Step Securities (P) Ltd., Ahmedabad V. The Dy.CIT.,Cent.Circle-1(3), Ahmedabad

ITSSA 204/AHD/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2960 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 11 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2017
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 26-03-2012
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: JAGDISH
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Source of fund
• Section: 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD B BENCH (BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI MAHAVIR PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER) IT(SS)A. NOS: 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09) AQUA WATER FILTECH INDIA (P) LTD. M/138/1657, KARNAVATI APARTMENT, NR. AEC ROAD, NARANPURA- 380013 PAN NO. AABCA 3084C V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) STEP SECURITIES P. LTD. B- 12, SHULABH FLATS, NR. MIRAMBICA SCHOOL ROAD, NARANPURA-380013 PAN NO. AADCS 3768B V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) SAHARSHI SECURITIES P. LTD. B-12, SHULABH FLATS, NR. MIRAMBICA SCHOOL ROAD, NARANPURA-380013 PAN NO. AAGCS 6647E V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) SURNISHA ORGANISERS PVT. LTD. B-708, FAIRDEAL HOUSE, ST. XAVIERSS LADIES HOSTEL, NARANPURA-380013 PAN NO. AABCS5698C V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 2 ASOPALAV TRADES P. LTD. B-701, FAIRDEAL HOUSE, ST. XAVIERSS LADIES HOS TEL, C.G. ROAD, NARANPURA- 380013, AHMEDABAD PAN NO. AABCA6376P V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) MARROT STOCK HOLDING P. LTD. AVADH, 2/A/1, MUNICIPAL STAFF QUARTERS, OPP: IBDI, ELLISBRIDGE- 380006, AHEMEDABAD PAN NO. AABCM0570B V/S THE DY. COMM. OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), AHMEDABAD (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SHRI ASEEM THAKKAR, AR RESPONDENT BY : SHRI JAGDISH, CIT/ D.R. ( )/ ORDER DATE OF HEARING : 23 -02-201 7 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07 -03-2017 PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: 1. THE ABOVE CAPTIONED APPELLANTS HAVE PREFERRED SEPAR ATE APPEALS AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(A)-III, AHMEDABAD DATED 15.12.2011 PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2008-09. 2. THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY HAS PASSED THE APPELL ATE ORDER IN RESPECT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED APPELLANTS BY A CONSOLIDATED ORD ER (SUPRA), THEREFORE, IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 3 ALL THESE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE DISPO SED OF BY THIS COMMON ORDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE AND BREVITY. 3. THE COMMON GRIEVANCE OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLANTS REL ATES TO THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O. ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED UNEXPLAI NED INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. 4. RIVAL SUBMISSIONS WERE HEARD AT LENGTH AND WITH THE ASSISTANCE OF THE LD. COUNSEL, WE HAVE PERUSED THE RELATED DOCUMENTARY EV IDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF RULE 18(6) OF THE ITAT RULES . 5. A SEARCH U/S. 132 WAS CARRIED IN THE CASES OF SHEET AL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., SHRI PARAS C. PANDIT AND SMT. TAMANNA P. PANDIT ON 29.08.2008 AND SUBSEQUENT DATES. DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH PROCE EDINGS, CERTAIN PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS WERE FOUND AND SEIZED FROM THE PREMIS E. ONE OF SUCH DOCUMENTS RELATED TO THE SHARE TRANSFER FORM RELATI NG TO THE APPELLANT COMPANIES IN THIS APPEAL. SINCE THE SEIZED DOCUMENT S PERTAIN TO THE APPELLANT COMPANIES, STATUTORY NOTICES WERE ISSUED INITIATING PROCEEDINGS U/S. 153C OF THE ACT. 6. ONE SHRI BHARAT BHAI M. SHAH HAS STATED THAT IN RES PECT OF THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SHARES OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. L TD., HE HAD RECEIVED THE AMOUNT IN CASH FROM SHRI PARAS C PANDIT ON DIFFEREN T DATES BETWEEN APRIL 2007 TO JANUARY 2008. THIS AMOUNT WAS DEPOSITED IN THE BANK ACCOUNTS OF VARIOUS PERSONS WHICH WERE SUBSEQUENTLY ROUTED IN D IFFERENT ACCOUNTS. THE IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 4 SHARE APPLICATION MONEY WAS GIVEN TO SHEETAL INFRAS TRUCTURE PVT. LTD., FROM SUCH ACCOUNT. 