ASST CIT CC 8(4), MUMBAI V. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P.LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 753/MUM/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2300 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-10-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 04-02-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRATAP SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: AJAY R SINGH
• Keywords: Business income; Income from undisclosed sources; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Additional evidence; Corroborative evidences; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 133(6); 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'F' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI JASON P. BOAZ, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN , JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 753/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(4) VS. M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. ROOM NO. 658, 6 TH FLOOR AAAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD, MUMBAI 400020 214/8, GROUND FLOOR RAHEJA CENTRE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 PAN AAACF0730F APPELLANT RESPONDENT ITA NO. 915/MUM/2015 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE - 47 214/8, GROUND FLOOR RAHEJA CENTRE, FREE PRESS JOURNAL MARG, NARIMAN POINT MUMBAI 400021 MUMBAI PAN AAACF0730F APPELLANT RESPONDENT REVENUE BY: SHRI PRATAP SINGH ASSESSEE BY: SHRI AJAY R. SINGH DATE OF HEARING: 26.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.10.2016 O R D E R PER JASON P. BOAZ, A.M. THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, BY BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND R EVENUE DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI DATED 28 .11.2014 FOR A.Y. 2011-12. 2. THE FACTS OF THE CASE, BRIEFLY, ARE AS UNDER: - 2.1 THE ASSESSEE IS A COMPANY ENGAGED IN BUSINESS A S TRAVEL AGENTS, TOUR OPERATORS, CARGO HANDLING, ETC., ALONG WITH IT S GROUP CONCERNS. SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 2 SHORT, 'THE ACT') WAS CARRIED OUT BY THE INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT, MUMBAI ON THIS ZAKA GROUP OF CONCERNS ON 22.02.2011. IN TH E COURSE OF THE SEARCH, UNACCOUNTED CASH/JEWELLERY, INCRIMINATING DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED AND RESULTED IN THIS GROUP ADMITTING TO EARN ING OF UNDISCLOSED BUSINESS INCOME OF RS.6 CRORES. 2.2 FOR A.Y. 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30.09.2011 DECLARING INCOME OF RS.37,94,070/-. THE CASE WAS SUBSEQUENTLY TAKEN UP FOR SCRUTINY. THE ASSESSMENT WAS COMPLETED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 28.03.20 13, WHEREIN THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WAS COMPUTED AT RS.2,04,61,340/-, M AKING THE FOLLOWING ADDITIONS/ DISALLOWANCES TO RETURNED INCOME BASED O N, INTER ALIA, SEIZED DOCUMENTS/ ASSETS: - (I) VISA FEES (ANNEX - A/2, PG. 34) RS. 23,260 (II) CASH PAYMENTS TO MONA, JEENAL, FAIZAL (A NNEX - A/2, PG. 44) RS. 15,00,000 (III) UMRAH ACCOUNTS (ANNEX. A/2, PG. 53) RS. 15,00,000 (IV) ZAIREEN ACCOUNTS (ANNEX. A/2, PG. 54) RS. 15,00,000 (V) DETAILS OF CASH (ANNEX. A/2, PG. 55) RS. 25,00,000 (VI) DETAILS OF CASH (ANNEX. A/2, PG. 56) RS. 83,00,000 (VII) PAYMENTS UNEXPLAINED (ANNEX. A/3, PG. 11) RS. 1,93,546 (VIII) CASH RECEIPTS (ANNEX. A/3, PG. 15) RS. 6,50,000 (IX) CASH RECEIPTS (ANNEX. A/2, PG. 67) RS. 5,00,468 2.3 AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT DATED 28.0 3.2013 FOR A.Y. 2011-12, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AN APPEAL TO THE CI T(A)-47, MUMBAI. THE LEARNED CIT(A) DISPOSED OFF THE APPEAL VIDE ORDER D ATED 28.11.2014, ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE PARTIAL RELIEF. THE ORDER WAS PASSED AFTER CONSIDERING THE AOS REMAND REPORTS DATED 14.07.2014 AND 10.10. 2014 ON ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE LEARNED C IT(A). THE LEARNED CIT(A) DELETED THE ADDITIONS/DISALLOWANCES, AT S. NOS. (I) , (II), (III), (IV), (V), (VII), (VIII) AND (IX) AND UPHELD THE ADDITION AT S. NO. ( VI) AS LISTED OUT AT PARA 2.2 OF THIS ORDER (SUPRA). ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 3 3. BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND REVENUE ARE AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-47, MUMBAI DATED 28.11.2014 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 AND HAVE PREFERRED CROSS APPEALS IN RESPECT OF THE ISSUES HELD AGAINST THEM IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE CROSS APPEALS ARE DISPOSED OFF HEREUNDER . REVENUES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 753/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2 011-12 4. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY REVENUE ARE EXTRACTED HEREUND ER: - 1) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 23, 260/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF NON RECONCILIATION OF VISA FEE AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING T HE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT I S FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF TH E DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. 2) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 15,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT AS UNDISCLOSED INCO ME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROV ISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT IS FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUM ENTS ARE TRUE. 3) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 15,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UMRA ACCOUNTS AS UNACCOUNTED INC OME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT I S FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF TH E DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. 4) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 15,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF ZAIREEN ACCOUNT AS UNACCOUNTED I NCOME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT I S FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF TH E DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. 5) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 25,00,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON THE B ASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT IS FOUND DURING S EARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE . 6) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 1,93,546/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF PAYMENT MADE AS UNEXPLAINED PAYM ENT ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 4 SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT I S FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF TH E DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. 7) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 6,50,000/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS OF CASH AS UNACCOUNTED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF ANY DOCUMENT I S FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF TH E DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. 8) ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE A ND IN THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS 5,00,468/- MADE ON ACCOUNT OF RECEIPTS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE AS UNA CCOUNTED RECEIPTS ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER, WITHOUT APPRE CIATING THE PROVISION OF SECTION 132(4A) WHICH STATES THAT IF A NY DOCUMENT IS FOUND DURING SEARCH IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE CONTENT OF THE DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE. 5. GROUND NO. 1 ADDITION OF RS.23,2600/- ON ACCOUNT OF VISA FEES 5.