Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “I”, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI C.N. PRASAD, HONBLE & SHRI N.K. PRADHAN, HONBLE
O R D E R PER BENCH 1. All these appeals are filed by the Revenue against the common order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-36, Mumbai dated 23.02.2017 arising out of the Assessment orders passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Act for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2011-12 and Assessment Order passed u/s.143(3) for the Assessment Years 2012-13 & 2013-14.
2 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal 2. The common grounds of appeal in all these Revenue appeals relates to deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained unsecured loans.
ITA.NO.3091/MUM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2008-09 3. First we take up the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09. Briefly stated the facts are that, the assessment for the Assessment Year 2008-09 was reopened based on the search proceedings carried out in the case of Pravin Kumar Jain Group wherein Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is said to have deposed before the authorities that he is indulged in providing accommodation entries in the nature of the bogus bills/sales bills and unsecured loans. As per the information the assessee is one of the beneficiaries of such accommodation entries. In the course of Assessment Proceedings assessee was required to explain unsecured loans and prove genuineness of transactions, identity and creditworthiness of the unsecured loans, records and supporting documentary evidences. In response to the same, assessee furnished loan confirmations, bank statements, I.T. Return acknowledgements of the lender companies and also submitted that money has been borrowed through regular banking channels and it was repaid in subsequent years with interest. TDS was made on such interest. It was also further submitted that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain was retracted the statement which 3 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal he has said to have been given and therefore it was contended that transactions are genuine and they cannot be treated as unexplained unsecured loans. However, Assessing Officer rejected the submissions of the assessee holding that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain Group only engaged in providing accommodation entries of various nature and no genuine business was being carried out and the assessee obtained only accommodation entries from them and relying on the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act, the Assessing Officer concluded that assessee has obtained only accommodation entries from various parties referred to in the Assessment Order and added the amount shown as unsecured loans from these parties as unexplained unsecured loans and accordingly brought to tax. Assessing Officer also brought to tax the interest paid on such unexplained unsecured loans.
On appeal by the assessee the Ld.CIT(A) deleted the additions observing that the Assessing Officer has merely doubted the loans taken by the assessee from various parties and the Assessing Officer has gone only on the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain recorded in search proceedings ignoring the fact that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain later retracted such statements. The statements recorded were not supplied to the assessee and no opportunity for cross examination was given violating
4 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal the principle of natural justice and since the statements could not be utilized against the assessee without giving full and proper opportunity of cross examination. He relied on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Kishanchand Chellaram v. CIT [125 ITR 713]. He also observed that assessee submitted the confirmations from the parties, filed audit reports of the parties along with the copy of ITR and bank statements and therefore since the assessee has discharged its primary onus, the onus had shifted to the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer has not made any inquiries from the alleged lenders by summoning them. Further observing that the assessee has transacted through proper banking channels, interest was also paid by deducting TDS, the Ld.CIT(A) concluded that the Assessing Officer made addition disregarding the evidence on record and without discharging his onus and without establishing anything contrary to the submissions of the assessee and without verifying the bank account, existences of entities who have extended loans to the assessee and without making any fruitful investigation he directed the Assessing Officer to deleted the addition made towards unsecured loans.
The Ld.DR strongly supported the orders of the Assessing Officer. Further taking us through the Assessment Order, Ld.DR submits that Shri Pravin Kumar Jain has categorically said in his statement that he is 5 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal providing only accommodation entries and no genuine business was carried on and as per the information assessee is one of the beneficiary to such transactions and therefore the Assessing Officer rightly concluded that assessee has obtained only accommodation entries in the name of unsecured loans and the entities were not carrying out any business.
