UMESH I ISHRANI, MUMBAI V. ACIT CC 24 & 26, MUMBAI

ITA 8793/MUM/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 134 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2928 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 9 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-10-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 08-01-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 15-12-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Loose papers; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 143(3); 153A; 132

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL E BE NCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER / I .T.A. NO.8793/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI UMESH I. ISHRANI, FLAT NO. 123, 12 TH FLOOR, VASUKAMAL TOWER, DEVIDAS LANE NEXT TO AQUERIA CLUB, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 013 / VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-24 & 26, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPI 0808C / I .T.A. NO.4022/MUM/2014 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 SHRI UMESH I. ISHRANI, FLAT NO. 123, 12 TH FLOOR, VASUKAMAL TOWER, DEVIDAS LANE NEXT TO AQUERIA CLUB, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 013 / VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-24 & 26, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI-400 020 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : AAAPI 0808C / I .T.A. NO.8552/MUM/2010 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-24 & 26, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI / VS. M/S. SATNAM SAKHI & ASSOCIATES, RAMASHRAY CHAWL, 7, KASTURBA CROSS ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 066 ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. : ABBFS 0501N ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 2 / I .T.A. NO.507/MUM/2011 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2005-06 MR. GHANSHYAM L. BODANI, B-35,LUCKY APARTMENT, BEHIND SHANTI ASHRAM, ESKAR ROAD, BORIVALI (W), MUMBAI-400 013 / VS. THE ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-24 & 26, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, MUMBAI ./ ./ PAN/GIR NO. AAUPB 9196Q ( / APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) / ASSESSEE BY: DR. K. SHIVARAM MS. NEELAM C. JADHAV / REVENUE BY: SHRI MANJUNATHA R. SWAMY SHRI PREMANAND J. / DATE OF HEARING :01.10.2015 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14.10.2015 '# / O R D E R PER N.K. BILLAIYA, AM: THESE CAPTIONED APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AS THEY RELATE TO THE SAME SET OF FACTS IN ISSUES AND ARE THEREFORE D ECIDED BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVIT Y. 2. WE WILL FIRST TAKE UP ITA NO. 8552/M/2010 WHICH IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)- 39 DATED 9.9.2010 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2005-06. 3. THE IMPUGNED ASSESSEE IS A PARTNERSHIP FIRM. A SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED ON 8.5.2007 AT THE RESIDENTIAL/BUSINESS P REMISES OF ONE MR. ROHIRA WHO HAPPENS TO BE A PARTNER IN THE ASSE SSEE FIRM. DURING ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 3 THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE PREMISES OF MR. LAXMICH AND ROHIRA, SOME LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND. ON ANALYSIS OF THESE LOOS E PAPERS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS OF THE OPINION THAT THE CASH PAYMENT OF RS. 3,44,02,000/- WAS MADE FOR ACQUISITION OF SHOPS BY THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THE