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSU E AS UNDER: - 5.1 THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 HAS NOT GIVEN ANY SUBMISSION REGARDING THIS ADDITION OF RS.23,260/-. THE APPELLANT IN WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28.11.2014 HAS STATED AS U NDER: 'THE A.O. MADE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER S MARKED AS ANNEXURE A-2 PAGE NO.34. THE ASSESSEE HAD SUBMITTED THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE AT PAGE 2 TO 40 IN PAPER BOOK II. THE ASSE SSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE FACT OF THE SEIZED PAPER WHERE THE AMOUNT WRITT EN IS THE QUOTATION OF THE VISA FEES FOR VARIOUS COUNTRIES AND TYPE OF VISA MENTION I.E. (SINGLE VISA & MULTIPLE VISA) AND ON THE SAID SEIZE D PAPER NO WHERE ITS MENTIONED ABOUT ANY CASH RECEIVED OR PAID. THE LEDG ER COPIES OF THE VISA DONE DURING THE FINANCIAL YEAR 2011-12 AS WELL INVOICE OF VISA, RECEIPT AND THE MARKUP KEPT ON THE SAID VISA CHARGE S FOR WHICH WE HAD PROVIDED SERVICES (PAPER BOOK 11). HOWEVER, THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2 014 HAS NOT GIVEN ANY COMMENTS ON THE SAID ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE PRODUC E BEFORE HIM IN P.B.II, HENCE THE SAME MAY BE DECIDED BY YOUR HONOU RS BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTIONS AND EXPLANATION SUBMITTED BY THE AS SESSEE.' 5.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SAME. IT IS SE EN THAT THIS ADDITION IS MADE ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS WHICH IS ALSO NOT FURTHER CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE BY THE A.O. UNCORROBORATED LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING SEARCH CANNOT BE MADE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE A.O. THE A.O. HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS ACCEPTABLE IN THE LIGHT OF THE HONOURABLE SUPREME COURT DECISION IN C IT VS ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 5 KALYANASUNDARAM ( 2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) AND HONOURA BLE MUMBAI TRIBUNAL DECISION IN SP GOYAL VS DCIT (2002) 82 ITD 85 ( MUM TRIBUNAL). 5.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE AND THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AN D HAVE PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIN D THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE REMAND REPORT FILED B Y THE AO AND THE CONCERNED SEIZED MATERIAL, ON THE BASIS OF WHICH TH E AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.23,260/- WAS MADE, RENDERED THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THIS ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PA PER (ANNEX. A/2, PG. 34) WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EV IDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE ADDITION AND RELYING, INTER ALIA, ON THE JUDGEM ENT OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC) DELETED THE SAME. WE ALSO OBSERVE, FROM THE SUBMISS IONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE SAID SEIZED LOOSE PAPER MERELY QUOTES THE VISA FEE RATES FOR VARIOUS COUNTRIES FOR DIFFERENT TYPES OF VISAS AND NOT RECEIPT OF CASH WHICH HAS NOT BEEN REBUTTED OR FOUND TO BE INC ORRECT BY THE AO IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS. EVEN BEFORE US, EXCEPT FOR RAIS ING THIS GROUND, REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDING RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, FI NDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) O N THIS ISSUE, UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 1 OF REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 6. GROUND NO. 2 CASH PAYMENTS RS.15,00,000/- 6.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSU E AS UNDER: - 6.1 THE A.O. IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER HAS MADE ADD ITION OF RS.15,00,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH PAYMENT AS UNDISC LOSED INCOME ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS. IN PARA 4 OF THE REMA ND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014, THE A.O. HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIV EN A EXPLANATION THAT THE PAPERS ARE JUST ROUGH WORKINGS AND HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NAME ME NTION IN THE SEIZED PAPERS, THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE PAPERS WHICH WERE SEIZED DURING THE SEARCH ARE JUST WORKIN GS AND NO SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACC OUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE DOCUMENTS ARE MERELY ROUGH ENTRIES ON WHICH IT ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 6 WAS NEVER ACTED UPON, IT IS NOTHING BUT DUMB DOCUME NTS SUPPORTED WITH THE CASE LAW. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. IT IS CLEARLY MENTIONED ON THE LOOS E PAPER THAT THE TRANSACTION IS IN CASH. IT IS ACTUALLY COMPUTER PRINTOUT WHICH CANNOT BE A DUMB NOTING. 6.2 THE A.O.'S EXPLANATION DATED 14.7.2014 IS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THIS NOTING OF RS.15 LAKHS TRANSACTION IS A COMPUT ER PRINTOUT ONLY AND IT IS ONLY MENTIONED THAT THE TRANSACTION IS IN CAS H. THEREFORE, THE APPELLANT'S PLEA THAT IT IS A DUMB NOTING APPEAR TO BE ACCEPTABLE. THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO JUS TIFY THE ADDITION. UNCORROBORATED LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING SEARCH CAN NOT BE MADE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE A.O. 6.3 THE APPELLANT IN WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 28. 11.2014 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ADDITION, WE HAD GIVEN OUR EXPLANATION THAT THE PAPERS ARE JUST ROUGH WORKINGS AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PAYMENTS MADE TO THE NAME MENTIO N IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AND WE HAD GIVEN A EXPLANATION THAT N O SUCH TRANSACTIONS ARE REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE. ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT YOUR HONOUR WILL APPRECIATE THAT THERE ARE 3 COLUMNS TWO REFERRING TO CHEQUES A ND ONE REFERRING TO CASH. HOWEVER, THE DEPARTMENT WANTS TO ACCEPT THE CASH TRANSACTION, HOWEVER IN RESPECT OF CHEQUES COLUMN NO ADDITION WAS BEING MADE AS NO SUCH ENTRIES WERE FOU ND. THIS GOES TO PROVE THAT THERE WAS NO SUCH TRANSACTION TA KEN PLACE AT ALL ONE CANNOT READ A DOCUMENT IN PART AND ACCEP T ONLY THE PART WHICH IS FAVOURABLE TO DEPARTMENT. AS PER THE REMAND REPORT, THE A.O. SAYS IT IS COMPU TER PRINTOUT WHICH CANNOT BE DUMB NOTING HOWEVER, HE HAS NOT SUBSTANTIATED ITS ACTION BY SUPPORTING OF ANY FURTH ER EVIDENCE. THE A.O. HAS ALSO FAILED TO JUSTIFY ITS ACTION IN A CCEPTING PART ENTRIES OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. 6.4 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE APPELLANT'S EXPLA NATION. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED IN THE LIGHT OF TH E HONOURABLE APEX COURT'S DECISION AS STATED BY ME AND HONOURABLE MUM BAI ITAT DECISION AS STATED BY ME IN PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER. 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE AO S REMAND REPORTS AND THE CONCERNED SEIZED MATERIAL, ON THE BASIS OF WHIC H THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS WAS MADE, RENDERED THE FACTUAL FINDI NG THAT THE AOS VIEW WAS NOT ACCEPTABLE SINCE THE NOTINGS ON SIZED LOOSE PAPER ANNEX -2, PG. 44 WAS A MERE COMPUTER PRINTOUT, WHICH REMAINED UNCORR OBORATED AS THE AO ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 7 HAD NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THERE WAS IN FACT ANY CHEQUE OR CASH PAYMENTS AS LISTED THEREIN AND R ELYING, INTER ALIA, ON THE DECISION OF THE HON'BLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA), DELETED THE ADDITION. WE A LSO OBSERVE , ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE MATERIAL ON RECORD THAT THE AO, EXCEPT FOR MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS AS CASH PAYMENTS BASED ON T HE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER (ANNEX-2, PG 44), HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY WHATSOEV ER IN RESPECT OF THESE CASH TRANSACTIONS AND ALSO CERTAIN OTHER ENTRIES TH EREIN MENTIONING CHEQUE PAYMENTS/RECEIPTS. EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS, NO C ORROBORATIVE ENQUIRY WAS MADE BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF THE SEIZED MATERIA L RELIED UPON BY HIM TO PROVE HIS STAND AND REBUT THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION S. EVEN BEFORE US, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THIS GROUND, REVENUE HAS NOT BEE N ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE, WE FIND NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE F INDINGS OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE AND UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUEN TLY, GROUND NO. 2 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 7. GROUND NO. 3 UMRA ACCOUNTS RS.15,00,000/- 7.