Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Mumbai
Islamuddin Mansuri, Mumbai vs Department Of Income Tax
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
MUMBAI BENCH "I": MUMBAI
BEFORE SHRI R.S. PADVEKAR (JM) AND
SHRI. B. RAMAKOTAIAH (AM)
ITA No. 5050/Mum/2008
(Asstt. Year : 2004-05)
Asst. Commissioner of Income-Tax, ... Appellant
Circle 19(3), Piramal Chambers, Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012
V/s.
Shri Islamuddin Mansuri ... Respondent
Novelty Furnishings,
249, Naval Kunj, Linking Road,
Off National College, Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400050
PAN : AALPM2994A
ITA No. 5051/Mum/2008
(Asstt. Year : 2004-05)
Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, ... Appellant
Circle 19(3), Piramal Chambers, Parel,
Mumbai - 400 012
V/s.
Iqbal Hussein Mansuri ... Respondent
Novelty Furnishings,
249, Naval Kunj, Linking Road,
Off National College, Bandra (West),
Mumbai-400050
PAN : AAKPM5640E
Appellant by :Ms. Vandana Sagar, Sr. A.R
Respondent by :Mr. Vijay Kothari
:ORDER:
PER R.S. PADVEKAR, J.M
The Revenue has filed these two appeals challenging the impugned orders of the Ld CIT(A)- XIX, Mumbai dated 23.5.2008 for the A.Y. 2004-05 and these appeals relate to two different assessees who are the members of Mansuri Family. The issues as well as the facts are identical in both these 2 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 appeals, hence for the sake of convenience, these appeals are disposed of by this common order.
2. The Revenue has taken the multiple grounds which are identical in both these appeals which read under :
"1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, Ld CIT(A) XIX, Mumbai erred in holding that the long term capital gain received by the assessee in the scrip Suryadeep Salt & Chemical was a genuine transaction especially when the CIT(A) has not countered the deep investigation done by the A.O.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by A.O. especially when some of the factual aspect has been wrongfully interpreted by CIT(A).
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in holding that the transaction was genuine without appreciating the facts of the case under consideration.
4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred in concluding that the transaction of Suryadeep Salt is genuine one when the ratio of the case of Somnath Mani (100 TTJ 917) clearly says "if facts and circumstances so warrant that it does not accord with the test of human probabilities, transactions have been held to be non- genuine.
5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld CIT(A) erred holding that the addition of 15% of capital gain as commission for arranging the gift is unwarranted in the situation when there is a confessional statement of Mr. Shah to receive the commission and opportunity to cross examine has been given to assessees."
The controversy before us is in respect of the alleged bogus transactions entered into by both these assessees in respect of the penny stock, M/s. Suryadeep Salt, Chemicals and Refinery Works Ltd. (In short M/s. Suryadeep Ltd.) and thereby allegedly declaring inflated Long Term Capital Gain and also taking advantage by paying tax at low rate.
3. The facts which reveal from the record are as under :
3 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008a) The Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai carried out the investigation and it was found that some operators/share brokers were manipulating the share prices of the penny stock and allegedly laundering the black money in the market under the grab of capital gain.
During the course of the investigation, statement of one Shri Narendra R. Shah, as per Revenue, who was the key player in providing the accommodation entries of the script M/s. Suryadeep Ltd., was recorded on 16.6.2006 and 9.10.2006. In the statement given to DDI (Investigation), Shri Narendra R. Shah stated that following companies namely Drishti Securities Pvt. Ltd., D.R. Pandya Share Broking Ltd., and T.H. Vakil Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd. have been doing the business of share broking and in some cases, those three companies had issued bogus bills in order to give accommodation entries to various persons. He further stated that the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. were available with him and he had given those shares along with accommodative purchase bills to the interested parties. The parties who purchased the said shares sold the same through its broker in the open market and Shri Shah helped the parties to arrange the transaction of the said shares by showing the higher market prices and the party, i.e. the sellers of the shares could declare the capital gain by showing the inflated prices of the shares. For doing the said job, the commission was paid to him at the rate of 2 to 3% of the capital gain.
b) He also stated that he used to give the cash to his agents, who in turn used to purchase those shares for his clients at the higher rate than prevailing market prices. He also stated that he had different proprietary concerns like
(i) Abhijai Investments, (ii) M/s. Sanjeev & Co., (iii) M/s. Abhishek Finance & Investment Corporation, and (iv) M/s. Narendra Shah, and he used to deposit the cash in the Bank Account on the above proprietary concerns and the amounts used to be transferred to the brokers/agents. Shri Shah further deposed that the above companies namely Dhrishti Service Pvt. Ltd., D.R. Pandya Share Broking Ltd., etc. were shown as in the trading of the shares on fictitious basis and they used to issue the bills and contract notes. For doing the said transactions, the beneficiary parties used to give the cash to 4 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 the said Shri Shah, and that cash was used for arranging the bogus transactions.
c) The sum and substance as observed by the A.O is that Shri Narendra Shah has categorically accepted that he has provided the accommodation entries to various individuals in the script of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. The A.O has also observed that Shri Shah also admitted that he has received 15% cash as a consideration for arranging those bogus accommodative transactions. The A.O has reproduced the part of the statements recorded from Shri Narendra Shah, on different dates, on page Nos. 10 to 16 of the assessment order. As per the statement given by Shri Narendra Shah, he has repeated the story in respect of using the 'Penny stock' for converting the black money into the white money by showing the higher market prices of the same. The specific question was put to Shri Narendra R Shah in respect of the purchase and sale of the script of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. In his statement, he had stated that 1,11,500 shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. were purchased on behalf of the various members of Mansuri family, through M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Action Finances Services Ltd. Shri Narendra Shah submitted information to DDI(Invt)/ A.O., which is mentioned as page No. 1 of the assessment order, showing the details of the names of the Mansuri family members and bill date, number, settlement period, quantity of shares, the amount, and payment details etc., He also furnished the addresses of M/s. Action Finances Services Ltd. and M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. He also stated that the 4,58,500 shares of M/S. Suryadeep Ltd. were purchased by him on behalf of various members of Mansuri family through M/s. Share Pro Service Ltd. He also stated the details of the parties from whom M/s. Share Pro Service Ltd. had acquired the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd.. As per the statement of Shri Narendra Shah, he had acquired the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. through the above referred brokers from the following parties:
1. Haresh Udashi
2. Chandulal Sanghvi
3. Anil Wadwa
4. Manish Pathani
5. Padma Jani
6. Narendra jani 5 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008
7. Shivani Shah
8. Rajesh Takwani
9. M/s. Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd.
10. Action Finances Services India Ltd.
4. The A.O has noted that the notices u/s. 131(6) u/s. 131(6) were served calling the information from the above parties. Out of the 8 parties, the notices issued to 6 parties were returned as un-served. The assessees furnished the details of the transactions in respect of those parties/persons who had dealings with M/s. Dhrishti Services Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Share Pro Securities Ltd. The assessees also produced the progress note issued by M/s.
Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Share Pros Securities confirming the sale and purchase of the shares including the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd.. So far as M/S. Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, they filed the detailed reply to the A.O. denying that there was any transaction taken place during the period from 1.4.03 to 31.3.2004 in respect of the script Suryadeep Ltd.. The said company has also denied that M/s. Dhrishti Services Pvt. Ltd. have purchased the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. from them as no Trading account was opened with the said broker firm. M/s. Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd. expressed their inability to issue the copy of the account in respect of the transactions entered into with M/S. Dhrishti Services Pvt. Ltd in respect of the script Suryadeep Ltd. as the said broker company has not opened any Trading Account with them. It was further informed by the said party that as there was no delivery of the script by the selling party to M/s. Drishti Services Pvt. Ltd., no details of off market transaction and the intimation given to the concerned Stock Exchange were not possible to give. The A.O also called for the details from M/s. Action Finances Services India Ltd. in respect of the transaction of M/s. Dhrishti Services Pvt. Ltd. and the said party intimated that the account was opened only in the month of March 2003 and there is no question of having any transaction with the said party prior to the said date. The information was also called from M/s. Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd. with whom the assessees had opened the Demat Account and it was found that the Demat Account was opened by the assessees along with other family members on 11.12.2002 and for opening 6 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 the Demat A/c., Shri Narendra Shah had introduced the assessees as noted by the A.O. The A.O has given the details of the Demat A/c. in respect of these two assessees as well as other members of the Mansuri family on page Nos. 19 to 23 of the assessment order.
5. The statement of the Demat A/c. of these two assessees which are relevant for us is as under :
(I) Statement of Accounts as on 21.11.2006 ( Islamuddin B. Mansuri) For the period from 11.12.2002 to 21.11.2006 ISIN : INE823E01019 SURYADEEP SAL TREF-EQ Date Transaction Particulars Credit Debit Current Balance 11.12.2002 Opening Balance 0.000 4.2.2003 INTDEP-CR 9178886 4000.000 4000.000 5.2.2003 INTDEP-CR 9203003 5000.000 9000.000 CTRBO IN602751 11.3.2003 OF-CR TD-252176 10000.000 19000.000 TX-703187 1201120100007011 21.4.2004 INTDEP-DR 24940098 6000.000 13000.000 CTRBO IN 300271 10119283 21.4.2004 INTDEP-DR 24940122 300.00 12700.000 CTRRBO IN300271 10119283 21.4.2004 INTDEP-DR 24940105 10000.000 2700.000 CTRBO IN300271 10119283 5.5.2004 INTDEP-DR 245425911 CTRBO IN300271 2700.000 0.000 10119283 21.11.2006 Closing Balance 0.000 7 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 (II) Statement of Accounts as on 21.11.2006 (Iqbal B. Mansuri) For the period from 11.12.202 to 21.11.2006 ISIN : INE823E1010 SURYADEEP SALTREF-EQ Date Transaction Particulars Credit Debit Current Balance 11.12.2002 Opening Balance 0.000 11.3.2003 OF-CR TD-252172 21000.000 21000.000 TX-703179 1201120100007011 19.3.2003 INTDEP-CR 9820048 10000.000 31000.000 CTRBO IN602751 12.4.2004 INTDEP-DR 24591353 11000.000 20000.000 CTRBO IN300271 10119283 12.4.2004 INTDEP-DR 24591297 10000.000 10000.000 CTRBOIN300271 10119283 12.4.2004 INTDEP-DR 24591332 10000.000 0.000 CTRBO IN300271 10119283 21.11.2006 Closing Balance 0.000
6. The A.O has noted that after examining the details of the Demat A/c. and Share Transactions entered into by these two assessees, the following factual situation was noticed. The assessees namely Shri Islammudin Mansuri has purchased the 57000 shares and dematerialized only 19000 shares. So far as the another assessees is concerned, i.e. Iqbal Mansuri, he had purchased 31000 shares and all the 31000 shares were dematerialized. The A.O after examining the Demat Accounts and other material on record, concluded as under :
"i) The Demat account has been opened only for the transaction of Suryadeep Salt and Chemical shares.
ii) All the members of Mansuri family has opened the Demat account on the same date, i.e. 11.12.2002.
iii) Shri Narendra Shah has introduced them for opening the Demat account.
iv) As per the above chart, there is the huge difference between shares transacted by the family and shares de-materialised by them.8 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008
The Mansuri family has purchased 4,93,400 shares, but only 1,75,000 shares has been de-materialised by them.
v) Share has been de-materialised by the assessees after the lapse of substantial period of time. Shares has been purchased by them in December, 2002. Demat account opened on 11.12.2002 and de- materialisation of shares has been done in the month of March, 2003.
vi) The Demat account has been utilized only for the purpose of the transaction in the scrip under consideration.
vii) The depository has given the account of statement of holdings of all the Mansuri family members from the period from December, 2002 to November, 2006. By going through that account, it is found that except the scrip under consideration, assessees has not done any investment/trading activity in any other shares. This fact gives a further support of the opinion that the assessees has only transacted in these shares for having the accommodation entry for the artificial capital gain."
