, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B, MUMBAI , , , BEFORE SHRI JOGINDER SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.831/MUM/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 INCOME TAX OFFICER-25(2)(2), ROOM NO.106, C-11BLDG., PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, BANDRA KURLA COMPLEX, BANDRA(E), MUMBAI-400051 / VS. SMT. MANJU RAJKUMAR PUGALIA, 601, ROKADIA APARTMENT, ROKADIA LANE, BORIVALI(W), MUMBAI-400092 ( / REVENUE) ( !'# $ /ASSESSEE) P.A. NO. AFQPP5617M / REVENUE BY SHRI K. MOHANDAS-DR !'# $ / ASSESSEE BY SHRI MANOJ POKHARANA % & ' $ ( / DATE OF HEARING 20/07/2015 ' $ ( / DATE OF ORDER: 21/07/2015 / O R D E R PER JOGINDER SINGH (JUDICIAL MEMBER) THE REVENUE IS AGGRIEVED BY THE IMPUGNED ORDER DAT ED 04/11/2013, OF THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, M UMBAI. ITA NO.831/MUM/2014 , MRS. MANJU RAJKUMAR PUGALIA 2 THE ONLY GROUND RAISED IN THIS APPEAL PERTAINS TO D ELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.15,21,653/- TREATING THE INVESTMENT IN SHARES AS EXPLAINED. THE CRUX OF ARGUMENT ADVANCED BY SHR I K. MOHANDAS, LD. DR, IS THAT THE LD. FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY DELETED THE ADDITION WITHOUT VERIFYING THE SOURCE O F DEPOSIT OF CREDITORS IN THE BANK ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE AND A LSO THEIR CREDITWORTHINESS. ON THE OTHER HAND, SHRI MANOJ PO KHARANA, LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, DEFENDED THE CONCLUSI ON ARRIVED AT IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 2. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THE FACTS , IN BRIEF, ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE, AN INDIVIDUAL, IS ENGAGED IN TRADING IN FUTURES AND OPTIONS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE AD DITION OF RS.15,21,653/- ON THE BASIS OF AIR INFORMATION THAT THE ASSESSEE MADE INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF IMPUGNED AMOU NT OF 27/03/2008. AS PER THE REVENUE, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE INVESTED AMOUNT, THUS, AD DITION WAS MADE. ON APPEAL, BEFORE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), THE ASSESSEE FURNISHED VARIOUS DOCUM ENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE SOURCE OF THE IMPUGNED AMOUNT W HICH WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOR VERIFICATION AND ALSO TO LOOK INTO THE GENUINENESS OF THE INVESTMENT MADE BY THE ASSESSEE. THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER DATE D 18/03/2013 WAS FORWARDED BY THE JCIT RANGE-25(2). THERE IS CATEGORICAL FINDING IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT T HE ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ENQUIRIES AND FOUND THAT THE ASSESSEE PURCHASED 800 SHARES OF RELIANCE INDUSTRY AT THE RA TE OF RS. 2261 FOR A PRICE OF RS.18,09,704/-. THE BANK STATE MENT OF ITA NO.831/MUM/2014 , MRS. MANJU RAJKUMAR PUGALIA 3 THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO EXAMINED BY THE ASSESSING OFF ICER AND FOUND THAT THE SHARES WERE LISTED IN THE LIST OF SH ARES WHICH WERE SHOWN AS INVESTMENT BY THE ASSESSEE. NO CONTR ARY MATERIAL WAS PRODUCED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE US CONTRADICTING THE FINDING MADE IN THE IMPUGNED ORDE R, THUS, WE FIND NO MERIT IN THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE, THER EFORE, DISMISSED. THE STAND OF THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INC OME TAX (APPEALS) IS AFFIRMED. FINALLY, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT IN TH E PRESENCE OF LD. REPRESENTATIVE OF BOTH SIDES, AT TH E CONCLUSION OF HEARING ON 20/07/2015. SD/- SD/- ( SANJAY ARORA ) (JOGINDER SINGH) '# / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER $# / JUDICIAL MEMBER % & MUMBAI; ) DATED : 21/07/2015 F{X~{T? P.S/. . . %$&'()(*& / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. +,- / THE APPELLANT 2. ./,- / THE RESPONDENT. 3. 0 0 % 1$ ( + ) / THE CIT, MUMBAI. 4. 0 0 % 1$ / CIT(A)- , MUMBAI 5. 34 .$ ! , 0 +( ! 5 , % & / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ' 7& / GUARD FILE. / BY ORDER, /3+$ .$ //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , % & / ITAT, MUMBAI