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSU E AS UNDER: - 7.1 THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 IN PARA 6 AND 7 HAS STATED AS UNDER: DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RECEIPTS AND INVOICES COPIES OF THE CLIENT WHO HAD GIVEN THE CASH IN FOURWAYS TRAVELS. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER GAVE A EXPLANATION DURING REMA ND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CASH WHICH WAS COLLECTED BELON GS TO INDO SAUDI PVT LTD AND IT WAS COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THE M IN THE NIGHT AS THEIR OFFICE WAS CLOSED AND ITS ADJACENT TO INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HANDED OVE R NEXT DAY MORNING. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE NOTING WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOICES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ISSUED BY M /S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD. IT IS PERTINENT T O MENTION THAT M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE. SO THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUITABLE AND MAY BE TREATED AS AFTERTHOUGHT. ' ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 8 7.2 THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28.11.2014 IN PARA 9,10 & 11 HAS STATED AS UNDER: ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE LOOSE PAPE RS, DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN TH E EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I N THE FORM OF RECEIPTS, INVOICE COPIES OF THE CLIENT WHO HAD G IVEN THE CASH IN FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD ON BEHALF OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD IN THE NIGHT AS THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CA RRIERS PVT LTD WAS CLOSED AND OFFICE IS ADJACENT TO THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HANDED OVE R NEXT MORNING. THE A.O. DIDN'T ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE NOTING AND FURTHER SAID WS INDO S AUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS WAS AS AFTERTHOUGHT. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS GI VEN THE ABOVE FINDINGS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 44 - 55 ARE THE INVOICES AND RECEIPTS OF INDO SAUDI CARR IERS PVT LTD WHICH SHOWS THE OFFICE ADDRESS AT 14, RAHEJA CENTRE , GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 WHICH IS ADJAC ENT TO THE OFFICE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD, ADDRESS 214/18, RAHEJA CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI -21. YOUR HONOUR ITS CLEAR THAT AMOUNTS BELONGS TO INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR BUSINESS. THE SEIZED PAPER IS NOTHING BUT A ROUGH DOCUMENT AND CA NNOT BE RELIED. FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED PAPER YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND REFERENCE OF THE WORD 'UMRAH A/C' THESE TICKET S ARE ONLY ISSUED BY THE INDO SAUDI CARRIER PUT LTD.' 7.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED BOTH THE REMAND REPORT AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. REFERENCE TO THE WORD 'UMR AH A/C' SHOWS THAT THESE TICKETS ARE ONLY ISSUED BY INDO SAUDI CA RRIERS PVT LTD. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT INDO SAUDI SERVICES CARRIERS PVT LTD HAS ITS OFFICE ADJACENT TO THE OFFICE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD ( AS PER THE INVOICES AND RECEIPTS). AGAIN THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS ADDITION. MERELY STATING THAT THE EXPLANATION OF TH E APPELLANT IS NOT SUITABLE AND MAY BE TREATED AS AFTERTHOUGHT IS NOT TENABLE. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS TENABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SISTER CONCERN HAVE OFFICES ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF HONOURABLE COURT DECISIONS MENTIONED AT PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 7.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF BOTH THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE AND THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AND C AREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS, AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE , THE REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE SEIZED MATERIAL ON THE BASIS OF W HICH THE AFORESAID ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 9 ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS ON ACCOUNT OF UMRAH WAS MAD E, RENDERED THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE REFERENCE TO THE WORD UMR AH ACCOUNT MEANT THESE PERTAINED TO THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN, M/S. IN DO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD. (SITUATED IN THE SAME BUILDING) WHICH DEALT WITH UMRAH TRAVEL, AND NOT TO THE ASSESSEE AND THEREFORE PROCE EDED TO DELETE THIS ADDITION; FOLLOWING, INTER ALIA, THE DECISION OF TH E HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA). WE ALSO OB SERVE THAT THE AO, APART FROM MAKING THIS ADDITION, MERELY BASED ON SE IZED LOOSE PAPER (ANNX -2, PG. 53), HAS NOT MADE ANY ENQUIRY TO CORROBORAT E HIS FINDING OR TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THIS PAPER PERTAINED TO M /S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD., WHO DEALT WITH UMRAH TICKETING MATTERS. EVEN IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS WE FIND THAT THE AO HAS MERELY B RUSHED ASIDE THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS RENDERING FACTUALLY INCORRECT FIN DINGS THAT M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTDS OFFICE WAS NOT SITUATED IN THE SAME BUILDING AS THE ASSESSEES OFFICE; WHEN INFACT IT W AS SITUATED ADJACENT THERETO IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES. STRANGELY, S UCH A FINDING HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE AO WHEN M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (C ARRIER) PVT. LTD, IT APPEARS, IS ASSESSED BY THE SAME AO. IT IS SEEN THA T NO CORROBORATIVE ENQUIRY HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO IN REMAND PR OCEEDINGS TO EITHER ESTABLISH/PROVE HIS CONTENTIONS OR REBUT THE ASSESS EES CONTENTIONS. EVEN BEFORE US, REVENUE, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THIS GROUND, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDING RENDERED BY THE LEAR NED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, FINDING NO MERIT IN GROUND NO. 3 RAI SED BY REVENUE, DISMISS THE SAME AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE FINDING OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 8. GROUND NO. 4 ZAIREEN ACCOUNTS RS.1,50,000/- 8.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSU E AS UNDER: - 8.1 THE A.O. IN PARA 10 OF THE REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: 'THE ASSESSEE FURTHER GAVE A EXPLANATION DURING REM AND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CASH WHICH WAS COLLECTED BELON GS TO INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND IT WAS COLLECTED ON BEHA LF OF THEM IN THE NIGHT AS THEIR OFFICE WAS CLOSED AND ITS ADJACE NT TO INDO ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 10 SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HAND ED OVER NEXT DAY MORNING. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE NOTING (WITH DENOMINATION OF NOTE) WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOICES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ISSUED BY M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CA RRIER) PVT LTD. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMI SE OF THE ASSESSEE. SO EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUI TABLE AND MAY BE TREATED AS AFTERTHOUGHT.' 