFORE THE AO. FURTHER, NO COGENT MATERIAL WAS ADDUCED BY HIM, TO SHOW THAT LOANS WERE UNEXPLAINED. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 3,83,10,000/-, MADE IN THE ASSESSME NT ORDER, FAILS ON SEVERAL COUNTS - (1) RELIANCE ON EVIDENCE THAT IS TOTALLY INADEQUATE; (2) FAILURE TO MAKE AVAILABLE INCRIMINATING MATERIAL (REPORTS, STATEMEN TS ETC.) FORMING BASIS FOR ACTION BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER; (3) FAILURE TO GIVE DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE APPELLAN T TO CROSS-EXAMINE WITNESSES, WHOSE STATEMENT MIGHT HAVE BEEN RELIED UPON; AND, (4) FAILURE TO RECOGNISE THE SATISFACTORY NATURE OF THE EXPLANATION / EVIDENCE TENDERED BY THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN IDENTITY OF CREDITORS, CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE CREDITORS AND TH E GENUINENESS OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITION OF RS. 3,83,10,000/- IS HEREBY DELETED. 7. IN THE LATER PART OF GROUND NO. 1, THE APPELLANT RAISED THE ISSUE OF ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE 11 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST PAYMENT OF RS. 21,30,894/- ON THE SAID NON-GENUINE LOANS. THE APPELLANT ALSO SUBMITTED THE DETAILS OF THE TDS MADE ON THE LOANS WHEREVER IT IS APPLICABLE AND THE DETAILS OF AMOUNT OF TDS PAID INTO THE GOVERNMENT ACCOUNT. IN THE APPELLANT CASE THE ADDITION MADE TOWARDS THE SAID LOANS IS DELETED AFTER DISCUSSING THE ISSUE IN DETA IL IN THE ABOVE PARAGRAPHS. IN VIEW OF THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, SINCE THE LOANS ARE TREATED AS GENUINE AND T HE INTEREST IS DEBITED TO THE PROFIT AND LOSS ACCOUNT ON THE SAID LOANS, THE DISALLOWANCE OF INTEREST IS ALSO DE LETED ON THE SAME FACTS AND LEGAL POSITION AS DISCUSSED ABOVE. GROUND NO. 2 IS WITH REGARD TO INITIATION OF PENALT Y PROCEEDINGS U/S 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT, BY THE ASSESS ING OFFICER. AS FAR AS CHALLENGING THE INITIATION OF PROCEEDINGS ARE CONCERNED, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PREMATURE, AS THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS IMPOSED NO PENALTY. THERE IS NO REMEDY AGAINST MERE INITIATION OF PENALTY PROCEEDINGS U/S. 246A OF THE I.T. ACT. HOWE VER, THE APPELLANT SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO APPROACH THIS OFFICE IN CASE SUCH PENALTY IS IMPOSED BY THE AO IN FUTURE . FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN T O BE DISMISSED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 9. IN GROUND NO. 3 OF THE APPEAL IT IS STATED THAT, 'THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, ALTER, VARY, OMIT, 12 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) SUBSTITUTE OR AMEND, THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL, A T ANY TIME BEFORE OR AT, THE TIME OF HEARING, OF THE APPEAL, SO AS TO ENABLE TO LEARN COMMISSIONER (APPEALS) TO DECIDE THE APPEALS ACCORDING TO LAW. THE APPELLANT ALSO CRAVES LEAVE TO SUBMIT ADDITIONA L DOCUMENTS AND FACTS AS MAY BE NECESSARY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DISPOSAL OF THIS APPEAL'. NO SUCH OPTION HAS BEEN EXERCISED BY THE APPELLANT DURING THE APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, IT IS CLEAR THAT THIS GROUN D OF APPEAL IS ACADEMIC IN NATURE AND NO DECISION IS REQUIRED IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. FOR T HE STATISTICAL PURPOSE, THIS SHOULD BE TAKEN TO BE DIS MISSED GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 10. IN THE RESULT, FOR THE STATISTICAL PURPOSES, APPEAL FILED FOR THE A.Y. 2012-13, IS TREATED AS PARTLY ALLOWED'. AFTER HAVING GONE THROUGH THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE AS WELL AS CONSIDERING THE ORDERS PASSED BY REVENUE AU THORITIES, JUDGMENTS CITED AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE PA RTIES, WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) CONSIDERED