7. After examining the details filed by the assessees in respect of the purchase and sale of the shares, an amount paid for the purchases and amount received for the sales, the A.O has noted that neither the payment has been paid at the time of the purchase or the sales, nor the consideration has been received at the time of sale and there is a substantial time gap between the transaction receipt or payment of the consideration. The A.O has given the details in respect of the date of the purchase, quantity of shares, payment details, etc., in respect of both these assessees on page No. 25 to 26 of the assessment order. The A.O has also noted that out of 4,93,400 shares purchased by the members of the Mansuri family, only 175000 shares had been dematerialized by them. Moreover, rest of the shares had been sold by physical delivery and full sale consideration in respect of the sale of the shares were not received by the assessees till 31.3.2004. The assessees filed the 9 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 progress note in respect of the assessees as well as the other members of the Mansuri family and as per the progress note, it was found that all the shares has been purchased between 23.10.2002 to 31.10.2002 at the price of Rs. 2/- to Rs. 3/- per share. So far as the present assessees are concerned, Mr. Iqbal Hussain had purchased the shares on 30.11.2002 and Mr. Islamuddin purchased the shares on different dates from 18.11.2002 to 10.12.2002. Mr. Iqbal Hussain Mansuri purchased total 31000 shares while Islamuddin Mansuri purchased 57000 shares and the said shares were purchased from Drishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. (DSPL) and M/s. Share Pro Securities Ltd. (SPS). Both the brokers have confirmed that they have purchased the shares of Suryadeep Ltd. from different persons which details are given by the A.O by way of chart on page No. 30 of the assessment order. The A.O proceeded to examine the source of acquisition of the shares by the persons who had claimed to have sold shares to M/s. DSPL and M/s. SPS and he examined the progress note submitted by the assessees and observed that the whole transaction was arranged in such a way, so that the script Suryadeep Ltd. may come into market to dummy person and thereafter, it would be given to the assessees for the purpose of showing artificial capital gain. The A.O has given analysis in respect of the persons holding the shares of Suryadeep Ltd. who sold the shares to M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Share Pro Securities Ltd. on page No. 31 to 38 of the assessment order.
8. The A.O after analysing the progress note recorded his final conclusions as under -
(i) The respective persons who have sold shares to M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Share Pro Securities Ltd, are the speculators of the market and the main source of income is their speculation business.
(ii) The said persons purchased the script Suryadeep Ltd. in the months of July to September 2002 from M/s. Dhrishti Securities as well as M/s. Share Pro Securities and the same have again been sold to the same share brokers in the months of October to December 2002.
10 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008(iii)The speculation profit from the transactions had been used for the purchase of the shares of the SURYADEEP LTD in the months of October to December 2002.
In sum and substance, though, the A.O had admitted that the concerned persons namely Rajesh Takwani, Shivani Shah, Bharat Takwani, Chandulal Sanghvi, Naresh Jani, Parmar Ben Jani etc., have earned the speculation profit by dealing in the shares but at the same time, the A.O did not accept the fact that in fact, it was true profit as shown by those persons.
9. The A.O issued the show cause notices to the assessees in which, the details of the evidences collected by the Investigation Wing were given. The show cause notices issued by the A.O to the assessees's are reproduced on page nos. 42 to 46 of the assessment order. The assessees filed the reply to the A.O, which is common in both the cases except no of shares and dates, on 22.12.206 denying all the allegations made by the A.O. The summery of the reply given by the assessees to the A.O is as under:
"a. Details relating to the capital asset held by me i.e. 153000 shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt Refineries & Chemicals Works Ltd.
b. Date of acquisition and cost of acquisition of the capital asset i.e. shares of M/s. Suradeep Salt Refineries & Chemicals Works Ltd. (chart giving dates on which the shares were purchased enclosed marked as annexure 1).
c. Broker/sub-broker from whom the capital asset was purchased (copies of the bills issued and delivery notes of the broker enclosed marked as annexure 2).
d. The details of shares received in physical/dematerialized form i.e. 115000 shares in physical form and 38000 shares in D-mat form.11 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008
e. Date on which the shares received in physical form were lodged for transfer with the 15.12.2006.
f. Date on which the shares lodged in physical form which the company were transferred in my name (Xerox copies of the covering letter received at the time of transfer share certificates showing the transfer of shares in my name enclosed herewith marked as annexure 3).
g. Date on which the shares duly transferred in my name were lodged with M/s. Inventure Growth & Securities Ltd. (a depository participant) for holding shares in dematerialized form. (copies of the lodgment receipts enclosed herewith marked as annexure 4).
h. Thus all the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt Refineries & Chemicals Works Ltd came to be held by me in dematerialized form with the depository participant (copy of the statement issued by the depository participant enclosed herewith marked as annexure 5).
i. The beneficial ownership in the equity shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt Refineries & Chemicals Works Ltd. were transferred by me on various dates through M/s. T.H. Vakil Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd., a registered broker of Bombay Stock Exchange. (copies of the bills issued by the broker is enclosed herewith marked as annexure 6).
j. I received the full value of consideration on the transfer of the capital asset through normal banking channels (copy of the bank statement, reflecting the receipt of payments from the broker, enclosed herewith marked as annexure 7).
k. On sale of the equity shares, I have duly executed transfer instructions to the Depository Participant.
The income under the head 'Long Term Capital Gains has accordingly been computed."12 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008
10. In sum and substance, the assessees denied the allegation of the A.O that the share transaction in respect of Suryadeep Ltd. were not genuine. The assessees also relied on the CBDT Circular Nos. 704 dt. 28.4.95 and 768 dt. 24.6.1998 and contended that the period of holding of the shares has to be accounted from the date of receipt of the script with the transfer forms duly signed. The assessees also denied all the allegations made by Shri Narendra Shah. The assessees contended that there were many contradictions in the statements given by Shri Narendra Shah and hence, the same should not be relied on as same are without any credit worthiness. The assessees pointed out that in the statement recorded on 31.10.2006 in answer to question No.3, Shri Narendra Shah has deposed that the shares were genuinely traded but when he was threaten with the dier consequences of the prosecution, he changed his stand and made false and contradictory statements. The assessees also took the contention that the statement of Shri Narendra Shah are contradictory to the evidences available on the record. The assessees also contended that all the shares had been dematerialized and the sale transactions were routed through the D-mat A/Cs only.
11. The A.O rejected all the contentions of the assessees by giving his detailed reasoning which are on page Nos. 49 to 56 of the assessment order and relying on the statement of Narendra Shah as well as the investigation made by the DDI, finally concluded as under :
1) The statement of Shri Narendra Shah cannot be neglected as the opportunity to cross examine Shri Narendra Shah has been given to Shri Abdulla Mansuri at the time of recording of the statement, the another family member and statements of Shri Narendra Shah are reliable.
2. The Bombay Stock Exchange informed that no transactions of shares/scripts has been reported in the Exchange in respect of the purchases of shares of M/s. SURYADEEP LTD by the assessees and hence those were off market transactions. Moreover, the assessees did not report/inform the Bombay Stock Exchange in respect of the off 13 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 market transactions entered into by the assessees and that was against the circular issued by the Exchange dt. 12.12.1994.
3. The shares have been purchased by all the members of Mansuri between the period from October 2002 to December 2002, but the payments have been made between February 2003 to April 2003 and why the payment had not been paid by the assessees at the time of the purchase of the shares had not been explained by them. Moreover, after the sale of the shares, the amount/consideration has not been received by the assessees immediately.
The A.O also rejected the explanation of the assessees that the sale proceeds had been deposited late in the bank account due to the dispute as to the rate difference. The A.O was of the view that if there was dispute in respect of the rate, then the assessees could have lodged the complaint to the 'Investor Services Cell' (ISC) of the Bombay Stock Exchange and the complaint would have been placed before the Investor Grievances Redressal Committee.
12. The A.O. has noted that as per the record, in the past the assessees nor any of his family members have entered into any transactions in respect of the sale and purchase of the shares, but in this year, not only the assessees but the whole family members were engaged themselves in huge transactions of and purchase of shares, only of one script i.e. M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. The script was purchased on a nominal rates and the same was sold in the short span of time for the huge consideration i.e. the purchase price of the script was Rs. 2/- to 4/- per share but the same was settled at between Rs. 65/- to Rs. 75/- per share. The A.O. also considered the educational qualifications of the members of the whole Mansuri family and accordingly, concluded that considering the educational qualifications of the family members, it did not give any indication that they could understand the market parameters on their own. The A.O also concluded that after analysing the financial results of the company why any person may be attracted to purchase the shares as the said company had huge carry forward losses, very nominal asset and very ordinary turnover and the said company was not even declaring the dividend and hence 14 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 in view of the A.O, it was impossible that any investor would go ahead for the purchase of shares of such company. The A.O has also noted that the Mansuri family as such has acquired 6.25% of the equity shares of the said company and in the opinion of the A.O, the approach of the Mansuri family including the assessees was difficult to understand. He, therefore, finally concluded that the entire transactions were only with the motive to convert the black money into the white money and it was a non-genuine transaction.
13. So far as the another issue which is in respect of the period of holding is concerned, the A.O has noted that it was circular sale and purchase of the shares between the different individuals and M/s. DSPL & M/s. SPS. The A.O has also noted that none of the parties from whom M/s. SPS and M/S. DSPL claimed to have purchased the shares, have taken the actual delivery of the shares. The shares remained as a stock of M/s. SPS and M/s. DSPL, even though on paper and it was shown as purchase and sale transaction took place. The A.O also noted that after the amendment of the Act, the Long Term Capital Gain on the sale of the shares/securities is being taxed at the rate of 10% and hence, the assessees has chosen this path to convert the black money into the white money. The A.O also relied on the different precedents including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mc Dowell and Co. Ltd., 154 ITR 148 (S.C.) and Azadi Bachao Andolan, 263 ITR 706 (S.C.) and concluded that it was the device used by the assessees for avoidance of the legitimate tax. The A.O also relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sumati Dayal, 214 ITR 801 and Durga Prasad More (82 ITR 540) and in his view after the application of the test of human probabilities, it is very difficult to conclude that Long Term Capital Gain declared by the assessees were genuine. He, therefore, made the addition in respect of the profit/capital gain declared by the assessees on the sale of the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. treating the same as unexplained cash credit. Moreover, relying on the statement of Shri Narendra Shah that he has received 15% of the profit earned by the assessees in cash as commission/consideration for arranging the accommodation entries, made the additions of Rs.6,86,994/- in the case of Mr. Islamuddin Mansuri and Rs. 8,13,209/- in the case of Iqbal Hussain Mansuri.
15 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/200814. Being aggrieved by the high pitched assessments made by the A.O, both the assessees challenged the addition before the Ld CIT(A). After analysing the evidence and material on record, the Ld CIT(A) deleted the entire additions and by giving his final findings as under:
"6.11 Having so held, I proceed to consider the three questions that are framed above.
6.12. As regards the first issue is concerned, viz. whether the credits in the bank accounts of the assessees are on account of sale of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL), it is seen that T.H. Vakil Share & Securities Private Limited has made payments to the assessees against contract notes and bills for sale of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL), by the assessees. The assessees has produced these bills and contract notes during the course of assessment proceedings as also during the course of appellate proceedings. The assessees has given delivery of shares by handing over 53,000 shares in physical form and 31,000 shares from his depository account. The A.O. has also admitted that the assessees has received the payments from T.H. Vakil Share & Securities P. Ltd. The A.O. has not doubted the genuineness of transaction of sale of shares through T.H. Vakil Share & Securities P. Ltd. nor has he questioned the veracity and genuineness of the documents/evidence relating to sale of shares. In these circumstances, it has to be accepted that the assessees has received consideration on transfer of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) from T.H. Vakil Share & Securities P. Ltd. In these circumstances, it is held that the credits in the bank account are on account of the sale consideration received on transfer of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL). Accordingly, the finding of the A.O that the sale consideration is the unexplained income of the assessees cannot be upheld.
6.13. The second issue, which arises for consideration whether the assessees was the owner of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals 16 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 Ltd. (SSCL). From the documents and evidences placed on record, I find that the assessees was holding in his own name 53,000 shares in physical form and 31,000 shares in dematerialized form. M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) has transferred the shares held in physical form in assessees's own name. The shares held by the assessees in dematerialized form came to be held by him on transfer through the electronic mode into his de-mat account. These evidences are irrefutable and have not been doubted by the A.O. There is nothing else on record to contradict this fact. As a matter of fact the A.O. himself has admitted that the assessees was the owner of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL). The payment towards such purchase was made through cheque.
6.14. The last issue, which arises for consideration, is what was the period of holding of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) by the assessees. The assessees has claimed that he had purchased the shares through their sub-broker, Share-Pro Securities and Drishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. Both these sub-brokers are registered with SEBI and have issued to the assessees contract notes/bill of delivery for purchase of shares. These bills/contract notes clearly show that the transaction was an off market deal and that they had affected delivery of shares in physical form. The rate at which the shares were sold to the assessees was as per the prevailing prices on the Bombay Stock Exchange. The shares so delivered to the assessees along with the transfer forms, were lodged for transfer by the assessees. The shares, which were transferred in the name of assessees, continued to be held by the assessees in physical form. The same is evidenced by the letter of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) intimating the assessees that the shares have been transferred in assessees's name in the register of shareholders maintained u/s. 150 of the Companies Act, 1956. In the annual return filed by M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) with ROC, as per the provisions of s. 159, the name of the assessees appears as a shareholder. As per the provisions of s. 164 of the Companies Act, 1956 these documents/registers are prima-facie 17 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 evidences of ownership of shares. The documents/registers have not been disputed by the A.O. and accordingly the date of ownership of shares by the assessees has to be taken as date of purchase i.e. 13.11.2002, 29.11.2002, 12.12.2002, 13.12.202 and 16.12.2002. The assessees came to be the owner of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) on the shares being lodged by the assessees with M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) for transfer. The exact date of receipt of share certificates with the transfer forms from the brokers Share Pro Securities Pvt. Ltd and Drishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. is evidenced by the delivery notes of the concerned brokers. In terms of the circular issued by CBDT the period of holding of shares in case of an off-market transaction is from the date of contract of sale as declared by the parties in case it is followed by actual delivery of shares and the transfer deeds. Following the circular issued by CBDT the date of transfer of shares of SSCL would be 13.11.2002, 29.11.202, 12.12.2002, 13.12.2002 and 16.12.202, (i.e. the date of contract of sale). Thus in the case of the assessees the period of holding would begin from the date of contract of purchase and would end on the date of contract of sale. The dates of contract of purchase were 13.11.2002, 29.11.2002, 12.12.202, 13.12.2002 and 16.12.2002. The assessees became the owners of shares on 28.12.2002.The dates of contract of sale were 30.12.2003, 02.01.204, 06,01.2004, 07.01.2004, 08.01.2004, 09.01.2004 and 12.01.2004. Thus the period of holding of shares would be for a period exceeding one year. Accordingly the gain arising on transfer of 84,000 shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) would be assessable as income under the head 'Long Term Capital Gains'.
6.15 Having so arrived at the conclusion on facts, I proceed to consider the various case laws relied upon by the A.O. The first case relied upon by the A.O. is Somnath Mani 100 TTJ 917 (Chd). In this case, the ITAT held the genuineness of transaction of purchase and sale of shares was not proved. The ITAT held that merely on the basis of payment of cheque could not make the transaction genuine. In the cse 18 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 before ITAT, there were no transaction at stock exchanges at relevant times when shares were purchased and sold. Further the shares remained with the assessees even after the sale of shares. The records of the brokers were also not produced. Set with the said facts, the ITAT held that the transaction was not genuine. In the case of the assessees all evidences/documents establish that the assessees was the owner of shares and that gain had arisen on transfer of shares. Accordingly reliance placed on this decision is misplaced. The next two cases relied on by the A.O are Mc Dowell & Co. Ltd. 154 ITR 148 (SC) and Azadi Bachao Andolan 263 ITR 706 (SC). In these cases the Hon'ble Supreme Court has considered the issue of tax planning by adopting acts, which have doubtful or questionable character as to their bona fides and righteousness. McDowell's case in substance can have application only where colorable or artificial devices are adopted and not to transactions, which are otherwise legitimate and are undertaken bona fide in the ordinary course. As stated above, there is nothing on record to hold that the transaction of purchase/sale of shares of SSCL was not genuine. In fact the evidences/documents at every sequence of events clearly show that the transaction was bona fide and genuine. Merely