DCIT 4(1)(1), MUMBAI V. CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 717/MUM/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0825 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-01-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Not Allotted
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2016
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PUJAT MITTAL
• Keywords: Reopening of assessment; Unexplained cash credit; Source of fund; Additional evidence; Onus to prove; Reason to believe
• Section: 143(3); 142(1); 131; 68; 148

Judgement Text

1 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH C, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND SHRI G MANJUNATHA (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A NO.717/MUM/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2007-08) THE DCIT-4(1)(1), MUMBAI VS M/S CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD G-6/7, AMIT INDL. PREMISES 61, DR. SS RAO ROAD, PAREL MUMBAI-12 PAN : AAACC3340E APPELLANT RESPONDEDNT APPELLANT BY SHRI PUJAT MITTAL RESPONDENT BY SHRI VIMAL PUNMIYA DATE OF HEARING 30-11 -2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 24 -01-2018 O R D E R PER G MANJUNATHA, AM : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DIRECTED AGAINS T ORDER OF THE CIT(A)- 9, MUMBAI DATED 27-11-2015 AND IT PERTAINS TO AY 20 07-08. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL : - 1. 'ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE DISALLOWANCE MADE U /S 68 OF THE IT ACT ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS AMOUNTING TO RS .1 ,1 9,87,479/- WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE THREE LIMBS OF SECTI ON 68 OF THE ACT FOR ACCEPTABILITY OF A TRANSACTION HAS NOT BEEN ESTABLI SHED.' 2. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY 2 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE AND STOCK BROKERS SINCE 1995 UNDER LICENCE FROM SEBI. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ITS RETU RN OF INCOME FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 ON 13-10-2007 DECLARING TOT AL INCOME AT RS. 62,92,090. THE CASE WAS SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) OF THE ACT, ON 30-11-2009 DETE RMINING THE TOTAL INCOME AT RS.65,12,090/- BY MAKING AN ADDITION OF R S.2,20,000 U/S 40(A)(IA) ON ACCOUNT OF NON DEDUCTION OF TDS ON CER TAIN PAYMENTS MADE TO STOCK EXCHANGE IN RESPECT OF VSAT CHARGES. THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED APPEAL AGAINST THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEFOR E CIT(A). WHILE DISPOSING OF THE APPEAL, THE CIT(A) HAS DIRECTED TH E AO TO VERIFY THE INVESTMENT MADE BY FAMILY MEMBERS AND RELATIVES OF THE DIRECTORS IN THE COMPANY. THE AO, VIDE HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 09-0 9-2011 SUBMITTED THAT SHARE CAPITAL INTRODUCTION TOTALING TO RS.4 CR ORES FROM 16 MEMBERS INCLUDING CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR WAS VERIFI ED AND FOUND TO BE DULY REFLECTED IN THE INDIVIDUAL SHAREHOLDERS IN BA LANCE-SHEET. INSOFAR AS MARGIN MONEY RECEIVED FROM 21 PERSONS OF THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE DIRECTORS, THE LEDGER EXTRACTS WERE NOT PRODUCED ST ATING THAT THE SAME WAS NOT POSSIBLE IN VIEW OF THE CORRUPTION OF DATA. ON VERIFICATION IT WAS FOUND THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS NOT MARGIN MONE Y BUT IN FACT, WERE LOAN ACCOUNTS. VERIFICATION OF THE BANK ACCOUNTS O F THE DIRECTORS AND THEIR FAMILY MEMBERS ALSO REVEALED THAT HUGE AMOUNT WAS TAKEN FROM DIRECTORS AND THE FAMILY MEMBERS. THE LOANS, WHICH WERE TAKEN BY THE 3 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD ASSESSEE WERE AS A RESULT OF CASH DEPOSIT BY THE SA ID FAMILY MEMBERS. ON THE BASIS OF SAID INFORMATION, THE CASE OF THE A SSESSEE WAS REOPENED BY ISSUE OF NOTICE U/S 148. THE ASSESSEE VIDE LETTER DATED 28- 03-2013 STATED THAT THE RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S 139(1) MAY BE TREATED AS RETURN OF INCOME FILED IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT. THE CASE HAS BEEN SELECTED FOR SCRUTINY AND NOTICES U/S 143(2) AND 142(1) OF THE ACT WERE ISSUED. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 BY DETERMINING THE INCOME AT RS.1,84,99,570 BY MAKING ADDITIONS OF RS.1,19,87,479 U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 B Y HOLDING THAT ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN CREDITS FOUND IN THE NAM E OF FAMILY MEMBERS OF DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES BY PROVING IDENTIT Y, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE ASSESSEE PRE FERRED APPEAL BEFORE THE CIT(A). BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED REOPENING OF ASSESSMENTS ON THE GROUND THAT THE AO INITIATED RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ON THE GROUND THAT THE LD.AO HAS COME TO NOTICE DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT DISCLOSED THE LOANS OBTAINED FROM THE FAMILY MEMBERS OF THE D IRECTORS. IN FACT, THE LOAN RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS HAS BEEN SHOWN UN DER THE HEAD MARGIN MONEY, THEREFORE, THE REASON TO BELIEVE AR RIVED AT BY THE AO FOR REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT IS MERELY ON THE BASIS OF REASON TO SUSPECT WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY MATERIALS TO SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS REALLY 4 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD SHOWN AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS IN THE B OOKS OF ACCOUNT. INSOFAR AS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS MARGIN M ONEY U/S 68 OF THE ACT, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED ELABORATE WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS AND ARGUED THAT IT HAS FURNISHED IDENTITY AND ALSO PROVED GENU INENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES BY FILING VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIRMATION LETTERS FROM PARTIES, THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS, BANK STATEMENTS AND ALSO NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS, THEREFORE , THE AO WAS INCORRECT IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING IDENTITY,GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORT HINESS OF THE PARTIES. 4. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE RELEVANT SUBMISSI ONS OF THE ASSESSEE REJECTED ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE AND UPH ELD REOPENING OF ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING THAT THE WRIT PETITION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE HONBLE HIGH COURT CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OF NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 HAS BEEN DISMISSED BY THE HONBLE HIGH COURT BY HOL DING THAT THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS BY DISCLOSING ALL FACTS TRULY AND FULLY THEREFORE, OPINED THAT THE AO WAS WELL WITHIN HIS D OMAIN TO REOPEN THE ASSESSMENT AS THERE IS ENOUGH MATERIAL WHICH SUGGES TS ESCAPEMENT OF INCOME WITHIN THE MEANING OF SECTION 147 OF THE ACT . INSOFAR AS ADDITION MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY, THE CIT(A) OBS ERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIR MATION LETTERS, INCOME- TAX RETURNS, BANK STATEMENTS OF THE CREDITORS TO PR OVE IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. THE 5 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD ASSESSEE ALSO FILED VARIOUS DETAILS TO PROVE THAT T HE AMOUNT COLLECTED FROM THE PARTIES IS MARGIN MONEY IN RESPECT OF TRAN SACTIONS WITH THE PARTIES FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES IN RECOGNIZ ED STOCK EXCHANGE AND SUCH MARGIN MONEY HAS BEEN COLLECTED AS PER THE REQUIREMENT OF STOCK EXCHANGE AND ALSO IT IS IN CONFORMITY WITH TH E CIRCULARS ISSUED BY SEBI. THE CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS DISCLOSED MARGIN MONEY COLLECTED FROM CUSTOMERS IN ITS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT UNDER THE HEAD MARGIN MONEY DEPOSIT IN SCHEDULE 8 IN CU RRENT LIABILITIES. THE SAID FACT HAS ALSO BEEN DULY CERTIFIED BY THE A UDITORS OF THE COMPANY IN THE CERTIFICATE. AS LONG AS THE SAID TRANSACTIO N CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS LOAN, IT CAN ALSO NOT BE CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAIN ED CREDIT WHEN THE PARTIES CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSE . WITH THESE OBSERVATIONS AND ALSO BY RELYING UPON CERTAIN JUDIC IAL PRECEDENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF RADHASOAMI SATSANG (1992) AIR 377 1991 DELETED ADDI TION MADE BY THE AO U/S 68 TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY. AGGRIEVED BY T HE ORDER OF CIT(A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. THE L.DR SUBMITTED THAT THE LD.CIT(A) ERRED IN DELE TING ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY U/S 68 OF THE I .T. ACT, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO PROVE THE TRANSACTIONS IN THE LIGHT OF PROVISIONS OF SECTION 68 WHERE IT IS MANDATORY TO DISCHARGE THE INITIAL ONUS OF PROVING IDENTITY, GENUINENESS OF 6 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. THE AO HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER THAT THE AS SESSEE IS NON- COOPERATIVE AND HAS NOT FURNISHED ANY DETAILS. THE REFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS COMPLETELY ERRED IN DELETING ADDITIONS BY ACCEP TING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FROM THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT THE PARTIES HAVE DEPOSITED HUGE CASH BEFORE TRANSFER OF THE AMO UNT TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. MERELY BECAUSE THEY HAVE FILED CONFIRMATI ON LETTERS ALONGWITH INCOME-TAX RETURNS, WOULD NOT DISCHARGE THE CREDITW ORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES. THE AO HAS BROUGHT OUT CLEAR FACTS TO THE EFFECT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DISCHARGE 3 LIMBS OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT FOR ACCEPTING A TRANSACTION THAT HAS BEEN ESTABLISHED. THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE AO SHOULD BE UPHELD. 6. THE LD.AR FOR THE ASSESSEE, ON THE OTHER HAND, SUBM ITTED THAT THE ASSESSE HAS FILED ENORMOUS DETAILS TO PROVE IDENTIT Y, GENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES AN D ALSO PROVED THAT THESE ARE NORMAL BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS ON ACCOUNT O F ASSESSEES SHARE TRANSACTIONS WITH ITS CUSTOMERS. THEREFORE, THE AO WAS INCORRECT IN MAKING ADDITION TOWARDS MARGIN MONEY COLLECTED FROM PARTIES U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE LD.AR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE PARTIES ARE INCOME-TAX ASSESSEES AND FILED THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS REGULA RLY AND INVESTMENTS MADE IN ASSESSEE FIRM WERE DISCLOSED BY THEM IN THE IR INCOME-TAX RETURNS. THEY HAVE ALSO FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS ALONG WITH BANK 7 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD STATEMENTS. THEREFORE, THERE IS NO REASON FOR THE A O TO TREAT SAID TRANSACTIONS AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS WHICH COME S WITHIN THE AMBIT OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IN THIS REGARD RELIED UPO N PLETHORA OF JUDGMENTS INCLUDING THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC). THE CASE LAWS RELIED UPON THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED BELOW: 1. CIT VS. ORISSA CORPORATION (1986) 159 ITR 78 (SC ) 2. CIT VS. M/S MARK HOSPITAL (P) LTD. IN ITA APPEAL NO. 968 OF 2014 3. CIT VS. APEX THERM PACKAGING (P) LTD. (2014) 40 CCH 0272 (AHD TRIB) 4. CIT VS. JAI KUMAR BAKLIWAL (2014) 366 ITR 217 (R AJ) 5. CIT VS. SHAMILAR BUILDWELL PVT. LTD. (2014) TAMA N 0138 (ALLAHABAD) 6. SARJAN CORPORATION VS. ACIT (2012) 33 CCH 0130 AHD TRIB. 7. ACIT VS. SANJAY M. JHAVERI (2015) 43 CCH 0370 MU M TRIB. 8. ARCELI REALITY LTD. VS. ITO (2017) 50 CCH 0154 MUM TRIB. 9. ACIT VS. CLARIDGES INVESTMENTS & FINANCES P. LTD . (2017) 26 CCH 0437 MUM TRIB. 7 . WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE MATER IAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF AUTHORITIES B ELOW. THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS.1,19,87,479 U/S 68 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDITS. ACCORDING TO THE AO, ASS ESSEE FAILED TO 8 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD DISCHARGE THE ONUS OF PROVING IDENTITY, GENUINENE SS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES WHICH IS EVIDENT FR OM THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NON-COOPERATIVE AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY EVIDENCES. THE AO FURTHER DISCUSSED THAT ALL THE PARTIES HAVE DEPOSIT ED CASH INTO THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS BEFORE TRANSFERRING FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE COMPANY. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE HELD THAT THE PARTIES ARE H AVING CAPACITY TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE. MERE FILING CONFIRM ATION LETTERS AND THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT CO MPLIANCE TO DISCHARGE INITIAL BURDEN CAST UPON THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN CA SH CREDIT TO COME OUT OF THE CLUTCHES OF SECTION 68 OF THE ACT. IT IS TH E CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT ALL THE PARTIES ARE HAVING SUFFICIENT SOURCES OF INCOME TO EXPLAIN LOAN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS EVIDENT FROM THE FACT THAT ALL ARE REGULARLY ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AND FILING THE IR RETURNS OF INCOME DECLARING AVERAGE TAXABLE INCOME. THE ASSESSEE FUR THER CONTENDED THAT ALL THE PARTIES HAVE FILED CONFIRMATION LETTERS AND ALSO FILED NOTARIZED COPIES OF AFFIDAVITS STATING THAT THE MONEY GIVEN T O THE ASSESSEE ARE MARGIN MONEY FOR SHARE TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, TH ERE IS NO REASON FOR THE AO TO TREAT