THE DCIT 17(1), MUMBAI V. M/S RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO., MUMBAI

ITSSA 91/MUM/2007

• Counselvise Citation: [2010] 124 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9097 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 1 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-07-2010
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: D
• Next Hearing Date: 28-04-2010
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 28-05-2007
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUM EET KUMAR
• Keywords: Search and seizure; Block assessment
• Section: 131; 6

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH D, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR, PRESIDENT & SHRI R.K.PAND A, AM I.T.(SS)A. NO. 62/MUM/2007 (BLOCK PERIOD: 1996-97 TO 2002-03) M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. C/O. MR. RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN B 403/404, GREEN ACRES, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-400 053 PAN:AAAFR5823N VS. THE ACIT-RANGE 17(1) 2 ND FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400 012 APPELLANT RESPONDENT I.T.(SS)A. NO. 91/MUM/2007 (BLOCK PERIOD: 1996-97 TO 2002-03) THE DCIT-17(1), MUMBAI C/O. ACIT-RANGE 17(1) 2 ND FLOOR, PIRAMAL CHAMBERS, LALBAUG, MUMBAI-400 012 VS. M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. C/O. MR. RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN B 403/404, GREEN ACRES, LOKHANDWALA COMPLEX, ANDHERI (WEST), MUMBAI-53 PAN:AAAFR5823N APPELLANT RESPONDENT ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUBHASH S. SHETTY REVENUE BY : SHRI SUMEET KUMAR ORDER DATE OF HEARING: 08.07.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 16.07.2010 PER R.K. PANDA, AM , THESE ARE CROSS APPEALS, THE FIRST ONE FILED BY TH E ASSESSEE AND THE SECOND ONE FILED BY THE REVENUE AND ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE ORDER DATED 8 TH MARCH, 2007 OF THE CIT(A)-XVII, MUMBAI RELATING TO THE BLOCK PERIOD 1996-97 TO 2002-03. FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE BO TH THE APPEALS WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CO MMON ORDER. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS EARLIER DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNAL F OR NON- APPEARANCE. SUBSEQUENTLY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER D ATED 21.5.2010 IN M.A. NO. 54/MUM/2010 RECALLED ITS EARLIER ORDER. HENCE THIS IS A RECALLED MATTER. IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 2 3. FACTS OF THE CASE, IN BRIEF, ARE THAT A SEARCH AND SEIZURE ACTION U/S. 132(1) OF INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961 (THE ACT) WAS CONDUC TED IN THE CASE OF ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP ON 19 TH AND 20 TH MARCH, 2002. DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS OF ROSHANLAL AGARWA L GROUP THE ASSESSING OFFICER FOUND THAT THE NAME OF M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. I.E., THE ASSESSEE, IS APPEARING AT PAGE 7 OF ANNEXURE A2 OF LOOSE PAPER FILE ACCORDING TO WHICH THE ASSESSEE I.E., M/S. RAHUL SH IP BREAKING CO., HAD RECEIVED RS. 10 LAKHS FROM SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL. THE ASSESSING OFFICER OF ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP SENT INFORMATION TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER THE ASSESSEE WHO ISSUED NO TICE U/S. 158BD TO THE ASSESSEE. IN RESPONSE TO SUCH NOTICE U/S. 158BD, T HE ASSESSEE FILED NIL UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD. 4. DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS T HE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE SEIZED MATERIAL TO THE ASSES SEE. DURING THE COURSE OF BLOCK ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS, A STATEMENT OF SHR I RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN, PARTNER OF M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. WAS RECORDE D WHO IN REPLY TO QUESTION NO. 2 HAS STATED THAT PAGE NO. 7 OF FILE A /2 HAS BEEN SIGNED BY HIM BUT HE HAS NOT RECEIVED ANY AMOUNT FROM MR. ROHANLA L AGARWAL. HE HAS FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAS SIGNED BECAUSE HE HAD TO TAKE LOAN FROM MR. ROSHANLAL AGARWAL AND THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS NEVER RECEIVED BY HIM ON BEHALF OF THE COMPANY M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO.. SUBSEQUENTLY THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE STATEMENT OF MR. R OSHANLAL AGARWAL TO THE ASSESSEE WHICH WAS RECORDED ON 2 ND APRIL, 2002 WHEREIN SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL ON BEING ASKED TO EXPLAIN THE NATURE AND CO NTENTS OF THE NOTINGS ON THESE PAPERS HAD STATED THAT AS PER HIS VIEW HIS SON HAS FORWARDED CASH LOANS TO THESE PARTIES WHO HAVE GIVEN HUNDIES TO TH EM OUT OF UNEXPLAINED CASH SOURCES. THE ASSESSEE IN HIS REPLY DENIED TO HAVE RECEIVED SUCH HUNDI LOANS FROM ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP. 5. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS NOT SATISFIED WI TH THE EXPLANATIONS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE. HE NOTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAVING JURISDICTION OVER ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP VI DE LETTER DATED 27 TH IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 3 APRIL, 2004 HAS STATED THAT SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL HAS GIVEN LOAN OF RS.3 LAKHS IN CASH TO M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJEEV KUMAR JAIN, PARTNER OF M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. WAS RECORDED U/S. 131 OF THE ACT WHEREIN HE HAS ADMITTED TO HAVE SIGNED T HE PAPER AND THE AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS HAS BEEN OFFERED BY SHRI ROSH ANLAL AGARWAL AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE RETURN FOR THE BLOCK PERI OD. HE ACCORDINGLY REJECTED THE EXPLANATION OFFERED BY THE ASSESSEE AN D ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS. 3 LAKHS AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE F OR THE BLOCK PERIOD ON PROTECTIVE BASIS U/S. 69D OF THE ACT AND THE BALANC E AMOUNT OF RS. 7 LAKHS WAS ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASIS U/S. 69D OF THE ACT. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURTHER ADDED AN AMOUNT OF RS.10,50,000 BEING INTER EST CHARGEABLE ON RS.10 LAKHS @ 15% PER ANNUM FROM THE BEGINNING OF T HE BLOCK PERIOD I.E., 1 ST APRIL, 1995 TILL THE DATE OF SEARCH I.E., 20 TH MARCH, 2002 ON THE GROUND THAT THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF LOAN IS NOT AVAILABLE. 6. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) SUSTAINED THE ADDITION OF RS. 10 LAKHS BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4.1 AS MENTIONED EARLIER THE APPELLANT HAD BORROWE D A SUM OF RS.10 LAKHS VIDE BILL OF EXCHANGE DT. 13.3.0 2 FROM SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL AND THE PARTNER OF M/S. RAHUL SHI P BREAKING CO. HAS SIGNED THIS BILL OF EXCHANGE, THE COPY OF W HICH IS AVAILABLE ON RECORD AND SHOWN TO THE APPELLANTS AR AND THE SAME IS AS PER PAGE-7 OF SEIZED DOCUMENT A-2 IN THE CASE OF SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAD ARGUED THAT IT WAS NOT COMPLETE SINCE IT WAS NOT SIGNED ON THE STA MP PAPER ETC., IT IS VERY CLEAR THAT THE APPELLANT HAD BORRO WED THIS MONEY BY CASH AS COULD BE SEEN FROM THE APPELLANTS PARTNERS SIGNATURE ON THIS PIECE OF PAPER AS ALSO THE OTHER PARTY SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL HAS ADMITTED THE SAME WHILE F ILING THE BLOCK RETURN AND THE SAME HAS BEEN ASSESSED IN THE BLOCK RETURN WHICH WAS CONFIRMED BY CIT(A) VIDE HIS ORDER DT.8.4.04. THESE PAPERS AND THE CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE ALONG WITH THE ORIGINAL EVIDENCE CLEARLY INDICATE THAT THE MONEY W AS RECEIVED IN CASH WHEREIN PROVISIONS OF SEC. 60D WERE APPLICA BLE. THOUGH THE APPELLANT HAS STATED THAT IT WAS NOT FUL L AND COMPLETE SINCE THE PAPER HAS BEEN CORROBORATED BY T HE ACCEPTANCE OF THE LENDER, THERE IS NOTHING TO INDIC ATE THAT THE TRANSACTION HAD NOT TAKEN PLACE AND IN VIEW OF ACCE PTANCE OF THE LENDER, THE SAME IS REGARDED AS INCOME OF THE A PPELLANT IN IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 4 VIEW OF THE SPECIAL PROVISIONS OF INCOME-TAX U/S. 6 9D AND THE A.OS ORDER ON THIS ISSUE IS CONFIRMED. 4.2 HOWEVER, IT IS SEEN THAT IN THE BLOCK ASSESSMEN T AO HAS STATED THAT RS.7 LAKHS IS ADDED ON SUBSTANTIVE BASI S AND RS.3 LAKHS IS ADDED ON PROTECTIVE BASIS. THERE IS NO CO NCRETE EVIDENCE FOR THIS AND THE DOCUMENTS CLEARLY INDICAT E THAT THE ENTIRE SUM OF RS. 1 LAKHS HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE LEN DER AND IT HAS BEEN ACCEPTED BY THE APPELLANT AND HENCE THE SA ME IS DIRECTED TO BE TREATED AS SUBSTANTIVE ASSESSMENT OF THE ENTIRE RS.10 LAKHS. HENCE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS IS CONF IRMED. 7. HOWEVER, AS REGARDS THE ADDITION OF INTEREST OF RS. 10.50 LAKHS, HE DELETED THE SAME ON THE GROUND THAT THE SEIZED DOCU MENT ITSELF SHOWS THAT THE DATE OF DOCUMENT IS 13 TH MARCH, 2002 AND, THEREFORE, THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS CONTRARY TO THE FACTS AND AGAINST HIS OWN CONCLUSION. 8. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH PART RELIEF BY CIT(A) BOTH THE ASSESSEE AND THE REVENUE ARE IN APPEAL BEFORE US. THE ASSESSEE IN I TS GROUNDS HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN SUSTAINING TH E ADDITION OF RS.10.00 LAKHS WHEREAS THE REVENUE IN ITS APPEAL HAS CHALLEN GED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN DELETING THE INTEREST OF RS.10.50 LAKH. 9. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE STRONGLY ASSAILING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUBMITTED THAT NEITHER THE STAT EMENT OF THE SON OF SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE NOR T HE ASSESSEE WAS ALLOWED TO CONFRONT/CROSS EXAMINE THE SON OF SHRI R OSHANLAL AGARWAL. REFERRING TO THE COPY OF THE HUNDI SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP, A COPY OF WHICH IS PLACED AT PAPER B OOK PAGE 17, HE SUBMITTED THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD SIGNED THE SAME THE FACT REMAINS THAT IT IS AN INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT SINCE THE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOWHERE MENTIONED. THEREFORE, RELI ANCE CANNOT BE PLACED ON AN INCOMPLETE DOCUMENT. REFERRING TO PAGE 18 OF THE PAPER BOOK WHICH IS THE COPY OF THE STATEMENT OF SHRI RAJEEV K UMAR JAIN, PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM, HE SUBMITTED THAT THE PARTNER OF THE FIRM IN HIS STATEMENT RECORDED U/S. 131 ON 6 TH APRIL, 2004 HAD CATEGORICALLY STATED THAT IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 5 THE PAPER WAS SIGNED BECAUSE HE HAD TO TAKE LOAN FR OM SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL AND THE AMOUNT OF LOAN WAS NEVER RECEIVED B Y HIM ON BEHALF OF M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO.. THEREFORE, NO ADDITI ON AT ALL SHOULD HAVE BEEN MADE. IN HIS ALTERNATIVE CONTENTION, HE SUBMI TTED THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT SHRI ROSHANLAL AGA RWAL HAS DISCLOSED ONLY RS.3 LAKHS AS HIS UNDISCLOSED INCOME FOR THE BLOCK PERIOD AND THE ASSESSMENT HAS BEEN FINALISED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER U/S. 158BC OF THE ACT. THEREFORE, ONLY AN AMOUNT OF RS.3 LAKHS AT BE ST CAN BE ADDED AND NOT RS.10 LAKHS. 