7. ON THE STRENGTH OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BHARAT BHA I M. SHAH, THE A.O. FORMED A BELIEF THAT THE INVESTMENTS MADE IN THE SH ARES OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. WAS FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURC ES AND ACCORDINGLY MADE THE ADDITIONS. THE ADDITIONS MADE IN THE IMPUG NED APPELLANTS OF THIS APPEAL CAN BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE FOLLOWING CHART:- NAME OF THE COMPANY UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT MARROT STOCK HOLDINGS (P.) LTD. 31,00,000/ - ASOPALAV TRADERS (P.) LTD. 16,00,000/ - SAHARSHI SECURITIES (P.) LTD. 18,00,000/ - STEP SECURITIES (P.) LTD. 5,00,000/ - AQUA WATER FILTECH INDIA (P.) LTD. 43,00,000/ - SURNISHA ORGANISER S (P.) LTD. 7,00,000/ - 8. AGGRIEVED BY THIS, THE APPELLANTS CARRIED THE MATTE R BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY AND VEHEMENTLY CONTENDED THAT T HE ASSESSEE HAD EXPLAINED THE SOURCES OF FUNDS FOR MAKING INVESTMEN T IN THE PURCHASE OF SHARES OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. RELEVANT BANK STATEMENTS AND OTHER RELATED DETAILS WERE FURNISHED BEFORE THE FIR ST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THE DETAILED SUBMISSIONS/DOCUMENTS DID NOT FIND ANY FAVOUR WITH THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WHO CONFIRMED THE ASSESSMENTS. IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 5 9. BEFORE US, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE VEHEMEN TLY STATED THAT THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE NOT CONSIDERED THE RELATED D OCUMENTARY EVIDENCES AND HAVE BEEN CARRIED AWAY BY THE STATEMENT OF SHRI BHARAT SHAH AND PARAS C. PANDIT. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. COUNSEL THAT TH E DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH ARE PLACED ON RECORD CONCLUSIVELY PROVE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS SUCCESSFULLY EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. TH EREFORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF MAKING ANY ADDITION ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXP LAINED INVESTMENT. THE LD. COUNSEL DREW OUR ATTENTION TO THE RELEVANT DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCES BROUGHT ON RECORD IN THE FORM OF A PAPER BOOK. 10. PER CONTRA, THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OPPOSED TO THE SU BMISSIONS MADE BY THE LD. COUNSEL. IT IS THE SAY OF THE LD. D.R. THAT THE DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCES WHICH THE LD. COUNSEL IS REFERRING WERE NEVER BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY OBJECTED TO THE ADMISSION OF SUCH DOC UMENTARY EVIDENCES. THE LD. D.R. STRONGLY PLACED RELIANCE ON THE FINDIN GS OF THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES. 11. WE HAVE GIVEN A THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW AND HAVE CAREFULLY PERUSED THE RELATED DOCUME NTARY EVIDENCES REFERRED TO BY THE LD. COUNSEL. 12. FIRSTLY, WE WILL ADHERE TO THE OBJECTION MADE BY TH E LD. D.R. IT IS TRUE THAT THERE IS NO REFERENCE OF SUCH DOCUMENTS IN THE ASSE SSMENT ORDER AS WELL AS IN THE ORDER OF THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THER EFORE, PRIMA FACIE, IT APPEARS THAT THESE DOCUMENTS WERE NOT BEFORE THE LO WER AUTHORITIES. IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 6 HOWEVER, WHEN WE CONSIDERED THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY VIDE SUBMISSION DATED 21.09.2011, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANTS. 15. NOW COMING TO THE ISSUE OF SOURCE OF INVESTMENT IN THE SHARES OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. THE