Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1551 (ITAT-DELHI)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
1 year(s) 3 month(s) 15 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date
14-12-2020
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
F
Assessment Year
2011-2012
Appeal Filed On
29-08-2019
Judgement Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH F, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2011-12 M/S. RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. (FORMERLY KNOWN AS RED PRO LINKERS PVT. LTD.), 101, 10 TH FLOOR, PP TOWERS NETAJI SUBHASH PLACE, PITAMPURA, NEW DELHI - 110034 VS ITO, WARD 21(2), NEW DELHI-110002 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AADCR9332C ASSESSEE BY : SH. M. R. SAHU, CA REVENUE BY : SH. RAMESH KUMAR, SR. DR DATE OF HEAR ING: 0 5 . 1 1 .20 20 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14 .12 .20 20 ORDER PER DR. B. R. R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-7, NEW DELHI DATED 08.0 7.2019. 2. FOLLOWING GROUNDS HAVE BEEN RAISED BY THE ASSESS EE: 1. THAT THE INITIATION OF THE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS U/S 147/148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT IS ILLEGAL AND THUS THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 IS NULL AND VOID. 2. THAT THE REASONS RECORDED BEFORE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT ARE NOT BONAFIDE AND NOT PROPER. HENCE, THE ASSESSMENT MADE ON SUCH INVALID REASONS SHOULD BE QUASHED. ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 2 3. THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT DATED 07.12.2018 IS BAD IN LAW AND IS AGAINST THE PROVISIONS OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. THUS, THE ASSESSMENT COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 MUST BE ANNULLED AND BE TREATED AS INVALID ASSESSMENT. 4. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN CONFIRMING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS CASH CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT OF RS. 50,00,000/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS OF T HE CASE AND GIVING THE ASSESSEE A PROPER OPPORTUNITY O F BEING HEARD AGAINST THE PRINCIPALS OF NATURAL JUSTI CE. THUS, THE ADDITION MUST BE DELETED. 5. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS I N UPHOLDING THE ADDITION MADE OF RS. 50,00,000/- U/S 68 OF THE ACT AS ACCOMMODATION ENTRY MERELY ON THE BASIS OF A STATEMENT OF A THIRD PARTY MR. S K JAIN WHICH WAS NOT CONFRONTED TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND WAS NOT CROSS EXAMINED. THUS, THE ADDITION MADE MUST BE DELETED. 6. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN SUSTAINING THE ADDITION MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF RS. 75,000/- BEING 1.5% OF RS. 50,00,000/- TREATING THE SAID NOTIONAL AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT AS COMMISSION PAID FOR TAKING THE ALLEGED ACCOMMODATION ENTRY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON RECORD. THUS, THE ADDITIO N MADE OF RS. 75,000/- MUST BE DELETED. 7. THAT THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN LAW AND ON FACTS IN LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234B OF THE INCOME TAX ACT AS PER THE COMPUTATION WITH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACTS ON RECORD. THUS, THE INTEREST LEVIED MUST BE DELETED. 3. THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRESS THE ISSUE OF REOPENIN G U/S 148 TAKEN AT GROUND NOS. 1 TO 3. 4. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WAS INCORPORATED ON 26.03.2 008 UNDER THE COMPANIES ACT, 1956 AND HAS SH. ARUN KUMA R AND ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 3 SH. RANJAN GUPTA AS THE DIRECTORS. FOR THE INSTANT YEAR, THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF INCOME ON 15.09.2011 DECLA RING LOSS OF RS.13,159/-. 5. DURING THE YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED UNSEC URED LOAN OF RS.50,00,000/- FROM ONE COMPANY NAMELY M/S RKG F INVEST PVT. LTD. THE REVENUE ALLEGED THAT AS PER THE INFOR MATION RECEIVED FROM THE INVESTIGATION WING THAT THIS COMP ANY HAS BEEN FLOATED BY THE ENTRY OPERATORS AND IS A DUMMY COMPANY INVOLVED IN PROVIDING ACCOMMODATION ENTRY IN THE GA RB OF OSTENSIBLE BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS THOUGH INFACT NOT CONDUCTING ANY BUSINESS OPERATIONS AND AS SUCH THE AMOUNTS REC EIVED FROM M/S RKG FINVEST PVT. LTD. ARE TO BE TREATED AS BOGU S AND TAXABLE U/S 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961. THE AO HAS ISSUED NOTICE U/S 133(6) TO THE LENDER COMPANY AND SENT IN SPECTOR FOR VERIFICATION OF THE PREMISES OF THE LENDER COMPANY. WHILE THE LENDER COMPANY SENT REPLY TO THE AO BY E-MAIL, THE INSPECTOR REPORTED THAT THE LENDER COMPANY WAS AT TENANT FOR THE PERIOD FROM APRIL 2014 TO MARCH 2016 AT THE SAID PREMISES. BASED ON THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR, THE AO HELD THAT THE A SSESSEE FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION AND ADD ED THE AMOUNT OF RS.50,00,000/- RECEIVED U/S 68 OF THE ACT . 6. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE WENT BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A) WHO CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON THE GROUND S THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED THE ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTION . 7. BEFORE US, IT WAS ARGUED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS S UBMITTED ALL THE RELEVANT DETAILS TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE LD. AR HAS TAKEN AS TO THE REPLY DATED 12.11.2018 WHEREIN THE DETAILS OF ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 4 AUDIT REPORT, BALANCE SHEET, CONFIRMATIONS, LEDGER, BANK STATEMENT OF THE LENDER COMPANY ALONG WITH THE MAST ER DATA AS PER MCA PORTAL HAS BEEN SUBMITTED. THE SAID LOAN HA S BEEN REPAID IN THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AND THE ITR FO R THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13 WAS ALSO FILED BEFORE THE A O. 8. THE LD. DR ARGUED THAT IT IS CLEAR CASE OF BOGUS LOAN RECEIVED FROM A DUMMY COMPANY AND THE NOTICES HAVE ALSO COME BACK UNSERVED AND THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR PROVED NON-EXISTENCE OF THE LENDER COMPANY AT THE PREMISES . HENCE, THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO BE CONFIRMED. 