AO WAS ALSO OF THE OPINION THAT THE ENTI RE CASH PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF BOOKS. ON THE BASIS OF THE E NTRIES FOUND IN THE LOOSE PAPERS, THE AO FORMED A BELIEF THAT 36% HAS B EEN PAID BY SHRI GHANSHYAM BODANI, 24% SHARE BY UMESH ISRANI AND 40% SHARE BY SHRI LAXMICHAND ROHIRA. TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE, THE AO PROCEEDED BY MAKING A PROTECTIVE ADDITION OF RS. 3,44,02,000/-. THE PROTECTIVE ASSESSMENT WAS MADE U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT R.W. SECTION 153A VIDE ORDER DATED 23.12.20 09. 4. AGGRIEVED, THE ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER BEFOR E THE LD. CIT(A). IT WAS VEHEMENTLY ARGUED BEFORE THE LD. CI T(A) THAT THE LOOSE PAPERS HAVE NO CONNECTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. THE LOOSE PAPERS REFERRED TO PURCHASE OF 4 SHOPS FOR THE FIRM BY THE PARTNERS. THE LD. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED THAT THERE IS CLEAR EVIDENCE T O SHOW THAT THE UNACCOUNTED FUNDS CAME FROM THE PARTNERS AND NOT FR OM THE FIRM. THE LD. CIT(A) THEREFORE DIRECTED THE AO TO DELETE THE PROTECTIVE ADDITION MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. 5. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, REVENUE IS BEFORE US. 6. HAVING HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND AFTER PER USAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AS MENTIONED ELSEWH ERE, THE ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE ON PROTECTIVE BASIS TO SAFEGUARD THE INTEREST OF THE REVENUE. THE LD. CIT(A) FOUND THAT THE ADDITIONS C ANNOT BE MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM AND THEREFORE TH E ADDITIONS WERE ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 4 DELETED. WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WI TH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A). THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 7. ITA NOS. 8793/M/10 & 507/M/2011 ARE THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT (A)-39 MUMBAI DATED 9.9.2010 PERTAINING TO TWO DIFFERENT ASSESSEE S VIZ., MR. GHANSHYAM L. BODANI & SHRI UMESH I. ISHRANI FOR A.Y . 2005-06. AS MENTIONED IN THE ORDER IN THE CASE OF THE PARTNERSH IP IN ITA NO. 8552/M/10, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS DELETED THE PROTECTIV E ADDITION FROM THE HANDS OF THE PARTNERSHIP FIRM. THEREFORE, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE PARTNER BECAME SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIO N. 8. MR. GHANSHYAM L. BODANI & SHRI UMESH I. ISHRANI HAPPENED TO BE PARTNERS IN THE FIRM M/S. SATNAM SAKHI ASSOCIATE S. HENCE, THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS DELETED FROM THE HANDS OF THE PA RTNERSHIP FIRM BECAME SUBSTANTIVE ADDITIONS IN THE HANDS OF THESE PARTNERS. AS PER THE FACTS MENTIONED IN ITA NO. 8552/M/2010, A SEARC H WAS CONDUCTED ON 8.5.2007 AT THE RESIDENTIAL /BUSINESS PREMISES OF SHRI LAXMICHAND ROHIRA WHO ALSO HAPPENS TO BE A PARTNER ALONGWITH THESE TWO PARTNERS IN THE FIRM M/S. SATNAM SAKHI AS SOCIATES. 9. BEFORE GOING INTO THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE S IN HAND, IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO UNDERSTAND THE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 132(4A) AND 292(C) OF THE ACT. THE PROVISIONS READ AS UNDER: SEC. 132 (4A) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MONEY , BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE C OURSE OF A SEARCH,IT MAY BE PRESUMED-- ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 5 (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MO NEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SU CH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY R EASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HAN DWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSON'S HANDWRI TING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, T HAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED. SEC. 292(C) (1) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MO NEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THI NG ARE OR IS FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE C OURSE OF A SEARCH UNDER SECTION 132, IT MAY, IN ANY PROCEEDING UNDER THIS ACT, BE PRESUMED (I) THAT SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS, MO NEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING BELONG OR BELONGS TO SUCH PERSON ; (II) THAT THE CONTENTS OF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS ARE TRUE ; AND (III) THAT THE SIGNATURE AND EVERY OTHER PART OF SU CH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT AND OTHER DOCUMENTS WHICH PURPORT TO BE IN THE HANDWRITING OF ANY PARTICULAR PERSON OR WHICH MAY R EASONABLY BE ASSUMED TO HAVE BEEN SIGNED BY, OR TO BE IN THE HAN DWRITING OF, ANY PARTICULAR PERSON, ARE IN THAT PERSONS HANDWRI TING, AND IN THE CASE OF A DOCUMENT STAMPED, EXECUTED OR ATTESTED, T HAT IT WAS DULY STAMPED AND EXECUTED OR ATTESTED BY THE PERSON BY WHOM IT PURPORTS TO HAVE BEEN SO EXECUTED OR ATTESTED. (2) WHERE ANY BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCUMENTS OR ASSETS HAVE BEEN DELIVERED TO THE REQUISITIONING OFFICER IN ACC ORDANCE WITH THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 132A, THEN, THE PROVISIONS OF SUB-SECTION (1) SHALL APPLY AS IF SUCH BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, OTHER DOCU MENTS OR ASSETS WHICH HAD BEEN TAKEN INTO CUSTODY FROM THE PERSON R EFERRED TO IN CLAUSE (A) OR CLAUSE (B) OR CLAUSE (C), AS THE CASE MAY BE, OF SUB- SECTION (1) OF SECTION 132A, HAD BEEN FOUND IN THE POSSESSION OR ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 6 CONTROL OF THAT PERSON IN THE COURSE OF A SEARCH UN DER SECTION 132. 10. A PERUSAL OF THE AFORESAID SECTION CLEARLY SHOW THAT THESE PROVISIONS ARE APPLICABLE IN RESPECT OF ANYTHING FO UND IN THE POSSESSION OR CONTROL OF ANY PERSON IN THE COURSE O F A SEARCH. THE UNDISPUTED FACT IS THAT THE SEARCH WAS CONDUCTED AT THE PREMISES OF SHRI LAXMICHAND ROHIRA AND NOT AT THE PREMISES OF MR. GHANSHYAM L. BODANI & SHRI UMESH I. ISHRANI. THE SCANNED COPY O F THE RELEVANT LOOSE PAPER USED AGAINST THE ASSESSEES BY THE AO IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-I 11. THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAS BEEN MADE ON THE ANALYS IS OF THE LOOSE PAPER AS EXHIBITED AT PAGE-34 OF THE PAPER BOOK IS ATTACHED AS ANNEXURE-II 12. ON THE ANALYSIS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED PAPERS, T HE AO CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CASH PAYMENT AMOUNTING TO RS. 3 ,44,02,000/- HAVE BEEN MADE OUT OF WHICH 24% SHARE IS OF SHRI U MESH I. ISHRANI AND HIS FAMILY, 36% IS OF MR. GHANSHYAM L. BODANI A ND HIS FAMILY AND THE BALANCE OF 40% IS OF SHRI LAXMICHAND ROHIRA AN D HIS FAMILY. ACCORDINGLY, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF RS. 82,56,480/ - BEING 24% OF RS. 3,44,02,000/- IN THE HANDS OF SHRI UMESH I. IS HRANI AND RS. 1,23,84,720/- IN THE HANDS OF MR. GHANSHYAM L. BODA NI BEING 36% OF RS. 3,44,02,000/-. 12.1. WHEN THESE LOOSE PAPERS WERE CONFRONTED TO TH E ASSESSEE DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, TH E ASSESSEE COMPLETELY DENIED OF HAVING ANY KNOWLEDGE IN RESPEC T OF THESE LOOSE PAPERS. IT WAS STRONGLY CONTENDED THAT SINCE THESE PAPERS WERE NOT ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 7 FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE, NO ADVER SE INFERENCE CAN BE DRAWN AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. 13. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE IMPUGNED SEIZED MATERIALS RELIED UPON BY THE AO. THE RELEVA NT DOCUMENTS HAVE BEEN EXHIBITED ELSEWHERE. A PERUSAL OF THESE DOCUMENTS SHOWS THAT THE ENTRIES MADE IN THESE PAPERS NOWHERE MENTI ONED THAT THEY ARE PAYMENTS MADE BY SOME PERSON, IT CAN BE VICE VE RSA ALSO. MEANING THEREBY THESE ENTRIES MAY REFLECT THE RECEI PT OF MONEY. 14. THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CA SE OF MISS LATA MANGESHKAR 97 ITR 696 HAS HELD THAT SOME ENTRIES IN THE ACCOUNTS REGARDING PAYMENTS WAS NOT SUFFICIENT AS THERE WAS NO GUARANTEE THAT THE ENTRIES WERE GENUINE. THE ENTIRE ADDITION HAVE BEEN MADE ON THE BASIS OF THE ENTRIES FOUND IN LOOSE SHEETS B EING ALLEGED PAYMENT ON ACCOUNT OF SHOP PURCHASED FROM ONE M/S. EVEREST DEVELOPER. SURPRISINGLY AND FOR THE REASONS BEST K NOWN TO THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, NO ENQUIRIES HAVE BEEN MADE FR OM M/S. EVEREST DEVELOPER. THERE IS NOT EVEN A WHISPER OF ANY REFE RENCE TO ANY ENQUIRY/VERIFICATION FROM THE SELLER OF THE SHOPS AND THAT IS M/S. EVEREST DEVELOPER. THUS, IT CAN BE SAFELY CONCLUDE D THAT THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE LOOSE SHEET HAVE NOT BEEN CORROBORATED BY THE REVENUE BY ANY COGENT MATERIAL EVIDENCE ON RECORD. ON IDE NTICAL SET OF FACTS, IT WOULD NOT BE OUT OF PLACE TO REFER TO THE DECISI ON OF THE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF AMARJIT SINGH BASKHI HUF VS ACIT 263 8ITR 75 (DEL.)(TRIB.) WHEREIN THE MAJORITY VIEW HE LD AS UNDER : HELD, PER R.M. MEHTA (VICE PRESIDENT) AND R.K. G UPTA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (SIKANDER KHAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (DISSENTING) THAT THE PROVISIONS OF THE INDIAN EVID ENCE ACT ARE NOT STRICTLY APPLICABLE TO THE PROCEEDINGS UNDER THE IN COME- TAX ACT, ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 8 BUT THE BROAD PRINCIPLES OF THE LAW OF EVIDENCE APP LY TO SUCH PROCEEDINGS. FURTHER AN ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOU NT MAINTAINED IN THE REGULAR COURSE OF BUSINESS IS RELEVANT FOR PURP OSES OF CONSIDERING THE NATURE AND IMPACT OF A TRANSACTION, BUT NOTINGS ON SLIPS OF PAPER OR LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER CANNOT FALL IN THIS CATEGORY. NOTINGS ON LOOSE SHEETS OF PAPER ARE REQUIRED TO BE SUPPORTED/CORROBORATED BY OTHER EVIDENCE WHICH MAY INCLUDE THE STATEMENT OF A PERSON, WHO ADMITTEDLY IS A PARTY TO THE NOTINGS. A FURTHER DISTINCTION HAD TO BE DRAWN BETWEEN SLIPS O F PAPER OR LOOSE SHEETS FOUND FROM THE POSSESSION OF THE ASSESSEE AN D SIMILAR DOCUMENTS FOUND FROM A THIRD PERSON. IN CASE THE ST ATEMENT OF THE THIRD PERSON IS RECORDED WITH REFERENCE TO THE NOTI NGS, THEN SUCH A STATEMENT UNDOUBTEDLY HAS TO BE CONFRONTED TO THE A SSESSEE AND HE IS TO BE ALLOWED AN OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS-EXAMINATIO N. IN THE PRESENT REFERENCE THE DOCUMENT IN QUESTION HAD NOT BEEN FOU ND FROM THE ASSESSEES POSSESSION, BUT FROM THE POSSESSION OF A AND UNDOUBTEDLY NO OPPORTUNITY OF CROSS EXAMINATION HAD BEEN ALLOWED TO THE ASSESSEE AND IT HAD CLEARLY EMERGED FROM THE RECORD THAT THE TESTIMONY OF A WAS NOT CREDIBLE AT ALL SINCE IN THR EE SEPARATE STATEMENTS HE HAD INDICATED DIFFERENT