ACIT, Circle-1, Jodhpur V. Shri Gaj Singh, Jodhpur

ITA 85/JODH/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 109 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9709 (ITAT-JODHPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-12-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A S YADAV LD
• Assessee Lawyers: RAJIV PANDEY; DAKSHAYANI PANDEY CA LD ARS
• Keywords: Business income; Deemed dividend
• Section: 143(3); 2(22)(e)

Judgement Text

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JODHPUR BENCH, JODHPUR , , BEFORE HONBLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM AND HONBLE SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, AM (HEARING THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING MODE) 1. ./ I.T.A. NO.85/JODH/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) & 2. ./ I.T.A. NO.86/JODH/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) & 3. ./ I.T.A. NO.141/JODH/2019 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) ACIT CIRCLE - 1 JODHPUR RAJASTHAN. / VS. SHRI GAJ SINGH UMAID BHAWAN PALACE JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AFMPS-5233-G ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) & 4. C.O. NO.08/JODH/2019 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.85/JODH/2019) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2013-14) & 5. C.O. NO.09/JODH/2019 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.86/JODH/2019) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2014-15) & 6. C.O. NO.13/JODH/2019 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NO.141/JODH/2019) ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2015-16) SHRI GAJ SINGH UMAID BHAWAN PALACE JODHPUR, RAJASTHAN. / VS. ACIT CIRCLE - 1 JODHPUR RAJASTHAN. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. AFMPS-5233-G ( /APPELLANT ) : ( / RESPONDENT ) 2 ASSESSEE BY : SHRI RAJIV PANDEY AND MS. DAKSHAYANI PANDEY (CA)- LD. ARS REVENUE BY : SHRI A.S. YADAV - LD. SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 04/11/2020 / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21/12/2020 / O R D E R MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER): - 1.1 AFORESAID APPEALS BY REVENUE FOR ASSESSMENT YEA RS [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS AY] 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16 CON TEST SEPARATE ORDERS OF LEARNED FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE AS SESSEE HAS FILED CROSS-OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE SAME. FACTS AS WELL AS ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN ALL THE YEARS AND THEREFORE, THE APPEA LS ARE BEING DISPOSED-OFF BY WAY OF THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SA KE OF CONVENIENCE & BREVITY. FIRST, WE TAKE UP APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS- OBJECTION FOR AY 2013-14 WHICH IS AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 11/12/2018 PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)- 1, JODHPUR, [IN SHORT REFERRED TO AS CIT(A)], APPEAL NO.275E/2016- 17. 1.2 THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE REVENUE READ AS UNDER :- 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE CLAUSES 16,17&18 OF THE AGREEMENT B ETWEEN THE ASSESSEE AND LICENSES; AND RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPEN SES AGAINST INCOME FROM SARDAR SAMAND LAKE PALACE TO RS.2,00,000/- INSTEAD OF RS 5 ,00,000/ - AS DISALLOWED BY THE AO? 2. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT(A) IS JUSTIFIED IN IGNORING THE CLAUSES 5, 6 & 7 OF THE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE A SSESSEE AND LICENSES; AND THEREBY , RESTRICTING THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES AGAINST IN COME FROM CANNAUGHT HOUSE HOTEL TO RS.1,75,000/- INSTEAD OF RS.8,80,800/- AS DISALL OWED BY THE AO? 3 3. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES O F THE CASE, THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING ALV OF MEHRANGARH FORT OF RS. 100/- ONLY ? 4. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING ALV OF DESURI HOUSE OF RS. 21 ONLY ? 5. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE CIT (A) IS JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE BEING A MAJORITY SHARE HOLDER IN THE COMPANY IS NOT DERIVING ANY PERQUISITE OR BENEFIT FROM PROVISIONS OF HIS RESIDENCE IN THE PREMISES OF THE HOTEL RUN BY THE COMPANY AND THEREBY DELETING A DDITION OF RS.19,80,000/- MADE U/S 28(IV) ? 6. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED ON FACT AND IN LAW IN D ELETING ADDITION OF RS.35,50,908/- MADE BY AO U/S 2(22)(E) OF THE IT ACT AND IGNORING THE COLOURABLE TRANSACTION OF ADVANCE OF LOAN BY M/S MARUDHARA HOTELS PVT LTD. TO THE ASSESSEE. 1.3 THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS ARE PRIMARILY I N SUPPORT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. THE GROUNDS READ AS UNDER: - 1.THE RESPONDENT SUBMITS THAT THE DELETION OF LD. C IT(A) ARE CORRECT AND AS PER LAW NAMELY: - -DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO WITH REFERENC E TO SARDAR SAMAND LAKE PALACE TO RS.5,00,000/- BUT ERRED IN RESTRICTING THE SAME TO RS.2,00,000/-. FURTHER, THE CLAUSE 16,17 & 18 OF THE AGREEMENT REFERRED TO IN C ROSS OBJECTION DO NOT SEEM TO BE RELEVANT. 2. DELETING THE ADDITION MADE BY LD. AO WITH REFERE NCE TO CANNAUGHT HOUSE, MOUNT ABU AMOUNTING TO RS.8,80,000/- BUT RESTRICTING THE SAME TO RS.1,75,000/-. FURTHER THE CLAUSE 5,6 & 7 OF THE AGREEMENT REFERRED TO IN CROSS OBJECTION ARE NOT APPLICABLE ON THE EXPENSES INCURRED AND ALLOWED BY LD. CIT(A). THE CLAUSE OVERRIDE THE NEW AGREEMENT ENTERED W.E.F. 1.4.2008 (BUSINESS TRANSFE R AGREEMENT) DO NOT SEEM TO BE RELEVANT. 3. IN CONFIRMING ALV OF MEHRANGARH FORT TO BE RS. 1 00/- ONLY BASED ON DECISION OF HONBLE RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT / AND OTHER AUTHORITIE S IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 4. IN CONFIRMING ALV OF DESURI HOUSE TO BE RS. 21 O NLY BASED ON DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE. 5. IN CONFIRMING THE DELETION OF RS.19,80,000/- AS ALLEGED PERQUISITE U/S 28(IV) BASED ON DECISION OF HONBLE ITAT IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE WHICH HELD THAT THERE WAS BUSINESS NEXUS. 6. IN DELETING THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E)- DEEMED DI VIDEND AND IN CORRECTLY INTERPRETING THAT ASSESSEE HAS CREDIT BALANCE AND FURTHER THERE ARE NO ACCUMULATED PROFIT AND FURTHER HOLDING THE TRANSACTION TO BE GENUINE AND N OT COLORABLE. 7. IN DELETING THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E)- DEEMED DI VIDEND AMOUNTING TO RS.35,50,908/-AND GIVING CREDIT OF AMOUNT OF SECURI TY GIVEN. 2. WE HAVE CAREFULLY HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AN D PERUSED RELEVANT MATERIAL ON RECORD INCLUDING WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS AND DOCUMENTS PLACED IN THE PAPER BOOK. THE JUDICIAL PR ECEDENTS AS RELIED UPON DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING HAVE DULY BEEN DELIBERATED 4 UPON. OUR ADJUDICATION TO THE SUBJECT MATTER WOULD BE AS GIVEN IN SUCCEEDING PARAGRAPHS. 