THE RECORDS, WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAD PLACED ON RECORD TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF TH E LOAN ENTRIES FROM THE SIX CREDITORS IN THE SHAPE OF I) PAN DETAILS OF 13 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) CREDITORS, II) CONSTITUTION AND ADDRESS OF THE CRE DITORS, III) PARTICULARS OF INCOME-TAX RETURNS FILED BY THE CRED ITORS [THESE SHOW THAT THE CREDITORS ARE LEGITIMATE BUSINESS ENT ITIES, HAVING THE ABILITY TO ADVANCE THE IMPUGNED LOANS TO THE APPELL ANT.], IV) CONFIRMATORY LETTERS GIVEN BY THE CREDITORS, V) AUD ITED FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS (INCLUDING BALANCE SHEETS) OF THE CREDITOR S [THESE SHOW THAT THE LOANS ARE DULY REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF A CCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS.], VI) RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CR EDITORS [THESE SHOW THAT THE LOAN AMOUNTS WERE PAID THROUGH LEGITI MATE BANKING CHANNELS. FURTHER THESE BANK STATEMENTS DO NOT REFL ECT ANY MOVEMENT OF CASH, ESSENTIAL TO HAWALA TRANSACTIONS. ], VII) DETAILS OF INTEREST PAID TO THE CREDITORS AND VIII) DETAILS OF TDS DEDUCTED AND PAID. 8. IN THIS WAY, THE ASSESSEE HAS PROVIDED ALL POSSI BLE DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO PROVE THE IDENTITY OF THE C REDITORS FROM WHOM THE IMPUGNED LOAN WAS OBTAINED. 9. ANOTHER IMPORTANT ASPECT OF THIS CASE IS THAT, T HAT ALL THE LOANS AS WERE OBTAINED WERE ALSO REPAID THROUGH THE BANKING 14 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) CHANNEL REGARDING THIS, A DULY NOTORISED AFFIDAVIT WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE DETAILS OF WHICH ARE ALREADY CONTA INED IN PARA NO. 6.3.12 OF THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A). EVEN OTHERWI SE, IT IS A SETTLED LAW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE DISCHARGES ITS O NUS BY PROVING THE SATISFACTORY NATURE OF THE LOAN TRANSACTIONS, T HEN THE ONUS SHIFT UPON THE AO AND IN HIS WISDOM, THE AO HAS OPTION OF MAKING INQUIRIES FROM THE ALLEGED LENDERS. 10. EVEN THE COORDINATE BENCHES OF ITAT IN SERIES O F DECISIONS HAVE DELETED THE ADDITIONS UNDER THE SIMI LAR CIRCUMSTANCES. IN THIS RESPECT, WE REFER CASE TILED ITO VRS. M/S VIKRAM MUKTILAL VORA IN ITA NOS. 842/MUM/2017, ITO VRS. GUJRAT CONSTRUCTION IN ITA NO. 7040/MUM/2016, ACIT VRS. SHRI DILIP CHIMANLAL GANDHI IN ITA NO. 7079/MUM/2016, SHRI NARESH HIRAN VRS. ITO IN ITA NO. 1236/MUM/2017, ACIT VRS. SHRI VASHU BHAGNANI IN ITA NO. 5648/MUM/2016 AND ACIT VRS. SHRI SUMIT J. JAIN IN ITA NO. 145/MUM/2017. 11. MOREOVER, NO NEW FACTS OR CONTRARY JUDGMENTS HA VE BEEN BROUGHT ON RECORD BEFORE US IN ORDER TO CONTROVERT OR REBUT THE 15 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY LD. CIT(A). THEREFORE, WE S EE NO REASONS TO INTERFERE INTO OR DEVIATE FROM THE FINDI NGS RECORDED BY THE LD.CIT(A). HENCE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS WELL AS FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE COORDINATE BENCHES AN D IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN JUDICIAL CONSISTENCY, WE ARE OF THE CONSID ERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS SO RECORDED BY THE LD. CIT (A) ARE JUD ICIOUS AND ARE WELL REASONED. RESULTANTLY, THESE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED . 12. IN THE NET RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE STANDS DISMISSED WITH NO ORDER AS TO COST. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH AUGUST, 2018 SD/- SD/- (R. C. SHARMA) (SANDEEP GOSAIN) ! / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ' #! / JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI; # DATED :30.08.2018 SR.PS. DHANANJAY 16 I.T.A. NO. 7105/MUM/2016 RAJESH M SHAH (HUF) / 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 FILE / BY ORDER, . / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI