ACIT 9(1), MUMBAI V. ENVISION INVESTMENT AND FINANCE P. LTD, MUMBAI

ITA 8041/MUM/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4274 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 1 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 01-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 06-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 01-12-2011
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANJUNATH R SWAMY
• Assessee Lawyers: S C TIWARI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Gift; Business income; Transactions in derivatives; Earning of tax free income; Revised return
• Section: 14A; 68

Judgement Text

, INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,MUMBAI- E,BENCH , ,, , , ,, , BEFORE S/SH. RAJENDRA,ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SANDEEP GOSAIN,JUDICIAL MEMBER /. /./. /. ITA /8041/MUM/2011, / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 ACIT-RANGE-9(1) ROOM NO.223, AAYAKAR BHAVAN M.K. ROAD MUMBAI-400 020. VS ENVISION INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD.402, 4 TH FLOOR, VYAPAR BHAVAN,386/370, NARSI NATHA STREET, MASJID (W),MUMBAI-9. PAN: AAACE 2990 G ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /. /./. /. ITA /7896/MUM/2011, / // / ASSESSMENT YEAR-2008-09 ENVISION INVESTMENT & FINANCE PVT. LTD., MASJID (W) MUMBAI-400 009. VS ACIT-RANGE-9(1) MUMBAI-400 020. ( / APPELLANT) ( / RESPONDENT) /ASSESSEE BY : SHRI S.C. TIWARI & MS. RUTUJA N.PAWAR / REVENUE BY : SHRI MANJUNATH R. SWAMY / DATE OF HEARING : 04-11 -2015 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 01.01. 2016 ,1961 254(1) ORDER U/S.254(1)OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT,1961(ACT) PER RAJENDRA, AM - CHALLENGING THE ORDER DATED 12.09.2011 OF THE CIT(A )-19,MUMBAI,THE ASSESSEE AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER(AO)HAVE FILED CROSS-APPEALS FOR A BOVE MENTIONED ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY.). ITA/ 8041 /MUM/2011-AY- 2008-09 : 2. ASSESSEE-COMPANY,ENGAGED IN THE BUSINESS OF SHARE T RADING,FILED ITS RETURN OF INCOME ON 30. 06.2008,DECLARING TOTAL INCOME OF RS.78.52 CRORES.L ATER ON,A REVISED RETURN WAS FILED ON 07. 10.2009.THE AO COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT ON 10.12.20 09,U/S.143(3) OF THE ACT,DETERMINING THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS.1,00,13,51,457/-. 3. FIRST GROUND OF APPEAL IS ABOUT TREATING THE GAIN O N TRANSFER OF SHARES UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME IN PLACE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN S(STCG).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEED -INGS,THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAS SHOWN STCG AND LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS(LTCG) OF RS.2.07 AND RS.7.14 CRORES RESPECTIVELY FOR THE YEA R UNDER APPEAL. CONSIDERING THE FACTORS LIKE MOTIVE OF THE ASSESSEE,DISCLOSURE BY THE ASSES SEE AND ITS AUDITORS,VOLUME AND FREQUENCY OF TRANSACTIONS,FUNDS FOR INVESTMENT,TREATMENT IN T HE EARLIER YEARS, THE AO HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CHANGE IN THE ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE AS FAR AS REGULAR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES WAS CONCERNED.REFERRING TO THE ORDER OF THE IMMEDIATE PREVIOUS YEAR, THE AO HELD THAT INCOME ARISING OUT OF STCG(RS.2.07 CRORES) AND LTCG (RS.7. 14 CRORES) HAD TO BE TREATED AS BUSINESS INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERA TION. 3.1. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDER OF THE AO,THE ASSESSEE PREF ERRED AN APPEAL BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY(FAA)AND MADE ELABORATE SUBMISSI ONS LIKE THE EARLIER AY.THE FAA, FOLLOWING THE ORDER FOR THE EARLIER YEAR,HELD THAT PROFIT ARISING OUT OF STCG HAD RIGHTLY BEEN TAXED UNDER THE HEAD BUSINESS INCOME.HE FURTHER HEL D THAT 6,08,807 SHARES OF IDEA CELLULAR WERE PURCHASED ON 5.3.2007 AND WERE SOLD ON 24.4.20 07 RESULTING IN GAIN OF RS.2.05 CRORES, THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION WAS CLEAR IN THE NATURE O F BUSINESS TRANSACTION.FINALLY,HE UPHELD THE 8041/11&7896/11-ENVISION 2 ORDER OF THE AO AS FAR AS STCG IS CONCERNED.HOWEVER , WITH REGARD TO LTCG HE HELD THAT GAINS ON SHARES HELD FOR MORE THAN 12 MONTHS WERE T O BE TAXED UNDER THE HEAD LTCG. 3.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US,THE AUTHORIS ED REPRESENTATIVE (AR)MADE THE SAME CONTENTION THAT WERE MADE FOR THE EARLIER AY.I.E.FO R AY.2007-08.HE RELIED UPON THE CASE OF NIRAJ AMIDHAR SURTI(TAX APPEAL NO.836 OF 2009)OF HO NBLE GUJARAT HIGH COURT.THE DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE(DR) SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA AND RELIED UPON THE CASES OF JAISHREE PRADEEP SHAH(12TAXMANN.COM44),IMMORTAL FINANCIAL SERVICES P.LTD. (44SOT 88) AND TRIPURA PRASAD N. PANDYA(10TAXMANN.COM77). 3.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US. WE FIND THAT SIMILAR ISSUE HAD ARISEN IN THE EARLIER YEAR AND WE HAD DECIDED IT AGAINST THE ASSESSEE.IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE FAA HAD GIVEN A CATEGO RICAL FINDING OF FACT THAT THE SHARES OF IDEA CELLULAR(6,08,807) WERE PURCHASED ON 5.3.2007 AND WERE SOLD ON 24.4.2007, THAT THE SAID TRANSACTION RESULTED IN STCG OF RS.2.05 CRORES OUT OF THE TOTAL STCG OF RS.2.07 CRORES, THE VOLUME OF THE SHARES AND THE CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSE E TO MAXIMISE THE PROFIT INDICATES THAT TRANSACTION IN QUESTION CANNOT BE TERMED AN INVESTM ENT-RATHER IT WAS A PURE AND SIMPLE BUSINESS TRANSACTION. AS STATED EARLIER, SIMILAR IS SUE HAS BEEN DELIBERATED UPON BY US IN THE EARLIER YEAR.FOLLOWING THE SAME,WE UPHOLD THE ORDER OF THE FAA IN THE CASE OF NEERAJ AMIDHAR SURTI(SUPRA),THE ISSU E WAS USE OF BORROWED FUNDS FOR PURCHASING THE SHARES.IN OUR OPINION,THE FACTS OF T HE PRESENT CASE ARE TOTALLY DIFFERENT FROM THE FACTS OF THAT CASE.THE CASES RELIED UPON BY THE DR SUPPORT THE VIEW TAKEN BY THE FAA. CONSIDERING THE ABOVE,GROUND NO.1 IS DECIDED AGAINS T THE ASSESSEE. 4. GROUND NO.2 IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE MADE BY THE AO UN DER RULE 8D OF THE INCOME TAX RULES,1962(RULES).DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THE AO FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1.99 CRORES IN ITS P &L ACCOUNT, THAT SAME HAD BEEN CLAIMED EXEMPT U/S.10(34) OF THE ACT, THAT WHILE COMPUTING TAXABLE INCOME IT HAD NOT ALLOWED ANY EXPENSE. HE DIRECTED THE ASSESSEE TO FILE DETAILS O F EXPENSES ATTRIBUTED TO EARNING OF DIVIDEND INCOME AS PER SECTION 14A R.W.RULE 8D OF THE RULES. THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THE WORKING AND DISALLOWANCE WAS WORKED OUT AT RS.78.48 LACS. HOWEV ER, THE AO DID NOT FIND IT REASONABLE AND REWORKED THE DISALLOWANCE. AN ADDITION OF RS.7. 83 CRORES WAS MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 4.1. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS, IT WAS ARGUED THA T AO HAD NOT GIVEN ANY REASON FOR APPLYING RULE 8D, THE ASSESSEE HAD ITSELF ADDED EXP ENSE OF RS.32.24 LACS IN THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME, THAT THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.7.18 CRORES W AS INCURRED SPECIFICALLY AGAINST F&O SEGMENT. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE AS SESSEE, THE FAA HELD THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT SERIOUSLY OBJECTED TO APPLICATION OF RULE 8 D. THE FAA, AFTER CONSIDERING THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS, HELD THAT AO HAD COMMITTED MISTAKES IN APPLYING RULE 8D CORRECTLY.HE DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE DIRECT EXPENSES, THE INTEREST EXPENSES INDIRECTLY RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME AND THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT. 4.. BEFORE US, THE AR ARGUED THAT THE RULE 8D WAS APPL IED MECHANICALLY, THAT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE DISALLOWANCE WAS NOT WARRANTED, T HAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD OFFERED DISALLOWANCE OF RS.78.14 LACS, THAT THE AO HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7.83 CRORES. HE REFERRED TO THE PAGE NO.23,25, AND 29 OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RELIED UPON THE CASES OF ORISSA CORPORATION (P) LTD. (159 ITR 78), K. RAHEJA CORPN. P.LTD. (INCOME TAX APPEAL NO.1260 OF 2009-HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT), JOINT INVESTMENTS PVT. LTD. (ITA NO.117 OF 2015- HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT) AND JUSTICE S.P. BAHRUCHA (53 SOT 39). HE FURTHER STATED THAT WHILE GIVING APPEAL EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE FAA THE AO HAD UPHELD THE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.78.50 LACS ONLY.THE DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF TH E FAA. 8041/11&7896/11-ENVISION 3 4.3 .WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED TH E MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.1.99 CR ORES,THAT THE ASSESSEE ITSELF HAD PREPARED A WORKING OF DISALLOWANCE TO BE MADE U/S.14A OF TH E ACT,THAT AS PER THAT WORKING DISALLOWANCE COULD BE MADE OF RS.78.48 LAKHS ONLY,T HAT THE AO HAD MADE A DISALLOWANCE OF RS.7.83 CRORES,THAT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDING S, THE FAA HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO VERIFY THE DIRECT EXPENSES, INDIRECT EXPENSES RELATABLE TO EXEMPT INCOME AND THE AVERAGE VALUE OF INVESTMENT,THAT WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE FAA THE AO RESTRICTED THE DISALLOWANCE TO RS.78,48,876/-,THAT BEFORE US, THE ASSESSEE MADE AN ALTERNATE SUBMISSION IN THAT REGARD.WE FIND THAT ON 24.11.2010 THE ASSESSEE HAD WORKED OUT DISALLOWANCE AT RS.78.48 LACS AND WHILE GIVING EFFECT TO THE ORDER OF THE FA A,THE AO HAD ACCEPTED THE SAME FIGURE.IN OUR,OPINION THERE IS NO NEED TO DISTURB THE WORKING GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE AND ACCEPTED BY THE AO.THEREFORE,CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA WE DEC IDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 5. GROUND NO.3 IS ABOUT NOT ALLOWING THE ASSESSEE CRED IT OF SECURITY TAX TRANSACTION (STT) PAID U/S.88E OF THE ACT, AMOUNTING TO RS.30,24,783/ -. THE AO IS DIRECTED TO VERIFY THE CLAIM AND ALLOW TH E CREDIT OF STT PAID,AFTER VERIFICATION. GROUND NO.3 IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ITA 2322/MUM/2011 6. FIRST GROUND RAISED BY THE AO PERTAINS TO TREATMENT GIVEN BY THE AO TO THE GAINS ARISING OUT OF THE SHARES SOLD BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER THE HEAD L TCG.WHILE DEALING WITH THE GROUND NO.1 OF THE ASSESSEE, WE HAVE DISCUSSED THE FACTS OF THE CASE.WE FIND THAT THE FAA HAD HELD THAT THE SHARES HELD BY THE ASSESSEE FOR A PERIOD OF MOR E THAN ONE YEAR SHOULD BE ASSESSED UNDER THE HEAD LTCG. 6.1. BEFORE US,THE DR STATED THAT THE ISSUE COULD BE DEC IDED ON MERITS AND THE AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 6.2 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSION AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.IN THE CASE UNDER CONSIDERATION THE ASSESSEE HAD ACQUIRED SHARES OF R NRL,RELIANCE CAPITAL LTD.,RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD.AND RELIANCE INDUSTRIES LTD.AND THE PROFIT ARISING OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF THESE SHARES WAS SHOWN UNDER THE HEAD LTCG.SHARE S OF FIRST TWO COMPANIES AND THE LAST COMPANY (I.E.EXCEPT THE SHARES OF RELIANCE COMMUNIC ATIONS LTD.)WERE ACQUIRED IN THE MONTH OF JANUARY,2006 AND WERE SOLD IN THE MONTH OF SEPT. /JULY,2007AND FEBRUARY, 2008 RESPECTIVELY. SHARES OF RELIANCE COMMUNICATIONS LTD . WERE PURCHASED IN MAY,2006 AND WERE SOLD ON 13.02.2008.IN OUR OPINION,THE FAA HAD RIGHT LY HELD THAT THE SHARES WERE RIGHTLY OFFERED UNDER THE HEAD LTCG.THE PATTERN OF PURCHASE OF SALE AND HOLDING PERIOD CLEARLY PROVE THAT THE BEHAVIOR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS OF AN I NVESTOR AND NOT OF A BUSINESSMAN.IN OUR OPINION THE BASIC INGREDIENTS OF BUSINESS ARE MISSI NG IN THE ABOVE REFERRED TRANSACTIONS. THEREFORE, CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECID E GROUND NO.1 AGAINST THE AO. 7. NEXT GROUND IS ABOUT DISALLOWANCE MADE U/S.14A OF T HE ACT.THE AO FOUND THAT ASSESSEE HAD CREDITED DIVIDEND INCOME OF RS.90.18 LACS IN IT S P&L ACCOUNT, THAT IT HAD SHOWN AS EXEMPT U/S.10(34) OF THE ACT,WHILE COMPUTING TAXABL E INCOME IT HAD NOT DISALLOWED ANY EXPENDITURE IN RESPECT OF THE EXEMPT INCOME. HE ASK ED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY DISALLOWANCE U/S.14A R.W.RULE 8D OF THE RULES SHOUL D NOT BE MADE.AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE THE AO REFERRED TO THE D ECISION OF DAGA MANAGEMENT PRIVATE LIMITED ITA NO. 8057/MUM/2003, 20.10.2008-A.Y.2001- 02.FINALLY,HE MADE DISALLOWANCE OF RS.3.76 CORES U/S.14 R.W. RULE 8D OF THE RULES. 8041/11&7896/11-ENVISION 4 7.1. IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS,BEFORE THE FAA IT WAS ARGUED THAT RULE 8D WAS NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL AS DECIDED BY THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF GODREJ & BOYCE MANUFACTURING CO.LTD.(328 IT R 81),THAT THE DISALLOWANCE WAS TO BE MADE ON A REASONABLE BASIS AS PER PROVISION OF SECT ION 14A OF THE ACT. HE HELD THAT IT WOULD BE REASONABLE TO ALLOCATE THE EXPENSES IN PROPORTIO N TO THE INCOME. 7.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE DR RELIE D UPON THE ORDER OF THE AO AND THE AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 7.3 WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL BEFORE US.WE FIND THAT THE AO APPLIED THE RULE 8D OF THE RULES,WHILE MAKING TH E DISALLOWANCE,THAT THE FAA HAD HELD THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE RULE WERE NOT APPLICABLE FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL,THAT HE HAD DIRECTED THE AO TO ALLOCATE THE EXPENSES IN PROPORT ION TO THE INCOME.IN OUR OPINION,HIS ORDER DOES NOT SUFFER FROM ANY LEGAL INFIRMITY,THERFORE,C ONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE FAA,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.2 AGAINST THE AO. 8. GROUND NO.3 DEALS WITH ADDITION OF RS.6.63 CRORES M ADE U/S. 68 OF THE ACT, BY THE AO. DURING THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO FOUND THA T THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED LOANS FROM VINAYAK GIFTS AND SECURITIES LTD. (RS.2.35CRORES) , ROCKWAY EQUITIES PVT. LTD.(RS.15.00 LACS),AXIOM COMMERCIAL PVT. LTD. (RS.2.03CRORES) AN D AAKRITI MARKETING P. LTD. (RS. 2.10 CRORES).AS PER THE AO THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CONFIR MATION FROM THE ABOVE PARTIES SITUATED IN KOLKATTA,BUT DID NOT PRODUCE THEM BEFORE HIM.THE AS SESSEE REQUESTED THE AO TO ISSUE SUMMONS TO THE CREDITORS.AFTER EXAMINING THE BANK S TATEMENT OF THE CREDITORS AND THE CONFIRMATION, THE AO HELD THAT IN RESPECT OF ALL CR EDITORS HUGE AMOUNT WAS CREDITED IN BANK ON THE SAME DAY/ALTERNATE DAYS, THAT THE CREDITORS WERE MERELY PROVIDING ENTRIES.FINALLY, HE ADDED RS.6.63 CRORES TO THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASS ESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. 8.1. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE FAA,THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT CONFIRMATIONS AND BANK STATEMENTS ALONG WITH THE PA N OF THE CREDITORS WERE SUBMITTED BEFORE THE AO,THAT THE CREDITORS WERE NOT RELATED T O THE ASSESSEE, THAT ALL THE CREDITORS WERE INCOME TAX ASSESSEES AND HAD SUBSTANTIAL GROSS TOTA L INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATION. AFTER CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE FAA OBSERVED THAT CONFIRMATION FROM THE CREDITORS AND THE BANK S TATEMENTS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE AO, THAT ALL THE FOUR CREDITORS WERE CORPORATE ENTITIES HAVING PAN AND WERE ASSESSED TO TAX, THAT THEY HAD FILED THEIR RETURN OF INCOME FOR THE YEAR UNDER APPEAL, THAT THE PAYMENT HAD BEEN RECEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS, THAT IN THE CURRENT ACCOUNT OF THE CREDITORS THERE WERE LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS OF RECEIPT AND PA YMENT, THAT THE AO HAD NOT PROVED THAT ANY OF THE CREDITS PRIOR TO DEBITS IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ACTUALLY ROUTING OF FUNDS OF THE ASSESSEE, THAT IN THREE OUT OF FOUR ACCOUNTS TH ERE WERE LARGE BALANCES EVEN AFTER DEBITS TO THE ASSESSEE, THAT THE AOS OBSERVATION THAT THE CR EDITORS DID NOT HAVE SUFFICIENT BALANCE WAS FACTUALLY INCORRECT, THAT IDENTITY OF THE CREDITORS GENUINENESS AND THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF THE TRANSACTIONS HAD BEEN ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE.F INALLY, HE DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 8.2. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING BEFORE US THE DR LEFT THE ISSUE TO THE DISCRETION OF THE BENCH WHEREAS THE AR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE FAA. 8.3. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS.WE FIND THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAD FILED DETAILS ASKED FOR BY THE AO IN RESPECT OF ALL THE FOUR CREDITORS,THAT THE CREDITORS WERE HAVING PAN.S. AND WERE ASSESSED TO TAX IN KOLKATA,THAT THEY WERE FILING TH EIR RETURNS OF INCOME REGULARLY,THAT THE AO HAD DISPUTED THE FACT THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE NOT RE CEIVED THROUGH BANKING CHANNELS,THAT THE DR COULD NOT CONTROVERT THE FINDING OF FACT GIVEN B Y THE FAA THAT THERE WERE LARGE NUMBER OF TRANSACTIONS OF RECEIPTS AND PAYMENTS AND THAT OUT OF FOUR CREDITORS THREE CREDITORS HAD LARGE BALANCES EVEN AFTER DEBITS TO THE ASSESSEE,THAT THE GENUINENESS AND CREDITWORTHINESS OF THE 8041/11&7896/11-ENVISION 5 TRANSACTIONS ALONG WITH THE IDENTITY OF CREDITORS W AS ESTABLISHED BY THE ASSESSEE.IN OUR OPINION,THE ORDER OF THE FAA DOES NOT SUFFER FROM A NY LEGAL OR FACTUAL INFIRMITY.SO, CONFIRMING HIS ORDER,WE DECIDE GROUND NO.3 AGAINST THE AO. AS A RESULT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS PAR TLY ALLOWED AND APPEAL OF THE AO IS DISMISSED. . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OP EN COURT ON 1 ST JANUARY, 2016 01 , 2016 SD/- SD/- ( / SANDEEP GOSAIN) ( / RAJENDRA) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /MUMBAI, /DATE: 01.01.2016 . . . .. . JV.SR.PS. ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT / 2. RESPONDENT / 3. THE CONCERNED CIT(A)/ !% ' , 4. THE CONCERNED CIT / !% ' 5. DR A BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI / #* , E , . . . 6. GUARD FILE/ )- //TRUE COPY// / BY ORDER, / DY./ASST. REGISTRAR , /ITAT, MUMBAI.