because of the holding period of shares is in excess of one year, the transaction cannot be dubbed to be an exercise in tax planning or evasion. Assuming, for a moment that the period of holding of shares was less one year, could it still be said that the assessees had indulged into a transaction for tax planning purposes? The next case relied upon by the A.O is the case of Housing Development & Finance Corp. Ltd. (ITA No. 2913/M/95 dated 12.9.2005). In this case, the ITAT, on facts held that the transaction was of a financial lease and not a lease entitling the assessees to 100% depreciation. The said conclusion was arrived at based on the facts that the transaction was pure and simple financial arrangement. The A.O. has relied on the decision in case of Sumati Dayal 214 ITR 801 (SC). In the said case, on the findings recorded that the claim of winnings in horse races was not justified, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that on preponderance of probability the transaction was not genuine. In the case of the assessees, the A.O himself has accepted that the assessees had purchased the shares in 19 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 November/December 2002. Only because the assessees claimed the gains arising under the head 'Long Term Capital Gain', the A.O. has not accepted the period of holding for various reasons. The reasons so ascribed are contrary to the provisions of s. 2(14) and 2(47) as also the provisions of Companies Act and Transfer of Property Act. The rates at which purchases and sales have been made are not in dispute. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the claim made by the assessees was against the test of human probabilities. The A.O. has also relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Durga Prasad More 82 ITR 540(SC). As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the A.O. has the power to look into the surrounding circumstances to find out the reality. But while doing so the A.O cannot merely ignore the apparent which is evidenced by requisite records and documents. In such a case, the AO is duty bound to falsify the assessees's claim by more convincing and appealing evidence. In the case of the assessees, the A.O. after considering the evidences/documents has held that the assessees had purchased the shares in November/December 2002. He has also not disputed that the assessees has received consideration from T.H. Vakil Share & Securities Pvt. Ltd. in pursuance to the contracts and bills issued for sale of shares by the assessees. However the A.O., has assessed such gains as unexplained income of the assessees. Once the purchases and sale of shares of shares are accepted, it would be unjust to say that the credits are not the sale proceeds of shares but is the cash introduced in the form of sale of shares. The last decision relied on by the A.O. is the case of Mid East Portfolio Management Ltd. 217 ITR 87 (Mum). In the said case the Hon'ble ITAT set aside the assessment order to the file of the A.O. for considering the nature of the lease agreements (viz. whether the transactions were financial arrangements or were pure lease transactions). In the case of the assessees, as stated earlier, the A.O has accepted the purchase as also the sale of shares. He has disbelieved the claim of the assessees for various reasons, which have been dealt with at length hereinabove. The reasons recorded by the A.O. have been held to be erroneous. In these facts the reliance so placed is improper.
20 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/20086.16 To summarize the whole issue relating to the addition of Rs.54,23,390/- as unexplained cash credits, in the light of the above discussions, since the sale proceeds from sale of shares have not been disproved by the AO, the addition does not stand to logic or under any provision of law. The purchase of the shares were deeply analyzed by the AO, but have also not been disproved. With regard to investigating source of sources, the Hon. Gujarat High Court in the case of DCIT Vs. Rohini Builders {256 ITR 360 } has upheld that the assessees can not asked to prove the source of source while cash credits are being examined. AO's efforts to investigate source of income is therefore not supported by judicial pronouncements. Relying upon various conflicting statements of Shri Narendra Shah and ignoring evidences which support the purchase and sale of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) shares, the AO has not appreciated the facts and position of law in the right perspective.
6.17. After due consideration of the facts and circumstances, as well as the provisions of law and various judicial pronouncements as elaborated above, I am of the opinion that the claim of Long Term Capital Gains through sale of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) by the appellant cannot be disputed and cannot be treated as unexplained cash credits. As a result, the addition of Rs. 54,23,390/- made by the AO is deleted. This ground of the appellant is allowed.
7. The next ground relates to the addition made of Rs.
8,13,209/- on account of the statement of Shri Narendra Shah wherein he had deposed that he has received 15% of the profits earned by the assessees in cash as a consideration for arranging the accommodation entries. I find that the assessees was not given an opportunity of cross- examining Shri Narendra Shah. I have held that the transactions of purchase/sale of shares of M/s. Suryadeep Salt & Chemicals Ltd. (SSCL) were genuine transactions. There is no evidence to show that the assessees had paid any amount to Shri Narendra Shah as consideration. There is an apparent contradiction in the statement of Shri Narendra Shah in this regard. In the statement recorded on oath on 16.06.2206 Shri Narendra Shah has stated that he was charging 2% to 3% as his 21 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 charges. In the statement recorded on 31.10.2006 Shri Narendra Shah has stated that he received 15% of the profits earned by the assessees. In the other questions, Shri Narendra Shah at some places has said that the transactions entered into by the assessees were genuine transactions. However at some other place he has said that the transactions entered into by the assessees were genuine transactions. However at some other place he has said that the transaction was merely an accommodation entry. In view of these apparent glaring fallacies in the statement of Shri Narendra Shah, I have held that the statement cannot be given credence to as it suffers from lack of logical coherence. In the circumstances, it is held that no addition can be made on account of the deposition made by him that he had received Rs.8,13,209/- in cash as consideration for arranging the accommodation entries. Apart from the conflicting statements, there are no other supporting evidences like deposit in any bank account, rough noting found during the course of search etc., which support the statement made. Merely on the basis of a statement, which was also inconsistent and considering that no instance of any commission payments was either supported by evidence or confronted with the assessees with specific details, these are no grounds to estimate such commission @ 15% and treat them as unexplained income or cash credits. Accordingly the addition of Rs.8,13,209/- is deleted."
15. The findings given by the Ld CIT(A) are identical or also common in cases of both the assessees save the figures and some dates of transactions. In sum and substance, the Ld CIT(A) did not agree with the conclusion drawn by the A.O and deleted the entire additions. Now, the Revenue is in appeal before us.
