DCIT CEN. 7(1), MUMBAI V. Smt. INDIRA SONAWALA, Legal Heir of Late Shri SURESH SONAWALA, MUMBAI

ITSSA 346/MUM/2003

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4356 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 year(s) 2 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-05-2003
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: J D MISTRY
• Keywords: Unexplained investment; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Document seized; Period of limitation; Valuation report; Block assessment; Documents seized
• Section: 143(3); 13; 132

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCHES B , MUMBAI BEFORE S HRI G. MANJUNATHA (AM ) AND SHRI RAM LAL NEGI (JM) IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/20 03 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 THE D.C.I.T. CIR. 7 (1), 452, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI VS. SHRI SUR ESH SONAWALA, THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. INDIRA SONAWALA C/O M/S NATIONAL REFINERY P. LTD., 27, MILAN BUILDING, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI - 400034 PAN: AAKPS5647K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) CO NO. 18 4 /MUM/2004 (ARISING OUT OF IT (SS) NO. 346/MUM/2003) ASSESSM ENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 INDIRA SURESH SONAWALA (WIDOW) AND BHAGWATIBEN P. SONAWALA (MOTHER) L/HS OF SURESH P. SONAWALA (SINCE DEAD), 87, MILAN BUILDING, TARDEO ROAD, MUMBAI - 400034 PAN: AAKPS5647K VS. THE DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX - CIRCLE 7(1), 452, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, M.K. MARG, MUMBAI (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) REVENUE BY : SHRI RAHUL RAMAN ( DR) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI J.D. MISTRY (AR) DATE OF HEARING: 21 /07 /2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 31 / 07 /20 20 O R D E R PER RAM LAL NEGI, JM THESE ARE THE APPEAL AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE RESPECTIVELY AGAINST THE ORDER S DATED 25.02.2003 PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISS IONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - XXIV , MUMBAI PE RTAI NING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1989 TO 1999 , WHEREBY THE LD. CIT (A) HAS PARTLY ALLOWED THE APPEAL 2 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED U/S 158 BC(C) R.W.S. 143 (3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (FOR SHORT THE ACT . ) IT (SS) NO. 346/MUM/2003 (ASSESSMENT YEA R: 1989 TO 1999 ) BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT DURING THE RELEVANT PERIOD THE ASSESSEE WAS THE CHAIRMAN OF M/S NATIONAL REFINERY PVT. LTD. THE SAID COMPANY WAS IN THE BUSINESS OF MELTING, ASSAYING, PROCESSING AND REFINING OF GOLD, SILVER AND OTHER META LS ON LABOUR JOB BASIS, MANUFACTURING OF GOLD AND SILVER BARS, COINS MEDALS ETC. A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S 132 WAS CARRIED OUT AT BUSINE SS PREMISES OF THE SAID COMPANY, ASSOCIATED COMPANIES AND THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE , LOCATED AT 16 BAUGH - E - SARA, NEPENSEA ROAD, MUMBAI. ACCORDINGLY, AO ISSUED NOTICE TO THE ASSESSEE U/S 158 BC OF THE ACT. IN RESPONSE THEREOF THE ASSESSEE FILED RETURN OF UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS NIL FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD . THE AO AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE PASSED ASSESSMENT O RDER U/S 158 BC(E) R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE ACT AND DETERMINED THE TOTAL INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AT RS. 82,61,440/ - (ROUNDED OFF) , DETAILS OF WHICH ARE AS UNDER: - A. UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN JEWELLERY RS. 2,15,112/ - B. DISALLOWAN CE ON ACCOUNT OF US $ 30,000. RS. 12,76,200/ - C . DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF DIRECTORSHIP . RS. 33,70,030/ - D . DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH RS. 5,00,000/ - E. DISALLOWANCE ON ACCOUNT OF CASH TRANSACTIONS RS. 29,00,000/ - TOTAL INCOME RS. 82,61,442/ - ( ROUNDED OFF ) RS. 82,61,440/ - 2. THE ASSESSEE ASSAILED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE AO BEFORE THE LD. CIT (A). THE LD. CIT (A) AFTER HEARING THE ASSESSEE DELETED THE ADDITION 3 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 AFORESAID MADE BY THE AO. AGAINST THE SAID ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (A), THE REVENUE IS IN APPEA L BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE REVENUE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS OF APPEAL AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A): - 1. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADD ITION OF RS. 169,827/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS. 2. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD.CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,720/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND JE WELLERY. 3. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,656/ - ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN SILVER ARTICLES AND FURTHER ERRED IN ENTERTAINING A FRESH EXPLANATION FILED BY THE ASSESSE FOR THE FIRST TIME BEFORE HIM. 4. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,76,200/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN NOTINGS REGARDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF $ 30000 MENTIONED ON SEIZED PAPER AT NO. 1, 2 & 3 OF LOOSE PAPER FILE A - I SEIZED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES VIDE PANCHNAMA DATED 29.11.1999. 5. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,70,130/ - ON ACCOUNT OF SALE OF DIRECTORSHIP IN M/S SHEPHAM PHARMA P. LTD. 6. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. 7. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTAN CES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29 LACS ON ACCOUNT OF CASH TRANSACTION MENTIONED ON SEIZED PAPERS NO. 38 & 42 OF LOOSE PAPER FILE MARKED AS ANNEXURE A - 5 SEIZED AT THE ASSESSEES PREMISES VIDE PANCHNAMA DATED 29.11.1999. 4 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 8. ON THE FACTS AND IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THERE IS NO UNDISCLOSED INCOME THAT EXISTS WHICH SUPPORTS THE DECLARATORY LETTER ADDRESSED BY THE ASSESSE TO THE DDI (INV.) . 4. VIDE GROUND NO. 1 TO 3, THE APPELLANT/REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT(A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 2,15,112/ - MADE BY AO TREATING THE GOLD ORNAMENTS, DIAMOND JEWELLERY AND SILVER UTENSILS/ ARTICLES FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH AT THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENTS. THE LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE RELYING ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. AO SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE INVESTMENTS IN GOLD AND DIAMOND ORNAMENTS AND SILVER ARTICLES RECOVERED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH, TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE AO, T HE LD. CIT(A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 5. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE RELYING ON THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD, THEREFORE THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE SAID ORDER TO INTERFERE WITH. 6. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS OF THE PARTIES AND PERUSED T HE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,69,827/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS HOLDING AS UNDER: - 7.1.2 I HAVE PERUSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT VIDE H IS ARS LETTER DATED 24.1.2002 AND RECONCILIATION OF ORNAMENTS FOUND IN 1989 AND 1999 SEARCHES WITH REFERENCE TO VALUATION REPORTS PREPARED IN 1989 AND 1999 (PAPER BOOK PG NO. 54 TO 56) AND HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE ARGUMENTS PUT FORTH BY THE AR. THOUGH TH E VALUATION REPORTS PREPARED AT BOTH POINTS OF TIME I.E. 1989 AND 1999 LIST DIFFERENT ITEMS AS BELONGING TO EITHER APPELLANT OR HIS WIFE DIFFERENTLY, THE FACT IS THAT THE TOTAL HOLDING OF JEWELLERY BELONGING TO THE APPELLANT AND HIS WIFE IS MORE OR LESS TH E SAME AND THE ORNAMENTS FOUN D IN 1999 SEARCH ARE FULLY COVERED BY 5 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 1989 SEARCH, THERE IS NO REASON WHY ANY ADDITION SHOULD BE MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT. I AGREE WITH THE SUBMISSION OF THE APPELLANT THAT THE GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND IN 1999 SEARCH ARE FULLY COVERED BY 1989 SEARCH AND ACCORDINGLY THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,69,827/ - (505.74 GMS X RS. 335.8 PER GRAM) ON ACCOUNT OF THE GOLD ORNAMENTS IS DELETED. 