10. AS REGARDS THE DELETION OF THE INTEREST AMOUNT OF R S.10.5 LAKHS, THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUPPORTING T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), SUBMITTED THAT THE COPY OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT SHOW S THE DATE AS 13 TH MARCH, 2002. THEREFORE, CHARGING OF INTEREST FOR T HE PERIOD FROM 1.4.1995 TILL 20 TH MARCH, 2002 IS NOTHING BUT THE HIGHHANDEDNESS AND ARBITRARY NATURE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. HE ACCORDINGLY SU PPORTED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF DELETION OF INTEREST. 11. THE LEARNED DR, ON THE OTHER HAND, WHILE SUPPORTING THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ON THE ISSUE OF SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS SUBMITTED THAT THE HUNDI SEIZED FROM THE PREMISES OF ROSHANLA L AGARWAL GROUP WAS DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE FIRM WHO HAD ALSO CONFIRMED THE SAME. MERELY BECAUSE COMPLETE NAME AND ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IS NOT WRITTEN ON THE HUNDI THE SAME CANNOT BE DISCARD ED. FURTHER, THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT ZEROX COPY OF PAGE 9 OF THE SEIZED DOCUMENT, BLOCK RETURN COPY OF SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARW AL, THE BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER OF ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP, COPY O F APPELLATE ORDER, ETC., WERE SHOWN TO THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE S HRI KIRAN MEHTA, ACCORDING TO WHICH SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL HAD DECL ARED RS. 44 LAKHS WHICH INCLUDES THE UNACCOUNTED ADVANCE MADE TO M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. AT RS.10 LAKHS. SINCE SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL HAS DECLARED RS.10 LAKHS BEING THE UNACCOUNTED ADVANCE MADE TO M /S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. AND SINCE THE HUNDI WAS DULY SIGNED BY THE PARTNER OF THE IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 6 ASSESSEE WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF ROSHANLAL A GARWAL GROUP, THEREFORE, ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS U/S. 69D OF THE ACT FOR ACCEPTING THE LOAN IN CASH IS JUSTIFIED. AS FAR AS THE DELETION OF IN TEREST IS CONCERNED, HE SUBMITTED THAT SINCE THE HUNDI IS FOR A SMALL PERIO D AS ADMITTED BY THE ASSESSEE COMPANY, THEREFORE, IT IS QUITE POSSIBLE T HAT HE MIGHT HAVE TAKEN THE LOAN IN THE PAST AND MUST BE RENEWING THE SAME FROM TIME TO TIME AND, THEREFORE, THE CIT(A) WAS NOT JUSTIFIED IN DELETING THE INTEREST OF RS.10.5 LAKHS. 12. WE HAVE CAREFULLY CONSIDERED THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH THE SIDES, PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. TH ERE IS NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE SEIZED DOCUMENT AT PAGE 7 OF ANNEXURE A/2 OF THE LOOSE PAPER FILE SEIZED FROM ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROUP SHOW S A HUNDI LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS ON 13 TH MARCH, 2002. FURTHER THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE TO THE FACT THAT THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO HAS SI GNED THE HUNDI HAS ALSO CONFIRMED TO HAVE SIGNED THE SAME. IT IS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD ONLY INTENDED TO TAKE THE LOAN AND NO SUCH LOAN HAS BEEN RECEIVED BY THE ASSE SSEE COMPANY. IN OUR OPINION, IT IS HARD TO BELIEVE THAT A PAPER DULY SI GNED ON REVENUE STAMP BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY CAN BE FOUND FR OM THE PREMISES OF ANOTHER PERSON WITHOUT ACTUAL RECEIPT OF MONEY. FU RTHER WE FIND THE CIT(A) HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT THE ROSHANLAL AGARW AL GROUP HAD DECLARED UNDISCLOSED INCOME OF RS. 44 LAKHS WHICH INCLUDES T HE UNACCOUNTED ADVANCE OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE TO M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREA KING CO. DOCUMENTS OF WHICH WERE SHOWN TO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY BY THE CIT(A). WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT FIND MUCH FORCE IN THE ALTERNATE CONTENTION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT AN ADDITION O F RS. 3 LAKHS AT BEST ONLY CAN BE MADE SINCE THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS GIVEN A FINDING THAT RS. 3 LAKHS ONLY WAS DECLARED AS UNDISCLOSED INCOME IN THE BLOC K RETURN OF SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL. SINCE THE HUNDI CONTAINING THE FIGURE OF RS.10 LAKHS WAS FOUND FROM THE PREMISES OF ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GR OUP WHICH WAS DULY IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 7 SIGNED BY THE PARTNER OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY AND S INCE COPIES OF BLOCK RETURN, BLOCK ASSESSMENT ORDER AND APPELLATE ORDER OF SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL WERE CONFRONTED TO THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE C OMPANY BY THE CIT(A) TO SHOW THAT RS. 10 LAKHS HAS BEEN OFFERED BY SHRI ROSHANLAL AGARWAL IN THE BLOCK RETURN AS THE UNACCOUNTED ADVANCE TO M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO., THEREFORE, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) AND ACCORDINGLY UPHOLD THE SAME. 13. AS REGARDS THE SUBMISSION OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FO R THE ASSESSEE THAT THERE ARE INCONSISTENCIES IN THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A), WE DO NOT FIND MUCH FORCE IN THE SAME SINCE ALL RELEVANT DOCUMENTS WHICH WERE CALLED FOR BY THE CIT(A) WERE SHOWN TO T HE AR OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY WHO HAD NOTHING MORE TO SAY ON THIS ISSUE. THE ASSESSEE COMPANY HAS ALSO NOT FILED ANY AFFIDAVIT TO SHOW TH AT THE CIT(A) HAS NEITHER SHOWN THOSE DOCUMENTS TO THE AR OF THE ASSE SSEE CONTAINING THE DISCLOSURE OF RS.10 LAKHS BY ROSHANLAL AGARWAL GROU P BEING THE UNACCOUNTED ADVANCE OF RS.10 LAKHS MADE TO M/S. RAH UL SHIP BREAKING CO. OR THE DOCUMENTS SHOWN TO THE AR CONTAIN DISCLOSURE OF RS. 3 LAKHS AND NOT RS. 10 LAKHS. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE D O NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) SUSTAINING THE ADDITION OF RS.10 LAKHS. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 14. AS REGARDS THE REVENUES GROUNDS ARE CONCERNED REGA RDING THE DELETION OF RS.10.5 LAKHS, WE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIR MITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE ADDITION. ADMITTEDLY, THE SEIZ ED DOCUMENT SHOWS THE DATE AS 13 TH MARCH, 2002 FOR THE HUNDI LOAN OF RS.10 LAKHS. THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS ALSO MENTIONED MORE THAN ONCE IN HIS AS SESSMENT ORDER AS THE DATE BEING 13 TH MARCH, 2002. THEREFORE, IN ABSENCE OF ANY OTHER M ATERIAL BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER, HE COULD NOT HAVE PRE SUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS TAKEN HUNDI LOAN PRIOR TO THIS DATE. THEREFORE, CHARGING OF INTEREST @ 15% PER ANNUM FOR THE PERIOD FROM 1.4.19 95 TILL 20 TH MARCH, 2002, IN OUR OPINION, WAS NOT AT ALL JUSTIFIED. WE, THER EFORE, DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) DELETING THE A DDITION OF SUCH INTEREST OF IT(SS)A NOS. 62 & 91/MUM/2007 M/S. RAHUL SHIP BREAKING CO. ============================ 8 RS.10.5 LAKHS MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER PURELY ON PRESUMPTIONS, SURMISES AND CONJECTURES. THE GROUNDS OF REVENUE O N THIS ISSUE ARE ACCORDINGLY DISMISSED. 15. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS WELL AS THE REVENUE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 16 TH JULY, 2010. SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DATED 16 TH JULY, 2010 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-XVII, MUMBAI 4. THE CIT, MC-17, MUMBAI 5. THE DR D BENCH. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI TPRAO