The DCIT, Central Circle-1, RAJKOT-GUJARAT V. Shri Ashok O. Bhalodia, Morbi

ITA 954/RJT/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 133 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2389 (ITAT-RAJKOT)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 year(s) 7 month(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 08-10-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 01-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIMAL I MEHTA
• Assessee Lawyers: SANJAY R SHAH RESPONDEN
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Document seized; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Deemed to accrue or arise in india; Additional evidence; Deemed dividend; Documents seized

Judgement Text

I.T.A. NO.: 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 1 OF 6 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT . [CORAM: PRAMOD KUMAR , AM AND RAJPAL YADAV, JM ] I.T.A. NO. 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 INCOME - TAX OFFICER, CENTRAL WARD, RAJKOT . ......... ...... .... APPELLANT VS. SHRI ASHOK O. BHALODIA, AJANTA INDIA LTD., ORPAT INDUSTRIAL ESTATE, RAJKOT - MORVI HIGHWAY, VIRPUR, MORVI (GUJARAT) . . RESPONDENT PAN ABBPB3903F APPEARANCES BY: VIMAL I. MEHTA............ FOR THE APPELLANT SANJAY R. SHAH.......... F OR THE RESPONDENT D ATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 8 TH OCTOBER, 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 4 TH JANUARY , 201 6 O R D E R PER PRAMOD KUMAR , AM : THE SHORT ISSUE THAT WE ARE REQUIRED TO ADJUDICATE UPON IN THIS APPEAL IS WHETHER OR NOT THE LEARNE D CIT(A) WAS JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS.1,76,71,570/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CREDIT TO CAPITAL ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSMENT YEAR INVOLVED IS 2006 - 07 AND THE IMPUGNED ORDER WAS PASSED BY THE CIT(A) ON 30 TH MARCH, 2010. 2. TO ADJUDICATE ON THIS APPEAL, ONLY A FEW MATERIAL FACTS ARE REQUIRED TO BE TAKEN NOTE OF. DURING THE COURSE OF ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, THE ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THE BANK CREDIT ENTRIES IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT FOR RS.1,76,71,570/ - WHEN THE ASSESSING OFFICER REQUIRED THE ASSESSE E TO SHOW CAUSE AS TO WHY THIS AMOUNT NOT BE TREATED AS HIS UNEXPLAINED I.T.A. NO.: 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 2 OF 6 INCOME, IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE AMOUNT WAS CONSIDERED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND IT S ONLY A SUBSEQUENT TRANSFER OF THE AMOUNT SO OFFERED TO TAX, THE ASSESSING OFFICER REJECTED THE EXPLANATION BY OBSERVING AS FOLLOWS : - 3.3 THE SAME IS NOT ACCEPTABLE BECAUSE OF THE FOLLOWING REASONS : - I) ON GOING THROUGH THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IT WAS OBSERVED THAT APPORTIONMENT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DONE IN THE NAME OF FOUR BUSINESS CONCERNS OF THE GROUP WHICH ARE COMPANIES. II) IT WAS FOUND THAT NO SUCH INCOME AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAS NOT PERMITTED THE ASSESSEE TO BRING IN ANY MONEY TO HIS BOOKS OF ACCOUNT, DIRECTLY IN THE CAPITAL ACCOUNT, WITHOUT PAYMENT OF TAXES, AS CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE. III) HAD THE ASSESSEE DISCLOSED ANY INCOME BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THEN HE MUST HAVE BROUGHT THAT INCOME IN THE BAL ANCE SHEET AFTER DEDUCTING THE TAXES PAID ON SUCH DISCLOSED INCOME. THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS PASSED ON 28.3.2006, BUT NO SUCH INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE BALANCE SHEET AS ON 31.3.2006 OR 31.3.2007, AND NO SUCH PAYMENT OF TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS BEEN DISCLOSED BY THE ASSESSEE. IT GOES ON PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT MADE ANY DISCLOSURE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. IV) THE APPORTIONMENT OF INCOME HAS BEEN ALLOWED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION IN THE NAME OF FOUR COMP ANIES OF THE GROUP. HENCE THESE FOUR CONCERNS ONLY COULD HAVE BROUGHT IN THE BALANCE AMOUNT IN THEIR BOOKS AFTER NOTING OF THE PAYMENT OF TAXES ON THE INCOME OFFERED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THEREAFTER THE COMPANIES COULD HAVE DISTRIBUTED THE MONE Y TO THE SHARE HOLDERS AS DIVIDED IN PROPORTION OF SHAREHOLDING AND AFTER PAYMENT OF DIVIDEND DISTRIBUTION TAXES AS APPLICABLE. AS PER THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT PERMITTED TO CAPITALIZE THESE AMOUNTS IN THE BOOKS WITHOUT PA YMENT OF TAXES, AS CLAIMED. V) EVEN IF THE COMPANY DISTRIBUTES THE SAID INCOME TO THE ASSESSEE, WHO BEING A SUBSTANTIAL SHARE HOLDER, THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 2(22)(E) WILL BE HIT, AND THE ASSESSEE WOULD BE LIABLE TO TAX. 3. AGGRIEVED, ASSESSEE CARRIED THE MATTER IN APPEAL BEFORE THE LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED CIT(A) BY WAY OF A DETAILED ORDER, DELETED THIS ADDITION. HIS REASONING FOR DOING SO WAS AS FOLLOWS : - 3.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL AND ALSO CONSIDERED THE FINDING RECORDED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THE COPY OF FIRST PETITION FILE - J BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND THE DETAILS OF TAXES PAID BY DIFFERENT ENTITIES WERE NOT ON RECORD WHICH WERE CALLED FOR AND PLACED ON RECORD. THESE INFORMATION WERE REQUIRED ONLY TO HELP IN ADJUDICATION AND WERE SPECIFICALLY CALLED FOR. SINCE IT WAS NOT THE ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE FILED BY THE APPELLANT, IT WAS NOT NECESSARY TO AFFORD I.T.A. NO.: 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 3 OF 6 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER. OTH ERWISE ALSO THESE INFORMATION WERE ALREADY ON RECORD OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE REPORT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MENTIONED IN PARA - 3.2 ABOVE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SENT HIS COMMENTS ON THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL AS R EFERRED TO IN SUB - PARA - 7 OF PARA - 3.1 BY WHICH THE LD, COUNSEL HAD REBUTTED THE REASONING OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE FACTS OF THE CASE HAVE BEEN DISCUSSED IN, DETAIL IN SUB - PARA - 1 TO 4 OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL REPRODUCED IN PARA 2.1 ABOVE AND ARE NOT REQUIRED TO BE REPEATED AGAIN. A SEARCH WAS CARRIED OUT IN THE AJANTA GROUP - OF CASES ON 24.09.2002. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, IT WAS NOTICED THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BEEN SEPARATED FROM HIS F AMILY MEMBERS AND HIS SHARE WAS WORKED CUT. THE GROUP W AS MAINLY HANDLED BY THE THREE BROTHERS OF THE FAMILY I.E. SH RI PRAVINBHAI, SH RI JAISUKHBHAI AND SH RI ASHOKBHAI (APPELLANT). DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, MAINLY TWO IMPORTANT PAPERS AT PAGE - 19 AND PAGE - 2 2 OF ANNEXURE A - 1 WERE SEIZED. PAGE - 19 WAS RELATING T O UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED BY THE AJANTA GROUP OUTSIDE INDIA AND PAGE - 22 WAS THE FINAL SETTLEMENT STATEMENT OF THE APPELLANT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF US $ 80.22,421 AS PER PAGE - 19 OF ANNEXURE - A DECLARED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION WAS AVAILABLE AT D UBAI. THE APPELLANT'S SHARE AS PER PAGE - 22 OF ANNEXURE - A WAS AS UNDER: AOP SETTLEMENT - 25.09.01 RS. IN CRORES AJANTA WATCH LTD. 9.75 PROPERTY 3.29 + TRANSFER 2.21 5.50 CHEQUE 21.00 DUBAI CASH 15.38 CASH BALANCE SETTLEMENT 7.37 TOTAL CREDIT 59.00 3.4 ALL THE THREE BROTHERS OPTED TO CHALLENGE THE ISSUE BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND FILED PETITIONS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMRRISSION ALONG WITH THE BUSINESS CONCERNS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD 01.04.1996 TO 24.09.2002 INCLUDING - REGULAR ASSESSMENTS MAI NLY FOR THE A.Y. 2000 - 01 TO A.Y. 2003 - 04. THESE SETTLEMENT PETITIONS WERE FILED ON 30.10.2003. THE APPELLANT AND HIS TWO