8.2 THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 28.11.2014 HAS STATED AS UNDER: ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE LOOSE PAPE RS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN THE EX PLANATION AND SUPPORTING AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RE CEIPTS, INVOICE COPIES OF THE CLIENT WHO HAD GIVEN THE CASH IN FOURWAYS TR AVELS PVT LTD ON BEHALF OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD IN THE NIGHT AS THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD WAS CLOSED AND OFFICE IS ADJ ACENT TO THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HANDED OVER NEXT MORNING. THE A.O. DIDN'T ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE NOTING AND FURTHER SAID M,/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMI SES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS WAS AS AFTERTHOUGHT. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A. 0. HAS G IVEN THE ABOVE FINDINGS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 57- 61 ARE THE INVOICES AND RECEIPTS OF INDO SAUDI CARR IERS PVT, WHICH SHOWS THE OFFICE ADDRESS AT 14, RAHEJA CENTRE , GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021, WHICH IS ADJA CENT TO THE OFFICE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD, ADDRESS 214/18, RAHEJA CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMANPOINT, MUMBAI-21. AT THE OUTSET, ZAIREEN TRAVEL SERVICES IS THE SISTE R CONCERN OF M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD AND DOES THE SERVICE OF VISA STAMPING OF SAUDIA AND FOR THE SAME IF ANY TOUR OPERATORS APPROACH FOR TICKETS ITS BEING SEND TO M/ S INDO SAUDI SERVICES CARRIERS PVT LTD. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF T HE SEIZED PAPER YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND REFERENCE OF THE WORD ' ZAIREEN A/C' THESE TICKETS ARE ONLY ISSUED BY THE INDO SAUD I CARRIER PVT LTD. THE TRANSACTION WAS BETWEEN ZAIREEN TRAVEL SER VICES AND INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD. THE AMOUNT WAS KEPT AT THE ASSESSEE'S OFFICE FOR HANDING IT OVER TO THE INDO S AUDI CARRIER PVT LTD.' 8.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED BOTH THE REMAND REPOR T AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. REFERENCE TO THE WORD 'ZAI REEN A/C' SHOWS THAT THESE TICKETS ARE ONLY ISSUED BY INDO SAUDI CA RRIERS PVT LTD. IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT INDO SAUDI SERVICES CARRIERS PVT LTD HAS ITS OFFICE ADJACENT TO THE OFFICE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD (AS PER THE INVOICES AND RECEIPTS). AGAIN THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 11 ADDITION. MERELY STATING THAT THE EXPLANATION OF TH E APPELLANT IS NOT SUITABLE AND MAY BE TREATED AS AFTERTHOUGHT IS NOT TENABLE. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS TENABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SISTER CONCERN HAVE OFFICES ADJACENT TO EACH OTHER. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF HONOURABLE COURT DECISIONS MENTIONED AT PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 8.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/SUPPORTING EVIDENCE FIL ED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORT OF THE AO AND THE SEIZED LOOSE PA PER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE FORESAID ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS IN RESPE CT OF ZAIREEN ACCOUNT WAS MADE, HAS RENDERED THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE REFERENCE TO ZAIREEN ACCOUNT MADE IN THE CONCERNED LOOSE PAPER (ANNEX A/2, PG. 54 ) SHOW THAT THE TICKETS REFERRED TO ARE ISSUED ONLY BY IND O SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD., WHICH HAS ITS OFFICE ADJACENT TO THE ASS ESSEES OFFICE (AS PER INVOICES/RECEIPTS), AND NOT BY THE ASSESSEE. THEREF ORE, FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF C IT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA) THE LEARNED CIT(A) PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE ADDITION OF RS.15 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO. WE ALSO FIND, AS OBSERVED BY THE LE ARNED CIT(A), THAT THE AO, APART FROM MAKING THIS AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS .15 LAKHS BASED ON LOOSE PAPER SEIZED AT ANNEX- A/2, PG. 54, HAS NOT B ROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE OR JUSTIFY THE ADD ITION; BOTH IN ASSESSMENT AS WELL AS IN REMAND PROCEEDINGS AND TO REBUT THE C LAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS LOOSE PAPER PERTAINED TO ITS SISTER CONCE RN M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD., WHICH ISSUED THESE TI CKETS, FROM ITS OFFICE SITUATED IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES. EVEN IN REM AND PROCEEDINGS, IT IS SEEN THAT THE AO HAS NOT CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY TO C ORROBORATE HIS FINDINGS OR REBUT THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS; BUT MERELY BRUSHED THEM ASIDE AS UNACCEPTABLE AND ON THE FACTUALLY INCORRECT GROUND THAT M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD., THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN DID NOT HAVE AN OFFICE IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES. STRANGELY, SU CH A FINDING HAS BEEN RENDERED BY THE AO WHEN INVOICES SHOW THAT ITS OFFI CE IS IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES AS THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT NO CROSS VERIFICATION HAS BEEN CARRIED OUT BY THE AO WHEN IT APPEARS THAT M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD. IS ALSO ASSESSED BY THE SAME AO . EVEN BEFORE US, ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 12 REVENUE, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THIS GROUND, HAS NOT BE EN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, FINDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUN D NO. 4 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 9. GROUND NO. 5 CASH RECEIPTS RS.25,00,000/- 9.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD, IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: - 9.1 THE A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 AT PARA 13 HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSE HAD GIVE N A EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF RECEIPTS AND INVOICES AND LEDGER COP IES OF THE CLIENT WHO HAD GIVEN THE CASH IN FOURWAYS TRAVELS. ASSESSEE FURTHER GAVE A EXPLANATION DURING REMAND PROCEEDINGS THAT THE CASH WHICH WAS COLLECTED BELON GS TO M/S INDO SAUDI (CARRIERS) PVT LTD AND IT WAS COLLECTED ON BEHALF OF THEM IN THE NIGHT AS THEIR OFFICE WAS CLOSED AND IT S ADJACENT TO INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HANDED OVER NEXT DAY MORNING. THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESS EE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE. THE NOTING (WITH DENOMINATION OF NOTE) WAS FOUND AT THE PREMISE OF THE ASSESSEE AND INVOICES SUBMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE WERE ISSUED BY M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CA RRIER) PVT LTD. IT IS PERTINENT TO MENTION THAT M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMI SE OF THE ASSESSEE. SO EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SUI TABLE AND MAY BE TREATED AS AFTERTHOUGHT.' 9.2 THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 28.11.2014 IN PARA 17,18 & 19 HAS STATED AS UNDER: ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE LOOSE PAPE RS DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN TH E EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I N THE FORM OF RECEIPTS, INVOICE COPIES OF THE CLIENTS WHO HAD GIVEN THE CASH IN FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD ON BEHALF OF INDO SAUD I CARRIERS PVT LTD IN THE NIGHT AS THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CA RRIERS PVT LTD WAS CLOSED AND OFFICE IS ADJACENT TO THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HANDED OVE R NEXT MORNING. THE A.O. DIDN'T ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF T HE ASSESSEE AND RELIED ON THE NOTING AND FURTHER SAID M/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIERS) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND THIS WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. AT THE OUTSET, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A. 0. HAS GIVEN THE ABOVE ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 13 FINDINGS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 63- 70 ARE THE INVOICES AND RECEIPTS OF INDO SAUDI CARR IERS PVT LTD WHICH SHOWS THE OFFICE ADDRESS AT 14, RAHEJA CENTRE , GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400021 WHICH IS ADJACE NT TO THE OFFICE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD, ADDRESS 214/8, RAHEJA CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI-21. YOUR HONOUR, IT IS SUBMITTED THAT AMOUNTS BELONGS T O INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH OUR BUSINESS. THE SEIZED PAPER IS NOTHING BUT A ROUGH DOCUMENT AND CA NNOT BE RELIED. FURTHER, ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED PAPER YOU R HONOUR WILL FIND THESE TICKETS ARE ONLY ISSUED BY THE INDO SAUD I CARRIER PVT LTD.' 9.