SANDEEP RAJKUMAR SHOREWALA, MUMBAI v. ITO 14(1)-4, MUMBAI

ITA 7100/MUM/2008 | 2002-2003
Pronouncement Date: 14-05-2010 | Result: Partly Allowed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 710019914 RSA 2008
Assessee PAN AAJPS5522N
Bench Mumbai
Appeal Number ITA 7100/MUM/2008
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 30 day(s)
Appellant SANDEEP RAJKUMAR SHOREWALA, MUMBAI
Respondent ITO 14(1)-4, MUMBAI
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 14-05-2010
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Partly Allowed
Bench Allotted E
Tribunal Order Date 14-05-2010
Date Of Final Hearing 26-08-2010
Next Hearing Date 26-08-2010
Assessment Year 2002-2003
Appeal Filed On 15-12-2008
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH E MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI R.V. EASWAR SR. VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI R.K.PANDA AM I.T.A. NO. 1610/MUM/2007 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001-02) I.T.A. NO. 7100/MUM/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03) MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA 25/31 DR. A.M. ROAD BHULESHWAR MUMBAI-400 002 PAN:AAJPS5522N VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER WARD 14(1)-4 MUMBAI-400 020 APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : MR. SASHI TULSIYAN RESPONDENT BY : MR. NAVEEN GUPTA ORDER DATE OF HEARING: 27.04.2010 DATE OF ORDER: 14.05.2010 PER R.K.PANDA AM THE ABOVE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DI RECTED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 20.11.2006 AND 17 TH SEPTEMBER 2008 OF THE CIT(A)-XIV MUMBAI RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 AND 200 2-03 RESPECTIVELY. SINCE COMMON GROUNDS ARE INVOLVED IN BOTH THESE APPEALS THEREFORE THESE WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS COMMON O RDER FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE. I.T.A. NO. 1610/MUM/07 (A.Y. 2001-02): 2. THIS APPEAL WAS ORIGINALLY DISMISSED BY THE TRIBUNA L FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. SUBSEQUENTLY THE TRIBUNAL VIDE ORDER DATED 22 ND OCTOBER 2009 RECALLED ITS ORDER. HENCE THIS IS A RECALLED MATTE R. 3. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 4 THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE DISALLOWANCE OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 2 RS.4 58 770 MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATING THE SAME AS BOGUS AND THEREBY DISALLOWING SET OFF OF THE SAME AGAINST SHO RT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. 4. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER RECEIVED INFORMATION FROM DDIT (INV.) UNIT V(4) THAT THE A SSESSEE HAD OBTAINED BOGUS BILLS FOR PURCHASE AND SALE OF SHARES FROM RICHMOND SECURITIES PVT. LTD. (RSPL). MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI DIRECTOR OF RSPL IN HIS STATEME NT ON OATH U/S. 131 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 (THE ACT) RECORDED ON 23.03.20 04 HAD STATED THAT NONE OF THE TRANSACTIONS SHOWN IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE WERE DONE THROUGH ANY STOCK EXCHANGE INCLUDING THE ABOVE TRANSACTIONS. HE CONF IRMED THAT ONLY BILLS WERE ISSUED TO THE PARTIES WHO HAD BOUGHT PROFIT OR LOSS FROM HIM AND THE DIFFERENCE BEING THE PROFIT OR LOSS BOUGHT BY THE PARTY WAS SE TTLED BY CASH IMMEDIATELY. HE ALSO ADMITTED THAT AS PER THE BILLS ISSUED BY HIS C OMPANY TO THE PARTY THE AMOUNTS MENTIONED THEREIN WERE RECEIVED/PAID BY CHE QUE. HOWEVER THE DIFFERENCE BEING THE PROFIT/LOSS PURCHASED BY THE P ARTIES WERE SETTLED IN CASH. THE ASSESSING OFFICER CONFRONTED THE ABOVE STATEMEN T OF SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI TO THE ASSESSEES AR AND WAS ASKED TO GIVE EXPLANATION AS TO WHY THE LOSS CLAIMED IN RESPECT OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH RSPL SHOULD NOT BE TREATED AS BOGUS. THE AR OF THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT AN EXPLANATION WAS ALRE ADY FILED VIDE LETTER DATED 22.02.2004 BUT NO REQUEST FOR ANY CROSS EXAMINATIO N WAS MADE IN THIS REGARD. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THAT THE PAYMENTS W ERE MADE BY CHEQUE TO THE BROKER AND THE BILLS WERE RAISED BY THE BROKER BY A CCOUNTING IN ITS BOOKS WAS NOT CONSIDERED SATISFACTORY BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER I N VIEW OF THE CALCUTTA HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. PRECISION FIN ANCE PVT. LTD. 208 ITR 465 WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT PAYMENT BY CHEQUE DOES NOT RENDER A NON GENUINE TRANSACTION AS GENUINE. THE ASSESSING OFFICER FURT HER NOTICED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EARNED SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN OF RS.5 41 585 P RIOR TO DEALING WITH RSPL AND IN ORDER TO AVOID PAYMENT OF TAXES ON THIS SHORT TE RM CAPITAL GAIN ASSESSEE HAD RESORTED TO PURCHASE OF BOGUS BILLS FROM RSPL BY CR EATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.4 58 770. THEREFORE ASSESSING OFFICER HELD THAT THE CLAIM OF SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS WAS NOT GENUINE AS THE TRANSACTIONS SH OWN HAVING BEEN DONE WITH RSPL WERE TO BE TREATED AS BOGUS. THE ASSESSING OF FICER THEREAFTER DID NOT ALLOW THE LOSS OF RS.4 58 770 TO BE SET OFF AGAINST SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 3 5. IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) FORWARDED THE ADDITIONAL EVID ENCES FILED BEFORE HIM TO THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND CALLED FOR A REMAND RE PORT. AFTER OBTAINING THE REMAND REPORT AND CONSIDERING THE ARGUMENTS OF THE ASSESSEE HE UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. WHILE DOING SO H E OBSERVED THAT THE STATEMENT OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS RECORDED ON 23 RD MARCH 2004 WHICH IS AFTER A PERIOD OF ABOUT 2 YEARS FROM 26 TH APRIL 2002 WHEN MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI HAD ADMITTED BEFORE THE DDIT (INV.) THAT NONE OF THE TRANSACTION S DONE WITH THE ASSESSEE WERE THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE AND HE ISSUED ONLY BILLS TO THE PARTIES WHO BOUGHT PROFIT OR LOSS FROM HIM. FURTHER THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSE SSEE APPEARING BEFORE THE ASSESSING OFFICER DID NOT EXPRESS ANY DESIRE OR INT ENTION TO CROSS EXAMINE OR REBUT THE CONFESSION OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI. THEREF ORE IT CANNOT BE SAID THAT THE STATEMENT OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS OBTAINED/RECEIV ED UNDER SOME PRESSURE OR COLLISION. THERE WAS ALSO NO CIRCUMSTANTIAL E VIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT THE STATEMENT GIVEN BY MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS MOTIVATED BY ANY DESIRE FOR SOME PERSONAL GAIN OR SAVING HIS SKIN. FURTHER THE CIRC UMSTANTIAL EVIDENCES WERE AGAINST THE ASSESSEE. HE FURTHER OBSERVED THAT EVE N WHEN MR. MUKESH CHOKSHIS STATEMENT WAS SHOWN TO THE AR IN THE OTHER TWO CASE S OF THE GROUP HAVING SIMILAR FACTS THE FACT THAT HE DID NOT EXPRESS HIS WILLINGNESS OR INTENTION TO CROSS EXAMINE HIM LEADS TO ONLY ONE INFERENCE THAT THE AR WANTED TO AVOID ANY CROSS EXAMINATION AT THAT TIME. SINCE THE SHARE TRANSACT IONS HAVE BEEN DONE OFF MARKET AND SINCE NO EVIDENCE WITH THE STOCK EXCHANG E WAS AVAILABLE ABOUT THESE TRANSACTIONS AND SINCE THERE IS A VERY SMALL GAP OF FEW DAYS BETWEEN THE TRANSACTIONS HE CAME TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE TR ANSACTIONS WERE NOT GENUINE. HE WAS OF THE VIEW THAT THE STATEMENT OF MR. MUKESH CHOKSHI RECORDED ON OATH U/S. 131 AND HIS CONFIRMATION OF THE EARLIER STATEM ENT GIVEN BEFORE THE DDIT (INV.) WAS A CREDIBLE PIECE OF EVIDENCE. THUS HE W AS OF THE OPINION THAT IT WAS A CASE OF TAKING SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS TO REDUCE TH E SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AND CONSEQUENTLY TO EVADE THE RIGHTFUL PAYMENT OF TAXES . HE ACCORDINGLY UPHELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN HOLDING THAT THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS CLAIMED AT RS.4 58 770 WAS NOT A GENUINE TRANSACTION. AGGR IEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 4 6. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND SIMILAR ISSUE HAD COME UP BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF RAJKUMAR SANDEEP KUMAR HUF VIDE I.T.A. NO. 1609/MUM/ 07 ORDER DATED 7 TH OCTOBER 2009 FOR THE A.Y. 2001-02. WE FIND THE T RIBUNAL AFTER CONSIDERING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CAS E OF MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA HUF AT PARA 4 OF THE ORDER HAS DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY HOLDING AS UNDER: 4. AFTER CONSIDERING THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL AN D THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW IT IS SEEN THAT ON IDENTICAL FACTS THE APPEALS OF THE OTHER RELATED ASSESSEES HAVE BEEN ALLOWED IN FA VOUR OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE TRIBUNAL. THE FINDINGS OF THE TRIB UNAL IN THE CASE OF MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA HUF ARE GIVEN IN PARA 13 A T PAGE 6 OF ITS ORDER AS UNDER: 13. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE ORDERS. LD. CIT(A) HAS RELIED ON THE DECISION OF T HIS TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SHRI MUKESH R. MAROLIA. TH E CONCERNED BROKER THERE WAS M/S. RICHMOND SERVICES P VT. LTD. REPRESENTED BY THE DIRECTOR WHICH IS ALSO ONE AMONG THE TWO BROKERS THROUGH WHICH ASSESSEE HAD ALLEGED LY DEALT WITH. ASSESSEE HAD ALSO FILED AN AFFIDAVIT WHEREBY SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI HAD AGAINST THE EARLIER STATEMENT G IVEN BY HIM CONFIRMED THE TRANSACTIONS. IT IS ALSO SEEN T HAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN A CHANCE TO EXAMINE SHRI MUK ESH CHOKSHI DESPITE REQUEST. HONBLE SUPREME COURT HAS IN THE CASE OF MEHTA PARIKH VS. CIT 30 ITR 101 LAID DOWN THE LAW THAT WHEREAS A PERSON WHO HAS GIVEN AN AFFIDAVIT WA S NOT CROSS EXAMINED IT WOULD NOT BE OPEN TO CHALLENGE T HE CORRECTNESS OF THE STATEMENTS THEREIN. HERE SHRI CHOKSHI WAS NOT ALLOWED TO BE CROSS EXAMINED DESPITE ASSESS EES REQUEST NOR WAS HE CROSS EXAMINED BY THE AO VIS--V IS THE AFFIDAVIT. THEREFORE IN OUR OPINION AO COULD NOT HAVE BRUSHED ASIDE SUCH AFFIDAVIT. ON THE OTHER HAD WE FIND THAT LD. CIT(A) HAD RELIED ON THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBU NAL IN MUKESH R. MAROLIAS CASE WHICH WAS FACTUALLY OF THE SAME MATRIX EXCEPT FOR THE ASPECT RELATING TO THE AFFIDA VIT GIVEN BY SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI. SINCE THE AFFIDAVIT GIVEN BY SHRI MUKESH CHOKSHI WAS CONFIRMING THE TRANSACTIONS WITH THE ASSESSEE IN OUR OPINION IT ONLY STRENGTHENED THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE. HENCE NO MISTAKE CAN BE SEEN IN THE ORD ER OF THE CIT(A) IN FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THIS TRIBUNAL I N THE CASE OF MUKESH MAROLIA (SUPRA). THEREFORE NO INTERFERE NCE IS CALLED FOR AND GROUND NO. 2 OF THE REVENUE STANDS DISMISSED. ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 5 SINCE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL THEREFORE IN VIEW OF TH E ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL WE ALLOW THIS ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSE SSEE AND DIRECT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO RECTIFY HIS ORDER ACCORDINGLY. 7. SINCE THE FACTS IN THE PRESENT CASE ARE IDENTICAL T O THAT OF THE CASES DECIDED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN OTHER GROUP CASES THEREFORE RE SPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY DIST INGUISHABLE FEATURES BROUGHT BEFORE US BY THE REVENUE WE HOLD THAT THE ASSESSEE IS ENTITLED TO SET OFF OF THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.4 58 770 AGAINST THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ACCORDINGLY ALLO WED. 8. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 5 AND 6 THE ASSESSEE HAS CHALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSES SING OFFICER IN NOT ALLOWING LOSS OF RS.12 44 821 INCURRED ON PURCHASE AND SALE OF MU TUAL FUND UNITS. 9. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE ASSESSING OFFICER DISALLOWED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL LOSS OF RS.12 44 821 INCURRED IN PURCHASE AND SALE OF MUTUAL FUND UNITS ON THE GROUND THAT THE TRANSACTIONS WERE ENTERED INTO WITH A PRE DETERMINED INTENTION TO INCUR SHORT TERM CAPITAL LO SS AND EARN EXEMPTED DIVIDEND INCOME. IN APPEAL THE LEARNED CIT(A) UPH ELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. 10. WE FIND THE ISSUE STANDS COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE A SSESSEE BY THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. WALFORT SHARES & STOCK BROKERS PVT. LTD. REPORTED IN 13 DTR 163. THE HON BLE HIGH COURT IN THE SAID DECISION HAS UPHELD THE DECISION OF THE SPECIAL BEN CH OF THE TRIBUNAL WHEREIN IT WAS HELD THAT THE TRANSACTIONS OF PURCHASE AND SALE OF UNITS OF MUTUAL FUNDS WAS A BONAFIDE COMMERCIAL TRANSACTION AND NOT A COLOURA BLE DEVICE ADOPTED WITH A VIEW TO AVOID THE TAX LIABILITY ARISING FROM THE TR ANSACTION AND THEREFORE LIABLE TO BE SET OFF AGAINST THE TAXABLE INCOME OF THE ASSESS EE. IN VIEW OF THE DECISION OF THE JURISDICTIONAL HIGH COURT AND IN ABSENCE OF ANY CONTRARY MATERIAL BROUGHT TO OUR NOTICE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 5 AND 6 BY THE A SSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. 11. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 7 TO 9 BEING GENERAL IN NATU RE ARE DISMISSED. ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 6 I.T.A. NO. 7100/MUM/2008 (A.Y. 2002-03): 12. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 1 BY THE ASSESSEE RELATES TO REOPENING OF THE ASSESSMENT U/S. 147 OF THE ACT. 13. THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING DID NOT PRESS THIS GROUND OF APPEAL FOR WHICH THE LEARNED DR HAS NO OBJECTION. ACCORDINGLY THIS GROUND OF APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS NOT PRESSED. 14. IN GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 2 AND 3 THE ASSESSEE HAS C HALLENGED THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IN CONFIRMING THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER IN MAKING THE ADDITION OF RS.12 29 457 AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U/S. 68 OF THE ACT BY TREATING THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN AS NON GENUINE AND THER EBY DISALLOWING THE SET OFF OF CARRY FORWARD LOSS OF EARLIER YEAR. 15. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF ARE THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER TREATED THE SHORT TERM CAPITAL GAIN CLAIMED BY THE ASSESSEE IN RESPEC T OF THE TRANSACTIONS WITH M/S. GOLD STAR FINVEST AMOUNTING TO RS.12 29 457 AS BOGU S AND ADDED THE SAME TO THE INCOME OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNEXPLAINED CASH CREDIT U /S. 68 OF THE ACT. IN APPEAL THE CIT(A) FOLLOWING HIS ORDER FOR A.Y. 2001-02 UPH ELD THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF T HE CIT(A) THE ASSESSEE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 16. AFTER HEARING BOTH THE SIDES WE FIND THE FACTS ARE IDENTICAL TO GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 1 TO 4 IN I.T.A. NO. 1610/MUM/07 AND WE HAVE ALREADY DECIDED THE ISSUE IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. FOLLOWING THE SAM E RATIO THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL NOS. 2 AND 3 BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. 17. GROUNDS OF APPEAL NO. 4 BY THE ASSESSEE READS AS UN DER: THE LEARNED CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN CONFIRMING THE DIS ALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION IN RESPECT OF EXPENSES CLAIMED WITH REGAR D TO LEGAL FEES RS.20 000 WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE FACTS OF THE CASE AND HENCE THE DISALLOWANCE OF DEDUCTION OF EXPENSES OF RS.20 000 IS UNJUSTIFIED AND LIABLE TO BE DELETED. 18. FACTS OF THE CASE IN BRIEF AS APPEARING FROM THE STATEMENT OF FACTS ARE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS CLAIMED AN AMOUNT OF RS.20 000 TOW ARDS LEGAL FEE IN THE RETURN OF INCOME. THE ASSESSING OFFICER IN THE ORDER PASS ED U/S. 143(3) OF THE ACT DID ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 7 NOT ALLOW THE EXPENDITURE OF RS.20 000 CLAIMED BY T HE ASSESSEE. IN APPEAL IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE EXPENSES INCURRED ARE TOWARDS TH E EARNING OF INCOME AND THE SAME SHOULD HAVE BEEN ALLOWED WHILE COMPUTING THE T OTAL INCOME. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE DISALLOWANCE OF EXPENSES CAN ALS O BE DUE TO OVERSIGHT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THEREFORE THE SAME SHOULD B E DELETED. 19. HOWEVER THE CIT(A) WAS NOT SATISFIED WITH THE ARGU MENTS ADVANCED BY THE ASSESSEE AND REJECTED THE SAME BY HOLDING AS UN DER: 8. DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOTHING HAS BEE N SUBMITTED BY THE APPELLANT IN RESPECT OF THIS GROUND. ON CAR EFULLY CONSIDERING THE ABOVE STATED FACTS AND PERUSING THE ORDER OF TH E AO I FIND THAT THE AO HAS NOT MADE ANY SUCH DISALLOWANCE EITHER IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER OR IN THE COMPUTATION OF TOTAL INC OME. MOREOVER THIS GROUND REMAINED UNSUBSTANTIATED BY THE APPELLA NT DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS. HENCE THE SAME IS REJECTED . AGGRIEVED WITH SUCH ORDER OF THE CIT(A) THE ASSESS EE IS IN APPEAL BEFORE US. 20. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL SUBMISSIONS MADE BY BOTH TH E SIDES PERUSED THE ORDERS OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AND THE CIT(A) AND THE PAPER BOOK FILED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. WE FIND ADMITTEDLY THERE IS NEITH ER ANY DISCUSSION NOR ANY ADDITION/DISALLOWANCE OF RS.20 000 ON ACCOUNT OF LE GAL FEES. ALTHOUGH A PAPER BOOK HAS BEEN FILED CONTAINING 96 PAGES THE ASSESS EE HAS NOT FILED THE COPY OF THE COMPUTATION OF INCOME TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT HE H AS CLAIMED THE DEDUCTION OF RS.20 000 ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL FEES. NO DOCUMENTARY EVIDENCE WAS PRODUCED BEFORE US TO SUBSTANTIATE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS IN FACT CLAIMED DEDUCTION OF RS.20 000 ON ACCOUNT OF LEGAL FEES. WE THEREFORE DO NOT FIND ANY INFIRMITY IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) REJECTING THE CLAIM OF THE ASSE SSEE. IN THIS VIEW OF THE MATTER THE GROUND RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMIS SED. 21. IN THE RESULT I.T.A. NO. 1610/MUM/2007 IS ALLOWED WHEREAS I.T.A. NO. 7100/MUM/2008 IS PARTLY ALLOWED. PRONOUNCED ON 14 TH MAY 2010 SD/- (R.V. EASWAR) SR. VICE PRESIDENT SD/- (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI DATED 14 TH MAY 2010 ITA NO.1610/MUM/2007 ITA NO.7100/MUM/2008 MR. SANDEEP R. SHOREWALA =================== 8 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)-XIV MUMBAI 4. THE CIT-14 MUMBAI 5. THE DR E BENCH. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT MUMBAI BENCHES MUMBAI TPRAO