BROTHERS HAD FILED SETTLEMENT PETITIONS DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 18.00 CRORES EACH AS THE TOTAL UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS ESTIM ATED BY THEM FOR RS. 54.00 CRORES IN WHICH EACH BROTHERS WAS HAVING 1/3'' SHARE. HOWEVER, A LL THE PETITIONS FILED ON 30.10.2003 BY ALL THE THREE BROTHERS DECLARING UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 18.00 CRORES EACH AND FILED BY THE BUSINESS CONCERNS WERE FOUND NO T MAINTAINABLE AND WERE NOT ADMITTED AS IS EVIDENT FROM ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION PASSED VIDE THEIR COMBINED O R DER DATED 25.10.2004 OBSERVING AS UNDER: '18. LET US EXAMINE WHETHER THE ABOVE CONDITIONS ARE SATISFIED OR NOT. IT IS SEEN THAT THE BUS INESS ACTIVITIES ARE CARRIED OUT BY THE FOUR COMPANIES OF THE GROUP. INCOME IS GENERATED BY THESE FOUR COMPANIES. STILL, THESE FOUR APPLICANT COMPANIES HAVE DISCLOSED NOMINAL INCOMES AND THE' MANNER OF GENERATING THIS INCOME IS STATED TO BE FROM THE SALE O F PACKING MATERIAL SCRAP. THE MAJOR DISCLOSURE IS IN THE HANDS OF THE THREE INDIVIDUALS, I.E. THE THREE BROTHERS. THE MANNER IN WHICH THIS INCOME HAS BEEN EARNED IS STATED TO BE OUT OF THE ACTIVITIES CARRIED OUT THROUGH VARIOUS GROUP CONCERNS. THESE INDIVI DUALS HAVE NOT SEPARA T E BUSINESS ACTIVITIES. IT APPEARS THAT THE INCOME EARNED OUT OF THE BUSINESS ACTIVITIES OF THE BUSINESS CONCERNS HAS BEEN DISCLOSED IN THE HANDS OF THE INDIVIDUALS. THE PRINCIPLES OF INCOME TAX SAW ARE VERY CLEAR IN THIS REGARD. THE E NTITY THAT EARNS THE INCOME HAS TO PAY TAX ON SUCH INCOME. THE ULTIMATE BENEFICIARY OF SUCH INCOME IS OF LITTLE CONCERN.' I.T.A. NO.: 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 4 OF 6 3.5 THE PETITIONS WERE THEN AGAIN FILED ON 20.12.2004 BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION BY SAME THREE BROTHERS AND FOUR BUSINESS CON CERNS. THIS TIME, THE MAJOR INCOME WERE DECLARED IN THE NAME OF THE BUSINESS CONCERNS AND NO M INAL INCOME WAS DECLARED BY ALL THE THREE BROTHERS. THESE PETITIONS WERE DECIDED BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION VIDE THEIR COMBINED ORDER DATED 28.03. 2006 PASSED U/S 245D{4) OF THE I NCOME - TAX ACT, 1961. TAXES TO THE TUNE OF RS. 32,89,90,305/ - WERE PAID BY ALL THE SEVEN ENTITIES INCLUDING THE TAXES PAID AFTER RECEIPT OF ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. 3.6 SINCE, THE DUBAI CASH OF RS. 15.3&CRORES WAS SETTLED IN FA VOUR OF THE APPELLANT IN THE FAMILY SETTLEMENT AS PER PAGE - 22 OF ANNEXURE A - 1 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, THE APPELLANT TRANSFERRED RS. 1,76,71,57Q/ - (U3 $ 4,00.000) FROM DUBAI THROUGH BANKING CHANNEL FOR HIS BUSINESS NECESSITY AND CAPITALIZED IN T HE CAPITAL ACCOUNT. ON BEING ASKED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER VIDE ORDER SHEET ENTRY DATED 26.12.2008, THE APPELLANT BY REFERRING TO .DIFFERENT .PARAS AND PAGES OF THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION HAD SUBMITTED THAT AS PER THE PARTITION AMONG THE THREE BROTHERS, THE APPELLANT WAS ENTITLED TO RS. 59.00 CRORES INCLUDING FUNDS AVAILABLE IN DUBAI. THE CREDIT TO HIS CAPITAL A/C REFLECTS THE REMITTANCE OUT OF FUNDS AVAILABLE TO HIS CREDIT IN DUBAI WHICH WERE ALREADY TAXED BY THE ORDER OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMIS SION (COPY OF SUBMISSION ON PAGE - 1 OF THE PAPER BOOK). 3.7 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT ACCEPTED THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT ON THE REASONS MENTIONED AT PARA - 3.3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. THOUGH, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD GIVEN FIVE REASONS FOR NOT A CCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE APPELLANT BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NET GIVEN ANY FINDING AS TO HOW THE TRANSFERRED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,76,71,570/ - (US S 4,001000) FROM DUBAI BECOME THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT. WHETHER, IT BECOME THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON THE BASIS OF ANY DEEMING PROVISIONS OR THE INCOME UNDER ANY OTHER VISIONS OF THE ACT. REFERENCE OF DEEMED DIVIDEND HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BUT HOW IT CAN BE HELD DEEMED DIVIDEND WITHOUT EXAMINING THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OF THE PARTICULAR CO MPANY AND THE RELEVANT ENTRIES RECORDED THEREIN. THE LD. COUNSEL HAD COUNTERED THE REASONS GIVEN IN PARA - 3.3 OF T HE..ASSESSMEN T ORDER BUT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOT SENT HIS COUNTER COMMENTS WHEN THE COPY OF THE SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL WAS SENT T O HIM. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NOTHING TO SAY ON THE; SUBMISSION OF THE LD. COUNSEL. 3.8 IT IS AN ESTABLISHED PRINCIPLE THAT TH'3 INCOME CAN BE TAXED EITHER ON RECEIPT BASIS OR ON ACCRUAL BASIS OR ON THE BASIS OF DEEMING PROVISIONS. AS FA R AS THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF US $ 80,22,421 AVAILABLE AT DUBAI IS CONCERNED, THE SAME WAS RECEIVED/ACCRUED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE ENTRIES RECO R DED IN PAGE - 19 OF ANNEXURE A/1 SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH ON 24.09.2002. THIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME WAS FIRST DECLARED BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION MAINLY IN INDIVIDUAL HANDS BY THE THREE BROTHERS INCLUDING THE APPELLANT AND ON REJECTING THE INDIVIDUAL PETITIONS BY THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, THE MORE OR LESS SAME UNDISCLOSED INCOM E WAS DECLARED MAINLY IN THE HANDS OF THE BUSINESS CONCERNS. IN THE FIRST PETITIONS, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 54.00 CRORES WAS DECLARED BY THE THREE BROTHERS FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD ENDED ON 24.C9.2002 INCLUDING SOME REGULAR ASSESSMENTS TILL A.Y. 2003 - 04 WHEREAS IN THE SUBSEQUENT PETITIONS, THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 56.00 CRORES WAS DECLARED IN THE HANDS OF THE FOUR BUSINESS CONCERNS FOR THE SAME BLOCK PERIOD INCLUDING SAME REGULAR ASSESSMENTS TILL A.Y. 2003 - 04. IT IS THUS EVIDENT FROM THE RECORD THAT THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AVAILABLE AT DUBAI WAS RECEIVED/ACCRUED AND EARNED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THUS, THE AMOUNT TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT WAS OUT OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME EARNED BEFORE THE DATE OF SEARCH. THE BUSINESS CONCERNS HAD PAID MOST OF T HE DUE TAXES ON THAT UNDISCLOSED INCOME DURING THE COURSE OF PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION. THE APPELLANT HAD TRANSFERRED THE AMOUNT FROM DUBAI JUST ABOUT A MONTH BEFORE THE ORDER I.T.A. NO.: 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 5 OF 6 DATED 28.03.2006 OF THE SETTLEMENT COMMISSION AND BY THAT TIM E TAXES OF RS. 1,50,00,000/ - WERE PAID BY THE COMPANY AJANTA INDIA LTD. ON 03.01.2005 WHICH BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT'S FAMILY AS PER FAMILY SETTLEMENT THUS, THE TAXES WERE ALREADY P AID BY THE COMPANY ON THE AMOUNT OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME TRANSFERRED BY THE APPELLANT FROM DUBAI. IN VIEW THEREOF, IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE AMOUNT OF RS. 1,76,71,570/ - WAS THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT ON RECEIPT/ACCRUAL BASIS. AS FAR AS THE DEEMING PROVISIONS ARE CONCERNED, IT CAN EITHER BE SEEN ON THE GROUND OF CASH CREDIT OR ON THE GROUND OF BANK DEPOSIT. THE CASH CREDITS OR THE BANK DEPOSITS CAN BE TREATED AS ASSESSEE'S INCOME IF NO EXPLANATION IS OFFERED BY THE APPELLANT FOR THE NATURE AND SOURCE OF THE CASH CREDITS OR BANK DEPOSITS AS THE CASE MAY BE OR THE EXPLANATION SO OFF ERED BY THE APPELLANT IS NOT FOUND SATISFACTORY IN THE OPINION OF TL'S ASSESSING OFFICER. NO SUCH OPINION SEEMS TO BE FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. EVEN, THE SOURCE OF THE DEPOSIT IS EXPLAINED. THE SOURCE OF THE BANK DEPOSITS IS THE AMOUNT OF US $ 4.00.000/ - TRANSFERRED FROM THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AVAILABLE AT DUBAI AS PER THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS AND WAS PART OF THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME DECLARED BY THE BUSINESS CONCERNS IN THEIR SETTLEMENT PETITIONS AND TAXES WERE PAID. IT IS WORTH ME NTIONING THAT THE TAXES OF RS. 1,50,00,000 / - WERE PAID BY AJANTA INDIA LTD. AS O N 03.01.2005 WHICH BELONGS TO - THE - APPELLANT FAMILY. THE TRANSFERRED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,76,71,570/ - WAS THUS PART OF THE TAX PAID UNDISCLOSED INCOME. OTHERWISE ALSO, IF THE INCOME H AD BEEN TAXED ON RECEIPT/ACCRUAL BASIS IN THE HANDS OF THE BUSINESS CONCERNS, THE SAME INCOME CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX ON APPLICA TION OF INCOME. IT AMOUNTS TO DOUBLE TAXATION. THUS, THE TRANSFERRED AMOUNT CANNOT BE SUBJECT TO TAX AGAIN AS INCOME OF THE APP ELLANT. 3.9 CONSIDERING THE ABOVE DISCUSSION IN PARA - 3.2 TO 3.8 ABOVE, IT IS HE L D THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN TAXING THE TRANSFERRED AMOUNT OF RS. 1,76,71,5707 - FROM D U BAI IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT EITHER ON RECEIPT/ACCRUAL BASIS OR ON THE BASIS OF DEEMED INCOME. OTHERWISE ALSO, THE TAXES ON THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME AVAILABLE AT DUBAI WERE PAID BY THE BUSINESS CONCERNS AND BY TAXIN G THE TRANSFERRED AMOUNTS AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT WILL TANTAMOUNT TO DOUBLE TAXATION. ON THI S ASPECT ALSO, THE INCOME WAS NOT LIABLE TO BE TAXABLE IN THE HANDS OF THE APPELLANT. THE ADDITION WAS THUS NOT AT ALL WARRANTED AND THE SAME IS HEREBY DELETED. THE SECOND GROUND OF APPEAL IS ACCORDINGLY ALLOWED. 4. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS AGGRIEVED OF T HE RELIEF SO GRANTED BY THE CIT(A) AND IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 5. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS, PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD AND DULY CONSIDERED FACTS OF THE CASE IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPLICABLE LEGAL POSITION. 6. WE FIND THAT THE SOURCE S OF RECEIP TS ARE REASONABLY EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE. THERE IS NO DISPUTE THAT THE MONEY WAS RECEIVED, THROU GH BANKING CHANNELS, FROM DUBAI AND E VEN THE SOURCE OF FUNDS IN DUBAI HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AND STANDS ACCEPTED. THESE FUNDS HAVE BEEN BROUGHT TO TAX BY THE SET TLEMENT COMMISSION. THERE IS NO BASIS FOR SEEKING TO TAX THE SAME INCOME AGAIN IN THE HANDS OF THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE I.T.A. NO.: 954/RJT/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006 - 07 PAGE 6 OF 6 NO T INCLINED TO DISTURB VERY WELL REASONED CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE LEARNED CIT(A). NO SPECIFIC INFIRMITIES HAVE BEEN POINTED OUT IN THE REASONING AND ANALYSIS OF LEARNED CIT(A). LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SEEKS AN OPPORTUNITY TO EXAMINE ALL THESE FACTORS, AND, FOR THAT PURPOSE PRAYS FOR RESTORATION OF MATTER TO THE FILE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WE SEE NO MERITS IN THIS PLEA AS THE VERY FOUNDATION OF IMPUGNED ADDITIONS ARE DEVOID OF ANY LEGALLY SUSTAINABLE BASIS AND THERE IS NO NEED FOR GIVING THE ASSESSING OFFICER YET ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY OF EXPLORING THE MATTER FURTHER WITHOUT ANY COGENT REASON. WE APP ROVE THE CONCLUSIONS ARRIVED AT BY THE CIT(A) AND DECLINE TO INTERFERE IN THE MATTER. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED TODAY ON 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016. . SD/ - SD/ - RAJPAL YADAV PRAMOD KUMAR (JUDICIAL MEMBER) (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) DATED , THE 4 TH DAY OF JANUARY , 201 6 COPIES TO: (1) THE APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT ( 3) COMMISSIONER (4) CIT(A) (5) DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE (6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAJKOT