ITO 12(1)(1), MUMBAI V. MAURICE NAZARETH, MUMBAI

ITA 997/MUM/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3408 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 6 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 01-07-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 13-02-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RANDHIR GUPTA
• Assessee Lawyers: MRS ROSHAN P NANAVATI
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained investment; Unexplained expenditure; Capital asset; Gift; Opportunity of being heard; Source of fund; Additional evidence
• Section: 69

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI B BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER. ITA. NO. 997/MUM/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09) ITO 12(1)(1), ROOM NO.115, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, M. K. MARG, MUMBAI-400 020 APPELLANT VS. MR. MAURICE B. NAZARETH NAZARETH SERVICES, SAI SADAN, 2 ND FLOOR, 76/78, MODY STREET, FORT, MUMBAI 400 001 RESPONDENT PAN: AAAPN6798G /BY APPELLANT : SHRI RANDHIR GUPTA, D.R. /BY RESPONDENT : MRS. ROSHAN P. NANAVATI, A.R. /DATE OF HEARING : 04.08.2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.08.2016 ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, J.M: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY REVENUE AGAINST THE O RDER OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-23, MUMBAI, DA TED 30.11.2011 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 ON FOLLOWING GROUNDS: ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 2 1. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW. THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION O F RS.3,91,124/- BEING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE PURCHASE PRICE MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT AND PURCHASE PRICE AS SHOWN IN THE P & L ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MADE BY THE AO IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD F AILED TO EXPLAIN THE DIFFERENCE IN SPITE OF GIVING SUFFIC IENT OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. LA. WHILE DOING SO THE LD. CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOU T GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N THE LAW, THE LEARNED CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE UNEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S 69 ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPING EXPENDITURE FOR KARJAT FARM HOUSE OF RS. 17,34,492/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE EXPENDITURE, NOR FURNISHED ANY PROPER EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE. 2A. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOU T GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. 3. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N THE LAW, THE LD CIT (A) HAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING TH AT THE SHARES WERE RECEIVED AS INHERITANCE AND ALSO IN VIE W OF EXPLANATION (1)(I)(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) IN DETERMIN ING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A CAPITAL ASSET IS HELD OF RS. 11,94,972/- AND DIRECTED THE AO TO TREAT THE LONG T ERM CAPITAL GAIN AS EXEMPT AFTER VERIFICATION THAT ALL CONDITIONS U/S 10(38) ARE FULFILLED. 4. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF GIFT AMOUNT OF RS. 53,83,348/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT TH E ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF THE SAID GIFT WITH SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE NOR FURNISH ANY PROP ER EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 3 4A. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOU T GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. 5. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N THE LAW, THE LD CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING UNEXPLAINED CA SH CREDIT OF RS. 6,33,170/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDIT WORTHINESS OF TH ESE INVESTMENTS MADE ,NOR FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY. 5A. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOU T GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. 6. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N THE LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) ERRED IN THE DELETING THE ADDIT ION OF UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT OF RS. 4,16,000/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE SOURCES O F FUNDS FOR THESE FD'S IN BANKS NOR FURNISHED ANY PRO PER EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY. 6A. WHILE DOING SO, THE LD CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN ADMITTING THE ASSESSEE'S ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WITHOU T GIVING THE OPPORTUNITY TO THE AO. 7. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND I N LAW, THE LD. CIT(A) FAILED TO GIVE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE AO AND VIOLATED THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 46A. 2. FIRST ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.3,9 1,124/-. ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED AIR INFORMATION THAT ASSESSEE HAD SOLD A PROPERTY AT MALAD AT RS.62,19,500/-. ASSESSEE FURN ISHED A FEW DETAILS IN SUPPORT OF INVESTMENT IN FLAT WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY BANK OF INDIA (BANDRA) AS PER DETAILS MENTIONED IN ASSESSMENT ORDER GIVING DATES AND AMOUNTS WHICH TOTALED TO RS.58,28,376/- AS AGAINST AIR INFORMATION SHOWING T HE SAME AS RS.62,19,500/-. SINCE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNI SH DETAILS OF ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 4 AMOUNT OF RS.3,91,124/- FOR PURCHASE OF SUBJECT PRO PERTY, ADDITION OF SAID AMOUNT WAS MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEX PLAINED INVESTMENT. 2.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO ASSESSEE. 2.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTE R ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION O F RS.3,91,124/- BEING DIFFERENCE BETWEEN PURCHASE PRI CE MENTIONED IN THE AGREEMENT AND PURCHASE PRICE AS SH OWN IN P&L ACCOUNT OF ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT. LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE ALS O OPPOSED THE ADMISSION OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE. ON O THER HAND, LEARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORD ER OF CIT(A). 2.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT STAND OF ASSESSEE HAS BEEN THAT THERE WAS NO SALE OF PROPERTY BY ASSESSEE. AG REEMENT TO SALE BY THE DEVELOPER/BUILDER HAS BEEN MISUNDERSTOO D BY ASSESSING OFFICER AS SALE AGREEMENT OF ASSESSEE. I N FACT, ASSESSEE ENTERED INTO AGREEMENT FOR THE PURCHASE OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTY AT THIS PRICE AT MALAD (E). COPY OF AGREEM ENT OF SALE WAS FILED BEFORE CIT(A) INTER ALIA STATED THAT BALA NCE AMOUNT OF RS.3,91,124/- TO RAHEJA TIPCO HEIGHTS WAS MADE IN SUBSEQUENT A.Y. 2009-10 AND HENCE NOT INCLUDIBLE IN A.Y. ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 5 2008-09. COPY OF THE BALANCE SHEET FOR A.Y. 2009-1 0 WAS FURNISHED. COPY OF BANK STATEMENT WAS FILED IN SUPP ORT OF THE PAYMENT. COPY OF LEDGER ACCOUNT OF SO PROPERTY AT R AHEJA PROPERTY, TIPCO HEIGHTS, MALAD (E) WHICH SHOWS OPEN ING BALANCE OF RS.58,28,376/- WITH CLOSING BALANCE OF R S. 66,76,205/- WHICH INCLUDES PAYMENT MADE DURING THE YEAR. IT REVEALS THAT RS.8,47,829/- WAS PAID DURING F.Y. 200 8-09. THOUGH THE ACTUAL AMOUNT PAID WAS RS.66,76,205/-. T HE VALUE OF PROPERTY WAS TAKEN AT RS.62,29,500/-. THE BALANC E PAYMENTS TO RAHEJAS WERE FOR OTHER EXPENSES INCLUDI NG STAMP DUTY, STAMPS, CAR PARK SPACE, SOCIETY MAINTENANCE A ND VARIOUS OTHER CHARGES PAYABLE WHICH ARE NOT INCLUDED IN THE AGREEMENT FOR THE SAID PROPERTY. ALL PAYMENTS WERE MADE FROM BANK OF INDIA OVERDRAFT ACCOUNT. BANK STATEMENTS FOR THE PE RIOD FROM 01.04.2008 TO 31.03.2009 HIGHLIGHTING THE ENTRIES O F PAYMENT WERE FILED. STATEMENT FROM RAHEJA UNIVERSAL LTD. WE RE ALSO FILED. IN VIEW OF SAID EXPLANATION FILED ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE OF PAYMENT THROUGH BANKS, ADDIT ION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED BY CIT(A). SAME IS UPHELD. 3. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO UNEXPLAINED EXPENDI TURE U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOPING EXPENDIT URE FOR KARJAT FARM HOUSE OF RS.17,34,492/-. ASSESSING OFF ICER MADE ADDITION OF RS.18,30,118/- ON ACCOUNT OF KARJAT FAR M HOUSE. ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN DEVELOPING EXPENSES AT RS.18,30, 318/- FOR KARJAT FARM HOUSE FOR WHICH NO DETAILS WERE FURNISH ED. ASSESSING OFFICER MADE ADDITION OF SAID AMOUNT AS U NEXPLAINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69C OF THE ACT. ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 6 3.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO ASSESSEE. 3.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTE R ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING THE UNEXPL AINED EXPENDITURE U/S.69 OF THE ACT ON ACCOUNT OF DEVELOP ING EXPENDITURE FOR KARJAT FARM HOUSE OF RS.17,34,492/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE EXPENDITU RE NOR FURNISHED ANY PROPER EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES TO ASSESSEE. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED A UTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 3.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF ASSES SEE HAS BEEN THAT AN AMOUNT OF RS.18,30,318/- IS A TOTAL AMOUNT SPENT YEAR AFTER YEAR BY ASSESSEE FROM THE YEAR 1989 TILL 2008 . THE PLOT NO. WAS 100/2 AND WAS THE FIRST INVESTMENT MADE IN AGRICULTURAL LAND. MUCH LATER ASSESSEE STARTED CON STRUCTING FARM HOUSE ON SMALL PART OF AGRICULTURAL LAND. ASS ESSEE PAID RS.6000/- APPROXIMATELY AS INITIAL DOWN PAYMENT FOR PURCHASE OF A PART OF BIG PLOT OF LAND. HOWEVER, THE SELLER DID NOT REGISTER THE DOCUMENT FOR ALMOST 10 YEAR AND ASSESSEE DURING THESE 10 YEARS INVESTED IN DEVELOPING THE LAND IN TIME TO TI ME. IN FEBRUARY 1999, THE SELLER DEMANDED RS.20,000/- FOR REGISTRATION OF THE PLOT FROM EACH OF THE BUYER INC LUDING ASSESSEE AND THE SAME WAS PAID. THEREAFTER, DOCUMEN TS FOR ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 7 SURVEY NO. 100/2 WAS REGISTERED ON 24.02.1999 AND R S 53,000/- WAS PAID AS ASSESSEE SHARE OF REGISTRATION FEE BETWEEN 1989 TO F.Y. ENDING ON 31.03.2007 ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.12,29,214.55 FROM TIME TO TIME. THE INVESTMENT W AS REFLECTED IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT IN EACH YEAR. DUR ING F.Y.2007-08, ASSESSEE INVESTED RS.6,01,104/- AND TH E TOTAL VALUE OF ASSET WAS REFLECTED AS RS.18,30,318.55. TH E ACTUAL INVESTMENT DURING THE YEAR WAS ONLY RS 6,01,104/- W HICH WAS SUPPORTED BY VOUCHERS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HOWEV ER, ADDED THE FULL BALANCE OF RS.18,30,318.55 TOGETHER. COPY OF 7/12 UTARA FROM REVENUE RECORDS DATED 24.02.1999, 23.04. 2001 WAS ENCLOSED. IT WAS STATED THAT PRODUCE ON THE FARM IN THE FORM OF COW AND BUFFALO MILK, CHICKEN, EGGS AND VEGETABLES MOST PART OF THESE ITEMS WERE SOLD IN THE LOCAL MARKET AND BA LANCE USED FOR PERSONAL USE OF ASSESSEE AND HIS FAMILY. INCOM E FROM FARM HOUSE WAS DECLARED IN EACH ASSESSMENT YEAR. DETAIL S OF THE DEVELOPMENT EXPENSES TOTALING RS.6,01,104/- WAS FIL ED. ASSESSEE ALSO FILED DETAILED NARRATION FOR EACH PAY MENT MADE BY ASSESSEE ALONG WITH XEROX COPIES OF THE VOUCHERS . ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, SUBMISSIONS MADE ON BEHALF OF ASSES SEE AND MATERIALS ON RECORD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED ONLY THE E XPENSES INCURRED DURING THE YEAR (RS.6,01,104/-), WHICH WER E CONSIDERED FOR ADDITION/OTHERWISE DURING THE YEAR. ASSESSEE HAS FURNISHED DETAILS OF EACH PAYMENT MADE DURING T HE YEAR WITH THE RECEIPT, WHICH WERE PAID TO PURCHASE OF IN VERTER BATTERIES, BUILDING MATERIAL, TRANSPORT, LABOUR AND TO ARCHITECT. COPIES OF THE VOUCHERS HAVE ALSO BEEN FILED. SOME O F THE PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE BY CHEQUES WHICH WERE FOUND ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 8 ACCEPTABLE. THE REMAINING PAYMENTS HAVE BEEN MADE I N CASH THOUGH SUPPORTED BY SOME CASH MEMOS, PAYMENT WAS NO T VERIFIABLE, SINCE, SAME HAS BEEN SHOWN AS MADE IN C ASH. THE CASH PAYMENTS WHICH WERE AS FOLLOWS WERE HELD LIABL E TO BE ADDED AS UNVERIFIABLE. SO, SAME WERE ADDED. IN AP PEAL, AFTER TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, THE ADDITION MADE BY ASSESSING OFFICER WAS RESTRICTED TO FOLLOWI NG CASH PAYMENTS: DATE PARTICULARS VOUCHER NO. AMOUNT 19/05/2007 PAID TO SHREE GAJANAN TRANSPORT 51 RS.24,170/ - 16/11/2007 PAID TO DANAJI MISTRY 170 RS.19,000/ - 28/11/2007 PAID TO HATIMI STEEL TRADERS 181 RS33,456/ - 23/12/2007 PA ID TO GANESH SINGH 226 RS.19,000/ - TOTAL RS.95,626/ - THIS REASONED FACTUAL FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO IN TERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE BECAUSE PAYMENT BY CHEQUE HAS BEEN AC CEPTED AND CASH HAS BEEN DISALLOWED. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 4. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.11,9 4,972/- AS LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE ASSESSEE HAD SHOWN LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SALE OF SHARES TO THE TUNE OF RS 11 ,94,972/- BUT THE SAME WERE NOT OFFERED TO TAX, CLAIMING THE SAME TO BE EXEMPT, WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY NATANDA SECURITIES P VT. LTD. IN RESPONSE TO NOTICE U/S.133(6) OF THE ACT. SINCE , ASSESSEE DID NOT FILE ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE AS TO DATE OF PUR CHASE OF SHARES THE ENTIRE AMOUNT WAS TREATED AS INCOME OF A SSESSEE. 4.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 9 AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO ASSESSEE. 4.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTE R ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN HOLDING THAT SHARES WERE RECEIVED AS INHERITANCE AND ALSO IN VIEW OF EX PLANATION (1)(I)(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT IN DETERMINI NG THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A CAPITAL ASSET WAS HELD OF RS.11,94,972/ - AND CIT(A) WRONGLY DIRECTED THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO TREAT THE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS EXEMPT. ON OTHER HAND, LEARNED AUT HORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT(A). 4.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF ASSES SEE HAS BEEN THAT HE HAD RECEIVED SHARES IN MOVABLE PROPERTY BY FAMILY ARRANGEMENT WHICH INCLUDED DISTRIBUTION OF SHARES H ELD BY HIS LATE FATHER MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH. SHARES WERE DIV IDED BETWEEN FOUR FAMILY MEMBERS, (A) MRS. ENID A. NAZAR ETH, MOTHER OF ASSESSEE AND WIFE OF DECEASED FATHER, (B) MR. DANIEL NAZARETH, ELDEST SON, (C) MR. MAURICE B. NAZARETH., ASSESSEE AND (D) MR. LANCY NAZARETH, THE YOUNGEST SON ON DIS TRIBUTION OF SHARES, FOLLOWING SHARES WERE RECEIVED BY THE AS SESSEE AS INHERITANCE/GIFT. QTY NAME OF THE COMPANY A) 188 AVAYA GLOBAL B) 100 HDFC BANK C) 134 HDFC BANK D) 46 HONEYWELL E) 1280 ITC F) 552 LARSEN & TOUBRO (SOLD AFTER31/03/2008) G) 34 TATA SPONGE H) 50 TRF I) 221 ULTRA TECH ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 10 ASSESSEE ALSO HAD HIS OWN INVESTMENTS IN SHARES. HE HAD HIS SEPARATE DEMAT ACCOUNT AND SHARES WERE TRANSFERRED TO HIS DEMAT ACCOUNT FROM HIS MOTHER'S ACCOUNT. DURING THE YEAR, EXCEPT 552 L&T SHARES, ASSESSEE SOLD ALL THE SHARES THROUGH NALANDA SECURITIES. HE ALSO SOLD OFF SOME OF HIS OW N SHARE INVESTMENT AND TOTALLY HE RECEIVED RS.11,94,972/-. THIS AMOUNT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER. THE F ACT, THESE SHARES WERE HELD BY ASSESSEE AND HIS FATHER MUCH OV ER ONE YEAR AND HENCE UNDER THE INCOME TAX ACT, LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN ON SUCH SALE OFF SHARES WAS FULLY EXEMPT AND I T WAS NOT APPRECIATED BY ASSESSING OFFICER. THE ACCOUNTANT H AS SHOWN THIS AMOUNT UNDER THE HEAD LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN R IGHTLY, THIS AMOUNT WAS REFLECTED IN BANK ACCOUNT AND WAS OUT OF SALE PROCEEDS OF SHARES. ASSESSEE SUFFERED STROKE AND W AS ADMITTED TO HOSPITAL. TO MEET THE HOSPITALIZATION EXPENSES, ASSESSEE SOLD SOME OF HIS OWN INVESTMENT IN SHARES AND EXCEPT 552 SHARES OF L&T, HE SOLD ALL SHARES RECEIVED AS INHERITANCE/GIF T FROM HIS MOTHER. SHARES WERE HELD MORE THAN ONE YEAR HENCE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAINS WERE EXEMPT. SALES WERE DONE THROUGH NALANDA SECURITIES PVT. LTD. FROM WHOM HE RECEIVED RS.11,94 ,972/- AND THE ASSESSING OFFICER GOT CONFIRMATION FROM THE SHA RE BROKER. IN SUPPORT OF CONTENTION THAT SHARES WERE HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE SAID SHARES WERE HELD BY MR. EDGAR S NAZARETH FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. MR. E DGAR S. NAZARETH WAS ASSESSED TO INCOME-TAX AND WEALTH-TAX IN WARD 19(3)(1) AND PAN NO.- WAS AAAPN 7692C. STATEMENT OF DEMAT ACCOUNT OF MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH FROM 01.04.2005 TO 01.12.2006 WAS FILED. MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH PASSED AWAY ON ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 11 06.11.2006 WHICH REVEALS THAT SHARES WERE HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR. XEROX COPY OF WEALTH TAX RETURN FOR A.Y. 2004-05 WITH DETAILS OF SHARE INVESTMENT ACCOUNT WERE FILED ALONG WITH XEROX COPY OF RETURN OF INCOME WITH DETAILS OF DIVI DEND INCOME RECEIVED FOR A.Y. 2004-05. THOUGH BANK DEMAT STATE MENT WAS FROM 01.04.2005, THE AFFIDAVIT OF MRS. ENID A. NAZA RETH INTER ALIA STATED THAT MR. EDGAR S NAZARETH HELD SHARES M ANY YEARS PRIOR TO THIS DATE. IN THIS REGARD, IT WAS SUBMITT ED THAT SHARES HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR HENCE LONG TERM CAPITAL GAIN WAS RIGHTLY CLAIMED AS EXEMPT BY ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF A BOVE DISCUSSION, CIT(A) OBSERVED THAT SHARES WERE RECEIV ED AS INHERITANCE AND IN VIEW OF EXPLANATION (1)(I)(B) TO SECTION 2(42A) OF THE ACT, IN DETERMINING THE PERIOD FOR WHICH A C APITAL ASSET IS HELD, THERE SHALL BE INCLUDED THE PERIOD FOR WHICH THE ASSET WAS HELD BY THE PREVIOUS OWNER. IN THE LIGHT OF DETAIL S FILED, THE SHARES ARE FOUND HELD FOR MORE THAN ONE YEAR AND AC CORDINGLY SALE PROCEEDS FROM THE SAME (BEING LONG TERM CAPITA L GAINS) WERE RIGHTLY ALLOWED AS EXEMPT, AFTER VERIFICATION BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER THAT ALL CONDITIONS U/S. 10(38) W ERE FULFILLED. THIS REASONED FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFEREN CE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 5. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.53,8 3,348/- AS GIFT INCOME. ASSESSING OFFICER NOTED THAT ASSESSEE HAS DECLARED GIFT RS.53,83,348/- FROM MRS. ENID A. NAZARETH, REC EIVED IN FIVE INSTALLMENTS. IT WAS STATED THAT THE SUM WAS RECEIV ED AS PER FAMILY, ARRANGEMENT AGREEMENT EXECUTED BETWEEN THE LEGAL HEIRS OF LATE MR. EDGAR NAZARETH, HUSBAND OF MRS. E NID ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 12 NAZARETH AND FATHER OF MR. MAURICE NAZARETH. AS PER AGREEMENT, CERTAIN MOVABLE AND IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WERE LIQUIDATED AND TAX WAS PAID BY THE SOLE LEGATEE MRS . ENID NAZARETH. COPY OF DEAL WAS FURNISHED BUT NO DETAILS WERE FILED REGARDING LIQUIDATION OF THE SAID PROPERTY. THE BAN K FURNISHED CONFIRMATION OF FIVE CHEQUES FROM MRS. ENID A. NAZA RETH. FROM THE DETAILS FURNISHED, ASSESSING OFFICER OBSERVED T HAT GIFTS WERE IN FACT SUMS RECEIVED IN LIEU OF CERTAIN PROPERTY S ALE TRANSACTION AND THE PROCEEDS THEREOF HAVE BEEN CLAI MED AS GIFTS. ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH ANY CONFIRMATION , OCCASION OF GIFT, DEED OF GIFT ETC. HENCE THE AMOUNT WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE BY ASSESSING OFFICER. 5.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO ASSESSEE. 5.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTE R ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING ADDITION O F GIFT AMOUNT OF RS.53,83,348/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSESSEE H AS NOT PROVED THE GENUINENESS OF SAID GIFT WITH SUBSTANTIA L EVIDENCE NOR FURNISH ANY PROPER EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVI NG SEVERAL OPPORTUNITY TO ASSESSING OFFICER. ON OTHER HAND, LE ARNED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 5.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF ASSES SEE HAS BEEN THAT ASSESSING OFFICER HAD INSISTED TO OBTAIN THE I NCOME TAX ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 13 RECORDS AND GIFT DEED BETWEEN MRS. ENID A. NAZARETH , MOTHER OF ASSESSEE AND ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE AUTHORIZED REPRES ENTATIVE OF ASSESSEE WAS NOT THE TAX CONSULTANT OF THE MOTHER THE SAME COULD NOT BE GIVEN. FURTHER, THAT GIFT BETWEEN OF MOTHER AND SON NEED NOT BE BY WAY OF STAMPED GIFT DOCUMENT. T HE AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY CHEQUES AND REFLECTED IN ASSESSEES RETURN OF INCOME. THE COPY OF PAN OF MOTHER WAS PROVIDED LAT E MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH DIED INTESTATE ON 06.11.2006. HE LEFT BEHIND THE FOUR MEMBERS OF HIS FAMILY. LATE MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH DIED WITHOUT MAKING A WRITTEN WILL. BUT, ENID A. NA ZARETH THEN ALMOST 79 YEARS WAS WELL AWARE OF HUSBAND'S INTENTI ONS. SHE, THEREFORE, DECIDED TO DISTRIBUTE HER INHERITANCE AM ONGST HERSELF AND HER THREE SONS AS GIVEN ABOVE, DURING HER LIFE TIME, KEEPING HER SHARE ALSO, SO THAT SHE LIVED INDEPENDENTLY. TH E ESTATE OF LATE MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH WERE IN THE FORMS OF IMM OVABLE PROPERTIES AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES. BUT, SINCE THER E WAS NO IMMEDIATE LIQUIDITY OF ASSET, FAMILY SETTLEMENT WAS AGREED UPON AND ENTERED INTO BETWEEN THE FOUR NAZARETH FAMILY M EMBERS. SAME WAS ON RECORDS OF ASSESSING OFFICER. LATE MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH HAD THE FOLLOWING IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES: A. FLAT IN ADARSH CHS LTD. AT DADAR B. FLAT IN ROSE MINAR CHS LTD. AT BANDRA C. FLAT IN CORONET CHS LTD. AT BANDRA SINCE, MOTHER OF ASSESSEE, MRS. ENID A. NAZARETH, W AS THE SOLE LEGATEE OF ESTATE OF MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH, AS PER FAMILY ARRANGEMENT, SHE FIRST GOT TRANSFERRED ALL THE PROP ERTIES; BOTH IMMOVABLE AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES IN HER NAME FROM T IME TO TIME. HIS MOVABLE PROPERTIES WERE IN THE FORM OF SH ARES, ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 14 DEBENTURES, PPF BALANCE, BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT ET C. AS PER FAMILY ARRANGEMENT, ALL EXPENSES OF TRANSFER OF ALL PROPERTIES IN THE NAME OF MRS. ENID A NAZARETH WERE TO BE BORNE B Y SAID MRS. ENID A NAZARETH OUT OF ESTATE OF MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH. HOWEVER, SINCE IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES WERE THREE AND THE LEGATEES WERE FOUR MEMBERS OF FAMILY, MOTHER + THRE E SONS IT WAS DECIDED AS UNDER: CORONET FLAT BANDRA FLAT - WHERE, BOTH THE PARENTS WERE RESIDING, FROM THE DAY THEY LEFT COLABA RESIDE NCE, SHALL BE CONTINUED TO BE HELD IN THE NAME OF MRS. ENID A NAZARETH. IT WAS SELF OCCUPIED PROPERTY OF MR. EDGA R S. NAZARETH NOMINATED TO MRS. ENID A NAZARETH. MRS. EN ID A NAZARETH CONTINUES TO RESIDE IN THE SAME FLAT TILL HER LIFE TIME. THEREFORE, IT WAS DECIDED THAT ONLY TWO PROPE RTIES VIZ. FLAT IN ADARSH CHS AT DADAR AND ROSE MINAR CHS AT BANDRA BE SOLD OUT AND THE NET PROCEEDS AFTER PAYME NT OF TAXES, DUTIES ETC., WILL BE DIVIDED INTO THREE EQUA L PARTS BETWEEN THE THREE SONS VIZ. MR. DANIEL NAZARETH, MR . MAURICE B. NAZARETH (APPELLANT) AND MR. LANCY NAZAR ETH. THE PROCEEDS WERE THEREFORE GIVEN AS GIFT FROM MOTH ER MRS. ENID A NAZARETH TO THE THREE SONS. ALL PROPERTIES WERE SOLD ACCORDINGLY AND TAXES ETC. WERE PAID BY MRS. ENID A NAZRETH. ALL THESE DOCUMENTS WERE SUBMITTED BY M/S. ATUL PURANI & ASSOCIATES, THE C.A. OF THE SAID MR. & MRS . NAZARETH WITH HIS COVERING LETTER. COPY OF THE FAMI LY ARRANGEMENT WAS FILED. SHARES AS PER NOMINATION WER E FIRST TRANSFERRED TO DEMAT ACCOUNT OF MRS. ENID A NAZARET H. THEN BEING FOUR LEGATEES, ONE FOURTH SHARE EACH OF THE SAME VALUE WERE TRANSFERRED TO THE THREE SONS, FROM HER DEMAT ACCOUNT TO EACH OF THE THREE SON'S DEMAT ACCOUNT. T HE 1/4 SHARE OF THE MOTHER REMAINED IN HER DEMAT ACCOUNT. SIMILARLY ALL OTHER MOVEABLE PROPERTIES