FIGURES, HIS SECRETARY, G, HAD GIVEN YET ANOTHER FIGURE AND IN PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE TWO DIFFERENT COURTS AT DELHI AND DHANBAD, HE HAD GIVEN A DIFFERE NT PICTURE ALTOGETHER AND, LASTLY, IN HIS INCOME-TAX ASSESSMEN T HE HAD RETRACTED FROM ALL HIS EARLIER STATEMENTS AND HAD C ATEGORICALLY STATED THAT THE DOCUMENT WHICH HAD BEEN SIGNED BOTH BY HIM AND BY THE ASSESSEE CONTAINED ONLY PROJECTIONS AND PURP ORTED FIGURES IN RESPECT OF THE PROPERTY IN QUESTION. IN OTHER WORDS , THE ENTIRE ADDITION IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE WAS BASED ON THE DOCUMENT FOUND, BUT THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT THE REV ENUES CASE THAT A HUGE FIGURE WHATEVER BE ITS QUANTUM OVER AND ABOVE THE FIGURE BOOKED IN THE RECORDS AND ACCOUNTS CHANGED H ANDS BETWEEN THE PARTIES. NO ADDITION COULD THEREFORE BE MADE TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE . 15. CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASE THAT THE IMPUGNED LOOSE PAPERS WERE FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF A THI RD PARTY, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEES WITHOUT BRINGING ANY CORROBORATIVE EVIDENCE ON RECO RD AND WITHOUT THERE BEING ANY ENQUIRY FROM THE SELLER M/S. EVERES T DEVELOPERS, THE ADDITIONS MADE CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AS THE REVENUE H AS GROSSLY FAILED IN DISCHARGING THE ONUS CAST UPON IT FOR THE SIMPL E REASON THAT THE PRESUMPTION RAISED VIDE PROVISIONS OF SEC. 132(4A) AND 292(C) OF THE ACT DO NOT APPLY IN THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE . WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY FORCE IN THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE AO AND CONFIRMED BY THE ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 9 LD. CIT(A) IN THE LIGHT OF THE DECISION OF THE HON BLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF MISS LATA MANGESHKAR (SUP RA). WE, THEREFORE, SET ASIDE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE IMPUGNED ADDITIONS FROM THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. 16. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 17. ITA NO. 4022/M/14 IS THE APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-39, MUMBAI DATE D 7.3.2014 PERTAINING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06. 18. THE APPEAL RELATES TO THE LEVY OF PENALTY BY TH E AO U/S. 271(1)(C) OF THE ACT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY THE LD. CIT(A). THE PENALTY HAS BEEN LEVIED FOR THE ADDITIONS MADE IN T HE QUANTUM PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECT OF THE SHARE IN THE ALLEGED PURCHASE OF SHOPS. 19. VIDE ORDER OF EVEN DATE IN ITA NO. 8793/M/2010 (SUPRA), WE HAVE DELETED THE QUANTUM ADDITION. AS THE FOUNDATI ON HAVE BEEN REMOVED, SUPER STRUCTURE WILL FALL. WE, ACCORDINGL Y SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE AO TO DELETE THE PENALTY. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOWED. 20. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015 SD/- SD/- (SANJAY GARG ) (N.K. BILLAIYA) $% ' /JUDICIAL MEMBER ' / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & ' MUMBAI; (' DATED : 14 TH OCTOBER, 2015 . % . ./ RJ , SR. PS ITA. NOS.8793, 8552/M/10 ITA NO. 4022/M/14 & 507/M/2011 10 !' #' / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ) ( ) / THE CIT(A)- 4. ) / CIT 5. *+, %%-. , -.! , & ' / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6. ,/0 1 / GUARD FILE. $ / BY ORDER, * % //TRUE COPY// % / $& ' (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , & ' / ITAT, MUMBAI