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED BOTH THE REMAND REPOR T AND THE APPELLANT'S SUBMISSIONS. THE A.O. HAS MADE THE ADDI TION ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS AND HAS NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON REC ORD TO JUSTIFY HIS ADDITION. UNCORROBORATED LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING SEARCH CANNOT BE MADE BASIS FOR MAKING ADDITION BY THE A.O. MERELY S TATING THAT THE EXPLANATION OF THE APPELLANT IS NOT SUITABLE AND MA Y BE TREATED AS AFTER THOUGHT IS NOT TENABLE. THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS TENABLE ESPECIALLY WHEN THE SISTER CONCERNS HAVE OFFICES ADJACENT TO E ACH OTHER. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF HONOURABLE COURT DECISIONS MENTIONE D AT PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 9.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTION AND PERUSED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS/SUPPORTING EVIDENCED FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE REMAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE SEIZED LOOSE P APER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE ADDITION OF RS.25,00,000/- IN RESPECT OF CASH DETAILS WAS MADE, HAS RENDERED THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE AO MADE T HIS ADDITION, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER (ANNEX A/2, PG. 55), WIT HOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE AND JUSTIFY THIS ADDITI ON, BY MERELY STATING THAT THE ASSESSEES EXPLANATION IS NOT ACCEPTABLE A ND THEREFORE THE AOS CONTENTION WAS UNTENABLE. MORE SO, WHEN THE SISTER CONCERN, M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD. HAS ITS OFFICE I N THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE LEARNED CIT(A ), FOLLOWING, INTER ALIA, THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA), DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS .25 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO. ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE FACTS ON RECORD, WE ALSO NOTICE THAT, AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE AO APART FROM M AKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.25 LAKHS BASED ON LOOSE PAPER AT ANN EX A/2, PG. 55, HAS ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 14 NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CORR OBORATE OR JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE, BOTH IN ASSESSMENT AND REMAND PROCEE DINGS AND TO REBUT THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THIS SEIZED LOOSE PA PER PERTAINED TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD ., WHOSE OFFICE IS SITUATED IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES. EVEN IN REM AND PROCEEDINGS, THE AO HAS NEITHER CONDUCTED ANY ENQUIRY WHATSOEVER WIT H RESPECT TO THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE TO REBUT ITS CLAIMS NOR TO CORROBORATE HIS OWN CONTENTIONS IN THE MATTER; BUT MERELY BRUSHED ASIDE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM AS NOT ACCEPTABLE AND FOR THE FACTUALLY INCORRECT REASON THAT THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERNS OFFICE, I.E. OF M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD. DID NOT HAVE THEIR OFF ICE IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES. STRANGELY, SUCH A FINDING HAS BEEN RENDER ED BY THE AO, WHEN INVOICES FILED SHOW THAT THE OFFICE OF THE SISTER C ONCERN IS SITUATED IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES AS THE ASSESSEE. FURTHER, WE FIND THAT NO CROSS VERIFICATION OF THE ASSESSEES CLAIM HAS BEEN MADE BY THE AO, WHEN IT APPEARS THAT M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT . LTD. IS ALSO ASSESSED BY THE SAME AO. EVEN BEFORE US, REVENUE, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THIS GROUND, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDING S RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, FINDIN G NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 5 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS D ISMISSED. 10. GROUND NO. 6 UNEXPLAINED PAYMENTS RS.1,93,546/- 10.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISS UE AS UNDER: - 11.1 THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 AT PARA 18 & 19 HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIV EN AN EXPLANATION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF C ASE LAW AND FURTHER GAVE A EXPLANATION THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS AR E JOTTINGS AND DUMP WHICH WAS JUST SCRIBBLED AND CANNOT BE REL IED FOR MAKING ANY ADDITIONS U UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT SHOWS ANY FURTHER SUPPORTING IN THIS REGARDS AS ONLY THE AMOU NT OF RS.1,93,546/-. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE A CCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT IS NOT A MERE NOTING OR JOTTING. THE AMO UNT OF ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 15 RS.1,93,546/- WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS, I.E. RS .50,000/- ( CHANDU) .RS.42,546/- (BILL) AND RS.1,01,000/- (15/1 ). IT CANNOT BE CALLED AS DUMB NOTING, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY UNRECO RDED TRANSACTIO N. 11.2 THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 10.10.2014 HAS FURTHER STATED AS UNDER: 'THIS PAPER CLEARLY SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS MAD E PAYMENT OF RS.1,93,546/-. IN THE STATEMENT RECORDED ON 23.2 .2011 SHRI FAISAL SIDDIQUI HAD ADMITTED THAT THIS PAPER BELONG TO THIS OFFICE. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. BU T THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. AS SUCH THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED THIS AMOUNT AS UNEXPLAI NED PAYMENT OF THE ASSESSEE TO TOTAL INCOME. THE PHOTOCOPY OF ANNEXURE A/2 PAGE NO.56, ANNEXURE A3, PAGE 11 AND COPY OF STATEMENT OF SHRI FAISAL SIDDIQUI AR E ENCLOSED. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. MAY BE CON FIRMED.' 11.3 THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 28.11.2014 AT PARA 24 AND 25 HAS STATED AS UNDER: 'DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADDITION WAS MAD E ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS WHICH WERE SEIZED FROM THE PR EMISE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS DUE TO NON SUBMISSION OF A FAIR EX PLANATION. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVE N AN EXPLANATION THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS ARE JOTTINGS AND CANNOT BE RELIED FOR MAKING ANY ADDITION UNLESS THAT THE LOOS E PAPERS ARE JOTTINGS AND CANNOT BE RELIED FOR MAKING ANY ADDITI ONS UNLESS THE DEPARTMENT SHOWS ANY FURTHER SUPPORTING IN THIS REGARDS AS ONLY THE AMOUNT OF RS.1,93,546/- IS MENTION NO WHER E IT IS SAID STATED AS COLLECTED OR PAID, A.0. DID NOT ACCEPT TH E CONTENTION AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNRECORDED TRANSACTION. ON PERUSAL OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND WRITTEN K ADRI GYMKHANA. MR. ZAKAULLAH SIDDIQUI IS THE CHAIRMAN OF THE ISLAM GYMKHANA. THIS DOCUMENT IS IN RELATION TO THE GYMKH ANA AND NOTHING TO DO WITH ASSESSEE COMPANY. AS PER REMAND REPORT DATED 10.10.2014, THE A.O. CON FIRMED THE SAID AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY OUR DIRECTOR MR.FAISAL SIDDIQUI. THE A.O/. HAS FAILED TO UNDERST AND THE STATEMENT OF MR.FAISAL SIDDIQUI NO WHERE IT IS SAID STATED AS COLLECTED OR PAID, A.O. DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTI ON AND TREATED THE SAME AS UNRECORDED TRANSACTION.' 