ZARINA NOORALI GOVANI, MUMBAI V. ITO 19(3)(3), MUMBAI

ITA 7783/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 778319914 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 17-11-2011
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIJAY KUMAR BORA
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Business income; Depreciation; Source of fund
• Section: 143(3); 68

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL G , BENCH MUMBAI , . . , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JM & SHRI R.C.SHARMA, AM ./ ITA NO S . 7782 & 7783 / MUM /20 1 1 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR S : 200 5 - 06 & 2006 - 07 ) MRS. ZARINA NOORALI GOVANI, FLAT NO.1, HILL VIEW CHS.241, HILL ROAD, BANDRA (WEST), MUMBAI - 400050 VS. ITO 1 9(3)( 3 ), MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : A GBPG 917 1 D ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DEEPAK TRALSHAWALA /REVENUE BY : SHRI VIJAY KUMAR BORA / DATE OF HEARING : 20 TH APRIL , 201 5 / DATE OF P RONOUNCEMENT 13 TH MAY, 2015 / O R D E R PER R.C.SHARMA (A.M) : TH ESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A) - 30, MUMBAI DATED 2 - 9 - 2011 , FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR S 2005 - 06 & 200 6 - 200 7 , IN THE MATTER OF ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF TH E I.T. ACT . 2. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06, THE AO OBSERVED THAT ASSESSEE IS ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF WHOLESALE OF LADIES BOUTIQUE ITEMS AND GARMENTS AND ALSO DERIVES INCOME FROM OTHER SOURCES. DURING THE YEAR, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN IN THEIR P&L A/C., SA LES RS.7.83 LACS AND PURCHASES RS.4.99 LACS. AFTER CLAIMING EXPENSES SUCH AS SALARY, MISCELLANEOUS EXPENSES, CONVEYANCE, TELEPHONE AND DEPRECIATION, ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 2 NET PROFIT AT RS.48,856/ - . THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT O N PERUSAL OF STATEMENT OF BANK ACCOUNT NO.00510400010078 FOR THE PERIOD 01/04/2004 TO 31/03/2005 MAINTAINED BY THE ASSESSEE IN DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, BANDRA BRANCH, IT IS SEEN THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PREVIOUS YEAR, THE ASSESSEE HAS DEPOSITED CASH OF RS.19,25,590/ - AND DEPOSITED RS.5, 87, 50 00/ - THROUGH CHEQUES OR BY W AY OF TRANSFER. FROM THE BANK STATE MENT FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, IT IS ALSO SEEN THAT THE PAYMENTS ARE MADE EITHER TO SILVERLINE MARKETING OR SILVERLINE. ASSESSEE WAS ASKED TO FURNISH THE NAME AND ADDRESSES OF SILVERLINE MARK ETING OR SILVERLINE VIDE ORDER - SHEET NOTINGS DT.07/12/2007 AND ALSO ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE OF SUCH PAYMENT AND SHOW - CASE AS TO WHY THE DEPOSITS SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCES AND ADDED BACK TO THE TOTAL INCOME AS PER THE IT A CT. HAVING NO RESPONSE FROM THE ASSESSEE, INFORMATION HAVE BEEN CALLED F OR U/S.133(6) FROM THE DCB BANK. DCB BANK VIDE THEIR LETTER GIVEN THE DETAILS OF SILVERLINE M ARKETING HAVING ADDRESS AT SHOP NO.8/9, DUNHILL APTS., WARODA ROAD, BANDRA - WEST, MUM'BAI - 50 . ACCORDINGLY, SUMMONS U/S.131 OF THE IT ACT ,1961 ISSUED TO SHRI HUSSAIN CHARCNIA, PROPRIETOR OF SILVERLINE MARKETING ON 20/12/2007 TO APPEAR ON 24/12/2007. IN RESPONSE TO THE SUM MONS U/S.131, NO ONE ATTENDED NEITHER ANY SUBMISSION WERE FILED. TO VERIFY WHETHER SHRI HUSSAIN CHARANIA IS FILING RETURN O R NOT, THE SAME IS ALSO CHECKED WITH THE AST OF COMPUTER SYSTEMS OF THE DEPARTMENT. FROM THE AST OF COMPUTER SYSTEM, IT IS SEEN THAT SHRI HUSSAIN JAMAL CHARANIA HAVING PAN: AAAPC 4923 C HAS NOT FILED RETURN F OR A.Y.2005 - 06. THE AO FURTHER OBSERVED THAT ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 3 THE ASSESSEE REGARDING THE NATURE OF BUSINESS , EARLIER STATED THAT SHE IS ENGAGED IN THE B U S I NESS OF WHOLESALE OF LADIES BOUTIQUE ITEMS SUPPLY, GARMENTS ETC. NOW, SUDDENLY SHE IS STATING THAT THE INCOME IS BY W AY OF COMMISSION INCOME. IF THE PRODUCT WERE PROCURED THROUGH SILVERILINE AND SOLD ON CASH BASIS THEN WHY THE PROCEEDS WERE DEPOSITED IN ASSESSEES ACCOUNT. IT HAS TO BE DEPOSITED IN SILVERLINE MARKETING ACCOUNT. ASSESSEES CONTENTION THAT SHE RETAINS AN A MOUNT OF 5% TOWARDS SERVICE CHARGE IS NOT ACCEPTABLE AS ASSESSEE HAS NOT SUBMITTED ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE FOR CLAIMING 5% COMMISSION. REGARDING THE BALANCE SALE OF RS. 19,06,130/ - , ASSESSEE IS STATING THAT THE SAME IS SOLD ON BEHALF OF SILVERLINE MARKETIN G IS ALSO NOT ACCEPTABLE. SILVERLINE MARKETING HAS NOT FILED THEIR RETURN AND THE INCOME HAS NOT BEEN OFFERED FOR TAXATION BY SILVERLINE MARKETING. WITH REGARD TO TRANSFER OF FUNDS TO M/S SILVERLINE MARKETING, THE AO OBSERVED THAT THE SAME ALSO REMAINED UN EXPLAINED AND THEREFORE THE CLAIM WITH REGARD TO PAYMENT/ALLOWANCE OF EXPENDITURE TO M/S SILVERLINE IS REJECTED. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE AO MADE AN ADDITION OF RS. 25,13,090/ - AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S.69A. 3. SIMILARLY IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 006 - 07 THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 2 7 , 86 , 639 / - U/S. 68 AND ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S AT RS.16,07,157/ - . 4. IN APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A), THE CIT(A) CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM AO AND AFTER CONSIDERING THE SAME, HELD AS UNDER : - 8. I HAV E CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT'S AR.. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT DISCLOSED HER STATED BUSINESS OF MARKETING OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA MARKETING ON COMMISSION BASIS THROUGH SILVERLINE MARKETING IN HER RETURN OF ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 4 INCOME. I T WAS ONLY AFTER THE A.O., ENQUIRED ABOUT THE DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT THAT SHE REVEALED THESE TRANSACTIONS. NO CONFIRMATION/DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE OF THESE TRANSACTIONS WERE FILED. M/S. SILVERLINE MARKETING DID NOT FILE ITS RETURN OF INCOME AND ITS PROP RIETOR DID NOT ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS IN RESPONSE TO THE SUMMONS ISSUED. SERVICE OF SUMMONS AND PAN THEMSELVES DO NOT PROVE THAT THE TRANSACTIONS ARE GENUINE. THE A.O., HAD GIVEN SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY TO' PROVE HER CLAIM TO FURNISH DETAILS/SUPPORTING EVID ENCE ON OR BEFORE 19.12.2007, BUT THE APPELLANT FILED HER REPLY ON 27.12.2007 ON THE DATE OF COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT. IN REMAND REPORT THE ASSESSING OFFICER SUBMITTED THAT IN THE NONE OF THE CASH MEMOS, FULL ADDRESS WERE GIVEN AND NONE OF THEM WAS SIGNED. THE APPELLANT HAD SUBMITTED THAT ALL THE SALES WERE IN CASH THEREFORE, 'NO ADDRESS WERE WRITTEN TO INVOICES BUT SHE HERSELF IS STATING THAT RS.26,000/ - DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT IS FROM SUNDRY DEBTORS. THE APPELLANT HAS NOT BEEN ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DE POSITS IN HER ACCOUNT AND THEREFORE, THE AO HAS RIGHTLY ADDED RS.25,13,090/ - TO HER INCOME. THE APPELLANT'S REQUEST FOR ASSESSING THE INCOME U/S.44AF OF THE ACT, CANNOT BE ACCEPTED SINCE SHE HAD NOT DISCLOSED THE FACTS FULLY AND TRULY IN HER RETURN OF INCO ME AS IS NOT ABLE TO EXPLAIN THE DEPOSITS IN HER BANK ACCOUNT TOO. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O., IS ACCORDINGLY CONFIRMED. 5 . SIMILARLY, IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE CIT(A) HAS CALLED FOR A REMAND REPORT FROM THE AO AND CO NCLUDED A SUNDER : - 1.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. THE A.O. HAD ADDED RS.27,86,639/ - U/S 68 AS UNEXPLAINED DEPOSITS IN BANK ACCOUNTS. IN HIS REMAND REPORT THE A.O. HAS ACCEPTED DEPOSIT OF RS.2 LAKHS OUT OF PARTIAL ENCASHMENT OF FDR AND STATED THAT BALANCE AMOUNT IS UNEXPLAINED CREDIT. HOWEVER, THE APPELLANT HAS ONLY GIVEN NARRATIONS WITHOUT GIVING CORRESPONDING DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE/DETAILS. THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED TO HAVE DEPO SITED RS.6,45,000/ - IN HER BANK ACCOUNT FROM CASH - IN - HAND BUT NO DETAILS ARE GIVEN REGARDING DATE OF DEPOSIT AND AMOUNT OF DEPOSIT ALONGWITH COPY OF CASH BOOK. THEREFORE, THE DEPOSITS AMOUNTING TO RS.25,86,639/ - REMAIN UNEXPLAINED. THE ADDITION OF RS.25,86 ,639/- MADE BY THE A. O . IS CONFIRMED AND THE APPELLANT GETS RELIEF OF RS.2,00,000/ - . THIS GROUND OF APPEAL IS PARTLY ALLOWED. 6. BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER THE CIT(A) AFTER CALLING THE REMAND REPORT CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF RS. 16,07,157/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS EARNED BY THE ASSESSEE DURING THE YEAR AFTER HAVING THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS : - ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 5 3.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE A.R. OF THE APPELLANT. THE COST OF SHOP IS SHOWN AT RS.7,60,623/ - IN THE APPELLANT'S BALANCE SHEET AND LOAN IS SHOWN BY NIZAR GOVANI OF RS .4,00,000/ - . BESIDES, THE APPELLANT HAS CLAIMED INTEREST OF RS.56,503/ - FOR F.Y.2003 - 04, RS.1,44,721/ - IN F.Y. 2004 - 05 AND RS.1,36,679/ - IN F.Y. 2005 - 06, WHICH IS NOT SHOWN TO BE RELAT ED TO THE PROPERTY WHICH IS SOLD. EVEN LOAN OF NIZAR GOVANI IS SHOWN AT RS.3,00,0001 - . NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE IS FILED. THE APPELLANT HAS FURNISHED COPIES OF REPAIRS AND RENEWALS AS WELL AS BROKERAGE BUT THE PROOF AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN SUBMIT TED. SIMILARLY, NO PROOF AS WELL AS SOURCE OF STAMP DUTY AND REGISTRATION IS FILED. THE AO IN HIS REMAND REPORT, HAS OBSERVED THAT THE SHOP SOLD IS DIFFERENT FROM ASSET DECLARED IN BALANCE SHEET AND ENTIRE DEEMED CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE TAXED. HOWEVER, A P ERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31/03/2006 FILED DURING APPELLA N T PROCEEDINGS AND FORWARDED TO THE AO SHOWS ONLY FURNITURE UNDER THE HEAD FIXED ASSETS. THEREFORE, THE ENTIRE DEEMED CONSIDERATION CANNOT BE TAXED. IN MY VIEW, THE AO IN HIS ASSESSMENT ORDER H AS CORRECTLY WORKED OUT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS OF RS.16,67,157/ - THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO ARE CONFIRMED AND THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE DISMISSED. 7. AGAINST THE ABOVE ORDER OF CIT(A), ASSESSEE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. 8. WE HAVE CONSIDERE D RIVAL CONTENTIONS, CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS WELL AS REMAND REPORT CALLED BY THE CIT(A). FROM THE RECORD WE FOUND THAT IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 THE ASSESSEE HAD FOUND TO BE DEPOSITED IN HER BANK ACCOUNT OF RS.19, 25,590/ - IN CASH AND RS.5,87,500/ - THROUGH CHEQUES OR TRANSFER. PAYMENT WAS ALLEGED TO BE MADE TO SILVERLINE MARKETING. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT PRODUCE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE HER CLAIM OF PAYMENT MADE TO SILVERLINE MARKETING FOR PUR CHASE OF MATERIAL. THE AO ISSUED SUMMONS U/S.131 TO THE PROPRIETOR OF SILVERLINE MARKETING BUT SHE DID NOT APPEAR. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO REJECTED THE CLAIM OF ASSESSEE FOR MAKING PAYMENT TO SILVERLINE MARKETING IN ABSENCE OF ANY ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 6 PROOF AND ADDED RS.25,13,090/ - (19,25,590 + 5,87,500/ - ) AS UNEXPLAINED MONEY U/S.69 OF THE IT ACT. 9. WE FOUND THAT BEFORE THE CIT(A) ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED COPY OF INVOICES ISSUED BY HINDUSTAN COCO COLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY LTD. TO M/S SILVERLINE AND MRS ZARINA NOORALI GOVANI TO YA SHIN SISTERS. HOWEVER, THE AO HAS REJECTED THE CASH MEMO ON THE PLEA THAT THEY WERE NOT SIGNED/AUTHENTICATED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE GOODS. IT WAS ALSO OBSERVED THAT NONE OF THE INVOICES GIVES FULL ADDRESS OF THE RECIPIENT, LOCATION OF THE GOODS DELIVERED ETC. IN VIEW OF THESE OBSERVATION, THE AO ALSO REJECTED ASSESSEES CONTENTION FOR COMPUTING PROFIT U/S.44AF. WE DO NOT FIND ANY JUSTIFICATION IN THE ACTION OF THE AO FOR REJECTING THE CASH MEMO MERELY ON THE PLEA THAT THESE WERE NOT SIGNED/AUTHENTICATED BY THE RECIPIENT OF THE GOODS. IN CASE OF RETAIL TRADE, THERE IS NO PRACTICE OF GETTING THE SIGNATURE IN SALES BILLS. FURTHERMORE, IN CASE OF CASH SALES THERE IS NO NEED TO GIVE FULL DETAILS OF THE BUYER AND THE RECIPIENT OF GOODS, INSOFAR AS ASSESSEE DELIV ERS THE GOODS ONLY AFTER RECEIPT OF ENTIRE SALE CONSIDERATION. SINCE THE DEPOSIT IN BANK ACCOUNT WAS MUCH MORE THAN SALES SHOWN BY ASSESSEE, ONUS IS ON THE ASSESSEE TO SHOW THE SOURCE OF EXCESS MONEY DEPOSITED IN BANK ACCOUNT EITHER IN CASH OR THROUGH CHEQ UES. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIRPLAY, WE RESTORE THE APPEAL FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005 - 06 TO THE FILE OF AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 7 10. IN THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07, THE ADDITION OF RS.27,86,639/ - WAS MADE BY THE AO U/S.68 OF THE ACT BY OBSERVING THAT THERE WERE CASH DEPOSITS AND OTHER DEPOSITS IN DIFFERENT BANK ACCOUNT A SUNDER : - SR. NO. BANK & A/C.NO. CASH DEPOSIT OTHER DEPOSITS TOTAL 1 DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK A/C NO.10078 6,45,000 27,25,139 3 3,70,139 2 SHAMRAO VITHAL CO - OP BANK LTD. 1,36,700 7,25,000 8,61,700 3 DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK NO.3087 53,900 1,78,900 2,32,890 TOTAL 44,64,729 THE DEPOSITS WERE STATED TO BE FROM SALE PROCEEDS OF SHOP, FORS, SUNDRY DEBTORS, CASH ON HAND, RECEIPTS FRO M NIZAR GOVANI, NOORALI GOVANI, ROZINA , SILVERLINE MARKETING, DIVIDEND AND DEPOSITS BY WAY OF TRANSFER. HOWEVER, T HE ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE EXCEPT FOR SALE AND PURCHASE OF SHOP. THE ASSESSEE FILED LOAN CONFIRMATION OF NIZAR GOVANI OF RS.5,81,541/ - BUT THE ASSESSEE 'S BALANCE SHEET AS WELL AS RETURN OF NIZAR GOVANI DOES NOT SHOW ANY SUCH LOAN. OUT OF RS.44,64,729/ - RS.13 LAKHS WAS ALLEGED TO BE RECEIVED FROM SALE PROCEEDS AND RS.3,78,0901 - BY WAY OF TRANSFER FROM ONE BANK TO ANOTHER. THE AO. ADDED BALANCE RS.27,86,639/ - U/S 68 OF THE I.T.ACT. THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AS UNDER : - DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING OUR CLIENT HAD FURNISHED LETTER DTD. 19. 11.2008 WHEREIN THE ENTIRE DETAILS OF INCOME COMPRISING OF CAPITAL GAINS AND BUSINESS INCOME BEING INCOME FROM DISTRIBUTION OF HINDUSTAN COCO COLA MANUFACTURING COMPANY PRODUCTS RECEIVED BY OUR CLIENT THROUGH THEIR AGENT M/S. SILVER L INE MARKETING. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS WRONGLY STATED THAT THE DETAILS WERE N OT FURNISHED AS THE ABOVE LETTER COMPRISING OF COMPUTATION OF INCOME, BALANCE SHEET, PROFIT & LOSS ACCOUNT ALONGWITH BANK STATEMENTS, XEROX COPIES OF SALE AND PURCHASE DOCUMENTS OF SHOP AND INVESTMENTS WERE FURNISHED. FURTHER, BANK ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 8 SUMMARIES WERE ALSO FURN ISHED ALONGWITH LOAN CONFIRMATION OF MR. NIZAR GOVANI AND DETAILS OF MONTHWISE SALE AND PURCHASE WERE ALSO FURNISHED. 5) THE TOTAL AMOUNT OF INCOME TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S 68 AT RS.27,86,639/ - HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PARTLY INCORRECT IN PARA 2 OF THE REMAND R EPORT WHEREIN THE SUM OF RS. 2, 00,000 / - HAS BEEN ACCEPTED AS PROCEEDS OF PARTIAL ENCASHMENT OF FD R. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE SALE CONSIDERATION OF RS. 13,00,000 / - IS RECEIVED IN RESPECT OF SALE OF SHOP I N DHEERAJ HERITAGE. THE CAPITAL GAINS IN RESPECT OF THE SAME IS REFLECTED AT RS. 277, 357 / - IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME. FIXED DEPOSITS WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK WAS ALLEGED TO BE ENCASHED AMOUNTING TO RS. 6,50,000 / - . THE CONFIRMATION OF DEVELOPMENT CR EDIT BANK WAS ALLEGED TO BE FILED BEFORE AO . FIXED DEPOSIT WITH BANK CO - OPERATIVE SOCIETY OF RS.2,00,000 / - WAS ALLEGED TO BE ENCASHED OUT OF TOTAL F D R OF RS. 6,50,000 / - MADE DURING THE YEAR. THE CONFIRMATION OF BANDRA CO - OPERATIVE CREDIT SOCIETY WAS ALLEGED TO BE FILED . SUNDRY DEBTORS OF RS.24,12 , 249 / - WAS ALLEGED TO BE RECOVERED WHICH WERE REFLECTED AS OUTSTANDING ON 31.03.2005 AT RS. 25,155 / - . IT WAS ALSO BROUGHT ON RECORD THAT R S.51,500/ - IS TRANSFERRED FROM SAVING ACCOUNT NO. 3087 WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK, SUMMAR Y OF WHICH IS ENCLOSED ABOVE. RS.50,000/ - I S RECEIVED FROM THE ESTATE OF HER LATE HUSBAND NOORALI GOVANI WHO EXPIRE D ON 31.12.1992. RS. 2,500 / - IS RECEIVED FROM OUR CLIENT'S DAUGHTER ROZINA GOVANI WHOSE LOAN CONFIRMATION IS ENCLOSED HEREWITH. THE SUMMARY O F TRANSACTION OF SILVERLINE MARKETING IS ENCLOSED FROM WHICH IT CAN BE EVIDENCED THAT A SUM OF 2 ,75,000/ - IS RECEIVED FROM THEM. ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 9 1 1 . IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT CREDIT IN THE BANK ACCOUNT WAS ON ACCOUNT OF RS. 119,900/ - RECEIVED FROM ASSESSEES SON NIZAR ALI GOVANI WHOSE LOAN CONFI RMATION WAS ALSO FILED . FURTHER A SUM OF RS. 3.25,000/ - WAS TRANSFERRED FROM SAVING ACCOUNT NO. 10078 WITH DEVELOPMENT CREDIT BANK. RS.3,00,000/ - IS RECEIVED FROM CLIENTS DAUGHTER ROZINA GOVANI WHOSE LOAN CONFIRMATION WAS ALSO EN CLOSED. HOWEVER, TO SUBSTANTIATE THE CLAIM OF VARIOUS DEPOSITS AND WITHDRAWALS THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY CAS H - FLOW/FUND - FLOW STATEMENT. FROM THE ORDERS OF LOWER AUTHORITIES IT IS NOT CLEAR THAT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WITH RESPECT TO SOURCE OF FUNDS WER E FILED BEFORE THEM. 1 2 . IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE ADDITION MADE DURING THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006 - 07 U/S.68 AS WELL AS ON ACCOUNT OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAINS IS ALSO RESTORED TO THE FILE THE AO FOR DECIDING AFRESH AFTER GIVING DUE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 1 3 . IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 13/05 /2015 . 13/05 /2015 SD/ - SD/ - ( ) ( JOGINDER SINGH ) ( . . ) ( R.C.SHARMA ) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED 13/05 /201 5 . . /PKM , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT ITA NO S . 7782&7783 / 1 1 10 / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A), MUMBAI. 4 . / CIT 5. , , / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY//