LATE SUNIL D GULATI,MUMBAI vs. JCIT CEN CIR 39, MUMBAI

to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 2 assessee and on almost similar issue, so they are being disposed of by common order for the sake of convenience.

“GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming rejection of books of accounts of the appellant and estimating the turnover and profit of the business of Rs. 38,06,951/- and Rs.15,22,780/- respectively.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of estimated turnover and profit to the extent of Rs. 15,22,780/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND II :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 4,80,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account Of unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs.4,80,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND III :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 61,23,440/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 3 made on account of current liabilities as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 61,23,440/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IV :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in making are addition on account of estimating withdrawal at Rs. 4,80,000 as against of Rs. 2,34,218/- shown in capital account and added the difference at Rs. 2,45,782/- on account of withdrawals.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 2,45,782/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.”

3.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein first issue was raised with regard to rejection of books of accounts of deceased assessee and estimation of turnover and profit of the business of Rs.38,06,951/- and Rs.15,22,780/- respectively out of total addition. During course of assessment proceedings, it was observed that deceased assessee had not furnished copy of Profit & Loss Account along with the submissions. Deceased assessee vide show-cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was specifically asked as to why in the absence of P & L account, his turnover and net profit should not be estimated on the basis of details available on record. In response to same, deceased assessee submitted that expenses were correctly claimed and supported by vouchers/bills, same could not be disallowed. Deceased assessee also claimed that his turnover was Rs.7,87,560/- and net profit was Rs.2,80,000/- which was 35% of the turnover. But according to Assessing Officer, neither books of account nor any supporting documents in respect of any of the above claims were produced by deceased assessee. According to Assessing Officer, deceased assessee also failed to furnish to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 6 explanation about credit entries, appearing in his bank accounts along with supporting documents. Under these circumstances, it was inferred by Assessing Officer that deceased assessee had neither maintained his books of account nor any supporting documents/details were there. According to the Assessing Officer, non-maintenance of books of account in a logical and legal manner was a specific defect which showed that the books of account of deceased assessee were not complete so as to deduce the correct profit therefrom. Hence, Assessing Officer opined that the aforesaid defects in the books of accounts called for rejection of the same by invoking the provisions of Section 145(3) of the Act. Assessing Officer was of the view that non-production of books and supporting documents/details made correctness and completeness of the books of account of deceased assessee questionable. Therefore, Assessing Officer by rejecting the books of account of deceased assessee proceeded to estimate the deceased assessee’s income. The Assessing Officer estimated the deceased assessee’s turnover at Rs.38,06,951/- on the basis of entries appearing in his bank accounts. While estimating the turnover, the credit entries added u/s.68 of the Act were duly considered. Therefore, considering the deceased assessee’s own estimate of net profit @35% and after considering the personal clement in various expenses claimed @ 25% as mentioned, the deceased assessee’s net profit of the business was estimated at 40% of its turnover which comes to Rs.15,22,780/-. Accordingly, the deceased assessee’s net profit was estimated at Rs. 15,22,780/-. In appeal before the First to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 7 Appellate Authority, various contentions were raised on behalf of deceased assessee and having considered the same, CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer who estimated the net profit at Rs.15,22,780/- after rejecting the books of account.

3.2 Same has been opposed before us inter alia submitting that CIT(A) was not justified in confirming the estimation of turnover and profit thereon at Rs.15,22,780/-. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that addition in question is not justified by way of making estimation of turnover and profit thereon. Assessing Officer has not given actual working as to how the estimated turnover of Rs.38,06,951/- was calculated. The stand of deceased assessee has been that he used to deal in Navi-Mumbai areas. He used to identify those suitable locations of CIDCO plots belonging to different farmers, get them properly allotted to them and enter into MoUs with them for sale of the said plots of land to the Real Estate developers who were in need of these plots. It was clarified that though he was not buying and selling the plots on his own, yet he, as a broker, negotiated the deals between the seller-cum-farmers and the buyers-cum-developers-builders. Since, deceased assessee earned reasonable amount of commission in the Real Estate deals made through him. Deceased assessee was doing said business for developers/investor as stated above. Assessing Officer did not agree with the concept of commission agency by assessee. Since, Assessing Officer did not accept the books of account, so, he estimated the turnover and profit thereon. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that these to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 8 additions are not based on the seized materials at the time of search as discussed above, but only on the basis of cash flow statement prepared by assessee irrespective of correlation to search material. So, addition in question has no nexus with search material, so, addition is not justified in view of decision of All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. So, in the proceedings after search in the assessment u/s.153A of the Act addition should have nexus with seized material found at the time of search. Without prejudice to above, estimation of turnover and profit thereon in question is also not based on material on record. Agreeing to alternative contention of assessee, we find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by assessee in his name. It could have been corroborated by Assessing Officer with real instances of transaction which has not been done by him. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on money transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

4.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein CIT(A) confirmed Rs.4,80,000/- out of Rs.6,80,000/-. There is nothing on record to suggest that Revenue is against partial relief granted by CIT(A). So, narrow issue before us is regarding confirmation of Rs.4,80,000/- made u/s.68 of the Act. The stand of deceased assessee has been that deceased assessee has accepted Rs. 3 lacs and Rs.1,80,000/- from M/s.Shubham Estate Consultants and M/s. Ramesh Homes Building & Developer respectively, Assessing Officer has accepted that though confirmations from the said parties were filed but they did not appear before Assessing Officer. Without prejudice to above, stand of assessee has been that the above addition in question is having no nexus with the seized material found during course of search in question. So, addition is not justified in view of ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. (supra). Agreeing to the contention of ld. Authorized Representative, we are of the view that Assessing Officer was not justified in making addition u/s.68 of the Act to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 10 without making nexus of the same with the seized material found at the time of search. Moreover, non appearance of creditor before Assessing Officer is not sound basis of addition in question while they have confirmed the same and all details of parties were with Assessing Officer at relevant point of time including their PAN number. Assessing Officer has not exercise his option to summon parties to verify the fact which has not been done for the reasons known to him. So, addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

5.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of deceased assessee and having considered the same, CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer. The stand of assessee has been that to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 11 vide letter dated 14.12.2011 all details of current liabilities on 19.12.2011 were submitted. It was stated that these amounts were received from the said two parties as advance for the purchase of land. It was pointed out that till the time the lands were handed over to them and those amounts were wrongly reflected as liabilities owned by deceased assessee to those parties. Since, deceased assessee had filed confirmation from both parties, addition of Rs.61,23,440/- was not warranted. Deceased assessee has categorically given the details of parties and transactions therewith. Once transaction was stated to be completed, so, it was no more liability. All details in this regard were filed before Revenue authorities. Assessee has tried to prove the identity by giving details of parties. Agreeing to alternate contention of assessee, we hold that addition in question having no nexus with seized material as discussed above, so in view of the ratio laid down in All Cargo Global Logistic Ltd. (supra), addition u/s.68 of the Act is not justified. Under facts and circumstances, the addition in question is directed to be deleted.

“GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.1,30,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,30,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND II :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash / unaccounted transaction for Rs.1,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained cash credit u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs.1,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND III :- to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 13

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 51,68,811/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 51,68,811/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IV :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals of Rs. 4,27,716/- than shown in capital account at Rs. 1,72,284/- on account of withdrawals.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 4,27,716/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND V :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.51,229/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses.

The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 51,229/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.”

ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 14 Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet. In his answer to Question no. 4, statement record during course of search in his office, deceased assessee categorically stated that while dealing in 12.5% CIDCO Plots, the consideration paid to the farmers/investors was both in cash and by cheques. During course of search, a number of computer generated sheets were found at the business premises of deceased assessee containing various details in respect of each particular land deal. These sheets hereinafter have been termed as ‘Deal Wise Excel Sheet’ (DWES). Each sheet corresponded to a particular deal and showed the status of payments made by cheque as well as in cash as on a particular date. The amounts of ‘on- money’ paid were found to be not reflected in the books of account of deceased assessee. During course of post search proceedings on 18.04.2009, deceased assessee submitted fund flow/cash flow statements covering five F.Ys. from 2004-05 to 2008-09. These statements showed personal cash dealings as well as those relating to his business. According to Assessing Officer, a preliminary analysis of these two statements revealed that they had several defects/ shortcomings as outlined in paras 3.3 to 3.3.4 on page 3-4 of the impugned order for which no clarification was given at the time of assessment. So, he concluded that these statements did not reflect the true and correct picture of the business and personal transactions of deceased assessee and as such could not be relied upon. Deceased assessee was asked to furnish complete details/explanation in respect of all such DWES along with to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 15 supporting documents and evidences. Assessing Officer noticed that payments in cash were reflected neither in deceased assessee’s books of account produced during the course of assessment proceedings nor in the cash flow statement of his business. As mentioned in para 7.2 of the impugned order, documents marked Annexures A-l and A-3 impounded from Arenja office and Annexure A-2 seized from Kaveri premises contain such DWES. On the basis of these documents, assessment year-wise cash payments were analysed and it was found that cash payments amounting to Rs.1,30,000/-pertained to A.Y.2004-05 which were not reflected in deceased assessee's books of account. In view of above, the amount of unaccounted cash payments of Rs.1,30,000/- was held as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act, which was confirmed by CIT(A).

9.1 We find that assessee had been doing agency work on behalf of other parties. There is nothing on record to suggest that assessee was doing the said transaction at his own. Assessing Officer has not brought anything on record to suggest that above land transaction were done by him in his personal capacity. In such situation, assessee cannot be taxed on the basis of on investment transaction of its client. So, addition in hand of assessee is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

11.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee. As stated above, Assessing Officer has stated that current liabilities aggregating to Rs.1,09,68,811/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 of the Act as deceased assessee failed to discharge his onus by not establishing the identity and creditworthiness of concerned parties as well as genuineness of transactions at the time of assessment. In appeal, CIT(A) restricted the addition to Rs.51,68,811/- out of current liabilities. The stand of assessee has been that he was broker in Real Estate as discussed above. He was doing deal on behalf of other i.e. purchasing land from farmers 12.5% CIDCO Plots facilitated to the same thereafter to the main investors. to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 17 As stated above, assessee was broker, transactions were doen on behalf of investor. Assessing Officer has brought nothing on record to suggest that as in fact dealing in land as parties. Same could be done by making nexus to land deal. But, on such effort has been made by revenue authorities. In view of above discussion, addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs. 63,51,926/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND II :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.1,71,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs.1,71,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND III :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.16,77,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 16,77,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IV :- to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 19

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.11,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 11,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND V :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 81,88,760/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 81,88,760/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VI :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in making addition on account of estimating withdrawals at Rs. 7,20,000/- and added Rs.92,443/- over and above the amount shown in capital account at Rs. 6,27,557/- on account of withdrawals.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 92,443/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VII :- to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 20 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.35,419/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses.

The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 35,419/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.”

18.1 As we have discussed similar matter in A.Y. 2003-04, wherein stand of assessee has been that deceased assessee is only a real estate agent or broker or deal maker and hence he used to block the plots by giving some advances to the plot owners-cum-farmers for which they would issue the receipts and for the sake of effective control and monitoring, deceased assessee was keeping with him all the receipts either paid by him directly or paid by the intending buyers. Out of these receipts, it was stated that one receipt of Rs.77,000/- has been recorded in the books of accounts to the extent actually paid by deceased assessee. As regards other receipts of to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 26 Rs.16,00,000/-, it was claimed that receipts of Rs.8,00,000/- each from Nayeem Abdul Patel and Arif Ibrahim Patel were fictitious and not actual. It was contended that even name of the persons was bogus and receipts were exaggerated and that there was no transaction of 3100 sq. mtrs. plot at Owe. It was stand of assessee that while carrying on his business, assessee sometimes used to create some non-genuine receipts from the farmers-cum-plot owners as if deceased assessee had made payments to them or received money from them and it was argued that these receipts did not represent real transactions at all. It was submitted that assessee is bound to follow this practice, however undesirable it may appear to be, in the cut- throat competitive Real Estate market so that he can project to the intending buyers/developers/builders of the plots as though deceased assessee is having numerous plots for sale on hand. It was also stand of assessee that no papers or documents seized from deceased assessee’s premises have any correlation with these receipts. It was also pointed out that Assessing Officer also had not linked these receipts with necessary material evidences with the plots actually transacted by the deceased assessee i.e. purchased or sold through him. In view of this, Revenue authorities have to bring concurrent evidence with regard to the said explanation vis-à-vis plot. Deceased assessee was not an investor. He was doing investment on behalf of other parties. He might have done something wrong for increasing brokerage business. After search, Revenue authorities had option to unearth transaction correspondence to the expenditure in question which has not ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 27 been done, meaning thereby, Revenue authorities have not found this document in course of search. So, such transactions done for the sake of business cannot be made sound basis for addition in question. In view of above discussion, addition is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

19.1 Matter was carried before the CIT(A), wherein various contentions were raised on behalf of assessee and having considered the same CIT(A) confirmed the order of Assessing Officer.

19.2 Stand of assessee has been that deceased assessee neither paid any cash or cheque for the purchase of any plots in his name nor did he receive any cash or cheque for the sale of any plots in his name. It was stand of deceased assessee that deceased assessee had not bought any plot of land for his own purpose. In all the dealings he made in the above said CIDCO 12.5% plot scheme he was acting as agent only. So, these payments were not the payments of deceased assessee. It was categorically claimed that whenever deceased assessee received payments in cash or cheque which were payable to the land owners, those had been shown as receipts and whenever these were to be disbursed to the farmers, these were shown as payments. Both these receipts and payments were not part of transaction of deceased assessee but payments routed through him as agent. It is claimed that he kept simply the record of the receipts and payments of those transactions for his day-to-day business activities for ensuring the prompt and actual payments made by the investor to the land owners as per terms and conditions and price negotiated by parties. In fact, assessee was simply broker in all these details. There is to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 29 nothing on record to suggest that assessee has made these transactions in his name. So, these records were not part of books of accounts of deceased assessee and that he was only the record keeper of these transactions as a property broker. Therefore, in name of assessee, no income could be determined on the basis of these extraneous records. Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.11,00,000/-on the basis of transactions recorded on Page 14 of Annexure A-l containing the details of the amounts paid in cash to Sumeet Bacchewar and Rakesh Surve during F.Y. 2004-05. As stated above, Revenue has not brought anything on record of actual transaction done by deceased assessee himself. As deceased assessee’s consistent stand has been accepted by us that he was only a Real Estate agent or broker or deal maker and hence he used to block the plots by giving some advances to the plot owners-cum-farmers on behalf of investors only. Revenue authorities had not brought anything on record to suggest that assessee himself purchased property in question from the farmers. In such a situation, assessee was entitled for brokerage only. In view of above, addition in question is not justified. Same is directed to be deleted.

20.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein out of Rs.72,28,760/-, addition to the extent of Rs. 44,21,760/- and out of Rs.1,28,67,000/-, addition to the extent of Rs.37,67,000/- sustained by CIT(A) which comes to Rs.81,88,760/-. Revenue is not in appeal against this relief granted to assessee.

20.2 With regard to unsecured loan of Rs.72,28,760/-, the assessee has furnished the confirmation letter from 9 parties who had given unsecured loans of Rs.41,59,610/- to assessee. As regards sum of Rs.22,50,000/- shown in the name of Radhika Flat (Shaziya Dhanani), it was submitted that this was part of sale proceeds of assessee's self occupied property, namely, Radhika Flat in Vashi received from Shaziya Dhanani through pay orders. It was submitted that these pay orders were encashed through assessee’s account in the Cosmos Co- op. Bank Ltd and these were duly reflected in the balance sheet of assessee. It was stated that in the same year, assessee had purchased a residential flat at Bandra for Rs.48,03,730/- for which entire sale proceeds of Radhika Flat were utilized. It was claimed that deceased assessee was entitled to exemption u/s.54 of the Act and hence no tax was attracted on the same. Revenue authorities have not rebutted the same by cogent reasoning. With regard to unsecured loan of Rs.5,19,150/- from Sandeep Rangras, it was submitted that addition of opening balance of Rs.2,00,000/- was already made in to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 31 A.Y.2004-05 and Rs.3,19,l50/- was accepted during the year. As regards unsecured loans of Rs.1,19,000/- from Satyam Estate Consultant (Rajesh Gulati), it was submitted that Assessing Officer had made addition of Rs.6,69,000/- in A.Y.2004-05 itself. It was stated that deceased assessee made repayment of Rs.5,50,000/- during financial year relevant to assessment year under appeal. This has resulted in reduced closing balance of Rs.1,19,000/- which the Assessing Officer again added inadvertently as a new deposit. Without prejudice to the above, there were no fresh receipts of loan from the above party during the period. The loan taken from Satyam Estate Consultant was genuine as per the confirmation letter filed in A.Y.2004-05. In respect of unsecured loan of Rs.4,38,000/- from Shubham Estate Consultant (Pradeep Gulati), the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.4,60,000/- in A.Y.2004-05 itself. It was stated that deceased assessee had made repayment of Rs.22,000/-during the financial year relevant to the assessment year under appeal. This has resulted in reduced closing balance of Rs.4,38,000/- which Assessing Officer again added inadvertently as a new deposit. It was claimed that there were no fresh receipts of loan from the above party during the period. In view of above facts on record, the addition in question is not justified. Same cannot be sustained. Without prejudice to the above, it was stand of assessee that loan taken from Shubham Estate Consultant was genuine as per the confirmation letter filed in earlier years as well as in the assessment year under consideration. Taking to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 32 all these facts and circumstances into consideration, additions in question are not justified. Same are directed to be deleted.

“GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in making protective assessment of Rs.1,56,33,474/-.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs. 1,56,33,474/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND II :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.45,13,442/- as unexplained deposits u/s.68 in respect of the two savings bank account alleged as undisclosed in the Balance Sheet/books of accounts.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained deposits/ unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs.45,13,442/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND III :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.1,47,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act. to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 34

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs. 1,47,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IV :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.43,14,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 43,14,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND V :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.4,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 4,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VI :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 43,32,400/- u/s. 68 of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 35 of Rs. 43,32,400/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VII :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals of Rs.2,08,829/- than shown in capital account at Rs.5,71,171/- on account of withdrawals.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 2,08,829/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VIII :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.53,398/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses.

The appellant being aggrieved prays that the disallowance made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 53,398/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IX :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs.1,75,262/- alleging it being not for the business purpose.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs.1,75,262/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.”

ITA Nos.3496 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 36 25. First issue is with regard to protective assessment of Rs.1,56,33,474/-. During course of search, certain bank accounts viz. current account No.117150050800335 & 029204301220192 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd., respectively, in the name of M/s. Sadguru Arts were not found to be disclosed by deceased assessee in his regular books of account. It was observed by Assessing Officer that deceased assessee was a proprietor of M/s. Sadguru Arts. Further, deceased assessee was having two bank accounts with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited, viz., Current Account No.117150050800336 and Account No.117700480100052 which were operative since F.Y.2005-06 relevant to A.Y.2006-07. In his statement on oath u/s.131 of the Act recorded on 19.02.2009 during course of survey at his office premises, deceased assessee had stated that he had made a film, namely, "Dhamki" during F.Y. 2002-03 in his proprietary concern M/s. Sadguru Arts. Deceased assessee had also stated that during last three years, there was no business in it. The deceased assessee vide notice u/s.l42(l) of the Act was specifically asked to furnish details of all these bank accounts found during course of search and explanation about nature and source of deposits therein along with supporting documents. It was observed that the above bank account with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. was operative from F.Y.2003-04 (A.Y.2004-05). In view of these facts, deceased assessee vide show-cause notice dated 07.12.2011 was specifically asked about these issues. In reply, deceased assessee vide its letter received by Assessing Officer on to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 37 19.12.2011 claimed that these accounts of M/s. Sadguru Arts and certain credit card transactions were not reflected in his balance sheet because the same related to his HUF and were accounted for in that entity. After considering the submissions on behalf of deceased assessee, Assessing Officer did not believe and assessee’s claim was thus rejected. As per the copies of bank statements received from the banks, there were total deposits of Rs.2,01,46,916/- in the bank accounts with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. and Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited in F.Y.2005-06 relevant to year under consideration out of which there were cash deposits of Rs.32,33,000/-. As deceased assessee failed to furnish explanation as regards the nature and source of the said deposits in bank accounts, the amount of Rs.2,01,46,916/- was held as unaccounted income/ undisclosed income/ unexplained money of deceased assessee and added to the total income of deceased assessee.

25.1 Matter was carried before the First Appellate Authority, wherein it was claimed that M/s.Sadguru Arts was a proprietary concern of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF) engaged in the business of film production. It was stated that for this reason, the aforesaid two bank accounts were not reflected in the accounts of deceased assessee maintained by him in his individual capacity. In this regard, copies of the Income tax returns along with computation of income, balance sheet, P&L account of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF) for A.Y.2004-05 were submitted and inter alia contended that as there was no substantial film related business carried on by M/s. Sadguru to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 38 Arts in the subsequent years and there was no positive income, the returns of income for the HUF business were not filed in the A.Ys. subsequent to A.Y.2004-05. However, it was claimed that the said bank accounts had been duly reflected in the books of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF] and accounted for in that entity. As far as the bank accounts in the name of deceased assessee was concerned, it was submitted that bank accounts maintained with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited in the individual capacity were duly reflected in his books of account.

25.2 CIT(A) having considered the submissions on behalf of deceased assessee observed that at the time of search, certain bank accounts were found to be not disclosed in the regular books of account of deceased assessee. This included current account no.029204301220192 with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd., Vashi Branch, Navi Mumbai held in the name of M/s. Sadguru Arts. In course of assessment proceedings, assessee vide letter dated 19.12.2011 claimed that the aforesaid bank account was not reflected in his balance sheet because the same related to his HUF. To support his claim, assessee placed on record copy of income tax return of Late Sunil D. Gulati HUF (PAN: AAJHS5553H) showing total income of Rs.6,11,326/- for A.Y.2004-05. The aforesaid bank account held with the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. was incorporated in income tax return of the assessee’s HUF. There was another bank account, viz., No. 117150050800335 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited claimed to be in the name of HUF and not that of assessee. CIT(A) found that no return of Late Sunil to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 39 D. Gulati (HUF) has been filed for the year under consideration despite the fact that there were total deposits of Rs.1,56,33,474/- in the aforesaid two accounts of the HUF. Since the said bank accounts claimed to be pertaining to assessee's HUF, it was held that substantive addition on account of unexplained deposits of Rs. 1,56,33,474/- contained in the bank account Nos. 117150050800335 and 029204301220192 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. respectively has to be made not in the hands of assessee but in the hands of his HUF which is a separate taxable entity under the Act. However, CIT(A) observed that assessee being the Karta of his HUF passed away on 07.01.2013 and was survived by his wife and a minor daughter and son. In view of this, it was deceased assessee’s wife who is the legal representative even of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF). CIT(A) observed that there is no clarity in the present case as to whether upon the death of Karta (deceased assessee), any partition whether total or partial has taken place among members of the family. According to him, provisions of Section 171(1) of the Act provides that a Hindu family hitherto assessed as undivided shall be deemed for the purposes of the Act to continue to be a HUF, except where and in so far as a finding of partition has been given under this section in respect of the HUF. Assessing Officer was, therefore, directed to intimate his counterpart having jurisdiction over the case of Late Sunil D. Gulati (HUF) to initiate necessary action for assessing the said amount of unexplained bank deposits in the bank accounts No. 117150050800335 and to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 40 029204301220192 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. respectively in the hands of the said HUF by resorting to the provisions of Section 148 r.w.s.150 of the Act. Therefore, substantive addition of Rs.1,56,33,474/- (Rs.1,14,72,974 + Rs.41,60,500) on account of unexplained bank deposits in the bank account nos. 117150050800335 and 029204301220192 with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Limited and the Cosmos Co-op. Bank Ltd. respectively made by Assessing Officer respectively in the hands of deceased assessee was deleted. However, in order to safeguard the interest of the revenue, it was held that protective addition of Rs.1,56,33,474/- in respect of unexplained deposits in aforesaid bank accounts will continue in the hands of assessee till the said amount is finally explained/assessed in the hands of assessee's HUF.

25.3 Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06 wherein vide para 16 of this order, similar protective addition has been deleted by us. Facts being similar, so, following same reasoning, protective addition in question is directed to be deleted.

25.4 As far as the deposits of Rs.45,13,442/- (Rs.44,73,500/- + Rs.39,942/-) in the two bank accounts bearing nos.117150050800336 and 117700480100052 maintained with Tamilnadu Mercantile Bank Ltd. in the personal name of deceased assessee was concerned, according to Revenue, these were found to be not disclosed in the balance sheet/books of account of assessee. Since assessee has failed to substantiate the claim in remand proceedings as well as during appellate to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 41 proceedings, the addition to the tune of Rs.45,13,442/- in respect of said two bank accounts was sustained. Ld. Authorized Representative submitted that amount also belongs to HUF and not to deceased assessee. Moreover, as stated above, assessee was not engaged in land transaction itself but doing the same on behalf of investors. He was only liable for commission thereon. Taking all facts and circumstances into consideration, this addition in question is not sustainable. So, same is directed to be deleted.

26.1 Similar issue arose in A.Y.2003-04 where assessee has been granted relief vide para 3 of this order. Facts being similar, so, following same reasoning, addition of Rs. 1,47,000/- is directed to be deleted.

27.1 We find that similar issue arose in A.Y. 2005-06 wherein vide para 18 of this order, we have granted relief to assessee. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, addition in question is directed to be deleted.

28.1 We find that similar issue arose in A.Y. 2005-06 which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 19 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, addition in question is directed to be deleted.

29.1 The deceased assessee had shown current liabilities of Rs.74,22,400/- against various parties/narrations. The deceased assessee was served notice whereby he was asked to furnish various details in respect of such parties. But the deceased assessee failed to submit details like PAN, his bank account statement and parties' bank account statements, account confirmation letters, etc. Assessing Officer took note of the fact that in respect of such credit entries, the onus was on the deceased assessee to establish identity and creditworthiness of the concerned parties and genuineness of such transactions u/s.68 of the Act. As the deceased assessee had failed to discharge the onus u/s.68 of the Act, the amount of Rs.74,22,400/-was held as unexplained cash credit u/s.68 to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 47 of the Act by the Assessing Officer and added to the total income of the deceased assessee.

29.2 With regard to addition of unsecured loans of Rs.l6,06,610/-. In appeal, CIT(A) held as under:

“9.3.1 I have considered the submissions of the appellant and perused the materials available on record. It is seen from the record that the A.O. treated the above unsecured loans aggregating to Rs.16,06,610/- as unexplained cash credits u/s.68 of the Act as the appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving the identity and financial capacity of the said parties as well as genuineness of loans at the time of assessment. In the course of appellate proceedings, the appellant furnished additional evidences by way of confirmations of the said parties and prayed that the same might be admitted under Rule 46A, as the appellant was prevented by sufficient cause from furnishing the same before the A.O. II is stated that the appellant could not furnish the confirmations as some of the parties were not readily traceable/ had shifted from their address and the time given by the A.O. was very short. In view of the submissions of the appellant, the said additional evidence filed by the appellant was admitted and sent to the A.O. calling for remand report after verification of the said evidence. The A.O. forwarded his remand report vide letter dated 19.12.2014 copy of which was provided to the appellant for submitting his rejoinder, if any. Since no rejoinder was furnished by the appellant, the matter is disposed of in light of the additional evidences placed on record and the findings contained in the remand report.

9.3.2 A perusal of the remand report reveals that out of unsecured loans of Rs.16,06,610/-, it is stated that unsecured loans amounting to Rs.5,00,000/- and Rs.38,000/- taken from M/s.Sangram Patil and M/s.Shubham Estate Consultant very short. In view of the submissions of the appellant, the said additional evidence filed by the appellant was admitted and sent to the A.O. calling for remand report after verification of the said evidence. The A.O. forwarded his remand report vide letter to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 48 dated 19.12.2014 copy of which was provided to the appellant for submitting his rejoinder, if any. Since no rejoinder was furnished by the appellant, the matter is disposed of in light of the additional evidences placed on record and the findings contained in the remand report.

9.3.4 A perusal of the remand report reveals that regarding amount of Rs. 30,22,400/- in the name of Shri Ravi Bangar, it is stated that an amount of Rs.3,00,000/- pertained to earlier A.Y (which was also added in that year) and Rs.60,000/- was repayment during the year. In this regard, notice u/s. 133(6) of the Act was issued to the party by the A.O. However, the party failed to provide any evidence on the pretext that the matter was very old. This led the A.O. to draw an adverse inference in the matter by concluding that the appellant had failed to prove the genuineness of the creditor even at the remand stage. However, it is held that the net addition in respect of this credit will be restricted to Rs.27,22,400/- (Rs.30,22,400 minus Rs.3,00,000). As regards credit balance of Rs.11,00,000/- in the name of Smt.Meena Khona (M/s.B.M.Khona HUF), the appellant filed an MoU dated 02.03.2006 before the A.O. in remand proceedings and explained that this amount was received as advance for acquiring plot of land on behalf of Smt.Meenal Khona (M/s.B.M.Khona HUF). During the course of remand proceedings, the A.O. sent notices u/s.133(6) of the Act to Smt.Meenal Khona and Shri B.M.Khona. Smt. Meenal Khona in her reply to the A.O. denied having ever dealt with the appellant. In response to the said notice, Shri B.M.Khona submitted that the said amount had been given as an advance to the appellant for purchase of plot. However, the assessee failed to perform his duty and the party had suffered loss in this regard. The A.O. has opined that the advance received by the appellant amounting to Rs.47,00,000/- was not returned and so the addition of Rs.11,00,000/- made by the A.O. should be sustained. I do not find any reason to differ from the findings of the A.O. contained in his remand report referred to above. It is a matter of record that the appellant has neither made any attempt to rebut the findings of the A.O. as contained in the remand report nor furnished any concrete evidence viz. sale deed of plot said to have been booked as income in the next A.Y. etc. to discharge the onus placed on him in this regard. to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 49 It is noticed from the record that addition of unexplained credit of Rs.64,75,000/- in the name of M/s.Haware Engineering and Builders Pvt. Ltd. was made by the A.O. in A.Y.2005-06 itself and there being no fresh receipt of loan or advance from the said party but only repayment of Rs.31,75,000/- to the said party during the year, the A.O. was not justified in making addition of Rs.33,00,000/- again in the A.Y. under consideration. In view of the above discussion, additions aggregating to Rs.36,00,000/- (Rs.3,00,000 + Rs.33,00,000) towards unexplained credits/current liabilities made by the A.O. are directed to be deleted. However, the balance addition of Rs.38,22,400/- (Rs.27,22,400 + Rs.11,00,000) made by the A.O. on account of unexplained current liabilities/creditors u/s.68 is found to be justified as the appellant has failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the concerned parties and genuineness of the transactions even at the appellate stage. Therefore, the said addition of Rs.38,22,400/- out of current liabilities is sustained. Ground No.6 of the present appeal is allowed to the extent indicated above.”