9. HEARD THE ARGUMENTS OF BOTH THE PARTIES AND PERU SED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. FOR THE SAKE OF READY REFERENCE, THE RELEVANT PART OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON THIS I SSUE IS REPRODUCED AS UNDER: TO CROSS EXAMINE THE GENUINENESS AND CREDIT WORTHY OF THE TRANSACTION OF THE PARTY, NOTICE U/S 133(6) WAS SEND TO M/S RKG FINVEST ON 27.11.2018 ON THE ADDRESS I.E. 22, RAJENDRA PARK, NEW DEHI-110060 AS MENTIONED IN COMPANY MASTER DATA AS WELL AS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY VIDE LETTER DATED 12.11.2018 THOUGH INSPECTOR OF THIS WARD. REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR IS REPRODUCED AS BELOW: INSPECTORS REPORT: 'REPORT IN THE CASE OF M/S RKG FINVEST LTD., ADDRES S- 22, RAJINDRA PARK, NEW DELHI -110060. AS DIRECTED, I ENQUIRED THE WHEREABOUTS OF M /S RKG FINVEST LTD LOCATED AT 22, RAJINDRA PARK, NEW DELHI - 110060 ON 27.11.2018 TO SERVE THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE IT ACT, IN THE CASE OF M/S RED PRO MOTORS PV T. LTD (FORMERLY KNOWN AS M/S RED PRO LINKERS PVT. LTD ). NO SIGNBOARD OF COMPANY M/S RKG FINVEST LTD WAS FOUND ON THE RESIDENTIAL ADDRESS AS MENTIONED ON NOTICE U/S 133(6) OF THE IT ACT. IT IS FOUND FROM ENQUIRY THAT MR. SHIV SHANKER AND HIS OTHER TWO ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 5 BROTHERS IS OWNER OF THIS PREMISES. AT THE TIME OF VISIT MR. SHIV SHANKER WAS PRESENT IN THE PREMISES AND I TOLD ME THAT THE COMPANY M/S RKG FINVEST LTD WAS HIS TENANT FOR THE PERIOD APRIL, 2014 TO MARCH, 2016. T HIS COMPANY DOES NOT RUN FROM HERE AND HE HAS NO KNOWLEDGE ABOUT THE NEW ADDRESS OF THE COMPANY. HE ALSO INFORMED THAT ONE OF THE DIRECTORS MR. JAIN IS IN PRISON RIGHT NOW.' THEREAFTER, A REPLY WAS RECEIVED ON THE OFFICIAL WEBMAIL OF THIS WARD I.E. DELHI.ITO21.2@INCOMETAX.GOV.IN FROM MAIL ID RKG_FINVEST@REDIFFMAIL.COM IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 133(6) DATED 27.11.2018 . HOWEVER, AS PER INSPECTORS REPORT, NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED ON THE AB OVE PARTY, SINCE NOBODY RELATED TO M/S RKG FINVEST WAS FOUND AT THE ABOVE ADDRESS. IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING DISCUSSION, I THEREFORE, CONCLUDE THAT A SUM OF RS. 50,00,000/- CREDITED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE SINCE THE PRIMARY ONUS LIES UPON THE ASSESSEE COMPANY TO PROVE THAT THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 68 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. THEREFORE, I HELD IT TO BE THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WITHIN MEANING OF SECTION U/S 68 OF THE INC OME TAX ACT AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 10. THE FACTS RELEVANT FOR THE ADJUDICATION OF THE ISSUE ARE AS UNDER: DATE OF SEARCH /SURVEY IN THE CASE OF S.K. JAIN GROUP 14.09.2010 & 20.11.2010 DATE OF RECEIPT OF AMOUNT 23.02.2011 DATE OF REPAYMENT 31.01.2012 WHETHER THE INFORMATION COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE SEIZED/IMPOUNDED MATERIAL NO ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 6 WHETHER IN SUCH CASE, REOPENING CAN BE BASED ON THE IMPOUNDED MATERIAL NO WHETHER THE INFORMATION COULD BE ATTRIBUTED TO THE POST- SEARCH INVESTIGATION YES STR BASED WHETHER M/S RKG FINVEST LTD. IS CONSIDERED AS A DUMMY- SALE COMPANY BY THE REVENUE YES VALUE OF THE BLOCK OF DEPRECIABLE ASSETS OF M/S RKG FINVEST LTD. RS.2,09,02,868/ - DEPRECIATION CLAIMED RS.29,17,629/ - BANK BALANCE RS.3,26,00,762/ - CASH IN HAND RS.24,37,170/ - TAX PAID NIL WHETHER ASSESSEE DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS YES WHETHER THE LOAN RECEIPT CONFIRMATION WAS SUBMITTED TO AO YES WHETHER THE LOAN REPAYMENT DETAILS SUBMITTED TO AO YES WHETHER THE INSPECTOR REPORT PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF LENDER COMPANY AT THE PREMISES DURING THE PERIOD OF APRIL 2014 TO MARCH 2016 YES WHETHER THE LENDER COMPANY REPLIED TO THE NOTICE U/S 133(6) YES WHETHER THE COMPANY IS STRUCK OFF NO ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 7 FROM THE MCA WHETHER THE REVENUE ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS OF THE LENDER COMPANY NO WHETHER ANY SUMMONS WERE ISSUED TO THE DIRECTORS OF THE LENDER COMPANY NO 11. THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF UNSECURED LOANS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR IS RS.4.836 CRS. OUT OF WH ICH THE AMOUNT OF RS.50 LACS RECEIVED FROM THE M/S RKG FINV EST PVT. LTD. IS TREATED U/S 68 OF THE ACT. TO BE PRCISED, THE ALLEGATIONS OF THE AO ARE THAT THE LENDER COMPANY IS THE DUMMY COMPANY, THE LOAN RECEIVED IS BOGUS, THE INSPECTOR REPORT PR OVED NON- EXISTENCE OF THE COMPANY AT THE GIVEN ADDRESS AND T HE NOTICE U/S 133(6) HAS NOT BEEN COMPLIED PROPERLY. THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER GOING THROUGH THE FACTS HELD THAT DESPITE REP EATED OPPORTUNITIES, NO EFFORTS WAS MADE TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS EITHER THROUGH DOCUMENTS OR BY PRODUCING THE PERSONS. THE LD. CIT (A) HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCHARGED HIS ONUS OF PROVING THE GENUINENESS OF THE TRANSACTION OR THE CREDITWOR THINESS OF THE LENDER. 12. WE HAVE EXAMINED EACH ALLEGATION OF THE REVENUE WITH REGARD TO THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE REASONS U/S 1 48 STARTED WITH THE ALLEGATION THAT RS.4.83 CRS. HAS BEEN RECE IVED BY THE ASSESSEE DOESNT COMMENSURATE WITH THE BUSINESS ACT IVITY OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND IT WAS THE ASSESSEES OWN INCOME TAKEN UNDER THE GUISE OF UNSECURED LOANS FROM ENTRY PROVIDER IN VIEW OF CASH. THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RE CORD TO ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 8 PROVE OR TO PRIMARILY SUPPORT THE ALLEGATION EITHER IN THE FORM OF ANY DIARY ENTRY OR STATEMENT. THE MATERIAL IMPOUNDE D AND THE EVIDENCES GATHERED ON OR BEFORE 20.11.2010 HAVE BEE N UTILIZED TO SUSPECT THE LOAN RECEIVED ON 23.01.2011 BY THE A SSESSEE AND ISSUED NOTICE U/S 148 WITH THE ALLEGATION THAT THE SAID LOAN RECEIVED IS PRIMARILY BOGUS IN NATURE. THE DEPENDEN CY OF THE AO ON THE MATERIAL PRIOR TO THE LENDING OF THE LOAN IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER CORROBORATED EVIDENCES CANNOT BE HELD TO BE JUSTIFIABLE. THE AOS CONTENTION THAT THE INSPECTOR COULD NOT FIND THE LENDER COMPANY AT THE PREMISES IS WRONG ON FACT S AS THE INSPECTOR REPORT SAYS THAT THE COMPANY WAS IN EXIST ENCE AT THE PREMISES FROM APRIL 2014 TO MARCH 2016. IN THAT CAS E, IT IS INCUMBENT UPON THE AO TO ENQUIRE ABOUT THE NEW ADDR ESS OF THE COMPANY FROM THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS NOT DONE. FURTH ER, THE LENDER COMPANY HAS REPLIED TO THE AO ON THE OFFICIA L MAIL WHICH THE AO DID NOT DISPUTE AND DULY MENTIONED IN THE AS SESSMENT ORDER. THE AO HAS NOT ISSUED ANY SUMMONS U/S 131 TO THE DIRECTORS OF A LENDER COMPANY NOR ASKED THE ASSESSE E TO PRODUCE THE DIRECTORS. THE AO HAS NOT ENQUIRED FROM THE DIRECTORS OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AS TO HOW THE AMO UNTS HAVE BEEN RECEIVED AND THE PURPOSE TO PROVE THE ALLEGATI ONS THAT THE LOAN IS BOGUS. THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE AS SESSEE COMPANY IS A DUMMY COMPANY IS FOUND TO BE INCORRECT ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE AS THE DEPRECIABLE ASSETS OF THE LENDER COMPANY ARE TO THE TUNE OF RS.209 LACS ON WHICH THE DEPRECIATION OF RS.21.97 LACS HAS BEEN ALLOWED. THE BANK BALANCE TO RS.3.2 CRS. AND THE CASH BALANCE OF RS.2 4.31 LACS AND THE SALARY PAYMENTS OF RS.14.7 LACS AS ON 31.03 .2011, THE DATE OF INCORPORATION BEING 20.11.1995 GOES AGAINST THE ALLEGATION OF THE AO THAT THE ASSESSEE COMPANY IS A DUMMY ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 9 COMPANY. WITH REGARD TO THE REASONS GIVEN BY THE LD . CIT (A) THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY EFFORT TO DISCHA RGE THE ONUS, WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED ALL T HE DOCUMENTS TO DISCHARGE THE PRIMARY ONUS ALONG WITH DETAILS OF REPAYMENT OF THE LOAN. HAVING RECEIVED ALL THE DOCU MENTS, THE REVENUE FAILED TO BRING ANYTHING ON RECORD EITHER B Y THE WAY OF STATEMENTS RECORDED OR BY ENQUIRIES CONDUCTED OR BY ANY OTHER EVIDENCE COLLECTED TO REBUT THE EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 13. IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE AO HELD THAT THE ASSES SEE COMPANY IS NEITHER HAVING ANY STOCK NOR FIXED ASSET S AND SUSPECTED THAT THE COMPANY TO BE OF A NON-VIABLE EN TITY. SIMILARLY, THE AO HAS ALSO SUSPECTED THE LENDER COM PANY ALSO AS A DUMMY COMPANY BUT WITHOUT BRINGING ANYTHING TANGI BLE ON RECORD TO PROVE BOTH OR EITHER OF THE ALLEGATIONS. 14. FURTHER, RELIANCE IS PLACED UPON THE DECISION O F THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. HIMACHAL FI BRES LTD. (2018) 98 TAXMANN.COM 173 IN WHICH THE DEPARTMENTAL APPEAL WAS DISMISSED CONFIRMING THE DECISION OF THE HONBL E DELHI HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF PR.CIT VS. HIMACHAL FIBRES LTD . (2018) 98 TAXMANN.COM 172 IN WHICH THE HON'BLE DELHI HIGH COU RT HAS FOLLOWED ITS EARLIER DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF PR.CI T VS. SOFTLINE CREATIONS PVT. LTD. (2016) 387 ITR 636, PR.CIT VS. N.C. CABLES LTD (2017) 391 ITR 11 AND IT HAS BEEN HELD THAT IN A CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED ALL RELEVANT FACTS WITHI N HIS KNOWLEDGE AND HAS OFFERED A CREDIBLE EXPLANATION, T HEN THE ONUS REVERTS TO THE REVENUE TO PROVE THAT THESE FAC TS ARE NOT CORRECT. IN SUCH A CASE, THE REVENUE CANNOT DRAW TH E INFERENCE BASED UPON SUSPICION OR DOUBT OR PERCEPTION OF CULP ABILITY OR ON THE QUANTUM OF THE AMOUNT INVOLVED PARTICULARLY WHE N THE ITA NO. 7157/DEL/2019 RED PRO MOTORS PVT. LTD. 10 QUESTION IS ONE OF TAXATION UNDER THE DEEMING PROVI SION. IT WAS FURTHER HELD THAT NEITHER DOUBT/SUSPICION NOR THE Q UANTUM SHALL DETERMINE THE EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION BY THE AO. THUS, GOING THROUGH THE ENTIRE FACTUM OF THE CASE, WE HOLD THAT THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF UNSECURED LOAN OF RS.5 0 LACS COULD NOT PASS THE FACTUAL AND JUDICIAL PROPRIETARY . HENCE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO IS DIRECTED TO BE DELETED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS AL LOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14/12/2020. SD/- SD/- (AMIT SHUKLA) (DR. B. R. R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUN TANT MEMBER DATED: 14/12/2020 *SUBODH* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
Mehul