SAME IS OUT OF THE AMO UNTS REALIZED FROM THE SALE OF SHARES ALREADY HELD BY THEM. COPY OF THE BANK ACCOU NT FOR THE RELEVANT DATES WHEN INVESTMENT IN SHARES OF SHEETAL INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. ARE ENCLOSED FOR YOUR KIND REFERENCE. THE PERUSAL OF THE ACCOUNT REV EALS THAT INVESTMENT OF RS. 29750000 HAVE BEEN LIQUIDATED ON 21.04.2007 AND INV ESTMENT OF RS. 25.00 LACS HAS BEEN MADE ON THAT VERY DATE IN THE SHARES OF SH EETAL INFRASTRUCTURE. SIMILARLY, INVESTMENT OF RS. 8.00 LACS HAS BEEN LIQUIDATED ON 21.07.2007 AND INVESTMENT OF RS. 6.00 LACS HAS BEEN MADE ON THE SAME DATE. THE A PPELLANT COMPANY HAS THEREFORE EXPLAINED THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT. 13. A PERUSAL OF THE ABOVE WRITTEN SUBMISSION SHOWS THA T THE ASSESSEE DID ASSERT UPON THE SOURCES OF INVESTMENTS BY LIQUIDATI NG THE SHARES AVAILABLE WITH IT AND ALSO BY RECEIVING THE LOANS AND ADVANCE S GIVEN BY IT TO VARIOUS PERSONS. THE FINANCIAL ACCOUNTS OF THE ASSESSEE, WH EN PERUSED SHOW THAT THE SHARES SOLD BY THE APPELLANTS WERE VERY MUCH TH ERE IN THE BALANCE SHEET AND THE AMOUNTS OF LOANS AND ADVANCES RECEIVE D WERE ALSO DULY REFLECTED IN THE RESPECTIVE BALANCE SHEET OF THE AP PELLANTS. 14. THEREFORE, IT CANNOT BE ASSUMED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WITHOUT LOOKING INTO THE FIN ANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE. IT CANNOT ALSO BE PRESUMED THAT THE A SSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EVEN LOOK INTO THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENTS W HILE COMPLETING THE IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 7 ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, KEEPING IN MIND, THAT THE A SSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS WERE RELATED TO SEARCH PROCEEDINGS. 15. NOW, LET US EXAMINE THE CHART EXPLAINING THE SOURCE S OF INVESTMENT IN CASE OF EACH APPELLANT. ASOPALAV TRADES PRIVATE LIMITED DATE AMOUNT(IN RS) SOURCE OF FUND 2/5/2007 1,87,000-00 RECEIVED PAYMENT FROM P.M. TRADERS OF PURCHASE OF CHEMICALS IN REGULAR BUSINESS TRANSACTION 2/5/2007 17,07,000-00 SOLD 56,900 EQUITY SHARES OF M/S ROYAL INFRASTRUCTU RE & PROJECTS PVT. LTD.@RS.30/- PER SHARE. 6/7/2007 26,00,000-00 TAKEN BUSINESS LOAN FROM AQUA BUSINESS FILTECH INDIA LTD SURNISHA ORGANIZERS PRIVATE LIMITED IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 8 DATE AMOUNT(IN RS) SOURCE OF FUND 21 - 07 - 2007 33,40,000 - 00 COMPANY HAS GIVEN BUSINESS ADVANCE TO M/S SAHARSHI SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ON 16 - 07 - 2007 OUT OF WHICH RS. 33,40,000/- WAS PAID BACK BY M/S SAHARSHI SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED ON 21/07/2007 SAHARSHI SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED DATE AMOUNT( IN RS) SOURCE OF FUND 5/7/2007 15,00,000 - 00 COMPANY HAS G IVEN ADVANCES TO M/S EUCLID SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LTD. AND HAS RECEIVED BACK THE SAME 21/07/2007 8,00,000 - 00 SOLD 16000 EQUITY SHARES OF SAWANA MARKETING PRIVAT E LIMITED AT THE RATE OF RS. SO/ - PER SHARE AND RECEIVED 16000X50=8,00,000 RUPEES 21/07/2007 41,80,000 - 00 COMPANY HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO M/S STEPS SECURITIES PVT. LTD. IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 9 AND HAS RECEIVED BACK THE SAME. STEPS SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED DATE AMOUNT(IN RS) SOURCE OF FUND 6/7/2007 9,00,000 - 00 COMPANY HAS GIVEN BUSINESS ADVANCE TO M/S SAHARSHI SECURITIES PRIVATE LIMITED AND HAS RECEIVED BACK THE SAME. 6/7/2007 28,00,000 - 00 COMPANY HAS GIVEN BUSINESS ADVANCE TO M/S. ECLUID SOLUTIONS PVT. LTD. AND HAS RECEIVED BACK THE SAME. AQUA WATER FILTECH INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED DATE AMOUNT(IN RS) SOURCE OF FUND 2/5 2007 1,00,000 RECEIVED S HARE APPLICATION FOR ALLOTMENT OF EQUITY SHARES FROM ASOPALAV TRADES P LTD 2 5/2007 10,60,000 TAKEN BUSINESS LOAN FROM SAHARSHI SECURITIES P LTD IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 10 2/ 5/2007 2,40,000 TAKEN BUSINESS LOAN FROM SAHARSHI SECURITIES P LTD 21/07/2007 9,00,000 TAKEN BUSINESS LOAN FROM SAHARSHI SECURITIES P LTD . 