3.1 THE ASSESSEE BEING RESIDENT INDIVIDUAL AND EX-R ULER OF JODHPUR WAS ASSESSED FOR THE YEAR UNDER CONSIDERATI ON U/S 143(3) VIDE ORDER DATED 30/03/2016 WHEREIN THE INCOME WAS DETERMINED AT RS.193.38 LACS AFTER CERTAIN ADDITIONS / ADJUSTMENT OF RECURRING NATURE. 3.2 CERTAIN RECURRING ISSUES CROPPED UP DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WHICH WERE AS FOLLOWS: - (I) THE ASSESSEE WAS BEING OWNER OF SARDARSAMAND LA KE RESORTS, PALI EARNED LEASED RENT OF RS.5 LACS AND A FTER CLAIMING VARIOUS EXPENSES, DECLARED LOSS OF RS.12.78 LACS. F OLLOWING THE FINDINGS IN ASSESSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13, THE EN TIRE EXPENSES WERE DISALLOWED AND ENTIRE LEASE RENTAL OF RS.5 LAC S WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. (II) SIMILARLY, THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED INCOME OF RS .1.01 LACS AGAINST CONNAUGHT HOUSE SITUATED AT MOUNT ABU. HOWE VER, THE ENTIRE EXPENSES CLAIMED WERE DISALLOWED AND LEASE R ENTAL OF RS.8.80 LACS WAS BROUGHT TO TAX. (III) THE ASSESSEE RECEIVED ADVANCE OF RS.36.50 LAC S FROM AN ENTITY NAMELY M/S MARUDHAR HOTELS PVT. LTD. (MHPL) WHICH WAS HELD TO BE DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22)(E) AS HELD IN AY 2012-13. (IV) THE ASSESSEE REFLECTED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.100 /- PER ANNUM IN RESPECT OF MEHRANGARH FORT. SIMILARLY, IT REFLEC TED RENTAL INCOME OF RS.21/- PER ANNUM FROM DESURI HOUSE. FOLLOWING ASSE SSMENT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13, THE INCOME FROM THESE PROPERTIES WE RE TAKEN AT RS.160.11 LACS & RS.5.20 LACS RESPECTIVELY. 5 (V) THE ASSESSEE WAS RESIDING IN A PORTION OF UMAID BHAWAN PALACE WHICH IS OWNED BY M/S MARUDHAR HOTELS PVT. L TD. (MHPL). THE ACCOMMODATION WAS RENT FREE. FOLLOWING ASSESSME NT ORDER FOR AY 2012-13, THE RENT WAS ESTIMATED AT RS.19.80 LACS AND ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS PERQUISITE U/S 28(IV) . IT IS EVIDENT THAT ALL THE ISSUES WERE OF RECURRING IN NATURE AND LD. AO CHOSE TO FRAME THE ASSESSMENT AS MADE IN EARLIER YEARS. 4. UPON FURTHER APPEAL, LD. CIT(A) SUSTAINED A SUM OF RS.1.75 LACS & RS.2 LACS OUT OF RS.8.80 LACS & RS.5 LACS AS DISALLOWED BY LD. AO AGAINST PROPERTY SITUATED AT SARDARSAMAND LA KE RESORTS AND THE PROPERTY SITUATED AT CONNAUGHT HOUSE RESPEC TIVELY TO COVER UP THE POSSIBLE LEAKAGES. ACCORDINGLY, THE GROUND W AS PARTLY ALLOWED. THIS ESTIMATION WAS IN LINE WITH ESTIMATIONS MADE I N APPELLATE ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 WHICH WERE CONFIRMED BY TRIBUNAL VID E COMMON ORDER ITA NOS.148 TO 150/JODH/2016 FOR AYS 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 ORDER DATED 27/06/2017. WE CONCUR WITH THE FINDINGS OF LD. CIT(A) THAT THE ESTIMATIONS SO MADE WERE IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPELLATE ORDERS FOR E ARLIER YEARS. THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS CROSS OBJECTIONS WE RE DISMISSED BY THE COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS TRIBUNAL VIDE PARA 6.4 OF THE ORDER DATED 27/06/2017. THEREFORE, THE IMPUGNED ORDER DOE S NOT CALL FOR ANY INTERFERENCE, IN THIS REGARD. THE GROUND THUS R AISED IN REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS STAND DISMISSED. 5.1 REGARDING ADDITION OF DEEMED DIVIDEND U/S 2(22) (E), IT WAS CONTENDED THAT ADVANCE OF RS.36.50 LACS AS MADE BY M/S MHPL WAS TOWARDS SECURITY DEPOSIT AND KEEPING IN VIEW TH E BUSINESS 6 EXPEDIENCY. THE LD. CIT(A), IN THE BACKGROUND OF DE CISION OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN P.K.BADANI V/S CIT 105 ITR 642, OBSERVED THAT M/S MHPL INCURRED LOSSES OF RS.202.99 LACS DURING THE YEAR AND THEREFORE, THE PROVISIONS OF SEC.2(22) (E) WOULD NOT APPLY. FURTHER, THE DEPOSIT GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE O N ACCOUNT OF GUARANTEE GIVEN ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY EXCEEDED T HE ADVANCE WHICH HAS BUSINESS NEXUS AND THEREFORE, THERE WOULD BE NO DEEMED DIVIDEND. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTH ER APPEAL BEFORE US. 5.2 UPON PERUSAL OF BALANCE SHEET OF M/S MHPL, WE F IND THAT THOUGH THE COMPANY HAS INCURRED LOSSES DURING THE Y EAR, HOWEVER, IT HAS ACCUMULATED RESERVES OF RS.58.45 CRORES WHIC H, INTER-ALIA, INCLUDES CAPITAL RESERVE, CAPITAL REDEMPTION RESERV E, REVALUATION RESERVE, GENERAL RESERVE, INVESTMENT ALLOWANCE AND ACCUMULATED PROFITS. THEREFORE, THE OBSERVATION OF LD. CIT(A) T HAT THERE WERE NO ACCUMULATED RESERVES IS AN ERRONEOUS FINDING. WE DO NOT CONCUR WITH THE SAME. 5.3 WE FIND THAT IN AY 2010-11, AN ADDITION OF RS.2 5.25 LACS HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL SINCE THE ADVANCES W ERE FOUND TO BE GIVEN FOR ASSESSEES PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. SIMIL ARLY IN AY 2012- 13, THE TRIBUNAL HAS CONFIRMED ADDITIONS TO THE EXT ENT OF RS.171.38 LACS BEING ADVANCE GIVEN FOR PERSONAL GUARANTEE AS WELL AS ADVANCE TO MEET THE PERSONAL EXPENDITURE. THESE TRA NSACTIONS WERE HELD TO BE NOT BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS AND THERE FORE, THE ADDITIONS U/S 2(22)(E) WERE CONFIRMED. 5.4 IN ASSESSEES SUBMISSIONS BEFORE LD. CIT(A), IT WAS STATED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN PERSONAL GUARANTEE OF R S.29.10 CRORES 7 ON BEHALF OF M/S MHPL. ON ACCOUNT OF THE SAME, THE ASSESSEE HAS OBTAINED SECURITY FROM THE COMPANY AND THEREFORE, T HE SAME HAD BUSINESS NEXUS. THE LOANS & ADVANCES ARE STATED TO BE GIVEN FOR SECURITY DEPOSIT OF VINTAGE CARS GIVEN FOR DISPLAY AND USE BY M/S MHPL TO BE USED BY VIP AND TOURISTS. THE ASSESSEE H AS ALSO TABULATED THE SPECIFIC HEADS UNDER WHICH THE ADVANC ES HAVE BEEN RECEIVED / REPAID. HOWEVER, ALL THESE FACTS HAVE RE MAINED TO BE CONSIDERED BY LD. CIT(A). 5.5 IN THE BACKGROUND OF AFORESAID FACTS, WE FIND T HAT IN THIS YEAR NONE OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE EXAMINED THE NAT URE & PURPOSE OF ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE. THE DETERMINA TION OF THOSE FACTS WOULD BE VITAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF THIS ISSUE SINCE CERTAIN FINDINGS HAVE BEEN RENDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN AYS 2010-11 & 2012-13. THEREFORE, ON THE FACTS & CIRCUMSTANCES, W E DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THIS ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) T O BRING ON RECORD FACTUAL MATRIX AND RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME IN THE LI GHT OF OUR OBSERVATIONS AS WELL AS KEEPING IN MIND THE DECISIO N OF TRIBUNAL IN AYS 2010-11 & 2012.13. THIS GROUND STAND ALLOWED FO R STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 6. THE ALV OF THE MEHRANGARH FORT AS WELL AS DESURI HOUSE FOR RS.100/- & RS.21/- WERE ACCEPTED IN TERMS OF DECISI ON OF THIS TRIBUNAL FOR AYS 2007-08 TO 2009-10, ITA NOS.83, 84 & 7/JODH/2013 COMMON ORDER DATED 21/06/2013. THE RELE VANT EXTRACT FROM THAT ORDER HAS ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SIMILAR FAVORABLE VIEW WAS TAKEN IN FIRST AP PELLATE ORDER FOR AY 2012-13 AND THE TRIBUNAL DISMISSED REVENUES APP EAL, ON THIS 8 ISSUE, VIDE ITA NO.148 TO150/JODH/2016 COMMON ORDER DATED 27/06/2017. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLL OWED THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE SHAPE OF TRIBUNALS ORDE R IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. N O CHANGE IN FACTS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US DURING THE YEAR. TH EREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE, ON THESE ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES GROUNDS STAND DI SMISSED. 7. THE ADDITION U/S 28(IV) ON ACCOUNT OF RENT FREE ACCOMMODATION WAS DELETED BY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF TRIBUNAL FOR AYS 2007-08 TO 2009-10, ITA NOS.83, 84 & 7/JODH/2013 COMMON ORDER DATED 21/06/2013. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT FROM THAT ORDER HA S ALREADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. SIMILAR FAVORABLE VIEW WAS TAKEN IN BY TRIBUNAL IN AYS 2010-11 TO 2012-13 VIDE ITA NOS. 148 TO 150/JODH/2016 COMMON ORDER DATED 27/06/2017. AGG RIEVED, THE REVENUE IS IN FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US. IT IS QUITE EVIDENT THAT LD. CIT(A) HAS MERELY FOLL OWED THE BINDING JUDICIAL PRECEDENTS IN THE SHAPE OF TRIBUNALS ORDE R IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE FOR EARLIER YEARS. THERE IS NOTHING ON REC ORD WHICH WOULD INDICATE THAT THOSE DECISIONS ARE NOT APPLICABLE. N O CHANGE IN FACTS HAS BEEN DEMONSTRATED BEFORE US DURING THE YEAR. TH EREFORE, IMPUGNED ORDER WOULD NOT REQUIRE ANY INTERFERENCE, ON THESE ISSUES. ACCORDINGLY, THE REVENUES GROUNDS STAND DI SMISSED. 8. IN NUTSHELL, GROUND NOS.1 TO 5 OF REVENUES APPE AL STAND DISMISSED. GROUND NO.6 STAND ALLOWED FOR STATISTICA L PURPOSES. REST OF THE GROUNDS IS GENERAL IN NATURE. GROUND NOS.1 T O 5 OF 9 ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTION IS ONLY IN SUPPORT OF IM PUGNED ORDER AND THEREFORE, WOULD NOT REQUIRE SPECIFIC ADJUDICATION ON OUR PART. GROUND NOS.6 & 7 IS RELATED WITH DEEMED DIVIDEND U/ S 2(22)(E), WHICH MATTER STOOD RESTORED BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A). ACCORDINGLY, THESE GROUNDS STAND DISMISSED. REST OF THE GROUNDS IS GENERAL IN NATURE. THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND PARTL Y ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJEC TIONS STAND DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2014-15 9. FACTS AS WELL AS ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS YE AR. AN ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) ON 28/12/2016 WHER EIN BUSINESS INCOME FROM CANNAUGHT HOUSE, MOUNT ABU AND SARDAR SAMAND LAKE PALACE, PALI WAS DETERMINED IN SIMILAR MANNER. THE ALV IF MEHRANGARH FORT AS WELL AS DESURI HOUSE WAS ESTIMATED ON SIMILAR LINES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO SADDLED WITH A DDITION U/S 28(IV) FOR RS.21.78 LACS. THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) WERE MADE FOR RS.166.83 LACS. THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ON SIMILAR LINES AND FOLLOWS SIMILAR LOGIC & REASONING. AGGRIEVED, T HE REVENUE IS UNDER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US WHEREAS THE ASSESSEE S CROSS- OBJECTIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED ORDER. SINCE FACTS ARE PARI-MATERIA THE SAME, EXCEPT ADDIT ION U/S 2(22)(E), AS IN AY 2013-14, OUR ADJUDICATION THEREIN SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THE THIS YEAR ALSO. 10.1 THE ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) ARE ON TWO ACCOUNT (I) RS.26.53 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE FROM M/S MHPL & (II) RS.140.30 LACS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEES PROPRIETORSHIP CONC ERN NAMELY M/S MAJESTIC STADIA FROM M/S MHPL. 10 10.2 THE ADDITION HAS BEEN SO MADE BY LD. AO UNDER BOTH THE HEADS SINCE IT WAS OPINED THAT THERE WAS NO BUSINES S NEXUS OF THE TRANSACTIONS. THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED ADDITIONS UNDER BOTH HEADS APPARENTLY BY FOLLOWING TRIBUNAL ORDERS FOR A YS 2011-12 & 2012-13. THE RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE ORDER HAS ALRE ADY BEEN REPRODUCED IN THE IMPUGNED ORDER. 