WERE LIQUID ATED, 1/4 TH PART BEING RETAINED BY MOTHER AND OF THE TOTAL DISTRIBUTED AMONG HER THREE SONS EQUALLY. THE ASSES SING OFFICER HAS ADMITTED THAT CONFIRMATION OF CHEQUES C REDITED IN APPELLANT'S BANK ACCOUNT WAS RECEIVED, THE RECEI PT IS GIFT/SHARE OF INHERITANCE OUT OF HER LOVE AND AFFEC TION TOWARDS HER SONS AND FULFILLING THE LAST WISH OF HE R DECEASED HUSBAND. PART OF THE GIFT INVESTED IN THE PURCHASE OF TIPCO ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 15 HEIGHTS, AT MALAD (E) AND BALANCE INVESTED BANK FDS . THE APPELLANT HAS ALSO ENCLOSED AFFIDAVIT OF THE MOTHER GIVING DETAILS OF THE AMOUNT DISTRIBUTED BY HER TO THE APP ELLANT FROM TIME TO TIME OUT OF THE PROCEEDS OF IMMOVABLE PROPERTIES AND MOVABLE PROPERTIES WHICH HE HAD RECE IVED FROM TIME TO TIME AND DISTRIBUTED BETWEEN THE FAMIL Y MEMBERS AS PER FAMILY ARRANGEMENT BY THEM. THE AFFI DAVIT ALSO MENTIONED DETAILS OF SHARES DISTRIBUTED TO THE APPELLANT. ASSESSING OFFICERS ORDER, SUBMISSIONS MADE FOR ASS ESSEE AND MATERIALS ON RECORD HAVE BEEN CONSIDERED BY CIT(A). IN FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES INCLUDING EXPLANATIONS FILED ALON G WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE OF RECEIPTS THROUGH BANKS, CIT(A) FOUND HIMSELF SATISFIED WITH REGARD TO ENHAN CEMENT OF PROPERTY IN THE HANDS OF ASSESSEE AND SO THAT ADDIT ION IN QUESTION WAS RIGHTLY DELETED. THIS REASONED FINDIN G OF CIT(A) NEEDS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6. NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.6,33 ,170/- AS INVESTMENT IN BANK. ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND INVESTM ENT OF RS.6,33,170/- FROM THE BANK STATEMENTS OF ASSESSEE. SINCE, ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH SUPPORTING DETAILS REGAR DING SOURCES OF SUCH INVESTMENT THE SAME WAS ADDED BACK TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 6.1 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO ASSESSEE. ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 16 6.2 SAME HAS BEEN OPPOSED ON BEHALF OF REVENUE INTE R ALIA SUBMITTING THAT CIT(A) ERRED IN DELETING UNEXPLAINE D CASH CREDIT OF RS.6,33,170/- IGNORING THE FACT THAT ASSE SSEE HAS NOT PROVED THE CREDITWORTHINESS OF THESE INVESTMENTS MA DE NOR FURNISHED ANY EXPLANATION IN SPITE OF GIVING SEVERA L OPPORTUNITY. SO, ORDER OF CIT(A) BE SET ASIDE AND THAT OF ASSESSING OFFICER BE RESTORED. ON OTHER HAND, LEARN ED AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CI T(A). 6.3 AFTER GOING THROUGH RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUS ED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD, WE FIND THAT THE STAND OF ASSES SEE HAS BEEN THAT FULL AMOUNT OF GIFT RECEIVED FROM TIME TO TIME WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK DETAILS OF CHEQUE RECEIVED IN ADDITION TO INVESTMENT IN MALAD FLAT RECEIVED AS 1/4 SHARE INHE RITANCE/GIFT FROM THE ESTATE OF LATE MR. EDGAR S. NAZARETH WAS F ILED AS FOLLOWS: S. NO. PARTICULARS CHEQUE NO. & DATE AMOUNT RS. 1. BANK BALANCE OF E.S.N. 448002 DATED 27/11/2006 1,25,000 2. P.P.F. A/C 418187 DATED 22/12/2006 4,85,950 3. INCOME TAX REFUND 448008 DATED 22/12/2006 16,134 4. HDFC MUTUAL FUND 526471 DATED 29/12/2006 2,975 5. UTI MEPUS 526474 DATED 01/01/2007 8,159 6. SOME OF FDRS MATURED 526477 DATED 14/01/2007 25,000 7. M/S ACCOUNT REFUND 527450 DATED 22/01/2007 1,00,000 8. NSS REFUND DATED 28/03/2007 2,02,700 9. FDRS WITH CITIZEN BANK 533267 DATED 28/11/2007 1,25,000 TOTAL RS.10,90,918 PRIOR TO RECEIPT OF GIFT/INHERITANCE, ASSESSEE HAD PERSONAL INVESTMENT IN BANK AND FDRS AND ON THE BASIS OF FDR S ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 17 ASSESSEE WAS ENJOYING OVERDRAFT FACILITY WITH BANK OF INDIA FOR RS.3LAKH. APART FROM OVERDRAFT FACILITY, ASSESSEE HAD FOLLOWING FUNDS AVAILABLE: TOTAL AMOUNT OF GIFT/ INHERITANCE IN INSTALMENTS RECEIVED FROM ESN RS.10,90,918 FDR WITH CITIZENS BANK MATURED ON 04/04/2007 RS. 1, 02,000 NSC MATURED ON 20.04.2007 RS. 1,74,520 HR JOHNSON FDR MATURED 21/04/2007 RS. 12,682 HDFC FDR MATURED 21/07/2007 RS. 50,013 THEREFORE, TOTAL FUNDS AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE RS.1 4,30,133 THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ADDED BACK IN TWO SEPARAT E HEADS OF ACCOUNTS AS UNDER: INVESTMENT IN BANK IS RS.6,33,170 FDS IN BANK RS.4,16,000 TOTAL RS.10,49,170 THUS, ASSESSEE HAD AVAILABLE FUNDS OF RS.14,30,133/ - WITH HIM. HE THEREFORE, INVESTED FROM TIME TO TIME ONLY RS.10,49,170/- LEAVING STILL THE BALANCE OF RS.3,80 ,963/-. THE ONLY MISTAKE IS THAT OF THE ACCOUNTANT. HE SEPARATE LY SHOWED TWO DEPOSITS IN TWO ACCOUNTS. HE SHOULD HAVE MERGED TWO SEPARATE HEADS OF ACCOUNTS. INVESTMENT IN BANK AND FDR IN BANK MEANS ONE AND THE SAME THING AND EITHER IT CAN BE SHOWN AS INVESTMENT IN BANK OR FDS IN BANK AND THE TOTAL AMOUNT SHOULD HAVE BEEN SHOWN IN BALANCE SHEET. TH EN, THIS CONFUSION WOULD NOT HAVE ARISEN IN THE MIND OF ASSE SSING OFFICER. THUS, THE INVESTMENTS AND FDS IN BANKS WER E NOT UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT. COPIES OF BANK STATEMENTS WERE FILED HIGHLIGHTING ALL INVESTMENT IN BANK DEPOSITS OVER R S.20,000/-, HIGHLIGHTING ENTRIES WITH DATE AND AMOUNT AND WHEN FIRST ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 18 FDR/S WERE MADE, INTEREST RECEIVED ON THESE DEPOSIT S AND DATES AND AMOUNTS ON MATURITY DATES. THIS EXPLANAT ION OF ASSESSEE WAS FILED ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS, EVIDENCE OF TRANSACTION ROUTED THROUGH BANK ENTRIES. CIT(A) WAS CONVINCED AND RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION IN QUEST ION. THIS REASONED FACTUAL FINDING OF CIT(A) NEEDS NOT INTERF ERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 6.4 NEXT ISSUE IS WITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF UNEXPL AINED CASH CREDIT OF RS.4,16,000/-. ASSESSEE MADE FDS WITH VAR IOUS BANKS TO THE TUNE OF RS.29.08 LAKHS. THE SOURCE OF FDS O F RS.24.92 LAKHS WAS OUT OF BALANCE AVAILABLE IN THE ACCOUNT O F ASSESSEE AND BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS.4.16 LAKHS WAS OUT OF OTHE R FUNDS AVAILABLE TO ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO SHOW CAUSE N OTICE ASKING ASSESSEE TO SUBSTANTIATE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT O F RS.4.16 LAKHS, ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR NOR FILED ANY DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCE FOR PROVIDING THE SOURCE OF FUNDS. ASSESS ING OFFICER ACCORDINGLY HELD THE SAME TO BE UNEXPLAINED CASH CR EDIT AND MADE ADDITION U/S.68 OF THE ACT. 6.5 MATTER WAS CARRIED BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE A UTHORITY, WHEREIN VARIOUS CONTENTIONS WERE RAISED ON BEHALF O F ASSESSEE AND HAVING CONSIDERED THE SAME, CIT(A) GRANTED RELI EF TO ASSESSEE. CIT(A) RELIED ON THE CONTENTION RAISED W ITH REGARD TO ADDITION OF RS.6,33,170/- DEALT IN PARA 6.3 OF THIS ORDER. SO, CIT(A) AFTER CONSIDERING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, STAT EMENT OF ASSESSEE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE ALONG WITH SUPPORTING D OCUMENTS, EVIDENCE OF TRANSACTION ROUTED THROUGH BANK ENTRIES , FINALLY ITA NO.997/MUM/12 A.Y. 08-09 [ITO VS. MR. MAURICE B . NAZARETH) PAGE 19 HELD THAT THERE WAS NO CAUSE TO MAKE ADDITION AS UN ACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SAID ACCOUNT, WHICH WAS FOUND EXPLAIN ED ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE AS DISCUSSED ABOVE AND ACCORDINGL Y, ADDITION IN QUESTION WAS DELETED. THIS REASONED FACTUAL FIN DING OF CIT(A), WHEREIN HE DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS.4,16, 000/- ON THE BASIS OF EVIDENCE ON RECORD AS DISCUSSED ABOVE, NEE DS NO INTERFERENCE FROM OUR SIDE. WE UPHOLD THE SAME. 7. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF REVENUE IS DISMISSE D. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS THE 26 TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( RAJESH KUMAR ) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBE R MUMBAI: DATED 26/08/2016 TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. / REVENUE 2. / ASSESSEE 3. %&%'( ) / CONCERNED CIT 4. )- / CIT (A) 5.-./00'(, '( , %& / DR, ITAT, MUMBAI 6./4567 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER / , / % , '( , %&