29.3 Similar issue arose in A.Y.2005-06, which was decided in favour of assessee vide para 20 of this order. Facts being similar, so following same reasoning, we are not inclined to concur with the finding of CIT(A) and additions in question are directed to be deleted.

30.1 We find that this whole addition on account of estimated higher withdrawals having no nexus with the seized material, so addition in question u/s.153A r.w.s. 143(3) of the Act are not justified. Same is directed to be deleted. to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 50 31. Next issue is with regard to disallowance of Rs.53,398 made on account of personal element. Again, this addition on account of disallowance of Rs.53,398/- made on account of personal element is not having nexus with the seized material, so same is directed to be deleted.

32.1 After going through rival submissions and perused the material on record, we find that it is evident from the record that assessee has debited the amounts in question. Assessee could not substantiate the claim before authorities below. So, CIT(A) was justified in sustaining the disallowance of expenses to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 51 of Rs.1,75,262/-. This reasoned factual finding of CIT(A) needs no interference from our side. We uphold the same.

“GROUND I :- On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in making protective assessment of Rs.21,60,000/-.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs.21,60,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND II :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in confirming an addition of Rs.1,04,000/- as unexplained deposits u/s.68 in respect of the two savings bank account alleged as undisclosed in the Balance Sheet/books of accounts.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained deposits/ unaccounted bank accounts to the extent of Rs.1,04,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND III :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) - 54, to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 52 MUMBAI ('hereinafter referred to as 'the CIT(A)') has erred in upholding the addition made on account of Deal Wise Excel Sheet for a sum of Rs.7,02,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure to the extent of Rs.7,02,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IV :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.35,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs.35,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND V :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of other cash/unaccounted transaction for Rs.1,72,00,000/- by treating it as unexplained expenditure u/s.69C of the Act.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of unexplained expenditure u/s. 69C to the extent of Rs. 1,72,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VI :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit for Rs. 1,45,00,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act. to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 53

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of current liabilities and unsecured loans as unexplained cash credit u/s. 68 to the extent of Rs. 1,45,00,000/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VII :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals at Rs. 19,261/- than shown in capital account at Rs. 8,20,739/- on account of withdrawals.

The appellant being aggrieved, prays that the addition made on account of difference in estimated higher withdrawals to the extent of Rs. 19,261/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND VIII :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.36,208/- made on account of personal element in certain expenses.

The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition made on account of estimated personal element in certain expenses to the extent of Rs. 36,208/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.

GROUND IX :-

On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made on account of disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs.4,93,674/- alleging it being not for the business purpose.

The appellant being aggrieved prays that the addition to 3498, 4794 & 4795/Mum/15 A.Ys. 03-04 to 07-08 [Late Sunil D Gulati vs. CIT] Page 54 made on account of disallowance of interest u/s.36(1)(iii) to the extent of Rs.4,93,674/- being unjustified, unwarranted, bad in law and illegal be deleted.”

Pronounced in the open Court on this the 19th day of August, 2016.

Sd/- Sd/- (RAJESH KUMAR) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Mumbai: Dated 19/08/2016 True Copy S.K.SINHA आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of Order Forwarded to:- 1. राज�व / Revenue 2. आवेदक / Deceased assessee 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त- अपील / CIT (A) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई / DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6. गाड� फाइल / Guard file. By order/आदेश से,

उप/सहायक पंजीकार, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, मुंबई ।