PRAMOD B. AGARWAL(HUF),MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER-21(2)(5), MUMBAI

ITO 21(2)(5) Pramod B. Agarwal 107, Piramal Chamber, (HUF) बिधम/ Lalbaug, C/o-D.C. Jain and Co. 75, Mumbai-400012. Bombay Mutual Bldg, Vs. 293, Dr. D.N. Road, Fort, Mumbai-400001 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./ PAN No. AABHP3681F (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri D. C. Jain, AR प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondentby : Ms. N. Hemlatha, DR सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 06.02.18 Date of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / : 21/02/2018 Date of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

Per Sandeep Gosain, Judicial Member:

(AY 2007-08) 3. First of all we take up assessee’s appeal in (AY 2007-08)on the grounds mentioned herein below:-

1) Under the facts and circumstances the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 518073/- out of total Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 1344690/-as undisclosed income under the head income from the other sources, as assessed by the Assessing officer.

2) Under the facts and circumstances the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 22671/- made by the Assessing officer expenses 3/ Under the facts and circumstances the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 1160,615/- income from undisclosed sources made by the Assessing officer.

3 (a) :The learned Assessing officer failed to appreciate that: i/ The amount of Rs. 1160615/- is the receipt on account of sale of shares received through cheque and from MIs. Mangal das Securties Pvt. Ltd. 4/ Under the facts and circumstances the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 68368/- made by the Assessing officer assuming brokerage might have been paid.

5/ Under the facts and circumstances the learned CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 2500/- out of Rs. 6247/- on account of expenses for exempt income u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. made by the Assessing officer.

6) The Appellants craves leave to add, amend, alter, delete the ground/s of appeal at or before the hearing of appeal.

4 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) 4. The brief facts of the case are thatthe assessee filedits return of income for the AY 2007-08 on 30.07.2007 declaring total income at Rs. 14,11,059/-.The return was processed u/s.143(1) of the I.T.Act.

5 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) speculation profit or loss. The companies run by Shri MukeshChoksi were receiving commission for all these activities. The search action further revealed that none of the companies run by Shri MukeshChoksi had valid licence as a broker to trade any stock exchange as on the date of search during the period when the alleged transactions were carried out for the beneficiaries. As per the information passed by the Investigation Wing the various kinds of bills provided by MukeshChoksi group of companies are as under:- i) Speculation profit entries ii) Short term capital gain/loss iii) Long term capital Gain iv) Commodity bills v) Derivative profit/loss vi) One time Entry/Share Application Money vii) Bogus sales invoices On the basis of information received from DIT (I & C), New Delhi, that the assessee had taken accommodation entry from unscrupulous brokers, the Assessing Officer, after recording reasons, re-opened the assessment for A.Y.2007-08 on 21.03.2014 by issue of notice u/s.148 of the I.T. Act, 1961 and the same was duly served on the assessee. The assessee vide letter dated 11.08.2014 objected to reopening of assessment

6 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) under various issues and the same was disposed off by the AO vide letter dated 18.09.2014. Subsequently, the case was reopened under sec.147 r.w.s. 151(l) of the Act and the assessment was completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee preferred appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and Ld. CIT(A) after considering the case of both the parties, partly allowed the appeal of the assessee. Now before us, the assessee has preferred the present appeal by raising the above grounds.

Ground No. 3 & 3(a). 7. These grounds raised by the assessee are inter-connected and inter-related and relates to challenging the order of Ld.

7 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) CIT(A) in confirming the additions of Rs. 11,60,615/- by considering the same as income from undisclosed sources, therefore we thought it fit to dispose of the same by this common order.

Re: Addition of Rs. 11606151- stating income from undisclosed sources, The learned Assessing officer has stated in para No. 13 of the assessment order:-

“the transaction entered in to by the assessee with Ws. Affiance intermediaries & Net work Pvt. Ltd. is nothing but a bogus transaction, whereby a valiant attempt was made by the assessee to project it as a transaction entered into through a recognized stock exchange, through a broker/sub-broker and well as to project that 8 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) he has earned a long term capital gain in the said transaction. On the contrary, the facts and circumstances of the case narrated above go against the purported fact of transaction in shares claimed by the assessee. However, in view of discussion /explanation as above, it is amply proved that the sale value is a bogus flactitious entry and hence Rs. 1160615/- is added back as income from undisclosed sources to the total income of the assessee.

S.No. Name of the shares Qty. Purchase value sale price short term capital gain 1) Sundaram MUL 35000 413631 709675 296044 2) Paramount Com 4000 228912 450940 222028 642543 1160615 518072 The Appellant has declared the Short Term Capital Gains on sale/purchase shares of different companies. A statement of Short Term Capital Gains is filed before the Assessing officer, during the course of assessment proceedings. A copy of the same is at page No . the paper book. The learned Assessing officer has doubted about the aforesaid two scripts and concluded that: i) the transaction entered into by the assessee with MIs. Alliance Intermediaries & Net work Pvt. Ltd., is nothing but a bogus transaction. Ii) he has earned a long term capital Gains in the said transaction.

It is submitted that: i) The Appellant has produced the copies of the bills for purchase of shares through Ws. Alliance inter mediateries & Net work Pvt. Ltd. ii) the payments are made by cheque which is duly reflected in the bank statements. iii) Shares are duly reflected in the Demate Account. iv) the appellant has declared short Term Capital Gains on the sale of aforesaid shares and not the long term Capital gains as mentioned by learned Assessing officer. v) The Appellants has sold the aforesaid shares through M/s. Man galdas securities pvt. Ltd. and sale proceed is received through them. A statement of sale / purchase of shares through M/s. Man galdas securities pvt. Ltd. is filed before the Assessing officer and copy of the same is at page No. in the paper book. vi) the learned Assessing officer has concluded that sale value of Rs. 1160615/- is bogus and factious entry the appellant has received the sale consideration

10 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) through M/s. Mangaldas securities Pvt. Ltd., and not through M/s. Alliance Intermediaries & Net work Pvt. Ltd., where the transactions with Ws. Alliance intermediaries & Net work pvt. Ltd., has been treated as bogus transaction. vii) The learned Assessing officer has treated the sale consideration of Rs. 1160615/- as income from undisclosed sources, whereas the appellant has filed the full details of the sale /purchases of the transaction and the payments are received through the banking channels.

The addition on account of the sale value of Rs. 1160615/- is on the basis of assumptions and conjectures, which is bad in law.

The Income tax Appellate Tribunal, Mumbai has held in case of ACIT Vs. G. V. Sons that we can not accept a bold statement made by the A. O. that any transaction / business done with a party would be sham simply because the opposite party beside doing regular business was also indulging in providing accommodation entries, simply on the basis of statement given, without affording an opportunity of cross examination of the said party to the assessee. In view of the facts and circumstances, the addition of Rs.

by the revenue in para no. 17 to 24 of its order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 21 to 24 of its order and the same is reproduced below:-

21. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the appellant and the material available on record. My observations are as under:-

(i) M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. replied that no information is available with it as all documents are seized by the Income-taxDepartment.(ii) Notice u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act were issued to BSE and NSE withrespect to the details of M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. BSE vide letter dated 05.02.2014 has informed that M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. is not registered with it. NES has stated vide letter dated 29.01.2014 that the date of registration of M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. was 12.10.2000, which got cancelled on 19" Feb., 2004. Hence for the year under consideration, no transaction was carried out through the exchange.

13 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) (iii) Notices u/s 133(6) of the Act were issued at the addresses of M/s.Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. vide letter dated 14.01.2014 replied that no share transfer in the name of the appellant had taken place. There is noting on record to suggest that M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. confirmed the transaction of shares.

(iv) In the statement of MukeshChoksi,. it is admitted that its group concernM/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. has not carried out any genuine transactions and only accommodation entries are provided by them.

(v) The appellant vide letter dated 11.08.2014 has admitted that he haspurchased the shares of M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. from M/s Alliance Intermediates to the extent of Rs. 2,28,912/-and Rs. 4,13,631/- respectively.

(vi) The AO has also given the findings that the transactions, as claimed bythe appellant must have taken place off market without involvement of stock market. As per the sec. 13 of SCR Act, in such transactions payments for the purchases and delivery of shares must take place within 48 hours of the contract. It is also brought on record that although the 14 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) appellant has shown date of purchases as 25.09.2006 and 09.06.2006 respectively, there is no evidence regarding actual delivery of shares within 48 hours. This clearly establishes the sham nature of the transactions.

After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as considering the orders passed by revenue authorities and submissions made by both the parties, we find that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly appreciated the investigation and verifications carried out by the AO wherein, the AO after meticulously carrying out necessary verification and enquiry had established that the 16 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) purchases from M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s, Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. (MUL) are bogus and non-genuine. In this respect, necessary notices u/s 133(6) of the I.T. Act were also issued by the AO to the BSE and NSE for seeking details of M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. through whom the assessee has claimed to have purchased the shares. The BSE vide letter dated 05.02.2014 has informed that M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. is not registered with it whereas the NSE has stated vide letter dated 29.01.2014 that the date of registration of M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. was 12.10.2000, which got cancelled on 19" Feb., 2004. On the basis of these information, AO reached to the conclusion that for the year under consideration, no transaction was carried out through the exchange. As far as the another notice issued by the AO to M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. is concerned, in this respect, M/s Alliance Intermediates and Network Pvt. Ltd. had given specific reply that they have no information as all the documents have already been seized by the Income Tax Department.

17 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) We also noted that AO had issued notices u/s 133(6) of the Act at the addresses of M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd and in response to the said notices, M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. vide letter dated 14.01.2014 categorically replied that no shares were transferred in the name of the assessee and the assessee had not placed anything on record to suggest that M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. had confirmed the transaction of shares. Apart from above, we further noticed that revenue authorities have also considered the statement of Mukesh Choksi wherein he has admitted that his group concern M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. has not carried out any genuine transactions and on the contrary admitted that only accommodation entries were provided by the said concerns. On the basis of the above informations sought during the course of investigation, AO alternatively reached to the conclusion that the transactions, as claimed by the assessee must have taken place off market without involvement of stock market. It was further noticed by the revenue authorities that as per the sec. 13 of SCR Act, in such transactions, payments for the 18 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) purchases and delivery of shares must take place within 48 hours of the contract. On the contrary, the assessee could not place on record any evidence regarding actual delivery of goods within 48 hours which also clearly establish that alleged transactions are sham and bogus in nature. We also noticed that the findings of the AO collected during the inquiries were made available to the assessee during the course of assessment proceedings. But instead of substantiating his stand, the assessee had made only bald statements. Therefore, considering the facts of the present case, the AO has rightly made additions of Rs. 11,60,615/- thereby treating the purchase value of the shares as nil. During the course of arguments, our attention was also drawn by Ld. DR towards the orders passed by the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Disha N. Lalwani Vrs. ITO in ITA No. 6398/Mum/2012 wherein the Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT has also considered the conduct of Shri MukeshChoksi and his associated company /group concerns in providing bogus accommodation entries and it was categorically held that off market transactions were carried out by the 19 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) beneficiaries in collusion with Shri Mukesh Chokshi and the said transactions were although given the colour of the genuine transaction but the fact remains that only paper work was done in lieu of cash and there was no actual gain/transaction. After having gone through the orders passed by revenue authorities as well as considering the facts as discussed above, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the additions made by AO. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by LdCIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground no. 3 raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

20 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) In this regard, we are of the view that since, we have already upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) regarding addition of Rs. 11,60,615/- treating the purchase value of shares as NIL and by holding that the same were only accommodation entries. Hence the sale price of Rs. 11,60,615/- was also correctly held as income earned from undisclosed sources. Therefore, in view of our findings in ground no. 3, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Now we deal with other grounds raised by the assessee.

Ground No. 1. 12. This grounds raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 5,18,073/- out of total Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 13,44,690/-as undisclosed income under the head income from the other sources, as assessed by the Assessing officer.

21 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) 13. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 25 to 27 of its order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 27 and 27.1 of its order and the same is reproduced below:-

27. I have considered the above submissions of the appellant and the materialavailable on record. My observations are as under:-

27.1. It is found that the AO has reduced the Short Term Capital Gains by Rs. 5,18,072/- which was claimed to be earned on the purchases of shares from M/s Sundaram MUL and M/s Paramount Corporation Ltd., through M/s Alliance Intermediates &Net work Pvt. Ltd., treating it as fictitious. Hence, it is reduced from the total Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 13,67,361/- and bring down the STCG at Rs. 8,49,289/- . Once it has been held in the preceding paragraphs that the shares M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. claimed to be 22 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) purchased through M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. are merely accommodation entries and hence the sale price of Rs. 11,60,615/- shown as sale value will represent income earned from undisclosed sources, there is full justification in the action of the AO in reducing the STCG at Rs. 8,49,289/-. Moreover, there is no scope for allowing any expenditure as claimed qua the fictitious share transactions. Hence, the computation of STCG to be included in total income of the assessed is in order. Hence, ground of appeal no. 2 is dismissed.

After having gone through the facts of the present case as well as orders passed by revenue authorities, we are of the considered view that since we have already upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) by holding that the shares of M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. claimed to have been purchased through M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. were merely accommodation entries, therefore the sale price of Rs. 11,60,615/- shown as sale value will represent income earned from undisclosed sources.

23 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) Hence in these circumstances, we upheld the decision of Ld. CIT(A) wherein Ld. CIT(A) has appreciated the action of AO in reducing the STCG at Rs. 8,49,289/-. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by LdCIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Ground No. 2. 14. This grounds raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 22671/- made by the Assessing officer on account of expenses incurred and claimed as Share Trading expenses in earning the Short Term Capital Gains.

24 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) 15. We have heard the counsels for both the parties at length and we have also perused the material placed on record as well as the orders passed by revenue authorities. Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 28 to 30 of its order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 30, 30.1 to 30.3 of its order and the same is reproduced below:-

30. I have carefully considered the above submissions of the Ld. AR of theappellant on this issue and the material available on record. My observations are as under:-

30.1. In this regard, I agree with the Ld. AR that in the appellant's case, no material is brought on record or in the assessment order that there was any search action u/s. 132 or survey u/s. 133A of I.T. Act. Therefore, there is no question of any material collected, gathered or seized during the search/ survey proceedings for the purpose of section 292C of the I.T. Act as noted in the assessment order.

25 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) 30.2 It is also brought on record that interest on PPF amounting to Rs. 73,8031-is exempt from tax u/s.

10. Share Trading expenses of Rs. 30,136/- includes the service, tax, STT Del. Charges, stamp duty and other charges out of which the appellant has claimed only Rs. 22,671/- out of Short Term Capital Gains in the computation of income. Moreover, the speculation loss of Rs. 1,01,450/- shown i the Balance sheet is neither claimed as Loss to be carried forward for further adjustment in subsequent assessment years.

30.3 In the preceding paragraphs, it is held that Rs. 22671/- claimed as expenses against STCG is correctly disallowed by the AO. However, with respect to other disallowances, the AO is directed to examine the claim of the appellant and allow those which are either not taxable as PPF or not claimed in the P & L A/c but disallowed in the assessment order. Thus grounds of appeal no. 4 to 4(iii) are partly allowed.

After having gone through the aforementioned orders passed by revenue authorities as well as material placed on record and after considering the submission made by both the parties, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly considered the facts of the case and conclude in para no. 30.3 of 26 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) its order that a sum of Rs. 22,671/- claimed by the assessee as expenses against STCG are correctly disallowed. Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by LdCIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Ground No. 4. 16. This grounds raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 68,368/- made by the Assessing officer assuming brokerage might have been paid.

27 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) Before we decide the merits of the case, it is necessary to evaluate the orders passed by Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) has dealt with the above grounds raised by the revenue in para no. 31 to 34 of its order. The operative portion of the order of Ld. CIT(A) is contained in para no. 34 and 34.1 of its order and the same is reproduced below:-

34. I have also carefully considered the above submissions of the Ld AR of the appellant. My observations are as under:-

34.1. As stated in the preceding paragraphs the shares M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. claimed to be purchased through M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. are found to be merely accommodation entries and addition/disallowances to that effect has been confirmed by the undersigned. In this background, it is observed that MukeshChoksi in his statement required during the search proceedings had confirmed that his group entities are providing accommodation entries for some commission from the beneficiaries. Therefore, it is but logical to estimate the commission income with respect to accommodation entries received by the appellant @ 5% of Short Term Capital Gains of Rs. 13,67,361/-. Hence, in my opinion, estimation of Rs.

28 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) 68,368/- as commission paid for availing accommodation entries is in order and hence the same is confirmed. Thus, ground of appeal no. 5 and 5(a) are rejected.

After having gone through the orders passed by revenue authorities as well as material placed on record and after considering the submission made by both the parties, we are of the considered view that since we have already upheld the order of Ld. CIT(A) that the shares of M/s. Paramount Corporation Ltd. and M/s. Sundaram Multi Paper Ltd. claimed to be purchased through M/s Alliance Intermediates & Network Pvt. Ltd. are merely accommodation entries and additions /disallowance to that effect has already been confirmed. Therefore in our considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly upheld the estimation of commission with respect to accommodation entries @ 5% of short term capital gain.

Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by Ld CIT(A). Therefore, there are no 29 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Ground No. 5. 18. This grounds raised by the assessee relates to challenging the order of Ld. CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs. 2500/- out of Rs. 6247/- on account of expenses for exempt income u/s. 14A r.w. Rule 8D. made by the Assessing officer.

30 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) CIT(A) is contained in para no. 38 of its order and the same is reproduced below:- 38. The above submissions of the Ld. AR of the appellant have been considered.As claimed by the appellant, the exempt income from dividend of Rs. 2,500/- only was earned during the year under consideration, the AO is directed to restrict the addition made u/s 14A at Rs. 2,500/-. Thus, ground of appeal no. 6 and 6(a) are partly allowed.

After having gone through the orders passed by revenue authorities as well as material placed on record, we are of the considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has correctly restricted the addition made u/s 14A of the I.T. Act at Rs. 2,500/- by relying upon the orders passed by Coordinate Bench of Hon’ble ITAT in in the case of Sylvex Cable Co. Pvt. Ltd Vrs. DCIT wherein it was held that disallowance u/s 14A r.w.r. 8D should not exceed the dividend income earned by the assessee. Therefore in our considered view that Ld. CIT(A) has rightly restricted the addition made u/s 14A of I.T. Act in the case of assessee.

31 & 6582/Mum/2017 Pramod B. Agarwal (HUF) Moreover, no new facts or contrary judgments have been brought on record before us in order to controvert or rebut the findings so recorded by LdCIT(A). Therefore, there are no reasons for us to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence, we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly, this ground raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Ground No. 6 20. This ground is general in nature thus requires no specific adjudication.

ITA No. 6582/Mum/2017 (AY 2008-09) 21. Now we take up assessee’s appeal in for AY 2008-09. Since we have already decided the similar grounds of appeal in AY 2007-08 on merits. Therefore, following our own decision in ITA No. 6581/Mum/17, we apply the same findings in the

22. In the net result, both the appeals filed by the assessee stands dismissed.

Order pronounced in the open court on 21st Feb, 2018. Sd/- Sd/- (R. C. Sharma) (Sandeep Gosain) लेखासदस्य / Accountant Member न्याययकसदस्य / Judicial Member मुंबई Mumbai;यदनांकDated : 21.02.2018 Sr.PS. Dhananjay आदेशकीप्रनिनिनिअग्रेनर्ि/Copy of the Order forwarded to : अपीलाथी/ The Appellant 1. 2. प्रत्यथी/ The Respondent 3. आयकरआयुक्त(अपील) / The CIT(A) आयकरआयुक्त/ CIT- concerned 4. 5. यवभागीयप्रयतयनयध, आयकरअपीलीयअयधकरण, मुंबई/ DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गार्डफाईल / Guard File आदेशधिुसधर/ BY ORDER,