AMOUNTS ADVANCED AS UNEXPLAINED CRE DITS. 8 . HAVING HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND CONSIDERED MATERI AL ON RECORD, WE FIND FORCE IN THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE REASON THAT THE CIT(A) HAS RECORDED CATEGORICAL FINDING TO THE EFFE CT THAT ALL THE PARTIES HAVE FILED VARIOUS DETAILS INCLUDING CONFIRMATION L ETTERS, BANK STATEMENTS, 9 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD IT RETURNS AND NOTARIZED AFFIDAVITS EXPLAINING THE AMOUNTS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE FOR THE PURPOSE OF MARGIN MONEY DEPOSIT TO WARDS SHARE TRANSACTIONS. WE FURTHER NOTICED THAT THE AO HAS T REATED AMOUNT RECEIVED FROM FAMILY MEMBERS OF DIRECTORS AND THEIR RELATIVES ONLY ON THE BASIS OF CASH DEPOSITS IN THEIR BANK ACCOUNT BEFORE TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO THE ASSESSEE IGNORING THE OTHER FACTORS SUCH AS THE IR CAPACITY TO ADVANCE MONEY TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO THE TRANSACT IONS WITH ASSESSEE COMPANY. ALL THE PARTIES HAVE FILED THEIR CONFIRMATIONS AND ALSO STATED THAT AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE IS NO T A LOAN BUT ONLY A MARGIN MONEY FOR DEALING IN SHARES WHICH IS REQUIRE D TO BE DEPOSITED AS PER THE CIRCULARS ISSUED BY SEBI AS WELL AS NSE. T HEY ALSO FURNISHED BANK STATEMENTS ALONGWITH THEIR INCOME-TAX RETURNS EXPLAINING THE CAPACITY TO PROVE AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. TH EREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS DISC HARGED ITS INITIAL BURDEN CAST U/S 68 OF THE ACT, TO PROVE IDENTITY, G ENUINENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES, T HEN THE BURDEN SHIFTS TO THE REVENUE TO PROVE OTHERWISE. IN THIS CASE, THE AO EXCEPT STATING THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NON-COOPERATIVE AND ALSO NOT FILED ANY DETAILS, FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE CONTRARY TO THE EVIDEN CES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO DISCHARGE ITS ONUS. WE FURTHER ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ONCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED DETAILS OF CREDITORS ALONGWI TH THEIR PAN IT IS FOR THE AO TO DEAL WITH THE CREDITORS IN ACCORDANCE WIT H LAW IN CASE IF HE 10 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITOR S TO EXPLAIN THE AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THIS LEGAL PROPOSITION IS F URTHER SUPPORTED BY THE DECISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CI T VS ORISSA CORPORATION PVT LTD (SUPRA), WHEREIN IT WAS HELD TH AT THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE ALLEGED CREDIT ORS, IT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE REVENUE THAT THE SAID CREDITORS WE RE INCOME-TAX ASSESSES. THEIR BANK PARTICULARS WERE IN THE FILE OF THE REVENUE. THE REVENUE, APART FROM ISSUING NOTICE U/S 131 AT THE I NSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, DID NOT PURSUE THE MATTER FURTHER. THE R EVENUE DID NOT EXAMINE THE SOURCE OF INCOME OF THE SAID ALLEGED CR EDITORS. THERE WAS NO EFFORT TO PURSUE THE SO-CALLED ALLEGED CREDITORS . UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT WAS INCORRECT ON THE PART OF THE AO TO TREAT THE ALLEGED CREDITORS AS UNEXPLAINED INSPITE OF ASSESSEE FURNISHING ALL THE DETAILS. 9. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER AND CONSIDERING THE RAT IO OF THE CASE LAWS DISCUSSED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS DISCHARGED ITS INITIAL ONUS TO PROVE IDENTITY, GENU INENESS OF TRANSACTIONS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE PARTIES IN RESPECT OF M ARGIN MONEY DEPOSITS COLLECTED FROM CREDITORS. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ENORMOUS DOCUMENTS TO PROVE THE CAPACITY OF THE CREDITORS TO EXPLAIN T HE AMOUNT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE AO WAS INCORRECT IN TREATING MARGIN MONEY DEPOSIT COLLECTE D FROM CREDITORS AS 11 CROWN CONSULTANTS (P) LTD UNEXPLAINED CREDIT U/S 68 OF THE ACT. THE CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING RELEVANT SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS RIGHTLY DE LETED ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. WE DO NOT FIND ANY ERROR OR INFIRMITY I N THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A). HENCE, WE ARE INCLINED TO UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE. 10. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 24 TH JANUARY, 2018. SD/- SD/- (JOGINDER SINGH) (G MANJUNATHA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT : 24 TH JANUARY, 2018 PK/- COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER SR. PS, ITAT, MUMBAI