16. We have given our anxious considerations to the rival submissions of the parties and perused the record. We have also carefully considered the facts of the cases as noted by both the authorities below. Both these assessees are the members of the Mansuri family. It is alleged that the members of the Mansuri family had entered into bogus 'off market' 22 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 transactions of the shares, popularly known as 'Penny Stock', through the sub- brokers, showing the sale price of the shares at inflated prices and thereby declaring the capital gain, treated the same as Long Term Capital Gain and paid less tax at the rate of 10%. As per the facts on record, both these assessees claimed to have acquired the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. By way of accommodation entries through the sub-brokers. The alleged sham transactions of the shares (Penny Stock) were investigated by the Investigation Wing of the Income Tax Department, Mumbai and it was found that one Shri Narendra R Shah was the main key player in providing the accommodation entries of the script M/S. Suryadeep Ltd. The A.O has also noted that the concerned persons namely Rajesh Takwani, Shivani Shah, Bharat Takwani, Chandulal Sanghvi, Naresh Jani, Parmar Ben Jani etc., from whom originally the shares were purchased, have earned the speculation profit by dealing in the shares. On the basis of the deposition made by Shri Narendra R. Shah, further investigation was carried out. In the final statement recorded on 16.6.2006 and 9.10.2006, Shri Narendra R Shah stated that M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd., G.R. Pandya Share Broking Ltd. and T.H. Vakil Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. were doing the share broking business and in some cases, those companies have issued bogus bills to various persons in form of accommodation entries. He also stated that he had four proprietory concerns namely (i)M/s. Abhijai Investment, (ii) M/s. Sanjeev & Co., (iii) M/s. Abhishek Finance & Investment Corpn., and (iv) M/s. Narendra Shah and through the said concerns, he was operating the share transactions of the beneficiaries. In the said statement, he also stated that he has received the commission to the extent of 2 to 3% on the capital gain declared by the beneficiary parties. He could not provide the details of the alleged beneficiary parties in his initial statement. He further stated that the purchase bills of 'Penny Stock' were issued to beneficiaries for declaring an artificial capital gains and all the bogus bills were issued by the above referred companies i.e. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd., T.H. Vakil Shares & Securities Pvt. etc..
17. In respect of the modus operandi by issuing the bogus bills for the accommodation entries for declaring the speculation profit as well as capital gain, he stated that he was to take the cash from the beneficiaries which was 23 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 equivalent to the speculation profit + the commission/service charges to the extent of 0.5% of the speculation profit. In his initial statement, i.e. dt. 16.6.2006 and 9.10.2006, part of which is produced in the assessment order of the A.O, the assessees's names were not mentioned. It appears that the further statement of Shri Narendra Shah were also recorded on 19.10.2006 and 31.10.2006 in which, as noted by the A.O, as per the statement given by Shri Narendra Shah, M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/S. Share Pro Securities Ltd. were sub-brokers and the main brokers were M/s. Angel Broking Ltd., and M/s. Action Financial Services Ltd. Shri Narendra Shah further stated that Shri Abdullah Mansuri, one of the members of the Mansuri family approached him through the Director of M/s. Inventure Growth and Securities Ltd. He further stated that 1,11,500 shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. were purchased on behalf of various members of the Mansuri family through M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. which in turn has purchased the same from Actional Financial Services Ltd. He, also stated that the shares were originally held by different persons like Haresh Udashi, Chandulal Sanghvi, Anil Wadhwa, Padma Jani, Naresh Jani, Shivani Shah, Ramanlal Shah etc. In respect of the sale of the shares by the members of the Mansuri family, he deposed that it was done through BSE by T.H. Vakil Shares and Securities Pvt. Ltd. His statement was again recorded on 21.10.2006 in which he repeated the story but with some contradictions as rightly argued by the Ld. Consule. It is pertinent to note that as per his answer to the Question No. 6 (statement dt. 31.10.2006), he stated that he used to take commission at 15% of profit earned by the concerned parties for arranging the accommodation entries and accordingly, he has taken the 15% from the members of the Mansuri family on the script of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. and the said profit was taken in the form of cash. He also stated that he sold the shares through the Bombay Stock Exchange giving Souda to one Kunal Vakil, who was the Director of the T.H. Vakil Shares Shares & Securities Pvt. Ltd. and the sales transaction has been appeared in the BSE Trading List.
18. The main thrust of the A.O is on the statements given by Shri Narendra Shah for making additions though he tried his some efforts to verify his statements to corroborate same with other material. But as, in our opinion, 24 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 Shri Shah changed his statements and there are many contraictions, it's creditworthiness is doubtful. It is pertinent to note here that both the assessees had Demat account with M/s. Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd., which details are given by the A.O on page No. 19 and as per the details, the Demat account of both the assessees were opened on 11.12.2002. It is also seen that there are transactions in the Demat account of both these assessees, page No. 22 and 23 of the assessment order and hence, it is clear that the shares were dematerialized and thereafter major transactions of the sales and purchases of the script M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. were made. Moreover, it is also seen that assessees produced sub-brokers notes and confirmations in respect of script M/S. Suryadeep Ltd. and that being important piece of evidence has not been considered by the A.O. but conveniently ignored. Another aspect which has been considered by the A.O is in respect of the delay in the payments on the purchase of the shares as well as the sales of the shares.
19. Now the core question which arises for our consideration is to what extent the depositions made by Shri Narendra Shah should be given clean weightage, which credit worthiness are disputed, as same are heavily relied on by the A.O. for concluding that the assessees and other members of Mansuri family were indulged in hawala transactions by using device of 'Penny Stock' of M/S. Suryadeep Ltd? Admittedly, in this case, for the purpose of the transactions, two sub-brokers were involved namely M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Share Pro Securities Ltd. It is also pertinent to note that the sub-broker's notes were issued by M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd., and M/s. Share Pro Securities Pvt. Ltd. in respect of the sale and purchase transactions of the shares of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. The A.O. has relied on the reply given by the Inventure Securities Pvt. Ltd. but that was the main broker and the entire dealing was done by M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. as sub- broker. As per the deposition of Shri Narendra Shah (page No. 12 of the assessment order), the main broker for M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. was M/s. Angel Broking Ltd. and it is certainly strange how the information received from Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd is relied on by the A.O. when Shri Shah keep changing his statements also in respect of main brokers.