11.4 CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE LOOSE SHEET SHOWS THAT WHAT THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN PARA 24 AND 25 IS APPARENTLY CORRECT. THE DOCUMENT APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO KADRI GYMKHANA OF WHICH MR . ZAKAULLAH SIDDIQUI IS THE CHAIRMAN. IT APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO HIS RESPONSIBILITIES ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 16 AS CHAIRMAN. THE NOTINGS AS CHANDU, BILL ETC APPEAR TO BE RELATED TO IT. AGAIN THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON REC ORD TO JUSTIFY HIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF HONOURABLE COU RT DECISIONS MENTIONED AT PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 10.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, THE RE MAND REPORTS OF THE AO AND THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER (ANNEX A/3, PG. 11) ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.1,93,546/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE, HAS COME TO THE FACTUAL FINDING THAT T HE NOTINGS IN THIS DOCUMENTS APPEARS TO BE RELATED TO EXPENSES OF ISLA M GYMKHANA OF WHICH SHRI ZAKAULLAH SIDDIQUI WAS CHAIRMAN. THE LEARNED C IT(A) FURTHER OBSERVING THAT THE AO HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY PROOF TO CORROBORATE AND SUPPORT HIS ADDITION, PROCEEDED TO DELETE THE SAID ADDITION BY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA). ON APPRECIATION OF THE DET AILS ON RECORD WE ALSO FIND, AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THAT THE A O APART FROM MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.1,93,546/- ON ACCOUNT OF U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE BASED ON THE AFORESAID SEIZED LOOSE PAPER AS PER AN NEX A/3 PG. 11, HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO CORR OBORATE/JUSTIFY THIS ADDITION OR TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT THE EXPENDITURE PERTAINED TO ISLAM GYMKHANA WHERE SHRI ZAKAULLAH SIDDIQUI WAS CH AIRMAN. BEFORE US ALSO, REVENUE, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THIS GROUND, HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE LEA RNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. FINDING NO REASON FOR US TO INTERFERE WITH T HE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE, WE UPHOLD THE SAME. C ONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 6 OF REVENUES APPEAL IS DISMISSED. 11. GROUND NO. 7 CASH RECEIPTS RS.6,50,000/- 11.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER, IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSU E AS UNDER: - 12.1 THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28.11.2014 AT PARA 27,28 AND 29 HAS STATED AS UNDER: ADDITION WAS MADE ON THE BASIS OF ABOVE LOOSE PAPE RS. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN TH E ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 17 EXPLANATION AND SUPPORTING AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE I N THE FORM OF RECEIPTS, INVOICE COPIES OF THE CLIENT WHO HAD G IVEN THE CASH IN FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD ON BEHALF OF INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD IN THE NIGHT AS THE OFFICE OF INDO SAUDI CA RRIERS PVT LTD AND THE SAME AMOUNT WAS HANDED OVER NEXT MORNING. T HE A.O. DIDN'T ACCEPT THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AND RE LIED ON THE NOTING AND FURTHER SAID A/I/S INDO SAUDI SERVICES ( CARRIER) PVT LTD DOES NOT HAVE OFFICE AT THE PREMISES OF THE ASS ESSEE 'AND THIS WAS AN AFTERTHOUGHT. AT THE OUTSET IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE A.O. HAS GIV EN THE ABOVE FINDINGS WITHOUT APPLICATION OF MIND AS ON PERUSAL OF PAGE 74- 76 ARE THE INVOICES AND RECEIPTS OF INDO SAUDI CARR IERS PVT LTD WHICH SHOWS THE OFFICE ADDRESS AT 14, RAHEJA CENTRE , GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI 400 021 WHICH IS ADJAC ENT TO THE OFFICE OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS PVT LTD, ADDRESS 214/18, RAHEJA CENTRE, GROUND FLOOR, NARIMAN POINT, MUMBAI -21. YOUR HONOUR IT IS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNTS BELONG S TO INDO SAUDI CARRIERS PVT LTD AND IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WIT H OUR BUSINESS. THE SEIZED PAPER IS NOTHING BUT A ROUGH D OCUMENT AND CANNOT BE RELIED, FURTHER ON PERUSAL OF THE SEI ZED PAPER YOUR HONOUR WILL FIND THESE TICKETS ARE ONLY ISSUED BY THE INDO SAUDI CARRIER PVT LTD'. 12.2 CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE LOOSE SHEETS SHOWS THAT WHAT THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN PARA 27,28 & 29 IS APPARENTLY CORRECT . AGAIN THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTHING ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF HONOURABLE COURT DECISIO NS MENTIONED AT PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED . 11.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSION; THE AO S VIEWS IN THE MATTER AND THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER AT ANNEX A/3, PG. 15, HAS RENDERED A FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE T HAT THIS PAPER AND SUPPORTING INVOICES ESTABLISH THAT THESE TRANSACTIO NS PERTAIN NOT TO THE ASSESSEE BUT TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD. HAVING ITS OFFICE IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISE S. IT WAS FURTHER OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) THAT THE AO FAILED T O BRING ON RECORD EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE/SUPPORT HIS ADDITION AND IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER DELETED THE SAID ADDITION OF RS.6,50,000/-, FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASU NDARAM (SUPRA). ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE DETAILS ON RECORD, WE FIND, AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THAT THE AO, APART FROM MAKING THE AFORESAI D ADDITION OF ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 18 RS.6,50,000/- ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RECEIVED BASED ON THE AFORESAID SEIZED LOOSE PAPER ANNEX A/3, PG. 15, HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE/JUSTIFY THE ADDITION MADE OR TO REBU T THE ASSESSEES CLAIM THAT IT PERTAINS TO ITS SISTER CONCERN M/S. INDO SA UDI SERVICES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD.; MERELY BRUSHING ASIDE THE ASSESSEES CONTENTI ONS AS UNACCEPTABLE. STRANGELY, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE ASSESSEES CLAIM ALSO ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEES SISTER CONCERN M/S. INDO SAUDI SERVI CES (CARRIER) PVT. LTD. DID NOT HAVE ITS OFFICE IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMIS ES, WHEN INVOICES, ETC. FILED SHOW THAT IT IS SITUATED IN THE SAME BUILDING PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE; MORE SO WHEN BOTH THESE CONCERNS ARE ASSESSED BY HI M. EVEN BEFORE US, REVENUE HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FINDINGS RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, FI NDING NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON T HIS ISSUE, UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 7 OF REVENUES APPEA L IS DISMISSED. 12. GROUND NO. 8 CASH RECEIPTS RS.5,00,468/- 12.1 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED OR DER, IT IS SEEN THAT THAT LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSUE AS UNDER: - 13.1 THE APPELLANT IN ITS WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 28.11.2014 AT PARA 31,32,33,34 AND 35 HAS STATED ASUNDER: 'THE ABOVE LOOSE PAPERS THE AMOUNT WRITTEN RS.5,00, 468/- WAS RECORDED IN THE BOOKS OF ZAIREEN TRAVELS AND DOES N OT BELONGS TO FOURWAYS TRAVELS, IN ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THE ASS ESSEE HAD SUBMITTED RECEIPT OF RS.5,00,468/-, BANK STATEMENT WHERE THE ENTRY OF RS.5,00,468/- IS REFLECTING AND ALL LEDGER COPIES OF THE CLIENTS WHOM ZAIREEN TRAVELS HAD PROVIDED SERVICES IN RELATED TO VISA STAMPING AND AIR TICKETS. DURING APPEAL PROCEEDINGS ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN A FAIR EXPLANATION BY PROVIDING ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE BUT TH E A.O. IN THE REMAND REPORT HAS MENTION THAT NO TDS HAS BEEN DEDU CTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED UNDER SEC TION 40(A)(IA) OF THE ACT. YOUR HONOUR NOW THE A.O. HAD CHANGE THE STAND AND NOW WANTS DISALLOWED UNDER SECTION 40(A)( IA) WHICH WAS NEVER INVOKED IN ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER, THE AMOUNT HAS BEEN PAID BY INDIVIDUAL CUS TOMERWISE AND NOT ON ACCOUNT OF A ONE CUSTOMER. THIS WAS SUPP ORTED BY LEDGER COPIES, CUSTOMERS NAME WHICH WAS VERIFIED BY THE A.O. THEREFORE, THE SERVICES WERE RENDERED TO CUSTOMERS OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS ALLAHABAD HENCE SEC.40(A)(IA) CANNOT BE INV OKED. ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 19 SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY MUMBAI ITAT BENCH IN CASE OF ITL TOURS AND TRAVELS PVT LTD ITA NO.5 74 6/MUM/200 9 DATED 9.9.2010. ON PERUSAL OF THE REMAND REPORT YOUR HONOUR WILL AP PRECIATE THAT THE A.O. HAS PREPARED THE REMAND REPORT WITHOU T PERUSAL OF THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED AND MERELY REITERA TED THE CONTENTION OF THE A.O.' 13.2 CAREFUL PERUSAL OF THE LOOSE SHEETS SHOWS THA T WHAT THE APPELLANT HAS STATED IN PARAS 31, 32, 33, 34 AND 35 ARE APPARENTLY CORRECT. AGAIN, THE A.O. HAS ALSO NOT BROUGHT ANYTH ING ON RECORD TO JUSTIFY HIS ADDITION. THEREFORE, IN THE LIGHT OF HO NOURABLE COURTS DECISIONS MENTIONED AT PARA 5.2 OF THIS ORDER, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS ALLOWED. 12.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. WE FIND THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A), AFTER CONSIDERATION OF THE ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS/ADDITIO NAL EVIDENCES FILED, THE AOS REMAND REPORTS AND THE SEIZED LOOSE PAPER AT A NNEX A/3, PG 67, HAS RENDERED A FACTUAL FINDING THAT THE SUBMISSIONS/ADD ITIONAL EVIDENCES FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ESTABLISH THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.5,0 0,468/- DOES NOT PERTAIN TO THE ASSESSEE, BUT TO ZAIREEN TRAVELS FOR PROVISION OF SERVICES TO THE ASSESSEES CLIENTS FOR VISA STAMPING, AIR TICKE TS, ETC. THE LEARNED CIT(A) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT THE AO FAILED TO BRING ON REC ORD ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE/SUPPORT HIS ADDITION ON THIS ISSUE AND IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, DELETED THIS ADDITION, FOLLOWING THE DECISI ON OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA ). ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE DETAILS ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT, AS OBSERVED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A), THE AO APART FROM MAKING THE AFORESAID ADDITION OF RS.5,00,468/- BASED MERELY ON THE SEIZED PAPER AT ANNEX A/3, PG. 67, HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO CORROBORATE/JUSTIFY THE ADDI TION MADE OR TO REBUT THE ASSESSEES CLAIMS EXCEPT FOR BRUSHING THEM ASID E AS UNACCEPTABLE. EVEN BEFORE US, REVENUE, EXCEPT FOR RAISING THE GRO UND, HAS FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY EVIDENCE TO CONTROVERT THE FACTUAL FI NDINGS RENDERED BY THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON THIS ISSUE. WE, THEREFORE, FINDIN G NO REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE IMPUGNED ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT(A) ON TH IS ISSUE, UPHOLD THE SAME. CONSEQUENTLY, GROUND NO. 8 OF REVENUES APPEA L STAND DISMISSED. 13. IN THE RESULT, REVENUES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 IS DISMISSED. ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 20 14. ASSESSEES APPEAL IN ITA NO. 915/MUM/2015 FOR A.Y. 2011-12 14.1 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IN THIS APP EAL ARE AS UNDER IN RESPECT OF A SINGLE ISSUE: - 1. ADDITION OF RS.83,00,000/- ON BASIS OF LOOSE PA PER: 1. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.83 LACS ON BASIS OF LOOSE PAPER FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF ASSESSEE COMPANY WITHOUT APPRECIATING THE FACT THAT THE ADDITION CANNOT BE M ADE MERELY N JOTTINGS MADE ON LOOSE PAPERS WITHOUT ANY FURTHER C ORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE, THEREFORE THE SAME MAY BE DELETED. 2. THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD, AMEND, ALTER OR DELETE ANY OF THE ABOVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 14.2 FROM THE DETAILS ON RECORD IN THE IMPUGNED ORD ER IT IS SEEN THAT THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS CONSIDERED AND DECIDED THIS ISSU E AS UNDER: - 10.1 THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 AT PARA 15 & 16 HAS STATED AS UNDER: DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIV EN AN EXPLANATION AS ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE IN THE FORM OF C ASE LAW AND FURTHER GAVE A EXPLANATION THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS AR E JOTTINGS AND CANNOT BE RELIED FOR MAKING ANY ADDITIONS UNLESS TH E DEPARTMENT SHOWS ANY FURTHER SUPPORTING IN THIS REGARDS AS ONL Y THE AMOUNT OF RS.83 LAKHS IS JUST MENTION IT NOT MENTIONED ANY WHERE THAT THE SAID AMOUNT IS COLLECTED OR PAID. THE CONTENTIO N OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT FOUND TO BE ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE IT I S NOT A MERE NOTING OR JOTTING. THE AMOUNT OF RS.83,00,000/- WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS, IE. RS.30,00,000/-, RS.21,00,000/- AND RS.32,00,000/- (I, II & III). IT CANNOT BE CALLED A S DUMB NOTING, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY UNRECORDED TRANSACTION.' 10.2 THE A.O. IN HIS REMAND REPORT DATED 10.10.2014 HAS FURTHER STATED AS UNDER: 'ANNEXURE A/2 PAGE 56, ADDITION OF RS. 83, 00, 000/ - THIS PAPER CONTAIN THE DETAILS OF CASH OF RS.83,00, 000/- WHICH WAS FOUND AND SEIZED AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES. W HILE ANSWERING THE QUESTION NO.5, IN THE STATEMENT RECOR DED ON 23.2,2011, SHRI FAISAL SIDDIQUI HAD ADMITTED THAT T HESE PAPERS BELONGS TO HIS OFFICE. HENCE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ADMI TTED THAT THE PAPER BELONGS TO HIM. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE ASS ESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. BU T THE ASSESSEE HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION IN THIS REGARD. AS SUCH THE A.O. HAS RIGHTLY BEEN ADDED THIS AMOUNT AS UNACCOUN TED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE TO TOTAL INCOME.' ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 21 10.3 THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION DATED 28.11.2014 I N PARA 21,22 AND 23 STATES AS UNDER: 'DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS ADDITION WAS MAD E ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS WHICH WERE SEIZED FROM THE PR EMISES OF FOURWAYS TRAVELS. DURING THE APPEAL PROCEEDINGS THE ASSESSEE HAD GIVEN AN EXPLANATION THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS.83 L AKHS IS MENTION BUT NO WHERE IT IS SAID COLLECTED OR PAID, AO DID NOT ACCEPT THE CONTENTION AND TREATED AS UNRECORDED TRA NSACTION. AS PER REMAND REPORT DATED 10.1 0.2014, THE A.O. CO NFIRM THE SAID AMOUNT ON THE BASIS OF STATEMENT GIVEN BY OUR DIRECTOR MR.FAISAL SIDDIQUI, HOWEVER, THE AO FAILED TO UNDER STAND THE STATEMENT OF MR. FAISAL SIDDIQUI AS NO WHERE HE HAS ACCEPTED, HE ACCEPTED THAT THE SAME WAS UNRECORDED TRANSACTIO N. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITS THAT IN COURSE OF IT DAY TO DAY AC TIVITIES THESE TYPES OF JOTTINGS ARE MADE AT VARIOUS OCCASION HOWE VER, IT WILL BE INCORRECT TO ASSUME THAT THESE JOTTINGS ARE ULTI MATELY TRANSACTED. HOWEVER, WITHOUT PREJUDICE TO ABOVE WE FURTHER SUBM IT THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON BASIS OF LOOSE PAPERS FOUND WHICH IS FURTHER NOT CORROBORATED BY EVIDENCE. IN SUPPORT OF THE SAME THE ASSESSEE RELIES ON THE DECISION OF CIT VS P.V. KALYANASUNDARAM (2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC), THE SUPREME COURT UPHELD THE FINDINGS OF THE HIGH COURT AND THE TRIBU NAL THAT LOOSE PIECES OF PAPER ON THE BASIS OF WHICH THE INI TIAL SUSPICION WITH REGARD TO THE UNDERVALUATION HAD BEEN RAISED W ERE VAGUE. FURTHERMORE, IN THE CASE OF CIT VS ATAM VALVES P LT D ( 2009) 184 TAXMAN 6 (P&H), IT WAS HELD THAT THE A.O. WAS N OT JUSTIFIED IN ESTIMATING SALES ON THE BASIS OF LOOSE SLIPS WIT HOUT SUBSTANTIATING AND WITHOUT HAVING ANY IOTA OF EVIDE NCE. A SIMILAR VIEW WAS TAKEN BY THE MUMBAI BENCH OF THE T RIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL V DCIT (2002) 82 LTD 85 (MUM ) (TM), WHERE IT WAS HELD THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE T O SHOW THAT THE ASSESSEE INVESTED IN ANY PROPERTY OR ANY CORROB ORATIVE EVIDENCE, ADDITION CANNOT BE SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF MERE ROUGH NOTING ON LOOSE SHEETS. UNCORROBORATED LOOSE SHEETS FOUND DURING THE SEARCH CANNOT BE MADE BASIS FOR MA KING ADDITION. THEREFORE, THE ADDITION MAY BE DELETED. I N THE CASE OF KRUPESHBHAI N PATEL (2013) 140 ITD 176 (AHD)(TRIB) IT WAS HELD THAT ADDITION WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE ABSENCE OF DIRECT EVIDENCE OF RECEIVING MONEY.' 10.4 THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION IS CAREFULLY PERUS ED AND ALSO THE TWO REMAND REPORTS. THE APPELLANT IS CORRECT WHEN IT ST ATES THAT THE DIRECTOR HAS ACCEPTED U/S 133(6) TO Q.5 THAT ALL THE LOOSE P APERS BELONG TO HIS OFFICE BUT NOWHERE HE HAS A AGREED AND ACCEPTED THA T IT IS AN UNRECORDED TRANSACTION. HOWEVER, CREDIT SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO THE A.O.S FIRST REMAND REPORT DATED 14.7.2014 WHEREIN HE HAS STATED THAT THE 'AMOUNT OF RS.83,00,000/- WAS DIVIDED INTO THREE PARTS, IE. ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 22 RS.30,00,000/-, RS.21,00,000/- AND RS.32,00,000/- ( I, II & III). IT CANNOT BE CALLED AS DUMB NOTING, BUT IT IS ACTUALLY UNRECORDED TRANSACTION'. THUS, THE A.O.'S VIEW IS CORRECT, WHE N HE STATES THAT IT IS AN UNRECORDED TRANSACTION. IN THE SECOND REMAND REP ORT, THE A.O. STATES THAT THE APPELLANT DID NOT GIVE ANY SATISFAC TORY EXPLANATION REGARDING THE AMOUNT. IN THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY T HE APPELLANT BEFORE ME, IT IS STATED THAT DAY TO DAY JOTTINGS ARE MADE ON A REGULAR BASIS AND THEY SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS RECORDED TRANSACT IONS. HOWEVER, BASED ON THE TWO REMAND REPORTS WHICH APPEAR MORE L OGICAL SINCE ALL THE 3 AMOUNTS ARE CAREFULLY MARKED AND NOTED THAT I T IS AN UNRECORDED CASH TRANSACTION THE APPELLANT'S EXPLANATION BEFORE ME IS NOT ACCEPTED. THEREFORE, THIS GROUND OF APPEAL NO.6 IS DISMISSED. 14.3 THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS HEARD I N SUPPORT OF THE GROUNDS RAISED. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED A.R., THIS ADDITION OF RS.83 LAKHS WAS MADE BY THE AO IN THE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT MEREL Y ON THE BASIS OF SEIZED LOOSE PAPER IN ANNEX A/2, PG. 56 BEING FOU ND IN THE ASSESSEES PREMISES AND BY BRUSHING ASIDE THE EXPLANATION PUT FORTH BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAPER DOES NOT MENTION EITHER RECEIPT OR P AYMENT OF CASH, AS NON SATISFACTORY. ACCORDING TO THE LEARNED A.R., BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A), IT WAS POINTED OUT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THAT NO WHERE ON THE SAID SEIZED LOOSE PAPER WAS IT MENTIONED THAT THE AMOUNT MENTIONED WERE PAID OR RECEIVED NOR HAD THE ASSESSEE ADMITTED THAT THE SAID PAPER BELONGED TO IT AS CONTENDED BY THE AO, THOUGH IT WAS ADMITTEDLY FOUND IN THE OFFICE. IT WAS REITERATED THAT THE AOS CONTENTION THAT SHRI F AISAL SIDDIQUI, DIRECTOR OF THE ASSESSEE IN HIS STATEMENT DATED 23.02.2011 H AD ACCEPTED THAT THIS PAPER REPRESENTED UNRECORDED TRANSACTION AND BELONG ED TO HIS OFFICE; WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT. ALL HE DID WAS TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT THE SAID PAPER WAS FOUND AT THE ASSESSEES OFFICE AND SOUGHT FOR SOME TIME TO GO THROUGH AND FURNISH EXPLANATION IN RESPECT TO THE LOOSE PAPER S EIZED. AS CONTENDED BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A) (SUPRA), THE LEARNED A.R. SUBMITTED THAT SUCH JOTTINGS MAY BE MADE FROM TIME TO TIME BUT THIS DOE S NOT ESTABLISH THAT ANY SUCH TRANSACTIONS HAD TAKEN PLACE. FURTHER, NO ADDITION COULD HAVE BEEN MADE OR IS TENABLE IN THE CASE ON HAND, MERELY ON THE BASIS OF ROUGH JOTTINGS OF THESE FIGURES IN THE SAID LOOSE PAPER, SINCE THE AO HAS NOT BROUGHT ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUP PORT HIS ADDITION TO PROVE THAT ANY SUCH TRANSACTION HAD IN FACT BEEN CA RRIED OUT BY THE ASSESSEE. IN SUPPORT OF THE PROPOSITION THAT THIS A FORESAID ADDITION COULD ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 23 NOT BE MADE OR SUSTAINED ON THE BASIS OF MERE ROUGH JOTTINGS ON LOOSE PAPER FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH WITHOUT CORROBO RATIVE EVIDENCE, THE LEARNED A.R. PLACED RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS, INTE R ALIA, OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM ( 2007) 294 ITR 49 (SC); AND OF THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF S.P. GOYAL (2003) 82 ITD 85 (MUM). IT WAS PRAYED THAT IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE, THE ADDITION OF RS. 83 LAKHS MADE BY THE AUTHORITIES BE LOW, BEING UNSUSTAINABLE BOTH ON FACTS AND IN LAW, BE DELETED. 14.4 PER CONTRA, THE LEARNED D.R. FOR REVENUE PLACE D STRONG RELIANCE ON THE DECISIONS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW ON THIS ISSU E. 14.5.1 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERU SED AND CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ISSUE BEFORE US IS WITH REGARD TO THE SUSTAINABILITY OR OTHERWISE OF THE ADDITION OF RS.8 3 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON ACCOUNT OF CASH DETAILS BASED ON THE SEIZED LOOS E PAPER AT ANNEX A/2, PG. 56; IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENC E TO SUPPORT SUCH AN ADDITION. ON AN APPRECIATION OF THE MATERIAL ON REC ORD IT IS SEEN THAT, CONTRARY TO THE CONTENTION OF THE AO, THE LEARNED C IT(A) HAS AFTER CONSIDERING THE AOS REMAND REPORTS, OBSERVED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS CORRECT WHEN IT STATES THAT THE DIRECTOR IN HIS STATEMENT H AS ACCEPTED THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS BELONG TO HIS OFFICE BUT NOWHERE HAS H E AGREED OR ACCEPTED THAT THIS IS AN UNRECORDED TRANSACTION. WE HAVE PER USED THE AFORESAID SEIZED LOOSE PAPER AND FIND THAT THE AO HAS MERELY TOTALLED THE THREE FIGURES RECORDED THEREIN (I.E. RS.30,00,000/-, RS.2 1,00,000/- AND RS.32,00,000/-) AND MADE THE SAID ADDITION AS AN UN RECORDED TRANSACTION ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT BRINGING ON RECORD ANY MATERIAL EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THESE INFACT REPRESENTED CASH DET AILS OF THE ASSESSEES UNRECORDED TRANSACTION BOTH IN ASSESSMENT AND REMAN D PROCEEDINGS. IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE OR SUS TAINED ON THE BASIS OF MERE ROUGH NOTINGS ON LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED IN THE CO URSE OF SEARCH, WHICH IS BEREFT OF ANY SUBSTANTIATION BY CORROBORATIVE EV IDENCE; AS IS THE SITUATION IN THE CASE ON HAND. IN THE CASE ON HAND, THE AO HA S FAILED TO BRING ON RECORD ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE AF ORESAID ADDITION. IN ITA NOS. 915 & 753/MUM/2013 M/S. FOURWAYS TRAVELS P. LTD. 24 COMING TO THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE DECIS IONS OF THE HONBLE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. KALYANASUNDARAM (SUPRA ) AND OF THE COORDINATE BENCH IN S.P. GOYAL VS. DCIT (SUPRA). IN THIS FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND DERIVING SUPPORT FR OM THE JUDICIAL PRONOUNCEMENTS CITED (SUPRA), WE ARE OF THE VIEW TH AT THE ADDITION OF RS.83 LAKHS MADE BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF UNCORROBORATED LOOSE SHEETS SEIZED IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ACC ORDINGLY DELETE THE AFORESAID ADDITION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE ASSESSEES GR OUNDS OF APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011- 12 IS ALLOWED. 16. TO SUM UP, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR A.Y. 2011-12 I S ALLOWED AND REVENUES CROSS APPEAL IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016. SD/ - SD/ - (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (JASON P. BOAZ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED: 26 TH OCTOBER, 2016 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) -47, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT, CENTRAL-IV, MUMBAI 5. THE DR, F BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI N.P.