7. FIRTHER, T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 4,720/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN DIAMOND JEWELLERY HOLDING AS UNDER: - SIMILARLY, EXPLANATION WAS ALSO FILED IN RESPECT OF THE DIAMOND JEWELLERY FOUND. THE AO HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION IN TOTO EXCEPT FOR ONE GANPATI DIAMOND PENDANT VALUED AT RS. 4,720/ - . THE REASON FOR NON ACCEPTANC E OF SUCH EXPLANATION IS THAT WHILE THE VALUATION REPORT REFERRED TO DIAMOND PENDANT, THE EXPLANATION REFERRED TO DIAMOND RING. IN THIS CONNECTION, THE AR HAS BROUGHT TO MAY NOTICE THAT THE VALUERS REPORT WAS HAND WRITTEN REPORT AND THE SAID PENDANT WAS R EFERRED TO IN THE SAID REPORT AS GANPATI P (PENDANT) WHICH WAS READ AS GANPATI R(RING) AND THE EXPLANATION FURNISHED ACCORDINGLY MENTIONED RIGH INSTEAD OF PENDANT AND IT VALUE ALSO ROUGHLY MATCHES IN BOTH VALUATION REPORTS AT RS. 4500 AND RS. 4720. IN FACT, THE ITEM IS PENDANT. THIS WAS AN ADVERTENT MISTAKE AND IS FULLY COVERED BY ITEM NO. 68 OF THE 1989 REPORT. AS THE MISTAKE APPEARS TO BE A GENUINE MISTAKE, I HEREBY DELETE THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 4,720/ - . 8. SIMILARLY, T HE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,565/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED INVESTMENT IN SILVER UTENSIL HOLDING AS UNDER: 7.1.6 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACT OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE RECONCILIATION FILED BY THE AR VIDE HIS LETTER DT. 24.1.2002. AFTER GOING THROUGH THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT FORMING PART OF THE PAPER BOOK AND RELEVANT VALUATION REPORTS AND RECORDS, I AM CONVINCED THAT THE SILVER ARTICLES AND UTENSILS FOUND AT THE TIME OF 1999 SEARCH BELONGED TO THE APPELLANT EVEN IN 1989 AND THERE THUS WAS NO NEED TO 6 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THIS ACCOUNT. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 40,565/ - ON THE ACCOUNT IS DELETED. 9. WE NOTICE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAD DELETED THE ADDITION OF RS. 1,69,872/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED INVESTMENT IN GOLD ORNAMENTS BY ACCEPTING THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND DURING SEARCH IN 1999 ARE COVERED BY THE ORNAMENTS RECOVERED DURING THE SEARCH IN 1989 . FURTHER, THE LD. CI T(A) HAS HELD THAT WEIGHT OF THE ORNAMENTS OF GOLD FOUND DURING THE SEARCHES IN 19 89 ARE ALMOST EQUAL TO THE WEIGHT OF GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN 1999 . SINCE, THE GOLD ORNAMENTS FOUND IN 1999 ARE FULLY COVERED BY THE ORNAMENTS FOUN D IN 1989, THERE IS NO JUSTIFICATION OF MAKING ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT. SIMILARLY, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED DIAMOND JEWELLERY AMOUNTING TO RS. 4,720/ - ON THE GROUND THAT THE SAID ITEM IS COVERED BY ITEM NO 68 OF THE INVENTOR Y PREPARED DURING SEARCH IN 1989 . SO FAR AS THE SILVER UTENSILS VALUE D THAT 42,000/ - RECOVERED FROM THE RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE AND SILVER UTENSILS VALUE AT RS. 49,000/ - FOUND FROM THE LOCKER JOINTLY HELD BY THE ASSESSEE AND HIS WIFE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT AGAINST THE SILVER UTENSILS WEIGHING 13 KG AFORESAID, SILVER UTENSILS WEIGHING 20 KG WERE FOUND IN THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN 1989. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) DELETED THE ADDITION HO LDING THAT THE SILVER ARTICLES AND UTENSILS FOUND DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH IN 1999 WERE ALREADY THERE WITH THE ASSESSEE IN 1989 . HENCE, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE WELL REASONED AND BASED ON EVIDENCE ON RECORD. WE THEREFO RE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE DISMISS GROUND NO. 1 TO 3 OF THE REVENUES APPEAL AND UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A). 10. VIDE GROUND NO. 4, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACT ION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,76,200/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CERTAIN NOTINGS REGARDING FOREIGN EXCHANGE OF $30,000 REFLECTED IN THE LOOSE PAPER SEIZED AT ASSESSEES RESIDENTIAL PREMISES OF THE ASSESSEE, WHICH WERE SEIZED VIDE PANCHNAMA DATED 29.11.1999 . THE LD. DR RELYING ON THE ASSESSMENT 7 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 ORDER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION OF FOREIGN EXCHANGE AMOUNTING TO $ 30,000, THE LD. CIT (A) OUGHT TO HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. 11. ON THE OTHER HAND, T HE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO AFTER ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. SINCE, THE TRANSACTION HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER POINTED OUT THAT THERE IS NO INFIRMITY IN THE FINDINGS OF THE L D.CIT (A) . 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITIONS HOLDING AS UNDER: - 8.3 I HAVE CONSIDERED THE REASONING GIVEN BY THE AO IN HIS ORDER AND SUBMISSION MADE BY THE APPELLANT BOTH BEFORE THE A.O. AND BEFORE ME. THE ONLY REASON GIVEN BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER FOR INCLUDING THE VALUE OF THE ALLEGEDLY TRANSFERRED FUNDS IN THE INCOME OF THE APPELLANT IS THAT AS STATED BY THE APPELLANT, THE DETAILS OF THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN SHRI DESAI AND SHRI GOUTI WERE NOT KNOWN TO HIM. THE A.O. STATES THAT AS BOTH THE PA RTIES WERE KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT AND SHRI GOUTI WAS ALSO HIS CO - DIRECTOR FOR SOME TIME IN M/S SHEPHAM PVT. LTD., THE ONUS LIES ON THE APPELLANT TO EXPLAIN THE SEIZED DOCUMENTS. I FIND THAT THE DOCUMENTS AS REPRODUCED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINS THE TRANSACTION BETWEEN SHRI DESAI AND SHRI GOUTI. MOREOVER, THE TRANSACTION IS CLEARLY ESTABLISHED BY THE DOCUMENT ITSELF AS BETWEEN SHRI DESAI AND SHRI GOUTI. THE APPELLANT HAS SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED THE CIRCUMSTANCES UNDER WHICH THE PAPER HAD C OME TO BE PROCESSED BY HIM. MOREOVER, AS EXPLAINED TO ME, THE PAPER CONTAINED THE TELEPHONE NO. OF SHRI GOUTI AND HIS ADDRESS WAS ALSO CONVENED TO THE A.O. IT WAS FOR THE A.O. TO MAKE HIS INDEPENDENT ENQUIRIES BY SUMMONING SHRI GOUTI TO HIS OFFICE AND TO P ROBE THE TRANSACTION. HE HAS NOT SUMMONED SHRI GOUTI TO HIS OFFICE NOR HAS HE INDEPENDENTLY MADE ANY ENQUIRIES TO PROVE THE CONTRARY ON THE BASIS OF THE INFORMATION AVAILABLE ON THE PAPER ITSELF. THE PAPER DOES NOT REVEAL ANY INVOLVEMENT OF THE APPELLANT I N THE TRANSACTION. PRIMA FACIE, THIS TRANSACTION IS BETWEEN TWO INDEPENDENT 8 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 PARTIES ADMITTEDLY KNOWN TO THE APPELLANT BUT IN NO WAY CONCERNING THE APPELLANT. CONSIDERING ALL THE FACTS, I AM OF THE OPINION THAT THOUGH THE PAPER WAS FOUND IN POSSESSION OF TH E APPELLANT, HE WAS IN NO WAY CONCERNED WITH THE TRANSACTION RECORDED THEREIN AND AS SUCH HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE PAPER. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 12,76,200/ - MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS DELETED. 13. D URING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CERTAIN LOOSE PAPE RS WERE SEIZED FROM THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE INCLUDING 3 PAGE FAX MESSAGES FROM ONE SH. YOGU DESAI TO ONE SUMATI GAUTI PERTAIING TO TRANSFER OF $ 30,000 FOR ARBITRATION ON ACCOUNT OF LIBERIAN GOLD ACCOUNT. THE ASSESSEE CONTENDED THAT IT HAD NOTHING T O DO WITH PAYMENT REFERRED IN THE SAID MESSAGE, THE LIMITED ROLE OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ONLY TO HANDOVER THE MESSAGE RECEIVED FROM SH. DESAI TO SH. GAUTI. IT WAS FURTHER EXPLAINED THAT FAX MESSAGES ARE NORMALLY PRINTED ON THERMAL PAPER AND THE INK GETS EVAPOR ATED AFTER FEW DAYS. THEREFORE, AS A COMMON PRACTICE, THE XEROX COPY OF SUCH MESSAGE WAS TAKEN WHICH REMAIN ED IN HIS POSSESSION. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION BY ACCEPTING THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE . WE NOTICE THAT THE AO HAS NOT POIN TED OUT ANY EVIDENCE TO CONNECT THE TRANSACTION WITH THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NOT CONNECTED WITH THE TRANSACTION RECORDED IN THE LOOSE PAPERS RECOVERED FROM HIS POSSESSION. ACCORDING LY, IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES OF LAW THAT NO ADDITION CAN BE MADE ON THE BASIS OF SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. HENCE, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE . 14. VIDE GROUND NO. 5, THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD.CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 33,70,130/ - ON ACCOUNT OF S ALE OF DIRECTORSHIP IN M/S SHEP AM PHARMA PVT. LTD. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT DUR ING THE COURSE OF SEARCH LOOSE PAPERS WERE SEIZED CONTAINING A LETTER ADDRESSED TO THE ASSESSEE IN THE LETTER HEAD OF M/S SHEPAM PHARMA PVT. LTD. GIVING DETAILS OF THE BREAKUP OF TOTAL PAYMENTS MADE TO THE ASSESSEE. THE 9 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR IN M/S SHEPA M PHARMA PVT. LTD. TILL 1996 AND HIS DIRECTORSHIP WAS SOLD TO MR. WAGH AND MR. VINEET KUMAR . THE LD. DR SUPPORTING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTIONS, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITI ON MADE BY THE AO . 15. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL RELYING ON THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE TO ESTABLISH THAT THE SAID AMOUNT WAS RECEIVED BY THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO 1 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE SAID ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER: - I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE APPELLANT. I H AVE ALSO PERUSED THE SEIZED PAPER ATTACHED TO AND FORMING PART OF ASSESSMENT ORDER. IT IS CLEAR FROM THE SEIZED PAPERS THAT TWO CHEQUES OF RS. 10.5 LACS AND RS. 4 LACS IN CASH ARE STATED TO HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY APPELLANT. THE SEIZED PAPER ALSO INDICATED T HAT SOME PERSONAL CHEQUES WERE ALSO GIVEN WHICH WERE NOT DEPOSITED AS RECORDED IN SUCH PAPER. I HAVE ALSO PERUSED THE AFFIDAVIT OF THE BUYERS INCLUDED AT PAPER BOOK PAGE NO. 54 TO 56 WHICH CLEARLY INDICATED THAT THE CASH SECURITY OF RS. 4 LACS DEPOSITED BY THEM WAS RETURNED TO THEM. I HAVE ALSO NOTED THAT THE EXPLANATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT WITH THE A.O. THAT THE SAID PAYMENTS WERE TOWARDS THE LOAN REPAYMENT HAS NOT BEEN CONTROVERTED BY THE A.O. AND NO FINDING TO THE CONTRARY HAS BEEN RECORDED. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, THE CHEQUE PAYMENTS OF RS. 10.50 LACS OUT OF RS. 14.50 LACS STATED TO HAVE BEEN PAID TO THE APPELLANT CANNOT BE TREATED AS INCOME. I THEREFORE CANCEL THE SAID ADDITION OF RS. 10.50 LACS. 9.4 FURTHER AS POINTED OUT BY THE APPELLANT, THE CASH SECURITY DEPOSIT OF RS. 4 LACS WAS ALSO RETURNED TO THE PARTY WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE PARTY AN AFFIDAVIT. SINCE THE PARTY HAS CONFIRMED THAT THEY HAVE RECEIVED BACK THE SAID SUM OF RS. 4 LACS, THE ADDITION MADE CANNOT BE CONFIRMED AND ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION OF RS. 4 LACS IS ALSO CANCELLED. THE SEIZED PAPER DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 10 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 19,20,130/ - HAS BEEN PAID TO THE APPELLANT. THE MERE FACT THAT SUCH AMOUNT WAS PAYABLE, PER SE, DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE SAME WAS IN FACT PAI D. THE UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN DEFINED U/S 158 B(B). THE SAID DEFINITION DEFINES UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS UNDER: - B) UNDISCLOSED INCOME INCLUDES ANY MONEY, BULLION JEWELLERY OR OTHER VALUABLE ARTICLE OR THING OR ANY INCOME BASED ON ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS OR TRANSACTION, WHERE SUCH MONEY, BULLION, JEWELLERY, VALUABLE ARTICLE, THING, ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENT OR TRANSACTION REPRESENTS WHOLLY OR PARTLY INCOME OR PRO PERTY WHICH HAS NOT BEEN OR WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN UNDISCLOSED FOR THE PURPOSES OF THIS ACT, OR ANY EXPENSE DEDUCTION OR ALLOWANCE CLAIMED UNDER THIS ACT WHICH IS FOUND TO BE FALSE. 9.5 AS PER THE ABOVE DEFINITION, ANY INCOME TO BE UNDISCLOSED INCOME HAS TO BE ASED ON ANY ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR OTHER DOCUMENTS. THERE IS NO ENTRY IN THE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT OR IN THE DOCUMENT WHICH SUPPORTS THE ALLEGED INCOME OF RS. 19,20,130/ - . IN VIEW OF THIS, THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,20,130/ - MADE ON THE PRESUMPTION THA T HIS AMOUNT WOULD HAVE BEEN RECEIVED BY THE APPELLANT, CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AND ACCORDINGLY IS HEREBY CANCELLED. IN THE RESULT THE ADDITION OF RS. 10,50,000/ - + RS. 4,00,000/ - + RS. 19,20,130/ - ON ACCOUNT OF THE ALLEGED SALE OF THE DIRECTORSHIP OF M/S SHEP HAM PHARMA PVT. LTD. IS CANCELLED. THE APPELLANT THUS GETS A RELIEF OF RS. 33,70,130/ - IN THIS GROUND OF APPEAL. 1 7 . AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. CIT (A) THE SEIZED PAPER ALSO INDICATE THAT SOME PERSONAL CHEQUES WERE ALSO GIVEN WHICH WERE NOT DEPOSITED . AS PER THE AFFIDAVIT FURNISHED BY THE BUYERS , THE CASH SECURITY OF RS. 4 LACS WAS RETURNED TO THE PARTY. FURTHER, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS ACCEPTED THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS WERE MADE TOWARDS THE REPAYMENT OF LOAN AND THE AO HAS NO T BROUGHT ANY EVIDENCE TO REBUT THIS FACT . FURTHER, THE SEIZED PAPER DOES NOT INDICATE THAT THE BALANCE AMOUNT OF RS. 19,20,130/ - HAS BEEN PAID TO THE APPELLANT . IN OUR CONSIDERED VIEW, THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE SETTLED PRINCIPLES O F LAW THAT AO CANNOT MAKE ANY ADDITION ON THE BASIS OF ASSUMPTION AND PRESUMPTION. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY 11 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) . ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEA L OF THE REVENUE. 1 8 . VIDE GROUND NO. 6 , THE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 5,00,000/ - MADE ON ACCOUNT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH. BEFORE US, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH A CORRESPO NDENCE BY M/S NATIONAL REFINERY PVT. LTD. WAS SEIZED AT THE RESIDENCE OF THE ASSESSEE, AS PER WHICH SH. C.K. SHAH HAD VISITED THE FACTORY AT DHANJI STREET PREMISES AND FOUND UNACCOUNTED PHYSICAL CASH AMOUNTING TO RS. 5,00,000/ - RECEIVED BY THE FACTORY. ACC ORDINGLY, THE AO ASKED THE ASSESSEE TO EXPLAIN AS TO WHY THE SAID AMOUNT SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS UNEXPLAINED PROFIT ACCRUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON ACCOUNT OF ITS OUT OF BOOK SALES. THE LD. DR FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT S INCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE SA ME, THE AO HAD RIGHTLY MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE SAME. 1 9 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE POINTED OUT THAT THE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT HAS AL READY BEEN MADE IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY M/S NATIONAL REFINERY PVT. LTD. ON ACCOUNT OF UNACCOUNTED SALES. SINCE, THE REVENUE HAS MADE ADDITION OF THIS AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY, THE SAID AMOUNT CANNOT BE TREATED AS UNACCOUNTED SALES AND CANNOT BE ADDED TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. 20 . WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS AND PERUSED THE ENTIRE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO HOLDING AS UNDER: - 10.2 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMISSIONS MADE BY THE AR IN THIS BEHALF. I HAVE ALSO CONSIDERED THE FACTS AS PER ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THIS RESPECT AND FIND THAT THE A.O. IS COMPLETELY CONFUSED AS TO IN WHOSE HANDS THIS INCOME IS REALLY TAXABLE. BE THAT AS IT MAY, AS POINTED OUT BOTH BY THE AR AND THE A.O., THE SAME ADDITION HAS ALSO BEEN MADE IN CASE OF THE COMPANY M/S NATIONAL REFINERY PVT. LTD. ON THE GROUND OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SALES. CERTAINLY, IT CANNOT BE SUSTAINED AT BOTH THE PLACES. I HAVE ALREADY CONSIDERED THE 12 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 PROFIT S ARISING OUT OF ALLEGED UNACCOUNTED SALES IN RESPECT OF RS. 5 LACS FOUND IN COMPANYS PREMISES, IN THE APPELLANT PROCEEDINGS OF THE COMPANY AND HAVE CONFIRMED THE ADDITION OF PROFITS IN THE CASE OF THE COMPANY. IN VIEW OF THIS, I DELETE THE ADDITION OF R S. 5 LACS IN CASE OF THE APPELLANT. 