On the other hand, Learned Counsel for the assessee strongly supported the orders of the Ld.CIT(A). He further submitted that the Assessing Officer has relied on the information received from DGIT(Inv), Mumbai regarding the details of accommodation entries provided in the nature of bogus purchases/ sale bills and unsecured loans by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain Group. Further the Assessing Officer has stated in the order that DGIT(Inv) has carried out search and seizure action on Pravin Kumar Jain group. The report mentions Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is one of the entry providers, operating in Mumbai, indulged in providing accommodation entries in the nature of bogus purchases/sale bills and unsecured loans. The name of the assessee is in the list of the alleged beneficiaries to the said transactions. The list of parties from whom the assessee has availed accommodation/fictious bills as alleged by the Assessing Officer is as follows:
He submits that during the re-assessment proceedings the Assessing Officer asked to prove the genuineness of the transactions, identity and credit worthiness of the above companies. In respect of the same the assessee submitted Loan confirmation of unsecured loans along with their ITR-V and the affidavits from the said parties. It was submitted that the assessee has borrowed the money through proper banking channels. The bank statements highlighting the receipt of money were submitted before the Assessing Officer. It was further submitted that the assessee has subsequently repaid the loans. Further, with reference to the letter from DGIT(Inv) Mumbai, the assessee submitted that the said statement allegedly given by Shri Praveen Kumar Jain, has not confirmed yet by the Assessing Officer. Thus the alleged statement cannot be relied upon. Further it was submitted that the said Praveen Kumar Jain, has retracted his statement of giving accommodation loans, as evident from the coy of the affidavit, was submitted before the Assessing Officer. Therefore, Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the assessee has submitted the loan confirmations, bank statements showing the receipts and ITR-V of the lenders, the assessee has discharged his
7 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal primary onus by submitting all the documents establishing the genuineness of the transactions, identity of lender and its creditworthiness. It is submitted that all the transactions are carried out through proper banking channels, the assessee has provided substantial evidence of the loans received from parties, subsequent repayment of loans proves the genuineness of the loans. It is submitted that the Assessing Officer has not rebutted any of the evidences submitted by the assessee. Further the address as available with the assessee was provided to the Assessing Officer. It is submitted that the alleged statement given by said Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is retracted by himself subsequently. It is submitted that the alleged statement given by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain is not yet confirmed in his assessments and thus it cannot be considered as evidence. Therefore, it is submitted that the Assessing Officer has made additions merely relying on the report and no evidence was placed on record to make the additions.
Learned Counsel for the assessee further referring to Page Nos. 24 to 28 of the Paper Book submits that an identical issue came up before this Coordinate Bench in the case of DCIT vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd reported in [2017] 51 CCH and submits that the Hon'ble Bench held that the plain reading of the Assessment Order demonstrates that the Assessing Officer merely went by the investigation done by the office of 8 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal DGIT(Inv), Mumbai. No enquiries or investigation was carried out in the case of parties who lent the money, no evidence to controvert the claims of the assessee was brought on record by the Assessing Officer, even the submissions of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain was not supplied, nothing is on record about the result for investigations done by DGIT (Investigation), Mumbai, papers filed by the assessee do demonstrated identity creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions, therefore the addition is made merely on surmises and conjectures. The Learned Counsel for the assessee submits that the decision of the Coordinate Bench squarely apply to the facts of the assessee’s case. He also placed reliance on the following decisions for various propositions as under: - Case reference Proposition citation Kishanchand Burden of proof was on the Department to prove Chellaram v. CIT that the amount belonged to assessee. The [125 ITR 0713 (SC)] amount cannot be assessed as undisclosed income of assessee in the absence of positive material brought by Revenue to prove that the amount in fact belonged to assessee as the burden lay on the Revenue. DCIT v. Rohini Tribunal having deleted the addition under S.68 Builders, accepting the genuineness of loans which were [256 ITR 0360 received and repaid by assessee by account (Guj)] payee cheques, assessee having established the identity of the creditors by giving their complete addresses, GIT Numbers/PAN as well as confirmations along with the copies of their assessment orders wherever readily available. No substantial question of law arises.