10.3 UPON CAREFUL CONSIDERATION OF MATERIAL ON RECO RD, WE FIND THAT THE ADJUDICATION IN PARA 17.3 OF TRIBUNAL ORDER FOR AY 2011-12 [AS RELIED UPON BY LD. CIT(A)] WAS IN RELATION TO THE T RANSACTIONS BETWEEN M/S MHPL ON ONE HAND AND ANOTHER CORPORATE ENTITY NAMELY M/S STADIUM HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED (SHPL) ON THE OTHER HAND. HOWEVER, IN THIS YEAR THE TRANSACTIONS ARE DI FFERENT I.E. BETWEEN M/S MHPL AND PROPRIETORSHIP CONCERN OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. M/S MAJESTIC STADIA. HENCE, LD. CIT(A), IN OUR OPIN ION, HAS ERRED ON FACTS AND FAILED TO TAKE NOTE OF NATURE & PURPOSE O F ADVANCES RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE UNDER BOTH THE HEADS. THE DETERMINATION OF THOSE FACTS WOULD BE VITAL FOR ADJUDICATION OF T HIS ISSUE. THEREFORE, AS IN AY 2013-14, WE DEEM IT FIT TO RESTORE THIS IS SUE BACK TO THE FILE OF LD. CIT(A) TO BRING ON RECORD FACTUAL MATRIX AND RE-ADJUDICATE THE SAME AS PER LAW. THE REVENUES GROUND THUS STAND AL LOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. 11. THE REVENUES APPEAL STAND PARTLY ALLOWED FOR S TATISTICAL PURPOSES WHEREAS ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS STAND DISMISSED IN TERMS OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. ASSESSMENT YEAR 2015-16 12. FACTS AS WELL AS ISSUES ARE IDENTICAL IN THIS Y EAR. AN ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED U/S 143(3) ON 26/12/2017 WHER EIN 11 BUSINESS INCOME FROM CANNAUGHT HOUSE, MOUNT ABU AND SARDAR SAMAND LAKE PALACE, PALI WAS DETERMINED IN SIMILAR MANNER. THE ALV IF MEHRANGARH FORT AS WELL AS DESURI HOUSE WAS ALSO ESTIMATED ON SIMILAR LINES. THE ASSESSEE WAS ALSO S ADDLED WITH ADDITION U/S 28(IV) FOR RS.26.25 LACS. HOWEVER, THE RE IS NO ADDITION U/S 2(22)(E) AND THIS ISSUE DOES NOT CROP-UP THIS Y EAR. 13. THE IMPUGNED APPELLATE ORDER IS ON SIMILAR LINE S AND FOLLOWS SIMILAR LOGIC & REASONING. AGGRIEVED, THE REVENUE I S UNDER FURTHER APPEAL BEFORE US WHEREAS THE ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJEC TIONS ARE SUBSTANTIALLY IN SUPPORT OF IMPUGNED ORDER. 14. SINCE FACTS ARE PARI-MATERIA THE SAME ON ALL TH E ISSUES AS IN AY 2013-14, OUR ADJUDICATION THEREIN SHALL MUTATIS MUTANDIS APPLY TO THE THIS YEAR ALSO. CONSEQUENTLY, THE REVENUES APPEAL AS WELL AS ASSESSEES CROSS-OBJECTIONS STAND DISMISSED IN TERM S OF OUR ABOVE ORDER. CONCLUSION 15. THE REVENUES APPEAL FOR AYS 2013-14 & 2014-15 STANDS PARTLY ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. THE REVENU ES APPEAL FOR AY 2015-16 AS WELL AS ALL THE CROSS-OBJECTIONS STAND D ISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED U/R 34(4) OF INCOME TAX (APPELLATE TRIBUNAL) RULES, 1963. SD/- SD/- (SANDEEP GOSAIN) (MAN OJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI; DATED : 21/12/2020 SR.PS:-JAISY VARGHESE 12 ! / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. ' / THE APPELLANT 2. #$' / THE RESPONDENT 3. % ( ) / THE CIT(A) 4. % / CIT CONCERNED 5. &'#( ) , ) , ) / DR, ITAT, JODHPUR 6. '+,-! / GUARD FILE / BY ORDER, / (DY./ASSTT.REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, JODHPUR.