2 1 . AS POINTED OUT BY THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE AO HAS MADE THE ADDITION OF THE AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE FACT THAT THE SAID AMOUNT HA D ALREADY BEEN ADDE D TO THE INCOME OF THE COMPANY M/S NATIONAL REFINERY PVT. LTD. HENCE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY REASON TO INTERFERE WITH THE FINDINGS O F THE LD.CIT (A). ACCORDINGLY, WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 22. VIDE GROUND NO. 7, T HE REVENUE HAS CHALLENGED THE ACTION OF THE LD. CIT (A) IN DELETING THE ADDITION OF RS. 29,00,000/ - ON ACCOUNT OF CASH TRANSACTION MENTIONED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS. THE LD. DR SUBMITTED BEFORE US THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR IN M/S CAREFREE FLUID CONDITIONERS PVT. LTD. THE LOOSE PAPERS SEIZED DURING THE COURSE OF SEARCH CAME TO NOTICE THAT THERE WAS A CASH ENTRY OF RS. 9,00,000/ - AND CHEQUE FOR RS. 10,00,000/ - IN THE NAME OF SH. ARUN PREM, CASH ENTRY OF RS. 8,00,000/ - AND CHEQUE FOR RS. 8.50 LACS IN THE NAME OF SH. ARUN GANESH, CASH ENTRY OF RS. 12,00,000/ - AND CHEQUE OF RS. 8.50 LACS IN THE NAME OF SH. MAHESH. SIMILARLY, CHEQUE ENTRIES WERE FOUND IN LOOSE PAPERS. SINCE, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO EXPLAIN THE TRANSACTION DURING THE ASSESS MENT PROCEEDINGS, THE AO MADE ADDITION OF THE SAID AMOUNT TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS WRONGLY DELETED THE ADDITION. 2 3 . ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS A DIRECTOR IN COMPAN Y M/S CAREFREE FLUID CONDITIONERS PVT. LTD. AND IN THAT CAPACITY HE RECEIVED CERTAIN PAPERS FROM THE SAID COMPANIES. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS EXPLAINED ALL THE TRANSACTIONS RECORDED IN THE SEIZED PAPERS AND FILED THE COPIES O F BALANCE SHEET, COMPUTATION OF INCOME AND THE ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPTS OF THE TAX 13 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 RETURN OF THE SAID COMPANY. THE LD. COUNSEL FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) ARE BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO MERIT IN THE CONT ENTION OF THE REVENUE. 22. WE HAVE PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD IN THE LIGHT OF THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS OF THE PARTIES. THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION HOLDING AS UNDER: 11.3 I HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND THE SUBMI SSIONS MADE BY THE AR. I FIND THAT THE SEIZED PAPER UNDOUBTEDLY RECORDS TRANSACTIONS OF M/S CAREFREE FLUID CONDITIONERS PVT. LTD. AND THESE TRANSACTIONS DO NOT RELATE TO THE APPELLANT. THE APPELLANT IS A NON EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE COMPANY AND WAS NOT E XPECTED TO KNOW VARIOUS TRANSACTIONS ENTERED INTO BY THE COMPANY NOR HE WAS EXPECTED TO POSSES ANY DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WITH REGARD TO SUCH TRANSACTIONS. AS ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER, THE APPELLANT HAD FILED NECESSARY INCOME TAX PAPERS INCLUDIN G THE BALANCE SHEET, THE TAX COMPUTATION SHEET, THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT FOR HAVING FILED THE RETURN, ETC FOR ALL THE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS, NAMELY A.Y. 1998 - 99, A.Y. 1999 - 00 & A.Y. 2000 - 01 DURING WHICH THE SAID COMPANY EXISTED. THE A.O. WAS NOT DEALING WITH T HE CASE OF CAREFREE FLUID CONDITIONERS PVT. LTD. WITH WHOM THE THREE PARTIES HAD THE TRANSACTIONS BUT WAS DEALING WITH THE CASE OF THE APPELLANT WHO HAD NOT TRANSACTION WHATSOEVER WIT THE THREE PARTIES NAMED BY THE A.O. IN HIS ORDER. THE QUESTION OF THE AP PELLANT FILING THE THREE PARTIES, CONFIRMATION THEREFORE DID NOT ARISE AT ALL. BY FILING THE NECESSARY DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE A.O. THE APPELLANT HAS DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST ON HIM. IT WAS FOR THE A.O. TO FURTHER INVESTIGATE THE MATTER IF HE SO DESIRED. EVEN THE ENTRIES FOUND IN THE SEIZED PAPER DO NOT IN ANY WAY, EFFECT THE ASSESSMENT OF THE APPELLANT. THUS THERE WAS NO CASE WHATSOEVER FOR THE ADDITION MADE BY THE A.O. ACCORDINGLY, THE ADDITION MADE ON THIS ACCOUNT IS CANCELLED. 