9 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal Case reference Proposition citation H.R. Mehta v. ACIT The least that the Revenue should have done was [289 ITR 0561 to grant an opportunity to the assessee to meet (Bom)] the case against him by providing the material sought to be used against assessee in arriving before passing the order of reassessment. Assessee was bound to be provided with the material used against him apart from being permitting him to cross examine the deponents. Despite the request dated 15th February, 1996 seeking an opportunity to cross examine the deponent and furnish the assessee with copies of statements and disclose material, these were denied to him. CIT v. Ashwani Once there is a violation of the principles of Gupta natural justice in as much as seized material is not [322 ITR 0396 provided to an assessee nor cross-examination of (DEL)] the person on granted, then, such deficiencies would amount to a denial of opportunity and therefore, Tribunal was right in confirming the CIT(A)’s order in deleting additions made by the AO as he had neither provided copies of the seized material to the assessee nor had he allowed the assessee to cross-examine concerned party CIT v. K. Revenue having brought no material on record to Bhuvanendran & establish that consideration shown in the sale Ors. deed was understated and no material having [303 ITR 0235 been found during search to show that assessee (Mad) paid a sum over and above the stated consideration, no addition could have been made on the basis of retracted statement of assessee recorded during speech. CIT v. Sahibganj Where the amounts of loan were received by cheque and Electric Cables (P) Ltd. repayment was also made by cheque through assessee’s [115 ITR 0408 (Cal)] bankers; and confirmation of creditors along with their income-tax file numbers were furnished the assessee discharged its initial burden and ITO was not justified, in the absence of any further investigation, to reject the evidence and make addition.
10 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal 9. We have heard the rival submissions, perused the orders of the authorities below, the case laws relied on and the material furnished before us. The only issue involved in this appeal relates to the deletion of addition of ₹.20 lakhs made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained unsecured loans and interest thereon amounting to ₹.2,35,246/. Search and seizure action u/s. 132 of the Act has been conducted in the case of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain and statements were recorded from him and he is said to have been deposed that he is providing only accommodation entries through various concerns. On the basis of this information received from DGIT(investigation), Mumbai the Assessing Officer noted that assessee was one of the beneficiaries of accommodation entries given by Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. Assessee was required to explain the unsecured loans obtained in the name of M/s Mohit International and M/s.Natasha enterprises of ₹.10 lakhs each and prove the genuineness of the transactions. Assessee furnished information in respect of the above transactions i.e. copy of Loan confirmation and Affidavit establishing identity of the lender, copy of ledger giving detail towards loan taken during the year and subsequent repayments and Copy of ITR – V filed establishing Creditworthiness of the Lender. However, Assessing Officer did not accept the evidences furnished by the assessee and also the retraction statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain, ignoring all the 11 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal evidences Assessing Officer concluded that the assessee has not explained the transactions as genuine and therefore he has added the unsecured loans as unexplained income of the assessee. Correspondingly he has also disallowed the interest thereon. Before the Ld.CIT(A) assessee furnished all the information regarding the unsecured loans as mentioned above. The Ld.CIT(A) considering the submissions and the findings furnished by the assessee deleted the additions observing as under: - “6.2 HELD: - I have carefully perused the Assessment Order, written arguments of the appellant, counter arguments of the ld. AR and have considered the evidences on record and assessment record called for during the appellate proceedings. I find that eh Ld. Assessing Officer has merely doubted the loans taken by the appellant from (1) Mohit International amount to ₹.10,00,000/- and (2) Natsha Enterprises amounting to Rs.10,00,000/- aggregating at Rs. 20,00,000/-. I find force in the argument of the Ld. AR. It is very important to mention here that the appellant has discharged his onus and the Ld. Assessing offices has not proved otherwise than doubting the loans. Apparently, Ld. Assessing officer has not substantiated his presumption, his doubt with any verifiable documents. He has merely described the statement of Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain and as communicated by the investigation wing. Thus, it is very evident that the Ld. Assessing officer has not made any independent enquiry in order to establish the in- genuineness of loans if any, with contrary evidence. The statements referred to and relied upon by the assessing officer have never been disclosed to the appellant opportunity for cross examination was also not given, hence
12 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal such statement could not be utilized against the appellant without giving full and proper opportunity of cross examination as has been held vide Mahesh Gulabral Joshi Vs. CIT(A) (2005) 95 lTD 300 Mumbai ITAT and Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of KishanchandChellaram Vs. CIT (125 ITR 713 (SC)).
6.3. Further during the course of assessment proceedings, the appellant has produced copy of a comprehensive Affidavit of Shri. Pravin Kumar Jain dated 25.04.2014 retracting, the statements made before the Investigation Wing. Assessing officer has not given opportunity to the appellant for cross examination of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain. Going by the discussion contained above, it is obvious that the inference drawn by the Assessing officer against the appellant is not sustainable for the simple reason that the principles of natural justice have not been followed. First and foremost, the appellant has not been given any access to the material (reports, intimations, statement etc.) used against it. Secondly, by withholding the said material the assessing officer has denied to the appellant an opportunity to refute the evidence by cross examining the witnesses, statements, if any made by whom, incriminated the appellant. On both counts, the impugned assessment order fails squarely.
6.4. It has to be said that the appellant had done everything in its power to prove the three ingredients required to prove the satisfactory nature of the loan transactions. He has submitted confirmation from the parties. filed Audit Reports of the parties alongwith copy of their ITR, and bank statements. In these circumstances, the onus had shifted to the assessing officer. If the assessing officer was still not satisfied, he had the option of making enquiries from the alleged lenders by summoning them. However as seen from the assessment order, he did not do any such thing. Further,
13 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal if the assessing officer was satisfied with what had been given to him by the appellant, he was duty bound to specify what more material he wanted from the appellant to furnish. The assessing officer never asked for any further material. This leads to the inescapable conclusion that the Assessing Officer could not think of any further material to ask for and proceeded to reject the appellant’s claims, relying upon the information/ material, which he never even brought to the notice of the appellant for any rebuttal. The unequivocal conclusion is that all the three ingredients having been satisfied.
6.5. The AO did not consider the evidences provided by the appellant as satisfactory. According to him, submissions and statements given by Sh. Pravin Kumar Jain confirmed that they had issued only bogus bills/accommodation entries to the interested parties. However, he did not bring out the relevant extract from the statement where they have admitted that they have given accommodation entries to the appellant. Moreover, he had just referred to the statement of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain Group without giving specific details as to who is the person who is giving the statement and what exactly did he admit. Instead of stating that the party did not exist, he should have summoned the party and recorded the statement. As the AO, has not brought anything in record to show that the evidences filed by the appellant are false, the loan received and repaid by the appellant cannot be treated as bogus. The addition cannot be made merely on the basis of suspicion, surmises and conjectures. There has to be some concrete evidence whether direct or circumstantial. In this case, no such evidence is present. On the contrary, the appellant is showing from the record that he has received loan through account payee cheques from above TWO PARTIES. He has shown that the loans have been repaid through account payee cheque and as long as he was holding the loan, he has paid the interest after deducting
14 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal TDS. With regard to the disallowance of interest on loans taken from afore-mentioned parties, the appellant submitted that the AO has also ignored the fact that the said interest expenses were incurred wholly, exclusively & necessarily for business of the Appellant. The interest paid on loans was subject to TDS. During the present proceedings, the appellant also submitted the details of the TDS made on the loans wherever it is applicable and the details of amount of TDS paid into the Government account. In the appellant case the addition made towards the said loans is deleted after discussing the issue in detail in the above paragraphs.
6.6. Thus, above discussion and various explanations leads to the conclusions that the Ld. Assessing officer has made addition of ₹.20,00,000/- and interest given to the parties, disregarding the evidence on record and without discharging his onus and without establishing anything to the contrary to the submissions of the appellant and without verifying the bank account, existence of entities who have extended loans to the appellant and without making fruitful investigation. Therefore, the Assessing officer is directed to delete the addition made of Rs.20,00,000/- on account of unexplained unsecured loans and ₹.2,35,246/- made on account interest on the same. The grounds of appeal are allowed.
10. On a plain reading of the Assessment Order, we find that the Assessing Officer has gone only by the statement recorded from Shri Pravin Kumar Jain who said to have been deposed that he is only providing accommodation entries and no real business is carried on by the entities. The Assessing Officer has not made any efforts to make independent enquiries with the lender companies. We also observe from 15 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal the Assessment Order that the Assessing Officer has not provided the statements of Shri Pravin Kumar Jain to the assessee for its rebuttal. Nothing is placed on record to suggest that the information furnished by the assessee in the form of copy of affidavit, establishing identify of the lender, copy of the ledger giving details of loans confirmation taken and also repayment in subsequent years, copy of bank statement highlighting the natures of loan taken and repayment in subsequent years to establish the genuineness of the transactions copy of ITR –V filed establishing creditworthiness of the lender are non-genuine. It was also noted by the Ld.CIT(A) that the assessee has provided the identity creditworthiness as well as the genuineness of the transactions. The Ld.CIT(A) also elaborately considered the submissions and the averments made by the Assessing Officer in the Assessment Order and the evidence furnished by the assessee and concluded that the assessee has discharged its primary onus on providing complete details in respect of the loan transactions and the Assessing Officer failed to carry out any fruitful investigation. Therefore, no addition can be made towards unexplained unsecured loans, this finding in our view is completely justified in view of the facts and circumstances of the assessee’s case.
An identical issue came up in the case of DCIT vs. Bairagra Builders P. Ltd reported in [2017] 51 CCH 0107 in ITA.No. 4691 and 16 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal 4692/Mum/2015 dated 14.09.2017 wherein the Coordinate Bench held as under: “6. We have heard the rival submissions along with the orders of the tax authorities below. We noted that during the impugned assessment year, the assessee had taken unsecured loans from the following two parties:
Sr. Name of the Party PAN Loan Rate of No and Address taken(Rs.) Interest 1. Javda India Impex AAACA7065L 20,00,000 9% Limited CS-1, Silver Anklet, Yari Road, Versova, Mumbal 400 061 2. Lexus Infotech Ltd. AAACL4646G 20,00,000 9% 626, Panchratna, Opera House, Mumbai 400 002 When the Assessing Officer asked the assessee to prove the genuineness of these loans, the assessee submitted the following documents: a. Copy of acknowledgment of income tax return filed for A.Y. 2007-08. b. Copy of PAN of the parties c. Copy of bank statement of the parties from where the cheque is issued. d. List of directors of the parties e. Copy of annual report of the parties for financial year 2006-07. f. Copy of loan confirmation from the parties.
The Assessing Officer treated these loans to be non- genuine and made addition u/s 68 of the I.T Act on the basis of the statement of Shri Nilesh Parmar, one of the associate of Shri Praveen Kumar Jam, Director of Mohit International and one of the dummy Director of some of the 17 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal companies of Shri Praveen Kumar Jam. Although said statement has been immediately retracted by him by filing an affidavit with the CBDT, the CIT(A) has deleted the said addition as in his opinion the assessee has duly discharged his onus as laid down on it u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act. It was also noted by the CIT(A) that the assessee has proved the identity, credit worthiness as well as genuineness of the transactions and, therefore, no addition u/s. 68 can be made.