25 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/200820. There are serious contradictions in the depositions of Shri Narendra Shah. As per the initial depositions of Shri Narendra Shah, he has stated that he received 2 to 3% commission on the profits/capital gains declared by the beneficiaries like the assessees but in the subsequent statement, he has stated that he has received 15% commission of profits earned by the alleged beneficiaries like the members of the Mansuri family. The statement relied on by the A.O are totally silent in respect of both these assessees. The A.O. has also observed that the BSE has informed that no such transactions were routed through stock exchanges but at the same time it is case of the A.O. that entire script transactions were off market transactions and if transactions are off market then same can never be routed through the Stock Exchanges.
21. The A.O tried to make the case that as per information given by the BSE, no shares have been traded, but as per the depositions of Shri Narendra Shah, part of the shares of M/s Suryadeep Ltd. were sold through the BSE only and that shows that there is contradictions in respect of the information on record. It means that again on this aspect also, there is no consistency in the deposition of Shri Narendra Shah. Though one of the member of the Mansuri family was present at the time of the assessment, and he was allowed the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Narendra Shah, but it is not clear whether the opportunity to cross-examine Shri Narendra Shah was also given to both these assessees. So far as the reference of the letters of the main brokers namely M/s. Inventure Growth and Securities Pvt. Ltd and Action Financial Services Ltd. is concerned, it pertains to the stage when the assessees had purchased the shares. It is pertinent to note here that as per the case of the A.O, the entire share transaction of M/s Suryadeep Ltd. was an off market transaction, but at the same time, M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Share Pro Services Ltd. accepted and admitted that they were involved in the share transactions of M/s Suryadeep Ltd. on behalf of both the assessees. Both the sub-brokers have given the details of the parties, who had sold the shares of M/s Suryadeep Ltd. to the assessee through above sub- brokers as well as also produced the client's ledger account as appearing in their books of account. Hence, as rightly concluded by the Ld CIT(A), that the contradictions in the deposition of Shri Narendra Shah as well as the evidence 26 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 produced by M/s. Dhrishti Securities Pvt. Ltd. and M/s. Share Pro Securities Pvt. Ltd. (sub-broker) can be totally discarded ? Though the A.O has put his efforts to make out a case of alleged hawala transactions by use of device of 'Penny Stock', but in our humble opinion, the evidence and material relied by the A.O if are examined in touchtone of the general principles of the Evidence Act, same can not stand to support the findings of the A.O. as there are many of missing links. There is no dispute that the assessees had opened the Demat A/cs. and major share transactions of M/s Suryadeep Ltd. were routed through the said accounts. There is no bar for doing the share transaction in physical form. Merely because part of the share transactions are dealt in the physical form and part of the share transactions are in the de materialize d form, that cannot be the base for suspecting the bona fides of the transaction.
22. The A.O has also state d that the re was a gap in respect of the payme nts of the consideration. In our opinion, mere ly because the payments are not made on the dates of the transfe r of the share s e ithe r through the Demat A/c. or by way of a physical de livery, the A.O. cannot question the bona fides of the transaction, unless and until vary transaction itself is denie d by the othe r party. After considering the totality of the facts and and mate rial on record, we agree with the findings of the Ld CIT(A) that the high pitch additions made by the A.O. in both these cases, which are based on the statements and de positions of Shri Narendra Shah can not be sustaine d.
23. After giving our anxious considerations to the reasons given by the Ld CIT(A), we concur with his finding that the trasactions of purchase and sale of the share s of M/s. Suryadeep Ltd. as claimed by the assessees cannot be doubte d. Accordingly, ground nos. 1 to 4 in both appeals are dismissed
24. Now the next is in respect of dele ting the addition towards alle ged payme nt of 15% commission to Shri Shah for arranging alle ged accommodation entrie s. T he A.O. also made addition at 27 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008 15% of capital gain declare d by the assesses which is in respect of commission paid to Shri Shah. We have alre ady he ld that there is no creditworthine ss to the depositions made by Shri Shah as he kept changing his stateme nts. Moreover, there is also contradictions on this issue as at one stage he stated that he was paid 2 to 3% commission and in subseque nt state me nts he state d that he was paid 15% commission?. Othe r than contradictory state ments of Shri Shah, nothing is on record to corroborate the state ment of Shri Shah. It is also not the case of the A.O. that Shri Shah has declared any commission as stated by him. Only last para of the Asse ssment Order de als with this addition and on perusal of reasons this addition is only made on the basis of contradictory statements of Shri Shah and nothing more . In our opinion Ld. CIT(A) rightly de leted the addition and we concur with same . In the result ground no. 5 is dismisse d in both the appe als. Othe r grounds are gene ral in nature.
25. I n the result both appeals of the Revenue are dismissed.
Orde r pronounce d in the open court on 23rd February, 2010.
Sd/ - Sd/-
(B. RAMKOTAIAH) (R.S. PADVEK AR)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER J UDICIAL MEMBER
Mumbai, on this 23rd day of Fe bruary , 2010.
:US
Copy to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent ,
3.The CIT(A)- III , Mumbai
4.The CIT -3, Mumbai
5.The DR, "I" bench, Mumbai
6.Guard File
BY ORDER
True co py
Asstt..Re gistrar, ITAT, Mumbai.
28 ITA No. 5050 & 5051/Mum/2008
US
Date Initials
1. Draft dictated on 4/1/ 10 --------------- Sr.P.S.
2. Draft Placed be fore authority 5/ 1/10 -------------- Sr.P.S.
3. Draft proposed & place d ----------- ------------- JM
Before the Second Member
4. Draft discussed/ approve d ----------- ------------- JM/AM
By Second Member
5. Approved Draft comes to ----------- -------------
Sr.P.S.
the Sr. P.S./ P.S
6. Kept for pronouncement on -------- - -------------
Sr.P.S.
7. File sent to the Be nch Cle rk --------- -------------
Sr.P.S.
8. Date on which file goes to the ------- -------------
9. Date of dispatch of Order --------- -------------