23. AS POINTED OUT B Y THE LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO FOR THE REASON THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED THE NECESSARY INCOME TAX PAPERS INCLUDING THE BALANCE SHEET, COMPUTATION SHEET, ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF RETURN FILED FOR ALL T HE THREE ASSESSMENT YEARS DURING WHICH THE SAID COMPANY WAS IN EXISTENCE . THE LD. 14 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY HELD THAT BY FILING THE NECESSARY DETAILS CALLED FOR BY THE AO THE APPELLANT HAD DISCHARGED THE ONUS CAST UPON HIM . IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, SINCE THE A O HAS NOT REBUTTED THE CONTENTION OF THE ASSESSEE, THE LD. CIT (A) HAS RIGHTLY DELETED THE ADDITION MADE BY THE AO. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDERED VIEW THAT THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT(A) ARE WELL REASONED AND BASED ON THE EVIDENCE ON RECORD. ACCORDINGLY , WE UPHOLD THE FINDINGS OF THE LD. CIT (A) AND DISMISS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL OF THE REVENUE. 24. GROUND NO. 8 AND 9 ARE OF GENERAL NATURE, HENCE DO NOT REQUIRE SEPARATE ADJUDICATION. CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 ) THE ASSESSEE H AS FILED CROSS OBJECTION ON THE FOLLOWING EFFECTIVE GROUNDS: - 1.1 ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE ORDER BAD IN LAW, VOID - AB - INITIO AND WITHOUT JURISDICTION ON ACCOUNT OF THE FAILURE OF THE A.O. TO ISSUE NOTICE U/S 143 (2) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME LIMIT OF ONE YEAR FROM THE END OF THE MONTH IN WHICH THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED AS PROVIDED IN PROVISO TO S. 143 (2) OF THE ACT. 1.2 ON THE FACTS AND IN CIRCUMSTANC ES OF THE CASE AND IN LAW, THE LEARNED CIT (A) ERRED IN NOT HOLDING THE ORDER BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO FOR THE FAILURE OF THE A.O. TO DETERMINE THE ALLEGED UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR EACH OF THE ASSESSMENT YEAR SEPARATELY AS REQUIRED BY S. 158BB AND THUS FAILING TO COMPLETE THE ASSESSMENT WITHIN THE TIME LIMIT SET BY S. 158BE IN THE MANNER LAID DOWN BY S. 158 BB. ADDITIONAL GROUND FILED ON 27.08.2010 2. ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER IS NULL AND VOID AS THE SAME HAS BEEN PASSED ON 31 ST JANUARY, 2002 WHICH IS BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION OF 2 YEARS PRESCRIBED UNDER SECTION 158 BE OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 15 IT (SS) NO. 346 / MUM/2003 & CO NO. 184/MUM/2004 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 1989 TO 1999 IT IS THEREFORE PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE A.O. BE DECLARED NULL AND VOID AND THE SAME BE DECLARED AS BAD IN LAW AND VOID AB INITIO. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT CROSS OBJECTION IN SUPPORT OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT (A). SINCE, WE HAVE DISMISSED THE REVENUES APPEAL ON MERITS, THE CROSS OBJECTION HAS BECOME ACADEMIC. HENCE, WE DISMISS THE C ROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS O BJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON 31 ST J ULY 2020 UNDER RULE 34 (4) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 19 63. SD/ - SD/ - ( G. MANJUNATHA ) ( RAM LAL NEGI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER MUMBAI ; DATED: 31 / 07 / 2020 ALINDRA, PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A) - 4. / CIT 5. , , / DR , ITAT, MUMBAI 6. / GUARD FILE . / BY ORDER, //TRUE COPY// / (DY./ASSTT. REGISTR AR) , / ITAT, MUMBAI