7. The learned AR before us relied on the order of the CIT(A) and has also pointed out that the loan received by the assessee has been returned to the respective parties through cheques and in none of the case the respective party has deposited any cash. He relied on the following Tribunal decisions:
• Arceli Realty Ltd vs. ITO [ITA No.6492/Mum/2016 dated 21.04.2017 (Mumbai)] • M/s Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO [ITA No.437/Hyd/2016 dated 25.11.2016 (Hyderabad)] • Sudhanshu Suresh Pandhare vs. ITO [ITA No.5185/Mum/2012 dated 05.10.2016 (Mumbai)] • Dilsa Distributors Combines vs. ITO [ITA No.5849/Mum/2011 dated 06.09.2013 (Mumbai)] • Aim Properties & Investments Pvt. Ltd vs. ITO [ITA No.7426/Mum/2012 dated 04.12.2013 (Mumbai] He further placed reliance on the following judgments:
Nemi Chand Kothari vs. CIT [2004] 136 Taxman 213 (Gau) Vijay Kumar Talwar vs. CIT [2011]330 ITR 1 (SC)
18 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal 8. The learned DR, on the other hand, relied on the decisions of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Principal CIT vs. Bikram Singh ITA.No. 55/2017 & CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. in ITA.No.525/2014.
We have gone through the orders relied upon by the learned DR. We noted that the decision of the Delhi High Court in the case of Bikram Singh, the assessee could not discharge the onus as laid down by section 68 of the Act. Similarly, in the case of CIT vs. Jansampark Advertising & Marketing Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the additions have been made u/s. 68 in respect of the share capital received by the assessee from various companies and during the course of investigation, it was found that the share capital has been received from three entry operators, who are allegedly in the business of providing accommodation entries. Notices issued u/s. 131 to these parties were returned undelivered by the postal authorities with the remark "left"/ "no such person". Under these circumstances, the Hon'ble High Court took a view that the assessee failed to discharge the burden to prove the credit worthiness as well as the genuineness of the transactions.
But in the impugned case, we noted that the assessee has submitted all the evidences including the confirmation of the creditors. This is not a case where the creditors have not given confirmations rather they have duly confirmed to giving loan to the assessee, the loans were received and returned through banking channels. The assessee has also submitted copies of bank accounts. The lender has not deposited cash into bank account. The assessee has duly discharged the onus with regard to identity of the lender, credit worthiness of the party and all supporting evidences as required u/s. 68 of the I.T.Act. Therefore, in our opinion the decisions relied upon by the
11. We have also gone through the decisions relied upon by the learned AR. We noted that this Tribunal in similar circumstances in the case of Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. vs. ITO in vide its order dated 25.11.2016 has held as under: A plain reading of the assessment order demonstrates that the AO merely went by the Investigation done by the office of D G. I T (Investigation), Mumbai. No enquiries or investigation was carried out. No evidence to controvert the claims of the Assessee was brought on the record by the AO. Even the statement of Shri Praveen Kumar was supplied. Nothing is on record about the result If investigations done by DGIT (Inv), Mumbai. The papers filed by the assessee do demonstrate the identity, creditworthiness and genuineness of the transaction. The addition is made merely on surmises and conjectures.
In view of the above, we hold that the addition made under section 68 of the Act is bad in law. We noted that in the said case also loan had been received from Javda India Impex Ltd.
Being consistent with the view taken by this co- ordinate Bench in the case of Komal Agrotech Pvt. Ltd. (supra), and in view of the facts and circumstances, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the orders of the CIT(A). It is accordingly, confirmed for both the years under appeal.
In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
20 TO 3096/MUM/2017 Shri Ramesh Ramswarupdas Jindal 12. In view of the above discussion we do not find any illegality and infirmity in the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) in deleting the addition made towards unproved unsecured loans and therefore we affirm the order of the Ld.CIT(A). ITA.NOs.3902 TO 3096/MUM/2017 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2009- 10 TO 2013-14:- 13. The facts being identical in the appeals for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14, the decision taken by us in the appeal for the Assessment Year 2008-09 shall apply mutatis-mutandis to the appeals for the Assessment Years 2009-10 to 2013-14.
In the result all the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 15th November, 2017.