3 1/2008 1,50,000 SOLD 150 SHARES OF ALTIER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. @1000 150X1000=1,50,000 3 1/2008 4,50,000 SOLD 450 SHARES OF ALTIER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. @1000 450X1000=4,50,000 3/1/2008 2,50,000 SOLD 150 SHARES OF ALTIER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD. @1000 250X1000=2,50,000 13/01/2008 4,30,000 SOLD 430 SHARES OF ALTIER INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD.@ 1000 430X1000=4,30,000 MARROT STOCK HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED DATE AMOUNT(IN RS) SOURCE OF FUND 21 - 04 - 2007 29,75,000 - 00 SOLD 85000 SHARESOF SHREE BALAJI FINVEST @30/ - PER SHARE 85000X30=25,50,000 SOLD 8500 SHARES OF JAY DURGA TELE LINK P.LTD @50/ - SHARE 8500X30=4,25,000 TOTAL 29,75,000 IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 11 20/07/2007 8,00,000 - 00 COMPANY HAS GIVEN ADVANCES TO M/S M D FINANCE LTD. OUT OF WHICH COMPANY HAS RECEIVED BACK RS. - 8,00,000/ - 16. THE AFOREMENTIONED DETAILS MAY NOT HAVE BEEN GIVEN IN A CHART FORM BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES BUT THE TRANSACTIONS EXPLAINE D THEREIN WERE VERY MUCH PART OF THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESS EE WHICH MUST HAVE BEEN EXAMINED BY THE A.O. DURING THE COURSE OF THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS. 17. A PERTINENT QUESTION NOW ARISES IS IF THESE DETAILS ALONG WITH SUPPORTING DOCUMENTS WERE NOT EXAMINED BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIE S, SHOULD THE REVENUE GET SECOND INNINGS TO EXAMINE THESE DOCUMEN TS? 18. THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION IS GIVEN BY THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT IN THE CASE OF RAJESH BABUBHAI DAMANIA 2 51 ITR 0541 WHEREIN THE HONBLE HIGH COURT WAS SEIZED WITH THE FOLLOWIN G QUESTIONS OF LAW:- 1. 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , THE TRIBUNAL WAS RIGHT IN LAW IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE AO INSTEAD OF DI SMISSING IT? 2. 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO RESTORE THE MATTER TO THE AO IS SUCH AS COULD HAVE BEEN ARRIVED AT? 3. 'WHETHER, ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE , DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND TO RESTORE THE MATTER BACK TO THE AO IS SUCH AS COULD HAVE IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 12 BEEN ARRIVED AT FROM THE MATERIAL/ON THE RECORD OR IS REASONABLE WHICH COULD BE ARRIVED AT INSTEAD OF DISMISSING IT ?' 19. AND THE RELEVANT OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISD ICTIONAL HIGH COURT READS AS UNDER:- 5. THE TRIBUNAL TOTALLY OVERLOOKED THE ASSESSMENT OF EVIDENCE DONE BY THE CIT(A) AND DEALT WITH THE MATTER AS IF IT WAS ENTERTAINING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE AO. THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF GIVING 'ONE MORE INNINGS' TO THE AO. APPEALS ARE NOT TO BE DECIDED FOR GIVING 'ONE MORE INNINGS' TO THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IN THE APPELLATE JURISDICTION, THE APPELLATE COURT HAS TO CONSIDER W HETHER THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR UPSETTING THE ORDER AGAINST WHICH THE APPEAL IS FIL ED. IN THIS CASE WHERE THE ASSESSEE HAD REPEATEDLY PRODUCED THE CREDITORS BEFORE THE IT O AND HAD FILED AFFIDAVITS IN SUPPORT OF THE CREDIT ENTRIES AND ALSO FILED CONFIR MATIONS AND GIVEN NAMES AND ADDRESSES OF THE CONCERNED PARTIES AS WELL AS PROVE D REPAYMENT OF THE AMOUNTS BY ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES AND DONE ALL THAT WAS WITHIN HIS POWER TO PROVE THE GENUINENESS OF THE LOANS, THE FINDING ARRIVED AT BY THE APPELLATE AUTHORITY ON THE BASIS OF SUCH RELIABLE MATERIAL COULD NOT HAVE BEEN SO CURSORILY DEALT WITH BY THE TRIBUNAL FOR THE PURPOSE OF GIVING 'ONE MORE INNINGS' TO THE AO. IT WAS THE DUTY OF THE TRIBUNAL TO ASCERTAIN THE REASONS WHICH WERE GI VEN BY THE CIT(A) IN WHOSE ORDER THE ORDER OF THE AO HAD MERGED AND NOT TO BASE ITS DECISION MERELY ON 'A BIT OF NEGLIGENCE' OF THE AO IN NOT CROSS-EXAMINING THE PAR TIES WHO WERE PRODUCED BEFORE HIM 4 TO 5 TIMES. IN OUR OPINION, THE TRIBUNAL HAS REACHED THE CONCLUSION WHICH CANNOT REASONABLY BE REACHED BY ANYONE, AND THERE I S NO WARRANT FOR RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE AO ON SUCH SPECIOUS GROUNDS AS ARE GI VEN BY THE TRIBUNAL. 6. WE, THEREFORE, HOLD THAT THE TRIBUNAL COMMITTED AN ERROR OF LAW IN RESTORING THE MATTER TO THE AO IN BACKGROUND OF THE FACTS ON WHIC H NO SUCH CONCLUSION COULD HAVE BEEN REACHED BY ANY REASONABLE APPROACH. THE QUESTI ONS REFERRED TO US ARE ACCORDINGLY ANSWERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND AGAINST THE REVENUE. THE REFERENCE STANDS DISPOSED OF ACCORDINGLY. IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 13 20. IN THE LIGHT OF THE AFOREMENTIONED OBSERVATIONS OF THE HONBLE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT, IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINIO N, THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF FUNDS WAS VERY MUCH EXPLAINED BY THE APPELLANTS BEFORE THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES CHOSE NOT TO EXAMINE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF FUNDS BUT WENT ON TO QUESTION THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE THEN, IN OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE FACTS, THE LOWER AUTHORITIES H AS GROSSLY ERRED IN NOT APPRECIATING FACTS IN THEIR TRUE PERSPECTIVE. THERE FORE, THERE IS NO QUESTION OF GIVING ANY FURTHER INNINGS TO THE REVENUE AUTHOR ITIES. 21. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE SOURCE OF FUNDS AS EXPLAINED HEREINABOVE WITH THE RELEVANT DETAILS IN THE BALANCE SHEETS OF THE APPELLANTS QUA THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATEMENTS. WE FIND THAT ALL TH E ENTRIES ARE FOUND TO BE CORRECT AND DULY EXPLAINED. 22. A PERUSAL OF THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW SH OWS THAT BOTH THE AUTHORITIES HAVE QUESTIONED THE SOURCE OF THE SOURC E OF THE SOURCE WHICH IS NOT PERMISSIBLE. THE A.O. SHOULD HAVE EXAMINED THE IMMEDIATE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT BUT WENT ON TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT O N THE STRENGTH OF THE STATEMENTS OF SHRI BHARAT SHAH AND PARAS C PANDIT. IT IS A SETTLED PROPOSITION OF LAW THAT THE ASSESSEE CANNOT BE EXPE CTED TO EXPLAIN THE SOURCE OF THE SOURCE AND IN THE CASES IN HAND; THE LOWER AUTHORITIES HAVE GONE ONE STEP FURTHER. IT(SS)A NOS. 203 TO 208/AHD/2012 . A.Y. 2008- 09 14 23. CONSIDERING THE TOTALITY OF THE FACTS IN THE LIGHT OF THE APPRECIATION OF THE FACTUAL MATRIX EXPLAINED HEREINABOVE WITH THE FINAN CIAL STATEMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE SUPPORTED BY THE ENTRIES IN THE BANK STATE MENTS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO SUSTAIN THE ADDITIONS MADE BY THE A.O . ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE APPELLANTS DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE, WE SET ASI DE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AND DIRECT THE A.O. TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS FROM THE HANDS OF THE IMPUGNED APPELLANTS. 24. SINCE, WE HAVE DIRECTED TO DELETE THE ADDITIONS ON THE PECULIAR FACTS OF THE CASES DISCUSSED HEREINABOVE; WE DO NOT FIND IT NECE SSARY TO CONSIDER THE JUDICIAL DECISIONS RELIED UPON BY THE RIVAL PARTIES . 25. IN THE RESULT, THE CAPTIONED APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 07 - 03- 20 17 SD/- (MAHAVIR PRASAD) (N. K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER TRUE COPY ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AHMEDABAD: DATED 07 /03/2017 RAJESH COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: - 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE CIT (APPEALS) 4. THE CIT CONCERNED. 5. THE DR., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER DEPUTY/ASSTT.REGISTRAR ITAT,AHME DABAD